Talk:Catholic social teaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Catholic social teaching has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
August 7, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.


In writing the original article, I tried to follow statements of the last 20 years by the U.S. Catholic Bishops. Here are some items I moved from a recent edit to here for discussion, because they seem somewhat at odds with the tone of these statements:

  • The concept of Christ the King embodies the belief in the unity of Church and State
  • The church does not believe in charging interest on loans
  • In working for the good of the people, the state should realize that the most important good is the good of heaven and work towards that end.

--Erauch 22:05, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Catholic social teaching as tradition

This article on Catholic social teaching is excellent. However, I note at least one major weakness in it. It only really treats official Catholic social teaching, that is the teaching offered by pope and other bishops around the world. It is proper that the official teaching be taken as of central importance in any discussion of Catholic social teaching, but it is also important to realize that Catholic social teaching does not arise in a vacuum. Before there is an official pronouncement by the magisterium (such as in the form of a papal encyclical) there is discussion on both the level of academic and scientific discourse and on the level of Catholic groups interpreting Catholic tradition in their local context.

Johan Verstraeten, a moral theologian of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven and frequent consultant for the bishop's conferences of Belgium and France, argues that, while the pronouncements of popes, councils, and bishops represent the centerpiece of Catholic social teaching, they are not the whole phenomenon. Catholic social teaching is a tradition that includes both the official teaching (from popes, councils, bishops) and the tradition of interpretation surrounding the official teaching. That tradition of interpretation includes both academic theological discourse (what is being discussed/written by Catholic theologians) and how Catholic groups on the ground are wrestling with concrete social issues.

Johan Verstraeten. "Re-Thinking Catholic Social Thought as Tradition." In Catholic Social Thought: Twilight or Renaissance? Ed. J.S. Boswell, F.P. McHugh, and J. Verstraeten. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 2000.

I think this article would be improved if it at least acknowledged the larger tradition of interpretation surrounding the official teaching, instead of just presenting the official teaching as if it came into being in a vacuum. I will toss this out for discussion for the moment, and barring no objections, will implement it into the article in a few days.

--IdahoUD 10:26, Mar 23, 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Neutrality

This article really ought to include a "Criticism" section to discuss criticisms of Catholic social teaching. Some criticisms that should probably be included are those of Catholics who disagree with some aspects of social teaching (e.g. Catholic pro-choice groups, Catholic pro-gay groups), other Christian sects who disagree with some aspects of social teaching (e.g. Protestant denominations such as the United Church of Christ -- in fact, it would be interesting to have an entire article comparing social teaching across Christian sects, but I digress), and non-religious criticisms such as Marxism. --Tetraminoe 06:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

These objections aren't really critism of Catholic social teaching, but of other doctrinal matters. The neutrality objection should be removed. Catholic social teaching has to do with poverty, property, labor rights, etc., unless one makes a very obtuse argument that pro-abortion or pro-gay policies of the Church affect Catholic social teaching directly, this is the wrong place for it. Tracyfennell 08:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess neutrality is not really my concern so much as scope of the article. It would be a much more informative article if it had information about other opinions, so the info about Catholic social teaching is not just out there in a vacuum, but compares and contrasts with others. Is there a template tag for what I'm describing? --Tetraminoe 09:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Catholic social teaching has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. Rather, it has everything to do with economic and environmental justice and compassion. Also, Catholic social teaching merely reinforces the Church's stance on abortion. The Church doctrine condemning abortion is discussed in the "Abortion debate" article. And I disagree that Catholic social teaching is controversial, as several CST principles are the norm in many developed nations. However, it wouldn't hurt to include criticism from a Marxist or libertarian perspective. The article needs more immediate improvement though. Firstly, please explicitly state that Catholic social teaching is an ambiguous, unofficial body of social principles. Secondly, to say that the Church opposes collectivism is misleading; the Church opposes all ideologies that restrict human freedom. 07:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Use of the word social implies society. Homosexuality is an important issue in our contempory society. Since Catholic social teaching does not mention homosexuality this should be noted as a criticism in the article. Alan Liefting 23:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I must reiterate that an article Catholic social teaching MUST include a discussion on social issues and not only economic and environmental justice. Alan Liefting 23:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
That's because, when you think social, you automatically think about abortion and gay rights. That is definitely not the meaning of the word within the phrase Catholic social teaching! 'Social Teaching' means a compilation of directives on socioeconomic thought issued by the Church starting from 1891 meant to counteract Socialist socioeconomic theories, then in vogue among the Catholic intellectuals. Therefore social relates to the organization of society rather than interpersonal relationships. Wtrmute 03:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The social issues should be treated. The question is, at what point does a social issue become one of social teaching versus one of moral teaching. For instance, doctrine treats homosexual behavior in one light but would view discriminatory treatment of homosexuals in another light. Such highly nuanced conversations should perhaps be included in an 'ongoing discussions' section. I think we can agree there are clear statements and clear actions regarding workers' rights, civil rights and religious freedoms. In fact, it would be good to go in-depth into the encyclicals and various movements within the Catholic Church (ie, Catholic Worker, Franciscan, Pro-Life, etc). As far as criticisms, considering the density and complexity of the issues, it would be a more fair treatment of the criticisms to provide a brief synopsis and then link to a full article. 2000 years of Catholic social teaching is weighty, and its criticisms should be given full and independent venue to demonstrate their own weight. Losh14 17:39, 9 March 2006 (CST)
Catholic social teaching deals with labor and economics, so I think even the death penalty stuff doesn't belong here. Otherwise it becomes a blanket term to put anything in it. If there are "controversial" issues, they are related to economics, not politics or society in general. Louie 15:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, homosexuality abortion and the death penalty are primarily moral issues, and discussing them here is futile as the church's opposition is based entirely on moral grounds. Any attempt to justify them on social grounds will make at most half an argument, and will be full of holes which does a disservice to the Church. One theme that could be mentioned here though is premarital sex and contraception as there does exist a valid social responsibility argument for this, and the argument its self is a reasonable vehicle for evalutation other issues. Furthermore it is wholly seperate from the moral arguments against premarital sex and thus could be included without doing the Church's position a disservice. I will write a draft and copy and paste it here in a few hours. Again the argument is a good way to represent the attidude that faithful catholics should take towards all social issues so i think it is reasonably important to include it here. Phil 20686 19:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

In reference to criticsims, i think tetraminoe has a distincly outsiders view of the RCC. Canon 1364 (from the code of canon la that is at all times binding) stipulates that the heretic as well as teh apostate and schismatic incurs excommunicaation 'latae sententiae'. and canon 751 reads: Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be beleived with divine and catholic faith, or it is an obstinate doubt concerning the same'. I got both of these quotes from the Ratzinger report from ignatius publications. therefore groups such as the pro-choice groups, (opposition to abortion being infallibily defined by the ordinary teaching authority of the church) automatically incur excommunication, and cannot be considered a 'group within the church'. Further i think criticisms are misguided, as the cathlic faith cannot be seen except in its entirety, and criticisms that focus on only small sections do it an injustice and promote a reductionist attidue. better to have one line saying that many ppl disagree with the catholic church and put a whole list of links where other groups can put forward their own veiws in totatily. After all, the catholic imagination rejects the picking and choosing of "truths", and encouraging ppl to think that you can be a catholic while holding the marxist veiw on this point and the feminist veiw on this moral matter falsely represnts catholic social teaching and will reflect negatively on the whole article.Phil 20686 14:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

And as regards what belongs here i have put a section on social responsibility down at the bottom of the page, it needs cleaning up and citing before it can be included. But since the catholic teaching is clear that it is a necessary condition for a socially responsible act to be a moral act then things such as abortion and homosexuality where the social teaching rests (and complements) on the moral teaching do not need ot be included in this article explicitly.Phil 20686 14:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I would gently disgree with you, Phil, but perhaps I misunderstand you. Much of Catholic moral theology is clearly outside the scope of this article -- I think we agree on that. But I think we must be careful not to draw the boundaries too tightly. There has been a consistent pattern in the development of the social teachings over the past century or so of recognizing new scope of application of the basic ideas. Pope Leo was dealing specifically with the economic and social effects of basic changes in society and the corresponding moral response of the Church. But with each challenge, new ideas were developed, and their application expanded. The ideas of subsidiarity and social sin were devised to deal with economic issues, but, beginning with Pope John XXIII, began to be applied more widely to issues of international relations and development. More recently, Pope John Paul II made the connection (possibly out of his own experiences in World War II) that it was difficult to discuss human dignity and ignore the basic issue of human life, from a social and political point of view. The death penalty, for example is not just an individual moral issue, but must be considered in relation to social structures. This is why I suggested using the seven-part structure from the USCCB as it better includes where we are now in this still developing area of doctrine.
As far as other social and moral issues are concerned, we have to determine what relevance this has to issues of social and/or economic structures and issues of justice. For example, the moral status of homosexual activity is probably not relevant to this article. But, the issue of improper prejudice against GLBT persons as a violation of basic human dignity and the social structures involved could very well be relevant. Abortion, which includes serious social issues, might be even more relevant. Of course, one article doesn't include everything -- this is an encyclopedia, not an textbook, after all. You can always create another article and link to it.
As far as criticisms of the social teachings, or comparisons to other traditions, fine. But detailed expostion of those other traditions implies the need to first develop good articles on those specific topics or traditions. There is no shortage -- consider the Anabaptist tradition and Stanley Hauerwas for example. There's a lot of fertile territory there.
In regard to this article, while topics such as the "seamless garment" and just war involve aspects of the social teachings, it is more appropriate to set out their place in relation to the rest of the social teachings, and deal with them, as we have, in other articles. If that is what you meant, then forgive me, I tend to get pedantic about these things. --ClaudeMuncey 16:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


I think you are perhaps right about the death penalty, because its rightness or wrongness as a way of dealing with offenders rests primarily on the alternatives. I have done some further reading on it and i think you are right that it could well be considered more as a social issue than a moral one. I will elaborate on the death penalty section. Similarly, the Just war is I think a social teaching, and is generally seen as a lesser of two evils approach. I dont know much about the Just war theology/philosophy. I think that you are right that abortion is a socially important issue. But I maintain that the CHurch's opposition to it does not rest on the social aspects. That is the CHurch opposes abortion because it is seen to be the unjust killing of an innocent. Any social teaching cannont make it "more bad" as it were. Because of this I do not think that it should be included here. In short, It is a social issue, but a moral teaching, and does not belong in the social teaching section. Similarly, unjust predujice is a social issue, but a moral teaching. The moral teaching is "Hate the sin but love the sinner" and to uphold the dignity of LGBT persons however immoral or misguided we perceive their life choices to be. Since these issues are so closely linked (the redudice normally stemming from a misunderstanding of the moral teaching on homosexuality) it should be treated as an adjoint to the section discussing the Catholic moral teaching on homosexuality. Homosexuality belongs with catholic moral teaching. Or perhaps Catholic sexual ethics needs its own page, as it is itself a rich and varied subject. With regards to the reorganisation, it does have some merit, but it ignores the directives that tie them together. They give you the elements of the teaching without the fundamental teachings from with they stem. Particularly the attitude that there is One Truth and One Faith and consequently on CST issues there is a right answer. We have to make it clear that CST is in service to the wider Truth, and never violates it. I have tried to address some of these problems at the bottom of the page, but its still needs much work. Phil 20686 17:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs better citation style

With all due respect, this article is a truly pedestrian treatment of Catholic social teaching. It needs to be entirely revamped. Church teachings here are caricatured and not represented accurately.

To include a criticisms section would stack the deck against the Church teachings, simply because they aren't accurately articulated in the article.

Somebody should read the recently released Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church--which is itself a summary of Catholic social teaching--and then summarize.

And, for Heaven's sake, CITE something! This article doesn't have citations to Church documents; it merely states the Chruch teachings as if they were soundbytes rather than serious contributions to theology and political philosophy.

By the way, there's quite a difference, as far as Catholic theology is concerned, between citing a Vatican official talking to the media, or even a Pope's statement about the latest headlines, on the one hand, and carefully crafted Church documents on the other. And even then there are differing gradations of the "binding" nature of such statements. So you have to be careful about what you advance as official Catholic teaching! --Hyphen5 09:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I see your point. I changed the banner to state that this article mostly needs a better referencing style. I agree. Louie 16:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restored Article

I restored the article from a bad redirect. The topic deserves its own article, even if the article needs work. The redirect to the Roman Catholic Church article attempted to point to section "Social teaching" which does not exist. I will do some work here. Others should too. Don't just redirect.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 13:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: You can find some follow-up discussion regarding this matter on my user talk page at User talk:Guðsþegn#Catholic social teaching.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 16:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capital Punishment

I do not think it is correct to list capital punishment within the list of things he church condemns. capital punishment is allowed under very narrow circumstances and is strongly discouraged. however unlike abortion and euthanasia it is not considered a sin that immediately causes excommunication. There is still a great deal of debate about this issue in theological cycles although certainly during the reign of the last pope the anti-capital punishment side has gained significant ground. It is not however impossible for there to be a partial reversal as most of the arguments are based on the current condition of our society not on the morality of capital punishment itself.

I think the term strongly discourages would be more appropriate for capital punishment.

Barring no objections I plan to reword this sometime this week. --chistofishman 17:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that merely changing it to "strongly discourages" would really convey the fullest meaning. Inclusion of a paragraph or at least a few sentences discussing it would be a better idea. A good summary can be found in no. 56 of Evangelium Vitae:
"It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent."
John Paul IS condemning the death penalty--but within the specific context of today. That does make it at least somewhat different than is the case with abortion and euthanasia, but still falls very directly within the realm of "condemned." --IdahoUD 17:24, 12 May 2006

[edit] section on discent

It seems reasonable to add a section on contraception a hotly debated social teaching of the catholic church. It is a social teaching in as much as it is viewed to complement the respect of human life.

There probably should be a section on decent: explaining what is allowed vs not allowed to Catholics. There are certainly people and organizations out there that CLAIM to be catholic but who , by the definition of the official church , are not.

Anyone who has ever been involved in procuring an abortion would be one example.


--chistofishman 18:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for reorganization

I've been looking the page over for a while and, in the spirit of the Catholicism WikiProject I have some proposals to put forward before starting the chain saw.

The History section needs to be beefed up considerably. At the minimum, each of the primary papal or conciliar documents listed at the end should briefly be placed in perspective. It's not just dates, it should be a historical narrative of devopment of doctrine from Rerum Novarum forward. And one should include in the lists those documents of Vatican II that are relevant such as Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes.

The Fundamental Prinicples section should be restructured -- I would suggest for your consideration the simpler Seven Key Themes of Catholic Social Teaching (http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/projects/socialteaching/excerpt.htm) presented by the US Bishops in 1999. The themes:

  • Life and Dignity of the Human Person
  • Call to Family, Community, and Participation
  • Rights and Responsibilities
  • Option for the Poor and Vulnerable
  • The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers
  • Solidarity
  • Care for God's Creation

I happen to like the materials cited from the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis (great site) But this scheme is simpler, stonger in many ways, and pulls in the full range of issues that are now seen as essential in considering social concerns from a Catholic perspective. Also it would simplify references -- more references are not necessarily better.

There should be some separate brief discussion of some key additional topics, such as just war doctrine, and the idea of social sin or structures of sin. I think the free speech discussion is a bit peripheral to the core of this article and should be moved or trimmed. Also, a section listing or discussing some of the key figures involved with the social teachings such as Dorothy Day, Bernadin, or Romero would be useful. Also a separate list at the bottom of important non-papal or conciliar documents would be helpful as well.

Reactions?

ClaudeMuncey 21:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I like your proposal a lot. I would be happy to help if you want to "assign" a section for me to tackle. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I too liked this so much that I went ahead with a renaming of the section and reorganized it according to the USCCB publication. I'm not nearly done with it, but I offer it as a start. --Briancua 17:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free Speech

I have parked the following text from the article here until we can decide precisely what to do with it

ClaudeMuncey 04:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the church does not support absolute freedom of speech. On 4 February 2006, in response to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, the Vatican released a statement saying, "The right to freedom of thought and expression ... cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers."[1] This is consistent with the New Catholic Dictionary's entry for freedom of speech and press, a portion of which states: "There is no inherent right in the individual to voice his thought in public speech or in writing. When a man becomes articulate he must answer to the State and, if he be a Catholic, to the Church. . . . Speech and writing must first of all correspond to the truth; and after that they must be governed by justice and charity...Both Church and State have a right to censor the speech and the writings of their subjects. This right, however, should be exercised with great care. Censorship may lead to spreading information in ways doing more harm than would the open discussion of such facts; and the suppression of open discussion may lead to underground discontent resulting in ultimate revolt. Particularly in the political field, where there is usually room for difference of opinion, freedom of speech and of the press is likely to act as a safety valve, and be the lesser of two evils. Progress frequently comes from the clash of opinions. Governments, civil and ecclesiastical, may wisely adopt something of God's tolerance. "[2]

[edit] Christian Democracy Box

I think the Christian Democracy box is a bit out of place here, plus it makes for an awkward layout of the page. Can we somehow keep the major documents and figures sections, but cut the links to the European people's party, etc? --Briancua 20:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had the same feeling about that box. On the one hand, the folks from that project appear to have been the primary supporters of this page for while, but I think it is a bit much. On the other hand, some discussion of the European Christian Democracy movement is necessary for the History section of this article.--ClaudeMuncey 15:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Christian Democracy box is back. The problem is that we do need some more material in that regard, as it is an important dimension of CST from the European perspective -- and the person who added it back claims to be a professor of this sort of thing. I will post a question on that person's talk page proposing a switch of the box for a beefed up section on CD as opposed to simply a link. --ClaudeMuncey 13:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing text with citation Requests

Some time soon (at least 24 hours, could be more) I'm going to remove the following bits of text as they have no citations:

  • It is theoretically moral and just for its members to destroy property used in an evil way by others, or for the state to redistribute wealth from those who have unjustly hoarded it.
  • For example, the Church has habitually insisted that loans be forgiven during many occasions (during jubilee years.)
  • Unjust systems or structures, such as the current world trade system, are the focus of CST; charity to individuals or groups must be accompanied by transforming unjust structures.

JASpencer 20:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd wait a few days first. A number of us are working on it with the CCE. If they are still there after its over, then I'd say its probably fair to remove them. Someone might find a source in the meantime. --Briancua 21:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Socially responsible behaviour

I think that this article needs a section on how the Catholic Church evaluates socially responsible behaviour, because this is a very loose term if not properly defined. I'm setting out a draft section for the article here, but i expect it will be need to be heavily cited and rewritten.

When evaluating an act as socially responsible or not, you must consider both the effect it will have on those personally involved and on society at large. One must also consider whether one is giving scandal. It should be noted that an individual is responsible for all their actions, and will be called to account for it on the Last Day. As such one must be responsible for the state of one's faith, including a due knowledge of it. Anyone in this day and age who maintains a willful ignorance will be called to account for it. As God the Father said: "This is my Son, my Beloved. Listen to Him." (From several of the Gospels. From the Acts "Not many of us should become teachers....those who do will be called to stricter account" Here the teaching is clear that whenever one professes knowledge of moral matters, they will be called to account for its accuracy. And again in the letters of St Paul to the Galatians: "7 ...Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!  
9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!  
10 Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ."

I do not think that in the modern world the importance of this teaching can be over emphasised. There is a tendancy, especially in the West, to think that we have the right to make up our own minds about moral issues, and to thinkt hat every point of veiw is equally valid and meritous. The Catholic imaginations rejects this view: "As there is One Lord...so there is to be One faith" (Ephesians), and consequently in every moral matter a right answer. This informs the whole view of such establishments as the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF). To an outsider they are "dogmatic" but to the cathlic imagination they are performing a labour of Love in service to those whome they correct. To theoutsider the are opposing, "innovation" and "progress", but to the Cathlic they are rejecting old falsehoods that are resurfacing under new guises. To the catholic, progrees goes in one direction only, towards perfection, and all other roads are not "progress" but false paths and snares. In the Catholic Imagination it is important to correct persons who step away from the established truths (dogmas) precisely because they stand in peril of Eternal damnation". A catholic must at all times practice the obediance of Faith, because we are not all equipped to understand the why, but we must, like the apostles, "Listen to Him".

Firstly; All socially responsible acts are moral acts. That is, it is never permissible to do evil in the service of good (the means do not justify the ends). (This teaching can be cited from CCC, ill look it up later). Secondly; Socially responsible acts must not have a negative effect on the community, materially or spiritually. (im pretty sure it is easy to find citations for this, eitehr in council documents or CCC ill find one later) Thirdly; An action is socially irresponsible if it makes it more difficult for other members of the community to live in a socially responsible (and hence moral) manner.

Examples of the second condition, It is not socially responsible to schedule to deliver a baby by ceasaerian for non-medical reasons because it costs the state money, and that money could be better spent elsewhere. (at least in countries where there is an NHS, obviously if you have private healthcare then it is a wholly different matter). It is not socially responsible to stay silent on moral issues because you know that the cathlic viewpoint will be treated with derision by freinds/family/collleagues, because it has (by omission) a negative effect on their spiritualy health by not challenging them with the Truth of Christ. The third condition relates mainly to what is known as "Giving scandal", If for example, your friends assume you are sleeping with your girlfriend when you are not, then you are making it more difficult for other catholics to not sleep with their girlfriends, because mutual friends will say "x is a cathlic and he sleeps with his girlfriend". In essence giving scandal is allowing others to beleive a false state of affairs. You might distill the teaching essence as such: It is not enough to live a good and holy life, if you live it in such a manner that others ill think that you are questioning, or do not beleive, certain aspects of the cathlic faith. Particularly if you are likely to be held up as a role model to aspiring christians or persons looking to convert.

I realise that this article might not be NPOV, infact im certain that it is not, but it is a cathlic point of view, fully in accordance with the directives of the CDF. If this article seeks to authentically represent the catholic viewpoint then it must include sections liek this that authentically express the catholic view of the issue. Phil 20686 14:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamentals of Catholic Social Teaching

I have hear rewritten the first part of this and significantly better cited it, I am calling this section the fundamentals of CST bcause these are, i beleive, those elements of doctrine that are essential to any real understanding of CST as a coherent whole

The fundamentals of Socially Responsible Behaviour Any understanding of SRB, is built on an understanding of basic catholic teaching, here we illuminate those aspects that are most pertinent. It should be noted that the fundamentals of CST can be found in CCC articles 1878 – 1942.

I had meant to make the number of edits you see in my sandbox, I slipped up and made them on the actual page itself. My appologies. In anycase, talk of heresy and excommunication is really beyond the scope of this article and as a result I have removed a lot of it, though I did incorporate some into the intro. Theres actually a good bit in Deus Caritas Est that could be included History section. I'll try to work on it, but if someone else beats me to it I won't be upset. --Briancua 19:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that we are now in the same state we were before. There is no attempt to set out CST as a coherent whole. Indeed teh whole article now appears to make it rather arbitary. With the part in the intro about how a fundamental part of it is its criticisms of .... and that it has criticised all forms of government making it appear as if CST is confused and arbitary. We need a format that makes it clear that there is One strategy behind CST, and that it all goes in one direction. I think you are right about the fact that i had written too much, but we need sections on the areas i set out, and the part on excommunicaion/deissenters is very important vis-a-vis "opposition within the church" as it makes it clear that (vocal) opposition on some topics is absolutely not tolerated.Phil 20686 13:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just replaced the section below with the cited section that was in the article, incase we want to use bits of it again.Phil 20686 13:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


- CCC is the Cathecism of the Catholic Church. -

[edit] Truth

- - Catholics believe fundamentally in the existence of Truth. Christ is “The Light and the Life, the Way and the Truth”. There are some Truths that can be reached through human reason, but others that can only be revealed by God. In the Catholic Imagination, Truth is an objective thing, we must uncover it, and interpret it (with the help of the Holy Spirit) not create it or adapt it. It is helpful here to recall Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter 4 - - 6 “There is One Lord, One Faith”. - 11-16 "And to some, his gift was that they should be apostles, to some, pastors and teachers; to knit God’s people together for the work of service to build up the Body of Christ, until we reach unity in faith and knowledge of the Son of God and form the perfect Man, fully mature with the fullness of Christ himself. - Then we shall no longer be children, or tossed one way and another, and carried hither and thither by every new gust of teaching, at the mercy of all the tricks that people play, and their unscrupulousness in deliberate deception. If we live by the truth and in love, we shall grow completely into Christ, who is the head by whom the whole body is fitted and joined together, every joint adding its own strength, for each individual part to work according to its function.” - - It is clear in this passage, that we are called, as a body, to live one faith, that there is one Ideal, that we are to conform ourselves to becoming the perfect man. Not a, but the. It is on this basis, that the Church can safely reject the pluralism of the Modern Man. In a truly Catholic Imagination, the moral law was established by God [3], and we are to uncover it not create it or adapt it. In the passage above it is also clear that St Paul did not consider that the truth had at that time been fully revealed (“Then…”), and this is a great Truth. As in CCC 310 “with infinite goodness and wisdom God freely willed to create a world ‘in a state of journeying’ towards its ultimate perfection.” Thus we are taking part in the continuing revelation of Truth, and reject the sola scripture position of Protestants, which regards revelation as essentially finished. To the Catholic Imagination, Catholic Social Teaching is not a matter of opinion, but should be regarded as part of the ongoing revelation of Truth by God through the ministry of His Church[4]. -

[edit] Personal Responsibility

- - - CCC 1868: “Sin is a personal Act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others, when we cooperate in them: - *By participating directly and voluntarily in them; - *By ordering, advising, praising, or approving them; - *By not disclosing, or not hindering them, when we have an obligation to do so; - *By protecting evil-doers” - - Understanding this article is key to understanding CST, because sin is a personal act, an offence against God, we have a personal responsibility to avoid it, and to help others avoid it. Moreover, we will personally be called to account for all our actions on the last day [5]. It is the second point that is most pertinent here, for as St Paul says in Galatians 1:8 “even if we ourselves, or an angel from heaven preaches to you a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let God’s curse be upon him.” Also James 3:1 is pertinent, “Only a few of you, my brothers, should be teachers, bearing in mind that we shall receive a stricter judgement”. We are personally responsible for each and every word that comes out of our mouth, and in the Catholic Imagination, all who profess an opinion will be called to account for its accuracy. -

[edit] The Obedience of Faith

- - In the Catholic Imagination, this is Man’s first weapon in the war against sin. It is given to very few to have a full understanding of Gods Word. To fully studying even a single book of the bible is the work of a lifetime, but where we do not understand, we must obey. CCC 144 “To obey in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, because its Truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself.” Here one can come to an insider’s understanding of Dogma. Dogmas are those truths that the Catholic Church has, through God’s revelation to his apostles past and present, established as Truths[6]. We are called to adhere to them and accept them as such in faith and obedience. Catholics consider themselves bound by the command of God the Father to the apostles in Mk 9:7 "This is my son, my beloved. Listen to Him." - - Here it is useful to quote canon law as regards dissenters: - - Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.” - Canon 1364 stipulates that the heretic as well as the apostate and schismatic incurs excommunication latae sententiae. (That is, it incurs excommunication by mere fact of existence, and without a specific and public excommunication by the Church authorities). - - Thus groups such as “pro-choice” Catholics are in fact excommunicated automatically by their obstinate refusal to believe with faith the veracity of documents such as Humane Vitae, which, even when not specifically ex cathedra (papally infallible) statements, carry with them the ordinary infallibility of the Magisterum[7]. Thus we come at last to an understanding of groups such as the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, (CDF), whose duty it is to maintain the purity of the faith. To an outsider it may appear to be opposing “progress” and “free thought” but to the Catholic Imagination we understand that the CDF is a labour of love, protecting teachers and theologians from erroneous thoughts and heresies, which put their souls at risk of eternal damnations (cf James 3:1 above)[8]. As Catholics we understand that progress must go in one direction only, towards God, and what is “new” is not necessarily better, so we move forward in continuity with the past, recognising always those Truths that have been established and handed down to us as an inviolate part of God’s revelation to mankind[9].

Phil, as before, I think you have brought up good points, things that I largely agree with, but I think there are some issues, largely editorial but in some cases theological,to consider with your most recent additions. The question, in my opinion, is the specific extent or length of your additions and their relevance to this as an encyclopedia article
First off, I agree that we need more material right at the top of this article, perhaps in the opening paragraph, defining the social teachings and putting them into the larger frame of Catholic thought. We do need more than one sentence and I think there may be some material for that in your most recent posts.
As I read your additions, I see you setting out the nature of truth as the Church presents it, the responsibility of the Catholic Christian in regard to the truth as taught, and your evaluation of whether or not some adherents to CST are properly fulfilling that responsibility. (BTW, I happen to agree with your evaluation). But I think there is a problem of specific relevance here. This is an encylopedia article about CST -- to work well it must, much like a good news story, cut right to the chase -- what is CST, what is the content of these teachings, where did they come from. I fear that your addition, placed where it is, may get in the way of that. One good and relevant place for a briefer discussion of this issue is in the historical section when discussing John Paul II and his contributions to CST. In specific, Veritatis Splendor and Evangelium Vitae are the critical documents, in CST, for making the connection that you are pointing out. It is also why I wanted to use the USCCB framework as opposed to some older, more detailed ones that largely look to earlier, and less well integrated, views of CST. All in my opinion, of course.
Also, another relevance issues is that you are centering the discussion on the responsiblity of the individual believer towards revealed Catholic teachings -- this is specifically visible, at least to me, in the contrasting of the Catholic against the Protestant view on some issues. The problem is that CST is rooted more in the natural law tradtion of Catholic morality and teaching. Since Pacem in Terris, almost all of the key documents have been addressed not only to bishops, or Catholics, or even Christians. The target for these documents have explicitly been all persons of good will. The Church asserts that these are ideas accessible to anyone, no matter what their background, who are willing to consider them in an honest search for the truth. (That is why, repeatedly, CST has been presented as a foundation of evangelistm -- it is often where the Church can start the discussion with a culture.) It is also why it is licit to work in cooperation with non-Catholic, and for that matter, non-Christian groups in promoting the proper ends of CST, with certain limitations that we both understand. (For example, I would have a hard time thinking of the circumstances that would have the Church making common cause with an abortion clinic. I'm not saying it could not happen, but I can't think of how at this point.)
To wrap up, I do not think I have a problem with your addtions theologically, in general, But I would encourage you, Phil, to consider editing and restructuring your additions in line with what is most relevant to the discussion of CST, and what would promote good article structure. --ClaudeMuncey 16:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand you point, but i think that the earlier version of the article, (ie without the addidtion i put in) did not sufficiently contain the attitude of the RCC towards social teaching. You are correct that all the documents are addressed to "all men of good will", but it is still the personal responsibility fo said persons to carry them out. any areticle that doesnt make this clear isnt really describing catholic social teaching but is only setting out the social teachings that happen to coincie with the catholic view. This is a rather clumsy way of trying to draw the distinction but im sure you get my point. I am going to add a fourth fundamentals section on SRB based on the above bit. I realise that I am contributing a lot with out enough discussion here, but this only stays as the collaborative page for another few days, and I would like to make sure this page covers all the essentials even if my contibutions may well be overly detailed. I understand your objection about being rooted in the natural law, but i think you mistake the place of natural law. Natural Law is that Truth established by God in the moment of creation, as an integral part of creation. In the catholic imagination, it is still fundamentally truth, which is why i think a section on truth is merited, PR i mentioned above, as it being the individuals responsibilit to carry out CST rather than to wait for their country to make it law etc. As in we are called to Live CST, its not just one opinion among many on how best to run the world. And a section on obediance is merited because it underpins the whole catholic world view, that we are to obey god's teaching simply because He is God.
Basically i think all the sections are merited becuase ot their essential relevance to CST, because they describe the attitude with which the RCC veiws itself in relation to its adherents, and the attitude catholics beleive they should take with regard to CST. But i accept that I may have been over zealous, however i do have a more rather than less attitude to wiki, as its much easier to cut down than to expand. I think that the fundamentals may well in fact be the most important section, as it makes it easy to see that all the CST flows from a single coherent source, and that it truly is the application of individual morality to groups as it were, without in any way comprimising the individuality of faith. ONe might draw a comparison with athism and how it tried to stamp "togetherness" from the top down, where as in CST it comes from the botton up. Im sorry i wrote this in a hurry and its a little confused, but i thought i should make an attempt to justify the section i wrote. Phil 20686 18:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] non-pope contributions

There have been a number of important figures in CST such as Oscar Romero, Dorthy Day and Jospeh Bernadin. I included them in the key figures box, but the history section includes nothing about them. They should at least be mentioned. Not all of CST comes from Rome. --Briancua 04:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Romero, would Liberation theology come under this article's purview, or not so much, since Pope Benedict opposed it?--SarekOfVulcan 05:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
No, liberation theology is social teaching that was created by a group of catholics, but unless sactioned/promoted by Rome in official documents it cannot be said to be Catholic Social Teaching. Furthermore, it contains (at least some) errors that have been directly repudated by the Magisterum.
First off, sign your work -- it's just polite and it is the accepted practice on talk pages. Just enter 
--~~~~
and MediaWiki takes care of the rest. It is hard for us to take anonymous opinions seriously in this kind of project.
And concerning non-papal documents, I would suggest considering what the roles of both the ordinary magisterium and universal ordinary magisterium are in this kind of situation. A document issued by, for example, a national bishop's council, would not be considered to be universally binding on the consciences of the faithful, but it would be considered authoritative for the formation of conscience in that jurisdiction and probably useful other places as well. In the case of "liberation theology" one needs to make the careful distinction between the writings of some theologians who clearly tried to combine Marxism and Christianity in an illegitimate way and other materials. Much of these other materials, often produced by bishops conferences, are clearly acceptable (and the "Instruction" on this issue acknowledges that). Some of these documents have been very influential, both in Rome and elsewhere, and deserve discussion in regard to such an issue. --ClaudeMuncey 22:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latin Translation

I provided a translation for Gaudium et Spes, which, as written, does mean Joy and Hope. If somebody wants to refine the definitions, be my guest. I figured since the one above it had been translated, it might as well also.►——mdesrosii◄ 02:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is Catholic social teaching exclusively 20th century?

This article only traces Catholic social teaching back to 1891. Are there no ancient, medieval, or early modern precursors of Catholic social thought, or was it entirely invented by Pope Leo XIII? --Hyphen5 21:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course there have been precursors to CST, as the article briefly (and perhaps inadequately) suggests at the start of the History section. But CST developed as the Church's reaction to specific challenges created by the rise of nationalism and the industrial revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries. The underlying teaching concerning the nature of justice and the values of the Gospel have not changed at all, but a new application of them was formulated to deal with a new situation. ClaudeMuncey 00:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] where does "Subsidiarity" fit in?

This is not a minor concept 70.22.67.251 (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned under #Call to family, community, and participation, where it fits in quite nicely IMO. It is also wikilinked there to its main article. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Subsidarity is a very important part of CST and should be mentioned better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.248.192 (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The section on CST in its own article is actually quite good. Perhaps copying some of it over would appeal to you? My one suggestion would be to reword the reference to "human person", as that phrase is a little jargony. Otherwisehave a go. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV issues

I've just looked at two brief sections, and felt strongly compelled to tag this article as having NPOV issues. First example The foundational principle of all Catholic Social Teaching is the sanctity of human life and the inherent dignity of the human person from conception through natural death. Human life must be valued infinitely above material possessions. Wikipedia should not be telling its audience what they must value, and the phrasing if the first sentence seems to imply, as a fact, that 1 minute old zygotes have personhood. Second example is Through our words, prayers and deeds we must show solidarity with, and compassion for, the poor. When instituting public policy we must always keep the "preferential option for the poor" at the forefront of our minds. Wikipedia again should not be saying what our audience must do, and we shouldn't be using the second person. From the looks of it, the article needs to be overhauled to be written from a neutral point of view.-Andrew c [talk] 22:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the title of this article is "Catholic Social Teaching". The content referenced above by Andrew C is the report of cited facts of Catholic Social Teaching and is therefore NPOV. If certain parts of the content can be shown to be contrary to Catholic Social Teaching, i.e., to be in fact not part of it, then those parts should be deleted or reworded, otherwise, they properly serve the purpose of this article. Wikipedia is only representing that the content of this article provides information regarding its title. The NPOV tag should be removed Roesser (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree in principle with Roesser here, but without question the kinds of edits Andrew just made improve the article greatly, making the NPOV unambiguous. I fully support those efforts (only keeping in mind not to preface every sentence with "Catholics believe...") Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)