The Popular and Church Perspectives on Work
by
Cynthia Toolin, PhD


Dr. Toolin is a professor of dogmatic and moral theology at Holy Apostles College and Seminary where she has worked since 1997. She is married, with two married daughters and six grandchildren. She divides her time between Connecticut and Vermont.

Note from Dr. Chervin: Before reading and teaching John Paul II’s encyclical on work, I was like most people, thinking of work primarily as a result of the Fall.  I thought that work I enjoyed was simply a gift of God, not part of the basics of human nature even before the Fall. Certainly our twenty-first century Catholic synthesis needs to help us to appreciate that the crosses of work do not negate its basic goodness.  In a way, people understand that better in our times because of the scourge of unemployment. Instead of complaining about work, many are praying to find it. Unfortunately, on the other side, we find more people who are characterized as work-aholics. What a balanced view we find in Church teaching about the nature of work. 




John Paul II wrote an encyclical devoted entirely to work, Laborem Exercens (On Human Work), in 1981.1 In it, he wrote about work in a way that can only be described as countercultural. The three points we will discuss are his definition of work, his distinctions within work as concerns the objective and subjective aspects of it, and the communal aspects of work (personal, familial, and societal.) 




The Definition of Work

Many people in our culture think of work as synonymous with employment. They believe work is drudgery, something we must do to earn a paycheck so we can pay the bills. This common perspective leads many to focus their goals on the exact opposite of work: leisure. Others, and I would suggest fewer, see work in a positive light, as personally fulfilling, as a process followed to accomplish something, or as a community of persons working towards a goal, that is towards the common good. This second perspective is closer to what the Church teaches about the true meaning of work.

In his encyclical, John Paul II was clear that work is not synonymous with employment; rather, he treats employment as a subset of work. He explained that work is a good for man, a process we were to undertake from the beginning, or from our creation in the Garden of Eden. It is to be seen in tandem with procreation, as is clear when we review the twin rules God gave us: to fill the earth and to subdue it (Genesis 1:28). Only man, as person made in the image and likeness of God, can work. Work is a universal experience that fills man’s days. Unfortunately, our experience of work changed with the advent of Original Sin, and it is for that reason that our common perspective on work is that it is necessary drudgery. In the Introduction to Laborem Exercens, John Paul II said,

And work means any activity by man, whether manual or intellectual, whatever its nature or circumstances; it means any human activity that can and must be recognized as work, in the midst of all the many activities of which man is capable and to which he is predisposed by his very nature, by virtue of humanity itself. Man is made to be in the visible universe an image and likeness of God himself, and he is placed in it in order to subdue the earth. From the beginning therefore he is called to work. 

In this section we are presented with what John Paul II understood about the meaning of work. The statements “any activity,” “any human activity,” and “many activities of which man is capable” explain work as something larger than employment. Most of us are employed at some point during our lives—that is, we perform mental or physical tasks for pay—but that is only a subset of the activity we can do. We all do many things for which we do not receive pay: we take care of other people, we teach things to people, we build things for people, and so on. The number of things we do that are not part of our employment are much greater in variety and in quantity than what we do for actual pay.

We work all the time, only not always for pay. Making a meal for my family is work; cleaning my house is work; tilling my garden is work; typing a professional paper for my employment is work. But there is a difference between the first three kinds of work and the latter. Someday I may retire but I will still have to cook, clean the house, and garden. All four are work, but only the last one is for pay; only the last one is a requirement of my employment.

Thus, work does not equal employment; employment is a subset of work. As John Paul II explained, man is the only creature in the visible world made in the image and likeness of God. It is Church teaching that to be created in God’s image and likeness means we are persons. Like the One God, we have intellect to know the truth and the will to love it; like the Triune God, we are a community. God creates the world and then gives it to man, the only person in visible creation, for his safekeeping and development. He gives man, his highest creation, the command (as recorded in Genesis) to subdue and dominate the earth. Revelation is telling us, even before the Fall, we are supposed to work, to bring God’s visible creation to fulfillment. After the Fall, the work we were always supposed to do often becomes unpleasant and arduous. To be man means to be one who works. It has always been this way, and as long as we, as a species, are on earth, it will continue to be this way. Work is good for us.

John Paul II continued in his Introduction, 

Work is one of the characteristics that distinguish man from the rest of creatures, whose activity for sustaining their lives cannot be called work. Only man is capable of work, and only man works, at the same time by work occupying his existence on earth. Thus work bears a particular mark of man and of humanity, the mark of a person operating within a community of persons. And this mark decides its interior characteristics; in a sense it constitutes its very nature.  

This is a wonderful passage. Only man, the person, can work. This is a very countercultural statement. We think animals work and machines work.  Animals exert energy at the service of man, once we have trained them how to do so. Horses don’t get together and decide to invent a harness and carriage so they can pull the carriage and carry man somewhere. We invent the harness and carriage; we capture and domesticate the horses; we train them how to pull the carriage to carry us where we want to go. We work doing all of these things. Animals do not have the intellect or will to work; only man does because only man is person. Nor can machines work. Because machines are not alive and, obviously, are not persons, they do not work; they are tools that we make to assist us in working. Note that these statements do not mean work animals should be “overworked” or abused. All of God’s creation, including animal life, should be treated in keeping with how God wants us to treat it. When He said to subdue and dominate the earth, He did not say to brutalize and abuse it. Nor do these statements mean that man cannot be abused by other men who use machines. Both of these abuses occur all the time. When I see men abuse work animals, or managers abuse, degrade, or oppress men (for instance, in a factory), I reckon back to the effects of Original Sin.

John Paul II said work is a “fundamental dimension of human existence on earth.” #4 This has always been the case, whether we were in the state of original justice or later in the state of Original Sin. John Paul II continued, 

When man, who had been created “in the image of God…male and female,” hears the words: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it,”, even though these words do not refer directly and explicitly to work, beyond any doubt they indirectly indicate it as an activity for man to carry out in the world.…Man is the image of God partly though the mandate received from his Creator to subdue, to dominate the earth. In carrying out this mandate, man, every human being, reflects the very action of the Creator of the universe. #4 

We all work, for pay and/or not for pay, and we do this for most of our lives. Work occupies our existence on earth; our lives are full of work, and it is by work that we live and at the same time, build up our family, and the community, society, and culture that we live in. In our work we reflect God. He created and holds creation in its existence; we mirror him as we subdue and dominate the earth, bringing his creation to fruition. And as we do so, work impacts us.

Further we work most of our lives; it occupies our existence on earth. Work also occurs within a community of persons; it is both a solitary and a communal project. I work developing and typing this paper. Another professor works using it as a teaching tool. The students work learning it. And hopefully, when the students graduate, they will use what they learned in their work as Catholic leaders. Much of the work we do, whether for pay or not, is done alone; but note, it has a communal impact. Our work impacts the common good, either positively or negatively. Here is another example. I work tilling the garden. I bought tomato stakes at a garden store from a clerk, using money I earned as a theologian. Someone made those stakes and they were delivered to the store by someone else. My husband drove me home in his car with my stakes. Someone designed the car; it was produced by workers somewhere. It was delivered to a car lot by someone; it was bought by my husband with money he earned working in a campground, and so on, in a seemingly infinite group of workers.2  This all so I can grow tomatoes and serve fresh salads to the man I love. Do you see how our lives are consumed by work? That it is all related? That my product of a salad could not occur without all these other people working? And that this is a positive thing?




Objective and Subjective Aspects of Work

Now I think we have a basic idea of what work is, but we need to delve more deeply into the reality of work and draw some distinctions. One of the central concepts of this encyclical is that work has both an objective and subjective aspect. These aspects concern the issue of the true value of work. Usually, in our culture and I think in many others, when we think of work we think of the objective aspect, that is, what we do.To understand these aspects we have to realize that work is a transitive activity. John Paul II said,

 [Work] begins within the “human subject and directed towards an external object. [This] presupposes a specific dominion by man over  “the earth,”, and in its turn it confirms and develops this dominion.… The expression  “subdue the earth” has an immense range. It means all the resources that the earth (and indirectly the visible world) contains and which, through the conscious activity of man, can be discovered and used for his ends. #4

As we analyze the world, we identify an issue or problem, or have an idea, and we know that to bring it to fruition a piece of work must be done. Using our intellect we know that if we want to eat fresh tomatoes, we must plant a garden. With the engagement of our free will, we use our personal power to plant, till, and harvest a garden. That whole process began inside of us, and through intellect, will, and personal power, we impact something outside of us. There was no garden, just a plot of land with dirt, rocks, and weeds. Then we did something and now there is a bumper crop of tomatoes. As John Paul II said, [this activity] begins within the “human subject and [is] directed towards an external object.” 

John Paul II continued, saying, 

this is a universal process, as it embraces all human beings, every generation, every phase of economic and cultural development, and at the same time it is a process that takes place within each human being, in each conscious human subject. Each and every individual is at the same time embraced by it. Each and every individual, to the proper extent and in an incalculable number of ways, takes part in the giant process whereby man  “subdues the earth” through his work. #4

Dominating the earth occurs through work by harvesting resources, like clothing from animal skins; subduing the earth also occurs through work by transforming products, as in agriculture and industry. This is the objective sense of work. Man works and in the process dominates and subdues the earth.3 Something is done, originating in man, which results in a change in the external world.

When we think of work we usually think of this objective sense, as can be seen from job titles. We can see that someone is responsible for something being done. The mail person delivers the mail, the secretary types letters, the teacher conducts a class, the mother raises children, and the wife makes a home. The work done is what we call the objective aspect. 

More important is the fact that man is the subject of work. This is what John Paul II said about this subjective aspect of work,

Man has to subdue the earth and dominate it, because as the  “image of God” he is a person, that is to say, a subjective being capable of acting in a planned and rational way, capable of deciding about himself, and with a tendency to self-realization. As a person, man is therefore the subject of work. As a person he works, he performs various actions belonging to the work process; independently of their objective content, these actions must all serve to realize his humanity, to fulfill the calling to be a person that is his by reason of his very humanity.

Understood as a process whereby man and the human race subdue the earth, work corresponds to this basic biblical concept only when throughout the process man manifests himself and confirms himself as the one who “dominates.” This dominion, in a certain sense, refers to the subjective dimension even more than to the objective one: this dimension conditions the very ethical nature of work. In fact there is no doubt that human work has an ethical value of its own, which clearly and directly remain linked to the fact that the one who carries it out is a person, a conscious and free subject, that is to say a subject that decides about himself. #6

John Paul II pointed out that, in the past, the type of work done has been used as part of a class system. Building on the Old Testament, Christianity changed the emphasis from the objective sense of work to the subjective one. Jesus worked as a manual laborer for most of his life on earth. 

This circumstance constitutes in itself the most eloquent ‘Gospel of work’, showing that the basis for determining the value of human work is not primarily the kind of work being done but the fact that the one who is doing it is a person. The sources of the dignity of work are to be sought primarily in the subjective dimension, not in the objective one. #6

Now we understand the subjective aspect of work is more important than the objective one. This is an extremely countercultural understanding of work. Clearly work (for pay) has to be classified in a way that leads to fair compensation. The person who delivers the mail should not be compensated at the same level as the leading cardiac surgeon in the country. There is an objective difference in their work, in their skill in performing their work, and in their preparation to learn how to do their work. Yet, on the subjective level, what is important is that the work is done by persons. 

 From the objective point of view, human work cannot and must not be rated and qualified in any way. It only means that the primary basis of the value of work is man himself, who is its subject. This leads immediately to a very important conclusion of an ethical nature: however true it may be that man is destined for work and called to it, in the first place work is  “for man” and not man  “for work.” #6

He said further, 

[P]resupposing that the different sorts of work that people do can have greater or lesser objective value, let us try nevertheless to show that each sort is judged above all by the measure of the dignity of the subject of work, that is to say the person, the individual who carries it out. #6

Sphere of Values 

Now that we understand the distinction between the objective and subjective aspects of work, we turn to another distinction within the concept of work, the sphere of values that come from the subjective aspect—personal, familial, and societal.

John Paul II pointed out that it is a universal experience to work and, ultimately, to toil. Simply stated, work is not an easy thing to do. It can be physically and mentally challenging, exhausting, unsuccessful, disappointing. This is a universal experience, and yet, work and toil is a good for man. It is so good that we were supposed to work in the Garden before the Fall; after the Fall, we are to continue to work, but it has unfortunately become difficult. It is through work that we obey the second of God’s commands. It is through hard work, through toil, that we dominate and subject the world.  John Paul II said, 




Work is a good thing for man—a good thing for his humanity—because through work man not only transforms nature, adapting it to his own needs, but he also achieves fulfillment as a human being and indeed, in a sense, becomes “more a human being.” #9

We are shaped by work. We are supposed to bring God’s creation to fruition. This activity corresponds to the command to procreate, to fill Heaven and Earth with persons. We are to work with God—who worked in creating, and continues to work in sustaining creation through all its developments and changes. He entrusted creation to us with the task of working with him, of continuing his work and offering it back to him as we glorify him. How could either of these activities performed with God, commanded by God, not change us into better people. As John Paul II said, again, through work each of us “achieves fulfillment as a human being and indeed, in a sense, becomes ‘more a human being.’”

We are all born into a family, and the overwhelming majority of people form a family when they are adults (although neither the family of origin or of choice is necessarily permanent, successful, nor good at achieving its ends.) In addition to work being good for us as individuals, it is good for us communally. Work is intimately tied to the family. We cannot start or maintain a family without work, and once the family is started, we need work so we can successfully educate our children, also in work. 

John Paul II said,

 In a way, work is a condition for making it possible to found a family, since the family requires the means of subsistence which man normally gains through work. Work and industriousness also influence the whole process of education in the family, for the very reason that everyone  “becomes a human being” through, among other things, work, and becoming a human being is precisely the main purpose of the whole process of education. #10

He continued, “The family is simultaneously a community made possible by work and the first school of work, within the home, for every person.” #10

The third part of this distinction is that through work we develop our culture. This is another universal experience. John Paul II said, 

The great society to which man belongs on the basis of particular cultural and historical links…is not only the great “educator" of every man…it is also a great historical and social incarnation of the work of all generations. All of this brings it about that man combines his deepest human identity with membership of a nation, and intends his work also to increase the common good developed together with his compatriots, thus realizing that in this way work serves to add to the heritage of the whole human family, of all the people living in the world.4 #10 

He tied the objective and subjective dimensions with the three spheres of value, saying,

These three spheres are always important for human work in its subjective dimension. And this dimension, that is to say, the concrete reality of the worker, takes precedence over the objective dimension. #10

The expression of this understanding of work is radically countercultural. Work is something God ordered us to do? Through it we dominate and subdue the earth? It is a good for us? It develops us as human beings, and its true value is based on the fact that persons do it? And growing from that subjective aspect, we are not only developed, but we found and support our families, fulfill our educational obligations to our children, and develop our culture? 




Countercultural?

Throughout this paper I have pointed out several places in which the understanding of work in the encyclical, part of the universal Magisterium of the Church, and that of our culture, disagree. The definition of words are the most basic level at which people must agree if they are to proceed to develop theoretical or practical models of the concept of interest, and draw out pertinent distinctions. The Church definition of work is a countercultural one. To make this apparent to you, I looked up the word “work” on www.dictionary.com and read through, and organized, a wide variety of definitions.

Work is usually defined as labor or a chore, something being done, or being in a position where something is being done and it is usually an arduous or unpleasant task. Some synonyms for work are neutral. These include words like endeavor, performance, production, task, and function. These words describe work; they define it. Work as a function has neither positive nor negative overtones. “My function is to teach,” is a neutral statement. It does not express the ease or difficulty of the work, nor my attitude towards it.

Other synonyms, that are positive, include application of oneself, gainful employment, freelance, having a job, doing business, and earning a living, imply something positive about work. They refer directly, or at least imply, some task or performance done for income or pay. The sentence, “I earn a living,” implies I am socially responsible, supporting myself, and contributing to the support of my family, paying my bills. It doesn’t matter if I am earning a living from a teaching job or a clerical one. I have a job. The antonyms for work, when it is defined as being employed or exerting oneself, are idle, lazy, relax, and rest. If I am earning a living, I am not idle or lazy.

There is a cluster of ways in which work is defined as something being done that ends in a result. Work in this cluster means manipulation, operation, power, instrumentality, and cultivation or forming, and it results in an achievement. The synonyms for this sense of the word include action verbs: accomplish, act, bring about, care for, carry out, cause, channel, contrive, control, create, direct, drive, effect, execute, force, function, handle, implement, influence, intercession, intervention, knead, make, manipulate, manage, maneuver, means, mediation, mold, move perform, ply, process, progress, react , run, serve, shape, take, tend, tick, use, and wield. These verbs are not only positive; they imply that the person working has at least some control over the process and/or the result. The sentences “I created this class” or “I helped that student achieve his educational goals” is very different from the sentence, “I am going to the salt mines.” The major antonym for work in this sense is destroy. “I destroyed that student’s attempt to achieve his educational goals.”

But negative synonyms for work are legion. I think the sheer number of negative synonyms points to the cultural meaning of the word. If there was a count of the number of times neutral, positive, and negative synonyms for work are used, I think the negative ones would be used the most frequently. They include daily grind, dead end, drudgery, elbow grease, grindstone, hustle, knuckle down, labor, muscle, pains, plug away, punch a clock, push, salt mines, servitude, slave, slogging, stint, strain, stress, striving, struggle, sweat, toil, travail, trial, and trouble. “I am going to the daily grind now,” is a value-laden sentence. I am doing something I don’t really want to do, but must. The antonyms in this case are entertainment, fun, pastime. If I am going to the “salt mines,” the implication is that I cannot be having fun at work. Drudgery is the word that is the most descriptive negative synonym for work. In this situation, life is not lived, but spent looking forward to rest, whether it be after work, in retirement, on vacation, or during weekends. Most thought is to a time away from the misery of toil and labor.

Remembering how much time John Paul II spent in his encyclical writing about how good work is for man, let us close with these countercultural words. Work is, as has been said, an obligation, that is to say, a duty, on the part of man. This is true in all the many meanings of the word. Man must work, both because the Creator has commanded it and because of his own humanity, which requires work in order to be maintained and developed. Man must work out of regard for others, especially his own family, but also for the society he belongs to, the country of which he is a child, and the whole human family of which he is a member, since he is the heir to the work of generations and at the same time a sharer in building the future of those who will come after him in the succession of history. #16




Endnotes




1 I use the official Vatican translation of this document, found at www.vatican.va,   In this paper I quote John Paul II extensively and then see what information we can glean from each quotation. The goal is to understand his teaching on work and contrast it with popular conceptions of work in our culture. Note that within his quotations, italics are in the original.

 There are many topics he covers in this encyclical which are not germane to this paper because they cover issues of employment, indirect and direct employers, workers’ rights, labor movements, capital and labor, key to the social question, just wages, etc. A fascinating section of this encyclical, which I urge you to read prayerfully, concerns the Church’s development of a spirituality of work.

2 Footnote on concentric circles

3 See #5. 

4 This is interesting …Working at any workbench…a man can easily see that through his work he enters into two inheritances: the inheritance of what is given to the whole of humanity in the resources of nature, and the inheritance of what others have already developed on the basis of those resources, primarily by developing technology, that is to say, by producing a whole collection of increasingly perfect instruments for work. In working, man also "enters into the labor of others". #13 




For Personal Reflection and Group Sharing

• How would you define work? How does your definition compare with the one found in John Paul II’s encyclical on work?
• Do you agree that work is good for man? Describe some ways in which you see work as a good. Compare your descriptions with current cultural thoughts on work.
• Do you see a relationship between God’s command to procreate and to work? In what ways is work good for the family?

Response from Sean Hurt, former Peace Corp in Malawi, Africa:

This subject of work is surprisingly complex and multi-faceted. On one hand work can be a source of great misery. As Ronda pointed out in the introduction to this chapter, we associate it with the Fall. Furthermore, work can accompany an unhealthy focus on the material world. There are many people in American society who eat to work and not the other way around.

Superficially, it’s strange that there should be a profound connection between worship and work. But in Christianity we’re very familiar with the connection via the Third Commandment. We must carve out time consecrated to God. This saves us from a worldly perspective. So, we have a long history of understanding work as antithetical to worship. Therefore, it is interesting to consider how work can be complementary to worship of God. 

As the author points out, work makes us a special, different part of God’s Creation. We are unique from the rest of existence in this respect. Indeed, human work is a wondrous thing, because true work is creative. Through work, we create. Our nature of creation is what makes us, in part, an “image of God”.

The Eucharist recapitulates this powerful connection between God’s creation and human work. Jesus selects bread and wine for his body and blood. This is both “fruit of the Earth and work of human hands”. He could easily have picked something that was His creation only, like wheat and grapes, olives and pomegranates or honey and water. Instead, Jesus picked bread and wine. This, and not God’s creation alone, becomes our spiritual food and drink. Why does Jesus lift up human work in this way?

I think it’s insightful to look at work in a peasant society. In Malawi, we have a long dry season. Everything dies. The roads become dust. During this time, farming, the primary mode of Malawian work, is impossible. There is no irrigation. Wild fires break out everywhere, burning, destroying tree-crops, homes and forests. 

When the rains do return, which coincidentally come around Christmas, it’s a joyous occasion. Life has returned! The water shocks the sterile dust; the trees bloom and make such a pungent odor.  The sky thickens with flying ants and termites. Children dance, wildly, naked in the rains snatching them out of the air! The forests and orchards swell with fruits, mushrooms and tasty caterpillars! 

Along with God’s bounty, people feel the call back to their fields. A family leaves in the early morning after the first rain. The women carry babies on their backs. Young and old dig their gardens. Maybe three generations stand side by side, laughing, chatting, singing, swinging the hoe in unison. They till 3 acres this way, by hand. Two acres are for maize, and another is for soybeans or peanuts.  Like the farmer from parables, they plant the seed, and while they sleep, the maize germinates. They know not how. 

The harvest comes around Easter. The whole country-side rejoices, for the granary was empty. The mood is rapturous and festive. The harvest piles high into an ox-cart! This is also the season for weddings, and the village celebrates new life!

I’m telling you this because I want to paint a picture of work in Malawi. It’s different than in America. In Malawi, it feels like you and God are working together, blessing creation with bountiful life. We are both creators, in a sense.  Yes, the work is back-breaking and tedious, but it is their life, their culture, and, paradoxically, a celebration. 

I hope you see that American work is different. I don’t know what the difference is exactly, but there is a spiritual dimension to work that’s missing here. Maybe we’ve removed ourselves too far from work’s essence of co-creation. Maybe we’re too specialized. Maybe we’re so consumed by a man-made world that we no longer see God’s role in our economic lives. In any case, much work in America has lost its divine glory, but retained its drudgery.




Response of David Tate, Seminarian at Holy Apostles:

John Paul II refers to an abstract sense of work that caused a great conflict within me as I was a teenager slowly entering the adult world becoming a fully autonomous ‘person’. The beginnings of this started when I was in a para-Church youth organization. I was growing in my identity as a young man and as a young Christian. I was very happy in learning that according to God, my being had value. I was so happy in my growing faith, as well as the joys of being a child of God, that I started to feel that hungering after material possessions was a road that somehow seemed not worthy of my new spiritual life. Even until this day, I am troubled to understand the lack of certain abilities in my life at that time. One thing that does seem to come to my thoughts, which is hopefully something healthy in a young Christian mind, was that I recall that I felt like my home life with my parents was something secure. The thought never occurred to me that my parents might ask me to move out some day. 

To return the topic of ‘work’, I had connected work with being a Christian. In my young mind, whatever I was motivated to do was ‘work’; regardless of whether I got paid or not. This way of thinking was not acceptable to my dad. Even though my dad never threatened me with eviction, he did clearly state on more than one occasion that some of my activities were not a “real job”. My dad did not connect your ‘being’ with your ’job’. He understood that you worked for people that didn’t care about you, and in return, you walked away each day having a paycheck in your pocket. For him, the ‘work’ done was not in any way an extension of your being.




It appears that my dad and I were not in the same sphere. It is interesting that John Paul II has captured a place in between my dad and I. He has taught that ‘work’ is both an obligation and an extension of being. I believe my dad would be more satisfied with me today, but I also take great satisfaction in that somehow the Pope has given us a wink to say that we were both correct. Entertaining a Cheshire grin, I know one point that my dad and the Pope certainly agreed on, “From the beginning therefore he is called to work.”

When I think of ‘work’, I instinctively go to two distinctions. The first is individual. The second is communal. Having gotten past the basic point, I see work as diving again into the Good that point to ME and the good which points to the community. In the first category, an individual directly works out of his own needs. He is willing to trade time and effort knowing he will receive in return something he wants. In the second version of this selfish activity is an indirect desire to serve others, in so doing he ends up serving himself because he loves or cares for those he says he is trying to benefit. On the needy side, we work for ourselves and for our community because we need our self-esteem to be bolstered. We need to feel some kind of self-gratification, as well as the approval of our society.

When all is said and done, we cannot stress too much over the motives and pseudo-motives behind why we work. What we really need to do is to understand that we were made to work. This work involves the expressing of our talents, desires, and mission. These three come directly from the fact that we have been created by God with these motivations imprinted upon us.

God knows about these motivations because He has them in Himself. In His making us in His image, He has given us a reflection of His own self. He gives to each one a function and purpose to fulfill. (No one is created purpose-less.) Secondly, God has planted within us appetites that demand a source of being satisfied. Does not an athlete hunger for the reward that is felt by the body after physical exertion? All appetites seek being satisfied. C.S. Lewis suggested that God does not give us true appetites that cannot be fulfilled. And finally, the Existent things of the Universe are all bound in movement back to God. This means that each and every creature has a mission to fulfill. There must be very few humans that pass through life without asking, “What is the meaning or purpose of my life?” In a broad answer, these three aspects (talents, desires, and mission) encompass the “why” of the work we do. To recall the work of grace in our lives, we can restate the answer this way: It is grace that initiates us; grace that motivates us; and grace that leads us to the many and the final finish lines of our work. Work is natural and work is good.




 In quoting John Paul II, “[The family is] the first school of work”, we are reminded that procreation is at the heart of the Sacrament of Marriage; and that parents are the first teachers of their children. Anyone that has ever been in a relationship of any kind understands that another person becomes a burden to you. By burden we mean something in addition to yourself. Their life, their joys, their sorrows become an additional part of your life that you now carry around with you. Any science teacher will agree that carrying something is truly work. It is no surprise that we are at our most virtuous when we come to desire the additional burden of another person. In a strange way, we are led by compassion to do that which is the most beneficial for our self. When care for others.  We call into action our abilities and strengths to be used for the care of another. What parent doesn’t carry a burden for their child? What spouse doesn’t carry a burden for their beloved? What child, in their own way, doesn’t carry a burden for their mommy or daddy? Work is an unavoidable participation in a community. Can we not marvel at the great fruit of our labor after looking over the years of our many relationships? If relational love is work, and God is love, then who can deny that this work is truly the best kind of labor? 

Response from Kathleen Brouillette, student at Holy Apostles:

In his concept of work, as in every aspect of life, it seems that in our times man and his governments seek to remove God.  How can man see the value of work if not with its connection to his having been made in the image and likeness of God?  In each chapter this semester, we have seen man’s attempt to make himself a god, whether by imposing his power and will over others, relying on his own efforts to impose peace rather than on love and respect for his fellow man, failing to see one another as children of God, failing to respect the father figure and the priest as an example of spiritual fatherhood, or failing to understand the selfless giving that is love rather than the use of another person for one’s own fulfillment and gratification.  Mankind as a whole tends to see what is expedient rather than what is beautiful and true and good.

We have reduced work to a source of income. Governments have stepped in to take care of people far beyond their temporary times of need, rather than ensuring opportunities for them to achieve their own fulfillment as persons in the image and likeness of God. There is no incentive to work.  There is precious little joy in work, or in achievement.  In our times, the value of our work, as Dr. Toolin points out, is not in the person doing the work, but in the work being done – or in the amount of pay being received for it.  We take precious little pride or joy in our accomplishment, unless it is in the accomplishment of how much money we have made and how much “stuff” we have acquired.  

Isn’t it interesting that those who have the most money and the most “stuff” are, in too many cases, those who are least happy, least fulfilled, and least content.  They are seeking escape in drugs, alcohol, and sex, rather than taking joy in building families, giving good example, and making the world a better place – now and, as Dr. Toolin makes note, for those who will come after us.  

As Sean Hurt points out, we take no joy in our work in America, probably because our lives do not depend on what we do.  Our lifestyles are dependent upon it, but not our very lives.  Why work when there is no sense of working for something? Those to whom society looks in admiration are not the ones who are working hard to make a difference and lift man up, but rather the ones who score the most points or hit the most homeruns, and those in position to give out the most benefits and buy the most votes.  Few of these people are changing the world for mankind and for generations to follow, at least not in a positive and hope-giving way.

One polarization resulting from this attitude is reflected in a bumper sticker I recently saw:  “You are not entitled to what I earned.”  Surely we know how generous people are to others in need when disaster strikes, or when we share a common dilemma. We need to be careful of perpetuating a mindset of entitlement, which fails to inspire man to become his best self as a reflection of our very God.  A very different world might emerge if the Church formed us as partners with God in His work.




Response from Tommie Kim, Korean Post Master’s Student

“Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their multitude. And on the seventh day God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done.” (Gen 2: 1-2)

I think the definition of “work” also evolved with time. In ancient times, the majority of work was physical labor.  Work was, in a certain sense, self-employed work and the reward was more directly provided depending on how much effort was invested. A diligent farmer made more earnings.  People were able to thank God for favorable weather that helped the farmers to bear more fruit.  Work was a basic means for living and there was a clear reason to thank God for “being able to work.”

In our times life has flourished with advanced technology and more conveniences.  Along with this advancement, the definition of work changed along with new values in life.  We live in a highly competitive environment where technology has replaced human physical labor.  As more significant income resulted from real estate and capital speculation, we have become impatient expecting immediate rewards and substantially more income than from the actual labor.  The subjective aspect of the enjoyment of the work hardly exists and it is all about making money to have enough to spend.  In the younger generation, it is only about making more money and so they find it very difficult to see why it is good to work in a way that improves the quality of the product or to know how to appreciate the work.  

Work is also involved in God’s command to procreate. What children see in the labor of their parents helps them understand the value of work in their own future lives. When children grow up witnessing the hard work of the parents to nourish them, children grow up appreciating life and they will carry this value into their own lives. Children who grow up with wealth and do not witness the work involved, take everything in life for granted.  Work and money are inseparable.  Money earned through work provides the necessities to live but there is more than just  financial income.  The value and quality of man developed through work cannot be compensated with only money.  There really is no good work or bad work because man does it all. Therefore, what is important is the fact that our work exists in harmony with the work of others.  We must be able to appreciate the entire workforce. 

“For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat.” (Ths II 3:10)
















 

Underlying Concepts for Catholic Pastoral Counseling
by Marti Armstrong MS

Marti  Armstrong 
has an MS in pastoral counseling from Iona College in New Rochelle, NY.  She has worked in substance-abuse counseling as well as bereavement counseling, including post-abortion bereavement counseling. Currently, she helps facilitate a bereavement group in her home parish, and volunteers, tutoring foreign students in English at Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut.  She is a dedicated widow, and she also enjoys going to Georgia and Texas to visit her grandchildren.

Note from Dr. Chervin: As one who has benefited greatly from psychological counseling, pastoral counseling, and spiritual direction, I was happy that my friend and colleague Marti Armstrong wrote this sharing for us including her reasons for her work as a counselor. I believe that the twenty-first century Catholic Church will see a synthesis of insights from theology, philosophy, spirituality, and psychology so that those in these ministries may offer ample help to those in need of healing and inspiration.

I once heard a man wishing another well with: “May you never live in interesting times!”     Indeed, the twenty-first century might be described as “interesting times.”   We need only to look at the daily news reports, the legalized and illegal attacks on human life, the family, the Church and Christianity as a whole.  During this century of great material advances, great conveniences and comforts, pain, especially spiritual and emotional pain, has become more intense and pervasive. As we look around us, and even within ourselves, we see unprecedented material blessings, yet astounding widespread spiritual, mental, and emotional wounds.  It is safe to maintain that a majority of people today are looking for peace and healing in one way or another. What I would like to do here is describe pastoral counseling, its relevance, its uses, and some very practical applications.   

More than fifty years ago, I remember that psychiatry and clinical psychology were often limited to persons with severe mental and emotional disorders. Indeed, there has been often a stigma attached to the need for psychiatrists, psychologists, or counselors. Many were suffering from “falling through the cracks” as it were. They weren’t troubled “enough.” At the same time, in the early sixties, I recall going to a priest for direction. I was married and a young mother, and the priest actually volunteered to give me direction. When I mentioned this to my mother, her reaction was that she would not want to “bother” the priest. Hindsight, I thought that if people did not want to “bother” my father, who was a physician, they would not receive needed medical help, and we would be impoverished because of our unemployed father.  

During the nineteen sixties, a spiritual/psychological need became more prevalent. “My analyst says” became a popular phrase. People were attempting to “find themselves,” find peace, healing, and wholeness. Often, during a personal crisis, help would be sought from clergy of the various faith traditions, as well as from practitioners of psychiatry, psychology, and counseling. 

Some clergy did not trust psychology. Undeniably, some of their suspicions were well-founded. However, just as some directees needed medical help for physical disorders, some also needed help for emotional difficulties. As antibiotics were required for some at various times, anti-depressants or tranquilizers might be needed at others. Some well-meaning but misinformed directors, lay or cleric, implied that if the person directed had more faith, he or she would not need the medications or psychological help.

Meanwhile, the number of atheistic or antitheistic psychological counselors has been vast! A few years ago, I encountered a woman whom I had not seen in a long time. She had been active in the Church, attended daily Mass, and was a positive and inspiring influence on us who knew her. When I asked her how she was, she appeared quite dejected, explaining that after her husband died, she experienced depression as a result of her loss. What she described was normal, typical grief, the grief of a widow who had lost her husband. She decided to call a highly-respected psychologist. Rather than addressing her grief in an all-inclusive manner, when the psychologist learned that this woman was a devout Catholic who drew strength from her Faith, he began to treat her for “religious addiction”, suggesting that she give up daily Mass and church activities which had been such a consolation to her.

Upon hearing her story, I immediately gave this woman the name of a social worker whose approach was that of a pastoral counselor. Months later, again, I saw this woman transformed by the pastoral counseling work. She heartily thanked me for finding her the truly-helpful counselor. The irony of the situation is that the daily Mass and supportive Catholic community were precisely what she needed to sustain her during this difficult time. 

A further threat to the needed spiritual element in pastoral counseling is the widespread, hostile new form of atheism. An example of this is manifested in atheist Sam Harris’ book The End of Faith. He writes that it “is difficult to imagine a set of beliefs more suggestive of mental illness than those that lie at the heart of many of our religious traditions” (p. 70). Similar ideas are being perpetrated by other aggressive atheists, such as Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens.

One of my professors in graduate school told my classmates and me that, during that year, there was a proposed bill in the state legislature to permit licensed clinical psychologists to prescribe medications for anxiety or depression. He suggested to us that, should this bill become law, indeed, pastoral counselors would be needed more than ever. Often, when a patient is suffering from depression or anxiety, talking things out, venting, experiencing validation and understanding, are major supports. The psychiatrist may prescribe an antidepressant or other medication, while the clinical psychologist would use other means of intervention, not relying on prescription medicines. With the convenience to prescribe medications, the psychologist might be drawn to prescribe medication as an adjunct or even substitute for the talk therapy.

In my own personal experience, I once sought help for depression from a pastoral counselor at a time when life was not treating me very kindly. Since he ascertained that I was suffering from a form of depression that is coming from within, he recommended that I seek an antidepressant prescription from a physician. When I balked at the idea, he suggested an alternative means of therapy. 

He suggested that I begin to engage in some form of aerobic activity for thirty minutes or more, three or more days a week. Fast walking and swimming were highly recommended. I was in approximately the fiftieth year of my life, and within about a month of fast, aerobic walking, thirty minutes per walk, three days a week, I began to recognize that I had not felt this sense of wellness since the age of seventeen. When I was seventeen, I obtained my driver’s license, thus ending the long walks to and from destinations, enjoyed by me and my friends. This was a classic example of treating the whole person, a successful pastoral counseling outcome. Indeed, this is holistic approach is such an example, as well as the self-help, self-treating, that can accompany pastoral counseling. Like this approach, there is often a common-sense, home-remedy approach to life and healing in life.

In my own experience over the past several years, I have observed many practical and relatively simple supports for personal healing and wholeness. Here, again, I am stressing conditions of neuroses that are neither life-threatening nor serious. In other words, I am not referring to serious depression or psychosis or any condition where medical intervention is necessary. I remember a supervisor at a mental health clinic referring to most of us clinicians as the “worried well.” Having said this, I am referring to the idea that I cannot fix another person, nor can he or she “fix” me. What each of us, client and counselor alike, can do is work to encourage wholeness in oneself and in one another. I am convinced that the therapeutic relationship between counselor and client is a key element. However, in addition to this, and sometimes instead of this or following this (“this” being the counseling relationship), other resources must arise.

I encourage clients to keep a journal. It is quite remarkable what fruits are derived from journaling. When a person feels emotionally depleted, angry, depressed, or any number of feelings, he cannot always identify how he feels. However, in the process of writing out feelings and impressions, experiencing the pen on paper (or fingers on keyboard), emotions are unlocked, honest, undiscovered new feelings arise. There can be a spiritual, emotional, even a physical sense of relief, healing, the ability to yield to a new experience of peace and resulting growth. I remember having a client who was planning to have an abortion. When I could not talk her out of her decision, my supervisor suggested that I write out my feelings in my journal. I remember doing as she suggested, and the more I wrote, the more I was in touch with my own feelings, and I remember experiencing cathartic sobbing as I wrote. This did not change the woman’s mind, but there was an unforgettable feeling of peace in my own heart and soul. Journaling as a therapeutic aid can be so powerful that the client often can be weaned away from the need to see the counselor as much, if at all. I highly recommend journaling for everyone, whether one’s feelings are negative or euphoric, whether life situations are difficult or going smoothly. Not only is journaling helpful for emotional healing and growth, but it can be a powerful aid to spiritual growth.

Journaling and other projective techniques help a person attain better self-awareness, a great means of growth, healing, and self-actualization, as well as spiritual awareness and growth. Father Benedict Groeschel, teaching psychology of spiritual development, has used such a powerful projective technique for his students. In his class, we were given the assignment to write a Meadow-Mountain-Chapel Meditation. In this paper, we were encouraged to write about and describe in detail, from memory or imagination or both, a room, a meadow, a journey up a mountain, and a chapel. Part two of that assignment was learning how to recognize our own spiritual and emotional realities, needs, strengths, capabilities, and graces from the descriptions in our papers. This was a powerful, projective self-analysis as well as a very transforming, indeed, an extra life-giving experience for each of us. In this exercise, we generate symbols that lead us to healing and conversion. Here, a fine line is often drawn between emotional growth and spiritual transformation.  

Frequently, I have recommended support groups for people in emotional pain or crisis, or suffering from addictions. Unfortunately, some don’t know that such groups are free with an optional donation. 

A powerful tool for personal transformation is the Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous. The Twelve Steps have provided a time-tested help for individuals and groups. Here, peer pressure, empathy, encouragement, and gentle confrontation work together for mutual healing. There are Twelve Steps groups for alcoholics, drug addicts, overeaters, spouses and children of alcoholics, as well as for a general, broad range of people confronted with life’s struggles.  For those struggling with anger and other emotional and mental health issues, Emotions Anonymous, as well as Abraham Low’s Recovery International, are a great help.  By referring people to these self-help groups, we are helping them realize their potential for self-help, and for the additional mutual help to restore and heal one another. It is amazing to hear about a new member’s first meeting at Alcoholics Anonymous. That meeting can be a mix of new courage and a greater freedom. It can be like an entirely new life! In the Twelve Steps groups, particularly, the spiritual dimension is emphasized. 

It is not uncommon to hear a member of Alcoholics Anonymous describe himself as a “grateful alcoholic.” Often, his use of the term “grateful” includes his finding God through his alcoholism and ensuing recovery. What is learned is that sobriety—or emotional health, or other healing—involves a new, healthy relationship with God.

At the same time, support groups give members the opportunity to bring themselves out of their own personal discomfort, to listen to the stories and pain of their peers, to experience empathy as well as the support, encouragement, and challenges from the same peers. Listening, in these groups, as in every therapeutic relationship, is key. Knowing that one is both heard and understood is essential. In a group, the clients similarly exercise the kindheartedness of listening. Here is healing and help, individual, social, and spiritual. The individual has the blessing of give-and-take in a profound way.

Moderate forms of depression or reactive depression (such as depressions caused by a trauma such as the death of a loved one) can be somewhat—or even dramatically—alleviated by physical factors, such as diet and exercise, as I have mentioned earlier. Aerobic activity such as fast walking, swimming or skiing,  provide the individual with a release of serotonin, increasing the endorphins, imitating the physical response to antidepressants. Here, in the interest of health and safety, it is imperative that the client have clearance and permission from his own physician. In addition to exercise, a healthy diet and adequate sleep produce more favorable moods. A generous dose of the B vitamins, especially B-12, may enhance positive affect. Massage therapy benefits the system, especially where anxiety and depression are present. There are progressive relaxation exercises, especially one known as Jacobson’s Technique in which the muscles become so relaxed, that one professor compared it to a dose of a well-known tranquilizer. After all, in pastoral counseling, we are concerned with the whole person, body, mind, soul, so, as we can observe, the physical condition does contribute to one’s emotional well-being.

I would like to mention two of the most powerful “antidepressants” available. Their cause and effect are spiritual with emotional and even physical outcomes. The first antidepressant is gratitude. I challenge anyone who is in a blue mood (again, I am not speaking about serious clinical depression, though it probably would do no harm even there) to become aware of three to five things for which you can experience gratitude. It may be a simple as enjoying a sunny morning, or a compliment, or a good book, or a tasty cup of coffee. When a person experiences gratitude to one’s fellow men, even more so to God, good feelings ensue. This is especially true if this gratitude exercise is done at least on a daily basis. 

The second antidepressant is forgiveness. The amount of energy bound up by bitterness and resentment is enormous. The urge to be correct and prove it, to get even, to hold on to anger, is a devastating urge. So often, I have encountered profoundly depressed people who have legitimate grievances. For example, it is not only futile and counterproductive blaming others for past or present hurts. Being “right,” like revenge, may give the person some momentary relief, a sense of power and self-validation. However, clinging to that resentment actually causes a greater depletion of energy and a more serious and stubborn state of depression. The decision to forgive, not necessarily the feelings of forgiveness, yields a significant and often energizing experience of freedom. A very useful and grace-filled practice is to pray to God to help one to desire to desire to forgive. Here is a point where treatment and inner-healing prayer converge. This usually becomes an ongoing type of prayer, but the benefits are powerful.

Inner-healing prayer is a great means of healing, wholeness, and growth. At this juncture, such prayer, using images, memories, feelings, is a powerful and divinely-inspired means toward healing, as well as the end in itself. I knew a priest who highly endorsed inner-healing prayer. He spoke about a man who came to visit him for a few days. The visitor had been going for many years to weekly psychotherapy appointments, a time-consuming as well as financial burden for him. The priest introduced the gentleman to inner healing prayer. More progress was accomplished on that weekend than the previous twelve years of therapy combined. It goes without saying that what God can do in a cooperative and receptive individual surpasses the work of the most skilled human therapist. The relationship between God and each one of us transcends and expedites the therapeutic process. Inner healing prayer can be used in one’s private prayer as well as in a group experience. In fact, such prayer is often used in the context of charismatic prayer groups. Though this inner-healing prayer is suitable in spiritual direction or prayer groups or private prayer, it fits into the scope of pastoral counseling as well. This process can lead to or become that conduit most needed by the client. If the Sacraments of the Eucharist and Penance, are added to this prayer, the transformation can be miraculous. I have brought heavily burdened persons to Confession, and the contrast between their facial expressions before and after Confession is beyond description. Also, their expressed gratitude to God has been nothing short of dramatic. In the Eucharist, sometimes simply opening up oneself to the presence and divine healing of our Lord is all that is needed for extraordinary grace, growth and personal inner healing or comforting of past and present pains in life.

 
I hope this chapter helps to summarize the need, uses, applications, and potential of pastoral counseling as part of a twenty-first century Catholic life-style. In many ways, pastoral counseling and spiritual direction seem to overlap. Pastoral counseling is an ongoing process in which client and counselor meet frequently, often weekly. During this time, the counselor and client work through personal crises or needs with the goal of self-knowledge, affirmation, and healing and growth for the client. Listening is a key element. 

This applies to the counselor, who needs to listen and observe in depth. The client also needs to be able to listen to what he or she is saying or has said, its meaning; the counselor needs to facilitate that listening and interpretation in the client. The therapeutic relationship is needed. In spiritual direction, often the meetings are less often, sometimes once a month, and the object is to keep track of how the person is growing closer to God, the progress and obstacles in this process. Pastoral counseling is a means for us, counselors as well as clients, to have a healthier knowledge of ourselves and one another. In a larger sense, it gives us, the pastoral counselors, a concrete opportunity to reach out and participate and cooperate in the divine love and healing that is ours for the asking. This is a tangible way to respond to the appeal: “Love one another as I have loved you.” 

For Personal Reflection and Group Sharing:

• Based on the Baltimore Catechism’s definition of man as “a creature composed of body and soul, and made in the image and likeness of God,” can you how this definition fits in with the need for pastoral counseling? 
• Can you think of some physical activity that has enhanced your own mood, consequent thinking and spirituality?  Conversely, can you give an example of physical and emotional healing as a result of your own prayer-life and reception of the sacraments? 
• Can you think of a person in emotional pain who could benefit by your empathetic listening?
• Sometime this week observe your feelings,  and write them down. Be aware of any results        within you as a result.  

Asked by Ronda Chervin to add a little more to this chapter, these were some insights I thought were important:

When someone loses a loved one, a spouse, a child, or any beloved relation or friend, intervention is often required.    Sometimes, the funeral home will direct the bereaved to counseling help.  Here is another opportunity for the pastoral counselor to be of assistance.   When a spouse dies, for example, the new widow or widower is suffering from exceedingly deep grief, loss, emptiness.   In fact, the symptoms experienced by the bereaved are normal for grief, but they are so profound and vast, that if the person were not experiencing a loss,  those symptoms would be cause for a serious mental health diagnosis.  In our parish, we have a bereavement group.  Bereaved persons are able to be helped by expressing their grief, and at the same time, they are able to reach out to others suffering from grief.  They also learn about what to expect, as well as the normality of their symptoms during this time.   This can become a time for transformation of relationships with family, friends and acquaintances, and in a special way, with God.  The pastoral counselor walks along with the bereaved, helping toward healing and peace.  Actually, the basic practice of just listening to the bereaved is something anyone can do.

Often, during the bereavement process, a caring person, a friend, relative, or even a physician, may try to alleviate or eliminate the mourner’s symptoms.  Attempts at humoring or distracting the mourner may appear merciful, but the mourner needs to express that grief, the feelings, the memories.  Listening is the key.   In my own personal experience, shortly after my husband died, I had an appointment with my doctor.  He knew that my husband had died, and noticed my less-than-energetic demeanor.  Consequently,  he offered to prescribe an antidepressant.  All I could think was: “Don’t deprive me of my grief….Let me grieve naturally, experience my feelings, sadness, and rich memories too…let me truly live!”.   Yes, one needs to grieve, to go through that process and go on with his or her life.   This authentic  grieving produces healing.

In my own personal experience as a counselor, the most intense, and yet extraordinarily fruitful, counseling,  has been with persons suffering from post-abortion bereavement.  I was able to help post-abortion women  through Project Rachel.   Sometimes, a woman would be referred to one of us by a priest or someone who had learned of her secret suffering from her abortion or multiple abortions.  I don’t think I can begin to describe the pain these people experience.  I could perceive such profound pain, especially at the initial appointment.  Again, it was the listening, encouraging, unconditional acceptance that helped.   In almost each case, there was a deeply spiritual and transforming dimension.   It was not uncommon for the woman, through sacramental Confession and/or the suggestion of a priest, to become aware of her need for some post-abortion counseling.  Indeed, at least one woman reported beautiful mystical experience as a result of the Sacrament of Penance.  This ministry was an example par excellence of Divine intervention in the healing process. During this process,  the woman is able to accept her guilt, her grief, her lost child, the forgiveness of herself as well as others involved in the abortion.   It is also thought-provoking to note that numerous  people suffering from post-abortion syndrome were inclined to be Pro-Choice about abortion before the help and healing.  Afterward, often, the same persons became Pro-Life.  The pain unmasked and healed led to wisdom  and  transformation.   A very powerful source for post-abortion healing is the retreat known as “Rachel’s Vineyard”.  Post-abortive women and others involved in the abortions make this healing retreat.  This is a powerful retreat weekend, complete with Scriptural readings, healing exercises, sharing, supportive community-building, Mass and the Sacrament of Penance.  Rachel’s Vineyard retreats are available throughout the U. S. and other countries as well.  At a Rachel’s Vineyard weekend, one thing that seized me was the sense of fear, anger, near-despair in the faces of the retreatants on Friday night, contrasted with the peace, joy, and a newness of life on those same faces two days later, on Sunday afternoon.  The Rachel’s Vineyard retreatants also leave the retreat renewed, healed, and often outspokenly  Pro-Life.

 In the counseling process, we can learn some practical insights from psychiatrist Victor Frankl’s  concept  of logotherapy.  Dr. Frankl survived imprisonment in a Nazi concentration camp, and surrounding that experience, he wrote the book “Man’s Search for Meaning”.   He was able to survive, physically, emotionally, and spiritually during this time mainly because of his own attitude. For example, he would imagine what a beloved person, such as his wife, might be  doing at that moment.  He focused on positive outcomes in his life and those of others.  He planned and mentally wrote  future  books.  His mind became wholesomely   distracted.  Indeed, he was using this same mind and imagination to influence his own feelings and emotions.  From this school of thought, logotherapy, the counselor is able to help the client focus on what positive outcome he may derive from his attitude, especially in a difficult and challenging situation.  The strong point of this mode of therapy is that the client is encouraged to find meaning in his life, even in, and especially in, very trying and even tragic circumstances.  Instead of being a victim of circumstances, one is encouraged to grow in spite of, and indeed through, the situation.   This can be very empowering in any of our lives.   In logotherapy, often through the positive use of the imagination, and journaling,  we can logically bring these elements to prayer.   The whole person, body, moods, mind, and soul, can be brought to the greatest  Healer. 

Dr. Conrad Baars also brought together the therapeutic process with his Catholic spirituality.  He recognized the need for affirmation in each of us.  Many persons suffer from poor self-esteem, feelings of inferiority and self-condemnation.  Often, this is the consequence of being raised by parents who did not affirm or build up the person emotionally, parents who did not know how to affirm this child.   Dr. Baars labeled  this condition, “deprivation neurosis”.  There are different degrees of being unaffirmed, ranging from mild symptoms in a large sample of all of us, to more pronounced neuroses, to those suffering from narcissistic personality disorder or borderline personality disorder.  What is needed in the therapeutic process here, is a counselor who genuinely gives the client the affirmation needed in the process, who is present to the client.  Self-affirmation is not a solution; one needs to be affirmed by another person to help in the therapeutic process.   While respecting our own boundaries, we can help the unaffirmed  persons who are in our lives.  Again, empathic listening, unconditional regard and acceptance, affirming the other, are keys to helping, even in a non-therapeutic setting.   If any of us feels a lack of affirmation, for whatever reason, from time to time, there is One who will always affirm each of us.  When one is feeling “deprived” or unaffirmed,  a prayerful reading of Psalm 139 can be a good resource for healing.

For Personal Reflection and Group Sharing:

• Based on the Baltimore Catechism’s definition of man as “a creature composed of body and soul, and made in the image and likeness of God,” can you how this definition fits in with the need for pastoral counseling? 
• Can you think of some physical activity that has enhanced your own mood, consequent thinking and spirituality?  Conversely, can you give an example of physical and emotional healing as a result of your own prayer-life and reception of the sacraments? 
• Can you think of a person in emotional pain who could benefit by your empathetic listening?
• Sometime this week observe your feelings,  and write them down. Be aware of any results  within you as a result. 

RESPONSES TO THIS CHAPTER:

Response of  Fr. Dominic Anaeto to the chapters and class discussion thus far:

One-sided thinking that I am right and you are wrong is not good. It would be better to be saying: you see something, I see something.  We should not be always thinking of division: I against them. We against them.  Differences between people can be seen as positive.  Between I know nothing, and I know everything, is I know something.  Extremes would be psychologism (the idea that everything religious people think of as real on a spiritual level is really only a manifestation of some psychological complex) vs. all is spiritual. The pastoral counselor, for example, could refer say a rape victim to a psychologist. 

Response of Sean Hurt: 

I have a general comment to make on the subject of pastoral counseling: evil exists; it's inside us and outside of us. That truth saves us from the tendency to objectify evil in the people we see around us. Nobody is evil incarnated. This was the fallacy I fell into as an atheist, that evil was best fought by fighting evil people. But evil is more like a disease that has infected us all. To fight the disease we have to heal ourselves and heal the people around us-- not destroy the terminally infected. Fight evil, not the people, and first learn to fight the evil within; then you can take the battle outside yourself.

During this century of great material advances, great conveniences and comforts, pain, especially spiritual and emotional pain, has become more intense and pervasive. As we look around us, and even within ourselves, we see unprecedented material blessings, yet astounding widespread spiritual, mental, and emotional wounds.

This is something I really observed coming back to America from Malawi. There is an incredible woundedness here, so much fear, hostility and competition. This lack of human solidarity is unknown in a Malawian village. In our places of work here in the United States we employ empty phrases like “professionalism” to mask our ruthlessness. In our personal relationships we stay cool and keep our distance instead of drawing ever nearer. We are so used to treating other human beings as means unto ends that we fail to see the pain it causes.

How do we cope with this pain? It seems to me, many of us learn to put on a “thick skin”, but in doing so we numb our humanity because we cannot selectively numb parts of ourselves. When we numb one piece, we numb the whole.

I remember the first time I entered a Catholic church when I was in my early twenties and a professed atheist. I’d never been in a church building prior to that day. It was not an event I could easily forget—it was dark inside at the end of the day, but little rays of light shone through the stained-glass and hung in the air thick with incense smoke from an earlier mass. There was a sense of stillness, of vastness, something now I recognize as holiness that I could dismiss, then, but could not ignore. The only sound to disturb the mysterious stillness was from a woman crawling on her knees praying the Stations of the Cross and I could do nothing more than perpetually glance over and think, “This woman is insane, these people are insane.” But still there is something you cannot ignore.

The mysteries of the church are at the same time incredibly compelling—yet seemingly insane. I think of the many disciples that abandoned Jesus when he revealed to them the necessity of eating his body and drinking his blood. They could not believe that teaching. Rationally, it’s nonsensical, but something, nonetheless, draws you in.

At some point in our journey of faith, I think we all have to deal with this notion of insanity. I draw strength by recalling the saints and holy people and their works of mercy that may well have been dismissed as mental illness. In my own story of conversion, they might say my religious beliefs are insane, but we judge by the fruits and the fruits of my conversion paint the opposite picture: of one saved from mental illness, from addictions, wounded relationships, consuming anger and resentments.

If God offers us hope and we choose despair; if He offers us joy and we take sorrow; if He offers life but we prefer death then, that, I think, is insane.

The decision to forgive, not necessarily the feelings of forgiveness,   yields a significant and often energizing experience of freedom.

Before my conversion I was probably the most unforgiving person I’d ever known. Although I didn’t realize it at the time, it was a form of self-made bondage. If you are hardhearted and unforgiving of other people’s shortcomings, inevitably you end up holding yourself to the same hard-hearted standard. Forgiveness allows you to accept your own faults and love yourself for what you are (which is a glorious creation of God).

In the Eucharist, sometimes simply opening up oneself to the Presence and divine healing of our Lord is all that is needed for extraordinary grace, growth and personal inner healing or comforting of past and present pains in life.

I can’t agree with the author more in terms of the healing that Christ offers. In the first few weeks of my conversion I came to know that healing very well. I won’t go into detail, but just say that Christ came in glory into my life, healed my heart of many years of pent up anger and resentment, healed many of my relationships and swept away a couple harmful addictions that had plagued me my whole adult life. I can say that, in the first few weeks of conversion, I experienced Christ mostly as a healer.

Response of David Tate:

God is a being of relationships. Since we are created in His image, then we, too, are beings of relationship. Our body influences our soul, and vice-versa. We have many physical parts that live in relationship with each other. In the same way, since we are also beings of relationship, we can say that analogous to our body parts, we also have many relationships that have an effect on each other. Just ask any married person how the parental-child relationships that their spouse had has influenced their own marital life. My friend from college grew up, and he had a child. That child, unfortunately, became a victim of child sexual abuse. That once-abused child is now grown, married, and has children of their own. The trauma of the abuse that happened years ago greatly hampers the family relationships to this day, even though the abuser ended up serving time in jail for child abuse. Only through pastoral counseling can my friend’s family ever begin to find some kind of rebuilding in their wounded relationships. Like the article coins, “falling through the cracks”, this should be re-stated. It has become a motto for living with abuse scars by the phrase, “living in the cracks.”

Regarding a true-life example for feeling mentally better after exercise, I am simultaneously recalling a very old memory and a very new one. When I was a boy growing up, television was that window of our home out into the world. The world was a much more interesting place then to my six year old mind, especially through what was shown on our black and white TV. I loved seeing Jack LaLanne do his exercises. He always seemed so happy and peppy. Matter of fact, he even had his dog, named Happy, with him on the show on occasion. He showed so clearly how exercising your body with a kitchen chair would pep you up. He even explained how the blood flowing brought wonderful oxygen so that you actually felt the wonderful tingle of life. The other example that comes from my recent times regards the Seminary work day. We are locked in on work days from 9:00 until 4:15pm. The manual labor of work day becomes a forced physical time where many times your mental troubles get sidelined due to the physical labor. As a Seminarian, it is very therapeutic to get into physical chores.

In terms of the sacramental life, my most emotional time in my life was when I was received into full communion with the Catholic Church as a student completing my RCIA program in Houston, TX. I had experienced transitory religious feelings in the non-Catholic life before. There was truly a feeling of ‘arriving’ when I went up for my first time to receive the Body and Blood of Christ. 

During my two semesters of the ministry of making visits in the hospital, I was blessed with only finding people that wanted to talk with me. I had heard of people trying to visit with some very difficult folks. Fortunately, I did not ascend to the harder cases in my short time in the Hospital Chaplaincy program. I found so often that people were just like me. I mean by this that normally we have to wear an emotional mask for many different reasons. Some reasons are simple and mundane, while others can be very deep-seated. I have at times tried to talk with people about my own personal needs. Because of the complexities that we humans have, I feel that very rarely have I been able to truly ‘click’ or maybe ‘unload’ is a more appropriate term. 

One conclusion that I have discovered is that there seems to be a void in my emotional life that I keep trying to fill, and it doesn’t quite happen. The reason for this being that I think in my childhood development years, and now having had my parents pass away, I have discovered unresolved issues that were not ‘taken care of’ regarding my needs (or at least perceived needs) as a child in my parents’ household. I would imagine that this might be true of many other people. I am hoping to learn how to incorporate this idea into my times with others as I progress toward priesthood.

Response of Tommie Kim:

“Inner-healing prayer is a great means of healing, wholeness, and growth.” “The relationship between God and each one of us transcends and expedites the therapeutic process.” “If the Sacraments of the Eucharist and Penance are added to this prayer, the transformation can be miraculous.”  

I agree with the author because I personally had the similar experience. When I first started writing books, I went through a time of  suffering deeply from insomnia. The more I tried to sleep, the more I became awake, falling into an endless string of thoughts.  As the sleepless nights continued, I was not able to focus on even the simplest daily routine of work. My emotions became extremely sensitive, reacting very impulsively to people around me. I started losing weight.  I was tempted to go for a medical consultation, but then realized that, in most cases, medications are only short term fix for a problem.  By recommendation from people around me, I started light physical exercise. It did help me to a slow recovery but what really helped eventually to overcome insomnia was prayer.   

Gradually I started concentrating and filling the time that I spent exercising with prayers. I was able to ease my tense emotions.  Prayer did help me emotionally and mentally. Exercise did help me physically. So both eventually worked out as a good solution.      




Response from Kathleen Brouillette:

…I have great gratitude for a young priest who heard me when I was in pain, and acknowledged my struggle.  He listened, as Mrs. Armstrong stressed in her chapter.  Surely, listening is significant in every relationship of our lives: from the most casual to the most intimate, from those in authority over us to those who are under our authority.  And recognizing people sometimes need more help than we can give, we can guide them to someone who complements our care for their souls, who will take care of the physical contributions to their suffering.  I once had a pastor, God rest his soul, who suggested that I move the woodpile from one side of the yard to the other during one long winter.  He was a wise man.

… Seeking forgiveness, and granting it, frees us of guilt and “baggage.”  Harriet Nelson, the wise Mom of the 50s family in “Ozzie and Harriet”, said, “forgive – not for others, but for yourself.”  Mitch Albom wrote in his beautiful book Tuesdays with Morrie about the life lessons learned from a dying man, “forgive, forgive everyone everything.” Coupling this medicine for our souls with the proper medicine for our bodies, we can soar to new heights. As someone once said, “Faith is stepping out into the darkness and believing one of two things will happen.  Either someone will be there to catch us, or we will be given wings to fly.” May the Church form us in truth, that we may help others find hope.

Joseph Ratzinger and Democratic Socialism
by Fr. Peter Kucer, MSA 

Fr. Peter Kucer, MSA, is an instructor of Church History and the Interim Academic Dean at Holy Apostles College & Seminary.  He completed his STD in Systematic Theology from the Catholic University of America in January, 2012, and worked in parish ministry before being appointed to the faculty at Holy Apostles in the fall of 2013.  His interests include the relationship of Catholic doctrine to history, politics, economics and scientific reasoning.  While teaching he is studying these relationships from the standpoint of stability and change.  Another relationship that is of great interest to him is between Catholicism and Judaism again from the standpoint of continuity and change.

Note from Ronda Chervin: 
Many Catholics in the United States simply assume that democracy, as in our history, is the only form of government that could be good under any circumstances. The views of Cardinal Ratzinger, later, of course, Pope Benedict VI, as explained by Fr. Kucer, help us to think the issue through freshly. I think it will be characteristic of 21st century Catholics to be seeking new forms of social justice. 

It is common for US Catholics to assume that the only viable political options are between Communism, or a totalitarian form of Socialism, and Capitalism.  What is not typically known is that there are other viable alternatives other than these two.  In this article, I will focus on one such alternative referred to by Pope emeritus Benedict XVI when he was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.  From this point forward, in order to avoid confusion between the papal office and the office of a theologian, I will refer to Ratzinger and not to Benedict XVI.  

In Europe Today and Tomorrow, Ratzinger positively describes democratic socialism, a political system that is neither Communism nor is Capitalism.  According to Ratzinger, 
“In many respects democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine; in any case, it contributed toward the formation of a social consciousness.”  
After this assertion, he clearly distinguishes democratic socialism from Communism or what Ratzinger calls totalitarian socialism.  In describing the totalitarian aspects of this type of socialism Ratzinger writes:

The totalitarian model, in contrast, was associated with a rigidly materialistic and atheistic philosophy of history: history was understood deterministically as a process of advancement that passed through a religious and then a liberal phase so as to arrive at the absolute and definitive society, in which religion becomes a superfluous relic from the past and the business of material production and trade is able to guarantee happiness for all.  The scientific appearance of this theory conceals an intolerant dogmatism: spirit is the product of matter; morals are the product of circumstances and must be defined and practiced according to the goals of society: everything that fosters the coming of that final state of happiness and morality.  Here the values that had built Europe are completely overturned.  Even worse, there is a rupture here with the complex moral tradition of mankind: there are no longer any values apart from the goals of progress; at a given moment everything can be permitted and even necessary, can be “moral” in a new sense of the word.  Even man can become an instrument; the individual does not matter.  The future alone becomes the terrible deity that rules over everyone and everything.

It is important to recognize that for Ratzinger, it is not the political model of socialism which is problematic, but instead it is whether this political form tends towards totalitarianism.  Once a state, whether socialist or capitalist, claims total authority over its citizens’ lives it will, provided it is politically opportune to do so, overlook the fundamental right to life of its citizens, as was demonstrated in Capitalistic Chile under Pinochet’s rule or in the USSR under Stalin.  It is often overlooked, that a democracy, whether representational, as in the US, or direct, as in the case of Switzerland, whether a social democracy as in Germany or a capitalistic democracy as in the US, can share totalitarian features that although not as explicit as in the totalitarian state run socialism of North Korea, where a few “experts” decide the fate of the many, are still present.  

The main difference between a totalitarian state-run socialism and either a totalitarian capitalistic democracy or totalitarian socialistic democracy is that instead of a few dictating the life of the many, the many dictate the lives of a few.  In totalitarian forms of grounds up democracy, that need not be as obvious as pure mob rule, freedom of speech, freedom of worship and even the right to life of certain individuals, innocent from any crime, can be repealed by the many through a democratic process.  Unfortunately, due to the modern tendency of excessively exalting the qualities of democracy, this possible distortion of democracy is often forgotten.  In countering the modern mythologizing of democracy Ratzinger writes:

The purpose of all necessary demythologizing is to restore reason to its proper place and function.  Here, however, we must once again unmask a myth that confronts us with the ultimate and decisive question for a politics of reason: the myth that a majority decision in many or, perhaps, in most cases is the “most reasonable” way to arrive at a solution for everyone.  But the majority cannot be the ultimate principle; there are values that no majority as the right to repeal.  The killing of the innocent can never become a right and cannot be raised to the status of a right by any authority.




Now that key political terminology that I will use in this essay has been de-idolized, I will proceed in determining the relevancy in US politics of the non-totalitarian democratic socialism that Ratzinger refers to.  In doing so, I will first describe the historical context out of which Ratzinger affirms democratic socialism.  Second, beginning in the light of Germany’s political history, I will examine Ratzinger’s view of democratic socialism and of other political ideologies.  Lastly, both Ratzinger’s positive assessment of democratic socialism and his understanding of the relationship between the mission of the Church and political ideologies in the context of present day US politics will be discussed.

• Historical Context of Socialism in Germany:

Ratzinger’s understanding of socialism, especially its democratic variant, is influenced by how socialism developed in Germany, his home country.  In 1869, August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht founded the German Marxist Socialist party.  In 1875, it merged with the first German organized workers’ party founded in the 1860s by Ferdinand Lassalle (1825-1864), a German Jew and one of Germany’s first socialist political activists.  After the Marxist Socialist party merged with the Lassalleans, it was renamed in the 1890s as the Social Democratic Party (SPD) of Germany.  In 1911, with the support of the SPD, the National Insurance Code of 1911 was established.  This internationally influential code “integrated the three separate insurance programs into a unified social security system, and compulsory coverage and benefits were extended to white-collar workers.  Survivors’ pensions for widows were also introduced in 1911.”  In 1919, the more radical members of the SPD splintered off to form the Communist Party of Germany (KPD). 

The KPD, unlike the SPD, was a strict, centrally organized political party whose leadership was intent on implementing the political directives of the USSR’s Communist International (Comintern).  As the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) became Stalinized, the KPD did likewise.  As it was Stalinized, the KPD became a hostile opponent to the SPD.  As described by Beatrix Herlemann, “The strong stance against the hostile ‘brother’ – social democracy – would run like a red thread through the entire history of the KPD.  Only twice – in the context of the popular front policy of 1935 to 1936 and in the forced unification of the KPD and SPD in 1946 – did it retreat from this position, and then only for short periods and because of strategic considerations.”  In the same year that the KPD was founded in, the SPD began to substantially participate in the formation of the Weimar Republic (1919-1933), especially with respect to the Weimar’s welfare system.  This welfare system, writes David F. Crew, “[became] a bitterly contested terrain where Social Democrats and Communists battled one another for the support of the German working class.” 

Adolf Hitler’s coming into power in 1933 signaled the end of the Weimar Republic and its welfare system and the beginning of the German Reich which lasted to 1943.  During the time of the German Reich, Hitler violently suppressed both the SPD and the KPD.  In addition, he set out, with the aid of his National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP) otherwise known in English as the Nazi Party, to transform, according to racist ideology, the inherited Weimar welfare system.  According to Hitler, the racially inferior did not have the right to care under the German welfare system but rather ought to be sterilized, euthanized and even “exterminated”.  The SPD courageously resisted the Nazis’ aim of completely recasting the welfare state according to racist ideology.  This was heroically witnessed to by Kurt Schumacher, chairman of the SPD from 1946-1952.  Because of his resistance to the Nazi party Schumacher spent ten years in a Nazi concentration camp.  

After WWII and the subsequent fall of the Nazis from power, the SPD emerged, describes Hanna Schissler, “with immense moral authority.”  Unlike many of the other political parties under the Nazis who, explains Schissler, “had been severely compromised by their collaboration with the Nazis…[t]he SPD, in contrast, could claim a stance of unbridled and untainted opposition to National Socialism.”  In the 1950’s, the SPD gained even greater appeal by abandoning its identification with the working class, as influenced by its Marxist’s origins, and instead became a party for all people.  This decision led to significant electoral victories for the SPD in the 1960’s and in the 1970’s.  During this phase of self-transformation the SPD also, out of fear of both Nazi and Stalinist abuse of centralized state power, ceased advocating for state ownership of the means of production.  However, they did retain their goals of maintaining a social welfare state and of implementing, in a democratic manner, a European planned economy.  The latter goal was thwarted by the US Marshall Plan which emphasized free enterprise in Western Europe rather than large-scale socialization. 

The SPD, as presently known by Ratzinger, is a messy democratic political party that is not highly structured and centralized, as was the KPD and the Nazi party, but rather, as described by Peter Lösche, “is decentralized, fragmented, and flexible.  Local party organizations of various kinds…enjoy a high degree of autonomy, while organizations at the regional (Bezirk) or state (Land) level have their own, very considerable weight.  The party Executive (Parteivorstand) and the party Presidium do not stand at the summit of a centralized, pyramid-like structure; rather, they tend to function separately from the rest of the party.” It advocates a moderate, welfare state and, in a non-totalitarian manner, a moderately, planned economy.  When Ratzinger refers to Democratic Socialism his primary point of reference is the SPD as distinguished from the KPD and the NSDAP, also known as the Nazi party.

2.0 Ratzinger on Democratic Socialism and other Political Ideologies:

When Ratzinger’s remarks on socialism are read in light of the just presented historical context, then it becomes possible to correlate political terms that he uses with specific German parties.  First, Ratzinger’s positive appraisal of democratic socialism is to be understood with reference to the present SPD party which, as previously explained, promotes a welfare state that is moderately planned, democratic, decentralized and non-totalitarian.  Second, Ratzinger’s negative appraisal of the “rigidly materialistic and atheistic”  totalitarian socialism corresponds to Germany’s  KPD party which aimed at creating a state that is the totality of its citizens’ existence.  According to Ratzinger, this form of socialism failed not simply because of its “false economic dogmatism” but more fundamentally due to its “contempt for human rights” and by “their subjection of morality to the demands of the system and to their promises for the future.”  By making morality subordinate to the political system of communism, “man’s primordial certainties about God, about himself, and about the universe” are, argues Ratzinger, lost. 

Although Ratzinger positively appraises democratic socialism, as distinct from totalitarian socialism as exemplified by both Germany’s NSDAP (Nazi)and KPD parties, he is careful to reject any political model, including democratic socialism, as best representative of Catholic life formed by faith. Ratzinger clearly maintains that the Church is not to advocate any model of governance formed by political reason as a practical expression of theological faith. This leads Ratzinger to develop what his former doctoral student Vincent Twomey calls a “theology of politics”  in which faith and political reason are accorded a certain degree of autonomy from one another. This term was coined by Twomey, “to contrast with ‘political theology, a concept that Ratzinger rejects, namely, any theology, such as that of J.B. Metz or the classical forms of liberation theology, that involves the instrumentalization of either the Church or the faith for political purposes or the attribution of sacral or salvific significance to politics.”   An example of the Church’s indirect influence on politics is the witness set forth by Mother Teresa of Calcutta and her sisters in their personal dedication to the poorest of the poor.  Although they do not advocate any political ideology, they are not simply acting as a first response, Band-Aid solution to the problem of poverty but rather are, as official representatives of the Church and her politics of a not-yet and present Kingdom of God, challenging the consciences of those who make up and decide various political platforms.  Their courageous witness serve as a constant reminder to politicians of all parties, to take into account the needs of the poor which can never adequately be met only by distant, mechanical and technocratic means.

In defending the relative autonomy of faith from political reason, as well witnessed to by Mother Teresa and her sister, Ratzinger disagrees with theologians who after Vatican Council II “transformed de Lubac’s theology of Catholicity into a political theology that sought to put Christianity to practical use as a catalyst for achieving political unity.”   According to Ratzinger, this transformation does not follow de Lubac’s thought “to its logical conclusion.”   Rejecting this transformation of de Lubac’s thought does not mean, though, that Ratzinger is advocating an individualistic manner of perceiving Christianity in which grace mediated by the Church only has relevance for the individual soul and not also for man as a whole.

Rather, Ratzinger contends, by conceiving salvation as not only a matter concerning the individual soul but also as drawing people into communion with God and one another, de Lubac was not referring to the political but to Church, considered as a sacrament.  Understood in this manner, the inner politics of the Church, which are a sacramental sign of the heavenly Kingdom in our midst and yet still to come, are to serve as constant challenge to the politics of the world.  For example, in electing their nation’s leader what modern nation state has ever, as the Vatican does in electing the pontiff, prayed to the Holy Spirit for guidance?  Even though the Catholic Church does have a sacramentally based politics, this does not mean, though, insists Ratzinger it is to “directly establish man’s secular, political unity; the sacrament does not replace politics; and theocracy, whatever its form, is a misunderstanding.”  For Ratzinger, it is erroneous to view the Church as a sacrament of unity in this world’s political terms, since her unity is not due to her communion with men but to “God’s community with men in Christ and hence the communing of men with one another.”  This communion refers principally to the celebration of the Eucharist.  Consequently, “the Church”, writes Ratzinger explaining de Lubac’s thought, “is the celebration of the Eucharist; the Eucharist is the Church; they do not simply stand side by side, they are one and the same.”

Through the Eucharist the Church draws men together into a community of faith that, describes Ratzinger, “is different from that of every club, every political party…”  When the Church loses her identity by surrendering to politics, it then loses her “political interest because no spiritual force emanates from her.”   This force, according to Ratzinger, can only be retained by maintaining a clear distinction between both eschatological truths of faith and the Church’s Eucharistic sacramental identity from political goals and political reasoning.  According to Ratzinger, truths of faith which the Church, as an eschatological sign, has sacramental access to cannot be constructed politically by reason on earth.  Similarly, the Church cannot identify a political system as best representing these truths of faith.  This does not mean that the Church is to avoid engagement with the world.  Rather, the Church, in accordance with Ratzinger’s interpretation of Augustine, is to engage in the world by addressing spiritual and physical needs of man.  Addressing the needs of man should not, though, lead the Church to officially formulate in a political theology an ideal political system which is supposedly best suited to meet these needs.  

Consequently, Ratzinger strongly rejects the political theologies of both Alfons Auer and Johann Baptist Metz.  These two theologians confused truths of faith with political reason by proposing, writes Ratzinger, the “ecclesialization of everything.”  Auer and Metz integrate faith and reason in their common relationship to political reasoning to an extent that Ratzinger does not.  In contrast with Auer and Metz, Ratzinger maintains that even though salvation begins in this world it is not to be politicized, for it is primarily directed beyond this earthly world to the heavenly world, where reason will encounter divine truth without the mediation of faith.  According to Ratzinger, such political theologies attempt to replace the Church’s role of evangelizing the world with truths of faith to be received and which transcend the world with the role of “liberating the world within its worldliness” by actively making truth on earth.

In Introduction to Christianity, Ratzinger further argues that the politicization of theology is contrary to the Christian faith in the Trinity.  In order to understand his reasoning his concept of ontological truth as defined by consciousness, love and freedom needs further explanation.  Ratzinger describes truth in this manner by writing, “if the logos of all being, the being that bears up and encompasses everything, is consciousness, freedom and love, then it follows automatically that the supreme factor in the world is not cosmic necessity but freedom.”  After defining “the supreme factor in the world” as a rational love which necessarily entails freedom and unpredictability Ratzinger then concludes that “if the supreme point in the world’s designs is a freedom which bears up, wills, knows and loves the whole world as freedom, then this means that together with freedom the incalculability implicit in it is an essential part of the world.”

The above reasoning leads Ratzinger to reject political theology as principally defined by Hegel since Hegelian idealistic political theology, according to Ratzinger, ignores freedom as constitutive to the world including its politics.   In addition to rejecting an idealism that is taken up into political theology, Ratzinger also rejects Marx’s supposedly scientific, political theory which is similar to Hegel’s thought without the theological and spiritual aspect of Hegelian dialectics. Present, therefore, within his rejection of Hegelian political theology is also a dismissal of Marx’s approach to politics.  He spells out his rejection of Hegelian political theology in the following manner. According to Ratzinger, Hegel rejects love as constitutive of God since, as explained by Ratzinger, Hegel views the Triune nature of God as only “the expression of the historical side of God and therefore of the way in which God appears in history.”    Hegel, therefore concludes Ratzinger, is a Monarchist since the description of God as three persons in one divine nature “are regarded as only masks of God which tell us something about ourselves but nothing about God himself.”   

Ratzinger relates the Monarchism of Hegel and its early versions to political theology by writing:




Even in its early Christian form and then again in its revival by Hegel and Marx it has a decidedly political tinge; it is “political theology”.  In the ancient Church it served the attempt to give the imperial monarchy a theological foundation; in Hegel it becomes the apotheosis of the Prussian state, and in Marx a program of action to secure a sound future for humanity.  Conversely, it could be shown how in the old Church the victory of belief in the Trinity over Monarchianism signified a victory over the political abuse of theology: the ecclesiastical belief in the Trinity shattered the politically usable molds, destroyed the potentialities of theology as a political myth, and disowned the misuse of the Gospel to justify a political situation.




According to Ratzinger, such a political theology is contrary to Christian faith since, for orthodox Christianity, God is truly triune in himself and not simply as manifested to man in history.  By being triune, the truth of God is convertible with love.  True non self-centered love, after all, requires the presence of more than one person.  In the Trinity the mutual love the Father has for the Son does not overwhelm the Son but rather is eternally expressed and shared in the Holy Spirit.  In order for love to be true, as we learn from the Trinity, it must be free from compulsion and domination.  It follows that since the world is reflective of the truth of its creator it is “a world defined by the structure of freedom” and, to a certain extent, shares in the incomprehensibility of God.   Due to the freedom and incomprehensibility of the world, argues Ratzinger, no one political system can be promoted, in a Hegelian or Marxist sense, as definitive.  A Catholic approach to politics, as influenced by the truth of the Trinity impressed on all that exists, political unity must never be totalitarian, since this is opposed to the loving non-totalitarian truth of the Trinity, but rather is an assimilating unity that permits legitimate diversity.  Ratzinger, cautiously following Arnold Toynbee’s rejection of Oswald Spengler’s deterministic one-way only biologistic concept of history, which includes political history, brings out the freedom and incomprehensibility of the political processes by proposing more of a “voluntaristic view that places its bets on the powers of creative minorities and on exceptional individuals.”

Since he asserts that exceptional individuals, in particular the saints, such as Mother Teresa of Calcutta, rather than an ideal political system, is how Christianity transforms the political, Ratzinger insists that the eschatological Kingdom of God as proposed by faith is not in itself “a political norm of political activity.”  In rejecting faith as a political norm for political activity he writes, “The Kingdom of God which Christ promises does not consist in a modification of our earthly circumstances ... That Kingdom is found in those persons whom the finger of God has touched and who have allowed themselves to be made God’s sons and daughters.  Clearly, such a transformation can only take place through death.  For this reason, the Kingdom of God, salvation in its fullness, cannot be deprived of its connection with dying.” 

This view of Ratzinger is in accordance with his manner of defining truth as ultimately a personal reality and not as located in a general, ideal practice set forth by a political ideology.  By being personal, truths of faith are primarily relevant for causing conversions in individuals through their transformation in Christ and not in bringing about a structural political change.  Once again, the non-direct political, but not a-political, example set by Mother Teresa of Calcutta and her sisters well exemplifies this ecclesial way of engaging and challenging the political context she is situated in.

In summary, despite Ratzinger’s positive appraisal for democratic socialism, as primarily understood in reference to the German SPD party, he makes, as demonstrated previously, a clear distinction between political opinion and ecclesial faith.  This distinction follows from his moderate integration of the reason-faith relation that respects a clear differentiation between political reasoning and truths of faith.  According to Ratzinger the papacy is to be especially respectful of this distinction by taking care not to side with any one political party.  In this way, he writes, the pope as a non-political center “can be effective against the drift into dependence on political systems or the pressures emanating from our civilization.”  “[O]nly by having such a center” argues Ratzinger “can the faith of Christians secure a clear voice in the confusion of ideologies.” 

Furthermore, according to Ratzinger, in her present “painful ‘between’” state on earth the Church (in this context understood through the ordained and consecrated life) shares in the suffering of mankind “from within” by relating to the world non-politically.  She does so, asserts Ratzinger, by offering moral norms for politics and not by presenting herself as an ideal “political norm of political activity.”  For Ratzinger, the fundamental moral norm to be defended by the Church within the political arena is the right to life.  The killing of the innocent, which includes abortion, “cannot”, declares Ratzinger, “be made right by any law.”  While, for Ratzinger, the Church, as publicly represented by the bishops, is to be a moral authority in the world she is neither to focus her efforts on addressing specific political/economic issues nor is she to advocate any one political ideology.  This does not mean she may not legitimately critique in a broad way specific economic/political positions and events such as the US led invasion of Iraq.  However, it is not her role to come up with a detailed political/economic plan to serve as a blue print for the US, or any other country, to follow.  

By refusing to be directly political, the Church especially through her bishops and other public representatives, writes Ratzinger, maintains her non-political identity as “an open space of reconciliation among the parties” while avoiding “becoming a party herself.”  Even though Ratzinger does not want the Church, as narrowly defined by the clergy and consecrated life, to officially advocate any one ideology he does not intend this to be interpreted that individuals, including bishops, are not permitted to express their private opinions in this matter.  As we have seen Ratzinger, in expressing his personal opinion, not to be confused with ecclesial faith, clearly states, “In many respects democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine; in any case, it contributed toward the formation of a social consciousness.”  We will now answer the question of how Ratzinger’s private political/economic leanings and public, sacramental representation of the Catholic Church are relevant for the US?  

3.0 Ratzinger’s Political Views in the Context of US Politics:  

As is quite evident in the current US political climate, Socialism is portrayed negatively by both mainstream Democrats and Republicans.  According to a recent poll done by Pew Research, “The word 'socialism' triggers a negative reaction for most Americans, but certainly not for all. Six-in-ten (60%) people say they have a negative reaction to the word, while just 31% have a positive reaction. Those numbers are little changed from April 2010.”  The negative association that the term socialism bears in the US has a particular impact on those who are running for office or are in office.  The term is typically used in order to either discredit an opponent or to reassure the voter that a candidate, by not being a socialist, is a moderate.  

For example, as reported by Politico, the presidential candidate Mitt Romney avoided calling President Barack Obama a socialist directly since, “I don't use the word socialist or I haven't so far, but I do agree that the president's approach is government heavy, government intensive, and it's not working.”  In commenting on Romney’s statement, Alexander Burns, writing for Politico, then states, “That answer is consistent with Romney's general approach to speaking about the president, describing Obama as a good and well intentioned person who's not up to the job of turning the country around.”  Implied within this comment is that Obama would not be a good and well intentioned person if he were directly promoting socialist ideology.  Later, in his 2012 book, No Apology, Romney attempts to discredit President Obama by associating him indirectly with socialism by writing, “It is an often-remarked-upon irony that at a time when Europe is moving away from socialism and its many failures, President Obama is moving us toward that direction.”  To counteract such an opinion, President Obama explicitly distanced himself from socialism, “When” reports The Nation, “he began talking deficit reduction last summer—with a proposal for a little bit of tax fairness combined with a suggestion that he was open to negotiations with regard to the future of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—Obama went out of his way to explain that his was not ‘some wild-eyed socialist position.’”  However, as was described in the first section of this essay similar programs were advocated by the Socialists in Germany, in particular Theodor Christian Lohmann, who under Otto von Bismarck helped to draft Germany’s social security plans.  Lohmann in Communismus, Socialismus, Christenthum proposed reforming Germany by looking to socialist theories for inspiration.

In contrast with the general US fear of socialism, which can be understood as an excessive reaction to the European revolutions of 1848 and the subsequent cold war, Ratzinger is not irrationally frightened by the mere prospect of socialism.  He recognizes it as a political system that, along with other political systems, can be compatible with Christianity as long as it is not expressed according to the totalitarian version.  Democratic socialism, for Ratzinger, served as a “salutary counterbalance” between more radical positions.




Starting from its initial premise, democratic socialism was able to become part of the two existing models, as a salutary counterbalance to the radical liberal positions, enriching and correcting them.  It proved, furthermore, to be something that transcended denominational affiliations: in England it was the party of the Catholics, who could not feel at home either in the Protestant-conservative camp or among the liberals.  In Germany under Kaiser Wilhelm, too, many Catholic centrists felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly Prussian and Protestant conservative forces. 




The “two existing models” that Ratzinger refers to, (the laicist model in which all religions are completely relegated to the private sphere, a tendency in France, and a state supported Church model, evident in German history) do not have direct parallels in the US, especially in relationship to US Catholics who do not as a block of voters gravitate towards one specific party.  Nonetheless, the concept of democratic socialism serving as a “salutary counterbalance” is something that the US political arena could benefit from.  Currently, US politics tends to be bipolar, either Democratic or Republican.  A third intermediary party, whether socialistic or not may help the US political environment to be get out of its entrenched binary thought, become less polemic and more open to dialogue and genuine listening to opposing sides and viewpoints, in accordance with the Catholic concept, inspired by the Trinity, of an assimilating political unity and not a totalitarian political unity.

With that said it is important to acknowledge that Western Europe, especially in the 1980s and 1990s, has been described as experiencing a Eurosclerosis.  This term is used in reference to Western Europe’s difficulty in funding their welfare state, their wide spread low birth rates, their rapidly aging populations, their high unemployment rates, and their slow job growth.  Taking these aspects into account, the question arises as to whether the Western European social welfare state model is a viable one for the US to pattern itself on.  Furthermore, as has been acknowledged by many, if Western Europe had not accepted US aid, for example in post WWII Marshall Plan, and had not relied on US leadership and military protection it would have been impossible for any Western European country to develop and sustain their welfare programs.  Likewise, since the US was relied upon, along with constant barrage of criticisms, as the Western military might to keep chaotic anti-Western European forces at bay, the US was not able to develop a similar welfare program.  It could no, since a significant portion of tax dollars, which could have been used to build up a social safety net, was instead used to support a US military budget that far exceeds any Western European military budget.  Finally, it has been pointed out that Democratic Socialism has been relatively successful in small countries, such as in Denmark and Sweden, since they are small and homogenous.  In contrast, the US is a large and highly diverse country politically, economically and culturally.  Could these differences pose an unsurmountable obstacle for the US in its attempts to enact a similar democratic socialism?

The issue of whether democratic socialism is viable for the US is not, though, the main one that Ratzinger’s reflection on politics has to offer for US politics.  (Even though, as has been pointed out, a third major party that shares some features in common with European Democratic Socialism could greatly help in ending the current hardened bi-polar political scene in the US.)  What the US can greatly benefit from Ratzinger’s political views is his recognition that since all political parties are necessarily imperfect, theological attempts to so integrate faith with political reason that the two become practically indiscernible from each other ought to be rejected.  Since any political ideology, by being reflective of this fallen world, are imperfect, it is imperative for the Church, in its official capacity, to remain ascetically detached from political parties while, at the same time, encouraging a multitude of political expressions, as long as they are not totalitarian, to spring up and in their competitive struggle for votes and thus purify to one another in their overlapping relationships.  

Ratzinger’s political views on the proper relationship of Church and political ideologies are a direct outcome of his understanding of how reason is to relate to faith.  According to him, although reason and faith are integrated and related to one another, they, at the same time retain a degree of autonomy within their perspective realms.  He, therefore, opposes attempts to couple faith with socialism, as has been proposed in Europe, or in the case of the US, with capitalism as evident in more conservative politics typically associated with the Republican Party. Marrying any political ideology to faith would, according to Ratzinger, abolish, to the detriment of both faith and politics, the vital distinction between faith and politics.  Faith suffers in such a scheme since, at the price of being immanent by being totally integrated with one political system, it loses its transcendence.  Politics likewise suffers in this system since, argues Ratzinger, it would no longer be accountable to a reality that is distinct from it, thus greatly increasing the possibility of political regimes veering off into totalitarianism. According to Ratzinger, by maintaining a clear distinction from any one political system, faith, in respecting the different qualities that each system has to offer, is better able to come to the aid of all political systems.  

The essential way, for Ratzinger, that faith comes to the aid of political systems is by defending truths that are naturally known within the political realm but often are either ignored or forgotten.  This means that the principle space where truths of faith overlap political reason is defined by positions on specific moral teaching such as on abortion.  Within this space, in which concerns of the Church and concerns of politics overlap one another, the Church, as she is currently doing through the US Bishops, is to remind the political sphere of moral truths that are received by man through his reason and affirmed by the hierarchy of the Church.  In this moral sense faith as lived out by the Church is normative for politics but its normative dimension stops here. Faith is not, contends Ratzinger, to be seen as “a political norm of political activity.”   The truths that the Church is to uphold as normative for political activity, reminds Ratzinger in a memorandum sent to Cardinal McCarrick in 2004 and made public in July of the same year, do not all have the same weight, nor do all have the same degree of clarity on what constitutes a position from being right from wrong.  For example, when it comes to abortion and euthanasia, the Catholic Church teaches that the only legitimate position to hold is that these acts are intrinsically evil, and, consequently, can never be morally justified.  In making these distinctions Ratzinger writes:




Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.




Although the Church, as represented by Ratzinger, clearly grants the greatest moral weight to moral issues dealing with the beginning of life and the end of life, this does not mean that moral issues that concern men and women between these two stages are of no importance to the Church.  They certainly are, as repeatedly asserted by Pope Francis.  When it is acknowledged that there exists a healthy, legitimate diversity of opinion among US Catholic on how to address issues such as immigration, taxation and health care reform, then the marked tendency for US Catholics to idolize either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party will diminish.  In addition, when US Catholics resist the tendency to idolize a political party while demonizing the opposing party, they, including those who rightly cannot in conscience vote for the Democratic Party that seems wedded to a pro-abortion position, will be freed to see that even the party they oppose cannot be wrong on all issues in all ways, especially ones concerning pragmatic thought and application.  Idolization, forbidden by the first commandment, prevents one from acknowledging deficiencies within the political party one adopts and blinds one to the need of a purifying presence of another party, and hopefully the purifying presence of more than one.

In summary, the essential teaching US Catholics can learn from Ratzinger’s thought is that the maintenance of clear and not hazy boundaries between political reasoning and truths of faith is ultimately beneficial to politics since it allows the Church to be “an open space of reconciliation among the parties”  and, as a result, grants to Catholics the interior freedom to judge a political party they may adopt according to the supranational ethics encouraged by the Church. The moral supranational ethics of the Church founded in universal truths also encourages Catholics to transcend their political party when it tends towards totalitarianism and to avoid idolizing the political party they adopt.

Conclusion:

In this essay, we have distinguished Democratic Socialism from totalitarian socialism.  Next we examined the historical context in which Ratzinger positively appraises socialism in its democratic form. This was followed by examining, in light of Germany’s political history, Ratzinger’s take not only on democratic socialism but also on all political ideologies in relationship to the Church’s mission.  Finally, in the context of present day US politics, Ratzinger’s assessment of democratic socialism, while insisting that the Church is never to officially promote any political ideology no matter how attractive it may appear, was discussed. 

These various steps in the thought of Ratzinger were taken with the hope of finding a way to lessen the US’s highly polarized political environment.  We saw that in Europe democratic socialism, by mediating between two political options, helped to bring about greater dialogue and cooperation.  In stating this Ratzinger writes, “Starting from its initial premise, democratic socialism was able to become part of the two existing models, as a salutary counterbalance to the radical liberal positions, enriching and correcting them.”  However, upon appraising some key differences between US and Western Europe political and economic history the question arose as to whether democratic socialism could ever serve the US political environment in such a positive manner.  However, Ratzinger’s ascetic detachment as an official representative of the Church even from persuasive aspects of Democratic Socialism can teach US Catholic a very important lesson.  Following the example of Mother Teresa’s indirect political influence the best way, as proposed by Ratzinger, for the Catholic Church, sacramentally speaking, in the US to have a positive effect on politics is to avoid presenting the faith as “a political norm of political activity.”  This means that great caution is to be taken not to be tempted to wed the faith to what is currently defined as liberal politics or conservative politics.  As pointed out by Ratzinger, such a marriage would contradict the very nature of Christianity, especially as it was lived out in its early stages.  In explaining this Ratzinger writes:




When Christianity was looking in the Roman world for a word with which it could express, in a synthetic way understandable to everyone, what Jesus Christ meant to them, it came across the word conservator, which had designated in Rome the essential duty and the highest service necessary to render to mankind.  But this very title the Christians could not and would not transfer to their Redeemer; with that term, indeed, though could not translate the word Messiah or Christ or describe the task of the Savior of the world.  From the perspective of the Roman Empire, indeed, it would necessarily seem that the most important duty was that of preserving the situation of the empire against all internal and external threats, since this empire embodied a period of peace and justice in which men could live in security and dignity…Nevertheless, Christians could not simply want everything to remain as it was…The fact that Christ could be described, not as Conservator, but as Salvator certainly had no political or revolutionary significance, but it necessarily indicated the limits of mere conservatism and pointed to a dimension of human life that goes beyond the causes of peace and order, which are the proper subject of politics.




May we as Catholics in the US remind ourselves of this most important lesson taught to us by the early Christians.  Being a follower of Christ does not necessitate that one identifies with a conservative or a liberal political party.  Rather, being a follower of Christ, being a Catholic, primarily entails an ever greater participation in Christ as savior who, regardless of the reigning political ideologies of the day, wishes to purify and redeem all of existence, all ideologies.  As His disciples our principle mission, while not diminishing the role of politics in this world, is to proclaim “Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” by relying not on worldly, political wisdom but on the power that comes from the Spirit so that our faith will “rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.”

Questions

• Is the political system of democracy necessarily coupled with capitalism?  Why or why not.  
• Can the political system of democracy be coupled with socialism?  Why or why not.
• Can a democracy become totalitarian?  If so, why?  If not, why not?
• What determines when a political system is no longer compatible with Catholic faith?
• Historically, why did Ratzinger claim, “In many respects democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine; in any case, it contributed toward the formation of a social consciousness.”
• Do you agree with Ratzinger’s claim, why or why not?
• According to Ratzinger, how may the Church, when presenting herself officially, legitimately engage the political world?
• Based on the article, how do you suggest a priest, when publicly speaking, represent the Church’s relationship to politics?