Online Course Unit 1

Prudence in applying the principles of Catholic social teaching

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, any approach to thinking about problems of political economy in a Catholic context has to take account of our sinfulness. In this context, the question of the pursuit of self-interest is often raised. This is not an entirely straightforward issue. In a market economy, self-interest pursued in the context of a sound institutional framework can often be a constructive force (see Centesimus annus, 25) because market transactions require mutually beneficial exchange between parties. However, when self-interest is disordered and turns into selfishness, things can go badly wrong. A wide range of corporate scandals can be laid firmly at the door of unethical and selfish behaviour by those in positions of power in business.

The Catholic Church has proposed that economic activity is regulated in order to address such problems (see Caritas in veritate, 65). However, there is also legitimate concern that selfishness and dishonest practice can manifest themselves in government action. We cannot, therefore, simply turn to government to solve problems that arise within market economies and expect them to be automatically resolved. Indeed, the nature of government is such that selfishness, greed and dishonesty can be catastrophic when expressed through the structures of the state. The estimated fortune of Muammar Gaddafi, of Libya, for example, was $75 billion when his assets were frozen. That of former President Mubarak of Egypt was $1.2 billion. There are many more examples that could be quoted. These fortunes were certainly not amassed through mutually beneficial transactions between the dictators and their peoples! Corruption can unite harmful business and political interests against the common good and against the interests of the people as a whole. Both Pope Francis and Pope John Paul II raised this specific question in encyclicals and other letters (Alves and Booth, 2022).

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

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

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

It is becoming an increasingly obvious fact of economic history that the development of economic systems which concentrate on the common good depends on a determinate ethical system, which in turn can be born and sustained only by strong religious convictions. A morality that believes itself able to dispense with the technical knowledge of economic laws is not morality but moralism. As such it is the antithesis of morality. Today we need a maximum of specialized economic understanding, but also a maximum of ethos so that specialized economic understanding may enter the service of the right goals.” (Ratzinger, 1986).

The authority of Catholic social teaching and the need for dialogue

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

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

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

And, as Rodger Charles states in his book, Catholic Social Witness and Teaching (Charles, 1988, volume II, page 15), the magisterial authority of the encyclicals extends to matters of moral principle and their implications only. On those matters, social encyclicals are binding on the conscience of members of the Church. Practical and other related matters, according to Charles, can be judged on the basis of the arguments presented.

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

Principles of Catholic social teaching

Human dignity

Chapter four of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church identifies the promotion of human dignity as the first principle of Catholic social teaching. In the first place, government does this by protecting life, property, peace, the right to economic initiative and by ensuring that all have access to basic economic goods and services such as food, clothing, shelter, education and healthcare. Ensuring that all have basic goods does not mean, of course, that they should be provided by the government directly: normally, people obtain access to goods and services through earnings from work or from family members. However, the state should step in, in the name of human dignity, to ensure that, one way or another, all have the basics to live in dignity. Various aspects of this topic were discussed in a 2024 publication, Dignitas infinita, by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.[3]

The common good

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

The common good relates to what is both “good” and “common”. As such, it encompasses those conditions that relate to the common life of a particular society that are indivisibly shared.

In promoting the common good, the Catholic Church promotes the role of the family and social relationships as opposed to atomistic individualism; independent civil society institutions in education, labour markets and healthcare as opposed to an overbearing state; the right to economic initiative as opposed to central control and planning of economic life; and charity and justice as opposed to greed and selfishness. We can think of the common good of all institutions or associations within society. Within the family, for example, there are necessary common conditions necessary for all to teach perfection of fulfilment (for example, a reasonable degree of harmony between the members, the appropriate education of children, a proper religious life, and so on). We can say the same about a university or a parish. The common good of society as a whole cannot be realised unless the common good of all the particular parts of society are realised. In addition, there are particular conditions necessary for the realisation of the common good of a state. The common good of the whole world also has necessary conditions (such as peace amongst nations) but also requires the common good to be achieved within nations.

Solidarity and subsidiarity

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

Solidarity is a virtue which involves acting upon a deep-seated concern for others. The preferential option for the poor is, of course, an aspect of the virtue of solidarity. In addition, ever since Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, Populorum progressio, on the development of peoples, nearly every Catholic social teaching document has emphasised that the bonds of solidarity go beyond national boundaries and require the bringing to fulfilment of a universal brotherhood^[4]. Solidarity should also transcend the generations. This is a point Pope Francis emphasised in Laudato si, but, in fact, was also introduced in Populorum progressio:

We are the heirs of earlier generations, and we reap benefits from the efforts of our contemporaries; we are under obligation to all men. Therefore we cannot disregard the welfare of those who will come after us to increase the human family. The reality of human solidarity brings us not only benefits but also obligations. (17)

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

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

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

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

At one level, subsidiarity explains how and when the state should act. The principle of subsidiarity helps us to see how different institutions in society have their different functions in promoting the common good. Subsidiarity means “to help”. The state should help individuals, families, the community and civil associations achieve their legitimate objectives and not take responsibility from them. Solidarity cannot be authentic without subsidiarity because of the need for genuine fraternity in the provision of assistance to the less fortunate. This cannot simply be provided by a state bureaucracy, as the popes themselves have said.

From a proper understanding of subsidiarity many direct policy implications follow. The principle of subsidiarity is explained effectively with reference to health and education in the units Russell Sparkes and Leonardo Franchi respectively. In the case of education, the Catholic Church teaches that the state exists to provide the framework within which parents, including Catholic parents, can obtain education for their children of the sort that parents desire. The state exists to help families obtain an education for their children. The implicit – and sometimes explicit – message of Church teaching in this field is that the state should provide the same support to parents to have their children educated in a private or Church school as is provided in state schools. In other words, the parent and the family should be at the centre of decision making, together with the school and possibly the parish community. This could also lead to an effective application of the principle of solidarity at all levels, with the state ensuring that all are able to obtain an education. At the same time, the family, the school, the parish and the wider Church provide a loving environment for the intellectual formation of the children. The principle of subsidiarity is applied as parents are helped to obtain an education in accordance with their conscience, but their autonomy is respected. Russell Sparkes addresses the question of whether we should apply similar principles to healthcare in the UK, perhaps taking lessons from how healthcare is currently provided in countries such as Germany.

Social justice

Social justice is also a virtue that lies at the heart of Catholic social teaching. The use of this phrase can create more heat than light between people approaching the tradition from different political philosophies because of the debates set alight by Hayek in The Mirage of Social Justice (Hayek, 1976). However, social justice in Catholic social teaching is an entirely different concept from that discussed by Hayek.

In Catholic social teaching, social justice is that form of justice by which all individuals and institutions in society direct their conduct towards promoting the common good of the community.^[5] It has sometimes been called “common good justice”. It is a different type of justice from commutative justice whereby we receive our dues set out in contractual obligations. Social justice also differs from distributive justice. The latter describes the principles by which the goods of the world should be allocated.

A topical example of the domain of social justice would be in relation to discrimination. For example, an employer who decides not to take on a male worker because he is black would be undermining social justice. The employer probably does not offend commutative justice because no contract is broken. There might not even be any offence against distributive justice if the man is able to get a job with another company at the same wage (which in a well-functioning labour market might well be possible). But the act of discrimination undermines the common good. It makes society less perfect and undermines the common life of society.

The economic conjuncture – a prudential assessment

Many social encyclicals begin by discussing what might be described as the economic and political conjuncture. It is worth examining that here. It is fair to say that the authors of the units in this course would generally be more positive about the past few decades than official Catholic social teaching documents have been.

There is much discussion in Catholic Church communications about the need for new economic models that will reduce inequality, increase economic security and ensure that there are continuing reductions in poverty. An important purpose of this course is to contribute to the debate about economic models, from the perspective of Catholic social thought and teaching. It does that in the context of late 20^th century and early 21^st century economic and cultural trends. These trends include a significant development of the phenomenon of globalisation, at least until the beginning of the second decade of the 21^st century; an improvement in many aspects of governance in substantial parts of the world; and a reduction in wars. Some of these favourable trends were slowing or reversing at the time the Covid crisis hit in 2020. Most obviously, there was a rise in protectionist measures coming from various sources, including from the USA. At the time of writing, the Russian invasion of Ukraine continues.

Pope Francis suggested that inequality is the root of social ills in Evangelii gaudium (202) and that inequality was becoming increasingly in evidence (52). Pope Benedict suggested that inequality was increasing in Caritas in veritate (32). The Vatican’s letter on the financial system of 2018^[6] expressed similar sentiments. Indeed, it is often said or implied that extreme poverty is increasing, and that globalisation has failed to reduce poverty and may lead to it increasing (Caritas in veritate, 42). These are important questions. The common good will not be achieved until all have sufficient material goods and services to live a dignified life. At the same time, it is important to recognise the enormous progress that has been made over the last 30 years. If we do not, there is a danger that we will make imprudent political judgements and reject the policies that have led to these achievements.

It is worth looking at recent developments in economic welfare – see table one.

Table one – Selected measures of welfare: late 20^th century to before covid[7]

These data suggest staggering improvements in basic measures of human welfare and such improvements are unprecedented in human history. These data are not “cherry picked”: they are genuinely representative. The fall in global inequality is especially notable. If a fall in inequality of similar magnitude were to happen in the single country of the United States (which is generally regarded as being an unequal country), it would become the most equal developed country in the world. Of course, this does not mean that inequality is not becoming increasingly evident: it could be falling whilst becoming more visible. The social encyclicals are not necessarily wrong to point out that inequality is increasingly in evidence.

The period since 1980 has been unique in many ways. It is the first period in human history during which the number of people living in extreme poverty has fallen in a meaningful way. Up to 1980, the proportion of people living in poverty had fallen so slowly that the number of people living in poverty continued to grow. Indeed, it is reasonable to say that, despite the challenges that remain, more progress was made in reducing extreme poverty between 1980 and 2020 than through the whole of the planet’s previous economic history combined. In addition, the period since 1980 is the first time in history that global inequality has fallen in a sustained way. It has fallen because large numbers of people previously earning below the absolute poverty line have moved into the global middle class whilst incomes in richer countries have grown very slowly or not at all. Given the global perspective of the Catholic Church, this should be celebrated. As can be seen from the malnourishment statistics, the much smaller number of people in extreme poverty also have a lower gap between their daily food requirements and the amount of food they have available to eat.

Covid, on its own, has not changed this picture dramatically. Indeed, in some ways, covid has hit rich countries much harder than poorer countries. In addition, in many countries, the nature of the emergency measures that have been put in place has been such that inequality has fallen during the pandemic. It is important to note, however, that the poor have a smaller income cushion than the better off so that, when a crisis does hit, it will push the poor further into absolute poverty. So, in absolute terms, the rich may have taken the greatest hit. But, for those just above or below the poverty line, the impact will have been more dramatic. Of course, one of many reasons why we should try to understand the right economic and political conditions for economic development is to increase the resilience of the poor when there is a crisis.

It should be a matter of serious concern that some of the conditions that led to the fall in inequality and poverty are now reversing. Wars are increasing; some indicators of governance are deteriorating; and globalisation seems to be in reverse. Recent data suggests that some of the global indicators that have improved in the last few decades are now going into reverse.

Notwithstanding this, it is interesting that so many commentators, as well as the Church herself in official documents, focus on bad news. One reason for this is that good news is normal and is rarely covered in the media. In addition, the atheist philosopher, Stephen Pinker, has written about the “psychology of moralisation” whereby people compete for moral authority^[9]. Those who argue that the world is improving can look apathetic.

Pinker may be right about why people are reluctant to suggest that the position of the poor is improving. But there are, of course, many problems remaining in the world, and some that are increasing. Pope Francis, and other religious leaders, genuinely are concerned about problems such as human trafficking, modern slavery, environmental challenges, the treatment of prisoners, loneliness, geo-political tensions in some parts of the world, as well as large pockets of poverty that still remain and now seem to be growing. Such moral concern can then spur us into action. There is nothing wrong with the use of hyperbole to encourage the faithful. Furthermore, the common good requires a continual striving for a better common life and better material conditions for the destitute. Given this, the focus on problems in Catholic social teaching is understandable. We are a long way from achieving, in the words of recent popes, “a universal brotherhood of man” – something that requires more than economic progress. And we are now moving backwards with the rise of populism and conflict. At the same time, the virtue of prudence demands that we should stand back and examine the progress that has been made in recent decades and try to understand its causes.

Any prudent assessment should not look only at measurements of present conditions. When it comes to the environment, for example, it is true that, despite the fall in deaths from pollution and natural disasters, the effects of climate change may worsen in the future as a result of our lifestyles today. There has also been a deterioration in other environmental indicators which might well store up trouble for the long term.

Another part of the current conjuncture relates to the political-economic environment in which globalisation has taken place. In the last 40 years, in many Western countries, there has been a removal of many direct controls on economic activity. Such controls involved the regulation of prices and incomes and of foreign exchange and investment. This has partly been facilitated by the European Union, including through the single market programme. However, in many areas, such as finance, labour markets and education, there has been a huge growth in detailed government regulation. It could be said that more things are permitted (because of the removal of the direct controls), but that those things that are permitted are more heavily regulated.

Alongside these trends, we have seen a transfer of responsibility for regulation from professions and other independent bodies to state regulatory agencies. And, as the role of trades unions in labour market negotiations has waned, government regulation of the labour market has increased.

Overall, there seems to have been a transfer of authority for the regulation of economic life from civil society and market institutions, including professions and unions, to the state. At the same time, in the last 25 years, government spending has increased as a proportion of national income in most G7 countries: Germany and Canada are the exceptions.

These trends could be thought contrary to the principle of subsidiarity. Catholic social teaching is sympathetic to the regulation of economic activity, but it often suggests that non-state bodies should take primary responsibility in this area. In Caritas in veritate (39), Pope Benedict XVI wrote about how an increasingly binary model of “market-plus-state” was corrosive of society whilst other forms of solidarity, that had their origin in civil society, build up society. On balance, the authors of this course would take the perspective that the state has crowded out civil society and that civil society institutions involved in economic regulation emerge out of the market and help civilise it. Not everybody would agree with that analysis. However, there is widespread agreement amongst Catholic thinkers that civil society has been eroded and needs to be revived – or that it should be allowed to revive.

Linking theory and practice – a summary of the course

The authors of this course return to the foundations of Catholic social thought whilst discussing their topics in a practical context. They examine how we should think about migration, the environment, finance, healthcare, government debt and taxation, education and business ethics whilst drawing on the tradition of Catholic social thought and teaching. As noted above, they largely conclude that there should be a bigger role for civil society and a smaller role for the state; that ethics is essential for the development of a healthy business culture and cannot be replaced by regulation; that the development of an ethical society has to be bolstered by an education system based on religious values where religious schools can be free of state interference; and that healthcare should not be a state monopoly but, rather, it should include large elements of provision by Catholic institutions. These conclusions do not come from new economic models, along the lines the Pope has asked us to investigate, but they derive from a practical application of the tradition of Catholic social teaching to pressing policy problems.

The course begins with a chapter by André Alves, Hugo Chelo and Ines Gregório which explores the tradition of Catholic social thought from St. Thomas Aquinas to the late scholastics and its influence on the early social encyclicals. The unit also examines Catholic social thought and teaching on just wages and private property in a Thomistic context.

The late scholastics developed Catholic social thought in a period of rapid economic and social change and globalisation. The following unit, by Philip Booth, examines that phenomenon of globalisation. The Church herself is universal and she regards human rights as universal and indivisible. This provides a justification for international law and governance which are discussed in that unit. The goal of a universal brotherhood of man demands that we do not see the world purely through the lens of individual nation states.

This broader international vision should also influence how we address the subject of migration. Andrew Yuengert discusses this complex subject on which Pope Francis has spoken on many occasions. Yuengert agrees that we should be sympathetic to those seeking to migrate. However, he points out that, in addition to the migrants, it is relatively well-off owners of capital who benefit from migration. If there are losers, they are likely to be the native poor. Yuengert argues that Catholic social teaching should consider their concerns even if it is concluded that borders should remain open to, or become more open to, migration.

The following unit is also on a subject close to the heart of the late Pope Francis – that of the environment. The author places Laudato si, Pope Francis’s encyclical on ecology, in the wider tradition of Church teaching and emphasises the importance of the issue for Christians. He also responds to Pope Francis’s call for dialogue by arguing that Catholic social thought can unite our long-held concern for the environment with the traditional positive teaching of the Church on the role of private property. The importance of good governance and peace for environmental outcomes are also discussed. Finally, the community management of natural resources, which was surprisingly omitted from consideration in Laudato si, is raised as a fruitful way to manage the natural environment in many contexts.

There then follow three units that directly discuss the role of business. Martin Schlag discusses how the common good should always take priority over individual interest in business decisions. At the same time, the Church views business positively – indeed, as a “noble vocation” in the words of Pope Francis. Because of the importance of business in economic and social life, it should be conducted ethically at all times. Jay Richards reminds us that government should also be conducted ethically. He discusses the problem of “crony capitalism” where parts of government and business pursue their own interests corruptly or via lobbying, in ways that seriously undermine the common good. He expresses concern that Church teaching has not fully understood the problem of crony capitalism and that some of the specific economic policies proposed in Church documents might actually encourage it. There is then another short unit by Martin Schlag examining the biblical and patristic roots of Catholic social teaching on business.

The following three units focus on questions that cause a huge amount of controversy amongst Christians. Robert Kennedy looks at the issue of taxation. Modern Catholic social teaching is often thought to have begun in 1891 with the publication of Rerum novarum. Even at that time, 1,900 years into the Church’s history, taxes were only about 10 per cent of national income. Today, they are typically between 35 and 50 per cent of national income in developed countries. The nature of government has changed dramatically. Nevertheless, argues Robert Kennedy, the vision and tradition of the Church can help us understand the role of government and taxation in a good society. The following unit, by Philip Booth, Steve Nakrosis and Kaetana Numa, considers the problems caused when governments choose to fund spending by borrowing rather than by taxation. The authors draw parallels with Pope Francis’s concern for inter-generational justice expressed in Laudato si. Samuel Gregg then considers the financial sector and Catholic social teaching. This has long been a controversial topic. Gregg looks at the way in which the Church’s teaching on usury has evolved.  He also examines the history of the Church’s engagement with moral and practical questions arising from the financial sector. He suggests that the Catholic Church can learn from this history and, thereby, move from the sidelines of modern debates.

We end the course with two chapters on topics no less controversial. Russell Sparkes writes about healthcare and Leonardo Franchi discusses education. It is interesting that governments have approached the provision of these services in different ways. In England and Wales, albeit within a highly regulated system, the Catholic Church has been able to establish schools which do not face discrimination in relation to their funding as compared with state schools. The same applies to universities, though there are only three Catholic universities in Britain[10]. On the other hand, healthcare is totally financed and provided by the state unless patients wish to pay the entire cost themselves in addition to paying taxes to fund government provision. Germany has a health system which is rather like Britain’s schooling system: it allows people to choose from a range of providers, including Christian providers, funded in similar ways.

Russell Sparkes makes the case, on both ethical and performance grounds, for a healthcare system in the UK that is rather more like that in Germany. Decisions in relation to the provision of healthcare often involve ethical questions and therefore, he argues, the Church must be involved in its provision. This would involve reviewing the post-war settlement which is, in fact, unusual, in the Western world. Leonardo Franchi makes related points about the importance of autonomy for Catholic schools, though the basic structures of the post-war settlement here are less open to question. Recalling Catholic Church teaching, he reiterates that parents are the primary educators of children. Teachers assist parents in that role. Schools, argues, Franchi, should be allowed to vary their curriculum rather than have it dictated by the state. It is also important that parents are able to exercise their conscience and choose a school which is appropriate for their children. This requires that moves to discriminate against Catholic schools when it comes to funding, or to tighten controls on their admissions policies or curricula, must be resisted. Where such discrimination or controls exist, they should be reversed.

Conclusion

The authors provide an important contribution to thinking about how Catholic social teaching can address contemporary challenges. A renewal of Christian culture in business and civil society and a revival of the participation of Catholic institutions, movements, associations and individuals in education and healthcare is required. As discussed above, the authors would agree with those thinkers in the field of Catholic social thought who believe that there needs to be a renewal of civil society: in the main, the emphasis of the authors of this course would be on government allowing civil society to thrive so that there can also be a renewal of culture within the market economy. The authors would agree with the late Pope Francis that business is a noble vocation but, in the main, go further in stressing the benefits of a well-ordered business economy and the importance of globalisation in promoting prosperity and reducing global inequality. At a time when globalisation is under threat, the editors of this course regard its defence as especially important. Of course, many authors stress the need for ethics in business – including in its relationship with the state. Again, these were concerns of Pope Francis – indeed, of all recent popes.

There are of course topics missing from this course – perhaps they are for further development at a later date. There is no sustained treatment of climate change, development aid or the provision of welfare, for example. Given current trends and political challenges, there is also room for a modern restatement of the importance of the family and its relationship to public policy. There are also less obvious gaps which the writing and editing of this course has led us to feel require a more systematic treatment in Catholic social teaching. These gaps include ethics in political and civic life. Catholics write and talk a lot about business ethics, but they do so less about ethics in public life. Another issue that deserves a more systematic treatment is that of “illegal markets”. How should we deal with prostitution, drugs and human trafficking in the public policy arena? St. Thomas Aquinas considered prostitution 800 years ago. We should be thinking about these problems in a modern context.

There will always be more to say, both about the topics covered and questions not discussed. There is no doubt, however, that the authors of this course make an important contribution to Catholic social thought applied to public policy in the context of late-20^th-century and early-21^st-century global trends.

References

Alves, A.A., Booth, P. M., (2022), Virtues, Vices and the Responsibilities of Business: An Application of Catholic Social Teaching to the Problems of Corruption and Lobbying, Religions, 13, 1070. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13111070

Booth P. M. (2021), ‘A Catholic Understanding of Economics’, in Franchi L., Convery R., Valero J. (ed), Reclaiming the Piazza III: Catholic Culture and the New Evangelisation, Leominster:Gracewing.

Booth, P. M. and Petersen, M. (2020), Catholic Social Teaching and Hayek’s Critique of Social Justice, Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture, 23(1):36-64.

Catholic Church (1994), Catechism of the Catholic Church, London: Geoffrey Chapman.

Charles, R. (1998), Christian Social Witness and Teaching, Leominster: Gracewing.

Finn D. (2011), Nine Libertarian Heresies Tempting Neoconservative Catholics to Stray from Catholic Social Thought, Journal of Morality and the Market, 14(2), 487-503.

Hayek F. A. (1976), The Mirage of social Justice, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mueller J. D. (2011), Finn’s “Nine Libertarian Heresies” and Mueller’s First Lemma Economists Complain Exactly Insofar as They Are Unable to Explain, Journal of Morality and the Market, 14(2), 519-533.

Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (2005), Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, London: Burns & Oates.

Ratzinger, J. (1986), ‘Church and economy: responsibility for the future of the world economy’, Communio, 13: 199–204.

Papal encyclicals and other Church documents referred to in this section

Francis, 2020, Fratelli tutti, encyclical letter : http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html

Francis, 2015, Laudato si, encyclical letter: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

Francis, 2013, Evangelii gaudium, apostolic exhortation: http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html

Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, 2011, Towards reforming the international and financial monetary systems in the context of global public authority, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20111024_nota_en.html

Benedict XVI, 2009, Caritas in veritate, encyclical letter: https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate.html

Benedict XVI, 2005, Deus Caritas est, encyclical letter: http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est.html

John Paul II, 1991, Centesimus annus, encyclical letter: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus.html

John Paul II, 1987, Sollicitudo rei socialis, encyclical letter: http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30121987_sollicitudo-rei-socialis.html

Paul VI, 1967, Populorum progressio, encyclical letter: http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_26031967_populorum.html

Vatican II, Gaudium et spes, 1965, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World: https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

Leo XIII, 1891, Rerum novarum, encyclical letter: http://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html

Questions for discussion

1. Why is the virtue of prudence important in thinking about how to approach public policy challenges?
2. Global inequality and poverty have fallen substantially. How far should that be a cause for celebration?
3. To what extent in practice are the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity in conflict?
4. In what ways do businesses contribute to the common good and in what ways do they do it damage?
5. To what extent do healthcare and education policy follow the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity in your country?
6. How does racial discrimination undermine social justice?

Footnotes

[1] Referred to as “Catholic Church (1994)” in the list of references.

[2] This debate between Ronald Reagan and George Bush in 1980 might surprise some readers. The clip is about migration and is 2 minutes 50 seconds long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsmgPp_nlok

[3] See: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20240402_dignitas-infinita_en.html

[4] Of course, this theme was not absent from earlier documents.

[5] See Booth and Petersen (2020) for a fuller discussion.

[6] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, 2018, Oeconomicae et pecuniariae quaestiones’: Considerations for an ethical discernment regarding some aspects of the present economic-financial system:

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/05/17/180517a.html

[7] The data from this table is from Our World in Data and the OECD.

[8] This measures the average number of calories needed to ensure that all malnourished people have sufficient food. It is an indicator of the extent to which people are in extreme poverty.

[9] https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/catosletterv13n1.pdf

[10] There is also one inter-denominational (Anglican/Catholic) university.