Themes and Theologies in Catholic Social Teaching Over Fifty Years

THEMES AND THEOLOGIES IN CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING OVER FIFTY YEARS

Donal Dorr

Abstract:

This article has three sections, covering three themes in CST. In the first I sketch out the development of an integral humanistic approach and then go on to suggest that the ‘flip’ side of this is an unduly anthropocentric stance on ecological issues by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict. In the second section I give an account of official Catholic teaching on justice for women and their equality with men. I suggest that over the past fifty years there have been major advances on this issue. But John Paul’s concept of the complementarity of women and men raises great difficulties—particularly insofar as it is used as one of the main justifications for Vatican insistence that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women. In the third section I examine Vatican views on the appropriate means which Church authorities and the Church membership should use in working to promote justice. Should Church leaders limit themselves to clarifying the nature of authentic development, pointing out various forms of injustice, calling for change, and suggesting an alternative ‘economy of communion’? May they ever go further than such ‘education of consciences’, by encouraging the poor to struggle for justice, and by themselves confronting oppressive governments?

Key Words: Humanistic approach, anthropocentric, justice for women, complementarity, confrontation by Church leaders, ‘economy of communion’.

INTRODUCTION

I propose to look at three themes in Catholic social teaching and at the theologies which underpin them. They are (1) Integral Humanism and Anthropocentric Approach; (2) Women: Justice, Equality and Complementarity; and (3) The Means the Church Should Use in Working for Justice. I am very aware that various aspects of these topics will be the subject of lectures by experts later in this conference, so I look forward eagerly, though with some apprehension, to fuller treatments of them and correction of omissions or imbalance or mistakes in what I say here.

FIRST THEME: INTEGRAL HUMANISM AND ANTHROPOCENTRIC APPROACH

When I began to study theology in the 1950s, one of our courses in what was called ‘Dogmatic Theology’ was ‘The Theology of Creation’. During the 1960s this course was widely replaced by a course called ‘Theological Anthropology’. In many respects this was a very valuable development; it was part of what has been called ‘The Turn to the Subject’ and it led to a far deeper understanding of what it means to be human in the world. However, I shall suggest that we are slowly coming to realize that it needs to be situated within the much wider context of a theology of creation as a whole. A true understanding of ourselves as human can only take place within an earth-centred or creation-centred approach. In the presentsection of this article I propose to look first at the development of an integral humanistic theology in Catholic social teaching and then at thedevelopment of its teaching on ecology.

INTEGRAL HUMANISM

Thehumanistic theme began to take shape in the two social encyclicals of John XXIII, Mater et magistra and Pacem in terris.Theypulled the Catholic Church out of its ghetto mentality and encouraged it to recognize the reality of the Western world where the main way of dealing with poverty is through government action and where defence of human rights is a central moral issue.

A really big break-through came with the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes of Vatican II. Already the four key words ‘joys, hopes, grief and anguish’ in its opening line indicate that it represents a quite dramatic openness to the reality of human life in the world. And the whole document is very humanistic in its content and style—in fact, looking back many theologians suggest that it was unduly optimistic in its account of the relationship of the Church to the world.

Pope Paul VI continued this humanistic approach. In Populorum progressio(1967) he dealt with the issue of justice and poverty on a world-wide basis and also put forward a valuable account of the very nature of human development. In Octogsima adveniens(1971) he took this a stage further by recognizing that economic development can be furthered or blocked by political decisions. In Evangelii nuntiandi(1976) he put forward a rich and comprehensive account of the whole concept of human liberation in all its dimensions. In the meantime the document issued by the 1971 Synod of Bishops had stated that action on behalf of justice is a ‘constitutive dimension’ of evangelization. This was a truly major step in distancing the Church from a dualistic approach which would give a secondary place to the promotion of a fully human life in this world.

POPE JOHN PAUL II

In my opinion the two high-points of John Paul’s teaching on Catholic social teaching came in his very first encyclical Redemptor hominis (1979) and in his first social encyclical Laborem exercens (1981). The former is particularly important in terms of the present topic. In it the pope put forward a quite radical theological basis for a humanistic approach. He wrote: ‘… the human person is the primary and fundamental way for the Church’; and he added at once that it is ‘the way traced out by Christ himself …’ So he saw it as ‘the primary route that the Church must travel in fulfilling her mission.’ (RH 14). In his address to the United Nations in 1979, John Paul insisted on the importance of what he called ‘the humanistic criterion’ as the basis for assessing various systems (AAS 71, 1156 [§ 17]).

These statements assure us about the real meaning of what John Paul meant whenever he stressed the primacy of the spiritual—as he did in the encyclical itself (RH 11) as well as in his 1979 address to the Puebla Conference (III, 4) and in his address to the United Nations (§ 4). It did not mean that he was adopting a dualist theology.Rather his theology was integrally humanistic. His vision of the human was one that includes the economic, the political, the cultural, and the religious. What he meant by ‘the spiritual’ was the deepest and most fundamental aspects of all of these human dimensionsof life on this earth. He believed thatwe Christianswho follow Jesus are called to explore what it means to live a fully human life; and we do so by paying particular attention to whatever we find to be deepest in all of these dimensions of human experience.

The second high-point in John Paul’s contribution to Catholic social teachingcame two years later with his encyclical Laborem exercens. Here he took the quite radical step of defining the person as a worker. He went on to engage in a very serious dialogue with Marxism. He was grounding his humanist position in a realistic account of human life in its economic and political reality.

This humanistic approach was brought a stage further in Sollicitudo rei socialis (1987). In it John Paul put forward a careful and valuable analysis of the concept of solidarity both as a fact, a human reality, and as a vital human virtue.

ECOLOGY[1]

Already in 1971 Pope Paul VI in Octogesima adveniensmentions the risk associated with ‘an ill-considered exploitation of nature’ (OA 21). Later that year the document ‘Justice in the World’ issued by the Synod of Bishops, no doubt influenced by Barbara Ward-Jacksonwho was a consultant before and during the gathering, is far more specific, pointing out that irreparable damage would be done to the environment if the consumption and pollution practices of the richer nations were extended to the whole of humankind (JW 11); this document makes a firm link between ecology and justice.

A few years later, Pope John Paul II in his very first encyclical, referred to ‘the threat of pollution of the natural environment’ (RH 8) and the fact that humans frequently look on thenatural environment only insofar as it serves them ‘for immediate use and consumption’ (RH 15).In Solicitudo rei socialis he returned to the issue of ecologyin a passage where he referred to ‘the limits of available resources’ (SRS 26) and a later passage where he noted that ‘natural resources are limited’ (SRS 34). In the first of these passages he referred to ‘the integrity and cycles of nature’(SRS 26). His use here of the word ‘integrity’ echoes the phrase ‘integrity of creation’ which had already been accepted by the World Council of Churches.[2] Without using this exact term, John Paul gave a brief account what is meant by ‘the integrity of creation’ by pointing out that each being is connected to other beings, where there is ‘mutual connection in an ordered system, which is precisely the “cosmos”’ (SRS 34).

However, the Vatican was slower than the WCC in giving a prominent place to the ecological question. The first major Vatican statement on this topic was Pope John Paul’s ‘Message for the World Day of Peace’ on January 1, 1990.It speaks movingly of ‘the plundering of natural resources and … a progressive decline in the quality of life’, and of ‘the widespread destruction of the environment’ (§ 1). It goes on to insist that, ‘no peaceful society can afford to neglect either respect for life or the fact that there is an integrity to creation’ (§ 7). It points out that the ecological problem cannot be solved unless modern society ‘takes a serious look at its life style.’ It insists that: ‘Simplicity, moderation and discipline, as well as a spirit of sacrifice, must become a part of everyday life…’ (§ 13).

Having recognized that there is an integrity in creation, the Message puts forward three reasons for why we should respect this integrity.The first of these is simply that humans are called to respect the plan of God (§ 5).

The second reason why humans should respect the integrity of creation is the one to which most of the message is devoted. It is that respect for the environment is necessary for the present and future welfare and health of humanity. The Message insists that‘the earth is ultimatelya common heritage, the fruits of which are for the benefit of all’(§ 8). It is quite clear that in this context the ‘all’ who are to benefit are all humans.

There is also a rather brief mention of athird reason why we should respect the integrity of creation. The Message says that ‘the aesthetic value of creation cannot be overlooked’ and adds:

Our very contact with nature has a deep restorative power; contemplation of its magnificence imparts peace and serenity.The Bible speaks again and again of the goodness and beauty of creation, which is called to glorify God (cf.Genl:4ff;Ps8:2; 104:1ff;Wis13:3-5;Sir39:16, 33; 43:1, 9). (§ 14).

This is both true and important. But it seems to suggest that the value of the non-human parts of nature springs mainly from the fact that contemplation of them can bring peace and serenity to humans.

In the final paragraph of the Message the pope goes some way towards suggesting that the non-human parts of nature have a value in their own right: ‘Respect for life and for the dignity of the human person extends also to the rest of creation, which is called to join man in praising God’.It refers to human ‘fraternity’ with other parts of nature and our duty to care for them, but adds that this is to be done ‘in light of that greater and higher fraternity that exists within the human family’ (§ 16). Once again we are left with the impression of a reluctance to acknowledge the inherent value of the non-human world, without immediately insisting on the ‘higher’ value of humanity.

All this suggests that the approach of the pope is still fundamentally anthropocentric—even in the way he understands the phrase ‘the integrity of creation’. In this and in subsequent Vatican documents one cannot avoid noticing that there is a reluctance to give unconditional recognition to the intrinsic value of the non-human parts creation.

In the case of Pope John Paul this can be partly explained as ‘the flip side’ of the valuable humanistic approach which he brought to Catholic social teaching and indeed to his understanding of evangelization. The Vatican authoritiesare reactingexcessively against a rather extreme version of ‘deep ecology’—one which would be pantheistic, denying the transcendence of God. It would also reject or play down the distinctiveness of humans, claiming that the ‘rights’ of animals and plants are equal to those of humans—if not in fact superior to them.

CENTESIMUS ANNUS

In 1991, on the hundredth anniversary of Rerum Novarum, John Paul issued a new social encyclical. As one might have expected, it was calledCentesimus annus.Once again, John Paul’s approach can be termed integrally humanistic. It is quite significant that the heading of Section 6 of the encyclical is ‘Man is the Way of the Church’. His treatment of environmental issues is unapologetically anthropocentric. For instance, referring back to Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes, he says that ‘man … is the only creature on earth which God has willed for its own sake’ (CA 53).

The encyclical fails to emphasise the extent to which, in our present-day world, economic challenges can only be tackled successfully in the context of the ecological problems which threaten the continued existence of human society—not to mention the destruction of thousands of animal and plant species.

The pope does indeed advert to the human duty to respect the integrity of creation but he sees this in terms of obedience to God’s plan, with no explicit reference to the order and value which is inherent in the created world. He does not put much emphasis on the value of non-human creatures, or on how important it is that humans should live in partnership with the rest of creation.In so far as he locates humanity within the much wider context of creation as a whole, he does it in a manner that emphasises human superiority and responsibility.

The pope's strong anthropocentric stance is particularly evident in the way in which he contrasts natural ecology with ‘human ecology’. He acknowledges that the destruction of the natural environment is a ‘worrying’question. But almost immediately he puts it in second place when compared with ‘the more seriousdestruction of the human environment'; here he refers to ‘the serious problems of modern urbanization’ and ‘the need for urban planning’ (CA 38). The difficulty here is the sharp contrast he makes between ‘human ecology’ and ‘natural’ ecology. The term ‘human ecology’ includes our relationship to nature. So it seems inappropriate to contrast it with ‘natural ecology’—except when the latter term is wrongly taken in a more restricted sense that fails to include humans in the natural order.[3]

The overall conclusion I come to from a study of the many documents and addresses of Pope John Paul is that he made a very valuable contribution to Catholic social teaching by adopting an integrally humanistic approach. He also made a very notable contribution to the teaching on ecology. Buthe did not move on from a nuanced anthropocentric view to adopt the kind of earth-centred or creation-centred approach which many theologians have now come to recognize as the way forward for Christian theology today.

POPE BENEDICT

It is generally recognized that Pope Benedict is very concerned about environmental issues.He is deeply committed to raising awareness about the urgency of finding solutions to ecological problems and promoting an ecologically respectful lifestyle. However, Benedict’s approach to ecological issues has continued in the anthropocentric line adopted by John Paul.He insists on the inseparable link between natural ecology and ‘human ecology’ (e.g. his Message for the World Day of Peace of 2007, entitled ‘If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation’ and his ‘Address to the Diplomatic Corps’ on January 11, 2010.) In his ‘Message’ for the 2008 ‘Fraternity Campaign’ of the Brazilian bishops,Benedict followed John Paul in insisting that ‘human ecology’ takes priority;[4]and in his Address to ambassadors from six African countries he maintained that ‘human ecology is an imperative’.

Pope Benedict’s second social encyclical Caritas in Veritate is dated June 29, 2009. In this encyclical he insists strongly on our duty to respect the environment, making it clear that this is part of his integral view of authentic human living (see CIV 48 to CIV 51; cf. CIV 67, CIV 69). As he puts it: ‘The book of nature is one and indivisible: it takes in not only the environment but also life, sexuality, marriage, the family, social relations: in a word, integral human development.’ (CIV 51).

Benedict’semphasis on the concept of giftapplies particularly to the environment which he sees as ‘God's gift to everyone’ with its own inbuilt order.He insists that it must not be treated as ‘raw material to be manipulated at our pleasure’ (CIV 48). In a felicitous passage he says that nature ‘is a wondrous work of the Creator containing a “grammar” which sets forth ends and criteria for its wise use, not its reckless exploitation’. It would only be a short step for him to go from this ‘grammar’ of nature to affirming that every part of nature has its own inherent value: but he does not take this final step. Presumably this is because of his fear that this could lead to ‘attitudes of neo-paganism or a new pantheism’. (CIV 48).

Benedict maintains that humans are called to exercise ‘aresponsible stewardship over nature, in order to protect it, to enjoy its fruits and to cultivate it in new ways’. He goes on to point out the need for ‘an effective shift in mentality which can lead to the adoption of ‘new life-styles’ (CIV 50). He also reminds us ‘how many natural resources are squandered by wars’ (CIV 51).