C. Beginnings of the Tradition

1. Rerum Novarum

a. Background. Given that Pius IX died a "prisoner of the Vatican" and surrounded by all manner of political, economic, and social upheavals, few held high hopes for bold initiatives from Leo XIII. The times seemed to be against him. When one considers this general history as well as the specific background out of which Rerum Novarum emerged, it is a wonder that the document was written at all. In addition to the previously mentioned unpleasantness associated with events in Europe, a new issue for the Church was coming to terms with the new reality of a secular state, one neutral to all religions. Though such neutrality was not always in evidence, particularly during the Kulturkampf, the Church had to rethink its position vis a vis these new political entities.

Additionally, the Church now had to contend with the ideas of Marx and Darwin. The thought of Marx was to make the more immediate impact because of the rise of various revolutionary movements. But the impact of the concept of evolutionary change was to have profound epistemological significance for both society and the Church. And then there was the Industrial Revolution itself.

Begun in the new factories of Britain, but rapidly spreading throughout Western Europe, this event continues to have profound consequences for society. While this revolution was most significant for the lower classes, no one escaped its effects. The dislocation was staggering. The shift from the land to the city caused massive social dislocation, lack of housing, and left millions unemployed. The shift from the home to the factory led to miserly wages, deplorable working conditions (particularly for children), and severe strains on families. While the social effects of this revolution were particularly keen in England, few cities in Europe or America escaped its effects. The seeds of discontent sown by this movement found fertile ground in the various social movements inspired by this revolution as well as the various political movements that were descendants of the French and other nationalistic revolutions of the century.

However, Rerum Novarum began a new and critical use of the papal encyclical as a means of promulgating Catholic social teaching. The encyclical also established the "social question," as it was called then, as a central feature of papal teaching, thus giving the social teaching of Catholicism a new prominence and status because of its association with the papal office. And its publication initiated a significant tradition within Catholicism: the publication of an encyclical on social issues to commemorate the various anniversaries of the publication of Rerum Novarum.

b. Social Issues. From the early 1800s on, social teaching in the Catholic Church had been developing slowly, and occasionally in opposition to various conservative forces within the Church as well as within the larger society. Nonetheless, in the light of the deteriorating conditions in labor, various Catholic social initiatives were developed, first in Germany, and then in Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, and England. America too had a strong labor movement in which the Church was involved. Thus Rerum Novarum emerged out of a developing tradition.

A particular problem for the labor movement in Europe was its linkage with violence and revolutionary movements. In Europe, questions of labor were connected with discussions of politics and a philosophy of secularism, atheism, and materialism. Such linkages made some discussions of the labor question difficult, since they appeared to contradict central tenets of the Catholic faith, as well as to challenge the Church's relations with various governments.

Such a situation is shown well in Leo's 1878 encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris which dealt with socialism. This encyclical dealt with a "deadly plague" promulgated by "socialists, communists, or nihilists," meeting now openly to proclaim publicly what they had previously discussed in secret: "The overthrow of all civil society whatsoever." Thus a clear linkage exists in Leo's understanding of socialism and revolution.

Four errors in particular are noted by Leo in the opening paragraph. First, the socialists "refuse obedience to the higher powers." Second, they "proclaim the absolute equality of all men in rights and duties." Third, socialists "debase the natural union of man and woman, which is held sacred even among barbarous peoples." Finally, they "assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law ... and strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title of lawful inheritance, or by labor of brain and hands, or by thrift in one's mode of life."

Moreover, two other errors are singled out for particular criticism. One is the emancipation of reason from the bounds established by divine revelation. Such a movement began in the sixteenth century and was presently leading to an attempt to subvert all revelation, and overthrow the supernatural order, that thus the way might be opened for the discoveries, or rather the hallucinations, of reason alone.

Additionally and equally adamantly, the Pope spoke against new directions in political philosophy:

Yet, this appeared to be the direction for at least two reasons spelled out in detail in this encyclical. The first is an appeal to patience:

This group gave rise to other groups in various countries and led to the formation of an international organization known as Social Catholicism. After prolonged debate on the ideological implications of this name, the group renamed itself The International Union of Social Studies. While some of their discussions reflected the conservative posture of the Church, the group did recognize and support state legislation on behalf of workers. Moreover, in 1890, a conference was held in Berlin to discuss various problems. Participants sent a memorandum to Leo XIII. And "[t]his memorandum was the germ from which grew, after much study, Leo XIII's greatest encyclical."

Thus, although the times were not auspicious for an initiative in social reform, Leo had the prescience to recognize the plight of the workers and to make an intervention on their behalf. And surely, little did he realize what a tradition he would set in motion.

2. Specific Issues in Rerum Novarum

a. Social Stasis. One of the dominant issues running through Rerum Novarum is the necessity for social stability. Such a priority is hardly surprising given the nature of the revolutionary and violent changes in Europe during the centuries preceding Leo's reign. Such an assumption, though unstated, accounts for the comments about class. Leo saw the socialists of his day stirring up society, implanting wild dreams in the minds of the workers, destroying marriage, rejecting private property, and redistributing income. To stabilize society, Leo thought it necessary to maintain the class structure - which he thought was in the order of nature and not a violation of human dignity. But he did not think that this structure justified "the callousness of employers and the greed of unrestrained competition" Thus while Leo recognized and condemned the excesses of laissez- faire capitalism, he also thought that these excesses could be corrected without changing tire socioeconomic system. All of his solutions assume good will on the part of employers, the acceptance of certain ethical principles, and the acceptance of the guidance of the Church. He also assumed that workers would "supply by economy for the want of means . . . [and] be content with frugal living. . .". Thus, and this is a most critical issue, charity not justice, is the basis on which social adjustments are to be made. Yet, as long as one argues on the basis of charity, the structure will remain the same, and while some excesses may be corrected, their causes will remain.

b. The Just Wage. One of the more enduring concepts from Rerum Novarum is that of the just wage. What is critical in the concept is that wages cannot be set totally by a unilateral contract on the employer's part or through supply and demand. Given the necessity of labor for survival (for Leo does recognize the sea change in the basis of the international economy) together with his assumption that everyone would want private property as a source of social security, Leo argues that the wage must be sufficient to support the worker, the family, and provide enough so that they can save to buy property.

While Leo recognized that in the new economy, most would be wage earners, he still seems to assume that property is critical for social stability and well-being. Here he may not have made an adequate transition to the urbanization consequent to the Industrial Revolution. Neither the form that private property would take nor the specific role that it would play for the workers is clear in the encyclical. The assumption seems to be that this property would be in rural areas, but it is unclear how this is to be harmonized with workers living and working in the cities.

Nonetheless, while this dimension of property may be somewhat incongruous with the realities of social change (except perhaps for home ownership in our day), the concept of tying a wage to the social situation of the worker is a critical breakthrough and a genuine check on the worst excesses of the Industrial Revolution. Its significance is also attested to by its being a feature of all subsequent social teaching. In John XXIII's Pacem in Terris, for example, the criterion is that of "a proper wage determined according to criteria of justice, and sufficient, therefore, in proportion to the available resources, to provide for the worker and his family a manner of living in keeping with the dignity of the human person" . And in the American bishops' pastoral letter on the economy, the bishops phrase the concept in terms of participation in society.

While the concept is conservatively stated and a reflection of an assumption about class relations, Leo XIII recognized that workers were not chattel, that they had dignity, that wage labor was nothing to be ashamed of, and that workers had a right to reasonable compensation--and the basis of that compensation was independent of the employer's wishes.

c. Workers' Associations. Perhaps the most significant impact of the encyclical-at least in America--was its support for workers' associations. Leo was not against workers associating with each other. Such private associations are guaranteed by the natural law. What worried Leo was gatherings by the socialists or other groups devoted to violence or the overthrow of society, or the destruction of Religion, i.e., Roman Catholicism. Thus, although Leo was quite sympathetic to workers and gave audiences to many workers' pilgrimages, he was not favorably disposed to the various socialist movements that stood behind many workers' organizations.

In America, though, various workers' movements were growing. The Knights of Labor in particular was making various gains and had a Catholic president and a large Catholic membership. This movement, however, was tainted by the European experience of the Church and was in quite serious danger of being condemned by Rome. Only the active and sustained personal intervention by Archbishop Gibbons of Baltimore saved the Knights. This action opened a most significant chapter of labor and Catholicism in the United States.

What is critical here is that Leo, at least in this instance, was able to rise above his history and experience and trust a new movement in what was still a young, missionary church in a country that was not yet established. That openness gave a critical signal that the Church supported labor and was able to separate the interests and organization of workers from other revolutionary workers' organizations.

d. Private Property. The teaching on private property clearly reflects its social context. Leo, arguing as strongly as he can against the socialists and their affirmation of the community of goods, defends private property as a core element of the natural law, as a means of providing for the welfare of families, and a key element of stability within society. While not rejecting the social dimension of property, Leo XIII emphasized the private or individualistic dimension. Property, in addition to these very real dimensions, also takes on for Leo a symbolic dimension in that it becomes the core concept around which he can ground many of his attacks on socialism. Given that Leo saw a society in which chaos had been the norm for several centuries, that authority - both civil and religious - had been under severe assaults, and that workers were almost totally disenfranchised, it is no wonder that his teaching on property is so conservative and supportive of established authority. Such a defense was Leo's way of grounding some stability in society If the status quo were accepted, good would surely come from the reinforcement of the structure of society. The teaching also seems to reflect the transitional situation in which many found themselves at the end of the nineteenth century. That is, while confronting squarely the needs of the workers in the light of the Industrial Revolution, Leo XIII seems to envision property only as real estate. I infer this from his theory of ownership, which comes from the person mixing his or her toil with the earth, human sustenance being derived from the land or from some work which is paid for with the "produce of the land, or in that which is exchanged for what the land brings forth" or through ownership of profitable property, which he [the father] can transmit to his children by inheritance" Such a view of property is scarcely workable today. Money or perhaps credit, but certainly not property, is the means of exchange today. Few make their living directly from the land, and of those few, an even smaller number actually own their own property. And, given the cost of property, fewer are able to buy their own home. And even here, while such a purchase is intended as an investment, the means of the house accruing value is not from mixing one's labor with it, but rather from market forces external to the intrinsic worth of the house.

Consequently, Leo's analysis of property is defective in two respects. First, it is tied into an acceptance of the status quo and reflects Leo's own bias toward established authority and a hierarchical structuring of society which he further assumed was based or derived from the law of nature. Second, his view of property assumes a rural context, and is at least unwieldy if not unworkable in the modern urban, industrialized context.

3. Quadragessimo Anno

Commissioned by Pius XI and authored solely by the German Jesuit Oswald Nell-Breuning, this encyclical was published in 1931. There are four main themes in the encyclical. First, the revival of the Thomistic natural law philosophy as a basis for both personal and social optimism as well as for the reordering of the world which was suffering the effects of an international depression. Second, a statement of the role of the papacy which was two-fold: 1) the Pope as the possessor of a centralized authority and 2) the role of the Pope as the restorer of international moral order. Third, continuing a theme of Pius X, Pius XI continued the fight against modernism by focusing on papal authority and rejecting rationalism and efforts to reinterpret dogma. Finally, the economic question. Here Pius XI deplored the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and critiqued the wide-spread unemployment that preceded the depression.

While the encyclical proceeded calmly from its basis in natural Law ("If this law be faithfully obeyed, the result will be that particular economic aims … will be intimately linked with the universal teleological order, and as a consequence we shall be led by progressive stages to the final end of all, God himself, our highest and lasting good ) and from the role of the Pontiff ("To the feet of Christ's vicar on earth were seen to flock, in unprecedented numbers, specialists in social affairs, employers, the very working men themselves, begging with one voice that at last a safe road may be pointed out to them." ), nonetheless there were several critical observations made. Pius XI argued, for example, that charity to the poor was not a sufficient response to violations of justice. He also critiqued severely both socialism primarily it conceived of human society "in a way utterly alien to Christian truth" but also because of private property. Capitalism did not fare much better since by concentrating wealth in the hands of a few, ""Free competition has committed suicide; economic dictatorship has replaced a free market." QA also proposed the just wage understood to be sufficient to support the worker and his family and should be sufficient so that mothers would not have to work outside the home to supplement the father's salary.

A noted point of QA is its clear enunciation of what is now called the principle of subsidiarity:

While staying with in the same framework of natural law, Pius XI moved the social agenda forward by recognizing the institutional dimensions of social and economic questions and by arguing that justice, as well as charity, was needed to solve social problems. Additionally he raised critical factual and ethical questions about the nature of capitalism, questions which we might well reconsider today.

II. The Pre-Conciliar Period

A. Pius XII

These political and theological disputes continued through the reigns of Pius IX's successors. Pius X, who is popularly remembered for lowering the age of the reception of the Eucharist to seven and for his efforts in liturgical renewal, in particular continued a barrage against any forces of renewal or developments in doctrine. Lamentabilis, issued in July of 1907, was a severe broadside against modernism. Pascendi followed this in September of 1907. Several outcomes followed. First, the Oath against Modernism was formulated on the basis of Pascendi and required of all theology faculty both before accepting a teaching position and then annually. It was also required of all candidates for ordination. Second, we have the more universal use of the various manuals of both systematic and moral theology for the education of clergy. These were somewhat neoscholastic in tone but relied primarily on the assertion of various propositions, which were to be assented to and memorized. Finally, and most critically, the society Sodalitium Pianum was established to monitor and report to the Holy Office any deviations from orthodoxy. This set of spies, the placing of books of contemporary scholars on the Index of Prohibited Books, and the silencing of theologians through prohibitions on publications and removal from teaching positions created an atmosphere of terror that spread throughout the Church.

Such ideological and dogmatic terrorism did not hold sway, however. A new generation of scholars rose up and continued their work, often under great duress. These were the great theologians of Vatican II: Lagrange, DeLubac, Danielou, Congar, Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Haering, and John Courtney Murray. While their scholarship was great, so were their sufferings. They had a common fate of being removed from teaching positions and being prohibited from publishing. Even during Vatican II itself, Karl Rahner still had to submit his publications to an extraordinary Vatican censor. Yves Congar wrote in his journal in 1953: 'The Holy Office presides over the entire church and curbs everyone with its interventions: this supreme, inflexible Gestapo whose decisions cannot be questioned." Such a sentiment was repeated by Bernard Haering only a few years ago on one of his frequent trips to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. He remarked that he was not too worried about this questioning because the Nazis had interrogated him before. Both of these men had first hand experience with the Nazis.

A critical transition came during Pius XII's reign. Many were hoping that he would destroy what came to be called the theologie nouvelle, just as Pius X had done with modernism. Instead he published two critical encyclicals. Divino Afflante Spiritu essentially validated what the biblical scholars in exile had been doing over the past decades: using both a knowledge of the languages in which the scriptures were written as well as developments in archaeology and other related sciences to both establish and contextualize the scriptural text. More importantly, Pius XII also validated the use of the methods of textual criticism to understand what the text meant. Humani Generis, published on 12 August 1950, while a conservative document, was not the coup de grace to the theologie nouvelle that its opponents had hoped for. Pius left some room for discussion. For example, he considered the evolution of the human body an open question. He also nuanced the question of whether Adam was the only source of all humans by suggesting that it was not clear how the origin of other humans not descended from Adam could be reconciled with the doctrine of original sin. But he did not prohibit anyone from looking for such an explanation.

And so scholarship began to flourish once again, cautiously and under continual examination. And even though everyone knew who the usual suspects were, the roundups began to decrease a bit. The liturgical movement began to flourish both in Europe and in the United States. The laity began to become more engaged in the life of the Church through all manner of social action organizations.

In his lengthy Christmas Addresses, Pius spoke to various issues, including his support of democracy which he saw as a form of government in harmony with human dignity. Though seemingly opposed to the underlying philosophy of capitalism, he saw capitalism as an alternative to communism and as a system that could succeed in a democracy. He argued, however for an equitable distribution of goods even if that resulted in less for all. In this he shifted somewhat the traditional teaching on the primacy of the right of private property. Pius' priority was the general right of all to use the earth with private property taking a secondary role. This was to have a significant influence on succeeding teaching.

Pius' reign encompassed some of the most significant events of our last century: WWII, the Holocaust, the first uses of the atomic bomb, the cold war, struggles of colonialism and the Korean police action. It was not an easy time to be Pope.

Then in 1958, Pius XII died and was replaced with a 73-year-old cardinal who was assumed to be a caretaker pope. And the contrasts could not be more stark: Pius was gaunt, John rotund; Pius aesthetic; John was pictured with a cigarette in one hand and a martini glass in the other; Pius was a bureaucrat; John was a diplomat. And then on 25 January 1959, John XXIII called for an ecumenical Council.

B. John XXIII

1. Mater et Magistra

Written in 1961, MM was to apply the heritage of RN and QA to contemporary times. John focused on three areas. First was what he called socialization, that is, the increasingly numerous and complex relations between peoples leading to greater interdependence. This led to two factors needing to be kept in balance; "1) the freedom of individual citizens and groups of citizens to act autonomously, while cooperating one with the other; 2) the activity of the State whereby the undertakings of private individuals and groups are suitably regulated and fostered."

A second focus was on property. John argued that while there was a right of private property, the Church has always stressed the social responsibility associated with property. Thus while the principle of subsidiarity should be observed, "the common good requires public authorities to exercise every greater responsibilities." In this light, justice id understood not in terms of the sum total of goods in a nation, but "as from the distribution of goods according to norms of justice, so that everyone in the community can develop and perfect himself."

The third focus, quite new in the encyclical tradition, was agriculture. Here John argued that farmers should receive the social improvements common to all, that they should be protected through some sort of insurance plan for both their families and their crops, and that there should be some sort of price controls to assure both affordability of crops and a fair profit. This section is very interventionist and was perhaps the part that led William F. Buckley to put the headline on the cover of The National Review: "Mater Si, Magistra, Non."

John also used this encyclical to put the person at the center of the church's social teaching. Thus the person is the foundation, cause and end of all institutions . The person is also to cooperate with others in what is naturally good or conducive to good, a critical text and subtext for John's entire papacy.

2. Pacem In Terris

Written in 1963 as John's Easter Present to the world, PT was the first encyclical to be addressed to all people of good will as well as to the Church as a whole. PT continued the optimism characteristic of John but also used the vehicle of natural law to articulate an integrated worldview. Following Augustine, John argued that peace "can be firmly established only if the order laid down by God be dutifully observed." . The encyclical then articulates four interdependent spheres in which order must be obtained: order between humans, order between humans and public authority in a single state, order in relations between states, and order between individuals and political communities within a world state. Order is predicated on an interconnected series of goods and rights are secured by the establishment of the order of justice. This is based on authority within the community but this authority is, in turn, "has as its source in nature, and as, consequently God for its author." Furthermore, since this authority "is the power to command according to right reason, authority must derive its obligatory force from the moral order, which in turn has god for its first source and final end."

Thus while John XXIII is in tune with his times and optimistic with respect to the building of an international community based on the common good, his framework is totally within the natural law tradition. While he highlights different themes and nuances the tradtion to respond to particular problems, the framework in the natural law, although a very positive and articulate presentation of it. His own charismatic reading and articulation of this tradition highlighted the best the church had to offer. Hence the genuine sadness of all of the world at his death.

III. Vatican II

A. Background

It is only in the light of the history of the Church that one can only come to appreciate some 30 years later the significance of John XXIII's calling of Vatican II and his desire for what he called aggiornainento. In his history of the Council, Rynne repeats the story that "the pope, asked by a visiting cardinal for a simple explanation of the Council, went to the nearest window, opened it wide, and let in the fresh air."

The Council opened on 11October 1962. The debate on Schema XIII that was to become Gaudium et Spes began on 20 October 1964 during the third session of the Council. Much of course had happened during that time, particularly the death of John XXIII and the election of Paul VI, to say nothing of the tremendous expectations, debates, disappointments, and hopes that the previous sessions of the Council raised. In this section I will give an overview of the development of the text and comment on its methodological implications.

1. Development of the text of Gaudium et Spes

In calling the Council, John XXIII had two themes in mind: unity and the world. Prior to his election, Bishop Roncalli had done diplomatic service in Eastern Europe and developed a strong interest in what has come to be called ecumenism. Additionally, as the Patriarch of Venice, Roncalli emerged himself in the pastoral needs of this diocese. This led to two important statements in the Constitution Humanae Salutis which, on 25 December 1961, officially announced the Council: "It is a question in fact of bringing the modem world into contact with the vivifying and perennial energies of the gospel.... This supernatural order must also reflect its efficiency in the other order, the temporal one, which on so many occasions is unfortunately ultimately the only one that occupies and worries man." In a speech on 11 September 1962, John XXIII identified several themes for the agenda of the Council. This speech had its origins in a pastoral letter Cardinal Suenens of Belgium addressed to his diocese in 1962. By chance, John XXIII saw it and recognized in it many of his hopes for the Council. He then directed Suenens to produce a report on the work of the Council, which resulted in two memoranda, one on what the Council should not do and one on what it should do. This latter memorandum was the inspiration for Pope's speech. Of special importance was the inspiration and leadership of Dom Helder Camara who continually pressed problems dealing with the Third World. Two particular questions he asked were: "Are we to spend our whole time discussing internal Church problems while two-thirds of the world is dying of hunger?" and, "Is shortage of priests the greatest problem of Latin America? No! Underdevelopment." These efforts led to the development of a Secretariat to examine these problems. Additionally, at a meeting of fifty bishops in Louvain in December 1962, Cardinals Suenens, Lecaro, Lienart, Geger, and Montini all came to an agreement about the importance of such themes for the Council. Thus from the very start "the theme of Church and world proved inescapable."

From September of 1962 until the final vote on 7 December, the text of what was to become Gaudium et Spes underwent several major and a practically infinite number of minor textual revisions produced by a vast complex of Commissions, Mixed Commissions, Central Commissions, Subcommittees, Editorial Committees and various editors. Names common to many of these groups were Congar, Danielou, Rahner, Schillebeeckx, and most commonly Bernard Haering. Remember that this was still the age of manual typewriters and only primitive photocopying, with carbon paper being the primary means of making multiple copies. Also, texts from many languages had to he translated into Latin, the working language of the Council.

Text 1 was primarily a listing of general agenda items produced in September 1962. A key decision from this preliminary draft was the presentation of the theme of humans created in the image of God, and the particular focus was this image as revealed in the world: through human dominion over the world which is to radiate God's face to creation. Text 2 was produced between January and May of 1963 by a Mixed Commission of Dogma and the Laity. Two major revisions were developed. A critical decision made here was to make the document more pastoral and biblical. Additionally, this draft was further inspired with respect to content and method by the publication of Pacem in Terris in April of 1963. Between February and November of 1964, Text 3 was produced, the so-called Zurich manuscript. This text was the product of the intense work of seven subcommittees. During the debate on this version, Cardinal Meyer of Chicago made an important intervention that I think needs to be quoted because of the way in which several key themes are brought together and because it made an important contribution to future drafts.

Text 5 was written between 14 September and 12 November 1965. The debate from this text produced 500 typed pages of notes. Each amendment was typed on a separate card to facilitate the editing process. There were more than 3,000 such cards for this draft alone. Text 6 emerged between 13 November and 7 December when the final vote on Gaudium et Spes was taken and passed by a vote of 2,309 to 75.

B. Methodology of Gaudium et Spes

From my perspective, the most important sentence in Gaudium et Spes is in Paragraph 5: "Thus, the human race has passed from a rather static concept of realty to a more dynamic, evolutionary one." This sentence recognizes that we have shifted from a classical to an historical mindset, which redefines how we think of ourselves and our place in the cosmos. More specifically this means that the theory of natural law as traditionally understood is no longer the dominant methodology. What is required is the development of a moral theory appropriate to modem consciousness, to the shift from a static to a dynamic perspective. This is a work in progress and is proceeding not without some difficulty. Because of the significance of this sentence and the methodological shift it entails, I want to highlight for a moment the traditional doctrine of natural law and then show what the shift means.

Thomas Aquinas built his idea of natural law from a synthesis of two major traditions, the Stoic and the Aristotelian, which he combined with the common theology of the Church, articulated in particular by Augustine. From Aristotle, Aquinas took the idea of society as an order existing for the mutual exchange of services for the common good. This suggests that society, and implicitly government, is a part of the structure of nature. Within this context, law functions not simply as a regulatory agency, but as a part of the universal structure of creation, which derives its rational character from the intelligent plan of the creator. Aquinas also accepted from Aristotle the concept of an hierarchically ordered universe with definite structures ordained by the creator. From the Stoics, Aquinas borrowed the concept of an absolute and a relative state of nature. The absolute state of nature was the Golden Age of human perfection. The relative state of nature was humanity, as we know it today, disrupted by the excesses of the emotions. From a theological perspective, Aquinas identified the relative state of nature with the human condition after the fall of Adam and Eve, which grounds a transition from innocence to sinfulness and the consequent weakening of human nature with its disastrous personal and social implications. Thus it became necessary to introduce government and laws to regulate the community and to restrain evil.

Eternal law for Aquinas is the plan or order of creation, which has existed in the mind of God from all eternity. It is a divine reality, immutable, and the locus of all truth and values; consequently, it is the source of objectivity for all morality. Parallel to this is the natural law, the participation in and apprehension of this eternal law by human reason. In its pure form, natural law is the Stoic absolute law of nature; but given human weakness and the clouding of the intellect due to sin, the natural law of Aquinas is the Stoic relative law of nature. Aquinas defines two other types of law parallel to these: divine law, the law of the Church derived from revelation but also having affinities to natural law and human; and the laws of states or governments, which regulate personal and social interaction. This division of law forms the basic matrix within which all persons and institutions act and provides the norms to which they must conform. Of critical significance in the traditional theory of natural law is the moral link between a particular act and the moral order. This link is based on the metaphysical assertion that the biological order reflects the eternal law in the mind of God and constitutes the foundation for an objective moral order. An example may help clarify the issue. Pope John Paul 11, writing as Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, stated the position this way:

This sense of natural law is also captured by Richard Gula, S.S. in his description of the classical understanding of the order of nature. Nature is the source of morality in that "God-given structures take precedence over anything derived from human reason." And we are to know moral norms by observing "the way nature works"' The critical implication of this is that to maintain the objectivity of moral norms, nature must be static and fixed. That is, nature is a hierarchically structured order in which each segment has its proper place and the eternal law assigns that place to it and discovered through reason, which constitutes the norms of natural law.

Thus the tendency of the tradition was to have practice conform to nature, to the order of creation discovered through reason. Social reform is genuine reform, the conformity of the present to the order of creation, which constitutes a stable and static standard by which to judge the present situation.

Michael Himes presents a concise statement of the problem of modernity, what differentiates it from the classical period, and its implications for contemporary theology, particularly moral theology. Himes describes the seventeenth century as the key transition point from classicism to modernity, because that time experienced the "destruction of the cosmos, understood as 'a finite, closed, and hierarchically ordered whole." Himes argues that this happened both because of scientific and philosophical revolutions, but more critically because of the discovery of time, the historicization of all human activities. This means that in all these spheres of activity the principle is now generally accepted that to gain an adequate understanding of any phenomenon or adequately to assess its value, it must be considered in terms of the place which it occupies and the role which it plays within a process of development. The implications of this idea, further intensified by the theory of evolution which rejected the classic position of nature as static was, in Himes' opinion, most clearly perceived and articulated by Wilhelm Dilthey:

This shift in consciousness mandates a new way of thinking, particularly in moral theology. The received magisterial tradition typically assumes the classical mindset in articulating its position, particularly in its references to objective human nature, its assumption of unchanging truths, and its insistence on theology as a deductive science. Given the differences in mindsets, it is no wonder that there are substantive differences, as well as a lack of comprehension in debates in moral theology.

Now to make this discussion a little more concrete and to help you identify where you might be on the static/dynamic polarity, I will pose a rather traditional question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Now I want to assure you that this question has an answer and you can amaze your friends with the brilliance of your answer. If you answer the chicken came first, I would suggest you are on the static side of the debate. Chickens make chickens and they do this by laying eggs which hatch into more chickens. The chicken answer assumes the stability of species which replicate themselves over and over and basically stay the same, with only modest variation. If you answer the egg, you are thinking dynamically for you know that chickens, as other birds, did not come from chickens but from other egg laying animals, more specifically the dinosaurs. This models says that species are dynamic and, more critically, that who we are now is not what we used to be. We came from something other than ourselves. That is the profound insight, which undergirds the theory of evolution: species are not static.

With Vatican Council II, I would argue that the egg came first and with this accept a dynamic, evolutionary model of reality that must be taken into account in our theological and ethical reasoning. And I think the attempt to do this is the biggest theological problem in the Catholic Church today and the cause of much pain and suffering. What we are going through is a theological paradigm shift, analogous to a scientific paradigm shift such as the one from a geocentric to a heliocentric universe. Such a shift is quite problematic because for quite a while there will typically be three groups: those who think the shift never occurred, those who knew the shift occurred in advance of its general discussion, and those caught in the middle who appreciate the tradition but also see the reality of the new. Clearly, conversations become quite strained because people are literally speaking from viewpoints that are mutually exclusive. Trust and mutual respect are usually the first causalities in such a shift and add to the difficulties in working one's way through the new perspective. Additionally, while the problems that one faces may remain the same, the approach to their resolution is shifting, the terms used to articulate the problems are different, and the conceptualization of the problem changes. Morality and a zeal for ethical integrity do not disappear in such a paradigm shift. But what is new, and frequently makes it seem that these disappear, is a redefinition of moral theology and its methodology which seeks fidelity to the tradition, but which articulates that wisdom within the framework of the new paradigm. My task is not to describe this task and its consequent struggles at any great length, but I do want to identify what I see as a critical problem and locate its source in paragraph 5 of Gaudium et Spes.

I close this section on methodology with this thought. Traditional natural law purports to be an objective system of morality because it reflects the way reality is. If indeed reality is dynamic, then a system of morality taking that into account would also be an objective system because it too reflects the way reality is.

C. Specific Problems Addressed by Gaudium et Spes

1. Signs of the Times

The phrase "the signs of the times" is biblical. Jesus uses the term in responding to the Pharisees' desire to have him give them a sign. He says, "You know how to read the face of the sky, but you cannot read the signs of the times." The sign to be given in this Matthean account is the sign of Jonas. In the Lucan account this phrase is set within a more explicit eschatological context which emphasizes waiting for the master's return. The biblical use of this phrase carries with it, then, eschatological tones that suggest we examine what is happening around us as signs to discover whether on not the world is ending so that we may prepare ourselves. This, for example, is the meaning Pat Robinson of the 700 Club uses in the section of his program called 'The Signs of the Times' when he suggests the end of the world is near because of his understanding of current events being fulfillments of biblical prophecies. Such an interpretation was also a worry to observers from the World Council of Churches at Vatican II. They were concerned about this eschatological context of the phrase and feared "reading history in a human way and of indulging in prophetic exegesis of events."'

The phrase "signs of the times," however, had recent papal usage which suggested a different meaning. John XXIII used the phrase in his Constitution Humanae Salutis of 25 December 1961, which announced the calling of the Council. After describing several crises within society which led many to see only darkness, John XIII said: "Indeed, we make ours the recommendation of Jesus that one should know how to distinguish the 'signs of the times', and we seem to see now, in the face of so much darkness, a few indications which auger well for the fate of the Church and humanity." In this Constitution, the term focuses on a full description of the characteristics of our age, both those that are negative and those that are positive.

The term is also used as a subheading in Pacem in Terris at the end of Part V: The Relation between States. The phrase introduces four paragraphs (126-29) which describe both the problems of the arms race and the modest hope emerging with respect to disarmament. The phrase is used essentially to describe a particular historical situation. The phrase "signs of the times" finds it way into the third text of Schema XIII. It was taken from Pacem in Terris and was to serve as a guideline for the consideration of specific problems. In spite of the worries raised by the members of the World Council of Churches noted above, the phrase remained but is present "only once in the final text (art. 4), where it is made clear that these signs are to be read in the light of the gospel."

Yet, the phrase was to prove critical. A Signs of the Times Subcommission was formed on 12 September 1964 and met weekly during the third session of the Council. This committee relied not only on experts, but on bishops from countries other than Europe and each "meeting was devoted to one part of the world."

During the Fourth session of the Council, Bishop Marcus McGrath of Panama made a critical intervention explaining "why it was necessary for the Church to scrutinize the sign of the times, and also explained once more the meaning of the expression, which had only been used once, not in its special scriptural sense, but with the general meaning it has in John XXIII's encyclical. The term "signs of the times" thus made its way into the final text with both a specific meaning and a mandate.

The expression "signa temporis" is used here, the only time it is, and bears John XXIII's sense of the main facts which characterize an age. It is a function (munus) of the Church to read them (officium perscrutandi). Since what St. Paul says (in I Cor. 2:15) applies to the Church in the Holy Spirit, it has the gift of "discernment" of the Christian meaning of events. Thus it has some share in the prophetic office.

Thus the term "signs of the times" carries an important mandate that the Church be engaged in the world. In the words of Gaudium et Spes: "We must therefore recognize and understand the world in which we live, its expectations, its longings, and its often dramatic characteristics." The Church no longer only speaks to the world, but listens to and learn from the world. Or as the then Bishop Ratzinger so eloquently expressed it:

Just as the "sign of the times" methodology immersed the Church in a new dialogue with the world, the focus on the human person led to a new way of thinking about morality. As I noted earlier, one major shift had already made its way into Gaudium et Spes: the shift from a static to a dynamic worldview. The shift to personalism led to a shift from an impersonal system of law applied abstractly to the individual to a consideration of the person and his or her acts as the moral standard. There are three main areas where this is presented.

First is the discussion of human dignity. Two features of this dignity are important. Conscience is discussed in very personal terms. It is, for example, "the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God." And even when conscience errs in the search for truth, it does not loose its dignity. The key here is the description of conscience as a personal dialogue with God. It is not the application of a general law to a particular situation, but a process of discernment of the truth in dialogue with God. Next, the Council says that our dignity demands that our actions be free. Gaudium et Spes says that "such a choice is personally motivated and prompted from within." The next paragraph in the text specifies how we do this: "Man achieves such dignity when, emancipating himself from all captivity to passion, he pursues his goal in a spontaneous choice of what is good, and procures for himself, through effective and skillful action, apt means to that end."

The second area where the personal is proposed over traditional natural law is found in the transition paragraphs from Part I to Part 11 of Gaudium et Spes. Part I presents the Church's vision of the person and his or her calling Here the Church presents its vision of human life in its fullness. Part If considers problems of special urgency in light of the previous framework and through a consideration of the signs of the times. A single sentence again is key: "To a consideration of these [urgent problems] in the light of the gospel and of human experience, the Council would now direct the attention of all." Joseph Selling, Professor of Moral Theology at Louvain, gives a very clear interpretation of this sentence:

The third development of the moral category of the person as normative for moral analysis is presented in the section on marriage. Here there is a discussion of the moral standard by which one would harmonize conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, i.e., how does one evaluate the morality of methods of contraception. The Council says that one cannot simply rely on good intentions or an evaluation of motives. Rather this evaluation must be "determined by objective standards. These [are] based on the nature of the person and his acts." Bernard Haering who was involved in the drafting of this section of Gaudium et Spes, phrases the shift this way:

As I noted with the shift from static to dynamic categories of analysis, the implications of this shift are still working their way through the Church and are causing no small amount of discussion. For example, is the focus of moral theology to remain on the individual act seen in relative isolation from the context of a person's life, as was traditionally the case? Is moral priority to be given to metaphysical and biological structures that are assumed as normative because of their unchanging nature? Or, rather, is it the case that we can understand the morally relevant meaning of an act only within the context of a person's life, that is, their fundamental option? If we focus on structures, are we not giving primacy to the impersonal and locating the source of morality outside the person? As Joseph Selling so nicely and astutely phrases it, "had Gaudium et Spes relied upon a theory of natural law for its analysis of problems, "moral theology would probably not have been revised and Veritatis Splendor would probably not have been written."

D. Paul VI

Born in 1890 and elected to the papacy in 1963, Paul VI brought his extensive training and experience as a diplomat and his career as Secretary of State to the Papacy. Events were to prove that he would need all of these resources to manage a church in the midst of seismic change. And he was to realize the full impact of the ancient curse: May you live in interesting times!

Paul initiated two dialogues: one with Communism that focused on a dialogue with Catholics in Eastern Europe and a dialogue with the Third World. With respect to his dialogue with Communism, Paul had a three fold goal: esse: the right of the Church to exist; bene esse, the right of the church to name bishops, educate children and build churches; and plene esse, the full freedom of the Church to exercise the entirely of its mission. With respect to the Third World, Paul VI focused on development was the main theme of his encyclical Progressio Populorum.

1. Progressio Populorum

In this encyclical written in 1967, Paul shifted the focus from the distribution of existing goods to the production of increased resources. His intent was to enhance the share of the poor in the increasing wealth of the world. PT articulated the distance between the reality of the poor and the ideal; PP developed criteria to help achieve the ideal of Catholic social teaching.

Development was the key but development was not to be understood as exclusively economic. Rather, to be "authentic, it must be complete: integral, that is it has to promote the good of every man and of the whole man." Development thus includes the reality of human solidarity but solidarity understood not only as a benefit to humanity but also as an obligation. This will lead to a new humanism that "will enable modern man to find himself anew by embracing the higher values of love and friendship, of prayer and contemplation. This is what will permit the fullness of authentic development, a development which is for each and all the transition from less human conditions to those which are more human."

PP also recognized that, while one element of the analysis required a shift of attention from relations between poor and rich individuals and between classes to relations between poor and rich nations, another more critical element of the analysis was the structural question: what were the institutions that created such conditions? Thus PP addresses the reality of neocolonialism and the obligations of rich nations to aid poorer nations. Paul's words here are among the strongest to be found in an encyclical. He argued that while a nation itself should be the first to receive the benefits of its own resources, "still no country can claim on that account to keep its wealth for itself alone." "We must repeat once more that the superfluous wealth of rich countries should be placed at the service of poor nations. The rule, which up to now held good for the benefit of those nearest to us, must today be applied to all the needy of the world. … Otherwise their continued greed will certainly call down upon them the judgement of God and the wrath of the poor, with consequences no one can foretell."

Even though he used a very nuanced statement, Paul very clearly identified one of these possible consequences. "…a revolutionary uprising-save where there is manifest, long-standing tyranny which would do great damage to fundaments personal rights and dangerous harm to the common good of the country-produces new injustices, throws more elements out of balance and brings on new disasters." While certainly not a call to arms, the text certainly lays very clearly on the line the justified consequence of repression. Yet PP argues the new name for Peace is development and this means "building a world where every man can live a fully human life, freed from servitude imposed on him by other men or by natural forces over which he has not sufficient control; a world where freedom is not an empty word and where the poor man Lazarus can sit down t the same table with the rich man."

2. Octagesima Adveniens

Written in 1971 to celebrate the eightieth anniversary of Rerum Novarum, OA is an Apostolic Letter to Cardinal Roy of Canada and the President of the Pontifical Commission on Justice and Peace. It is also important to recall that this letter was written after the 1968 Synod of Latin American Bishops in Medellin which Paul VI attended and which had a profound effect on him and the Church in Latin America.

OA has four major themes. First, is the argument that unjust social structures in the world uphold and foster dependence and poverty. Second, OA argues that the Church itself ought to be a poor church. This is not a poverty that is an evil caused by injustice, but a spiritual poverty of openness to god and a poverty as commitment to the poor and in solidarity with their struggle against injustice. A third theme is conscientisation which seeks to educate the poor about the causes of their poverty and to help facilitate their own participation in the improvement of their lives. Finally, OA focuses on the theme of liberation. Important here is a shift from development to liberation. In part, this was because development, while occurring, did not include the poor and liberation seemed a more direct way to address the reality of the oppression of some by others.

Two other elements are of interest in OA. One is the shift in perspective from economics to politics as a way of securing the cohesion of the body politic but should also seek the common good. The second is a remarkable statement on the role of the papacy in some forms of decision making. Paul VI said:

OA concludes, then, with the recognition that "In concrete situations, and taking account of solidarity in each person's life, one must recognize a legitimate variety of possible options. The same Christian faith can lead to different commitments." Such strategic differences are not to be divisive for "the bonds which unite the faithful are mightier that anything which divides them."

III. The Papacy of John Paul II

A. General Background

Methodologically, the Church entered the Post-Conciliar period with a methodology for its social teaching that had thematic emphases but no definitive statement. The main themes included: a reaffirmation of the principle of subsidiarity, a commitment to private property but only in the context of its social dimension, an acceptance of the reality of the historicity of the Church and its teaching, an emphasis on the role of the community in both formulating and implementing social teaching combined with a de-emphasis on the central role of the papacy in formulating solutions, an acceptance of the preferential option of the poor, and a greater reliance on the need to observe the signs of the times in formulating social teaching expressed in the formula "observe, judge, act".

The election of John Paul II was a tradition breaker in many respects. Not only was he the first non-Italian pope in centuries, he was also the first from an Eastern-European country still under Communist rule and the first of those setting policy at Vatican II to be elected pope. Given the length of his papacy and the volume of his output, reading, understanding, and commenting on his writings is practically a full time job. Thus I wish to highlight only a few themes and provide an overview of just a few of his encyclicals, emphasizing again methodological issues.

Two documents, published several years into JPII's pontificate help identify some themes to be aware of in examining the content of his own encyclicals as well as his style and view of the church. First is Libertatis Conscientia published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith in 1986. Of critical note in this document is the clear restriction of the methodology of "observe, judge, act" to Christian action only. The role of the community is not to formulate social teaching but to implement it. The church already has the principles and the criteria for developing social teaching. What remains is to put it into practice, the proper job of the laity. Thus the starting point is doctrine, not practice. The doctrine advances in history through a consideration of new questions, but is not constituted in or through its history.

A second document is "Guidelines for Teaching the Church's Social Doctrine in Forming Priests" issued in 1988 by the Congregation for Catholic Education. This documents highlights the need for candidates to learn the social teaching "as presented by the Magisterium of the Church" so they can apply it in their pastoral activity. The Document presents the threefold dimension of social doctrine: 1) theoretical: teachings that "the Magisterium of the church has explicitly formulated an organic and systematic reflection in its social documents. … These are permanent ethical principles, not changeable historical judgments or 'technical matters' for which (the Magisterium) has neither the equipment or the mission"; 2) historical: the used of these principles as "framed in a real view of society and inspired by an awareness of its problems"; 3) practical: "the effective application of these principles that are in practice by translating them concretely into the ways, and to the extent, that circumstances permit or require it."

The document also comments on the methodology of "observe, judge, act." Seeing is "perception and study of real problems and their causes, the analysis of which, however, belongs to the human and social sciences." Judging is the "interpretation of that same reality in the light of the sources of social doctrine which determine the judgment pronounced with regard to social phenomena and their ethical implications. In this intermediate phase is found the function proper of the Magisterium of the church which consists precisely in interpreting reality from the viewpoint of faith and offering 'what it has of its own: a global view about man and humanity'." Acting is "implementing these choices." . Finally the document notes that

B. Solicitudo Rei Socialis

SRS is the seventh of JPII's encyclicals and was written in 1987 to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of Progressio Populorum. And since it was written in the context of the Solidarity labor movement in Poland, no one should be surprised by the frequent use of "solidarity" as analytic point of reference.

Beginning with an appreciation of the contribution of PP, particularly with respect to its articulation of the theme of development, JPII pushes this analysis forward by asking what development has not been successful. He analyses this failure in terms of the world's being divided into two blocs: the West, characterized by liberal Capitalism and the East which is characterized by Marxism. Though quite different, both share some characteristics: excessive reliance on self interest whether expressed individually or collectively; a dominant economic view of human nature, and a dominance of materialistic ideology which denies in practice or theory any sense of a transcendence. Both focus on an arms race, use of terrorism, imperialism, and demographic campaigns against birth all of which gives a picture "destined to lead us more quickly toward death, rather then one of concern for true development which would lead all towards a 'more human life'…"

As a response to this, JPII poses the virtue of solidarity, which is primarily a commitment to the common good "of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all" . Additionally, this practice of solidarity is to recognize one another as persons and the recognition that the good of creation "are meant for all" . Finally, solidarity helps us see the other 'whether a person, people, or nation-not just as some kind of instrument with a work capacity ... but as our ''neighbor', a 'helper', to be made a sharer, on a par with ourselves, in the banquet of life to which all are equally invited by God." . Thus solidarity is the "path to peace and at the same time to development." And just as Paul VI stated that development is the new name of peace, JPII now states: "Peace as the fruit of solidarity."

Finally, JPII argues that the Church's social teaching is not some third way, a counter ideology to either liberal capitalism or Marxism. The social teaching is not an ideology but a theology, "the accurate formulation of the results of a careful reflection on the complex realities of human existence, in society, and in the international order, in the light of faith and the Church's tradition. It is part of the Church's evangelizing mission. This teaching centers on the dignity of the human person and argues that

C. Centesimus Annus

Written in 1981 on the occasion of the centenary of RN, CA was an occasion to review the corpus of Catholic social teaching. In particular, JPII saw this as an occasion to look back, look around, and look to the future.

JPII summarized the core of RN as pointing to two key errors: 1) "the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as a element, a molecule … so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socioeconomic mechanism." ; 2) "an understanding of human freedom which detaches it from obedience to the truth, and consequently from the duty to respect the rights of others." . Thus the wellspring of the problems and excess of the last century, from war, to the arms race, to Communist totalitarianism, to the consumer society.

However the year 1989 was a pivotal point with the collapse of the Soviet Union. JPII identified two factors in the breakup: violation of the rights of workers and economic inefficiencies. However the primary cause was:

Also here JPII caries on a discussion begun for the first time in the tradition in SRS: a discussion of ecology. The primary error here is that "Man thinks he can make arbitrary use of the earth, subjecting it without restraint to his will, as though it did not have its own requisites and a prior God-given purpose, which man can indeed develop but must not betray." Rather than cooperate with God, humans put themselves in place of God and provoke a rebellion of nature. A commitment to a true ecological movement will a human life lived in transcendence to one's self combined with a commitment to self-giving and the formation of a human community centered on its final destiny.

CA concludes with a rather stirring analysis of the theological anthropology that is the basis of the Church's social teaching, a theme articulated in his earliest writings. Briefly stated in the language of GS, the human being is "the only creature on earth which God willed for its own sake, and for which God has his plan, that is, a share in eternal salvation." Consequently, as JPII articulated previously, "Man is the primary route that the church must travel in fulfilling her mission." Consequently while the human sciences have a role in articulating our place on earth, it is ultimately the fullness of our faith that is the true beginning point of the Church's teaching. And it that faith which impels the Christian to live out the message of social justice in a concrete way in one's daily life, making the social teaching known by committed action.

D. Evangelium Vitae

Although not part of the official corpus of the social teaching of the Church because it is focused primarily in the area of bioethics, nonetheless there are several features of EV that I think are important for the overall theme of the presentation: methodology. One area is the contrast between the culture of death and the culture of life. This is a theme in the teaching of JPII, already alluded to in SRS as I previously noted. Here the focus is more explicit and more thoroughly developed. Paragraphs 19 through 28 spell out in detail both the basis and the foundation of the culture of death which is orientated toward contraception, abortion, euthanasia, disrespect for the handicapped, a perverted sense of freedom, and a rejection of God. The absence of God leads to materialism which in turn leads to a disrespect of the personal dimension of the body. Thus societies and cultures are strongly marked by "the culture of death."

This situation, with its lights and shadows, ought to make us all full aware that we are facing an enormous and dramatic clash between good and evil, death and life, the 'culture of death' and the 'culture of life.' We find ourselves not only 'faced with' but necessarily 'in the midst of' this conflict: we are all involved and we all share in it, with the inescapable responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life.

What I find interesting in this is a hint of a sift in orientation of the Church as an institute toward the world. Historically the Church has been in what Ernst Troeltsch called the Ecclesia model and what Richard Niebuhr called a Christ Transforming the World model. Here the church is in the world and in active relations with the institutions of the world, on the one hand accepting these institutions, but seeking to have them function at their best. The assumption is that the Church and worldly institutions share some values in common and have some link through the natural law. What the Pope seems to suggest and what some bishops in the United States have called for is a counter-cultural church or what Troeltsch would call a sectarian model and Niebuhr a Christ Against Culture model. My point here is not to argue the merits of either or any other model of Church-world relations. Rather I want to note that the rhetoric for such a change is beginning to creep into the language of some of the Bishops as well and that we should carefully consider what such a shift would imply-even rhetorically.

A second area is the direct use of papal authority to resolve certain issues, primarily abortion and euthanasia. What is different in EV is that although it is clear that certain solutions to moral problems are unacceptable to Catholic social teaching, they have seldom been the focus of direct papal prohibition. In a text reminiscent of Pius XI, JPII says

A final area is the methodology in EV. My general approach to JPII's methodology has been that it is an uneasy combination of Patristic meditation on the Scriptures combined with a traditional Natural Law analysis. Sometimes these are sequential; othertimes they are interspersed. In EV, both are present, together with a reading of the signs of the times, and authoritative pronouncements on certain topics. The overall mode of discourse and analysis is scriptural, some from the Jewish Scriptures and some from the Christian Scriptures. These scriptural themes set the tone and core content. This content is then amplified through JPII's reading of the signs of the times and his appeal to the tradition as articulated through Natural Law. What we essentially have is the application of the tradition to specific problems with a conclusion being drawn that based on Scripture and Natural Law. The method is descriptive and meditative rather than analytic, more tradition orientated than inclusive of different perspectives. There is a here between this methodology and others in use elsewhere in the Church, both in other ecclesial documents as well as among theologians. And this gap reveals, I think, a cultural and philosophical divide, one that needs serious attention.

IV. Conclusions

A. Social Teachings

The corpus of social teachings that have evolved over the last century is remarkably focused and coherent. On the one hand, there has been continuous reflection on specific themes such as the just wage, the rights of labor to organize, the social and ethical implications of economic systems, the status of the poor, and the active role of the Church in addressing social problems. On the other hand, there have been interesting developments that have advanced the teaching. Some of these have been developments that extended the teaching in light of changing circumstances such as an analysis of the standard for a living or just wage. Other changes have occurred when there was a recognition that a particular economic theory did not do the job people thought it would, such as was the case with the theory of corporatism advocated by Pius XI or that of development as presented by Paul VI. Additionally new topics get included such as ecology and the impact of the technological revolution on work.

My main point is that the Church has and continues to speak to the issues of the day out of the resources of a century-old conversation on particular topics. One need not re-invent the wheel nor start at square one. We have a point of departure or a framework for our reflection. That does not, I hasten to add, obviate the need for reflection or critical analysis. What the tradition does provide, however, is a perspective to use as the beginning of one's analysis.

In a rather interesting article written two years ago, William Byron, S., identified what he called ten building blocks of Catholic social teaching. It is worth presenting these as a helpful summary that reflects not only the core themes of the teaching, but also its organic wholeness.

1. The Principle of Human Dignity
2. The Principle of Respect for Human Life
3. The Principle of Association
4. The Principle of Participation
5. The Principle of Preferential Protection for the Poor and Vulnerable
6. The Principle of Solidarity
7. The Principle of Stewardship
8. The Principle of Subsidiarity
9. The Principle of Human Equality.
10. The Principle of the Common Good

B. Methodology

In this paper, I have argued that the Catholic Church has been in the midst of a sea change in methodology, a change which has both theoretical and practical implications.

1. Theoretical Implications

I identify the theoretical dimension as a tension between the classical and historical methodology, a tension between a world of being and becoming, a tension between the natural law-manualist tradition and the variety of methods emerging out of the dialogue between moral theologians and contemporary philosophers, between those in the First World and those in the Second and Third Worlds, between generations of Catholics whose socialization into the Church was so different.

At the risk of oversimplifying, I would state the theoretical difference as follows. The choice is between the world of stable essences that determine both our place in the world as well as our moral obligations-as exemplified in the previously cited quote from then Cardinal Wojtyla-and a world in which reality can be understood only as it emerges from a process of historical development-as exemplified in the philosophical consequences of the theory of evolution. Or, to restate my early phrasing, is the world static or dynamic?

Where one locates one's self along that spectrum reveals at least some of how one will think about the tradition, its methodology, the conclusion the tradition has come to on some questions, and what to include as resources. I am not arguing for a Catholicism of subjectivity or relativism. I am arguing for a Catholicism that takes seriously the observation of Gaudium et Spes that we have shifted from a static to a dynamic framework and for a Catholicism that takes seriously the methodological implications of that.

2. Practical Implications

Questions of method, of course, have their practical implications and I would suggest that the history of the Church since Vatican II is a case study of such implications. And this case study affects every aspect of life in the Church. Here I want to highlight three aspects only.

First is the increasing use of authority to resolve issues. I am not arguing against the importance or role of authority in the Church. I am noting that statements invoking papal authority or the authority of various Congregations is increasing, in areas such as the liturgy as well as moral theology. While that may not be problematic in and of itself, nonetheless there is a growing gap between what many see as unresolved scholarly discussions of some questions and the attempt to resolve them by ending the discussion with a clear statement.

Second is what John O'Malley, S.J. has recently called the Papalization of Catholicism. This refers to the growing development of the centrality given to the Papacy in recent years. This article, with its very acute overview of church history, led me to reflect on two changes since Vatican II.

First is the diminishment of the role of the Bishop both in his own diocese and gathered together in a national group such as the NCCB. While it is true that Bishops continue to meet in Synods and continue to administer their dioceses, a growing perception-whether true or not-is that their job is to implement orders from on top. Another reality is the fact that should the NCCB wish to issue other letters such as The Challenge of Peace or Economic Justice for All, the vote to support it would have to pass by 100% of the votes and would also have to be cleared by Rome.

Second, Following Vatican II, there was an emphasis on decentralization of some authority. As I noted, Paul VI's Octagesima Adveniens supported this in two ways: the statement that Rome did not have all the answers and the methodology of 'Observe, Judge, Act" which relied on a high degree of lay participation in formulating responses to social questions. It seems clear to me that one of the critical legacies of JPII is the re-centralization of the Church and authority around the office of the Pope. The issue is not one of micro-management-though there is that element. The issue is how one understands the role of the Pope, the Bishops, and the laity, as well as how they all interact with each other.

Finally, we need to attend to the language of some bishops and in some encyclicals, for it is suggesting a shift in Church-world relations. We need to think carefully about what a "counter-cultural Catholicism" would look like-or if such a Catholicism is desired. Among the strengths of the Church historically has been its generally positive engagement with the culture in which it exists which has brought benefits to the Church. Though there have also been costs from this engagement, such a disengagement would challenge seriously the very sacramental nature of the Church and its role of mediation.

For better or worse, we do live interesting times. And given the current climate in the Church the times will probably become more interesting. But I want to emphasize that, on the one hand, we as Catholics have a tradition of social teaching that can speak to our times and, on the other hand, that the struggle over methodology is a struggle to keep that tradition in such a living dialogue with our times.

Back to Bibliography