>>> The “good” that he wants “in” is for people to live in Christ, to answer His Call in their souls, hearts, and minds. The “bad” he wants “out” (described at section 14) is “the technocratic ideology so prevalent today.” <<<
If _Caritas_ were simply a call to live in the path of our Savior, then it could be simply expressed in 5-6 pages. Instead, we have 52 pages of the Call to Christ AND jargon AND policy statements (AND, not to mention, a call to a vague notion of spirituality). Christ’s word doesn’t get buried, but it gets kinda hard to discern. Not lost, just a little hard to hear clearly amongst all the competing voices.
It’s not an easy document to understand. I have a lawyer friend, a newly minted Catholic who has a degree in English and who has no problems with Encyclicals like _Evangelium Vitae_ or _Humanae Vitae_, and even he gave up in frustration before reaching the half-way point. I fail to see how it was intended to reach the laity, even an educated laity.
>>> The “technocratic ideology” is what people today mindlessly call “values-neutral.” It is unconcerned with ethical or moral criteria, it is radically anti-human, and brings degradation wherever it goes. In a system of capitalism where this ideology reigns, profit becomes an end in itself, instead of the by-product of something else: the creation of new economic value in satisfaction of real human needs and wants. Rank speculation is of equal worth to human creative effort in such a system. This is what the Pope objects to, and I object to it also. Arguably, this ideology was a major culprit in bringing on the current global economic meltdown. <<<
Unfortunately, we post-lapsarian men are saddled with (self)degradation, avarice, and other moral faults usually covered by the notion of Sin. Regardless of ideology or economic system. The problems with solutions to capitalism — by the way, thank you for not using that weenie-word “globalization”: it’s obvious to me what is really being attacked here — is that they are/will be just as riddled with sin and (self)deceit and self(degradation) as the political-economic system it attempts to tame or replace. Just look at the human tragedy that the Bolsheviks created in Russia and elsewhere. To look at that, and to say in one’s heart that “I can do better, for I have Christian spirituality and Christian ethics on my side,” is — I would argue — to tread a very old and very dangerous path. It saddens me to see that BXVI appears to be on it.
>>> In a system of capitalism where this ideology reigns, profit becomes an end in itself, instead of the by-product of something else: the creation of new economic value in satisfaction of real human needs and wants. <<<
The problem is that power-mongering, lust, avarice, pride, injustice etc. ALSO satisfy “real human needs and wants” in our Fallen humanity. In a “new” economic value system, I don’t doubt that our sins would have their traditional forms whilst taking on new forms and causing different miseries. What worries me is that a new “global” authority that would be needed to “integrally humanize” international capitalism would be even more of a degrader of persons and peoples than the system we currently have. All that power will have to go somewhere... my guess is that it will go downhill — and not so gently — on our heads. I have no faith in unlimited gov’t this side of Judgement Day.
>>> Arguably, this ideology was a major culprit in bringing on the current global economic meltdown. <<<
Ideology has nothing to do with it. Capitalism has business cycles. Boom and bust. This has been obvious for centuries. Changing ideologies won’t change the reality of how the system works — or doesn’t work.
>>> Still in Caritas in Veritate, the Pope has not advanced any program for correcting this situation, no plan to “limit profit.” In the first place, such a thing is entirely beyond the scope of his competence and authority. <<<
One does not have to advance a political program or particular policies when one can point to and advocate policies already in existence. Or simply argue for “what is to be done.” Which is what BXVI does in _Caritas_. Catholic “integralism” and the “distributism” of Belloc and Chesterton have been around for many decades; to see the jargon of “integral” and “subsidiarity” and “solidarity” evinced so strongly in the text, and yet to deny the connection with economic and political programs long associated with the Church, bespeaks a peculiar kind of blindness on your part which I do not understand.
>>> In the second place, in this encyclical his purpose is to evoke a major cultural renewal based on the Word of God, in charity and in truth. In his last encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, he wrote of God’s love.... He is informing the world at large of these things; this is what is called Christian evangelization. He bids us all to do likewise, and then the “profit thing” will just naturally smoothe itself out in time, God willing. Profit should be based on the creation of new value, not on “pushing paper around.” (My term.) <<<
Once again, I couldn’t disagree with you more. _Caritas_ is much more than an exercise in the Great Commission, or an admonition to capitalists and statesmen to “play nice” and be less like Scrooge. This Encyclical is calling for world-wide and REVOLUTIONARY changes in how “business” is done, both between real businesses and between nations.
To take your example: if profit were to be administered so that it is “based on the creation of new value, not on ‘pushing paper around’ — which to means to me that there would be no M-C-M’ or M-M’, and certainly little or no capital accumulation — then I don’t doubt that global capitalism would fold pretty fast. And then social order. Where’s the Christian morality in that?
>>> I’ve been very puzzled by the responses of many of you to Benedict’s encyclical on charity in truth. I just don’t understand them, probably because I don’t see something that you see. I’ve been wondering what that could possibly be. Then I had a strange thought. Is it possible that there is an undisclosed assumption behind your testimonies? And that assumption is the belief that the Pope is an evil man, perhaps the Anti-Christ — maybe Satan himself??? <<<
Are you addressing me, Betty Boop? I can only speak for myself, but I do not assume that BXVI is an evil man or the Anti-Christ, or that the Church is the Whore of Babylon, or any such stuff. Shades of Dan Brown! What I see are words on paper in the form of _Caritas in Veritate_, words which convey arguments for global changes which I find disturbing and worth discussing. I thank you for the discussion so far, but I think that an attempt to “mind-read” my intentions is beneath you.
Good grief, PWT — then what is the point of Christianity? You seem to suggest in these lines that it is a dangerous, misleading thing.
Well I thank you kindly in return, dear brother in Christ. But I'm not attempting to "mind read you." I'm just trying to understand your argument. And at this point, I'm no further ahead than I ever was before.