What do you think?
Rate this book
Catholic Social Teaching: A User's Guide
Here is an affordable and helpful guide to understanding what Catholic Social Teaching says and how it relates to global issues. It discusses sources, history, and key themes of the CST tradition, as well as implications of CST for the ethics of war and peace, forced migration, and social reconciliation. Each chapter concludes with reflection questions.
- GenresReligion
192 pages, Paperback
Published April 21, 2021
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
May 21, 2025
I struggled with this one. Not at all a 'user's guide'. 21st century left-wing claptrap dressed up in little snippets that are too superficial to impart any real meaning, and are misguidedly shoehorning Church doctrine into "opposing discrimination," as if anyone in history gave a shit about that or conceived of "discrimination" as a problem at all before a few decades ago at the earliest. Jesuits like O'Neill seem to see no issue with co-opting secular standards that just came into existence (viz. James Martin, SJ on the trans phenomenon, which the Church should stalwartly oppose).
If you'd like to see a Jesuit priest try to shoehorn Catholic doctrine into just what trendy liberals believe, this book was apparently written for you, despite not contributing much of anything to the field.
Apparently Africa is the place to look for our spiritual growth, and outside the Church itself (the author constantly cites Desmond Tutu). Leave aside that South Africa is a racially contentious hellhole that whites are actively freeing from, having their land expropriated by the government. O'Neill gets the white privilege of pretending that immigration reform and white supremacy are the great evils of our time (and not the gang activity and human trafficking enabled by the former, and of course no one could ever dream that white people could possibly ever be victimized, or ever in the right). Apartheid is seen to be worse than murder, as separating the murderous from the victimized is always treated as wrong if the murderers are non white and the victims are white. See South Africa for more.
The fact is I owe duties to my family that supersede my duties to random vagrants. That's why the nation's homeless don't all live in my house. Liberals like O'Neill like to treat permanent settlement of ALL COMERS FOR ANY REASON as the only possible solution to the mere fact of refugee claims (leave aside whether they are actually veritable claims... for every 1,000 we take in from 'unlivable' Nicaragua, how many millions stay home? From this standpoint it's readily apparent how this policy is used for nothing other than replacement and displacement of white people in our own lands).
HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NOT CHURCH TEACHING. THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF HUMAN RIGHTS WAS INVENTED IN THE ENLIGHTENMENT BY GODLESS EUROPEANS.
The human rights of every human being on earth are not the responsibility of the Earth's white people alone, and the way to secure all human rights for all 7 billion Earthlings is not to permanently settle them by the millions in the lands of heritage Europeans, no matter how hard the Jesuits try to insist it's the only way. Put them in your house, Bill.
If you'd like to see a Jesuit priest try to shoehorn Catholic doctrine into just what trendy liberals believe, this book was apparently written for you, despite not contributing much of anything to the field.
Apparently Africa is the place to look for our spiritual growth, and outside the Church itself (the author constantly cites Desmond Tutu). Leave aside that South Africa is a racially contentious hellhole that whites are actively freeing from, having their land expropriated by the government. O'Neill gets the white privilege of pretending that immigration reform and white supremacy are the great evils of our time (and not the gang activity and human trafficking enabled by the former, and of course no one could ever dream that white people could possibly ever be victimized, or ever in the right). Apartheid is seen to be worse than murder, as separating the murderous from the victimized is always treated as wrong if the murderers are non white and the victims are white. See South Africa for more.
The fact is I owe duties to my family that supersede my duties to random vagrants. That's why the nation's homeless don't all live in my house. Liberals like O'Neill like to treat permanent settlement of ALL COMERS FOR ANY REASON as the only possible solution to the mere fact of refugee claims (leave aside whether they are actually veritable claims... for every 1,000 we take in from 'unlivable' Nicaragua, how many millions stay home? From this standpoint it's readily apparent how this policy is used for nothing other than replacement and displacement of white people in our own lands).
HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NOT CHURCH TEACHING. THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF HUMAN RIGHTS WAS INVENTED IN THE ENLIGHTENMENT BY GODLESS EUROPEANS.
The human rights of every human being on earth are not the responsibility of the Earth's white people alone, and the way to secure all human rights for all 7 billion Earthlings is not to permanently settle them by the millions in the lands of heritage Europeans, no matter how hard the Jesuits try to insist it's the only way. Put them in your house, Bill.
July 2, 2022
This is a good book that acts as an overview to the philosophical and religious underpinnings of human rights, and the teachings of the Catholic Church as the are related to issues of life, poverty, war, economics, the common good, etc. There is a lot to like here, and a lot to connect with. These are powerful, thoughtful ideas about what policies lead to human flourishing, and about the tension between individual freedom and our obligations to others.
Unfortunately, in the United States--and around the world--the more 'conservative' Catholics are ascendant. Despite the very compassionate and merciful words and actions of Pope Francis, the larger apparatus of the Church is neither merciful nor compassionate. The Church's teachings about human sexuality are insane, and its formation of all male, celibate priesthood is a recipe for sickness and abuse. So despite these thoughtful and powerful ideas about how to make a better world--and most of this would, in deed, make a much better world--the bearer of these messages is simply too compromised for me to participate.
Being Catholic is in my DNA, and I will always have a heart for Catholicism. If the Church was promoting and shouting its social teachings at the top of its lungs, things would be different. As of now, they are not different, so like any other organization or philosophy or world view, it makes sense to pay attention to the good stuff and refuse to participate in the bad stuff.
Unfortunately, in the United States--and around the world--the more 'conservative' Catholics are ascendant. Despite the very compassionate and merciful words and actions of Pope Francis, the larger apparatus of the Church is neither merciful nor compassionate. The Church's teachings about human sexuality are insane, and its formation of all male, celibate priesthood is a recipe for sickness and abuse. So despite these thoughtful and powerful ideas about how to make a better world--and most of this would, in deed, make a much better world--the bearer of these messages is simply too compromised for me to participate.
Being Catholic is in my DNA, and I will always have a heart for Catholicism. If the Church was promoting and shouting its social teachings at the top of its lungs, things would be different. As of now, they are not different, so like any other organization or philosophy or world view, it makes sense to pay attention to the good stuff and refuse to participate in the bad stuff.
August 7, 2025
Fr. O’Neill’s book is a mess, frankly. (I confess that I threw it in the airport recycle bin when I finished it.) The basic philosophical problem with this treatment is that it fails to provide an adequately Christian (let alone specifically Catholic) characterization of the “social” sphere that is presumably implicated in so-called Catholic *Social* Teaching. What is instead assumed is a post-Christian, liberal “secularist” conception of both the common good (this explicitly so in Fr. O’Neill’s reliance on the work of Rawls, Sen, Nussbaum, et al.) and the public square. The notion that the church, as a social body unto itself, might stand in relations of (non-violent) conflict to other social bodies (e.g., the nation-state, or the IMF, or even a local club) seems, on Fr. O’Neill’s account, not to be a real possibility after Vatican II here at the “end of history.” Such studied blindness renders Fr. O’Neill’s account not only false but even dangerous.
The real giveaway here comes in the chapter on what is supposed to make Catholic Social Teaching specifically catholic. Well, according to Fr. O’Neill, it’s not specifically catholic at all; instead, it’s a version of Rawlsian “political liberalism” promulgated and applied by some people who find holy cards, rosaries, and fish fries personally motivating in their pursuit of the rather impersonal “common good.” What a joke!
The real giveaway here comes in the chapter on what is supposed to make Catholic Social Teaching specifically catholic. Well, according to Fr. O’Neill, it’s not specifically catholic at all; instead, it’s a version of Rawlsian “political liberalism” promulgated and applied by some people who find holy cards, rosaries, and fish fries personally motivating in their pursuit of the rather impersonal “common good.” What a joke!
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews