Caritas in Veritate, Chapter Five

Note: This post is the fifth in a series of posts on Pope Benedict XVI’s “Caritas in Veritate”. Also see posts on the Intro and Chapter One, Chapter Two, Chapter Three, Chapter Four, and Chapter Six and Conclusion.

A brief  note before I begin: I’m sort of rushing (in terms of timing, not intellectually, I hope) this series through because of travel plans- you should expect a post on Chapter Six and the Conclusion tomorrow, and then a roundup of some commentary I’ve read on this encyclical on Tuesday.

As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, Caritas in Veritate strikes me as the most spiritually-oriented social encyclical I’ve read. This chapter, in particular, uses spiritual language to introduce the need for global cooperation on issues related to development, finance, and more.

Pope Benedict begins this chapter by discussing the relationship between religion and human unity in the context of globalization:

One possible negative effect of the process of globalization is the tendency to favour this kind of syncretism, by encouraging forms of “religion” that, instead of bringing people together, alienate them from one another and distance them from reality. At the same time, some religious and cultural traditions persist which ossify society in rigid social groupings, in magical beliefs that fail to respect the dignity of the person, and in attitudes of subjugation to occult powers. In these contexts, love and truth have difficulty asserting themselves, and authentic development is impeded.

And follows this with another call for religious freedom:

The Christian religion and other religions can offer their contribution to development only if God has a place in the public realm, specifically in regard to its cultural, social, economic, and particularly its political dimensions.

Next, Benedict addresses globalization with the principle of subsidiarity:

Subsidiarity is first and foremost a form of assistance to the human person via the autonomy of intermediate bodies. Such assistance is offered when individuals or groups are unable to accomplish something on their own, and it is always designed to achieve their emancipation, because it fosters freedom and participation through assumption of responsibility…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.

This section is extremely important because it shows how Benedict, and Catholic thought in general, thinks about the structure of development- not top-down, but with decisions taking place at the most proximate level possible.

He next links subsidiarity explicitly with aid:

he principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa, since the former without the latter gives way to social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need. This general rule must also be taken broadly into consideration when addressing issues concerning international development aid. Such aid, whatever the donors’ intentions, can sometimes lock people into a state of dependence and even foster situations of localized oppression and exploitation in the receiving country. Economic aid, in order to be true to its purpose, must not pursue secondary objectives. It must be distributed with the involvement not only of the governments of receiving countries, but also local economic agents and the bearers of culture within civil society, including local Churches. Aid programmes must increasingly acquire the characteristics of participation and completion from the grass roots…Too often in the past, aid has served to create only fringe markets for the products of these donor countries…Just and equitable international trade in agricultural goods can be beneficial to everyone, both to suppliers and to customers.

That section was borderline wonky, as Benedict lays out some specific principles for development. Always critical of ulterior motives, Benedict attempts to insure that the primary goals, like reducing poverty, are the ultimate guide for action.

If the previous section was written as if from a development practitioner, the next seems to come from an anthropologist:

dimension: it offers a wonderful opportunity for encounter between cultures and peoples. If the parties to cooperation on the side of economically developed countries — as occasionally happens — fail to take account of their own or others’ cultural identity, or the human values that shape it, they cannot enter into meaningful dialogue with the citizens of poor countries. If the latter, in their turn, are uncritically and indiscriminately open to every cultural proposal, they will not be in a position to assume responsibility for their own authentic development…Technologically advanced societies must not confuse their own technological development with a presumed cultural superiority.

Benedict now explicitly endorses the validity of aid for development, for which he has set parameters previously.

In the search for solutions to the current economic crisis, development aid for poor countries must be considered a valid means of creating wealth for all…From this perspective, more economically developed nations should do all they can to allocate larger portions of their gross domestic product to development aid…One possible approach to development aid would be to apply effectively what is known as fiscal subsidiarity, allowing citizens to decide how to allocate a portion of the taxes they pay to the State.

He then moves to some specific issues relating to development and globalization:

greater access to education…is at the same time an essential precondition for effective international cooperation [...]

the phenomenon of migration…is difficult to manage; but there is no doubt that foreign workers, despite any difficulties concerning integration, make a significant contribution to the economic development of the host country through their labour…cannot be considered as a commodity or a mere workforce [...]

What is meant by the word “decency” in regard to work? It means work that expresses the essential dignity of every man and woman in the context of their particular society: work that is freely chosen, effectively associating workers, both men and women, with the development of their community; work that enables the worker to be respected and free from any form of discrimination; work that makes it possible for families to meet their needs and provide schooling for their children, without the children themselves being forced into labour; work that permits the workers to organize themselves freely, and to make their voices heard…national labour unions…should turn their attention to those outside their membership, and in particular to workers in developing countries where social rights are often violated…

Finance, therefore — through the renewed structures and operating methods that have to be designed after its misuse, which wreaked such havoc on the real economy — now needs to go back to being an instrument directed towards improved wealth creation and development…Both the regulation of the financial sector, so as to safeguard weaker parties and discourage scandalous speculation, and experimentation with new forms of finance, designed to support development projects, are positive experiences that should be further explored and encouraged, highlighting the responsibility of the investor. Furthermore, the experience of micro-finance…should be strengthened and fine-tuned [...]

the consumer has a specific social responsibility, which goes hand-in- hand with the social responsibility of the enterprise. Consumers should be continually educated regarding their daily role…

The chapter closes with a discussion of global cooperation through the UN and IFIs.

In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority…Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good…Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties…The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order…

Benedict wants to see the UN, World Bank, IMF, WTO, et al. strengthened, but also restructured in line with subsidiarity and given a stronger moral compass. He clearly sees such institutions as the key to solving the issues he has presented. Given all he has said, there is now a pretty consistent thread through the encyclical regarding global cooperation and development: large, powerful institutions are needed to promote global solutions to global problems; their power should lie in the bottom, not in the top; and these institutions should be morally guided.

It’s a lot for Benedict to expect, given the large difficulties with constructing such institutions. The sorts of reforms associated with this encyclical have been called for by many for years. It’s unclear if they haven’t happened because of a lack of political will for them, because the institutions themselves are too broken to fix, or because it’s simply too much to expect that large organizations operate in this way. I think it’s a combination of all these explanations, which makes me skeptical of the prospects for change. If Ban Ki-Moon or Robert Zoellick were to read this encyclical and agree with it, would they even be able to do anything about it? I’m not so sure.