Reading “Caritas in Veritate”: Notes on Chapter Four
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
This chapter begins with a discussion of the reciprocal relationships between rights and duties, arguing that the latter are necessary for the right ordering of the former, and indeed that the recognition of reciprocal duties provides “a more powerful incentive to action than the mere assertion of rights”. This is surely correct, and it seems to me that it ought to be getting significantly more play in a document asserting that human society is founded on love. In sec. 43 Benedict applies this framework to the topics of human sexuality, contraception and family planning policies, and the place of parenthood and family life in the social order, but unfortunately it is drawn on much less explicitly when he turns to issues of economics and the environment.
Sec. 45 repeats a point discussed earlier, namely that as “the economy, in all its branches, constitutes a sector of human activity”, it is essential that it be structured intrinsically by the logic of caritas:
Efforts are needed — and it is essential to say this — not only to create “ethical” sectors or segments of the economy or the world of finance, but to ensure that the whole economy — the whole of finance — is ethical, not merely by virtue of an external label, but by its respect for requirements intrinsic to its very nature.
This point is further articulated in sec. 46, which spells out in more detail the importance of economic activity that regards profit “as a means of achieving the goal of a more humane market and society” and seems like it would have been better placed alongside the discussion of mutualism in chapter three; similarly, sec. 47 discusses development programs and the phenomenon of international aid, noting that in each case there is a real potential for abuse and bureaucratic waste and, consequently, a need for transparency, for a direct involvement of the people whose interests are at stake with the activities of those aiming to help them, and for a careful responsiveness to the intricacies of concrete situations.
Finally, secs. 48-51 take up the topic of human relationships to the natural environment. Benedict stresses the importance of recognizing the “inbuilt order” of non-human nature: “the natural environment is more than raw material to be manipulated at our pleasure; it is a wondrous work of the Creator containing a ‘grammar’ which sets forth ends and criteria for its wise use, not its reckless exploitation” (sec. 48). The consequent duties have political dimensions as well as individual ones: it is incumbent on technologically advanced societies to reduce domestic energy consumption to allow the distribution of resources to developing countries that lack them; on political authorities to “ensure that the economic and social costs of using up shared environmental resources are recognized with transparency and fully borne by those who incur them, not by other peoples or future generations” (sec. 50); and on the Church to build up a “human ecology” that will strengthen in turn a proper attitude toward the rest of creation:
The book of nature is one and indivisible: it takes in not only the environment but also life, sexuality, marriage, the family, social relations: in a word, integral human development. Our duties towards the environment are linked to our duties towards the human person, considered in himself and in relation to others. It would be wrong to uphold one set of duties while trampling on the other. Herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality and practice today: one which demeans the person, disrupts the environment and damages society. (sec. 51)
As its title suggests this chapter is rather wide-ranging, and there is clearly a lot of value in it. What is frustrating, though, is that not much is done to explicate how these issues are supposed to relate to one another, let alone how they tie in to the document’s overarching themes. I’m happy to have someone show that these complaints are misplaced.
P.S. Here is the text of the encyclical, and here are my notes on the earlier chapters. For next Sunday we will read chapters 5-6 as well as the conclusion, because I’m going to be on the road for the week after that.
P.P.S. Maclin Horton has gotten around to posting some thoughts on the encyclical and the surrounding fuss, and they are well worth a read.
Filed under: Caritas in Veritate, environment, morality, reading groups, religion
You note that in 47, Pope Benedict warns about beaurocratic waste within the international aid organizations, saying that in some cases the needy “become subordinate to the aid-givers, and the poor serve to perpetuate expensive bureaucracies which consume an excessively high percentage of funds intended for development.” Transparent and truthful accounting is offered as a check against such abuse.
He could maybe have also added that the poor can serve to perpetuate the social status of the aid-givers, in that the moral worth of, for example, Bono is elevated by his continued association with serving the poor, or by estimations of his commitment to serving the poor, not necessarily by the benefit the poor take from his work. That’s not to pick on Bono, who I’m sure is a great guy, nor should anyone assume that he, or any other aid group or bleeding-heart celebrity, or aid-giving nation like the US, is in it for the good publicity. Because that’s kind of beyond their control.
But social status/reputation is another “wrong reason” for service, and you can reap that reward without acheiving any other end, without improving the situation of the poor. So it might be considered another danger in the relationship between developed communities and the underdeveloped. I’d like to hear more of what the Pope has to say about humility in economic or “gratuitous”/aid-giving relationships, and how it can be better practiced, especially by some of the powerful and infrequently humbled parties involved (many of which I’m associated with, as a white middle-class American and a Catholic and a person nominally represented by the UN and the World Bank and the IMF).
This may be tangential to the post:
Over on the TAC main blog, Philip Giraldi illustrates through his own situation the drawbacks of our healthcare system (then a lot of other people add their own stories). He says it “denies insurance to those who actually need it” and says that “insurance companies exist to make money, not to make people healthy, and there is no money to be made in paying out for those who are sick.” That’s true, but I notice that an important concept is missing from his post, and it take a few commenters later on to introduce it: risk.
I work at a software company in the health insurance industry – slow day at work – and in conversation I often feel called to defend my people from charges of greed. I like to point out that to make its money, the insurance company accepts responsibility for a portion of your risk. This is risk that you introduce into your own life, and that you would likely bear on your own if there were not insurance. In most cases, the insurance company tells you exactly how much of your risk it will bear before you sign a policy, and in almost all cases, it honors that commitment when the time comes. People pay a lot for that service, but in return we get a lot of high-tech cures for previously incurable health problems (and someone could probably prove that if we didn’t pay so much, we wouldn’t have many of the drugs and high-tech procedures that we have today, because the health care providers ultimately get most of that money and they need it for R&D).
Anway, all of this is contractual logic, as the Pope called it back in Chapter 3. And there are 2 other forms of logic our current economy requires – political logic (just laws) and the logic of the gift (forms of redistribution). So, to use health insurance as a model, you have to have the contract, the involvement of the law/politcs, and the gift. I understand the contractual portion. And I think we’re seeing some of the legislation worked out now. But I’m still having a hard time figuring out how to factor risk into the latter two types of economic logic. And the more I think about it, the more I think this is a true problem in a lot of economic issues.
How should legislation account for individual risk (in economics, need derived from personal circumstances?) through a large group of diverse individuals? How do you best distribute responsibility for risk, when that risk has its origin in the individual?
In the Acts of the Apostles, they all pitched in, from each according to his means, and distributed to each according to his needs. How does that work with lung cancer treatment? What about in the future, when science can extend life by 30-40 years through an expensive combo of drugs and gene therapy or whatnot? If such a treatment becomes readily available, should it also be affordable to everyone, and if it isn’t, how can access to it become just? Who needs it most? To be more abstract, how do you justly spread out the cost of pushing back death, and how do you justly choose the patients? This may sound really far-off and space age now, but I’ll bet it’s an issue for my grandkids.
So, I’ve made myself dizzy here. Anyway, I’m no expert in economics, but I think the concept of risk is underneath a lot of the issues the Pope is talking about. I hope there’s a way someone can use the philosophy in this encyclical to clarify our understanding and management of risk, and maybe we can apply that to the healthcare debate.
It was interesting to note that Pope Benedict points out the evil social consequences of population decline and at the same time emphasizes the importance of curbing wasteful energy consumption in advanced industrial economies and acting as responsible stewards of the environment. Contemporary liberalism (and I include here many who may call themselves conservatives) see population limitation as the key to maintaining a high standard of living without doing much environmental harm. It’s sort of a win-win for modern man; you get to be responsibly green and enjoy the pleasure of sex without any responsibilities. While not condemning the pleasures of human life, the Catholic Church has always emphasized the importance of duties owed to God and others and the need to curb appetites. The Holy Father is solidly in this tradition in emphasizing the importance of responsible procreation, reciprocal duties, and responsible stewardship of the environment, the latter including reduced and more efficient energy consumption.