Book Review: Catholic Social Teaching and Movements – Marvin L Krier Mich

Oh Lord, what a mixture here of profound, profound value, heart and beauty … and a frequent self-assured, polemical tone that, it seems to me, disserves the author’s sincere, heartfelt intent.

Let me begin with the gold. The author cares, the author obviously cares about our world. Thus his book can serve to open one’s heart to the terrible, terrible suffering of the victims of third world poverty, war, racism, unbridled capitalism and other contemporary evils, to the tragedy and horror that people are *really* experiencing – every moment of our lives.

Mich’s compassionate concern for those who really suffer commands the deepest respect.

Joined to this, is his most thorough, well researched account of the last hundred and fifty years of Catholic response to social injustice. Mich’s expansive, inclusive approach embraces both the Vatican’s official teaching – and the many great figures of the lower clergy and laity who have often served to inspire the Popes.

His vivid writing brings a long forgotten history of heroic souls alive. He begins with the great nineteenth century Catholic figures who initially responded to the horrors of emerging capitalism, which led to the Papacy confronting the problem head-on.

And thus he continues through the twentieth century: skillfully interweaving grassroots Catholicism, with the great Papal documents challenging the tragedy of capitalism, poverty and more. The great Papal documents so few seem to know about, so often offering profound thinking and carefully considered alternatives …

If Mich is very good on the history of Catholic thinking and action regarding social injustice, his consideration of the future is also often penetrating. Moreover his grasp not only of the the global crisis – but also the economic, political, cultural, environmental dynamics at its root, is often acute.

One can learn a great deal indeed from this book.

It is with deep regret then, that I turn to a less commendable aspect of Mich’s otherwise very fine effort. I have in mind here, an editorializing tone that is frequently disingenuous.

Basically a set of opinions Mich holds about the Vatican – which of course he has every right to hold – seem to me to be subtly presented as though they were not opinions, but rather as facts – plain, straight facts, without nuance, without ambiguity.

To me, there seems to be little consciousness here as to why Catholics of a different persuasion might come to different conclusions to Mich. Thus, if the more traditional approach of the Vatican falls foul of Mich’s view, its various efforts amount to `useless’, `a crass violation’ and so on – and are reduced to Vatican power politics and `phobia’. And like so many, Mich speaks of these matters as though they were simply facts to be accepted.

One particularly disingenuous example of what I mean occurs in the treatment of liberation theology. In a question for discussion given at the end of his chapter, Mich encourages readers to ponder `Why did the Vatican controlled leadership [of a Latin American conference] reject the experience based method of liberation theology and substitute a method that begins with the … official … teachings?’

But this is disingenuous, inasmuch as throughout the chapter, Mich has not allowed any other view than his own to surface. The reader who does not know better can only answer the question the way Mich has done. And Mich’s answer boils down to this: the Vatican acted as it did out of fear and power-hunger. And apparently nothing else.

But there are other possible explanations. After long consideration of the matter, I am convinced of the aching heart of John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger who, like Mich, really cared.

And I am convinced they were certain that third world agony would not be helped by throwing out the baby with the bathwater … That liberation theology would be stronger with a living, mystical Catholicism, rather than without it. This is not the place for further consideration of these matters, but further indications along these lines can be found elsewhere in my Amazon reviews.

My point is that the facts deserve deeper consideration than simply writing the Vatican off, as if it were just power-crazed. As if that was all there was to it. Although I sadly suspect this is what Mich sincerely believes – as do millions of other sincere, caring Catholics who haven’t penetrated the immensely compassionate hearts of figures such as John Paul.

Yes, it is also true that Mich has many fine things to say about present Vatican policy – WHEN he agrees with it. Thus, for example, he deeply commends the Vatican’s condemnation of modern capitalism and war.

It is only where he disagrees, that nuance, ambiguity and discussion disappear. When Mich disagrees, the Vatican is suddenly reduced to an ogre. Or so it seems to this reader.

This is sad, indeed. But it does not diminish the fact that this book is also filled with real heart, admirable scholarship, comprehensive documentation of the world’s suffering and the response of the entire Catholic Church.