AUSTRALIAN POLITICAL PROBLEMS AND CATHOLIC POLICY SOLUTIONS

Greg Craven AO is the former Vice Chancellor of Australian Catholic University, a commentator and constitutional lawyer. To coincide with the publication of his In The Shadow of The Cross: Catholic Social Teaching and Australian Politics, Greg Craven addressed The Sydney Institute on Wednesday 1 December 2021. In a speech that argued for a reappraisal of the fundamental elements of Catholic social teaching, Greg Craven outlined how liberalism, social democracy, and conservatism from the perspective of Catholic social teaching can offer a vision for how Australian political debate might be done better.

AUSTRALIAN POLITICAL PROBLEMS AND CATHOLIC POLICY SOLUTIONS

GREG CRAVEN

It comes as no surprise to hear that Australian politics is not short of problems at the moment. What is more surprising is to hear that Catholic policy solutions might be what the moment requires.

Often enough we hear about unfashionable Catholic moral teaching on marriage, abortion, sexuality, euthanasia, and the like – or “special pleading” for Catholic schools – or the shameful behaviour of Catholic priests and the failure of church authorities that was exposed through the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. These all speak to serious challenges that contemporary politicians, churches, and Australian society at large need to address. What we hear less about, however, is the contribution that Catholic social teaching can make as a resource for addressing a whole range of policy problems that Australian governments need to tackle.

Australian political life is dominated by three broad approaches to public policymaking: liberalism, conservatism, and social democracy. Although the principles of Catholic social teaching resonate with aspects of each of these, they also offer a basis for providing a critique of all three approaches. More than that, however, the principles are themselves a resource that can help shape public policy in Australia. Some commentators will waste no time in decrying this suggestion as outrageous chutzpah. Surely, they will say, this is nothing but an extremely thinly veiled attempt to make Australian society “more Catholic”.

I believe that a proper understanding of the principles of Catholic social teaching reveals that they are a resource of enduring utility, and one that can be put to good use in trying to address many of the policy problems that Australian politics currently struggles to resolve.

Catholic social teaching emerged in response to the economic, social, and political upheaval of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. During this time, centuries-old social structures were replaced by new and competing visions for organising society and formulating what has since come to be called public policy. Arising from a combination of Enlightenment thought, the experience of revolution, and the impact of industrialisation, they formed the political traditions that remain prominent in Australian politics in the twenty-first century.

In response to the ideological solutions to the political problems presented by changing social and economic conditions, Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical, Rerum novarum, marked a new undertaking for the Catholic Church. Previously, the church had refused to endorse or even engage with modern political ideologies. This was due, in part, to the political dependence of the church on established social structures and institutions, as well as the church’s reaction to the massive and  bloody assault made on it during the French Revolution. Nevertheless, by the late nineteenth century Leo grew concerned that Catholic workers were increasingly abandoning the church to join socialist labour movements.

More important, however, was the church’s growing awareness of its responsibility to contribute an alternate vision for justice and cooperation in the organisation of modern society. Condemning the twin evils of unbridled capitalism and socialism was not going to be enough. The church needed to have an authoritative position on how a contemporary society could uphold justice for all. In Rerum novarum (“Of New Things”), Leo sought to address how Catholics should respond to the new social and political context. The encyclical’s title reflects not only the subject of the encyclical – the new social and political changes – but also Leo’s new approach of engagement rather than outright condemnation. As a result, Rerum novarum offers a new vision for a modern society that upholds longstanding Catholic principles about what makes a good society.

In Rerum novarum, Leo identifies and condemns the moral failures of the liberal policies that generate unjust societies, such as the commodifying of labour and undignified working conditions. Leo rejects the premise that there should be no political regulation of economic relations and instead affirms the moral duties of those who possess wealth to address the needs of the poor and working classes. He maintains that wages ought to be determined not by what we now call market signals, but instead by what is necessary to support labourers and their families beyond mere subsistence. His encyclical also strongly condemns collectivism, the abolition of private property, and class conflict as inadequate solutions to social injustice. Leo affirms the right to private property and gives conditional approval to market economics, provided it remains under the rule of law and at the service of the common good. He affirms the role of the state to interfere in economic spheres to defend the rights of the workers, including the right to be organised. He also uses Rerum novarum to affirm such principles as the rights of the weak and the dignity of work. He encourages the importance of professional associations, including labour organisations, and acknowledges the role of the state in the pursuit of the common good. Finally, he affirms free collaboration and cooperation in society as the solutions to social questions instead of class war.

At the heart of this encyclical is the conviction that unjust social conditions and social unrest are not just economic and political issues, but that they are caused by a failure to uphold moral and indeed, principles. Involved in this recognition is the conviction that a just society must be ordered towards the dignity of the human person and that it must allow each person to participate in the common good. It insists that human beings are both individuals, with rights proper to them that cannot be absorbed by a collective or for mutual benefit, and part of a community, with a duty to uphold the good of others. If the liberals insisted that economics ought to have the final say in the organisation of the society, the socialists proclaimed the sovereignty of the collective state, and the reactionary conservatives claimed that nothing needed to change at all, Rerum novarum declared that the social question could only be answered by the free cooperation of all parties in society to act in the common good.

Through its systematisation in distributism, a larger audience was exposed to the principles espoused in Rerum novarum. Leo’s precepts, such as the necessity of fair wages and the pursuit of the common good, became foundational in the thought of the labour movements of the early twentieth century, including in Australia. As a result, Catholic social teaching came to have an impact on Australian industrial relations, most notably in the landmark Harvester Case of 1907, in which Justice Henry Bournes Higgins, no Catholic but clearly influenced by Rerum novarum, adjudicated on what would constitute “fair and reasonable” wages under the Excise Tariff Act 1906. His verdict of 42 shillings to cover the needs of a worker’s family of five was based on a combination of basic mathematics and the statement from Rerum novarum that “a workman’s wages be sufficient to enable him comfortably to support himself, his wife, and his children”.

Higgins drew on this in his judgement that remuneration “must be enough to support the wage earner in reasonable and frugal comfort”. Although the influence was not explicitly acknowledged, there is no doubt from Higgin’s wording that that Leo directly influenced him. The case resulted in the introduction of a basic weekly wage for workers and was foundational for the pay structure and the protection of workers in Australia. In the Harvester Case, we can see a concrete historical example of how Catholic social teaching on economic justice was used as a resource for Australian public policymaking.

Over the last century and a quarter, Catholic social teaching has demonstrated an ability to develop as political and social conditions change over time and as different concerns rise to prominence. The goal of papal commentary on the organisation of society, and its potential application to public policymaking, has been to bring the unchanging principles of Catholic moral and social tradition to bear on changing politics and social circumstances. Thus, Catholic social teaching can serve to give guidance on modern political, economic, and social life, addressing issues of justice and charity in these spheres. Its evolving body of teaching addresses the contemporary issues that affect the social life of the human person, condemning what infringes upon the common good while affirming the dignity, freedom, and interdependence of human beings in changing social circumstances.

These principles emerge out of Catholic theology but do not depend on some monolithic acceptance of Catholic moral teaching. Instead, they are built on natural law principles that can be deduced through reasoning about human needs and aspirations to recognise the universal dignity and common good of humanity. Catholic social teaching’s appeal to people outside the church marks a significant point of change in Catholic theology and history. This change is reflected in Pope John XXIII’s 1963 encyclical, Pacem in terris, which is the first time that an ecclesial document was addressed to “all men of good will”. In doing so, the church recognises that the principles of its social doctrine are not founded solely on Christian belief, but in rational discernment that belongs to all who would seek truth and justice.

It is important to note what is meant here by the application of Catholic social teaching to public policymaking. It is not the same thing as the enforcement of all aspects of Catholic teaching, such as its teachings on revelation and theology in Australian politics and society. It does not mean theocracy. Any purchase it may have depends instead on discussion and persuasion. As a result, a society that adopts the principles of Catholic social teaching that we discuss here can quite legitimately be one that makes room for people who do not observe Catholic teaching in other aspects of their lives. At its best, it is an exercise in urbanity.

Given that it emerges from a framework of moral principles, Catholic social teaching is also more than just a critique of contemporary political ideas: it contains a vision for human flourishing in social and political spheres. In doing so, Catholic social teaching cautions against viewing the market or the state alone as the primary means of recognising value or establishing social order. Instead, in Catholic social teaching, human institutions and traditions are affirmed, protected, and set towards the service of human dignity and participation in society. At the same time, the positive role of both markets and the state, when civilised and curtailed, is recognised, not as a good in itself, but as being in service to a good society. All of this is captured by four fundamental principles: the dignity of the human person, the common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity.

The different emphases of each of Australia’s most prominent political traditions, when evaluated using the principles of Catholic social teaching, inevitably contribute their strengths and weaknesses to the political landscape as it exists today. It may be somewhat surprising to note that, at a more fundamental level, all three of these approaches to public policymaking are currently suffering from a common problem. In the last thirty years, it has become increasingly challenging to determine what principles motivate policy in Australian politics. The existing disconnect between principles and policy makes it hard to deduce whether any cohesive framework of principles still underpins twenty-first-century Australian public policymaking. Whatever good might come from contrasting our most influential political traditions, there is little point if we cannot identify the fundamental principles that shape their approaches to policymaking.

Simply put, sound principles direct public policy towards people’s wellbeing. By grounding itself in an anthropological understanding of what it means to be a human being in a community of other human beings, such a framework enables us to generate policies that advance the common good and uphold the requirements of justice. This is because a good framework of principles helps to identify the kind of society in which we would actually want to live. It does this by recognising what essential human needs and values lie behind any given political issue. A framework of principles, thus, helps policymakers pinpoint what human benefit their policy is intended to serve and, then, shape their policy to achieve this.

Since 1990, in addition to the prevalence of transactional pragmatism in our public policy, Australian society has seen a pronounced weakening in shared values and mutual obligation. The sense in which citizens recognise their part in contributing to the good of every other Australian is dissolving into identity politics and isolation. The decline in agreed moral obligations and principles, outside of special pleading for individual or tribal gain, is not just a political problem in Australia, but a social one as well. The weakening of a sense of mutual obligation has prevented Australian political discourse from identifying a framework of principles that we all hold in common that can be directed towards an agreed common good. The rise of ‘identity politics’ also has produced myriad micro-constituencies each focussed on highly particular issues to the exclusion of any synthetic understanding of a wider common good.

These are fundamental problems in the way we go about politics in contemporary Australia and are not just problems with one particular political tradition. By contrast, there is a framework of principles within Catholic social teaching that would provide an antidote to pragmatic and transactional approaches to politics. In the words of Pope Benedict XVI, the principles of Catholic social teaching can, as more than just a tool for critiquing existing politics, be a resource that helps to “purify reason and to contribute, here and now, to the acknowledgement and attainment of what is just.”[i] This vision can motivate a better way to go about politics in Australia. Concentrating policymaking on fundamental propositions about the nature of human beings and the mutual obligations that we have towards one another enables Catholic social teaching to arrive at principles that can then shape sound public policymaking.

Policymaking informed by Catholic social teaching begins by recognising the dignity of the human person. This principle directs all policymaking to what upholds or neglects the intrinsic value of human beings. Having this principle as the centrepiece of a framework of principles helps us to determine how all the seemingly contradictory interests of public policy, such as efficiency, security, equality, and liberty, might be reconciled and directed towards the good of individuals and the common good. Because of the influence of this understanding of human dignity in Catholic social teaching’s framework of principles, we can see how the other principles of Catholic social teaching differ from seemingly similar political values. For example, we can draw a clear contrast between the Catholic and the utilitarian understandings of the common good. While the utilitarian principle aims to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number, the Catholic understanding of the common good looks to the duties that the nation has towards meeting the needs of the whole society.

This distinction directs policymaking from cost-benefit analyses towards identifying what needs everyone in our society has in common. In another example of how the principles of Catholic social teaching are different, the principle of subsidiarity is not a kind of Catholic libertarianism. Instead, it underpins the natural good of different levels of authority for different ends, allowing policymakers to consider what level of decision-making is most effective. Likewise, the principle of solidarity is not just a demand for fairness or equality, but a principle that informs how policy ought to be directed towards our mutual obligations to each other, especially those most in need. All of these values help direct our thinking about politics towards a vision of a just society of the kind in which we would want to participate.

As we have seen, part of the difficulty in assembling a framework of principles for formulating public policy lies in addressing the apparent conflicts of values. At first glance, applying the principles of Catholic social teaching would appear to hold the same difficulties. How can policymakers reconcile the principle of subsidiarity with the state’s role in ensuring the common good? How can the emphasis on the good of the individual human being be applied at the same time as the principle of solidarity which calls for the recognition of the good of the community? Part of the genius of Catholic social teaching, however, is its ability to hold its principles in creative tension, a capacity notably under-rated in Australian political discourse, with its obsession with “winning” and “losing”, despite the fact that it is intrinsic to such Australian constitutional staples as responsible government and federalism. For example, Catholic social teaching approaches the tricky balance between localising decision-making and the need for national schemes for healthcare or education by emphasising both subsidiarity and solidarity. These two principles, when left in creative tension, can move a society towards the inherent good in attempting to localise decision-making while also recognising the inherent good of the resources of the nation being employed for common benefit.

Some might remain unconvinced that Catholic social teaching could really be the solution to much of what ails policymaking in twenty-first-century Australia. “Catholic social teaching is all well and good,” they might say, “but what unique goods does it achieve that can’t be promoted by another political philosophy?” Indeed, there are not too many people who would deny that upholding the dignity of the human person is a good thing for a society, or that politics ought to pursue justice and the common good. We can all, at the very least, agree on the general “vibe” of what we would like to see in our society. We would all like to see more justice, more equality, more liberty, more efficiency in Australian society. However, the fact that applying our common political vibe breaks down the second we introduce concrete political problems suggests that problems remain with how we approach politics.

Liberalism, conservatism and social democracy all have emphases that have clear benefits for society and that, if pursued, would lead policymaking in a good direction. Even transactional politics can identify solutions that a great majority of us would agree ought to be “winners”. The trade-offs between policymakers and interest groups can lead to some net wins for society. And yet, these approaches will always promote one principle to the exclusion of others. This is what devalues a robust concept like the common good into “the greatest good for the greatest number” or subsidiarity into anti-government interference. What this means is that policymaking will tend towards solutions that either advance one value to the exclusion of all others, like an ideology, or try to meld together a policy that appeases any number of competing ideologies, like transactional politics.

For these reasons, the cohesive framework of principles behind Catholic social teaching serves as a unique kind of approach to public policymaking. Not only has Catholic social teaching strongly defined and developed principles, but it holds them in a creative tension that does not diminish their potency. Working within the framework of this tradition means that, instead of picking winners and losers or selecting what principles would work the best for a given issue, we can find a solution that meets all of the requirements of a just society. Catholic social teaching avoids the problems of transactional politics, as well as the failings of our traditional approaches to politics in Australia. It allows policymaking to be shaped by well thought out principles that allow us to build a deeper understanding of what needs lie behind Australia’s most pressing political issues.

ENDNOTE

[i] Benedict XVI, Deus caritas est (25 December 2005), n. 28.