Benedict XVI Tightens Up the Church's Social Teaching

IC ^ | July 7, 2009 | Deal Hudson

[NYer]

Pope Benedict XVI's third encyclical -- Caritas in Veritate -- arrived today containing 30,468 words: an introduction, six chapters, conclusion, and 159 footnotes. It's not thrilling reading, even by encyclical standards, but as the latest papal statement on the Church's social teaching, "Love in Truth" will be a work of lasting significance.

 

Those who dig through the document to see whether it leans left or right will be disappointed: There is something here for everybody. For the Left, anxious to set the scene for President Barack Obama's meeting with Benedict in a few days, there are plenty of concerns expressed that fit their agenda. But the pope's criticism of free markets and the pursuit of short-term profits, as well as his support for labor unions, environmental ecology, and the right to food and water, are embedded in an overall account of social teaching tightly integrated with the life issues, moral duties, natural law, and truth. Love, in other words, is wedded to the truth about God and man.

 

Benedict intends his encyclical as both a tribute and commentary on Populorum Progressio (1967) of Pope Paul VI:

 

Now that a further twenty years have passed, I express my conviction that Populorum Progressio deserves to be considered 'the Rerum Novarum of the present age', shedding light upon humanity's journey towards unity.

 

Rerum Novarum, published by Pope Leo XIII in 1891, is considered to be the foundation of the Church's modern social teaching. Benedict affirms a coherent tradition between Leo XIII to Paul VI, John Paul II, and himself, rejecting the oft-used distinction between preconciliar and postconciliar: "There is a single teaching, consistent and at the same time ever new."

 

Throughout his reading of Populorum Progressio, the Holy Father stresses the "link between life ethics and social ethics," as seen in Paul VI's more controversial encyclical Humanae Vitae (1968), which reaffirmed the Church's teaching on abortion and its ban on contraception. Not surprisingly, Benedict condemns foreign aid to undeveloped countries that impose abortion and contraception practices:

 

In economically developed countries, legislation contrary to life is very widespread, and it has already shaped moral attitudes and praxis, contributing to the spread of an anti-birth mentality; frequent attempts are made to export this mentality to other States as if it were a form of cultural progress.

 

The encyclical argues that authentic human development is undermined by the practices of the culture of death. Abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, and eugenics all undermine human dignity, creating an "indifference shown towards situations of human degradation... on account of a conscience that can no longer distinguish what is human."

 

 

One very welcome point of emphasis in this encyclical is its treatment of rights and duties. "An overemphasis on rights leads to a disregard for duties," Benedict explains. Catholic social teaching has embraced such a long list of rights, it has become practically impossible to adjudicate rights claims between different parties, as in the debate over the right to immigrate and the right of nations to protect their boundaries. In Caritas in Veritate, the pope places the emphasis on 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 throw light on the bigger picture of human development, while rights isolate only a portion.

 

In describing the importance of duty, Benedict uses this stunning line, which will go a long way toward unravelling some of the confusion about rights language: "The sharing of reciprocal duties is a more powerful incentive to action than the mere assertion of rights." Here the Holy Father is arguing that we should first think about our social teaching in terms of what we should do for others, rather than a set of demands of what we are ourselves owed.

 

Another somewhat surprising point of insistence in the encyclical is the importance of faith being allowed expression in politics.

 

The Christian religion and other religions can offer their contribution to development only if God has a place in the public realm, specifically in regard to its cultural, social, economic, and particularly its political dimensions.

 

The only true, or integrated, humanism is one that recognizes man's supernatural origin and destiny:

 

Reason always stands in need of being purified by faith: this also holds true for political reason, which must not consider itself omnipotent.

 

Finally, Benedict seems to be preoccupied with the impact of technology in this encyclical -- he constantly warns us not to seek merely technological solutions to the problems of human development. Technology has become such a large concept, covering so many variations, that I wondered just which aspect provoked the Holy Father's attention. What is bothering him about technology now that hasn't already been around for a long time? Then I reread this passage from the first portion of the document:

 

Technology, viewed in itself, is ambivalent. If on the one hand, some today would be inclined to entrust the entire process of development to technology, on the other hand we are witnessing an upsurge of ideologies that deny in toto the very value of development, viewing it as radically anti-human and merely a source of degradation.

 

What Benedict is concerned about, I believe, is this: The very acceleration of technology, its growing market share in our lives, has led to a concern for technological development alone, while human development is increasingly ignored. Like the teenagers who stare at computer screens all day and never pick up a baseball bat, walk the dog, or mow the lawn, we are more and more a society losing ourselves in our new media. The Holy Father views this passivity in the face of technology as a new spiritual malaise: "The idea of a world without development indicates a lack of trust in man and in God."

[NYer]

Let’s see how long it takes the media to misrepresent his text.

[DonaldC]

I’m not Catholic, but I like a lot of what the current Pope has to say.

[NYer]

INTRODUCTION

1. Charity in truth, to which Jesus Christ bore witness by his earthly life and especially by his death and resurrection, is the principal driving force behind the authentic development of every person and of all humanity. Love — caritas — is an extraordinary force which leads people to opt for courageous and generous engagement in the field of justice and peace. It is a force that has its origin in God, Eternal Love and Absolute Truth. Each person finds his good by adherence to God's plan for him, in order to realize it fully: in this plan, he finds his truth, and through adherence to this truth he becomes free (cf. Jn 8:22). To defend the truth, to articulate it with humility and conviction, and to bear witness to it in life are therefore exacting and indispensable forms of charity. Charity, in fact, “rejoices in the truth” (1 Cor 13:6). All people feel the interior impulse to love authentically: love and truth never abandon them completely, because these are the vocation planted by God in the heart and mind of every human person. The search for love and truth is purified and liberated by Jesus Christ from the impoverishment that our humanity brings to it, and he reveals to us in all its fullness the initiative of love and the plan for true life that God has prepared for us. In Christ, charity in truth becomes the Face of his Person, a vocation for us to love our brothers and sisters in the truth of his plan. Indeed, he himself is the Truth (cf. Jn 14:6).

FULL TEXT

[anniegetyourgun]

I found this (directly from his writing) to be the most interesting:

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.

[Matchett-PI]

“I’m not Catholic, but I like a lot of what the current Pope has to say.” ~ DonaldC

Here’s more:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2287244/posts?page=7#7

[Salvation]

**Let’s see how long it takes the media to misrepresent his text.**

Oh, they already have. Two articles have already been posted — one on Religion and one on News talking about the U. N. — that Pope Benedict was speaking of a one world government.

Sigh............

[Salvation]

You have it in a nutshell there.

[Iscool]

Oh, they already have. Two articles have already been posted — one on Religion and one on News talking about the U. N. — that Pope Benedict was speaking of a one world government.

How could you read this little piece here and not conclude he was talking about a one world gov't???

[ELS]

How could you read this little piece here and not conclude he was talking about a one world gov't???

"Reason always stands in need of being purified by faith: this also holds true for political reason, which must not consider itself omnipotent."

The OWG scenario usually includes a virtually omnipotent ruling class. This Pope has a much better understanding of human nature than you seem willing to give him credit for.

[bboop]

Dennis Prager just mentioned it too - “The Pope (whom he likes very much) calls for a world govt agency to oversee things.” (I quote loosely). I stopped listening to see for myself.

This (posted) passage, which I skimmed, seems to point to that, tho? I love this Pope, too, but I think that is a ridiculous idea.

[bboop]

‘Which must not consider itself omnipotent’ — but it WILL, given human nature. And who is going to run it? Some jackanapes from Zimbabwe, perhaps? Or would they have to be Christians?

Never, I say...

[Mr Rogers]

He is.

"...a true world political authority...Such an authority would need to be regulated by law [which it would make], to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity [sole powers are not known for sharing their power with underlings], to seek to establish the common good[BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!], 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.

If that is not effectively one world government, how would YOU define the term?

[Mr Rogers]

EXACTLY!

One of the great lessons of the 1900s should be that governments accumulate power, and use it for themselves. We have the most benevolent government on earth - and look at Obama!

[Integrityrocks]

I am about as loyal a Catholic to the Holy See as there can be found and I don’t like this proposal any way you slice it.

[ELS]

He is disagreeing with the concept of a one world government.

[Notwithstanding]

He is talking about the perfect government.
One that does not exist.

It seems clear to me that he is actually subtley making the point that such a global government is nigh impossible to achieve.

And in this way he is highlighting the glory of the Kingdom of God, which is not of this earth.

[Mr Rogers]

He should be seeking clarity, not subtle sarcasm.

Perhaps he could add “BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!” at the end, or maybe a < / sarcasm > tag...

[Notwithstanding]

I say again:

Benedict lists
as mandatory characteristics

a catalogue of
the characteristics
that the United Nations’
infamously lacks.

This is no endorsement of any international body close to what we have seen.

[Tax-chick]

Freep! 66 pages in the Printer Friendly version (nice big text, to be sure), but ditching the footnotes cuts it to 56. The byos can draw on the footnote pages.