Catholic Social Thought, the Market and Public Policy

Catholic Social Thought, the Market and Public Policy

St Mary’s University Press is an imprint of St Mary’s University. Its publications further the University’s mission and values, including excellence in research and scholarship. All publications are peer reviewed. St Mary’s University Press is a registered trademark. Further details can be found at www.stmarys.ac.uk/press/about.aspx.

Catholic Social Thought, the Market and Public Policy

Twenty-First-Century Challenges

Edited by Philip Booth and

André Azevedo Alves

St Mary’s University Press

Copyright © 2024 by St Mary’s University Press

Published by St Mary’s University Press

www.stmarys.ac.uk/press/about.aspx

Published in association with

London Publishing Partnership

www.londonpublishingpartnership.co.uk

All rights reserved

ISBN: 978-1-916786-00-4 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-916786-01-1 (ePDF)

ISBN: 978-1-916786-02-8 (ePUB)

A catalogue record for this book is available

from the ­British Library

Typeset in Adobe Garamond Pro by

T&T Productions Ltd, London

www.tandtproductions.com

Contents

Forewords

Acknowledgement

1. Introduction

Philip Booth and André Azevedo Alves

2. Thomas Aquinas, the late scholastics and their influence on the tradition of Catholic social teaching

André Azevedo Alves, Hugo Chelo and Inês Gregório

3. The universal Church and globalization

Philip Booth

4. The right to migrate and the common good

Andrew M. Yuengert

5. The environment, Catholic social teaching and public policy

Philip Booth

6. The positive role of virtuous business in economic life

Martin Schlag

7. Cronyism and Catholic social teaching

Jay W. Richards

8. The Biblical and patristic roots of Catholic social thought on business and commerce

Martin Schlag

9. Taxation and the role of government

Robert G. Kennedy

10. Government debt: a neglected theme of Catholic social teaching

Philip Booth, Kaetana Numa and Stephen Nakrosis

11. The financial sector in Catholic social teaching

Samuel Gregg

12. Catholic social teaching and healthcare: time for a rethink

Russell Sparkes

13. Catholic social teaching and the role of the state in education

Leonardo Franchi

14. Formal sources of Catholic social teaching

Philip Booth and André Azevedo Alves

Forewords

Perhaps one of many hallmarks of Pope Francis’s papacy is his openness to critical dialogue and wide-ranging encouragement to raise important questions. Addressing the International Theological Commission in 2019, the Holy Father affirmed the theologian’s vocation to be that of facing things which are not clear and taking risks in discussion. Of course, this can never be at the expense of the Church’s faith. There are clear parameters in matters of both faith and morals, as specified by the Church’s Magisterium, and these should not be breached. Some areas, however, leave a genuine space for legitimate and prudent diversity of interpretation. This is true in the application of the principles of Catholic social teaching, not least in addressing ever-changing dimensions of human and political ecology.

The encounter of Catholic teaching and tradition with contemporary social reality lends itself to a dialogical interpretive methodology. What the Second Vatican Council understood as the necessary engagement between the Church and the modern world is felt keenly in the articulation of Catholic social teaching. On such fundamental subjects as human dignity, the common good, solidarity, subsidiarity, poverty, peace, work and the environment, Catholic social teaching offers the wisdom of faith informed by reason or, as it is sometimes described, reasoning within faith.

The authors of this collection, all experts in their respective fields, trace the historical legacy of Catholic social teaching and shine its light on contemporary issues, some more contentious than others. They invite us to reflect with them, from within the Catholic tradition, considering diverse aspects of social and economic life ranging from subjects such as migration, healthcare and taxation to education and the environment. Not everyone may agree with each interpretation or conclusion set forth. The contributors’ purpose, however, is to stimulate a deepened and broadened understanding of how issues facing the Church and the world might be addressed faithfully through Catholic social teaching.

The American moral theologian Thomas Shannon warned against what he called the ‘fallacy of the generalization of expertise’: the notion that competence in one area necessarily implies proficiency in others. To articulate properly the implications of Catholic social teaching, alongside theological voices, the Church needs the collaborative participation of those well versed in matters of economy, social and public policy, political theory and human development, at local, national and global levels. This timely and thought-provoking collection is an accessible testimony to such faithful and constructive partnership, promoting that fullness of life which Christ desires for all (cf. Jn 10:10).

most rev john wilson

Archbishop of Southwark

I am delighted to welcome this collection of essays on the practical application of Catholic social teaching to some of the most pressing policy tasks we face today. It is certainly the case that we urgently need to raise the quality of public discourse and inject a degree of ‘wisdom’ into political and economic debates which have become increasingly fractious and in which each side claims to have a monopoly on the truth. The current rise of individualism, populism and the geopolitical tensions between nations have made the job of calm deliberation based on clear values harder but even more important. Catholic social teaching, with its rich intellectual tradition, can provide an important framework for such dialogue.

Indeed, the importance of raising the quality of political and economic debate, has been emphasized by Pope Francis. In his most recent encyclical, Fratelli tutti, repeating a call he had made in an earlier encyclical, Laudato si’, Pope Francis demanded ‘a politics which is far-sighted and capable of a new, integral and interdisciplinary approach to handling the different aspects of the crisis’ (Fratelli tutti, 177). Later, the encyclical continues, again repeating a message from Laudato si’: ‘True statecraft is manifest, when, in difficult times, we uphold high principles and think of the long-term common good. Political powers do not find it easy to assume this duty in the work of nation-building, much less in forging a common project for the human family’ (178).

The notion of the ‘common good’ is much used in the Catholic tradition. Its particular understanding of human anthropology and the inherent dignity of human beings is not always well understood, despite its importance in tackling contemporary challenges. This book is important in that it brings together scholars with both an understanding of theology and an expertise in public policy, an unusual – but necessary – combination to examine some of these questions.

Of course, the reader may not agree with all the views expressed in this book. We may well interpret both the facts, and the best policy choices differently. The chapter authors largely favour a smaller state and a bigger role for civil society in the delivery of public services, but they recognize clearly that policy conclusions are matters for ‘prudential judgement’ on which ‘two reasonable and faithful Catholics can disagree’. But it is certainly true, as the authors argue, that we need to think seriously about the challenges of the twenty-first century in a more considered way, based on a better understanding about where we are today and a richer application of the fuller Catholic understanding of the ideal of the ‘common good’ in which the state puts the conditions in place for human flourishing. It is also the case that we need to avoid knee-jerk calls for greater government intervention at every turn.

Many of the views in the book will be challenging, particularly to practising politicians concerned not just with policy but with re-election prospects. In particular, the insight that civil society has gradually been ‘crowded out’ by increasing government intervention – well-intentioned as that government intervention may be – is an important point on which all those concerned with public policy should reflect. For those on the left, it is worth seriously considering the argument that stronger labour protection laws have been accompanied by weaker trade unions and labour organizations. Is one the cause of the other? Or did the state need to step in as organized labour was weakened? For those across the political spectrum, the book challenges politicians to justify the differing treatment of health and education services by the state. Faith schools, specialist schools and schools with their own charisms and ethos are all provided with state funding on a similar basis in Britain. Diversity is encouraged, and parental choice over how to bring up children is at the centre of the approach. The National Health Service, however, is set up to favour uniformity of provision, with little space for faith-based or diverse provision within the public funding model.

The book also provides an important corrective, noting, despite the tendency of many to catastrophize the current global economic situation, the staggering improvements in basic measures of human welfare over the past 30 years as well as the sharp decline in inequality. As the authors note, it is important to recognize the reality of the situation, before using deciding the best course of action.

There is no doubt that politicians of all parties who wish seriously to put human dignity and the promotion of the common good at the centre of their policy approach would do well to consider the arguments presented here. This is an important contribution to the debate.

Rt Hon Ruth Kelly

Member of the Council for the Economy of the Vatican

Acknowledgement

The editors thank the Templeton World Charity Foundation for making this publication, and the associated website (www.catholicsocialthought.org.uk), possible through their financial support. The materials on the website as well as this book will also be translated into Portuguese and made available in a number of ­Portuguese-speaking countries.

Chapter 1

Introduction

Philip Booth and André Azevedo Alves

prudence in applying the principles of catholic social teaching

The main purpose of this book is to promote a better understanding of the link between Catholic social thought and public policy. A subsidiary purpose is to examine the relationship between public policy, business and civil society. These are difficult themes to address. Experts on public policy do not generally have the theological background to ensure that Catholic social thought is considered in an appropriately scholarly way. At the same time, it is relatively rare for theologians to have the specialist knowledge to cross the empirical and theoretical bridge to subjects such as economics and political economy so that they can make appropriate prudential judgements. However, as interest in Catholic social thought grows, the number of people with the necessary breadth of intellectual experience has been increasing. This book brings together a number of those scholars.

The Catholic Church has always expressed views on issues to do with political, economic and social life. Rerum novarum, issued in 1891, is often identified as the starting point of that teaching from a formal standpoint. However, Catholic social thought, teaching and witness are as old as the Church herself.

There are important links between public policy in the economic sphere and objective moral matters. These may relate to issues such as fraud, theft, lying, physical oppression of workers and so on: our authors explore some of those links. However, there are additional criteria by which much of economic and social policy should be judged. This process of judgement requires the virtue of prudence. As such, the issues discussed in this book are often described as ‘matters for prudential judgement’ and they are matters on which two reasonable and faithful Catholics can disagree. This distinguishes these issues from the moral and theological teaching of the Church which is to be held by all faithful Catholics.

Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it (Catechism of the Catholic Church,¹ paragraph 1806). In the realm of public policy, prudence is important for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it helps us to determine our objectives. This is important given that, in economic matters, there are trade-offs. We might regard it as desirable that we move from a situation in a poor country in which there is universal primary education to one in which all children have secondary education – but how do we achieve this if families cannot afford basic healthcare or a reasonable standard of living in other respects?

The second area that requires prudence is in relation to how we achieve certain goals. Here, the principles of Catholic social teaching add richness to secular philosophies. A utilitarian economist, for example, might argue that we should use the policy instrument that achieves a given goal most efficiently and which therefore uses fewest economic resources for a given outcome. A student of Catholic social teaching would weigh up other things too. So, a Catholic would not sacrifice the life of the unborn in pursuit of greater economic growth or a higher standard of living for a family. A Catholic would not promote euthanasia to free up more hospital beds for younger sick people. A Catholic may support family autonomy in education, even if that led to poorer educational outcomes as measured by test scores (though this is unlikely), because it would allow parents to exercise their conscience in choosing a school for their child. All social and economic decisions have moral dimensions and should not just be seen through utilitarian and materialistic lenses. The Catholic social teaching perspective has something to add to public policy debates.

A third area that requires prudence is the consideration of the legitimate role of government. And this is often where there is most controversy between Catholics. The authors of most of the chapters of this book could be described as supporting a large role for a free economy and civil society and a more limited role for government than is common in many Western societies. They would also, in general, prefer government to be local and decentralized rather than power lying at the highest level of government. Some commentators, taking a somewhat reductionist approach, have described these positions as ‘libertarian’ and ‘neo-conservative’ while also confusing the two terms, which mean different things (see Finn 2011). But this is a most unhelpful and inaccurate approach which creates more heat than light (see Mueller 2011). We hope that readers will consider the perspectives in this book with open minds and with generosity of spirit.

There are good reasons, to do with our human nature, why government action to address problems within the economy and society is necessary. However, there are also good reasons to suppose that attempting to tackle problems by resorting directly to intervention by the central government is not always the best approach (see Booth 2021). No human person has been blessed with the omniscience to be able to centrally plan aspects of economic and social life confident of success. Civil society institutions, and others acting within a free economy, can use decentralized knowledge and their intimate understanding of the problems they are trying to solve and of the individuals with whom they have relationships when trying to resolve social problems. Local knowledge of specific circumstances of time and place as well as personal and communal involvement with the issues at stake are often essential requirements for successful action. In this spirit, all our authors would be in favour of less state and more society. Pope John Paul II made this distinction between state and society in Centesimus annus, as did Pope Leo XIII in Rerum novarum and Pope Benedict XVI in Deus caritas est. In Catholic social teaching this approach is embedded in the principle of subsidiarity.

Of course, any approach to thinking about problems of political economy in a Catholic context has to take account of our sinfulness. In this context, the question of the pursuit of self-interest is often raised. This is not an entirely straightforward issue. In a market economy, self-interest pursued in the context of a sound institutional framework can often be a constructive force (see Centesimus annus, 25) because market transactions require mutually beneficial exchange between parties. However, when self-interest is disordered and turns into selfishness, things can go badly wrong. A wide range of corporate scandals can be laid firmly at the door of unethical and selfish behaviour by those in positions of power in business. The Catholic Church has proposed that economic activity is regulated in order to address such problems (see Caritas in veritate, 65). However, there is also legitimate concern that selfishness and dishonest practice can manifest themselves in government action. We cannot, therefore, simply turn to government to solve problems that arise within market economies and expect them to be automatically resolved. Indeed, the nature of government is such that selfishness, greed and dishonesty can be catastrophic when expressed through the structures of the state. The estimated fortune of Muammar Gaddafi, of Libya, for example, was $75 billion when his assets were frozen. That of former President Mubarak of Egypt was $1.2 billion. There are many more examples that could be quoted. These fortunes were certainly not amassed through mutually beneficial transactions between the dictators and their peoples! Corruption can unite harmful business and political interests against the common good and against the interests of the people as a whole. Both Pope Francis and Pope John Paul II raised this specific question in encyclicals and other letters (Alves and Booth 2022).

We could sum this argument up by saying that one imperfect institution (government) should not be expected to perfect other imperfect institutions (the market and civil society): in some instances it may even make things worse. Once again, the virtue of prudence can help us navigate these problems. Furthermore, if we accept that we cannot deal with all the imperfections arising within economic and social life by the use of government alone, it heightens the need for ethical practice – not just in business, but in civil society and in political life.

Prudence is not just necessary in making public policy judgements, it is also necessary in economic life. Business owners and managers often face very difficult decisions. For example, making employees redundant when employment opportunities are scarce may be catastrophic for the families of the affected workers. On the other hand, if not making employees redundant leads to the bankruptcy of the enterprise, the impact on others and on the community as a whole could be much worse. To take another example, how should a company proceed when considering the building of a mine that will provide cheaper fuel, plentiful jobs, damage local fauna and flora and produce carbon emissions?

In every area of economic and political life, we need ethical ­decision-making as well as a technical understanding that will enable prudent decisions to be made. This need was made clear by Benedict XVI, when Cardinal Ratzinger (1986):

It is becoming an increasingly obvious fact of economic history that the development of economic systems which concentrate on the common good depends on a determinate ethical system, which in turn can be born and sustained only by strong religious convictions. A morality that believes itself able to dispense with the technical knowledge of economic laws is not morality but moralism. As such it is the antithesis of morality. Today we need a maximum of specialized economic understanding, but also a maximum of ethos so that specialized economic understanding may enter the service of the right goals.

the authority of catholic social teaching and the need for dialogue

Prudence, combined with humility, often involves admitting that we do not have the expertise to make recommendations on a particular policy issue. Catholic social teaching documents are written in that spirit. They do form part of the teaching of the Church. But the Church accepts that it is not her role to make definitive, formal statements on economic, social and political matters that carry the same weight as her teaching on moral and theological questions. The Church’s teaching on economic, social and political matters can evolve and even change.

This way of thinking was expressed by John Paul II in Centesimus annus (3):

The present Encyclical seeks to show the fruitfulness of the principles enunciated by Leo XIII, which belong to the Church’s doctrinal patrimony and, as such, involve the exercise of her teaching authority. But pastoral solicitude also prompts me to propose an analysis of some events of recent history. It goes without saying that part of the responsibility of Pastors is to give careful consideration to current events in order to discern the new requirements of evangelization. However, such an analysis is not meant to pass definitive judgments since this does not fall per se within the Magisterium’s specific domain.

And, as Rodger Charles states in his book, Christian Social Witness and Teaching (Charles 1998, vol. II, p. 15), the magisterial authority of the encyclicals extends to matters of moral principle and their implications only. On those matters, social encyclicals are binding on the conscience of members of the Church. Practical and other related matters, according to Charles, can be judged on the basis of the arguments presented.

It is therefore important for the Catholic Church to nurture a rich intellectual tradition that generates new contributions to Catholic social thought that can, ultimately, be reflected in her teaching. In this spirit, Pope Francis has raised many questions in social encyclicals while calling for dialogue. He uses the word ‘dialogue’ 24 times in his social encyclical on the environment, Laudato si’, and 48 times in his later encyclical Fratelli tutti. The purpose of this book is to contribute to that dialogue. Dialogue can often bring people together in surprising ways. Dialogue between people who disagree can not only help people to come closer to agreement, it can help people appreciate that their interlocutor is approaching the problem from a position of goodwill. When people realize that others who make different prudential judgements are acting in goodwill it can help the development of a civilized and fruitful political and intellectual culture. Dialogue can often bring people together on particular issues who have quite different philosophies in general. To give just one example, it is often those on the left of the political spectrum and those who strongly support free markets who are the most vociferous advocates of allowing asylum seekers and refugees the right to work.²

principles of catholic social teaching

Chapter four of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church identifies the promotion of human dignity as the first principle of Catholic social teaching. In the first place, government does this by protecting life, property, peace, the right to economic initiative and by ensuring that all have access to basic economic goods and services such as food, clothing, shelter, education and healthcare. Ensuring that all have basic goods does not mean, of course, that they should be provided by the government directly: normally, people obtain access to goods and services through earnings from work or from family members. However, the state should step in, in the name of human dignity, to ensure that, one way or another, all have the basics to live in dignity.

Another crucial pillar of Catholic social teaching is the promotion of the common good. This is not just Catholic language for ‘the general welfare’ or for ‘thinking about the whole community rather than yourself’. Specifically, according to the Vatican II document, Gaudium et spes (74), the common good embraces ‘the sum of those conditions of the social life whereby men, families and associations more adequately and readily may attain their own perfection.’ Sometimes the quotation ends with the word ‘fulfilment’, which is used in the English translation of the document in another paragraph. There is a danger, when using the word ‘fulfilment’, of applying a modern secular meaning to the term rather than understanding the common good in all its richness which involves living a fulfilled and virtuous life close to God.

The common good relates to what is both ‘good’ and ‘common’. As such, it encompasses those conditions that relate to the common life of a particular society that are indivisibly shared. In chapter six, Martin Schlag uses the example of nice conversation at a dinner party being part of the common good. If we are not keen on the food at the dinner party, then this will undermine our individual enjoyment (our private good), but not the common good. But, if somebody destroys the conversation in some way, it undermines that part of the evening that is both good and common.

This example also illustrates how the promotion of the common good is the responsibility of all individuals and institutions in society: for example, schools, businesses, families, parishes, charities, local and central government. Politics is only part of our common life which is shared at many levels.

In promoting the common good, the Catholic Church promotes the role of the family and social relationships as opposed to atomistic individualism; independent civil society institutions in education, labour markets and healthcare as opposed to an overbearing state; the right to economic initiative as opposed to central control and planning of economic life; and charity and justice as opposed to greed and selfishness.

The Church is aware that the need for the dignity of each and every human person to be upheld, together with the reality of human imperfection, gives rise to the need for government. At the same time, the Church wishes to ensure that government serves the human person and society and does not dominate them. Sometimes these requirements are regarded as being held in tension and this tension is often described as involving the balancing of the Catholic social teaching concepts of solidarity and subsidiarity. This is a potentially misleading simplification.

Solidarity is a virtue which involves acting upon a deep-seated concern for others. The preferential option for the poor is, of course, an aspect of the virtue of solidarity. In addition, ever since Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, Populorum progressio, on the development of peoples, nearly every Catholic social teaching document has emphasized that the bonds of solidarity go beyond national boundaries and require the bringing to fulfilment of a universal brotherhood.³ Solidarity should also transcend the generations. This is a point Pope Francis emphasized in Laudato si’, but, in fact, was also introduced in Populorum progressio (17):

We are the heirs of earlier generations, and we reap benefits from the efforts of our contemporaries; we are under obligation to all men. Therefore we cannot disregard the welfare of those who will come after us to increase the human family. The reality of human solidarity brings us not only benefits but also obligations.

Solidarity demands action at every level in society. Sollicitudo rei socialis (38) puts it like this:

[Solidarity] is not a feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so many people, both near and far. On the contrary, it is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all.

As with the common good, it is an error which impoverishes society to assume that expressions of solidarity are only the responsibility of the state: ‘Solidarity is first and foremost a sense of responsibility on the part of everyone with regard to everyone, and it cannot therefore be merely delegated to the State’ (Caritas in veritate, 38). Pope Benedict explained in an earlier encyclical why that is the case: ‘The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person – every person – needs: namely, loving personal concern’ (Deus caritas est, 28).

Indeed, we can see that the virtue of solidarity is closely linked to the virtue of love. How could we delegate love to the political order? Though, out of love, we may ask the political order to perform certain functions.

Subsidiarity explains how and when the state should act. The principle of subsidiarity helps us to see how different institutions in society have their different functions in promoting the common good. Subsidiarity means ‘to help’. The state should help individuals, families, the community and civil associations achieve their legitimate objectives and not take responsibility from them. From a proper understanding of subsidiarity many direct policy implications follow.

The principle of subsidiarity is explained effectively with reference to health and education in chapters twelve and thirteen, by Russell Sparkes and Leonardo Franchi respectively. In the case of education, the Catholic Church teaches that the state exists to provide the framework within which parents, including Catholic parents, can obtain education for their children of the sort that parents desire. The state exists to help families obtain an education for their children. The implicit – and sometimes explicit – message of Church teaching in this field is that the state should provide the same support to parents to have their children educated in a private or Church school as is provided in state schools. In other words, the parent and the family should be at the centre of decision-making, together with the school and possibly the parish community. This could also lead to an effective application of the principle of solidarity at all levels, with the state ensuring that all are able to obtain