Why I Probably Won't Read the Pope's Social Encyclical

Of course, anything written by Benedict XVI is worth reading. But when it comes to the genre of "social encyclicals," one really has to ask, why?

What is it about the "social doctrine," as it's usually called, that necessitates an entirely separate treatment in Church teaching? The Vatican even issued a separate publication for its "social doctrine," a questionable idea, because it means that many Catholics consult this in the absence of a real integration of these ideas in the greater corpus of Church teaching. One particular sentence in the introductory letter from Cardinal Sodano stands out: "The principles of the Church's social doctrine, which are based on the natural law, are then seen to be confirmed and strengthened, in the faith of the Church, by the Gospel of Christ" (#2). One wonders what has priority here, the Gospel or the "social doctrine"? Everything is based on natural law and the "imprinting" of moral values in humanity.

This argument, if taken to its ultimate conclusion, actually vitiates the need for the Gospel and revelation, as well as the need for Catholicism itself. Another sentence from the letter illustrates this: "Moreover, it is interesting to note how the many elements brought together here are shared by other Churches and Ecclesial Communities, as well as by other Religions. The text has been presented in such a way as to be useful not only from within (ab intra), that is among Catholics, but also from outside (ab extra). In fact, those who share the same Baptism with us, as well as the followers of other Religions and all people of good will, can find herein fruitful occasions for reflection and a common motivation for the integral development of every person and the whole person" (#4).

This Compendium represents the final collapse of any argument based on Catholic distinctives. With Leo XIII and Pius XI, it was an argument against socialism and capitalism, an effort to find a third way in which people could live Christian lives without being shackled to one or the other of the prevailing ideologies. Leo and Pius looked to Church tradition for a solution, to the medieval brotherhoods and the possibility, however remote, of a reconstruction of Christendom.

Later Popes, particularly Paul VI and John Paul II have capitulated to the spirit of the age, however. Rather than suggest a solution in terms of the Catholic tradition, Paul VI offered warmed-over Marxism (Populorum Progressio). And John Paul II (Centesimus Annus) has succumbed to a generic, ecumenical language consisting of personalism, social justice, and solidarity. There is nothing specifically Catholic, or even Christian, in his rendering of the social encyclical, apart from sporadic references to "Christ." His efforts brought the "third way" to an end and that was not only unfortunate, but really un-Catholic. His "liberation" of persons from their rightful ties to the Church where they can construct the societies of their choice makes it nearly impossible to enact Catholic principles in the "marketplace." Simply saying that the marketplace must be governed by a "juridical framework" that is "ethical and religious" is sophistry at its most naked. It is meaningless. How does one "evangelize" a person in a society "free" of any principles that are specifically Catholic? There is nothing here by which one can anchor one's teaching. Untethered as we now are, our evangelization simply floats away. John Paul forgot that one cannot be all things to all people and a broadbrush approach offers nothing but platitudes and nostrums. One almost has the sense that John Paul regarded Catholic theology as "ideology" and preferred a facile outreach to all that, in the end, really reached no one.

Point: Most people either do not know the theory of the "natural law" or do not believe it. It is a non-starter. It is not a basis for agreement on the construction of societies.

Point: Most people already know what the Popes will say in their social encyclicals. Do you really think that those who exploit the poor, those who brought down the banks, the savings-and-loans, the people who manipulate the stock market, the people in the corporations who offered home loans to people who couldn't afford them, blah, blah, blah, didn't realize they were engaging in immoral conduct? Why do you think they conducted their activities under the cover of darkness or behind closed doors? Do you think they care what the Pope thinks? Do you think they will ever care what the Pope thinks? More importantly, do you think that quasi-Catholic ideological groups (read Neuhaus-Weigel-Novak) care what the Pope thinks? Do you think most American Catholics, wedded to capitalism no matter what, care what the Pope thinks?

Point: No matter what the new encyclical says, ideologues of both the left and the right will distort it. Remember what Neuhaus-Weigel-Novak did to Centesimus Annus?

Point: What would be wrong, I wonder, with going to back to first principles? Why not try to speak for Catholicism, rather than for the entire universe? Why not use Catholic language rather than the bland, non-specific, meaningless language of the world (as long as we're supposed to be non-conformists and have an "adult faith" anyway)? Why not try envisioning things in terms of moral principles rather than "social justice"?

Why not?