Catholic Social Teaching

Introduction

Catholic Social Teaching is a body of work that contains principles to guide human actions in the context of societies, both local and global, for the sake of promoting a just world. It does not prescribe a particular form of government or a specific economic system. It does, however, articulate some principles that, if violated, could cause some such form of government or economic system to be judged to be unjust. It does not claim on its own to provide specific solutions for concrete situations. It does, however, offer a particular lens through which one can discern and judge the signs of the times and, accordingly, arrive at practical solutions to situations that call out for justice.

Catholic Social Teaching refers to claims about justice and just societies made in more or less official statements by the Church, such as Papal Encyclicals, Statements of Ecumenical Councils, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, etc. Catholic Social Thought, on the other hand, refers to a broader set of literature in which scholars expand and expound on the particular principles of Catholic Social Teaching, as well as apply them to particular situations.

Catholic Social Teaching draws upon not only the Catholic faith (i.e., Scripture, Dogma, Doctrine) but also reason, the conclusions of which are said to be available to anyone independent of their religious faith, and the tradition of faith and reason in interaction in Catholic intellectual history. There is reason, therefore, for all people of good will – not just Catholics – to consider these principles and the wisdom they embody in the pursuit of a just world.

 A Brief History

While the Church has always had some commentary on matters of broader social impact throughout its history, scholars typically point to Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical letter Rerum novarum (1891) as the birth of what we recognize today as Catholic Social Teaching. Encyclicals are written as letters to the Church and the world at large and contain extensively researched commentary on certain focused topics. They are composed by many individuals working with (and under the supervision of) the Pope, who has the final review and claims final authorship of the document. In Rerum novarum, Pope Leo XIII commented at length on the state of the working class in the wake of the Industrial Revolution and in the context of the various uprisings and political revolutions that roiled Europe in the mid-19th century. Drawing upon philosophy and the theology of the Church, he defended the rights of workers, such as the right to form unions to better protect themselves from exploitation by employers, as well as the rights of all to be owners of private property, such as certain of the fruits of one’s labors.

Proof of this document’s significance is that subsequent pontiffs have issued encyclicals on issues of social concern on various decade anniversaries of Rerum novarum – e.g., Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo anno (1931), Pope John XXIII, Mater et magistra (1961), Pope Paul VI, Octogesima adveniens (1971), Pope John Paul II, Centesimus annus (1991), among others.  This practice has established the papal encyclical as the primary means by which the Church has communicated its social teaching. There have been a number of other social encyclicals in the intervening years as well; for example, most recently, Pope Francis has issued Laudato si’ (2015) and Fratelli tutti (2020). The topics addressed in all these documents are issues of broad human concern – ranging from the just distribution of power throughout a society, to the development of poorer communities and countries, to care of the environment, and beyond.

Catholic Social Teaching has not been expressed only in encyclicals, however. For example, the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) pushed the Church to focus more of its energies outward, onto the world at large, as opposed to inward, on internal debates and disputes. Certain of the documents affirmed by that Council, such as Gaudium et spes, help to express the Church’s self-understanding in a rapidly changing world with many faiths and many expressions of the Catholic faith; they too comprise part of the Church’s social teaching. Local Bishops’ conferences have also produced documents that take the Church’s social teachings and highlight the ways it addresses problems specific to their world at that time. Some noteworthy examples of this include the Documents of the Second Episcopal Conference in Latin America at Medellin, Colombia (1968) and “Brothers and Sisters to Us,” a statement from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on Racism (1979).

In 2004, the Vatican published a compilation of social teaching as it stood at that time: the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. This does not mean each and every issue is settled, however; subsequent encyclicals and commentaries have continued (and will continue) to add to the tradition of the Church’s witness to Gospel Truth and to human reason in an ever-changing world that cries out for justice.

Importance

Historically (and still today in certain circles), Catholic Social Teaching has not received as much attention as other areas of Catholic belief and practice. For one, there is flexibility in its application; it invites vigorous debate among folks, all of whom claim to be faithful to its principles. Accordingly, Catholic Social Teaching may be dismissed as lacking clear definition, able to be retrofitted easily to fit one’s prior political persuasions as opposed to more definitive and dogmatic elements of Catholicism. Further, for some, a religiously informed perspective on issues of social concern and justice in general is not preferable to similar frameworks that purportedly remain neutral as to religion.

Nevertheless, it is just as much a part of the Faith as any doctrine. Its principles and obligations are a stark reminder that “faith without works is dead” (James 2:26) – and that those works include not only those that have a personal or local impact but also those that have a broader social impact as well. And, again, Catholic Social Teaching can be appreciated by all regardless of their religious persuasion (or lack thereof) insofar as it is based in part on a conception of humanity and human nature that is not solely dependent on Scripture.

According to the Jesuits’ former Superior General, Fr. Pedro Arrupe, Jesuit higher education is to be an “education for justice.” (Arrupe 1973) Understanding the basics of Catholic Social Teaching, then, cannot help but illuminate what kinds of values Fr. Arrupe must have hoped for graduates of Jesuit schools to come to appreciate.

Seven Core Principles

According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, there are seven core principles that form the heart of Catholic Social Teaching. A brief explanation of each follows:

Life and Dignity of the Human Person

The bedrock foundation upon which the Church’s Social Teaching is based is the claim that each and every human person has equal intrinsic value, or dignity, simply because they are human. From the moment one becomes human (which, for the Church, occurs at conception), one possesses this same fundamental value as any other person. This value is based solely upon the potentials that comprise their human nature – that is, the potentials that define a being as a human as opposed to any other kind of being. These potentials include our capacities to know reality as it is and to choose freely in accordance with that knowledge. This dignity is said to be unique when compared with the value and dignity of any other things that exist; no other things have these capacities in the manner that humans have them, though all things have intrinsic value in their own right. This is what the Church takes it to mean that humans are uniquely made in imago Dei – in the image and likeness of God. (see Genesis 1:27)

In order for the dignity each human has as a bearer of the imago Dei to be respected and those potentials to have a chance to be realized, it is necessary that each human be allowed to live. It is also necessary that the conditions of each human’s life be suited to real flourishing, where real flourishing means coming to know, love, and serve God, the source of Being, Truth, and Goodness. Knowing, loving, and serving God itself entails loving our neighbor and all God’s creation.

Call to Family, Community, and Participation

There is no such thing as a self-made man, so to speak. In the most basic sense, no human can come into being without a mother and a father. For this reason, the Church claims that a comprehensively healthy family life is of central importance to the right development of any human being. This is the primary basis upon which humans are said to be “social” beings by (metaphysical) nature.

There also is no such thing as a self-made family, so to speak. Wider networks of support, both within an extended family and otherwise, are necessary for any family to have its needs met, let alone to live well. For this reason, the Church claims that comprehensively healthy communities are of central importance to respect, protect, and promote the health of family life. That is, any level of social organization must be structured, via its laws, practices, customs, and/or culture, to allow for the flourishing of families. The good of communities and societies in and of themselves is called the common good.

Finally, there is no such thing as a self-made community, so to speak. A community is nothing without those who comprise it and administer it. For this reason, the Church claims that all are called to participate in the life and administration of their communities at various levels of social organization. Specifically, all are obliged, in various ways, to help to create the conditions within their various communities that allow individuals and families to live and have a chance to live well.

The Church’s vision here starts from the ground and works its way up, as it were: from individual to family to community to society and culture, and so on. Whoever and whatever is at each level of social organization is to be respected for what it is and not unduly subordinated or dominated by a higher-order entity with more political power; each is to be a viable entity with its own rights, scope of power, and responsibilities. This is the principle of subsidiarity. As Pope Pius XI articulates in Quadragesimo anno (§79), subsidiarity means that whatever issues can be reasonably and feasibly addressed by lower levels of social organization must not be taken over by a higher level of social organization; that said, higher levels of social organization remain responsible to do and demand what they must to maintain the lower levels’ viability and ability to address such issues.

Rights and Responsibilities

In the Church’s most basic conception, rights are what one ought to have in order to accomplish what one ought to do or be (i.e., one’s responsibilities). The notion of rights itself implies the notion of responsibilities. In principle, the two are inseparable. In practice, the two are mutually supportive.

For example, humans are obliged to do what they can, given the material conditions of their existence, to develop the potentials they possess on account of their human nature. That is, they are obliged by (metaphysical) nature to seek their true good as an individual. Since humans are social beings by that very nature, these responsibilities of their nature to develop potentials extend beyond themselves as individuals. Rather, they extend onto others and into their communities. In sum, all humans are responsible for doing what they can to create the conditions within which they (and everything and everyone that supports them) can flourish. That is, all humans are responsible for acting for both their own individual good and the common good.

That said, one cannot be held responsible for something if they don’t have what is necessary to accomplish those responsibilities and sustain any successes. For this reason, the Church takes certain things to be owed to humans as individuals and to communities at various levels of social organization; these things are rights. The right to life is primary among these, as flourishing of any sort cannot happen so long as one does not exist. These rights are owed from other humans as individuals and from other entities, like a government or administration of a community, in various ways.

Option for the Poor and Vulnerable

The Church recognizes that, owing to a number of factors, the material conditions of some persons and communities are much poorer and less stable than others. As such, their chances of surviving, let alone flourishing, are much more precarious than others. That is, in a concrete sense, they are owed more, as their rights, in order to have even a reasonable chance of surviving and fulfilling their responsibilities for their individual good and the common good. For this reason, it follows that practical solutions must always favor furthering the integral development of the poor and vulnerable and their communities.

Those who arrive at and implement practical solutions that do not favor this are said to fail in their responsibility to act for the common good.

This is one way that, in the context of contributing to the structure and sustenance of a society, one follows the example of Jesus, who came “to bring glad tidings to the poor … to proclaim liberty to captives and … to let the oppressed go free.” (Luke 4:18) It speaks to a Christian duty that is a positive demand of justice, rather than charity that goes above and beyond one’s basic moral demands. It also implies that, in a concrete sense, greater moral responsibility falls on those with various kinds of power and privilege, as their actions can and do have more powerful and extensive effects on societies and communities. This too echoes the words of Jesus: “Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.” (Luke 12:48) Further, it implies that the poor and vulnerable are obliged to advocate for the rights that are owed to them to the extent that it is possible.

Dignity of Work and Rights of Workers

From the beginnings of human existence, expressed figuratively in the Book of Genesis, work, or labor, has been necessary for humans to develop themselves, their communities, and the world around them. While the nature of work has changed significantly, its necessity remains. It remains a concrete way – perhaps the most concrete way – in which one contributes to one’s own flourishing and the well-being of one’s communities and the world at large, speaking both spiritually and materially.

At the same time, productive labor can be easily exploited, most especially in cases and in systems where onerous labor is the price one is made to pay to have nothing more than the necessities of mere existence. In these kinds of cases and within the social and economic systems that allow these kinds of cases to exist, workers are doomed never to own any reasonable portion of the benefits and fruits of their labors. In reality, they end up not contributing to their own flourishing, let alone the well-being of others; rather, they contribute to the material well-being of the already well-to-do and perpetuating the system that allows for their exploitation and effective oppression. For this reason, the Church takes the rights of workers to be of paramount importance so as to protect against the dehumanization and exploitation and to ensure the right distribution of the fruits and benefits of those labors in accordance with the option for the poor, among other moral imperatives.

Solidarity

Solidarity is a virtue that, according to Pope St. John Paul II, is “valid” in a society when “its members recognize one another as persons.” (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, §39) That is, it implies recognizing each person for who and what they truly and fully are: a bearer of fundamentally unique dignity, knowledge, and experiences, with capabilities in concrete and social contexts that both call out for protection and development and mark one as responsible for caring for the common good. Solidarity implies encountering others concretely as other selves as concrete as ourselves, not merely in an abstract or purely academic sense. It implies developing more of an empathy for others rather than a distanced (even if benevolent) sympathy, especially insofar as all are more and more interconnected as if one family, or “fraternity,” as Pope Francis has put it (see Fratelli Tutti). Thus, it entails a more familial relationship with others, as opposed to a more formal one; accordingly, it entails an inclination towards more gratuitous giving and gracious acceptance of said giving in love.

 In a real sense, to the extent one recognizes and affirms one’s own humanity, solidarity is the virtue that ensures one follows the second great commandment: to “love one’s neighbor as oneself.” (Mark 12:31) Having the habit of solidarity makes the murder of innocent life and the exploitation of persons and supporting practices and systems that encourage such acts unthinkable. It makes natural and thoroughgoing one’s preference for the poor and vulnerable in one’s actions, as it makes us grieve personally at the situation of others who are so disadvantaged and causes us to respond generously and promptly to rectify it. It also makes it unthinkable not to contribute generously to the common good – again, the good of actual families, communities, and societies – and to insist that all do so to the extent possible for them.

Care for God’s Creation

To care for certain ends, one must also care for the right means towards those ends. Accordingly, one cannot love oneself or others and care for their well-being without caring for that from which all the goods necessary for our life and our flourishing must be derived – namely, God’s creation. Destroying this destroys the only means for sustainably fulfilling our constant duty of solidarity and care for the common good. The responsible use of creation affords it the chance to continually replenish and refresh itself for all people, both those here now and those who will exist in the future. Creation itself is a gift from God; accordingly, our gracious response to this gift should be to accept it and use it so as not to destroy it but, rather, to honor God, the giver of this gift.

Just as exploiting persons offends the dignity of the human person, exploiting creation offends its intrinsic goodness. Further, exploiting creation often itself offends the dignity of humans who cannot help but live where the exploitation is occurring. This can be either local (e.g., deforestation, which harms the livelihood and culture of communities who live there) or global (e.g., human-generated climate change, which harms all communities around the globe in various ways) in scope. It is also worth noting that the benefits of despoiling creation often accrue to those who are often already relatively well-off at the cost of destroying the livelihoods of those who are often already relatively poorly-off. Thus, care for God’s creation often aligns with the preferential option for the poor and vulnerable.

Resources