This course is now finished. Details of current and planned classes may be found here.
................................................................................................................................................
This page contains a copy of the handouts from each week (together with additional hyperlinks).
Link to downloadable copies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thinking through Catholic
Social Teaching (Stephen Watt sjwatt@aol.com)
Course blog: http://albertusinstitute.blogspot.co.uk/
Week 1: The background and
overview
- The two
sources: reason and revelation.
a) Human beings
discern the good by way of human reason:
‘Man participates in the
wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the
ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law
expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the
good and the evil, the truth and the lie:
‘ “The natural law is written
and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining
him to do good and forbidding him to sin . .”’
(Catechism: paragraph 1954,
quoting section 8 of the Encyclical, Libertas
Præstantissimum (1888 Leo XIII).) Link here for Catechism. Link here for Libertas Praestantissimum.
b)
Revelation is
needed to supplement human understanding of the natural law:
‘2. It is not surprising that such discord and error should always have existed outside the fold of Christ. For though, absolutely speaking, human reason by its own natural force and light can arrive at a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, Who by His providence watches over and governs the world, and also of the natural law, which the Creator has written in our hearts, still there are not a few obstacles to prevent reason from making efficient and fruitful use of its natural ability. The truths that have to do with God and the relations between God and men, completely surpass the sensible order and demand self-surrender and self-abnegation in order to be put into practice and to influence practical life. Now the human intellect, in gaining the knowledge of such truths is hampered both by the activity of the senses and the imagination, and by evil passions arising from original sin. Hence men easily persuade themselves in such matters that what they do not wish to believe is false or at least doubtful.
‘3. It is for this reason
that divine revelation must be considered morally necessary so that those
religious and moral truths which are not of their nature beyond the reach of
reason in the present condition of the human race, may be known by all mean
readily with a firm certainty and with freedom from all error.’
(From Encyclical, Humani Generis (Pius XII 1950).) Link here.
- The nature of practical reason (or practical
wisdom (Latin: prudentia; Gk: phronesis)).
a)
Unlike
theoretical reason, practical reason (because it reflects on concrete
circumstances) is uncertain and can’t be reduced to exception less rules:
‘It is because the infinite
number of singulars cannot be comprehended by human reason, that "our
counsels are uncertain" (Wis.
b)
The practically
wise person requires both experience and emotional maturity in order to benefit
from philosophy:
‘And hence a young man is not
qualified to be a student of politics [and ethics]; for he lacks experience of
the affairs of life, which form the data and the subject-matter of politics. Further,
since he is apt to be swayed by his feelings, he will derive no benefit from a
study whose aim is not speculative but practical.But in this respect young in
character counts the same as young in years; for the young man’s
disqualification is not a matter of time, but is due to the fact that feeling
rules his life and directs all his desires. Men of this character turn the
knowledge they get to no account in practice, as we see with those we call
incontinent; but those who direct their desires and actions by reason will gain
much profit from the knowledge of these matters.’
(Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics I 3
1095a2-11. Discussed by Aquinas: Lecture 3 of his Commentary.) Link to Nicomachean Ethics here. Link to Aquinas' Commentary here.
- Human nature has a natural goal or end (roughly
the fulfilment of that nature in a ‘happy’ life (Latin: felicitas/beatitudo;
Greek eudaimonia)) and a supernatural goal (seeing God after death: the
Beatific Vision).
The precise relationship between the
natural end and the supernatural end is probably one of the most hotly
contested issues in modern Catholic theology. I don’t intend to go into the
details of this, but simply to note that, in broad terms, there is a difference
between the fulfilment of human beings on this earth (which consists of
contemplation or, as a second best,
active virtue) and their fulfilment after death in heaven –even though
there must be (for a Catholic) a connection between the two.
‘Consequently in regard to
this perfect happiness [beatitudo]…man's mind will be united to God by one,
continual, everlasting operation. But in the present life, in as far as we fall
short of the unity and continuity of that operation so do we fall short of
perfect happiness. Nevertheless it is a participation of happiness: and so much
the greater, as the operation can be more continuous and more one. Consequently
the active life, which is busy with many things, has less of happiness than the
contemplative life, which is busied with one thing, i.e. the contemplation of
truth. And if at any time man is not actually engaged in this operation, yet
since he can always easily turn to it, and since he ordains the very cessation,
by sleeping or occupying himself otherwise, to the aforesaid occupation, the
latter seems, as it were, continuous.’ (STh Ia IIae q3 a2)
- Human beings, by nature, enter into social
relations. These consist (in Aristotle’s analysis) in the household, the
village and the city. These groupings are therefore part of how human beings naturally live and their proper
functioning is part of human happiness.
‘The end of natural things is
their nature. But the city is the end of the previously mentioned societies,
which were shown to be natural. Therefore, the city is natural. Now, that
nature is the end of natural things he proves by the following argument. We
call the nature of each thing that which belongs to it when its generation is
perfect; for example, the nature of man is that which he possesses once his
generation is perfect, and the same holds for a horse and for a house, in such
a way, however, that by the nature of a house is understood its form. But the
disposition that a thing has by reason of its perfect generation is the end of
all the things that precede its generation. Therefore, that which is the end of
the natural principles from which something is generated is the nature of a
thing. And thus, since the city is generated from the previously mentioned
societies, which are natural, it will itself be natural.’ (Aquinas: Commentary on Aristotle’s Politics, Book
I, lesson 1, 32). Link to Commentary here.
- Key written sources. I’ve put up a page of links
to relevant online sources on the blog for this course. I’d highlight a
few of them:
a)
Perhaps the best
one stop sources are the Catholic Catechism and the Compendium of Social
Doctrine. Both of these provide structured summaries of Catholic teaching with
excerpts from primary sources. Link to Catechism here. Link to Compendium here.
b)
If you want more
than snippets of the source documents, you should look primarily at some of the
relevant Papal Encyclicals. Most of the relevant ones can be found here: http://www.catholicsocialteaching.org.uk/principles/documents/
. If I had to pick just two, I’d start with Rerum
Novarum (link here) and Centesimus Annus (link here):
these ‘bookend’ much of the modern development of social teaching with Rerum Novarum being the Encyclical which
is often regarded as the first attempt by the Church to deal with modernity,
and Centesimus Annus being St John
Paul II’s reflection on that original Encyclical after one hundred years.
c) All of the above carry at least some of the divine
teaching authority of the Church. But to know what the Church’s teaching is is one thing: to know why it teaches it is another. It is
perhaps a key feature of Catholicism that its teachings are meant to be
rationally defensible. You will find some of that reasoning in the documents
I’ve mentioned, but it will often be reasoning that depends on prior acceptance
of Catholic principles or sources (eg that of scripture). I don’t think there
is any one source which can give you the full intellectual background to
Catholic social teaching (it would be rather like asking for one textbook which
could adequately summarize philosophy!). From online sources, I’d be tempted to
start with Yves R. Simon’s Philosophy of
Democratic Government (and perhaps especially chapter 5: ‘Democracy and
technology’) http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/pdg.htm
A written source which manages to cover a lot of ground whilst preserving a
good balance between practical application and academic depth is: David
McCarthy (ed.) 2009, The Heart of
Catholic Social Teaching, Grand Rapids, Brazos Press. (Preview on Google Books here.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Link here for Centesimus Annus]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thinking through Catholic
Social Teaching (Stephen Watt sjwatt@aol.com)
Course blog: http://albertusinstitute.blogspot.co.uk/
Week 2: The dignity of the
human person
1. Centesimus Annus (1991) puts the human
person at the centre of Catholic social teaching:
‘…the guiding principle of Pope Leo's Encyclical [ie Rerum Novarum], and of all of the
Church's social doctrine, is a correct view of the human person and of his
unique value, inasmuch as "man ... is the only creature on earth which God
willed for itself". God has imprinted his own image and likeness on
man (cf. Gen 1:26), conferring upon him an incomparable dignity, as the
Encyclical frequently insists.’ [Centesimus
Annus, 11 quoting Gaudium et Spes,
24]
[Link here for Centesimus Annus]
[Link here for Gaudium et spes]
[Link here for Rerum Novarum]
This emphasis is very much part of St John Paul’s
‘personalism’ or ‘Christian humanism’. (Articles on this approach can be found
linked in the ‘resources section’ of the course blog. [Link to resources page.] Although St John Paul’s
personalism certainly takes account of the weaknesses of individualism and
understands ‘persons’ as beings which are in relation to each other, it’s also
firmly rooted in individual experience. Certainly, compared to certain aspects
of previous teaching, it can be seen as profoundly sensitive to the positive
aspect of individualism in modernity.)
2. One danger: losing
sight of the individual in the collective:
Centesimus Annus,
13:
‘… the fundamental error of socialism is
anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as
an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the
individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic
mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be
realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive
responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus
reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as
the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose
decisions build the social order.
[…]
‘If we then inquire as to the source of this mistaken
concept of the nature of the person and the "subjectivity" of
society, we must reply that its first cause is atheism. It is by responding to
the call of God contained in the being of things that man becomes aware of his
transcendent dignity. Every individual must give this response, which
constitutes the apex of his humanity, and no social mechanism or collective
subject can substitute for it. The denial of God deprives the person of his
foundation, and consequently leads to a reorganization of the social order
without reference to the person's dignity and responsibility.’
3. Another danger:
losing sight of the truly good life and reducing it to satisfaction of just any
desire:
Centesimus Annus,
36:
‘A given culture reveals its overall understanding of life
through the choices it makes in production and consumption. It is here
that the phenomenon of consumerism arises. In singling out new needs
and new means to meet them, one must be guided by a comprehensive picture of
man which respects all the dimensions of his being and which subordinates his
material and instinctive dimensions to his interior and spiritual ones. If, on
the contrary, a direct appeal is made to his instincts — while ignoring in
various ways the reality of the person as intelligent and free —
then consumer attitudes and life-styles can be created which
are objectively improper and often damaging to his physical and spiritual
health. Of itself, an economic system does not possess criteria for correctly
distinguishing new and higher forms of satisfying human needs from artificial
new needs which hinder the formation of a mature personality. Thus a great
deal of educational and cultural work is urgently needed, including the
education of consumers in the responsible use of their power of choice, the
formation of a strong sense of responsibility among producers and among people
in the mass media in particular, as well as the necessary intervention by
public authorities.’
[Link here for Centesimus Annus]
4. The good life for
human beings can be understood in the following ways:
a) The
best and most complete happiness (beatitudo)
is in the vision of God after death.
b) On
the earth, the best life is that of contemplation of truth.
c) On
earth, the second best life is that of the active pursuit of goodness.
‘…in that state of happiness, man's mind will be united to
God by one, continual, everlasting operation. But in the present life, in as
far as we fall short of the unity and continuity of that operation so do we
fall short of perfect happiness. Nevertheless it is a participation of
happiness: and so much the greater, as the operation can be more continuous and
more one. Consequently the active life, which is busy with many things, has
less of happiness than the contemplative life, which is busied with one thing,
i.e. the contemplation of truth. And if at any time man is not actually engaged
in this operation, yet since he can always easily turn to it, and since he
ordains the very cessation, by sleeping or occupying himself otherwise, to the
aforesaid occupation, the latter seems, as it were, continuous.’
(STh IaIIae q3 a2) [Link here.]
5. Much of modern
Catholic teaching in this area is about warning of dangers in non-Catholic
views. For Catholics faced with the industrialization and factory
conditions of the Industrial revolution, individual human beings were being
reduced to the status of things: they were being valued simply as cogs in an
industrial machine (so lacking individuality); and were being deprived of the
leisure to pursue their supernatural end. For Catholics faced with Communism, again,
their individuality and supernatural destiny were being obscured. For us in the
West, the danger is perhaps less a loss of individuality, but an emptying out
of that individuality: instead of identifying our true nature (and particularly
our desire for the transcendent values of goodness, beauty and truth which can
only fully be satisfied in the vision
of God after death, but which are witnessed by high culture) any desire or whim
we happen to have is valued equally: we lose sight of what fulfils our true
nature and gives us true happiness.
6. Since Vatican II, there has been a clear emphasis on freedom in Catholic social teaching.
One (debunking!) understanding of this is that the Church has simply
compromised with secular views: modern non-Catholic views have emphasized
freedom and Catholicism has simply compromised with that trend. (Not my view!!)
A better understanding is that freedom only has value if it is seen as the
free, loving pursuit of truth (God): if we strip love of God out of our
understanding of human happiness, then it becomes difficult to understand why
freedom is such a good thing.
‘It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is,
beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear
personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and
also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth.
They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order
their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth. However, men cannot
discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless
they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom.
Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the
subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence,
the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up
to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of
this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.’
(Dignitatis humanae,
2.)
7. To the extent that
our relationship with God is characterized by truth and love, it is also
characterized by freedom.
a) In particular, true belief cannot be compelled. (You simply can’t force someone to
believe something against the evidence: belief tracks truth.)
b)
Moreover, love cannot be compelled
without becoming inauthentic.
====================================================================
====================================================================
Thinking through Catholic
Social Teaching (Stephen Watt sjwatt@aol.com)
Course blog: http://albertusinstitute.blogspot.co.uk/
Week 3: The social nature of the human person: the
family.
1)
It is the
natural basis of society:
‘Whether matrimony is of natural law?
[…]
‘I answer that, A thing is said to be natural in two
ways. First, as resulting of necessity from the principles of nature; thus
upward movement is natural to fire. In this way matrimony is not natural, nor
are any of those things that come to pass at the intervention or motion of the
free-will. Secondly, that is said to be natural to which nature inclines
although it comes to pass through the intervention of the free-will; thus acts
of virtue and the virtues themselves are called natural; and in this way
matrimony is natural, because natural reason inclines thereto in two ways.
First, in relation to the principal end of matrimony, namely the good of the
offspring. For nature intends not only the begetting of offspring, but also its
education and development until it reach the perfect state of man as man, and
that is the state of virtue. Hence, according to the Philosopher [ie Aristotle]
(Ethic. viii, 11,12) [Link here], we derive three things from our parents, namely
"existence," "nourishment," and "education." Now
a child cannot be brought up and instructed unless it have certain and definite
parents, and this would not be the case unless there were a tie between the man
and a definite woman and it is in this that matrimony consists. Secondly, in
relation to the secondary end of matrimony, which is the mutual services which
married persons render one another in household matters. For just as natural
reason dictates that men should live together, since one is not self-sufficient
in all things concerning life, for which reason man is described as being
naturally inclined to political society, so too among those works that are
necessary for human life some are becoming to men, others to women. Wherefore
nature inculcates that society of man and woman which consists in matrimony.
These two reasons are given by the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 11,12) [Link here.].’
(STh. suppl. q.41 a.1) [Link here]
2)
Twentieth
century Catholic teaching produces two re-emphases:
a) a
reordering of the two purposes of marriage (from (Aquinas) i) good of offspring
and ii) good of parents; to (eg Catechism) i) good of parents and ii) good of
offspring (explained by the increased personalist emphasis in this period):
‘The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman
establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its
nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education
of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ
the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.’ (Catechism, 1601.) [Link here.]
b) an
emphasis on revelation rather than natural law alone (explained by a greater
emphasis on faith rather than reason during this period):
‘Sacred Scripture begins with the creation of man and woman
in the image and likeness of God and concludes with a vision of "the
wedding-feast of the Lamb." Scripture speaks throughout of marriage
and its "mystery," its institution and the meaning God has given it,
its origin and its end, its various realizations throughout the history of
salvation, the difficulties arising from sin and its renewal "in the
Lord" in the New Covenant of Christ and the Church.’ (Catechism, 1602, [Link here] quoting Rev 19:7,9, [link here] and 1 Cor 7:39 [link here].)
‘The nuptial covenant between God and his people Israel had
prepared the way for the new and everlasting covenant in which the Son of God,
by becoming incarnate and giving his life, has united to himself in a certain
way all mankind saved by him, thus preparing for "the wedding-feast of the
Lamb."’ (Catechism, 1612 [link here] quoting Rev 19:7,9 [link here].)
3) The biological reality of relationships (ie
the real biological ties that exist between parents, children, grandparents,
siblings, cousins etc) is the basis for a spiritual communion:
‘Conjugal communion constitutes the foundation on
which is built the broader communion of the family, of parents and children, of
brothers and sisters with each other, of relatives and other members of the
household.
‘This communion is rooted in the natural bonds of flesh and
blood, and grows to its specifically human perfection with the establishment
and maturing of the still deeper and richer bonds of the spirit: the love that
animates the interpersonal relationships of the different members of the family
constitutes the interior strength that shapes and animates the family communion
and community.’ (Familiaris consortio,
21.[link here] )
4)
Complementarity
of the sexes is the basis for the marital union. That complementarity is not
just physical, but involves the whole person. Eg: on motherhood:
‘Motherhood involves a special communion with the mystery of
life, as it develops in the woman's womb. The mother is filled with wonder at
this mystery of life, and "understands" with unique intuition what is
happening inside her. In the light of the "beginning", the mother
accepts and loves as a person the child she is carrying in her womb. This
unique contact with the new human being developing within her gives rise to an
attitude towards human beings - not only towards her own child, but every human
being - which profoundly marks the woman's personality. It is commonly thought
that women are more capable than men of paying attention to
another person, and that motherhood develops this predisposition even
more. The man - even with all his sharing in parenthood - always remains
"outside" the process of pregnancy and the baby's birth; in many ways
he has to learn his own"fatherhood" from the
mother. One can say that this is part of the normal human dimension of
parenthood, including the stages that follow the birth of the baby, especially
the initial period. The child's upbringing, taken as a whole, should include
the contribution of both parents: the maternal and paternal contribution. In
any event, the mother's contribution is decisive in laying the foundation for a
new human personality.’
(Mulieris Dignitatem,
18.[link here])
Questions:
a) Are
families really the foundation of social life? (There have been attempts (real
and imaginary) to do away with them (eg)
in Plato, The Republic [Discussion of The Republic -see esp. Book 5] or in Aldous
Huxley’s novel, Brave New World. [Wikipedia article: Brave New World])
b) Do
families need to have any specific shape, or is any (small) unit consisting of
adults caring for children on a long term basis a family?
c) Do
women and men lack something without each other? If they do, what is it?
d) Do
the conclusions of evolutionary psychology (ie the study of the psychological
effects of natural selection) affect our understanding of the nature of women
and men? [You can get a flavour of the possibilities here from the summary of Matt Ridley's The Red Queen here.]
==========================================================
==========================================================
Thinking through Catholic
Social Teaching (Stephen Watt sjwatt@aol.com)
Course blog: http://albertusinstitute.blogspot.co.uk/
Week 4: The family and
complementarity
[Following extracts from Familiaris consortio, link here]
‘Christian revelation recognizes two specific ways of
realizing the vocation of the human person in its entirety, to love: marriage
and virginity or celibacy. Either one is, in its own proper form, an actuation
of the most profound truth of man, of his being "created in the image of
God."
[SJW Comment: this
suggests that it is primarily through revelation that we recognize the
restriction of forms of love to two practices: marriage and celibacy/virginity.
Does this mean that without revelation we mightn’t recognize this?]
‘Consequently, sexuality, by means of which man and woman
give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive
to spouses, is by no means something purely biological, but concerns the
innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human
way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and a woman
commit themselves totally to one another until death. The total physical
self-giving would be a lie if it were not the sign and fruit of a total
personal self-giving, in which the whole person, including the temporal
dimension, is present: if the person were to withhold something or reserve the
possibility of deciding otherwise in the future, by this very fact he or she
would not be giving totally.
[SJW comment: a very characteristic approach
of St John
‘This totality which is required by conjugal love also
corresponds to the demands of responsible fertility. This fertility is directed
to the generation of a human being, and so by its nature it surpasses the
purely biological order and involves a whole series of personal values. For the
harmonious growth of these values a persevering and unified contribution by
both parents is necessary.’
Familiaris consortio,
11. link here
[SJW comment: so
again, something rooted in biology (‘fertility’) goes beyond that (mere)
biology]
‘The communion of
love between God and people, a fundamental part of the Revelation and faith
experience of Israel, finds a meaningful expression in the marriage covenant
which is established between a man and a woman.
‘For this reason the central word of Revelation, "God
loves His people," is likewise proclaimed through the living and concrete
word whereby a man and a woman express their conjugal love. Their bond of love
becomes the image and the symbol of the covenant which unites God and His
people.(24) And the same sin which can harm the conjugal covenant becomes an
image of the infidelity of the people to their God: idolatry is
prostitution,(25) infidelity is adultery, disobedience to the law is
abandonment of the spousal love of the Lord. But the infidelity of Israel
does not destroy the eternal fidelity of the Lord, and therefore the ever
faithful love of God is put forward as the model of the of faithful love which
should exist between spouses.’
Familiaris consortio,
12.link here
[SJW comment: the
revelation of marriage as one of the two practices for love is related to the
covenant between God and Israel: in some way, the complementarity of the
marriage bond reflects broader theological concerns (here, between God and his
people). Unfaithfulness in the God-Israel covenant is often expressed in sexual/marital
terms.]
‘Love for his wife as mother of their children and love for
the children themselves are for the man the natural way of understanding and
fulfilling his own fatherhood. Above all where social and cultural conditions
so easily encourage a father to be less concerned with his family or at any
rate less involved in the work of education, efforts must be made to restore
socially the conviction that the place and task of the father in and for the
family is of unique and irreplaceable importance.(72) As experience teaches,
the absence of a father causes psychological and moral imbalance and notable
difficulties in family relationships, as does, in contrary circumstances, the
oppressive presence of a father, especially where there still prevails the
phenomenon of "machismo," or a wrong superiority of male prerogatives
which humiliates women and inhibits the development of healthy family
relationships.’
Familaris consortio,
25.link here
[SJW comment: this is
one of those areas I find incredibly difficult! Is there someone specifically
good about male influence in a family? (We’re familiar with the importance of
just human influence –having one more body around! We’re familiar (I
think!) with the goodness of women being around and how to articulate that. But
how (if we do?) do we express the goodness of having a man around in a family?]
‘By reflecting on the whole account found
in Gen 2:18-25 [link here], and by interpreting it in light of the truth about
the image and likeness of God (cf. Gen 1:26-27) [link here], we can understand even more
fully what constitutes the personal character of the human being, thanks
to which both man and woman are like God. For every individual is made in the
image of God, insofar as he or she is a rational and free creature capable of
knowing God and loving him. Moreover, we read that man cannot exist
"alone" (cf. Gen 2:18) [link here]; he can exist only as a "unity
of the two", and therefore in relation to another human
person. It is a question here of a mutual relationship: man to woman and
woman to man. Being a person in the image and likeness of God thus also
involves existing in a relationship, in relation to the other "I".
This is a prelude to the definitive self-revelation of the Triune God: a living
unity in the communion of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.’
Mulieris dignitatem,
7. [link here]
[SJW comment: so being
a person ‘involves existing in a relationship’. But does that relationship (as
it seems to here) consist particularly in the mutual relationship ‘man to woman
and woman to man’?]
=======================================================
When we
speak of the reform of institutions, the State comes chiefly to mind, not as if
universal well-being were to be expected from its activity, but because things
have come to such a pass through the evil of what we have termed
"individualism" that, following upon the overthrow and near
extinction of that rich social life which was once highly developed through
associations of various kinds, there remain virtually only individuals and the
State. This is to the great harm of the State itself; for, with a structure of
social governance lost, and with the taking over of all the burdens which the
wrecked associations once bore, the State has been overwhelmed and crushed by
almost infinite tasks and duties.
As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them. [Quadragesimo Anno, 78-9.] [link here]
======================================================================
======================================================================
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
=======================================================================
=======================================================
Thinking through Catholic
Social Teaching (Stephen Watt sjwatt@aol.com)
Course blog: http://albertusinstitute.blogspot.co.uk/
Week 5: Civil society
- The term ‘civil society’ is not consistently used in Catholic social teaching. The sense I’m going to use it in this course is one that goes back to Hegel (and is consistent with much (although not all) of the use of the term in recent Catholic social teaching): it is that sphere of life which is intermediate between the State and the family.
Subsidiarity is among
the most constant and characteristic directives of the Church's social
doctrine and has been present since the first great social encyclical. It
is impossible to promote the dignity of the person without showing concern for
the family, groups, associations, local territorial realities; in short, for
that aggregate of economic, social, cultural, sports-oriented, recreational,
professional and political expressions to which people spontaneously give life
and which make it possible for them to achieve effective social growth. This is
the realm of civil society, understood as the sum of the relationships
between individuals and intermediate social groupings, which are the first
relationships to arise and which come about thanks to “the creative subjectivity
of the citizen”. This network of relationships strengthens the social fabric
and constitutes the basis of a true community of persons, making possible the
recognition of higher forms of social activity. [Compendium of Social
Doctrine, 185: my emphasis added.] [link here]
- Worth noting that this emphasis on the importance of associations intermediate between the State and the individual is one shared by the conservative thinker, Edmund Burke:
To be attached to the
subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first
principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link in
the series by which we proceed towards a love to our country, and to mankind.
[Reflections on the French Revolution.] [link here]
- Subsidiarity
is sometimes used as a principle of Catholic social thought without much
sense as to why it’s important and how exactly it’s to be understood. The
(rough) meaning of the principle is that power and responsibility should
handled by the lowest possible association. (So (eg) it’s often used in
used in discussions of the EU to argue that powers currently exercised by
As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them. [Quadragesimo Anno, 78-9.] [link here]
- Perhaps the key point here is that not all authority comes from the State. Just as the family exists by natural law and has rights under it, equally, other intermediate associations emerge from the natural activities of human beings and do not depend on the State for their right to exist. (And indeed, they should be able to look to the State for support: subsidium. One aspect of this is economic activity. We’ll look at the nature of work and property rights in a later session, but one of the drivers of subsidiarity is the right of individuals to work and own property: this is a right that does not depend on the State.
- As the notion of subsidiarity has developed, the original economic focus has been broadened. The personalist influence of St John Paul II’s teachings has emphasized the need for the free search for truth by the individual and by individuals cooperating with each other. (So beyond questions of economics and property rights, civil society is important because it allows the creation of voluntary associations where individuals voluntarily cooperate in pursuit of goods.)
The good life is
pursued freely and with an eye to the truth:
The truth
concerning good and evil is recognized in a practical and concrete manner by
the judgment of conscience, which leads to the acceptance of responsibility for
the good accomplished and the evil committed. “Consequently in the
practical judgment of conscience, which imposes on the person the obligation to
perform a given act, the link between freedom and truth is made manifest.
Precisely for this reason conscience expresses itself in acts of ‘judgment'
which reflect the truth about the good, and not in arbitrary ‘decisions'. The
maturity and responsibility of these judgments — and, when all is said and
done, of the individual who is their subject — are not measured by the
liberation of the conscience from objective truth, in favour of an alleged
autonomy in personal decisions, but, on the contrary, by an insistent search
for truth and by allowing oneself to be guided by that truth in one's actions”
[Compendium of Social Doctrine, 139] [link here]
Civil society is the
sphere of free, voluntary associations:
It is impossible to promote the dignity of the person
without showing concern for the family, groups, associations, local territorial
realities; in short, for that aggregate of economic, social, cultural,
sports-oriented, recreational, professional and political expressions to which
people spontaneously give life and which make it possible for them to achieve
effective social growth. This is the realm of civil society… [Compendium,
185] [link here]
- The existence of freely entered into associations is discussed by Aquinas (deriving his treatment from Aristotle) of friendship: human beings naturally form bonds between each other for a variety of purposes.
Besides,
friendship is especially necessary for living, to the extent that no one, even
though he had all other goods would choose to live without friends. Indeed the
rich, the rulers and the powerful seem to need friends most of all. What purpose
do goods of fortune serve if not for the beneficence which is especially and
most laudably exercised towards friends? Or how will goods of fortune be
preserved and retained without friends? For the greater they are the less
secure they become. In poverty and other misfortunes people consider friends
their only refuge. Likewise friendship helps young men to guard against
wrongdoing; it helps old men to support their deficiencies and faltering
movements arising from weakness. Friendship is even useful to people in their
prime for the performance of good actions, since two persons working together
either in intellectual endeavour or external activity are more effective.
[Aristotle’s Ethics, translation from online version of Aquinas’ Commentary,
Book VIII, Lecture 1 (NE VIII 1 )] [link here]
=======================================================================
[Links: Wikipedia night watchman state: here.
Article on Plato's political theory (see esp. section 5) as an example of a regime which imposes welfare on citizens: here.
=======================================================================
Thinking through Catholic
Social Teaching (Stephen Watt sjwatt@aol.com)
Course blog: http://albertusinstitute.blogspot.co.uk/
Week 6: The State
- Catholic teaching regards political authority as ‘ a positive and irreplaceable component of civil life’ (Compendium, 393).[Link here.]
- The reason is that:
a) Human
beings are social by nature;
b) Society
requires co-ordination;
c) That
co-ordination must aim at the common good;
d) It
must respect human dignity and the natural law.
Human society
can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous without the presence of those who,
invested with legal authority, preserve its institutions and do all that is
necessary to sponsor actively the interests of all its members. [Pacem in
terris, 46] [Link here]
- Common good:
‘The principle of the
common good, to which every aspect of social life must be related if it is to
attain its fullest meaning, stems from the dignity, unity and equality of all
people. According to its primary and broadly accepted sense, the common
good indicates “the sum total of social conditions which allow people,
either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfilment more fully and
more easily”.
‘The common good does
not consist in the simple sum of the particular goods of each subject of a
social entity. Belonging to everyone and to each person, it is and remains
“common”, because it is indivisible and because only together is it possible to
attain it, increase it and safeguard its effectiveness, with regard also to the
future. Just as the moral actions of an individual are accomplished in doing
what is good, so too the actions of a society attain their full stature when
they bring about the common good. The common good, in fact, can be understood
as the social and community dimension of the moral good.’ [Compendium,
164.] [Link here.]
(So the common good is not simply the sum of individually
enjoyed goods –eg my private property- but those goods which remain common and cannot be separately
enjoyed: eg the environment.)
- It’s worth contrasting Catholic teaching here with two alternative positions. First, there is the idea that the sort of welfare that governments aim at can be imposed externally on the citizens. (Rather in the way that you might look after a herd of cows.) Secondly, there is the idea that government is simply a ‘nightwatchman’, there to provide basic safeguards against threats to individual security, but otherwise leaving individuals to get on with their different aims.
- Although the Church does not regard democracy as the sole legitimate form of government, there has undoubtedly been a noticeable ‘bias’ in favour of democracy as a result of the personalism of Catholic social teaching at the end of the twentieth century:
‘The Church values the
democratic system inasmuch as it ensures the participation of citizens in
making political choices, guarantees to the governed the possibility both of
electing and holding accountable those who govern them, and of replacing them
through peaceful means when appropriate. Thus she cannot encourage the
formation of narrow ruling groups which usurp the power of the State for
individual interests or for ideological ends.
‘Authentic democracy
is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct
conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be
present for the advancement both of the individual through education and
formation in true ideals, and of the "subjectivity" of society
through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility.’
[Centesimus
Annus, 46] [Link here]
Inasmuch
as Catholic social teaching tends to see human life as a search for truth and
love, it now tends to emphasize the role that a free exploration plays in that
process.
- Nationalism. There is a noticeable bias in
Catholic social teaching towards the idea of a political community being
rooted in a people (or nation).
‘ The political
community finds its authentic dimension in its reference to people: “it is and
should in practice be the organic and organizing unity of a real people”. The
term “a people” does not mean a shapeless multitude, an inert mass to be
manipulated and exploited, but a group of persons, each of whom — “at his
proper place and in his own way” — is able to form its own opinion on public
matters and has the freedom to express its own political sentiments and to
bring them to bear positively on the common good. A people “exists in the
fullness of the lives of the men and women by whom it is made up, each of whom ...
is a person aware of his own responsibilities and convictions”.’
[Compendium, 385.] [link here]
‘For every people
there is in general a corresponding nation, but for various reasons national
boundaries do not always coincide with ethnic boundaries. Thus the question of
minorities arises, which has historically been the cause of more than just a
few conflicts.’ [Compendium, 387] [link here]
- Role of the Church.
i)
As a body of knowledge about humanity, one of the key
tasks of the Church is to share this knowledge with the rest of society:
‘The Church, in
fact, has something to say about specific human situations, individual, and
communal, national and international. She formulates a genuine doctrine for
these situations, a corpus which enables her to analyze social
realities, to make judgments about them and to indicate directions to be taken
for the just resolution of the problems involved”…
‘In her social
doctrine the Church offers above all an integral vision of man and a complete
understanding of his personal and social dimensions. Christian anthropology
reveals the inviolable dignity of every person and places the realities of
work, economics and politics into an original perspective that sheds light on
authentic human values while at the same time inspiring and sustaining the task
of Christian witness in the varied areas of personal, cultural and social
life.’ [Compendium, 521-2.] [link here]
ii)
The prime task of government (in relation to the
Church) is to allow it the freedom to do its work:
‘Government is also to
help create conditions favorable to the fostering of religious life, in order
that the people may be truly enabled to exercise their religious rights and to
fulfill their religious duties, and also in order that society itself may
profit by the moral qualities of justice and peace which have their origin in
men's faithfulness to God and to His holy will.
If, in view of
peculiar circumstances obtaining among peoples, special civil recognition is
given to one religious community in the constitutional order of society, it is
at the same time imperative that the right of all citizens and religious
communities to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in
practice.’ [Dignitatis humanae, 6.] [link here]
iii)
Although the duty of the State is to promote the
natural end of human beings, it must also act with a view to facilitating the
supernatural end:
‘Now anyone on whom it
devolves to do something which is ordained to another thing as to its end is
bound to see that his work is suitable to that end; thus, for example, the
armourer so fashions the sword that it is suitable for fighting, and the
builder should so lay out the house that it is suitable for habitation.
Therefore, since the beatitude of heaven is the end of that virtuous life which
we live at present, it pertains to the king’s office to promote the good life
of the multitude in such a way as to make it suitable for the attainment of
heavenly happiness, that is to say, he should command those things which lead
to the happiness of Heaven and, as far as possible, forbid the contrary.’
[Aquinas: De regno, Book 1, ch 16, 115] [link here]
(In Aquinas, you find the view that the State is subject to
the higher authority of the Church. Modern teaching, because it emphasizes the
need for people to pursue the supernatural end in truth and love (and thus
freely) emphasizes the need for the Church to be allowed simply to act freely
rather than directly impose its understanding.)
======================================================================
Thinking through Catholic Social Teaching (Stephen Watt sjwatt@aol.com)
Course
blog: http://albertusinstitute.blogspot.co.uk/
Week 7: Dignity of work and property.
The special claim of the poor. Social exclusion.
- Three basic principles of Catholic ethical thinking already seen in the course:
a) The
social nature of human beings (we cannot flourish apart from other people in
families and intermediate associations);
b) The
need for human beings to be able to express their nature through virtuous
action;
c) The
need for the free pursuit of our supernatural end in love and truth.
- At the extreme case of social exclusion (no property; no participation in communities such as the family; no freedom freely to pursue God in love and truth; either the complete absence of work or work which is oppressive) human life is no longer lived well: it is merely lived.
- External aspect of work: the production of goods. Internal aspect of work: the operation of human creativity and capacities. Eg: a worker must earn enough to sustain family life (external aspect); workers must work in such a way that their labour is not oppressive to their human nature:
Family and work are
united by a very special relationship. “The family constitutes one of the most
important terms of reference for shaping the social and ethical order of human
work”.[Quote from Laborem exercens] [link here] This relationship has its roots in the relation existing between the person and
his right to possess the fruit of his labour and concerns not only the
individual as a singular person but also as a member of a family,
understood as a “domestic society”[Quote from Rerum novarum]. [link here]
Work is essential
insofar as it represents the condition that makes it possible to establish a
family, for the means by which the family is maintained are obtained through
work. Work also conditions the process of personal development, since a family
afflicted by unemployment runs the risk of not fully achieving its end [Quote
from Laborem exercens].[link here]
[Passage from Compendium, 249] [link here]
This subjectivity
gives to work its particular dignity, which does not allow that it be
considered a simple commodity or an impersonal element of the apparatus for
productivity. Cut off from its lesser or greater objective value, work is an
essential expression of the person, it is an “actus personae”. Any form of
materialism or economic tenet that tries to reduce the worker to being a mere
instrument of production, a simple labour force with an exclusively
material value, would end up hopelessly distorting the essence of work and
stripping it of its most noble and basic human finality. The human person
is the measure of the dignity of work: “In fact there is no doubt that
human work has an ethical value of its own, which clearly and directly remains
linked to the fact that the one who carries it out is a person”[quote from
Laborem exercens]. [link here]
The subjective
dimension of work must take precedence over the objective dimension, because it
is the dimension of the person himself who engages in work, determining its
quality and consummate value. If this awareness is lacking, or if one chooses
not to recognize this truth, work loses its truest and most profound meaning.
In such cases — which are unfortunately all too frequent and widespread — work
activity and the very technology employed become more important than the person
himself and at the same time are transformed into enemies of his dignity.
[Passage from Compendium, 271] [link here]
- Property (as a good detachable from people) is created by work and gains its value from work:
The right to private
property is subordinated to the principle of the universal destination of goods
and must not constitute a reason for impeding the work or development of
others. Property, which is acquired in the first place through work, must be
placed at the service of work. This is particularly true regarding the
possession of the means of production, but the same principle also concerns the
goods proper to the world of finance, technology, knowledge, and personnel.
[From Compendium, 282] [link here]
5. At the beginning of
the New Millennium, the poverty of billions of men and women is “the one issue
that most challenges our human and Christian consciences”. Poverty poses a dramatic
problem of justice; in its various forms and with its various effects, it is
characterized by an unequal growth that does not recognize the “equal right of
all people to take their seat ‘at the table of the common banquet'”. Such
poverty makes it impossible to bring about that full humanism which
the Church hopes for and pursues so that persons and peoples may “be more” and live in conditions that are more human.
The fight against
poverty finds a strong motivation in the option or preferential love of the
Church for the poor. In the whole of her social teaching the Church never tires
of emphasizing certain fundamental principles of this teaching, first and
foremost, the universal destination of goods. Constantly reaffirming the
principle of solidarity, the Church's social doctrine demands action to
promote “the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really
responsible for all”.
[From Compendium, 449] [link here]
======================================================================
Thinking through Catholic Social Teaching (Stephen Watt sjwatt@aol.com)
Course
blog: http://albertusinstitute.blogspot.co.uk/
Week 8: International responsibility.
Excerpts from Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine: link here.
[Main section on International Community: here]
- International relations based on moral law:
To bring about
and consolidate an international order that effectively guarantees peaceful
mutual relations among peoples, the same moral law that governs the life of men
must also regulate relations among States: “a moral law the observance of which
should be inculcated and promoted by the public opinion of all the nations and
of all the States with such a unanimity of voice and force that no one would
dare to call it into question or to attenuate its binding force”.
The universal moral law, written on the human heart, must be
considered effective and indelible as the living expression of the shared
conscience of humanity, a “grammar” on which to build the future of the world.
[Compendium, 436]
- An international authority of some sort is an important part of the international order:
Concern for an
ordered and peaceful coexistence within the human family prompts the
Magisterium to insist on the need to establish “some universal public authority
acknowledged as such by all and endowed with effective power to safeguard, on
the behalf of all, security, regard for justice, and respect for rights”. In
the course of history, despite the changing viewpoints of the different eras,
there has been a constant awareness of the need for a similar authority to
respond to worldwide problems arising from the quest for the common good: it is
essential that such an authority arise from mutual agreement and that it not be
imposed, nor must it be understood as a kind of “global super-State”.
[Compendium, 441]
- Continued recognition of national sovereignty is part of the principle of subsidiarity:
The Magisterium recognizes the importance of
national sovereignty, understood above all as an expression of the freedom that
must govern relations between States. Sovereignty represents the subjectivity
of a nation, in the political, economic, social and even cultural sense. The
cultural dimension takes on particular importance as a source of strength in
resisting acts of aggression or forms of domination that have repercussions on
a country's freedom. Culture constitutes the guarantee for the preservation of
the identity of a people and expresses and promotes its spiritual
sovereignty.
[Compendium, 435]
- Just war:
All citizens and all
governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."
The strict conditions
for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The
gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral
legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the
traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war"
doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
[Catechism, 2308-9; cf Aquinas: STh IIa IIae q40 a1]
- International development:
The spirit of
international cooperation requires that, beyond the strict market mentality,
there should be an awareness of the duty to solidarity, justice and universal
charity. In fact, there exists “something which is due to man because he is
man, by reason of his lofty dignity”. Cooperation is the path to which the
entire international community should be committed, “according to an adequate
notion of the common good in relation to the whole human family”. Many positive
results flow from this; for example, an increase of confidence in the potential
of poor people and therefore of poor countries and an equitable distribution of
goods.
[Compendium, 448]
=======================================================================
Thinking through Catholic Social Teaching (Stephen Watt sjwatt@aol.com)
Course
blog: http://albertusinstitute.blogspot.co.uk/
Week 9:
1) At a conference in
1973, Richard Sylvan (then known as Richard Routley) proposed a science fiction
thought experiment that helped to launch environmental ethics as a branch of
academic philosophy... Routley’s thought experiment came to be known as the
"Last Man" argument.
The thought experiment presents you with a situation something like this: You are the last human being. You shall soon die. When you are gone, the only life remaining will be plants, microbes, invertebrates. For some reason, the following thought runs through your head: Before I die, it sure would be nice to destroy the last remaining Redwood. Just for fun.
Sylvan’s audience was left to ponder. What, if anything, would be wrong with destroying that Redwood? Destroying it won’t hurt anyone, so what’s the problem? Environmental philosophers have been trying to answer that question ever since, and you will hear the question echoing through this book.
How would you answer it?
The thought experiment presents you with a situation something like this: You are the last human being. You shall soon die. When you are gone, the only life remaining will be plants, microbes, invertebrates. For some reason, the following thought runs through your head: Before I die, it sure would be nice to destroy the last remaining Redwood. Just for fun.
Sylvan’s audience was left to ponder. What, if anything, would be wrong with destroying that Redwood? Destroying it won’t hurt anyone, so what’s the problem? Environmental philosophers have been trying to answer that question ever since, and you will hear the question echoing through this book.
How would you answer it?
{Willot and Schmidtz ‘Why environmental ethics?’ http://research.biology.arizona.edu/mosquito/willott/323/intro.html)
2) The faith of Israel
3) Man, then, must never forget that “his
capacity to transform and in a certain sense create the world through his own
work ... is always based on God's prior and original gift of the things that
are”.He must not “make arbitrary use of the earth, subjecting it without
restraint to his will, as though it did not have its own requisites and a prior
God-given purpose, which man can indeed develop but must not betray”. When he
acts in this way, “instead of carrying out his role as a co-operator with God
in the work of creation, man sets himself up in place of God and thus ends up
provoking a rebellion on the part of nature, which is more tyrannized than
governed by him”.
If man intervenes in
nature without abusing it or damaging it, we can say that he “intervenes not in
order to modify nature but to foster its development in its own life, that of
the creation that God intended. While working in this obviously delicate area,
the researcher adheres to the design of God. God willed that man be the king of
creation”. In the end, it is God himself who offers to men and women the honour
of cooperating with the full force of their intelligence in the work of
creation. [Compendium, 460 –most quotes from Centesimus annus]
4) Nature expresses a
design of love and truth. It is prior to us, and it has been given to us by God
as the setting for our life. Nature speaks to us of the Creator (cf. Rom
1:20) and his love for humanity. It is destined to be “recapitulated” in Christ
at the end of time (cf. Eph 1:9-10; Col
[Caritas in veritate, 48]
5) There are other
weak and defenceless beings who are frequently at the mercy of economic
interests or indiscriminate exploitation. I am speaking of creation as a whole.
We human beings are not only the beneficiaries but also the stewards of other
creatures. Thanks to our bodies, God has joined us so closely to the world
around us that we can feel the desertification of the soil almost as a physical
ailment, and the extinction of a species as a painful disfigurement. Let us not
leave in our wake a swath of destruction and death which will affect our own
lives and those of future generations. Here I would make my own the
touching and prophetic lament voiced some years ago by the bishops of the Philippines Pasig
[Evangelii gaudium, 215]
No comments:
Post a Comment