Liberalism in CST is actually closer to what many in this nation think of as conservatism or, more accurately, libertarianism. That is, liberalism in its earliest formulations championed free market capitalism, minimal state activity in public life and personal liberty in cultural matters. It was a theory that valued individual freedom above other goods. CST identified such a social theory as being individualistic in the extreme.

Socialism according to CST can be seen as an overreaction to liberalism. Socialists opposed laissez-faire capitalism and encouraged state intervention, even control, of the economy. Personal liberties were to be overridden in the name of the good of society. And, even more troubling, socialism was viewed as antithetical to religion due to its materialism. As well, family and other social groups could be overwhelmed since it was collectivist in the way it related the individual to the state.

Thus, liberalism and socialism, as they were defined in CST, became the incarnation of individualism and collectivism, respectively. Liberalism and socialism have evolved a great deal over time, of course, as has CST. But the authors of CST have generally understood the Catholic vantage point as more attentive to issues of community than liberalism allows while not ignoring the values of personal freedom as it charges socialism does. So one might see CST as a tradition that tries to strike a balance between two faulty extremes. In doing so it has developed affinities with other communitarian approaches.

If you look at the two stories of creation found in the book of Genesis you see the teaching that human beings are essentially social. In the second account of creation God states: "it is not good for the human being to be alone" (Gen. 2,18). There is the insistence that the person is meant to be in relationship, and so the reason humans are created as male and female is precisely so that they be driven to seek each other. Humanity is meant for companionship.

In the earlier creation account of the first chapter we read: "And so God created the human being in God's image; in the divine image did God create the human being, male and female did God create them" (Gen. 1:27). Now the point is not that to be in the divine image means to have gender. God is neither male nor female; God is relational. For the Hebrew writer God is the God who creates in order to enter into covenant with the creature. God is relational and to be in the image and likeness of such a God means that humanity is meant to be in relationship. We are our true selves when we are in relationship not as isolated beings.

Therefore, when CST affirms the dignity of the person this is not a reading of the person as an isolated individual. Rather, the communitarian emphasis of CST situates human dignity within a dense web of relationships. Human beings are most fully alive, most truly in touch with the dignity of their nature, when they are able to acknowledge the profound links existing between themselves and God, other persons and the rest of creation.

It was John XXIII who provided the first attempt at a list of human rights endorsed by the church (Pacem in Terris, # 11-27).The 1971 Synod of Bishops proposed a right to development (Justitia in Mundo, chap. 1) and John Paul II has recently written of a right to a safe environment (The Ecological Crisis: a Common Responsibility [1990 World Day of Peace Message], #9) and to economic initiative (Centesimus Annus, #43). So reflection on human rights continues within the tradition of CST and new rights have been asserted since John’s 1963 roster. In short, CST offers no fixed and precise list of human rights but has developed a rather comprehensive roster.

In his "Address to the 34th General Assembly of the United Nations" John Paul II provided an updated roster of “some of the most important” human rights which the church endorses:

the right to life, liberty and security of the person; the right to food, clothing, housing, sufficient health care, rest, and leisure; the right to freedom of expression, education and culture; the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; the right to manifest one’s religion either individually or in community, in public or in private; the right to choose a state of life, to found a family and to enjoy all conditions necessary for family life; the right to property and work, to adequate working conditions and a just wage; the right of assembly and association; the right to freedom of movement, to internal and external migration; the right to nationality and residence; the right to political participation and the right to participate in the free choice of the political system of the people to which one belongs (#13).

As you can tell, CST embraces a wide array of human rights. It is a list much closer to the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights than those established as constitutional in the United States. While CST maintains that human rights should be recognized by law in all nations, it is aware that, at present, human rights will be moral claims that are only sometimes recognized by civil law. Translating moral rights into legally binding rights is one of the aims of the church’s teaching.

We might see human rights as providing the framework within which societies must operate. This framework does not determine the specifics of social organization and practice but it does set the limits within which a good society functions. In effect, the strategic import of human rights for CST is as the means of articulating a universal message despite the broad array of cultures and social systems found in our world.

The church embraces human rights for the substantive reason that we have come to see the intimate connection between them and human dignity. This is an example of how CST has evolved as a result of its interaction with other political ideas. When nineteenth century popes heard liberals’ cry for personal rights they interpreted this plea, in some cases rightly, as an exaggerated individualism. But as liberalism’s understanding of freedom was modified over the course of events the Church came to appreciate the centrality of freedom to human dignity. By the time of Vatican II the bishops could state: “Authentic freedom is an exceptional sign of the divine image within the person” (Gaudium et Spes, #17).

The Church also reflected upon the place of rights-language in explaining the meaning of the common good. In Pacem in Terris, John XXIII wrote “in our time the common good is chiefly guaranteed when personal rights and duties are maintained” (#60). Achieving the common good at the expense of the person’s rights is a false proposition. Human rights spell out the standards of personal well-being that any conception of the common good must embrace.

Back to question index

This term is often invoked in CST. Perhaps the most commonly cited explanation is John XXIII’s succinct description of the common good as “the sum total of conditions of social living, whereby persons are enabled more fully and readily to achieve their own perfection” (Mater et Magistra, #65). For CST the common good is not an aggregate term, the totality of individual goods. Rather, there are goods that are only experienced in common, as shared, or they are not experienced at all.

The common good also suggests that the good of each person, the well-being of the human person, is connected to the good of others. That is, human beings only truly flourish in the context of a community. Our well-being is experienced amidst a setting in which other persons also flourish. From this perspective we can say two things: Each of us has an obligation to contribute to the common good so that human life can flourish and no description of the common good can exclude concern for an individual, writing off some person or group as unworthy of our interest. That is why human rights claims have become an important dimension of the common good in CST, no one should be denied the basic goods needed to join in the life of the community.

The centrality of the common good in CST reflects the communitarian outlook of the tradition and a commitment to serve the common good is a means whereby the dignity of each person is given its due.