Pope Benedict's long-awaited encyclical has finally been released. As predicted, "both sides of the political spectrum" have been challenged by it.
For example, some may like...
* The call for Christian charity and the reminder that "Charity is at the heart of the Church's social doctrine"
* The affirmation of the proper role of profit ("Profit is useful if it serves as a means towards an end that provides a sense both of how to produce it and how to make good use of it. Once profit 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.")
* Its hopeful tone during the present economic crisis ("The current crisis obliges us to re-plan our journey, to set ourselves new rules and to discover new forms of commitment, to build on positive experiences and to reject negative ones. The crisis thus becomes an opportunity for discernment, in which to shape a new vision for the future. In this spirit, with confidence rather than resignation, it is appropriate to address the difficulties of the present time.")
* Its affirmation of food & water as a basic human right ("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")
* The affirmation that "every economic decision has a moral consequence."
* Its recognition that the duty of charity to others originates from God ("As society becomes ever more globalized, it makes us neighbors but does not make us brothers. Reason, by itself, is capable of grasping the equality between men and of giving stability to their civic coexistence, but it cannot establish fraternity. This originates in a transcendent vocation from God the Father, who loved us first, teaching us through the Son what fraternal charity is.")
* The reminder that truth must be received as a gift ("Truth, and the love which it reveals, cannot be produced: they can only be received as a gift. Their ultimate source is not, and cannot be, mankind, but only God, who is himself Truth and Love. This principle is extremely important for society and for development, since neither can be a purely human product; the vocation to development on the part of individuals and peoples is not based simply on human choice, but is an intrinsic part of a plan that is prior to us and constitutes for all of us a duty to be freely accepted. That which is prior to us and constitutes us - subsistent Love and Truth - shows us what goodness is, and in what our true happiness consists. It shows us the road to true development.")
* Its pro-life affirmation ("When a society moves towards the denial or suppression of life, it ends up no longer finding the necessary motivation and energy to strive for man's true good. If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of a new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away. The acceptance of life strengthens moral fibre and makes people capable of mutual help. By cultivating openness to life, wealthy peoples can better understand the needs of poor ones, they can avoid employing huge economic and intellectual resources to satisfy the selfish desires of their own citizens, and instead, they can promote virtuous action within the perspective of production that is morally sound and marked by solidarity, respecting the fundamental right to life of every people and every individual.")
* The acknowledgement that it may be more appropriate for capital to be kept near where it was produced ("There is no reason to deny that a certain amount of capital can do good, if invested abroad rather than at home. Yet the requirements of justice must be safeguarded, with due consideration for the way in which the capital was generated and the harm to individuals that will result if it is not used where it was produced.")
* The reaffirmation of subsidiarity ("subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state")
* The focus on duties vs. rights ("An overemphasis on rights leads to a disregard for duties. Duties set a limit on rights because they point to the anthropological and ethical framework of which rights are a part, in this way ensuring that they do not become licence. Duties thereby reinforce rights and call for their defense and promotion as a task to be undertaken in the service of the common good. Otherwise, if the only basis of human rights is to be found in the deliberations of an assembly of citizens, those rights can be changed at any time, and so the duty to respect and pursue them fades from the common consciousness.")
* The highlighting of today's inconsistency regarding rights ("Nowadays we are witnessing a grave inconsistency. On the one hand, appeals are made to alleged rights, arbitrary and non-essential in nature, accompanied by the demand that they be recognized and promoted by public structures, while, on the other hand, elementary and basic rights remain unacknowledged and are violated in much of the world.")
On the other hand, critics may express concern over various points, such as:
* The document gives a nod to continuity, but relies heavily on Vatican II or later documents
* The document speaks about general duties of individuals in society, but may be short on specific, actual doctrines of the Catholic faith or our specific duties towards God
* The average Catholic or other citizen may find the document "a bit lofty"
* The document contains references to "problems associated with population growth" and "responsible procreation". Although contraception is not condoned, it may nevertheless be possible for persons to take this part of the document out of context and use it as an excuse for contraception
* The document calls for massive redistribution of wealth ("The processes of globalization, suitably understood and directed, open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale")
* The document favorably references institutionalized "charity" (e.g. for-profit companies "oriented towards social welfare"), without addressing why consumers shouldn't pay lower prices for goods and have charity left in their own hands
* The document calls for a "worldwide redistribution of energy resources" amidst an already existing "energy crisis" ("What is also needed, though, is a worldwide redistribution of energy resources, so that countries lacking those resources can have access to them")
* The document's discussion of other religions in the context of earthly realities - without mentioning the grave danger that false religions present to the eternal souls of their adherents [more information]
* The seeming "man-centeredness" of the document as opposed to being manifestly "God-centered" ("In the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, the Council fathers asserted that 'believers and unbelievers agree almost unanimously that all things on earth should be ordered towards man as to their centre and summit'")
* Consequences of sin are referred to in earthly terms - without mentioning the grave danger such sins present to individuals' souls or the necessity of repentance for salvation
* The omission of Christ - the Prince of Peace - in the document's requirements for peace-building. As Pope Pius XI said, "[T]rue peace, the peace of Christ, is impossible unless we are willing and ready to accept the fundamental principles of Christianity, unless we are willing to observe the teachings and obey the law of Christ, both in public and private life."
* The document's suggestion - in the name of subsidiarity - that charitable disbursements be made from taxes rather than privately funded, with no mention that the ultimate "subsidiarity" may involve allowing each person to direct their own spending ("One possible approach to development aid would be to apply effectively what is known as fiscal subsidiarity, allowing citizens to decide how to allocate a portion of the taxes they pay to the State. Provided it does not degenerate into the promotion of special interests, this can help to stimulate forms of welfare solidarity from below, with obvious benefits in the area of solidarity for development as well.")
* During a time of economic crisis, record unemployment & debt - rather than first getting one's own house in order - the document calls for increased international aid ("more economically developed nations should do all they can to allocate larger portions of their gross domestic product to development aid")
* The nod to "religious freedom", even for those who profess false religions ("Denying the right to profess one's religion in public and the right to bring the truths of faith to bear upon public life has negative consequences for true development."), in contrast to the traditional teachings of the Church as represented by this quotation from Pope Gregory XVI: "Experience shows that there is no more direct way of alienating the populace from fidelity and obedience to their leaders than through that indifference to religion propagated by the sect members under the name of religious liberty."
* Concern for national sovereignty as the document speaks of an "urgent need of a true world political authority" which is "universally recognized" and "vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights", along with "the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties"
* The document's emphasis on our duties towards our neighbor rather than our duties towards God. As St. Thomas Aquinas states, "[W]e ought to love God...more than our neighbor."
* The document's seeming nod to feminists which discusses "decent work" for women with no mention of the essential role of full-time mothering - something for which even Vatican II said, "The children, especially the younger among them, need the care of their mother at home."
* The document's seeming disregard for personal responsibility in that it states that each of us is "outside his or her own control" ("No one shapes his own conscience arbitrarily, but we all build our own “I” on the basis of a “self” which is given to us. Not only are other persons outside our control, but each one of us is outside his or her own control. A person's development is compromised, if he claims to be solely responsible for producing what he becomes.")
* The document's discussion of the consequences of abortion and euthanasia in terms of earthly concerns - e.g. denial of human dignity, fostering a materialistic and mechanistic understanding of human life, negative effects for development - with no mention of sin, judgment, or hell
The document may also provide a wealth of material for contemplation. For example...
* How is it possible for "large-scale" (presumably forced) redistribution of wealth not to lead to resentment among people? How can such resentment foster charity?
* When is "charity" not charity? Although Jesus said to give our coat to another (and woe to us if we are not charitable!), He didn't tell someone to take it from us to give to another person. The former is charity, while the latter is theft.
* Will people see in this encyclical an implication that those who have more have not worked for it or that they are not entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labor? Or that the government or other bodies should be the ones to control the hard-earned fruits of others' labors? Is there a danger here of moving towards socialism and government control? Remember that Pope Pius XI said that socialism "cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church" and that no one "can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist"
* Given that "The Church has a responsibility towards creation and she must assert this responsibility in the public sphere. In so doing, she must defend not only earth, water and air as gifts of creation that belong to everyone. She must above all protect mankind from self-destruction" (emphasis added), why choose to issue an encyclical on the economy instead of Eucharistic abuse or rampant mortal sin? What could be more destructive to mankind than these matters?
* Doesn't true charity require us to have a particular concern for souls? In this "unparalleled" age of sin which worsens each year, why invest so much effort into passing economic matters instead of repeating the many warnings of Christ regarding eternal punishment for sin and the necessity of repentance?
* Has sufficient consideration been given to the fact that all persons are not "of good will", that we have enemies, that not all accept Christian ideals? How could we ever have an economic "utopia" on earth given the Fall?
* What about those who cause their own unfortunate conditions due to sin (e.g. fornication, divorce) or unwillingness to work? How much should they be shielded from the consequences of their actions out of "charity"? As St. Paul says, "...if any man will not work, neither let him eat" (2 Thes. 3:10)
* How should charity really be handled? Do we neglect charity in our own back yard to help those in other countries? ("Everyone must be loved equally; but, when you cannot be of assistance to all, you must above all have regard for those who are bound to you more closely by some accident, as it were, of location, circumstances, or occasions of any kind." - St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church) As Scripture says, "So then, while we have the opportunity, let us do good to all, but especially to those who belong to the family of the faith." (Gal. 6:10) Clearly even wealthy countries don't have unlimited funds - and even "rich countries" like the U.S. are hugely in debt.
* Assuming we are not speaking spiritually, how does giving development aid to poor countries "create wealth" for all during this economic crisis? ("In the search for solutions to the current economic crisis, development aid for poor countries must be considered a valid means of creating wealth for all.")
* Would it have been possible to more delicately refer to (or entirely omit references to) "s*x tourism" or send a special letter to bishops of affected areas instead of referencing this matter in a global encyclical?
* How and why are we to "strengthen and fine-tune" pawnbroking? ("Furthermore, the experience of micro-finance, which has its roots in the thinking and activity of the civil humanists - I am thinking especially of the birth of pawnbroking - should be strengthened and fine-tuned.")
[Note: The above was based on a "quick reading" of this encyclical with a particular eye to elements which may be viewed as "novel" or "controversial". Certainly there are many more points in this document.]
[7/7]
Posts
