>>> I didn’t find the word “limit” in connection with “profit” in Section 21. <<<
Sometimes an idea is not limited to the presence of a single word. Look again:
“We recognize, therefore, that the Church had good reason to be concerned about the capacity of a purely technological society to set realistic goals and to make good use of the instruments at its disposal. 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. The economic development that Paul VI hoped to see was meant to produce real growth, of benefit to everyone and genuinely sustainable.”
Let’s see: setting “realistic goals”; making good (as opposed to bad) use of (financial?) instruments; a call to support good, as opposed to bad, profit; concern with “sustainability.” Yes, I think it’s clear that BXVI is talking about setting LIMITS to what he calls the “international economic process.” In with the good, out with the bad: isn’t that a setting of limits?
Now, I trust that many here would look upon these suggestions as trivial in the sense that everyone wants the Good as opposed to Bad in terms of profit; that everyone would agree that avarice is a sin and should be avoided; desire that economic processes should be sustainable. And so forth.
However, to present a vision of the Good is to make a political statement. It’s a solicitation to men of good will to do what is right, to CHOOSE the good when other options are available. Which is to say that I couldn’t disagree more when you wrote in post #144 that “Caritas in Veritate is NOT a political programme.”
Just because BXVI doesn’t provide detailed “technical plans” to tell us what is to be done, the goals that he sets in _Caritas_ trace out definite human responses.
Set limits to global economic processes? Guarantee a world-wide human right to food, to water, and — as I read in the article on BXVI’s “new humanism” — a global right to peace? Establish or support “mechanisms of wealth redistribution”? Please tell me, in a world built out of the crooked timber of humanity how is this possible without violence or the threat of violence from specific agents; without the establishment of huge bureaucracies with the power to enforce their codes; without the establishment of an effective world-wide controlling authority?
As for “subsidiarity”: I’ve read that it is a “fundamental principle” of EU law. And, as we all know, the bureaucrats in Brussels have been oh so careful to follow this principle when promulgating rules to the nations of Europe. Quix and others are right: it’s merely what the Germans call schwarmerei.
Excellent points, I think.
...Establish or support "mechanisms of wealth redistribution?" Please tell me, in a world built out of the crooked timber of humanity how is this possible without violence or the threat of violence from specific agents; without the establishment of huge bureaucracies with the power to enforce their codes; without the establishment of an effective world-wide controlling authority?
Isn't it handy this pope has a "huge bureaucracy" and "world-wide authority" close by ready to "enforce the codes" of their choice?
The "good" that he wants "in" is for people to live in Christ, to answer His Call in their souls, hearts, and minds. The "bad" he wants "out" (described at section 14) is "the technocratic ideology so prevalent today."
The "technocratic ideology" is what people today mindlessly call "values-neutral." It is unconcerned with ethical or moral criteria, it is radically anti-human, and brings degradation wherever it goes. In a system of capitalism where this ideology reigns, profit becomes an end in itself, instead of the by-product of something else: the creation of new economic value in satisfaction of real human needs and wants. Rank speculation is of equal worth to human creative effort in such a system. This is what the Pope objects to, and I object to it also. Arguably, this ideology was a major culprit in bringing on the current global economic meltdown.
Still in Caritas in Veritate, the Pope has not advanced any program for correcting this situation, no plan to "limit profit." In the first place, such a thing is entirely beyond the scope of his competence and authority. In the second place, in this encyclical his purpose is to evoke a major cultural renewal based on the Word of God, in charity and in truth. In his last encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, he wrote of God's love.... He is informing the world at large of these things; this is what is called Christian evangelization. He bids us all to do likewise, and then the "profit thing" will just naturally smoothe itself out in time, God willing. Profit should be based on the creation of new value, not on "pushing paper around." (My term.)
I've been very puzzled by the responses of many of you to Benedict's encyclical on charity in truth. I just don't understand them, probably because I don't see something that you see. I've been wondering what that could possibly be. Then I had a strange thought. Is it possible that there is an undisclosed assumption behind your testimonies? And that assumption is the belief that the Pope is an evil man, perhaps the Anti-Christ — maybe Satan himself???
If that is your belief, then your conclusions become understandable to me.
But I would question that assumption.
Please forgive me for not having written sooner. I've been having computer problems.... ARRGGGHHHHH! (I hope they're nipped in the bud now; we'll see.)
Thank you so much for wrriting, Poe White Trash!