Benedict's crunchy-con encyclical

Great Review!!! I no doubt attribute your clear thinking on this to your use of adult beverages last night so all is forgiven as I have awaited it.

I think this document will be very interesting as to the "right" Because it challenges all the factions. They see things they like and they don't like. Of course as to the more Catholic "left" it does that too

A word about the "Polticial Authority" As soon as I read that I wished the Pope had phrased that differently. I knew a whole much of silly commentary would come out on that. I would suggest looking at Para 57 that qualifies that.

Now when qualified there is not much there regualr conservatives would object too. Well of course the people that send me emails about scary highways in texas and Bush plots for a North American Union will not be happy but well you can't do much about that.

Benedict is learning tht Globalization is a Fact. And as much as the Paleo (and perhaps someof their cousins in the Crunchy Cons wnat it) we can't go back in time. Therefore sytems must be developed to stop abuse. And who knows the way things are going in 30 years we might need that protection against China and India

But this is nothing new. We have this rght now in various organization. Like the WTO and various trade deals. What Benedict is saying is that such an arrangement cannot be limited to the G8!!

There is nothing objectionable about that and is not the World Governement that people imagine. Again look at para 57

I will say for the most part Weigiels comments have in conservative Catholic circles been met with some dismay from what I can tell. ALso Evangelcial Catholcism has a good post up showing how his take on things coud not have happened.

You're quite shockingly ignorant of the influence of Catholic encyclicals, Charles. FDR's New Deal politics, to give one example, was influenced by his political friendship with Fr. John Ryan, an interpreter of Rerum Novarum. Early Catholic social encyclicals also influenced the rise of various Christian Democrat parties around Europe. These things certainly have an influence on the world, but like for most important things, that influence is indirect.

Charles I think the economics that Benedict is talking about is very basic. He is for the most part talking about the need for ethics and true Christian Charity in economics. When he was Cardianl Ratziner he stated

"A morality that believes itself able to dispense with the technical knowledge of economic laws is not morality but moralism. As such it is the antithesis of morality. A scientific approach that believes itself capable of managing without an ethos misunderstands the reality of man. Therefore it is not scientific."

As to the effect you be surprised. It might not be next week or next year. But many of these social statements that will become a part of the Social Teaching of the Church do have major effect. Look at earlier Papal documetns and how it effected Catholic viewpoints toward the labor movement. Or Prior statements that huge effects on the battle against Marxism(within the Church and in the public square). History has shown they have more effect than not

While I am still trudging through the slough of squishy verbiage on the dismal science, the paragraph on a world political authority disconcerted me greatly. A tip of the zucchetto to subsidiarity is scant reassurance.

I am fairly sure that if the pope was unable to inspire the global European political authority to acknowledge its debt to Christianity (not to say Catholicism), the Holy See's influence in a World Super State would be nil. If his own universities cannot but bestow honours on a pro-abort president, if he cannot persuade the UN to curtail support for abortion, if indeed his political cachet in Italy itself is marginal, what hope does he place in an omniscient and omnipotent cabal of secular apparatchiks? I had thought Ratzinger was a man of rational, not blind, faith.

Then again, perhaps I am missing the undercurrent that owes its source to Vatican II. From the Novus Ordo Missae to the Novus Ordo Seclorum, Freemasonry marches on.

Having read the summary (if not the entire encyclical), it appears to me that the Pope is making a fundamental point, not an economic argument, namely that instead of viewing our relationship with our community in terms of our own private benefit, we ought to instead consider the responsibilities we have to our families, immediate neighbors, local communities, nations and the world community as a whole.

That's not so much a political or economic argument as more of an internal (psychological?) argument. And I think he's right on that account.

For example, how much of the mortgage crisis might have been avoided if people hadn't tried to game the system to get the most house they thought they could get away with? If mortgage brokers hadn't knowingly sold loans to people they knew could not swing the payments for the sake of profit? If banks hadn't knowingly taken what they knew was junk and enlisted the assistance of corrupt ratings agencies to re-brand and sell what they had for personal profit? If investors hadn't allowed themselves to be dazzled by seemingly marvelous returns on "safe" investments for the sake of personal profit?

There are very many people involved in the game here who all thought they were getting over on the system and so all made choices that turned out to be disastrous for the community at large. This is one example out of many. Very many of the issues we face, including many of the social issues boil down to a simple unwillingness to consider how the choices we make impact others.

Rod had an earlier post on the difference between duty and responsibility, and how the latter has been reduced to mere compliance with the law while the former has disappeared almost altogether. This is the attitude that (it seems to me) the Holy Father rails against, that any position or any action, so long as it does not contravene the law is just fine.

To a certain extent, these people, the grifters who will walk right up to the line in order to take advantage of someone else, have always been with us. Hence our continual attempts to move the legal line to limit their impact. But I wonder how much this has led us to rely exclusively on the law to restrain bad behavior and, in fact, ultimately fed the attitude that anything that is not positively illegal is licit.

Or to put it another way, being a libertarian doesn't necessarily make you an individualist.

N.A.O

"Your's is a breath of fresh air after how narrow, how superficial and how tendentious the "movement" conservative response has been."

I think it would be wrong to make Weigiel the spokeman "of all movement conservatism" In fact many people that dabble in it have been very positive. That should be noted. Father Reese on the left and his short sighted comments cannot mean to indicate that all progressives think that way. I would suggest the same for the "right"

The Pope is calling us all to engage this. Not to pick fights between the Paleo, the Neo Cons, and the Crunchy Cons

NAO

I would note there is a postive one from the head of the Action Inst in the WSJ that was helpful.

Sirico's article is good, JH. For the record, the WSJ article I referenced was by Tyler Cowen. I'm going to stop digging now :-)

Thanks Rod for your review and compilation. It certainly encourages me to begin tackling this over the weekend.

Just a thought: a couple of you are slamming George Weigel but I think that's because the link provided by Rod is to a parody of Weigel's piece in NR. The parody does provide its own link to the NR piece but I think some of you are misreading the parody as Weigel's own work. Weigel's piece in NR is actually an interesting piece of Curial journalism and while I have no idea if it is true (hey, I live in NYC and I don't work for the Church) I'm guessing Weigel knows more about this than any of us.

Here's one line from Weigel's NR piece that I found particularly juicy: "The incoherence of the Justice and Peace sections of the new encyclical is so deep, and the language in some cases so impenetrable, that what the defenders of 'Populorum Progresio' may think to be a new sounding of the trumpet is far more like the warbling of an untuned piccolo."

Nothing bashful about George Weigel :-)

Indeed, the market is not some infallible machinery that always produces the right result, such that it is necessary to keep God and values out of it. Nor is the market evil, and it is equally foolish to condemn it as a source of evil. Thus does the Pope dispatch ideologies of right and left.

Really? Then why does most of the Catholic Culture summary read like boilerplate from the manifesto of some European political party (variously Social Democrat or Christian Democrat, depending on the paragraph), or even like parts of the U.S. Democratic Party's platform? I'm not saying this is bad, of course. But on economic issues (as on many matters of geopolitics, like nuclear strategy, invading Middle Easter countries, etc.), the papacy is clearly on the political left as Americans would understand it. Maybe the encyclical "dispatches" some kind of hard-core utopian Marxism, but the actual, meliorist left active in Western politics today does not hold the market to be "evil" and would find most of what's here thoroughly congenial.

What the Pope additionally brings to the table, of course, is faith in God, along with the argument that a more just and humane economic order requires the "charity" that comes from commitment to this higher "truth." You can’t just adjust policy at the institutional level, he says; you have to have individuals themselves seeking the good, and this “requires a transcendent vision of the person, it needs God.” OK. But here’s the paradox: People have never been able to agree on any one way of believing in God. (That’s why the Pope is not the Pope even of all Christians anymore, let alone the Pope of all religious believers in the world.) This problem is containable in a diverse society if religion is kept more or less separate from politics. But to the extent that you succeed at doing what the Pope urges -- i.e. get people to see their faith as having real political consequences for the way we organize society or the economy -- you raise the stakes in those disagreements, and therefore intensify them. And one thing the historical record strongly suggests is that intensifying religious conflict does not lead to more charity; quite the opposite.

I haven’t read the encyclical itself, but I don't see anything in the long summary that suggests that the Pope has figured out yet how to square this circle. Still, I'd be happy to see his very liberal, uh, I mean "charitable" economic philosophy gain a few more followers.

Re: But on economic issues (as on many matters of geopolitics, like nuclear strategy, invading Middle Easter countries, etc.), the papacy is clearly on the political left as Americans would understand it.

The sun does not rise in the Atlantic and set in the Pacific, and the Roman Catholic Church spans the globe. It is under no compulsion to mold its secular POV acording to American politics. While the encyclical may be a bit to the left of the American center, it is quite well domiciled in the center of most of the rest of the developed and democratic world's ideological spectrum. America has become an ideological outlier relative to most of the rest of the planet. Barak Obama would be a center-right president in most other countries and the GOP would be some minor fringe party, an also-ran that occasionally shocked people when it raked in 10% of the vote as a protest phenomenon.

A few thoughts - first, for those who think encyclicals are irrelevant consider the Mondragon Co-op. Inspired by Quadragisimo Anno and started by a Catholic priest in the Basque region of Spain, this worker owned and managed co-op is now the 7th largest corp in Spain, contributes 4% of the Spanish GDP, owns and operates 150 companies, established and runs a University with 4,000 students, had profits (shared among the workers) of some 16 million Euros in 2008, does not fire employees but workers vote themselves pay cuts to retain jobs for all. It is an amazing example of a rejection of the binary way of thinking about the economy - state- corporation.

There is also the Focolare movement now established in 100 countries,
as well as banks, development organizations, and other co-ops that have all been inspired and based on encyclical social teaching of the Church.

Just cause it is under the radar in the US - does not mean it is irrelevant. There is a great big world out there!

I found a couple of things really interesting - although it takes a few readings and reading of others comments to really digest it. First, this is the most enviornmental encyclical yet. Second, I found the comments on technology to very insiteful He has a section where he cautions against technology becoming an ideology. He offers a few examples of this happening and while I suspect it is not really all that new a viewpoint, he articulates and warns against it well.
Third, his notions about gratuity which clearly need more discussion. Finally, the emphasis on rejecting the binary POV and developing "third way" economic organizations which focus not only on profit but on the welfare of the worker, the community, the environment, the consumer.

I think his points about globalization and his obvious concern about it - relate to the distancing that such creates - the worker is distanced from the consumer, the consumer is distanced from the eenvironmental consequences of the consumption as well as the consumer and the corporation being distanced from the economic conditions of the worker.

A lot to digest.

"Agreed, freelunch, which is probably why Republicans and their apologists are already issuing pre-emptive strikes against attempts to use the encyclical for partisan advantage -- they're worried that Democrats could easily use it to claim the Pope as a fellow traveler."

Nonsense I am a card carrying Republican that prob lean "Horrors"neo con. I love this document.

I suppose Republican would fear it if we were all ayn Rand gurus but believe it or not we are not for the unregulated market

Hmm, I agree with Rod! I'd just phrase the summary in a different way: that the RCC agrees that the age of colonialism and empire is nearing an end- at least the economic varieties thereof.

This 'human development' concept sounds vaguely Modern, though. That the world can be expected to form more enduring international economic and political federations in the next decades, also.

jh, if you love the encyclical, good for you, but in that case you do not remotely "lean neocon." Any three paragraphs of this thing would be enough to give John Bolton or Paul Wolfowitz a stroke.

Given the Pope's very gracious reception of Obama, I have to withdraw the comment I made above. The Pope's actions and words contrast pretty dramatically with the reaction Obama received from the politically conservative wing of the American hierarchy and laity when he spoke at Notre Dame.

Perhaps us liberals should start acting and speaking more like Obama when it comes to dealing with our critics. Perhaps the politically conservative wing of American Christians should start acting and speaking more like the Pope yesterday.

A lot to absorb here, but my initial thoughts are that libertarians will not be especially happy with this. Both parties should note the emphasis on a need for morality and ethics in economic decisions. I think the Pope has made it clear that while liberty is important, liberty without justice can devolve into merely selfishness.

Overall, I think it just a broad approach to economics without very many specifics, though I could have missed much as I just skimmed it. I liked Cowen's comments in the WSJ.

Steve

While there are many things the Church cannot offer, it can nonetheless offer the one thing necessary--the very foundation of authentic human development--which is a correct understanding of the nature of man.

Um, I thought the one thing necessary that the Church can offer is Christ in all His fullness, without Whom redemption from and atonement for sin would be impossible.

OK, whatever. It's been centuries since the Vatican has forgotten its true calling, embracing geopolitical influence as a poor substitute.

Another element that I left out in my rush to post is contingency. Man is not self-sufficient; man is dependent on others and ultimately on God. One is diminished when focused solely in the self. This leads back by the same process through mankind's proper orientation and ultimate goal, and again Christ is at the center of this. CC saved a lot of space by using shorthand, eh?

But enough from me. You might appreciate this quote from Mgr Thomas Dabre, chairperson of the Commission for Theology and Doctrine of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of India:

"Q:The Encyclical is titled Caritas in Veritate, charity in truth. What truth is the Pope trying to announce to humanity?

The beautiful and simple truth of God. The Holy Father is quite clear that atheistic humanism is inhuman; that it cannot ensure the true development of mankind.

Charity and truth are linked in a holistic way. God’s love leads us to discover the truth about ourselves as reflected in the face of Christ, who is Truth.

Truth needs to be sought out, found and expressed in relationships of charity, which must be understood, confirmed and practised in the light of truth. Together charity and truth can lead to mankind’s true development.

The ideological rejection of God and atheism’s indifference are obstacles to development. For this reason charity and love of truth are an especially great challenge for the Church in a globalising world."

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=15751&size=A

As a long time advocate for human dignity in the work day and fair trade I have several sites and blogs including the latent response of religion and philosophy in the global economic arena with workers described as the stepchildren of relgion and philosophy. Pope Benedict encyclical does add heart and hope but it may be too little and too late to change the course of Globalism - the new "ism" without any real portfolio to grasp properly. See http://therationale.com/ ( Selection of our sites at http://linkbun.ch/aztb )