CWR Round-Table: Caritas in Veritate E-mail

Web Exclusive

When Pope Benedict XVI's third encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, was released on July 7, it sparked world-wide discussion and commentary. Catholic World Report asked a group of leading Catholic intellectuals to reflect on the encyclical, its place in the larger body of Catholic social teaching, and Pope Benedict's vision of a well-ordered and just society.

J. Brian Benestad, Francis J. BeckwithFather Joseph Fessio, S.J., Richard Garnett, Thomas S. Hibbs, Paul Kengor, George Neumayr, Joseph PearceTracey Rowland, Father James V. Schall, and Rev. Robert A. Sirico share their thoughts on Caritas in Veritate, below. 

 

J. Brian Benestad: 

In 1986 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) issued the Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation under the signature of its prefect, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. The Instructionsays that Catholic social doctrine (CSD) had to emerge from the practice of the Christian faith. “The Church’s social teaching is born of the encounter of the Gospel message and of its demands (summarized in the supreme commandment of love of God and neighbor in justice) with the problems emanating from the life of society” (no. 72). CSD helps people to know what love and justice require in the various circumstances of life, knowledge that would escape many without instruction. In his book on the morals of the Catholic Church St. Augustine had underscored the difficulty of carrying out the commandment to love’s one’s neighbor: “From this commandment are the duties pertaining to human society, about which it is difficult not to err.” In other words, it is easy for human beings to love one another badly both in personal encounters and in devising proposals for the common good of society. Pope Benedict’s new encyclical builds on the earlier CDF Instruction by emphasizing that love has to be guided by truth. “‘Caritas in veritate’ is the principle around which the Church’s social doctrine turns.” If society’s work for justice (“the minimum measure” of love) were guided by truth, argues the Pope, society would not permit abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, same-sex marriage, the priority of rights over duties, and the exclusion of religion from the public square. Love of neighbor is not compatible with these practices.

The 1986 Instruction also sheds light on the different levels of teaching found in Caritas in Veritateby distinguishing between permanently valid principles and “contingent judgments” in CSD (no. 72). Unlike Pope Benedict’s two previous encyclicals this one contains a number of contingent judgments aimed at overcoming the current economic crisis, such as the argument for a “true world political authority.”

Drawing upon Pope Paul VI’s 1967 encyclical Populorum Progressio, Pope Benedict offers the world a vision of development that is richer and more complete than the common understanding. He reminds us of Paul VI’s teaching that “life in Christ is the first and principal factor in development.” This means development should aim at the “greatest possible perfection” for every single person, in addition to overcoming poverty, disease, unemployment, ignorance, etc.

By way of conclusion, I would simply say that Caritas in Veritate is proposing a Christian humanism to improve the productivity, ethics, and dignity of the economic life of nations. The practice of the virtues by all participants in modern economies, the Pope argues, is more important for a functioning market than any set of structures devised by policy makers.

J. Brian Benestad is professor of theology at the University of Scranton.

 

Francis J. Beckwith: 

That theological anthropology is the proper starting point in discovering the good for which human beings were designed is the animating principle behind Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical Caritas in Veritate (or “Charity in Truth”). For without true knowledge of the human person, one cannot know how to properly direct one’s love (or “charity”) to one’s fellow human being. As Benedict writes, “Without truth, without trust and love for what is true, there is no social conscience and responsibility, and social action ends up serving private interests and the logic of power, resulting in social fragmentation, especially in a globalized society at difficult times like the present” (5).

For Benedict, who and what we are, the question of theological anthropology, is the key to a proper understanding of our relationship to one another, our economic progress and regress, the nature of the family and marriage, humanity’s stewardship for the environment, the rule of law, intergenerational justice, as well as our openness to human life at its outset, its end, and the time in between. Yes, Caritas in Veritate mentions all these topics as well as several others. But the answer to the question of what constitutes integral human development—i.e., what are we and what is the good for us as individuals and as a whole?—is the unifying principle that connects them all. 

The categories that dominate our public discourse in the United States—left, right, liberal, conservative, etc.—play no role in illuminating the message of Caritas in Veritate. This is why it is a fool’s errand to attempt to artificially divide Catholic social teachings into its left and right wings, as if the Church’s rejection of economic libertarianism and proclamation of the principles of subsidiary and solidarity is a call to socialism or the government ownership of the means of production, or that the Church’s embracing of the exclusivity of male-female marriage and its defense of the sanctity of all human life from conception until natural death means that the Church does not believe in individual liberty.  

This “binary model,” as Benedict calls it (41), unnaturally limits our vision of the multilayered and interdependent goods that lead to integral human development, and thus, results in true freedom for the individual to pursue the good. According to the Pope, if we believe that our faith and all that it entails for theological anthropology and the good life is true, we can coherently claim that liberty, rightly understood, prohibits us from rejecting certain unassailable truths about ourselves without which liberty loses its point.

For the Church, the Sermon on the Mount cannot be separated from “Honor thy Father and Mother,” “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” and “Thou shalt not steal.” This is not a seamless garment. For it is not an artifice constructed by our wills. It is a living organism, made by God, whose parts work in concert for the benefit of the whole. Thus, the “justice” in social justice refers to a rightly ordered polity, not to the outcomes and/or processes advocated by the ideologies of a Ludwig Von Mises or a Karl Marx. In Christian theology, you can gain the whole world and lose your own soul (Luke 9:25). To paraphrase St. Paul, that’s a stumbling block to the Austrians and foolishness to the Marxists.

Francis J. Beckwith is Professor of Philosophy and Church-State Studies, and Resident Scholar in the Institute for the Studies of Religion, Baylor University. 

 

Father Joseph Fessio, S.J.:

Pope Benedict has something for everyone in Caritas in Veritate—from praising profit (21) to defending the environment (48). But in these cases, as in all the others, he calls for a discernment and a purification by faith and reason (56) that should temper immoderate and one-sided enthusiasms.

Once again Pope Benedict shows himself to be a theologian of synthesis and fundamental principles. In the titles of his three encyclicals he has used only five nouns: God, Love, Hope, Salvation, and Truth—the most fundamental of realities. And in the opening greeting of this encyclical he succinctly describes the contents: “on integral human development in charity and truth.” Note that from this very greeting Pope Benedict has changed the whole framework of the debate on “the social question.” This was expected to be—and is—his encyclical on “social justice.” And indeed “justice” and “rights” find their proper place in a larger synthesis. But the priority is established from the outset, the foundation is laid, with “charity” and “truth.” 

Read more of Father Fessio's reflections on Caritas in Veritate here.

Father Joseph Fessio, S.J. is editor of Ignatius Press and publisher of Catholic World Report.

 

Richard Garnett: 

It was predictable, but is nevertheless regrettable, that many pundits and partisans would respond to Caritas in Veritate not so much by engaging Pope Benedict’s profoundly Christian humanism but instead by hunting through the text for quotations they could deploy in support of their own pet policies. (The Pope, for his part, urged “all people of good will” to “liberate [themselves] from ideologies, which often oversimplify reality in artificial ways.”) Rather than reflecting carefully on the Pope’s central proposal, namely, that “[f]idelity to man requires fidelity to the truth, which alone is the guarantee of freedom and of the possibility of integral human development,” commentators who might ordinarily roll their eyes at policy suggestions from the bishop of Rome are happy to uproot from the encyclical’s inspiring, challenging vision a few talking points about environmental stewardship, trade unionism, or the redistribution of wealth.  

Caritas in Veritate is not, however, merely a papal reflection on the current economic crisis or the implications of globalization. In keeping with the Catholic social teaching tradition, and with the work of his predecessor, the letter is about the person—about who we are and why it matters. Beneath, and supporting, the various statements and suggestions regarding specific policy questions is the bedrock of Christian moral anthropology, of the good news about the dignity, vocation, and destiny of man.  

To content oneself with harvesting talking points in support of this or that policy is to miss the point, and the promise, of the letter. We cannot, however high-sounding our stated intentions, expect to achieve true human flourishing through a politics that does not care about or denies the truth—and there is a truth—about the person, namely, that by creating us in his image, God has “establish[ed] the transcendent dignity of men and women and feeds [our] innate yearning to ‘be more.’ Man is not a lost atom in a random universe: he is God’s creature, whom God chose to endow with an immortal soul and whom he has always loved.” “And now,” the Pope is challenging us to ask, “what follows?”

Richard Garnett is professor of law at Notre Dame University.

 

Thomas S. Hibbs: 

“Democracy in good faith no longer has any essential reproach to make against the church. From now on it can hear the question the church poses, that it alone poses, the question, Quid sit homo?—What is man?”

The French political philosopher Pierre Manent frames in quite dramatic terms the situation of the Church in the democratic era. Amid the shallow media debates over whether the latest papal encyclical, Pope Bendict XVI’s Caritas in Veritate, leans left or right, there is a good chance that readers will miss the central philosophical claim of the document: “the social question has become a radically anthropological question” (italics in the original text). By subordinating all economic systems to the question of the common good, understood as integral human flourishing, the document opposes reductionism, whether in theory or practice, in liberal or conservative forms.  

There is a lot of talk already about the document’s dizzying capaciousness, the way it seems to want to discuss everything and embrace almost everything, even things that seem on the surface incompatible. It is easy enough to affirm the Pope’s affirmation of both subsidiarity and globalism, but the document, largely because it does not say enough about the nature of the common good, leaves us guessing a bit as to the principles needed to spell out the relationship. Further reflection about these matters would have to begin, not just from the question, “What is man?”, but also from the queries such as, “What does it mean for human persons to hold things in common?” and “What are the peculiar forms of social life in which human persons now hold—and can learn how better to hold—things in common?”    

Even to raise these questions is to sense how distant we are from the world of contemporary political discourse, where the tendency is toward the privatization, not just of religion, but of questions concerning the good, individual and communal. Indeed, a pressing question for a document such as Caritas in Veritate is this: why is it so easily ignored by the wider society, both by the media, political leaders, and ordinary citizens? Catholics fawning over Obama will quickly retort that he has embraced Catholic social thought, especially in the form of Cardinal Bernardin’s “seamless garment.” Aside from the fact that he ignores Bernardin’s insistence on the non-negotiable priority of the sanctity of human life, as well as Benedict’s claim that “openness to life is at the center of true development,” Obama seems to need instruction in the dictionary definition of “seamless.”  

For Manent, democracy—increasingly defined by the pursuit of a freedom unfettered by any external restraint, authority, or law—“neither wants to nor can respond” to the questions raised above. The Pope is not quite so despairing, but his own document gives us reason to think that its teaching will at best be distorted when not smugly dismissed. Benedict makes, as some in the media have noticed, numerous references to the current economic crisis, but he also speaks of other crises, including the one arising from a Promethean spirit of technological mastery, the will to remake both human life and the natural environment according to our unrestrained desires. Benedict astutely points to numerous signs of the fraying of the project of mastery. Our task, as sympathetic readers, is to communicate the teaching of Caritas in Veritate to others, so that they in turn may be better able to articulate the hopes and fears of our time—a time in which the meaning of humanity itself is very much in doubt.

Thomas S. Hibbs is Distinguished Professor of Ethics & Culture and Dean of the Honors College at Baylor University. 

 

Paul Kengor: 

The truth will set you free, and the Truth is Jesus Christ. In this encyclical, the Holy Father is reminding us, exhorting us, to link charity to truth—to Christ. Doing so gives meaning not only to human charity but to human life and human development. As the Holy Father states in his opening, this linking of charity to Truth, to God—not to emotionalism, not to politics, not to purely selfish impulses—ought to be “the principle driving force behind the authentic development of every person and of all humanity.” Or, to the contrary, as the Holy Father states in his closing, “A humanism which excludes God is an inhuman humanism.”

The timing for this encyclical is crucial, as the global economy suffers, and, by extension, as charitable giving suffers. Of course, suffering didn’t prevent Jesus Christ from offering the ultimate expression of charity, one that was human as well as divine. We who call ourselves Christians, or followers of Christ, need to emulate Christ and the cross he bore, during tough times as well as easy times.

Already, some are misinterpreting this encyclical in how it weighs the state versus the market. I personally see what I’ve always seen in the Church’s encyclicals: a healthy balance. In section 38, Pope Benedict warns of seeking “profit as an end in itself.” This is hardly controversial. As Christians, we must have charity, as we must have faith, and we must be mindful of a charitable purpose in our lives, sharing our economic blessings in a way that serves human dignity and the human family—a recurring theme of Caritas in Veritate. That is especially imperative in a modern society of unspeakable prosperity.

Charity needs to be coupled always to Christ. As the Holy Father says, it “needs Christians.” The message of this encyclical couldn’t be timelier.

Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College in Grove City, Pennsylvania. 

 

George Neumayr: 

Woe to those who call good evil and evil good, says Holy Scripture. Modern political life largely revolves around this kind of lying. We witness daily the routine corruption of language in public life: a blizzard of noble-sounding words—among them, “hope,” “progress,” “development,” “the common good,” “rights,” “solidarity”—grossly disconnected from the God-determined realities to which they are supposed to refer.

In Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict XVI says in effect: Woe to those who call degradation “development,” selfishness “charity,” regress “progress,” and wrongs “rights.” His encylical letter is a sustained debunking of modern liberalism’s most complacent claims and habitual abuse of words. 

How, he asks for example, can the “developed” nations of the world profess to be charitable when they don’t even aspire to basic justice? Treating human beings fairly—not aborting them, not killing them in old age or disability, not corrupting them in their youth, not exploiting them for science, etc.—is the “minimum measure” of charity, writes Pope Benedict, drawing upon Pope Paul VI’s phrase. In his deluded sentimentality, modern man somehow thinks he can leapfrog over justice and get to charity. Not so. Are “social justice” liberals in the Church who support a right to abortion listening?  

How, Pope Benedict also asks, can the modern world claim to respect nature when it doesn’t even respect human nature? How can it plausibly demand discipline and sacrifice for the “purity” of nature in future ages while encouraging impurities in human nature in the present one? Modern life’s hedonism, he notes, cuts against its environmentalism: humans who degrade themselves will also degrade nature, no matter how many conservation bills are passed.

This is the age of rhetoric without results, a world elite that speaks of “empowering” the poor while impoverishing them, solving the “population problem” while creating a real one (underpopulation), and advancing “humanitarianism” while killing humans. Caritas in Veritate upends their tired and destructive assumptions, drawing the world’s attention back to the organizing principle of all true charity and development: that man’s good can only be secured if we consult and obey the God who designed it.

George Neumayr is editor of Catholic World Report.

 

Joseph Pearce:

Caritas in Veritate is food for the soul, nourishing us with the wisdom we need to make sense of the crazy, accelerating times in which we live. With his usual profundity and eloquence, the Holy Father diagnoses the major crises afflicting our wayward world and prescribes the solutions. Rooting his diagnosis and cure in the “charity in truth” which “is at the heart of the Church’s social doctrine,” Pope Benedict analyzes a plethora of modern problems with the succinct brilliance to which we have become accustomed.

Commenting on the global financial crisis, the Holy Father is forthright in his condemnation of the destructive consequences of immoral investment practices and candid in his exposé of the naiveté of free market libertarians. He sees the crisis as “an opportunity for discernment, in which to shape a new vision for the future.”

The Pope’s “new vision” is, however, inseparable from the timeless and magisterial vision of the Church down the ages, the marriage of the ever ancient and ever new, and Benedict, as always, builds his arguments on those of his illustrious forebears. And yet this ancient wisdom cuts through the cant of modernity with unerring incisiveness.

Thus, to take but a few salient examples, subsidiarity is seen as the solution to development in poor countries, openness to life is placed “at the center of true development,” and “the right to religious freedom” is seen as integral to authentic human growth. In consequence, the economic imperialism of macro-corporations and international financial institutions is condemned as running rough-shod over the rights to subsidiarity in poor countries, the culture of death is seen as fostering the hedonism that leads to societal and ecological breakdown, and secular fundamentalism is stunting humanity’s growth through its efforts to exclude religion from the public sphere.

Toward the end of his breathtakingly brilliant encyclical, Pope Benedict tells us that true development “needs Christians with their arms raised towards God in prayer.” Having read Caritas in Veritate we should all raise our arms toward God to thank him for sending us such a sagacious Pontiff.

Joseph Pearce is writer-in-residence and associate professor of literature at Ave Maria University.

 

Tracey Rowland: 

The intellectual center of this encyclical is that “A humanism which excludes God is an inhuman humanism.” It rests a notion of authentic human development upon the principle enshrined inGaudium et Spes 22, that the human person only has self-understanding to the extent that he or she knows Christ and participates in the Trinitarian communion of love. As the Pope says, “Life in Christ is the first and principle factor of development.” The whole document is a plea to understand the limitations of a secularist notion of development. Behind secularism lies the error of Pelagius which in contemporary times takes the form of trust in education and institutions without reference to God or the interior dynamics of the human soul. A purely secularist notion of development reduces the human person to a kind of economic machine somehow designed for the accumulation of wealth.

Such a truncated concept of development has fostered government policies hostile to the more spiritual elements of human life, including relationships of reciprocal self-giving in love. Abortion is encouraged, couples are persecuted for having more than one child, and international aid is linked to the acceptance of contraceptives. The questions covered in Humanae Vitae are thus not merely those of purely individual morality, but indicate a strong link between life ethics and social ethics. The concept which links the two is that of a “human ecology.”

Secularist notions of development also fail to comprehend the root cause of drug addiction and depression which is the malnutrition of the human soul, made for communion with God but imprisoned within a materialist universe. When cultures no longer serve the deepest needs of human nature and actually narrow the spiritual horizons of people, people don’t know who they are and feel depressed.

The remedy for this pandemic in contemporary Western culture is to grasp the fact that truth is something which is given to us as a gift: “In every cognitive process, truth is not something that we produce, it is always found, or better, received. Truth, like love, ‘is neither planned nor willed, but somehow imposes itself upon human beings’” (34).

Caritas in Veritate is a masterful synthesis of the Trinitarian anthropology of Gaudium et Spes and the subsequent insights of Paul VI and John Paul II, applied to the contemporary context. The core theological ideas were all present in Ratzinger’s essay on the notion of human dignity in Gaudium et Spes, written in the late 1960s.

At the more practical level this encyclical is exciting in that it calls for a reform of the United Nations and the economic institutions of international finance. It is clear that the general tendency of such institutions to equate human development with the success of capitalism and democracy or material progress is utterly inadequate when measured against the Gospel’s standard.

Tracey Rowland is Dean of the John Paul II Institute in Melbourne, Australia.

 

James V. Schall, S.J.:

Benedict XVI is, happily, incapable of dealing with something unless he deals with everything. Journalists will rapidly read this documents looking for items that are “news-worthy,” that is, ones that criticize business, the government, the media, or the Church. They will not concentrate on the overall scope of what Benedict is about here. 

The encyclical is wide-ranging and seeks to say something about everything. It is known to be a document initially prepared by others from various disciplines and sectors of the Church and curia, but finally organized by the Pope, no mean feat. Benedict’s first two encyclicals were composed mostly by himself. The difference is telling in reading this document. The document has a kind of “touch on everything” feeling about it. However, what it does consider at some depth, things such as business, profit, life, and the relation of politics to metaphysics and revelation, are very good.

Benedict sets this encyclical within a broader framework so that we can see the limited but important status that public life has. The whole document is concerned with our relation to each other, especially to the poor and weak. It is stronger on what the rich owe to the poor than in what the poor must themselves do if they are to be not poor. The discussion of the other religions in their relation to issues of development is quite frank. The Pope understands that many of their basic beliefs and attitudes are incompatible with a more developed human life. But this criticism is not taken to mean that allowing freedom of religion is not the basic human duty of the state.

This encyclical, moreover, does something that I have been concerned about for many years. It is very careful how it uses the term “rights.” The Pope clearly spells how “rights” and “democracy” in their modern meanings can lead to a violation of human dignity if they are grounded in no standard or understanding of human nature, including fallen human nature.

But the great insight is that all reality is gift-oriented. The very title of the encyclical has to do with the fact that we cannot call “charity” something that is not rooted in the truth of what man is. The terms “mercy” or “compassion” have often lent themselves to a process whereby they overturned what was objectively true in the man.

The encyclical is finally cast in the context of the Trinity, of the relationships in which we are created. The person is not “rights”-oriented but duty- and gift-oriented. The encyclical is a great document that puts things together, metaphysical things, natural law things, revelational things, political things, economic things; all things are seen in relation to each man’s relation to God, to his transcendent destiny which, as is stated in Spe Salvi, is already social. Caritas in Veritate is thus a continuation of Deus Caritas Est, and Spe SalviDeus Caritas estDeus Logos estDeus Trinitas est.

Read more of Father Schall's reflections on Caritas in Veritate here. 

James V. Schall, S.J. is professor of government at Georgetown University.

 

Rev. Robert A. Sirico: 

In the first social encyclical of his pontificate, Caritas in Veritate (“Charity in Truth”), Pope Benedict XVI insists on a close relationship between morality and the economy in order to promote a “holistic understanding and a new humanistic synthesis.” This new document is focused not on specific systems of economics but rather on areas of morality and the theological underpinnings of culture.

The background for this new encyclical is the global economic crisis that has taken place within a moral vacuum bare of truth and rampant with materialism. While the Pope does not offer any detailed analysis of the cause or solution to the crisis, he nonetheless urges that the crisis become “an opportunity for discernment, in which to shape a new vision for the future” (no. 21).

Never employing either the word “greed” or “capitalism” in the over 30,000 word document (despite some media hype), the crisis itself he attributes to “badly managed and largely speculative financial dealing” without naming the specific institutions that made this possible. The market, Benedict says, “is shaped by the cultural configurations which define it and give it direction. Economy and finance, as instruments, can be used badly when those at the helm are motivated by purely selfish ends.”

Those who prophesied that this would be Benedict’s opportunity to “overthrow” capitalism, or that conservatives would be “shocked and disappointed,” must themselves be rather sad today. While it is explicitly not the purpose of the document to offer strict structural models that nations should adopt (no. 9), the principle of subsidiarity—which prefers proximate and private action of the state—a preference for trade over government-to-government aid for developing countries, and a rightly understood globalization are all affirmed. 

This is a complex and rich document that will require much study and thought in the years ahead. What is clear and non-negotiable from Benedict’s perspective is that to understand the challenges facing the world economy it is first necessary to understand the august nature of the human person who must always be at the center of economic decisions. Caritas in Veritate enables us to see, at a new depth, the way in which the whole of the human reality must be taken into consideration in order to construct social institutions worthy of man.

Rev. Robert A. Sirico is president and co-founder of the Acton Institute.

 

Comments
Add New Search
Clare Krishan  - tu ne cede malis!   |2009-07-09 10:57:29
'tis a shame the renowned philosophy Professor has to take a cheap shot at a fellow scholar to make his point, while our dear Pope didn't feel the need to succumb to the same temptation (today's liturgical Gospel reminds us to not rely on "instruments" to leave behind material technical tools and rely on gratuity instead "Without cost you have received; without cost you are to give.").

The Austrians at the Ludwig von Mises Institute are not the antithesis of Marx, as if life were just a gnostic dualism between the two, rather they are amongst the few in the field of economics who reject historicism's deterministic stupor, embrace an Aristotelian apprehension of a priori truth of man's nature and free will, and who's theories PREDICTED the crisis (a term used 19 times to remind professionals who claim expertise in this area that they must've missed something in their "theory" to have not been able to predict the sad turn their "labor theory of value" (aka Protestant work ethic) has led us to!

As a philosopher I would be more interested instead in his developing the reasons why the Pope called to mind "logic" or terms of similar etymology such as ecology (and anthropology, theology in Chapter 3 on fraternity. What aspects of the study of epistemology would he then lay as errors at the feet of the right and left wings of American Empire? I would most humbly present that the neglect of natural law lies at the root of much evil at the level of State, but what laxity in its teaching by Church institutions permitted it? Dante had it about right with the misogynist Giant and his coquettish floozy astride the chariot in the Garden of Earthly Delights: the Universal Church deserves a worthy global secular authority, the US has squandered their aspirations to carry that beacon, in a wanton orgy of militaristic profligacy (the Pope reserves the use of an exclamation mark for only one other sentence than quoting the Lord's exclamation of prayer from scripture in his conclusion "how many natural resources are squandered by wars!" The Mises Institute is as consistent as the Austrian Empire of the beloved Servant of God from whom their school of thought takes its name (he who resisted the descent into fratricidal wars of the 20th century) in decrying the war machine and the havoc it has wrought in the lives and treasure of citizens on both sides in pursuit of nationalistic hubris to be the popes temporal equal.
PS Keep up the dialog, there's so much to unpack here - cogent minds can keep themselves pre-occupied for hours! I'll curb my enthusiam for now with a wee compliment: thanks for finding at least one female to contribute -- she made one of the best summaries IMHO.
Harrison Searles  - tu ne cede malis! II   |2009-07-11 17:52:42
"Thus, the “justice” in social justice refers to a rightly ordered polity, not to the outcomes and/or processes advocated by the ideologies of a Ludwig Von Mises or a Karl Marx. In Christian theology, you can gain the whole world and lose your own soul (Luke 9:25). To paraphrase St. Paul, that’s a stumbling block to the Austrians and foolishness to the Marxists."

Was there any need for the shoot against Ludwig von Mises (whose name the author could not bother to spell correctly)? Without any supporting evidence, the author wrongly dismisses the economist, and doing so tarnishes his entire piece. At least, he could have displayed why L.v. Mises was mistaken, but it seems that the author was more interested in dismissing a school of though as anti-Catholic than anything else.
Telemachus  - "Tu ne cede malis" 3rd-ed   |2009-07-12 12:15:41
Boy, we're everywhere aren't we, my fellow "Austrians"? It must be a massive conspiracy. :-D

Thanks to all of the authors -- kudos in particular to Frs. Schall and Sirico, two authors that I enjoy greatly -- that commented on the Pope's latest Encyclical, and thank you to Catholic World Report for hosting this roundtable. I'll admit, I was a little disturbed upon first reading of Caritas in Veritate, but the comments of the authors on this page have helped to remind me of the key points that the Pope was trying to get across:
(1) Economies cannot function without people who are morally informed and humble enough to accept the rule of Law (natural and supernatural).
(2) That charity and love of one's fellow man must be God-focused first lest these fall into sentimentality and thereby become meaningless and take on a quality contrary to "integral human development."
(3) That there are limits to what can be achieved via institutions and technology, and that the remainder of humanity's problems must be taken up by Christians, in full understanding that we rely on Christ.

I love and respect the Pope, and believe that his life and teachings are clear evidence to the modern world that the Vicar of Christ truly is what his title proclaims. Concerning this Encyclical, I love the Pope's fleshing out of this idea of an "economy of gratuitousness." I can dig it!

--------------------

However...!

While I respect the Pope's opinions with regards to economic action, like Popes of the past I think he grants too much to collectivists of various stripes in claiming that market processes are inherently flawed and must be "directed" in some fashion to benefit mankind. Nothing could be further from the truth. Market processes are self-regulating when not directed by singular, inherently ignorant authorities which do not understand the effects their actions are having on people. However, people must be willing to wait because adjustment following market errors takes time. The Church should understand this, and it puzzles me why our leadership is not more attentive to this.

Instead, many Popes and other leaders, despite having first-hand experience with the evils of statism (i.e. Nazism, Fascism, Communism, etc.), seem to resort to recommending -- what else? -- more statism to solve our problems immediately. I just don't understand it, especially given the Scholastic intellectual heritage of the Catholic Church which has reached key economic insights (sound money, opportunity cost, the justice of profit and interest, time preference, the subjective theory of value, etc.) before any secular intellect ever dreamed of these things. I don't understand it especially when it is clear that statist overreaching is responsible for the continued funding of embryonic stem-cell research, abortion, population control, and many other horrors world-wide. Not to mention wars: when did Shell Oil ever invade Iraq and destroy the lives of millions?

Concerning the particular authors here, Joseph Pearce's comment was particularly off-base: "Commenting on the global financial crisis, the Holy Father is forthright in his condemnation of the destructive consequences of immoral investment practices and candid in his exposé of the naiveté of free market libertarians." What "immoral investment practices" is he talking about here? There were plenty of stupid investment practices at work which demand explanation, but not inherently immoral. Perhaps he is implying there was massive fraud involved? Where's the evidence? There is none. Massive mistakes were made, all of them approved by government regulators all over the world, and now the question is "Why?"

The "global financial crisis" has nothing to do with "free market libertarianism," but is rather the result of attempted corporatist management by secular world powers: government central banks and regulatory agencies, the World Bank, the IMF, etc. What these government-monopoly organizations have to do with economic liberalism is beyond me. These organizations are granted with and grant to others monopoly power, subsidize those who make the terrible decisions that result in our "crises," and inject the economic interests of powerful economic interests -- e.g. the dreaded "multi-national corporations" that everyone hates so much -- into every facet of our common political life. If anybody wants better information about the economic "crisis" of today, I recommend "Meltdown" by Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a devout Catholic and an accomplished economic historian. It's not a great book, but it's an excellent introduction. His "The Church and the Market" is the best book I've read by a Catholic on economics.
Steven Yde  - There is no common good only common truth     |2009-07-12 15:18:14
I too, was concerned about the comment on "stumbling blocks for the Austrians" as Austrian economic principals have never been fully realized. And in the one country that has had mere fragments of its principals, it has been the economic engine of the world for nearly a century. As well, it is the most generous country in charity givings on a per person basis. Moving towards a more Keynesian way of economics has done nothing for the economic and social stability of this country. There is no denying any attempt at a Marxist system has generated nothing but suffering and faithlessness. We just need to keep vigilant that a third way typically ends in tyranny. Let's give the Austrians there decade of experimentation before we condemn them purely on a speculative basis.
Harrison Searles   |2009-07-13 15:27:33
"I too, was concerned about the comment on 'stumbling blocks for the Austrians' as Austrian economic principals have never been fully realized."

I'm actually rather curious as to what the "stumbling block" in Austrian analysis is. Surely, the Marxism reference is obvious, but there is nothing in the Austrian school that I would think of in such terms.
Mark Brumley  - Clarifying the Issue with Respect to the Austrians     |2009-07-13 15:41:42
With respect to the issue of a "stumbling block" to the Austrian school posed by Benedict XVI, is it the case that someone reflective of the commitments of that school would read Charity in Truth and find nothing significantly objectionable in its fundamental theses and overarching analysis of persons, states, markets and their interactions? If it is this is the case, then it would seem difficult to accept Dr. Beckwith's comment that the encyclical poses a stumbling block to the Austrian school. On the other hand, if there are things of significance to which a student of the Austrian school would object, then of course we have found the "stumbling block". Upon reading the encyclical can those who wonder about whether such a "stumbling block" exists state that there is nothing in the document with which a member of the Austrian school would take exception?
Amos   |2009-07-13 21:30:19
The failure to mention the Social Reign of Christ the King is disappointing.
Michael F Brennan   |2009-07-14 09:37:01
Christian humanism is beautifully addressed in this Encyclical. However, the bombshell in Caritas in Veriate seems to be avoided. Para 9 is dispensed with in para 67. In addition, is para 67 in solidarity with CC675, 676 and 677? One may have wished that the document used the "IF" proposition as in: 'If international national governments find it necessary to propose global governance....'

"67. 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. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect[146] and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. 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, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good[147], and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights[148]. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization[149]. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations."


[146] Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Members of the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization, New York, 18 April 2008.
[147] Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Pacem in Terris, loc. cit., 293; Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 441.
[148] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, 82.
[149] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 43: loc. cit., 574-575.

Michael F Brennan
St Petersburg, FL
Mark Brumley  - In the Catechism? In Vatican II?     |2009-07-14 09:57:34
It would be interesting to read reactions to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1911, which quotes Guadium et Spes, no. 84:

1911 Human interdependence is increasing and gradually spreading throughout the world. the unity of the human family, embracing people who enjoy equal natural dignity, implies a universal common good. This good calls for an organization of the community of nations able to "provide for the different needs of men; this will involve the sphere of social life to which belong questions of food, hygiene, education, . . . and certain situations arising here and there, as for example . . . alleviating the miseries of refugees dispersed throughout the world, and assisting migrants and their families."

This "organization of the community of nations" is linked to fostering the universal common good.

Does the Catechism and Vatican II envision a "world political authority" to foster the universal common good of people among nations? Do classical principles of government, as articulated in the tradition of Catholic social teaching, imply that there should, ideally, exist a world political order to secure peace and justice among the nations?

Comments?
Steven Yde  - Institution vs Individual     |2009-07-16 01:56:08
The best example of how institutions cannot produce a "common good" is the inability for the worlds largest Church to have their members all agree on the most fundamental issue of abortion, let alone stop the murder of innocent life. Focusing on individual responsibility, compassion, love and faith is what has been the engine for positive progress in this world. The apostles went out 2 by 2, not all together. Jesus turned to Peter and said to him upon this rock, not to all of them collectively. The self sacrifice of our saints and martyrs are those things we honor in our traditions. Once man institutionalizes, power is gained, and good things can happen quickly, but it also creates temptation, and the inevitable corruption and oppression. Society is a wonderful gift from God. It is a natural collection of individuals interacting, competing, working together, influencing, loving and sharing. Once a formalized structure is created (institutions) it designates an unnatural pecking order, societal benefits break down and all the negatives associated with centralized power begin. The path to a more compassionate, charitable, loving and Christian world is decentralization, not concentrated power.
gtb   |2009-07-19 14:27:10
"The path to a more compassionate, charitable, loving and Christian world is decentralization, not concentrated power."

Mr Yde,
Your whole comment & that of Mr Brumley's ("Does the Catechism and Vatican II envision a "world political authority" to foster the universal common good") fall into the trap that this wonderful encyclical avoids: I.e., thinking in terms of either-or.

The Holy Father does NOT advocate a 'world political authority' in lieu of the common good or subsidiarity but in addition to those realities.

Your criticism seems to be based on the "that's not realistic" argument. Thank goodness you're not the Holy Father! His job is to stay ahead of the curve. When Theology of the Body was being promulgated during the Wednesday GAs of the early 1980s, the case was made that this teaching had absolutely nothing to do with the 'real world' of sex as we know it. Turns out, TOB is the Reality and we are living in the untrue, pretend world that sin always leads to.

This is an analagous situation. B16 is saying to us "Lift up your head." But, as Weigel as said, Popes don't usually sow seeds for the current generation. They only mature in succeeding generations.
Mark Brumley  - Please Explain     |2009-07-19 15:55:16
How, exactly, gtb, does Mr. Brumley "fall into the trap that this wonderful encyclical avoids: I.e., thinking in terms of either-or"?

Please explain, since Mr. Brumley posed a series of questions to provoke discussion. Please explain how doing this amounts to falling into an inappropriate "either-or".
Steven Yde  - Let he without sin cast the first stone     |2009-07-20 18:34:13
I am saddened to see people take pot shots rather than have an intellectual conversation on the interpretation of the Holy Fathers Encyclical. I stand by my earlier comments, as they were not a critique of the Encyclical, rather a disagreement with some commentators interpretation of what was stated. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again thinking you will get a new result. Pointing out the historical accuracies of the tyranny of centralized power is what it was. It is not an either or, but rather a truth and a false. Christ stated love one another as I have loved you. Sounds very personal. He did not say, organize for a better tomorrow. I believe it was Lenin who said that. Please be careful of the Third Way as that is the way of tyranny. I agree with Rev. Sicrico's take on this and that is all I was making a point about so I guess we are in agreement that the Holy Father did NOT advocate a "world political authority".
Write comment
Name:
Email:
 
Website:
Title:
UBBCode:
[b] [i] [u] [url] [quote] [code] [img] 
 
 
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

 

Syndication

Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Joomla Templates by Joomlashack