Centesimus Annus Pro Pontifice Foundation
Dear brothers and sisters, welcome!
The theme of this year’s Conference – “Overcoming Polarizations and Rebuilding Global Governance: The Ethical Foundations” – speaks to us of the deepest purpose of the Church’s social doctrine as a contribution to peace and dialogue in the service of building bridges of universal fraternity. This is not something that happens by chance but is rather an active and continuous interplay of grace and freedom, one that our meeting today seeks to respect and support.
Pope Leo XIII, who lived in an age of momentous and disruptive change, sought to promote peace by encouraging social dialogue between capital and labor, technology and human intelligence, and different political cultures and nations. On such important issues, the Church’s social doctrine is called to provide insights that facilitate dialogue between science and conscience, and thus make an essential contribution to better understanding, hope and peace.
This doctrine helps us to realize that more important than our problems or eventual solutions is the way we approach them, guided by criteria of discernment, sound ethical principles and openness to God’s grace. You have the opportunity to show that the Church’s social doctrine, with its specific anthropological approach, seeks to encourage genuine engagement with social issues. It does not claim to possess a monopoly on truth, either in its analysis of problems or its proposal of concrete solutions.
This is a fundamental aspect of our attempts to build a “culture of encounter” through dialogue and social friendship. For many of our contemporaries, the words “dialogue” and “doctrine” can seem incompatible. Perhaps when we hear the word “doctrine,” we tend to think of a set of ideas belonging to a religion. The word itself makes us feel less disposed to reflect, call things into question or seek new alternatives.
In the case of the Church’s social doctrine, we need to make clear that the word “doctrine” has another, more positive meaning, without which dialogue itself would be meaningless. “Doctrine” can be a synonym of “science,” “discipline” and “knowledge.” Understood in this way, doctrine appears as the product of research, and hence of hypotheses, discussions, progress and setbacks, all aimed at conveying a reliable, organized and systematic body of knowledge about a given issue. Consequently, a doctrine is not the same as an opinion, but is rather a common, collective and even multidisciplinary pursuit of truth.
“Indoctrination” is immoral. It stifles critical judgement and undermines the sacred freedom of respect for conscience, even if erroneous. It resists new notions and rejects movement, change or the evolution of ideas in the face of new problems. “Doctrine,” on the other hand, as a serious, serene and rigorous discourse, aims to teach us primarily how to approach problems and, even more importantly, how to approach people. Seriousness, rigor and serenity are what we must learn from every doctrine, including the Church’s social doctrine.
In the context of the ongoing digital revolution, we must rediscover, emphasize and cultivate our duty to train others in critical thinking, countering temptations to the contrary, which can also be found in ecclesial circles. There is so little dialogue around us; shouting often replaces it, not infrequently in the form of fake news and irrational arguments proposed by a few loud voices.
Deeper reflection and study are essential, as well as a commitment to encounter and listen to the poor, who are a treasure for the Church and for humanity. Their viewpoints, though often disregarded, are vital if we are to see the world through God’s eyes. Those born and raised far from the centers of power should not merely be taught the Church’s social doctrine; they should also be recognized as carrying it forward and putting it into practice.
Individuals committed to the betterment of society, popular movements and the various Catholic workers’ groups are an expression of those existential peripheries where hope endures and springs anew. I urge you to let the voice of the poor be heard.
Dear friends, as the Second Vatican Council states, “in every age, the Church carries the responsibility of reading the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel, if she is to carry out her task.
In our day, there is a widespread thirst for justice, a desire for authentic fatherhood and motherhood, a profound longing for spirituality, especially among young people and the marginalized, who do not always find effective means of making their needs known. There is a growing demand for the Church’s social doctrine, to which we need to respond.
I like this pope's content and writing style.
ReplyDeleteThis is Social Doctrine 101 for the contemporary situation.
Social Doctrine is a philosophical approach; it may be Catholic philosophy, but it is not theology based on revelation. Therefore, it must develop as science and technology develop.
This presentation is deeply influenced by Francis: the importance of dialog, popular movements, the witness of the poor, critique of clerical and economic elites. It is not a top-down approach to social change.
His contrast between doctrine and indoctrination seems to be his original contribution; I have not seen anything like it before. It certainly is a great complement to Francis many critiques of clericalism.
I agree he is making interesting distinctions here. As with most Vatican discourse, I sense a coded subtext.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, I don't know what "authentic" means here, but it is a word that keeps cropping up in conservative trad circles. Its juxtaposition with "justice," a buzzword in more liberal progressive circles, indicates to me that Leo is trying to pitch messages to both sides along some Golden Mean.
He also uses "dialog" eight times in this snip. So he obviously wants people to stop talking past each other and to listen. I am guessing he's calling for bishops to stop squabbling amongst themselves and to present Catholics with a more united front. A "big tent" approach may be implied here, perhaps more tolerance for disagreement on nonessentials.
Also implied is a direction to bishops to be aware of the social pressures on the laity and to respond to those pressures in a Gospel-centered way rather than just carping on rules about eating before Mass and holy days of obligation.
But, honestly, that's about all I can parse here because I don't know the code. The fact that this snip sounds somewhat opaque and insider-y to me makes me feel that Leo is going to be very careful about what and how he says things.
Definitely insider-y pitched to people who are familiar with Catholic Social Doctrine and people with more intellectual approaches to the faith, e.g. the Word on Fire people.
ReplyDeleteIt could be the starting point of a Commonweal article locating Leo within the Catholic Social Doctrine tradition. I will be interested if any of the Word on Fire contributors talk about it in the coming months.
I think Pope Leo could turn out to be a cipher to both left and right, and that will provide hours of fun for the Commonweal intellectuals. In a practical sense, though, opacity might be the glue that holds things together in the center and prevents growing polarization. Honestly, I felt that's all Francis was trying to do. His "who am I to judge" struck me as a prevarication designed to give nothing to either side. But the media blew it up, and the American Church waited with bated breath to hear that the Church was going to accept gay marriage, married priests, and lady deacons.
DeleteAnd, of course, it didn't happen.
"Who am I to judge" is deeply embedded in Christian spirituality, from the desert solitaries to Ignatius.
DeleteIn the Spiritual Exercises the guide is specifically instructed never to accuse the retreatant of heresy. He is always to rephase any heretical language into Catholic teaching and
encourage the retreatant to use that language. Ignatius was repeatedly hauled before the Inquisition for various things. He constantly demanded a trial so that he would be vindicated rather than letting charges give him a record of being an accused heretic. So, he left a trail of vindications.
I don't think Francis was misleading us when he encouraged us to rethink how we treat gay people and divorced people, and whether we should have married priests, and women deacons.
The mistake of most people was to think these were going to be decided by majority vote. Francis clearly said from the outside that synodality was not about that. Rather it was frank discussions of opposing views with the view of finding a third way of thinking about things and doing things that would get beyond the disagreement.
Short essay on the evolution of Catholic social teaching and who "our neighbors" are as defined pre- and post Vat2. https://wapo.st/4dodBeE
ReplyDeleteBasically, preVat2, "neighbors" were those closest to us by blood and proximity. PostVat2, when the horrors of the Holocaust were still fresh, "neighbors"were those who were most marginalized and abused.
I think the Church struggles with trying to reconcile this broader definition of "neighbor" when those who are marginalized and abused fall into activities that the Church says are morally reprehensible: LGBT people, unmarried parents, drunks and addicts, profligate spenders, the incarcerated, etc.
Francis made a point of visiting people in some of these groups and just being with them without trying to turn them into an object lesson for a sermon on their particular sins.
It looks to me at this point that Leo will continue to push for "social justice" when it relates to migrants, those suffering violence under repressive regimes, victims of preventable disease, etc. All laudable, of course. But I expect he'll maintain silence and distance when it comes to sexual sinners and others whom Francis visited that so enraged the trads.
Good article in wapo about the history. We have revised the moral theology of the Church since Vatican II.
DeleteAnd we have revised that moral theology mainly to benefit people outside the church without doing similar revisions about those who are inside the church.
We have applied the primacy of conscience in theory to people inside the church although we are more comfortable in applying it to people outside the church. But we still do not admit other Christians to communion even though we no longer characterize them as heretics.
Both Francis and Leo admit that there is a sense of the faithful that should guide church teaching. In many areas the laity have already gone ahead and decided what is right and wrong regardless of what the teaching authority says. In many cases, e.g. contraception, bishops and bishops simply keep silent. In practice the teachings about contraception have taken the status of an ideal advocated by some clergy and some laity which everyone else views as impractical.
As I understand it, the Church can only teach with authority abt morality. IMO, it has no business overriding advice from medical and psychological professionals, and veers outside its authority by condemning specific methods of conception and contraception vs immoral motives for using those methods. This leaves women who have been advised to use birth control or have abortions, infertile couples, transsexuals, homosexuals, etc. beyond the pale. Some latch on to "primacy of conscience" as a loophole to stay in the Church rather than break with family and friends. I don't have any social pressures to stay in, so I stopped receiving and drifted away.
DeleteJack - “…teachings about contraception have taken the status of an ideal advocated by some clergy and some laity which everyone else views as impractical.”
DeleteActually, there is nothing idealistic in the birth control ban. Not just impractical, NFP is such an un- natural way to live married life that it frequently harmed marital relationships. Patty Crowley and others who testified to the Papal Commission on Birth Control in the 1960s were so convincing to the bishops that they did a 180 turn in their final vote - voting overwhelmingly to consider changing the teaching to allow couples to choose the best manner of family planning for themselves. The conservatives in the Curia led by Cardinal Ottaviani convinced Paul VI that changing the ban would undermine papal authority by over turning the long taught anti- birth control teaching. HV basically had to come up with a rationale so decided on “natural law” but the true concern was that it would promote promiscuous behavior. For the first time in history women could choose to be as promiscuous as men have always been if they didn’t fear pregnancy. Married couples could control family size, which they also didn’t want. There is nothing intrinsically evil in allowing married couples to take advantage of the reliable, modern methods of birth control that became available in the 70s. Their distorted understandings and teachings underlie the resistance to treating women as equal to men in the church, and to eliminating mandatory celibacy in the priesthood.
The church has always prized virginity and looked down on marriage as a second class vocation. Its only redeeming g feature was to produce children and to provide a “ legal” outlet for “ lust” as Paul warned. Augustine’s ( and several of the misogynist early church Fathers) ideas on this, and on women - Eve ( women) being the cause of “original sin”, women as temptresses, still permeate Catholic teaching on women, marriage, and sex/ sexuality. The church’s failure to course correct since the 4th. Century is one of its worst institutional sins. It has caused a great deal of real harm for centuries. It is one of the reasons I left the church and still keep it at arms length.
That became available in the 60 s, not 70 s.
DeleteJean, primacy of conscience is doctrine. The conservative forces in the church work hard to undermine its meaning, implying that dissent from any church teaching is prima facie evidence that the conscience hasn’t been properly informed by church teaching. Essentially they don’t like the idea that Catholics might think for themselves - blind obedience was expected and still is for some.
Primacy of conscience is, imo, bad doctrine. It covers the Church from harm done thru bad doctrine (you shoulda listened to your conscience instead of us) and covers Catholics from things they can rationalize away as not-sins (yah I need the Pill for um irregular periods and the hot flashes and stuff that's it).
DeleteI"m a proponent of primacy of conscience. It is conscience that spurs people like Fr. James Martin to speak up on behalf of LGBTQ Catholics. It is conscience that has compelled people to speak up on behalf of the victims of abusive priests.
DeleteBut personally, I don't think one's conscience is 'formed' primarily by memorizing the 10 commandments and flipping through the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Rather, I believe it is formed by prayer, observation, contemplation, reason, discussion, the sacramental life - i.e. by drawing closer to God and gradually conforming ourselves to him.
What tends to ping on the radar of my conscience is a lack of love. For me, that is a litmus test for assessing whether a particular action or policy is what God wills. If the action or policy breeds hatred and contempt, then it's probably misaligned with Christian faith.
Nobody in the examples you mention is doing anything against Church teaching. The CCC would support being kind to LGBT people and call the cops on a priest who abuses kids.
DeleteWould It support parents of a child with gender dysphoria move toward transition because she's self harming?
Would it support a grandmother who wants to attend her grandson's gay wedding?
Would it support a daughter who decides to end artificial life support for her mother who is unresponsive following a cardiac arrest?
Those are pretty much every day problems where people run afoul of doctrine and where the Church offers only condemnation and rejection.
Yep - those are hard questIons. I don't know how fully baked the church's teaching is on transition (which I suppose comprises a wide variety of activities or treatments). I think the church would frown upon medical interventions aimed at 'redefining' the sex of the body given at birth (if we construe "sex" to mean more than just the reproductive organs). I base that supposition on my understanding - which I accept - that all of us are a composite of a soul and a body, so our body is intrinsic to who we are. In saying that, I don't discount the psychological pain, frustration and confusion that must attend someone suffering from dysphoria.
DeleteRegarding a grandmother (or a parent) attending a gay wedding: naturally, the church wouldn't accept the validity of the marriage. I don't think the church requires faithful Christians to condemn gay persons, including those who support same-sex marriage. How would a gay couple feel about relatives attending the wedding whose feelings are some ambiguous mixture of, "I love you and your partner, even if I don't wholeheartedly embrace your union"? I don't know. But I think that's the reality we live in.
Regarding the end-of-life scenario: the church has provided pretty well-thought-out guidance for making these decisions - but still, those faced with making them might wish for advice on how those guidelines apply to their situation; or they may have qualms about what those guidelines would seem to advise. I don't do the sort of ministry which is likely to place me in the middle of these scenarios very frequently, but I've been in situations once or twice where I've explained, as sensitively as I'm able (which admittedly may not be very sensitive), my understanding of what the church would advise - only to have my advice rejected. In my opinion, the folks who rejected the advice did not have particularly well-formed consciences; but at the hospital or hospice bedside is not really the time and place to move a family member from Point A to Point C on the well-formed-conscience scale. In such situations, if the judgment of church authorities is that the decisionmaker might have erred, then it is surely incumbent upon the authorities to offer Jesus's mercy to people in that heartbreaking situation.
Sorry if none of this is satisfactory.
Thanks.
DeleteYou wanted to defend "primacy of conscience" by pointing out instances where people followed their conscience without controverting Church teaching.
But "primacy of conscience" doctrine teaches that conscience may trump Church teaching at times.
I pointed out examples where following one's conscience might clash with Church teaching. My question is whether "primacy of conscience" would allow them to remain Catholic in those types of situations.
Your answer basically says you feel sorry for people faced with those situations and some if them made bad decisions.
But that's not a response or explanation of how "primacy of conscience" works.
So I will continue to think of "primacy of conscience" as bad doctrine, and that strict adherence to Church teaching in the CCC is required for a Catholic to continue to receive.
Jean, very interesting explanation of why primacy of conscience is bad doctrine! The more I 5hink about it the more I tend to agree with you.
DeleteI assume that you have read the CCC on conscience. I repeat some in my comment below. Of course, it can be interpreted in different ways, and the conservatives say that if one dissents from church teaching it’s essentially proof that someone hadn’t properly informed their conscience. But that’s not really what it says.
1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53
…….
1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.55
………
Guided by church teaching, but also aided by the witness and advice of others. Prayer and reflection. This means that informing one’s conscience involves multiple sources of information and advice - not only the official ideas of the church
1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.
1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.
Good stuff there.
1789 Some rules apply in every case:
- One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
- the Golden Rule: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."56
Good stuff there too.
Finally there is this. Even if the church thinks a moral decision is wrong in their judgment
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
………
And it’s entirely possible that the person is not acting in ignorance, but that the church is - especially when teaching about things in which the male celibates have little lived experience or first hand knowledge. They miss a lot when it’s all “ intellectual” abstractions.
I don't think you can promulgate as many rules as the Church does and then argue for primacy of conscience. It makes no sense.
DeleteI do know many practicing Catholics who don't follow certain Church teachings and live with the dissonance. They feel that believing most of it is good enough, and God will understand about the rest.
As a convert, I've never really feel comfortable with that.
Well I am a Catholic who has studied some teachings in depth for years. The CCC is not something I worry much about. I fully believe in primacy of conscience and think that the church and church ladies discourage it because they don’t want people to think. They want the good old days of obey, pay and pray with pray actually their least concern. I pick and choose because I think God has given human beings both minds and consciences to use them. Not be obedient automatons.
DeleteOne thing I noticed when first reading the CCC in the 90s after it was published is that it’s extremely self- referential. The footnotes mostly refer to previous official documents as evidence that what they are essentially just restating must be truth. No need to re-examine the environment and culture and knowledge base that existed when the earlier documents were written and the changes that have occurred during 20 centuries.Most of us would not want to follow medical guidance from earlier eras. Discovery is ongoing in every realm.
I think that the RCC has the most comprehensive offerings for guiding one’s conscience but others often have insights lacking in the RCCs understanding.
I literally don’t think that there is a Catholic alive that truly believes all of it. I’ve never met one and I suspect that your priest and much of his congregation dissent from teachings they don’t like - welcome the stranger it capital punishment . There are many that the self- proclaimed orthodox ignore. I don’t think that the Catholic Church is literally the mouth or mind if God. It is not infallible no matter what they claim. It’s really sinful that the church claims any kind of infallibility, whether papal ex cathedra, or magisterial of any kind. But that’s just me. I don’t go to church anymore anywhere. I do read Catholic sources mostly. The evangelical Protestant sites are not something I can handle often, but some of the mainline Protestants write some good stuff and have insights that the Catholics could learn from.
Jean, here is a link to an article that might interest you about dissent in the Catholic Church.
Deletehttps://uscatholic.org/articles/200807/catholic-dissent-when-wrong-turns-out-to-be-right/
Thanks. I think if I were going to find a way to live as a good Catholic, I would have figured it out over these last 25 years (yikes!). I am grateful for parts of the experience, and it has certainly had an effect on how I look at life and helped clarify my thinking. I like to think I make better decisions as a result of my time in the Church. Not necessarily good decisions, just decisions that do less harm.
Delete