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.
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