Nationally Syndicated Columnist: "Those @#$% Catholics Even Worse Than The @#$% Jews!" [UPDATED]

[NB: I'm appending to this piece a caveat, for what it's worth. Evidently, The Catholic League is calling for Stiehm's dismissal from Creators Syndicate as a result of her worthless and stupid column. I want to distance myself from that in a public way. I think she should be engaged, disproven, shamed, and pilloried for her bigotry and unreasonableness. But I am a bit off the trend of getting people fired for failing public discourse because I think that such actions themselves represent an equally egregious failure of the same.] 

---

Yep, you read the headline right.

That is, effectively, the upshot of this wild screed by Jamie Stiehm in U.S. News and World Report.

F'realz. Don't believe me? Writing about Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor's recent grant of an injunction protecting the Colorado-based Little Sisters of the Poor (L.S.P.) from enforcement of the H.H.S. Mandate through the imposition of penalizing fines while they pursue a case in federal court alleging the Government's "accommodation" still requires them to violate their conscience, Stiehm laments:

She cray-cray, as the kids say.

Sotomayor's blow brings us to confront an uncomfortable reality. More than WASPS, Methodists, Jews, Quakers or Baptists, Catholics often try to impose their beliefs on you, me, public discourse and institutions. Especially if "you" are female. [...]

Catholics in high places of power have the most trouble, I've noticed, practicing the separation of church and state. The pugnacious Catholic Justice, Antonin Scalia, is the most aggressive offender on the Court, but not the only one. Of course, we can't know for sure what Sotomayor was thinking, but it seems she has joined the ranks of the five Republican Catholic men on the John Roberts Court in showing a clear religious bias when it comes to women's rights and liberties. We can no longer be silent about this. Thomas Jefferson, the principal champion of the separation between state and church, was thinking particularly of pernicious Rome in his writings. He deeply distrusted the narrowness of Vatican hegemony.

The Pope Worships Gaia!

... at least, such a headline would not be a stretch to approximating the sensationalism in the press over the Pope's recently released message for the 43rd World Day of Peace.

First of all, it's worth pointing out that this isn't anything new.

Secondly, LifeSiteNews.com, at least, has a good editorial on the matter. They allude to the noteworthy fact that the Pope's document remained largely unnoticed by the media until somebody had a slow news day and decided there was something to be sensationalized here.

Third, the document itself isn't anything earth-shattering. Or, rather, it isn't remarkably innovative. It's earth-shattering in the sense that the Gospel and its ministers are like fire upon the earth and always seem supersubstantial in contrast to the mundane truisms we encounter each day. But it isn't like the Pope is sounding a clarion call of liberalism or saying that, after all, maybe trees is people too.

No, this is the same sort of thing we've heard before, although I have to say I love more and more Benedict's style. His message for last year on this occasion, as well as this one, have a neat style of recapitulation where the "theme" becomes something like an affirmative command at the end.

There's really not much in the document to parse. You really ought to read it yourself - it isn't long. And hopefully, if anyone tells you that this should be best understood under some divisive hermeneutic between the real Benedict and his Marxist "handlers," you can tell 'em where to go. (No, no, I didn't mean there. Here.)

It is noteworthy that the Pope does not in the document explicitly mention anthropogenic global warming, per se. He speaks of an "ecological crisis," which can mean anything from the depletion of drinking water sources to overfishing to deforestation. He also condemns any policies or philosophies that "end up abolishing the distinctiveness and superior role of human beings."

From a Distributivist point of view, there are certain passages in the statement which warm the heart. My favorite is from paragraph five:

Prudence would thus dictate a profound, long-term review of our model of development, one which would take into consideration the meaning of the economy and its goals with an eye to correcting its malfunctions and misapplications. The ecological health of the planet calls for this, but it is also demanded by the cultural and moral crisis of humanity whose symptoms have for some time been evident in every part of the world. Humanity needs a profound cultural renewal; it needs to rediscover those values which can serve as the solid basis for building a brighter future for all. Our present crises – be they economic, food-related, environmental or social – are ultimately also moral crises, and all of them are interrelated. They require us to rethink the path which we are travelling together. Specifically, they call for a lifestyle marked by sobriety and solidarity, with new rules and forms of engagement, one which focuses confidently and courageously on strategies that actually work, while decisively rejecting those that have failed. Only in this way can the current crisis become an opportunity for discernment and new strategic planning [emphasis in original].

His holiness goes on to saliently observe that "the issue of environmental degradation challenges us to examine our life-style and the prevailing models of consumption and production, which are often unsustainable from a social, environmental and even economic point of view" [my emphasis]. This is a particularly important point for Distributists, who alone seem to be very cognizant of the economic imperative arising from legitimate sustainability concerns. Infinite wealth creation, or reliance upon price mechanisms rather than on changing and shaping values toward better stewardship, are ill-conceived plans by theoreticians who would view sustainability as a threat (see, for example, Tyler A. Watts, "Sustainaibility: An Assault on Economics" on Mises Daily).

I was also very pleased by the Holy Father's handling of the need for "intergenerational solidary," which he called for in his encyclical. This is a sort of late-comer onto the scene of Catholic Social Teaching, and has very profound economic implications, especially with a fiat currency, money-as-debt system fueling Western nations' economies. We're running future generations not only into an unsustainable position with regard to natural resources, but in terms of financial sustainability as well. This all ties in very well with some research I'm doing currently into the idea of a "demographic winter" - that the homes and resources being used up and required by the current aging population will leave us, 30 years down the road, in quite a predicament. We think there's a bad housing market now? Well, what will happen if people continue to conceive and bear children at such a severe deficit compared to their grand-parents' generation? What will happen when only a quarter of the number of people currently retired in Florida, for example, are set to retire in a future generation when all those folks have died? Only every fourth house may be occupied. Think that won't cause problems to banks on the mortgage front? And that's just one of many scenarios in which we face disaster in light of current demographic trends. Intergenerational solidarity is going to become increasingly important: but all this is a for a future post. I'll be reviewing the documentaries Demographic Winter and The Demographic Bomb in the days to come. So stay tuned.

In the meantime, if you haven't yet, go and check out the Pope's message and keep an eye out for these important economically relevant points. Of course, really, the whole thing is economically relevant - a fact which is, itself, a major point which the Holy Father is making: "economic activity needs to consider the fact that "every economic decision has a moral consequence'."

I'm sure there are plenty more points worthy of discussion that I haven't hit. Please come back to the combox and share them. I'll take this opportunity to reiterate that I want this to be a place of discussion. So, please, lend a hand!

And the winner is...

... I cringe to admit it. But so far, the most salient thing I've read in the mainstream media about the Pope's encyclical - the most understanding, fair-minded view of the document - comes from (gulp) the Republican Party. Father Z. has it:

Statement by House GOP Leaders Boehner & McCotter on Pope Benedict XVI’s Caritas in Veritate

WASHINGTON, DC – House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Republican Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) today issued the following joint statement regarding Pope Benedict XVI’s new encyclical, Caritas in Veritate:

"Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, is neither an indictment of capitalism nor an endorsement of any political or economic agenda, and ideologues and politicos hoping to spin it as either are destined to be unsuccessful.

"The Holy Father’s central point in Caritas in Veritate is that at times of economic challenge, the inherent dignity of the individual must be preserved and sustained through genuine charity and compassion. This message is clearly distinct from efforts to ‘remake’ government into a soul-crushing centralized welfare state in which independent citizens are remade into dependent servants. In the encyclical, the Pope stresses that the human being must remain as the center of our free-market system. He warns that individuals, families, churches, communities, and businesses must never become subservient to the state. He emphasizes that the sanctity of all human life must always be protected. And he advocates conservation, not radical environmentalism.

"Caritas in Veritate is not a political document, but rather a complex work that warrants careful and thoughtful contemplation by American Catholics and non-Catholics alike at this time of economic anxiety."

Encouraging! And a bit... surprising? Odd?

And now...

... the sound of one hand clapping.

The money quote:

What Benedict XVI has not spelled out yet is another forgotten lesson from St. Augustine: the ever-corrupting role of sin in the City of Man. Augustine points out how difficult it is even for the wisest and most detached humans to discover the truth among lies—and how even husbands and wives in the closest of human bonds misunderstand each other so often. The Father of Lies seems to own so much of the real world.

What are the most practical ways of defeating him? The Catholic tradition—even the wise Pope Benedict—still seems to put too much stress upon caritas, virtue, justice, and good intentions, and not nearly enough on methods for defeating human sin in all its devious and persistent forms.

Even the Pope’s understandable nostalgia for the European welfare-state too much scants the self-interests, self-deceptions, and false presuppositions that are bringing that system to a crisis of its own making. This was a crisis John Paul II saw rather more clearly in paragraph 48 of Centesimus Annus.

- Michael Novak

Where, O where, to begin? First of all, Joseph Ratzinger came of age in Nazi Germany, and I don't think a socialistic state gives him any warm-fuzzies of nostalgia. And how can Mr. Novak claim that it is the Holy Father (a confessor for over 50 years) who is naive about sin, when it is he who naively believes that market motives and the unrestrained pursuit of self-interest will somehow spark a society of justice and equity. Where does the corrupting power of sin enter into the market? O, that's right, I forgot, the market is amoral - not like there are sinful human agents operating within it, just automaton consumers responding to economic laws and mathematical motives. What a crock.

Finally, what the hell is more practical for defeating sin and overcoming evil in the world than "caritas, virtue, justice, and good intentions"? These are things which private individuals must foster and which a State cannot enforce, so it surprises me to hear Mr. Novak calling for something more "pragmatic" and "programmatic." But, apart from that surprise, I am still left to wonder - what is more practical for overcoming sin than caritas in veritate? Anyone? Bueller?

Now, I know I said I wasn't going to get into parsing and analyzing this document just yet. But apparently, people in the blogosphere are very concerned with a phrase from paragraph 39. Mr. Weigel doesn't understand what is meant by "forms of economic activity marked by quotas of gratuitousness and communion."

Now, first, let's read paragraph 39 in full:

Paul VI in Populorum Progressio called for the creation of a model of market economy capable of including within its range all peoples and not just the better off. He called for efforts to build a more human world for all, a world in which “all will be able to give and receive, without one group making progress at the expense of the other”. In this way he was applying on a global scale the insights and aspirations contained in Rerum Novarum, written when, as a result of the Industrial Revolution, the idea was first proposed — somewhat ahead of its time — that the civil order, for its self-regulation, also needed intervention from the State for purposes of redistribution. Not only is this vision threatened today by the way in which markets and societies are opening up, but it is evidently insufficient to satisfy the demands of a fully humane economy. What the Church's social doctrine has always sustained, on the basis of its vision of man and society, is corroborated today by the dynamics of globalization.

When both the logic of the market and the logic of the State come to an agreement that each will continue to exercise a monopoly over its respective area of influence, in the long term much is lost: solidarity in relations between citizens, participation and adherence, actions of gratuitousness, all of which stand in contrast with giving in order to acquire (the logic of exchange) and giving through duty (the logic of public obligation, imposed by State law). In order to defeat underdevelopment, action is required not only on improving exchange-based transactions and implanting public welfare structures, but above all on gradually increasing openness, in a world context, to forms of economic activity marked by quotas of gratuitousness and communion. The exclusively binary model of market-plus-State is corrosive of society, while economic forms based on solidarity, which find their natural home in civil society without being restricted to it, build up society. The market of gratuitousness does not exist, and attitudes of gratuitousness cannot be established by law. Yet both the market and politics need individuals who are open to reciprocal gift.

Alright, the phrase which has so many people so upset is "forms of economic activity marked by quotas of gratuitousness and communion." Now, this is understandable in some ways, since "quotas" are common in Socialist models of economy, and we would not want to say the Pope is encouraging that here. So, just what is he encouraging? What does this expression mean?

Well, on the one hand, I think knee-jerking at the word "quota" is a bit hasty. There is no Latin version of this document on the Holy See's website, yet. The Italian indeed does have "da quote di gratuità e di comunione." However, the French rendering is "par une part de gratuité et de communion" and the Spanish, "por ciertos márgenes de gratuidad y comunión." Certain margins characterizing a form of economy gives a much different sense than "quotas." So, perhaps we're reading too much into a word. Even so, what does this marginality mean and how does it get defined and who defines it? This too seems simpler than is being made out. The paragraph speaks before and after this quotation about the concept of "solidarity" as a necessary characteristic of economic activity, and also notes that globalization is not necessarily letting more people in but simply letting fewer people benefit at the expense of more and more marginalized (people only ostensibly enfranchised of power). If our motives to give are simply to receive in return, or because it is by mandate of the State, this falls short of the ideal and will not lead us to truly include others in economic life - just use them.

I could conceive of various Distributist models which capture the idea of this phrase, like Belloc's incentive-based taxation which tries to keep more people participatory in the economic activity of a region by making bigger business only WANT to accrue a certain part of property. They leave off what would be surplus and unprofitable, allowing others a chance to work with that property; then as others succeed and are able to pay their own greater share of the upkeep of the commonwealth, the larger owners benefit from a fall of their own taxes. The success of the other would be thus an incentive for a particular owner, albeit not until the system had been in place and begun to succeed.

Another thought is that it seems any small, family run business is already a local form of what Benedict is talking about. Two brothers open a store, and one day Brother A gets sick on his day to manage: will Brother B really take it out of his salary for his own coming in, knowing that Brother A had to pay the copay for a doctor's visit that day? No. The brothers will act first of all like brothers, and their business will be characterized by certain margins of gratuitousness and communion. They will be a family first, and a business second. This is what Benedict means by "economic forms based on solidarity, which find their natural home in civil society without being restricted to it." He means take what works (and is virtuous) about the local and try to keep the global in the same ethos. It might seem pie-in-the-sky, but given that the human race really is a family, under God, spread accross the globe, then this as a model for "globalization" is not all that far-fetched. So, the job of people like Novak and Weigel ought to be asking, "what would this look like on a bigger scale, and how could we do it?" rather than decrying it as nonsensical drivel.

Anyhow, I'm open for discussion whether this phrase is really as unmeaning as others make it out to be. To me, it does convey a sense, perhaps indeed somewhat imprecise, but only because it's not something to be seen so much in finer details as in the "big picture." Thoughts?

Very Initial Thoughts...

First of all, consider this thread an OPEN FORUM for any discussion that anybody wants to have in the com-boxes. I will turn off comment moderation for the time being (reserving the right to delete if that becomes necessary). I hope to shuttle some traffic over here from Facebook.

---

Anyway, here are my initial thoughts:

WOW! Benedict has been known for some heady writing, but this... wow.

I am initially very pleased after scanning the Encyclical, and find many points resonating therein which I will need to reflect upon here at length over the next few days. In the meantime, one that jumped out at me immediately is from Chapter 3:

Charity in truth places man before the astonishing experience of gift. Gratuitousness is present in our lives in many different forms, which often go unrecognized because of a purely consumerist and utilitarian view of life.... [W]e must make it clear, on the one hand, that the logic of gift does not exclude justice, nor does it merely sit alongside it as a second element added from without; on the other hand, economic, social and political development, if it is to be authentically human, needs to make room for the principle of gratuitousness as an expression of fraternity.

Caritas in veritate 34.

Which rather reminds me of the dearth of "humane" principles in economic theory, which I reflected upon earlier.

There's a lot in here, though, and it seems that nearly every paragraph can be subject for reflection, so pardon my silence today as I chew on this and try to organize my own response.

Reclaiming Homo Economicus

However, certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society. These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations.

This unbridled liberalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the "international imperialism of money."

Such improper manipulations of economic forces can never be condemned enough; let it be said once again that economics is supposed to be in the service of man.

(Populorum Progressio 26)

With the Pope's new encyclical signed and set to come out, debate rages over at Father Z.'s blog, and I must say I am not very impressed with any of the interlocutors at this point - neither in their display of tact and charity, nor in their argumentation.

The "camps" in the discussion are such as one might expect to find. There are those arguing something of a "collectivist" programme; and then there are standard free-market apologists waving the banners of Hayek and Novack. Both sides claim the body of Catholic Social Doctrine to support their claims. Accusations are made in either direction of "cafeteria Catholicism" and a "hermeneutic of discontinuity." Some hope that the Pope will provide specific policy directives in his new encyclical (and of these, some hope for more liberal economic advice, others for a collectivist sort), and there are still some who tremble that the specificity will resemble past statements (like the one quoted above) which still unnerve so many.

To all of this, I have simply to say: let's wait and read what the current Pope has said, and in the meantime, let's spend time going back and praying over what the previous Popes have said (yes, all of them, not just John Paul II). But whilst we study, we can try to continue discussion on some fundamental issues which seem to shape our understanding of what the Papal Magisterium offers us in this regard...

I will be working through a couple of the major philophical question which seem to be logically prior to any consideration of what the Pope might say, as they seem to condition us as to how we'll read and interpret what he does have to say. Put more simply, and to use an illustration: Michael Novack and I read Centesimus Annus very differently. And at the risk of sounding presumptuous, I simply will not defer to Professor Novack's greater learning and experience on this because I have read his reasoning as to why he reads that document how he does, and I see fundamentally different philosophical approaches. It is not a matter of greater or lesser understanding on different levels. It is a matter of ways of understanding. I hope to provide here over the next few posts suggestions of ways to read the Papal Magisterium on Social Doctrine.

So, please stay tuned, and chime in at any time.

And, oh yes, my title.... As I hope to demonstrate, the differences between the arguers on the post that has me so miffed lie deep down prior to any technical discussion of economic policy. The differences are philosophical: they concern what economics is all about, what the economy is, and what it is for. They concern how economics as a science should relate to other disciplines and questions. Anyway, at the end of all this, I will suggest that the Distributist position understands economics in such a way that, really, we might say that man is indeed homo economicus with no harm to the school. This is because economics is wider and interpenetrated with other concerns and "humanized" so to speak. And thus, perhaps the recovery of a true sense of man as an economizer (in our sense of the term) is precisely what is to be desired.

And so let us proceed.

(NB: The quote from PP at the top is not meant to relate substantively to this or any of the following posts, and I do consider this to be one of the many statements in the Social Magisterium that needs interpreting and careful consideration. In fact, I picked that quote as an intro precisely because it invites that question of "What do we do with this?" - discussion of which I hope can take place on this blog and elsewhere in the weeks to come.)

Nearly Here

Rocco has it, from the Pope's noon Angelus address today: the Encyclical, Caritas in Veritate has been signed and will now be prepared for translation/publication.

The Calm Before the Storm...

Well, I'm coming out of hiding. There is a lot to talk about. A lot of change, facing the rising seas and the waxing storm - both in my personal life and in the world at large. My mind has not been idle. I've been thinking, reading, praying about social charity and social justice every day. But I just haven't been able to catch fire and write. Something in me has been poised, waiting with a kind of baited anticipation, a still and serene snowscape before the pebble that starts the avalanche. Not that the flow down the mountain will be strong enough to overcome anything; please don't mistake me as trying to characterize my output here as formidable thought. I doubt whether I am very well equipped indeed to enter the discussions into which I will shuffle with my two cents. But my thoughts are honest thoughts, and they are I think thoughtful. And I will continue to share them with whoever will accept them in charity, and wait to receive any who will share their own in kind.

The "pebble" aforementioned is this: a rigorous discussion (although, I fear, somewhat heated and overblown with occasional meanness) taking place over at Father Z.'s. The catalyst for debate is rumour of the Pope's new encyclical which pundits expect may be signed tomorrow. When the translation will be prepared is uncertain.

The thought of a new social encyclical, the many possibilities that entails, obviously has me pondering. I am anxious to see Pope Benedict's mind turn to these issues for which John Paul II showed famous academic interest and solicitude. I am struck even with some trepidation, both for the encylical's contents and its reception. Like one of the commenter's at Father's blog, I hold my breath when the Vatican begins to express specific opinion about economic policy. I do believe in a certain autonomy to the (albeit soft) science of economics. However, I cannot subscribe to the classically liberal tenets of many squawking over at WDTPRS.

So, there the stage is set for my own holding forth on these matters. Whether the letter comes tomorrow or not, I'll have something to say, so stay tuned. And thanks for sticking with me through the long winter. There'll be more said of that, too, ere long. Oremus pro invicem, friends.

Distributist Buzzwords in the (Catholic) News

SOLIDARITY AND SUBSIDIARITY TO OVERCOME SOCIAL EXCLUSION

VATICAN CITY, 6 FEB 2009 (VIS) - Archbishop Celestino Migliore, permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations in New York, yesterday addressed the 47th session of the Economic and Social Council's Commission for Social Development.

Speaking English the archbishop turned his attention to the question of social integration, underlining how a recent report on that subject from the U.N. secretary general "states that the absence of social integration, resulting in social exclusion, is pervasive in developing and developed regions alike and has common causes, namely poverty, inequality and discrimination at all levels".

The framework for development, he went on, "is marked by the conviction that the logic of solidarity and subsidiarity is the most apt and instrumental to overcome poverty and ensure the participation of every person and social group at the social, economic, civil and cultural levels.

"A broad consensus around the commitment to promote development has been revealed in this last decade in the fight against poverty and in fostering the inclusion and the participation of all persons and social groups", he added.

(Emphasis added; SOURCE)

The increasing frustration which people are feeling with the financial crisis here in the U.S. and its global ramifications might be an important opening for the injection into the maintstream of some orthodox, Catholic economic thought. Crucial, though, is that we do not allow ourselves to be outdone in zeal (as we are traditionally wont to do) by apologists for other doctrines (such as the neo-Marxism which is becoming ever more fashionable in the press). This is nothing new, however; the voices calling for a "New Evangelization" have become almost shrill in their insistance over the past decade. The current crisis is just another spot of hurt needful of the healing that only Catholic truth can bring...

Hope Down Under

Benedict XVI’s remarks today during the welcoming ceremony with the youth at Barangaroo, Sydney Harbor were outstanding. The enthusiasm and hope of his message combined with an element that can only be called poetry to make this one of the most endearing speeches of his Pontificate. Of course, my ears were perked for any hints of the content of the upcoming encyclical, and I was not disappointed. I have posted below the sections of the speech which I found both most stirring and most pertinent to our topics here. However, my favorite aspect of Benedict’s words are his compassionate and personalist perspective – that is, he uses as a focal point the creature man, as the “apex of creation” and in relationship with God. Only in this context do any of the other “issues” addressed have any real meaning or weight.

[T]he views afforded of our planet from the air were truly wondrous. The sparkle of the Mediterranean, the grandeur of the north African desert, the lushness of Asia’s forestation, the vastness of the Pacific Ocean, the horizon upon which the sun rose and set, and the majestic splendour of Australia’s natural beauty which I have been able to enjoy these last couple of days; these all evoke a profound sense of awe. It is as though one catches glimpses of the Genesis creation story - light and darkness, the sun and the moon, the waters, the earth, and living creatures; all of which are “good” in God’s eyes (cf. Gen 1:1 - 2:4). Immersed in such beauty, who could not echo the words of the Psalmist in praise of the Creator: “how majestic is your name in all the earth?” (Ps 8:1).

And there is more – something hardly perceivable from the sky – men and women, made in nothing less than God’s own image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:26). At the heart of the marvel of creation are you and I, the human family “crowned with glory and honour” (Ps 8:5). How astounding! With the Psalmist we whisper: “what is man that you are mindful of him?” (Ps 8:4). And drawn into silence, into a spirit of thanksgiving, into the power of holiness, we ponder.

What do we discover? Perhaps reluctantly we come to acknowledge that there are also scars which mark the surface of our earth: erosion, deforestation, the squandering of the world’s mineral and ocean resources in order to fuel an insatiable consumption. Some of you come from island nations whose very existence is threatened by rising water levels; others from nations suffering the effects of devastating drought. God’s wondrous creation is sometimes experienced as almost hostile to its stewards, even something dangerous. How can what is “good” appear so threatening?

Benedict XVI went on to speak of the good and wholesome wonders which man has wrought, but afterward noted that “the social environment – the habitat we fashion for ourselves – has its scars; wounds indicating that something is amiss.” Some of these “scars” mentioned by His Holiness include drug and alcohol abuse, “entertainment” taking the form of sexual exploitation or violence, and of course relativism.

After enumerating these evils, Benedict XVI struck a resounding note of hope (by means of attack on materialism, especially in the forms of determinism and consumerism):

Dear friends, life is not governed by chance; it is not random. Your very existence has been willed by God, blessed and given a purpose (cf. Gen 1:28)! Life is not just a succession of events or experiences, helpful though many of them are. It is a search for the true, the good and the beautiful. It is to this end that we make our choices; it is for this that we exercise our freedom; it is in this – in truth, in goodness, and in beauty – that we find happiness and joy. Do not be fooled by those who see you as just another consumer in a market of undifferentiated possibilities, where choice itself becomes the good, novelty usurps beauty, and subjective experience displaces truth.

Sounding the challenge to action, Benedict XVI wisely noted: “If God is irrelevant to public life, then society will be shaped in a godless image. When God is eclipsed, our ability to recognize the natural order, purpose, and the “good” begins to wane.”

Before closing, Benedict XVI re-emphasized the central focus of his remarks:

My dear friends, God’s creation is one and it is good. The concerns for non-violence, sustainable development, justice and peace, and care for our environment are of vital importance for humanity. They cannot, however, be understood apart from a profound reflection upon the innate dignity of every human life from conception to natural death: a dignity conferred by God himself and thus inviolable.

The Pontiff called attention to the deep desire for hope in our world, even in the most secular corners. While pointing to many problems which highlight the need for such hope and the urgency of our societal and environmental situation, Benedict XVI was clear that only one place holds the true answer: “This is the hope held out by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is to bear witness to this reality that you were created anew at Baptism and strengthened through the gifts of the Spirit at Confirmation. Let this be the message that you bring from Sydney to the world!”

[Read the full speech.]

For What It's Worth...

That's the title of the Buffalo Springfield song that starts, "There's something happening here..."

Looking in the (Catholic) media the past few days, there are some exciting trends developing, especially for those of us who want to see a greater attention given to Catholic Social Teaching.

I already noted the recent remarks of the Vatican's permanent observer to the Holy See focusing on the World Food Crisis. The prelate welcomed the initiatives approved at the FAO High-Level Conference on World Food Security.

Well, a few days back, ZENIT published a correspondence between the British Prime Minister and the Vatican. The basic gist? The Prime Minister noted failure on the part of the international community to achieve many "Millennium Development Goals." He mentioned a range of such goals being underachieved. Cardinal Bertone's response was slightly more particular. The Secretary of State referred back to the same food summit in Rome, and particularly to the Pope's remarks to that body.

This latter address is just full of good stuff. The Pope had called on the member states "to globalize... the expectations of solidarity, with respect for and valuing the contribution of each component of society." Quoting his own address to the UN during his apostolic visit to the UN in April, His Holiness had also observed that "it is urgent to overcome the 'paradox of a multilateral consensus that continues to be in crisis because it is still subordinated to the decisions of a few.'"

Solidarity and subsidiarity are big news lately. I'll be including these in my upcoming set of basic term definitions, but for the less patient among you, cf. The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1883, 1885, 1894; and, this section, particularly 2437-2442.

Now, of course, a call to "globalize... the expectations of solidarity" might be good advice for Cardinal Bertone to give the Prime Minister, but might the limey leader not retort that he had given many specific examples and received rather more vague answers in return?

Well, two comments on that. First, Cardinal Bertone did focus the discussion in an indirect way by alluding to the summit on world hunger. I see this as a way of identify sort of the top practical priority without stating it in so many words.

Second, perhaps His Eminence was reticent because that more precise sort of guidance is imminently forthcoming. Another ZENIT article just yesterday recalled Bertone's recent insights into the Pope's new encyclical, due this Fall. Then, the Cardinal had said the Pope hoped not merely "to repeat common concepts of the Church's social doctrine, but wants to offer something original, according to the challenges of today."

ZENIT then offers some worthy speculation on what original theological ideas the Pope may be cooking up, which I commend to your reading. I think that the patterns emerging in the Holy Father's statements and letters - such as Deus Caritas Est, his speech to the UN in April, and his address to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences in May, to name a few - will perhaps receive a sort of focus and "gathering" in this new encyclical. Whether this will be a very "down to earth" and "name-naming" (of social ills, that is) encyclical as many have been in the tradition of such teachings... well, we shall see. It is a fact beyond mere speculation, however, that this Pontiff's powerful mind will bring valuable develop to a body of teaching which desperately needs opening up and exposure in our world.

From VIS: Vatican Official on the Food Crisis

In the news:

VATICAN CITY, 8 JUL 2008 (VIS) - Archbishop Celestino Migliore, Holy See permanent observer to the United Nations in New York, participated on 2 July in the High-Level Segment of the 2008 Economic and Social Council, which was meeting to reflect upon the importance of addressing the development needs of rural communities.

[From the Archbishop's address:]

“The roots of the current food crisis seem to stem from a series of concomitant causes. Short-sighted economic, agriculture and energy policies which caused a clash between the increasing demand for food items and the insufficient production of food on the one hand, and the increase in financial speculations on commodities, uncontrollable increase of oil prices and adverse climate conditions on the other.

“While today's debate... will rightly focus on the structural defects of the world economy and on the causes of the emergency, we must work to ensure that this discussion is accompanied by immediate and effective action. Failure to take action will result in this meeting being merely an exercise in rhetoric and procrastination of our responsibilities.

[...]

“In the medium- to long-term, the initial economic emergency aid must be accompanied by a concerted effort of all to invest in long-term and sustainable agriculture programs at the local and international levels. ... To this end, agrarian reforms in developing countries must be sped-up in order to give smallholder farmers the tools for increasing production in a sustainable manner as well as access to local and global markets.” [Emphasis added]

His Excellency expressed support for recent initiatives called for by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

The fact that starvation is tolerated on such a huge scale in our modern society alongside such affluence and excess is the most glaring and unavoidable evidence that our culture has given its mind, heart, and soul over to the worship of mammon.