|
|
|
|
|
I do not wish to trivialize
an august matter by a wisecrack-title elicited from the two Greek words oikos and nomos whence economics
got its name. Taken together they translate freely as management or governance of
the household. That, ultimately up to the level of the national
household, is what economic activity is all about. Therefore economics, notwithstanding its present
shortcomings, is a valid science
about a vital sector of human existence. It is nevertheless a
work-in-progress and not an ancient science as compared, for example, with
theology or philosophy. That is notwithstanding the fact that, two venerable
ancient Greeks already provided some impressive original notions about
economic matters: I refer to Plato’s Republic
and Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics. Economics began to take
shape as a science, i.e. as a systematized body of knowledge about how
people organize human and material resources to satisfy their temporal wants,
in a much later period of history amid the growing importance of rival
European national states. It was also
a time, incidentally, when theology had been marginalized, and philosophy had
become disoriented – a time which ironically has nevertheless been designated
by historians as the Enlightenment.
With theism relegated
to the uneducated peasantry, the more “enlightened” folks came to be known as
deists. They influenced a group of
men in France called Physiocrats –
the first to refer to themselves as Les
Économistes – who ventured to
explain the “natural laws” which applied in economic life. (Present-day
economists, most of them positivists,
may be surprised to know that their science is a spin-off of what happened to
theology during the Enlightenment!) Relying on the secure basis of the
universal instinct for self-preservation, they translated this into self-interest in economic activity,
with the equally universal, i.e. natural, competitive instinct providing the necessary control
mechanism. That gave rise to the
expression: Laissez faire, laissez passer,
le monde va de lui-même. Later there came the law of markets, “discovered” by Jean Baptiste Say (1767-1832),
revealing that supply eventually gives rise to its own equivalent demand.
Then, to the great relief of employers everywhere, there was what certain
socialists would later designate as the
iron law of wages. According to it, population would adjust automatically
so as to keep the wages of workers
at bare subsistence. Such economic theories provided a
welcome prospect especially among the rising class of merchant-capitalists
and later industrial-capitalists who felt increasingly stifled by all manner
of regulations imposed by governments as well as by left-over guilds. During
that period, which economic historians have termed the Mercantilist Era,
there was a general obsession among rulers to make their respective states
dominant among the rising and contending national states by hook or by crook.
Hook-or-crook involved all manner of regulations to assure a positive balance
trade along with the influx of gold and silver to cover the negative
balances. The laissez-faire world-view reflected
the emergent worship of the goddess Liberty
that came with the French Revolution, involving among other things the
eventual vile desecration of the great Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. It
persisted long after the worst excesses of that Revolution had given way to
what, following the Napoleonic episode, appeared to be more sedate
circumstances. What is more, it shaped the economic science which was
emerging at that time into what came to be known as free market or liberal
economics – the latter expression having since evolved in contemporary usage
in the United States into its virtual opposite. With the growing political
and economic power of Great Britain, the influence of figures like Adam
Smith, Thomas Malthus, Jeremy Bentham, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill
came to play a predominant role in the development of the young science. The
kind of economics forged by these brilliant but philosophically misguided men
was what Thomas Carlyle characterized aptly as “the dismal science.” The
astute Scottish-born historian also termed as the “pig philosophy” Bentham’s
ingenuous theory that all human actions are geared solely to deriving pleasure and avoiding pain, with individuals
rather than governments obviously being better judges of what is pleasurable
for them. That led Bentham to “pearls of wisdom” like: “Nothing ought to be
done or attempted by government.” He had a great influence on John Stuart
Mill whose libertarianism, among other things, eventually got his work placed
on the Catholic Church’s Index of
Forbidden Books. Meanwhile in his
Christmas Carol and elsewhere the
novelist Charles Dickens employed his great genius to depict the glum social
conditions brought about by free market capitalism.
In the ensuing economic
tumult, the rank-and-file workingmen became the new serfs, while lacking the
minimum security enjoyed by the medieval serf class. Poor wages for service
in the emerging capitalist plutocracy constituted the high price paid for
being emancipated from feudal lords and the landed aristocracy. In the
capitalistic system the worker came to be treated like merchandise on the
market. Other industrial nations on the European continent and elsewhere had
no choice but to conduct themselves in the same manner if they wished to
remain afloat in the competitive struggle. The majority of mankind, including
colonial subjects who provided an abundant supply of cheap labor in the
imperial territories (which also provided cheap raw materials for the budding
industries), emerged as the “down-trodden working class.” Their plight
eventually stimulated the awakening of certain revolutionary spirits on the
European continent, notably in Germany and France. The continent that had
given birth to the free market ideology now nurtured equally talented
agitators who fancied the prospect of putting an end to capitalist hegemony. The German-born
Jew-turned-atheist Karl Marx (1818-1883) was one among many socialists; but
he left his mark as the most methodical and allegedly “scientific” one in
moving the ideological pendulum to the opposite end of its arc from liberal
or free-market capitalism. Other socialists before and after him included the
moderate Frenchmen Claude Saint Simon (1760-1825) and Charles Fourier
(1772-1837) who were classed as Utopian.
More radical ones followed like Louis Blanc (1811-1882), and Pierre Proudhon
(1809-1865) who proclaimed that “Property is theft.” There were other German
revolutionaries besides Marx, like Karl Rodbertus (1805-1875) who proclaimed
an “iron law of wages” (subsistence), and Ferdinand Lassalle (1825-1864) who
first spoke of capital as “the dead instrument of past labor.” Then there
were figures after Marx, like Karl Kautsky (1854-1938), and the two
practicing revolutionaries, Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) and Leon Trotsky
(1879-1940), who began putting Marx’s nightmarish scheme into operation in
1917. More faint-hearted followers emerged who were referred to as
“Revisionists” because they envisioned a more evolutionary approach to the
socialist vision, like Eduard Bernstein (1850-1932). In any case, the world
bears witness to the grim fact that the ideas promoted by Karl Marx
eventually inspired a revolution which turned the world upside down in 1917;
and it persists even now in somewhat bastardized form in the most populous
nation on earth.
That was but the first of
several encyclicals addressed to the economic order by successive Roman
Pontiffs until the present and latest one by Pope Benedict XVI. Caritas in Veritate bears the official
issue date 29 June 2009, although it did not actually appear until 7 July
2009. The delay is attributed to the perceived need to factor in the
implications of the banker-driven, speculation-based collapse of the
financial system in the United States, spreading to economies worldwide in
autumn of 2008. The usual gaggle of
speed-readers showed up early to critique this at times complex work by
Benedict XVI, the scholar-pope. Not much of what the Pope, a profound
scholar, writes is lacking in complexity. So the encyclical does not lend
itself well to a quick read. For the unsympathetic and impatient, that can
lead to all manner of inane and often ideologically-based intimations like:
social encyclicals are by no means infallible proclamations; they are
prudential in nature; they suffer from the peculiar ideological bias of
European popes along with their advisors and writers, etc., etc. And, of
course, there is the predictable litany of
“the pope should have” type second-guessing by those who feel that
they certainly know better. Lost in the frenzy is, among other things, the
important lesson presented by Pope John Paul II in the second of his
important trilogy of social encyclicals, Sollicitudo
Rei Socialis (1987). There the Polish pope, who held doctorates in both
theology and philosophy (ethics), pointed out that the Church’s social doctrine
“…belongs to the field, not of ideology,
but of theology and particularly of
moral theology”(41). In the area of faith and morals, the Pope by himself or in council with his bishops is
accepted by Catholics as the sole divinely protected teacher. The German pope is by
training, inclination, and long practice a theologian. This is reflected
perhaps in the fact that all three of his encyclicals thus far, including the
latest one, address the theological virtues: Deus Caritas Est (2005);
Spe Salvi (2007); and Caritas in Veritate (2009). John Paul
II had sought to emphasize that in its social doctrine the Church is teaching
in the area of morals. The moral theology courses which I took as a young man
in the seminary did indeed involve important tracts on the virtues. These included specifically
the theological virtues of faith, hope,
and charity, as well as the
cardinal virtues: prudence, justice,
temperance and fortitude. The
early social encyclicals by Leo XIII and Pius XI placed great emphasis on justice and specifically social justice. Not that the virtue of charity was by any
means omitted. Indeed the virtue of social
charity was presented alongside the virtue of social justice in the landmark Pius XI social encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (1931) as the, “(M)ore
lofty and noble principles” needed to establish social order (88). Even then,
a specific definition of the virtue of social
justice was not offered until several years later (1937) in his
encyclical on Atheistic Communism (Divini Redemptoris).[3]
For a more detailed exposition about the virtue of social charity, many more years were to pass. This demonstrates
among other things that the social teachings of the Catholic Church are a
work-in-progress, and they cannot be treated simply as a discontinuous series
of essays issued at the whim of various popes down through the ages. Unfortunately Pius XII,
the brilliant immediate successor of Pius XI, is neglected in matters
relating to Catholic social teachings.[4]
While he did not issue any social
encyclicals as such, he did reaffirm, elucidate, and expand the teachings of
his predecessors in his many allocutions, radio messages, and encyclicals.[5]
For example it was that great Pontiff who first used the term solidarity with great and growing
frequency in his masterful and eloquent Christmas
Messages, as well as in other addresses on a wide variety of
occasions. In fact the vernacular
Spanish title given to his very important first encyclical, Summi Pontificatus (1939), was Solidaridad humana y Estado totalitario.
Blessed John XXIII and Paul VI continued using the expression in the relevant
sense throughout their own social encyclicals. Finally in 1987 John Paul II,
devoted an entire chapter (V) in the second of his great trilogy of social
encyclicals, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis,
to explain the meaning and certain applications of the concept, solidarity. He ended up actually
paraphrasing the “Pax opus iustitia”
expression of the Old Testament Prophet Isaiah (Is. 32:17) by introducing the
term, “Opus solidaritatis pax”
(39). At that point, the man who had come to be known as the “Pope of
Solidarity,” mainly because of his support of the Polish labor union, Solidarnosc, which was instrumental in
making an end to the Soviet Empire, stated – or perhaps one should say, taught: “Solidarity is undoubtedly a Christian
virtue”(SRS 40). The great
Pope’s trilogy was completed in 1991 in the third of his social encyclicals, Centesimus Annus. There he wrote,
referring to “what we nowadays call the principle of solidarity,” that “Pope
Pius XI refers to it with the equally useful term ‘social charity.’”(CA 10). It is the same principle that Benedict XVI cites now
in his social encyclical Caritas in
Veritate (58), where he mentions solidarity
some forty times in the critical relevant sense.
More specific to Pope Paul
VI himself, it was he who overrode the consensus reached by the majority of
the experts whom he appointed to study the moral implications of the evolving
technology, especially the contraceptive pill, for the Catholic Church’s
teaching about birth control.[6]
His prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae
(1968) provoked a reaction seldom equaled in intensity during the
post-Reformation era. The repercussions of the ensuing virtual schism, as
well as the actual schism stemming
from liturgical changes activated in the Paul VI papacy, are grave and still
ongoing for the Church and for the world. That being said, they are not directly relevant to what Pope Benedict
XVI wished to deal with in Caritas in
Veritate. What is directly relevant here is the fact
that Pope Benedict XVI is referencing this, his first strictly-speaking social encyclical, on the basis of
ground broken by Paul VI in the encyclical Populorum Progressio in 1967. In fact it is in a certain sense
its sequel. That is already noteworthy, since previous pontiffs have
typically issued their social encyclicals to mark anniversaries of Rerum Novarum or some subsequent
commemoration of it. One other noteworthy exception was the second social
encyclical by Pope John Paul II, Sollicitudo
Rei Socialis, which also commemorated Populorum
Progressio in the 20th year after its appearance. What was
distinctive about Populorum Progressio
is that it was the first social encyclical addressing specifically the
world-wide dimensions and applications of the principles, social justice and
social charity - principles that Pius XI had presented for reestablishing
“social order,” in economic life (Q.A.
88). Not that the alert old pontiff
(who had to deal with the three radical dictators, Stalin, Hitler, and
Mussolini) was unaware of the world-wide dimensions of the emerging
situation! Directly after he established social
justice and social charity as
principles for restoring social order, he stated: “Further, it would be well
if the various nations in common counsel and effort strove to promote a
healthy economic cooperation by prudent pacts and institutions, since in
economic matters they are largely dependent on one another, and need one
another’s help” (Q.A. 89). For
1931, that was a remarkably prescient statement, foreshadowing the
intensification of the solidarity among
nations. It clearly anticipated the kind of social teaching that Pope Paul VI
would establish as the central theme of Populorum
Progressio; and it would provide a continuum
along with what Pius XII would have to say in his first encyclical Summi Pontificatus (1939). His
successor, Blessed John XXIII moved forthrightly into the worldwide dimension
with both of his social encyclicals, Mater
et Magistra (1961) and Pacem in Terris (1963), thus paving
the way for Pope Paul VI and Populorum
Progressio in 1967. While the second of the
Polish Pope’s social encyclicals ( Sollicitudo
Rei Socialis) was for the most part dismissed in the United States with
intense silence, Populorum Progressio (On the Development of Peoples) had
aroused the ire of the kind of ideologues who would later come to be known as “neo-conservatives.”[7]
Aside from their bellicose political prepossessions in favor of preemptive
wars which would eventually threaten to bankrupt the United States, in their
economic ideology these folks are passionately devoted to the free market and
to the kind of economic theory (“oinkonomics”)
which inevitably comes with that, as the usury-based economic collapse in
2008 proved once again. Pope Paul VI, now hailed as Venerable by his Church, was treated harshly in the Wall Street Journal where his appeal
for the global spread of social justice and social charity (solidarity) in Populorum Progressio was criticized
editorially as “warmed over Marxism.” [8]
He did not endear himself to those whose thinking failed to progress beyond
18th century economics and its latter-day revival by the two
Jewish agnostics, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek (a former socialist),
joined later by the University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman. It did
not assuage the feelings of their disciples at all that the gentle Pope, in
his Apostolic Letter Octogesima
Adveniens (35) in 1971, warned precisely against the “renewal of the
liberal ideology.” (Again, the word liberal
is used here in its traditional European sense which is the virtual opposite
of its meaning in contemporary American usage). Introduction
Long after the
blood-drenched instrument for the “liberation” of the masses – Madame
Guillotine - had faded into history, worship of the Goddess of Liberty persisted in later centuries specifically in
the confused political and economic thinking of leaders and common folk
alike.[9]
As if to counter this ongoing cult, Pope Benedict devoted the Introduction to his first social
encyclical to exorcising the distorted notion of liberty which has caused such great tumult in the modern era. The
critical scriptural reference in this regard is the passage from St. John’s
Gospel (8:32). It is cited as the first and also as the
last such reference in the introductory chapter: “… then you will know the
truth and the truth will set you free”[10]. That has little to do with the freedom
which libertarians everywhere, before and since the French Revolution, have
been fantasizing about as they dance freely
but blindly around the edge of the abyss, time and again toppling to their
doom. As its title indicates, that represents the keynote for this
encyclical. Its author says here: “Fidelity to man requires fidelity to the
truth, which alone is the guarantee of freedom…:” paraphrasing the important
words of Jesus Christ as contained in the quotation from St. John’s Gospel.
Indeed, the fact that the scriptural quotation (Jn 8:32) is cited again near
the close of the Introduction
suggests that it is the leitmotif of
Pope Benedict’s first social encyclical. He may have disappointed some by not
getting involved in the more technical aspects of economics for which, as he
states, he has neither the expertise nor the authority. He is not an
economist or a business analyst, but the head of the largest and oldest
Christian Church dating back to Jesus Christ and Peter, the Galilean
fisherman. It is the same Church which Pope Paul VI had characterized as “an
expert in humanity.” As John Paul II pointed out in Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (41), the Church’s social teachings have
to do with theology, specifically moral
theology. And aside from being the pope, in theology Benedict XVI, like
his Polish predecessor, is a lifelong master. In the encyclical Caritas in Veritate he is presenting
the truth specifically about charity
and the gap its absence leaves, as he lays bare once again the moral causes underlying the ongoing
deficiencies and encroaching breakdown of the economic order. The present economic
mayhem is related not merely to the widespread absence of charity, but also to our deficient
grasp of the essential truths about
human nature and human relationships specifically in the economic order.
These include now, as in the time of Leo XIII, the true meaning of freedom;
and it has little to do with what paleo-liberals like the French Physiocrats
and the Anglo economists Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill, along with
neo-liberals like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek have proposed for our
belief. Therefore, this encyclical may be seen precisely and above all as
itself a great act of charity in
that its author is presenting certain important truths about man in our once again faltering socio-economic
order. That is neatly summed up by what Pope Benedict affirms at the outset –
that “the Church’s social teaching ... is caritas
in veritate in re sociali: the proclamation of the truth of Christ’s love
in society” (5). A major theme that
persists throughout Caritas in Veritate
is introduced in the last paragraph of the Introduction. As it was to his predecessors, including Pope Paul
VI whom Pope Benedict is commemorating by this encyclical, the concept solidarity is crucial to his social
teaching, directed as it is to the global “de facto interdependence” (9)
that has become increasingly pertinent also for world peace since the era
following World War II. Populorum
Progressio was devoted in a distinctive manner to the grave implications
that came with the start of the post-imperial era. It was then that a huge
gulf in living standards between the established industrialized nations and
the many newly constituted independent nations – the so-called Third World – became an especially
serious challenge to the harmony and peace of the world. Pope Benedict expressed his concern here,
since interdependence which has
long since become a critical fact of life “is not matched by ethical
interactions of consciences and minds that would give rise to truly human
development”(9). In other words, what the Pope finds troubling here is the
lack of progress in the area of social charity - the Christian virtue of solidarity proclaimed by John Paul II
in Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (40).[11]
This becomes ever more apparent as he proceeds through the six chapters of
the encyclical. The Message
of Populorum Progressio For a Church which still
suffers from internal contention between those who felt that the Second
Vatican Council provided a pretext for changing everything including defined
doctrines of faith and morals, and those who took scandal to the extent that
they rejected the Council itself, Pope Benedict appropriately emphasizes here
the link between the body of its social doctrine and the Vatican II Pastoral
Constitution Gaudium et Spes. The
former includes Populorum Progressio
which this encyclical commemorates explicitly, as well as Sollicitudo Rei Socialis issued by John Paul II 20 years later. Perhaps suggesting the reason why he is
commemorating a largely overlooked encyclical by a man whose papacy was
considered by some as disappointing, the German Pope tells us that “... his
social magisterium … was certainly
a social teaching of great importance.” He indicated the reason for this:
“Paul VI clearly understood that the social question had become worldwide;”
also: that “he grasped the ideal of a single family of peoples in solidarity
and fraternity.” Thus: “… he proposed Christian charity as the principal
force at the service of development”(13). As if to assure a
restoration of attention for an under-appreciated pope, Pope Benedict draws
attention to three other social documents by Pope Paul VI: first there was
the Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens (1971); and then there
were two “without any direct link to social doctrine.” They are the
encyclical Humanae Vitae (1968),
and the Apostolic Letter Evangelii
Annuntiandi (1975). The first was certainly related to the body of social
doctrine, as it opposed both the Marxist ideology as well as the “renewal of
the liberal ideology” which in the United States is the neo-conservative (or
neo-liberal) return to free market economics. It also warns against “the danger constituted by utopian and
ideological visions that place its ethical and human dimensions in jeopardy.”
Utopian visions would seem to
include the persistent and often recurring nostalgic distributism where, it seems, all would be resettled as owners of
a small parcel of land allowing space for agriculture with modest husbandry,
or self-employment at some craft. As the saying goes: “That ship has sailed!”[12] As Pope Benedict stated here: “The idea of
a world without development indicates a lack of trust in man and in God”. It
is an opposite reaction to one of two opposing naive responses to resolving
“the social question” which the Church has now been addressing seriously in
its social teachings from 1891 to 2009! The Pope identifies the two here: “Idealizing technical
progress or contemplating the utopia of a return to humanity’s original
state, are two contrasting ways of detaching progress from its moral
evaluation and hence from our responsibility”(14). While Pope Benedict states
that Humanae Vitae and Evangelii Annuntiandi do not have a direct link to social doctrine, there
is no denying a definite indirect
link. Among other things, Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), the Anglican minister
noted for his gloomy population theory, has been ranked among classical economists since long before
demography emerged as a separate discipline. His theories in somewhat updated
form – often characterized later as neo-Malthusianism – about an inveterate
and irremediable disproportion between population growth and food supply,
along with the impact on wages and on economic development, continue to
influence contemporary discussion until now. Indeed the population factor
continues to play an important role in the economic policies of many nations.[13]
And in the widespread anti-natalist policies at large in today’s world lies the obvious link to the Church’s social teaching. As for Evangelii Nuntiandi, Pope Benedict
indicates: “Between evangelization and human advancement – development and
liberation – there are in fact profound links”(15). The Church is entitled to
speak about this because it deals with “the meaning of man’s pilgrimage
through history in company with his fellow human beings” with reference to
“the goal of that journey…” That is what led Pope Paul VI to shed “the light
of the Gospel on the social questions of his time”(16). And what makes Populorum Progressio “still timely in
our day” is its vision of “development as a vocation.” That “development” he
informs us has to do not “with merely technical aspects of human life” but
with “the meaning of man’s pilgrimage through history in company with his
fellow human beings…and with identifying the goal of that journey…”(16). Ultimately the notion of
“development as a vocation” involves “the central place of charity within
that development”(19). And since Pope Paul VI pointed out that “the causes of
underdevelopment are not primarily of the material order … we are to search
for them in other dimensions of the human person, first of all, in the will,
which often neglects the duties of solidarity.” It is worth recalling here
that solidarity is the same as what
Pius XI nearly a century ago referred to as “social charity.” He established
it then as one of the two “noble principles” (along with social justice) needed to reestablish social order! Pope
Benedict now cites precisely “the lack of brotherhood among individuals and
peoples as a major cause of underdevelopment; and he indicates the need for
what Pope Paul had termed, “the need
for deep thought and reflection of wise men in search of a new humanism.” But
that is not enough, because reason “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.” Therein lies
precisely the Christian vocation! Human Development in Our Time The second chapter
provides the update to our own time with frequent references to the current
“crisis.” Basically there is an admission that, despite much economic growth,
the vision of Pope Paul VI in Populorum
Progressio – and that encyclical was already permeated by what seemed to
be a Cassandra-cry of desperation - remain unfulfilled. It resounds with a
lament that basic flaws present in 1967 remain even now. The utility of profit as a valid concept is affirmed, so long as it remains as
“a means toward an end,” (21) and not as the overpowering “exclusive goal”
itself that is generated by “improper means and without the common good as
its ultimate end.” That synopsizes in few words a quintessential element of
the Catholic Church’s social doctrine! Clearly the debacle of 2008 saw profit once again becoming the
“exclusive goal” generated by “improper means,” with the common good nowhere in sight either as a proximate goal or as its
“ultimate end.” At its core are financial institutions engaging in usurious
transactions and speculation in real estate and other financial instruments
so sophisticated that ordinary mortals cannot understand, let alone explain,
what is going on. The notion of the common
good is greeted by such operators even now with the same cynicism evident
in Adam Smith’s 18th century discussion of the “public good”
mentioned earlier. Also, the
“invisible hand” is indeed at work extracting money from the citizens’
pockets in order to pay the usurers. And those unscrupulous operators are basically
no different from the ones Pope Leo XIII warned about when he spoke of the prevalence
of “rapacious usury” in 1891 (RN
2). The instruments have changed. Now they include also high interest rate
credit cards, and so-called adjustable-rate mortgages by which countless
numbers of unenlightened citizens have spent themselves into bankruptcy.
It is at this point in Caritas in Veritate that Pope Benedict
begins to dwell on the plight of workers as a consequence of the unhealthy drift
of economies in the situation leading up to the present crisis. In other words, he is back to the
unfinished business of Rerum Novarum
faced by Leo XIII. The pressure to “outsource production at low cost” leads
among other things to “deregulation of the labor market.”(25). That may lead,
among other things, to “a downsizing of social security systems … with
consequent grave danger for the rights of workers.” The German pope then
speaks of a resultant “powerlessness” on the part of workers’ associations,
and of “trade union organizations” experiencing “greater difficulty in carrying
out their task of representing the interests of workers…” In the United
States, after the enactment of significant progressive labor legislation
during the New Deal era in the 1930’s, there followed an unprecedented growth
in union membership and power. Soon after World War II a reverse reaction set
in beginning with the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. Today, American labor unions represent
scarcely half as many workers as in 1945; that is aside from government
employee unions which came as a relatively new concept starting in the
1960’s. (They represent in certain significant respects a different
phenomenon). Since then “traditional networks of solidarity have more and
more obstacles to overcome … . (T)he repeated calls issued within the
Church’s social doctrine beginning with Rerum
Novarum for the promotion of workers’ associations that can defend their
rights must therefore be honored today even more than in the past….”(25). Pope Benedict XVI
associates the growing “uncertainty of working conditions with “a climate of
deregulation” which definitely became a factor in countries like the United
States where the neo-liberal mentality took increasing hold after the 1970’s.
That was bolstered even more by the surge in globalism which led to
protective tariff reductions worldwide. (Largely forgotten was the fact that
in the original European Common Market, nations were not admitted as new members
until they had already reached a certain level of parity in basic labor
standards so as to avoid unfair competition with the workers in the original
founding nations). From that stem the conditions giving rise to his concern
about “the new forms of psychological instability” which lead to “difficulty
in forging coherent life-plans, including that of marriage.” Being the head
of his Church, Benedict XVI can do no less than deal with the whole man – who
is more than simply a factor of production! That leads the German Pope to
concern also about “the freedom and creativity of the person and his family
and social relationships, causing great psychological and spiritual
suffering.”(25) Those who operate on the
erroneous assumption that later social teachings by the Church supercede
prior ones, rendering them obsolete, are hereby put on notice that this is
not so! Some among the privileged sectors of society have been breathing a
sigh of relief for some time over the fact that the power of organized labor
which began to increase following the earlier social encyclicals, has since
diminished with the vehement re-emergence of the self-righteous free market
mentality. They forget that what genuinely works in the legitimate interests
of the majority of the population, can scarcely be regarded as opposed to the
good of society overall, in other words, the
common good. The working classes in any normally configured
post-agricultural social economy constitute the preponderant majority of
people who derive most of their income from their work. If they are not secure and prosperous,
their society is not secure and prosperous. Pope Leo XIII emphasized that
point in Rerum Novarum back in 1891 (34), and it is no less true
today. The “current crisis” of which
the Pope speaks again here can only highlight this fact. Pope Benedict has more to
say with regard to “the mobility of labor associated with a climate of
deregulation.” He states that “… uncertainty over working conditions caused
by mobility and deregulation, when it becomes endemic, tends to create new
forms of psychological instability, giving rise to difficulty in forging
coherent life-plans including that of marriage.” And “This leads to
situations of human decline to say nothing of the waste of social resources.”
The Pope once again relates such problems to “new forms of economic
marginalization,” which “the current crisis can only make worse.”
That discussion led to the emphasis on “solidarity with poor
countries in the process of development” which Pope Benedict felt “can point
toward a solution of the current crisis…”(27). How so? “Through support for
economically poor countries by means of financial plans inspired by
solidarity – so that these countries can take steps to satisfy their own
citizens’ demand for consumer goods and for development – not only can true
economic growth be generated, but a contribution can be made towards
sustaining the productive capacities of rich countries that risk being
compromised by the crisis”(27). There appears to be a suggestion of the kind
of “pump-priming” activity as took shape also in the last great crisis during
the 1930’s. It is interesting that
the Pope is offering this in the context where he is speaking of “food and access to water as universal
right of all human beings….” At this point Pope
Benedict made what some may choose to regard as a digression from the purely
economic aspects of the problem at hand, i.e. the economic crisis. He introduced the “question of respect for
life,” and the attendant denial of the right
to religious freedom. He nevertheless insisted that “the important
question of respect for life … cannot
in any way be detached from questions concerning the development of peoples.”
Why? Because the notion, poverty and underdevelopment must be considered in
association with “acceptance of life, especially in cases where it is impeded
in a variety of ways”(28). One problem seems to be the widespread failure to
regard the working human person as not only a consumer of food and other
resources, but also as their main producer. It has been said: “With every
mouth comes a pair of hands.” The noted British
economist Colin Clark (1905-1989) sided with a minority of the experts with
whom Pope Paul VI chose to consult about the population problem in terms of
the food supply and the new technological breakthroughs in birth control,
(mainly “the pill”). Clark had drawn attention to the incentive that
population pressure brought to bear for more intensive production and the
wiser use of available resources, for example in countries like Japan and the
Netherlands.[16] In the
end, the Pope’s decision coincided with Clark’s thinking. But since then, even while food production
increased dramatically in nations that had been considered economic “basket
cases,” birth control, including even government-enforced limitation of
births (China), and euthanasia have spread widely. In fact we have reached
the point where in much of Europe, as well as Japan, birth rates have fallen
below the replacement level. Pope Benedict XVI points to what has transpired,
with the warning: “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” (28). But what of “the denial of
the right to religious freedom?” Given the daily headlines about terrorist
bombings and countless deaths and destruction in some parts of the world in
the name of religion, can there be any doubt but that, “Violence puts the
brakes on authentic development and impedes the evolution of peoples toward
greater socio-economic and spiritual well-being”(29)? The Pope, being the
world’s foremost religious leader, could not neglect mentioning at this point
also how the impact of “the deliberate promotion of religious indifference or
practical atheism on the part of many countries obstructs the development of
peoples, depriving them of spiritual and human resources.” That is because: “God is the guarantor of
man’s true development.” Returning to specifically
economic measures toward the end of the chapter, there is the requirement
that “economic choices do not cause disparities in wealth to increase in an
excessive and morally unacceptable manner” (32). In addition Pope Benedict restates the need “to prioritize the
goal of access to steady employment for everyone.” The reason given makes
this one of the very significant, specifically economics-related proposals in
the encyclical: “Through the systemic increase in social inequality, both
within a single country and between the populations of different countries (
i.e. the massive increase in relative poverty), not only does social cohesion
suffer, thereby placing democracy at risk,
but so too does the economy, through the progressive erosion of
‘social capital’: the network of relationships of trust, dependability, and
respect for rules, all of which are indispensable for any form of civil
coexistence.” What is more: “Economic
science tells us that structural insecurity generates anti-productive
attitudes wasteful of human resources, inasmuch as workers tend to adapt
passively to automatic mechanisms, rather than to release creativity.” That
leads to this incisive papal statement.
“Human costs always include economic costs, and economic dysfunctions
always involve human costs”(32). In the forty years that
have passed since Populorum Progressio,
the Pope continues: “… its basic theme, namely progress, remains an open
question…” That is now aggravated by “the current economic and financial
crisis.” Problems like “high tariffs imposed by economically developed
countries” persist; and these “still make it difficult for the products of
poor countries to gain a foothold in the markets of the rich countries”(33). The “principal new
feature” since Populorum Progressio
has been “the explosion of worldwide interdependence, commonly known as
globalization.” And that has progressed at what Pope Benedict refers to here
as a “ferocious pace.” What it
implies is at one and the same time a “great opportunity” and the threat of
“unprecedented damage and…great divisions within the human family.” Perhaps
the threat underlying the ominous prophetic tone throughout Populorum Progressio is coming to
realization in our time! Obviously de
facto interdependence, now more than ever on a global scale, implies the
need for its recognition and acceptance in charity in the form that Pius XI
termed it – social charity, – or in
its John Paul II expression, solidarity. Here Pope Benedict XVI reverts to the term
– “civilization of love” – which his immediate predecessor attributed to the
pope whom he is commemorating by this encyclical. Rupert J. Ederer is
professor emeritus of economics at SUNY Buffalo and the translator of
Heinrich Pesch. This piece, the first of a two-part article, appeared in the
March 2010 issue of Culture Wars. The second
part appears in the May 2010 issue, individual copies of which are available
for $6 each within the U.S., or $10 if shipped internationally (prices
include s&h). [1] Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (New York: Random
House, 1937), p. 423 [2] Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est, 27 (2005) [3] “Now it is of the very essence of social justice to demand from each individual all that is necessary for the common good.” [4] I hope to make a start toward remedying this unfortunate lapse with the forthcoming publication of my book entitled: Pope Pius XII On the Economic Order. [5] Cf. the definitive 3 volume work in German: Soziale Summe Pius XII, compiled by Arthur-Fridolin Utz, O.P. and Joseph-Fulko Gröner, O.P., and published by the Paulus Verlag in Freiburg, Switzerland in 1961. [6] Many years ago I was privileged to serve with the noted British economist Colin Clark on a lecture panel in St. Louis dealing with the so-called overpopulation problem. Clark, the father of nine, was one of the experts appointed to Pope Paul’s commission of advisors for the encyclical Humanae Vitae. The Pope sided with the minority, which included Clark, in opposition to artificial birth control. [7] John Paul II used the expression “neoliberalism” in his Apostolic Constitution Ecclesia in America (56) in 1999; and Paul VI had referred to it in 1971 as “a renewal of the liberal ideology” ( Octogesima Adveniens, 35). [8] Wall Street Journal, p. 14, March 30, 1967. [9]Much of United States coinage until recent years bore the Liberty image in various forms and poses. [10] It is most unfortunate and not without some irony that the Pope’s proof-readers erred in posting this all-important very first scriptural reference in his encyclical as John 8: 22. That passage in St. John’s Gospel is totally irrelevant to the terms of the discussion. John 8:32, on the other hand, is of the utmost relevance in that it posits truth as the guarantee of true freedom to do what is right – i.e. what corresponds to both justice and charity. [11] For whatever reason, none of the popes who wrote social encyclicals have mentioned by name the great Jesuit economist Heinrich Pesch (1854-1926) who, in a five volume work, developed the outline for an economic system which he called Solidarism. Its operative principle is solidarity the application of which he extended throughout society from its cell unit - the family - to intermediate (occupational) groups, to citizens of the same country, and eventually to “the universal solidarity of all mankind.” Cf. Heinrich Pesch S.J., Lehrbuch der Nationalökonomie/Teaching Guide to Economics, trans. Rupert J. Ederer. (Lewiston, N.Y. : The Edwin Mellen Press, 2002), Vol. II, Bk.1, pp. 235-316. [12] One should consider the prospects of redeploying the millions of hyper-industrious inhabitants of Hong Kong, or for that matter the population of New York City or London to small shops or farms. This could imply perhaps a post-doomsday scenario which, pray God, will remain science-fiction, like the kind of economy it proposes. [13] Heinrich Pesch identified the pressure stemming from population growth as leading to greater productivity, i.e, to a wiser use of available resources. His conclusion about the relationship was summed up by his proposition: “ …where care has been taken to safeguard the quality of a nation’s people, generally there will be no need for concern about their quantity.” (Pesch/Ederer, op. cit. II, 2, p. 193). [14] Depending
on whose figures one uses, CEO compensation is now some 431 times that of
non-management production workers as compared with 71 times their pay in 1965. [15]A most significant recent statement about human labor and its priority is the John Paul II social encyclical Laborem Exercens. It proves definitively that the status of human labor and the just wage to which it is entitled still holds top priority in the Church’s social teachings. See paragraph 89. [16] Cf. Colin Clark, Population Growth and Land Use, (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1968). |
|
|
|
|
|
| Home | Books | DVDs/CDs | Orders/Subscriptions | Culture Wars | Events | Donate | |
Culture Wars • 206
Marquette Avenue • South Bend, IN 46617 • Tel: (574) 289-9786 • Fax: (574)
289-1461
Copyright