The popes’ “liberation theology” Notes from a Cultural Madhouse By Christopher Zehnder c/o California Catholic Daily

The popes’ “liberation theology”
Benedict XVI’s purported next encyclical may prove as radical as Jesus’ parable of Lazarus and the rich man.



Notes from a Cultural Madhouse

By Christopher Zehnder

Rumor has it that Pope Benedict XVI’s next encyclical will be on social issues. The pontiff’s first two encyclicals, on love and hope, have had more of the lofty, serene metaphysical style one expects of German academics. This being so, I, for one, am interested to see how the pope does when descending to the messiness of life in society – especially this our world society, so rent, sundered, and confused as it is by false ideologies flying from right, left, and center.

A social encyclical from this Holy Father will be all the more interesting given claims that Pope John Paul II changed the course of Catholic social teaching in his 1991 encyclical, Centesimus annus. Particularly, those who are called “neo-conservatives” (though, more aptly, I think, “neo-liberals”) have claimed that the late pontiff took a more kindly view than earlier popes have towards liberal capitalism. In particular, the claim was made that John Paul acknowledged the justice of the pure profit motive in business and that he recognized capitalism, with its emphasis on human freedom, as the only alternative to real socialism.

Of course, it must be admitted that in certain place in Centesimus, the pope seemed to baptize the economic order, represented, particularly, by the United States. For instance, the encyclical says, “It would appear that, on the level of individual nations and of international relations, the free market is the most efficient instrument for utilizing resources and effectively responding to needs.” Yet, if this is the pope’s sic, his non quickly follows. He immediately adds, “But this is true only for those needs which are ‘solvent’, insofar as they are endowed with purchasing power, and for those resources which are ‘marketable,’ insofar as they are capable of obtaining a satisfactory price.”

John Paul continued that “there are many human needs which find no place on the market;” and, he said, that “it is a strict duty of justice and truth not to allow fundamental human needs to remain unsatisfied, and not to allow those burdened by such needs to perish.” He called on those of us who have power in the economic sphere to help “needy people to acquire expertise, to enter the circle of exchange, and to develop their skills in order to make the best use of their capacities and resources.” And, noted the pope, “there exists something which is due to man because he is man, by reason of his lofty dignity. Inseparable from that required ‘something’ is the possibility to survive and, at the same time, to make an active contribution to the common good of humanity.”

Among the “something … due to man” is, as far employees go, a just wage, the right to which Pope John Paul reiterated in Centesimus. He went so far as to reject the libertarian notion that a just wage is merely a wage agreed to by employer and employee. Rather, said the pope (quoting Pope Leo XIII), a just wage “cannot be left to the ‘free consent of the parties, so that the employer, having paid what was agreed upon, has done his part and seemingly is not called upon to do anything beyond.’” A working man’s wages, said John Paul, “should be sufficient to enable him to support himself, his wife and his children;” and (again quoting Leo), "if through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accepts harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice."

In writing these words, Pope John Paul II was not merely referencing history; for he continues, “Would that these words, written at a time when what has been called ‘unbridled capitalism’ was pressing forward, should not have to be repeated today with the same severity. Unfortunately, even today one finds instances of contracts between employers and employees which lack reference to the most elementary justice regarding the employment of children or women, working hours, the hygienic condition of the work-place and fair pay.” And, continued John Paul, “the Pope attributed to the ‘public authority’ the ‘strict duty’ of providing properly for the welfare of the workers, because a failure to do so violates justice…”

The neo-liberals were correct – but only partly so -- when they claimed that Pope John Paul approved of profit. “The Church acknowledges the legitimate role of profit,” said Centesimus.” John Paul, however, immediately added that the Church approves of profit “as an indication that a business is functioning well,” and he did not say that making a profit is the sole purpose of a business. He, in fact, said quite the opposite. “The purpose of a business firm is not simply to make a profit,” says Centesimus, “but is to be found in its very existence as a community of persons who in various ways are endeavoring to satisfy their basic needs, and who form a particular group at the service of the whole of society. Profit is a regulator of the life of a business, but it is not the only one; other human and moral factors must also be considered which, in the long term, are at least equally important for the life of a business.”

Centesimus stands within the Catholic tradition that sees economic activity not as the purpose of human life but as a necessary means at the service of a life which finds its fullest expression in solidarity, culture, and, ultimately, religion. In addressing the question whether the model of capitalism (or the “business economy,” “market economy,” or “free economy”) should be proposed to the Third World, the pope said the “answer is obviously complex.” The answer is yes, says Centesimus, “if by ‘capitalism’ is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector.” But, “if by ‘capitalism’ is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.”

The basic point of all the social encyclicals from Leo XIII to our time is that the pursuit of profit, left to itself, results in a multifold poverty – material, cultural, moral, and spiritual. If there be an “invisible hand,” it does not push toward a full and integral human good. The profit motive is narrowly focused on the amassing of material riches and, by itself, does not consider even the material good of all, much less the higher goods that belong to all. Its purview is too particular. Measures that increase the profit margin for a company or an individual are not always favorable to the preservation or the promotion of the very things for which material goods exist – in particular, the stable families and cultures which are the soil in which the moral and spiritual life of peoples takes root and flourish.

It appears that Pope Benedict XVI will continue the social teaching tradition in the vein of his predecessors. This past Sept. 23, the pope in an Angelus catechesis addressed themes from Pope Paul VI’s 1967 social encyclical, Populorum Progressio – the 40th anniversary of which, it is said, will be observed with Benedict’s own encyclical.

In his recent address, Benedict made observations apropos of the discussion of capitalism and profit. For one, Benedict noted that, while Centesimus recognizes the “positive aspects” of “the modern business economy,” it does not simply embrace it. For John Paul II, said his successor, “adds that capitalism must not be considered as the only valid model of economic organization.” He referred to John Paul’s statement, “we have seen that it is unacceptable to say that the defeat of so-called ‘Real Socialism’ leaves capitalism as the only model of economic organization.”

For himself, Benedict spoke of “two logics of economics [that] oppose each other: the logic of profit and that of the equal distribution of goods.” These “logics” “do not contradict each other,” said the pope, “if their relationship is well ordered.” While noting that Catholic social doctrine asserts the legitimacy of profit, Benedict said that it “has always supported that equitable distribution of goods is a priority.”

Profit, in other words, cannot be treated as an end in itself. Economics must be subordinated to human need, which is, in part, material. “Starvation and ecological emergencies stand to denounce, with increasing evidence,” said Benedict, “that the logic of profit, if it prevails, increases the disproportion between rich and poor and leads to a ruinous exploitation of the planet.”

The “logic of profit” must give way to the “logic of sharing and solidarity,” said Benedict. This was the message, he said, of Populorum Progressio. In this encyclical, Paul VI referred to the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in the Gospel of Luke – a parable, said Benedict in an earlier Angelus catechesis in September, that can “be interpreted in a social perspective.” He quoted Paul VI: “It is a question of building a world where every man can live a fully human life, where the poor man and Lazarus can sit down at the same table with the rich man."

The parable of Lazarus, said Benedict, shows how “God does not forget those who are forgotten by all: those who are worthless in human eyes are precious in the Lord’s.” The parable also contains a warning, “how earthly wickedness is overturned by divine justice after [Lazarus’] death. Lazarus was received ‘in the bosom of Abraham,’ that is into eternal bliss; whereas the rich man ended up ‘in Hades, in torment.’ This is a new and definitive state of affairs against which no appeal can be made, which is why one must mend one’s ways during one’s life; to do so after serves no purpose.”

Indeed, it is a warning those of us – everyone of us – in the rich nations of the world need to heed. We may not ignore the parable’s poor man who, said Benedict, “represents the person whom God alone cares for: unlike the rich man he has a name: ‘Lazarus,’ an abbreviation of ‘Eleazarus,’ which means, precisely, ‘God helps him.’”