The Human Good and Lonergan’s Macroeconomic Dynamics

Abstract

SINCE POPE LEO XIII'S ENCYCLICAL, Rerum novarum (1891), Catholic social thought has struggled to take stock of transformations of modern economic and political conditions and to formulate a faithful response to them. In doing so, Catholic social philosophers and theologians have often framed their criticisms of individualist and collectivist conceptions of society in terms of notion of the common good. Thus, they conceived society as neither an artifice manufactured by preexisting, formerly independent individuals, nor as an entity that stands over and against them and to which they must submit. Rather, society was understood to be since it constitutes that context in which good life may be enjoyed and human nature perfected. As such, good of society as a whole does not exist independently of good of its parts, and lives of its members are thought to be all richer since they partake of a good that transcends themselves. In this way, common good conditions concrete realization of human dignity, a dignity that is, to be sure, both personal and social. After Second Vatican Council, however, notion of common good fell into disuse for several reasons, not least of which were matters pertaining to philosophical and theological method. (1) Prior to that council, discussions of common good often employed classicist conceptions of culture, which mistook historically specific elements for society's necessary features. Correspondingly, human nature was also often conceived in terms of soul's faculties and powers. Since concrete, historical experience was adverted to, not in formulation of moral principles but only in their application, classicist conceptions gave rise to that brand of scholasticism that has since been derided as a deductivist moral theology that Bernard Lonergan (for one) railed against so vehemently. Furthermore, classicist conceptions appeared also to pave way for organistic depictions of society that seemingly justified hierarchical institutions and autocratic forms of political life. In wake and wreckage of Nazi and Stalinist regimes, Catholic philosophers and theologians had good cause to seek another basis for their thinking, and they often turned to then-current schools of historical and personalist thought. Thus personalism of Jacques Maritain and others gained currency in post-WWII era, though not without some controversy. (2) As Mary Keys has suggested, Theoretical difficulties to side, European experiences of communism and fascism made such a personalist approach seem only conscionable one. (3) With it, Catholic social thought came to emphasize freedom and dignity of individuals and primacy of human rights while rehabilitating notion of democracy. Historical-mindedness and personalism together have since influenced papal writings of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II in their discussions of complexities of modern world, dignity of persons and sacredness of life, and historically emergent forms of human solidarity. Additionally, several issues arose pertaining to theological method and its relationship to social science and historical scholarship. Convinced that theology should consist in more than reflections of human reason, Catholic theologians increasingly turned from analyses based upon natural law to studies of scripture. Seeking to respond to modern social problems, theologians found guidance not only in reason but also in revealed teaching of Gospels and prophets. In so doing, theological reflections frequently turned toward elaborating preferential option for by which faithful life was one lived in solidarity with poor and concerned with welfare of most vulnerable. (4) In keeping in spirit of historical-mindedness, analyses of society thus sought to understand forms of social life not as necessarily occurring but as historically contingent and to frame appropriate responses to them with an eye toward signs of times. …