The Common Good

BY LORENZO ALBACETE

According to Catholic Social Doctrine, the state is a “natural” institution whose purpose is organizing and unifying the development of human society in peace and justice. There should be no opposition between the state and the grass-roots institutions by which human beings freely create opportunities for self-development through initiatives in education, business, voluntary associations on behalf of the poor, health care, culture, recreation, etc. Indeed, the greater the vitality of these initiatives, the better it is for the state. The relation between the state and society is governed by the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.” (cf, Centesimus Annus, 48.4)
Although frequently associated with the “conservative” political tradition, in the United States the principle of subsidiarity has not been excluded from “liberal” thought. American “liberalism” has mostly sought to remedy concrete social injustices that, in the view of its proponents, have been hidden in the conservatives’ appeal to the principle of subsidiarity, especially violations of the rights of minorities. Nonetheless, it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that there is some sort of inherent opposition between the power of the state and the free development of society. Indeed, the tension between state and society has also been part of the American political thought, which from the beginning has sought to limit the power of the state over private initiatives. Where does this perceived inherent opposition between state and society come from?
Historically, the state/society opposition originates in disagreement about whether or not political systems should be founded on the principle of the common good. Modern political thought rejected this principle because it opened the door to the authority of the Church’s claim to represent the highest good, namely, eternal salvation. While the Church may insist that the organization of political life is not its mission, the salvation it proclaims depends on human behavior in this world, leading the Church to claim an authority to judge the policies of governments from this perspective. (Remember that according to the Church’s teaching, the state is a natural institution willed by the Creator himself to play a positive part in human destiny.) In order to avoid this impasse, modern political thought preferred to embrace, as its point of departure, not the good sought by men and women, but the evil that stands in the way of the good sought, leaving each individual the right to choose his or her own good. The unity of society promoted by the state was thus defined in negative terms. The vitality of social institutions, based on the pursuit of a common good, took second place to the elimination of threats to individual choice. No wonder that, commenting on a current book about the decline in membership in voluntary associations throughout the United States, a reviewer acknowledged that in order to obtain certain individual freedoms highly valued today, it is worthwhile to pay the price of the loss of “social texture.” In our dialogue with modern political thought, it is necessary to insist that the Catholic notion of the “common good” does not open the door to ecclesiastical interference with the political process. In our view, politics is part of culture, and culture is the expression of the “fundamental desires of the heart.” These are the same for all human persons. Indeed, fidelity to the “common good” means confidence in this universality of the desires of the heart. What we require of the state is openness to the quest for fulfillment of the human desire for beauty, happiness, freedom, and truth. The impetus for this quest is what we call the “religious sense,” and understood in this way, it poses no political threat to the state’s authority or to the unity of a multicultural society.
True, we believe that the Mystery to which the religious quest points has become flesh in Jesus Christ. But the power of the Incarnation of the Mystery is not political power. Rather, it is the power of the attraction of Christ who offers Himself to our liberty. Those who, having encountered Christ, follow Him, enter into the political realm as passionate defenders of those desires of the heart that move all human beings. The encounter with Christ transforms all human efforts for personal and social development, all human work, and all works of culture into the creation of new opportunities, new possibilities, and new spaces for human freedom. These political, social, and cultural works do not originate in pre-programmed causes incapable of embracing the pluralism of human experiences, resigned to hostility between unity and diversity, liberty and belonging, state and society. The works that originate in our encounter with Christ create a solidarity that surpasses this perceived opposition between individual liberty and social texture.