Nota bene: Encyclicals treat specific areas of doctrine and, as Magisterial teachings, they require faithful submission of both intellect and will. According to the First Vatican Council text Dei Fillius, ‘[A]ll those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.’
 
While researching another article on Solzhenitsyn, I stumbled upon a review of the Russian writer’s 1978 Harvard Address written by the author of The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, Michael Novak. In this 1981 piece for the National Review, the Director of Social and Political Studies for the American Enterprise Institute expressed concern about Solzhenitsyn’s speech, which apparently haunted him enough to write about it three years after the delivery of the original address. The Russian author charged the Western world with fabricating an unhealthy society where greed, wealth creation, and the quest for efficiency prevailed over human dignity and the interior development of the citizenry. Solzhenitsyn saw in Western societies a predominant concern for earthly life and riches over the quest for Heaven and the salvation of souls; virtue didn’t prove as profitable as vice, and Mr. Novak, who wrestled with Solzhenitsyn’s observations of the West, was grateful for the “liberation” of the human spirit. The Enlightenment heralded the triumph of Capitalism, unleashing the dawn of wealth creation which had been previously eclipsed by centuries of wealth distribution and trade bridled by the virtues—particularly the virtue of justice. Solzhenitsyn on the other hand, stood shockingly in judgment of the Western world and called for the reexamining of the presumed benefits of economic and social liberalism.
 
The West, according to Solzhenitsyn, substituted authentic freedom in exchange for slavery by promoting trade as the primary function and foundation of life:
 
“An oil company is legally blameless when it purchases an invention of a new type of energy in order to prevent its use. A food product manufacturer is legally blameless when he poisons his produce to make it last longer: after all, people are free not to buy it.”
 
Mr. Novak’s indictment of Solzhenitsyn’s “utopianism” in the pages of the National Review is marginal when compared with his view of the social doctrine of the Church. If his association of Solzhenitsyn’s speech with the Syllabus of Errors is any indication, then clearly he viewed both the Russian author and the Church as an affront to that which liberalism built.
 
“It might even be possible to read Solzhenitsyn’s address at Harvard as an updating of Pope Pius IX’s famous critique of modernity, ‘The Syllabus of Errors.’ Solzhenitsyn, like Pius IX, is adept at pointing out the errors, one-sidedness, and blind spots in many of the things we, in a liberal democratic society, hold most dear.”
 
He continues,
 
“I am sorry, sometimes, then, that we disappoint the great Solzhenitsyn. But I would have it no other way.”
 
Issued in 1864 by Blessed Pope Pius IX, the Syllabus of Errors condemned modernist propositions using a collage of papal documents. These errors included liberalism, communism, religious indifference, pantheism, and even the separation of Church and State.
 
For Mr. Novak, the Syllabus directly opposed the advances of liberalism. The Church in the nineteenth-century not only failed to concede victory to liberalism, but risked alienation by continuing to oppose it. Liberalism meant technological “advances,” amassed token wealth, pluralism, and peace. But what of those who would say liberalism’s errors are ubiquitous and include the devaluing of life, waste, war, divisiveness, ignorance, avarice, consumerism, and the corruption of souls? What of our current dilemma caused by liberalism, which has generated mass confusion among both laymen and clergy, who in some cases unintentionally ignore–or worse, oppose–the social vision of Holy Mother Church, while claiming to be perfectly orthodox?
 
This isn’t a problem for Michael Novak. In his famous book he says that, “Democratic capitalism calls forth not only a new theology, but a new type of religion” (The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, p.69). Indeed, we find ourselves in agreement. It will take a revolution in Magisterial teaching to accept Novak’s propositions. It will require new religion at the helm. It will “call forth” mental gymnasts to shift the meaning of the Gospels, the sermons of St. Chrysostom, the teachings of Sts. Augustine and Aquinas, and the long list of Church documents mapping out the political, social, and economic order.   
 
Now Mr. Novak’s main thesis boils down to this: that pluralist society, which in the West is an ingredient of civic religion, provides the marketplace with independence from religious authority. A brief review of the papal encyclicals makes it difficult to concur with him and to conclude Mr. Novak isn’t merely replacing Church doctrine with his own doctrine.
 
Let’s take a brief look at what the Church’s traditional teaching tells us about authority and where it springs from.
 
“[E]very body politic must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its Author. Hence, it follows that all public power must proceed from God. For God alone is the true and supreme Lord of the world. Everything, without exception, must be subject to Him, and must serve him, so that whosoever holds the right to govern holds it from one sole and single source, namely, God, the sovereign Ruler of all” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei §3, emphasis mine).

Liberalism, while not necessarily denying God’s existence, rejects submission to God and places man in His stead as the source of all rule. And it is precisely this, what Mr. Novak calls a “new theology,” divorced from Christ; a social order separated from God’s authority and His authority on earth (the Church). This isn’t (new) religion at all, rather it is the religion of the Enlightenment, by man and for man in opposition with God, who is, according to Immortale Dei “true and supreme Lord of the world.” As Vicar of Christ, that is, as temporal sovereign and shepherd of the faithful in Christ’s stead, the pope has the jurisdiction and competence to condemn, temper, correct, and propose social and economic issues in light of his authority, as these are the subject of human interaction. This is reaffirmed clearly by Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno:
 
“[T]hat principle which Leo XIII so clearly established must be laid down at the outset here, namely, that there resides in Us the right and duty to pronounce with supreme authority upon social and economic matters”(§41).
 
Man needs authority and the “single source” of any authority “without exception” is “God, the sovereign Ruler of all.” As the Vicar of Christ has authority over the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church “to pronounce with supreme authority upon social and economic matters,” and as the teaching authority opposes social and economic liberalism, which both the Austrian economist Ludwig vo
n Mises and Michael Novak confess is an affront to traditional Catholic teaching—the religion and the theology of the Church, then the Syllabus is correct in condemning the proposition that “the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization”(Ibid, §80).
 
Furthermore, in the encyclical Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, Pius XI makes apparent that the social teachings which involve morality are placed at the same level as “Solemn pronouncements,” that is, they become part of the Church’s Universal Ordinary Magisterium; the Church’s dogmatic teaching to which all Catholics must give assent. Yet for Michael Novak, the Church must reject the Social Reign of Christ the King and embrace secularism, pluralism, and economic liberalism.
 
This, we are reminded by Pius XI, is social modernism.
 
“Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.
 
“There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism”(Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio §60-61, emphasis mine).
 
But what about pluralist society, is it tolerable? Is Mr. Novak correct that pluralist society is the preferred society?
 
Social and political pluralism rejects any moral standard of political, social, or economic life; opposes initiatives by any particular religious source as an imposition of itself on the rest of society; abhors the restraining of “freedom” except by voluntary will. In Novak’s world the Christian transformation of public institutions and commerce would be catastrophic for Capitalism and pluralist society. Again, we turn to the Syllabus, which charges against the error that, “The faith of Christ is in opposition to human reason and divine revelation not only is not useful, but is even hurtful to the perfection of man”(§6).
 
Without fidelity to true authority and just social order, appetite and moral relativism become necessary ingredients of pluralism, especially for the sake of peace. “Free” opinion, which should be directed by the virtues of temperance and prudence, may be held and advocated in any form so long as these do not challenge the public will or public institutions. So too, since pluralism defines “truth” by the individual according to his belief and opinion, ideas which challenge the political and social order lead to their privatization, or worse, complete and forced abandonment of all divisive doctrine (e.g. homosexuality, contraception, and divorce). For the Catholic, conformity with pluralism carries with it the quixotic mission of religious disillusionment in our quest for reform. It is this state of affairs that has sadly pierced into the heart of Catholicism, as the Christian reality of being in the world and not of it is quickly fading in hearts and minds, while liberalism gains acceptance even within our ranks.
 
Michael Novak’s modernist views of politics, economics, and social policy reject God’s authority, the sovereignty of the Church, and the correct order of the State. If we are to counter liberalism and its effect on our economic and social policy, for the good of the salvation of souls, we would do well to encourage Catholics to study the papal encyclicals and learn the social teaching of Holy Mother Church. Pope Pius XII once said that we should “…exercise a profound influence on the social, economic, and political life of the country.” In a world of economic crisis and social decadence, how else can we, to paraphrase St. Thomas More, remain man’s good servants, but God’s first?