There are those who, despite considering themselves orthodox Catholics, nevertheless dissent from Catholic social teaching - that body of doctrines which has as its object man in society, especially with regard to political and economic conditions. In all other areas of doctrine, they are loyal to the Church’s Magisterium and yet when it comes to her social doctrine they are vociferous dissenters. They are, to borrow a phrase from Pius XI, “social modernists”.
The usual argument posited by the social modernists to defend their dissent is that the Church’s social teachings are non-doctrinal and merely prudential in nature and can therefore be safely dismissed. Sometimes they go as far as to argue that the Church in making pronouncements on social matters has erred and taught on something which she possesses no competence to teach. This is clearly erroneous as the Church’s magisterial (teaching) authority extends to both faith and morals and since the Church’s social doctrines concern man in society, they are inherently concerned with morality and therefore they fall under the domain of moral theology. Numerous Pontiffs have made this point. To give just two examples:
“We lay down the principle long since clearly established by Leo XIII that it is Our right and Our duty to deal authoritatively with social and economic problems. It is not of course for the Church to lead men to transient and perishable happiness only, but to that which is eternal. Indeed "the Church believes that it would be wrong for her to inferfere without just cause in such earthly concerns"; but she never can relinquish her God-given task of interposing her authority, not indeed in technical matters, for which she has neither the equipment nor the mission, but in all those that have a bearing on moral conduct. For the deposit of truth entrusted to Us by God, and Our weighty office of propagating, interpreting and urging in season and out of season the entire moral law, demand that both social and economic questions be brought within Our supreme jurisdiction, in so far as they refer to moral issues” (Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno).
“The Church’s social doctrine, by its concern for man and by its interest in him and the way he conducts himself in the world, ‘belongs to the field of theology and particularly of moral theology.” (St John Paul II, Centesimus Annus).
It is clear, then, that social doctrine forms part of moral doctrine and thus falls within the doctrinal purview of the Church’s magisterium. Therefore, all Catholics are obliged to assent to the teachings contained in the social doctrine of the Church.
The social dissenters tend to be adherents of neoliberalism, a system utterly antithetical to Catholic thought and which has been condemned numerous times by papal teaching. A species of liberalism, the doctrine of neoliberalism insists on unrestrained markets and the primacy of the law of the marketplace as the guiding principles of economic order. The first thing to be noted about neoliberalism is that it has its ultimate origins in the ideas and principles of the Enlightenment - a rebellion against the philosophy, theology, and civilisation of medieval Christendom. This should give Catholic proponents of neoliberalism considerable pause.
What does the Church’s magisterium, which we have established is authoritative on social matters, have to say about neoliberalism? It condemns the system in no uncertain terms. This has been the consistent teaching of Popes since Leo XIII kicked off modern social doctrine with his Encyclical Rerum Novarum. One of the clearest articulations of this teaching is found in Pius XI’s encyclical Quadragesimo Anno:
“Just as the unity of human society cannot be built upon `class' conflict, so the proper ordering of economic affairs cannot be left to the free play of rugged competition [permitti libero virium certamini]. From this source, as from a polluted spring, have proceeded all the errors of the `individualistic' school. This school, forgetful or ignorant of the social and moral aspects of economic activities, regarded these as completely free and immune from any intervention by public authority, for they would have in the market place and in unregulated competition [in mercato seu libero competitorum certamine] a principle of self-direction more suitable for guiding them than any created intellect which might intervene.”
St John Paul II reiterates this teaching in his encyclical Centesimus Annus in which he condemns an economic order “completely free and immune from any intervention by public authority”:
“But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework [ubi libertas in provincia oeconomiae, non in solidum contextum politicum tamquam in formam stabilem includitur] which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality and sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply [as to whether capitalism is desirable] is certainly negative.”
To all of this the Catholic neoliberal might reply, “granted various Popes have taught ideas contrary to neoliberalism, but they did so through their ordinary magisterium, which is non-infallible and therefore I am permitted to depart from their teaching.” Firstly, Catholics are not permitted to simply depart from non-infallible teachings, to these we owe ‘obsequium religiosum’ - religious assent. Furthermore, elements of social doctrine, such as the doctrine of the just wage, have been taught enough times to constitute infallible teachings of the ordinary and universal magisterium.
The conflict between social teaching and neoliberalism is irreconcilable. They can’t both be correct since truth never contradicts truth. The answer to the faithful and theologically informed Catholic is obvious: the moral teachings of the Church are true therefore neoliberalism is false. To be Catholic is to believe that Christ founded a Church on Earth and endowed it with the authority to teach his revealed doctrines. To reject the social doctrine of the Church is therefore to reject the essence of what it means to be Catholic.