My commentary on the new social encyclical appeared in today’s Wall Street Journal. Here is the full text:
In his much anticipated third encyclical, Caritas in Veritate (Love in Truth), Pope Benedict XVI does not focus on specific systems of economics — he is not attempting to shore up anyone’s political agenda. He is rather concerned with morality and the theological foundation of culture. The context is of course a global economic crisis — a crisis that’s taken place in a moral vacuum, where the love of truth has been abandoned in favor of a crude materialism. The pope urges that this crisis become “an opportunity for discernment, in which to shape a new vision for the future.”
Yet his encyclical contains no talk of seeking a third way between markets and socialism. Words like greed and capitalism make no appearance here, despite press headlines following the publication of the encyclical earlier this week. People seeking a blueprint for the political restructuring of the world economy won’t find it here. But if they look to this document as a means for the moral reconstruction of the world’s cultures and societies, which in turn influence economic events, they will find much to reflect upon.
Caritas in Veritate is an eloquent restatement of old truths casually dismissed in modern times. The pope is pointing to a path neglected in all the talk of economic stimulus, namely a global embrace of truth-filled charity.
Benedict rightly attributes the crisis itself to “badly managed and largely speculative financial dealing.” But he resists the current fashion of blaming all existing world problems on the market economy. “The Church,” he writes, “has always held that economic action is not to be regarded as something opposed to society.” Further: “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations.”
The market is rather shaped by culture. “Economy and finance . . . can be used badly when those at the helm are motivated by purely selfish ends. Instruments that are good in themselves can thereby be transformed into harmful ones. But it is man’s darkened reason that produces these consequences, not the instrument per se. Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.”
The pope does not reject globalization: “Blind opposition would be a mistaken and prejudiced attitude, incapable of recognizing the positive aspects of the process, with the consequent risk of missing the chance to take advantage of its many opportunities for development.” He says that “the world-wide diffusions of prosperity should not . . . be held up by projects that are protectionist.” More, not less, trade is needed: “the principal form of assistance needed by developing countries is that of allowing and encouraging the gradual penetration of their products into international markets.”
The encyclical doesn’t attack capitalism or offer models for nations to adopt. “The Church does not have technical solutions to offer,” the pope firmly states, “and does not claim ‘to interfere in any way in the politics of States.’ She does, however, have a mission of truth to accomplish, in every time and circumstance . . .” Benedict is profoundly aware that economic science has much to contribute to human betterment. The Church’s role is not to dictate the path of research but to focus its goals. “Economic science tells us that structural insecurity generates anti-productive attitudes wasteful of human resources. . . . Human costs always include economic costs, and economic dysfunctions always involve human costs.”
He constantly returns to two practical applications of the principle of truth in charity. First, this principle takes us beyond earthly demands of justice, defined by rights and duties, and introduces essential moral priorities of generosity, mercy and communion — priorities which provide salvific and theological value. Second, truth in charity is always focused on the common good, defined as an extension of the good of individuals who live in society and have broad social responsibilities. As for issues of population, he can’t be clearer: “To consider population increase as the primary cause of underdevelopment is mistaken, even from an economic point of view.”
Several commentators have worried about his frequent calls for wealth redistribution. Benedict does see a role for the state here, but much of the needed redistribution is the result of every voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange. To understand such passages fully and accurately, we do well to put our political biases on the shelf.
This encyclical is a theological version of his predecessor’s more philosophical effort to anchor the free economy’s ethical foundation. Much of it stands squarely with a long tradition of writings of a certain “classical liberal” tradition, one centered on the moral foundation of economics, from St. Thomas Aquinas and his disciples, Frederic Bastiat in the 19th century, Wilhelm Roepke, and even the secular F.A. Hayek in the 20th century. It also clearly resonates with some European Christian democratic thought.
Caritas in Veritate is a reminder that we cannot understand ourselves as a human community if we do not understand ourselves as something more than the sum or our material parts; if we do not understand our capacity for sin; and if we do not understand the principle of communion rooted in the gratuitousness of God’s grace. Simply put, to this pope’s mind, there is no just or moral system without just and moral people.
11
commentsshare yours
Category: News and Events, Vatican
Related Tags:
Caritas in Veritate, catholic social teaching, pope benedict xvi
I read the encyclical but would like to read the professor of economics who contributed to it. Any idea when a translation to English will be available?
Roger McKinney
July 10, 2009
8:27 am
Father, I’m Peter B’s father in law — you may recall that you were the celebrant of the wedding a couple of years ago.
I have read your comments with interest, but note that you didn’t say much about section 67 with its unambiguous call for a new economic order governed by an international institution with teeth. It is a bit hard to reconcile that concept with your other points, is it not?
Joe Sullivan
July 10, 2009
8:49 am
Rev. Sirico: “Benedict rightly attributes the crisis itself to “badly managed and largely speculative financial dealing.”
The problem is the vagueness of the statement. Who badly managed which financial dealings? Does he refer to the GSE’s, Fannie and Freddie and the ratings agencies like S&P? Does he refer to the manipulation of the money supply by the Feds? Or does he refer to the management of mortgage firms and investment banks? If he refers to the Feds and the GSE’s, he enjoys the support of sound economic theory.
But if he refers to the investment banks and mortgage companies, he’s on thin ice. The facts prove that for the most part no one was speculating. Regulators and legislators encouraged the very activities that today are called speculation. At the time, very few people saw the activities as speculative.
“Economy and finance . . . can be used badly when those at the helm are motivated by purely selfish ends. Instruments that are good in themselves can thereby be transformed into harmful ones. But it is man’s darkened reason that produces these consequences, not the instrument per se.”
Is he suggesting that Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke were motivated by purely selfish ends? Or is he accusing the heads of investment banks and mortgage companies who claim they were motivated to provide housing for people who were normally locked out of the process?
At the time that mortgage and investment bankers were committing acting selfish, very few saw their actions as selfish. Most people, especially regulators, applauded and encouraged them. At least in the housing sector, everyone from Congressmen to Fannie and Freddie, the investment banks and mortgage companies, saw their work as good and helping the poor by spreading the risk of default over as many people as possible and thereby limiting the damage to any one group.
Rev. Sirico: “Simply put, to this pope’s mind, there is no just or moral system without just and moral people.”
That’s probably where I disagree the most. If a just system requires moral people, then no system can possibly be just. Even the system established by God in the Pentateuch for ancient Israel would have been unjust. If we take the doctrine of original sin seriously, we know that we will never have a society with totally moral people. It’s impossible.
But we know that the system established by God was just. In what way? It was just because it was based on moral principles. That system told people what is moral and just. Even though the people were terribly immoral, the system was moral. The foundation of that system was private property. Outside of the laws governing worship, the laws in the Pentateuch deal with property, the moral the right to property and punishments for violating the property of another. The system was just because it rectified injustice committed by immoral individuals.
The encyclical sees the inequality in the world, particularly between nations, as immoral, and I agree. The oppression of the people by ruthless dictators that perpetuates poverty is immoral. But then his solution, more charity, implicates the wealthy, not the dictators. Charity is good and necessary, but it will never reduce poverty. The Pope credits freer markets for raising many people out of poverty, but instead of calling for more free markets, he calls for more charity?
Roger McKinney
July 10, 2009
10:01 am
When an airplan crashes, it doesn’t help to say that gravity was at fault. Neither does it help to say that someone was incompetent. To be helpful we need to know who was incompetent, at what, when and why.
Neither is it helpful to say that someone acted immorally. We need to know who, when, how and why. Also, did the immoral act rise to the level of being illegal? If so, then for justice to prevail those people need to be punished.
In a similar way, the encyclical desperately needs to be more specific if it is to be helpful. Its vagueness allows everyone to find support for his position in it.
The paper is specific on the extremes of communism and lawlessness, both of which it rightly condemns. But the real estate between those two extremes is vast and few people advocate either so they’re almost irrelevant.
Roger McKinney
July 10, 2009
10:09 am
I was at a meeting the other day and heard the chairman say, “let’s not cede the ideal to the practical.” That seems to me to be part of what is working with the hashing of Pope Benedict’s encyclical. And a lot of what Roger McKinney notes above is in me. I also wonder why business execs get pilloried in public hearings for taking a company jet to D.C. when a bureaucrat within the sound of the gavel pounding is stepping onto an AirForce plane or having the taxpayers pay for his/her “fact finding” trip to WhatEverLand.
An economist recently wrote of the test that OPM — other people’s money — puts on us. And I’m constantly being reminded of the Pew Research that disclosed the within the 18-29 age group, Obama outpolled McCain 2:1. And also within that age group 44% say that religion does not play a part in their lives.
Roger writes, “Neither is it helpful to say that someone acted immorally. We need to know who, when, how and why. Also, did the immoral act rise to the level of being illegal? If so, then for justice to prevail those people need to be punished.”
I’d suggest that Benedict’s rambling way to the emphasis on Truth is the ideal that we need to pay more mind to in a world that’s finessed the practical to its limits. But also we need to be reminded that over 4 in 10 of that age group –scurrying from here to there in leased cars with cell phones stuck to their ears and the siren call from a prophet promising Heaven on Earth — have no intention of paying attention to us. Not right now.
Religion isn’t on their Blackberry calendar. Ah, but only tomorrow it may be different and there’s that red letter part in the Gospel to consider, “In a little while.”
Ken
July 10, 2009
1:54 pm
Two brief replies to the posts above:
1) It is not the purpose of an encyclical to enter into the details of policy specifics, as both the tradition generally and this pope specifically states clearly at the outset. These are not ambiguities; they are principles in need of application which in turn require the virtue of prudence to enact. There will be a wide variety of opinions at this level.
2) As to no. 67, I refer you to Matt Cavedon’s fine comparison (http://blog.acton.org/archives/11049-international-governance-in-caritas-in-veritate-and-the-road-to-serfdom.html) between this section of CV and the close of F.A. Hayek’s classic Road to Serfdom on the matter of international organizations.
Finally, just keep tuned to this site for more and more commentary on the encyclical from a wide range of perspectives. It has only been out a few days.
Father Robert Sirico
July 10, 2009
1:55 pm
Section 67 is horrific. The call for a global political government with ‘teeth’ as the solution to economic injustice and suffering couldn’t be more incompatible with traditional Catholic doctrine. How this could be reconciled with Pius XI’s Quadragesimo Anno or Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, (let alone natural law), is beyond me.
I wonder whether the Pontiff recognizes the true source of these problems, viz., the protestant reformation and the rejection of the role of government in promoting the natural end of man. So long as governments not only avoid, but ban the promotion of man’s natural end as part of the promotion of the common good, said governments will be working at odds with divine law.
That nowhere in this document does B16 call for the nations of the world to embrace the Social Kingship of Christ evidences how little he understands of the problem (or, worse, how little he understands of traditional Catholic doctrine).
Clearly he is a brilliant man, so not to have mentioned any of this seems to me an implicit rejection of them.
Mark
July 12, 2009
1:22 pm
Hayek would never have endorsed a world government. His statement, in context, meant that he believed that state control of economies is the cause of war. He was calling for states to get out of economic intervention and thereby avoid warfare. He was not calling for a world government.
Roger McKinney
July 13, 2009
2:41 pm
Benedict XVI made clear his position on wealth redistribution in his Message For The Celebration Of The World Day Of Peace on January 1, 2009 as follows: “Hence, the illusion that a policy of mere redistribution of existing wealth can definitively resolve the problem must be set aside. In a modern economy, the value of assets is utterly dependent on the capacity to generate revenue in the present and the future. Wealth creation therefore becomes an inescapable duty, which must be kept in mind if the fight against material poverty is to be effective in the long term.”
Tom Morris
July 14, 2009
4:28 pm
Tom, Thanks for pointing that out. That passage is very clear. However, how do you reconcile it with the passages condemning inequality and advocating redistribution. Do you think the Pope is saying that redistribution is important and necessary, but not sufficient? I have trouble reconciling what appears to me to be contradictions. Is this part of the policy of taking the middle road?
Roger McKinney
July 15, 2009
7:06 am
Father, I take your point, and read the other commentary you linked in.
Of course, the problem is not one of reconciling the concept of subsidiarity with that of a global authority, it is one of maintaining subsidiarity. The long history of great power is that it is never satisfied, but always seeks to expand. The history of those who work for great power centers — especially transnational ones — is that they build their careers, legacies and retirements through the expansion of them, and that the larger the organization that supports the power center, the more intractable the bureaucracy that tends it.
IN the case at hand, if a powerful transnational organization were formed to govern things like food distribution, financial transactions, and immigration, the potential for corruption would beggar anything we have known. This would be especially true if ALL nations somehow had equal voices, in as much as many national governments are no better than criminal enterprises, and the temptation to tilt things their own way by banding together to the disadvantage of the resource-producing nations would be to great.
Add to this the long list of nations and cultures that simply do not respect private enterprise, property ownership, or the rule of law, and you see not something to be wished for, but something to fear.
Joe Sullivan
July 16, 2009
9:21 am