{"id":3156,"date":"2025-06-01T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-06-01T10:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/?post_type=articolo&p=3156"},"modified":"2026-04-19T17:20:02","modified_gmt":"2026-04-19T15:20:02","slug":"christian-social-ethics-in-the-catholic-orthodox-and-protestant-traditions","status":"publish","type":"articolo","link":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/en\/2025\/giugno\/christian-social-ethics-in-the-catholic-orthodox-and-protestant-traditions\/","title":{"rendered":"Christian Social Ethics in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Traditions"},"content":{"rendered":"

Can a comparative look at Christian social ethics contribute to ecumenism?\u00a0 That is the question posed by a slim volume titled:\u00a0Trilogy of Social Ethics: Orthodox \u2013 Catholic \u2013 Protestant<\/em>.[1]<\/sup>\u00a0 While the book has its limitations, it makes a thought-provoking attempt to approach ecumenical dialogue through the lens of Christian social thought.<\/p>\n

The dictionary defines a \u201ctrilogy\u201d as a \u201cseries of three dramas or literary works\u00a0\u2026 that are closely related and develop a single theme.\u201d[2]<\/sup>\u00a0 Think the\u00a0Oresteia<\/em>, the\u00a0Divine Comedy<\/em>, or, analogously, the three parts of the\u00a0Summa<\/em>\u00a0with its overarching\u00a0exitus-reditus<\/em>\u00a0structure.\u00a0 The etymology of the term is broader, however, and does not intrinsically include the element of close relatedness.\u00a0 A\u00a0trilogia<\/em>\u00a0could literally refer to three freestanding stories or accounts (tri<\/em>– +\u00a0logos<\/em>,\u00a0-logia<\/em>), collected in one place.\u00a0 That is perhaps the better way to understand the sense in which this book presents a \u201ctrilogy\u201d of social ethics.\u00a0 While the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant thirds of the book do each broadly treat a related topic \u2013 social ethics \u2013 they do so in such fundamentally distinct ways that each third of the book could just as well stand on its own.\u00a0 That would not necessarily be a criticism, if the authors merely intended to present three freestanding accounts of social ethics from different perspectives.\u00a0 But the book\u2019s self-declared purpose is higher: It aims to \u201ccontribute to bridging the gap between churches in the specific area of social ethics and thus to further greater unity\u201d in both \u201cthought and action\u201d (p. 5).\u00a0 It is self-consciously an ecumenical endeavor, and the authors hope that the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant sections of the book will \u201cmutually interpret each other\u201d and \u201cdemonstrate the enriching complementarity of the three traditions\u201d (p. 12).\u00a0 In this higher aim, the book falls somewhat short.\u00a0 But it does present a useful overview of social ethics from three distinct Christian perspectives, and attentive readers should find points of commonality among the three accounts that might serve as broad, if somewhat thin, common ground for some kind of possible future synthesis.<\/p>\n

To understand the structure and content of the book, a bit of background is in order.\u00a0 This is an English edition of a book that was originally published in German in 2005.\u00a0 At the time, there was a spirit of optimism, as \u201cthe European Union was opening itself to countries in the Eastern reaches of the continent, defying older political, ideological, and religious boundaries\u201d (p. 3).\u00a0 All the same, \u201cthe authors were convinced that the future of Europe and its institutions was fragile as long as spiritual values were neglected as key elements of European identity and as long as the region\u2019s churches failed to promote dialogue between Western and Eastern Christianity\u201d (id.<\/em>).\u00a0 Thus, the three authors \u2013 Ingeborg Gabriel, a Catholic theologian at the University of Vienna; Ulrich K\u00f6rtner, a Protestant theologian at the University of Vienna; and Alexandros Papaderos, a Greek Orthodox academic who studied in both Greece and Germany \u2013 set out to write a book about \u201cethical, and particularly social ethical, reflection in the three main Christian traditions\u201d (p. 5).\u00a0 As that background suggests, the book views its subject through primarily western European, even Teutonic, lenses.\u00a0 European social problems in the early 21st<\/sup>\u00a0century are top of mind for the authors, and the theological analysis is often of the more modern German variety.\u00a0 In that sense, the book is somewhat limited by its time and context.\u00a0 There is scant treatment of social problems in the Americas, Asia, the Middle East, or Africa, and aspects of the theological analysis arguably lack breadth (apparent especially in the Lutheran-Reformed focus of the Protestant section) and depth (particularly in the Catholic section\u2019s treatment of more traditional Thomistic concepts).\u00a0 Of course, the authors can do only so much in attempting to treat an immense topic in just 300 pages.\u00a0 But the context and limitations are worth keeping in mind, together with the recognition that the authors do not necessarily present the only or authoritative way of understanding social ethics in their respective traditions.<\/p>\n

Turning from context to content, and following the book\u2019s order of presentation, we can summarize the main themes, and try to capture the general ethos, of the Orthodox, then Catholic, then Protestant treatment of social ethics.\u00a0 Along the way, we can identify some particular points of strength and weakness in each account.\u00a0 Then, having taken a trip through each third of the book, we can take a step back and evaluate the book as a whole, particularly in light of its ecumenical aims.<\/p>\n

Orthodox:\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>The Orthodox chapter, written by Papaderos, is more meditative and even spiritual than it is linear or systematic.\u00a0 In noticeable contrast with the Catholic chapter, the Orthodox chapter does not leave the reader with a clear architectonic sense of the internal logic of Orthodox social ethics.\u00a0 Instead, the chapter immerses the reader in what we might call the Orthodox sensibility, orienting us toward social ethics from within a certain frame of reference rather than systematically mapping out the terrain.\u00a0 The chapter proceeds in five sections, each organized around one or more theological concepts (given in Greek).<\/p>\n

The first section lays important groundwork, establishing Trinitarian perichoresis or mutual indwelling as the model and foundation of human relationships in general and Christian social ethics in particular.\u00a0 After noting the cause-effect relationship between\u00a0agap\u0113\u00a0<\/em>(brotherly love) and\u00a0diakonia<\/em>\u00a0(service or ministry), and meditating briefly on the famous second-century passage from the\u00a0Epistle to Diognetus<\/em>, which describes early Christians as the souls in the body of society, the first section explores the historical forces that caused modern Orthodox thinking on social ethics to take a different course from that taken in the West.\u00a0 In Papaderos\u2019 view, the challenges arising from the Renaissance, Protestant movements, and rapid industrialization forced Western Christians to systematize their thinking on social ethics relatively early in the modern era, while in the East the subjugation of the Church by the Ottoman Empire meant that theological disciplines were cultivated more slowly.\u00a0 That is part of the picture, but there is more, as Papaderos later adds: \u201cSystems of values and norms, as well as official social doctrines, do not belong to the tradition of the Orthodox Church.\u00a0 Generally speaking, the Orthodox hierarchy is not particularly willing to subject society or the individual to norms proclaimed in Church statements on ethical economic, and social questions\u201d (p. 55).\u00a0 This is an interesting ecclesiological claim that could have been developed further as a point of contrast with the Catholic chapter.<\/p>\n

The second and third sections return to the concept of\u00a0diakonia<\/em>.\u00a0 In Orthodox thought,\u00a0diakonia<\/em>\u00a0is closely linked to, and flows from, liturgy \u2013 understood broadly as the reasonable worship of God, and encompassing not just the sacraments and formal acts of divine worship, but also a general \u201cethos\u201d or \u201cethical outlook\u201d (p. 59).\u00a0 In a nice turn of phrase,\u00a0diakonia<\/em>\u00a0is conceived of as the \u201cliturgy after the liturgy,\u201d as \u201cpraxis based on the right faith and the right glorification of God\u201d (p.\u00a065).\u00a0\u00a0Diakonia<\/em>\u00a0can be divided into\u00a0microdiakonia\u00a0<\/em>and\u00a0macrodiakonia<\/em>, the former denoting charitable activity, often private, that relieves immediate suffering, and the latter denoting larger-scale and forward-looking societal efforts to promote justice, peace, and human dignity.\u00a0 There are points of contact here with the Catholic distinction between charity and social justice.\u00a0 Although Papaderos does not explore them explicitly, he does gesture at the common ground in his discussion of concrete examples of\u00a0micro<\/em>– and\u00a0macrodiakonia<\/em>\u00a0in patristic sources.<\/p>\n

The fourth and fifth sections finish by considering what we might call political theology.\u00a0 Of particular interest is the section on church-state relations and the principle of\u00a0symphonia<\/em>\u00a0in Orthodox thought.\u00a0 Drawing on Justinian and other Byzantine sources, this principle holds that \u201c[t]he temporal power and the priesthood relate to each other as body and soul; they are necessary for state order just as the body and soul are necessary for a living person.\u00a0 It is in their linkage and harmony that the wellbeing of a state lies\u201d (p. 109).\u00a0 In other words, \u201cthe emperor and the patriarch\u201d are \u201cat the head of society,\u201d not as a \u201cdiarchy,\u201d but rather as \u201cpersons fulfilling a specific institutional function, as servants of the same Christian community,\u201d requiring \u201cmutual support and solidarity\u201d (id.<\/em>).\u00a0 At least on its face, that articulation of the principle of\u00a0symphonia<\/em>\u00a0seems compatible with pre-Conciliar Western efforts to formulate a principle of church-state or spiritual-temporal relations.\u00a0 In Leonine terms, for example, that principle required an \u201corderly connection\u201d between \u201cthe ecclesiastical and the civil\u201d powers, each \u201csupreme\u201d in its own domain, \u201cwhich may be compared to the union of the soul and body in man.\u201d[3]<\/sup>\u00a0 That formulation, even if no longer tenable in the post-Conciliar world, sounds strikingly similar to the Orthodox\u00a0symphonia<\/em>\u00a0principle, and here might have been another place to explore an intriguing point of historical contact with Western, or at least Catholic, social thought.\u00a0 But the book again leaves that task to the reader.<\/p>\n

Catholic:\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>The Catholic chapter, written by Gabriel, reads much more like a short systematic treatise on social ethics.\u00a0 It has a clear logical trajectory and follows a useful three-part pedagogical structure of \u201csee, judge, and act\u201d (p. 133).\u00a0 We first \u201csee\u201d the \u201csigns of the times\u201d by examining the context for social ethical reflection, then consider the criteria and methods for \u201cjudging\u201d reality according to social ethics, and finally turn to future prospects for \u201caction.\u201d<\/p>\n

After a brief introduction to the sources of Catholic social ethics \u2013 theology, philosophical ethics, and the social sciences \u2013 as well as a nod to the Orthodox conception of\u00a0diakonia<\/em>\u00a0as the \u201cliturgy after the liturgy\u201d (p. 134), Gabriel offers an overview of the \u201csigns of the times\u201d from the perspective of \u201ccurrent Western societies\u201d (p. 145).\u00a0 The material here should sound familiar to anyone educated in the West: the dominance of technocratic and economic paradigms with their underlying instrumental view of nature; the social costs and benefits of the dominant models; the effects of globalization and the need for effective global laws and governance structures; the sense of uprootedness and social fragility; the shaky state of democracy and human rights in many parts of the world.\u00a0 From the standpoint of Christian ethics, but also perhaps of anyone of goodwill, the present social context demands a better understanding of the human being vis-\u00e0-vis nature, a reexamination of the inadequate individualist premises of liberal economic and political theory, a better conception of progress oriented toward the true end of human life, and a Christian humanism that \u201coffers a holistic interpretation of life that encompasses all dimensions of human existence\u201d (p. 161).<\/p>\n

If somewhat Western-focused, this discussion does attempt to take in at least some global aspects of the \u201csigns of the times,\u201d which helps give the Catholic chapter a more cosmopolitan flavor.\u00a0 If there is an analytical (and ironic) weakness here, it is in Gabriel\u2019s use of impoverished liberal categories to critique impoverished liberal theory.\u00a0 When, for example, \u201cliberal sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf\u201d claims that \u201cthe realization of freedom\u00a0and<\/em>\u00a0justice\u201d is impossible because \u201csocial rights necessarily limit individual freedoms,\u201d Gabriel responds that \u201ca political order based on civil rights can be secured only if the basic material needs \u2026 are met for the majority of the population\u201d (p. 151).\u00a0 True enough, and a useful practical refutation.\u00a0 But a more theoretically satisfying answer would start by rejecting the liberal opposition between freedom and justice, individual and social rights, and would draw a completely different picture in which the common good is constitutive of\u00a0ius<\/em>\u00a0and therefore of all derivative rights, social and individual.\u00a0 Individual rights are shaped by the contours of social rights, and vice versa \u2013 there is no Hobbesian opposition.\u00a0 That, at any rate, is a defensible classical and Thomistic view.\u00a0 Of course, it would take more work to present the full argument, but it is a pity that Gabriel does not even advert to it and instead accepts the liberal playing field.<\/p>\n

The section on the criteria of social ethics is well constructed and could stand on its own as a brief introduction to the history of Catholic social thought.\u00a0 Gabriel divides the pre-modern era into three phases: the \u201cdiaconal\u201d phase, where early Christian communities focused on \u201cassisting their needy members and eliminating poverty\u201d; the post-Constantinian phase, where the official recognition of Christianity \u201cenabled the creation of extensive charitable institutions for the poor and the sick\u201d; and the phase starting in the nineteenth century, when the state began taking over many welfare functions previously performed by the Church (p. 170).\u00a0 Gabriel is a bit harsh in her judgment of the Church\u2019s \u201cpolitical,\u201d as distinct from its \u201csocial,\u201d influence in the post-Constantinian phase, condemning its partnership with imperial power in the effort to stamp out heresies.\u00a0 But it is not clear that the Church\u2019s \u201csocial\u201d and \u201cpolitical\u201d influence can be so neatly disentangled during this (lengthy) period \u2013 the Nicene Creed came about for political as well as theological reasons, and the social vision of Louis\u00a0IX grew out of an understanding of Church, \u201cpolitics,\u201d and \u201csociety\u201d as one organic (if ordered and articulated) whole.\u00a0 Gabriel misses a chance here to try to get inside the mind of the post-Constantinian, pre-modern Church, and perhaps explore a point of contact with the Orthodox principle of\u00a0symphonia<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In the final \u201cact\u201d section, Gabriel offers some thoughts on the contributions that theological ethics might make to contemporary currents of ethical thought.\u00a0 In particular, Christian social ethics can enrich ethical concepts (such as human personhood, dignity, and relationality) that grew out of the Christian tradition but lost their roots in the post-Enlightenment period.\u00a0 Of course, to exert such influence, Christian social ethics would need to grapple seriously with the metaphysical challenges of post-Enlightenment philosophy, which tend to exert a powerful background influence in contemporary discussions of ethical issues.\u00a0 But perhaps Gabriel is right to see an opening here for theological ethicists who are up to the challenge.<\/p>\n

Protestant:\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>The Protestant chapter, authored by K\u00f6rtner, is probably the weakest in the book, with less thematic unity than the Orthodox chapter and less structure and organization than the Catholic chapter.\u00a0 To be fair to K\u00f6rtner, a unified presentation of Protestant social ethics is difficult; it would probably be more accurate to talk about several distinct branches of social ethics, corresponding to distinct branches of Protestantism.\u00a0 Calvinist and Quaker social ethics are different species.\u00a0 (K\u00f6rtner identifies this difficulty early on and limits himself to speaking \u201cmainly\u201d of the Lutheran and Reformed traditions (p. 250), but even here there are important differences.)\u00a0 Still, this chapter is informative, even if it offers more questions than answers about ecumenical social ethics.<\/p>\n

In contrast to the Orthodox and Catholic chapters, the Protestant chapter seems more concerned with identifying points of inter-church agreement and disagreement than with presenting a coherent picture of social ethics.\u00a0 We can identify three examples of such points: ethics and anthropology; ethics and natural law; and ethics and church-state relations.<\/p>\n

Human anthropology is the foundation of individual and social ethics, but K\u00f6rtner asserts that it would be an \u201coversimplification\u201d to speak about a single Christian view of anthropology, and he insists that the \u201cecumenical discourse on ethical questions must take this circumstance into account\u201d (p. 253).\u00a0 He then adds, however, that \u201cthe controversial expressions of Luther\u2019s anthropology\u201d \u2013\u00a0simul iustus et peccator<\/em>\u00a0(and, we might add, the Calvinist notion of total depravity) \u2013 \u201cremain problematic for the ecumenical dialogue\u201d (p. 257).\u00a0 Indeed, \u201cthe conventional model of consensus-based ecumenism has reached its limits in both dogmatic questions and ethics\u201d (id.<\/em>).\u00a0 It is not clear where to go from here.<\/p>\n

The ecumenical prospects for natural law are a bit brighter.\u00a0 Although Protestantism from Luther to Barth tends to take a dim view of the capacity of natural human reason, K\u00f6rtner sees potential for common ground with Catholic social ethics in Dietrich Bonhoeffer\u2019s attempt to recast natural law in Christological terms.\u00a0 In church-state relations, too, Bonhoeffer points the way toward possible common ground and its implications for social ethics.\u00a0 In response to the Lutheran doctrine of the \u201cTwo Kingdoms,\u201d which tended to sharply divide the realm of faith from that of politics, internalizing and subjectivizing the former, Bonhoeffer rejected a theology of \u201ccheap grace\u201d and insisted that temporal things \u201cdo not stand autonomously and unconnectedly next to the gospel and faith but are, rather, the place that readies the way for the coming of God\u201d (p. 274).\u00a0 This may not go all the way to a body-soul picture of society and church, but Bonhoeffer\u2019s avowal that (in K\u00f6rtner\u2019s paraphrase) \u201cthe gospel as such possesses a political dimension\u201d (p. 285) seems like ground where Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics could all meet.<\/p>\n

*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *<\/p>\n

Does the book succeed in \u201cbridging the gap between churches in the specific area of social ethics\u201d (p. 5) and \u201cdemonstrat[ing] the enriching complementarity of the three traditions\u201d (p. 12)?\u00a0 To some extent, yes; the prominence of certain fundamental concepts, such as\u00a0diakonia<\/em>, throughout the three traditions is noteworthy.\u00a0 And, of course, \u201cbiblical premises constitute the basis of all Christian social ethics\u201d (p. 12).\u00a0 While the three traditions do not fully share an understanding of how to interpret those premises, they do broadly share a view of man as made in the\u00a0imago Dei<\/em>, of human dignity and equality flowing therefrom, of care for the poor, of the \u201cdialectical relationship between justice and love\u201d (p. 13), and of the independence, in some sense, of the Christian community from the state or temporal power.<\/p>\n

Moreover, as suggested above, the traditions may be even closer to one another in certain respects than the authors explicitly acknowledge.\u00a0 This seems particularly true of the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, which often appear to use basically the same concepts under different terminology.\u00a0 The main substantive difference is in the Orthodox reluctance to promulgate universally binding social teaching, in part due to the general apophatic character of Orthodox theology, in part due to the autocephalous structure of Orthodox ecclesiology.\u00a0 Even here, however, Catholic and Orthodox approaches to social ethics may be slowing converging, as the Orthodox Churches increasingly recognize the need for pan-Orthodox teaching in a globalized world, and the Catholic Church increasingly recognizes the need to teach social principles at an appropriately generalized level in a highly varied and fast-moving global context.\u00a0 The closeness of the Protestant tradition(s) to the Orthodox and Catholic is less obvious, but Gabriel is probably right to suggest that the three can join forces in contending with liberal modernity and a secularized context in which concepts like nature and grace, goodness and justice, \u201chave to be reflected and made plausible to Christians before the fine differences of the theological traditions make sense to them\u201d (p. 15).<\/p>\n

In the end, though, the book still presents three fairly siloed approaches.\u00a0 Most of the work of finding possible points of commonality is left to the reader, who is likely not equipped to judge, at least without further research, whether apparently similar concepts are\u00a0faux amis<\/em>.\u00a0 Even the book\u2019s ecumenical aims are ill-defined.\u00a0 When the Protestant chapter describes the goal of ecumenism as \u201creconciled diversity\u201d (p.\u00a0248), one suspects that this does not sufficiently capture the Orthodox and Catholic ecumenical visions (or at least that they would not mean quite the same thing by it), and one can rightly wonder just how these three solo performances advance a coherent ecumenical vision.\u00a0 Still, there is something to the idea of simply getting people into the same room to talk things out, and this book does make a contribution to that end.<\/p>\n

As the Christian world celebrates the 1700th<\/sup>\u00a0anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, it is especially appropriate to hope for fresh and creative approaches to ecumenism.\u00a0 Perhaps Christian social ethicists can take up and continue the project begun by the\u00a0Trilogy of Social Ethics<\/em>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[1]<\/sup>\u00a0Gabriel, Ingeborg G., Ulrich H.J. K\u00f6rtner, and Alexandros K. Papaderos,\u00a0Trilogy of Social Ethics: Orthodox \u2013 Catholic \u2013 Protestant<\/em>, Ecumenical Press, Philadelphia, 2012, 1 vol., 310 pp., ISBN 978-0931214165.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/sup>\u00a0\u201cTrilogy.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary<\/em>, Merriam-Webster,\u00a0https:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/trilogy.<\/a>\u00a0 Accessed 20 May 2023.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/sup>\u00a0LEO XIII,\u00a0Immortale Dei<\/em>\u00a0\u00a7\u00a713-14.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":""},"autori":[1269],"fascicolo":[354],"class_list":["post-3156","articolo","type-articolo","status-publish","hentry","autori-evelyn-blacklock","fascicolo-giugno-2025"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nOikonomia - Christian Social Ethics in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Traditions<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Leggi l'articolo a cura di Evelyn Blacklock, pubblicato nel numero di Giugno 2025. Disponibile in formato PDF.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/en\/2025\/giugno\/christian-social-ethics-in-the-catholic-orthodox-and-protestant-traditions\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Oikonomia - Christian Social Ethics in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Traditions\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Leggi l'articolo a cura di Evelyn Blacklock, pubblicato nel numero di Giugno 2025. Disponibile in formato PDF.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/en\/2025\/giugno\/christian-social-ethics-in-the-catholic-orthodox-and-protestant-traditions\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Oikonomia\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-19T15:20:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/logo_oikonomia-nero.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"500\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"500\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.oikonomia.it\\\/en\\\/2025\\\/giugno\\\/christian-social-ethics-in-the-catholic-orthodox-and-protestant-traditions\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.oikonomia.it\\\/en\\\/2025\\\/giugno\\\/christian-social-ethics-in-the-catholic-orthodox-and-protestant-traditions\\\/\",\"name\":\"Oikonomia - Christian Social Ethics in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Traditions\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.oikonomia.it\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-06-01T10:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-19T15:20:02+00:00\",\"description\":\"Leggi l'articolo a cura di Evelyn Blacklock, pubblicato nel numero di Giugno 2025. Disponibile in formato PDF.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.oikonomia.it\\\/en\\\/2025\\\/giugno\\\/christian-social-ethics-in-the-catholic-orthodox-and-protestant-traditions\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.oikonomia.it\\\/en\\\/2025\\\/giugno\\\/christian-social-ethics-in-the-catholic-orthodox-and-protestant-traditions\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.oikonomia.it\\\/en\\\/2025\\\/giugno\\\/christian-social-ethics-in-the-catholic-orthodox-and-protestant-traditions\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.oikonomia.it\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Articoli Rivista\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.oikonomia.it\\\/articolo\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Christian Social Ethics in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Traditions\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.oikonomia.it\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.oikonomia.it\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"Oikonomia\",\"description\":\"Rivista di Etica e Scienze Sociali Journal of Ethics & Social Sciences\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.oikonomia.it\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.oikonomia.it\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.oikonomia.it\\\/en\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Oikonomia - Rivista di etica e scienze sociali \\\/ Journal of Ethics & Social Sciences\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.oikonomia.it\\\/en\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.oikonomia.it\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.oikonomia.it\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/logo_oikonomia-nero.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.oikonomia.it\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/logo_oikonomia-nero.png\",\"width\":500,\"height\":500,\"caption\":\"Oikonomia - Rivista di etica e scienze sociali \\\/ Journal of Ethics & Social Sciences\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.oikonomia.it\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Oikonomia - Christian Social Ethics in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Traditions","description":"Leggi l'articolo a cura di Evelyn Blacklock, pubblicato nel numero di Giugno 2025. Disponibile in formato PDF.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/en\/2025\/giugno\/christian-social-ethics-in-the-catholic-orthodox-and-protestant-traditions\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Oikonomia - Christian Social Ethics in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Traditions","og_description":"Leggi l'articolo a cura di Evelyn Blacklock, pubblicato nel numero di Giugno 2025. Disponibile in formato PDF.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/en\/2025\/giugno\/christian-social-ethics-in-the-catholic-orthodox-and-protestant-traditions\/","og_site_name":"Oikonomia","article_modified_time":"2026-04-19T15:20:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":500,"height":500,"url":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/logo_oikonomia-nero.png","type":"image\/png"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Estimated reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/en\/2025\/giugno\/christian-social-ethics-in-the-catholic-orthodox-and-protestant-traditions\/","url":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/en\/2025\/giugno\/christian-social-ethics-in-the-catholic-orthodox-and-protestant-traditions\/","name":"Oikonomia - Christian Social Ethics in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Traditions","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-06-01T10:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-19T15:20:02+00:00","description":"Leggi l'articolo a cura di Evelyn Blacklock, pubblicato nel numero di Giugno 2025. Disponibile in formato PDF.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/en\/2025\/giugno\/christian-social-ethics-in-the-catholic-orthodox-and-protestant-traditions\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/en\/2025\/giugno\/christian-social-ethics-in-the-catholic-orthodox-and-protestant-traditions\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/en\/2025\/giugno\/christian-social-ethics-in-the-catholic-orthodox-and-protestant-traditions\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Articoli Rivista","item":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/articolo\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Christian Social Ethics in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Traditions"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/en\/","name":"Oikonomia","description":"Rivista di Etica e Scienze Sociali Journal of Ethics & Social Sciences","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/en\/#organization","name":"Oikonomia - Rivista di etica e scienze sociali \/ Journal of Ethics & Social Sciences","url":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/logo_oikonomia-nero.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/logo_oikonomia-nero.png","width":500,"height":500,"caption":"Oikonomia - Rivista di etica e scienze sociali \/ Journal of Ethics & Social Sciences"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/articolo\/3156","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/articolo"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/articolo"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3156"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"autori","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/autori?post=3156"},{"taxonomy":"fascicolo","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oikonomia.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/fascicolo?post=3156"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}