Mass? Individuals? …or people?

1 • Christians with “social” labels on both sides

I have friends who vote for right-wing parties.

And I have friends who vote for left-wing parties.

In fact, I have friends from (more or less) every political spectrum.

It happens also that some of these friends are Christians.

When Christians get too involved in politics, a funny thing often occurs.

And it is this.

In delving into social issues, they focus on ONE of the many themes of the Social Doctrine of the Church:

• the dignity of the human person;
• the common good;
• solidarity;
• family;
• work;
• the universal destination of goods;
• ecology;
• etc..

Sometimes it happens that they take ONE of these themes to heart, and it becomes their “cause.”

Which “is good and just.”

However, sometimes the sensitivity to a particular social issue brings along this unfortunate side effect:

• because ONE point of the electoral program of their party touches ONE theme of the Social Doctrine of the Church, the Christian in question recognizes in their political alignment the authentic “guardian of the evangelical message“;
• the aforementioned Christian will then start to “justify” their party on all those other points of the program that are not in line with evangelical teachings (and sometimes, indeed, will argue that the party is right and that the Church “should update itself“);
• the same Christian, finally, will harbor great animosity towards the opposing political faction, pointing to it as “non-Christian” because it disagrees with what the Social Doctrine of the Church teaches about THAT point on which their party agrees (even though perhaps in the program of the opposing party there is another point on which it is closer to the S.D.C. than their own party).

What to say?

2 • Who is right? The left? The right? The center?

Let’s try to take ourselves out of the bipolar system mentality for a moment: right and left, conservatives and progressives, reactionaries and reformists, etc…

If we look for the “bad guys” and the “good guys” among these two factions, I don’t think we’ll find a way out…

…this is because there are two mentalities – both unsuitable – that are present in all factions.

Two ways of seeing man – both limited – used by the right, the left, and pretty much all other parties.

Two anthropologies based on partial elements, and therefore mutilate man:

• societary anthropology
• libertarian anthropology

3 • Societary Anthropology

For societary anthropology, man exists only as part of a group or totality – which is more important than him (race for Nazism; proletariat for Communism; nation for Fascism, etc.).

According to this view, man “in nature” is a bad being; we could say the slogan of this ideology is “homo homini lupus” (man is a wolf to man).

Since man is bad, there is a need for clear and specific rules for every context.

If, however, the right laws are found (or the right education, or the right school reform, or the right indoctrination, etc.), it is possible to make man good.

According to this ideology, all “members” of the state are nothing more than the building blocks of a pyramid or the gears of a huge mechanism.

If we were to draw a psychological profile of citizens in a system based on societary anthropology, we could describe them as:

• duty-oriented;
• idealistic;
• hetero-determined;
• fixated on the idea of the “perfect society” they have envisioned;
• responsible for other “members” of the state without any limit – to the point of forcing them toward their idea of good;
• without personal freedom.

If we were to represent all this in a diagram, we would get something like this:

4 • Libertarian Anthropology

According to libertarian anthropology, every man is a completely autonomous being (in the sense that “he is a law unto himself”) and independent, detached from all. If someone has relationships, it is only for their own well-being.

According to this view, man “in nature” is a good being; the manifesto of this ideology is the “myth of the noble savage” (which denies any form of concupiscence in the heart of man).

Since man is good, there should be as few rules as possible because they are nothing more than an obstacle or hindrance to his full realization.

In a society developed according to this vision, the concept of “person” disappears, replaced by the word “individual.”

The natural habitat of followers of this ideology is the market, where each one seeks to engulf others, pursuing their own particular interests.

If we were to draw a psychological profile of citizens in a system based on libertarian anthropology, we could describe them as:

• hedonists;
• cynical;
• self-centered;
• focused only on their own interests;
• totally free to do what they want, indulging every whim (within the limits – if there really must be limits – of “my freedom ends where yours begins“);
• devoid of responsibilities towards others.

Here too, wanting to represent this ideology in a diagram, we would get something like this:

5 • What is the “right answer” to human problems?

I reiterate what I wrote above: these two visions of man are not “one from the right and one from the left” (or vice versa)…

…you will notice that in most political programs (current or past), both ideologies are more-or-lessmixed, depending on whether we are talking about:

• education;
• work;
• immigration;
• environment;
• security;
• economy;
• foreign policy;
• etc…

…at this point, someone might ask: what is the correct anthropology?

But above all: are these two the only options?

Or can we break free from this suffocating dialectic?

And to break free, what must be done?

A compromise?

Bring the two ideologies together halfway?

Find the right mix between freedom and rules? A bit of concern for others, and a bit of “I mind my own business“? Trying to have it both ways?

Or should we turn to the past? Go back to the “values of the past“?

No.

The assist to find a fruitful path is once again offered by the Social Doctrine of the Church:

Man is neither simply an individual (an independent being from others), as claimed by libertarian anthropology…

…nor simply a member of a group (a “piece” of something larger), as claimed by societal anthropology…

…nor a mixture of these two things…

…but much more, something qualitatively different.

He is a person.

6 • Personalist Anthropology

Every person has their own inalienable dignity and, at the same time, carries a mystery.

For the Social Doctrine of the Church, politics, economics, work, bureaucracy, laws… all these things are a means to achieve the good of the human person.

The human person is a being…

• …social: their growth, the development of their identity, everything they do, depends on the contribution of others (in the family, at work, in the community where they live); no one is self-sufficient! However, when I speak of “society,” I do not mean an abstract concept (like the “world peace” invoked by aspiring Miss Universe contestants)… “society” is (first and foremost) the context in which I live: the people I relate to, the places I frequent, the concrete life situations in which I am daily in contact with others;
• …free: only through freedom can each person – if they want – express their own originality and uniqueness, which are expressions of their immense dignity;
• …responsible: the freedom of the person is not “unconditional” and “without limits”; it is rather a responsible freedom; “responsibility” means taking on the paternity of one’s own actions (and their consequences – good or bad); our actions always have an impact on others, who are never a response to our whims, but always a question.

In short, only by moving to the upper right on the “Cartesian plane” can one:

• love
• protect
• take care of others

Conclusion

Well, now that we have clarified the main characteristics of the person, it’s just a matter of focusing on the development of these, and the game is done, right?

Easy, isn’t it?

What does it take?

Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, it is not enough to apply the rule or know what needs to be done; another point that unites all people is that each person’s freedom is mysteriously inclined toward evil (we also discussed it here, if you remember).

The presence of concupiscence in the heart of man is described in both the Catechism and the Compendium of the Social Doctrine:

How can this negative tendency in the human heart be countered?

It would seem like a superhuman task…

…and indeed, to overcome this inclination contrary to the good, the sacrifice of Christ was necessary (who, without mincing words, reminded his disciples: “for without Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5)… much less emerge victorious in the struggle against one’s own selfishness):

(If anyone would like to delve into “what does Christ’s sacrifice have to do with my life,” some time ago I wrote a page about it)

sale

(Spring 2021)