The Truth about Caritas in Veritate
The Gospel tells us that as Jesus was about to ascend into heaven he told his apostles: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, …teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you…."
This apostolic ministry of teaching with His own authority, is one of the greatest gifts Jesus gave His Church. And it continues today in the office of the successors to the Apostles, the Bishops, most especially in the office of the successor of Peter —the office of the Pope and his authoritative teaching, that we call the papal Magisterium.
On July 7 we saw an important display of this gift as our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI issued his third encyclical letter: his brilliant treatise on economics and social justice: Caritas in Veritate—Charity in Truth [CV].
Now, some of my parishioners were initially surprised to hear my enthusiasm for this document, since I have something of a reputation for being rather conservative, and according to the press this encyclical is a very liberal document; one Washington Post columnist called it the “papal encyclical …that places the pope well to [President] Obama's left on economics.”
But it seems to me that most of the commentators either didn’t actually read the document, or only read parts of it, or read it way too quickly. Because it is not a “liberal” encyclical; nor is it a “conservative” encyclical —it is, in fact one of the most purely non-ideological of all the social encyclicals of the popes, dating back to 1891: it is truly a Catholic encyclical.
Of course, there is room for critique without risk of insult, heresy or disobedience—not every word the Pope writes in an encyclical is intended to have the full authority of Christ himself. This is especially the case with “social encyclicals,” as they move from theology into economic and political theory, fields over which the papal magisterium claims no direct expertise or competence. So, in some places the encyclical expresses and explains defined Catholic doctrines and fundamental moral principles, and in other places it merely expresses the Holy Father’s prudential judgment in applying those doctrines and principles to the situation at hand, as he understands it. While Catholics must accept and follow the former (doctrine and principles), we are free, after careful and respectful consideration, to disagree with the latter (prudential judgments). Finally, papal authority is never a guarantee of eloquence or clarity, which may always be the subjects of respectful critique.
So, one might note that, unlike his first two encyclicals, and almost all of his other writings, an experienced eye can see in this encyclical the hands of several writers assisting the Pope. This is not at all unusual in so important of a document —you see the same in many of Pope John Paul II’s letters. Even so, in the end, it is clearly Benedict —who is renowned for his ability to synthesize other theologians’ thoughts —who pulled all of this together and made it his own.
Some say it’s a bit optimistic in it’s view of the actual potential of human organizations and governments. Others, myself included, would say that there are a lot of phrases that, taken out of context, can be manipulated or twisted to defend positions that the Pope in no way intended.
In fact, that’s exactly what so many of the commentators did. For example: the Pope reiterated the Church’s support for trade unions, writing: “union[s]…experience greater difficulty in…representing the interests of workers, partly because Governments…often limit [their] freedom or…negotiating capacity” [CV 25]. This is true—some governments do that— but which “governments” is he talking about? And does this mean that the Pope is endorsing American laws like the proposed “Employee Free Choice Act”—what some call “card-check”— as some union activists have tried to imply? Maybe, but maybe not.
Many have suggested that the encyclical is an “attack on capitalism,” twisting phrases such as the Holy Father’s reference to a “constructing new order of economic productivity” [CV 41] to produce headlines like the New York Times’: “Pope Urges Forming New World Economic Order.” A careful reading of the encyclical shows that he is not proposing to tear down the present world economic order, especially capitalism. And rather than attacking capitalism Benedict generally embraces it, while calling for its renewal, as it were, in charity and moral truth.1 It is this renewal that will make the old order “new.” Other than that, the Pope does not propose any kind of new order in a technical sense, as he himself explains: “The Church does not have technical solutions to offer” [CV 9]. He merely presents moral principles and practical advice, attempting to shed the light of the truth of Jesus Christ in guiding the existing order of nations and states.
Still, some point out that the Pope writes specifically of the need for the “redistribution of wealth,” which many say is anathema to capitalism. Unfortunately, his use of the term is often ambiguous, but in no way suggests a massive effort by government to take from the rich, by taxes or other means, to give to the poor. In fact, he seems to argue against that kind of radical redistribution when he later proposes the need for an “effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state” [CV 57]. The only time he is clear on what he means by “wealth redistribution” is when he uses it to mean increasing the share of wealth of the poor by normal market economic activity such as, better jobs, increased profits, etc. [CV 42].2 No capitalist I know would object to that, or even to the normal redistribution of wealth that comes through reasonable taxation.
Finally, part of the encyclical that’s being grossly misrepresented, and causing much angst among many Catholics, is the Pope’s writing about an: “urgent need of a true world political authority…to manage the global economy,” suggesting specifically “the United Nations Organization” [CV 67].
The Pope is not calling for some sort of one-world government, as some pundits suggest. If you read the full text you see, first of all he’s calling for: “a reform of the United Nations Organization.” But more importantly any such an authority would: “need to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth.” Which is another way of saying it would have to be committed to Catholic moral principles. That would be a great thing—a truly Catholic U.N.. But since we can’t get Catholics to commit to Catholic moral principles it doesn’t seem very likely we will get the secular humanists at the U.N. to do so.
Some have argued that this is one of those areas where the Pope might be being too optimistic, but it seems to me that the Holy Father is doing something else altogether. We should not forget that the call for a such a “world political authority” does not originate with Benedict: it has been made and repeated by his predecessors Bd. John XXIII, Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, as well as the Second Vatican Council.3 In particular, it is a key aspect of Paul VI’s Populorum Progessio, the 1967 encyclical which Benedict specifically has in mind as he writes this present encyclical, CV, in order “to pay tribute and to honour the memory of the great Pope Paul VI, revisiting his teachings.”
Considering today’s troubling secular situation, especially when it comes to organizations such as the U.N.,4 some might prefer that the Holy Father back away from his predecessors’ calls—they were, after all, merely the conclusions of prudential judgment.5 However, assuming that such a change would have been considered (and it is not entirely clear that it would) it might arguably cause more problems than it would solve. For one thing, it might tend to undermine all papal authority, at least in the common man’s understanding: “if Paul VI was wrong about the need for a ‘world authority,’ maybe he was wrong about contraception.” For another, think of the confusion the secular media would spread; imagine the headlines: “Pope Changes Doctrine,” or “Benedict Rejects Vatican II.” Finally, such a dramatic change would run entirely contrary to Pope Benedict’s approach to the papacy, which emphasizes respect for and, especially, continuity with his predecessors and their judgments.
Nevertheless, that respect and continuity would not keep him from making certain adjustments or clarifications he saw as necessary, considering both continuity with his predecessors’ predecessors, e.g., Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI (and earlier popes), and the cold reality of the judgment of history.6 So, perhaps Pope Benedict sought the middle road. First, he accepts the judgment of his predecessors that a world political authority would be, in a certain sense, “necessary.” He then, however, proceeds to more carefully and emphatically clarify that such a world authority would only be desirable if it were firmly rooted in essentially Catholic moral principles, including the key principles of subsidiarity and respect for life (see discussion below). Lastly, by his calls for reform and repeated condemnation of the activities of the present world authorities (e.g., the promotion of abortion and contraception) he makes it clear that answering his predecessors’ calls is infeasible and even impossible, at least at this moment in history.
But all that is about clarifying what the Pope did not say. Now let’s look at what he did say, what he considered most important.
Let’s begin with the title of the encyclical: Caritas in Veritate: “Charity (or Love) in Truth.” The Holy Father reminds us that “God is love,” or caritas (charity), and that man is created by and in the image of God as a creature created for love.7 To be human is to love, and Charity is the substance of all our interpersonal relationships, all societies large and small, from the society of two spouses, to the “global community.”
Now, the Church insists that to be authentic development of society must be “integral…it has to promote the good of every man and of the whole man” [CV 18]. But how can a man be whole without love? So if development is pursued without placing charity in truth at the center, it will surely be illusory and ultimate fail.
Moreover, charity means not only love of neighbor, but also, and foremost, love of God, so that no human being or society of human beings can ever be authentically developed without loving God. This requires a place for religion “in the public realm…particularly its political dimensions”—true religious freedom [CV 56]. Still, “Religious freedom does not mean religious indifferentism, nor does it imply that all religions are equal” [CV 55]. Some religions “do not fully embrace the principle of love and truth” and can wind up “obstructing authentic human development.”
Unfortunately nowadays, charity, love, is often, “misconstrued and emptied of meaning” making it “easily dismissed as irrelevant” to the fields of politics and economics [CV 2]. That’s why we have to “link charity with truth.” As the Pope writes: “Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality…. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way” [CV 3].
Most Catholics think of the Church’s social teaching in terms of “social justice”—not social charity. Justice is giving “the other what is ‘his’, what is due to him by reason of his being or his acting” [CV 6]. So justice is a prerequisite for charity, it is a minimum: if you don’t give a man what is his, why would you give him what is yours? Still, man is created for love, so authentic integral human development demands not simply justice, but also charity. And since justice is something that is due, but love is always a free gift, Benedict teaches that gift and generosity must also inform our approach to human development.
Now, “to love someone is to desire that person's good and to take effective steps to secure it” [CV 7]. Authentic human development, therefore, demands a commitment to the common good, and by “common good” we mean “the good of all and each individual human being.”8 This commitment to the common good, which is an expression of love, is called solidarity.9
But solidarity begins with individuals—“persons.” Love is first directed from and toward individual persons, and secondly toward individual persons-living-in-community, or society. So that authentic and integral human development must always begin with justice and love for each individual.
All this is particularly important in the present day as the world becomes smaller and societies more interactive: in other words, because of the phenomenon of globalization. Globalization makes it that much more critical not to lose sight of the individual and his rights and duties, and to love the individual.
Still, the individual is created to love the other —to live in relationships, societies, of charity. And the first and most basic and important society of love is the family. As such, the family, beginning with the marriage of a man and woman, has certain natural rights, duties, and freedoms, that precede and exceed the rights of larger societies —and that the society at large then has a duty, in justice, to protect. As the Holy Father writes: “States are called to enact policies promoting the centrality and the integrity of the family founded on marriage between a man and a woman, the primary vital cell of society” [CV 44].
This hierarchical notion of the dignity of first the individual, then the married couple, then the family, and then the larger society is the basis of another fundamental principle of the church’s social doctrine: the principle of subsidiarity. This principle requires that a larger community may not normally interfere in the internal life of a smaller community, or deprive the smaller of its functions, but rather serves to support the smaller community and to coordinate its activities with the rest of society. So, for example, no government has a right to interfere in family life except to help it. And for those who concerned about the notion of a “world political authority” “managing the economy,” Benedict writes: “In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity” [CV 57].10
Again, this principle comes from the overriding centrality of the individual—the person—in society. This then leads to another point that the Pope considers absolutely critical to authentic development, a point he makes a key theme to his whole thesis, coming back to it, forcefully, over and over again, as no other pope has ever done in a social-economic encyclical.11 That is the fundamental duty to respect human life: not only in the rejection of abortion, but also the necessity of a generous openness to life, in rejecting contraception. As the Pope writes: “Openness to life is at the centre of true development” [CV 28]. And he forcefully condemns those efforts of governments and other organizations (e.g., the U.N.) that promote or mandate population control through abortion or contraception.
And he doesn’t stop there, but goes on to strongly condemn all attacks on innocent human life: in vitro fertilization, embryonic stem cell research, manufacturing clones and human hybrids, eugenics and euthanasia.
Some might ask, how are all these related to economic development and human rights? As the Holy Father explains:
Underlying these scenarios are cultural viewpoints that deny human dignity. These practices in turn foster a materialistic and mechanistic understanding of human life. Who could measure the negative effects of this kind of mentality for development? How can we be surprised by the indifference shown towards situations of human degradation, when such indifference extends even to our attitude towards what is and is not human? [CV 75].
And then he scoffs at those who reject respect for and the right to life, but insist on every other imaginary right:
What is astonishing is the arbitrary and selective determination of what to put forward today as worthy of respect…. 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. [CV 75]12
Right at the heart the encyclical is the truth about human life and love for human life, right from the beginning of each individual life. Without that there can be no authentic human development. If you can’t love a baby, how can you love an adult living in another continent? If you can’t welcome your own babies, how can you welcome a stranger?
And yet, no one in the media seems to notice it, except in passing, as if it were a bone thrown by the Pope to his more conservative fans. “At last,” they say, “the Pope is seeing the bigger picture, that there are other issues besides abortion.” Good Lord, read the document!
For the first three centuries of Christianity the teaching of the apostles and their successors was largely rejected by the world. Today we find ourselves a similar situation. Even so, we have in our midst one sent by God to teach with the authority of his only begotten Son, a worthy successor to the great apostle St. Peter, our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI. Let us pray for him, and that his teaching may not be rejected, but rather that men and women of good will around the world will take his words to heart and come to a new and deeper understanding of the human family, and an authentic notion of integral human development, founded on Charity in Truth.
Endnotes
1 Actually, the encyclical doesn’t even once use the world “capitalism.” But it does refer repeatedly to the “market economy,” a term of art which Pope John Paul II used to refer to that form of capitalism that is “the path to true economic and civil progress.” See Centesimus Annus, 42.
2 This seems consistent with what he said just six months prior to releasing CV: “the illusion that a policy of mere redistribution of existing wealth can definitively resolve the problem must be set aside. …Wealth creation therefore becomes an inescapable duty… if the fight against material poverty is to be effective in the long term.” Message of the World Day of Peace, January 1, 2009.
3 Cf. Bd. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris 137 and 138; Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes 81; Pope Paul VI, Populorum Progressio 78. See also John Paul II, Centesimus Annus 58, for a more measured and qualified repetition of this call.
4 The U.N.’s support and promotion of abortion, contraception, and other immoral activities condemned by the Church, even in this encyclical, is well known. Moreover, a recent Gallup Poll shows that 65% of Americans think “the United Nations is doing a poor job of solving the problems under its care”; see: Lydia Saad, “Americans Remain Critical of the United Nations,” March 13, 2009, <http://www.gallup.com/poll/116812/americans-remain-critical-united-nations.aspx>.
5 By their very nature it would seem clear that the ideas presented regarding a “world political authority” are prudential judgments, not principles or doctrine, and so not binding on the Catholic conscience. Pope Benedict appears to specifically indicate this as he repeatedly uses language of equivocation: “there is a strongly felt need…One also senses the urgent need…. This seems necessary...” [italics mine].
6 By this I do not mean to imply that there is a discontinuity between Bl. John XXIII (and his successors), and earlier popes. Rather it is a matter of emphasis and clarity. For example, In Pacem in Terris Bl. John was very clear in qualifying his call for a “public authority, having world-wide power,” but this tends be overshadowed by his enthusiasm toward the idea, and his optimism about the U.N..
7 As the encyclical unfolds the Holy Father places this in the context of Trinitarian interpersonal communion of love. Cf. CV 54.
8 John Paul II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 38. See also CV 7: “the good of ‘all of us’, made up of individuals, families and intermediate groups who together constitute society.”
9 See John Paul II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 38: “solidarity….is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good.” See also CV 38: “Solidarity is first and foremost a sense of responsibility on the part of everyone with regard to everyone.”
10 For the importance of this fundamental principle consider the words of Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 79. “Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do” [italics mine].
11 CV 28, 44, 45, 50, 51, 74 and 75.
12 In this regard the Holy Father also writes about the relationship between the environment and man, and the importance of protecting the “environment ecology,” but only if the centrality of the nature and ecology of man are respected. See 51: “If there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology. …Herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality and practice today: one which demeans the person, disrupts the environment and damages society.”
© Fr. John De Celles, published by Catholic Culture 2009
This item 9102 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
