Answers to Questions 21 to 25about Catholic Social Teaching
This is one of those questions where the answer can only be given once it is clear what is meant by capitalism. John Paul II put the question to himself about whether capitalism is a model to be followed. He answered: "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, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative..." (Centesimus Annus, #42). So clearly there is an understanding of capitalism that the church approves.
On the other hand, John Paul also stated: "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" (Ibid.). Very much in keeping with the legacy of CST, John Paul is wary of a capitalism which exalts freedom to the extent that justice, rights, the common good and human dignity are sacrificed. This is why he stipulates that economic freedom be understood in the context of a "strong juridical framework." A false capitalism takes one part of human freedom, economic liberty, and makes of it the whole story.
Within CST there is an appreciation for the utility and virtues of a market economy. But this fundamental acceptance of a free market economic model is always tempered by concerns that self-interest not override the common good, that unregulated freedom not lead to exploitation of others or of creation, that appreciation for material prosperity not create false understandings of human development and well-being.
Perhaps a fair summary of the position of CST on capitalism is that it gets a conditional approval; it is not inherently wrong but false renderings of capitalist economics, which have existed in the past and continue in the present, must be opposed.
One can comb through the documents of CST and find a list of ills in capitalism to be remedied. It is possible to arrange the list of papal concerns under four headings: (a) establishment by the state of a juridical framework to regulate market operations, (b) communal provision of basic goods/services for all, (c) promotion of personal and group morality, and, finally, (d) protection of voluntary associations and other elements of civil society (Daniel Finn, "John Paul II and the Moral Ecology of Markets" in Theological Studies, vol. 59 [1998] pp. 662-79).
Juridical framework means that government must establish fair and wise regulations that permit markets to function optimally for human well-being while still respecting individual freedom. Second, any economy must see to it that no one is deprived of essential goods or services because of not having sufficient capital. However the economy operates, it must have in place a means whereby the community can guarantee that a person's basic material needs are satisfied.
One of the dangers in modern times is that market forces are being extended into areas of life where they do not belong. Just as the extension of government into all realms of social existence violates the principle of subsidiarity so, too, something similar can be said about economic markets. It is important that social groupings of family, church, neighborhood, fraternal and sororal clubs, recreational and educational organizations and the like should function by their own logic and ethos, not that of the market.Back to question index
Private property serves several worthwhile ends according to CST. It permits workers to meet their basic temporal needs; it also allows workers to gain some financial stability for their families; it offers security for the future, especially in old age; it rewards hard work and frugality; it serves as a means of protecting personal liberty; it permits workers to be creative and to exercise serf-determination. In addition, the social institution of private property is a useful way to see to it that people will assume responsibility for the proper care of God's creation (#5-7).
A right of possession of property, however, ought not be equated with right of use. People may abuse their possessions and use them improperly. Such abuse should be challenged and may even be restrained for the common good: "Public authority, in view of the common good, may specify more accurately what is licit and what is illicit for property owners in the use of their possessions" (#49). Abuse does not cancel the right of private property ownership. The corollary of this is also true; regulation of use does not violate the right of ownership of private property (Ibid.).The development of the teaching on private property has been in the direction of underscoring the social dimension of private property. Pius XI affirmed the "twofold aspect of ownership, which is individual or social accordingly as it regards individuals or concerns of the common good" (Quadragesimo Anno, #45). Plus XII retrieved the patristic theme of the universal destiny of all goods as the context for thinking about private property (June 1, 1941 Pentecost Address). There can be a diversity of ownership schemes that should be left to particular customs and statutes of a society. Any such scheme "remains subordinated to the natural scope of material goods and cannot emancipate itself from the first and fundamental right which concedes their use to all" (Ibid.).
In effect, the raising up of the social dimensions of ownership has led CST to insist not only on the individual right of private property but the "social duty essentially inherent in the right" (Pacem in Terris, #22). Paul VI explicitly denied that the right to private property can be considered "an absolute and unconditioned right" for "the right to private property must never be exercised to the detriment of the common good" (Populorum Progressio, #23). This principle extends to the case that "the common good sometimes demands expropriation" (#24).
According to John Paul II all property has a "'social mortgage,' meaning it has an intrinsically social function based upon and justified precisely by the principle of the universal destination of goods" (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, #42). While it remains true private property is a right that is "valid and necessary" it is important in the face of widespread poverty to affirm "the characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine: the goods of this world are originally meant for all" (Ibid., italics in original).Back to question index
The heart of the tradition is the belief that war is a rule-governed activity. War is part of the moral world, not apart from it. Unlike pacifists who cannot accept that war is a correct moral choice, or others whose zealotry leads them to think war is simply about winning at whatever price, the just war proponent argues that meaningful moral lines can be drawn in initiating wars and in waging them.
Properly understood, just war thinking is not pro-war or an advocacy of violence. "The Church's teaching on war and peace establishes a strong presumption against war which is binding on all; it then examines when this presumption may be overridden, precisely in the name of preserving the kind of peace which protects human dignity and human rights" (Gaudium et Spes, #70).
If one accepts just war thinking, three things must be remembered: (1) the burden of proof is on those who would override a moral duty not to kill or harm another; (2) to say that such a duty may be overridden in one case is not to override the duty in all cases; (3) the means of overriding should be as compatible as possible with a sense of regret for overriding the obligation not to kill.CST has developed its just war criteria in response to three questions: Why can force be used? When can force be used? How can force be used?
Answering the first question requires the articulation of what has come to be called the criterion of just cause. Various understandings of what counts as a just cause have been offered over the centuries. Modern Catholic teaching has pretty much restricted the use of violent force to resistance to another's aggression. Recently, there have been arguments to permit some cases of aid to innocents being abused by their government, what is called humanitarian intervention.
Making a case for a just cause is just the beginning of the process. I will follow the American bishops in explaining the additional criteria that address the questions when to go to war and how to wage war (The Challenge of Peace, #87-99).
Back to question index
Although John XIII called in 1961 for increased financial aid and emergency assistance to poor nations where this was needed, he realized the underlying causes of the plight of the world's poor had to be addressed in a new way. The year he wrote Mater et Magistra was also the beginning of the U.N. First Development Decade. There was optimism that something akin to the Marshall Plan, which helped rebuild postwar Europe, might happen in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
John laid out three basic norms for development: (a) the internal affairs of poor nations should be reformed to ensure efficiency and fairness (#167-68); (b) all efforts should be made to avoid a cultural imperialism by which economically advanced nations disrupt the cultural systems of aid recipients (#169-71); and (c) new developments in international economic life should not lead to an economic colonialism that replaces the older political colonialism experienced by a number of the poor nations (#172).
Paul VI articulated a threefold obligation of the richer nations: the duty of human solidarity, the duty of social justice and the duty of universal charity (Populorum Progressio, #44). The first duty pointed out the need for generous and wisely planned aid to poorer nations (#45-55). The second duty of social justice required nations to address in a systematic manner the necessary reform of the economic framework governing international trade (#56-65). Finally, Paul wrote of the duty of charity that called for sensitivity to cultural differences and respect for local customs, as well as hospitality toward immigrants and a spirit of mutual collaboration between rich and poor (#66-75).
Taken together, these guidelines articulate the elements of what makes for just development. Important as it is, however, "just" was but the first modifier to precede the noun development in CST. The next expression was integral development.
Paul VI was troubled by the lack of progress in addressing development during the 1960s. He wanted to clarify the Catholic perspectiveon the goal of development since in his mind some approaches to the question were reductionistic, focused only on increasing the gross national product of a nation or the average per capita income of a person.
Paul emphasized that "development cannot be limited to mere economic growth. In order to be authentic, it must be complete: integral, that is, it has to promote the good of every person and the whole person" (Populorum Progressio, #14). The pope was clear that "increased possession is not the ultimate goal of nations nor of individuals. All growth is ambivalent." The ambivalence owes to the fact that economic well-being is essential, but it is also a trap hindering true development if the person makes economic goods the supreme good (#19).
For Paul there are stages that lead to integral development. "The passage from misery toward the possession of necessities, victory over social scourges, the growth of knowledge, the acquisition of culture" are all important, indeed essential, first steps. Also needed are "increased esteem for the dignity of the others, the turning toward the spirit of poverty, cooperation for the common good, the will and desire for peace." Even more humanizing are "the acknowledgment by the person of supreme values, and of God their source and their finality." Finally, human development climaxes with "faith, a gift of God accepted by the good will of the individual, and unity in the charity of Christ" which permits us to share in the very life of God (#21).
John Paul II has also picked up on the idea that development has a richer meaning than the single goal of economic improvement. For John Paul, development is not the same as the myth of progress in the West nor can it be confused with consumerism. Development has an economic dimension but is not solely economic (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, #28). Genuine development is integral; it has moral and spiritual dimensions as well as political, cultural and economic (#27-34).
