You are still picking nits in order to defend something indefensible, and in any case your understanding of logic is faulty. The words contained in
EG 54 are a proper subset of the entire document. What is written about economics is a subset of
EG 54. Therefore, what is said about economics in the entire document is not different from what is said in
EG 54. It works like this A ⊂ B ⊂ C implies what is said in A about a topic is also said in C. If C is about something more, but all of what is written about economics is entirely in A, than the entirety of what is said in A on that subject is not different than the entirety of what is said in C on that subject.
Get it?
What is said is entirely within the standard (and incorrect) understanding of economics promulgated by the Society of Jesus. I am happy to see that it would make your uncomfortable; it should.
Nice try but subset ≠ entire. If you were limit your critique to para. 54 and recognize that this is only incidental to the message of the entire document we might actually be able to come to an agreement.