Skip to main content

No, The Social Doctrine Is Not A Commie Plot

There was this post, which was in response to this one, and if you don't mind me saying, I found the latter infuriating. Pro Tip: If we are in the realm of the prudential application of general principles, try to disagree with the Pope and other authorities without undermining the Church.  Thanks a bunch.

I get it, man. I'm a card-carrying Republican. Every time I hear someone mention a "just wage," I picture Castro and the corpse of Stalin smiling. But the Church condemns all forms of collectivism in the strongest terms. If you even sample the social doctrine, you realize that our shepherds over the centuries haven't been just shooting from the hip.

What is the social doctrine? It is the application of central truths of the gospel--the destiny of man and his need for redemption in and by Jesus Christ--in the concrete situations of human living. Precisely because Jesus Christ became man, it leads to the first and most important principle: Human beings possess a fundamental and inviolable dignity, by virtue of their intended eternal destiny with God.

There are other things we could say, and later, perhaps we will. In any case, the "common good" is an important concept. It does NOT mean, "the greatest (material) good for the greatest number." Both the socialist and the anarchist/capitalist actually agree with this same faulty definition; they simply use different means to get there. In fact, "common good" refers to the totality of conditions which allow each person to reach the end for which he or she was made more quickly and easily. The Church handles the spiritual common good, each of us according to our vocation and abilities; the State handles the temporal common good. Yet notice a very key point: man only has one end, ultimately. The upshot is therefore that societies are bound to the common good; they can't re-define it.

Human societies have the jurisdiction and expertise to decide exactly how to achieve the common good within the temporal sphere. They won't be defining doctrine, or enforcing ecclesiastical penalties, for example. But the "bad news" is, my fellow Americans, that the Church's rather blunt response to the oft-repeated claim, "The Church has no role in this area of life" is essentially, Oh, yes, we do. She only has direct, coercive authority over her children, but she won't shut up about anything that impacts people, because all people are at least potentially her children.

More thoughts later.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un