I’ve written before about the difficulty of carrying the Gospel over to political and economic life.
The difficulty seems basic. Jesus had no residence, property, wife, children, gainful employment, or official position. Instead of giving us an example of everyday participation in political and economic life, he spoke of their spiritual dangers.
And political and economic life, along with sex, have mostly had a bad name among the pious. Specially devout people take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Clerics avoid marriage, involvement in the exercise of civil power, and—unless they have special permission—participation in economic life. Other Catholics give their choices a political turn, supporting pacifism and even anarchism, on the grounds that jailing and killing the government’s opponents is un-Christian.
Examples of restraint and self-denial are salutary, and for the most part, these choices seem praiseworthy for those who make them. Even so, we may doubt the value of pacifism and still more anarchism as political positions. Most Catholics live in the world, and accept sex, money, and power, however hazardous they may be, as necessary parts of life. The Old Testament, which still has authority, does the same. So, how Christianity relates to wealth and power is not obvious. (I will put sex aside as involving special considerations.)
The usual view has been that these things are very much prone to abuse, but moderate pursuit of them for legitimate purposes, like providing for a family or some other goal that is at least consistent with the common good, is legitimate and often praiseworthy.
Taking the common good as a standard seems the natural way to bring the Golden Rule into politics and economics. The principle of subsidiarity tells us that attending to particular interests—the interests of our family, community, employer, country, and so on—is legitimate and often a duty. Parents, for example, should especially care for their own children.
Even so, a great many other people are affected by our activity and should also be taken into account in some way. Few of them can be considered with any specificity, and most are hardly known to us at all. Under such circumstances, what principle other than respect for the common good—in its local, national, and ultimately universal forms—is available to bring actions directed in the first instance toward the particular interests for which we are responsible into a general system of common benefit?
But Christ doesn’t speak about such things. Instead of talking about the common good, he gives us striking parables and assertions, some dealing with particular incidents and others with very general principles. These demand soul-searching, but they don’t prescribe specific rules for dealing with concrete situations, since circumstances vary, and infinitely many people and considerations may be involved.
The woman taken in adultery would be a less sympathetic figure if she did the same thing repeatedly, always got off, and was part of an adultery liberation movement that pressured institutions into celebrating conduct like hers and firing people who disapprove. And it would be very wrong for a judge to release the serial killer of 450 people on the grounds that he said he’s sorry and ought to be forgiven seventy times seven times, so he has another 40 to go.
Man is a political animal, and Jesus was not political in the usual sense. Politics involves a system of force, and that does not seem to have interested him. When he said “my kingdom is not of this world,” he was serious; he generally accepted existing law.
That is why Thomas Aquinas, in his systematizing efforts, thought it necessary to supplement the things Jesus said with natural reason and Aristotle. Maybe that is too bad for Saint Thomas and ordinary social and political life. Very few politicians or businessmen get canonized for the way they carried on their ordinary activities. And when the devil tempted Jesus in the wilderness, he evidently thought he was in a position to deliver the kingdoms of the world to whomever he wanted. Jesus, for his part, didn’t say he was wrong.
Even so, it seems to me that for most of us, Thomas Aquinas was right. We don’t all have the same gifts, and it was right for Martha as well as Mary to contribute what they did. It is praiseworthy to look after the practical aspects of a church meeting. Without that, it would be much more difficult for those attending to focus on the spiritual ones.
Since government is necessary, the same principle should apply to people in politics. If so, we need to accept ordinary political activity as legitimate, along with the basic principles of prudence and the common good that should guide it.
Many Catholics find that less than inspirational. They prefer “seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice” to everyday political life with all its limitations and compromises. Even so, they interpret God’s kingdom and justice in a political sense. So they dream of putting politics on a higher level than is possible for a system of force that necessarily acts crudely and ignorantly, and needs to deal effectively with refractory and sometimes downright evil people.
In short, they want to treat the Sermon on the Mount as a set of principles like the Ten Commandments, suitable for direct embodiment in legal rules. We should forgive, so the law should abolish punishments. We shouldn’t throw stones, so the government should shield sexual disorders from social sanctions. And we should give to the poor, so everyone in the world should have an open-ended right to financial support from public funds.
Such demands are often pressed indirectly, through practical obstacles to whatever is at odds with them. However pursued, they don’t advance their stated goals because they try to turn the Gospel into something it isn’t: a direct guide to how to use public force.
The result is that they make violence and injustice worse. Prosecutions go down, and crime goes up. Persecution continues, but the targets are supposed stone-throwers rather than thieves and prostitutes. And the poor remain with us, but their situation cannot be considered realistically because they cannot be viewed as participants in it. The recent BLM movement provides examples of all these things.
More broadly, turning forgiveness and universality into enforceable principles means suppression of traditional family, religious, and cultural arrangements that depend on specific personal responsibilities. These involve particular rights and obligations that are always unequal, and individual blame, which is judgmental and sometimes unfair. That can lead to serious consequences, for example, for women caught committing adultery.
As Jesus showed, these consequences should sometimes be moderated. But moderation is not utopia. The effect of striving for the latter is to replace traditional arrangements that sometimes seem unfair by what seem more equal, universal, and nonjudgmental ones. But these, in the form of commercial relationships and bureaucracy, already seem too prominent today. They have their own faults and bring in their own forms of inequality and compulsion.
So what is gained?
Politics, with its far-reaching effects on our lives, cannot ignore ultimate concerns and realities. So religion cannot be kept out of it. The inspiration of the Gospel has profoundly affected Western politics for the better, for instance, with the long decline and eventual disappearance of slavery.
But identifying the two is no better. Islam has its Shariah—a religious code that aspires to govern all social relations. Christianity doesn’t want that, since it would compromise the distance between grace and fallen nature. There can be no Christian utopianism.
What we are actually faced with—those of us who are not Saint Francis—is the need to live, work, and carry on political and economic life with imperfect knowledge and methods in a radically imperfect world. We should try our best, but the results will always be flawed and makeshift, even assuming the general goodwill that is often lacking.
However important the Gospel may be for politics and social life generally, an attempt to close prematurely the gap between it and actual social life will end badly. If the Gospel forbids the knowing infliction of harm, such attempts are forbidden by the Gospel itself.
You cannot hurry love, and you cannot force charity and grace on an unruly world.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
We read: “Islam has its Shariah—a religious code that aspires to govern all social relations,” but this isn’t quite the same as utopianism:
“Islam has not wanted to choose between Heaven and Earth. It proposed instead a blending of heaven and earth, sex and mysticism [!], war and proselytism, conquest and apostolate [!]. In more general terms, Islam proposed a blending of the spiritual and the temporal worlds which neither in Islam nor among the pagans have ever been divided” (Jean Guitton, “Great Heresies and Church Councils,” 1965, p. 116).
Apology for butting in that time over the Czech wool. I thought to demonstrate a capability of the Professor’s technique but I got the timing wrong I think. With some tweaking maybe I can master it for next delivery.
Pope Leo recently said somewhere (I didn’t keep the report) about something doctrine being “a synonym for” accompaniment. Not sure where that is going, as in “fanciful” can have its drawbacks, is what I mean to convey too.
Not accompaniment, “synonym for dialogue” or “discipline” or “knowledge” -:
‘ In the case of the Church’s social doctrine, we need to make clear that the word “doctrine” has another, more positive meaning, without which dialogue itself would be meaningless. “Doctrine” can be a synonym of “science,” “discipline” and “knowledge.” Understood in this way, doctrine appears as the product of research, and hence of hypotheses, discussions, progress and setbacks, all aimed at conveying a reliable, organized and systematic body of knowledge about a given issue. Consequently, a doctrine is not the same as an opinion, but is rather a common, collective and even multidisciplinary pursuit of truth. ‘
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/05/17/full-text-pope-leo-xiv-addresses-centesimus-annus-foundation-on-catholic-social-teaching/
Utopia exists in the minds of idealists. It has never existed and never will. Some may be shocked that Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote that prostitution should be legalized for sake of ‘controlling lust’, and consequently for the common good. Aquinas was a realist, certainly not an idealist.
Would he have said the same for pornography? I would wager my prized copy of the Summa that he wouldn’t, since pornography is an unnatural imitation of the conjugal act harmful to the psyche, the dignity of woman and man, and consequently the common good. An example of this approach to utopia occurred in New England during the colonial era and British rule.
Puritans and other like groups sought to create a Christian utopia criminalizing all sin as described in the Bible. Theocracy. British law followed the Common Law of England, a body of legalities and crimes accrued during the centuries including natural law, the teachings of Roman Catholicism [which were basically retained by the Church of England], traditions and common legal practices – which tolerated sexual practices considered sinful insofar as private.
King George issued the Royal Charter for the colonies to put an end to the NE theocracies, because of their violation of individual freedoms. Following independence most states adopted the Common Law of England as their basis for jurisprudence.
Religious utopian idealism exists in America among Mormons, although most Americans do not consider their practices the ideal.
Perhaps the best examples of religious utopian communities are those of the Anabaptist – Amish, Bruderhoff and Houtarian (sp?). All practice voluntary membership and accept outsiders for what they are even though they may disagree with them. Much like our own religious communities.
Yes. I neglected to mention the Amish. We’re surrounded by Amish in this area of W NYS. I used to purchase cut firewood from them, having opportunity for frequent talks with one of their leaders. Although I’m not too keen on their permitting the young teens to ‘try the lifestyle’ of the outside world.
In our area they have church in homes, on a rotational basis. The children are not affected by video games so they still play outside at night.
We’ve had dear Mennonite friends and I can’t think if a better example of a flourishing Christian community. I’d describe it in more practical terms than utopian though because they are very practical people.
“*of* a better example”. Small type & early morning blurry eyes…
use a hot wash cloth over your eyes in the morning or pick up one of those gel packs that you pop in the micro for a few seconds – those will help clear the ducts in the morning, if that’s the issue
my eye doctor told me to include it along with my morning routine like my shower and I told her I do chores in the morning, and only take a shower before mass on the weekend, which is how we were raised
That’s very kind knowall. Thank you for the advice. The trouble is when I do a lot of mowing & weed-eating outside & the next morning there’s little bits of leaf & grass left in my eyes.
Many years ago we didn’t have indoor plumbing & baths were on a Saturday night in front of the woodstove with the Grand Ole Opry on the radio. Happy memories…
isn;t utopia what “Atlas Shrugged” is about?
If we each followed that greatest commandment (not “suggestion”, commandment) and returned God’s love to the exclusion of all else to include greed, we would then be able to properly love others without greed/need intruding, would be quite content with only the basics required for a decent life, would do our work to our level best out of love, and would have far more to share with others.
But so long as even one broken person living a self-centered greedy life is running wild, we will never have that Utopia, as it only takes one determined person to bring it all crashing down.
Scripture does not foretell of a heaven on earth, but a heaven in heaven, and warns things will get much worse until all is wrapped up as time expires, sorted out, and remade the way it was meant to be from the very beginning, until creation decided it was ready for self-appointed greedy godhood and wrecked it all….and worldly utopianism is that greed to show we still can become as gods…
meanwhile, the only true utopia possible lies in each human heart in true love with the Beloved, that being the only reality which counts, both now and for eternity, and the only sure road to that union with God which is, and for, eternity, as those who love each other share everything… all else only a passing thing.
http://www.mysticprayer.blogspot.com
“If we each followed that greatest commandment (not “suggestion”, commandment) and returned God’s love to the exclusion of all else to include greed, we would then be able to properly love others without greed/need intruding, would be quite content with only the basics required for a decent life, would do our work to our level best out of love, and would have far more to share with others.”
Mr. Kalb, I think ?? my late father did this in his lifetime or at least tried very hard to do this. What do you think?
Dad owned many properties, mainly duplexes and houses, and fixed them up himself (with my brother’s help) to rent them out. But instead of charging a set rent rate equal to what all the other rental properties were going for, he gave his tenants the option of paying less if they were willing to mow the lawn (Dad provided the lawn mower), or for older folks (especially women), plant some flowers in the yard), or perhaps paint some rooms–always simple tasks that most homeowners actually enjoy doing.
He never expected older folks or young single mothers to do hard work like mowing, but just simple tasks that usually a landlord would hire done or do him/herself.
In return for this work, Dad would reduce the rent, often to the point where it only covered the property taxes and the various utility bills on the property! No big profit, and at times, no profit at all.
More than one of his tenants were able to save the money that they would have spent on rent and eventually buy their own home.
But all of them were grateful to my dad, and he enjoyed getting to know his tenants, often dropping in to visit them with a cake or donuts.
Again, it’s nothing huge, but I can testify that his funeral was packed, standing room only.
And my brother, who took over the properties (I declined, as I have enough trouble taking care of my own house!), does the same thing my dad did–reduces rent in exchange for “sweat equity,” and also giving older folks a big break on rent.
So…I think this, in a small way, is what you are saying.
And I’m sure that Dad, who did his good deeds without bragging about them, is receiving his reward in heaven–“Well done, good and faithful servant!”
I try to do the same, in much smaller way, by accompanying Masses and occasionally, Protestant church worship services, on piano or organ, for free, or at a very low charge, as I do not need the money to live a comfortable (but not lavish!) life. I also provide free childcare for my precious grandson while his mama works, but I get paid for that when my grandson hugs me and says, “I love you, gamma!”
Ma’am, I quote no one, but am not the first, by far, to carry scripture to it’s logical conclusion. The main thing is to love God completely as possible, good works then flow naturally from that wellspring of love which constantly upholds creation purely out of that love in which we live, move, and have our being. Minus that love, good works are tainted by some manner of greed, whether for recognition here and/or in heaven, or to meet some personal inadequacy in finding our only meaning in the external, or etc etc etc, as even pagans do good works. But, they all have merit and can draw us closer to that proper love if we so allow.
Utopia depends upon all becoming saints, perfected in love, purified completely of any admixture of clinging greed, and that cannot and will not happen in this life, no declared saint ever claimed such, and we can only through diligence greatly improve, to minimize what must be let go at death, before union with God.
Bless you and your family for your Christian charity.
http://www.mysticprayer.blogspot.com
Yes, we strive to live out the perfection of the Gospel in a very imperfect world. We are in the world, but not of it- leaven in the lump, light in the darkness. We live apart, but are among. Wherever we find ourselves be it political or social we strive to contribute as Christians. We are like particles in a solution, we contribute to it but we are never absorbed by it. We can be survive in any environment be it friendly or hostile. We can accept others, but can’t compromise ourselves. We can work within imperfect systems and accept imperfect standards as long as they don’t violate our conscience. We must demand more of ourselves than we expect of others. While the Gospel truths are static and unchanging, worldly standards are in a constant flux and ever evolving. Forms of government and ways of living and ways of adapting to the ever changing environment and disparities in wealth and goods demand new sets of rules and regulations. We can and do operate in opposing political parties, contributing as much as we are able as long as we can. As we grow in grace and sanctification we too change and evolve. What was formerly acceptable for ourselves is no longer tolerated. We strive for the straight and narrow way as we muddle along the crooked and rough. Like a sailboat we keep our eyes on our destination but have to get there by constantly changing course. We strive for the ideal by constantly battling the real. In the end we are not judged by what we accomplished, but by how hard we tried. We must be willing to change and adapt as we tread along our pilgrim journey and we can’t expect our fellow pilgrims to be in lock step with us because each had different feet walking in different shoes. We must pick up our brother when he falls and accept him as he is all the while encouraging him to be better. That is LOVE. ❤️
You started so nicely with the uncited crib of The Letter/Epistle To Diognetus, and then you went off the rails by omitting the rest where we do NOT live by the mores of the surrounding culture, but merely follow local laws as good citizens while following a higher law, not destroying our children, sharing everything, but not our wives, etc etc etc.
I’m not sure that the “common good” is a helpful or legitimate framework to use when thinking about matters of government, social, church, or personal policy. We live in a fragmented age, and no one agrees what the common good even is at this point. Progressives who want to groom, exploit, and mutilate children, for example, have a very different understanding of the common good than those who are not ideologues and predators. As a culture, we are unlikely to come to agreement about this, which makes discussions difficult.
It’s an issue. Without a common good you don’t have a society, at best a sort of cold civil war. Liberal political philosophy tries to minimize what’s needed, but decisions must be made, which means we have to decide what it’s all about, so it ends up smuggling in its own comprehensive common good—basically, maximizing individual choice so long as no choice interferes with other equally non-interfering choices within a comprehensive system of social administration. That, unfortunately, means abolition of all human connections that matter. You keep the cold civil war from turning hot by making it impossible for people to do anything of significance.
The moral reduction to the lowest common denominator?
I could not agree more with your post. In addition, many times the term “common good” is invoked without an examination of the feasibility or the costs of pursuing “the common good”.
Socialists always promise a society of plenty for all, but they seem to deliver a lot of privation and mass graves.
The common good consists of many things. As Catholics, St. Paul’s words about our decreasing so that Christ may increase should lead to our thinking about what Christ did for ALL and what we can do for others. This is one dimension of a ‘common good.’ Two articles in the past week in the journal First Things suggest more.
About our new pope, D. Hitchens: “Interviewed as prior general of the Augustinians, he [Card. Prevost] says members of the order are ‘called to live a simple life at the service of others.’ As for his own spirituality, Prevost says it is inspired by St. Augustine’s Confessions—and once again he defines it in terms of self-abnegation. In a ‘highly individualistic’ age, Prevost observes, people seek happiness in the wrong places. ‘Authentic happiness has to include others. And concern for others.’
R. Reno writes (The New Pope): “Men and women, and especially men, are seeking things to love. They wish to make a sincere gift of themselves to something greater than progress, more heroic than science, and stronger than technology.
“…. But the next pope must recognize that the signal task of the Church in the West will be to encourage love—of one’s spouse, children, friends, village, nation, tongue, heritage, and more. For it is love that delivers us from me-centered individualism and the spiritless void that threatens our humanity in the twenty-first century.”
i view utopian politicians as those arrogant enough to demand their ideological “values ” on their nations without proper provision for scrutiny. in other words doing what they want in the most extreme ideological sense to prove their saviour prosperity and freedom for all .. except it only works for their own self interest and compromises the true common good.