My previous post is embedded here.

If the need for a new economic paradigm wasn’t sufficiently clear from the hollowing out of our middle-class and the 2008 financial crisis, it has become more so through subsequent developments. These have include the slide from oligarchy (rule by the few) and plutocracy (rule by the rich), through appeals to populist rhetoric to empower something more like kleptocracy (rule by criminals) and authoritarianism at home. In foreign affairs, this has included turning the United States into a rogue state, imposing a new imperialism on Latin America, losing an elective war against Iran, undermining the NATO alliance, alienating all our allies except Israel, depleting and demoralizing the United States military, and fostering a “might makes right” international order.

This essence of this post is an infographic that I created with the help of ChatGPT in an attempt to illustrate three visions of human flourishing. These include that of (1) neoliberalism as presented and criticized by Markets Built for Humans” (MBfH), that of (2) the Market Humanism of Beinhocker and Hanauer, and that reflected in Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, which is the Christian humanism of the contemporary Catholic tradition.

It is a bit of an eye test, which can be alleviated by clicking to expand it. I think gives a helpful illustration of basic the insufficiency of the former, and the complementarity between the latter two.

Even if some Catholics think it is possible to address the anthropological deficiencies of neoliberalism by supplementing it, I find the more comprehensive vision of the market humanists far more promising, especially given the deep flaws and unsustainability of neoliberalism.

Having followed their work for several years, I’m convinced it offers a promising successor to the neoliberal paradigm whose inadequacy has been evident since at least 2008.

That claim just met a challenge. One of my favorite Sunday shows is Fareed Zakaria’s GPS. I have real esteem for Zakaria’s work—his Harvard doctorate, his years with the Council on Foreign Relations and Foreign Affairs, his mode of journalism that engages current events in dialogue with the most accomplished thinkers and politicians. This week’s segment on Sweden’s economic reforms, though, will strike many American viewers as evidence that “free markets” won and “socialism” lost—exactly the framing I am arguing against.

What Zakaria’s Segment Said

Zakaria introduced Sweden’s reforms in the context of budget pressures in France and Britain, arguing European social spending is too costly to meet “today’s challenges from tech innovation to rearming against Russia.” The 5 minute segment can be viewed at this linked Facebook reel, but I have not found a way to embed it directly.

Against that backdrop, he presented Sweden as “a way out”: a country that was once “a poster child for democratic socialism” but has “made a remarkable pivot toward an entrepreneurial, free market economy.” The segment’s graphics reinforced this framing of Sweden moving away from something like France’s state-directed market economy and toward the American example, illustrated with Silicon Valley imagery.

The following graphic drives home the same capitalism versus socialism message.

Zakaria is no 1990s neoliberal, and he is right that Sweden’s real lesson is cultural: “the willingness to keep changing when the old model stops working.” I don’t dispute that Sweden has exemplified such pragmatism. But the segment’s framing—democratic socialism versus free-market economy—risks leaving viewers with a binary that doesn’t survive contact with what Sweden actually did, and that quietly forecloses the search for something better than either 1970s social democracy or 1980s neoliberalism.

For many reasons, I am exploring how to best incorporate AI into my workflow. In this case, I used one AI (ChatGPT) help me research the question and then I had another (Claude) criticize the 3,500 word long post I put together, which included footnotes to various sources. Claude thought that draft was way too long, and suggested streamlined wording, which I include below in block quotes. This kept the core of my argumentation but left out the footnotes various citations resulting in a much shorter text. Claude also helped me format some slick tables. Then I used the Pangram AI checker, which said my post was over 75 % AI content! That’s a sobering scoring for this experiment. When I draft a text, and have Claude revise it, do I need to credit the whole result to Claude to avoid being charged with plagiarism? Although I take the claim with a grain of salt, even Pope Leo’s Magnifica Humanitas has been assessed—according to Gemini AI—to include “individual paragraphs that range from 40% to 100% AI-generated, with broader tests suggesting roughly 46% to 62%.”

Testing the Frame

So I asked ChatGPT whether Sweden’s experience of economic reforms in recent decades supported the view that neoliberal reform was the right successor to European social democracy, or have market reforms sent Sweden toward the inequality and democratic strain we’ve seen elsewhere under neoliberalism? I asked it to ground every claim in citable sources—IMF, OECD, and ILOSTAT figures, along with Freedom House and V-Dem on the democracy side.

A methodological note, this ChatGPT instance has memory of our previous conversations—on MH, on Market Humanism, and on my research into Jacques Maritain’s decades-long friendship with Saul Alinsky. That’s useful in that it can connect the example of Sweden to threads I’ve already been developing. It’s also a limitation worth noting up front: an AI primed with my own arguments is not a neutral referee, and a result that confirms what I already believed should be held more loosely than one that surprised me. I spot-checked the IMF, OECD, Freedom House, and V-Dem citations below and found them accurate, but I’d encourage skeptical readers to do the same.

With that caveat, here’s what held up.

What Sweden Actually Changed

Sweden’s postwar model really did break down. By the early 1990s the country faced high inflation, distorted credit markets, and eventually a severe banking and fiscal crisis. The IMF’s retrospective on the episode describes financial liberalization, a fixed exchange rate, and poorly sequenced tax reform combining to produce an asset boom and collapse; public debt rose roughly 30 points of GDP between 1990 and 1993.

The subsequent reforms were genuinely market-liberal: deregulated credit markets, a broader tax base with lower marginal rates, an independent inflation-targeting central bank, expenditure ceilings and structural surplus rules, and substantial pension reform. The fiscal turnaround was dramatic—the deficit fell from roughly 12% of GDP in 1993 to 2.5% in 1996.

Those are documented facts that all interlocutors should acknowledge: high social expenditure doesn’t eliminate the need for sound money, competitive firms, and sustainable public finances.

Why “Neoliberal” Is the Wrong Word for What Replaced It

Here the framing of “free market defeating socialism” breaks down. Sweden did not follow the institutional transformation the U.S. underwent under Reagan or Britain under Thatcher: it did not dismantle organized labor or abandon universal provision. ILOSTAT puts Swedish trade-union density at 65% and collective-bargaining coverage at roughly 90%. The OECD still describes Sweden as a “coordinated market economy” with strong collective bargaining. Wages are set through negotiation among organized employers and unions, not by an atomized labor market—the opposite of the Anglo-American pattern.

Sweden accepted competitive markets and fiscal discipline; it rejected—or sharply limited—the decline in union power, the shift from universal to residual welfare, and the broader financialization that defined neoliberalism elsewhere. That’s a coordinated market economy, not a neoliberal one, and the difference is decisive.

Effective versus Power-Shifting Reforms

The most useful distinction Sweden offers is between those reforms that corrected genuine dysfunction and those that simply shifted power upward.

If fiscal discipline helped to stabilize the economy, that doesn’t mean the privatization of schools did the same for education. Lumping reforms together under the heading of capitalism versus socialism obscures exactly the granularity needed to determine which reforms are effective and which are not.

Sweden’s rising inequality since the 1970s and ‘80s low point bears this out: liberalization coincided with more market inequality, which was offset—but not eliminated—by the institutions Sweden chose not to dismantle, as did those states that embraced neoliberalism. The relative equality that has endured in Sweden, and which Zakaria’s viewers might credit to “the market,” is instead primarily the fruit of the parts of the old model that Sweden kept.

Markets and Democracy Together

Sweden also complicates the idea that market liberalization inevitably erodes democracy. Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 2026 report gives Sweden 99/100—tied with Norway, just behind Finland—citing free and fair elections and a strong multiparty system.

Compare that to the United States. V-Dem’s 2026 Democracy Report found the U.S. Liberal Democracy Index fell 24% in a single year, with the U.S. global ranking dropping from 20th to 51st out of 179 countries—a decline V-Dem says is unprecedented outside of military coups. V-Dem now classifies the U.S. as an electoral rather than a liberal democracy, whereas others classify it as an “illiberal democracy,” or “competitive autocracy.”

The difference is not that Sweden avoided market liberalization while the U.S. embraced it—both embraced markets. The difference is that Sweden kept roughly 90% collective-bargaining coverage and a universal welfare state as a buffer, so market inequality translates far less directly into political inequality. V-Dem’s own framework for egalitarian democracy makes this connection explicit: material inequality inhibits the practical exercise of formal political rights. Sweden’s unions, taxation, and public services function as exactly the kind of countervailing power that keeps that translation from happening.

Where This Lands, and Where MH Fits

If anyone were nostalgic for a simple restoration of old-style social democracy and the permanent growth of expenditure insulated from fiscal reality, the example of Sweden provides no support. Nor does it provide support for a neoliberal vision of weak labor unions, privatization, and low redistribution as the necessary price of competitive markets. The Swedish example suggests the question is not how much government, but what institutions make competitive markets compatible with the human and societal flourishing.

That reframing suggests points of contact with Pope Leo’s project in Magnifica Humanitas and Beinhocker and Hanauer’s market humanism. MH’s critique of the “technocratic paradigm” isn’t a critique of markets as such; it’s a critique of the deep cultural logic by which technical power, efficiency, calculation, control, and instrumental reason become the dominant criteria for organizing human life. Sweden’s story is less one of “free markets defeating social democracy” than “learning to embed markets within institutions so they support a flourishing society.” As I see it, this vision is not far from Beinhocker and Hanauer’s understanding that markets are evolving, adaptive systems and engines of decentralized cooperation, but they need to be structured to foster sustainable human flourishing.

There’s a further thread here I want to develop separately. Sweden’s success depends on organized countervailing power—unions, employer associations, civic institutions, negotiated social partnership—which sits much closer to a pluralist, personalist political economy than to either state socialism or neoliberal individualism. That’s the territory Jacques Maritain was mapping out in his account of integral humanism and personalist democracy, which was nourished by his three-decade friendship with the community organizer Saul Alinsky. I’ll take that up in a future post.

Back to Zakaria, Market Humanism, and Pope Leo

This is not a case against Zakaria’s broader work, which is an exemplary contribution to the global public square. My concern is narrower: a five-minute segment framed as “democratic socialism versus the free-market economy” leaves his American audience with a binary that the example of Sweden itself doesn’t support, and it quietly narrows the range of reforms that seem thinkable. Sweden’s actual lesson is richer and more interesting than either side of that binary. Although I am not aware of either Beinhocker or Hanauer discussing the example of Sweden, I think it provides an interesting empirical case to consider through the principles of Market Humanism. Rather than the extremes of socialism and free market capitalism, I think Sweden similarly provides an example for Catholics to consider in relation to Pope Leo XIV’s call to rebuild the city.

Postscript

For visual learners, here’s another one of my content-heavy infographics. To view it, readers might want to save it as a graphic file and read it in a viewer expanded to full-screen.

In what follows, I’ll first (I) offer some brief definitions on how this technocratic paradigm relates to the Augustinian libido dominandi, and the neoliberal economic paradigm, while illustrating them with an infographic, and embedding a previous post on how MH treats economics. Having indicated the problem and how Pope Leo calls upon us to build a political order more conducive to human flourishing, I will then (II) introduce some new work toward what is called a Market Humanist economic paradigm that is not only based on very promising contemporary economic scholarship, but also shows strong affinities with Pope Leo’s call for reform. In the third part (III), I will sketch how I think we can see this Market Humanism as a resource complementary to the CSD we find in Pope Leo’s MH.

I. Technocratic Paradigm, Libido Dominandi, Neoliberalism

This technocratic paradigm can be understood as the deep cultural logic by which technical power, efficiency, calculation, control, and instrumental reason become the dominant criteria for organizing human life. From a more theological perspective, it can be understood as a reflection of the Augustinian libido dominandi about which I have written. I think we can also see a manifestation of this broader technocratic paradigm—and thus the libido dominandi—in the “neoliberal” economic paradigm, which is focused almost exclusively on “efficiency” understood especially in the sense of maximizing profits.

The first two panels of the following infographic illustrate, respectively, the technocratic (panel 1) and neoliberal (panel 2) paradigms, in contrast with a political economy ordered toward human flourishing (panel 3 reflecting a human-centered economy) which reflects Catholic Social Doctrine (CSD). The horizontal panel foreshadows the corresponding “Market Humanism” that I will introduce below.

From the perspectives of CSD and MH, the libido dominandi and the logic of technocratic efficiency and neoliberal profit maximization has created a world that is hostile to human flourishing, the natural environment, and democratic governance.

As I have previously posted, Leo calls instead for building an economy consistent with the dignity of every human person and ordered to the common good and integral human development, under the constitutional direction of the people it is meant to serve. As we would expect from someone working from the perspective of Catholic Social Doctrine (CSD), Leo’s call reflects the fact he rightly locates economics within an ethical vision measured—in a broadly Aristotelian sense—in relation to human flourishing. My initial sketch of how MH treats economics can be found in the post embedded immediately below, with the seven key principles visible in the infographic.

For Leo’s MH, a rightly ordered economy will be measured by criteria of human flourishing and not essentially by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which has been largely the case for over four decades. For those who came of age between the 1980s and early 2000s, the logic of this so-called “neoliberal” economic paradigm was largely unchallenged, as reflected in the acronym TINA (There is No Alternative). This assertion was typically employed to enact austerity policies that drove down wages for most workers and channeled profits to those at the apex of the economic pyramid.

Since especially the 2008 financial crisis, however, an increasing number of well-informed members of what Jonathan Rauch called “the reality-based community” have concluded that this neoliberal paradigm is unsustainable, from environmental, political, and economic perspectives.

II. Toward A New Economic Paradigm after Neoliberalism?

Since the Great Recession, a multi-disciplinary team of economists and other academics—together with financial and business professionals—has been working to articulate a new economic framework or paradigm to meet the challenges of our age. Perhaps the most promising fruit of such efforts is the “Market Humanism” or “Market Humanist Paradigm” of Eric Beinhocker and Nick Hanauer as articulated in their Markets Built for Humans: Creating an Economy for People, Planet, and Democracy, which they describe as “A Guide for Policy Professionals to the New Economics.”

The project is their “synthesis of a large body of research conducted by a global community of economists and behavioral, social and physical sciences over recent decades, as well as real-world experiences in policy and business practice” (9). The authors understand their project as “a reassertion of common-sense morality,” and a reflection of Adam Smith’s insight that “self-interest could serve the common good” but only if “bounded by moral restraint, civic virtue, and good institutions” (10). Put otherwise, their work offers “an alternative to both the neoliberal paradigm of the past and the populist authoritarianism represented by Donald Trump in the present.” Their goal “is to map the contours of an economic framework for the post-Trump world” (14).

Beinhocker leads The Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) at Oxford University’s Martin School, a role that builds upon his long career and partnership at McKinsey & Company. Hanauer is an entrepreneur, a venture capitalist, and the founder of the public-policy incubator Civic Ventures. Their backgrounds in business and finance give them credibility that a purely academic critique of markets might lack. They also know, however, that markets are shaped by human choices, and can be more or less consistent with sustainable human flourishing on earth.

By market humanism, they mean two things. The first is “an economy built to serve human flourishing,” which follows from their appreciation of the classical insight of “eudaimonic” / Aristotelian ethics regarding the centrality of human fulfillment. The second is “an economics based on twenty-first century science.”2 Together with this market humanism, they advocate “middle-out economics,” which they describe as follows (on p.9):

1. the policy agenda and political narrative that flows from Market Humanism.

2. a set of mutually reinforcing policies to expand, empower, and invest in the middle class, strengthening not just our economy but also our democracy.

Because this proposal for a new economic framework of Market Humanism is the fruit of a broad collaboration of leading experts working to solve one of the most urgent challenges of our time, it should be of great interest to every informed citizen. Because it starts from an ethical framework of human and societal flourishing and draws upon such a broad range of scholarship, it should be of special interest to those working from the tradition of CSD, and seeking to heed the call of Pope Leo in MH to “rebuild the city.”

I used ChatGPT to create the following infographic to illustrate the 10 Core Principles of their Market Humanism (left column), which I adapt to fit the available space from pages 73-75 of Markets Built for Humans (see the PDF for their exact wording). Unfortunately, the chatbot insisted on making its own icons and I could not get it to use theirs. Similarly, the right column is comprised of my paraphrases of what they develop at greater length.

Although I do not use any substantive content from MH in the infographic, I allude to the encyclical to indicate that the documents reflect complementary responses to aspects of the same problem.

III. Market Humanism as Complementary to CSD

In this third part, I sketch how we might see this market humanism as a resource complementary to CSD. Whereas CSD provides an overall theological vision with the potential to move vast numbers of Catholics into the arduous labor of working to rebuild our social and political order (presuming that Catholics rediscover the Apostolate of the Laity and that clergy learn to form and nourish laity for this incarnational apostolate), I think this market humanism can contribute resources that are indispensable to such efforts.

Beinhocker and Hanauer work from the perspectives of complexity economics, evolutionary theory, political science, political economy, moral and political philosophy, and the practice of business management and entrepreneurship. Social Catholics will need to draw upon such expertise if they are to have the confidence to undertake such magnanimous labors, and the wisdom not only to direct them to well-chosen ends but also bring them to fruition.

A. Market Humanism: Sources and Perspective

Beinhocker’s thinking is rooted in heterodox complexity economics (i.e., the Santa Fe Institute), an approach that contrasts with neoclassical, neoliberal, or libertarian approaches that bracket the fact that markets function in a world of interdependencies and limited resources. This complexity economics treats the economy as an evolving, adaptive system—marked by variation, selection, and replication—rather than an equilibrium machine. As a positive / descriptive science, advocates of complexity economics think it offers a better model of how markets actually behave—as evolving, embedded, non-reducible systems—than does market fundamentalism.

Both Beinhocker and Hanauer speak of “middle-out economics” as opposed to the “trickle-down” approach emphasized in the US since the 1970s, largely as a result of a massive program of propaganda and activism funded by wealthy interests to build their oligarchic wealth and power. This middle-out alternative leads to policies focused on fostering a flourishing middle class as opposed to effectively channeling wealth to the economic “winners” in the feigned hope that some will trickle-down to others. By maximizing the number of people who are capable of participating in the evolving system of the market economy, the market grows in a manner that is conducive to human flourishing. This focus on a society structured to foster the dignity of a middle-class (i.e., a non-precarious) existence aligns very well with different principles of CSD including human dignity, integral human development, the importance of work, the solidarity of the human family, the common good, special care for the most vulnerable, etc.

This market humanism project also draws upon political science / political economy because it seeks not just to describe economic phenomena, but to transform them. It seeks to do so by reaching policymakers, political strategists, business leaders, journalists, and advocates. This emphasis on reaching various opinion and policy influencers aligns well with the lived dimension of CSD, as exemplified in generations of social Catholics, specialized Catholic action, and social movements. It is also implicit in Pope Leo’s call to “rebuild the city.”

“Market humanism” is also rooted in moral and political philosophy as it makes a moral claim that the economy must be shaped in a manner consistent with human flourishing, as opposed to the libertarian assessment of economies based on the “efficiency.” Since CSD is basically that part of Catholic moral theology that considers the ethics of the whole social, political, and economic order, it has overlapping goals with market humanism. CSD also draws on the whole history of moral and political philosophy, as part of its “friendly dialogue with all branches of knowledge.”3

The “market humanism” of Beinhocker and Hanauer is also rooted in business/management practice and entrepreneurship, building on their broad experience. From this perspective, their work leads to theoretically and empirically-grounded policy proposals. This makes their project actionable, in the sense that they identify concrete policy proposals toward which we should be working to—as Pope Leo writes—build the city.

B. Pope Leo: Sources and Perspective

Pope Leo, on the other hand, works from the tradition of Catholic Social Doctrine. The deepest ethical roots of this tradition are in the Old Testament, with its focus on justice, which is measured by how we treat the most vulnerable: the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the alien. As for any Christian, Leo’s moral vision is rooted in the example and command of Jesus to love God and neighbor. As an Augustinian, Leo’s thought is also deeply but subtly shaped by the theology of St. Augustine, including his classical account of the City of God (characterized by the love of God, even to the point of forgetting self) and the City of Man (characterized by the love of self, even to the contempt of God).

As for any pope, Leo draws upon the whole Catholic tradition, in ongoing dialogue with various philosophical currents. From Christian anthropology, for example, he emphasizes the dignity of the human person as the image of God, and humanity’s vocation to communion with God.

Because Catholic Social Doctrine is in friendly dialogue with all sources of knowledge, Leo’s social teaching welcomes the insights of philosophy, economics, sociology, and other disciplines. From such sources, he shares with the market humanists a similar assessment of the crisis facing the human family and its roots in the failed neoliberal paradigm, which—as I have argued—was always a well-funded program to advance the interests of those who bankrolled it. Because formidable Catholic scholars are already subjecting MH to critical scrutiny from a neoliberal perspective, we should be very interested in how the contemporary scholarship of the new market humanists might provide resources to fend off criticisms and “rebuild the city” in a way that is conducive to just and sustainable human flourishing.

C. 7 Points of Consensus: Market Humanism and Magnifica Humanitas

The following outline offers an initial sketch of the relation between the approach to economics in MH and the market humanism of Beinhocker and Hanauer, with seven points of contact followed (in D.) by one obvious divergence. It will take some time to put these approaches into fruitful dialogue, but the following points are a noteworthy place to start, so I enumerate them below before illustrating each with some citations.

• 1. A shared rejection of neoliberal economics.

• 2. A shared emphasis on the need to shift from maximizing profit to solving problems.

• 3. A shared emphasis on cooperation rather than atomistic competition.

• 4. Agreement on the need for civic virtues, trust, solidarity, and social capital.

• 5. Agreement on both the value of markets and the need to shape them so they serve human flourishing.

• 6. Agreement that healthy democracy must be cultivated.

• 7. A shared conviction that economic activity must respect the natural environment and be consistent with sustainable human life on earth.

1. A Shared Critique of Contemporary, Neoliberal Economics

CSD has a long history of rejecting the extremes of both laissez faire economics, on the right, and socialism, on the left. In the ongoing age of neoliberalism, Pope Leo XIV critiques a situation that is much closer to laissez faire economics than to socialism. He argues that the Tower of Babel represents every social project that “sacrifices human dignity for efficiency” (§1) and warns against “the ‘Babel syndrome,’ namely the idolatry of profit that sacrifices the weak” (§10).

Similarly, the central claim of Markets Built for Humans is that the dominant neoliberal paradigm mistakes the purpose of markets. The booklet proposes replacing an economy organized primarily around efficiency, shareholder value, and GDP with one focused on fostering human flourishing. Along these lines, the very first principle states: “The purpose of the economy is human flourishing.” (Markets Built for Humans, Principle 1). The accompanying framework argues, moreover, that the economy should serve “people, the planet, and our democracy” rather than treating profit maximization as the overriding objective.

For Catholics, this is remarkably compatible with Leo’s insistence that economic institutions exist for persons rather than persons existing for economic systems.

2. From maximizing profit to solving human problems

The second principle of market humanism states: “Prosperity is created by solving human problems” (Principle 2) to foster human flourishing. Business succeeds, therefore, not primarily because it extracts value, but because it creates value for people.

This resonates strongly with Leo’s understanding of the common good. He writes: “The common good” is “the social expression of the dignity recognized in every person” (§59). Vatican II, moreover, defines what many call the “political common good”—those aspects of it that can be fostered through the political process—as “the sum total of social conditions which allow people...to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily” (§60).

Instead of asking, “How can we maximize returns?” both approaches ask, “What human needs are being served?” That shift is precisely what Leo seeks when he criticizes economic systems driven by efficiency detached from human dignity.

3. Cooperation rather than atomistic competition

Perhaps the greatest anthropological convergence concerns human cooperation. Market humanism argues: “We solve human problems by cooperating” (Principle 3) and “Cooperating at scale and building knowledge drives human progress” (Principle 4). These points draw heavily on modern complexity economics, which sees economies as evolving systems of networks, institutions, and shared learning rather than merely collections of isolated utility-maximizing individuals.

Leo similarly contrasts Babel’s centralized self-assertion with Nehemiah’s collaborative rebuilding. He emphasizes that Jerusalem was rebuilt “not through the initiative of one man, but through the shared responsibility of all” (§8). On this basis, he urges Christians to embrace “working together” and “building together” (§10). This is a reflection that humans are created not for isolated existence, but for loving relations with God and neighbor, which echoes the classical understanding of “man” as a political animal, one fit for communal existence.

The similarities here are substantial.

4. Trust, solidarity, and social capital

Market humanism argues that “Inclusion, fairness, and trust are the foundations of cooperation and thus prosperity and progress.” (Principle 5)

Catholic Social Doctrine has long maintained the same insight, though expressed in theological language through solidarity, subsidiarity, justice, and the common good. Leo repeatedly argues that social trust cannot be replaced by technology or markets alone. Instead, “listening and dialogue” become “the common ground upon which to cultivate justice and fraternity” (§10). Pope Leo reflects on the importance of truth, which is foundational for trust, but under threat by contemporary disinformation aided by technology.

One could almost describe market humanism as an attempt to provide an empirical economic account of why solidarity works.

5. Markets as servants rather than masters

One of the most helpful contributions of Beinhocker and Hanauer is that—building on their long and successful careers in market capitalism—they do not reject markets. Instead, they redefine their purpose. Their seventh principle states: “The role of markets is to create competitions to evolve new and better solutions to human problems.” Likewise, “The role of business is to organize cooperation to solve human problems” (Principles 6–7).

This fits well with CSD, which does not condemn markets but has insisted they remain embedded within moral and political institutions serving the common good.

Rather than replacing markets with central planning, market humanism seeks to redirect them toward human flourishing. That makes it a potentially attractive dialogue partner for Catholics. Given the commitment of most Americans to the market economy, such a “market realism” should not be vulnerable to the typical, fearmongering charges of “socialism” and “communism.”

6. Democracy as a safeguard against concentrations of power

Leo notes how Pope Pius XII “affirmed the need for a sound rule of law for guarding against the abuse of power, and he recognized democracy as a means for ensuring the proper exercise of authority” (§32). He is later echoed by Pope John Paul II, who wrote:

…that the Church values democracy insofar as it guarantees the effective participation of citizens, enables them to elect and peacefully replace their leaders and prevents power from being monopolized by small elite groups motivated by particular or ideological interests. (§39)

As I just noted, Pope Leo XIV further recognizes how disinformation threatens democracy (§132), which depends upon the “search for truth” and “a solid concordance with the facts and a genuine commitment to the good of individuals and society as a whole” (§134). He warns of the “culture of power,” which is a manifestation of the “power and pride” that characterize the “temptation of constructing the Tower of Babel” (§185). His alternative is to build the civilization of love, which entails building structures and institutions that foster justice and human flourishing.

Likewise, market humanism insists: “Power shapes economies and so must be shaped by democracies” (Principle 9).

7. Care for creation

The tenth principle of market humanism states: “The economy must support the flourishing of life on Earth.” (Principle 10). While this arises primarily from ecological economics rather than theology, it converges naturally with Leo’s broader understanding of integral human development and the Church’s longstanding commitment to care for creation, articulated most fully by Pope Francis in his Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home.

D. One Obvious Divergence

As much as I am encouraged by the prospects that this new Market Humanism can be of great assistance to social Catholics responding to Leo’s call to “rebuild the city,” I don’t want to deny the many differences between what is properly a branch of theology and the fruit of a multidisciplinary project.

Catholic Social Doctrine has deep roots in scripture and tradition and is also profoundly influenced by the understanding that humanity is created in the image of God and called into communion with Christ and the perfection of charity. Because Catholicism recognizes the created order as a reflection of the divine wisdom, and the human person as ordered to knowing the truth, CSD also builds upon a long tradition of welcoming those truths that follow from the created order and from the use of human reason. Following from this, contemporary CSD is in friendly dialogue with all sources of knowledge, including the latest insights of modern science.

Because the Market Humanism of Beinhocker and Hanauer is not a theological work, it is obviously not concerned with theological topics like grace, sin, redemption, humanity’s supernatural end, or the theological roots of the libido dominandi. Since, however, they seek to foster human flourishing through the fruits of many gifted human minds working in leading institutions, Catholics should welcome their contributions, while accepting that their will be divergences. As Pope Leo XIV writes in Magnifica Humanitas, however, we must remember that:

“The Church regards all who sincerely seek “truth, goodness and beauty” as companions on the journey, and considers them as “precious allies” in defending the dignity of every person and in caring for creation” (§23).

This authentically Catholic stance explains the collaboration has marked the long history of social Catholicism and healthy democratic politics, even if there are Catholics who seem to think they are prophets and act as if they were “more Catholic than the Pope.” They are actually, however, much less Catholic than the pope.

Conclusion

For Catholics seeking to respond to the call of Magnifica Humanitas to rebuild our crumbling social and political order, Beinhocker and Hanauer’s Market Humanism offers robust complementary resources for the task of “rebuilding the city.” They do so by helping us to understand how our sociopolitical order has fallen into disrepair, and offer practical policies that can help us to renew it. Because the neoliberal paradigm—which I think can be located as a species of the technocratic paradigm—has such deeply established cultural, financial, and institutional support (involving many Catholics and penetrating deep within Catholic institutions), it will not be displaced without a compelling alternative. My sense is that the CSD of Magnifica Humanitas and the Market Humanism of Beinhocker and Hanauer can be central components of this alternative. I will continue to explore how that might be the case in future posts.

In a recent piece that was provocatively entitled Magnificent Humanity, Poor Economics (MH), the influential Catholic scholar Samuel Gregg takes direct aim at the way Pope Leo XIV’s new social encyclical treats economics. The article was published in Law and Liberty, the online journal of the “free market” oriented Acton Institute, which is led by Fr. Robert Sirico, and where Gregg previously served as director of research.1

Gregg criticizes Catholic Social Doctrine in general for being “preoccupied by ‘economic inequality’” and MH in particular for “factual flaws” and “misreading the state of play regarding economic inequality in the world today.” His critique is based on a well-established empirical finding about how between-country inequality has fallen sharply, so if MH denied that, it would be a serious blunder. Gregg centers his criticism on a possible reading of 1 of the 17 references that MH makes to “inequality” or “inequalities.” If, however, one reads that text in light of the broader theology and argument of the encyclical, and the other references to inequality, Gregg’s interpretation becomes highly unlikely. It seems to reflect, instead, his economic preferences much more than a sober reading of the encyclical.

Gregg’s critique assumes MH uses “inequality” as shorthand for economic inequality, especially that between countries. But of the 17 uses of the term in the encyclical, only two are explicitly specified, and never as economic. Read in context, “inequality” in MH names something closer to some contemporary results of Augustine’s libido dominandi—concentrated, unaccountable power—of which wealth disparity is only one instance.

Before considering that in more detail, I will note some of the other things Gregg says about economic inequality.

MH Neglects Important Considerations about Merit and Consumption?

As part of Gregg’s general critique of how the broader tradition of Catholic Social Doctrine has treated “economic inequality,” he begins by charging that MH neglects what he thinks are important considerations. Among these neglected points regarding inequality, Gregg notes three obvious facts: that some people work harder than others; that many earn the economic rewards of taking risks; and that the wealthy consume only a small portion of their wealth. The implication Gregg suggests is that if MH had given these facts their due consideration, it would not be so concerned about inequality.

I think, on the other hand, that the Catholic social tradition recognizes these obvious facts, but that they don’t mitigate the concerns MH emphasizes regarding contemporary inequality. These, as I will show below, go far beyond matters of income or wealth inequality. They include the immense political power that wealth can bring, and the fact that this tends toward oligarchy, which entails violations of human dignity, justice, and human rights.

Factual Flaws?

Returning to Gregg’s charges about MH’s “factual flaws,” he thinks the encyclical is mistaken about how inequality between countries has declined in the last quarter century as hundreds of millions escaped poverty in China, India, and other areas of rapid economic growth. As we will see below, ignorance or denial of this reduced inequality between countries is indeed a possible reading of the key sentence Gregg cites. If this reading were correct, it would be a factual error. I will argue, however, that a more generous interpretation of this sentence is more consistent with the broader argument of the encyclical, which Gregg does not address in his article.

A Sketch of Inequality within the Theological Vision of MH

Since Gregg opens his critique of MH by attacking how it treats inequality, I will offer—in this post—a survey of how the encyclical treats that topic, as an initial response to such criticism.

To interpret the various references to inequality in Leo’s Magnifica Humanitas, I think it is important to recognize how they relate to the broader theological framing of MH and to their particular contexts within the encyclical. As I have argued in a previous post, the encyclical is deeply—but somewhat subtly—influenced by the Augustinianism of Pope Leo, especially St. Augustine’s City of God, in which fallen humanity is driven by the lust to dominate (libido dominandi). I argue that the forces seeking to build what MH describes metaphorically as a new Tower of Babel include those who dominate today in various ways. This includes those who are amassing immense wealth and power in a system “rigged” by and for them, including through the profit-driven “technocratic paradigm,” and in the militaristic culture of power.

Sound exegesis requires, in my opinion, that the theological framing of MH be kept in mind when interpreting particular and unspecified references to inequality within the encyclical. Such awareness will prevent one, for example, from reading into the encyclical a phrase it never uses—namely “economic inequality” into one of its many unspecified references to “inequality,” which is what Samuel Gregg does.

In the following imbedded post, I previously argued for such a largely implicit Augustinian reading of MH even if it doesn’t reference Augustine’s City of God until Chapter Three.

A Sketch of Inequality in Magnifica Humanitas

Of the 17 specific references to “inequality” or “inequalities” in MH, 15 are unspecified, one concerns “social inequalities” (no. 63) and one specifies “structural inequalities” (no. 161). Others can be interpreted by context, such as inequalities of “social justice” (no. 79), of access to technological innovations (no. 85), within the Church (no. 89), of power (no. 95), of socio-political status (no. 144), of rights (no. 225), and of justice and peace (no. 240). Several of these apparently include reference to what Gregg calls “economic inequality,” but none do so explicitly.

Gregg’s best text occurs in no. 161, which reads as follows: “While the world’s wealth has grown in absolute terms, it is increasingly concentrated in fewer hands, widening inequalities both within and between countries.” Because “economic equality” between countries has declined over the last quarter century due to the rapid economic growth in several populous developing countries (China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh), Gregg charges MH with a factual error.

My basic argument is that this reference to “widening inequalities” in MH can and should be read more broadly based on the way inequality functions within the whole encyclical. To read this sentence within the whole encyclical is to read it within the Augustinian framing, and given the “pivotal choice” Leo asks between building the new Tower of Babel (City of Man, libido dominandi) and the city where God and humanity dwell together (not the City of God, but an earthly anticipation of it). Such a reading is consistent with the fact that inequality is usually unspecified in MH, and that MH never explicitly limits its scope to Gregg’s “economic inequality.” It also includes the fact that the reference to “widening inequalities” in this last clause of no. 161 is unspecified.

Conclusion

In this post, I took the occasion of Samuel Gregg’s recent criticism of the “economic inequality” he sees in Pope Leo XIV’s Magnifica Humanitas as an occasion to survey what the encyclical actually teaches on inequality. Consistent with sound exegetical practice, I first tried to illustrate how we should read what MH says on this theme in light of the broader theology and argument of the encyclical, which I have argued is deeply though subtly Augustinian. I offered a sketch of how the occurrences of inequality in MH are often unspecified, often have a broader scope, are sometimes specified, but never specified as Gregg’s “economic inequality.”

For those who would like further detail on these 17 texts, I include them in the following excursus. The conclusion I think we should draw is that Gregg’s critique reflects more his classically liberal presuppositions and institutional commitments than a credible criticism of MH. Given that the long discernment of the magisterium over many generations has consistently rejected the liberal economics embraced by Gregg, I think Catholics do better to seek philosophical instruments that better align with the discernment of the magisterium and be much more wary of being committed to ideologies that seem irreconcilable with such discernment. Of course, Gregg is trying to harmonize faith and reason. I think, however, that his rationality is too little shaped by the concern for the most vulnerable that traces to the Old Testament and informs CSD.

Excursus on 17 References to Inequality in MH

In what follows, I cite, contextualize, and discuss—to varying extents—the 17 texts of MH on Inequality to sketch a comprehensive account of what it says on the topic. In a somewhat indirect way, this helps us to see how Samuel Gregg’s critique misses the mark. Regarding the encyclical, it shows how the references to inequality cover many aspects of it that are part of an encroaching Babel that we need to recognize and confront. Regarding Gregg’s critique, it illustrates how a deep commitment to “free market” economics can obfuscate Pope Leo’s new articulation of Catholic Social Doctrine, which does not deny the importance of markets, but thinks they need to be shaped in a way that serves sustainable human flourishing on earth.

As the texts below show, references 1-3 and 8 can be understood to focus on the concentration of power, while entries 5-6 and 9-13 center on technology and structural inequality, and entries 4 and 16-17 address political/institutional inequalities. Number 7 concerns abuse of power within the Church.

(1) Introduction: “forms of progress that exacerbate inequalities” (12)

The first reference in MH to inequality occurs in the Introduction, which has four subsections: one on “The res novae [Latin for “new things”] of Our Time,” one on “Two Biblical Images,” one on “Building for the Common Good,” and one on “Remaining Human.”

Our first reference to inequality occurs in the third subsection, which follows from the “pivotal choice” to oppose the encroaching Babel and build “the city where God and humanity dwell together.” It is a choice to turn from the lust to dominate to serving the common good. Choosing the later commits us to “guiding history to become a place where the dignity of every person is safeguarded, justice is promoted and fraternity is made possible” (no. 1). Coming from an Augustinian pope, this is obviously not a pelagian exhortation but one directed primarily to the Church, which—as the Second Vatican Council teaches—is a sacrament of unity (no. 2). This “pivotal choice” aligns us with the whole tradition of modern CSD, which insists that “the proclamation of the Gospel cannot overlook the concrete lives of people” (no. 3).

The text reads.

All too often, we place our hope in unlimited “upgrades,” in forms of progress that exacerbate inequalities, and in immediate solutions incapable of healing people’s wounds.

Putting aside the allusion to consumer product upgrades, I read this as a warning that the forms of progress associated with Babel concentrate power and “exacerbate inequalities.” We instead need a more humanistic form of progress that identifies with “the concrete lives of people” and is ordered toward the common good.

(2) “new forms of global power and growing inequalities” (32)

The second reference to inequality (and power) occurs in Chapter One, which introduces CSD as “A Dynamic Approach Faithful to the Gospel” (nos. 17-89). This chapter opens with a subsection on “A Church Journeying Through Human History” (nos. 19-22).

The Church does so by putting “The Wisdom of the Word of God in Dialogue with the Human Sciences” (nos. 23-24), and through an understanding of “Social Doctrine as a Shared Discernment (nos. 25-27). Our text occurs in a section on “The development of Social Doctrine from Leo XIII to the Present,” and a subsection on “The first stages of the Church’s Social Doctrine.” The relevant text reads:

… Three guidelines remain particularly significant for our own times, currently marked by new forms of global power and growing inequalities: the need for law to take precedence over interests; the awareness that economic disparities are a breeding ground for tension and violence; and the necessity of a network of associations capable of mediating between the individual and the State. These guidelines continue to provide important criteria that enable Social Doctrine to interpret the dynamics of globalization and promote a more just and peaceful international order. (no. 32)

Leo XIV draws these three guidelines from the experience of his predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, who confronted the challenges unleashed by what are now called the First (1760-1840s) and the beginning of the Second (1870s-1914) Industrial Revolutions. Our American-born pontiff introduces the topic of “growing inequalities” in the context of “new forms of global power,” which indicates the need for “law [ordered to the common good] to take precedence over “interests,” which are those with this new power. In this context, Leo discusses “economic disparities”—which is basically Gregg’s “economic inequality”—as a source of social disharmony, but the problem is rooted in concentrated power.

Leo writes in a traditionally Catholic way of “the necessity of a network of associations capable of mediating between the individual and the State.” Although I agree with the need for mediating institutions, I would emphasize that we need to be more aware of how both such entities and well-structured public institutions are needed balance the great power of corporate and private wealth.

(3) Benedict XVI on “growing inequalities, pressures in the financial markets, the environmental crisis and a lack of trust in politics” (no. 41)

The broader context of this citation follows below.

Benedict XVI placed charity at the center of his analysis, stating that it “is at the heart of the Church’s Social Doctrine,” [46] provided that it is always united with truth. He also noted with concern that there is a tendency to dismiss moral relevance precisely within the social, legal, political and economic fields. The originality of his contribution lies in showing that development, justice, institutions and the market are not neutral realities, but spaces where charity in truth must find historical expression. This teaching is especially relevant today in light of growing inequalities, pressures in the financial markets, the environmental crisis and a lack of trust in politics. It stands as an invitation to evaluate every model of development on its ability to be inclusive and sustainable, to rebuild the relationship between economics and politics on the common good, and to acknowledge the critical and generative role of charity in public life.

This citation is from Pope Benedict XVI’s 2009 social encyclical Caritas in veritate: On Integral Human Development in Charity and Truth, which—like MH—reflects a comprehensive social vision. Benedict rightly recognized the ethical relevance of the structures and institutions shaping our shared social, legal, political and economic life, and he called upon Catholics to take “the institutional and political path of charity” to rectify them (CiV, no. 7). Politics must be renewed through broader participation so it is not dominated by the nexus of money and power.

(4) Short-term, polarized politics not focused on CG loses credibility and allows “:social inequalities and divisions [to] grow” (no. 63)

The broader context of this citation follows below.

63. It is the State’s responsibility to ensure cohesion, unity and the proper organization of civil society, so that the common good can be pursued with everyone’s contribution. In practical terms, this means that public authorities have the delicate duty to “harmonize the different sectoral interests with the requirements of justice,” [82] seeking a balance between individual interests and the common good, without leaving behind the most vulnerable. When politics abandons a long-term perspective and reduces itself to short-term calculations or sterile polarizations, then the language of the common good loses credibility, and, at the same time, social inequalities and divisions grow.

The key point concerns how short-term, polarized politics not focused on the common good loses credibility and allows “social inequalities and divisions” to grow.

(5) Structures, mechanisms and economic and cultural systems that produce inequality (79)

The broader context of this citation is as follows.

79. The idea of “social justice” helps us recognize that injustices do not arise solely from the wrong choices of individuals, but also from structures, mechanisms and economic and cultural systems that produce inequality almost automatically. Saint John Paul II spoke in this vein of structures of sin [108] that oppose God’s will and require a commitment to personal and social conversion. In this perspective, justice is not merely about the fairer distribution of resources or the correction of current injustices, but also assumes a restorative dimension. It aims to mend broken bonds and reintegrate those who have been excluded, taking into account the wounds caused by injustices, such as wars, colonialism, racial or gender discrimination, violence against entire peoples and exploitation. This may include restoring dignity and a voice to those who have been ignored, fostering processes of healing for collective memory, opposing discriminatory laws and practices, and providing concrete support to those who still bear the consequences of wrongs suffered in the past.

This text is especially important because Catholic “free market” enthusiasts in the United States often distorted the social teaching of St. John Paul II to present him as a Reagan Republican. The Polish pope actually represented the same Christian humanism and CSD as all the recent popes. This reference to inequality is again broad, and inseparable from the “structures, mechanisms, and economic and cultural systems that produce inequality almost automatically.”

(6) Technological innovations, including artificial intelligence, are not neutral, for they can either foster participation and justice or exacerbate inequality, control and exclusion. (85)

Again, the broader context of this citation follows below.

Seen in this light, integral human development is the framework through which we can interpret the changes of our time, including those brought about by the digital revolution. Technological innovations, including artificial intelligence, are not neutral, for they can either foster participation and justice or exacerbate inequality, control and exclusion. For this reason, they must be evaluated by asking a crucial question: Do they truly help individuals and peoples to become more humane and fraternal, while respecting our common home and future generations? It is here that the principles of Social Doctrine become concrete criteria for discernment regarding the issues which we will address in the following chapters.

Here the concern is not simply economic inequality, but how “technological innovations…can either foster participation and justice or exacerbate inequality, control and exclusion.”

(7) purifying ecclesial relationships and structures from distortions that give rise to inequality, lack of transparency and abuse of power (89)

The broader context of this citation follows below.

89. Living out justice in the Church means purifying ecclesial relationships and structures from distortions that give rise to inequality, lack of transparency and abuse of power. In this regard, listening to the victims of spiritual, economic, institutional, sexual and power-based abuse, as well as abuses of conscience, is an integral part of a journey toward justice, …

Once again, inequality is not merely economic but focused more on building a just world in which the dignity and rights of every person are respected. This applies equally to the Church, which needs to be purified of “clericalism,” to be replaced by a culture of collaboration in fostering the mission of the Church.

(8) Concentrated power gives rise “to new dependencies, exclusions, manipulations and inequalities” (95)

Continuing as above, the broader context of this citation follows.

Here, we must recognize another crucial aspect, which I have noted earlier. In many cases within the digital context, control over platforms, infrastructure, data and computing power does not rest with States, but with major economic and technological actors. These entities effectively set the conditions for access, determine the rules of visibility and shape the very possibilities for participation. When such power is concentrated in the hands of a few, it tends to become opaque and evade public oversight, increasing the risk of distorted forms of development that give rise to new dependencies, exclusions, manipulations and inequalities.

Note how “new dependencies, exclusions, manipulations and inequalities” arise from the rapid rise and concentration of corporate power over that of public institutions. This, I would argue, is precisely the result of the neoliberal paradigm that Gregg supports.

(9) Both within individual nations and across different regions of the world, significant inequalities persist concerning access to basic education and higher studies. (144)

The broader section reads as follows.

144. The first challenge is socio-political. Both within individual nations and across different regions of the world, significant inequalities persist concerning access to basic education and higher studies. In many nations, Governments have not yet invested the necessary resources for guaranteeing a quality education for all, whether by adequately supporting the public school system or by assisting private institutions that offer this essential service. When a substantial portion of education, at various levels, is entrusted to private institutions, access to schooling may become overly dependent on families’ financial means, especially in the absence of adequate public support. In the face of this risk, it is nevertheless important to acknowledge and encourage the contribution of the many private Catholic educational institutions which ensure inclusive access for children and young people of every background, even when families’ economic circumstances would not otherwise allow it.

Here we have another illustration of the encyclical’s broad view of the inequalities with which we should be concerned, here focused on inequality in access to education.

(10) “new forms of job insecurity and inequality, characterized by outsized remuneration for a highly specialized minority alongside declining wages for a large portion of the workforce” (151)

The broader context is:

151. Saint John Paul II recognized that unemployment is a grave evil. Indeed, when it reaches massive proportions, it becomes a true social calamity that especially requires the State to exercise responsibility. [153] Today, amid the “fourth industrial revolution,” this concern is even more acute, as innovation is often pursued solely for reducing costs and increasing profits. [154] In some contexts, there is a legitimate fear of a significant and rapid contraction in available jobs that would create a chain reaction deeply impacting families, young people and local economies. In many sectors, this can already be seen in new forms of job insecurity and inequality, characterized by outsized remuneration for a highly specialized minority alongside declining wages for a large portion of the workforce.

I read this as declining job security leading to declining economic and social status, but very much within the encyclical’s broad reading of history.

(11) . Given the inequality that characterizes our world, the spread of AI and computational systems produces varied effects in different places. (153)

This text is extracted from the following block:

153. At the same time, we must acknowledge that every real transition involves discontinuities, for it is uneven, fragmented and sometimes conflictual. Consequently, no single model of change or universal solution exists, since there are places and situations that require different responses. Given the inequality that characterizes our world, the spread of AI and computational systems produces varied effects in different places. …

I read this as a broad reference to inequality.

(12) the prospect of greater poverty and inequality looms large, which would leave many individuals marginalized, stranded and surrounded by the machines and automated systems that have replaced them (155)

The broader context follows.

155. In light of this conviction, we can better appreciate the history of the Church’s Social Doctrine after Rerum Novarum. … In this context, without bold decisions, the prospect of greater poverty and inequality looms large, which would leave many individuals marginalized, stranded and surrounded by the machines and automated systems that have replaced them.

Analogous to the immiseration of the masses during the era of RN, Leo XIV calls on us to recognize the threats requiring bold decisions.

(13) “new parameters [for measuring development] will allow for … assessment of how legislative and regulatory decisions impact the dignity of work, shared prosperity, inequality reduction and environmental protection (159)

The broader context is as follows.

It is important to move beyond the current metrics of development — which for more than eighty years have been tied to the concept of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) — since these metrics almost systematically neglect aspects essential to the overall wellbeing of people and the environment. The development of parameters and metrics complementary to GDP is crucial for improving the databases used for conducting analyses, political and economic decision-making and establishing regional, national and international priorities. The introduction of new parameters will allow for a comprehensive and timely assessment of how legislative and regulatory decisions impact the dignity of work, shared prosperity, inequality reduction and environmental protection. It will also affect the concept of development, educational processes, mindsets and public opinion, as well as peace, which is only authentic when based on justice.

Leo XIV is calling for broader measures of societal flourishing than the focus on GDP that has characterized the neoliberal era.

(14) While the world’s wealth has grown in absolute terms, it is increasingly concentrated in fewer hands, widening inequalities both within and between countries. (161)

Here we come to the context for Samuel Gregg’s most important text.

This perspective needs to become part of a broader view of global dynamics. While the world’s wealth has grown in absolute terms, it is increasingly concentrated in fewer hands, widening inequalities both within and between countries. “There are a few who have too much, and too many who have little, that is the logic of today.” [162] Scientific and technological advances, even in the medical field, are not easily accessible to the vast majority of people, as was dramatically demonstrated during the recent pandemic. While some regions spend heavily on superfluous interventions or dreams of individual enhancement accessible only to a select few, other parts of the world lack the essential equipment needed to save millions of human lives. To think that new technologies will automatically benefit everyone is to ignore the evidence….

I have already discussed some of the “factors about the nature of wealth” that Samuel Gregg thinks MH “does not recognize” in its apparently misplaced concerns about inequality (regarding which Gregg cites nos. 155, 161, 164, 240).

The bolded sentence in the above block quote is the one Samuel Gregg uses as the basis for his charge that MH’s discussion of “economic inequality” contains “factual flaws.” He reads it as contradicting the well-known fact that wealth between countries has decreased over the last quarter-century as hundreds of millions have been raised from poverty in especially China and India.

This criticism requires reading the reference to “widening inequalities” as being restricted to economics or wealth. Even if this is the focus of the sentence, the broader treatment of inequality in MH has a wider scope, which I think gives us a way to give a more generous interpretation of the text. This reading would give weight to the fact that this sentence is located within a richly Augustinian text that calls people to choose against a new form of the City of Man reflecting novel forms of the libido dominandi. Leo calls us instead to build a society that works for the common good, for an integral human development, and for the flourishing of every human person.

Within this broader framework of the encyclical, it makes sense to recognize that the hundreds of millions who have escaped poverty in China and India still suffer from inequalities, such as the denial of their basic human rights. I think such a contextual reading, not only reflects sound exegesis, but a proper way to read ecclesial documents, and to do scholarship at the service of the Church. As President of The American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), I think Gregg represents something different, which is a more classically liberal perspective.

(15) Unless transformations at the design stage prioritize the prevention of new and further disparities, technological progress will inevitably produce structural inequalities. (226)

The broader context is as follows.

…. Unless transformations at the design stage prioritize the prevention of new and further disparities, technological progress will inevitably produce structural inequalities. Today, justice requires access to the benefits of innovation, including care, knowledge, tools and opportunities.

Again, I think these “structural inequalities” should be understood as broader than economic inequality.

(16) …the international community can work to reduce inequalities, defend the rights of refugees and minorities (226)

The broader context of the citation follows.

International organizations, particularly the United Nations, are essential instruments for promoting a civilization of love, for they can foster dialogue among nations and promote the peaceful resolution of conflicts, the integral development of peoples, the protection of the most vulnerable, disarmament and the care of creation. Through such efforts, the international community can work to reduce inequalities, defend the rights of refugees and minorities, reallocate resources from military spending to human development and protect our common home. The Holy See supports and accompanies these endeavors, while also recognizing that the current weaknesses of the UN and the international political system reveal the need for profound reforms. This is not simply a question of technical adjustments, for the crisis of convictions and values that also concerns the ethical foundations of nations makes it more difficult to direct multilateralism toward the true common good.

Here inequalities are located within the broad context of the international common good and international institutions.

(17) those who believe are committed to ensuring that a greater justice will take the place of inequality, and that the industry of war will be replaced by the craft of peace. (no. 240)

Let us love justice and peace! … We proclaim a hope rooted in the One who came down from heaven to “create a new story here below.” For this reason, those who believe are committed to ensuring that a greater justice will take the place of inequality, and that the industry of war will be replaced by the craft of peace. (no. 240)

This final reference to inequality is within the Conclusion, and the subsection that exhorts readers to take their place in “The construction site of our time.” Here inequality is juxtaposed with “greater justice” which should not be understood in a merely secular sense but as echoing the very theme of Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel According to Matthew, which is yet another indication of how MH is faithful to the Gospel in history.

Agenda for a Potential Series of Posts

In subsequent posts, I hope to respond—at least indirectly—to other aspects of Gregg’s critique, which include the following:

• That MH erects “Holy Strawmen” by “sow[ing] confusion via several of its observations about the place of the market economy in the past half-century of economic history”;

• That MH neglects the problematic fact that “The State [has been] on the March,” growing rapidly;

• That MH puts unjustified “Faith in the State.”

The first point concerns narratives regarding economic history and the role or shape of market economies. I hope to address such narratives in future posts. Both the second and third concern size and role of the state. I have frequently referenced some recent scholarship on this topic that merited the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, and plan to return to it again.

I think ongoing dialogue between MH and critics like Gregg can be fruitful for several reasons. One is that Gregg is a serious Catholic scholar, who approaches MH and CSD from a largely “free market” / neoliberal perspective that has significantly shaped policy for approaching a half-century. Another is that many Catholics and others who came of age in this era and have been influenced by such thinking. Yet another is that this economic paradigm is arguably much more the unsustainable relic of a previous age than an approach that is adequate to meeting the many challenges of our era—social, political, economic, and environmental—especially with the rapid embrace of Artificial Intelligence.

Each point below could be expanded at much greater length, but this outline will introduce the relevant topics in bite-sized chunks. They are somewhat overlapping, but capture different aspects of his discussion of economics.

1. The economy must respect human dignity and foster human flourishing

Leo grounds all economic life in the dignity of every person:

“Recognizing that every man and woman possesses an inalienable dignity... requires us to shape the way we live together, including our economic and political choices.” (59)

The structures within which economic life takes place—political, economic, legal, cultural—are not simply natural phenomena, but human creations. Economic institutions are for people, and should be shaped to foster a rich sense of human flourishing, not simply the maximization of profits by those with the skills and resources to do so.

2. The common good is the first economic principle

The encyclical identifies the common good as the primary organizing principle of economic life:

“The common good... [is] the social expression of the dignity recognized in every person.” (59)

Drawing on Vatican II, Leo explains:

“The common good consists in ‘the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.’” (60)

Based on this robust sense of what is sometimes called the political common good, an economic system cannot be measured simply by the creation of wealth but by whether social conditions enable everyone to flourish.

3. Authentic development is people-centered, not wealth-centered

Leo repeatedly contrasts authentic human development with an economy centered on accumulation:

“Development is truly human when it places people at the center instead of the accumulation of wealth, and when it concerns peoples as well as individuals.” (83)

He further insists:

“Development is not truly human if it increases consumption for some while shifting costs and burdens onto others, or relegates entire regions to subordinate roles.” (83)

Development must therefore be:

“integral,” promoting “spiritual, cultural, moral and relational dimensions” while respecting creation and cultural diversity. (83)

4. GDP is an inadequate measure of development

One of the encyclical’s more concrete proposals concerns the right way to assess the economy.

Leo argues:

“It is important to move beyond the current metrics of development... tied to the concept of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), since these metrics almost systematically neglect aspects essential to the overall wellbeing of people and the environment.” (159)

He therefore calls for:

“parameters and metrics complementary to GDP” that measure “the dignity of work, shared prosperity, inequality reduction and environmental protection.” (159)

Such metrics would help us to assess whether our economic structures are ordered to the flourishing of the human family—and sustainable life on earth—or the accumulation of wealth by a subset of society.

5. Finance must serve the real economy

Leo distinguishes productive finance from speculative finance.

Quoting the tradition of previous encyclicals, he warns that finance lacking moral foundations:

“has not only produced manifest abuses and injustice, but also demonstrated a capacity to create systemic and worldwide economic crisis.” (160)

He also expresses concern that:

“income from capital risks replacing income from labor.” (160)

By contrast:

“Savings transformed into credit for the real economy... creating both jobs and self-employed work, remain central for development.... The social function of credit remains irreplaceable. Finance for its own sake is fundamentally different from finance aimed at the development, creation and evolution of work.” (160)

Serious discernment is needed regarding the extent to which aspects of contemporary finance, which are enabling those with the requisite skills and resources to consolidate vast shares of wealth and power, are compatible with the just and sustainable flourishing of the human family on earth.

6. Justice belongs inside markets, not after them

Perhaps Leo’s strongest economic statement rejects the idea that justice is simply a matter of redistribution after markets have operated.

He writes:

“Just laws and methods of redistribution are certainly necessary...” (162)

but immediately adds:

“The pursuit of social justice should not be considered a separate issue that follows only after the production of wealth, as if the economy existed solely to create wealth, with politicians only intervening afterwards in order to distribute it.” (162)

Instead, Leo writes:

“Justice concerns every phase of economic activity, from resource acquisition to financing, and from production to consumption; every choice has moral consequences.” (162)

Each of these stages involves free human agency which can be either just or unjust, and can result in structural injustices.

7. Markets require political direction

In one of the encyclical’s clearest departures from market fundamentalism, Leo states:

“More than ever, in the age of AI and robotics, it is no longer possible to rely solely on the ‘invisible hand’ of the market.” (163)

Instead,

“Politics has the task of orientating economies and technologies to the common good, promoting dignified work, social inclusion and an equitable distribution of the benefits of innovation.” (163)

International cooperation is likewise needed because many economic decisions now transcend national borders.

8. AI intensifies the moral challenges of capitalism

Rather than treating AI simply as a technological issue, Leo argues that it raises fundamental economic questions.

He proposes three governing criteria:

• “Transparency and accountability” (164)

• “Inclusion and access” (164)

• “Measures to ensure equity” (164)

He explains:

“Taxation, social protection and industrial policies must correct the imbalances created by the concentration of wealth and power.” (164)

These policies:

“do not constitute a curb on innovation; instead they make it civilized and humane.” (164)

If there were ever a technology that needed careful discernment and regulation, it would seem to be Artificial Intelligence. We are rolling it out in the United States, however, with almost no constraints.

9. The Economy Must be Part of an Integral Ecology

84. Today, the concept of integral human development is a benchmark for the evaluation of integral ecology, which has become an indispensable dimension of the Church’s Social Doctrine. Indeed, the quality of development is measured by the ability to integrate justice toward people and the care of our common home, and to promote dignified living conditions, access to necessary goods, just social relations, care of creation and consideration for future generations. It follows that true progress is not what increases the wellbeing of some by degrading ecosystems, shifting costs onto the most disadvantaged communities, or compromising the living conditions of those who will follow us.

The economy must be shaped in a way that harmonizes with not just our natural ecosystems but a societal ecosystem.

Overall economic vision

Taken together, Magnifica Humanitas proposes an economy characterized by several interconnected principles:

• Economic life must be shaped so it is consistent with the dignity of human persons.

• The first criterion for evaluating economic systems is whether they foster the common good.

• Development should be judged by human flourishing rather than wealth accumulation.

• The GDP does not suffice as a measure of the economy but should be supplemented by measures of shared prosperity, work, inequality, and environmental health.

• Finance should serve productive investment and dignified work rather than speculation.

• Justice must permeate production, finance, exchange, and consumption—not merely redistribution afterward.

• Markets are valuable but insufficient; democratic political institutions must orient economies toward the common good.

• AI and new technologies require stronger public governance to prevent concentrations of wealth and power and to ensure innovation benefits everyone.

Pope Leo XIV seeks an economy compatible with human flourishing, which he assess based on the principles of Catholic Social Doctrine. His assessment extends into the realms of finance, globalization, artificial intelligence, the digital economy, and environmental sustainability. Leo rejects not only the reduction of economic assessment to profit maximization, but technological determinism. He insists that “every choice has moral consequences” (162) and that economic institutions exist to foster the integral flourishing of every human person.

In this post, my goal is to elucidate the ways Pope Leo employs the image of the Tower of Babel in the introduction and first chapter of the encyclical. It will begin from a consideration of how Leo subtly roots his whole argument in Augustinian theology, which helps us to appreciate how Babel is an image for fallen humanity and thus the City of Man, which is characterized by the libido dominandi (or lust to dominate).

This focus on Chapter One will allow us to see how the earthly city can be recognized in Leo’s reading of the history of modern Catholic Social Doctrine, even if his subtle and mostly implicit appeals to Augustine could be overlooked. By elucidating these themes in the Introduction and Chapter One, we will be better able to appreciate the unity of the encyclical when these themes play a larger role in Chapter Three on Technology and Dominance, and the first half of Chapter Five on The Culture of Power.

This survey of how Pope Leo employs the image of Babel, the earthly city, and the libido dominandi will also provide a way for us to understand more deeply his discernment of the signs of the times. Such discernment provides, moreover, the basis for responding to these developments in a way that is faithful to the Gospel in history, guided by the principles of Catholic Social Doctrine (CSD).

For visual learners, the following graphic—created with the help of ChatGPT—attempts to give a pictorial representation of the broad scope of how MH’s use of the image of the Tower of Babel fits within Pope Leo XIV’s thoroughly Augustinian theology of history.

Leo’s Augustinian Framing of Magnifica Humanitas

In the opening sentence of Magnifica Humanitas, Pope Leo XIV exhorts his readers to make the “pivotal choice” to “build the city in which God and humanity dwell together” (§1). For readers familiar with the theology of St. Augustine—and with the fact that Pope Leo is deeply formed by that tradition of thought and practice as a member of the Augustinian Order—this reference to “the city,” this suggests that Leo is framing his encyclical in light of St. Augustine’s famous The City of God (De civitate Dei). By contrasting this city with the Tower of Babel, such readers will further recognize that Leo has chosen what is arguably the primary Augustinian image for the fallen earthly city.

Augustine’s masterpiece not only defended (in books 1-10) fifth century Christians against charges that they were responsible for the ongoing disintegration of the Roman Empire. It also articulated (in books 11-22) what Charles Mathewes describes as “a constructive account of the Christian view of how to inhabit the world and to be a good Roman.”1 Pope Leo’s encyclical can be understood as an updated account of how Catholics can be good citizens of the earthly city while having their primary allegiances to the heavenly city.

Building on the implicit echo of The City of God in the first sentence, Pope Leo’s first explicit reference to St. Augustine comes in §8 of the Introduction, where he references The Confessions (Latin: Confessiones) on how our hearts are restless until they rest in God. He does not, however, explicitly link his call “to build the city” in MH §1 to Augustine’s City of God until later in the encyclical. Leo does so in the closing subsection of Chapter Three, entitled “Two Cities and Two Loves” where he concludes his discussion of the morally good use of technology. Such is the case when it is used in a manner consistent with the love of God and neighbor. In this section, The Pope writes:

… Saint Augustine described human history as a struggle between two loves, which give rise to two ways of inhabiting the world and living together—or two “cities,” as it were: on the one hand, the love of God and neighbor; on the other, the exclusive love of self. “Two loves have built two cities: the earthly city, the love of self even to the contempt of God; the heavenly city, the love of God even to the contempt of self.”[note 139] As throughout history, these two loves continue to contend for dominance in our hearts today. The age of AI is no exception: the construction of Babel or the rebuilding of Jerusalem begins within each one of us (§130, bold added).

Leo’s distinctively historical approach to CSD reflects this Augustinian theology of history, with the two loves contesting to order society. The restless heart of the Confessions is seeking the heavenly city, even if he does not yet realize it. Although the encyclical does not explicitly mention Augustine’s understanding of the libido dominandi (lust to dominate) that characterizes fallen humanity and “the earthly city,” those familiar with Augustinian theology will see it in the word “dominance” [bolded in the above block quote], which plays a major role in the encyclical, occurring 21 times. This compares to only two occurrences in the social encyclical Caritas in veritate by Pope Benedict XVI, who wrote two dissertations in the Augustinian tradition. I hope to return to the ongoing relevance of the City of God to MH in future posts. For now, I want to focus on the text of the encyclical itself.

Leo’s discernment that fallen humanity can today be understood metaphorically as attempting to build a new Tower of Babel is an Augustinian-inspired warning against a perennial temptation. That is, to build a world alienated from God, and ordered toward the wrong love, namely the love of self to the exclusion of love of God and neighbor. Leo writes that “Each generation inherits the task of shaping its own era...” into either another Babel or a place of dignity, justice, and fraternity (§1).

Leo’s Reading of Genesis 11 on Babel

Leo’s reading of Genesis 11 is that Babel was “a city built on pride and the claim to self-sufficiency,” “to guarantee stability and power,” through which the builders seek to “make a name” for themselves. It was “a project conceived without reference to God, supported by a uniformity that eliminated diversity and that chose homogenization over communion,” that “sacrifices human dignity for efficiency and aspires to reach heaven without God’s blessing” (§7). Such sacrifice of “human dignity for efficiency” will be central to Leo’s critical discernment about how the use of AI can either hinder or foster human flourishing.

Babel and the History of Catholic Social Doctrine

For St. Augustine, the libido dominandi of the City of Man and the Tower of Babel illumine the drama of the Church’s pilgrimage through history. Similarly for Pope Leo XIV, the history of modern Catholic Social Doctrine is one of a pilgrim Church striving to foster the City of God—at least to the extent of defending human dignity, justice, solidarity, social friendship, etc—against the threat of the various kinds of domination that arise in human history. Building on St. Augustine’s theology of history (see §§19-22), the Church journeys on her pilgrimage through time, bearing witness to Christ by living in fidelity to the Gospel, manifesting the Church as a sign of unity among the human family and with God (§19).

For Pope Leo, the Church has a “vocation of listening, dialogue and service” and a mission with “historical scope” that includes “responsibility for the way social relations are built,” and “concern for the soundness of institutions” (§19). This is not a Church of merely personal piety or pessimistic political quietism, or a call to neo-integralism or postliberalism. With the Second Vatican Council, it is a Church that respects the “autonomy of earthly affairs” (§20) and presupposes the modern state and “civil institutions” (§21). It is a Church, however, that cares about the good of earthly affairs and participates in sociopolitical life, in friendly dialogue with our neighbors and “with the human sciences” (§23), drawing on the principles of CSD in a process of “shared discernment” regarding the common good (§§25-27).

Sketching the History of the Social Encyclicals

Although the encyclical doesn’t bring this out, here I will sketch how not just the image of Babel but Augustine’s understanding of the libido dominandi can be recognized as implicit in MH’s tracing of the history of modern CSD. We can understand MH’s reading of history as discerning, on the one hand, what is a reflection of Babel, and on the other hand, what should be done to fostering a city of justice and peace.

Leo XIII’s 1891 Rerum novarum

The modern tradition of Papal social teaching “began to take shape as an organic corpus of social teaching” with Leo XIII’s 1891 Rerum novarum: On Capital and Labor (§29-30). Here, Babel was implicit in the largely unregulated capitalism of the Industrial Revolution and in a “social darwinist” ideology of “the survival of the fittest,” which brought subsistence wages and misery on the working masses. Through Rerum novarum, the Church—in Leo’s narrative—affirmed “the inseparable link between proclaiming the Gospel and pursuing a more just social order” (§30), which is modern CSD insists is essential to fostering the City of God on earth. This remains true even if only a small fraction of Catholics have ever been helped to understand this message, much less been formed and supported to live it out.

Pius XI’s 1931 Quadragesimo Anno against Laissez Faire Economics and Concentrated Wealth

For Pius XI’s 1931 Quadragesimo Anno: On the Reconstruction of the Social Order (QA), the threat of domination by laissez faire capitalists on the right and communism on the left was reconfigured by the Great Depression. QA “denounces the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few; criticizes both unlimited competition and collectivist projects that undermine the freedom and responsibility of the individual…” (§31).

Pius XI Against the Totalitarians of the Fascist Right and Communist Left

This collapse of the “liberal” economics of the Roaring Twenties discredited not only that economic form but the democracies in which it existed, which led to a new threat of fascist domination from the right as the Church feared the prospect of communist domination from the left. Against these threats to human dignity, Pius XI criticised Italian fascism through Non Abbiamo Bisogno (1931), Nazism through Mit Brennender Sorge (1937), and Communism through Divini Redemptoris (1937). The Church remained ambivalent regarding constitutional democracy, however, for several reasons.2

From these experiences with Twentieth Century forms of the libido dominandi / Babel, Leo draws the following lessons for building a just society. The most important is, arguably, the still underappreciated “…awareness that injustice concerns not only individual behavior but also economic and institutional structures.” Another solid insight is “the importance of the principle of subsidiarity, which calls for the strengthening of the fabric of associations and communities…” Similarly “bioler plate” from the perspective of CSD is the need for dignified work and wages to support a family (§31).3

Although these economic and institutional structures are obviously not the City of God, which pertains properly to the order of grace, such structures that are ordered to justice and peace—for example—can be both the fruit of this City and conducive to it. On the other hand, earthly polities can be shaped by the libido dominandi, and opposed to the City of God.

Pius XII Fosters the Postwar Liberal Order of the Mixed Economy / Social Democracy

Leo describes how Pope Pius XII played a crucial role in postwar construction, paving the way for Catholics to participate in fostering “the framework of an international order based on justice, peace and the recognition of human dignity.” The whole of
§32 merits careful consideration for how it sketches the various ways that Catholics not only supported but helped to shape the postwar order that gave us 80 years of relative peace and prosperity.

This paragraph also anticipates two reasons why this order is now in crisis, namely that we have allowed “economic disparities” to become “a breeding ground for tension and violence” and we have failed to foster the needed “network of associations capable of mediating between the individual and the State.” As I read it, the first of these reasons points to the neoliberal economic paradigm with its exclusive focus on maximizing profit, which—unfortunately—was advocated by influential Catholics, often with the support of aspiring oligarchs. The second reflects that fact that Catholics failed to embrace the Second Vatican Council’s incarnational understanding of the Apostolate of the Laity. In my reading, such factors enabled the libido dominandi to undermine the gains of the postwar decades and confront us with the threat of a dystopian future.

The next several paragraphs of MH continue to highlight key contributions of subsequent magisterial social doctrine, which seeks to build the heavenly city insofar as it can be anticipated on our earthly pilgrimage.

The Years of the Second Vatican Council

§33 Sketches the key contributions of Pope St. John XXIII, including his “emphasis on the global dimension of social issues and the language of rights.” John emphasized the Church as a force for unity, the need to care for people’s concrete needs, and the dependence of social life on a balance between public and private agents. For our purposes of discerning the two cities, Pope John also advocated that Catholics seek to direct society toward the realization of justice, love and freedom. For Pope Leo, John’s universalism, his emphasis on human dignity and rights, and his recognition of the importance of institutions have ongoing importance for our day, namely they help us to build the city where God and humanity dwell in friendship.

§34 Summarizes the key contributions of the Second Vatican Council, which retain all their importance for today. These begin with “a Church that is close to humanity, engaged with the world and committed to reflecting on the concrete reality of historical situations, rather than abstract concepts.”4 The council is also credited with “opening up horizons for thematic reflection” (i.e., marriage and family life, the economy, the political community, war and peace). It also scrutinizes structures in light of an integral humanism, and provides “a method of discernment that invites us to interpret historical changes guided by the Gospel and human expertise.” This latter is precisely what Leo exemplifies in MH.

Echoing the conciliar language on the Apostolate of the Laity, this section insists that “the Gospel, like leaven, is capable of transforming the structures of society from within and forging paths toward a greater humanity.” Against today’s integralists and postliberals, the council’s articulation of the right to freedom from coercion in matters of religion is affirmed as remaining “highly relevant today…” providing “Social Doctrine with decisive criteria for protecting individuals and building pluralistic and peaceful societies.” We build the earthly city not by seeking coercive political power for the Church, but by respecting the dignity of every person and walking in friendship and collaboration with them to do so.

§35 highlights the key contributions of Pope St. Paul VI, who advocated integral human development to mitigate the causes of war. This mean that for him, an authentic form of the progress that most sought would be a humanism, that could be realized through “a transition from less humane to more humane living conditions.” In response to rapid cultural changes accompanying urbanization (§36), Paul explained how the Gospel—precisely as lived through CSD—“offers a vision of the human person, relationships, authority and the common good that is still capable of guiding economic, political and cultural choices today.” Leo reiterates as follows: “the Gospel remains relevant because it provides the criteria for recognizing what humanizes or dehumanizes and what liberates or oppresses in ever-changing situations.” Here CSD makes concrete the Gospel in the modern world, which can “pass judgment on those economic and political structures…”

Paul’s understanding of how living out CSD can be called “the Gospel” will be picked up by Pope Leo. I would argue that this is a profoundly important teaching of the magisterium that must become part of the daily life of the Church.

The next several paragraphs (§§37-43) treat the recent magisterium, from John Paul II through Francis, which can also be read through the Augustinian lens of the two cities.

The Recent Magisterium

§37 introduces the social teaching of Saint John Paul II which intervenes “at the crossroads of the crisis of the great ideological systems of the twentieth century and the onset of economic globalization.” We can understand CSD as using the term “ideology” to indicate a deficient way of understanding reality and projecting a plan for the future, one corresponding to the fallen City of Man. CSD, on the other hand, provides a way to interpret the signs of the times and project a plan for the future that is faithful to the Gospel in history.

These “great ideological systems” were—of course—communism on the left and laissez faire capitalism on the right, both of which are spheres for the libido dominandi because they tend toward injustice in different ways. To recognize this, we need to distinguish laissez faire capitalism from the postwar consensus that could be described as the Keynesian “mixed economy,” or Polanyi’s “embedded liberalism,” or Christian democracy or social democracy. These attempts to mediate between the extremes of left and right reflected an emerging understanding that economic markets must be shaped in ways that are conducive to human flourishing.

In his 1981 Laborem exercens: On Human Work, John Paul was not just reflecting on the dignity of work, but offering indirect support for the Polish Solidarity movement. In so doing, he sets himself against their communist oppressors, not—however—by taking the side of American capitalism. John Paul draws lessons with contemporary regarding the need to defend human dignity against “job insecurity, fragmented career paths and automation” (§37).

In his 1987 Solicitudo rei socialis: On Social Concern (SRS), John Paul II revisited the call of Paul VI’s Populorum Progressio: On the Development of the Peoples on its Twentieth Anniversary. John Paul bemoans the lack of progress due especially to the great ideological struggle between the Eastern Bloc led by the Soviet Union and the Western Bloc, led by the United States (§38). Leo also notes how John Paul II “also denounced the economic, financial and commercial mechanisms that, managed by the strongest economies, structurally favor their own interests while stifling weaker economies, and he asked that they be subjected to serious ethical, not just technical, scrutiny.” The United States was certainly the primary example he had in mind. Against this, John Paul II had called for solidarity “as a concrete, shared responsibility among individuals, peoples and nations—a form of social friendship or political charity oriented toward the ‘civilization of love’ proposed by Paul VI.”

This call for economic reform in the US was attacked by “conservative Catholics” including William F. Buckley, Jr., who complained that SRS was “heart-tearingly misbegotten,” and that John Paul was acting as an “apostle of moral equivalence” between American capitalism and Soviet Communism. The Catholic “neoconservatives” at First Things—including Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, Michael Novak, and George Weigel—similarly worked to oppose the economic message of SRS, which was part of their blatant partisanship for the Republican Party. Novak wrote on “The Papal Bias against Liberal Democracy” and argued that Papal rhetoric against liberalism and individualism was exaggerated, if not naïve. Fr. Neuhaus unpersuasively spun the encyclical as a rejection of liberation theology.

Ironically, 1987 was also the year of the movie Wall Street, in which Michael Douglas’s character Gordon Gekko made his infamous speech about how “Greed is Good,” which we can understand as an apologia for the libido dominandi in the economic sphere.

This neoliberal economic paradigm, with its basis in a rationale of profit maximization has contributed to the global and world-historical crisis that we now face. It could well have been avoided if Catholics had instead heeded John Paul II’s 1987 call for ethical scrutiny.

Leo’s narrative continues regarding John Paul’s 1991 Rerum Novarum, which was written upon “the collapse of the Soviet system and the rise of democracy and the market economy,” Leo writes of how the Church gives a qualified acceptance of each. Regarding democracy, he cites John Paul II on how:

…the Church values democracy insofar as it guarantees the effective participation of citizens, enables them to elect and peacefully replace their leaders and prevents power from being monopolized by small elite groups motivated by particular or ideological interests. (§39)

With American democracy on life support in 2026, we might note how we would arguably fail all of John Paul’s qualifying tests of a democracy worthy of the human family (about effective participation, elections, peaceful replacement of leaders, and monopolization of power).

Leo continues his reading of John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus on markets.

Likewise, the Church recognizes the positive potential of the market and private initiative only if they remain subordinate to the moral law and are guided by the principle of solidarity, without sacrificing the most vulnerable to the rationale of profit. This adds a particularly relevant legacy to the Social Doctrine of the Church. The affirmation of the link between the dignity of work, solidarity among peoples, a critical assessment of democracy and the market economy continues to provide criteria for evaluating new forms of exploitation, exclusion and crises in political representation. (§39)

Again, the contemporary United States exemplifies what the encyclical warns against.

Leo continues his reading of history in preparation for his own discernment for our time. He notes some key points about Pope Benedict XVI’s 2009 social encyclical Caritas in veritate: On Integral Development in Love and Truth (§40), which also commemorates Populorum Progressio. These include his critical assessment of globalization—which had unfolded according to the neoliberal paradigm of profit maximization which allows the most powerful to dominate—in the wake of 2008 financial crisis. Benedict saw:

…that in wealthy countries new kinds of poverty were emerging as well as unprecedented forms of exclusion, while, in poorer regions, small minorities lived in consumerist affluence alongside situations of dehumanizing poverty. [43] In addition, he observed that the new global economic and financial system, marked by a vast mobility of capital and means of production, had reduced the political power of States and their ability to influence economic processes.

Leo affirms Benedict’s call for ordering economic activity toward the common good, and for communal political responsibility (§40). Leo sees the originality of Benedict’s contribution in “showing that development, justice, institutions and the market are not neutral realities, but spaces where charity in truth must find historical expression” (§41). He comments.

This teaching is especially relevant today in light of growing inequalities, pressures in the financial markets, the environmental crisis and a lack of trust in politics. It stands as an invitation to evaluate every model of development on its ability to be inclusive and sustainable, to rebuild the relationship between economics and politics on the common good, and to acknowledge the critical and generative role of charity in public life.

Leo concludes with three paragraphs on the social teaching of Pope Francis, which is rooted in Vatican II’s vision of the Church walking together in solidarity with the human family (§42). He affirms Francis’s intervention into the “environmental crisis, in a social Encyclical,” which rightly recognizes it as “the ecological aspect of the contemporary socio-economic crisis,” which follows from the failed neoliberal paradigm. Pope Leo also affirms Francis’s “proposal for an integral ecology that combines care for our common home with the preferential option for the poor…” Leo not only endorses a humane and integral ecology, but also Francis’s foregrounding of the universal destination of goods, his “critique of a technocratic paradigm that seeks to reduce everything to an object to be dominated,” and his call for “intergenerational justice” (§43).

From Francis’s 2020 encyclical Fratelli Tutti: On Fraternity and Social Friendship, Leo affirms a ethic of universal fraternity and friendship, which makes for a better kind of politics, one that participates in the heavenly city by working for sustainable human flourishing.

Chapter One concludes with a subsection on “interpreting history in the light of faith,” which can be understood as discerning the manifestations of the two cities, one ordered toward self-love and domination and the other ordered toward love of God and neighbor.

Conclusion:

Pope Leo XIV’s social encyclical Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding The Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence is deeply influenced by the theology of St. Augustine, especially his classic The City of God with its reading of the historical struggle between “two cities” which are distinguished by their ordering toward two different loves. Even if this influence is implicit until the third chapter, I think we can have a richer reading of the Introduction and first chapter if we are more attentive to these Augustinian roots, as I have tried to show. With a richer reading of the Tower of Babel, the earthly city, and the libido dominandi, the theological and spiritual significance of Chapter Three’s discussion of “Technology and Dominance” and Chapter Five’s treatment of “The Culture of Power” are even more evident.

I also sketched how the voting guides published by the United States Catholic bishops evolved to prioritize opposition to abortion and other issues, which were addressed in terms of opposing “intrinsic evil.” This prioritization, which seemed to make sense at the time, was supported by not only socially conservative Catholic moral theologians. It was also picked up by the conservative intellectual and media ecosystem.

I would argue that this conservative American coalition—with which I was once aligned—eventually empowered those representing what MH describes metaphorically as Babel. This Old Testament image represents a world built by human arrogance without regard for the divine wisdom and driven by what St. Augustine called the libido dominandi or lust to dominate. In the economic order, this libido dominandi is exemplified by the “technocratic paradigm,” which is employed by those with sufficient wealth and skills to amass unprecedented wealth and power. In the sociopolitical order, the libido dominandi manifests itself in what Pope Leo calls the “culture of power” through which war and other forms of violence are—in Leo’s terminology—“back in vogue.”

In this post, I will begin by introducing what I will call a narrow, issue-based approach to voting that prioritizes opposition to abortion and other intrinsic evils. In the second part, I will elucidate a richer approach focused on choosing candidates best qualified to fulfill offices in support of the common good, which I think is much more conducive to a Catholic response to Leo’s social exhortation. In so doing, I will continue drawing upon Cathleen Kaveny’s book Law’s Virtues and other resources.

1. Voting on Issues, Prioritizing the Right to Life: “Non-Negotiable” Intrinsic Evils

The first—narrow, issues based—approach treats the right to life as fundamental to the common good and to upholding the dignity of the human person. It gained momentum from Pope John Paul II’s 1993 moral encyclical Evangelium Vitae: The Gospel of life, which highlighted the threats to the most vulnerable at the beginning and end of human life through the phrase “the culture of death.” This first approach sought to address concerns about the millions of lives being lost to elective abortion, fetal stem cell research, and human cloning. These are reasonably seen as cases in which the strong violate the most fundamental rights of the weak. Those seeking to defend these rights can claim roots in the Old Testament concern for the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the stranger (Dt 24:17-22; Dt 10:18; Ex 22:21-22; Jer 22:3; Zech 7:10).

This approach to the morality of voting has ongoing appeal, therefore, because its core intuition that the strong should not be permitted to kill the weak has deep roots in Scripture. It also has wide resonance in a nation whose Declaration of Independence proclaims human equality and the right to life. Advocates of this approach are not indifferent to the common good, moreover, but see respect for the lives of the most vulnerable as foundational to it. They will typically say that the right to life is the first one, not just because of the Declaration, but because—for example—other rights are irrelevant if someone has already killed you.

Those prioritizing the right-to-life in voting will often argue that a vote for a pro-choice candidate is a choice to advance abortion, especially if a viable pro-life alternative was on the ballot. This raises a central point of contention: the distinction between formal and material cooperation in the advancement of intrinsically evil acts (IEAs). If one votes for a pro-choice candidate precisely to foster elective abortions, this distinction holds that one has formally cooperated in abortion, which means they have participated morally in the act of abortion even if they may have been physically remote. A taxi driver who unknowingly delivered a woman to an abortion clinic, on the other hand, has cooperated only materially.

This formal / material distinction has often been central to disagreements over the bishops’ document on Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship. Those seeing abortion as the preeminent issue governing political participation (including voting) often appeal to the related distinction between remote and proximate material cooperation with evil. In contrast to the taxi driver whose material cooperation may be remote, it seems clear that the act of the nurse who assists in the abortion procedure is more like that of the physician performing the abortion than that of the taxi driver. Thus, proximate material cooperation is seen as sliding into formal cooperation.

Some Catholics draw upon such analysis to argue that voting for any pro-choice candidate is formally cooperating in the evil of elective abortion, and therefore immoral. This has basically ruled out voting for Democrats and strongly favors supporting Republicans, unless perhaps one notices that their supposedly “pro-life” policies have resulted in more abortions, not less, while throwing young mothers and children into precarity. Given that the contemporary Republican Party under Donald Trump demonstrates almost no resistance to his autocratic agenda in support of his oligarchic cronies, it seems clear that the approach to voting based on opposing intrinsic evil empowers precisely the new Babel against which Pope Leo warns in Magnifica Humanitas, including the technocratic paradigm ordered almost exclusively to profit, and to what he calls “the culture of power” which is ordered to war.

It should be evident that the “pivotal choice” to rebuild our collapsing social and political order called for by Magnifica Humanitas is difficult to reconcile with such a narrowly-conceived approach to voting with its focus on issues like opposing abortion. Even if I once followed this approach, I have recognized for many years that we need to discard it and embrace a more robust alternative so we can contribute to building a just world marked by social friendship.

2. Voting for Candidates, Prioritizing Qualifications to Best Serve the Common Good

The second—and much richer approach to political participation—starts from a different place entirely: not from a hierarchy of “issues,” but from the qualifications of candidates to serve in offices to foster the common good. Is there room here for prophetic speech in the face of grave injustice? Yes, but it will be within a communal context oriented toward mutual reform and collaboration, not simply condemnation.

This approach also rejects how the language of “intrinsic evils” migrated from the domain of personal morality into that of voting. Pope John Paul II tried to articulate a defensible contemporary account of the traditional notion of the “intrinsically evil act” (IEA) in his 1993 moral encyclical Veritatis Splendor (VS). For VS, the phrase refers to kinds of human / moral acts that are evil by their object. This means they are always evil in themselves, regardless of any remote ends (those beyond the proximate end) and regardless of those circumstances that are not what St. Thomas Aquinas calls “principal conditions of the object.” Just because an act is always evil by its object and kind (i.e., an IEA), this does not speak to whether it is a grave or light matter. For example, the Catholic Church teaches that lying is intrinsically evil, but some lies are very light matter (i.e., the jocose / joking lie) while others (those that cause grave harm) are very grave.

According to Cathleen Kaveny, the language of “intrinsic evil” was introduced into context of voting by a Catholic Answers voting guide, where it was used to indicate matters of grave moral concern, which is very different from how VS defined intrinsic evil. From this political transposition of intrinsic evil, the notion became attached to the language of “non-negotiables,” which is another way of designating “issues” that, allegedly, must determine one’s vote regardless of any other consideration. Those of us who are critical of such moves argue it would be better to speak of something like “grave issues of public morality,” and to restrict the technical language of “intrinsically evil acts” to the realm of personal morality. After VS offered a defensible resolution to perhaps the central debate in post conciliar moral theory, I have argued that social conservatives undermined the reception of VS in various ways, such as by reverting to “physicalist” approaches.1 Another way was injecting the language of IEAs into the context of voting, which—I would argue—not only undermined the reception of VS, but that of Catholic Social Doctrine, which hinders reception of the whole sociopolitical orientation of the Second Vatican Council, which largely explains why we face “Babel.”

Another important matter that is typically neglected when employing the narrow approach to voting concerns the relationship between moral law and civil law, which is glossed over. Moral law is a rule and measure of reason governing every human act and is ultimately measured by God’s Eternal Law. It measures both elicited / interior and commanded / exterior acts regarding whether they are conducive to virtue and human flourishing.

Civil law is different in kind: it consists of judgments of reason made by a community in order to serve the common good, and it reflects the moral law only partially. Its rationale is what serves the common good—fundamentally, peace and order—and it should be arrived at through consensus in a constitutional democratic state. In discussing the relation between political philosophy and Catholic Social Doctrine, Martin Rhonheimer points to the distinction between the Foundational Public Morality, which addresses matters like peace, freedom, and justice, and a Constructive Public Morality. Whereas the former is more basic and is typically reflected in a constitution and bill of rights, the latter is much more specific and articulated through the ongoing political process. In this context, working for laws that better protect the most vulnerable is something done through participation in the political process.

To address this richer understanding of voting in a constitutional democratic state, Kaveny describes it as a role-related responsibility of citizens participating in democratic societies. Students of St. Thomas Aquinas will understand this as an exercise of political prudence oriented to the common good, which is distinct from the personal prudence one exercises regarding private goods, which is where the language of intrinsic evils more properly applies. Voting, on this reading, follows a judgment of reason about what—normally, who—will best serve the common good.

Kaveny also identifies several distinct dimensions of the act of voting. It is selective: its primary purpose is to select someone to fulfill an office. It is expressive: it also expresses the voter’s own views about what does and does not serve the common good. And it is contributive: it constitutes a form of participation—an expression of solidarity—in the process of democratic governance itself.

Given that framing, what criteria should guide the assessment of candidates for office? Kaveny articulates four:

• Competence—intellectual capacity, experience, temperament, and judgment.

• Character—the virtues an office requires, such as integrity, patience, veracity, and humility.

• Collaboration—the ability to work with others, including allies, subordinates, and opponents.

• Connections—the ramifications for the office of a candidate’s political, social, financial, and business ties.

Finally, this approach reframes how “issues” relate to candidates, viewed from an action-oriented, pragmatic perspective. An “issue,” on this account, is something concerning the common good that involves an analysis of its causes, a policy prescription, and the implementation of that prescription. That reframing generates a different set of questions than does the first approach:

• How does the selection of a given candidate relate to a particular issue—can she actually implement a solution?

• How does the office itself relate to the resolution of the issue, given the other agents and factors involved (abortion being one telling example)?

• And, most practically, does the candidate have a credible plan to deliver on the issue at all?

The tendency toward single-issue voting base on “issues” overlooks most of these practicalities, so it should be no surprise that it has not only failed to make significant progress toward defending innocent human life but has had frightening consequences.

I would argue that a realistic understanding of the political process and political institutions will lead to a recognition that public officials need the multifaceted competencies for the prospective office, a character marked by the civic virtue to serve the common good, the ability to collaborate broadly to serve that good, and to have a relational network that will foster and not hinder her service of the common good.

Why I Favor this Second Approach

Having laid out both approaches while already signaling my preference for the second, I will spell that out at greater length. This preference is not because I think the first approach’s underlying concern for the innocent is unjustified. It is because I think that concern is better served, not undercut, by locating the act of voting within a broader account of the common good. I think the following considerations have made the second approach especially important for our time.

1. Participation in the political process should always be understood as ordered properly to the common good as the Church understands it. Since Pope St. John XXIII, the Church has emphasized the following definition of the common good: it should be understood as “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily” (Mater et Magistra, 1961). Given that traditional understandings of the common good emphasize that God is ultimately the perfect and common good, this definition should be understood to explain what many authors call the political common good. This is defined as those aspects of the common good that can be sought through the political process, and public institutions. These are public goods such as security and peace; justice and the rule of law; health, education, and welfare; infrastructure, environmental protection; and institutions to ensure fair and healthy markets, among many others.

Such consideration of the common good should help us to understand that voting is not, in the first instance, an act of personal moral witness comparable to, say, refusing to participate in an evil act oneself. It is a political act—a role-related responsibility exercised on behalf of a whole community in service of the political common good.

2. We now have a deeper appreciation for the importance of public institutions to the common good. Much of the intellectual architecture behind the first approach took shape at a moment when the chief anxieties were about legal permission for specific acts—what the law allowed rather than forbade. What has become clearer since is how much the common good depends on institutions themselves: the independence of courts, the integrity of elections, the professionalism of civil administration, a free press, the peaceful transfer of power, and public institutions to provide various services like consumer and environmental protection. These are not marginal, procedural matters standing apart from the “real” moral issues. They are among the preconditions for a society capable of protecting anyone’s rights at all, including the right to life. A voting theory built primarily around single-issue non-negotiables has little vocabulary for weighing a candidate’s willingness to erode those institutions, because institutional integrity does not present itself as a discrete “intrinsic evil” in the way abortion or euthanasia does. But a theory oriented toward the common good as a whole can—and, I think, must—treat institutional health as a serious criterion in its own right.

As I have previously written, the centrality of institutions to the common good was in the forefront of Pope Benedict XVI’s 2009 social encyclical Caritas in Veritate: On Integral Human Development in Charity and Truth, and the 2024 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences was awarded in recognition of a massive body of research demonstrating the same point.

3. We now realize that aspiring autocrats have weaponized culture-war issues to gain political power. Perhaps the most sobering development is one that earlier iterations of Catholic voting guidance could not have fully anticipated: the discovery that culture war issues have been instrumentalized by political actors chiefly interested in acquiring and keeping power. When a fixed list of intrinsic evils becomes the near-exclusive criterion for faithful voting, it creates an incentive structure that savvy political operators can exploit: promise fidelity on the listed issues, however implausibly or insincerely, and gain something close to a blank check on everything else—including character, competence, and respect for the constitutional order itself. This is not a hypothetical risk. It is a pattern that has played out in real time, and such facts demand that Catholics recognize what has happened and prevent it from happening again. An approach to voting that asks about the whole of a candidate’s fitness to serve the common good is far better equipped to notice this dynamic and resist it.

Conclusion

In making a strong case that Catholics need to shift our priority in voting toward supporting candidates with the competence, civic virtue, and collaborative skills to serve the common good of our constitutional democracy, I fully affirm that we should also be working to defend and serve the innocent and most vulnerable.

In so doing, I seek to help Catholics recognize that focusing our political participation on voting for those who claim to be pro-life or “socially conservative” has unwittingly brought us to support an emerging dystopian future of oligarchs, autocrats, Techlords, and an AI-empowered surveillance state with war now “back in vogue,” as Pope Leo has said.

Pope Leo XIV and the Catholic faith call us to something far richer than just voting to serve the common good. Leo’s Magnifica Humanitas is calling us to take our place in rebuilding the city in which God and the human family can walk together in friendship. This will be facilitated by coming to appreciate Catholic Social Doctrine as the way to live in fidelity to the Gospel in history. Beyond just voting, this will have us discerning how we can act as leaven in the world, informing our spheres of influence with the spirit of the Gospel, and manifesting the Church as an efficacious sign and instrument of unity between humanity and with God. This implies recovering the lived reality of social Catholicism and the lay apostolate—or “missionary discipleship” if one prefers—in a more synodal Church of the faithful on the road of discipleship with Jesus.

Pope Leo XIV’s new social encyclical Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (MH) calls upon Catholics and those of goodwill to make a “pivotal choice” that he illustrates metaphorically. He exhorts us, on the one hand, to oppose the futile efforts to build a new Tower of Babel and, on the other, to join in a broad collaboration to rebuild Jerusalem, signifying societies where God and humanity can dwell together in justice, peace, and social friendship.

Voting

The primary way that citizens of constitutional democratic states participate in the political process is through voting. For this reason, although the goal that Pope Leo seeks will require much richer forms of participation than just voting (i.e., concrete works for justice, organizing, and building social movements), this basic act of citizenship will be central to the realization of his moral exhortation.

In recent decades, American Catholics have been strongly encouraged to treat abortion as “the preeminent issue” that guides their political participation and voting. Such guidance has come not just from the statements of the United States Bishops (especially the “Introductory Note” to Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship), but from conservative Catholic intellectuals who encourage voting to oppose “intrinsic evils,” starting with abortion but including other “issues” of intrinsic evil that have been central to the recent decades of “culture war” politics. I have previously written at length in response to Pope Leo XIV’s recognition that especially American Catholics need to move beyond the way we have centered our political participation on opposition to abortion, and a few other issues of “intrinsic evil.”

The Republican Embrace of Abortion and Culture War Politics

Over these years, the Republican Party has claimed to be “pro-life,” a claim that centered in opposing abortion (even if the number of abortions has actually increased under their policies). The Democratic Party, on the other hand, has been uncompromisingly “pro-choice,” a commitment pursued through efforts to ensure unrestricted access to abortion. As is widely known, the Catholic Church teaches that “elective” or “procured” abortions are “intrinsically evil.” To be precise, this means that they are evil by their object and kind, and violate the moral law. They are, therefore, always morally evil to do regardless of the remote ends for which they are done or the circumstances that are not what Aquinas calls “principal conditions of the object.”

Less well-known is the distinction between the moral law that rules and measures human action and the civil law, which orders life in society towards the common good. Similarly less-well-known is the fact that the Church encourages open debate about certain disputed cases that are physically similar to elective abortions but morally distinct. A key contemporary example is saving the saveable mother when the unsavable unborn child threatens imminent death for both. Even if the Catholic teaching that elective abortion is immoral is clear, therefore, I would argue that the relation between that teaching and political participation is complex, depending on many factors that are beyond my present scope.

Building a Conservative Ecosystem to Empower Oligarchs

As distinct ideological and political cultures of the right and left have developed over the last several decades of politics dominated by culture wars, there are good reasons to think that the conservative movement has had a greater influence in shaping the identity, worldview, and sociopolitical opinions of American Catholics than has Catholic Social Doctrine (CSD). This is especially true if we specify CSD as that has been understood by the teaching office of the Church, namely as an integral and solidary Christian humanism.

Since the 1971 Powell Memorandum unleashed a tidal wave of corporate funding to support the interests of business and financial elites, the conservative movement has worked aggressively to shape public opinion—with Catholics as both primary agents and targets—by establishing an institutional network of think tanks, political action committees, university centers, ministries, and media outlets that foster a socially conservative worldview or ideology. These have made being a “conservative Catholic” a mark of orthodoxy, whereas magisterial social teaching warns that the main threat to CSD is ideological corruption. Not surprisingly, the ends toward which this institutional network has been ordered have centered in maximizing the wealth and power of the donors, which largely explains the rise of global oligarchy.

Like other ideologies, the conservatism they have promoted provides a framework for interpreting reality and projecting a plan for the future. In so doing, it offers a rival to the integral and solidary Christian humanism of Catholic Social Doctrine (CSD), which—however—has not been advanced with anything approaching the same level of intentionality, funding, institutional support, or effectiveness.

Catholics Empowering Babel through Abortion Politics?

Although I do not see any way to measure the relative impact of the different forces that have empowered the increasingly illiberal right, these include not only the conservative institutional infrastructure, and conservative intellectuals both inside and outside the Church. They also include the well-intentioned statements of Churchmen presenting abortion as the preeminent issue for Catholics. As I understand the situation, few Catholics (perhaps less than 5%) vote based primarily on the guidance of the bishops. Many more Catholics, however, are influenced by the broader media ecosystem in which opposition to abortion is located.

One point of comparison regarding the combined influence of such factors was the 2024 Presidential Election. According to the latest Pew Research survey, 55% of American Catholics voted to empower Donald Trump (and the Republicans), compared to 43% voting for Kamala Harris (and the Democrats). Among White Catholics, the gap was significantly greater, with 62% supporting Trump compared to only 37% for Harris. In an election that turned on 1.5% of the vote, many factors could have flipped things in a different direction, including better social policies by the pro-democracy coalition the Democrats claimed to represent. Such policies might have followed if well-formed Catholics had more influence within the party.

Influenced greatly by the conservative intellectual and media ecosystem and largely unaware of what advocates of Catholic Social Doctrine (CSD) remorsefully describe as “the Church’s best kept secret,” especially white American Catholic voters were arguably decisive in empowering Trump. We did so even as he built an alliance with aspiring oligarchs and foreign autocrats, threatened the security of Europe by making American participation in NATO provisional, promised a global trade war, and advocated fossil fuels against green energy. Catholics supported Trump even though he promised a massive tax cut for the rich and the shuttering of USAID, while championing mass deportations and the end of birthright citizenship, and promising a campaign of retribution against his political enemies.

Trump did so as part of a broader political program—key contours of which were anticipated in the Catholic-led Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. This program empowers the previously subordinate antiliberal / illiberal tradition in American politics, which opposes the human equality, human rights, and popular government articulated in the prologue of the Declaration of Independence. It is also contrary to the foundations and principles of Catholic Social Doctrine, which call us to support and advance human dignity, human rights, justice, solidarity, integral development, care for the most vulnerable, creation care, and pursuit of a peaceful world marked by social friendship.

In the language of Pope Leo’s Magnifica Humanitas, I would argue that the contemporary form of the United States provides—if only implicitly—the global exemplar of Babel, of the “technocratic paradigm” informing our economy, and of the militaristic “culture of power” against which he warns.

In my opinion, there is an urgent need for American Catholics to adopt an approach to voting that is more of a bridge than an obstacle to embracing both CSD and the charge of Leo’s Magnifica Humanitas to join in a broad collaboration to rebuild the social, political, economic, and international order. To appropriate a better account of the morality of voting will require a deeper understanding how we adopted one that did more to advance the political ideology and agenda of the Republican Party than the integral and solidary Christian humanism and social friendship of Catholic Social Doctrine. More important than understanding the past, we need to foster and promote an approach to the morality of voting that can help us to embrace the magnanimous and apostolic charge of Pope Leo.

In what follows below, I will begin my discussion of how we move to a better understanding of the meaning and morality of voting by sketching the broad history of the Bishops’ voting guides.

In the second part of this two-part series on voting, I will discuss two approaches to the morality of voting that developed from the discussion surrounding these guides. The first of these approaches to voting—which I will argue we must abandon—focuses on “issues” of “intrinsic evil,” starting with abortion. The second—which I argue we should embrace—focuses more broadly on fostering the common good, and on how the process of voting should be focused on choosing candidates to fill public offices based on their qualifications, character, and connections. This latter not only grows out of the classical and Thomistic traditions, but updates these for the contemporary context of constitutional democracy and Catholic Social Doctrine.

In presenting these approaches, I will draw especially from Cathleen Kaveny’s book Law’s Virtues: Fostering Autonomy and Solidarity in American Society (Georgetown, 2012), and to a lesser extend on Martin Rhonheimer’s The Common Good of Constitutional Democracy: Essays in Political Philosophy and on Catholic Social Teaching (Catholic University of America, 2013), edited by William F. Murphy, Jr.

The Evolution of the Bishops’ Voting Guides

In the wake of Watergate and Vietnam, the United States Catholic Bishops issued their 1976 document entitled Political Responsibility: Reflections on an Election Year (PR76). It was written for a broad audience, with the modest goal of fostering “thoughtful and lively debate” rather than prioritizing any single issue. PR76 encouraged participation in public life at a moment when apathy, cynicism, and withdrawal from politics posed real dangers to the common good. It expressed solidarity with the poor and the socially excluded, carried a relatively optimistic tone, and was notably concise—less than half the length of the document that would eventually replace it.

That subsequent document was a long time in coming. The perceived need for it gradually developed as American Catholics struggled with the legacy of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which had legalized elective abortion, short-circuiting the legislative process and tainting the political environment. Momentum for updated guidance from the Bishops built with Pope John Paul II’s 1995 moral encyclical Evangelium Vitae: The Gospel of Life, which reflected on the traditional prohibition of the direct killing of the innocent. It focused on the new situation of increased threats at both the beginning and end of human life. Violations of human life in the earliest stages expanded from abortion to include embryonic stem cell research. At the end of life, the primary issue was euthanasia.

These issues increasingly became a primary locus of political polarization as Democrats deferred to individual choice while Republicans becames champions of social conservatism and “family values,” at least until their embrace of Trumpian populism starting in 2015. Building upon his promotion of racial dog whistles like “law and order” during the Nixon Administration, traditionalist Catholic Patrick J. Buchannan became infamous for his speech stoking the “culture wars” at the 1992 Republican National Convention. The future Catholic Newt Gingrich further fostered polarization by weaponizing language so that Republicans came to speak of the “Democrat” party, and of their political opponents primarily with attacks and derogatory language.

By 2007, the growing concerns about the pro-abortion policies of the Democratic Party led to a markedly different document from the bishops: Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship (FC2007). Here, abortion and other “life issues” took on a far more central role, functioning as the fundamental touchstone against which other issues would be measured. As the document itself put it, “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others” (no. 22).

FC2007 included a more precise statement about the morality of voting explicitly to advance an evil act, such as abortion: “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position” (no. 34). In other words, the voter would sin by voting for a candidate if they did so precisely because that candidate advanced evil acts. This language draws on a long-standing distinction in moral theology between acting formally (intending a particular end) and acting only materially (causing an effect without acting deliberately to achieve it). A classic example concerns the taxi driver who unknowingly drives someone to commit a crime, which is “material cooperation” in the act but not formal cooperation that includes moral culpability in the act.

At the same time, FC2007 cautioned that “a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness” to other important moral issues (no. 34). Just because a candidate opposed abortion, for example, that doesn’t mean one should not consider the immoral policies the candidate has embraced. These might include, for example, causing untold suffering by cancelling USAID, or undermining heath care for many millions, or undermining the peace of Europe by weakening NATO, or fostering fossil fuels over renewable energy.

This caution raised an obvious follow-up question: when, if ever, can a Catholic vote for a candidate who advances evil policies? FC2007’s answer was narrow. A Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may still vote for that candidate, but “only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil” (no. 35). And what if every available candidate advances some evil policy, as is very often the case? In that case, “a voter may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods” (no. 36).

Here one begins to suspect that there might be a problem with conceiving the morality of voting in terms of the number of evil policies a candidate supports. For example, action on such policies may have little to do with the office for which they are running, and they might have a very destructive agenda that they can implement through the office that they would fill.

It’s worth noting that FC2007 explicitly rejected the idea that it was licensing single-issue voting: “As Catholics we are not single-issue voters” (42). Even so, subsequent developments pushed the document further towards the prioritization of life-issues. A 2011 Introductory Note to FC2007 placed abortion and other threats to life and human dignity as its very first bullet point. Then, in 2015—against the backdrop of Obergefell v. Hodges and related developments—the document was revised again. The previous seven themes were condensed into four principles. The opposition to same-sex marriage was emphasized ten times over, the language of “intrinsic evil” received increased emphasis, and a line stating that bishops don’t tell Catholics how to vote was dropped altogether.

That trajectory sets the stage for the two approaches I will examine in my next post.

At a time when American democracy is under perhaps the greatest threat since the founding, Pope Leo continues to be a source of clarity and inspiration to not just Americans, but to those throughout the world who love freedom, and seek to build a more just and peaceful world.

The full text of Leo’s remarks follows below.

Dear friends,
I am honored to accept the Liberty Medal of the National Constitution Center in this year that marks the 250^th anniversary of the founding of the United States of America with the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. On the eve of this momentous occasion, I offer a warm greeting to all those assembled at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. As a son of this great country, founded by courageous men and women who dreamed of liberty and of a better life for themselves and for their children, I join you in asking God’s blessings upon America’s future, that the lofty ideals enshrined at the beginning of the Declaration of Independence may continue to guide the flourishing of the nation in unity, justice and peace.

From our youth, most of us have admired the eloquence of those words, with their resounding appeal to the law of nature and to nature’s God as the basis of their assertion that all men and women are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. While couched in the language of the Enlightenment, that claim is ultimately grounded in an understanding of the human person inspired by the great biblical vision of man and woman being created in the divine image. It is indeed here that we discover the basis of human dignity; dignity which precedes the establishment of any State, and whose custody constitutes its very purpose.

In these past two-hundred and fifty years, for so many peoples throughout the world, it was the firm resolve to achieve the noble vision of the nation’s founders that made America a byword for freedom, as the country opened its doors to successive waves of immigrants, enabling them and their children to play their part in shaping the future of the nation. It was this same love of freedom that inspired the United States, in the darkest hours of the last century, at the time of the two world wars, to look beyond itself and, at great sacrifice, to champion the cause of freedom beyond its own borders.

As every American knows, however, the path to building a society that would embody those high ideals of liberty and justice for all was not always easy and, in many respects, is still a work in progress. Indeed, the effort to realize this vision is one that must be taken up anew in each generation and in the face of ever new challenges. Today, as we look to the future, this historic anniversary presents us with the opportunity to reflect once again on the nation’s founding principles in the hope that America will remain ever true to the dream that has earned it the title of land of the free and home of the brave.

The first right enshrined by the nation’s founders was the right to life, for no one who is deprived of life can enjoy liberty or pursue happiness. A country’s vitality is deeply tied to the value it affords to human life in every form and condition, acknowledging the dignity endowed upon every human person by virtue of their very existence. The inherent worth of every human life has led the noble hearts of generations to praise the marvelous works of the Creator (cf. Ps 139:14) and stand in reverence before so precious a gift. Indeed, it is precisely this reverence that we must continue to cultivate — one that sways the hearts of individuals and inspires laws that recognize and safeguard the gift from the moment of conception to natural death. Reverence, too, will aid us in discovering that we are guardians and stewards of those entrusted to our care. In this regard, the moral greatness of a nation is manifested, above all, in its capacity to support, protect and cherish the lives of all, especially the most vulnerable and those whose worth is questioned.

Following the right to life, liberty was and is preeminent among the principles revered by the men and women who have sought within this nation’s borders a new beginning, often equating it with previously undreamed-of hope. Though frequently understood as the ability to act as one would like, authentic freedom runs much deeper. It is founded upon the human person’s capacity to know the truth and adhere to what is good, even at great cost — a sacrifice well known to many who have labored to shape this country. The desire for truth and freedom, as well as the very pursuit of happiness, continues to inspire people of all generations to ask fundamental questions regarding the meaning of life, our ultimate purpose, and indeed about God, and it is proper for magnanimous hearts to endeavor to answer these questions with sincerity. These answers inevitably determine the direction which we seek to give to our lives, and America has long championed the religious freedom necessary to follow responsibly the dictates of conscience in this regard, free from fear and coercion, as enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

It is this freedom that holds sacred the inner sphere of the person where convictions are formed and where conscience can guide the decisions made in the intimacy of the human heart. This same freedom also ensures the right of every person to worship according to one’s own belief, and of individuals, communities and associations to give public expression to their faith. In fact, religious freedom gave rise to the American tradition of allowing for interfaith dialogue and interreligious cooperation in promoting the public good and enriching the debates on the great moral and ethical issues that have faced the nation and shaped the course of its history. It is my hope that this tradition will continue to bear fruit in a public discourse marked by moderation, respect for the views of others and an ongoing effort to find common ground in promoting the cause of peace and reconciliation, at home and abroad.

The forbearers of this country, men and women of diverse backgrounds, religions and languages, were able to find that common ground and the strength necessary to pursue a better future. The principles that inspired America’s founders, rooted as they are in the truth of the human person, brought them together in a single cause, a common dream. Unity lent strength to that dream, giving rise, under God, to the United States of America. E pluribus unum — out of many, one. In order for a nation to flourish, it must be truly united; united not by goals bound to momentary endeavors, but by ideals that do not fade with the passing of time. May the principles we have reflected upon today — a shared human dignity, equality and the rights laid out in the Declaration of Independence — ever be a source of such unity and a guiding light for the present moment and for the years to come.

In accepting this award, I therefore pray that this, the 250^th anniversary of the founding of this great nation, may be the occasion of a solemn recommitment to these ideals that have made America a country that values peace and prosperity, a country characterized by generosity and nobility of heart. I commend all of you, as well as the future of the Nation, to the One who is himself the source of true freedom and lasting peace, the One whose very name is Peace.

May God bless America! Thank you!

Viewing the entire event held at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia is an excellent way to reflect upon what is best in the unfinished and embattled project of the United States of America. It includes not just a reminder from Benjamin Franklin that our founders have left us a Republic, if we are able to keep it, but also an exhortation that now is a time when we are all being called to come to the help of our republic.

The video concludes with a beautiful rendition of America the Beautiful. Without denying the many ways our nation has failed to remain faithful to her principles, I think the lyrics are a great source of prayerful meditation on the many gifts with which we have been blessed, and on the challenges that confront us in building the city in which God and man can dwell together in friendship (see Leo’s Magnifica Humanitas).

O beautiful for spacious skies
For amber waves of grain
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for pilgrim feet
Whose stern impassioned stress
A thoroughfare of freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!
God mend thine every flaw
Confirm thy soul in self-control
Thy liberty in law!

O beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife
Who more than self their country loved
And mercy more than life!
America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness
And every gain divine!

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for halcyon skies
For amber waves of grain
For purple mountain majesties
Above the enameled plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till souls wax fair as earth and air
And music-hearted sea!

O beautiful for pilgrims feet
Whose stem impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till paths be wrought through
Wilds of thought
By pilgrim foot and knee!

O beautiful for glory-tale
Of liberating strife
When once and twice
For man’s avail
Men lavished precious life!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till selfish gain no longer stain
The banner of the free!

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till nobler men keep once again
Thy whiter jubilee!

The CNN story by Tommy Walters is not paywalled, so I include it below.

Billionaire tech investor Peter Thiel delivered a series of provocative warnings and predictions about the future of artificial intelligence and the West on Tuesday, accusing Pope Leo XIV of inadvertently serving as a “Chinese communist agent” by calling for AI regulation. In his remarks at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado, he also warned of a “democratic-socialist takeover” of the United States’ Democratic Party.

Thiel, a co-founder of Palantir and PayPal, was an early supporter of President Donald Trump in Silicon Valley. He also helped launch Vice President JD Vance’s career: Vance worked at Mithril Capital, an investment firm Thiel co-founded, before Thiel backed his transition into politics. He delivered his remarks at a nonrecorded panel alongside the political scientist Francis Fukuyama. Reporters were allowed to take notes on the proceedings.

The Vatican, AI, and world domination

During the event, Thiel took direct aim at the Vatican, accusing Pope Leo XIV — the first pope from the United States — of unintentionally advancing Chinese interests by pushing for stronger international oversight of artificial intelligence.

In May, Leo used his first encyclical, “Magnifica Humanitas” (“Magnificent Humanity”), to declare that artificial intelligence “must be disarmed” and call for greater international regulation of the technology.

Because the pope’s message could influence some Americans, but is unlikely to be heeded by people in China, Thiel argued, the encyclical threatened to slow down only one side of the “race between the US and China” to advance AI.

In his own view, Thiel said, that means Leo is “working for the Chinese Communists.” The Aspen audience received his characterization of the pope as a Chinese agent with laughter.

The Vatican did not respond to a request for comment.

Friction between the tech billionaire and the Vatican is not new. In March, Thiel gave an invitation-only lecture series on the Antichrist in Rome, just blocks away from the Holy See. The lectures reportedly unnerved the Vatican and prompted two Catholic universities to publicly state that they were not involved in hosting the events.

Thiel has argued that the Antichrist could manifest not as an individual but as a world government that seizes power by promising to protect humanity against existential threats such as AI or global warming.

The end of history

Thiel and Fukuyama’s discussion, entitled “Humanity at the End of History,” marked a notable departure from the last time the pair debated 14 years ago.

In 2012, the two focused largely on the causes of what Thiel sees as “technological stagnation,” debating income inequality, the failures of clean energy technology, and the gridlock of US infrastructure projects like high-speed rail.

But while their previous talk centered on economic questions, this time, the pair framed the broader fate of Western democracy in more drastic terms. Fukuyama is known for his “End of History” thesis, in which he proposed that, after the Cold War, liberal democracy might represent the final form of government. During the Aspen panel, Fukuyama argued that the greatest danger is abandoning institutions that have sustained democracy.

Thiel countered this by arguing that those institutions themselves have become engines of paralysis, and that decades of technological stagnation have pushed Western politics toward greater instability: “The weird ways that politics has gone haywire is telling me something very deep.”

Thiel’s political views have drawn criticism from some writers and thinkers, who say his distrust in democratic institutions and enthusiasm for elite-led governance amount to a form of “techno-authoritarianism.”

A democratic-socialist ‘takeover’

Responding to Fukuyama’s argument that, despite growing extremism, liberal democracy remains humanity’s best political system, Thiel warned that far-left forces are increasingly dominating American politics.

“I think there’s going to be a democratic-socialist takeover of the Democratic Party,” Thiel said.

His comments come as self-identified democratic socialists have gained influence within the Democratic Party, most notably with last year’s election of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, followed this year by a series of victories by democratic socialist candidates in mayoral and congressional primaries.

“The Republican Party doesn’t matter that much. It’s the less important one,” Thiel said. “When the Democratic Party goes, this country is over.”

The tyranny of the law

On the eve of the 250th anniversary of the United States’ adoption of the Declaration of Independence, Thiel also argued that the American Revolution has been fundamentally misunderstood.

“There are all these anti-Trump protests: we don’t want kings, we want rule of law,” Thiel said. He framed the American Revolution not as a campaign against King George III, but as a revolt against an all-powerful British parliament, whose lawmakers exercised “totalitarian” control.

In Thiel’s telling, the US Constitution was designed as a corrective to Britain’s “tyrannical rule of lawyers,” with a presidency, he said, built to be “more powerful than King George III.”

He contrasted the United States’s constitutional system with that of today’s European Union, which he described as a stagnant, rule-bound bureaucracy, under which people are “NPCs” — non-player characters in video games — with no power to make decisions.

“The EU is rule of law,” Thiel said. “It is like bad AI.”

Palantir and the Deep State

Thiel spoke about Palantir, the software company he co-founded, and its close contracting relationship with US federal agencies including the Pentagon and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Despite doing billions of dollars of business with the national security establishment, the company is “not joined at the hip” with the “US deep state,” Thiel said. He called the company’s leaders “loyal-dissident-type people” and said that neither he nor Palantir’s current CEO, Alex Karp, hold government security clearances. Palantir did not respond to a request for comment.

The formidable influence wielded by tech companies, Thiel said, is “one of the things that’s really healthy about the US,” because it means “the power centers are distributed in this country.”

As an example of the multiple power centers, he offered an unsupported conspiratorial claim that the AI firm Anthropic — a “woke liberal company” that he credited with “winning the AI race” — would “rig the elections in 2028” in support of Democrats. Anthropic, Thiel said, would use its industry-leading AI models to “completely outwit” any ideological efforts Elon Musk might make in the opposite direction through X.

Anthropic declined to comment, pointing instead to one of its recent blog posts on election integrity and political bias.

Despite his own right-wing libertarian politics, Thiel said he preferred the idea of the US having competing power centers to a situation like “Rome or Russia,” since “you don’t want this whole thing to be fused in DC.”

Thiel also discussed Palantir’s name, which was inspired by the magical seeing stones in J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings.” Critics have noted that characters who try to use the powers of the palantír end up being manipulated by the story’s archvillain, Sauron.

Thiel argued that those people misunderstand Tolkien’s story. “Toward the end, it gets used by the good guys,” Thiel said. The hero and king-to-be, Aragorn, uses a palantír to confront Sauron, showing him he now possesses the reforged sword of his ancestors. (Sauron then misinterprets this intelligence, leading him to make a fatal strategic blunder.)

“Anybody who tells you a different story of Tolkien,” Thiel said, “doesn’t even know what they’re talking about, on the level of literature.”

In this context Babel signifies a technological arrogance driven by an idolatry of profit which disregards human diversity and tramples the inherent dignity of especially the most vulnerable. By rebuilding the city, MH refers to the collaborative project to build a world of justice, peace, and human flourishing, where technology and progress serve human dignity and the common good.

For Magnifica Humanitas to foster such a renewal of human society as we face the threat of a dystopian future, however, I think the synodal process the Church is currently undergoing needs to be ordered more specifically to the incarnational mission of the Church.1 I also think the Second Vatican Council’s incarnational understanding of the Apostolate of the Laity—through which we work to inform the temporal structures with the spirit of the Gospel—offers perhaps the decisive resources to foster the reception of MH in such a truly synodal and missionary Church of the faithful walking together on the road of discipleship with Jesus.

Put otherwise, I think the council’s understanding of the lay apostolate—especially when understood in the broader context of the tradition of lived social Catholicism that inspired its reception through the Second Vatican Council—contains important lessons upon which contemporary Catholics must build if we are to respond to the urgent call of MH. This is so because recovery of the lay apostolate can integrate emphases in contemporary Catholic life that might otherwise seem disjointed. These include the several-year process emphasizing synodality, Leo’s renewed emphasis on the Second Vatican Council, and now MH.

Against my argument that renewed attention to the council’s incarnational understanding of the lay apostolate may be decisive in fostering both the reception of MH and a mission-oriented understanding of synodality, one might raise at least two objections from the very text of Magnifica Humanitas. The first is that the relation between the exhortation of MH and synodality is vague at best. The second is that the encyclical almost completely bypasses reference to the lay apostolate. This near omission can be read as a confirmation of the widespread view that this conciliar teaching has been largely obsolete for decades.

In what follows, therefore, I will explain some of the reasons why I think the successful reception of Leo’s missionary exhortation in Magnifica Humanitas can be greatly facilitated by a renewed appreciation of the wisdom and experience that informed the council’s understanding of the lay apostolate.

To do so, I will first sketch some of the key characteristics of the council’s understanding of the lay apostolate. Second, I will discuss the treatment of synodality in MH, and how greater appreciation of the necessarily missionary orientation of a proper sense of synodality can order it toward the realization of MH. Third, I will summarize why I think that we should read MH in light of the lay apostolate even though—at first glance—the topic is almost absent from the encyclical.

1. Key Characteristics of the Lay Apostolate for Vatican II

I have discussed the Second Vatican Council’s Apostolicam Actuositatem: Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity in several posts (accessible here). The key characteristics of that account include the following. First, that the laity has a specific apostolic mission to sanctify the temporal order. Second, that this apostolate grows out of the lay participation in earthly life, which includes dialogue, fostering friendships, and collaboration in tasks that foster the common good, thereby providing the credibility and opportunity for verbal witness. Third, this apostolate should be focused in the various “milieu” in which people live, which reflect their spheres of influence. Fourth, this focus on one’s spheres of influence enables an apostolate of “like to like,” a proven model that has been implemented in various segments of life. Fifth, this apostolate is perhaps best-described as following an “incarnational” logic, which can be expressed in biblical language like acting as leaven in the world, fostering the in-breaking Kingdom, and informing temporal realities with the spirit of the Gospel echoing the rich Pauline theology of living “in Christ.” This makes almost every set of lectionary readings conducive to preaching on the lay apostolate. Sixth, the lay apostolate benefitted from a Twentieth Century liturgical renewal that was ordered significantly toward social action, as shown by Keith F. Peckers in his The Unread Vision: The Liturgical Movement in the United States of America: 1926-1955.

Seventh, in the best cases, exemplified by the work of Msgr. Reynold Hillenbrand as rector of Mundelein Seminary from 1936-44 (which is treated at length here), priests were trained to form laity for their apostolates through the liturgy, including through active participation in the Eucharistic offering as part of the totus Christus. These last two points made clear that Catholicism allows no bifurcation between doctrine or worship, on the one side, and social action on the other.

Eighth, the conciliar understanding of the lay apostolate grew largely out of preconciliar Specialized Catholic Action, which fostered the social movements needed to live out social doctrine. A great place to start on this topic is Stefan Gigacz’s The Leaven in the Council: Joseph Cardijn and the Jocist Network at Vatican II.

Upon initially reading Magnifica Humanitas, however, I was disappointed to find that it cites the council’s Apostolicam Actuositatem: Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity (AA) only in footnote no. 10. This citation, moreover, seems to be chosen primarily to illustrate the relative “autonomy of earthly affairs”; it does not, however, capture the essential insights of AA and the lay apostolate that I just sketched. It might seem, therefore, that the lay apostolate is not relevant to MH. I will argue that it has great relevance, even if it is at best implicit in MH.

2. Synodality and Mission in Magnifica Humanitas

In 2017, the International Theological Commission published a preparatory study that provided a foundation for the synodal processes which would be central to the Pontificate of Francis, an emphasis that Pope Leo has affirmed. The title of this document—Synodality in The Life and Mission of The Church—rightly emphasizes how synodality is a reality ordered to the mission of the Church. I would argue that this mission is best understood as not only “evangelical,” but also “incarnational” in the sense of informing the temporal order with the spirit of the Gospel.

I would argue, moreover, that this missionary orientation of synodality has too often been often overlooked as it has somehow come to be understood as centered in process, and in fostering conversation. Such understandings of synodality render it vulnerable to critical scrutiny, which can be overcome by considering it precisely as ordered to the not only evangelical and but also incarnational mission of the Church. I would further argue that the appropriation of key lessons from the tradition of social Catholicism and the lay apostolate can make the realization of a mission-oriented synodality actionable. These include especially the integration of liturgy and social action, and the ordering of priestly formation toward the formation of the laity for their apostolates through the liturgy.

To make this more specific, here are some mission-oriented synodal questions that are apt for discussion between clergy, religious, and laity, especially when faced with the calling of MH to fend off Babel and rebuild the city.

• What formation programs do we need in parishes and dioceses to form laity for their proper apostolates in the world?

• How can especially parish liturgies form and nourish laity for these apostolates in the world?

• How can liturgical preaching help parishioners understand how their apostolates in the world relate to the liturgy of word and sacrament, and especially active participation in the Eucharistic sacrifice?

• How can liturgical preaching help to form properly Catholic identities?

• What do we laity need from our clergy?

• How can we clergy better form our laity for their apostolic vocations?

• How can seminaries form priests to form laity for their apostolates?

• How can liturgical preaching foster ecclesial unity and the conciliar teaching about the Church as a sacrament of unity?

• What can we learn from how these were done in the past?

• Since almost no contemporary clergy were formed to form laity for their lay apostolates, how can we provide remedial education for them?

To work collaboratively on realizing this incarnational mission is to realize a synodal Church and the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which is a Church that can assume the call of Magnifica Humanitas to make a pivotal choice to rebuild the city.

In the remainder of this section, I will sketch how Magnifica Humanitas refers to synodality, which will show that the ordering to mission comes up only toward the end, and can be easily missed. This also helps us to illustrate how a recovery of the lay apostolate can concretely order synodality toward realizing the incarnational mission of the Church that is necessary to receive MH.

Early in MH, Leo implicitly links synodality and mission when he discusses how “the practice of synodality” can help “Christians to discover their unique role of guiding [collaborative social] actions toward God” by participating in the broader process of “building together,” which transforms “diversity into a resource” and makes “listening and dialogue the common ground upon which to cultivate justice and fraternity” (no. 10). This section is discussing how Catholics should collaborate with non-Catholics in their work for justice, for the common good, and for a “city” / society marked by fraternity and social friendship. Here one can see that synodality is ordered toward the mission of the Church. In this context, however, the focus is on how that mission requires broad collaboration with those outside the Church. Such broad collaboration will be essential to realizing the agenda of MH to fend off the dystopia of what it calls Babel and instead foster the forging of a future worthy of the human family.

A subsequent section of MH makes clear that a “synodal Church” is one that reads “the signs of the times in the light of the Gospel” (no. 42), which is foundational for what MH means by being faithful to the Gospel in history by living out CSD. Once again, synodality is ordered toward mission, but the language of mission and lay apostolate are not employed. Contrary to what I summarized about social Catholicism and the lay apostolate, it does not—however—make explicit that the lay persons have an apostolic calling to sanctify the temporal order, or that the clergy needs to foster and nourish this apostolate, or that the clergy must be formed to do so, or how the Eucharistic liturgy is central to this whole process.

Finally, MH explicitly states that a synodal Church is ordered towards “mission at the service of the Kingdom” (no. 86). This is the point that too many discussions of synodality overlook. In the broader context of MH, this mission should be understood as one informed by “evangelical Charity,” which “impels the Church” to “address the real suffering of the men and women of our time,” and “to draw near to the wounds of humanity” (no. 21).

The active, mission-oriented call of MH can be seen in many other texts that do not speak of synodality. Catholics, for example, are called take an active role in shaping the future (nos. 13, 1, 16, 20-21). The whole Chapter Two is an elucidation of the principles of Catholic Social Doctrine that guide us in doing so. This incarnational mission is precisely how the Church journeys through history (nos. 19-22) in a way that is faithful to the Gospel (Chapter One). We do so by living out “a theology of communion in history” (no. 27), through which the Church acts as a sacrament of unity within the human family and with God (nos. 2, 88, 234). As noted above, the whole encyclical opens with a “pivotal choice” for a social mission, and the conclusion is a final exhortation to participate in the construction site of our time. Without question MH is an exhortation to an apostolic mission, which the Church conducts as is a continuation of Christ’s incarnation.

Recall my first objection articulated above, namely that the relation between the exhortation of MH and synodality is vague at best. Now we can see that these references to synodality are rightly understood within the exhortation of MH to mission, which aligns with the way the ITC document speaks of “Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church” (emphasis added). This focus on mission, and the lessons from social Catholicism and the lay apostolate about how to do so can help to realize that mission in a more synodal Church responding to the call of MH to a particular mission at a decisive time in human history.

3. Reading Magnifica Humanitas with the Lay Apostolate

Recall the objection articulated above that the encyclical almost completely bypasses reference to the lay apostolate. How do we answer that?

Magnifica Humanitas is an exhortation to live out CSD in order to build a world where God and humanity can dwell together in justice, peace, and friendship, which is precisely the end toward which the lay apostolate is ordered. I have summarized above, however, how the lay apostolate includes other elements that are indispensable in responding effectively to such an appeal, including the needed theological, ecclesiological, and formational dimensions to foster social movements. The exhortation of MH is clear from the first sentence (no. 1) which calls us to “rebuild the city,” a theme the introduction develops by calling us to build a more just world (no. 2), interpret the great trends of our time (no. 4), face challenges with clarity of thought and responsibility (no. 5), engage in shared discernment (no. 6), and build for the common good (nos. 11-14). It calls us to remain human by being pilgrims of hope (no. 15), and by getting our hands dirty in the construction project of building a new humanity.

The encyclical culminates in a concluding exhortation which calls us to a sober and demanding program of Christian life to navigate the epochal changes we are undergoing. This conclusion begins with a subsection entitled “The Word Became Flesh” which reminds us that Christ remains with his Church and we continue his incarnational mission, thereby echoing the incarnational understanding of the lay apostolate. The second subsection is entitled “One Body in Christ,” and highlights Augustine’s theology of the totus Christus (the whole Christ). This theology was central to the mid Twentieth Century integration of liturgy and social action, and the richest understanding of active participation in the Eucharist, through which lay apostles—as members of the body of Christ—join the offering of their apostolic labors with the saving sacrifice of Christ, head of the mystical body.

Based on their role in the logic of the encyclical, some parts—like Chapter Three on Technology and Dominance—are more explanatory while others are more hortatory. Chapter Two, for example, is mostly an explication about the “The Foundations and Principles of the Social Doctrine of the Church.” It does not explicitly refer to the either the “apostolate of the laity” or “lay apostolate.” Nor does it cite either the conciliar Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity or Chapter Four of the council’s Lumen Gentium on the laity. Chapter Two of MH does, however, presume that it is articulating the foundations and principles of CSD for laity who are effectively being called to live out the basics of the lay apostolate even though that terminology is not used. Leo writes:

In offering these reflections, my hope is, first and foremost, to help the lay faithful and people of goodwill rediscover their duty of implementing the above-mentioned principles in their daily lives, family relationships, work and involvement in society. Thus, they will let themselves be inspired by the aim of embodying God’s love in the concrete events of life.

Leo is writing to “the lay faithful” about fostering the principles of CSD like justice and the common good in their spheres of influence. And he is pointing to Augustine’s theology of the totus Christus, which is the richest traditional resource for rooting the lay apostolate in worship and doctrine.

Much more could be said about the other parts of the encyclical that are largely hortatory. In summary, MH is exhorting especially laity to an apostolate guided by the principles of CSD in response to the signs of our times, but it is not using the language of lay apostolate.

Why is the Lay Apostolate Left Implicit in MH?

What might explain why MH gives no explicit attention to the apostolate of the laity? One possible explanation is that those who participated in the drafting of MH see the conciliar understanding as something of the past, which is understandable given the way it has fallen out of the conversation for decades. If they did, I would encourage them to read Stefan Gigacz’s historical study. A related explanation is that because the implicit call of MH to live out the lay apostolate is clear, the particular language was not deemed necessary or helpful. Yet another possible explanation is that the synodal process wants to emphasize the unity of the faithful walking on the road of discipleship with Jesus, so it was judged expedient to avoid the distinction between clergy and laity, which MH largely does. On the other hand, MH is addressed to everyone “of our time” (no. 2) and of “goodwill” (no. 16), so perhaps this made reference to laity and clergy seem inopportune.

But what has Pope Leo XIV written about the lay apostolate? Does he want to move beyond that language or emphasize its importance?

Leo on the Lay Apostolate

As part of his Wednesday Audiences on the Second Vatican Council, Pope Leo recently—on April 1—touched upon the lay apostolate as part of his discussion of Lumen gentium: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. He said the following (emphasis added).

…the Council…also emphasizes the mission of the laity in the Church and in the world. But on what is this mission founded, and in what does it consist? The very description of the laity offered by the Council tells us: “The term laity is here understood to mean all the faithful… [who] are by baptism made one body with Christ and are constituted among the People of God; they are in their own way made sharers in the priestly, prophetical, and kingly functions of Christ; and they carry out for their own part the mission of the whole Christian people in the Church and in the world” (LG, 31).

Here Leo highlights that the laity have a share in the mission of Christ. He continues.

The holy People of God, therefore, is never a formless mass, but the body of Christ, or, as Saint Augustine said, the Christus totus; it is a community organically structured by means of the fruitful relationship between the two forms of participation in the priesthood of Christ: the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood (cf. LG, 10). By virtue of Baptism, the lay faithful participate in the very priesthood of Christ. Indeed, “the supreme and eternal Priest, Christ Jesus, since He wills to continue His witness and service also through the laity, vivifies them in this Spirit and increasingly urges them on to every good and perfect work” (LG, 34).

As a good son of St. Augustine, Leo recognizes the importance of his theology of the totus Christus, which helps to illumine the mysterious sharing of the laity in the very priesthood of Christ. He continues by affirming how St. John Paul II, the inspirational pope of his early priesthood, dedicated an exhortation to the apostolate of the laity.

In this regard, how can we fail to recall Saint John Paul II and his Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici (30 December 1988)? In it, he emphasized that “the Council, with its rich doctrinal, spiritual and pastoral patrimony, has written as never before on the nature, dignity, spirituality, mission and responsibility of the lay faithful. And the Council Fathers, re-echoing the call of Christ, have summoned all the lay faithful, both women and men, to labour in the vineyard” (no. 2). In this way, my venerable Predecessor relaunched the apostolate of the laity, to which the Council dedicated a specific Document, which we will talk about later (cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree Apostolicam actuositatem, 18 November 1965).

Here Leo notes how his series of Wednesday Audiences on the Second Vatican Council will discuss the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity in the Future. There can be no doubt that he will endorse it robustly. In this audience he limits himself to the following.

The vast field of the lay apostolate is not confined to the Church, but extends to the world. Indeed, the Church is present wherever her children profess and bear witness to the Gospel: in the workplace, in civil society and in all human relationships, wherever they, through their choices, show the beauty of Christian life, which foretells here and now the justice and peace that will be accomplished in the Kingdom of God. The world needs to “be permeated by the spirit of Christ, and more effectively fulfil its purpose in justice, charity and peace” (LG, 36). And this is possible only through the contribution, service and witness of the laity!

Note how Leo affirms the exercise of the lay apostolate in the various segments of society or spheres of influence, which enables the apostolate of “like toward like.” Notice also how he references the incarnational language favored by the great champions of the lay apostolate like Cardinal Joseph Cardijn.

Conclusion: A Call to Action

In this post, I have tried to show how the Second Vatican Council’s incarnational understanding of the Apostolate of the Laity should be understood as integral to the fruitful reception of not just Pope Leo XIV’s new encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, but also synodality, and the broader sociopolitical orientation of the Second Vatican Council. I have shown how this is the case, even if the lay apostolate goes almost unmentioned in MH, and if synodality is often understood as centered in processes central to the internal life of the Church.

In Magnifica Humanitas, Pope Leo has issued an urgent call-to-action that begins with making a “pivotal choice” to become builders for the common good, which follows from living Catholic Social Doctrine and the whole Christian humanist sociopolitical orientation of the Second Vatican Council. This, for Leo is how we are faithful to the gospel in our moment in history. But what might that mean in more practical terms?

I propose that Catholics promptly foster ongoing synodal conversations about how to understand the signs of our times and how to respond to them in a way that is faithful to the Gospel. To do so, I suggest that we use Magnifica Humanitas as Pope Leo’s contribution to a process of shared discernment.

The parish is the primary venue that I have in mind for such conversations. In perhaps different forms, I think they would also be apt for dioceses, religious communities, ecclesial movements, educational ministries, seminaries, and universities, especially those with public-facing institutes.

All of us need to take those actions that are within our power. In section 2 above, I offered a bulleted list of 10 questions that concern how laity and clergy can do their respective parts in a synodal Church of disciples ordered to the incarnational mission of the Church. Those questions might be helpful in fostering fruitful discussions regarding parishes, seminaries, and dioceses.

In my parish, we have started a Pope Leo Chicago Catholic Study Circle on MH. For a retreat center with which I am associated, we are currently planning a study day on MH. Given the vast diversity of gifts in the Church, I pray that God will do immeasurably more than we can ask or imagine (Eph 3:20).

Coming one year into Leo’s pontificate and immediately following the release of his encyclical Magnificent Humanity, I have been struck by the way our new Holy Father’s trip gave many evidences of what was already apparent from his decades of priestly ministry, namely that he evangelizes by his example of human and Christian excellence. In so doing, he is following the evangelical strategy of St. Paul who could say “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1).

As Leo explains in Magnifica Humanitas (MH), Catholic Social Doctrine (CSD) is the way the Church is faithful to the Gospel in history. It is a theology of building communion in history, and directs how the Church is present to the human family in history. Although one could take the story of Leo’s life to narrate how he has exemplified this way of bearing Christian witness in the world, I will focus on his Address to the Spanish Parliament. Like his whole trip to Spain and his priestly ministry to date, this address exemplifies the magnificence that human beings are called to exemplify.

Given the radical antiliberalism and postliberalism popular in the United States these days, Pope Leo offers a timely example of the authentic Catholic understanding of the relation of the Church to a modern, constitutional state and liberal society. Given the positive response it inspires from the Spanish Parliament, we have good reason to challenge the claims of influential American Catholic postliberals that the whole sociopolitical orientation of the Second Vatican Council and CSD reflects a capitulation to the heresy of secular liberalism. Instead, the enthusiastic response of the Spanish Parliament to Leo’s address suggests the response of “secular liberalism” to the authentic social doctrine of the Church shows much promise.

The text of Leo’s address follows below. For those with limited time, I have bolded the key points and added some comments. It is followed by a youtube clip of the response it received.

Mr Prime Minister,
Madam President of the Congress of Deputies,
Mr President of the Senate,
Mr President of the Constitutional Court,
Madam President of the Supreme Court and the General Council of the Judiciary,
Members of the Congress of Deputies and the Senate,
Ladies and gentlemen,

I thank the President for her kind words, as well as for the invitation the Apostolic See received on the occasion of my visit to this country. I am also grateful for the courtesy of welcoming me to this historic Palace of the Congress of Deputies, a prominent center of the institutional, legal and democratic life of the Kingdom of Spain. I come before you as the Bishop of Rome and Shepherd of the Catholic Church, aware that the mission entrusted to the Successor of the Apostle Peter, as the principle and foundation of the unity of the Bishops and the faithful (cf. Lumen Gentium, 23), places the Holy See, in a special way, in dialogue with peoples and with States.

My presence among you is intended as a gesture of closeness to Spain, within the framework of mutual cooperation, and as a message offered in the spirit of service to the human person. The Church “walks alongside humanity,” shares its hopes and its wounds, listens to the questions of every age and allows herself to be challenged by “everything concerning the lives of contemporary men and women.”

Here we have the Second Vatican Council’s vision of the Church in solidarity with the human family. Next, Leo addresses the relation between Church and state.

For this reason, when the Church addresses anything concerning public life, she does so while respecting the proper mission of institutions and the legitimate responsibility of those who have received the mandate to legislate. She recognizes “the autonomy of earthly realities” and “the distinction between the ecclesial community and the political community”; and, precisely from this awareness, the Church offers a reflection born of the desire to serve the common good and to recall what makes human coexistence truly human (cf. Magnifica Humanitas, 18, 19, 22).

Above we see Leo’s Catholic alternative to the neo-integralism some Americans misleadingly present as Catholic.

In this chamber, social coexistence takes legal form. Here, differences are heard, sorted out, and, when possible, transformed into shared decisions. For this reason, beyond the legitimate diversity of positions, every legislative task ultimately confronts a decisive question: what conception of the human person inspires laws, and what kind of society do those laws build?

In this regard, Spain has a particularly rich heritage. Its geographical and political identity is intertwined with a history in which faith and reason, art and law, tradition and thought have come together in a fruitful manner. In its cathedrals and universities, its immortal literature, its legal institutions and the very spirit of its people, endures a heritage that has shaped its way of living out freedom, practicing justice and organizing communal life.

From the timeless pages of Don Quixote, where Cervantes proclaimed that “freedom… is one of the most precious gifts that heaven has bestowed upon men” (Don Quixote de la Mancha, II, 58), to the spiritual depth of Saint Teresa of Ávila, and from the great Spanish legal tradition to the metaphysical restlessness of Unamuno, who recalled that man “was not resigned to die utterly” (The Tragic Sense of Life, I), Spain has known how to view the human being as more than just a cog in the social, economic or political order. It has recognized the human being as a creature open to truth, endowed with freedom, and driven by a thirst for eternity that no temporal reality can quench — in a word, as someone whose dignity takes precedence over all utility and to whose service legislative action is subject.

For this reason, when speaking today of the human person, this reflection naturally leads to Salamanca and the thought that matured there. The symbolic presence in this hall of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella recalls the moment when Spain found itself facing historic responsibilities of universal scope. A few years later, Salamanca would undertake, with particular clarity, the moral and legal reflection that the situation demanded. At that university, five hundred years ago, when new worlds and immense possibilities were opening up in relations among peoples, some teachers understood that reason could not be invoked to legitimize whatever force or self-interest that seemed convenient. They thus introduced into historical discernment the question of the irreducible value of every human being and the moral limits of power. It must be acknowledged that society and the Church herself did not always live up to these insights found in their own Christian tradition.

However, that question opened up an intellectual and moral horizon that transcended its historical moment. The intuition of the totus orbis — of a human community broader than any particular power — made it possible to affirm the existence of legal and moral bonds among peoples. From Spain, the reflections of the School of Salamanca — and in particular those of Fray Francisco de Vitoria, along with other Dominicans and Jesuits — helped to shape a legal and moral consciousness capable of remembering that authority always entails responsibility and that every human being must be recognized as a subject of rights and duties. That aspiration continues to resonate today: that dignity, justice and the common good should be the measure of social relations, both at the national and international levels.

As a new era of autocrats threatens the global common good and those who care about human rights need to join in solidarity, Leo reminds the Spanish of some of the most important fruits of their Catholic heritage.

This is one of Spain’s great legacies: having united historical action with the clarity of moral reason. That contribution, born on the banks of the Tormes, transcended classrooms and libraries, and became part of a broader consciousness, shared by the international community, which continues to ask itself how to build peace on the recognition of the person and not on the imposition of force. That legacy also lives on in this Parliament, every time lawmakers ask themselves how to ensure that what is possible is just, that what is legal is truly humane, and that the will of the majority safeguards those goods that belong to all and respects that which no majority can legitimately violate.

The “Salamanca Question” continues to guide the work of those who serve in public life. Today, the new worlds opening up before us are no longer marked on maps: they unfold in technology, the economy, biomedicine, and the digital realm, where human power reaches into increasingly sensitive areas of personal and social life.

Progress offers admirable possibilities, and today we see this in a unique way in the development of artificial intelligence and new technologies. As I recalled in my recent Encyclical, technology in itself is not neutral because it takes on the face of those who conceive, finance, regulate and use it (cf. Magnifica Humanitas, 9); therefore, in the face of the transformations of our time, our discernment must focus on the place of the human person in our decision making and on how the dignity of work, solidarity, social policy and the common good are today being addressed in new ways.

Leo seeks to highlight common ground with his Spanish hosts in the legacy of Salamanca, which provides some of the deep roots for Catholic Social Doctrine. He also presumes their collaboration in “our discernment” about the great challenges facing the human family.

This discernment begins with a fundamental affirmation: every truly just society is built upon the recognition of the inviolable dignity of the human person. Such dignity precedes any concession by the State and cannot be subordinated to shifting social consensus or the whims of the majority at any given moment (cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the German Federal Parliament, 22 September 2011). It belongs to every human being by the very fact of their existence, and for this reason, it must guide every positive legal system. The Christian faith proclaims it on the basis of Revelation; human reason can recognize it as a requirement inscribed in the truth of man (cf. ibid.). When this conviction remains alive, the law becomes a safeguard for all and a guarantee against the imposition of particular interests and agendas.

On this basis, it falls to me today to speak a calm and firm word to those who bear the grave responsibility of legally ordering social coexistence.

Leo now respectfully raises some of the delicate questions of human dignity regarding which many of his audience may disagree. As my Spanish wife reminds me [I add this to my post on 6/14], this must be understood in the context of the Socialist government of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. Google’s Gemini Chatbot summarizes the evolving relation between him and the Catholic Church as follows.

Pedro Sánchez, an open atheist, has navigated a complex and evolving relationship with the Catholic Church since taking office as Spain’s Prime Minister. His history with the institution is defined by initial secularization campaigns, subsequent clashes over social policies, and an eventual pragmatic alignment on global humanitarian issues. [1, 2, 3, 4]

1. Early Secular Agendas

When Sánchez’s Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) first came to power, his government pursued an aggressive secularist agenda. In 2018, he made history by taking his oath of office without a Bible or a crucifix. His platform included: [1, 2]

• Calling for the renegotiation of the 1979 concordat agreements with the Vatican.

• Promising to remove religious instruction from public school curricula.

• Pushing to erase references to Catholicism’s historical privileges from the Spanish Constitution. [1, 2]

2. Policy Clashes and Social Reforms

Sánchez’s progressive coalition governments consistently clashed with the Spanish Episcopal Conference over cultural and social issues. The Church strongly opposed his administration’s liberalizing laws regarding euthanasia, transgender rights, and the expansion of abortion rights. Additionally, tension peaked over the government’s exhumation of General Francisco Franco from a state basilica and the reclamation of improperly registered church assets. [1, 2, 3, 4]

3. Diplomatic Realignments and “Peculiar Alliance”

Despite his secular platform, Sánchez found unexpected common ground with the Vatican. By 2026, he had developed a working diplomatic harmony with the Church leadership, centered around overlapping views on global issues: [1, 2, 4]

• Migration: Both the Spanish government and Pope Leo XIV advocated for humanistic, welcoming approaches to migrants. [1, 2, 4]

• Foreign Policy: Sánchez and the Pope shared strong opposition to certain geopolitical conflicts and criticized rising global military spending. [1, 2]

• State Visit: During Pope Leo XIV’s state visit to Spain, the pontiff addressed the Spanish Parliament. In a historic move, Sánchez attended an official Catholic mass—presided over by the Pope at the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona. [1, 2]

The alliance remains complex; while Sánchez praises the Pope as a “moral compass”, conservative Spanish bishops continue to criticize Sánchez’s domestic policies, particularly regarding the promotion of abortion as a constitutional right. [1, 2, 3, 4]

To the extent that the Sánchez government reflects the second phase, which might be described as the approach of illiberal left in Western Democracies over recent decades, it will likely provide an opening for the illiberal right to increase their political power. To the extent that the government instead follows the new 2026 direction of fostering “diplomatic harmony” with Church leadership, “centered around overlapping views on global issues,” prospects would seem much brighter. Perhaps the way the avowed atheist Sánchez attended mass with Pope Leo and basked in the glow of his visit is an indication that he is coming to recognize the need to develop a more moderate policy, and foster better relations with the Catholic Church. By exemplifying the lived social doctrine of the Church, Pope Leo’s is making it easy for him to do so.

Continuing with Leo’s address to Parliament.

This coexistence can be threatened by the throwaway culture, as Pope Francis so often warned (cf. Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life, 27 September 2021). In this sense, if life ceases to be recognized as a fundamental value, what future can our societies have? Can a community that casts into the shadows the unborn child, the elderly, the sick, those who suffer in silence, or those who depend entirely on the care of others be called fully just? The defense of human life is neither a partisan issue nor a confessional interest: it is a goal of civilization. Every human life must be recognized and safeguarded from conception to its natural end, in every circumstance of its existence. When this certainty is obscured, the most vulnerable are the first victims, and the law loses its deepest meaning: to serve and protect every person. For this reason, the moral greatness of a nation is manifested, above all, in its capacity to accompany, protect and love those lives that are most fragile.

In challenging Spanish legislators to protect the most vulnerable at the beginning and end of life, Leo aligns himself with the Christian tradition tracing back to the Old Testament. His affirmation of the moral law does not negate the fact that civil laws have the distinct purpose of fostering the common good, and are reached by consensus in democratic societies, which depends on persuasion. He proceeds to speak of the common good both through a fresh insight drawn from MH (the social expression of human dignity), and in the standard definition since John XXIII (the some of conditions…).

The common good is, in a certain sense, the “social expression of the dignity recognized in every person” (Magnifica Humanitas, 59). It does not consist in the mere sum of particular interests, but rather in “the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment” (Gaudium et Spes, 26). When the common good ceases to be a shared horizon, public action runs the risk of fragmenting into partial interests, incapable of safeguarding what belongs to all.

In this context, the family — the primary human reality and the natural foundation of the community — takes on particular importance. In the home, generations intertwine and a living memory is passed on, giving inner continuity to society. Where the family is upheld, the spiritual and social stability of nations is also strengthened. The family will always be the first school of humanity, where one learns, before anywhere else, the basic grammar of living together: welcoming life, caring for others, forgiving, serving and belonging.

Here we find an articulation of the standard Catholic teaching about the family as a natural institution (which seems almost self-evident), although the question of how civil law should reflect this fact is a complex one to be established by persuasion. If the ideology of the illiberal left insists on attacking policies that large numbers of “normies” find reasonable, recent history tells us that the illiberal right will weaponize such behavior to polarize the population and seize political power.

Educational institutions also play a decisive role in this task. In them, new generations can learn to seek and love the truth, to reflect on the meaning of life and the dignity of every person. For this reason, many parents who wish for their children to learn to relate to others, to think critically, and to acquire solid values place great hope in these institutions, seeing them as valuable allies in their children’s education. This collaboration must always respect the “primary and inalienable right” of parents to “choose the kind of education and formation for their children, in a manner consistent with their moral, cultural and religious convictions” (cf. Magnifica Humanitas, 143; cf. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 18.4).

Here, Leo addresses another traditional Catholic concern, which secularist governments often neglect, namely the rights of parents in the education of their children. Similarly, if illiberal left institutions oppose this, that provides a powerful tool for the illiberal right to build their political power, which is likely the end of constitutional and democratic government.

Next, Leo will raise perhaps the most explosive contemporary topic, namely migration, calling attention to its moral significance given the human dignity of the migrants. It would seem that the best hope is for the Church to defend the dignity of every person, and to foster the establishment of a center coalition that can come up with a reasonable consensus on policy.

The affirmation of human dignity cannot remain abstract when so many people are forced to leave everything behind in search of peace, security, and a future. The tragic drama of migration also challenges the conscience of nations and the ethical foundation of the international order today. Numerous men, women, and children are forced, by often dramatic circumstances, to leave their communities and leave behind loved ones, histories, and ties. This reality goes beyond any purely demographic or economic analysis: it constitutes an eminently moral and legal issue. Wherever people are discriminated against because of their national, ethnic, religious or linguistic origin, or because of their economic or social status, the universal principle of the equal dignity of all human beings is seriously violated.

The situation of migrants and refugees calls for a response that focuses on people, addresses the root causes that force them to leave, and goes beyond the mere management of migration flows. This gives rise to a twofold demand for social justice: to offer safe and legal pathways, a respectful welcome and real opportunities for integration; and, at the same time, to promote the right to remain in one’s own land, working to ensure that no one has to leave their home due to a lack of peace, security or decent living conditions, including economic inequalities and the effects of the climate crisis (cf. Magnifica Humanitas, 81).

In recent years, increasingly dangerous routes have highlighted the extremely high cost of this reality, so often hidden or ignored. Many people remain prey to traffickers and smugglers who take advantage of their desperation. It is necessary to strengthen prevention, rescue and assistance for victims, especially within the framework of regional and multilateral cooperation.

No nation can face a challenge of this magnitude on its own. Therefore, a coordinated, supportive, and effective response is indispensable, one capable of guaranteeing protection, welcome, and real opportunities for integration to those who migrate. When the institutional response is accessible, just and coordinated, borders cease to be places of abandonment and can become spaces for the responsible protection of human dignity.

Closely related to the topic of migration, Leo now shifts to a related phenomenon, namely what he calls “the profound spiritual and cultural crisis…” This multi-dimensional crisis follows from the fact that mass migration provides an opening for demagogues to weaponize the topic, either by demonizing the migrants, or by pointing out the costs of accepting nations. It would seem essential to forging a future worthy of the human family to foster conversations about the challenges we face.

Ladies and gentlemen:

The world is undergoing a profound spiritual and cultural crisis, which manifests in multiple forms of violence, polarization and mutual distrust. In this context, peace emerges as a political aspiration and, even more so, as a true moral imperative. It calls for public discourse that respects those who think differently, institutions dedicated to fostering dialogue, a historical memory that seeks truth and reconciliation and a social life capable of sustaining civic friendship and mutual respect amid disagreement.

On the international level, peace demands diplomatic courage, ethical responsibility and a vision for the future grounded in respect and in the obligation of States to resolve their disputes through the peaceful means offered by international law. Every war constitutes, ultimately, a painful defeat of the capacity to negotiate and also of that common human consciousness that recognizes bonds of justice among nations. Weapons may impose a temporary silence; but they can never build a genuine and lasting peace.

It is therefore a cause for concern that, in various parts of the world — and in Europe as well — rearmament is once again being presented as an almost inevitable response to the fragility of the international situation. True security, however, stems from justice, patient dialogue, respect for international law, and a policy capable of placing the lives of peoples above the interests that profit from war. The development of new technologies and artificial intelligence in the military sphere also demands rigorous ethical oversight, so that decisions regarding life and death are never left to automated systems nor removed from the moral responsibility of the human person (cf. Address at the University of La Sapienza, 14 May 2026).

The international community is called to rediscover the indispensable value of dialogue as a patient path toward just and lasting agreements, founded on respect for treaties, on the transparency of diplomatic action and on the sincere will to prioritize peace over the use of force. From this spring confidence and hope.

As the motto of the European Union, In varietate concordia, reminds us, true unity does not standardize, but rather unites in diversity, making cultures, sensibilities, and traditions an opportunity for mutual enrichment.

Likewise, within societies themselves, it is urgent to build a culture of reciprocity. Political pluralism should not degenerate into the constant disparagement of one’s adversary. In a mature society, even conflict can become a path to peace, when differences are softened by listening and directed toward recognizing the needs, aspirations and capabilities of all.

But peace is not merely a political or institutional reality. It is also the fruit of conscience, where resentment, indifference, and hatred give way to reconciliation. For this reason, it is also established and protected through language. Words can open paths or close them; they can illuminate reality or distort it to the point of making encounter impossible. Those who hold public office therefore have a special obligation to be mindful of their words in order to disarm language (cf. Message for Lent 2026, 13 February 2026). Firmness does not require contempt; disagreement does not entail humiliation.

From this respect for others also arises the duty to safeguard the space where their convictions, their conscience, and their relationship with God mature. Attention to this inner realm allows for a better understanding of a decisive issue for every truly democratic society: freedom of thought, conscience and religion, a fundamental right that protects the most intimate sphere of the person. The freedom upon which the contemporary state is built, if it is authentic, recognizes the religious dimension of the human person, respects it and protects it legally; and it ensures that faith is not a reason for which a person has to forfeit his or her contribution to society.

Without confusing the legal sphere with the moral one, it is also worth recalling that freedom must be understood in its fullness. Being free does not simply mean being free from coercion or having many choices; it means being able to recognize the good and commit to it responsibly. For this reason, every truly free society also requires a proper limitation of public power, so that the freedom of individuals, communities and associations is not unduly restricted (cf. Dignitatis Humanae, 1). From this perspective, the legitimate autonomy of the temporal order must never see itself as hostile to religion. Faith does not seek to impose itself through privileges or coercion; yet neither can it be silenced as if it were irrelevant to public life.

In this context, the sacramental seal of confession holds special importance for the Catholic Church. It is part of the broader sphere of religious freedom, which guarantees believing communities their own space for life, organization and internal discipline (cf. Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, The Helsinki Final Act, 1 August 1975, Principle VII). To protect it legally, as is done in a similar way in some professions, means preserving a sacred space of inner freedom, where the believer can open his or her soul to God without fear of external pressures, as international norms also recognize (cf. International Criminal Court, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Rule 73.3).

Much could be said about the prior section, but I will let it speak for itself.

Leo now moves into his conclusion by finding bases for his exhortation in the images that adorn the chamber.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Allow me to pause for a moment to reflect on some of the images that adorn this Chamber. In this Chamber, natural light streams in through the skylight that crowns the room. That light coming from above may remind us that politics, too, must acknowledge a force that precedes and transcends it.

Likewise, the paintings on the upper part of the main wall, depicting the reception of the Gospel and the Decalogue, remind us of something essential. Without confusing the political order with the religious one, these symbols invite us to recognize that modern freedom has also been shaped by a long education of conscience, deeply marked by the Christian tradition. In that inner school, people learned that law must serve the good, that justice sets limits on force, that power requires legitimacy, that the poor belong fully to the community, that the foreigner must be welcomed in accordance with his dignity, and that human life can never be treated as a commodity.

A law does not attain its true greatness merely by having been formally enacted; it attains it when, in addition to being valid in form, it can stand before the dignity of the person and pass that test without shame.

I invite you, then, to lift your gaze to the world around you, not to turn away from reality, but to remember that every decision by public authorities affects real people, especially those who have less power to make their voices heard. The expanse of one’s vision consists precisely in looking more deeply at what is at stake in every public decision. This is why, alongside technical solutions and legal reforms, a moral renewal is also needed.

Spain has much to offer on this journey. It possesses a language that bridges continents; a cultural, legal and spiritual tradition that has successfully fostered a dialogue between faith and reason, law and conscience, unity and plurality. This historical experience also reminds us of the value of harmony and of the patient effort to build a peaceful and just society.

May this noble nation never lose sight of its roots nor the courage to look to the future. May Spain continue to be a land of encounter, of culture, of solidarity and of hope. And may its public life always know how to unite the firmness of convictions with the nobility of dialogue and the greatness of service.

May God grant peace to all nations of the earth, harmony to families and serenity to consciences. And may days of prosperity, justice and lasting peace descend upon the Kingdom of Spain, marked by the apostolic footprint of Saint James and by the maternal presence of Our Lady of the Pillar. Thank you very much.

[This post was updated on 6/14 for a combination of clarity, and to add some additional information on how CSD and Leo are offering a path between the illiberal left and the illiberal right.]

This narration should be understood in the context of MH’s dynamic understanding of CSD as the way the Church is faithful to the Gospel in history (Chapter One), as “a theology of communion in history” (§ 27), and as “the way in which the Church is present in history and engages in dialogue with the world…”(28). Studying MH’s sketch of the social teaching of these three popes is not comprehensive, but an invitation for us to enter into dialogue with the discernment of the papal magisterium over time, which helps us appreciate the contemporary contribution of Pope Leo to the discernment of the challenges facing the human family in our moment in history.

[Image generated by AI]

• Numbers 37-44 sketch the contributions of these three popes are under the subheading of The Recent Magisterium, while number 45 concludes the chapter with a paragraph on “Interpreting History in the Light of Faith.”

• Number 37 introduces “rich social teaching of Saint John Paul II…at the crossroads of the crisis of the great ideological systems of the twentieth century and the onset of economic globalization.” Regarding the crucial question of different understandings of the term “ideology,” and the relation of different ideologies to CSD, I think this post introduces a good way to approach the topic. Number 37 revisits JPII’s 1981 encyclical Laborem exercens: On Human Work, which reflected upon many questions of perhaps even greater concern during the age of AI, including the way work is more than “a means of generating income.” It is also “a fundamental good for the person,” allowing us to exercise our capacities for “freedom, creativity, and capacity for cooperation…” This helps to explain why job insecurity must be considered “in relation to the dignity of the worker…”

• Number 38 continues to introduce the social teaching of JPII by recalling his 1987 social encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis: On Social Concern, which was written to mark the twentieth anniversary of Paul VI’s 1967 Populorum Progressio: On the Development of the Peoples. Writing just after the council, Paul VI had emphasized the need to work for the integral human development of every person to realize the postwar promise of realizing a just and peaceful world; Leo will emphasize the same. By 1987, however, the United States and Britain were already several years into shifting towards a new economic paradigm that will come to be called neoliberalism, based on trust in the supposedly self-regulating nature of free (liberal) markets. Here in MH § 37, Leo recounts JPII’s reflection on the widening gap between rich and poor nations, and his denunciation of “the strongest economies, structurally favor their own interests while stifling weaker economies.” The United States, of course, was, and remains for now, the strongest economy. In response, JPII called for a broad understanding of solidarity, which “was understood as a concrete, shared responsibility among individuals, peoples and nations — a form of social friendship or political charity oriented toward the ‘civilization of love’ proposed by Paul VI,” echoed also by Francis.

• Number 39 treats John Paul II’s third and final social encyclical, Centesimus Annus: On the Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum, which is published in 1991. It notes “the collapse of the Soviet system and the rise of democracy and the market economy,” which will characterize the subsequent decades.

  • Leo notes how CA affirms that “…the Church values democracy insofar as it guarantees the effective participation of citizens, enables them to elect and peacefully replace their leaders and prevents power from being monopolized by small elite groups motivated by particular or ideological interests.” Of course, the monopolization of power by small elite groups is precisely what we have increasingly had in the United States since especially the 2010 Citizens United ruling from the United States Supreme Court, making oligarchy and plutocracy accurate descriptions of our regime type.

  • Here Leo also gives a re-reading of how JPII understands the Church’s relation to market economies. He writes: “the Church recognizes the positive potential of the market and private initiative only if they remain subordinate to the moral law and are guided by the principle of solidarity, without sacrificing the most vulnerable to the rationale of profit. [41] This adds a particularly relevant legacy to the Social Doctrine of the Church.” This “re-reading” interprets what JPII wrote in light of the more critical assessment of the neoliberal paradigm that has dominated since the 1980s, an assessment that has become increasingly clear through Benedict XVI, Francis, and now Leo. He concludes: “The affirmation of the link between the dignity of work, solidarity among peoples, a critical assessment of democracy and the market economy continues to provide criteria for evaluating new forms of exploitation, exclusion and crises in political representation.” This is worlds apart from the misreading of CA by neoconservative Republican Catholics associated with First Things, who basically misrepresented JPII as a Reagan Republican.

• Number 40 proceeds to introduce the social teaching of Pope Benedict XVI, centered in his 2009 Caritas in Veritate: On Integral Human Development in Charity and Truth. This underappreciated encyclical revisited to topic of Integral Human Development four decades Populorum Progressio, two after Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, and just as the 2008 financial crisis was transitioning into the Great Recession. Without explicitly mentioning the neoliberal economic paradigm that had shaped recent decades of globalization leading to environmental devastation, widening inequality, and the financial crisis, Benedict calls for reforms addressing such problems. He called for “economic progress” that “is truly inclusive and respectful of the limits of creation.” He observed, moreover, “that the new global economic and financial system, marked by a vast mobility of capital and means of production, had reduced the political power of States and their ability to influence economic processes.” We can see now that men like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Peter Theil have more wealth than most states and proportionate political power, that could foreseeably become much greater. Seeing this developing trend, Benedict called for economic activity to be “ordered toward the common good, for which the political community bears its own irreplaceable responsibility.” He similarly called upon Catholics to foster the common good through the political process.

• Number 41 completes the discussion of Benedict’s social teaching, noting how it is centered in charity, but also “united with truth,” and attentive to “moral relevance precisely within the social, legal, political and economic fields.” He insists that charity in truth must find “historical expression” in “development, justice, institutions and the market.” Leo concludes that “This teaching is especially relevant today in light of growing inequalities, pressures in the financial markets, the environmental crisis and a lack of trust in politics. It stands as an invitation to evaluate every model of development on its ability to be inclusive and sustainable, to rebuild the relationship between economics and politics on the common good, and to acknowledge the critical and generative role of charity in public life.” As of 2009, it was obvious that we were on an unsustainable path.

• Number 42 begins three paragraphs on the social teaching of Pope Francis by grounding it in the call of Vatican II’s Gaudium et spes to “view history through the lens of human hopes and vulnerabilities, and to bring them into dialogue with the Gospel.” Leo highlights how Francis’s inaugural Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium: The Joy of the Gospel flows from GeS with his call for “a Church capable of listening to the cry of the poor, migrants and victims of new forms of slavery.” This is “a synodal Church, a Church that “walks together,” that seeks to read the signs of the times in the light of the Gospel and allows herself to be evangelized by the poor with whom she shares history, also fits into this perspective.”

• Number 43 fits Francis’s 2017 Laudato Si: On Care for Our Common Home into this narrative of the social doctrine of The Recent Magisterium. To the extent we understand hi, we can recognize Leo’s MH as an organic development, expressing it in a compelling way for our moment in history in which the Church must make a decisive choice.

• Number 44 completes the discussion of the social teaching of Pope Francis, focusing on his 2020 Fratelli Tutti: On Fraternity and Social Friendship, which “sought to revive the dream of a humanity that opts for social friendship and universal fraternity.” It did so when faced “with the breakdown of the social fabric, a ‘world war being fought piecemeal,’ individualistic globalization and the impact of the pandemic on community ties…” In response to this situation, Francis “proposed a culture of encounter, a ‘better politics’ capable of seeking the common good, paths of reconciliation and a world that ensures ‘land, housing and work for all.’” With the encyclical Dilexit Nos: On the Human and Divine Love of the Heart of Jesus Christ, Francis called us to the “concrete love for our brothers and sisters” which is “the truest response to the love of the heart of Jesus.” As we will see, Pope Leo accepts Francis’s reading of the signs of the times, and of the response we must make to them.

• Number 45 concludes Chapter One under the heading of “Interpreting history in the light of faith,” which is yet another example of MH’s emphasis on modern, magisterial CSD as a product of the Church’s living through each era, with each pontiff responding to the challenges of their time, by drawing on the expertise and experience of the broader Church in dialogue with the human family. They do so by:

…bringing to light different aspects of a single heritage: the dignity of the person, the value of work, the universal destination of goods, solidarity and subsidiarity, care for creation and the centrality of peace and fraternity. The result is a harmonious, though not always linear, development that is marked by different emphases, progressive insights, and, at times, changes in perspective that do not break with what came before, but allow its implications to mature.

Chapter Two will elucidate the foundations and principles of CSD.

This post will begin sketching the second half of Chapter One (§§ 28-45) of Magnifica Humanitas (MH). I do so to foster my personal appropriation of the content, and to share my developing reactions to it, and to enter into the process of shared discernment encouraged by MH, especially by illustrating how additional historical insights can foster its reception.

The first sentence of § 28 transitions from the way CSD was presented in the first half of Chapter One (§§ 17-27). As already noted, this had emphasized a dynamic understanding of CSD that was faithful to the gospel in history, which can also be described as “a theology of communion in history,” which evokes the Second Vatican Council’s understanding of the Church as a sacrament of unity among the human family and with God (Lumen gentium: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, § 1). Number 28 presents a third and related formulation of CSD as “the way in which the Church is present in history and engages in dialogue with the world…”

When I first read those three formulations, I was delighted as I thought they got to the heart of one of the key reasons why CSD has been so poorly understood and received in the United States. That is, because we have failed to understand how the tradition developed through Catholics working in history to be faithful to the gospel in the modern era, since especially the French revolution. This is why I began my two volume collection, and wrote many substack posts, trying to manifest that history, from the early “social Catholics” (here, here, …), through Joseph Cardijn and Specialized Catholic Action, through the Second Vatican Council, through subsequent social teaching!

The second half of this first sentence indicates the purpose of the second half of Chapter One, namely “to consider the development of Social Doctrine in the Magisterium, which has responded to the major social transformations from the nineteenth century to the present.” Number 28 sketches the limitations and scope of what will be covered, emphasizing how “the unchanging core of revealed truths regarding the human person and society is constantly intertwined with a renewed capacity for listening to historical situations and for responding to contemporary issues.”

Put more concretely, as the Church journeys on her pilgrimage through history, she gains deeper insights into the meaning and ethical ramifications of principles like the dignity of every person, justice, the common good, the solidarity of the human family, integral human development, the universal destination of goods, etc.

In what follows, I will offer some brief comments on the sections to accompany reading the text itself. I will cover MH’s sketch of the history from Leo XIII’s 1891 Rerum novarum: On Capital and Labor to Paul VI’s 1971 Octogesima adveniens: On the Eightieth Anniversary of Rerum novarum.

[Image generated by AI]

• Number 29 briefly notes the deep history of CSD and introduces Rerum novarum, which becomes a lasting paradigm. I would note that the paradigm of RN was previously forged through the work of generations of “social Catholics” such as Bishop Wilhelm E. von Ketteler in Germany, and generations of social Catholics in France, and elsewhere. Leo was also encouraged to write on the condition of labor by the American Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore, who wrote a famous letter in support of the Knights of Labor union, which some were trying to get condemned.

To get a sense of the legacy of Ketteler and the social Catholics that influenced RN and the whole subsequent tradition of Catholic Social Doctrine, I cite below the abstract of a contribution by Martin O’Malley’s to my Social Catholicism for the Twenty First Century?, an abstract that is also cited in this post on Ketteler. It reads as follows.

This article examines Bishop Wilhelm Emmanuel von Ketteler’s biography, published works, and correspondence to demonstrate his relevance for CST in five points: First, Ketteler’s primary identity and loyalty was uncompromisingly Christian, rooted in Thomistic natural law, and thoroughly consistent with the church’s scriptural, theological, and ecclesiological commitments. Second, Ketteler’s legal education and experience informed his social writings. He respected and often incorporated secular and Protestant intellectual insights, including especially the “historical school” of jurisprudence—a branch of German Romanticism. Third, Ketteler’s dignitarian defense of individual human persons is consistent with contemporary discourses of human dignity and human rights. Fourth, Ketteler’s practical reasoning was ordered towards a theologically informed conception of human dignity and the common good. He sought prudential paths, which he called corduroy roads, to deal with this period’s social challenges. And fifth, Ketteler’s resourceful participation with representational forms of government demonstrates the rich potential for the church in public life where religious freedom is constitutionally protected. His social action took place in a context of an increasingly secular public discourse where Roman Catholics were a minority in the national structure formed in 1870 Germany. Ketteler confronted threats from the political left attempting to privatize religion and from the right that tried to nationalize church activities. He identified religion as politically essential while respecting structurally independent public spheres for both church and state.

I now return to my comments on the different paragraphs.

• Number 30 summarizes the key teachings of RN, which reflects the Church’s response to the industrial age. I would add that this response inspired decades of subsequent work by “social Catholics” around the world, who were in dialogue because they held conferences and usually shared Latin as a common language. The American Msgr. John A. Ryan wrote a synthesis of their reform proposals which were published as “1919 Bishops’ Program of Social Reconstruction.” Although they were ignored as the United States entered the “Roaring Twenties,” this proposal contained many elements that would become a consensus after the Great Depression and Second World War. By the mid-1920s, this program had been widely attacked as socialism by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). This was an early indication of how the “business lobby” would vigorously oppose efforts by Catholics and others to build a just society ordered to integral human development of every person and care for the most vulnerable. This opposition was apparently because they were instead focused on maximizing their profits and political power, even if some of them were generous with charitable contributions.

• Number 31 introduces the social teaching of Pope Pius XI, which included his 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno in response to the Great Depression. Although they are often omitted from courses on CSD, Leo XIV also—significantly—introduces Pius XI’s critical responses to Italian Fascism (Non Abbiamo Bisogno: On Catholic Action in Italy), Nazism (Mit Brennender Sorge: On the Church and the German Reich), and Communism (Divini Redemptoris: On Atheistic Communism). With democracy under attack by a new era of autocrats, the prior criticism of the magisterium of illiberal forms of government deserves renewed attention. This paragraph also highlights three insights of lasting value: the need for reform of both institutions and morals; the principle of subsidiarity; and respecting human dignity in work and wages. This reference to institutions should remind students of subsequent CSD of Pope Benedict XVI’s important encouragement that Catholics take the institutional and political path of Charity, participating in—and being solicitous for the good of—the institutions that shape our shared life in society.

• Number 32 lists several important contributions of Pope Pius XII, who directed the Church toward dialogue and participation in what would come to be called the postwar liberal order, which sets the stage for the sociopolitical orientation of the Second Vatican Council and CSD. Leo recalls Pius’s famous Christmas radio messages through which he directed Catholics to build a postwar “international order based on justice, peace and the recognition of human dignity.” Much more could have been said about how Catholics informed by CSD—including Robert Schuman of France, Konrad Adenauer of Germany, and Alcide de Gaspari—were central to building a more united, peaceful, and prosperous Europe. Catholics in the United States did something similar in support of the “mixed economy,” that balanced market activity with a network of institutions that shaped market activity, raised people to a middle class existence (integral human development), and provided a social safety net. Leo draws three guidelines we should take from Pius including the importance of the rule of law, the need to address economic inequality, and the need for a network of associations mediating between individual and state.

• Number 33 is the first of four paragraphs on the Second Vatican Council, the reception of which is central to Leo’s pontificate and inseparable from his focus on CSD. It introduces John XXIII’s decisive turning of the Church to a global perspective, along with his two social encyclicals, whose titles and subtitles clearly indicate their purpose. The first, Mater et magistra: On Christianity and Social Progress makes clear that participation in the postwar world is compatible with the Christian life of loving God and neighbor. The second, Pacem in Terris: Peace on Earth, offers a comprehensive global ethic centered in respecting and defending human rights, which aligns the Church with the 1948 Universal Declaration. This paragraph concludes by highlighting the ongoing importance of John’s universalism, his advocacy for human rights, his support of institutions, and his cultivation of relations respecting the dignity of every human person.

• Number 34 discusses the importance of the council’s Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, which places the Church in solidarity with the human family, fostering participation in the advancement of integral human development, setting the stage for subsequent CSD. Informed by the vision of GeS, CSD embraces a wide horizon along with a method of discernment informed by the Gospel and human experience. This puts the Church into “dialogue with the world,” a notion severely criticized by American conservatives who disdain the model of dialogue and instead want to proclaim the truth to others. For Leo, however, this stance of dialogue is “a concrete expression of [the Church’s] mission. This follows from the belief that “the Gospel, like leaven, is capable of transforming the structures of society from within and forging paths toward a greater humanity.”

• I wish Leo had supported this reference to leaven with appeal to the council’s Apostolate of the Laity, which explains this transformation in terms of the lay mission to act as “leaven” in the world, working in an incarnational way to inform the temporal order with the spirit of the gospel. It would have been helpful to mention not only this, but also the need to form laity for this mission, and to teach them to join their labors to the offering of the whole Christ (totus Christus) through active participation in the Eucharistic liturgy. This substantial paragraph also discusses the importance of the conciliar Declaration on Religious Freedom: Dignitatis Humanae, which has also long been the target of American conservatives who have essentially rejected or opposed the sociopolitical orientation of the council, while claiming to be the defenders of “orthodoxy.” If Pope Leo’s program of leading the Church is not to be undermined like that of his several predecessors, this rejection or redefinition of CSD needs to be challenged on a continued basis.

• Number 35 introduces the social magisterium of Pope St. Paul VI who famously linked the pursuit of peace and integral human development with his phrase “development is the new name for peace.” He similarly encouraged work for progress in terms of fostering “more humane living conditions.”

• Number 36 continues to survey the highlights of Paul VI’s social teaching with a focus on his Apostolic Letter addressed to Cardinal Maurice Roy who was President of both the Pontifical Council for the Laity and the Pontifical Commission for Justice and Peace. This letter was entitled Octogesima Adveniens: On the Occasion of the Eightieth Anniversary of the Encyclical “Rerum Novarum.” It marks a shift of focus to “postindustrial society, marked by urbanization, new forms of poverty and rapid cultural changes that called into question the future of individuals and communities.” MH emphasizes how Paul VI affirms the way “the Gospel remains relevant because it provides the criteria for recognizing what humanizes or dehumanizes and what liberates or oppresses in ever-changing situations.” Notice how this statement equates the Gospel with CSD, illustrating the encyclical’s understanding of CSD as the way the Church remains faithful to the Gospel in history! Paul’s legacy is for an understanding of CSD that works for the flourishing of every person, “beginning where people are marginalized.”

• Of course, MH is just noting a few highlights about each Pope and document, and much more could be said. OA is noteworthy, for example, for the emphasis it places on the need for participation / political involvement, an emphasis that is highly relevant to Leo’s emphasis on “building the city.” OA is also noteworthy for its nuanced warnings about the ambiguous nature of ideologies, a warning that is of great contemporary relevance to countries like the United States where a great number of Catholics have been persuaded by a vast program of propaganda—think tanks and media outlets funded by the business lobby—to identify as “conservative.” This, however, is largely a contemporary version of the program of the National Association of Manufacturers from the 1920s to oppose more egalitarian economic programs, which is a major obstacle to the reception of reception of CSD and Vatican II at the heart of Leo’s pontificate.

  The remaining subsections of Chapter Two are entitled “The Recent Magisterium” (§§ 37-44) and “Interpreting History in the Light of Faith” (§ 45). I will discuss them in a subsequent post.

Most of the 240+ participants are included below (with me in a plaid shirt in the lower left quadrant, with backpack over my shoulder).

[Group photo from CSPL 2026 Congress. ]

The attendees each received a dove necklace blessed by Pope Leo XIV.

The CSPL was founded over nine years ago and has worked on important but seemingly less urgent issues like replacing lead pipes. It gained broader national and international recognition, however, for recent acts of Holy Resistance to oppression, such as the Eucharistic Procession to the notorious Broadview ICE detention facility. This event was followed by another that centered in the celebration of a Eucharistic Liturgy, and by a legal win which resulted in the restoration of the detainees’ rights to be visited by pastoral ministers.

Other activities they recently organized included the Ash Wednesday Mass and Procession Rooted in Solidarity.

CSPL is an excellent example of what Pope Leo XIV calls for in his new encyclical Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (MH), namely making the “pivotal choice” to “build the city in which God and humanity dwell together” (no. 1). For Catholic Social Doctrine to take on flesh, it needs to be embodied by organizations like CSPL, and it must give birth to movements of social reform and renewal. CSPL gives an excellent example of what Pope Leo is calling from the Church.

Some additional photos from Saturday’s conference follow below.

[Breakout: Michael Okińczyc-Cruz on Community Organizing]

[Breakout: Nicholas Hays-Mota on Catholic Social Doctrine and Community Organizing]

Gathering for Mass

The Eucharistic Offering of what St. Augustine called the Totus Christus (the Whole Christ: Head and Members) joins the saving sacrifice of Christ the head with the labors of the coalition participants to foster the reign of God’s justice on earth.

Somos el cuerpo de Cristo, we are the Body of Christ

Holy Resistance / Resistentia Sagrada

[Kate Williams leads in singing the newly created song Holy Resistance / Resistencia Sagrada]

Music

And Dancing

The Goal and Background for this Post

In this post, I want to continue my ongoing exploration of the obstacles that have hindered the reception of the last several decades of CSD, precisely because I think we must overcome them to receive the encyclical, with all that implies for the future of the Church and the human family. My specific goal in so doing is to help the Catholic Church in especially the United States—with our disproportionate influence—to make the “pivotal choice” with which Leo opens MH.

The Pivotal Choice of MH

Presented through Leo’s biblical metaphors, this choice is to decisively reject the predominant contemporary project to “construct a new Tower of Babel” and instead commit ourselves to the project of “build[ing] the city in which God and humanity dwell together,” the new Jerusalem.

Put otherwise, this project is to live out CSD which Leo will describe as “a theology of communion in history…” (no. 27), of being faithful to the gospel call to love God and neighbor in rapidly changing circumstances. This is an exhortation to live out what the 2004 Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, which was written under the direction of then Pope John Paul II, describes as “an integral and solidary [Christian] humanism.” For Pope Benedict XVI, this project is to live out the charity “which is at the heart of the Church’s social doctrine” (Caritas in veritate, no. 2). In response to the 2008 financial crisis, he called on Catholics to take “the institutional and political path of charity,” which involves “being solicitous for,” and “partaking of”—in the sense of participating in—“the institutions that shape our shared life in society” (CiV, no. 7). For Pope Francis, this choice and project entail the rejection of self-serving populist leaders who exploit media and culture to manipulate the people through fear and deception. Against Benedict’s call to solicitude for the institutions on which the common good of modern societies depends, these populist leaders instead undermine and weaponize them against the people. For Francis, the path forward entails embracing a “better kind of politics” marked by “fraternity and social friendship,” which places human dignity and the common good at the center of decision-making (Fratelli tutti, chapter 5).

Why I am Confident this Pivotal Choice is Possible

Like many Catholics who came of age during the pontificate of St. John Paul II, I wanted to become well-grounded in the tradition after the tumultuous decades following the Second Vatican Council. For this reason, I wanted to study not just the New Testament (and especially St. Paul), but the angelic / common doctor St. Thomas Aquinas, and the ressourcement (back to the sources) thought that was the primary influence behind the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, even if these reforms were ordered toward helping the Church carry out her mission in the postwar world (aggiornamento).

Because of this training and subsequent work in moral theology, where I was initially focused on upholding moral objectivity and traditional sexual and life ethics, I can not only sympathize with the schools of socially conservative Catholic intellectuals who influence the institutional infrastructure of the Church in the United States: the professors, the clergy, the seminarians, media figures, many of those involved in ministry, and many of the most faithful practicing Catholics. I have also witnessed how these Catholics have tended to neglect CSD, or reduce it to a speculative discipline, or adopt a more paternal as opposed to fraternal sociopolitical orientation. Coming to identify with conservative movement and Republican Party over “issues” like abortion, these Catholics also have also tended to adopt a neoliberal economic paradigm. From my own experience, I can appreciate how Catholics might have held such views from the 1980s and into the new millennium.

As we moved through the aughts, however, I was increasingly questioning these socially conservative priorities, especially as the neoconservative Catholicism of First Things was so obviously discredited with the collapse of the George W. Bush Administration through a combination of the 2008 financial crisis and the failed war in Iraq. At the same time, I was beginning to become more familiar with CSD.As I did so, I came to appreciate it as a much better way of relating to the sociopolitical order, namely by receiving the discernment of the magisterium at different moments in human history as an aid to making sense of the “signs of the times,” and of how we should respond to them. Put otherwise, I came to appreciate CSD as put so beautifully by MH, namely as a dynamic way of being faithful to the gospel as the Church journeys through history in solidarity with the human family.

This experience, and hope in the divine assistance, gives me confidence that other Catholics who came of age in the era of JPII and Benedict VI can also come to recognize this neglected tradition of Catholic Social Doctrine that—together with the reception of the Second Vatican Council—is at the forefront of Pope Leo’s priorities, in continuity with his last several predecessors. Given the very helpful way that MH, presents CSD as a way of being faithful to the gospel in history, I think there is good reason to hope that many such Catholics can get behind our new pontificate, but that will require work for those not ready to appreciate how MH builds organically on the tradition.

Early Signs of Hope

In the short time since the publication the encyclical on May 25, moreover, its reception—both within and outside the Catholic Church—has been very encouraging, as Msgr Arthur Holquin has documented in a recent post, and Anthony Shoplik did in another. After what had been an exceptional degree of polarization among American Catholics over the person and teaching of Pope Francis, there have been numerous indications over the first year of Leo’s pontificate that many of those who had been critical of Francis are more favorably disposed toward our new pontiff.

Although such indications are encouraging, much more will be required if Catholics are to receive MH and respond with wisdom, generosity, and urgency to the signs of our times.

Overcoming Obstacles to the Robust Reception of MH

As indicated above, my goal in this post is to continue my ongoing exploration of the intellectual and other obstacles that have hindered the reception of CSD in especially the United States over the last several decades, and how those obstacles might be overcome so we can make the “pivotal choice” with which Leo opens MH.

My exploration presupposes numerous points that I have developed in previous posts, which shape a narrative that can illumine both how we veered of track and how we can get back on the narrow path of the gospel, understood with the help of the living teaching office of the Church. These narrative fragments include the following.

• That, for various reasons (I give some here, here, and here), the post conciliar Church did not adequately receive what I like to call the incarnational sociopolitical orientation of the Second Vatican Council (see especially Apostolicam Actuositatem: Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity and Lumen gentium: Constitution on the Church, chapter 4) within the necessary context of a renewal of doctrine and worship. This delayed reception of the conciliar vision occurred even if there had been successful preconciliar models for integrating a doctrinally rich liturgical renewal with Catholic Action (i.e., Msgr Reynold Hillenbrand).

• Although not well recognized, this incarnational sociopolitical orientation presupposed the transition from a more paternal stance tracing to premodern political arrangements to a fraternal one, which has yet to be sufficiently recognized or received.

• This failure to realize the incarnational sociopolitical orientation of the Council resulted in a bifurcation between those who prioritized protecting what they understood as sound doctrine / personal morals (and worship for some), on the one side, and those who prioritized social ethics / justice, on the other.

• In response to the sexual revolution and the New Left, those who prioritized defending objective morality and traditional sexual ethics tended to do so drawing primarily on neo-scholastic / Thomistic resources, which reinforced a more paternal stance. Such a stance had predominated before the twentieth century Catholic rapprochement with the secular state. After the Catholic reconciliation with the constitutional democratic state, the embrace of a fraternal stance would have brought an approach to the ethics of sex and marriage based on example and persuasion as opposed to legal coercion, along with a social ethic focused on matters of social and economic justice.

• This renewed focus on the ethics of sex and marriage, however, aligned Catholic scholars and others with the political movement of the Catholic New Right, which was built especially by Catholic political-religious entrepreneurs including Paul Weyrich, Richard Viguerie and Connie Marshner. Their work complemented that of other conservatives Catholics including National Review founder William F. Buckley, Jr., who made conservatism “cool,” and Patrick J. Buchanan, who devised Richard Nixon’s “law and order” and “southern” strategies and stoked the fires of the culture wars. These strategies took advantage of the opportunity provided by the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act to begin building a Republican Party alliance between working class Catholics and Southern segregationists, an alliance that has now significantly undone the great achievements of the Civil Rights era, especially through the work of supposedly pro-life Supreme Court justices advancing the natural law.

• In league with business interests seeking to increase their wealth and political power (building on the business lobby’s opposition to CSD since the 1920s), operatives like Weyrich built the institutional infrastructure of American conservatism. These institutions include the think tanks, the public facing university “centers,” the journals, the political action committees, and the media outlets. The intellectual core of this American conservatism is a combination of Catholic natural law scholars and Straussians (those working in the tradition of Leo Strauss, with some followers of Eric Voegelin).

• Due apparently to some combination of scholarly output and the massive financial and institutional support for conservatism, socially conservative readings of CSD in the United States have largely drowned out those of the papal magisterium for decades.

If MH is to be the locus of a deep reception of CSD and the sociopolitical orientation of the Second Vatican Council for especially the Church in the United States, I think we need a narrative of how conservative American Catholics can come to appreciate it. This, I think, requires scrutiny of some intellectual choices that can be obstacles to appreciating the vision of CSD we find in MH.

In what follows, I will introduce some key aspects of what is perhaps the most respected recent discussion of “Catholic Social Teaching” by what I would describe as a socially conservative American Thomist. This work is On the Dignity of Society: Catholic Social Teaching and the Natural Law, by F. Russell Hittinger, who is Professor emeritus at the Catholic University of America after previously serving as the executive director of their Institute for Human Ecology (IHE), their primary public facing entity. I will touch upon an influential essay by his colleague and successor at IHE, Catherine R. Pakaluk, an economist who counts Hittinger and his former doctoral directee—Professor Steven A. Long of Ave Maria University—as her mentors in moral theology and Catholic Social Teaching.

I will also include some brief remarks on two other schools of American Catholic social conservatives on whom I have previously written, the New Natural Lawyers, and Communio postliberals. Namely, I will note one example of how scholars who are at least friendly with each school can align much more closely with CSD and MH, which is the direction that I would hope both schools would move.

1. Thomists on CSD: Hittinger’s On the Dignity of Society

Russell Hittinger’s On the Dignity of Society: Catholic Social Teaching and Natural Law (DS) is edited by Scott J Roniger. Because of Hittinger’s decades of work on the topic, Roniger can reasonably claim he “has been the leading scholar of Catholic social doctrine for some time now.” Similarly, V. Bradley Lewis—whose work I greatly esteem—cover blurb states that Hittinger’s “work on Catholic social thought is in a class by itself. His mastery of the philosophical, theological, and historical aspects of this large, complex, and consequential body of thought is unrivaled.” Thomas Hibbs and Gerald V. Bradley offer similar praise on the back cover. Hittinger’s Wikipedia page notes that he has contributed to the drafting of three social encyclicals, which supports the claim of his prominence among scholars of CSD. Without question, there is much we can learn from this erudite scholar.

Hittinger is most fundamentally a Thomistic philosopher whose work has focused on the intersection of philosophy, religion, law, and history. My very brief and preliminary engagement with his work that follows is inspired by his agreement with an intervention I made during a panel discussion on DS which took place at the most recent annual meeting of the Society of Christian Ethics in early January of 2026. The panel discussion brought out many of the valuable philosophical and historical points that his work has clarified.

This meeting took place, however, concurrently with the Trump Administration’s “Operation Metro Surge,” which was being conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Minneapolis. During the question and answer session that followed the panelists, a theologian in the audience asked—in effect—how Hittinger’s approach to CSD related to addressing the great challenge of the neo-authoritarian and kleptocratic attack on American democracy we were currently enduring. I would argue this question comes very close to the pivotal choice between Babel and taking our part in rebuilding the city with Nehemiah that Pope Leo XIV puts before us in MH.

When Hittinger didn’t seem to have a response to this pressing contemporary question, I offered a friendly proposal along the following lines.

I proposed that we understand Hittinger’s contribution as that of a Thomistic philosopher offering a sapiential, metaphysical, speculative, and historically-informed reflection on the principles of CSD, the proper ordering of society, and related matters. The response to the oppression by ICE and an aspiring autocrat, on the other hand, is a properly practical task, which is nevertheless informed by an understanding of key principles of CSD including justice, human dignity, solidarity, human rights, etc. Drawing on this distinction, those informed by the principles of CSD should do their part in the practical task of working to defend human dignity and the common good of our constitutional democracy.

Hittinger expressed his appreciation for the distinction which was also well-received by the broader audience. In my opinion, the appreciation of this distinction is of great relevance to the reception of MH, which will depend on making the pivotal choice to live out CSD at a time of encroaching autocracy in league with a tech oligarchy. This will require appreciating CSD as a practical tradition ordered to fostering justice, solidarity, and respect human dignity and rights.

Besides the fact that Hittinger’s approaches CSD from the speculative perspective of a philosopher looking for a sapiential vision of society and social ethics, I think there are some other aspects of his work that merit attention if we are to benefit from his erudition without having it hinder our appreciation of the more practical and hortatory focus of magisterial documents like MH. I will mention just two.

First, as indicated by the subtitle of Catholic Social Teaching and Natural Law, Hittinger’s approach to CSD in DS centers in the natural law, which is the topic on which he wrote his doctoral dissertation and could perhaps be described as the lens through which he approaches CSD. Roniger’s introduction explains how the first phase of Hittinger’s career running from about 1985 through 2000 was focused on natural law (xiii-iv), writing against the New Natural Law theory, on the sources of Aquinas’s account of natural law, on developments in American politics and law, and on the problem of the state.1 On this basis, he builds a deep understanding of the history of CSD, seeking to grasp its metaphysical roots in natural law. The index entry in DS for natural law is almost a column and a half and that on law is about a whole column.

In MH, on the other hand, “natural law” is mentioned just once, in the historical review of Pope Pius XII’s social teaching, and “law” is mentioned just 16 times in the 42, 300 words of MH. Of course, Pope Leo wants people to act according to the right reason of natural law, but MH is much more focused on justice / injustice (97 times), dignity, (105 times), and the common good (82 times).

Second, DS concludes with a joint essay by Hittinger and Roniger on “How to Inherit a Kingdom,” and one by Hittinger on “What St. Benedict Taught the Dark Ages: His And Ours.” There are many good insights in them, but I would argue that each of these indicate a great distance from the urgent practical orientation of MH. They leave little room to hope that we can work for justice and the common good on earth. The essay on the kingdom is largely directed against the temptation of neo-integralism, which merits condemnation. I would argue, however, that it is very thin on how the kingdom inaugurated by Jesus is in-breaking and brings justice to the oppressed. The last essay on the new Dark Age upon us ends with a call to “address the darkness in ourselves and turn again back to Him who is the ‘true Light’ …” For the conclusion of a book on CSD, however, there is no indication, that Catholics should be responding to our pivotal moment in history guided by CSD. I am sorry to say that this reminds me of the pessimistic political quietism of Communio postliberalism. Even if a new Dark Age threatens to fall upon the human family, I would argue that it is precisely Church that offers the best hope of fending it off precisely if we receive CSD as we find it in MH, which is a view informed by faith, historical study, and experience.

Although I appreciate the light Hittinger sheds on the remote past of modern CSD and his scholastic precisions, I think his way of approaching the subject matter is very different from what the Church needs today, and from what Pope Leo gives us in MH. I think he would have come up with a much better reading of the tradition if he had focused more on the social Catholics who lived out CSD, on Sillon, on Joseph Cardijn and the movements of Specialized Catholic Action he inspired, and on the Second Vatican Council’s understanding of the Apostolate of the Laity which grew out of the tradition of social Catholicism. There are Catholics who live out this doctrine today, and there would be a lot more of them if our intellectuals were attentive to CSD as a tradition of practice, and if institutions fostered it.

Next, I will introduce another socially conservative American interpreter of “Catholic Social Teaching” who similarly takes a neo-Thomistic approach and has been influenced by Hittinger and his former student, Professor Steven A. Long of Ave Maria University.

Catholic Social Teaching as A Doctrine Against the Heresy of Socialism

Catherine Ruth Pakaluk earned her doctorate in economics from Harvard University and is Associate Professor of Economics and is the new Executive Director of The Institute for Human Ecology, which—as I noted above—is the primary public facing institution of the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC. Her CV locates her clearly among the American Catholic right with awards from the Heritage Foundation that gave us the notorious Project 2025 and the libertarian / conservative Acton Institute, and years of participation in the institutions of conservative Catholicism, and neoliberal economics. Her CUA faculty page notes that “Beyond her formal training in economics,” she “studied Catholic social thought under the mentorship of F. Russell Hittinger, and various aspects of Thomistic thought with Steven A. Long” of Ave Maria University. Her personal website notes that she collaborates professionally with her husband Michael Pakaluk, who is Ordinary Professor of Political Economy in the Busch School of Business at The Catholic University of America. This school is named for libertarian benefactor Timothy Busch, who collaborated with Charles Koch to raise a record $50 Million for CUA in 2017, which is just part of their ongoing support for the university. I should note that I can understand why Catholic universities accept money from such sources, but I think the key is ensuring that the authentic teaching of the Church gets a fair hearing.

In this subsection, I will briefly introduce several key characteristics of Catherine Pakaluk’s presentation of what she calls Catholic Social Thought, and give a concise indication of how this departs from CSD as presented by Pope Leo XIV, building on his last several predecessors. These key characteristics can be seen in her influential essay “Socialism and Capitalism in Catholic Social Thought,” which is published in the collection that culminates in John Finnis’s essay “A Radical Critique of Catholic Social Teaching,” which I discuss in my previous posts that are also linked in subsection ii) below.

These key characteristics include her emphasis on CSD as a response to socialism and her approaches to history, private property, and economics. I will be concise as this post is oversized and I may revisit this topic in a dedicated post.

Regarding socialism, Pakaluk asserts that “One cannot easily overstate the place of socialism in the development of Catholic thought.” This is because “socialism and communism are the founding heresies of the formal tradition of the social teaching of the Church” (433). She proceeds to articulate a reading of CSD shaped by these claims. For Pope Leo, on the other hand, socialism does not even merit a single mention. His CSD is not fixated on the errors of nineteenth century socialists, but learns from the Church’s ongoing journey through history in solidarity with the human family.

Regarding history, Pakaluk opens the essay with three pages discussing the 19th century papal literature against socialism and almost completely restricts her analysis of Socialism and Capitalism in CST to the tradition through Pius XI’s 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno. This choice avoids dealing with the way postwar CSD largely aligns with what can be described as the Keynesian mixed economy, embedded liberalism, or social/Christian democracy. For Pope Leo, on the other hand, the Church develops her understanding of CSD throughout her earthly pilgrimage. For Leo, the Second Vatican Council, and the subsequent popes who have tried to implement it are the most important sources for understanding CSD. Among his predecessors, with the most recent magisterium of Pope Francis gets special weight.

Regarding private property, Pakaluk emphasizes the Church’s “firm and absolute affirmation of private property,” while also recognizing the way Pius XI and Catholicism also recognize the “twofold character of ownership,” namely both individual and social (463). Although CSD has indeed recognized these two dimensions of ownership, Popes Francis and Leo have increasingly emphasized not “the firm and absolute affirmation of private property” but “the universal destination of goods.”

For Pope Leo and MH, the universal destination of goods is mentioned fifteen times. Private property, on the contrary, is mentioned only four times, none of which cite a “firm and absolute affirmation.” One of these notes how Rerum novarum affirms its “indispensable societal role” (no. 30), and a second notes how Quadragesimo Anno “recalled the societal role of private property” (no. 31). The third acknowledges the right to private property, but insists that “it is always subordinate to the universal destination of goods” (no. 66). The fourth shows a significant difference in emphasis in the relation between the individual and social dimensions of property. In an era of concentrated wealth and our first trillionaire, there can be no doubt that the recent papal magisterium highlights the universal destination of goods. Leo writes.

Since “the Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable,” [n.89 cites Pope Francis] its social function must not be considered a mere theological opinion, but a doctrine of the Church, already present in Sacred Scripture and in the writings of the Church Fathers (no. 66).

Regarding economics, I’ll be very concise. Pakaluk’s CV indicates she favors neoliberal economics, which is the economic paradigm that has dominated since the Reagan era. My Social Catholicism for the Twenty First Century? includes several essays touching on the need for a new economic paradigm after the manifest failure of the neoliberal one, which has been evident since at least the 2008 Financial Crisis. Like Pope Francis, Pope Leo recognizes the need for a more just and sustainable economic paradigm.

Because of her prominent position leading the primary public-facing institution of the Catholic University of America, while teaching and writing about CSD, I may revisit Pakaluk’s thought at greater length in future posts. I am more interested in writing on MH, which presents a radically different understanding of CSD. I have also been meaning to write more on new economic thinking after the failure of the neoliberal paradigm.

2) The New Natural Law Theory (NNLT)

As I have discussed in other posts (here), John Finnis—a leading scholar of the New Natural Law Theory (NNLT)—offers a radical and unfortunate critique of CSD along with a corresponding proposal for a reform of the tradition. MH instead both reaffirms what Finnis criticizes in CSD and deepens that tradition. MH also directly criticizes approaches that distort the place of moral norms in CSD, a charge that might be leveled against the NNLT. On the other hand, Finnis is a world class philosopher and there is much we can learn from his corpus, and use in Catholic social and political ethics.

It is possible, however, to benefit from Finnis’s scholarship and be more receptive to CSD. For example, Daniel Philpott—who is Professor of Political Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame—is not only in friendly dialogue with the philosophy of John Finnis. He has carefully studied biblical accounts of justice to retrieve resources that I think make his work align well with CSD and MH. A lecture based on a forthcoming book can be viewed below.

3) Catholic Postliberals

As I have discussed in other posts, the radical metaphysical antiliberalism and pessimistic political quietism of Communio postliberalism provides a stark alternative to the sociopolitical orientation of the Second Vatican Council and CSD, including that of MH. My previous posts on the Communio postliberals can be found here.

Although I sketched the long-held and extensively-developed positions of the Communio postliberals that would seemingly leave little hope that they would accept the sociopolitical orientation of the Second Vatican Council and CSD, there are at least some Communio theologians who have responded positively to MH. The example I have in mind is Larry Chapp’s “Why I think Magnifica Humanitas is a pointed and prophetic gut punch,” published in Catholic World Report, which is a step in the right direction. Since this post is already too long, and Chapp’s piece is available to interested readers, I will leave it to them to follow the link.

I will happily take Chapp’s piece as an indication that at least some Communio thinkers can come closer to CSD as understood by the magisterium. This is important because they have a significant influence on at least five scholarly journals in the United States, and reach a broader audience through their affinities with Bishop Robert Barron, who appreciates their thought and regularly publishes Communio postliberals in his journals, even if he is more sympathetic to constitutional democracy than they are. Even better, Richard Declue of Barron’s Word on Fire Ministry promptly published a brief overview of MH, and Word on Fire is publishing the encyclical with an introduction by Bishop Barron. These are steps in the right direction, but we will have to see what impact MH has on the sociopolitical orientation of Bishop Barron and Word on Fire.

Conclusion:

Pope Leo XIV’s MH presents CSD as a dynamic way of being faithful to the gospel as the Church journeys through history. For our time, he calls us to make a pivotal choice to oppose a new Babel and build a new Jerusalem. As was especially evident during the pontificate of Francis, however, what we might describe as socially conservative American Catholic intellectuals have not been sympathetic to the way the magisterium has understood CSD since at least Pope St. John XXIII. They have, moreover, influenced the broader Catholic community such that the lived social tradition of the Church—including the council’s incarnational understanding of the Apostolate of the Laity—is largely unknown to most American Catholics. Although conservative American Catholics have received Pope Leo much better than Francis, there are significant intellectual differences in the way their leading scholars approach CSD, which renders what Leo writes unintelligible or impotent.

If those differences are not engaged critically, they will certainly continue to obstruct the reception of Pope Leo’s pontificate. Even if older intellectuals are unlikely to change their minds, critical engagement with their thought needs to reach the broader Catholic population if such work does not function as a rival magisterium. To avoid that, the meaning of the encyclical, and its relevance to the signs of our times need to be topics of ongoing discussion in the Church and broader society.

In previous posts, I have critically engaged the New Natural Law Theory and the radical critique of CSD advanced by their leading scholar, John Finnis. I have similarly engaged the Communio postliberals who offer a radical metaphysical critique of the whole sociopolitical orientation of the Second Vatican Council, including post conciliar CSD. In this post, I offered two brief examples of scholars in friendly dialogue with those two schools of thought, illustrating how they can be much more open to CSD during the pontificate of Leo. God willing, more such examples will emerge which will also bring those influenced by these schools of thought closer to the living tradition and teaching office of the Church.

In this post, I focused primarily on a recent work by the esteemed Thomist Russell Hittinger, who is among the most respected conservative American scholars of CSD. I explained why I think it is fair to describe his approach to CSD as exploring the topic from the perspective of Thomistic speculative philosophy, metaphysics, and natural law, informed by rare erudition in the early history of the modern magisterial Catholic social tradition. This largely speculative approach, however, is distinct from the more practical application of CSD to which social encyclicals like MH are ordered, and upon which Leo’s “pivotal choice” depends. Based on our public conversation during a conference panel, Hittinger seems to accept this distinction and to appreciate the way it helps to clarify his contribution.

I also briefly noted an influential essay published by a colleague of Hittinger who has been deeply influenced by his work, and by that of one of his former doctoral students. As I see it, her reading of CSD illustrates an approach that will not easily be reconciled with Leo’s helpful development of CSD and will not be conducive to fostering the “pivotal choice” he puts before the Church and human family. That is because it is too rooted in scholastic and nineteenth century writings and too influenced by commitments to neoliberal economics. Such factors result in something quite difficult to reconcile with what Leo calls a “theology of communion in history.”

For such reasons, I plan to continue my critical engagement with the thought of other especially conservative American interpreters of CSD.

[this post was revised for clarity on 6/8]

Consistent with Leo’s great concern for fostering peace, Chapter Five discusses the “The Culture of Power and the Civilization of Love.” This “Culture of Power” is the one that is already far advanced and threatens to dominate the future if we fail to make the decisive choice to build the civilization of love. It employs vast wealth and new technologies in what St. Augustine called the libido dominandi, the lust to dominate; as such, it marks fallen humanity and is directly contrary to the principles of CSD. The civilization of love, on the other hand, is both comprised of, and built by, those who make the pivotal choice to work for the common good. In this post, I will first sketch the main points of Magnifica Humanitas regarding this Culture of Power. Then I will draw upon the work of the University of Chicago’s Robert Pape to illustrate how the exemplification of this culture of power by the Trump Administration had led us into the “escalation trap” by attacking Iran, with no foreseeable exit.

Pope Leo XIV on The Culture of Power

In Chapter Five of Magnifica Humanitas, Leo writes that “we must now turn our attention to the yet more tragic issue of war,” and “the risk that technology, detached from ethics and responsibility, will render decisions about life and death more rapid and impersonal, and will present the use of force as an immediate and viable option” (no. 182). “The digital revolution is changing the nature of conflict,” with AI acting as an “accelerating factor.” It can both “enhance the defense and protection of civilians” and “lower the threshold for the use of force, shield[ing] people from responsibility and foster[ing] a culture in which the enemy is reduced to a statistic…” (no. 183).

The chapter is dedicated to comparing the “two opposing approaches … evoked through the biblical imagery in the Introduction.”

184 On the one hand, there is the temptation of constructing the Tower of Babel, relying on power and pride. On the other hand, patience is required in order to rebuild Jerusalem “piece by piece,” as in the time of Nehemiah, by safeguarding humanity and the common good.

185. If we examine global dynamics, we can recognize more clearly the spread of a culture of power characterized by polarization and violence. The modern Babel can be seen not only in the globalized technocratic paradigm, but also in the remote clash between opposing imperialisms, between powers that wish to preserve their supremacy, and those that aspire to seize that supremacy, resulting in a multiplicity of local conflicts. …

A technocratic, imperial power wishing to preserve supremacy? It would certainly seem that the United States is now exemplifying this modern Babel, with grave implications for the human family. Citing Pope Francis, Leo writes: “As the Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti reminded us, only this social love is capable of becoming a culture and a norm, and thereby of bringing about a stable international order, transforming mere armed coexistence into a community with a shared future” (no. 186).

188. In our time, a culture of power is taking hold, in which the availability of resources and the ability to dominate tend to dictate the agenda and criteria for decision-making. In this way, the common good of humanity is relegated to the background and the concrete tragedy of peoples at war is reduced to a secondary consideration in relation to strategic interests. This culture of power infiltrates society, changes relationships and behaviors, and grows by normalizing war, pursuing ever-greater military power, taking advantage of the crisis of multilateralism and fueling a false realism that insists that there is no alternative.

This is the illiberal right in international affairs, whose opposition to the integral and solidary Christian humanism of CSD could hardly be more evident. Now that this is so, the question is whether American Catholics can be brought to make Leo’s “pivotal choice” and take appropriate actions.

In Leo’s narrative, no. 189 recalls how CSD emerged out of the hard lessons of the Twentieth Century, while no. 190 discussed the “real paradigm shift” toward rearmament and “a troubling revival of war as an instrument of international politics,” along with a “a disconcerting loss of historical memory… in a context where fake news and the manipulation of narratives obscure the lessons that have been learned” (no. 191). On top of this, digital media result in “fragmented information environments and algorithms that reward conflict,” which “can magnify polarization and resentment, increase propaganda and make shared discernment more difficult” (no. 192).

Thus, war is not only fought, but also culturally conditioned through simplistic narratives, a friend-or-foe mentality, disinformation and fear. When historical memory fades and the ethical principles that protect civilians and the most vulnerable are weakened, it becomes easier to justify violence as necessary, inevitable or even “sanitized.” It is in this context that humanity is slipping into a violent culture of power, where peace no longer appears as a responsibility to be taken on, but as a fragile interval between conflicts. (no. 192)

Leo also discusses several dimensions of this culture of power. These include the growth of the “military-industrial complex” (no. 193) and the rapid expansion of “military arsenals” in “a new arms race” that is not just nuclear (no. 194) but “conventional” (no. 195). This coincides with a breakdown of diplomacy and new belligerents (no. 196), with the rapid expansion of weapons employing artificial intelligence (no. 197), which raises profound ethical questions (nos. 198-200). This is all occurring in the context of a “crisis of multilateralism” and corresponding rise of identity-based nationalisms (no. 201). Such nationalisms are “fueled by narratives in which each party portrays itself as a victim entitled to retribution,” reducing “complex issues into simplistic categories—me first,” “friend or foe,” “us or them” (no. 202). “In this context, peacebuilding has been relegated to a secondary role” (no. 203). Leo concludes his discussion of the Culture of Power with a long critique of a false “moral realism,” which assumes war is inevitable and eschews peacebuilding efforts (nos. 204-209).

Americans need not look far to see the contemporary exemplar of this Culture of Power, following after what is apparently now our aspirational peer in Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Both have fallen into the escalation trap from which there is no good way out.

By failing to receive the sociopolitical orientation of the Second Vatican Council and CSD, American Catholics have contributed significantly to the crisis now facing the nation and human family. Pope Leo rightly highlights the choice that is all the more urgent for us to make, namely to work to build a future worthy of the human family, guided by the principles of CSD, even if immense damage has already been done to the common good.

We can understand some of that harm with the help of Robert Pape.

Robert Pape on the Escalation Trap

Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago is among today’s most astute observers of not just the last several decades of tension between the United States and Iran, but also the logic of what he calls “The Escalation Trap” through which especially American presidents have stumbled into disastrous and unwinnable wars. Men like George W. Bush and Donald Trump have been tempted to do so because we have enjoyed the military capability to make tactical strikes that destroy military targets and infrastructure, or even decapitate regimes. What such presidents have failed to do, however, is to have credible plans in place to realize strategic objectives, such as establishing better governance, peace, and stability.

Pape illustrates the escalation trap with graphics such as the following.

Pape’s latest post is not paywalled and summarizes his assessment of our current place in the escalation trap, which the Trump Administration stumbled into even if foreign policy experts had known for decades that attacking a nation that bordered the Strait of Hormuz would be a military, geopolitical, and economic disaster. Thus I post it below with a link to his substack.

The Trap Gets Worse

Five Questions from Sunday’s Briefing That Reveal Why Trump Cannot Escape the Escalation Trap—and Why Instability Now Favors Tehran

Prof Robert Pape

Jun 01, 2026

For the past ninety days, Washington has been obsessed with a single question: will President Trump and Iran reach a nuclear agreement?

That is no longer the most important question.

The more important question is whether instability itself is becoming the new normal – and worse a source of power that benefits Iran.

That possibility sat at the center of Sunday’s live briefing and represents the next stage of the Escalation Trap framework I have been developing throughout this war.

The Escalation Trap occurs when a state wins tactical victories while its strategic position deteriorates. Leaders then face a dilemma. They can accept the political consequences of strategic failure, or they can escalate further in the hope that victory remains just over the horizon.

President Trump achieved genuine tactical successes during the opening phase of the war. Iranian facilities were struck. Senior leaders were killed. Important military assets were damaged.

Yet Iran still possesses its nuclear materials. Iran still retains missiles and drones. Most importantly, Iran emerged from the bombing campaign with increased leverage over the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important energy chokepoint.

The danger is not that America is losing battles.

The danger is that America is winning battles while becoming strategically weaker.

At the same time, the world economy continues moving toward an inventory cliff. With Hormuz disrupted, global energy markets have increasingly relied on drawing down finite oil inventories. Most professional estimates place the point of serious stress sometime between mid-July and early August. Once inventories approach operational minimums, markets become extraordinarily sensitive to disruption.

Yet neither side has capitulated, producing the negotiating deadlock we see today.

That brings us to the next step in the argument.

If instability generates bargaining leverage, weakens rival coalitions, and shifts regional alignments, then instability itself becomes a strategic resource.

Iran may not simply be enduring instability.

Iran may increasingly be benefiting from it.

That possibility generated five outstanding questions during Sunday’s discussion.

1. Does Instability Create a Fourth Center of World Power—or a More Fragmented World?

My answer remains largely unchanged from before the war.

Iran is still on track to emerge as a fourth center of world power.

What has changed is my understanding of the pathway.

Historically, rising powers accumulated influence through economic growth, military expansion, or territorial conquest. Iran appears to be pursuing something different. Instead of controlling territory, it is increasingly shaping the strategic environment around it.

The evidence is already visible across the Gulf. Since the war began, several Gulf governments that historically depended on Washington have quietly encouraged accommodation rather than confrontation. Regional leaders have openly expressed doubts about America’s ability to provide long-term security while simultaneously pushing for negotiations.

This is exactly what realism predicts.

When confidence in the security guarantor declines, smaller states begin hedging.

Iran does not need to control the Gulf.

It increasingly benefits from the world’s fear that it might.

Its long-term objective is not conquering neighboring states. Its objective is becoming the dominant strategic actor in the Gulf while gradually weakening the American-led security architecture that has existed since the end of the Cold War.

The Age of Instability is not replacing power politics.

It is creating a new pathway through which power can be accumulated.

2. If Instability Helps Iran, Why Would Iran Ever Want Lower Oil Prices?

The short answer is that it probably does not.

Before the war, roughly 20 million barrels of oil passed through Hormuz every day, representing about one-fifth of global consumption and roughly one-quarter of all seaborne oil trade. No other maritime chokepoint has comparable significance.

The key issue is not simply oil flows.

The key issue is uncertainty.

History repeatedly shows that markets recover far more slowly than diplomats sign agreements. Insurers, shipowners, and traders often remain cautious long after formal understandings are reached. Confidence returns gradually. Uncertainty lingers.

That dynamic benefits Iran.

Iran certainly bears economic costs from prolonged instability. But those costs must be compared against the leverage instability creates.

Higher oil prices increase pressure on Washington.

Higher oil prices increase pressure on America’s Gulf partners.

Higher oil prices increase pressure on Europe and the broader global economy.

Most importantly, they increase pressure on negotiators to make concessions that would have been politically impossible under normal conditions.

Washington appears focused on uranium.

Tehran increasingly appears focused on leverage.

Those are not the same thing.

3. Is There Still a “Declare Victory and Leave” Option?

I do not believe so.

Many observers assume President Trump could simply announce success, sign an agreement, and move on.

That would require something much larger than a diplomatic declaration.

It would require a genuine American withdrawal from the Gulf.

Naval deployments would need to shrink dramatically.

Regional military forces would need to be reduced.

The network of American bases throughout the region would need to be scaled back.

Anything less would preserve the confrontation under a different label.

The United States has spent decades building military infrastructure in the Gulf because the region sits astride the world’s most important energy chokepoint. Great powers do not voluntarily abandon strategic positions of that magnitude.

Historically, major withdrawals occur only after prolonged military, political, or economic pressure. The Soviet retreat from Eastern Europe remains one of the clearest modern examples.

The United States is nowhere near that point.

Which means the incentives pushing Washington back toward involvement remain largely intact.

4. What Could Trigger the Next Escalation?

The single most dangerous trigger is a summer gasoline crisis.

Many analysts assume economic pain automatically generates pressure for restraint.

History often shows the opposite.

After 9/11, Americans did not demand restraint.

They demanded action.

When populations experience sustained pain, leaders frequently face pressure to respond rather than retreat.

If gasoline prices rise sharply during July or August, many voters may not conclude that America should disengage from the conflict.

They may conclude that America should do more.

That possibility is precisely why I continue watching oil inventories so closely.

The danger is not simply economic disruption.

The danger is the political reaction to economic disruption.

5. Why Can Negotiations Increase Pressure for Military Action?

Many people assume negotiations and military action are opposites.

Historically, they often occur simultaneously.

The United States negotiated while continuing military operations in Vietnam.

Diplomacy and coercion overlapped during Bosnia.

They overlapped again during Kosovo.

During the Kosovo campaign, NATO negotiated continuously while simultaneously expanding its air campaign over seventy-eight days in an effort to improve its bargaining position.

This should not surprise us.

Negotiations rarely eliminate underlying conflicts of interest. They simply create another arena in which those conflicts are contested.

When leaders believe bargaining leverage is shifting against them, the temptation to use military force often increases rather than decreases.

That is why I discussed the categories of targets particularly closely. As long as those targets exist, opportunities for renewed escalation remain.

This is one reason I increasingly expect the next thirty days to follow a pattern that receives remarkably little attention in current commentary:

Bombing while talking – a continuation and worse of the US-Iran exchange of attacks over the weekend.

The next escalation may occur because negotiations fail.

It may also occur because negotiations are proceeding too slowly for one side’s political needs.

The Bigger Point

All five questions point toward the same conclusion. They all build on my detailed presentation of why to expect over the next 30 days in the live briefing, where I laid out not just the bottom lines but the mechanisms of instability favoring Iran, specific near-term implications and concrete indicators of what to track to see if these expectations are occurring. The full video is of course available to paid subscribers.

The central issue is no longer whether escalation occurs.

The central issue is whether instability becomes self-sustaining.

If instability continues generating leverage, shaping negotiations, fracturing alliances, influencing energy markets, and creating recurring opportunities for military action, then the future of the Iran war will not be defined primarily by whether negotiations succeed or fail.

It will be defined by whether instability itself becomes durable.

If that happens, the most important legacy of this war will not be the bombing campaign, the negotiations, or even the confrontation over Iran’s nuclear program.

It will be the emergence of a new strategic reality.

A world in which instability itself becomes the new normal -- because it is increasingly a source of geopolitical power.

And if that world emerges, the Age of Instability will outlast the war that created it.

As Pope Leo XIV warns us, war is back in vogue, and those representing what he calls “the culture of power” have destabilized nations, the international order, and the international security architecture. Catholics and everyone of good will need to awaken to the situation we face and become part of the solution.

[Post updated with some stylistic revisions on 6/3/2026]

Now we need to receive the encyclical, which will involve much more than a quick read because it is calling Catholics and everyone of good will to join in the shared task of building an earthly city where God and the human family can walk together in friendship.

[Image via screen grab from EWTN UK]

In this post, I will elucidate the understanding of Catholic Social Doctrine (CSD) that Pope Leo XIV presents in MH, which reflects the organic and dynamic development of the tradition in response to the great challenges the Church encounters in history, and in fidelity to the gospel.

In a follow-up post, I will summarize how some influential schools of socially conservative American Catholics approach CSD much differently. In my opinion, the degree to which the encyclical is received in the United States—and the extent to which American Catholics can contribute to building a future worthy of the human family—will turn significantly on whether these influential schools of Catholics can come to support CSD as it is presented in Magnifica Humanitas.

A Dynamic Approach to CSD Faithful to the Gospel

After an introduction (nos. 1-16) that sketches the pivotal choice facing humanity and the Christian calling to build communion and foster the common good, Chapter One (nos. 17-45) presents a synthetic account of how CSD “has taken shape in the recent Papal Magisterium and in the Second Vatican Council.” It does so under the heading of “A Dynamic Approach Faithful to the Gospel.” This dynamic approach follows from an understanding of the Church journeying through human history. It highlights the “dynamic character” of CSD, which develops in response to the “new things” (res novae) of every era (no. 17). In concrete terms, this results in deepening insights into the principles of CSD such as the dignity of every human person, justice, the common good, the solidarity of the human family, and the universal destination of goods, among others.

Leo’s account of CSD builds upon the Second Vatican Council’s understanding that the Church “walks alongside humanity” (no. 18), “journeying through human history” (nos. 19-22) and “present in the world as a sign of unity…,” carrying out her “vocation of listening, dialogue, and service.” The Church is not, therefore, “a stranger to the forces shaping society” but instead embraces “a responsibility for the way in which social relations are built” leading to active participation in “the processes by which society grows and is organized,” offering “her own contribution to the creation of a more just and fraternal society” (no. 19).

As I will discuss in my follow-up post, the alternative approaches to CSD advanced by American conservatives do not present it as such a tradition of practical action by Catholics working for justice in the world. Instead, they focus on some combination of (i) an intellectual discipline rooted in scholastic metaphysics, (ii) the adherence to negative moral norms and opposition to intrinsic evils in sociopolitical life, and (iii) the promotion of a radical critique of the “liberal” separation of Church and state and of the “liberal” culture of modern societies such as the United States.

Magnifica Humanitas, on the contrary, explains how the “Church’s vocation and duty to accompany humanity in the specifics of history” builds on Vatican II’s recognition of “the autonomy of earthly affairs.” This follows from the fact that “created things and societies themselves enjoy their own laws and values… character and order.” Because “creation bears the imprint of an original goodness,” the Church is active in the world to “interpret reality in all its depth.” This enables Christians to support “choices that promote the dignity of every person, the cohesion of communities and the good of all.” Christians stand “alongside the world” so that “the promise of justice and peace …may come to fruition…” (no. 20).

It seems noteworthy that the encyclical speaks of “Christians” and the Church as opposed to “clergy” and “laity,” even when citing the Second Vatican Council’s Apostolicam Actuositatem: Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity. The teachings of this underappreciated text integrate harmoniously with the full corpus of conciliar documents, especially chapter 4 of Lumen gentium: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. These teachings on the laity highlight their incarnational mission to act as leaven in the world, informing their spheres of influence in the temporal order with the spirit of the gospel, guided—of course—by CSD. Within a pontificate focused on fostering a synodal Church of believers walking with Jesus on the path of discipleship and mission, the choice to use the biblical language of “Christians” and “the Church” in MH might be understood as fostering a Church united in mission, with each of us doing our proper parts.

Against contemporary neo-integralists and postliberals, Magnifica Humanitas affirms “the distinction between ecclesiastical and political spheres of competence” (no. 22). It does so following the council’s understanding of the relation between the Church and world, affirming “the distinction between the ecclesial community and the political community, emphasizing that each must operate with full autonomy.” “The Church “acknowledges the value of social and political realities” such as “civil society and public institutions,” acknowledging “the responsibility that civil institutions hold within society,” and supporting “everything that fosters the wellbeing of individuals and strengthens the fabric of society” (no. 21). This recognition of the centrality of institutions reminds us of that emphasis in the teaching of Pope Benedict VI, and in the best related secular scholarship. The People of God participate in society not merely as social activists, but with “spiritual discernment” recognizing “in cultural and social transformations both the signs of the presence of Christ… and those aberrations that obscure his face.” (no. 22). Like the Eternal Word who took on flesh, the Church lives in history within the human family.

History is thus understood as one of the places in which the Church allows herself to be taught by the Spirit about the humanizing power of the Gospel; and she learns to develop her own teaching at the service of the dignity of every person and the good of all peoples. (22)

Magnifica Humanitas’s understanding of CSD is further elucidated in the next subsection (nos. 23-24), which treats of how the living out of CSD brings “the wisdom of the word of God in dialogue with the human sciences.” It encourages a humanistic appreciation of “all who sincerely seek ‘truth, goodness and beauty’ as companions on the journey, and considers them …as ‘precious allies’” (no. 23). This echoes the way the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church presents its “integral and solidary humanism” as including a friendly dialogue with all branches of knowledge (nos. 76-78). From this fruitful dialogue, moreover, “the Church progressively developed her Social Doctrine.” This doctrine gives rise not, however, to “technical solutions” but to a patrimony of principles “that guide the interpretation of events and sustain an evangelical understanding of historical processes and the choices these entail” (no. 24). Notice how CSD is not merely an intellectual discipline but a practical one ordered toward discerning the signs of the times and how to respond to them out of love for God and neighbor.

The following subsection (nos. 25-7), which presents CSD “as a shared discernment,” may be difficult for scholastic philosophers to appreciate. It will make more sense, however, to those who have studied the long history of social Catholicism, and participated in it. This “shared discernment” occurs through the experience of a Church that is present in the world in different times and places, with no monopoly on truth, but open to it.

The subsection concludes.

…when the dignity of our brothers and sisters is violated, when politics fails to address the tragedies of humanity, when the economy turns against the person or science oversteps the limits of its competence, [22] the Church—together with other Christian denominations and believers of other religions—must make her voice heard, not in order to dominate, but to promote communion. Understood in this way, Social Doctrine becomes a theology of communion in history, a history in which the Word made flesh continues to be present through dialogue, memory and prophecy. (no. 27)

This citation begins with the important recognition that CSD becomes most relevant at times in human history when “politics fails to address the tragedies of humanity, when the economy turns against the person or science oversteps the limits of its competence.” These times have included especially the industrial revolution (Rerum novarum, 1891), the Great Depression (Quadragesimo Anno, 1931), the Cold War & Missile Crisis (Pacem in Terris: Peace on Earth, 1963), the postwar era of human rights, decolonialization, and development (the Second Vatican Council), the fall of the Soviet Union (Centesimus Annus, 1991), the Great Recession (Caritas in veritate: Integral Human Development in Charity and Truth, 2009); the climate crisis (Laudato Si: Care for Our Common Home, 2017), and the accelerating “polycrisis” after the pandemic (Fratelli tutti: On Fraternity and Social Friendship, 2020).

While all of these historical moments have had their own urgency, the one we now face can be seen as the culmination of all the others, calling upon Christians as at no other time in human history. For this reason, Pope Leo XIV highlights the “pivotal choice” facing the human family, of whether to let a small number of wealthy and powerful race toward a new Babel and dystopian future, or whether the human family comes together in solidarity “to build the city in which God and humanity dwell together” in friendship and peace. To meet this challenge, Leo introduces the idea of CSD as “a theology of communion in history.” Against philosophical reductions or distortions of CSD advocated by conservative Americans, this formulation emphasizes the theological nature of CSD, its orientation toward the “sacramental”—in the sense of unifying—mission of the Church (LG, no. 1), and its grounding in history based on the incarnational nature of Catholicism as the continuation in space and time of the Word taking on human flesh.

In a subsequent post, I will discuss three schools of thought in the United States that influence Catholics to look upon CSD much differently than what Pope Leo IV introduces in Chapter One of Magnifica Humanitas.

[This post was updated on 6/3 with a few stylistic revisions.]

This text is an excerpt from Paul VI’s Letter to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) dated October 11, 1976. For our purposes, the letter is especially noteworthy for at least three reasons. First, Paul VI defends the Second Vatican Council against traditionalist dissent from it. Similarly, Pope Leo XIV is in the early stages of an ongoing catechesis focused on fostering the long-delayed reception of the council, a reception that was initially hindered by a group led by Lefebvre, and continues to be obstructed by those following in his footsteps.

Second, Paul VI was struggling with the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre had just ordained seminarians against his direct order. Paul treated this as as an act of grave disobedience rather than one of formal schism, which resulted in a suspension a divinis rather than an excommunication. This theoretically forbade Lefebvre from exercising priestly or episcopal functions, but he ignored the suspension and continued to lead his seminary, celebrate the sacraments, and spread his divisive movement across the globe. After showing great patience over a decade, Pope St. John Paul II formally declared that Lefebvre had excommunicated himself by ordaining 4 other bishops in 1988. Pope Benedict XVI would lift the excommunications in 2009. Now Pope Leo XIV is struggling to keep the same SSPX from triggering an automatic excommunication by ordaining bishops.

Third, Paul VI’s letter includes a strong critique of the traditionalist Lefebvre’s “warped” ecclesiology and a “distorted,” “rigid,” “dead” and “static” understanding of tradition. He does so through recourse to the council’s ecclesiology and understanding of the living tradition and living teaching office of the Church. I think these emphases have great contemporary relevance regarding the reception of Pope Leo XIV’s new social encyclical Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence.

The contemporary relevance is that Catholic Social Doctrine (CSD) is inseparable from Catholic ecclesiology (ordered to manifesting the Church as a sacrament of unity). It is also a reflection of the living tradition and taught through the living teaching office of the Church, not some bold philosophers as I have been discussing. I would propose, however, that the great challenge regarding the reception of the Second Vatican Council and corresponding CSD is that a range of “social conservatives” in especially the United States have opposed, resisted, or redefined this social doctrine, or at least approached the topic from a perspective yielding something different.

In response to this situation, the first chapter of Magnifica Humanitas is a long explanation of the nature of CSD as inseparable from Catholic ecclesiology, and the fruit of the living tradition as understood with the help of the living magisterium in history. This approach to CSD, in my opinion, will present a significant challenge to different schools of especially “socially conservative” Catholic thought in the United States, as I will discuss in a subsequent post.

Of course, I would hope that all Catholics would sympathetically receive the teaching of the magisterium. The example of Lefebvre and the last several decades of CSD, however, have instead shown that the authentic social teaching of the Church and voice of the teaching office has often been rejected by influential Catholics, and / or drowned out by rival magisteria, often funded by the wealthy to the detriment of the vulnerable.

In what follows, I include the extended excerpt from Paul VI’s letter to Lefebvre, which is taken from an appendix of an article published by Jared Wicks, SJ [bold emphases added].

NOTE: In June 1976 Abp. Lefebvre disobeyed Pope Paul VI’s order not to ordain seminarians of the Econe Seminary to the priesthood. Nonetheless, the Pope received the Archbishop for a lengthy conversation at Castel Gandolfo on September 11, 1974. A month later, on the anniversary of the opening of Vatican II, Paul VI responded with a letter composed in Latin. After explaining that the Archbishop is fomenting rebellion, the Pope clarified the nature of tradition, based on Dei verbum, Ch. II, in order to correct the Archbishop’s thinking. He went on to defend the decrees of Vatican II against charges of departing from the fundamental tradition of the Church. The Letter’s full text is given in English translation in Origins 6 (December 16, 1976), 416–20.

Let us come now to the more precise requests which you formulated during the audience of September 11. You would like to see recognized the right to celebrate Mass in various places of worship according to the Tridentine rite. You wish also to continue to train candidates for the priesthood according to your criteria, “as before the Council,” in seminaries apart, as at Econe. But behind these questions and other similar ones, which we shall examine later on in detail, it is truly necessary to see the intricacy of the problem: and the problem is theological. For these questions have become concrete ways of expressing an ecclesiology that is warped in essential points (Illae enim quaestiones evaserunt modi certi atque concreti, ut aiunt, declarandi ecclesiologiam, quae in capitibus praecipuis falsa esse cognoscitur).

What is indeed at issue is the question - which must truly be called fundamental - of your clearly proclaimed refusal to recognize in its whole, the authority of the Second Vatican Council and that of the Pope.

Of course, Lefebvre saw himself as defending God’s truth. I think there is a rough analogy between his behavior and that of a range of contemporary Catholics who fail to appreciate—or reject—the magisterium’s understanding of CSD and the sociopolitical orientation of the Second Vatican Council. They too think they are right and are serving God. Returning to Paul VI’s letter.

This refusal is accompanied by an action that is oriented towards propagating and organizing what must indeed, unfortunately, be called a rebellion. This is the essential issue, and it is truly untenable. . . .

Catholics advancing different sociopolitical agendas typically do so by propagating and organizing their views, which is understandable. There is a fine line to be discerned between legitimate scholarly work and attempts to effectively overthrow the discernment of an ecumenical council and of several popes. At what point, and in what ways, do we call-out well-meaning and prolific Catholics who are obviously trying to advance an alternative to the settled discernment of the fathers of an ecumenical council and several popes?

You say that you are subject to the church and faithful to tradition by the sole fact that you obey certain norms of the past that were decreed by the predecessor of him to whom God has today conferred the powers given to Peter. That is to say, on this point also, the concept of “tradition” that you invoke is distorted (traditionis notio, ad quam provocas, est vitiata).

Tradition is not a rigid and dead notion, a fact of a certain static sort which at a given moment of history blocks the life of this active organism which is the church, that is, the mystical body of Christ (Traditio enim non est quiddam quasi immotum et mortuum, vel factum quoddam staticum, ut appenlant, quod certo ac definito tempore historico vitam instituti organici et actione praediti, quod est Ecclesia seu Corpus Christi mysticum, coerceat). It is up to the Pope and to councils to exercise judgment in order to discern in the traditions of the church that which cannot be renounced without infidelity to the Lord and to the Holy Spirit—the deposit of faith—and that which, on the contrary, can and must be adapted to facilitate the prayer and the mission of the church throughout a variety of times and places, in order better to translate the divine message into the language of today and better to communicate it, without an unwarranted surrender of principles.

The magisterium understands CSD as part of the tradition about which it is “up to the Pope and the councils to exercise judgment in order to discern the traditions…” This is why it will be important to study carefully exactly what are the key characteristics of how the magisterium understands CSD and critically scrutinize the work of scholars who attack it or advance as Catholic rivals to CSD. Paul continues.

Hence tradition is inseparable from the living magisterium of the church, just as it is inseparable from sacred scripture. “Sacred tradition, sacred scripture and the magisterium of the church . . . are so linked and joined together that one of these realities cannot exist without the others, and that all of them together, each in its own way, effectively contribute under the action of the Holy Spirit to the salvation of souls” (Dei Verbum, 10).

With the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, the popes and the ecumenical councils have acted in this common way. And it is precisely this that the Second Vatican Council did. Nothing that was decreed in this Council, or in the reforms that we enacted in order to put the Council into effect, is opposed to what the 2,000-year-old tradition of the church considers as fundamental and immutable. We are the guarantor of this, not in virtue of our personal qualities but in virtue of the charge which the Lord has conferred upon us as legitimate successor of Peter, and in virtue of the special assistance that He has promised to us as well as to Peter: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail” (Lk. 22:32). The universal episcopate is guarantor with us of this.

Regarding the social doctrine of the Church, the norm for several decades has been for especially conservative American Catholics to criticize that tradition in light of their own ideological and partisan interests as opposed to trying to read it as part of the ongoing discernment of the magisterium. Conservatives would object that liberals do not recognize the preeminence of abortion, but that is a question I have treated in other posts. Returning to Paul VI.

Again, you cannot appeal to the distinction between what is dogmatic and what is pastoral to accept certain texts of this Council and to refuse others. Indeed, not everything in the Council requires an assent of the same nature: only what is affirmed by definitive acts as an object of faith or as a truth related to faith requires an assent of faith. But the rest also forms part of the solemn magisterium of the church to which each member of the faithful owes a confident acceptance and a sincere application.

You say moreover that you do not always see how to reconcile certain texts of the Council, or certain dispositions which we have enacted in order to put the Council into practice, with the wholesome tradition of the church and in particular with the Council of Trent and the affirmations of our predecessors. These are, for example: the responsibility of the college of bishops united with the sovereign pontiff, the new Ordo Missae, ecumenism, religious freedom, the attitude of dialogue, evangelization in the modem world. . . . It is not the place, in this letter, to deal with each of these problems. The precise tenor of the documents, with the totality of its nuances and its context, the authorized explanations, the detailed and objective commentaries which have been made, are of such a nature to enable you to overcome these personal difficulties. Absolutely secure counsellors, theologians and spiritual directors would be able to help you even more, with God’s enlightenment, and we are ready to facilitate this fraternal assistance for you.

But how can an interior personal difficulty—a spiritual drama which we respect—permit you to set yourself up publicly as a judge of what has been legitimately adopted, practically with unanimity, and knowingly to lead a portion of the faithful into your refusal?

It seems accurate to observe that conservative American Catholics—of which I was once numbered—have often set themselves up “publically as a judge” of CSD, since at least the famous quip of “Mater Si, Magistra No” about St. John XIII’s Mater et Magistra: Christianity and Social Progress (1961) in the National Review under Catholic William F. Buckley, Jr.

If justifications are useful in order to facilitate intellectual acceptance – and we hope that the troubled or reticent faithful will have the wisdom, honesty and humanity to accept those justifications that are widely placed at their disposal – they are not in themselves necessary for the assent of obedience that is due to the Ecumenical Council and to the decisions of the Pope. It is the ecclesial sense that is at issue.

This “ecclesial sense” is something I have frequently emphasized. This concerns not just ecclesiology but our sense of identity. Rather than identifying adequately as “in Christ,” or Catholic, or as a person of the Church (vir ecclesiasticus), I think people have gone astray as identifying too much as “conservative,” or “social conservative,” Republican, or postliberal, or Thomist, or Communio, or New Natural Law Theory, or a reader of First Things, or liberal. Paul VI continues.

In effect you and those who are following you are endeavoring to come to a standstill at a given moment in the life of the church. By the same token you refuse to accept the living church, which is the church that has always been: you break with the church’s legitimate pastors and scorn the legitimate exercise of their charge.

In summary, I think St. Paul VI’s rebuke of Lefebvre can serve as a timely examination of conscience for Catholics as we approach Leo XIV’s Magnifica Humanitas. If we don’t approach the encyclical with thanksgiving for another contribution of the magisterium to discerning both the signs of the times and how we might respond to them, why not? Given the urgency of our moment in history, Catholics will need to identify and overcome obstacles to following the encouragement of this text to doing our part in building a world marked by justice, fraternity, and social friendship.

[The same evening I published this, I noticed that Michael Lewis had posted a translation of the whole letter at WherePeterIs, which nicely complements my post. St Paul VI must be praying for us!]