Pope Benedict on the Global Economy

by Jim Wallis 07-09-2009

As the G8 Summit begins in Italy, Pope Benedict XVI has released a new encyclical on the global economy. Despite the sometimes dense philosophical and theological language, his message is clear: The economy must be guided by the criteria of justice and the common good. It is a comprehensive document, and while I haven’t yet read the entire encyclical, from news reports and a quick skim, a number of important things stand out.

Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth), is rooted in a stream of papal teaching on economic justice that goes back to 1891 with the encyclical Rerum Novarum (Of New Things). It is a far-reaching look at the relationships and issues that the global economy has created, and their impact on the world’s people.

From the beginning Benedict states his basic foundation, that “charity in truth is the principle around which the Church’s social doctrine turns.” It is:

a principle that takes on practical form in the criteria that govern moral action. I would like to consider two of these in particular, of special relevance to the commitment to development in an increasingly globalized society: justice and the common good.

And, he says, those principles are both in service and involvement in the political arena.

The more we strive to secure a common good corresponding to the real needs of our neighbours, the more effectively we love them. Every Christian is called to practice this charity, in a manner corresponding to his vocation and according to the degree of influence he wields in the pólis. This is the institutional path — we might also call it the political path — of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbour directly, outside the institutional mediation of the pólis.

He deals with profit, writing that while it is useful, once it “becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty.” The current economic crisis, he writes,

obliges us to re-plan our journey, to set ourselves new rules and to discover new forms of commitment.… The crisis thus becomes an opportunity for discernment, in which to shape a new vision for the future.

He discusses globalization, which has “led to a downsizing of social security systems as the price to be paid for seeking greater competitive advantage in the global market, with consequent grave danger for the rights of workers,” and cites how

budgetary policies, with cuts in social spending often made under pressure from international financial institutions, can leave citizens powerless in the face of old and new risks; such powerlessness is increased by the lack of effective protection on the part of workers’ associations. Through the combination of social and economic change, trade union organizations experience greater difficulty in carrying out their task of representing the interests of workers, partly because governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the freedom or the negotiating capacity of labour unions.

The crisis of world hunger and lack of clean water lead to an affirmation that:

The right to food, like the right to water, has an important place within the pursuit of other rights, beginning with the fundamental right to life. It is therefore necessary to cultivate a public conscience that considers food and access to water as universal rights of all human beings, without distinction or discrimination.

He writes about the “pernicious effects of sin” in a market where there is a “speculative use of financial resources that yields to the temptation of seeking only short-term profit” that does not make “a real contribution to local society by helping to bring about a robust productive and social system, an essential factor for stable development.” Financiers, he says,

must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity, so as not to abuse the sophisticated instruments which can serve to betray the interests of savers.

The encyclical also addresses the rise of global inequality, the threats to the environment – “we must recognize our grave duty to hand the earth on to future generations in such a condition that they too can worthily inhabit it and continue to cultivate it” – and the need for new solutions to the world’s energy needs. “The fact that some States, power groups, and companies hoard non-renewable energy resources represents a grave obstacle to development in poor countries,” Benedict writes.

The international community has an urgent duty to find institutional means of regulating the exploitation of non-renewable resources, involving poor countries in the process, in order to plan together for the future.

Perhaps the most provocative and controversial suggestion is his call for a reform of the United Nations that would produce a “true world political authority” and would give “poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making.” Such a world body would “need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power” to “ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties.” That power, he suggests, could include the ability

[t]o 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…

Near the end of the encyclical, he underlines his basic premise:

While the poor of the world continue knocking on the doors of the rich, the world of affluence runs the risk of no longer hearing those knocks, on account of a conscience that can no longer distinguish what is human.

Caritas in Veritate is well worth our careful and thoughtful study. Its richness and depth will add new insights to Catholic social teaching. The entire text is available here.

Categories: Economics, Environment, Global Issues, Poverty

nation2nation

I am Catholic and respect the Pope, but sometimes his comments seem to be compartmentalized. It would be nice to see religious leaders connect the dots across the spectrum of issues. When he says: "The more we strive to secure a common good corresponding to the real needs of our neighbours, the more effectively we love them." Why didn't this thought process apply when he told the African continent that the use of condoms to help control HIV/AIDS was not a "moral" option?

I also found it interesting that when the Pope was visiting Israel he said, and I am paraphrasing: [When one institution has too much say and diversity is not allowed to thrive, people become repressed and ineffective and tyranny sets in." This was during the same period that a group of Catholics and other “fundamentalist” Christians were condemning Notre Dame for inviting President Obama to speak at their graduation commencement ceremony.

Social Justice, in my opinion, cannot occur unless contradictions are removed
and "leaders" realize that justice should not be approached from a narrow self-serving perspective.

Shelagh

I was raised Catholic too, but then I read books by Daniel Quinn like "Ishmael" and "The Story of B," which raise some fascinating questions. For example, the story of Cain and Abel may be an allegory representing nomadic societies vs agricultural societies. For a quick summary, watch the powerpoint presentation at http://www.panearth.org/panearth/

Basically, more food means more people. Hunger can never be solved, because increasing food availability causes an increase in human population, just as in deer population, cockroach population, or any other population. Then, as the population numbers get high relative to the available food, scarcity sets in and then famine. It is very sad and very painful, but we are not doing anyone any favors over the long term by increasing agricultural yields using fossil fuels and modern machinery.

Eric77

Basically, more food means more people.

How do you explain the facts that Europe has more food than ever in its history yet its birth rate has been declining for years?

Shelagh

Your question is a good one and it is answered by the presentation. Please watch slide # 35 on http://www.panearth.org/panearth/

It explains why wealthy areas have lower birth rates. There is an inverse relationship between consumption rate and fertility rate. (And I think you are right in that a lot of people, in wealthy countries especially, do not listen (and rightly so) to the RCC on the issue of birth control.)

But unfortunately we would need more than ten planet earths for this trend to create population equilibrium.

Also, that wealth (and food) in Europe or the US draws immigrants which bring the population up in the wealthy country without slowing the birthrate in the country of origin.

RandyMcC

I'm Catholic (Altar Boy late 1960s Holy Redeemer Evansville IN), the World food situation will never be solved... sorry to say. Government corruption / Greed for MONEY and Greed for CONTROL! Look below about WFP-IFAD-FAO...
Found this website and thought I’d share. Very Good website for someone who wants the UNITED NATIONS and WORLD Instant Up-To-The-Minute News ALL from ONE PLACE! Press Releases, Speech, and Various Transcripts / Documents with PDFs to PRINT

http://www.UnitedNationsUS.com
It is NOT a blog website! Get info, then come back here to write your thoughts!

UN overall General News with 5 World geographical areas defined and 10 subject areas such as Worldwide Human Rights, World Pease and Security, Humanitarian Aid and Refugees…
WHO overall General News with 6 subject areas such as 2009 H1N1 Swine Flu, Disease Outbreak Suppression, Emergency and Disaster Update…
WFP-IFAD-FAO World Food overall General News with 6 subject areas such as Geo Hot Spots, On Location Observations…
US CDC (Centers for Disease Control) overall General News…
US Dept of Homeland Security overall General News…

GREAT website for the Person who does NOT (or want to) belong to one of the SOCIAL NETWORKING websites (Twitter, FaceBook etc) and does NOT understand RSS Feeds... It's all right here for them!

Another BENEFIT: can navigate WITHOUT having to Go To the Home page, next subject… CLICK and there.

ando

"Social Justice, in my opinion, cannot occur unless contradictions are removed
and "leaders" realize that justice should not be approached from a narrow self-serving perspective."

What I appreciate is that the pope is not bound by political dogmatism, as it seems so many others are, but by a sense of not only peace and justice, but Truth. The Church, Catholic or Protestant, should never aquiesce (sp) to the powers and principalities of this age. It needs to speak the truth in love, whether it be taking on the corporate powers or the political ideologies that often plague the most innocent of society.

Thank you, Pope Benedict. I heard a Catholic professor speak yesterday on my state's public radio aft. talk show. She noted that the Pope not only takes on corporate powers, but also takes on those who did not tell the truth in order to secure loans they couldn't afford. In other words, it's about taking on corporate powers, but it's also about how the rest of us are also part of the problem by participating in this materialistic binge starting under Reagan and perpetuated by the Clintons and Bushes.

BuckeyeDon

The materialistic binge predates Reagan, Ando.

Thirty years ago next week, on July 15, 1979, President Jimmy Carter delivered his (in)famous "crisis of confidence" speech, sometimes labeled the "malaise" speech, even though Carter never used that word. Here are two excerpts:

"In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We've learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose."

"We are at a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I've warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure."

Clearly, materialism and consumerism were on Carter's mind as issues the nation needed to confront that night.

The beginning of the materialistic binge probably can be dated sometime during the Vietnam War era, at the time when consumerism began trumping productivity--the time when we began importing more goods than we were exporting.

You are absolutely right that taking on the corporate powers won't be enough. We need to confront this problem as individuals and as a society, because we all are part of the problem. Carter's words, whatever any of us thought of his presidency at the time, were prophetic.

ando

I am a great fan of Jimmy Carter. His emphasis on such issues as energy conservation and agricultural sustainability were quite radical policies for the time. Unfortunately, we did not follow up on his vision and foresight.

BuckeyeDon

Carter has increasingly earned my respect over the years. He was so right about energy policy and other matters.

Here's an article about the "crisis of confidence" speech that you might enjoy. I'm thinking of ordering the book this scholar has written. http://www.hnn.us/articles/95308.html#

Peace,
D

christopherpophamsmith

The movie called "The Shoes of the Fisherman", starring
Anthony Quinn, comes to mind. Perhaps the Pope could
take a lesson from the film.

kdl1363

As long as the Roman Catholic Church continues to preach that contraception is a sin and that sex is only for procreation we will never be able to stop the spiraling population growth which is at the root of all problems.

It is critical that all women have access to health care, including access to contraceptives. When they have fewer children those children do better.

The Pope must recognize his responsibility in today's global crises. He also needs to free up the monumental wealth of the Catholic Church to bring about change.

johnrallison

The Flaws in “Redistributive Justice”

The idea that those with wealth must, by the compulsion of law and penalty, give to those who have little has a spiritual flaw, a political flaw, an ethical flaw and an economic flaw.

The spiritual flaw is thinking that this equates to charity. Charity is grounded in a compassionate heart not compulsion. The spiritual benefit to both the giver and receiver are in grave danger in any system that makes charitable giving compulsory.

The political flaw is that in every compulsory redistribution system, there must be an entity that decides what gets redistributed to whom. This may work well when a benevolent and reasonably altruistic person runs that entity, but the very creation of the entity creates a point of power which will eventually be sought by those who would use power for their own sake.

The ethical flaw is the assumption that it is 'just' to redistribute wealth. Most people of wealth have worked hard and made great sacrifices to attain their wealth. Many people who are now hard-working and poor aspire to be hard-working and well-off. It seems manifestly unjust to take from someone who works 11 hour days while continuing to improve their knowledge and skills and give to someone who punches the clock and puts in their 8 hours.

The economic flaw is two-fold. First, the assumption that productivity and thus wealth will continue to be produced at the same pace under a system that involves compulsory redistribution of the product of a person’s labor. Each person is motivated by whatever motivates them. The individual liberty to use the product of your labor as you see fit is the most universal motivator of labor and productivity. The idea that people will work as hard when they get to keep less and less gravely mistakes what motivates hard work. As wealth redistribution increases, the overall productivity of a society will decrease because those who would otherwise choose to work long and hard to increase their earnings are less motivated.

Second, people who are motivated to ‘get ahead,’ in a society that emphasizes ‘redistributive justice,’ will get ahead through befriending the right people and saying the right things – through political maneuvering which is not wealth producing. People who get ahead in a capitalist society do so by producing goods or services that are of value to other people. Admittedly, people who rise to the top of a capitalist society will not always use their wealth well, but at least they have created their wealth by producing goods and services desired by other people. The dynamic of ambitious people getting ahead through political maneuvering rather than producing desirable goods and services further erodes the overall productivity and wealth of a society.

Do not misunderstand me. I believe in charity and philanthropy. I believe in voluntary redistribution of wealth because that provides a mental/emotional/spiritual benefit to both the giver and the receiver. I believe in justice, defined as having a clear and impartial set of rules that are enforced equally upon every member of a society or community.

I can see the attractiveness of “redistributive justice.” However, redistribution does not bring about the visions of the future that entice people to embrace it. “Redistributive justice”, in the long run, lead to courser human relations, a skewed sense of justice, and a decrease in the overall wealth of a community or country. I will admit that communism can be a beautiful alternative on a small scale (30-50 people) because each person has a relationship with all the others and has a sense of caring for the community in a voluntary and loving fashion. After all, most families are little one household communist communities. However, without the face-to-face voluntary relationships of love that motivates caring, sharing and mutual accountability, the possible good of ‘redistributive justice’ turns rancid and ugly. The history of countries that have embraced redistribution proves this to be true.

(BTW – I would argue that every society should have some sort of ‘safety net.’ We should not let people starve in the streets. But even in that instance, the more local the solution the better, for reasons similar to those listed above.)

BlueDeacon

The Great Depression and the Civil Rights Movement blew up that argument; people will simply not even consider the "least of these" unless they're often forced to. Restorative justice is more about access than money; the poor have as much right as anyone else to be able to provide for their families, and a lot of that is about breaking barriers cemented by either law or custom. Poverty in the African-American community, to give one example, is more due to race- and class-consciousness (they often are not personally acquainted with people who do hiring) than black men's ability/willingness to work -- but that's not the stereotype.

ando

" Poverty in the African-American community, to give one example, is more due to race- and class-consciousness (they often are not personally acquainted with people who do hiring) than black men's ability/willingness to work -- but that's not the stereotype."

That doesn't stop immigrants from getting jobs. Many of the Southeast Asians in my area -- as well as the Twin Cities and other areas of the Midwest -- have taken the initiative to rent or buy small plots of land to grow crops for local markets. The Latino immigrants can be found sweeping the halls and washing dishes in universities, hospitals and other public and private businesses. It's not just a race and class, although that's certainly a part of it. At it's core, I believe, is spiritual oppression.

BlueDeacon

That doesn't even begin to tell the story, however. Many of the Asians, Koreans in particular, already belonged to a higher class in their home countries; since they already had money they operated an informal banking system which allowed them to make such investments when they got here. Besides, it doesn't negate my premise.

ando

Sorry, perhaps you don't know about the Hmong. They were being wiped out by
the communists in Laos after the Vietnam War. That's why they came here and
settled in places like Minnesota and Wisconsin. They are very
traditionalist, and were no way in a higher class. They have always been
hard workers, mainly toiling in the earth.

BlueDeacon

However, like most Asians, they also had a very strong family structure that has generally remained intact. Furthermore, they came to an alien culture and as a result (at least at first) kept to themselves.

arthurpena

Again, BlueDeacon, thank you for keeping the conversation grounded in conrete ocio-economic and historical realities.

In the same vein:

Slavery ended less than 150 years ago--that's barely two or three generations. And segregatition (i.e. de facto slavery) didn't end, on paper, until just 30 years ago, and the socio-economic redress is still going on. While individuals are not wholly in the thrall of historic forces, neither are they wholly free of them. Slavery was rape and murder and spiritual destruction on a scale that is hard to imagine. There IS a reason why blacks are still largely impoverished, imprisoned, etc. etc. And that reason STILL is slavery.

And people are saying the days of "affirmative action" are OVER????

Hah! The NEGATIVE action of centuries is NOT wiped out in a matter of decades. Again, individual freedom and responsibility are important to cultivate and encourage; but collective and institutional response to damage done is still necessary.

Eric77

Your point would make more sense if you were talking about the same thing as John was. John was talking about "redistributive justice" which is, according to Wikipedia, a "term used to describe the equalization of property and wealth ownership by direct political fiat." I have yet to find any other clear definition of the term by either an unbiased source or someone who supports "redistributive justice". So for the purposes of John's point, redistributive justice is about material goods and money.

Perhaps whatever you're talking about (restorative justice?) is about more than money, but if you're trying to refute what John wrote you should stick to the term he was talking about instead of redefining it to better suit the point you're trying to make.

BlueDeacon

Except that he skirts the bigger picture, as restorative justice will necessarily lead to redistributive justice down the road. There's a reason why the wealthy don't like social justice movements of any kind -- a successful campaign means that their days of calling the shots without concern for those of lower class were numbered. (That is to say, it's not just about the money.)

Eric77

But what you're saying is that in the end, it is all about the money (redistributive justice). Redistributive justice will flow from restorative justice, according to you. Redistributive justice is what John is arguing against and you've said that's what restorative justice leads to. What good is restorative justice if it doesn't lead to redistribution of resources?

BlueDeacon

Not quite. You're talking about the ends; I'm trying to focus on the means.

Martin Luther King Jr. once made a comment about black lawyers in his day making a pretty good salary but not comparable to the salaries that white lawyers made for pretty much the same work. And that was directly due to Jim Crow -- because blacks made less money, they couldn't support their professional class in the same way. (This is why a United Negro College Fund is required -- the black community has few, if any, people that can drop a multi-million dollar gift the way, for example, an insurance tycoon from my college alma mater gave $10 million as seed money for a new basketball arena.)

arthurpena

Great comments BlueDeacon.

Bourgeois theoricists are always so "abstract". They just don't get the fact that "rights" are not abstract--they are embedded in and limited by and defined by the socio-economic system. Americans, especially, seem averse to dealing with the socio-economic dimensions to "justice", "constitutionality", "rights", etc. I believe this has been intentionally inculcated in the population by the essentially capitalist founders of the nation (and their descendents). It is to their advantage that the presently unjust capitalist distribution of wealth and power go unquestioned. Or, if it IS questioned, that it only be questioned on "moral" grounds (and that the reform response be "moral" and "altruistic" and "top-down" as well), instead of in a more level-headed, grounded, concrete, institutional, grass-roots, socio-economic-savvy (i.e. Marxist) way.