A number of journalists and some pundits on the religious left are aiming to own Caritas in Veritate, the new papal encyclical on economics. To them, the encyclical is a polemic against globalization and even the free market itself.
Jacqueline Salmon over at the Washington Post’s “On Faith” page, quotes Vincent Miller, a professor who characterizes the encyclical as a “trenchant critique of capitalism,” before she claims that Caritas in Veritate “places the usually conservative pontiff on the left as to economic issues.” Certainly, the Pope decried immoral profits and a lack of transparency in the business world. In making her point, though, Salmon conveniently ignored the sections of the encyclical that praised trade’s role in lifting “billions of people out of misery,” called globalization a “possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale,” and warned about the dangers of the “all-encompassing welfare state.”
Matthew Boudway at “dotCommonweal,” the blog of Commonweal, similarly concludes that the Pope wants a more leftist approach to economics: “Justice through redistribution is a properly political concern… The market ‘needs to be directed.’” Boudway is not incorrect to say that the Pope expects the state to have the authority to redistribute wealth and to govern the economy. He fails to examine the principle of subsidiarity, though, which Caritas in Veritate reaffirms as essential to the political order. Decisions ought to be delegated to the smallest competent authority. One has to wonder if Boudway’s conception of justice is nearer to the Pope’s idea of governance seeking the common good in the economy, or to what the Pope warningly refers to as the “all-encompassing welfare state” that makes people dependent and unable to live up to their responsibilities. Making social security and public welfare efficient and personal, as well as protective, are balances that need to be struck, but that does not lead us to conclude that Caritas in Veritate justifies point-blank expansions of the current state assistance system.
Writing at “Opinion L.A.,” L.A. Times editor Michael McGough suggests that capitalist Catholics are little more than cafeteria Catholics because of their “discomfort” at the Church’s social doctrine. Not everyone over at Acton is Catholic, but we certainly don’t feel that our free market tendencies are out of touch with our faith lives. Indeed, we are eager to see how the Pope’s calls for transparency, accessibility, and opportunity in markets through reducing trade barriers, expanding micro-credit, and strengthening civil society will help the poor by advancing liberty. We are also hopeful that reminding the world again of the need for subsidiarity and investment rather than bureaucracy and government-to-government aid will help reduce the obstacles that the state can place in front of the poor.
Caritas in Veritate is about how to have a responsible globalization and development that serves moral ends and empowers everyone. It is also about putting morality at the forefront of every sphere of life, from bioethics to economics, and remembering that, when it comes to the world of finance, “it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.”
Catholics who believe in economic freedom should see the new encyclical as an opportunity to highlight our ability to make markets work and to remember that freedom must always be undergirded by a morality aiming at the common good. We cannot allow the Left to reduce this document to just another political manifesto. It is far above that, as a statement of integral humanism, pervasive morality, and the need to ensure that the rules of society are just. It is a teaching document, not a partisan bludgeon.
9
commentsshare yours
Category: News and Events, Vatican
Related Tags:
blogs, Caritas in Veritate, Catholic social doctrine, encyclical, left-wing, pope benedict xvi, Vatican
It seems to me that the encyclical has something for everyone. There is as much against the free market as there is for it.
“Caritas in Veritate is about how to have a responsible globalization and development that serves moral ends and empowers everyone.”
So was Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations.” Smith and the Pope came to very different conclusions of how to go about accomplishing those goals.
Roger McKinney
July 8, 2009
11:26 am
The Pope does not offer technical advice or political solutions; look to Smith for those. The Pope offers the moral context, theological considerations, and anthropology needed to understand the goals in the first place. When he is offering prudential suggestions on policy, he is speaking in terms that apply to the entire world and not to any given set of circumstances.
Where do you see the Pope differing from Smith?
Matt Cavedon
July 8, 2009
11:30 am
Thank you for your words. As a Catholic convert who has family members that have inherited a sense that the “underpinnings” of the catholic church are always suspect you have articulated the essence of how this new encyclical transcends political and state ideologies. Thank you for pointing out that this Pope now beckons Christians, and others of good will from all nations to examine and reflect on the moral obligations of justice should shape the economic paradigm of their own state.
As a reasonably young capitalist who loves the benefits of the free-market, and held an idealized view of philosophy, theory and praxis, the last few years have been jarring. May all who identify themselves as “Christian” regardless of denomination or affiliation be bold enough to think “outside of the box” and “from the foot of the cross or the the empty tomb.” It is time to courageously forge ahead to “right the wrongs” and imagining that resurrecting the gold-standard and a return to “the good old days” (whenever or whatever they were) is not the solution.
How do the principles of our faith shape our participation in the free-market. How do Christian’s who vote and shape laws and policies take responsibility for unjust and self-serving trends of a nation. These are questions we might ask ourselves, and there are so many more.
Here in the US as the economic house of cards appears to continue to fall, can we be honest enough to recognize where we may have contributed to its collapse? Could we be honest enough to acknowledge that our own penchant for stuff and profits may have blinded us as individuals to our personal violation of the “gospel’s” mandate of love and truth?
May a new generation of Christians ask themselves difficult questions. I believe that humility and honesty could lead the way to conversion, creativity and resolutions that will glorify God and bring about the greater good for all mankind, and while I have no clue what effect it would have on a macro economy, but I know it would certainly bring about justice and hope in the microcosms of individual lives as we by grace we formulate personal economies of truth and love.
Karina Olson
July 8, 2009
11:54 am
The message of Caritas in Veritate will be perceived differently by people living under different economic regimes. For the Catholic societies of Latin American countries (which represent more than 30% of Catholics of the whole World), its message will undeniably be interpreted as an endorsement of the left wing message. The prevailing ideological bias in this region is geared towards making the State responsible for what the encyclical letter advocates to do: to place restraints on entrepreneur’s selfishness. I very much doubt that Latin American Catholics will interpret this message as an attack against relativists of all sorts. This second interpretation may prevail in societies where freedom is a non-disputed value, widely accepted by the people.
Furthermore, the Pope’s message, is not clear enough to me in regards to the relationship between morals and markets. For libertarians, it is clear that both notions are inextricably related: the morals of freedom sustains unfettered market exchanges. The encyclical letter, on the other hand, takes the view that both notions could differ, indeed, that the market logic could potentially endanger the virtuous ethics, which is why some form of intervention is needed. I disagree with this. The Aristotelian source of this thinking (i.e. his theory of Exchanges) has undermined the economic understanding of markets by the Catholic Church; it is dissapointing that Caritas in Veritate did not adequately treated this issue.
Ignacio De Leon
July 8, 2009
4:52 pm
Why shouldn’t the world’s resources be used/enjoyed by the world’s people? Why should those resources instead be hoarded by the privileged 10%? Capitalism is what makes this state of affairs possible, but to question it has become politically incorrect. You could even go to jail or be assaulted for publicly questioning the merits of capitalism. The rich have convinced us that they are the persecuted minority.
Hilary Smith
July 10, 2009
10:40 am
Socialism makes it possible, too. The concentration of wealth in socialist countries means that the ruling class enjoys virtually all of the country’s resources. Milton Friedman put it fairly well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
Free trade and free markets make it possible for people to work for wages they consent to, get new employers when they don’t feel rewarded well, spend their money only on what they think is worth it, and use their talents to create new wealth in the world. In that way, no one can hoard wealth: either you make things people want and get rewarded for it, or you don’t and you lose money. Economic freedom is as much about loss as it is about profit.
People like Dennis Kucinich, Noam Chomsky, Brian Moore, Ralph Nader, and Cynthia McKinney do more than question the merits of capitalism: they denounce the system as a whole. None of them has served jail time or been assaulted publicly. Even McKinney, who punched a Capitol Hill police officer, was never sentenced to any jail time over it.
Matt
July 10, 2009
12:41 pm
Nor is it an endorsement for the economic Darwinists who in seeking to eliminate the inefficient care only about competition and have no place for co-operation. CV.25:
“… trade union organizations experience greater difficulty in carrying out their task of representing the interests of workers, partly because Governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the freedom or the negotiating capacity of labour unions. Hence traditional networks of solidarity have more and more obstacles to overcome. The repeated calls issued within the Church’s social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum[60], for the promotion of workers’ associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honoured today even more than in the past, as a prompt and far-sighted response to the urgent need for new forms of cooperation at the international level, as well as the local level.”
CJW
July 15, 2009
9:17 pm
Correct, with the qualification that:
“The Church’s traditional teaching makes a valid distinction between the respective roles and functions of trade unions and politics. This distinction allows unions to identify civil society as the proper setting for their necessary activity of defending and promoting labour, especially on behalf of exploited and unrepresented workers, whose woeful condition is often ignored by the distracted eye of society.” (CV 64)
Matt
July 16, 2009
8:25 am
In fact, CV.64 seems to reinforce CV.25s earlier point; namely that in governments (like the previous one here in Australia) circumscribing the role of trade unions, politics has transgressed wrongly on civil society. If there is an imbalance or an incursion, it is clear where that currently is or recently has been. B16 is simply pointing out that what is needed is a proper distinction and not redressing the situation by overreacting. (In short, by swinging the pendulum too far back, rather than to a balanced centre)
CJW
July 16, 2009
2:42 pm