But there have always been those people”, Pope Francis warned, “who, without any official title, go about disturbing the Christian community with discourses which unsettle souls: ‘Ah, no, what he said is heretical; that cannot be said, not that, the doctrine of the Church is this’”. In reality, “they are fanatics about things which are not clear, like those fanatics who went about sowing weeds to divide the Christian community”. So, “this is the problem: when the doctrine of the Church, which comes from the Gospel, which the Holy Spirit inspires — because Jesus said ‘He will teach you and will help you to recall all that which I have taught’ — becomes ideology”. Thus, we see “the great error of these people: those who were going there were not believers; they were ‘ideologized’; they had an ideology which closed their heart to the work of the Holy Spirit”. On the other hand, “the Apostles had animated discussions, but they weren’t ideologized: their heart was open to what the Spirit was saying”. This is why, “after discussion”, they begin their letter by writing: “‘For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us’”.
“We mustn’t be surprised when we hear these opinions on the ideologies of doctrine”, the Pope stated. “The Church has her own magisterium, the Magisterium of the Pope, of the Bishops, of the Councils and we ought to follow on that way which comes from the preaching of Jesus and from the teaching and the assistance of the Holy Spirit: it is always open, always free”. And “this is the freedom of the Spirit, but in the doctrine”. Instead, those “who went there, to Antioch, to create havoc and to divide the community, are ideologues”. Because “doctrine unites; the Councils always unite the Christian community”. And ideology “divides”, but “for them ideology is more important than doctrine: they leave the Holy Spirit to the side
— Pope Francis
Morning meditations in the Chapel of the Domus Sanctae Marthae
May 19th, 2017
“Correlation does not equal causation” is a sentence I often hear in online debates. However, one of the first things that I learned in medical school (in order to be able to read scientific publications) is that nowadays, biological sciences establish correlation, not causation. In other words, clinical trials do not prove that a certain drug causes a cure, but whether such a drug correlates with a cure in a more statistically significant way than a placebo / alternative drug.
Why? Because scientists today rightfully acknowledge that reality is too complex for us to ascribe one single cause to phenomena. As scientists say, reality is multifactorial. This means that every occurrence most likely does not have one single cause, but a multiplicity of causes, all of them converging together to produce that event.
For example, a cancer may have the following risk factors: age, smoking and drinking. So, if an elderly alcoholic smoker develops that cancer, what exactly caused the disease? If we must pick one cause, we will not be able to do so. There are good arguments for every single one of the causes, so if we chose just one we will lose the explanatory power given by the other two causes. But the cancer was actually caused by the interplay of all three causes. In fact, the three causes acted synergistically, meaning that adding them together most likely has an effect greater than the sum of each individual cause.
Of course, scientists may try to ascertain causality by testing one cause while trying to isolate every other single cause that may confuse the results. But that can only happen in a highly controlled and selected environment. Reality does not operate as in a laboratory, and a good scientist is aware of this when he extrapolates his findings to the real world.
I bring this up because I wish to address one argument I have seen around on the occasion of Humanae Vitae‘s (HV) 50th birthday. This argument is, in fact, older than this birthday and resurfaces periodically in Catholic social media. This argument states that Pope St. Paul VI has been prophetic, in that he made several predictions of the social implications of allowing artificial contraception… and they all came true.
This is a good argument. I have used it several times and probably will continue to do so. The problem is that this argument can be mishandled. And in fact, it has. There is a certain Church sector that is so eager to fight the widespread dissent on HV and the prevailing sexual heterodoxy, that they have started to treat Paul VI’s predictions as the single lone cause for every social ill.
So, when Catholic thinkers started to associate the #Metoo campaign (a campaign meant to raise awareness against sexual abuse of women) with HV’s prediction of a “general lowering of moral standards,” other Catholics of a more liberal persuasion denounced them, claiming that sexual abuse was already widely prevalent before HV and the Sexual Revolution. According to them, abuse is caused by an asymmetrical relation of power and a demeaning view of women as mere subordinates without a voice, which were already present in traditional, patriarchal societies prior to the 1960s. They claim that feminism, by releasing women from those shackles, actually empowered them to fight abuse and #Metoo is just the natural consequence of that path.
As I saw both sides going after one another in social media, I couldn’t help but notice how both explanations aren’t mutually exclusive. It is true that if we objectify women by assigning them an inferior social role relative to men (as happened before HV), we are inducing a societal mentality prone to sexual harassment (just check some of the rape statistics in India or some Arab countries.) But it is also true that if we objectify women through sexual hedonism (as the personalist view of Paul VI and John Paul II teach us), we risk doing the same thing. By developing technology that facilitates the separation of sexuality from procreation, we are enabling every kind of commitment-free sex, including abuse.
In this sense, it may very well be true that artificial contraception has hindered what feminism has sought to achieve by overthrowing the societal structure of women’s abuse. Just how much of the blame can we ascribe to each factor (hedonism vs. patriarchy) is something that is impossible to dissect. Both converge in a synergic fashion to produce this most vile outcome.
However, as the feminists and the conservatives went at each other’s throat during this debate, they didn’t simply defended their thesis of what the most important cause was. They have strayed further than that and have started to undermine any other potential explanation that might cause the abuse. And they have done so along ideological lines. Those who defend HV’s prophetic role usually badmouth feminism as a source of moral decay. Feminists, on the other hand, have turned away from HV’s prophetic role as if it were unimportant. It doesn’t seem to occur to them that they might achieve better outcomes if they banded together, each one fighting alongside his/her own calling.
We see the same thing happening in the abortion debate, on the artificial separation between “supply” and “demand.” Liberals prefer to focus on demand, while conservatives work on the supply side. So far so good. But the problem is that liberals seem to think that policies that curtail supply are unnecessary, if not counterproductive (of course, they would never apply this logic to other violations of human rights, like “let’s not outlaw abuse, just try to change culture so that abuse might become rarer”.) On the other hand, conservatives often sabotage worthy government policies that would diminish demand, simply because those policies do not align according to what they think the government’s role should be.
In other words, each side focuses in one simple cause, as if that one single cause could explain everything and as if we dealt with that one single cause, the problem would be largely solved.
This attitude stands in stark contrast with the scientific view I expounded earlier, according to which reality is complex and multifactorial. It is the opposite of the scientific attitude: it is ideology.
Ideology is a very comfortable worldview, in that it supplies easy answers to every problem, without any need of reflection or discernment. This happens because the answer is always the same. If you are confronted with a societal problem and you’re left-wing, your automatic response will be: “We need more State. State is always the answer.” If you are confronted with the same problem and you’re right-wing, you will reflexively say: “We need less State. State involvement is always a problem.”
But according to a mature and realistic worldview, each problem should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes, solving the problem will require less State. Other times, it will require more State. Some other times, it will require better State. What matters most is that we are guided, not by pre-formatted answers to every single question, but by solid moral values that may guide our discernment of each particular case.
Catholic Social Teaching (CST) can provide that moral framework, in that it contains principles that should guide every single political decision: solidarity, subsidiarity, common good and human dignity. It is proper to ideology to appropriate the moral principles closer to it, so as to adjust them to the preconceived ideological answer for all the questions. A faithful Catholic, however, should know these principles well and let them guide him, irrespectively of whether it aligns with a given political ideology or party. We cannot defend the human dignity of the unborn child, but not of the illegal immigrant, and vice-versa. We cannot use subsidiarity as an answer to every single question, even when it objectively conflicts with the demands of solidarity, for that would mean turning it into an ideology. And mutatis mutandi, the same can be said about solidarity.
For CST knows that reality is not unidimensional, but rather multifactorial. In this sense, CST views the world as a bidimensional (left-right), or even tridimensional (left-right and earthly-heavenly) reality. Just like a tesseract is incomprehensible to a being stuck in a 3D world, so CST is incomprehensible for the ideologized mind. However, as Catholics, we are called to transcend simplistic perceptions, the artificial boundaries of the mundane, and open ourselves to infinity, to a wisdom that seems like folly to worldly men.
Reproduced with permission; source: Joshua P. Hochschild http://catholicecology.net
I have brought this up since I have dedicated my last three articles to HV (and indirectly, to Casti connubii, as a precursor of HV.) In doing so I have unearthed many treasures of wisdom from these documents, some of which usually go unnoticed, which may cause equivocations endangering our fidelity to the Church. One of those is how they stress the need for social justice.
For example, HV does not allow the use of artificial contraception as a way to assuage social difficulties, even in developing countries because: “No statement of the problem and no solution to it is acceptable which does violence to man’s essential dignity; those who propose such solutions base them on an utterly materialistic conception of man himself and his life” (HV #23 – Seeking true solutions).
What true solutions are there, besides artificial contraception, then? HV continues (emphasis from now on is mine):
“The only possible solution to this question is one which envisages the social and economic progress both of individuals and of the whole of human society, and which respects and promotes true human values. No one can, without being grossly unfair, make divine Providence responsible for what clearly seems to be the result of misguided governmental policies, of an insufficient sense of social justice, of a selfish accumulation of material goods, and finally of a culpable failure to undertake those initiatives and responsibilities which would raise the standard of living of peoples and their children. If only all governments which were able would do what some are already doing so nobly, and bestir themselves to renew their efforts and their undertakings! There must be no relaxation in the programs of mutual aid between all the branches of the great human family. Here We believe an almost limitless field lies open for the activities of the great international institutions.”
— HV #23
In this same paragraph, HV makes reference to another of Paul VI’s encyclicals: Populorum progressio (PP). Meaning, both encyclicals should be read in tandem. It has been noted by some apologists how HV’s 50th birthday has been so noteworthy in Catholic circles, but the same hallmark has gone completely unnoticed as PP is concerned. And yet, there is also so much widespread dissent from PP!
“Now if the earth truly was created to provide man with the necessities of life and the tools for his own progress, it follows that every man has the right to glean what he needs from the earth. The recent Council reiterated this truth: “God intended the earth and everything in it for the use of all human beings and peoples. Thus, under the leadership of justice and in the company of charity, created goods should flow fairly to all.”
All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated to this principle. They should in no way hinder it; in fact, they should actively facilitate its implementation. Redirecting these rights back to their original purpose must be regarded as an important and urgent social duty.”
— PP #22
Also, about “Unbridled Liberalism“, Paul VI has this to say:
“However, certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society. These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations
This unbridled liberalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the “international imperialism of money.”
Such improper manipulations of economic forces can never be condemned enough; let it be said once again that economics is supposed to be in the service of man.
But if it is true that a type of capitalism, as it is commonly called, has given rise to hardships, unjust practices, and fratricidal conflicts that persist to this day, it would be a mistake to attribute these evils to the rise of industrialization itself, for they really derive from the pernicious economic concepts that grew up along with it.”
— PP #26
The same authority that wrote HV has also written PP. We can’t really undermine one without undermining the other. We cannot compartmentalize St. Paul VI into bits that are “followable” and bits that are dispensable. The writer of HV and the writer of PP are one and the same person. The hand that penned one also penned the other, the mind that concocted one also concocted the other and the God-given authority that signed one also signed the other.
However, it is in Casti connubii (CC) that the interlink between sexual ethics and social justice is especially notorious. For after extensively condemning the divorce, contraception and any kind of sin of the flesh, Pius XI exhorts us thus:
“Now since it is no rare thing to find that the perfect observance of God’s commands and conjugal integrity encounter difficulties by reason of the fact that the man and wife are in straitened circumstances, their necessities must be relieved as far as possible.
And so, in the first place, every effort must be made to bring about that which Our predecessor Leo Xlll, of happy memory, has already insisted upon, namely, that in the State such economic and social methods should be adopted as will enable every head of a family to earn as much as, according to his station in life, is necessary for himself, his wife, and for the rearing of his children, for “the laborer is worthy of his hire.” To deny this, or to make light of what is equitable, is a grave injustice and is placed among the greatest sins by Holy Writ; nor is it lawful to fix such a scanty wage as will be insufficient for the upkeep of the family in the circumstances in which it is placed.
(…)
If, however, for this purpose, private resources do not suffice, it is the duty of the public authority to supply for the insufficient forces of individual effort, particularly in a matter which is of such importance to the common weal, touching as it does the maintenance of the family and married people. If families, particularly those in which there are many children, have not suitable dwellings; if the husband cannot find employment and means of livelihood; if the necessities of life cannot be purchased except at exorbitant prices; if even the mother of the family to the great harm of the home, is compelled to go forth and seek a living by her own labor; if she, too, in the ordinary or even extraordinary labors of childbirth, is deprived of proper food, medicine, and the assistance of a skilled physician, it is patent to all to what an extent married people may lose heart, and how home life and the observance of God’s commands are rendered difficult for them; indeed it is obvious how great a peril can arise to the public security and to the welfare and very life of civil society itself when such men are reduced to that condition of desperation that, having nothing which they fear to lose, they are emboldened to hope for chance advantage from the upheaval of the state and of established order.
Wherefore, those who have the care of the State and of the public good cannot neglect the needs of married people and their families, without bringing great harm upon the State and on the common welfare. Hence, in making the laws and in disposing of public funds they must do their utmost to relieve the needs of the poor, considering such a task as one of the most important of their administrative duties.”
— CC #116-121
In other words, the care for the families’ material well-being, even ensured by the State, is an inextricable part of the same doctrine that fulfills the Church’s sexual ethics. Neglecting this essential part of Christian doctrine with the overarching excuse of “prudential judgment” places ideology above the common good, and most importantly, above Christ’s teachings as preserved and interpreted by the Church He instituted.
In my cancer analogy, if a cancer is caused both by smoking and drinking, a good doctor should not say: “You lose the smoking and you can drink all you want” or “You cut the drink and smoking cessation is not as important.” In both instances we may be alleviating the risk by eliminating one of the factors, but we are also increasing risk by crystallizing behaviors that also cause the cancer. It is ineffective to do so and bad practice.
In the same vein, it does no good to introduce ideological wedges on the abortion debate. If a woman is pregnant and pressured to abort because her wage can’t afford a child, who is to blame for the baby’s death? The politician that allowed the employer to pay her a lousy wage for her hard work? Or the politician that made this a legal option, enshrined in society as a common practice, and who sells it as an empowering solution for economic ills, even enabling the employer to say: “heh, she can always abort“? Trying to scrutinize parcels of the blame is not feasible, and is in fact, a useless endeavor. Both made their contribution to generate the perfect storm of legality, accessibility and necessity. Both converged to create the situation in which the baby should be killed. One created the office where the abortion took place and the other drove the woman to that office. To excuse one of the politicians is to create a mindset where our political activity will necessarily be lame and incomplete. If we are really invested in saving human lives, we should not underestimate any possible venue to diminish the likelihood of this vile act to happen.
And to whitewash one side just to validate our own ideological prejudices is particularly abominable, since we are then putting an abstract set of ideas above saving a concrete unborn child, a human being endowed with inalienable rights, our brother/sister and an image of God.
The same can be said of any other person in a vulnerable situation and whose well-being and dignity is endangered by policies that are not completely aligned with CST, like the illegal immigrant, the poor and the sickly.
Going back to HV, we should indeed proclaim how this document was prophetic. It was. Everything that St. Paul VI predicted has come to pass. But HV does not exhaust itself on the ban of artificial contraception. Paul VI does not exhaust himself on HV. And the Church’s doctrine does not exhaust itself on its sexual teaching. We do no honor to HV by undermining the wholeness of the voice that proclaimed it.
One of the overtones of Francis’ papacy is that we should not turn our religion into an ideology. Let us break free from the mental and spiritual shackles of worldly ideologies and embrace reality in all its complexity and fight for the dignity of our brethren in all fronts. I am certain that Paul VI would’ve wanted it.
Pedro Gabriel, MD, is a Catholic layman and physician, born and residing in Portugal. He is a medical oncologist, currently employed in a Portuguese public hospital. A published writer of Catholic novels with a Tolkienite flavor, he is also a parish reader and a former catechist. He seeks to better understand the relationship of God and Man by putting the lens on the frailty of the human condition, be it physical and spiritual. He also wishes to provide a fresh perspective of current Church and World affairs from the point of view of a small western European country, highly secularized but also highly Catholic by tradition.
Adam Rasmussen
Angela Rasmussen
Brian Killian
Carlos X. Colorado
John Cavanaugh-O'Keefe
Claire Domingues
Daniele Palmer
David Wanat
Daniel Amiri
D.W. Lafferty
Henry Karlson
Joe Dantona
John Paul Shimek
J. Patrick Yodzis
Mark Hausam
Massimo Borghesi
Matt Palmer
Mike Lewis
Nate Tinner-Williams
Nathan Turowsky
Paul Fahey
Pedro Gabriel
Pete Vere
Rachel Dobbs
Robert Fastiggi
Stephen Walford
Toni Vercillo
The Holy Spirit is throughout the whole church. At the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, the letter to the Gentiles from the council was sent by the “The apostles and elders and brethren” (15:23), and said that “it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us” (15:28). The letter was sent by the whole Church and not just the apostles.
Correction: the letter was sent by the whole Church *in communion with* the Apostles
Even though I understand that you are maintaining your usual defense of Sola Scriptura and the ability of the faithful to personally interpret it even apart from the Magisterium… I am at a loss as to what the relevance of your intervention is for this specific thread. I suspect that you may be uncomfortable with some aspects of Catholic Social Teaching that conflict with your political leanings and are thus trying to appropriate the Holy Spirit’s authority to keep believing as you want, but I may be reading you wrongly. However, if not for this, the purpose of your comment seems obscure to me.
Pedro,
Peter is actually a professing Catholic. I have had many interactions with him here (including a currently ongoing one, over at the “Pastors Gotts Pastor” article), and given some of his objections to certain aspects of Catholic teaching and church governance, I did think, for some time, that he was a committed Protestant, but he is actually a member of the Catholic Church.
He has strong objections to Mariology, in particular, and I have pointed out to him that his objections are much the same as those of the militantly anti-Catholic Protestants that I know (and once was, myself, years ago, but that is another story!). His reply has been that his concerns about Catholic Mariology are rooted in Scripture and its supposed lack of Mariology– which is exactly what vocally anti-Catholic Protestants always say, but I digress! 🙂
I haven’t seen any evidence that his objections to Catholic teaching are political in nature. I could be wrong about that, but his objections seem, to me, to be theological in nature, and rooted in *his particular interpretations* of Scripture and Tradition. For example, he is convinced that St. Louis de Montfort’s thinking on consecration to Mary logically involves latria– worship of Mary. I strongly disagree with him on that, and more importantly, the Church disagrees with him, but I have gotten nowhere with him on that point (or any other one, really). I have tried, though, and still continue to try! 🙂
Christopher, I already have had my share of interactions with Peter and I know that he is Catholic (even though is rhetoric and objections closely follow Protestant-like arguments.)
But my interactions with him predate yours. His first comment on this blog (that I’m aware of) was on an article of mine about the death penalty. He defended the alleged scriptural commandment to apply the death penalty to murderers as in Gen 9. So his objections, while theological in nature, are also political.
Either way, I never said his objections on this particular post are political, but that his intervention on this article doesn’t make sense otherwise. I can’t find any other possible explanation for his comment on this particular article
Thanks for your reply, Pedro. I was not aware that you had had a longer history of interacting with Peter here. I apologize for the misunderstanding on my part.
From what I can tell, Peter’s intervention on this article (and on all other articles on this site, actually, from what I have seen!) is promoting his apparent belief that his interpretations of Scripture and Tradition are sufficient to judge certain aspects of Church teaching to be objectively un-Biblical or anti-Biblical.
As far as what his thoughts in that direction actually have to do with *this particular article*, I am honestly not sure, other than that Peter simply has an agenda to push on this site which involves numerous objections to Church teaching, and he is pushing that agenda, wherever and whenever he can, in both its theological and political implications.
Peter, if I am incorrect here, please show me how that is so. I am only writing based on the evidence that you have given with your comments.
A part of what I do in my comments is to try to make Catholics see that we should not exclude Scripture in forming our consciences. It is here for our use also and not just for the hierarchy. Scripture tells us to “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1Thessalonians 5:21). I take this verse literally. We can only evangelize what we have internalized into our personal consciences from different sources during our lifetime. I learned from others the most important things that I live by. I didn’t think of them myself. Scripture has been the most important resource for me. I did spend many years away from the Church, but I never labeled myself a Protestant. I am a Catholic who found my present spirituality from what I read in the Bible. I did not find it from later Catholic writings.
My comment on Acts 15 may have been intended for another article which quotes Act 15 without mentioning that the letter to the Gentiles was sent by the whole Church guided by the Holy Spirit and not just the hierarchy. Current Catholic culture has a tendency to diminish the role of the laity in the Church.
You are correct. I do believe that current Catholic Social Teaching leans more to the left than I am comfortable with.
My reference to Acts 15 actually does apply to the last sentence in the first paragraph in this article where Pope Francis quotes Acts 15:28; but he restricts the “us” to only the apostles. The letter sent to the Gentiles was from the whole Church (15:23). This is why our own Scriptural test is important. Do we assume that everything that is presented to us by the hierarchy as Holy Spirit doctrine is indeed doctrine that is inspired by the Holy Spirit; or may it be ideology? Are all of the popes, cardinals and bishops under the influence of the Holy Spirit? How do we know? Is there an overarching Holy Spirit in the Church that is separate from the Holy Spirit who is within the individuals in the Church? I see no evidence of this.
“We see the same thing happening in the abortion debate, on the artificial separation between “supply” and “demand.” Liberals prefer to focus on demand, while conservatives work on the supply side. So far so good. But the problem is that liberals seem to think that policies that curtail supply are unnecessary,”
Could you give a hint who are the liberals you are talking about here?
That is because i could not name any left of center party in any western country, regarding which i am aware that any parts of the party ever did the following:
analyze the situation of women pregnant unplanned/in difficult circumstances and the difficulties that makes it hard for them to welcome their child; in public then say that call out said difficulties as being among other things a cause for the death of unborn humans; and suggest policies to alleviate the difficulties as this would also then prevent the death of unborn humans.
The only things i am aware of is left of center parties proposing better contraception access, but not also for saving the life of unborn humans, but solely for the reason to avoid unplanned pregnancies; and suggesting more social welfare, but not also for saving the life of unborn humans, but for other reasons, e.g. reducing poverty, more equality.
In other words, i am not aware of any left of center party ever doing/proposing anything also for the goal of preventing the death of unborn humans. (Which i suspect is due to left of center party usually not considering unborn humans to be humans)
Therefore, please give if possible examples who the liberals are you talk about.
Thanks.
I think I made it pretty clear that I was talking about sectors inside the Church, not about political parties
The “supply” vs “demand” dichotomy as it pertains to abortion has been very fashionable lately in social media, and it been advanced precisely by more liberal sectors. I recommend you research the New Pro Life Movement, and any movement with the tag Whole Life on it
Thanks for the reply.
“I recommend you research the New Pro Life Movement, and any movement with the tag Whole Life on it.”
Already done that some time ago; while on a pure theoretical level they have a point, they will be on a practical level ineffective, cause they will end up being more busied with denouncing other pro-lifers for this or that supposed/actual breach of the “seamless garment” and/or for being to focused on abortion than being politically effective.
They should take Pope Francis words about abortion being like hiring a hitman as a guide.
Well, you’re actually agreeing with the point of my article then
Our sole point of contention is whether your own side is also doing something similar, by spending too much time railing against “liberal” policies on unrelated fields (immigration, etc) which are not only compatible with Church Social Teaching but actually demanded by it… instead of just focusing on fighting abortion
You should take Francis’ teaching on abortion seriously. But you should also take Francis’ teachings on immigration seriously. Instead of looking how the other side doesn’t take Francis seriously, why not do some soulsearching about how your own side doesn’t take Francis seriously, so that you may start changing your side accordingly?
“Well, you’re actually agreeing with the point of my article then”
With some parts i disagree strongly.
E.g. two hypothetical scenarios:
austria, abortion allowed up to 3 months, afterwards only in case of health issue of mother or child; 3 lines of thought try to gain traction: 1. scrapping the entire law making abortion on demand possible for any reason whatsoever paid by taxes/social security funds up until baby exits birth channel; 2. leaving the law as it is; 3. introducing mandatory counseling and a 3 day waiting period
Catholic teaching is clear: a catholic may not support number 1; both number 2 and 3 might be supported; and i would feel free to call any catholic supported of number 1 a dissenter
Next scenario, again austria; this time 3 proposals about social welfare: 1. raise welfare expenditures by the state and pay for it with higher taxes; 2. leave things as they are; 3. lower welfare expenditures and use the saved money to lower taxes; supporters of 1 argue, that this is the only way to reduce poverty in any meaningful way; supporters of 2 argue, that taxes are already so high, that they are a major factor keeping unemployment high and thereby cause poverty; supporters of 2 just think that both arguments are wrong
How could i identify someone as dissenter?
Very hard, i would have to study economics, tax code, the effects of increase and reduction of welfare, the current situation regarding welfare in austria in a VERY, VERY DETAILED way to have any chance, to know for certain and have evidence that either 1 or 3 is false – and only chance, cause economics and sociology are far from exact sciences, so that even after carefully studying the issue i might end up unable to have a reliable estimate who is wrong; just taking what experts say helps neither, cause there will be experts for supporting any of the 3 options.
So while i would end up with some personal preferences for one of the option, i would never achieve the certainty required, so that i could point my finger at one of the groups of supporters and call them out for proposing something against catholic social teaching; cause catholic social teaching is of course both in favor of sufficient help for the poor and of not having unemployment boosting tax rates.
That is dissimilar from the abortion situation, in which i can at least call out the up until birth for any reason-people as dissenters.
The comparable situation would be, if someone suggested reducing any welfare spending of the state to absolute zero, so that literally no state employee would raise a finger for people starving right on the street in front of parliament; but as far as i know, nobody is suggesting that; unlike scrapping all abortion restrictions, which some people politically fight for.
But that is what new-pro-life and similar groups in my view will end up or do end up doing: calling people dissenters who think raising welfare spending a bad idea and/or who think welfare spending is getting so high that it is furthering poverty instead of reducing it; which will just convince nobody, but harm any coalition building.
“Instead of looking how the other side doesn’t take Francis seriously, why not do some soulsearching about how your own side doesn’t take Francis seriously, so that you may start changing your side accordingly?”
Insofar i am active on one of “supply” or “demand” sides of pro-life, i am purely active on the “supply” side.
But the supposedly “demand” side people are a lot more open and at least in principle willing to help than the supposedly “supply” side people; of the latter side some did not think it even to be prudent to confirm receipt of mails; the rest tended to be a bit unwelcoming; i expect that if i ever would need concrete help to further my “supply” side proposals, i could rely only on the supposedly “demand” side people; contact with them is a bit like communication between soldiers on the same side in the same battle, just fighting in a different area of the battlefield; not much to do to help each other at the moment, but if there would be an opening to help the other guys, one could expect the other group to do what they can from where they are on short notice.
Never had this impression with “supply” side people.
But maybe the day will come when they will prove otherwise.
You would not need to study so much economics, really. It would suffice to study Catholic Social Teaching to ascertain the situation and know what the best option would be. Claiming otherwise is trying to create “ambiguity” in order to wiggle in ideas that are usually not compatible with CST.
Same as a pro-choicer who would try to equivocate that you would need a degree in biology and sexology to know when human life really begins. You don’t need that. Common sense, guided by strong Catholic values, is suficient to know that abortion is wrong. The same can be said about most other issues.
“You would not need to study so much economics, really. It would suffice to study Catholic Social Teaching to ascertain the situation and know what the best option would be.”
A claim i rank as totally bizarre.
Who or where it is supposedly suggested that CST teaches with a more/less tax vs less/more social welfare spending decision which would be the correct and for catholics absolutely mandatory way to decide the issue?
“Common sense, guided by strong Catholic values, is suficient to know that abortion is wrong. The same can be said about most other issues.”
Most?
I do not know how to call that adequately.
But this at least explains, why you at wherepeteris see so many dissidents.
The problem is, you’re looking at it from the wrong angle, as if CST was supposed to say “more or less tax” or “more or less welfare.”
Your angle is similar to President Obama on abortion. When confronted with a status quo he wished to maintain because of his ideological premises, he just equivocated and needlessly complicated the issue, and then replied the answers were “above his paygrade”
But this is not (mainly) a question of economics, it’s a question of morality
According to the Universal Destination of Goods doctrine, the earth’s resources were created for everyone to have a decent livelihood at least
So, if a person can’t provide for himself and his family, and so lives in poverty without access to the needed resources to live a dignified life, he is being stripped of what he is owed to him by Justice
CST mandates that we should correct this injustice. First, we must see if private charity is capable of correcting this situation
But if it is found that private charity is not enough, then the State has the right and the duty to correct this, namely through wealth redistribution via taxation
This is CST. You can find a sample of it on the Casti connubii quote on my article
So you don’t need an economics degree. All you need is to answer 2 questions:
1. Is individual X privy to the resources needed to provide for himself a dignified life?
2. If not, are private initiatives enough to correct the situation explained in no. 1?
That’s it. If you answer “no” to both questions, then you are bound by CST to demand the State to intervene
As for your second point, yes. Dissent in all its forms is sadly widely prevalent. You seem to think that’s a problem with Where Peter Is and not with the World
“then you are bound by CST to demand the State to intervene”
But i am not bound regarding what the intervention is, whether it is – in the simplified case – raising taxes to supposedly redistribute better, lowering taxes to supposedly reduce poverty by more jobs or doing continuing with the ongoing intervention as it is, cause it is overall better at poverty reduction than number 1 or 2.
And as i am not bound, (probably) no one else is bound either; hence, i cannot call out someone for being a dissenter for choosing 1, 2 or 3 instead of the others.
That is unless i somehow have acquired a sufficient and reliable knowledge about economics and sociology to know for certain, which of the options results in the most optimal poverty reduction.
“Your angle is similar to President Obama on abortion.”
No, it isn’t. Cause when presented with the choice, i will try to choose what i think is best in light of the moral framework provided by CST. But I will (usually) refrain from calling out others who make a different choice for being dissenters; i will call them wrong, lacking understanding of the situation, socialists, cold-hearted capitalists or whatever; but not dissenters.
Cause i am not in a position to know whether they are dissenters or just err in their evaluation, which option is optimal at poverty reduction.
Maybe you are unaware, but while sometimes the state raising taxes to get things done helps, it also sometimes hurts more than it helps. So that CST teaches that poverty is to be reduced/eliminated, this teaching does not in any way prescribe which policies are best.
Hopefully the Pope will help driving the point home:
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-says-entrepreneurship-needed-in-face-of-scandalous-poverty-74327
““If there is hunger on earth, it is not because food is missing!” Pope Francis said in St. Peter’s Square Nov. 7.
“What is lacking is a free and far-sighted entrepreneurship, which ensures adequate production, and a solidarity approach, which ensures fair distribution,” he continued.”
You need those entrepreneurs to reduce poverty; and to have them, sometimes requires less state involvement and activity. Of course you also need solidarity and if it comes in insufficient amount freely, then the state must help through taxes and redistribution.
But the discussion, when and where what is needed and to be avoided, is the wrong place to start calling out people for dissent.
Redistribution of wealth through taxation is a part of CST, explicitly mentioned in Caritas in Veritate (and implied in other encyclicals, namely Casti connubii)
Trickle down economics is a libertarian concept, foreign to CST and explicitly condemned by Francis (bear in mind, entrepreneurship is not trickle down economics)
As I told you, before we call the State to intervene, we must see if private intervention suffices. That includes an entrepreneurship that takes solidarity seriously, as Francis has said
If you think we have such entrepreneurship in our current context in which entrepreneurs object to even paying their employees a living wage, then I will say that you are a person who has a preconceived answer and try to apply it to every situation, no matter how inappropriate it will be to solve the problem. Lowering taxes in this context with the hope that those entrepreneurs will somehow trickle down their newly acquired wealth is something Francis has told is wrong, so you can’t read his other interventions to promote that
In the meantime individual X is still living in poverty, deprived of what is being owed to him, and he needs our response
And if you think calling someone a cold-hearted capitalist is somehow better than calling someone a dissenter, then I don’t know what to say to you. A dissenter is simply someone who does not assent to a teaching. I use it not as an insult but as a description of their error. “Cold-hearted”, on the other hand, is judgmental on someone else’s heart
At least i can say, that that claim of mine was correct:
With some parts [of what you suggest] i disagree strongly.
“Trickle down economics is a libertarian concept,”
You seem to be unaware, that not everybody suggesting under some circumstances that lower taxes might be beneficial to society and to poverty reduction is actually talking about “trickle down economics” or is a libertarian.
“As I told you, before we call the State to intervene, we must see if private intervention suffices.”
And as i told you, just because private intervention might be in certain circumstances insufficient to reduce poverty sufficiently, it not in all such circumstances the state interfering further would improve the situation.
Maybe – as you have a medical background – think about a situation, in which you are in doubt whether it is better to do nothing and hope the patient will get better by himself or to start some treatment with side effects potentially worse than the actual illness; it would be wrong to argue, that the patient is in bad shape, therefore active intervention is absolutely mandatory no matter whether it is worse than the illness. That would be a plain stupid approach.
Look at Venezuela; there is some serious poverty there; is the solution more state involvement, more redistribution and/or higher taxes? i do not think so, cause it seems state interfering too much and the wrong way is the cause of the whole mess.
You tell me that if i happened to end up ruler of Venezuela tomorrow that i would have according to CST attempt redistribution of wealth to reduce poverty in Venezuela? And that if i end up not doing that, that i am a dissenter to CST? Seriously?
Venezuela is currently undergoing a humanitarian crisis. People are living in poverty and unable to provide for themselves. The private sphere is utterly crushed. If you suddently became the all-poweful ruler of Venezuela, you could not simply dismantle the State and suddenly people would magically be able to fend for themselves. As with any humanitarian crisis, you would have to provide some relief to people, which is also a form of redistribution.
Of course, as soon as minimal societal structure was restored and the private sphere showed enough vitality again, you would have to start reducing the weight of the State. This is demanded by the CST principle of Subsidiarity, according to which problems should be dealt with at the lower level possible. Again, this is a moral principle, not an economic one.
The field of economics should follow the moral principles and not the other way around. I recommend you read the chapter “Buddhist Economy” from the book “Small is Beautiful” by economist E.F. Schumacher. Economy is a morally neutral field that produces whatever we design it to do. Until now, we have designed economics to maximize profit, not to maximize employment or to minimize poverty. We should design an economy to take into account the values of Solidarity and Subsidiarity as interpreted by CST, not try to fit those values into predefined ideologies. In this sense, a moral compass is more important than a PhD in economics.
Now, your medical analogy seems to imply that I am advocating for more State as a principle. Not so. That is precisely the point of my article:
«Ideology is a very comfortable worldview, in that it supplies easy answers to every problem, without any need of reflection or discernment. This happens because the answer is always the same. If you are confronted with a societal problem and you’re left-wing, your automatic response will be: “We need more State. State is always the answer.” If you are confronted with the same problem and you’re right-wing, you will reflexively say: “We need less State. State involvement is always a problem.”But according to a mature and realistic worldview, each problem should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes, solving the problem will require less State. Other times, it will require more State. Some other times, it will require better State. What matters most is that we are guided, not by pre-formatted answers to every single question, but by solid moral values that may guide our discernment of each particular case
But according to a mature and realistic worldview, each problem should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes, solving the problem will require less State. Other times, it will require more State. Some other times, it will require better State. What matters most is that we are guided, not by pre-formatted answers to every single question, but by solid moral values that may guide our discernment of each particular case»
So, in your Venezuela example, we would need “Better State” during a first phase and “Less State” on a second stage. But in the example of a western economy with an entrepeneurship which is not socially-minded as Francis urges it to be, we need “More State”.
There is no dissention in having diferences of opinion on prudential matters, but it is not good to use the overarching excuse “prudential judgment” to shut down an option that is legitimate according to CST and may actually be morally demanded by its moral principles. People who claim “redistribution of wealth” is not compatible with Catholicism are dissenting from social encyclicals issued by popes. People who admit this possibility in theory, but in practice try to find, through equivocation and needless complication, to always justify this possibility away and always lobby for the same answer “less State, less State, always less State”, may not be theoretically dissenters, but they still show they are putting abstract ideological principles ahead of Church teaching… and ahead of the concrete situations of their needy brethren.
Once more, I do not mean to call you a dissenter, nor use dissenter as an insult. I am bowing out of this conversation now. God bless and thank you for your contribution.
“each problem should be addressed on a case-by-case basis.”
“So, in your Venezuela example, we would need “Better State” during a first phase and “Less State” on a second stage. But in the example of a western economy with an entrepeneurship which is not socially-minded as Francis urges it to be, we need “More State”.”
According to my estimate, “western economy” encompasses around
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world
30 something countries.
These have a spread of public spending ratio between 35% and 55% of GDP.
A proposal for more taxes/less welfare spending/not doing anything for more welfare spending/less taxes/not doing anything is something completely different, when offered in the US (37% public spending ratio; and quite a chunk of that the military) and Austria (49%).
Besides, the ratio of entrepreneurs with some “morality handicap” could be different in the US than in Austria.
Why should the case by case approach be discarded if some words of the Pope might be understood or even if the Pope actually thinks, that both in the US and Austria the economic situation is so similar, that one can forget the case by case approach and apply to both the same policies?
That the economic situation and the extent of state activity is rather different between US and Austria is not a matter of faith and morals, but simply data available via google:
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/government-spending-to-gdp
Why should it be a matter of prudential matter?
Am i really supposed to believe, that it is binding catholic teaching, that these two:
“France 56.50”
“Australia 36.20”
both absolutely need more state?
And as you keep manipulating numbers to needlessly complicate the issue, I notice that the concrete situations of the concrete people who are facing poverty do not factor in anything you said.
Again, instead of keeping with those incessant questions, you should really just answer two:
1. Is individual X living according to the dignity owed to him as an image of God?
2. If not, does private initiative suffice to give him what he lacks at this exact very moment?
This conversation is not moving anywhere, so I’m going to end it. Thank you and God bless
Peter,
I agree with you completely that (in your words) “we should not exclude Scripture in forming our consciences.” Of course, Scripture is God’s written word to us, and as such, the Church strongly affirms the reading of Scripture in forming our consciences.
What the Church can *never* affirm, though, is that it is right for us to interpret Scripture in any way that may seem correct to us, for that way of interpreting Scripture can easily lead to Arianism or to any other heresy.
It seems that you are advocating, on this site, for interpretations of Scripture (and Tradition) that would reject teachings which the Church commends to us as being solidly based in Biblical reasoning. For example, you largely reject Mariology, but the Church teaches that Mariology is firmly rooted in what Scripture tells us about Christ.
After many interactions with you here, I am honestly curious, Peter– what is your endgame with your comments? When I was a Protestant, to my shame, I did try to “evangelize” Catholics by showing them where and how the Church was supposedly “Biblically wrong,” according to my personal interpretations of Scripture alone. As a Catholic, I now very seriously wish that I had not engaged in that particular sort of Protestant evangelism.
In that light, I cannot help but wonder– why do you, as a Catholic, feel strongly compelled to spend so much time on a Catholic blog telling other Catholics exactly where, and how, the Church’s interpretations of Scripture and Tradition are wrong, according to your personal interpretations of Scripture and Tradition?
For myself, as a Catholic, I left behind personal interpretation of Scripture which “judges” the Church’s teaching to be wrong when I ceased to be a Protestant. My Protestant past was helpful in many ways, but it was also very anti-Catholic in some of the ways that I personally interpreted Scripture. That is not a mistake that I wish to repeat in any way, shape, or form.
How can you read Scripture without interpreting it? You’re advocating something that is humanly impossible. The real question is whether we automatically subordinate our interpretation to the prevailing interpretation in the Church. I believe that we violate our Vatican II psychological freedom if we do, and we violate our personal consciences when our conscience is convinced of our personal interpretation. The Holy Spirit in us is quite capable of guiding us also individually.
By the way, I do the same thing in Protestant blogs and articles in which I am able to comment.
Peter,
Of course, I would not even try to say that we can read Scripture without interpreting it. Virtually all reading, period, necessarily involves interpretation.
However, for a number of years, I had a good friend who was sincerely convinced that he was being guided by the Holy Spirit in his personal interpretation of Scripture, and he reached the conclusion that the doctrine of the Trinity is un-Biblical and heretical. Wouldn’t it have been better for him to listen to the Catholic Church, and thus, remain within basic Christian orthodoxy? Alas, he did not listen, and he became a vocal proponent of a view of God that is heretical.
You say, just as Martin Luther did, that the Holy Spirit is quite capable of guiding us individually to interpret Scripture. However, according to my friend, the Holy Spirit did guid him, *through personal Scriptural interpretation*, to reject the Trinity. That is just one of many bad outcomes that can happen when we reject the Catholic Church’s authoritative role in interpreting Scripture in favor of our personal interpretations.
I believe that the Catholic Church would say that he is obliged to go with his conscience even if the Church considers it to be erroneous.
Peter,
The Church obviously does teach about the importance of carefully listening to one’s conscience. The Church also teaches that one’s conscience can be either well-formed or ill-formed. I am not aware of anywhere in the Church’s teaching, however, where one can find the idea that the type of personal interpretation of the Bible which leads to heresy is a part of forming one’s conscience well.
For example, when you say, for all intents and purposes, that consecration to Mary clearly conflicts with Biblical teaching, even though that consecration has been strongly commended by centuries of Saints and Popes, down to our present day, you have embraced a form of personal interpretation of the Bible which not only is not *encouraged* by the Church, but that is *directly opposed* by the Church. That is not a reliable road to forming the conscience well, unless you simply wish for your conscience to be autonomous, and not formed and guided by the same Holy Spirit which guided the Church in forming the Biblical canon, and in the Church’s teachings on faith and morals.