WWW Mere Comments





« Harry Potter's Bookshelf | Main | ECUSA Breaking (No) News »

July 14, 2009

Allan Carlson on Caritas in Veritate

Here is a thoughtful critique of the Pope's encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, from the Lutheran family scholar and friend), Allan Carlson. He focuses on just "one matter":

the encyclical letter is ambiguous about a long-standing principle of Catholic social justice: the principle of a "family wage" resting on distinctive social and economic roles for men and women. . . .
In "Quadragesimo Anno" (1931), Pope Pius XI termed it "an intolerable abuse [...] to be abolished at all costs" for mothers to be forced by their husbands' low wage to work outside the home, thereby neglecting their natural responsibilities, "especially the training of children." He added that "[e]very effort must therefore be made" to insure "that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately." He rendered "merited praise to all, who with a wise and useful purpose, have tried and tested various ways of adjusting the pay for work to family burdens."
 
Pope John Paul II's "Laborem Exercens" (1981) avoided direct discussion of complementary male and female roles, saying instead that the just wage for an adult responsible for a family is that "which will suffice for establishing and properly maintaining a family." However, the encyclical praised social policy measures such as allowances or grants to mothers devoting themselves exclusively to their children.

And in his apostolic constitution "Familiaris Consortio," also issued in 1981, John Paul II clearly stated that "society must be structured in such a way that wives and mothers are not in practice compelled to work outside the home, and that their families can live and prosper in a dignified way even when they themselves devote themselves full time to their own family."
 
In contrast, "Caritas in Veritate" seems to assume that mothers will be in the workforce (No. 63). It makes no mention of the special work of women in the home, while acknowledging "the right to a just wage and to the personal security of the worker and his or her family." In discussing "decency" in regard to work, Benedict XVI describes "work that is freely chosen, effectively associating workers, both men and women, with the development of their community; work that enables the worker to be respected and free from any form of discrimination; work that makes it possible for families to meet their needs and provide schooling for their children, without the children themselves being forced into labor." Earlier Popes would have added "and mothers" to that last phrase; Benedict XVI seems to have quietly accepted the two-earner or two-career family as the new social and economic norm.
 
This may be a case of simply acknowledging current reality. In the developed world (and starting in the late 1960s), capitalism's hunger for the labor of adult women broke though the legal and cultural barriers created over the prior 100 years to protect the mother in the home. In the developing world, women's labor is now simply assumed. To progressive eyes, the mother in the home is at best an antiquarian curiosity.
 
However, this potential shift raises troubling questions about the nature of the Catholic family. Has the rich concept of complementarity -- men and women being equal in dignity but different in function -- been deemphasized? Has the Christian Democratic defense of the full-time mother subtly given way to the Swedish model of gender equality in the workplace?

Benedict XVI has spoken about the dignity of motherhood in many other settings, but the silence in this encyclical concerning familial roles has created an ambiguity that could undermine the very institution the Pope is strenuously trying to protect. Perhaps a future apostolic letter will clarify these points.

Posted by James M. Kushiner at 11:58 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef01157203c07f970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Allan Carlson on Caritas in Veritate:

Comments

Thank you for highlighting Mr Carlson's astute observation. Pope Benedict has introduced an integrating language of love and knowing in this social encyclical. It is a philosophical depth which we have come to associate with the "life encyclicals". These currents deserve reflection and response. They provide a basis to unite in Catholic dioceses the justice and peace committees with the prolife groups, which is a nagging incoherence in the practical life of our parishes.
Mr Carlson's penetrating historical critique of the desexualization of Catholic social teaching is withering. The continuing inability of Catholic bishops and priests to speak authoritatively to Catholic men and women distinctively as men and women is another triumph of the feminist implant in striking male authorities as mute as Zacchary. The psychological lavenderization of the clergy and the joyless feminism of church employees has emasculated the voices and language of both the orthodox and the dissenters. A language of life eventually must be fully sexual - it cannot be neutered. I am not sure if Pope Benedict will ever speak in this needed paternal voice. His book on "The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood" says nothing... Nothing about brotherhood in family or church as a fraternity of MEN. A million words and tracts about the theology of the body and conjugal love and not a word about the anthropology of PUBLIC masculine agreement in either church or economic life. The papal statements of the last two hundred years have not been helpful in understanding the duty bound communal forms of Christian laymen most notably in the nation. She has always been able to defend motherhood, however. Now the muteness extends to the mother. Mr Carlson is the only commentator I have seen who understood this glaring deficiency. I think we must admit our present pontiff is particularly weak in masculine traits and loyalties. His tie to Germany is more linguistic and intellectual than the ardent Pole - Pope John Paul - who was quite poetic about Polish MILITARY history.
We must focus on the deep waters where Pope Benedict swims and in some different venue than "response to the encyclical" fully address the desexualization question.
We might phrase it as such. Why are the bishops of the Catholic Church fully ordered upon the rock of sacramental sex roles so much like Peter apologizing and retreating before the maidservant in the courtyard whenever the modern feminist interrogates him about the roles of men as men and women as women in a justly ordered political and economic life. Can we really coherently believe that while the Church's sacramental life is ordered on different sex roles that the social life of the laity, and nations should be organized around the genderless lifeless androgenous autonomy sought by feminists and markets alike. For now (Mr Carlson acutely notes) it seems that is where we have been left.


Posted by: Dr Pence | Jul 14, 2009 8:58:46 PM

Dr. Pence: "I think we must admit our present pontiff is particularly weak in masculine traits and loyalties."

A rather striking admission.

Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Jul 14, 2009 10:10:38 PM

In response to Dr. Pence:

Dr. Carlson himself offers a possible explanation:

This may be a case of simply acknowledging current reality. In the developed world (and starting in the late 1960s), capitalism's hunger for the labor of adult women broke though the legal and cultural barriers created over the prior 100 years to protect the mother in the home. In the developing world, women's labor is now simply assumed. To progressive eyes, the mother in the home is at best an antiquarian curiosity.

What secular government is going to turn its back on "progress"?

Posted by: pb | Jul 15, 2009 5:23:47 AM

The fact is that our much admired prosperity over the last half-century is an illusion. We purchased bigger homes, fancier cars, exotic vacations, and short-lived electronic devises through putting our wives to work outside the home, contracepting and aborting a large part of the next generation out of existence, outsourcing the rearing of those few whom we did allow to have life to others who we didn't even know until we handed are children over to them, giving less to our churches and charities, saving less, and borrowing more. And now we are trying to get the party going again by cranking up the printing press at the Treasury, pushing interest rates to zero to get people to start going deeper into debt again, and running federal deficits of more than a trillion dollars a year. Even if we averted disaster this time (of which I am skeptical), the game is just about up. Your reap what you sow and harvest time is upon us.

Posted by: GL | Jul 15, 2009 6:33:20 AM

In the developed world (and starting in the late 1960s), capitalism's hunger for the labor of adult women broke though the legal and cultural barriers

In the light of GL's most excellent following comment, would it be fair to say that Pandora's Pill played a part? Viva la revolucion!...not.

Posted by: bonobo | Jul 15, 2009 9:03:12 AM

Post a comment