PARADOXICAL

(Overview of Social Teachings of the Catholic Church)

As a long-time member of a Catholic charismatic community in Manila (a major aspect of my life which was interrupted when I came back home in 2016), I have been fortunate to listen to innumerable talks about the Christian faith. I eagerly absorbed them all. But when I listened to the social teachings of the church for the first time, I literally got dizzy trying to wrap my head around it. 

The talk was delivered by a very young but very able priest at the time, Rev. Fr. Rany P. Geraldino. 

Since the talk was a much-condensed version of what should have been delivered in several sessions, we in the audience had to deal with information overload owing to the novelty of the subject. On top of that, I think I had this internal dialogue all along that said, "Filipino leaders who are Catholic never seem to pay attention to these," which of course upset me, as the negligence is one reason we live with such a degree of backwardness as a society. 

As a compulsive note-taker, I was not in my best element, as I was able to take down maybe only about 50% of the outline of the discussion, but I was still glad to take in as much.

“The social teachings of the church are the Church’s hidden treasure – emphasis on hidden,” Fr. Rany P. Geraldino said, by way of introduction. Which is unfortunate, because “the social teachings of the Church are not a by-the-way or an add-on, but a constitutive part of the message of Jesus Christ,” he pointed out.

“Everything boils down to Jesus Christ’s message of love of God and of neighbor. These two are related, one can’t stand without the other. For how can you love God whom you can’t see, if you don’t love your neighbor whom you can see?”

Okay, but who exactly is our neighbor? The definition of ‘neighbor’ has evolved,” he explained, “from the Old Testament times, when neighbor meant ‘fellow Jew,’ to the Christian era, when ‘neighbor’ meant ‘everyone in need’ (refer to the Good Samaritan story).” “And in modern times, ‘neighbor’ is expanded to mean the whole of society and the environment that influences the person.”

In other words, no matter their station in life, “persons have a social responsibility. All actions have social consequences. There is an interdependent web of life. ‘Ang sakit ng kalingkingan ay sakit ng buong katawan.’ Everyone is considered our neighbor, a part of our family, a brother and a sister.”

“In 1891, Pope Leo XIII released the document ‘Rerum novarum’ to address a pressing social situation at the time of industrialization and rising socialism.”

“Eventually, the Compendium of the Social Teachings of the Church was crafted so that the kingdom of God may be felt even here on earth. (“Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand.”) Life on earth should be the beginning or foretaste of heaven.”

He then outlined the four sources of Catholic social teachings: scripture, magisterium, experiences of the church, and dialogue with branches of knowledge.

a.       Scripture, even though the Bible is not a book of morality; not everything is in the Bible; social teaching is always contextualized; not all issues emerged during Biblical times

b.      Magisterium (or teaching authority) of the Church, including papal encyclicals and pronouncements; we believe in the papal infallibility ex-cathedra, i.e., in terms of faith and morals; despite the dark ages the Church went through (14th-16th centuries), the Church’s faith and morals were preserved, the Church being both human (wicked, frail, weak) and divine; includes the teachings of authorized Church bodies in the Second Vatican Council

c.       Experiences of the Church, including the lives and teachings of the saints, and the engagements of the Church in present issues

d.      Dialogues with other branches of knowledge (psychology, philosophy, medicine, bioethics, sociology, etc.)

“Catholic social teachings are jokingly called the ‘hidden treasures of the Church’ because most people are not aware of them or ignore them. Understandably, there is the danger of Catholic social teachings becoming liberation theology, as in the case of priests like Oscar Romero who were reduced to being (leftist) activists. Catholic social teachings are not liberation theology!” he emphasized.

“Catholic social teachings are more of principles than concrete lines of actions.”

“The main principles of Catholic social teaching are as follows (actually there are seven, to be more specific: 1. life and dignity of the human person; 2. call to family, community, and participation; 3. rights and responsibilities; 4. option for the poor and vulnerable; 5. the dignity of work and the rights of workers; 6. solidarity; and 7. care for God's creation).”

I. Primacy and Dignity of Human Person

“This means the person is the ultimate end, not the means to an end. Society is ordered to the person. He or she is created in the image of God. Christ died for each one of us. Christ redeemed us. Therefore, we have to respect one another.”

“For example, in the mentality espoused by (a local TV show), people are exploited for their poverty for entertainment purposes and for money.”

“Human rights are inviolable. This is the basis of Christian social teaching.”

“If God respected us, so should we respect one another. As Fr. Ron Rolheiser put it, ‘If God went down to our level, why can’t we go down to the level of our fellow human beings?’”

“Each human is destined for participation in the divine life.”

In the Philippines, dark spots on the dignity of human person can be seen in "the upholding the right to life (who decides who is worthy of life?); extrajudicial killings; abortion (contraception mentality leads to the slippery slope of condoning abortion); euthanasia (this also happens through “waivers” in hospitals); care for the handicapped, mentally ill, aged (are we friendly to the other-abled?); lack of decent living conditions for the poor, who are worthy of being children of God; lack of right for each employable to work; [suppressed] right to truth (are we against ‘envelopmental’ journalism, do we support the Freedom of Information Act?); and [violation of the] right to vote (do we practice vote-buying?)." 

(I might add, voters' expectation of receiving money and other means of "support" from politicians in exchange for their votes makes them equally culpable, as such as implicit understanding forces politicians to fulfill the unwritten expectation. And speaking of elections, let's not forget the rampant cases of slander, calumnies, defamation by many candidates, as though the gravity of such an act is not equal to physical murder.) 

II. Common Good

“This means the sum of social conditions that enable persons to achieve their full human potential.”

“Stewardship is a spirituality, meaning we are not the real owners of our properties." “Private ownership is not absolute. We seek the will of the real owner, who is God.”

These statements remind me of this Biblical passage: "The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common... There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. Thus, Joseph, a Levite,..., sold a piece of property that he owned, then brought the money and put it at the feet of the apostles." (Acts 4:32-37, New American Bible version)

A dog-eat-dog world turns into some kind of a utopia, a paradise-on-earth, thanks to this sense of community of the earliest Christian church. Which makes us wonder what happened all along that the result today is a yawning gap in socioeconomic status in supposedly Christian communities and nations like ours. But a quick qualification: Neither does Christianity advocates a classless society -- after all, can anyone imagine a viable society in which everyone is an owner of a major company or everyone is a lowly staff? Even many insects have complex hierarchical societies.  

“To whom much is given, much is expected,” he continued as a reminder to all. “In terms of politics, we must have participation.” “In economics, we observe the principle of the universal distribution of goods.”

In the Philippines, he continued, dark spots on common good, include “widening gap between rich and poor, forests and corals exploited for profit, irresponsible mining practices, laws that benefit only foreign interests and those of the elite, globalization, graft and corruption, and slums as a symptom of uneven development.”

III. Solidarity

“Solidarity is based on the idea that we are interconnected and interdependent to each other. Solidarity equals love. In the Church, solidarity is expressed by being a church of the poor. The principle of solidarity is evident in the case of creation and ecology itself.”

“To check our application of solidarity: Do we have a mind-your-own-business mindset? Are we too family- or group-centered? Remember that we also have obligation to others. Are we narrow-minded, do we have narrow concerns, or are we too locally focused (regionalism)? Think globally, act locally. No to parochialism. Do we exhibit only momentary acts of solidarity (for example: people power/EDSA revolution, flooding of donations after ecological disasters), instead of sustained efforts?

IV. Subsidiarity

“The big does not take over the small, the big enables the small, and allows the small to do what it can on its own, allows growth from within, respects and allows associations, unions, and civil societies, to act on their own.”

“The big fish doesn’t swallow up the small fry. A good example is the case of [some big businesses that swallow up everything in their path].”

“The principle of subsidiarity protects the people from abuses by higher-level social authorities imposed by these authorities to help individuals and intermediate groups to fulfill their duty.”

“This principle is imperative because every person and even intermediate group has something original to offer the community.”

“The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to certain forms of centralization and welfare assistance and to the unjustified and excessive presence of the state in public mechanism.”

“One example is Vietnamese and Chinese governments' control of the practice of religion. People can't have public declaration of their religious belief.”

“For applications in parochial and corporate settings, problems should be solved with respect to the lower levels.”

“In the Philippines, dark spots in the area of subsidiarity include the following: feudalism and padrino system, in which what matters is what you know, not whom you know; paternalism, or the patronizing approach in helping others through a dole-out mentality (giving without care as to the outcome after), or providing technology/products on donor's terms; and lack of entrepreneurship, resulting in overdependence on authority, and people not being allowed to control their own destiny.” “Even in families, parents who are too dictatorial violate the principle, since children should be allowed to grow on their own (pace of) maturing.”

***

In conclusion, he said that, “as Filipinos, our commitment and concerns should not be limited to our own family only, but should be extended to the community, and (according to our capacity, sphere of control/influence), even to the bigger community.”

Personally, it is teachings like these that touch me profoundly and make me want, or will, and decide to be Catholic and Christian by choice in the face of my negative experiences in the corporate world and in our relentlessly capitalist society, whose ways and values are more often than not, inimical to these thoughts, or even the reverse of what these teachings say as ways forward. In these teachings of Christ, which espouse downward social mobility in so many ways, to paraphrase Henri Nouwen, I feel loved as a person and as a member of society, I feel secure in being cared for for who I am and get a sense of hope to live out the best version of myself according to God's will and God's plan, instead of being constantly alienated by its pervasive ethos of oneupmanship, pressured in so many ways that are instinctively revolting to me deep within.    

Anther insight I gained from this unforgettable talk is that Christianity, as an -ism or philosophy, is neither completely capitalist, nor democratic, nor socialist, nor communist. It can never be boxed in like a convenient ideology, neither conservative nor liberal, for what could be more liberal than "upholding the primacy of human beings"? At its heart is the law of love, we could say, which should, in theory, result in a caring society and a just social order, and yet without the forcible legislation of 'love' and equality the way socialist and communist countries understand it, since the moment 'love' is forced via legislative acts or government policy, it immediately ceases to be a case of "loving thy neighbor as oneself."  And, of course, in the real world, by which I mean its application or "translation into action" in the world of politics, business, law, public administration, and so on, there is the rub -- because therein lies the tricky part. 

posted by Resty Odon  # 8:53 PM 0 Comments