As we saw in the previous posting in this series, the point
of Catholic or any other religion’s social teaching is not to take care of
people directly, except in extreme cases.
The same goes for what the State is supposed to be doing.
A religion is primarily there to take care of people’s
spiritual needs. A State is there to
take care of the common good, the environment within which we meet our material
needs. There is overlap between the
areas of competence for both the State and organized religion, but one cannot
replace the other.
 |
| Fat, Fat, Theocrat |
Attempts to have the State take over religion, or to have religion
take over the State, end up subordinating religion to the political needs and
expedience of the State. This is true
whichever one takes over the other, even in a theocracy, because the temporal
power is first a state, and then a religion.
You don’t have to think too long or hard about which one will give way
to the other.
The only difference (and it usually makes no difference) is
that a theocracy sometimes admits a higher power than the State. It may not do anything about it, but at least
the admission is (usually) there.
 |
| Mixing politics and religion tears your heart out. |
The bottom line, however, is the same for ordinary
people. As Sancho Panza said, “Whether
the stone hits the pitcher, or the pitcher hits the stone, it’s going to be bad
for the pitcher.” Whether a state takes
over religion, or religion takes over a state, it’s going to be bad for
ordinary people.
When ordinary people have no power, that is, they own no
capital, then those with power can control every aspect of their lives. As we saw in the previous posting,
propertyless/powerless people become permanent dependents — slaves — of those
who have property, and thus power.
Far too often, however, people are willing to surrender the
hope of getting something in the future for material security today. This influences those in power to keep others
dependent on them.
Yes, meeting immediate needs takes precedence over many
things. It does not, however, take
permanent precedence. Once immediate
needs have been met, the solution to an extreme situation is to organize, and
correct the problem so that people can once again start taking care of
themselves.
 |
| "Some remedy must be found." |
This is why Leo XIII and subsequent popes have mandated a
“two-pronged” approach. One, meet people’s immediate material needs. Ordinarily
this calls for charity. In extreme cases, duly constituted authority may
redistribute a measure of wealth to keep people alive and in reasonable health until
the underlying problem can be solved. (Rerum
Novarum, § 22.)
Two, reform the institutions of the common good in
conformity with the principles of individual, economic, and social justice to
empower as many people as possible to become capital owners. Owning the capital
that displaces human labor from the production process would enable ordinary
people to supplement and, eventually, replace income from labor, with income
from capital.
To oversimplify somewhat, the essence of the papal
program might be summed up as 1) give a man a fish to eat so you can take care
of him today, while 2) teaching him how to fish so he can take care of himself
tomorrow. All the rest is how to do these two very simple and straightforward
things; “On these two
commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.” (Matt. 22:40.)
 |
| Teach a man to fish. |
That is, we demonstrate our love of God (“Thou shalt love
the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy
whole mind.” Matt. 22:38) by carrying out acts of charity, and we “love thy
neighbor as thyself” (Matt. 22:39) by meeting the demands of individual and
social justice.
Thus, charity fulfills justice, it does not replace it;
charity and justice go in tandem, or we violate both of the “great
commandments.”
So, as long as the means is ethical (keep in mind that the
end does not justify the means), the “how” of meeting people’s immediate needs
and reforming the system to enable them to care for themselves in the future is
irrelevant.