Back

Social justice -- whose ‘economics’ … what priorities?

Economics has been referred to as the “dismal science.” That might be an accurate observation for the modern brands of economic theories insofar as the discipline is held captive to statistics, charts, macro- and micro-projections, analyses and trends. But, debates about the philosophical underpinnings of the various schools of economic thought can be as robust and contentious, even disingenuous, as the most controversial academic issues of the times.

Such intramural arguments can only be worked out within the discipline of economics itself and according to the methodology and the principles within that field. From an ethical point of view, however, economic life cannot become so compartmentalized that religious and moral values can be neutralized in the public arena. The ramifications of economic life will inevitably intersect with the moral and religious spheres.

For instance, would Milton Friedman’s position on profit as the defining purpose of a business be compatible with Catholic social teaching? In Centesimus Annus (1991), Pope John Paul II defended the positive role of profit and the overall effectiveness of free markets. At the same time, he rejected elevating profit to a status of being the only regulator of a business. On moral grounds, the Holy Father insists that “other human and moral factors must be considered which, in the long term are at least equally important for the life of a business.” (CA n. 35)

By the same token, economic theories on the social-political left are not immune from ethical deficiencies. While Church social teaching defends a positive moral role for government in protecting human rights and the common good, Pope John Paul II has also strongly criticized the deficiencies of the “social assistance state." The excesses of the welfare state lead “to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies …” Over time, the societal outcomes increase public spending and establish a “bureaucratic mentality” in approaching social needs. (CA n. 35)

In this regard, the approach taken in applying norms and principles from Catholic social teaching is consistent. Instead of proposing an economic model, Pope John Paul II understands Church social teaching “as an indispensable and ideal orientation, a teaching which … recognizes the positive value of the free market and of enterprise, but at the same time points out that these need to be oriented to the common good.” (CA n. 43)

In the Second Vatican Council’s treatment of the topic “Economic and Social Life,” the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) stated that in these orders “the dignity and vocation of the human person as well as the welfare of society as a whole have to be respected and fostered.” The moral foundation is clear: “… for people are the source, the focus and the aim of all economic and social life.” (GS n. 63)

At the same time, the Pastoral Constitution affirmed that “(b)y its nature and mission the church is universal in that it is not committed to any one culture or to any political, economic, or social system.” (GS n. 42)

The Pastoral Constitution addressed the uneasiness and suspicions raised among moderns about whether the entanglement of religion with human activity would “endanger the autonomy of humanity, of organizations and of science.” (GS n.36)

Here, in response, the conciliar teaching distinguished two meanings of the term “autonomy.” On the one hand, the autonomy of earthly affairs is a valid concept if it signifies “the gradual discovery, utilization and ordering of the values of society.” Since this sense of “autonomy” is in accord with the intent of the Creator, the Church respects “the methods proper to every science and technique….” (GS n. 36)

Thus, the scientific method of a given branch of knowledge can be consistent with faith when the findings of scientific research do not nullify essential ethical demands.

On the other hand, the concept of “the autonomy of earthly affairs” is judged to be erroneous when it conceives “earthly affairs” apart from a relationship to the Creator.

Later on, in the section on “The Political Community,” the Pastoral Constitution notes that, on account of its role and competence in a pluralist society, the Church is neither identified “with any political community nor is it tied to any political system.” (GS n. 76)

In “A Decade After ‘Economic Justice for All,’” the Catholic bishops of the United States explained that the complex nature of their 1986 pastoral letter on the U.S. economy would preclude “simple ideological identification.” The original pastoral letter on the economy predictably had evoked a diversity of responses, both positive and negative, which the 1995 revisiting of the document delineated a decade later.

Some camps on the right reflected an openness toward “the traditional teaching on private property, the limits of the state, the advantages of free markets and the condemnation of communism” but at the same time resistance to “the focus on the poor, the defense of labor unions, the recognition of the moral limits of markets, and the responsibilities of government.”

By contrast, left-of-center thinking welcomed “the teaching on the ‘option for the poor,’ the duties of government to protect the weak, the warnings against unbridled capitalism, but seemed to ignore the centrality of the family, the emphasis on economic initiative, and the warnings against the bureaucratic excesses of a ‘social assistance state.’”

The bishops identify the Catholic social tradition as “a moral framework, not a partisan platform or ideological tool.” That moral framework “challenges both right and left, labor and management to focus on the dignity of the human person and the common good rather than their own political or economic interests.”

Catholic Conference of Kentucky

1042 Burlington Lane

Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

502-875-4345 502-875-2841 Fax cckstaffATccky.org

Last modified: November, 2008