By Fred Kammer, SJ

Presented at St. Thomas University in Houston, TX on June 10, 2011.

It is important to note that, if this is an organic tradition, then there is more to be done. There are a number of questions either not addressed, or not adequately addressed, by the main documents in the tradition or that need repetition because we just don’t “get it.” Moreover, social and economic changes in the future will give rise to the need for new reflection from the perspective of faith. Without being able to foresee the future, I believe we can honestly say that there are current challenges which, without major changes in policies and practices, will only grow greater and more acute in the century ahead of us. In treating these, I will refer frequently to the last social encyclical of Pope John Paul II (Centesimus Annus in 1991) and the most recent encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI (Caritas in Veritate in 2009).

I will group these challenges under the following headings:

1. Solidarity with creation
2. Globalization
3. “greater and lesser solidarities”
4. Role of women
5. Relationship of wealth and power
6. Disparity of rich and poor

I

First among these topics is solidarity with creation, although many commentators see good progress begun in Pope John Paul's 1990 World Day of Peace message “Peace with God the Creator, Peace with All of Creation” and in a number of statements from national and regional conferences of bishops in recent years. {1}

Since Pope John Paul’s 1990 World Day of Peace message, "Peace with God the Creator, Peace with All of Creation," the environment has received increasing attention from grassroots Catholic groups and Church leaders at the local, national, and international levels. In his own 2008 World Day of Peace message, Benedict returned to this theme bringing into the discussion the concept of a “covenant between human beings and the environment” [The Human Family, A Community of Peace, 7]. In Caritas in Veritate, the Holy Father develops this theme further in a threefold responsibility that is part of the human relationship to the environment: “a responsibility towards the poor, towards future generations, and towards humanity as a whole” [48]. This care too is a part of our “vocation” as humans and proper human development projects consequently “cannot ignore coming generations, but need to be marked by solidarity and inter-generational justice…” [48]. Pope Benedict, if framing the environmental concerns in terms of covenant has taken a giant step in moving us from the “stewardship model” which positions humans over-against the rest of creation to a more adequate and updated approach that would take seriously the solidarity that extends beyond the human species to other forms of life and their habitats. {2}

As part of this responsibility, the Pope focuses his attention on the problem of energy in today’s world—an important consideration for those in a state whose economy is closely tied to realities of oil and gas—by decrying hoarding by some nations and stockpiling that gives rise to exploitation and frequent conflicts between and within nations. He urges increased solidarity between developing countries and those that already are highly industrialized, lowering energy consumption, increased research into alternative forms of energy, and redistribution [49]. With regard to the overall global environment, he emphasizes the concepts of responsible stewardship, duties to future generations, international joint action, transparency and accountability for using up shared resources, and strengthening the “covenant between human beings and the environment” [50]. As the Pope notes, we often treat ourselves in the same destructive ways that we treat the environment, and effective stewardship of creation calls for a shift from a consumerist mentality to profoundly changed life-styles reflective of the beauty of creation and our social responsibilities [51]. Benedict also underscores how many of the world’s resources are “squandered by wars!”

In making this last point Benedict is strongly in line with the tradition which has proclaimed a double connection between war and violence, on the one hand, and economic injustice. First, persistent injustice and poverty gives rise to violence and poverty. Second, wars (hot and cold) result in great squandering of resources (human, financial, and scientific) that could have been used for integral human development.

II

A second issue which has pushed its way into the forefront of church discussions of social teaching is globalization. While it received some attention in Centesimus Annus, regional synods of bishops, and elsewhere, its far-reaching impact was a major concern for Pope Benedict in Caritas in Veritate and it still demands a more searching analysis and clear reflection in faith. Its pervasiveness and power raise questions of the need for a world authority of comparable strength and oversight, a suitable juridical framework of trade agreements and more, and the development and strengthening of world labor movements to confront the challenges of transnational corporate power. {3} We have multi-national or trans-national corporations or conglomerates that are far larger and richer and more powerful than many nation-states.

In part of Caritas in Veritate which prompted much public comment, Pope Benedict called for the reform and strengthening of the United Nations and international economic and finance agencies to give “real teeth” to the concept of the family of nations. Included in reform should be improvement in international protection, an effective voice for poorer nations, and a political, juridical, and economic order to increase and direct international cooperation for development in solidarity. Basically, he called for “a true world political authority,” following the earlier urging of Pope John XXIII. Commentators hysterically crying against “one world government” failed to stay tuned to Benedict’s conditions: the “need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development…” [67]. Earlier in the encyclical Benedict warned about the importance of subsidiarity in order “not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature” but rather governance articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. He recognized that globalization requires authority, but stratified according to subsidiarity “if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice” [57].

Another aspect of the reality of globalization, which is a focus of this conference, is the international movement of peoples. We know the political reality of this issue in that over a thousand pieces of immigration-related legislation have been introduced in state legislatures in this year alone. Consistent with the Catholic social tradition, Pope Benedict in Caritas in Veritate highlighted the plight of international migrants as “a social phenomenon of epochmaking proportions that requires bold, forward-looking policies of international cooperation if it is to be handled effectively” [62]. He noted the significant contributions of foreign workers to the host country and, through remittances, to their countries of origin. He decried the treatment of these workers as “commodities.” While noting the duty to consider the rights and needs of migrants and those of host countries, Benedict underscored the traditional Catholic view in these words: “Every migrant is a human person who, as such, possesses fundamental inalienable rights that must be respected by everyone and in every circumstance.”

A particularly heinous aspect of globalization and the international movement of peoples is human trafficking—trafficking of women and children, especially, for the sex business and sexual slavery and trafficking of workers of various countries, especially the poor, to serve business interests in other countries. This concern has grown greater in recent years and promises to be a continuing challenge to us and to governments and people of good will across the globe.

III

We turn now to the third challenge to Catholic social thought and those who work out of this tradition. In the wake of the collapse of the major confrontation between East and West, the 1990s were dominated by a series of conflicts which philosopher John P. Langan described as “waged by nations, races and empires for the exercise of domination by groups defined in ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural terms.” {4} These conflicts continued into the new millennium but were not limited to the past two decades since the fall of western communism. They and their roots became clearer—in such places as the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Burundi, Northern Ireland, and Sudan. Langan articulates this third challenge to Catholic social teaching as the need for a “more penetrating and discerning sense of the ways in which the lesser solidarities of race and neighborhood, of clan and state, of tribe and Gemeinschaft come to obstruct the call to the greater solidarity of our common humanity.” {5} The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq might well fall under this same challenge, pushing us as well to respond both to the underlying causes of conflict and the rules of engagement in fighting terrorism. The challenge of terrorism, which the Church condemns, involves us in questions of the limits of fighting terrorism and the importance of addressing the causes and conditions that give rise to terrorist movements and actions.

This tension between what Langan calls lesser solidarities and greater solidarity also means that we have to consider the clashes of cultures which are involved. Contrasting the situation at the time of Populorum Progressio (1967) with the present, Pope Benedict observed in Caritas in Veritate that “the possibilities of interaction between cultures have increased significantly…” [26]. This offers opportunities for intercultural dialogue, yes, but dangers of cultural eclecticism, cultural leveling, indiscriminate acceptance of types of conduct and lifestyles, and the loss of the profound significance of the cultures and traditions of many nations—culture being the vehicle by which “the individual defines himself in relation to life’s fundamental questions” [26]. Specifically addressing international cooperation for development, the Pope warned that “technologically advanced societies must not confuse their own technological development with a presumed cultural superiority…” [59] and that evolving societies should remain faithful to what is truly human in their own traditions. Benedict argued that the universal moral law ensures that the pluralism of cultural diversity remains connected to the common quest for truth, goodness, and God and that this law is the precondition for constructive social cooperation.

IV

A fourth important issue for Catholic social thought continues to be the role of women both in rapidly changing societies of industrial and developing nations and within the Church itself. That was the subject of the 1990 U.S. bishops’ pastoral letter “One in Christ Jesus,” which attempted to dialogue with women's concerns. The controversial course of that letter, with many commentators urging that it not be published, highlighted the continuing complexity and challenge of this question for the Church. As Cardinal Bernardin commented to the U.S. bishops gathered for their retreat meeting in June, 1990:

The difficulties we have encountered and continue to experience with our pastoral letter on women's concerns are a sign of the unrest and alienation affecting many women, even as some support the more traditional roles of women. In any case, the issues of ordination and jurisdiction, or the exercise of authority, as they relate to ministry will not simply go away by fiat. The feminist movement impacts the church. How can the church, in light of its constitution and mission, best address the aspirations of women? There is no doubt that we must. {6}

Talking with intelligent, active, committed Catholic women, it is clear to me that we have failed to do so.

Most disappointing in Centesimus Annus, certainly, was the incongruous near-muteness on the oppression of women and the concerns of women both in secular society and in the church. The overall insensitivity to women's concerns was manifest, for instance, in the constant use of exclusive language (in the English language version and others) -- culminating in the title of the final chapter, “Man Is the Way of the Church.” Vatican staffers know better. The insult to many women inside of the church is compounded by the lost opportunity to evangelize women outside the church who have many concerns common with that otherwise strong document. The church has been a powerful voice on many issues of concern to women and on the rights of women, including the right to full integral development. But the cause of modern Catholic social teaching should have been served better in that document and elsewhere.

The so-called women’s issue, touches as it does so many in the church and human community and so many of those who are the anawim (the biblical anawim were widows, orphans, and “strangers” who comprised the poor and powerless; still today, in every country, it is the women, children, and strangers—racially, ethnically, or for others reasons “not like us”—who are most of the poor and powerless.). This issue then will require further and deeper consideration both in the universal reflection of the church and in a wide range of local cultures and churches, including various bishops’ conferences.

V

A fifth issue was raised by Archbishop Rembert Weakland in his revisit to the 1986 pastoral letter on economic justice ten years after its publication. Noting the concerns of the U.S. bishops about the economy, Weakland named the relationship of wealth and power as one of the critical issues which was not treated in the 1986 pastoral letter, but which has become more and more important with the passage of time. With some corporations now wielding more economic power than entire nation-states and the insidious power of money increasingly evident in the decisions of our own government, Weakland questioned the effects of unbridled capitalism on democracy itself. {7} And, to the extent that democracy is undermined by wealth, we can assume that there will not be the appropriate juridical framework to constrain free market capitalism in the interest of justice and the common good (a key point of Pope Benedict in Caritas in Veritate), with the resultant social evils which already are evident worldwide.

A recent spate of books and studies have focused on the close connection between wealth and political power in the U.S. and the word “plutocracy” has come more and more into use over the past two decades. One just reviewed (which I have not yet read, but believe from my experience) is entitled Winner-Take-All Politics—How Washington Made the Rich Richer—and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson. Pierson and Hacker trace the forty-year rise of winner-take-all economics and how big business and conservative ideologues organized themselves to undo progressive taxation and regulations, defeating labor in Washington and catering to the political and economic interests of the superrich at the very top.

I first was taken with these realities in reading about the distribution of income in the U.S. and have watched changes in income distribution with anxiety and some anger over past decades. The following two charts will help to display these startling realities. The census divides U.S. households into five quintiles—five equal groups based on household income. By analogy, think of five families dividing $100 dollars of income. In 1979, the poorest family took home $7 dollars and the richest family took home $43 dollars. Thirty years later, the richest family takes home $50 dollars and the poorest family takes home only $3 dollars! The incredible accumulation and concentration of wealth at the top has continued despite the recent Great Recession and is reflected all too clearly in the political and economic decisions made by this nation’s political and economic leaders.

Income Shares in 1979 and 2009:

1979

2009

VI

The sixth priority concern for the future, directly connected to the fifth, is the rising disparity between rich and poor occurring both within the United States and across the world. Besides the vivid injustice of some living in excessive luxury while so many others literally starve to death, these acute disparities between individuals and nations can seriously undermine the legitimacy of governments and sharply threaten the world’s peace. The urgency in Catholic social teaching of recent decades will continue and escalate as the sufferings of the poor are exacerbated by the negative forces of globalization and social injustice. The condemnations of the excesses of free-market capitalism should intensify as well as the search for alternative economic and regulatory structures.

In Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict acknowledges both that the world’s wealth is growing in absolute terms and that many areas of the globe have evolved considerably, but he joins his predecessors in decrying the “scandal of glaring inequalities” [22]. The Pope blames the continuing reality of underdevelopment, in the words of Paul VI, on “the lack of brotherhood among individuals and peoples” [19]. He contrasts the super-development of some nations and even some wealthy people within underdeveloped nations with the hunger that “still reaps enormous numbers of victims among those who, like Lazarus, are not permitted to take their place at the rich man’s table…” [27] This parable of the rich man and Lazarus (a favorite of Pope John Paul II in addressing “first world” audiences) was cited by Benedict in Deus Caritas Est, his first encyclical, as one of the three most important of Jesus. (The other two were the Good Samaritan and the last judgment scene in Matthew 25—all three about social justice!) He connects the elimination of world hunger in the global era as “a requirement for safeguarding the peace and stability of the planet” [27] In so doing, he follows the teaching of Paul VI that, “Development is the new name for peace” [Populorum Progressio, 76].

In contrast to the economic and social realities of inequality, Benedict writes that the appearance of being connected globally must be transformed into true communion and that development “depends, above all, on a recognition that the human race is a single family … not simply a group of subjects who happen to live side by side” [53]. As he observes earlier, a more globalized society “makes us neighbors, but does not make us brothers” [19]. These observations lay the groundwork for his recommendations that all peoples must live within one human community, one family “built in solidarity on the basis of the fundamental values of justice and peace” [54].

It would be unfair to leave this topic of inequality without bringing us back to one of the core issues of CST dating back 120 years to Rerum Novarum. That issue is the right of workers to organize into unions and the importance of labor unions and the labor movement to decent wages and benefits for workers across the world.

The tradition of modern Catholic Social Teaching that begins with Rerum Novarum in 1891 focuses first on the situation of the worker, whom Pope John Paul II called the sole “subject of work” and Benedict describes in these words, “…the primary capital to be safeguarded and valued is man, the human person in his or her integrity…” [25] In a single paragraph later in Caritas in Veritate, the Pope reiterates certain traditional particulars about human work: that it be freely chosen; respectful of the worker; without discrimination; enabling a family to meet their needs and the educational needs of their children; prohibiting child labor; allowing organization of workers (unions) and their voices to be heard; providing “enough room” for personal and spiritual development; and supportive of a decent retirement [63].

Benedict underscores the importance of labor unions, their need to be open to new questions, to defending the rights of others besides their own members, and to particular concerns for the interests of “workers in developing countries where social rights are often violated” [64]. Recognizing that union rights and negotiating capacity often are now more limited by governments and economic forces—increasing the powerlessness of citizens in the public sector and the economy—the Pope writes that the traditional promotion of workers’ associations must “be honored 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” [25].

In addition, Benedict reminds us that mobility and deregulation in a more globalized economy, aggravated even by the current global crisis, create a kind of unemployment that creates psychological instability, provokes new forms of economic marginalization, and—with or without public assistance—undermines the freedom and creativity of the person and his/her family, “causing great psychological and spiritual suffering” [25]. It is in light of the dignity of the human person and the demands of justice that we continue to “prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone” [32].

Other issues needing further treatment include: the role of technology in post-industrial societies, as in health care; institutionalized racism and its disparities in income, assets, education, and health status, the continuing plight of millions of refugees worldwide; consumerism, advertising, and the electronic media and their devastating impact on human dignity and community and on the possibility of relationships of fidelity; the role of the poor as agents of social change, including further deliberation on the use of armed resistance to oppression and injustice.

It is clear then that those of us who are rooted in the tradition of Catholic social teaching and Catholic social thought have many challenges ahead of us in this new millennium. We have much more work to do and Catholic Social Teaching and Catholic Social Thought have much more to do as well.

---

1. See, for example, U.S. Catholic Bishops, Renewing the Earth: An Invitation to Reflection and Action on Environment in Light of Catholic Social Teaching (November 14, 1991) and Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, the Common Good (June 15, 2001); The Dominican Episcopal Conference, Pastoral Letter on the Relationship of Human Beings to Nature (January 21, 1987); The Catholic Bishops of the Philippines, What Is Happening to Our Beautiful Land? (January 29, 1988); Indiana Catholic Conference, Care for the Earth (February, 2000); Catholic Bishops of the Boston Province, And God Saw That It Was Good (October 4, 2000); and Twelve U.S. and Canadian Bishops, The Columbia River Watershed: Caring for Creation and the Common Good (February 22, 2001).
2. Thomas Massaro, S.J., “The Future of Catholic Social Teaching,” in Blueprint for Social Justice, Volume LIV, No. 5, Janaury 2001, pp. 1-7, at 6.
3. Rembert G. Weakland, “’Economic Justice’ for All 10 Years Later,” in America, Vol. 176, No. 9, March 22, 1997, pp. 8-22.
4. John P. Langan, S.J., “Issues in Catholic Social Thought,” in Origins, Vol. 30, No. 3, June 1, 2000, pp. 45-8.
5. Ibid., p. 48.
6. Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, “The Bishops and Their Conference,” in Origins, Vol. 20, No. 9, July 19, 1990, pp. 146-48, at 147.
7. Rembert G. Weakland, op. cit., p. 16.