Personalism, Liberalism, and The Challenge of Community

This July, the Hildebrand Project hosted its annual Summer Seminar focusing on “the Challenge of Community.” Using German Roman Catholic philosopher and religious writer Dietrich von Hildebrand’s personalism as a lens, the conference tackled issues relating to the proper role of the person in community life, both in the narrowest community structure, the family, and in the broadest, human society.

The University of St. Thomas’ Mark Spencer, Houghton University’s Peter Meilaender, and Hildebrand Project President John Henry Crosby convened at the seminar to examine the issue of community and ascertain what, if any, compatibility exists between Christian personalism and the liberal conception of community. Further, the panel discussed the potential merits of integralist, post-liberal, or other illiberal alternative political forms as preferable to the formation of a Christian community.

Personalism is a central concept in much of 20th-century Catholic thought, and much ink has been spilled on the topic, but a general definition is relatively elusive. Dietrich von Hildebrand, the Nazi opponent and “Doctor of the 20th Century” in whose honor this seminar was called, greatly influenced Cardinal Karol Wojtyła, later Pope John Paul II, who offered personalism as the view that “the person is a good towards which the only proper and adequate attitude is love.” This love, which stems from the accurate perception of the inherent value of the human person, undergirds all human community.

To elucidate the compatibility of this vision with liberalism, Peter Meilaender defined liberalism as primarily a methodology rather than an ideology. The liberal method of politics is marked by a clear demarcation of political authority from other types of authority and a limitation of political authority through constitutionalism, separation of powers, or other methods. This method is universally oriented toward a singular social goal: peace. The establishment and maintenance of social peace is the good to which liberalism strives, Meilaender argued.

Revolts against liberalism, Meilaender continued, which include communism and integralism alike, expect far more of the state than proper ordering allows for. Hildebrand Project President John Henry Crosby agreed with the liberal value of limited government and expressed dismay at the readiness of many contemporary conservatives to use political force against their opponents. Crosby also noted that the increasingly statist Christian right does not appreciate or have a historic sense for the value of post-Vatican II religious liberty, after which the Catholic Church adopted “propose, never impose” as a model for evangelism.

Mark Spencer furthered the personalist analysis, arguing that many integralists fundamentally miscalculate the proper end of human life. Paraphrasing the Thomistic tradition, Spencer illustrated that if humans are understood to be ordered toward the pursuit of goods and communities towards the pursuit of common goods, individual life must be subordinated to the community’s life.

This understanding of a rigidly hierarchical society ordered around virtue is standard among integralists but does not account for the interlocking nature of competing sources of authority. Although the Church is considered the highest community, in other regards, the family, the state, or the whole of humanity can rightly be considered the “highest” authority. Even though the Church is Christ’s mystical body, it is not the only authority ordained by God, as evidenced by Romans 13 and Matthew 19:6.

Responding to the idea that liberalism precludes specific, particularly religious, values from the public square, Meilaender articulated that liberalism, focusing on social peace as a governing value, excludes certain alternative value systems from the public space that may jeopardize social peace. Although this desire for peace may sometimes do undue damage to religious witness in the public sphere, the liberal restraints on state power temper this tendency. American federalism, civil society, and religious influence in local communities preserve the right of religious people to exercise their values while preserving social peace.

Crosby also found liberalism’s potentially corrosive aspects to be buffered by culture. Following Tocqueville, Crosby finds American culture to have a solid communitarian and pious inheritance, an inheritance which well-complemented the liberal state structure until relatively recently. Later, he noted that the Christian appetite to employ the levers of political power to achieve their ends may stem from an unwillingness to use persuasion and argument to reach their goals. Meilaender agreed, dispelling the integralist desire to use the law to enforce virtuous conduct. Instead, he forwarded a pedagogical understanding of the law, which holds law as a persuasive mechanism that encourages or discourages behavior.

The Hildebrand Project’s seminar underscored a hopeful compatibility between personalism and liberalism, suggesting that a society grounded in human dignity and committed to limited government can sustain vibrant communal life. By prioritizing both the love for human beings intrinsic to personalism and the civic peace sought by liberalism, a balanced and flourishing human society remains not only possible but promising in the American framework.

More information about this seminar and the Hildebrand Project can be found here.