Download PDF

ENGAGING SERIOUSLY WITH SOCIAL ISSUES

Address to the Inaugural General Meeting of ACMICA
University of Technology, Sydney
7 June 2003

BRUCE DUNCAN CSsR*

It is a great privilege for me to speak to you at this inaugural conference of the Australian Catholic Movement for Intellectual and Cultural Affairs. Though these are early days, of course, I believe that this initiative is timely, and hopefully significant not just for the development of Catholic social thought in Australia, but perhaps in some modest way for the intellectual life of our country.

The founding of ACMICA responds to particularly acute imperatives for Catholics and other Christians today: to develop new structures of participation to promote a more vigorous engagement with the pressing social issues. Your enterprise, I think, hinges on these two concepts of participation and engagement. Let me explain.

Some scholars have argued that during recent centuries Catholics have been slow to develop vigorous lay intellectual and social movements because of the hierarchical nature of the Church, and out of a reluctance to disturb bishops or priests. It is worth giving some thought to this point. To my mind it is certainly true in Australia that Catholics seem to lack structures of participation that can promote more substantial debate on and engagement with social questions. Considering that Catholics comprise almost a third of the population, Catholics as a whole seem to contributing well below their potential.

Yet never before in our history have we included people with such skills in business, finance, trade, education, community services, management and organisation, manufacturing, labour affairs, agriculture, medicine and the whole array of skills and sciences needed in a modern economy. Nevertheless, we have not developed new forms of association by which people with special skills and expertise can find which we might call `voice’.

I do not want to overstate this. There are many other civil and professional organisations where many Catholics, among so many others, are making sterling contributions and which should be the prime arena for them. In addition, there are specifically Catholic organisations that perform well in specialised professional fields. And the Church also supports large numbers of highly professional institutions covering a whole range of social concerns, notably in the fields of health and aged care, education, and social welfare, as well as Caritas and the justice and peace networks.

Yet despite the considerable efforts, can Catholics say that we are seriously engaged in debates over the overarching issues of our time, especially the problems of international development, the remission of the debts of the most impoverished countries, the distribution of wealth and opportunities in Australia and overseas, ecology, and the whole array of issues relating to international governance, war and peace? We have some remarkable Catholics, as individuals and in groups, doing marvellous things in their professions and various fields. Long may they flourish. But is this enough?

Let me give two examples. First, what did we make of the economic sanctions in Iraq which have resulted in the deaths, according to some accounts, of hundreds of thousands of children, not to mention others. Australia is implicated in these policies, yet we hear barely a whisper of criticism or debate. Would we so unquestioningly have tolerated such a toll on a western country? Have we then been morally complicit with an enormous injustice, perhaps even a crime against humanity? It is a chocking thought.

A second example may be even more telling. Why are we so uninterested in the plight of the poorest developing countries, notably in Africa? Yet western countries are enjoying unparalleled prosperity while our levels of official development assistance fall to historic lows. What is the quality of our aid, anyway, if it is not in grant form but tied to establishing Australian businesses overseas?

I see an analogy here between the inadequate and often token assistance to Africa and other poor nations with the question of slavery in the New World. Many at the time thought slavery was necessary to the economic system, and hence justified it to themselves. We now regard it as corrupting, deeply immoral and abhorrent.

Have we today not grown apathetic about the poverty of the third world, despite the fact that leading economists and development experts like Michael Todaro, Amartya Sen and Jeffrey Sachs assure us that we have the resources and expertise to eliminate hunger entirely from the planet and eradicate the worst forms of poverty with a matter of decades, if we had the will? If so, then it is a moral obligation of the most serious kind. Yet the issue scarcely figures in our social and political debates. Are we then supinely acquiescing in the needless deaths of millions of people and a huge toll of human suffering? I suspect history will judge our generation harshly on this, as we do those who tolerated slavery.

Within Australia, we are witnessing the erosion of egalitarian values and structures as political leaders steer us towards a society founded on the philosophy of neoliberalism, or as it is termed in Australia, ‘economic rationalism’. The use of ‘wedge politics’ has aroused fears of the ‘other’, demonised asylum seekers, retreated from Aboriginal reconciliation and threatened systems of income support and social security.

The question is: how can we engage Catholic and other business people and professionals with these larger issues more constructively? Can ACMICA provide a forum or association to foster robust engagement with these issues, drawing on our immense human resources? In contrast with the number of well-funded think-tanks, particularly on the right wing of politics, there are very few vehicles for developing Catholic views on such issues, with again some exceptions.

What are lacking, however, are appropriate structures of participation, of networks and organisations inspired by an ecumenically Catholic social vision and which provide a means and platforms for lay Catholics to develop, debate and promote their views in a serious engagement in the public forum. What we should be aiming at is a much more robust and informed constituency of conscience. The irony is that never before have Catholic thinkers had access to such a developed intellectual worldview, not in a narrow exclusive sense, but as an immensely rich and growing resource that other Christian traditions are finding valuable and which may be even more important in the civilisational dialogue with Islam and other world religions. ACMICA can help explore and develop this tradition of thought, and locate itself firmly within it.

If history is any guide, such organisations should not be formally Catholic, in the sense that they are directly accountable to the local bishop. They need to be independent of the formal Church structure, and speak and act in their own name on their own accountability.

This is the type of structure encouraged by Jacques Maritain before the Second Vatican Council, but which has been even more strongly endorsed since. Such independent organisations inspired by Catholic social principles are then free to develop their own views without involving the authority of the Church in any way. Bishops and clergy are normally happy with this arrangement, as it means that they are not responsible for the views of such organisations and cannot be held accountable for them by civil or political groups.

Neither, I would suggest, should ACMICA focus on inner-Church debates and problems, or what the Vatican Council termed issues ‘ad intra’. These issues are important, of course, but there are already some fine organisations as forums for such matters. In a sense they are ‘housekeeping’ matters that need to be attended to, but the main focus for lay Catholics should be on the ‘ad extra’ aspects of Christian activity, of the transforming presence of faith and activity in the secular world.

Recovering a sense of being Catholic

It will be critical to the success of ACMICA to explore and develop what it means to be Catholic in the contemporary world. It is important for its sense of identity and for expanding its constituency. But there is another significant aspect to being Catholic today: the need to retrieve an intellectual and spiritual tradition and develop it in a fully contemporary way in dialogue with the secular culture. As one who has been trying to do this for the last 30 years, I have to confess that this is no easy endeavour, and yet this is part of the task for your association and for you personally. We could easily be discouraged, but we can take heart that the contributions of others, like Maritain, began quite modestly. Undoubtedly we must start from where we are with small steps, being aware of limited resources and time, and not wishing to burden people with unreasonable demands. But it may be useful to consider carefully what may be involved and to sketch some possibilities.

By retrieval of our intellectual tradition as Catholics, I do not mean what some who consider themselves ‘traditionalists’ mean, as returning to the ritual, cultural, sociological or intellectual forms of a previous age, and sometimes even implying that they alone are orthodox in faith. I presume most of us would consider that a superficial response to modernity, and a flight from facing the real challenge, or perhaps better, opportunity, to flesh out or incarnate the meaning of faith in our times.

Nor do I support a ‘muscular’ style of Catholicism, which would try to browbeat others in an authoritarian fashion. Even less do I endorse trying to influence public policy by secret back-room deals, organising within political parties as Bob Santamaria tried to do at one stage in the name of the Church through his ‘Movement’.

ACMICA will undoubtedly embrace fully the norms of open debate on policy issues, recognising the legitimacy of a wide range of views, but extolling the key importance of sound knowledge, intellectual excellence and practical expertise. Fortunately there is now a valuable literature on how Catholics and other Christians might engage more robustly and constructively in the secular culture, and various specialists around Sydney could undoubtedly help ACMICA develop its views.

The Pope’s letter for the new millennium

Part of this intellectual retrieval will involve a perceptive appropriation of Catholic social thought in particular. A splendid recent articulation of this can be found in Pope John Paul II’s 2001 apostolic letter, Novo Millennio Ineunte [At the Beginning of the New Millennium]. Here the Pope highlighted Jesus as the fulfilment of the Jewish Jubilee with its challenge to reconstruct the world so that everyone can enjoy freedom, sufficiency and fulfilment.

In my view, John Paul’s letter has not received enough attention in the Church. In many ways, in conjunction with his writings on the Jubilee, it can be seen as the culmination of his pontificate, and as a deeply personal synthesis of how the Church should continue the process of renewal and adaptation initiated by the Second Vatican Council. This letter can be seen as continuing the Pope’s endeavour to articulate a theology of liberation for the whole Church and linking it closely with the tradition of Catholic social thought.

In short, what the Pope is calling for is a fresh social engagement by Catholics. In his own ministry, he has modelled the link between contemplation and social action. As he puts it in his millennium letter, `Intense prayer, yes, but it does not distract us from our commitment to history’ (#33). He insists that `we must reject the temptation to offer a privatised and individualist spirituality which ill accords with the demands of charity’ (#52).

As a key criterion for the renewal of the Church, he sees the Last Judgment scene in Matthew 25 as decisive: when did we see you hungry, thirsty, sick…? We can have no place with God unless we are committed to the wellbeing of those who are disadvantaged, sick or suffering. John Paul continues that this text is not simply `an invitation to charity’, but a measure of the Church’s fidelity to Christ, and as important as correct doctrine (#49). Those of you who are theology students may well hear echoes of the `orthopraxis’ of the liberation theologians. The Pope is trying to identify the core elements of faith which can allow us to purify our image of who God is and what this God of Liberation expects of us.

As is apparent from his apologies for errors and injustice committed by the Church and Catholics during the past millennium, Pope John Paul is acutely aware that the face of Christ has often been hidden or tarnished. His insistence on a `purification of memory’ in the Church is precisely to make the face of Christ more transparent, and to abandon or repudiate whatever hinders that transparency.

Further, the Pope’s direct appeal to these powerful words of Christ is a compelling invitation to other Christians to join Catholics in this process of purification and of service to the poor and marginalised. Not only does this establish a firm foundation for deepening ecumenical collaboration, it also links into the traditions of other world religions, most notably that of Islam. Paradoxically also, the Jubilee image of God as the one passionately concerned about human wellbeing is also immensely appealing to agnostics and atheists.

As the Pope has emphasised, concern for social justice is not something peripheral to the Gospel, but is essential and at the very heart of Jesus’ message. The mystery of God’s inner being is unveiled in his passionate concern for human wellbeing. The whole metaphor of Redemption/Liberation/Salvation rests on the Exodus deliverance from slavery. The prophets repeatedly insist on social concern as critical to observance of the Covenant with God. The presence of God is manifested in social responsibility.

For historical and cultural reasons, some Catholics find it difficult to see how concern for social justice relates to the Gospel, something that the Vatican Council deeply regretted. For some, religion concerns personal piety and practices of devotion, with little or no relation to the drama of the world around them. For some, this might be a reasonable and appropriate response to their circumstances. But for the Church as a whole it would be a tragic failure.

Not only do I think it is vital to understand how directly social justice is embedded in the Gospel, I think social concern is also a very natural and important way for people today to feel the power of the Gospel and gain insight into who God is and what he asks of us. At a time when we lack strong sociological structures to carry the message of the Gospel, the movements for social justice help provide them.

Some orientations

It would be helpful to highlight some orientations in this project. First, I doubt if we yet recognise profoundly enough the value of the lay vocation in the role of social transformation, with lay people acting in the secular sphere, not in the name of the Church but on their own initiative and expertise. It is precisely their role, inspired by the values of the Gospel and in the myriad ways open to them, to advance the wellbeing of Australians and others, in this way preparing the way for and prefiguring the Reign of God. Without losing their common sense, my wish is that all people feel the preciousness in God’s eyes of the way they live, work and contribute to the wellbeing of others. Despite all the contradictions, tragedy and suffering encountered in the secular world, it is not Godless, but graced, sustained and loved by God.

Second, this lay engagement with the secular world is not intended to serve the instrumental needs of the Church as an historical institution. While it draws its inspiration from the Gospel and nourishment from the worship and ministry of the Church, the task itself is properly secular.

Third, we need to allow greater room for more vigorous debate in this secular engagement, particularly on contentious issues where Catholics may legitimately disagree among themselves.

To give an historical example, the French philosopher and political activist, Jacques Maritain, in the 1930s contested the views of many Spanish and French Catholics and of leading clergy who called for a `holy war’ or crusade against the Republicans and communists. He argued that the Spanish Church had failed to advocate social justice strongly enough, with the result that the anarchists and communists seized the moral ground that Christians had neglected. He took a very courageous stand against popular Catholic opinion at the time, while still articulating a vigorous critique of both communism and capitalism. He advocated a Catholic social engagement which later prepared the way for the Second Vatican Council. But in the 1930s and 1940s he was regarded in many Catholic circles as a crypto-communist.

The point I am making is that a deeper loyalty to the Church and the Christian message can sometimes demand adopting unpopular positions and even opposing Church officials and theologies, as the Pope has recognised in his recent rehabilitation of key figures such as Rosmini. One could also think of other leading Catholic thinkers who were silenced by the Church during the 1950s but who became the architects of the Second Vatican Council, notably Chenu, Congar, Rahner and John Courtney Murray among others.

Further to this issue, the Pope’s apologies for past errors by Catholics and Church officials extend not just to the action of individuals, but even to instances where the magisterium was wrong. As I noted in an article in the Australasian Catholic Record in October 1999 (p. 467), even Cardinal Ratzinger instanced examples of this.

Fourth, I doubt if we can develop such a robust lay Catholic opinion unless we distinguish more precisely the truth claims of the Catholic Church. Often these claims are exaggerated. You might recall the TV series, ‘The Absolute Truth’, implying that the Church had possession of this truth and obscuring the fact that only God is Absolute Truth. Of course we believe as Catholics that God guarantees the Church access to the truths necessary for salvation, but in the final analysis God remains mystery. We do not possess God’s ‘Absolute Truth’.

More specifically, there is simply no ‘absolute truth’ in the moral order. When we deal with social and public issues, we are concerned with moral truth, not absolute truth. Moral truth can only be discerned by the believer with the aid of reason, in the light of the Gospel, through the mediation of conscience.

Moreover, faith does not dispense with intellect and understanding, otherwise there would be no need for theology. Just as there is a hierarchy of being, so is there a hierarchy of truths which need to be discovered and explored in all aspects of human endeavour. The authority of the Church in its pronouncements varies with the matter under discussion, and becomes more tentative as it moves further from the core elements of faith. In moral matters, the Church too must distil carefully human experience, absorb the unfolding findings of the relevant disciplines and sciences, and attempt to the best of its ability in various circumstances, to develop helpful responses. Often these responses must be tentative or need to be revised later. At such times the Church is not spared the normal difficulties and obscurity in pursuing the truth about moral action.

As the moral theologian, Brian Lewis, wrote in the Australasian Catholic Record, ‘the Christian faith/story/myth does not provide ready-made answers to moral problems or spell out in precise detail the appropriate response in every possible situation’. The Christian story ‘is not a mine of specific answers to moral questions but an “overarching foundation and criterion of Christian discernment”.’ (‘Faith and Christian Moral Life’, ACR, July 2001, p. 297).

Fifth, in the past, the Church has suffered greatly from the dogmatism of some of its officials and leaders in imposing what they thought were moral requirements but were not adequately informed by reason, scholarship or cultural context. Greatly to be regretted, were the demands for an excessive loyalty to the Church, which extolled the authority of the Church at the expense of reason and conscience. This is a type of fideism which damaged the credibility of the Church. Authoritarianism and dogmatism in the Church did not reflect the richness and subtlety of the Catholic tradition, and tended to a rigorism which trivialised the true authority of the Church. Hence the Church needs due modesty in its claims, as the Pope has reminded us with his apologies.

Sixth, if we are to have a more robust debate among Catholics about social and economic issues, we need to retain the courtesies of debate. It is no accident that Pope Paul VI thought the matter so urgent that in 1964 he devoted his first encyclical to dialogue. In particular, we should take great care not to impugn the orthodoxy of those who might hold different views to ourselves. It is a very grave matter to question someone’s orthodoxy.

Seventh, fundamental to all Catholic morality, of course, is the integrity and primacy of conscience which, as Joseph Ratzinger once wrote, even put limits to the Church principle itself: conscience must be obeyed even against the views of Church authorities. Or as St Thomas wrote in the On the Sentences of Peter Lombard, it would be better to die excommunicated than violate one’s conscience. Conscience is not primarily a matter of following norms and rules, but a personal encounter with the living God in our hearts and a determination arising out of that to act in love and solidarity with others. It means taking responsibility for oneself and others to advance human wellbeing.

Aquinas was certainly not advocating a radical subjectivism, as if truth did not matter or that it was simply a matter of doing what we wanted to do, willy-nilly. He knew that the search for truth was often arduous and elusive, and moral truth could only be freely accepted when embraced in conscience.

Moreover, moral truths are mediated through culture and circumstance. For example, we take the defence of human life as a fundamental moral principle. But we might be surprised to learn that even recognition of the principle of non-combatant immunity, which seems so clear and self-evident to us, was a gradual development from medieval times and was not clearly established until comparatively recently. My point is that any new Catholic engagement in social issues must begin with a clear recognition that many moral truths are not self-evident.

Conclusion

As I envisage the possibilities for ACMICA, much will depend on how it positions itself as an organisation of Catholic inspiration to promote the development of a social conscience in Australia. Certainly the link with Pax Romana is an enormous advantage to give you an international perspective.

Issues that you will need to consider in some detail include these:

• Do you need a small secretariat to help ACMICA get started?
• How do you invite the collaboration of others and develop your membership?
• How to identify and approach people who could make special contributions to ACMICA
• How you can secure reasonable funding?
• Establishing a communication network among your members
• Staging public functions, conferences and talks on key issues.
• In time, can ACMICA assume a higher public profile, perhaps as a think-tank with publications, research and advocacy roles?
• How do you develop alliances with groups such as POLMIN, Caritas, the Catholic education offices, the justice and peace networks, ACU National and the theological colleges, Knights of the Southern Cross, the religious orders, etc.?

These are just some of the possibilities for ACMICA. But I am well aware how daunting is such a project. The questions are: how much is manageable within your resources? How can you develop and expand a strong core group able to develop a wider constituency in the academic, business and professional communities? And what strategies can you develop to carry your project forward, step by step, perhaps a little at a time?

»«

* Dr Bruce Duncan lectures in history and social ethics at Yarra Theological Union in Melbourne, and is a consultant with Catholic Social Services Victoria. His publications include Crusade or Conspiracy? Catholics and the Anti-Communist Struggle in Australia (UNSW Press, 2001) and War on Iraq: Is it Just? (ACSJC, 2003).

First published in ACMICA News Bulletin, 2(6), June 2003 (excerpted) and in full at www.acmica.org.