Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Reading Mater et Magistra, Part I

Reading Mater et Magistra, Part I

Last updated on: August 16, 2020 at 3:49 pm by David Cruz-Uribe

Reading Mater et Magistra, Part I 2020-08-16T15:49:36-05:00 David Cruz-Uribe

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.

With this post, my ruminations on Catholic social teaching continue. Last week, my reading group moved on to the first post WW II encyclical, Mater et Magistra, by Pope St. John XXIII. You can find links to the discussion of Quadragesimo Anno here, and to the discussion of Rerun Novarum here.

Mater et Magistra, published in May 1961, came at a significant moment in the life of the Church. The war and its aftermath had had a substantial, even traumatic, impact on the Church and theologians, especially European theologians, had begun to respond in reflective and innovative ways. The anti-colonial movements in Africa and Asia had begun to bring the Church in the Third World out of the realm of (white) missionary experience and make them independent partners in the universal church. Half of Europe, including the Catholic countries of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Romania, were controlled by the Soviet Union, and the Cold War was ever on the verge of heating up. (The Bay of Pigs had happened only the month before; the Cuban missile crisis was two years in the future.) John XXIII had called the Second Vatican Council two years previously and preparations for the opening session (a year in the future) were underway.

The encyclical, though looking back 70 years to Rerum Novarum and 40 years to Quadragesimo Anno, is very much grounded in the moment in which it was written, and looks to the future in ways that the previous encyclicals did not. It seems to me that in tone as well as in content, it was beginning to manifest what would later be called the “Spirit” of Vatican II. This term, however, has become such a bugaboo among some conservative Catholics that I do not want to dwell on it–I would rather focus on the text itself, and on comparisons with RN and QA.

The text opens by naming its audience, modifying slightly the opening of QA, which in turn had added significantly to that of RN. Rerum Novarum was addressed to “Venerable Brethren the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Ordinaries having Peace and in Communion with the Apostolic See“; QA had added at the end “and likewise to all the Faithful of the Catholic World.” MM modified this last clause to read “and to the Clergy and Faithful of the entire Catholic World” (emphasis added). This is, I think, a small but significant change. The clergy had figured in both RN and QA as agents of implementing Catholic social teaching, but they were addressed at one remove, through their bishops. Here we see Pope John XXIII speaking directly to them. And the addition of the word “entire” subtly emphasizes that the Church is universal, and concerned with more than just Europe (and North America).

In our discussion we read paragraphs 1-70, which are an overview of Catholic social teaching in RN and QA, plus some comments on a radio address by Pius XII in 1941. (This not a text I have ever heard of. It is available in Italian here (p. 196), and in Italian, Spanish and Portuguese here. An English translation of uncertain provenance can be found here.) One thing that struck me as I was reading this was a new style of writing and argumentation which I described, for want of a better term, as a new historicism. The previous encyclicals had adopted an ahistorical, universalist tone. Indeed, one of my criticisms of RN was that it treated “capitalism” as it existed in the late 19th century as having always existed, and gives no thought to how it came about. QA did better in this regard: it talked about the “spread” of capitalism (cf. 103-104), acknowledging the changing circumstances. MM, however, goes much further, trying to put both RN and QA into historical context, and give some indication of the problems which the previous encyclicals were responding to. (See paragraphs 11-15 on RN and par. 35-36 for QA). And then it goes further, trying to analyze the present situation and showing how it fits into the previous teaching. (See par. 51 et seq.)

We considered a number of sources for this change. Two changes in Catholic theology came up. First, there was the shift from deductive to inductive reasoning in theology, which in itself was a move away from logical reasoning about universal truths to an appreciation of the ways in which human questions are grounded in experience. (We got off onto a interesting tangent about whether this had any connection with Jesuit casuistry. I don’t know enough about the history of theology to judge this question.) The second was the Ressourcement movement, which, among other things, placed an emphasis on returning to original sources to understand the historical context in which Catholic teaching evolved. Finally, one member wanted to link it to the See-Judge-Act method of reasoning. It was created by Cardinal Joseph Cardijn, a Belgian cardinal who, as an advisor to John XXIII, played a role in the writing of MM. The basic idea is that in order to apply universal Catholic ideals, one must first see the existing, concrete reality, judge it in light of Catholic teaching, and then act (or propose action) to address the situation at hand.

Our discussion then turned to the reinterpretation of RN and QA, or perhaps more precisely, to the application of their principles to the current situation. One shift was a change in the understanding of the role of the state. RN had an uncertain understanding of the state, as the old order was either gone or dying, and nothing had emerged to replace it. Leo XIII explicitly would not judge specific forms of government, saying all that obeyed the natural law and God’s will were acceptable. QA seemed quite favorable in parts to an authoritarian vision of the state, something that we discussed as we debated whether Pius XI found fascism, or at least a version of fascism that respected the Catholic Church, seductive alternative compared to liberal democracy or communism/socialism. In MM, there remains a deep appreciation for the positive role of the state:

As for the State, its whole raison d’etre is the realization of the common good in the temporal order. (par. 20)

At the same time, however, there is a deeper realization that there must be limits on the state. Though fascism is never explicitly mentioned in the text, and communism is only mentioned once (par. 34), the recent history of the one and the then present existence of the other may have helped temper any enthusiasm for government over-reach or “clerico-fascism“. (I also wonder, in passing, whether fascism is not mentioned because Catholic Spain was still controlled by the (quasi)-fascist regime of Francisco Franco, and the still influential Church in Spain was not yet ready to divorce itself from him. My controversial April Fool’s day post on Franco may be relevant here.)

The state may only act in the “temporal order” as quoted above; it has no place making demands on the transcendent nature of man. This shows up in the renewed critique of socialism (par. 34), which is indicted for its materialism, which eliminates any spiritual dimension to individuals or society. But even in the temporal order, the state must be restrained:

But however extensive and far-reaching the influence of the State on the economy may be, it must never be exerted to the extent of depriving the individual citizen of his freedom of action. It must rather augment his freedom while effectively guaranteeing the protection of his essential personal rights. (par. 55)

This can be read as a critique of the Soviet bloc, but it must also be seen as critique of the capitalist west. Consider this expansion of ideas from QA:

As a consequence, even the public authority was becoming the tool of plutocracy, which was thus gaining a stranglehold on the entire world. (par. 36)

I note in passing that the concept of the “plutocracy” appears twice in the text (see also par. 111); it comes from a radio address of Pius XII in 1944. (Available in Spanish and Italian here.) This is the first time the encyclicals we have read that a specific name or ideology other than liberalism, is associated to what I previously termed “real existing capitalism.” One member of our group suggested that the above limitation of the state to the temporal order, and the restrictions on “depriving the individual citizen of his freedom of action” opened the door to the Church being more open to pluralistic, secular states: if the state was only concerned with the temporal order, then “all men of good will” (cf. par. 25) could be expected to cooperate in achieving the common good.

Another critique of the state comes in the critical references to “national prestige”:

[Pius XI] taught what the supreme criterion in economic matters ought not to be. It must not be the special interests of individuals or groups, nor unregulated competition, economic despotism, national prestige or imperialism, nor any other aim of this sort. (par. 38, emphasis added)

And in other countries a notable percentage of income is absorbed in building up an ill-conceived national prestige, and vast sums are spent on armaments. (par. 69, emphasis added)

The state is a positive good in many settings, but it is a means to an end (the common good) and not an end in itself. In addition, there is an open critique of imperialism, and a positive acknowledgement of the end of colonialism (see par. 49), which together provide another critique of the nation states (particularly European ones, though Japanese imperialism cannot be overlooked) of the 19th and 20th centuries.

At this point I turned the discussion to an important section of the encyclical: par. 59-67, which is about “the social process.” Though I read through this section twice, fairly carefully, its meaning completely eluded me. Therefore, I am grateful to my reading group for walking me through it and helping me see how critical this discussion is. In it, we see an example of what I termed the historicism of the encyclical. Here, John XXIII is examining the ways in which advancing technology is changing social relationships and changing the dynamics of interactions between the individual and society, and between intermediate social groups and the state. Radio had been prevalent for a generation, TV was becoming more common, and air travel and the automobile, along with expanding rail networks, had made world-wide travel both quick and affordable.

Things that at one time were strictly the concern of the individual and the family now had broader social implications, and these in turn often involved the intervention of the state or the creation of intermediate associations. A good example from the modern age is the question of childcare–once the exclusive concern of the family, we now see the creation of a public/private system of childcare, and the question of whether the state should mandate paid paternity leave or subsidize childcare.

Similarly, authority no longer reaches its apex at the nation-state: there must be organizations and juridicial structures that address the web of inter-connections between the states. As John XXIII noted earlier,

There is, moreover, an ever-extending network of societies and organizations which set their sights beyond the aims and interests of individual countries and concentrate on the economic, social, cultural and political welfare of all nations throughout the world. (par. 49)

The United Nations and the many associated organizations had come into being since the end of World War II. The European Economic Community, precursor to the supra-national European Union, had been formed by the treaty of Rome in 1957. From the perspective of European history, which had seen France and Germany fight three major wars in the previous 90 years, this structure marked a substantial change from the past.

This section acknowledges these changes, and is quite hopeful about them, seeing in them the potential for the “organic reconstruction of society” (par. 67) which the final section of QA was devoted to; now there is the possibility for “everyone to participate in human events the world over” (par. 61) and to cooperate for building up the common good both locally and globally. This optimism marks a significant change in tone from the previous two encyclicals, which were much more defensive, and from an earlier Catholic distancing from the world as a “veil of tears.” It is, in some ways, reminiscent of the optimism of the Kennedy administration in the United States, when despite the challenges facing the US, both domestically and abroad, there was a feeling that great things could be done. Though it is easy to be cynical, especially in light of the Vietnam war and other grave mistakes made by the US in the decades since, one must remember that the American space program, the war on poverty, and much of the Civil Rights legislation were under-girded by this optimism.

At the same time, however, this section is cautionary, in that the growing web of social interactions has led to the state becoming more and more embedded in them:

This development in the social life of man is at once a symptom and a cause of the growing intervention of the State, even in matters which are of intimate concern to the individual, hence of great importance and not devoid of risk. (par. 60)

The risk is that the state will arrogate to itself more power than is right or necessary. The following paragraph summarizes the threats:

At the same time, however, this … brings with it a multiplicity of restrictive laws and regulations in many departments of human life. As a consequence, it narrows the sphere of a person’s freedom of action. The means often used, the methods followed, the atmosphere created, all conspire to make it difficult for a person to think independently of outside influences, to act on his own initiative, exercise his responsibility and express and fulfill his own personality. (par. 62)

While it is easy to read this as a critique of the totalitarian dimensions of the Soviet bloc, we also need to bear in mind that capitalism, as said earlier, was in a situation in which the state “was becoming a tool of plutocracy” and was being used to shape the limits of free expression. As Noam Chomsky put it in his trenchant critique of Western liberal democracies:

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. (The Common Good, 1998.)

Nevertheless, despite these grounds for caution, the optimism of this encyclical, grounded in the Christian hope of the resurrection (cf. par. 180), shines through.

Catholic Social Teaching

David Cruz-Uribe

Papal Social Encyclicals

Previous Post

August 9, 2020

Reading Quadragesimo Anno, Part IV

Next Post

August 23, 2020 Reading Mater et Magistra, Part II

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2019 A Consistent Ethic of Life Aaron Weldon Abortion absurdity Abuse Scandal Academics Adoption Advent Africa agreement/disagreement with Church teaching Alexander Schmemann Alexham Alterity America Amnesty International Anarchism angels Anglicanism Animals Annual Statistics Anthony Anxietas Apocalyptic Apophatic Appalachia Aquinas Art Atheism Atonement Augustine Authority Baptism Beauty Bible biblical criticism biblical scholarship Bioethics Bishops Black Catholics Black Theology Blackadder Blogs Books Breastfeeding Brett Salkeld Buddhism Bush administration Byzantine Catholic Calvinism Canada Canon Law Capital Punishment Capitalism Caryll Houselander Catholic Blog Awards Catholic Blogging Catholic League Catholic Social Teaching Catholic Worker Movement Catholicity CFL Charity Children Chris West Christ and Culture Christian Democracy Christian Unity Christmas Christology Church Church Doctrine Church History Climate Change Cohabitation Colbert Collegiality Communion Communism Comparative Theology Competition Conferences conscience conscience rights Consequentialism Consistent Life Ethics Consumerism Contraception Contrition Conversion Converts Coptic COVID-19 Creation Critical Thinking Cross Cuba Culture Culture of Death Culture of Life Darfur David Cruz-Uribe David Wheeler-Reed Death Death Penalty Democracy Demons Desert Fathers Devil Dialogue dignity Disability Disarmament discernment Discipleship discrimination Dissent Distributism Division Doctrine Domestic Church Dorothy Day Double Effect Doubt Down syndrome Driving Early Church Easter Eastern Churches Ecclesiology Economics Economy Ecumenism Education El Salvador Election Election 2020 Ellul Embryonic Stem Cell Research Empire Energy Enlighenment Environmentalism Ephraim Radner Episcopal Church epistemology Equality Eschatology Ethics Eucharist Europe Euthanasia Evangelization Evil Evolution Excommunication F.X. Durrwell Facism Facts Fair Trade Faith Family Fashion Feddie Feminism Feminist theology Fertility Fetal Rights Fiction Film Finances First Things flags Folk Religion Food Foreign Affairs Forgiveness Frank Sheed Free Speech Freedom gay & lesbian persons Genocide George W. Bush George Weigel Gerald L. Campbell Girard/Mimetic Theory Global Warming Globalization Gnosticism Good Friday Grace Gratitude Greed Grey Cup 2009 Guadalupe Guest Post Guest Posts Gun Control Gustave Martelet Habitat for Humanity Hans Urs von Balthasar Harry Potter Hate Speech Health Health Care Healthcare Heather King Hebrew Bible Henri de Lubac Henry Karlson Herbert McCabe Heresy HHS Mandate Controversy History Holidays Holiness Holy Spirit Homiletics Homily Homosexuality Hope Hospitality How Far Can We Go? How Far Can We Go? Human Person Human Rights Humanae Vitae Humility Humor Hunger Hunting Identity Idolatry Ignacio Ellacuría Imagination Immigration In Memoriam Income Inequality Inculturation Indigenous People Individualism Inklings Intellect Interdependence Internet Interpretation Interviews Introduction Iraq War Islam Israel Jain James Alison James Martin Jazz Jesus Christ Jews Joe Biden Joe Hargrave Johann Baptist Metz John Allen John Henry Newman John Paul II John the Baptist John XXIII Jonathan Josef Pieper Joseph (the husband of Mary) Joseph Bernardin Joseph Ratzinger Josh Brumfield Journals Joy Judgment Just War Justice Kari Lundgren Karl Rahner Katerina Ivanovna Kenya Keynes Kingdom of God Kyle R. Cupp Labor Language Latin America Law Leanne Ogasawara Legion of Christ Leisure Lent Liberalism Liberation Theology Libertarianism Libya Lies Life life & dignity & responsibility of the human person Literature Little Way Liturgical music Liturgical Year Liturgy Living Simply Living Wage Local Church Lombard Lord of the Rings Louis Dupre Love M.Z. Magic Magisterium Mark DeFrancisis Mark Gordon Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Jr. Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masculinity Matt Talbot Matthew Fish Matthew Levering McCain Media Memorial Day Mennonites Mental Illness mercy Michael Iafrate Middle East militarism Miroslav Volf Mitt Romney Modesty Moral Theology Morality Mormonism Morning's Minion Mother Teresa Music Muslims Natalie Nate Wildermuth Nationalism Native Americans Nature Nazis Neuhaus New Evangelization New York City News NFP nihilism Nonviolence Not Abortion Nova's Ordo Nuclear weapons Nuns Obama Occult Old Age Opus Dei Ordination ordination of women original sin Orthodoxy Oscar Romero Other Voices Pacifism Palestine Palin Papacy Papal Peace Messages Papal Social Encyclicals Particular Affections Partisanship Patriotism Paul Paul Ryan Paul VI Peace Pentimento persecution Personalism Phantastes Philosophy PKD Planned Parenthood Pluralism Poetry Policraticus Politcal Apathy Politics Poll Pope Benedict XVI Pope Francis Pope John Paul II Pope Leo XIV Population Postcolonialsim Poverty Power Prayer Preaching Predictions Predictions for 2012 President Barack Obama priestly formation & discernment Pro-Life Progress Prophetic Witness Proportionalism Public Diplomacy Public Policy Question Quotes Rachel Maddow Racism Radical Catholic Mom Radical Catholicism Raymund Schwager Real Catholic TV Real Presence Reconciliation Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange Religion religious freedom Responsibility Ressourcement Resurrection Rick Garnett Ridiculous Crap You Never Thought You'd See Robert Barron Roe v. Wade Roman Curia Rome Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation History Sam Harris Sam Rocha Same-sex Marriage Saskatchewan Roughriders Satire School of the Americas Science Scripture Seamless Garment Second Vatican Council Seeing Sex sexual violence Sexuality Sia Sin social justice Social Security Socialism Society of Jesus Sofia Loves Wisdom Solidarity Sophia soteriology Soutenus Spirituality Sports St. Dismas St. Joseph Stanley Hauerwas Statistics Stimulus Suffering Sunday Reflections Supernatural Supreme Court Symbolism Syria Taxing Technology Terrorism The State The Tea Party The Trump Administration Theological Anthropology Theology Theotokos Thomas Merton Throwaway Culture Tim Muldoon Tim Riley Tim Tebow Time Titian Tolkien Torture Toys Trade Traditionalism Transgender Transportation Transubstantiation Trinity Truth TV U.S. Affairs Uncategorized Unions unity among people who disagree US Catholicism USCCB Usury Utilitarianism Utopia Valentine's Day Vatican Vatican II Veterans Vicarious Suffering Video Violence Virgin Mary Vocations Voluntary Associations Voluntary Poverty Voting Vox Nova vox nova blog war War and Peace War Strategy Wealth Weirdness Welfare state Women Women Priests Work Woundedness Youth

Select a Month June 2026 May 2025 February 2025 January 2025 July 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 July 2023 March 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 November 2021 September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 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 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Complete the line from John 11, verse 35: "Jesus....."

Select your answer to see how you score.

Jesus answered Jesus wept Jesus spoke Jesus waved