Catholic social teaching Part I.

Catholic social teaching finds its origins in the Scriptures and the teachings of the Lord, and its first organized applications in medieval times. Following the social upheaval of the religious revolt in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as well as the deleterious effects of what some call the "Age of the Enlightenment" in the eighteenth century, the social order broke down completely at the beginning of the nineteenth century with the brutality of the Industrial Revolution. The Catholic Church, having been devastated through the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars (1789-1815) and losing all her social and educational institutions throughout Europe, began to recover in the 1830s and 1840s.

From then on, bishops and laity began to formulate a view of society which would protect the citizen from both utopian socialism and unbridled capitalism. In 1891 Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) consolidated these teachings of the previous 50 years in the encyclical Rerum novarum (Of first things), also known as the encyclical in defence of human labour.

In the following three articles, the author examines the situation in Canada. As always, readers are invited to think along with the author and, if they so desire, send their comments to our journal.

How ought we to judge social and economic policies and practices? If we are Catholic, we ought to judge them in the light of the social teaching the Church has clarified over the last century.

Pope Leo XIII began the modern exposition of this teaching in 1891. The Second Vatican Council and Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II brought it to the forefront of Catholic thought during the final decades of the second millennium.

Canada

Social justice has also been central to the teaching of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, especially during the 1970's and '80s. The CCCB's 1976 Labour Day statement has been described as the best expression we have of a Canadian liberation theology. The Bishops' 1982 "Ethical Reflections on the Economic Crisis," which directly challenged major economic values and priorities, received extensive national and international media attention and sparked a spirited debate about the morality of the corporate agenda.

Now, as we begin a new millennium, would seem an opportune time to take a critical look at the general thrust of the CCCB's teaching on social justice. Does it adequately embody the principles that govern the social teaching of the universal Church? Are the CCCB's positions balanced or do they betray an ideological bias? Has the CCCB given sufficient attention to personal responsibility, as distinct from social and economic structures, in exposing deficiencies and proposing remedies?

In researching episcopal positions, I have drawn mainly from two collections of Church documents edited by E.F. Sheridan, S.J: Do Justice! (1987) and Love Kindness! (1991), both subtitled The Social Teaching of the Canadian Bishops. I have also drawn on other CCCB documents as well as statements reported in the Catholic press.

Although I have found enormous good in the CCCB's social documents, I see serious weaknesses when I consider them in the light of the above questions. I propose to deal with these weaknesses in subsequent issues of Catholic Insight. In the present article, I will outline the social teaching of the universal Church as expounded in papal and conciliar documents and in instructions from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Principles of Catholic social teaching

Catholic social teaching arises from our encounter with the Gospel and its great commandment of love of God and neighbour. From this encounter, we are able to recognize the dignity of each person. Dignity is ours because, created in God's image, we are intelligent and free and therefore responsible for our own fulfillment. From this responsibility we discern natural duties and rights that deserve respect.

Solidarity and subsidiarity 

Since we are social beings, not by choice but by necessity, we must fulfil ourselves in community. Consequently, our individual good is tightly interwoven with the common good. Not so tightly, however, as to prevent the individual and the state from surpassing each other in different ways.

Insofar as we are individuals endowed with reason, free will, and subjectivity, we engage in private lives, knowledge, creativity, and relationships, by virtue of which we transcend the requirements of the state. Insofar as we are citizens able to realize our potential only in association with others, we engage in a common life of shared commitments, by virtue of which the state transcends our requirements as individuals.

The mutual transcendence of the state and the individual gives rise to two basic principles of social life:solidarity and subsidiarity. The first specifies our duty to respect and support the common good and the authority required for its advancement. The second specifies the state's duty to respect and support the individual good and the multi-level exercise of initiative and responsibility. The one excludes individualism, the other collectivism. Together, they promote personalism and community.

In affirming the community, the principle of solidarity indirectly supports the person, for which the community exists. In affirming the person, the principle of subsidiarity upholds the autonomy of both individuals and communities at the level on which they are able to function. Communities, including the state, must not usurp from individuals or other communities what these are able to accomplish on their own initiative. Put another way, initiative and responsibility should be exercised by the smallest or nearest feasible agent. In some instances, that will be the individual, the family, or a non-governmental society; in others, it will be the state, because for many tasks the nearest feasible agent is also the most remote.

Family: basic cell

The family occupies a unique place in contributing to both public and private welfare. It shapes citizens for the state while shielding individuals from state power. Normally, and preferably, we enter society indirectly through the family. That is why the Church considers the family, not the individual, the basic cell of society. Formal citizenship is conferred at birth; mature citizenship is mediated through the family. Practically speaking, only families can develop the kind of citizens required to sustain a civil society, a civilization of love. There are alternatives, but when they succeed they accomplish only with great difficulty and often at a great cost what families do naturally and more economically.

You cannot really replace families on a large scale or over a long period. There is no practical substitute for widespread parental love and commitment, as few care givers are able or prepared to sacrifice themselves for other people's children the way parents routinely do for their own. There are dysfunctional families and there are surrogate parents, but when too many families collapse and too many children are in substitute care, societies suffer, as we are beginning to notice. It would seem that in its own self-interest, the state should be strongly motivated to create conditions in which families can flourish intact.

Principle of universal destination

Since we are obliged to fulfil our human mandate, we have a natural right to the material requirements. As individuals and families, this means living at least in frugal or decent comfort; as members of particular communities, it means sharing equitably in communal economic progress. This natural right gives rise to a principle referred to as the universal destination of material goods.

It holds that we all are equally entitled to benefit from the world's resources, though not that we are entitled to benefit equally. It does not, of course, prohibit our benefiting equally. It simply recognizes that we have a fundamental right to the material goods we need in order to live humanly; it recognizes no such right to the material goods we might want in order to live affluently. We may seek a prosperous life; we can make no legitimate claim on others to provide it.

At first sight, the principle of the universal destination of material goods appears to conflict with the notion of private property, which Catholic social teaching also supports. If all are entitled to benefit from the world's resources, how can some justify their owning parts of this common heritage?

Ownership is one thing; use is another. The apparent conflict arises when we overlook this vital distinction. The right to private property is not absolute. It is subordinate to, and limited by, the principle of the universal destination of material goods, which imposes obligations of service and stewardship. Individual ownership, in other words, carries social responsibilities. Although owners are truly masters of what they possess, since ownership confers authority and independence, they are at the same time servants of the community. Moreover, they are stewards answerable for their property to the needs of future generations. Because the world's resources are here for all, owners are morally obliged to use their property prudently and competently, not just for their own benefit but for the good of others. People come before property. Either personally or through the community, those who have more than enough are morally obliged to help those who have less than sufficient.

We sometimes express this obligation as the preferential, though not exclusive, option for the poor. Just as at an accident scene we opt for the most seriously injured, in an economy we ought to opt for the most seriously deprived. How to act on this obligation is one of the conundrums of social policy.

Private property

With respect to private property, experience teaches that people work more effectively when they, rather than the community, own the instruments and fruits of their production. In a sense, private property is an extension of private persons, who confer on their property some of the love they legitimately bestow on themselves. People naturally delight in what is their own, and will normally work hard and sacrifice much to safeguard and extend it.

The principle of subsidiarity supports the right to private property. Whether in land, capital, money, or legal entitlements to purchasing power (pensions, insurance, etc.), private property helps to ensure that the smallest or nearest feasible agents can exercise economic initiative and responsibility. The principle of solidarity supports it also, for individuals advance the common good when they work most effectively. It would seem that in their own self-interest, states ought to encourage widespread private ownership of the means of production.

Enterprise is a virtue. Entrepreneurial energy, invention, discovery, and reasonable risk-taking are central in the creation of wealth. Linked with private property and free and responsible human creativity, business and markets have a fundamental and positive role to play in the economy.

Not everyone will own productive property, but almost everyone is able to work. Work is the usual way we share in the material goods destined for all. Ideally, work should provide sufficient income to support us and our families at least in decent comfort. Otherwise, we may lack the material basis for self-fulfillment.

Labour is a human activity

Wages are not merely a cost of production. They are the means, and usually the only means, by which workers secure the necessities of life. Labour is not merely an instrument of production. It is characteristically human activity inseparable from the persons who carry it out. Work partakes in creativity. Often a burden, and for most a necessity, it provides unique opportunities for personal expression and growth. For these reasons, working at a wage sufficient to live humanly is recognized as a right.

We know, of course, that people can be exploited and degraded through work. Regrettably, slavery and other forms of forced labour still scar the human landscape. They are among the worst violations of the principle that persons take priority over property, that labour is above capital. Less serious, but still disturbing, is the plight of workers who feel compelled to submit to degrading or stultifying job conditions because the alternative is unemployment.

Work

But work ought to be worthy of persons, who are subjects, not objects, ends and not merely means of production. For work to be truly creative and enriching, its organization and conditions must affirm human dignity and responsibility. This means that, where possible, workers should share in decision-making and, where appropriate, they should feel that their labour is meaningful and contributes significantly to society. Workers, of course, should be free to organize to negotiate just wages and conditions of employment. While pursuing their private good, unions and other professional associations must submit to the requirements of the common good.

Catholic social teaching recognizes the existence of unjust social and economic structures. Personal sin, not some alleged determinism of history, is at the root of these arrangements. Consequently, in striving to liberate people from poverty and oppression the challenge is not simply to transform structures. The challenge is principally moral.

The foregoing, as I indicated, is but an outline of a significant body of teaching. Essentially oriented toward action, it develops as circumstances change. Consequently, it entails both principles that are always valid and contingent judgements.

Pastoral priority

In his 1999 post-synodal apostolic exhortation on The Church in the Americas, Pope John Paul II said that the spread of Catholic social doctrine is an authentic pastoral priority. He urged bishops, priests, teachers, pastoral workers, and other agents of evangelization to make the doctrine their own. Inspired by it, his hope is that they become capable of interpreting the social situation in North and South America and determining the actions to take.

He wants the study of this doctrine to be promoted and supported, especially in the universities, so that it will be more deeply known and applied to American society. "To this end," he said, "it would be very useful to have a compendium or approved synthesis of Catholic social doctrine, including a 'Catechism', which would show the connection between it and the new evangelization." Such a catechism has been promised for the early summer of 2000.

In my next article, I will deal with what I believe are inadequacies in the CCCB's approach to the centrality of the family in Catholic social teaching.

Joseph Campbell is a contributing editor of Catholic Insight. He has had a long career in the media, especially as an observer of the social scene. He lives in Saskatoon, SK.