A Catholic Leftism?

Last updated on: February 16, 2017 at 1:03 pm by Chase Padusniak

A Catholic Leftism? 2017-02-16T13:03:19-04:00 Chase Padusniak

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

To that end, this piece on social justice in the teachings of Pope Pius XI puts the issue elegantly:

In other words, there is a role for state action in helping to establish, and especially in securing and protecting, the institutions and organizations of social justice, by enacting, for example, legal safeguards for their proper functioning and, when necessary, enforcing their decrees by civil law. Even earlier, in Casti Connubii, Pius had taught the same thing, “that in the State such economic and social methods should be adopted as will enable every head of a family to earn as much as, according to his station in life, is necessary for himself, his wife and for the rearing of his children….” Thus, in addition to what they can do by their own efforts, such groups of employers would usually need to work for legal changes as well, and would properly coordinate their own activity with that of other interested parties, such as organized labor.

The most important thing to learn from Pius XI’s exposition of social justice is that it concerns reforming or establishing the institutions of society so that it becomes possible, or easier, for the individual members of society to fulfill their duties of justice and charity to one another. For this task, group action is necessary. Pius XI’s discussion of social justice concerned primarily its application to the economic realm, but in truth the basic principles he explains could be employed in other areas of social life. Our duties in this regard will be suggested by our position in society. If one is an employer, normally one of his primary duties will be to work toward a just economic order, for by participating in the economy as an employer, he has taken upon himself a grave responsibility for paying just wages. If he literally cannot do so in present circumstances, we have seen that he has a duty to work toward a different kind of economic order, not just to shrug his shoulders and say he is doing the best he can, or worse, to justify his conduct by an appeal to economic ideas that are not in accord with authoritative Catholic teaching.

There are, of course, other more individualized forms of justice. If you read the article, you’ll see that they have their own role to play, but that they cannot be used to defer responsibility when it comes to issues of systemic or structural injustice.

Understanding this, even obliquely, led me to take writers like Marx more seriously. I did not (and here is a complicated term) become a “Marxist,” but I began to recognize that we human beings are confronted by circumstances that are, at first glance, far beyond our understanding. This is what our social analysis must do; it must take seriously the ways in which we are historical beings and in which Catholics must apply the unchanging truths of our religion in varied historical circumstances. We are embodied, temporal beings:

The Church’s exposition of social justice reached a high degree of clarity in the writings of Pius XI. But nothing since then suggests that the mind of the Church has altered, or that Pope Pius’s teaching applied only to his own time. As Pope Benedict XVI, in his own social encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, reminded us: “It is not a case of two typologies of social doctrine, one pre-conciliar and one post-conciliar, differing from one another: on the contrary, there is a single teaching consistent and, at the same time, ever new.”

The basic principles of social doctrine do not change, even if the external circumstances to which they must be applied can, of course, change. But it never comes about that a fundamental teaching of one pope is, or can be, overturned by his successor. Thus Pius XI appropriately characterizes the Church’s teaching in this area as “unchanging and unchangeable.”

To link this to the “political Left,” here is the Marxian economist Henryk Grossman on Marx’ philosophy:

The task of all science is the exploration and understanding of the concretely given totality of phenomena, of their interconnections and their mutations. The difficulty of this task is that phenomena are not immediately identical with the essence of things. The exploration of the essence constitutes a precondition for understanding the world of appearances. Marx, in opposition to vulgar economics, seeks to identify the “hidden essence” and the “inner connection” of economic reality; this is not to say that he is not interested in concrete appearances. On the contrary! Only appearances present themselves to consciousness, which means that – purely methodologically – their hidden, essential “core” can only be accessed through the analysis of appearances.

But the concrete appearances are important to Marx not only because they are the starting point and the medium for understanding the “real movement.” They are, rather, the very objects that Marx ultimately wants to identify and understand in their interconnection. By no means does he simply want to restrict himself to the exploration of the “essence” while ignoring the phenomena. In fact, the essence, once identified, has the function of enabling us to comprehend concrete appearances.

I do not mean to over-simplify. The “Left” is a complex beast that includes post-structuralists like Derrida and Foucault. Fittingly, though, I think there is a reason such thinkers are somewhat popular in certain “conservative” circles: they came to challenge structural approaches in a way that, in ways too varied to spell out here, gel well with conservative positions. There’s a reason Foucault has been called a neoliberal.

What I do mean to say here is that “the Left” needn’t be scary to Catholics; in fact, its attempt to develop rigorously-structural analyses of immensely-complex historical circumstances that condition (and are conditioned by—this is just Plato and Aristotle, folks) human agents ought to intrigue us. It’s not enough for Catholics to throw up their hands and say “conditions are such that I cannot pay my workers enough”; it’s not enough for us to balk at the idea that reform is a possibility—the eschaton is not upon us yet; there is still time for change. Change needn’t be utopian: it may be reformist, revolutionary, even incredibly gradual, but, at minimum, we are required to think socially, to think in ways that commit each of us to justice by worrying about justice for each.

Previous Post

February 15, 2017

"Yes"

Next Post

February 16, 2017 The Sensuous Catholic Body

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Academia Culture Politics Reviews Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 July 2021 December 2020 November 2020 July 2020 May 2020 April 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 August 2019 July 2019 April 2019 March 2019 December 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: John is the only Gospel that records Jesus washing the disciples' feet.

Select your answer to see how you score.

TRUE FALSE