When I was an undergraduate theology major, I took a couple of courses that dealt with Catholic social doctrine. Prior to that, my only formation in things political and economic came from my environment as an American Gen Xer. In that milieu, politics was principally defined in binary terms: Democrat or Republican. For many, these labels were synonymous with good guys and bad guys (or vice versa). Reading the primary texts of papal magisterial teaching from Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum to Pope St. John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus was a game-changer for me. (Note: I graduated college before the later encyclicals were promulgated.)
In those documents, I sensed a wisdom that transcended my twentieth/twenty-first-century American myopathy. The social encyclicals struck me as profoundly true. They also provided me a metric with which I could detect both good and bad aspects in the platforms of both ruling American political parties. Henceforth, my personal political and economic views were guided first and foremost by the principles outlined by Catholic social doctrine rather than by allegiance to any particular political party.
I did not expect to find similar sentiments and experiences presented in a book written by a sitting vice president. Yet here we are. While reading JD Vance’s recently published book, Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith, I was struck at the impact that Catholic social doctrine had on the vice president’s conversion and political perspective. In fact, Chapter 8 is entitled “Of New Things,” which is an English translation of the aforementioned encyclical by Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum. I certainly did not expect to see a Republican political figure approvingly describe its teaching, which, as Vance writes, “forcefully advocates for the rights of individual workers, for labor unions” (153) and “lays out a vision of society where the state protects the vulnerable, guarantees a just wage for laborers, and ensures that working people have sufficient ‘rest from labor’” (154).
That’s a far cry from the quasi-idolatry some conservatives pay to the supposedly all-powerful, perfectly just “free market” economy. (Of course, Catholic social doctrine affirms the positive values of properly regulated capitalism, but it rejects the notion that an absolutely free market system will, by itself, guarantee economic justice.) It is also quite far from conservative commentator William F. Buckley, Jr.’s public criticism of Pope St. John XXIII’s social encyclical, Mater et Magistra (Mother and Teacher), expressed with the quip: “mater si, magistra no” (“mother yes, teacher no”).
Conservative commentator, Ben Shapiro, was also surprised—but not in a good way—by Vance’s book and related comments Vance made on The Joe Rogan Experience. Shapiro expressed concern that Vance’s views were too close to those of Democrats concerning economic oversight. One of his criticisms is that Vance’s book advocates too much for Catholic social doctrine. He seems to think that doing so would turn American economic policy into some sort of socialist state.
Catholic social doctrine was a significant element in JD Vance’s conversion to Catholicism, as Bishop Barron has noted.
However, as Vance notes, Rerum Novarum “is critical of socialism” (154). In fact, as Leo XIII’s firmly states, “It is clear that the main tenant of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal” (Rerum Novarum 15). Marxism, socialism, and communism are repeatedly repudiated by Catholic social doctrine.
But pure laissez-faire capitalism and forms of Marxism are not the only options. As Vance describes Catholic social doctrine: “It is neither conservative nor progressive; neither liberal nor authoritarian” (154). In Centesimus Annus, Pope St. John Paul II asks whether “capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society” (42). His answer is as follows:
If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative. . . . But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.
In other words, capitalism can be an appropriate means of running a nation’s economy, so long as economics is not seen as the only or supreme value to which all else is subordinated. Economics that ought to be subordinated to higher principles and values.
For example, just because a worker is willing to accept a low wage due to a lack of better alternative options does not mean the low wage is just. To this point, see the teaching of Rerum Novarum 45:
Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman [were to] accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice.
JD Vance quotes this very passage in his book (155). Similar principles apply to working hours and conditions. Workers are to be afforded sufficient time to spend with their families, for their healthy recuperation via rest, and most especially to be able to worship God (see Rerum Novarum 41–42).
Humans are not just wealth-generating machines; they are persons endowed with dignity, whose well-being must be respected. “Pope Leo XIII’s theory of human nature,” writes Vance, “strikes a balance so perfect it seems divinely inspired” (156). In this way, Catholic social doctrine was a significant element in JD Vance’s conversion to Catholicism, as Bishop Barron has noted.
I’ve only been able to highlight a few aspects of this complex topic as it is treated in Vance’s book. Much more could be said, including his chapter on “A Dismal Science” (i.e., economics). I could also highlight many of the other aspects of Catholicism that JD Vance found compelling and attractive. I highlight these issues, precisely because he is a politician who is taking Catholic social doctrine to heart. I think that is something that should encourage American Catholics, no matter their party affiliation.
Because he is a Republican, those Catholic Democrats who are predisposed to dislike anyone from across the aisle might not be willing to take that seriously. I think that would be a mistake. Too often, Catholics on either side of the political divide lob accusations at each other, usually by pointing out those aspects of Catholic teaching that the other party seems to flounder on. However, I think Catholics should be willing to laud members of the other party when they exhibit a willingness to be led by Catholic doctrine, especially in instances when they are seen as going against their own party’s standard line of thought.
I would hope that if a prominent Democrat politician were to discuss the role of the Church’s Pro-Life doctrine as a major element of their conversion to Catholicism that Catholic Republicans would applaud them. Even if a non-Catholic Democrat came out as actively Pro-Life, I hope Republicans would voice public support for that stance.
In our politically divided times, perhaps that’s naive. But I hope not. While I am not saying that every Catholic must agree with everything that JD Vance has said or advocated for in the book or elsewhere, I would like to suggest that there is much in his conversion story that ought to encourage us as fellow American Catholics. In short: Democrat Catholics should be grateful that a Republican is sharing some of their long-held values; Republican Catholics should be grateful that a Republican is addressing some of their party’s historic weaknesses. All Catholics should be grateful that a man who once lost his Christian faith found it again, this time within the Catholic Church.