Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

What is Social Justice? (Part Two)

What is Social Justice? (Part Two) | J. J. Ziegler | Catholic World Report

The teachings of Vatican II, Paul VI, John Paul II, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church

“Social justice,” a term coined by the Italian Jesuit Father Luigi Taparelli D’Azeglio (1793-1862), appeared in an 1894 curial document and a 1904 encyclical. Later, Pope Pius XI (1922-39) made it part and parcel of Catholic social doctrine.

In perhaps the most succinct description of the virtue, Pope Pius wrote in 1937 that “it is [the essence] of social justice to demand from individuals everything that is necessary for the common good.” Venerable Pius XII (1939-58) and Blessed John XXIII (1958-63) made Pope Pius XI’s teaching their own as they urged Catholics to cultivate the virtue of social justice. The former wrote in 1952 that society “ought to be renewed according to principles of charity and social justice,” while the latter prayed in 1960 that Christians might “offer to fellow citizens examples of all virtues, in the first place social justice and charity.”

The three decades following John XXIII’s death witnessed further developments in Catholic teaching on social justice. In 1992, Catholic doctrine on social justice was set forth with particular authority when Blessed John Paul II promulgated the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Vatican II

The term “social justice” appeared three times in the documents of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (1962-65). In Nostra Aetate (1965), the Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions, the Council Fathers exhorted Christians and Muslims to “preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom” (no. 3).

Six weeks later, in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes), the Council Fathers observed that “excessive economic and social differences between the members of the one human family or population groups cause scandal and militate against social justice, equity, the dignity of the human person, as well as social and international peace” (no. 29). The Council Fathers called for the creation of an “organism of the universal Church” whose role would be “to stimulate the Catholic community to promote progress in needy regions and international social justice”—in the original Latin, “social justice among nations.” Venerable Paul VI established that organism, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, in 1967.

The three conciliar references to social justice use the term in the context of “all mankind,” the “one human family,” and “among nations.”

Continue reading on the CWR site.

The Rise, Fall and Future of Catholicism in the U.S.

The Rise, Fall and Future of Catholicism in the U.S. | CWR Staff

An interview with Russell Shaw, author of American Church.

Author and journalist Russell Shaw has written over twenty books, including To Hunt, To Shoot, To Entertain: Clericalism and the Catholic Laity and Nothing to Hide: Secrecy, Communication, and Communion in the Catholic Church. For 18 years, Shaw directed media relations for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the United States Catholic Conference. From 1987 to 1997 he oversaw media relations for the Knights of Columbus. Since resigning from that position, he has worked full time as a freelance writer. His most recent book, American Church: The Remarkable Rise, Meteoric Fall, and Uncertain Future of Catholicism in America (Ignatius Press, 2013), has been widely praised as an incisive examination of the recent history of the Catholic Church in the United States. “If you want to understand the Church in the United States and the challenges she now faces,” states Abp. Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., Archbishop of Philadelphia, “American Church should be on the short list of books you need to read.” Shaw recently answered some questions from CWR about his book and the past, present, and future of Catholicism in the United States.

CWR: How and why was James Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore such a key figure in the story of the Catholic Church in the U.S.?

Shaw: Cardinal Gibbons was Archbishop of Baltimore from 1877 until his death in 1921. That's 44 crucial years in American Catholic history during which he was the leader of the American hierarchy, recognized as such by Rome and by his episcopal colleagues. He also was leader of the Americanizing bishops—the members of the hierarchy who advocated rapid and total integration of immigrant Catholics into American culture.

The group included some who were more flamboyant, like Archbishop John Ireland of Saint Paul, and others who were more intellectual, like Bishop John Lancaster Spalding of Peoria, but the patient, prudent, diplomatic Gibbons was the most effective of them all, trusted by the Holy See and widely respected at home. By the time of his death, he was one of the most admired public figures in the country, and his policy of Americanization was the policy of the Church in the United States. I have no hesitation saying his impact on American Catholicism was greater than that of any bishop before or since..

CWR: You describe Orestes Brownson as "the most distinguished (and very nearly only) American Catholic public intellectual of his day." How did Brownson's view of the relationship between Catholicism and the American experiment change or develop? How accurate were his mostly negative assessment of that relationship?

Continue reading on the CWR site.

The Catholic Church in Africa: Vibrant, Young, and Resilient

The Catholic Church in Africa: Vibrant, Young, and Resilient | William L. Patenaude | CWR

An interview with Allen Ottaro, national coordinator for MAGiS Kenya

Allen Ottaro, 28, lives in Nairobi, Kenya. A parishioner at St. Paul’s Catholic University Chapel in the Archdiocese of Nairobi, he studied Environmental Planning and Management at Kenyatta University. Mr. Ottaro is the national coordinator of MAGiS Kenya, an Ignatian young adult ministry, and has worked with the African Jesuit AIDS Network. He is also a cofounder of the Catholic Youth Network for Environmental Sustainability in Africa. Mr. Ottaro has attended the past three World Youth Days and looks forward to July’s event in Brazil. He recently spoke with William L. Patenaude for CWR about the Catholic Church in Africa, especially the role of faith in the lives of the continent’s young people.

CWR: After Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation and during the conclave, many in the mainstream media and within the Church hoped for an African pope. How did the election of Pope Francis of Argentina speak to the Church in Africa?

Ottaro: Many people in Africa share similar realities as those in Argentina. The Church in Africa was praying together with the Universal Church for the cardinals as they listened to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And together with the Universal Church, Africans are rejoicing and giving thanks to the Lord for Pope Francis. The images of (then) Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio washing and kissing the feet of those living with HIV and AIDS in his Archdiocese of Buenos Aires and his commitment to the poor, to peace, and to the protection of creation is already making a very strong impression about our own responsibilities as people of faith.

CWR: In general, tell us about the Church in Africa—its strengths and challenges—including how its role varies throughout the continent.

Continue reading on the CWR site.

What Are Catholics To Do? (Part II)

What Are Catholics To Do? (Part II) | James Kalb | Catholic World Report

In the absence of agreement with the rest of society on human nature and the good life, Catholics must remain a sign of contradiction.

Last month I noted that Catholics need settings in which they can lead a Catholic life among Catholics. For most of us, loving God and living as Christians take schooling and support, which we aren’t going to get from the world at large. That may be one reason the Apostle Paul’s letters focus more on the practical internal life of Christian communities than on evangelism. The ultimate ideal may be the New Jerusalem, in which the distinction between the Church and the World disappears, but we’re not likely to get there any time soon.

Still, those who object to “fortress” or “ghetto” Catholicism have a point. Something of an inward focus may be necessary, because today’s world is so much at odds with the Faith, and we Catholics are not already everything we should be. It should not be exaggerated, however. Christ told his followers to go out and teach all nations, and love of neighbor means engagement with the world both individually and socially.

But how do we engage the world socially when Caesar—and the media—are ever more powerful and anti-Catholic? During the Christian centuries, when social leaders accepted Catholic Christianity as the norm, it was natural for them to recognize the authority of the Church regarding matters on which she has special competence. It was no odder for the king to accept Church authority on faith and morals than it is today for a government to accept the authority of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or defer to the National Academy of Sciences on an engineering question.

Those days are past, and it is less obvious today how the Church can play an effective social and political role. People mostly aren’t Catholic, and social leaders are less so than most. Vatican II, while reaffirming traditional doctrine on the duty of men and societies toward the Church and the true religion, recognized that reality. Ever since, Catholics have been trying to find practical ways to cooperate in building a better social order in a setting that does not accept Catholic doctrine as authoritative.

Cooperative efforts require common ground, and the more complex and comprehensive the effort the more common ground is needed. In the absence of agreement on the most fundamental issues, Catholics have tried to base their cooperation with the extremely complex and comprehensive activities of the modern state and other secular actors on natural law.

Natural law can be developed philosophically in various ways.

Continue reading on the CWR site.

What Is Social Justice?

What Is Social Justice? | J. J. Ziegler | Catholic World Report

From Taparelli to John XXIII

(Part One of a three-part series)

Few terms have become as unmoored from their Catholic origins, and have thus lent themselves to misunderstanding in contemporary discourse, as has the term “social justice.” What does the term mean when it appears in papal documents—particularly when it appeared in the formative years of Catholic social teaching?

It is an important question, because all of the Christian faithful, according to the Code of Canon Law, are “obliged to promote social justice and, mindful of the precept of the Lord, to assist the poor from their own resources” (Code of Canon Law 222 §2; Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches 25 §2). Pastors of parishes are obliged “to foster works through which the spirit of the Gospel is promoted, even in what pertains to social justice” (Code of Canon Law 528 §1). It is also “desirable that the Catholic faithful undertake any project in which they could cooperate with other Christians, not alone but together, such as works for charity and social justice” (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches 908).

In his Church, State, and Society: An Introduction to Catholic Social Doctrine (Catholic University of America Press, 2011), J. Brian Benestad of the University of Scranton notes that “a Jesuit philosopher by the name of Luigi Taparelli D’Azeglio was the first to use the concept of social justice in his major work, Saggio teoretico di diritto.” Father Taparelli (1793-1862) served as rector of the Roman College and helped found La CiviltÀ Cattolica, the Italian Jesuit periodical.

“For Taparelli, social justice is not a metaphor, nor the extension of virtue language to anthropomorphized collectives,” Thomas C. Behr of the University of Houston said in a paper delivered in 2003 at the annual conference of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas. According to Behr, Taparelli held that social justice is distinct from both commutative justice (defined by the late Father John Hardon as “the virtue that regulates those actions which involve the rights between one individual and another individual”) and distributive justice (defined as “the virtue that regulates those actions which involve the rights that an individual may claim from society”).

Continue reading on the CWR site.

The American Republic: The Vision and the Transformations

The American Republic: The Vision and the Transformations | Anne Hendershott | Catholic World Report

A review of The Transformation of the American Democratic Republic by Stephen M. Krason.

From the earliest years of the fledgling American Democratic Republic, there was great uncertainly about the limits of the authority of Congress.  While the federal government was considered to have limited and enumerated powers, even in these early years, there were concerns that the authority of the federal government would grow.  On September 22, 1832, John Marshall, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, confided to a colleague: “I yield slowly and reluctantly to the conviction that our constitution cannot last.”  Having written the unanimous decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) overturning an act of Congress as “unconstitutional” for the first time in history, Chief Justice Marshall was among the first to truly understand the threats to the Constitution from our own government. 

We can only imagine what Marshall might have thought of the regulations issued by the federal government requiring religious institutions’ health insurance plans to cover contraception—including sterilization and abortifacients—under the current federal health care law.  The mandate is something that the Founders could never have imagined. To understand how this transformation of the power of the national government occurred, we can turn to The Transformation of the American Democratic Republic, a new book by Dr. Stephen M. Krason, professor of political science and legal studies at Franciscan University of Steubenville.  

Krason’s analysis builds upon two key questions:

Continue reading on the CWR site.

New: "On Heaven and Earth" by Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis)

Available on April 30, 2013 from Ignatius Press:

On Heaven and Earth: Pope Francis on Faith, Family, and the Church in the Twenty-First Century

by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Abraham Skorka

224 pp | Hardcover 

From the man who became Pope Francis--Jorge Mario Bergoglio shares his thoughts on religion, reason, and the challenges the world faces in the 21st century with Abraham Skorka, a rabbi and biophysicist.

For years Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, archbishop of Argentina, and Rabbi Abraham Skorka were tenacious promoters of interreligious dialogues on faith and reason. They both sought to build bridges among Catholicism, Judaism, and the world at large. On Heaven and Earth, originally published in Argentina in 2010, brings together a series of these conversations where both men talked about various theological and worldly issues, including God, fundamentalism, atheism, abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, and globalization.

From these personal and accessible talks comes a first-hand view of the man who would become pope to 1.2 billion Catholics around the world in March 2013.

Revisiting Benedict XVI's three encyclicals

The good folks at Catholic Pulse asked me to write an essay reflecting on the three encyclicals of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, and that essay has now been posted. Rather than just recap the three texts, I reflected on some of the significant themes developed through each and indicate how those themes demonstrate the cohesive theological vision of the encyclicals and, of course, of Benedict. Here are the opening paragraphs of my essay:

Putting the pontificate of Benedict XVI into context and making judgments about the nebulous creature named “legacy” is a difficult task, especially just weeks after his pontificate concluded. Although I tend to be a “glass half empty” type of person and generally try to avoid hyperbole, I do believe we are living in a golden age of the papacy, at least in terms of popes who are holy and brilliant, a combination not to be taken for granted.

If Blessed John Paul II is, as many (including myself) think he is, the greatest philosopher-pope in the history of the Church, then Benedict is, I think, the greatest theologian-pope, whose theological corpus was already quite impressive in both scope and depth prior to his election. Equally remarkable is the body of work produced during his relatively short, eight-year-long pontificate, notably (but not limited to) the three Jesus of Nazareth volumes; the audiences on the apostles, saints, fathers, mystics, and doctors of the Church; the audiences on prayer; apostolic exhortations on the Eucharist and Scripture; and, of course, the three encyclicals: Deus Caritas Est (on Christian love), Spe Salvi (on Christian hope), and Caritas in Veritate (on integral human development).

Entire books could be written about each encyclical and, in fact, some have already been written. My modest goal here is to consider how these three significant texts provide a cohesive, integrated understanding of the person of Jesus Christ (Christology), the nature and mission of the Church (ecclesiology), and salvation and the last things (soteriology and eschatology).

Read the entire essay, "Love, Hope, and Truth: Benedict XVI’s Three Encyclicals", at CatholicPulse.com.

The three encyclicals are available online on the Vatican site, and are also available in handsome hardcover editions from Ignatius Press:

• God is Love: Deus Caritas Est (Hardcover)
• Saved in Hope: Spe Salvi (Hardcover)
• Charity in Truth: Caritas in Veritate (Hardcover)

A CWR interview with Monica Migliorino Miller, author of "Abandoned"

 

A CWR interview with Monica Migliorino Miller, author of Abandoned | Jim Graves | Catholic World Report

“We’re fighting the most important social justice issue of our time..."

Monica Migliorino Miller released Abandoned: The Untold Story of the Abortion Wars through Saint Benedict Press in 2012.  It tells the story of how, as a college student in the 1970s, she became involved in the pro-life movement, through 1994, when the blockading of abortion clinics through Operation Rescue effectively came to an end.  

While many Americans describe themselves as pro-life, few have dedicated themselves wholly to the cause as Miller has, devoting countless hours on the streets in front of abortion clinics “sidewalk counseling,” or trying to persuade abortion-minded women entering abortion clinics—or “abortuaries” as you may hear her call them—to choose life.  Her aggressive, on-the-street action has included the photographing and displaying of the bodies of aborted children collected from the dumpsters behind abortion clinics, to painting over or covering the contact information on subway advertisements of abortion clinics, to being arrested for linking arms with other pro-lifers in front of the entrances to abortion clinics.  (It is important to note that she and her fellow pro-life activists never used any sort of violence as a tactic, and that violence used in the name of the pro-life cause is rare and quickly denounced by the leaders of the movement.)

While some Americans may be turned off by her activism, to Miller it is more than justified by the atrocities that occur every day in the nation’s abortion clinics.  Such atrocities, she believes, are tantamount to those of Hitler’s extermination camps or Stalin’s gulags, and it is her role (and should be that of any pro-life American) to stand in solidarity with the unborn child threatened with abortion, and employ all morally acceptable means to save that child.

In a recent interview with CWR, Miller discussed her new book.

CWR: Why did you choose to write Abandoned?

Miller: I wanted to tell the truth.  I’ve been in a position as a pro-life activist that has given me a unique and incredible experience to see what 40 years of legalized abortion has brought to our country.  I’ve experienced the tragedy of abortion in a profound way.  I wanted to share that experience with everyone.

The book covers a specific 19-year period, from the 1970s through the 90s; I wanted to preserve this important moment in history and share it with future generations.  We’re fighting the most important social justice issue of our time, and it is important for us to explain what it is and what it meant.  I wanted to tell the story as someone active in the pro-life cause, so we don’t have to rely on scholars and journalists to tell it.  In the 19th century, by comparison, in the fight against slavery, it would have been a tragedy if we didn’t have the writings of the abolitionists themselves, and instead had to rely only on the interpretations of historians.

Also, while I tell the story from my own perspective, I hope people will see that the real main character of the book is not me, but the unborn child.  He is the hidden victim of abortion.  

CWR: What reaction has Abandoned received?

Miller: We’ve had a good reaction; I think Saint Benedict Press is very excited.  I’ve written other books that have been published, but none has achieved the success Abandoned has.  We’re still in the early stages of promoting the book, and we’ve already sold 6,000 copies.  

CWR: What is the most effective way to save babies from abortion?

Continue reading on the CWR site.

The Pope and the Poor

The Pope and the Poor | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | Catholic World Report

A Jesuit reflects on the new pontificate and the problem of poverty

The day following the election of the archbishop of Buenos Aires to the papacy, I must have received fifty e-mails from friends and family asking if I knew the man or had any comment on him. What struck me was how little we knew about him. If he has a paper trail (the previous three popes had extensive ones), it is yet to reach us, though I did read the following comment from a statement in Buenos Aires a couple of years ago: “We hope legislators, heads of state, and health professionals, conscious of the dignity of human life and the rootedness of the family in our peoples, will defend and protect it from the abominable crimes of abortion and euthanasia, that is their responsibility.” I presume Ignatius Press is busily translating and preparing what we do have for English publication. What we do have are actions taken and gestures made while he was Jesuit provincial and a bishop in Argentina. He rides the bus, leads a simple life, and loves the poor.

Though Cardinal Bergoglio was reportedly a contender in the previous conclave, his age and health seemed to militate against him, but in retrospect only “seemed.” They turned out to be advantages. We are reminded that Pope Leo XIII was elected as a sort of interim pope but he lasted twenty-five productive years. With the voluntary retirement of Benedict XVI, the whole issue of a pope’s health has changed. I have heard it said that Pope Francis has only one lung. Well, I figure if Schall can get by with one eye, the man on the Chair of Peter can get by with one lung!

Two things immediately strike us about Pope Francis: he is from Argentina and he is a Jesuit. Neither one of these may mean much in the long run. He is now in an office that transcends both, but does not necessarily bypass them. Pope Francis will clearly, I think, have cordial relations with Benedict XVI, as well as with the Jesuit General and the Latin American Bishops’ Conference, not to mention the Franciscans. He is a friend of Opus Dei. With John Paul II and Benedict, we have become used to the attention paid to the various Orthodox traditions, and this connection will continue. Francis was a friend of the Ukrainian Catholic community in Argentina, and he will be meeting this Wednesday with delegates from several Eastern Catholic Churches. 

It seems pretty well settled that Francis is Francis of Assisi, not Francis Borgia, Francis Xavier, or Francis de Sales. Yet probably every Francis is ultimately named after Francis of Assisi.

Continue reading on the CWR site.

Catholics and “the Energy Problem”

Catholics and “the Energy Problem” | William L. Patenaude | Catholic World Report

The moral implications of the world’s energy problem make the Church’s engagement on the subject indispensable.

When a coalition of United States scientists issued the most recent draft of its National Climate Assessment, it captured the attention of environmental regulators like me. Two weeks later, the United States Environmental Protection Agency briefed hundreds of researchers and policy-makers about findings from more than two dozen climate indicators.

Both the National Climate Assessment and EPA’s indicators provide more than 1,000 pages of science and significant online resources that show trends (mostly negative, but some positive) that align with anthropogenic climate-change models—trends in increasing temperatures; drought in some places while, in others, wetter, stronger, and more frequent storms; changes in agricultural yields; sea-level rise, and other disruptions to the status quo.

My professional concerns relate to the impact of storms and rising sea levels on water-pollution control infrastructure. As a Catholic, however, these concerns are illuminated by my faith. This influences my reaction to mounting evidence and professional observations of the impacts of a changing world—and this makes me wonder what we as believers can do about it.

Certainly, the topic of human-induced climate change brings debate. This is especially true among my Catholic brothers and sisters who view the topic as a Trojan horse that hides radical left-wing agendas (which it sometimes can). But given pontifical statements on the importance of ecology and the seriousness with which organs in the Church—like the Pontifical Academy of Sciences—consider the subject, there is a growing responsibility for the faithful to look closely at what science is showing, as well as to consider the moral implications of what’s happening, who it’s happening to, and the causes thereof.

When governments and environmental advocates consider climate change, they do so in one of two ways: adaptation (which means learning how to live with whatever happens) and mitigation (which seeks to reduce the causes of what’s changing). While these categories are ultimately linked, in practice they are quite separate.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

Peter Kreeft's Foreword to F.J. Sheed's "Society and Sanity"

The Foreword to F. J. Sheed's Society and Sanity: How to Live Well Together (Ignatius Press, 2013) | Peter Kreeft

It is a great honor to be asked to write a foreword to a masterpiece.

The book you hold in your hands is, I firmly believe, the single most useful and important book (outside of the Church’s own official teachings in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the papal encyclicals) that we can possibly read about the single most important field of conflict between the Catholic Church and the increasingly de-Christianized Western world today.

Frank Sheed was one of the three best Catholic apologists of the twentieth century, the others being G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis (a Catholic who thought he was an Anglican). Just as Sheed’s Theology and Sanity remains the very best introduction to Catholic theology, Society and Sanity remains the very best introduction to Catholic social and political philosophy, even now, sixty years later. Like Huxley’s preternaturally prophetic Brave NewWorld, it is astonishingly current, though it was published in 1953.

The Church and the world both face exactly the same most basic problems and issues today as then. These issues are not only the perennial, unchanging ones that are many millennia old (good and evil, God and man, sin and salvation, life and death), but are even the new, distinctively modern ones that are only a century or two old, the new crises.

What are these current civilizational crises? For many centuries the issues that divided the Church and the world were theological issues. But today they are all “social issues”. All the “hot-button” controversies today are about man and marriage and sex and society. This is why the greatest philosopher of modern times, John Paul the Great, focused on anthropology; what C. S. Lewis called “the abolition of man” follows necessarily upon the abolition of God from any area of life—not only theology but also society, both private (sex, marriage, and family) and the “public square”. The greatest war today is not in the Middle East but in the Middle Earth of Europe and North America. It is a war between two world and life views, especially views of man and society. The new view was summarized most candidly by Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court in his support of abortion in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” In other words, “Move over, God; you’re sitting in my seat.”

Sacramental Social Doctrine

Sacramental Social Doctrine | William L. Patenaude | Catholic World Report

Authentic Catholic endeavors for social justice must be rooted in the sacramental presence of Jesus Christ.

In their elusive quest for social justice, civil authorities have over the centuries learned much from the Church. As a result, a great many forms of state-sponsored welfare—especially in the growing liberality of the West—are a testament to the two-thousand-year presence of the Gospel and the outpouring of grace in the seven sacraments.

Modern social activists have largely forgotten this. Indeed, the idea that the Church is responsible for the West’s charitable genetic code is unintelligible for many.

This amnesia is a threat to social cohesion and to the state’s desire to attain what is right and just. In forgetting the role Christianity, the West not only forgets its identity but also its strength. Thus it will fail to achieve such goals as universal health care, expansive forms of welfare, and the moral foundations that make civilization possible. In time, as state-mandated compassion meets its limits (financial and otherwise), civil authorities must and will conclude—either through reason or empirical evidence—that governments can only do so much when they actively restrict the presence of God.

The state seeks social and civil justice primarily through the passing and enforcing of laws. In contrast, the Church speaks in her catechism of proposing principles for reflection; providing criteria for judgment; and offering guidelines for action (§2423). The Church does not dictate particular political or social policies. Rather, she hopes to baptize people and cultures in two ways: with the offering of her teachings and with the grace of God.

When we consider the former, the relationship between the Church’s social doctrines and society has a sacramental character—a relation that seeks not to destroy the nature of human cultures and start from scratch, but to challenge, engage, and, hopefully, elevate them.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

 

On the Pope’s recent essay in the London "Financial Times"

by Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | Catholic World Report blog

“Christians render to Caesar only what belongs to Caesar, not what belongs to God.”

I.

On December 20, at their request, the Editors of the London Financial Times published a column by Benedict XVI. In the L’Osservatore Romano reprint (January 3, 2013), it was entitled “Christians Without Compromise.” At the end of the column, the Financial Times’ editors amusingly, in my view, succinctly identify the author as “The Bishop of Rome and author of Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives.” Obviously, the title “Bishop of Rome” is accurate. But it is also in conformity with Anglican theology, which does not recognize the Primacy Office of Peter continuing in the present Pope.

The Pope began his comments by citing what is certainly the most famous and consequential passage in the New Testament about politics, namely, the “Render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God” (see Mt 22:15-22). Benedict immediately pointed out that this response had to do with the legitimacy of paying taxes. It was asked to “trap” Jesus. The Pharisees wanted to draw Christ into current politics by presenting Him with a dilemma. If He was the awaited Messiah, surely He would oppose Roman occupation of Palestine. Thus He was “either a threat to the regime or a fraud.”

Jesus’ response avoided the trap. At the same time, He raised the level of discourse for both the Romans and the Jews. Implicitly, Jesus warned about the “politicizing of religion and the deification of the state.” Both politics and religion have a proper place. They need not be enemies except when either politicization or deification occurs. The Jews needed to recognize their Messiah would not be a Caesar. The Romans needed to know their Caesar was not God. Jesus did come to establish a “Kingdom.” But it would be of a “higher order.” At His trial, He told Pilate bluntly that His Kingdom was not “of this world.”

Next, Benedict turns to the “Christmas stories in the New Testament.” A similar message is found here. Jesus’s birth takes place in Bethlehem because of a census edict of Caesar Augustus, the first emperor of the Romans. He brought all the conquered lands into some form of higher administrative unity. Christ is born in an obscure place in this Empire. He would open to the world a “far greater peace” than that of the Pax Romana. The peace that Christ offers “transcends the limitations of space and time.” 

How so? How is Jesus presented in the New Testament? He is the “heir” of King David.” His liberation is not about armies and conquering enemies. Rather it deals with freeing us from “sin and death

Continue reading on the CWR blog.

Related articles

"'Jesus of Nazareth' Completed" | by Fr. James V. Schall, SJ

Pope: "The birth of Christ challenges us to reassess...our very way of life."

Benedict XVI on the "What" and "Why" of Baptism

The Pope's Book About Christmas

"Connecting crib and cross": On Benedict XVI's new book

Social Justice and the Radical Left

Social Justice and the Radical Left | Christopher White | Catholic World Report

An interview with the co-author of Takeover: How the Left Corrupted Liberalism in the Pursuit of Social Justice

Donald T. Critchlow is the Barry Goldwater Chair of American Institutions at Arizona State University, editor of the Journal of Policy History and general editor for Cambridge Essential Histories (CUP). His new book, Takeover: How the Left Corrupted Liberalism in the Pursuit of Social Justice (co-authored with William Rorabaugh, published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2012), is an indictment of the leftist radicalism that persists in American politics today. For Critchlow, this radicalism has led to unprecedented attacks on religious liberties, a looming financial crisis, abortion on demand, and a redefining of freedom. Recently, in late 2012, CWR contributor Christopher White spoke with Critchlow about the political and cultural challenges that will significantly shape the future of the United States—and why Catholics should be both aware and concerned.

CWR: In Takeover, you refer frequently to the "New Progressives." Who are the New Progressives and how did they emerge?

Donald T. Critchlow: Takeover: How the Left Corrupted Liberalism in the Pursuit of Social Justice answers an important question that many Americans began asking with the ascent of Barack Obama to the White House:  How did the Democratic Party become so radical? Takeover shows that liberalism underwent a profound transformation with the rise in the late 1960s and the early 1970s of a radical political formation the authors describe as the New Progressives.

By the early 1970s, the New Left’s anti-Vietnam War protests and other street activism had faded away. But the radicalism remained. The activists simply changed their tactics for remaking American society. After fighting against the establishment, radical leaders discovered that they could achieve much more by working within the system. They learned to harness politics and the courts to pursue what they thought of as social justice. Becoming lawyers, professors, journalists, consumer advocates, union leaders, community organizers, and even politicians, left-wing activists morphed into a new movement—the “New Progressives.” Takeover examines how the New Progressives colonized many areas of American life in creative and powerful ways.

CWR: You note that the civil rights revolution introduced “moral politics.” What do you mean by moral politics—and do you consider this a positive or negative development?

Continue reading on the CWR site.

Vatican II and Religious Liberty

Vatican II and Religious Liberty | Omar F.A. Gutierrez | Catholic World Report

Dignitatis Humanae, the Council document on religious freedom, represented a development of Church teaching, not a reversal of it.

Of all the documents produced by the Second Vatican Council, none had more revisions, saw more debate, or garnered more controversy than the “Declaration on Religious Liberty” Dignitatis Humanae. This is in part because the document’s 15 tightly-packed paragraphs had the burden of boldly defending the rights of conscience while at the same time respecting the teaching of the embattled Church of the 19th century. This was no easy task, so we should be ever grateful to the conciliar Fathers for the declaration as we face challenges to our religious liberty today.

Change in doctrine?

The controversy stems from the accusation by both progressives and ultra-traditionalists that the Council Fathers reversed earlier Church teaching. The strange bed-fellows of Father Charles Curran and the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre agree that the declaration is a break from doctrine and that it is a break with significant consequences for the Church.

For Father Curran, who advocates for changes in the Church’s teaching on contraception, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, and divorce, the perceived break is a welcome example with which to argue for more change. If the Church can totally reverse her teaching once, she can do it again. For Archbishop Lefebvre, founder of the Society of St. Pius X, the break is a betrayal. He went so far as to call the declaration outright apostasy and, because of it, the Second Vatican Council a “robber council.” So his followers today point to Dignitatis Humanae as exhibit “A” in their dissent from the teachings of Vatican II.

Not everyone agreed with this assessment. The great Dietrich von Hildebrand thought the declaration “marvelous,” and indicated that it was overdue. He did not think it was a break from previous teaching, but rather a natural consequence of the Gospel.

This was also the position of the drafters of the document, the members of the Secretariat for Christian Unity. They wrote and scrapped and rewrote version after version of the declaration in their conscientious effort to proclaim the truth about the rights of conscience. They worked so hard because a key aspect of Blessed Pope John XXIII’s vision was at stake.

The perception of the Church’s teaching by many was that whenever she found herself in the minority, the Church would cry religious liberty. However, if the Church was in the majority, the state would be obliged to suppress other faiths. If that perception was not addressed, argued the Secretariat, the desire of Blessed Pope John XXIII to make inroads with non-Catholic Christians would be impossible.

This was a tension particularly acute in the Catholic Church in America. Paul Blanchard’s 1949 anti-Catholic book American Freedom and Catholic Power portrayed the Church as a menace to the US Constitution and real religious freedom. Thus Father John Courtney Murray, Cardinal Richard Cushing of Boston, Cardinal Francis Spellman of New York, and other American prelates agreed and worked to advance the declaration at the Council.

The 19th century

An objective eye must admit that Dignitatis Humanae’s language does at least appear to run counter to the language of the 19th-century popes.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

Tardy Reflections on the Election

Tardy Reflections on the Election | James Kalb | Ecclesia et Civitas | Catholic World Report

The November 2012 elections revealed that the Republicans believe in nothing, while the Democrats believe in Nothing.

A great many things might have changed the results in November. Hurricane Sandy might have headed into the Atlantic instead of the Atlantic states. Or moods might have shifted, so that memes like “the war against women” might have flopped rather than flown.

Still, there’s no explaining away what happened, and the re-election of Barack Obama, a pure representative of the media-bureaucratic complex and the intolerant social leftism it stands for, must show something. He may have won because the Republicans failed to come up with an appealing candidate and message, and not because the majority was smitten with his social views, but that failure must show something as well.

Many people have the sense that the election revealed a basic change in American life. What it shows is the extent to which advanced liberalism has become our established faith. It’s the one our most influential authorities accept and rely on, and they feel called upon to import its principles into all aspects of life. That’s why abortion is the law of the land and voters aren’t allowed to say otherwise. The election returns showed that they have grown used to that situation, and no longer find it seriously objectionable.

If that’s what the election showed, then it had to do with fundamental tendencies. On that point, it revealed that the Republicans believe in nothing, while the Democrats believe in Nothing.

To believe in nothing is to have no beliefs except success. Individual Republicans may be decent public-spirited people, and they are likely to believe on some level in other things, the role of marriage as a distinct fundamental institution, for example. The point though is that for the national party such issues aren’t taken seriously. They function as campaign slogans for particular audiences. What’s taken seriously is American power abroad, economic success at home, and victory for Republicans. That’s what the party, as a party, believes in.

Power and success are not bad things. Power is the ability to achieve goals, and success is actually bringing them about. Both are good as a general rule, and politicians should favor them, but they’re not enough for a political outlook that makes sense. Something more is needed to tell us what to aim for and what to do with it when achieved. The Republicans have nothing that serves that purpose.

The Democrats do: they have Nothing.

Continue reading on the CWR site.

Dorothy Day: A Saint to Transcend Partisan Politics

Dorothy Day: A Saint to Transcend Partisan Politics | Leslie Fain | Catholic World Report

Despite attempts from both liberals and conservatives, Dorothy Day does not fit comfortably in either political camp.

Thomas More, the statesman who would not compromise his faith at the behest of King Henry VIII, was elevated to sainthood during a time when Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini were rising to power. Now, as the United States seems to be locked in a red state/blue state quagmire, the Catholic Church may elevate to sainthood Dorothy Day, a servant of God who could not be pigeonholed as a liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican, or libertarian, and chose to wear no other label than that of Christian.

Last month during their annual meeting, the United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) voted to support Dorothy Day’s cause for sainthood. To steal a line from Peter Kreeft about his heroes Jesus and Socrates, Dorothy Day certainly has something to offend everyone.

Founding the Catholic Worker movement during the Great Depression, Day and her colleague Peter Maurin farmed, fed the poor, and published a newspaper to protest wars and the unjust treatment of workers. Although Day is widely accepted by the religious left because of her antiwar stance, as well as her dedication to civil rights, workers’ rights, and the poor, Day has met with a cool reception from many on the right. A host of conservatives, from Rush Limbaugh’s callers to Glenn Beck, to writers and commenters at conservative websites and blogs, have opined that Day was a Communist who flouted Church teachings. These conservatives never provide proof, but only make statements to the effect that she was trying to push the Church in a Communist direction.

This is a shame, as Day’s life has a lot to offer the orthodox Catholic. “Dorothy Day constantly lived her life according to a ‘higher obedience’ that was not subject to political instrumentalization,” said Dr. Chad C. Pecknold, assistant professor of historic and systematic theology at the Catholic University of America, and author of Christianity and Politics: A Brief Guide to the History (Cascade, 2010). “Advancing her cause—especially in the wake of the recent presidential election in which the Catholic vote was divided by a political calculus that her life rejects—is providential for the Church in America.”

Tom Cornell, a deacon assigned to St. Mary’s Parish in Marlboro, New York and co-manager of Peter Maurin Farm, served with Day at the Catholic Worker when he was a young man. In fact, he calls Day his matchmaker, as he and his wife, Monica, literally met over a Catholic Worker soup pot. He agrees that the bishops’ push for Day’s canonization is providential. “Dorothy is a bridge between the so-called left and the so-called right in a polarized church.” He adds, “I don’t think the labels are very helpful.”

Robert Ellsberg, the publisher of Orbis Books and editor of All the Way to Heaven: The Selected Letters of Dorothy Day, knew Day the last five years of her life, and agrees that she is a bridge figure. “She is a symbol of common ground whose witness could bring together people,” he said.

“She didn’t just communicate with Catholics,” Ellsberg added. “She was in touch with Protestants, Jews, and unbelievers, and trying to seek common ground.”

Day continues to be something of an enigma to many.

Continue reading on the CWR site.

The Real Social Justice Issue: Taking Care of the Violent Mentally Ill

The Real Social Justice Issue: Taking Care of the Violent Mentally Ill | Anne Hendershott | Catholic World Report

Seriously troubled people and their families need help—to protect themselves and others.

In the aftermath of the heartbreaking school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, the editors at the National Catholic Reporter have joined with the leaders of the Soros-supported advocacy organization Catholics United to demand further restrictions on gun ownership. Ignoring the fact that Connecticut has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, they have declared that a commitment to social justice demands that we “face up to intransigent special interests and engage in a serious discussion of how to end—permanently—the cycle of gun violence in America. 

Gun control advocates continue to believe that if we just outlaw guns, we will end these acts of senseless violence. Claiming that gun control will “prevent yet another American family from having to go through Christmas without the loved ones they lost to gun violence,” the progressive Catholics at the National Catholic Reporter have joined President Obama in what the president now promises will be “meaningful action” on gun control.

The debate on gun control may be a good one if it reminds us once again exactly who these shooters are. Rather than focusing exclusively on guns themselves, the debate will be fruitful if we begin to pay closer attention to those who are committing these violent acts. A true commitment to social justice demands that we begin to take notice of the real health and safety needs of the mentally ill living among us. While progressives claim the moral high ground in their calls for gun control, they tend to ignore the fact that progressive policies on mental illness may have contributed to this dark day in Newtown.

For more than 40 years, we have been defining down the risks posed by the violent mentally ill.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

Turning the Corner

Turning the Corner | James Kalb | Catholic World Report

Catholics should not hesitate to bring Catholic beliefs and arguments into the public square.

In the last several months I’ve been discussing the problems Catholics face dealing with public life today. The recent election underlined some of them. The bishops and others made their pitch about threats to the family and the freedom of the Church, the Democrats stood firm, and most Americans—including most self-identified Catholics—voted for the Democrats. Not only does the world care very little for Catholic concerns, but it seems that Catholics acting as citizens care little for them as well.

So what should the faithful do? If the world’s against us, so it’s becoming harder and harder to act or even think as Catholics, should we retreat to monasteries? Return to the catacombs? Overthrow the government and establish a dictatorship run by a revolutionary vanguard? Such proposals have serious drawbacks, and something much more moderate would be more to the point. All we really need to participate with integrity in public life as citizens and Catholics is a society in which what is good—and not freedom, equality, or prosperity—is the highest standard. If we had that, discussions about goals that rise above who gets what would become possible, and Catholic concerns could become mainstream.

It seems that those concerns would do well in such a setting. Our social doctrine is consistent with natural law, which means that on the whole it follows a common-sense understanding of what things are, what’s good for them, and how they work best. So we should be able to get a lot of mileage out of talking about what’s good in human life as we find it, and how that can be respected and promoted. All that’s necessary is that people accept the good life and common sense as standards.

The problem is that appeals to those standards don’t work very well today. Modern public discussion doesn’t like common sense, even educated common sense. If something can’t be observed, measured, and dealt with by neutral professional standards, people think it’s rational to ignore it and do what they otherwise want to do. After all, they believe, if something can’t be nailed down and proved it’s a prejudice, a stereotype, or an attempt to spin the discussion, so it doesn’t deserve serious attention.

That skeptical approach to informal knowledge can be productive in the natural sciences, but it doesn’t work when applied to life in general. Basic human decisions require insight and judgment, and neither can be made exact or turned into academic expertise. If we limit ourselves to what can be made rigorous our decisions must either ignore reason altogether or base themselves on arbitrary default assumptions like equality. In either case, the results will defy common sense. For examples, look at what educators, architects, and legal thinkers have done to schools, cities, and the law. What now passes as expertise has led to results that are often completely at odds with normal ways of thinking, learning, and living.

Such an approach to knowledge and reason has nonetheless become established, and the result is that ideas of ultimate goals and natural patterns have more and more been driven out of public discussion. 

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.