The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionEncyclical tosses aside left and right
by Michael Sean Winters on Jul. 07, 2009
Pope Benedict's social encyclical shows, among other things, just how unhelpful the classic left v. right classifications are when assessing the state of contemporary church teaching. We use the terms, and we more or less know what they mean. I speak from the left. George Weigel and Michael Novak speak from the right. But, the dominant thought coming from the pope does not fit easily into those classifications. The interesting debate is not between left and right but between the "Communio" school and both the left and the right.
"Communio" refers both to a theological school and to an actual journal of theology. Joseph Ratzinger was one of the founding editors and the journal came into existence in response to the journal Concilium but it, too, was founded by those who counted themselves among the majority at Vatican II. Communio has little in common with the views of the so-called conservatives at Vatican II, those members of the hierarchy devoted to a stale neo-Thomism that saw no need to integrate the church's teachings with the insights of modern scholarship. Communio theology grows out of the "nouvelle theologie" of deLubac and others, which theology was never just "nouvelle" but is more accurately described by its other name, "ressourcement" theology. It involves a return to the sources, especially to the early church fathers, for insights into the mystery of Christ and its meaning in our lives. Just so, it has a certain pre-Enlightenment sensibility that comes through on page after page of the new encyclical.
Usually, what we mean by left and right in contemporary politics has to do with debates about the meaning of the Enlightenment. Liberals see the Enlightenment project as an on-going project, open to development, dedicated to equality as well as to freedom and willing to change its policies to meet changing times. For example, liberals today do not share Jefferson's concern about big government. Contemporary conservatives tend to invoke a more pristine liberalism, the liberalism of Adam Smith and James Madison, but do not wish to see it updated, or they invoke Burkean worries about liberalism's potential for breaking asunder traditional ways. It is worth noting that in America the views and persons we refer to as neo-conservatives are referred to in Europe as neo-liberals.
Benedict's integralism, which is characterized by a high Christology, can baptize what it finds noble in either liberal or conservative politics and economics, but it starts with Christian doctrine, with the "event of the Incarnation" not with the lived experiences of Christians. This is what makes his views seem other-worldly, but in a good way. The vision of a society and an economy imbued with Christian humanism that he presents in "Caritas in Veritate" is quite different from the vision articulated by either the American Enterprise Institute or the Center for American Progress. This difference of vision, rooted in a different point of departure for analysis, is what makes the church's teachings continually relevant and perpetually disturbing to the contending ideologies of the day. Benedict does not question the motives nor the goals of left or right. He questions their roots and their premises. Just so, in an often stale debate, his voice is fresh and interesting and invites us all to consider our biases.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
Interesting analysis. While
Interesting analysis. While he does gore the oxes of both parties, I somehow feel that the folks in "Democrats for Life" would be most pleased by it. I can't imagine many economic or cultural conservatives jumping for joy - both because he defends unions, governmental redistribution of income, regulation of financial markets and because he highlights the humanity of migrant laborers. While he issues no direct condemnations of individuals, I can't see how Republicans or Libertarians can be pleased with what he has to say.
'The vision of a society and
'The vision of a society and an economy imbued with Christian humanism that he presents in "Caritas in Veritate" is quite different from the vision articulated by either the American Enterprise Institute or the Center for American Progress."
I don't believe that Winters has thought through the implications of some of Benedict XVI's statements in the encyclical:
For instance:
Re 42. -
[...]"ensure that the redistribution of wealth does not come about through the redistribution or increase of poverty"
It is a conceit and a derangement of some very persistent people to believe they have authority, not to mention the competence, to redistribute other people's wealth on a local or global scale as acts of involuntary charity.
And then there's this:
Re 57. -
[...]"A particular manifestation of charity [...]Hence the principle of subsidiarity is particularly well-suited to managing globalization and directing it towards authentic human development. In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice."
Principle of subsidiarity or not, anything enforced at the barrel of a gun cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered "charity".
Attributed to George Washington is the antidote to that idealistic nonsense: “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Interestingly how you stopped
Interestingly how you stopped before 58, which condmens subsidiarity without solidarity. The two must exist together.
The Pope's point, by the way, is that profits are not "other people's money" if they come from not paying a just wage to your workers. That is why the encyclical is called Charity IN TRUTH. The truth part relates to Justice with a capital J.
While giving money to the poor is a voluntary act of charity - paying a just wage is an obligation of justice. Making sure that this is done is the province of the state if necessary, although Catholic business owners should not have to rely on the state - they should pay a just wage without the promptings of government.
The reason, by the way, that government involvement in this issue is desireable (and not necessarily condemned) is that in the market alone, businesses who do the right thing are penalized. Part of the government regulation of economics the Pope alludes to relates not just to the market for financial instruments, but to the market for labor.
Would it have been better if the Pope were more explicit about this? Yes. Of course, he did mention the involvement of organized labor and the International Labor Organization by name. Affirming state sponsored collective bargaining rights is very clearly calling for something that is anethema to the Republican Party. Too bad for you.
Post new comment