 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
| 69. COMMUNISM AND CAIHOLICtSM \ Actually, there are serious disagreements which, in the Opinion of this in- vestigator, have hampered the work of teaching Catholic principles in this country. During the Thirties, for example; there were at least three active and diverse schools; those who followed Msgr, Ryan; the followers of Father Cougiilin; and the Catholic Worker group. Each school felt that it was basically right and many followers at least felt that the programs were mutually exclusive. The result was confusion among the rank-and file of Catholics and often among priests and sisters. We were getting nowhere be*« cause we were moving in three directions at onte. These currents are still moving today, with different individuals as leaders. In addition there has come on the scene a Catholic Economic Association, There have been conflicts between individuals in this association and individuals who concentrate on labor, social legislation, and the teaching of the social Encyclicals* Some individuals have accused the Association of being indifferent to the Ency~ clicals, while some members of the Association aacuse the welfare group of perverting the Encyclicals by applying unsound economic principles to them,' All this is in the theory field. Just to make the confusion more confusing, some persons in the social action field think that some theorists tend to idealize labor and social reformers in government and that they are not sufficiently aware of abuses in these fields. All of which seems to indicate the need for more unity gotten through consultation aad exchange of views, without sacrificing legitimate freedom of thought. Hence the following proposal. It is proposed that as a measure of obtaining greater unity, a Catholic Social Manifesto be prepared under the auspices of the Department of Social Action and in co-operation with the Catholic Economic Association, with independent exrperts also consulted, This committee would try to reach an* area of agreement as to: 1) What are Catholic principles in the social and economic field, using Papal encyclicals and authorized theologians as the basis of formulation; 2) what are universally agreed upon as logical con*- elusions frtm and applications of these principles; 3) what applications are controverted in the light of legitimate differences in economic theoryf 4) what proposals often labeled "Catholic" are actually only Catholic in their objective, but strictly secular and economic in themselves; 5) under general CatioLic principles what are legitimate fields of specialization (Fr* Furfey and personal sanctification; Frs^ Miller and Ward, and the co- operatives, etc,). While the final draft would be prepared by the Committee, it would be circulated more widely and such Catholic authorities as agree could associate themselves with the signing. The ultimate document would be a small book, such as the Manifesto on Rural.Life prepared by a Committee of bishops and priests* The object of this would not be to stifle independent thought, but rather to aid it by putting different schools and levels of thought in their proper perspective. This is particularly important for the school program to be presented below. Unfortunately today in .many schools and seminaries, narrow, specialized views are presented as the Catholic social program* Social Education of Catholic Adults, Most lay Catholics have had no training in Catholic social principles. Indeed, many are scandalized when the subject is brought up, as if some new doctrine had been introduced. Many still have the notion, brought in after the Reformation, that religion has no right to pronounce on such matters. Without realizing it, they have accepted the double standard of morality, with one code for private life, and a much laxer code for public and business affairs* |