This encyclical is based largely on the mushy social ideas of a group named Communion and Liberation, an Italian social-religious movement with which Bishop Martino is involved and one that is very, very popular in Italy. They have grand and sweeping but ultimately meaningless ideas on politics and economics, usually expressed in foggy language that uses a lot of terms in ways they have defined as being peculiar to themselves and their theories.
The notion of coercive "charity" in this document is incoherent.
A word search of "redistribution" in the document turns up the following:
[...]Lowering the level of protection accorded to the rights of workers, or abandoning mechanisms of wealth redistribution in order to increase the country's international competitiveness, hinder the achievement of lasting development. [...][...]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.[...]
[...]Economic life undoubtedly requires contracts, in order to regulate relations of exchange between goods of equivalent value. But it also needs just laws and forms of redistribution governed by politics, and what is more, it needs works redolent of the spirit of gift. The economy in the global era seems to privilege the former logic, that of contractual exchange, but directly or indirectly it also demonstrates its need for the other two: political logic, and the logic of the unconditional gift.
39. Paul VI in Populorum Progressio called for the creation of a model of market economy capable of including within its range all peoples and not just the better off. He called for efforts to build a more human world for all, a world in which “all will be able to give and receive, without one group making progress at the expense of the other”[94]. In this way he was applying on a global scale the insights and aspirations contained in Rerum Novarum, written when, as a result of the Industrial Revolution, the idea was first proposed — somewhat ahead of its time — that the civil order, for its self-regulation, also needed intervention from the State for purposes of redistribution. Not only is this vision threatened today by the way in which markets and societies are opening up, but it is evidently insufficient to satisfy the demands of a fully humane economy. What the Church's social doctrine has always sustained, on the basis of its vision of man and society, is corroborated today by the dynamics of globalization.
[...]The processes of globalization, suitably understood and directed, open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale; if badly directed, however, they can lead to an increase in poverty and inequality, and could even trigger a global crisis. It is necessary to correct the malfunctions, some of them serious, that cause new divisions between peoples and within peoples, and also to ensure that the redistribution of wealth does not come about through the redistribution or increase of poverty: a real danger if the present situation were to be badly managed.[...]
Walter Williams -
"Reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.
P.J. O'Rourke -
There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun is held to his head.
The lunacy expressed in this encyclical as expressed above could be laughed off out of hand were it not for the fact that much of this insanity is already a sad fact of life imposed by powers of government, and the inmates "managing" it all covet yet more consolidated power. Never underestimate the power of crazy ideas to take hold of people's minds.
Cordially,
If you look closely at Chapter 3, which discusses “the gift” and the priniciple of gratitousness in relation to the fraternal community of peoples, I think what is being hinted at is that it would be a good idea if the IMF forgave and forgot all of those loans to “undeveloped” nations.
I think a defender of the CiV would argue that the use of coercion to achieve this goal — redistribution of wealth — is not on the table. I’m still trying to figure out if that response would be consistent with the argument of CiV, or whether CiV HAS a consistent position on the use of force.
Excellent work.
Thanks tons.
That's true, but in the case of CL, these ideas are so incoherent only an Italian could even think he was following them. I heard through a friend that the CL's English translator (they have a magazine) has for years tried to get them to use standard English, but they always insist that she use their terminology, which is nothing but the use of "false friends," that is, an English word that sounds like the Italian word but actually means (a) something else or (b) nothing at all.
The problem with this encyclical is exactly the same as the problem with all of the documents of Vatican II: They are so vague and high-flown that they could mean anything at all, and interested parties can easily use them to argue their points.