Posted on 07/08/2009 10:24:10 AM PDT by FromLori
Most encyclicals are so long, so dense and so reflective of the committee of theologians that prepares them that they wind up as the least-read of any papal pronouncements -- despite being the most authoritative document a pope can issue. That is especially true of encyclicals on social justice, like the one Pope Benedict XVI released today.
One reason is that Catholic social-justice teaching covers so many complex issues -- trade, immigration, labor unions, business ethics and wage gaps, to name but a few -- that the eyes of the most ardent faithful can glaze over. Moreover, today's economy is more complex than ever, and changing so quickly that Benedict postponed publication of this encyclical, his third since being elected pope in 2005, for a year so he could take into account the global financial meltdown.
The encyclical (the term simply refers to a letter circulated among the churches, much as early Christians did with the letters of Saint Paul), is titled Caritas in Veritate, or "Charity [Love] in Truth." It is long-winded, uses many unfamiliar terms and is so closely argued that it can be tough going even for experts. That also makes it easier for conservatives uneasy with many of the pontiff's economic diagnoses and prescriptions to spin them as, at heart, pro-business and pro-capitalist. But what is clear, whether one reads every word or just excerpts, is that the pope is a liberal, at least in American political terms. He says this is not a document proposing "technical solutions," and stresses the greed and sin at the heart of the current economic crisis. Yet he rigorously and consistently applies the Golden Rule to economics and finance, calling for greater regulation of the markets and -- get this -- "a true world political authority" that can put "real teeth" into international governance. Not even the purportedly "socialist" Barack Obama, who will meet with Benedict on Friday for the first time at the Vatican, would imagine going that far.
Here are some highlights: "In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth." And further on: "To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority."
Benedict argues forcefully for "distributive justice" that would ensure that all share in the goods of the economy. He scores the idea that "the market economy has an inbuilt need for a quota of poverty and underdevelopment in order to function at its best," and says -- counter to conservative orthodoxy -- that the "commercial logic" of the marketplace cannot solve all social problems. "Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution." Furthermore, over and against a laissez-faire view of capitalism, the Catholic Church holds that "the market is not, and must not become, the place where the strong subdue the weak." Food and water are the "universal rights of all human beings," and he blasts "claims to a 'right to excess,' and even to transgression and vice, within affluent societies, and the lack of food, drinkable water, basic instruction and elementary health care in areas of the underdeveloped world." He calls on wealthy nations to increase, rather than reduce, their aid to poorer countries. "In the search for solutions to the current economic crisis, development aid for poor countries must be considered a valid means of creating wealth for all."
Benedict also reemphasizes the link between pro-life teachings and social justice, an alliance that is often sundered in the American political context between conservatives and liberals who stress one aspect and not the other. "Clarity is not served by certain abstract subdivisions of the Church's social doctrine," Benedict writes. He also promotes an almost Obama-esque approach to abortion reduction, arguing that "respect for life" is inextricably linked to economic development and child welfare.
He reprises his concerns for the "ecological health" of the planet, and promotes the kind of consumer awareness about one's purchasing power that is embraced by co-op-loving liberals as well as conservatives like Rod Dreher. "Consumers should be continually educated regarding their daily role, which can be exercised with respect for moral principles without diminishing the intrinsic economic rationality of the act of purchasing," the pope writes, arguing for consumer cooperatives and the like. No U.S. candidate could get elected on an economic platform like that, but it works for popes, especially since the 19th century, when Leo XIII published his 1891 encyclical, Rerum Novarum, critiquing social inequality and injustice in the emerging market economy. Still, it's not surprising that many conservatives were hoping for something different from Benedict. One reason is that this pope is a theologian and academic who has little interest or experience in economics, and what he does know has been shaped, at least in the public mind, by his famous, long-running battle with the Marxist-tinged liberation theology that swept Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s. Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger successfully quelled that insurgency after a long slog, helped along by the West's triumph in the Cold War and the unleashing of capitalism on a global scale. Yet Ratzinger, while portrayed as the quintessential conservative in many respects, was never comfortable with such unbridled greed, and events seem to have proven him correct. Moreover, he is now increasingly aware of his role as pontiff and his place in the tradition that he holds in such high regard. A man who becomes pope faces a peculiar identity crisis, taking on a new name and virtually a new persona, living in new quarters and wearing new and unique vestments, none of which he will surrender until the day he dies. This transformation can allow a pope to be more fully himself, in some respects liberating him from the lifelong awareness that there is always a higher rung on the hierarchy to defer to. But there is another hierarchy, one that stretches back in time and that every pope is keenly aware of: the consistent and developing teachings of the previous pontiffs.
Once, when Paul VI was struggling with a difficult decision, a longtime friend asked him what Montini would do (Pope Paul was born Giovanni Battista Montini). The Holy Father answered, "Montini non esiste piú" -- Montini does not exist anymore. That is a poignant confession, but it also shows how a pope can immerse himself in the teachings and traditions when he feels his own expertise lacking, as Benedict did with Caritas in Veritate. Indeed, this new encyclical relies heavily on more than a century of social teachings from previous popes, particularly John Paul II and Paul VI, whose landmark social justice document of 40 years ago, Populorum Progressio ("On the Development of Peoples"), Benedict repeatedly invokes.
With this encyclical from Pope Benedict, Pope Paul -- Montini -- does exist, now as much as ever. And the Benedict -- Ratzinger -- of many conservative fantasies is less visible than they may have hoped. Or, more likely, this is what he has always believed.
Sorry, Mr. Pope, but we seem to disagree on a few things.
Or excusing the Communist Priests actions?
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/08/honduras-riding-tigers
“Liberals” INSIST that socialism is the embodiment of what Christ said about taking care of the poor.
Nothing of the sort. There is no way to justify that against the “main and plain” of the bible.
When I presented this argument to a liberal “Christian”,
she first said that that was just my interpretation. When I stated that there was hardly any “interpretation” involved when it’s stated multiple times in different books, she insisted that the bible “was written by angry men”. She only didn’t say “angry WHITE men” because that would be absurd.
So, liberal “Christians” prefer to cling to their earthly religion and denegrate and disregard the plain word of God.
To be honest, I also find the term “redistribution” to be troubling, at least as the term is defined politically. It’s possible the Pope had a different meaning that got lost in translation somewhere. I’m waiting to see the Latin version of the encyclical to be sure.
I read the socialist parts of his just released unholy writ.
What was his quote concerning Obama and the ND issue?
Did you read the blessings he gave the Communist Priest?
http://www.un.org/ga/econcrisissummit/statements/pga_opening_en.pdf
I believe you are responding to the comment I made in #37. If so, I’m not sure how anything you have said there is at odds with anything I said. The person you described appears to be viewing the Gospels through American political constructs of liberal and conservative dogma. That seems myopic and limiting to me. The fact that she appears to be using a liberal dogma doesn’t really make much difference. It’s still myopic and limiting.
“I’m not an expert in Church doctrine, but I believe that the Church’s opposition to Marxism, and by extension Poland’s Communist regime, was based more on Marxism’s aggressive atheism than on its curtailment of economic freedoms.” ~ mojito
I don’t think so:
Excerpts From Pacem In Terris: Peace on Earth
Encyclical of Pope John XXIII, On Establishing Universal Peace In Truth, Justice, Charity, And Liberty, April 11, 1963
“Man’s personal dignity requires besides that he enjoy freedom and be able to make up his own mind when he acts.
In his association with his fellows, therefore, there is every reason why his recognition of rights, observance of duties, and many-sided collaboration with other men, should be primarily a matter of his own personal decision.
Each man should act on his own initiative, conviction, and sense of responsibility, not under the constant pressure of external coercion or enticement.
There is nothing human about a society that is welded together by force.
Far from encouraging, as it should, the attainment of man’s progress and perfection, it is merely an obstacle to his freedom.”
“Hence, a regime which governs solely or mainly by means of threats and intimidation or promises of reward, provides men with no effective incentive to work for the common good.
And even if it did, it would certainly be offensive to the dignity of free and rational human beings.”
“Consequently, laws and decrees passed in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience, since ‘it is right to obey God rather than men.’”
Much more here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2287244/posts?page=7#7
Slam *dunk*!
OK, so what is your point? Neither the Pope nor I advocated a purely governmental solution.
“On the accuracy — I believe in one of the links I post Kolokotronis has the same question; he wanted to read the Latin first.”
Clearly, a Latin text would be helpful. I assume that Latin is still the official language of the Vatican. But in reading the French version in comparison to the English, I can say that those two versions say the same thing. Latin, English or French, notwithstanding, the encyclical has to be read with the mind of The Church and the Fathers to fully appreciate what +BXVI is saying.
The biggest concern I am reading on these threads seems to revolve around the pope’s use of the term “redistribution”. In point of fact, the word appears, if I recall correctly, seven times in Chapter III only. Its use there is hardly revolutionary or “socialistic”, much less “communistic” and of course The Church has roundly and clearly condemned both. Economies in one manner or another all redistribute wealth; the issue is whether they do it justly. The concern of The Church is a universally just system, not one designed to maintain, or for that matter having the intended or unintended consequence of maintaining the dominance of one society or country or people over another.
Frankly, I think this encyclical happily will compel members of The Church and perhaos even others who claim to be Christians to reevaluate some of their more fundamental operative philosophies which may have been born more of mundane politics and self-interest than what The Faith has always taught.
I should of course have stated that the Church is opposed to political tyranny and governments dominated by secret police, like all Communist countries were, and are, as in the case of Cuba.
But still I have to hold that the Church's position on capitalism and “economic justice” is more problematic, and includes a longstanding endorsement of “democratic socialism.”
Indeed, the persistent appeal of the now officially forbidden “liberation theology” shows that, at the very least, influential parts of the Church have at times favored a very leftist, redistributive kind of economics.
Did you ever hear the Sermon on the Mount? Or the Semon on the Plain?
You might to re-think your statement.
Thanks for your input.
I agree. For details, click my screen name and scroll down to "the signers of the Constitution from North to South".
It's not her mission.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.