Pope Benedict

The new encyclical "charity in truth" is HERE. There's a lot of interesting philosophy in the whole document.

For me it's weird to read this given that I teach, work with, and am related to a number of American "conservative" Catholics. Here Pope Benedict unambiguously supports labor unions and social welfare in a way clearly inconsistent with the entire thrust of the Republican party since Reagan:

From the social point of view, systems of protection and welfare, already present in many countries in Paul VI's day, are finding it hard and could find it even harder in the future to pursue their goals of true social justice in today's profoundly changed environment. The global market has stimulated first and foremost, on the part of rich countries, a search for areas in which to outsource production at low cost with a view to reducing the prices of many goods, increasing purchasing power and thus accelerating the rate of development in terms of greater availability of consumer goods for the domestic market. Consequently, the market has prompted new forms of competition between States as they seek to attract foreign businesses to set up production centres, by means of a variety of instruments, including favourable fiscal regimes and deregulation of the labour market. These processes have led to a downsizing of social security systems as the price to be paid for seeking greater competitive advantage in the global market, with consequent grave danger for the rights of workers, for fundamental human rights and for the solidarity associated with the traditional forms of the social State. Systems of social security can lose the capacity to carry out their task, both in emerging countries and in those that were among the earliest to develop, as well as in poor countries. Here budgetary policies, with cuts in social spending often made under pressure from international financial institutions, can leave citizens powerless in the face of old and new risks; such powerlessness is increased by the lack of effective protection on the part of workers' associations. Through the combination of social and economic change, trade union organizations experience greater difficulty in carrying out their task of representing the interests of workers, partly because Governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the freedom or the negotiating capacity of labour unions. Hence traditional networks of solidarity have more and more obstacles to overcome. The repeated calls issued within the Church's social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum[60], for the promotion of workers' associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honoured today even more than in the past, as a prompt and far-sighted response to the urgent need for new forms of cooperation at the international level, as well as the local level.

There's a lot more along these lines, including the importance of having access to local agriculture, which is interesting in light of what has happened in rural America (prisons, methamphetamine, lower life expectancy, etc. etc.) as a result of conservative policies that have fostered monopolization of food production and distribution.

Pointing this out is not to do justice to the broader philosophical context of the document, but it is there and does need to be pointed out. And no amount of sophistry by the Wall Street Journal editorial board (today's utilizes both the strawman fallacy and false dichotomy to mislead the reader about the content of the encyclical) or the good folks at National Review can change the clear, unambiguous contents of the encyclical.

In this regard, note that what Pope Benedict describes above is exactly what the American South did in instituting "right to work" laws. Note that, contra the Wall Street Journal and National Review, Pope Benedict is neither stupid nor uninformed. When he writes that governments "often limit the freedom or the negotiating capacity of labour unions" THAT'S WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. Contra the entire thrust of the Republican Party since Reagen, he's criticizing "right to work" laws. The encyclical entails defending, among other things, the Employee Free Choice Act.

I am morally certain that my home state of Louisiana, one of the most Roman Catholic in the country, is not going to revoke its anti-union laws, even though those very laws have led to the outmigration of skilled labor and increase relative wealth inequality and poverty. Even though Pope Benedict says they are inconsistent with Roman Catholic teaching. This being said, Louisiana will spend millions each year losing lawsuits defending unconstitutional laws regarding evolution, school prayer, and abortion that are yearly passed as a sop to supposed Christians.

Comments

[Chris]

Back when I was at Baylor, and started studying all these Catholic philosophers, I became more "liberal" as I got more serious about studying theology. What you quote from the Pope is a part of the explanation for why. It was more consistent with my religious beliefs. Of course, ultimately I rejected my religious beliefs and was left with a bunch of political views sans justification. But, since I read Plantinga, I just consider them properly basic beliefs now. :-)

[Brandon]

Given the Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity, I should think that the most defensable economic position is largely laissez faire. I'm not saying that I'm against labor unions. I think that outlawing labor unions is an infringement on a truly free market. I am saying, however, that given the encyclical to which Pope Benedict XVI refers, Rerum Novarum, we can't too hastily think that he's advocating any form of socialistic society.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

Pope Leo XIII makes it very clear that you can't take from the rich to give to the poor, especially to provide for special interests groups. See especially paragraphs 5 and 6. I give a very clear quote:

"Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life."

Granted, there are certain things which are acceptable, namely welfare (to an extent), social security, public healthcare, etc...but only insofar as these tend towards the common good and don't take away from the individual's right to property (read, is this going to benefit the people from whom the taxes are being taken, or is it for special interest groups?).

In fine, you ought not to jump too hastily to any sort of conclusion that the pope is saying something radically liberal. He isn't. The Catholic Church's political theology is decisively not liberal. It's not radically conservative either, mind you. It's fair and tends towards the conservation of the rights of the individual. I'd go so far as to say that it's almost Kantian in this respect.