Resources on Catholic Social Teaching

The starting point for understanding Catholic Social Teaching is the recently published (2004) Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, an excellent summary of the basis and extent of the tradition.

The tradition has mainly been articulated through papal encyclicals:

• Rerum Novarum (1891, Leo XIII)
• Pacem Dei (1920, Benedict XV)
• Quadragesimo Anno (1931, Pius XI)
• Summi Pontificatus (1939, Pius XII)
• Mater et Magistra (1961, John XXIII)
• Pacem in Terris (1963, John XXIII)
• Populorum Progressio (1967, Paul VI)
• Humanae Vitae (1968, Paul VI)
• Octagesima Adveniens (1971, Paul VI)
• Evangelii Nuntiandi (1975, Paul VI)
• Dives in Misericordia (1980, John Paul II)
• Laborem Exercens (1981, John Paul II)
• Familiaris Consortio (1982, John Paul II)
• Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (1987, John Paul II)
• Centesimus Annus (1991, John Paul II)
• Veritatis Splendor (1993, John Paul II)
• Evangelium Vitae (1995, John Paul II)
• Deus Caritas Est (2005, Benedict XVI)
• Caritas in Veritate (2009, Benedict XVI)
  

The Social dimensions of Catholic Doctrine also featured prominently at the Second Vatican Council, especially in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes).

Profit, justice, and charity

There's plenty of blamestorming about the causes of our current economic troubles. Some look to George W. Bush, some to Clinton, some as far back as Nixon. But I have another proposal to make: let's blame the Supreme Court.

No, not our current Court. Let's blame the 1919 Court, who decided Dodge v. Ford Motor Company. According to this Wikipedia article, (I know, Wikipedia! -- but it covers the main points so non-lawyers can understand, and it links to the actual ruling), the argument was over whether a company should use its profits to enrich shareholders or to engage in charitable activities. That's not really accurate, as the quotes show: the real argument was over whether a company's first responsibility was to the shareholders or to the products (or services) it was providing -- and selling for a profit. The Court ruled that the shareholders have a right to a significant share of the profits.

As the article notes, this ruling has been used to justify a policy of maximizing profits for shareholders, of making profit the primary motive of businesses and the purpose of being in business in the first place. That is, the purpose of business is seen to be creating wealth and "growing" the economy.

The article also notes that the ruling does not necessitate this interpretation; but this is the interpretation that has ruled business practices and business law for nearly a century -- almost to the extent that we cannot imagine another purpose for business.

I'd like to propose one: what if business' first priority was to provide goods and services to society, to promote the common good, to make society a better place. I'm not saying that profit would disappear, nor should it; but it would come second to improving the a company's ability to provide needed or appropriate goods for the community. In other words, what if Henry Ford had won the case that the Dodge brothers brought against him?

Perhaps then, banks would not pursue such risky courses of investment in search of higher profits. Perhaps then, companies would not use cutbacks and layoffs as the first defense against a slumping market. Perhaps then, the computers and cars and toasters we buy would not be built to break down three days after the warranty expires. Perhaps...?

I'm no economist, but it seems to me that these are possibilities worth exploring. What do you think?

U.S. Foundational Documents

If you haven't read these, you should:

• The Declaration of Independence
• The Constitution of the United States

Don't know much about Sotomayor

I'm not one to place great hopes or fears on any single individual, and with a majority of Democrats in the U.S. Senate, it seems certain that Sonia Sotomayor will take the soon-to-be-vacant seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Still, I'm doing my best to rise above my former cynicism about all things political, and so I'm trying to learn a little, at least, about this new member of the highest court in the U.S.A.

The main controversy I've heard about concerns some statements she made in a 2001 speech at UC Berkeley:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. ... I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Some consider this a sign of bias, or even of "reverse racism". But, in the context of discussing cases on sexual and/or racial discrimination, her point seems to be that her experience as a minority and/or as a woman gives her relevant information that a typical white man would not have.

My hope is that she will bring such a perspective without bringing prejudice. I hope that she will consider the Supreme Court as a place to settle disputes based on law, rather than a place to create new law. And I hope that she is as open to other perspectives, such as the perspective offered by her Catholic faith, as she expects people to be open to hers.

Principles: Economics is a descriptive science

I've heard a great deal about the "invisible hand" of the economy, how the economy acts in this way or that, or how the economy wants or needs something or other. In other words, I hear a lot of people talking as if the economy is a sentient or even intelligent animal, with a mind and will of its own.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I always thought economics was a science: the study of trade, of resources and their uses, often called "wealth". "The Economy" is a phrase we use to describe the system(s) of resource use going on all over our society. But the economy does not itself use resources, or dictate their use.

People use resources. People engage in economic activity. People use (or reject) economic systems that other people have set up to make trade easier. People are responsible for every decision that is made, and for the repercussions of those decisions.

This is not to say that economics is more or less bunk. Rather, it's to say that economics really becomes useful and worthwhile when it's kept in its place: describing the various systems we use to exchange goods, and anticipating the results of those systems. But the economy, especially the profit motive, are out of place as prescribing or proscribing behavior. The systems do not cause virtue or vice; our own decisions do. We cannot blame the economy for making bad decisions, either as individuals or as a nation.

Instead, we can learn from studying economic systems how to better use the resources we have to build a better world for ourselves and our children.

Principles: The True

In some circles today, "truth" is a dirty word. It's seen as an attempt to impose some arbitrary ideology, or to restrict some freedom. In other circles, "truth" is celebrated, but unrecognizable as the classical notion of truth. You have your truth, and I have mine, and there is no real relationship between your truth and my truth -- but we can celebrate the diversity of truths!

But Truth is one of the foundations of basic common sense living. We say something is true when it is the same in our mind as it is in reality. Truth is a recognition of what is real and what is not. To deny or to relativize truth is simply to deny that we have a connection to the real world.

Now, to hold that there is Truth, and that we can know it, doesn't mean that we always recognize it perfectly. The progress of various sciences show us that the truth about physics (for example) can be learned more, and more perfectly, as we continue to study the world around us. In fact, the quest for a deeper knowledge of the truth is the whole basis for discussion and debate: we start by seeking the truth about some topic, and recognize that each of us sees that truth differently; so we search out contradictions and differences in order to come to a fuller knowledge of what is true.

And this works in human relationships -- even political relationships -- as well as in natural science. After all, there must be some common thing that makes us all human, and some common thread that defines our relationship. To search out the truth about being human in relationship will bring us to better relationships with each other. And, perhaps more obviously, it really matters what is the truth about the economic situation of some town, or the military capacity of some foreign power.

In every situation, whether personal or political, the foundational question is: what is true here and now? We just can't move forward without answering that question.

Principles: Human Dignity

The concept of human dignity is the foundation of all relationships, especially the relationships of political community. If other people have no dignity, no inherent value as persons, then there is no reason to treat them with respect or justice.

And yet, this idea has come under attack of late. For example, psychologist Stephen Pinker recently wrote an article claiming that human dignity is "a squishy, subjective notion, hardly up to the heavyweight moral demands assigned to it." He says that it's no basis for human relationships or morality. Instead, he suggests (following Ruth Macklin) that "personal autonomy" serves a better purpose. As Mark Shea puts it, he considers consent to be the sole criterion of what is good.

And yet, is there any reason to respect another person's autonomy except that the person's autonomy has some value that demands respect? I will agree that the word "dignity" has a number of very squishy meanings, but I cannot think of a better word to describe the value and freedom and agency that inhere in each and every human being. If this dignity is not taken for granted, then we have a tendency (repeated throughout history) of dividing the world into "us" and "them", and deciding that "they" do not deserve the same consideration or respect that "we" do; in short, a double-standard that leads to all forms of injustice.

Human dignity is a necessary foundation stone to justice, to human rights, and to a humane society.