Lately, there has been considerable misunderstanding and debate about Catholic social doctrine. Perhaps the greatest cause of confusion is the fact that many people misunderstand its application and particular use as representing some sort of universal, acceptable norm. For example, many Catholics rightfully point out that in certain times and places, the Church found it possible to accept the use of the death penalty; however, because of this, many Catholics think this is a universal approval of the death penalty. They are confused when Popes speak out against the death penalty, and the response we see from them demonstrates this confusion: “The Church once approved the death penalty; now it speaks out against the death penalty. The Church’s teaching has changed. Throughout most of Church history, the death penalty has been approved; now it is not. Therefore, we see the Church’s current practice is different from what it has said in tradition. Why is this so? Why can’t I just follow tradition? And isn’t it true that I can disagree with the Pope? It is clear, he is offering his private interpretation here, an interpretation I disagree with and goes against Catholic tradition.”
One of the central problems in this line of argument is, as was said above, from the fact that they turn a particular into a universal. They do not understand the actual universal rule which the Church rightfully appropriates according to the needs and abilities of the age it finds itself in.
What do I mean by this? Let us once again look at the question of the death penalty. Fundamentally, we find the Church says it is wrong to take human life – any human life. Indeed, life is sacred, and we must recognize and respect the dignity of all human persons. Taking a life is always an evil, and we must avoid evil at all costs. However, there are other evils we must consider. The welfare of society and the people living within it is what government is for; and a government must be free to exercise itself according to this objective. It must do so in justice, bringing the most just society it can produce. However, the ability of a government to bring about this justice and to preserve the good peace of society differs at differing times and places. When it has its hands tied, with only a few means to halt the actions of a person in a murderous rampage, it must use what means it has to protect the greater good of society, and this sometimes can mean the use of capital punishment. This does not mean capital punishment should be seen as a good in such a situation; rather, it is the reverse, it is a necessity and its use must be seen, not as a time of joy, but a time of sorrow. However, when it can halt the murderous rampage of criminals in other, non-violent means, then the use of capital punishment is not a necessity, and therefore, inexcusable.
In a similar fashion to what has been said about the death penalty, we can find that most of Catholic social doctrine must be practiced in various ways, and they will differ from one another according to the time and place they are being practiced. Moreover, as with all truth, our understanding of Catholic social doctrine continues to be improved; when more of these particular situations are encountered, they require us to elaborate the universal principles which guide our activity. Because our understanding will become greater over time, this will also require a greater, more precise application of those principles.
Pope Benedict expresses this idea beautifully in Jesus of Nazareth. Before Christ, the Torah was understood by the Jews as being their universal moral guide. In this, they were correct. However, they did not understand the proper use of the Torah. Jesus declared nothing new; he did not come to do away with the law and the prophets, but to “fulfill them.” But his fulfillment was to show the proper universal norm by which the Torah should be understood. Indeed, this law was to be the rule of love. Moreover, this rule of love is best understood and explained by our relationship with a person, that is, Jesus , because he is is truth incarnate. (cf. Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth. Trans. Adrian J. Walker. New York: Doubleday, 2007; p.114).
Just as we find many now misunderstanding particular manifestations of the universal rule as a universal rule, we find this was also the case in the ancient world. The Pope points out that the Torah itself contained both casuistic laws (which were legal arrangements dealing with very particular cases), and apodictic laws, or “metanorms” which are the universals we are looking for (ibid, 123-125). One of the problems we find behind the legalistic application of the Torah was the fact that the two categories were often confused and believed to be as if they were one and the same.
In the fashion that Jesus was able to show the universal laws behind the casuistic laws of the Torah, so now we find Catholic social teaching is working to find the apodictic laws behind the living practice of the Catholic faith over the last two thousand years. This means Catholic social teaching is indeed changing, not in essence, but in our understanding of it. Thus, as the Pope says:
Jesus stands before us neither as a rebel nor as a liberal, but as the prophetic interpreter of the Torah. He does not abolish it, but he fulfills it, and he does so precisely by assigning reason its sphere of responsibility for acting within history. Consequently, Christianity constantly has to reshape and reformulate social structures and ‘Christian social teaching.’ There will always be new developments to correct what has gone before. In the inner structure of the Torah, in its further development under the critique of the Prophets, and in Jesus’ message, which takes up both elements, Christianity finds the wide scope of necessary historical evolution as well as the solid ground that guarantees the dignity of many by rooting it in the dignity of God. (ibid., 126– 27).
The Church teaches and proclaims its message in all times, but it does so according to the needs and abilities of the people living in those times. Its core is one and the same, but its way of addressing and incarnating that core differs from age to age; its social teaching must be understood as a practice of skillful means, of upaya. Its core does not change, but people must, in wisdom, discern what that core is; then they will not confuse its particular application as being what it is in fact. Then they will understand why its central core is founded upon the law of love, and why St Augustine said, “Love, and do as thou wilt.”
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In