Pope Benedict XVI

Catholic Social Teaching and
Pope Benedict XVI

Other Titles by Charles E. Curran from Georgetown University Press
Catholic Moral Theology in the United States: A History

The Catholic Moral Tradition Today: A Synthesis
Catholic Social Teaching, 1891Present:
A Historical, Theological, and Ethical Analysis
The Development of Moral Theology: Five Strands
Loyal Dissent: Memoir of a Catholic Theologian
The Moral Theology of Pope John Paul II
The Origins of Moral Theology in the United States:
Three Different Approaches
The Social Mission of the U.S. Catholic Church:
A Theological Perspective
Catholic Social Teaching and
Pope Benedict XVI
Charles E. Curran
2014 Georgetown University Press. All rights reserved. No part of this book
may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information
storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Join our mailing list and get updates on new releases and special offers from
Georgetown University Press.
Contents
Introduction 1
Chapter 1: A Comparison: Deus caritas est and Caritas in veritate 3
Chapter 2: Methodological Considerations 14
Chapter 3: Substance and Content of Caritas in veritate 46
Conclusion 64
v
This page intentionally left blank
Introduction
This volume discusses Catholic social teaching and Pope Benedict XVIs
contribution to this teaching. The term Catholic social teaching has come
to refer to the teachings of the papal and hierarchical magisterium of the
Catholic Church, beginning with Pope Leo XIIIs 1891 encyclical.1 There is
no official canon of the documents that belong to Catholic social teaching,
but there is a general agreement about most of them. The best English col-
lection of such documents is Catholic Social Thought: The Documentary
Heritage, edited by David J. OBrien and Thomas A. Shannon.2 References
in this volume will be to the documents as found in the OBrienShannon
book. Catholic social ethics is a much broader term that includes the social
theory and teaching developed by Catholic theologians over the centuries.
Catholic social teaching by definition is only one part of the broader Cath-
olic social ethics. Sometimes in this volume I use the term papal social
teaching to refer to the same basic documents, although some of the doc-
uments come from the Second Vatican Council and from national confer-
ences of bishops.
In his eight-year pontificate (200513), Pope Benedict XVI wrote three
encyclicals. His 2009 encyclical, Caritas in veritate (Charity in Truth), by
its content and purpose belongs to Catholic social teaching. His first encyc-
lical, in 2005, Deus caritas est (God Is Love), touches on some themes con-
nected with the social teaching and especially the social mission of the
Church, but its purpose and content show that it does not claim to belong
1
2 CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING AND POPE BENEDICT XVI
to the documents of Catholic social teaching. His 2007 encyclical, Spe salvi
(Saved in Hope), has no connection with Catholic social teaching.
This volume develops the topic in three short chapters. Chapter 1 ana-
lyzes and compares the teaching proposed in Deus caritas est and Caritas
in veritate. These two documents have somewhat different understandings
and approaches. Chapter 2 relates the methodological approaches and pre-
suppositions found in Caritas in veritate with the tradition of Catholic
social teaching under three headingstheological methodology, ethical
methodology, and ecclesial methodology. Chapter 3 examines the sub-
stance and content of Caritas in veritate and its relationship to Catholic
social teaching, focusing on its approach to the person, political and civil
society, and some specific issues and topics.
Notes
1. Kenneth R. Himes, ed., Modern Catholic Social Teaching: Commentaries
and Interpretations (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004), 26;
and Charles E. Curran, Catholic Social Teaching 1891Present: A Historical, Theo-
logical, and Ethical Analysis (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press,
2002). In Catholic Social Teaching 1891Present, I developed my own understand-
ing, analysis, and criticism of Catholic social teaching.
2. David J. OBrien and Thomas A. Shannon, ed., Catholic Social Thought: The
Documentary Heritage, exp. ed. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2012).
CHAPTER 1
A Comparison
Deus caritas est and Caritas in veritate
Although Deus caritas est does not belong to the documents of Cath-
olic social teaching, it overlaps somewhat, especially in its treatment of the
social mission of the Church. Significant differences, however, exist
between Deus caritas est and Caritas in veritate. This chapter considers the
two encyclicals and points out the differences between them.
Deus caritas est

It was most appropriate that the pope should take up the subject of love
as the first encyclical of his papacy. Love is central to the understanding
of God, the Church, and the individual Christian believer. The encyclical
develops in two major partsthe meaning and theology of love and the
promotion of love by the Church as a community of love. The first part is
a scholarly, erudite, but very readable biblical, theological, and philosoph-
ical analysis of love. A significant contribution of this part is bringing
together in one whole both eros and agape. Too often in the past, eros
(ascending, possessive, and covetous love) is opposed to agape (descend-
ing, oblative, and self-sacrificing love). Benedict XVI sees both eros and
agape in Gods own love and also in human love.1 Since our focus here is
on social teaching and mission, no more will be said about the first part of
the encyclical.
Some questions have been raised about how well the two parts of the
encyclical hang together. Archbishop Paul Cordes, the then president of
Cor unum, the pontifical charitable council, pointed out that John Paul II
requested a draft for a proposed encyclical on charity that he was not able
3
to publish before he died. Benedict developed on his own the first part with
its erudite analysis of love and then incorporated much of the earlier
unpublished draft as the second part of the encyclical.2 On the other hand,
the pope himself insisted that he was particularly interested in the unity of
the two parts, even though the first reading could give the impression of a
lack of connection between the two.3
There is no doubt that the word charity as used in the second part of
this encyclical differs appreciably from the complex understanding of love
developed in the first part. Love is the word used almost exclusively in the
first part, whereas charity is the primary word used in the second part. The
first section of the second part is titled The Churchs Charitable Activity
as a Manifestation of Trinitarian Love (no. 18). It is evident in the second
part that charity refers to the works of mercy for those who are in need.
This love is described as attending to mans sufferings and his needs,
including his material needs (no. 19). The second part of the encyclical
focuses on this service of charity.
According to the encyclical, the Churchs deepest nature is expressed in
its responsibility of proclaiming the word (kerygma), celebrating the sacra-
ments (liturgia), and the ministry of charity (diakonia) (no. 25). The min-
istry of charity is a central activity of the Church, which has been apparent
since the service of deacons in the early Church and has continued to the
present day. The role of deacons reminds us that charity must be organized
as an ordered service to the community (nos. 2122). The Church can
never be exempted from practicing charity as its direct responsibility of
doing what corresponds to its very nature. This is the opus proprium of the
Churchits proper work (no. 29).
What is the relationship between charity and justice? The just ordering
of society is the function of the state. The spheres of church and state are
distinct yet interrelated. The work of securing justice by the state is a func-
tion of practical reason. But reason must undergo constant purification
because of ethical blindness caused by the attractiveness of power. Here
politics and faith meet. Faith enables reason to see its proper object more
clearly and to do its work more effectively. The social teaching of the
Church carries out this role by purifying reason and reawakening the moral
forces that are necessary to work for justice. The Church helps form the
consciences of those involved in political life. The Church must not take
upon itself the work of making the most just society possible, but it cannot
remain on the sidelines. The Churchs role here is indirect, but working for
justice deeply concerns the Church. The direct duty to work for a just
A Comparison: Deus caritas est and Caritas in veritate 5
ordering of society is proper to the lay faithful. The proper work of the
Church is to carry out the work of charity through its charitable organiza-
tions (nos. 2829).
In short, the proper role of the Church is charity. The indirect work of
the Church is justice, which Catholic social teaching serves by purifying
reason and reawakening the moral forces that work for justice. The direct
duty to work for a just ordering of society is the proper role of the lay faith-
ful in their personal capacities.
What about such an approach? Three problems with such an approach
center around the three realities of justice, the Church, and the diakonia
function of the Church. First, justice. There is no doubt that Benedict
recognizes an important role for justice and the Churchs role in working
for justice. But he subordinates justice to charity and thereby stands in
tension, if not outright difference, with postVatican II Church teaching.
For Benedict, justice is an indirect duty of the Church; he never says that
working for justice is a constitutive or essential part of the mission of the
Church. The International Synod of Bishops, in an often-cited 1974 text,
declared, Action on behalf of justice and participation in the transforma-
tion of the world fully appear to us as a constitutive dimension of the
preaching of the Gospel, or, in other words, of the Churchs mission for
the redemption of the human race and its liberation from every oppressive
situation.4
Second, Benedict XVI understands the Church primarily as the institu-
tional Church. The laity are not part of the Church. But this once again goes
against the understanding of the Church and its role in the postVatican
II understanding. Deus caritas est sees not the Church but the lay faithful
in their personal capacity as called to work for a just ordering of society.
The Decree on the Lay Apostolate of Vatican II takes an apparently differ-
ent approach: Lay people too, sharing in the priestly, prophetical, and
kingly office of Christ, play their part in the mission of the whole people of
God in the Church and in the world.5
Third, the Churchs central role of diakonia, according to Benedicts
approach, involves only the work of charity understood in the narrow sense
of providing for individuals in need and suffering. In fact, the diakonia role
as it has developed historically in the United States involves justice as well as
charity understood in that narrow sense. The primary charitable organization
in US Catholicism is Catholic Charities. Catholic Charities organizations are
legally incorporated in every diocese and are themselves umbrella organi-
zations involving different agencies and ministries. Catholic Charities USA
is the national office providing leadership and support for the diocesan agen-
cies. Influenced by Vatican II, the national group in 1972 issued Toward a
Renewed Catholic Charities Movement, better known as the Cadre Report.
Before Vatican II, Catholic Charities saw itself primarily as providing direct
service to people in need, but the Cadre Report called for an expanded role.
Catholic Charities should be involved in three areas: provision of direct ser-
vices to all people and the use of government money to provide some of these
services, advocacy for the poor, and convening people to work on social
issues. In the subsequent decades Catholic Charities has continued to develop
along these lines.6
In my judgment, Catholic social teaching before Benedict XVI recog-
nized that working for justice and the transformation of the world is a
proper work of the Church, and that the laity in trying to bring about a
more just society does not only function in a personal capacity but is truly
involved in a work of the Church. However, Benedicts discussion rightly
points out some nuances and important aspects of the social mission of the
Church. The primary role of bringing about justice in society belongs to the
state or governing authorities and the citizens in general. The Churchs role
is important but quite secondary. In addition, there are significant limits
on the role of the institutional Church. In the United States, the whole
Church should not support particular political candidates or political par-
ties. The problem comes from the complexity involved in the specific real-
ities that face society, and in the need for the institutional Church to
safeguard the legitimate freedom of its members.
In addition, there has been a feeling among some laypeople that Vatican
II and subsequent developments have slighted the role of the laity in work-
ing for justice in society. The complaint has been made that religious and
priests have taken over the primary role of the laity in working for social
justice. One of the reasons the problem has arisen comes from the danger
of equating the social mission of the Church simply with political and eco-
nomic structures and policies. But these constitute only a part of the total
social mission of the Church. The laity in the family, the neighborhood, the
workplace, the recreational fields, and all aspects of daily life has the pri-
mary role for carrying out the social mission of the Church. Church profes-
sionals at times have forgotten about the extent and importance of many
aspects of the social mission of the Church that do not involve political and
economic structures as such.7
After discussing the distinctiveness of the Churchs charitable activity,
Deus caritas est treats those responsible for the Churchs charitable work.
Since the true subject of the various Catholic organizations involved in this
ministry of charity is the Church, the bishops of the Church have the pri-
mary responsibility of carrying out the mission. The personnel involved in
these organizations must not be inspired by ideologies aimed at improving
the world but by the love of Christ. Practical activity alone is not enough.
Christian love and prayer are absolutely necessary, as exemplified so well
in the work of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta. These dispositions of love and
prayer will, however, dispose Catholic charity workers to serve in harmony
with other organizations (nos. 3238).
Donal Dorr, in the latest edition of his acclaimed book on papal social
teaching, provides a broader context for the encyclicals teaching. Some in
the Vatican thought that many Catholic charitable organizations were
becoming secularized and not really witnessing to the love of Christ. In
particular, they were worried about Caritas internationalis, a global con-
federation of 165 Catholic organizations working in humanitarian emer-
gencies and international development. In 2011, the Vatican refused to
approve the reappointment of Lesley-Anne Knight, an English Catholic
layperson, as the secretary-general of Caritas internationalis. The encyclical
provides a basis for this uneasiness of some authorities in the Vatican that
international and national Catholic organizations are not part of the evan-
gelizing mission of the Church under hierarchical direction.8
In the United States the Catholic agency dealing with international
issues is Catholic Relief Services (CRS). CRS is the official overseas relief
and development agency of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. CRS
is strongly committed to Catholic teaching, and the board of directors
includes many bishops appointed by the national conference of bishops.
Its guiding principles come from Catholic teaching, but these guiding prin-
ciples are shared across religious and cultural boundaries and are common
among people who seek to promote and work for justice and lasting peace
in our world. The mission is rooted in the Catholic faith, but CRS serves all
people based solely on need, regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity. In
addition, CRS employs Catholics and non-Catholics in carrying out its
mission and works in concert with governments and other agencies and
institutions.9 As mentioned earlier, Catholic Charities agencies are the
domestic charitable organization for the Catholic Church in the United
States, with Catholic Charities USA as the national office providing leader-
ship and support for the diocesan agencies. Catholic Charities follows the
same basic approaches as CRS. These organizations strongly adhere to
Catholic teaching in all they do, but they work together with government
and other agencies, employ Catholics and non-Catholics in what they do,
and serve all people regardless of race or religion.
A difference exists between the understanding of Catholic charitable
organizations found in the encyclical and the understanding of the agencies
that exist in the United States and in many other places in the world. The
encyclical sees these organizations primarily as part of the evangelizing
function of the Church, as involving committed Catholics who bear witness
to their faith in all they are doing. The theology behind the work of CRS
and Catholic Charities in the United States in general stresses their service
to the needs of all people and their working for the reign or kingdom of
God. These Catholic organizations themselves are strongly motivated by
their Catholic self-understanding, but what they do is to work together with
all other people of good will trying to bring about a greater justice and
peace in our world. To be more effective in this work they must cooperate
with many others working for the same goals and purposes. In my judg-
ment, this approach is much more in keeping with the Vatican II under-
standing of the role of the Church in the modern world.
Despite the different understanding and approach from Deus caritas est,
Catholic Charities in the United States and Catholic Relief Services have
continued to carry out their mission in terms of working with all people of
good will for the good of the reign of God and not simply as carrying out
an evangelizing mission of the Church. There have been no attempts to
change the existing US structures. Some of the reasons might be that these
organizations are firmly in place and receive large amounts of government
money for their work.
Although Deus caritas est is not a part of the documents involved in
modern papal social teaching, it concentrates on the charitable role and
function of the Church. Deus caritas est, however, proposes theoretical and
practical proposals and solutions that differ from Catholic social teaching.10
Caritas in veritate
In the 2009 encyclical Caritas in veritate, unlike the earlier encyclical, Pope
Benedict explicitly recognizes the document as part of the encyclicals
involved in Catholic social teaching. In keeping with the approach of the
later encyclicals of Catholic social teaching, the pope addresses Caritas in
veritate to all people of good will.11 In fact, Caritas in vertitate revisits the
teaching of Paul VIs 1967 Populorum progressio on integral human devel-
opment and applies these teachings to the current realities. Pope John Paul
II, in his 1987 encyclical Sollicitudo rei socialis had made a similar com-
memoration on the twentieth anniversary of Populorum progressio by
applying its teaching in his own day. Until then, Benedict notes, only the
first of the documents of modern Catholic social teaching, Rerum novarum
of Pope Leo XIII in 1891, had been commemorated in this way by celebrat-
ing its anniversary in newer documents. Benedict maintains that Populo-
rum progressio should be considered the Rerum novarum of our present
age because it sheds light on humanitys journey toward unity. The first of
the six divisions of the encyclical is devoted to The Message of Populorum
progressio (nos. 1020, OS, 53137). The rest of the encyclical applies this
teaching to contemporary realities.
Benedict summarizes Pauls teaching on human development under
three headings. From the economic perspective, all persons should actively
participate on equal terms in the international economic process; from the
social perspective, all people should evolve into educated societies marked
by solidarity; from the political perspective, integral development calls for
the consolidation of democratic regimes capable of ensuring freedom and
peace. The encyclical points especially to two important new realities in the
present situation. The first concerns the malfunctions and added problems
highlighted by the economic crisis that has been occurring since 2007. In
fact, the encyclical was apparently delayed in order to deal in an effective
manner with this crisis. The second new factor concerns the explosion of
worldwide interdependence commonly known as globalization. The civili-
zation of love needs to guide and direct globalization so that it truly serves
integral development (no. 21, OS, 53738).
In its brief discussion of papal social teaching in general, Caritas in ver-
itate opposes abstract divisions such as between pre and postVatican II
social teaching. There is only a single teaching consistent and at the same
time ever new. Benedicts insistence on continuity between preVatican II
and postVatican II approaches is totally consistent with his continual
emphasis on Vatican IIs continuity with what went before in the life of the
Church.12 The pope recognizes that coherence does not mean a closed sys-
tem but a dynamic faithfulness. The social teaching illuminates with an
unchanging light the new problems that are constantly emerging. This is a
living tradition (no. 12, OS, 53233).
However, the emphasis on continuity tends to downplay the disconti-
nuities that have occurred in papal social teaching ever since Leo XIII in
1891. For example, before Vatican II the encyclicals followed a natural law
approach based almost exclusively on human reason and human sources
of wisdom and knowledge. But after Vatican II the encyclicals incorporated

faith, scripture, Jesus Christ, and grace into their approach.13 These docu-
ments also show significant ethical shifts from a classicist to a historically
conscious methodology, from an emphasis on human nature to the central-
ity of the human person as subject and agent, from a deontological ethical
model to a relationality-responsibility ethical model.14 Caritas in veritates
emphasis on applying this older teaching to the new situations and prob-
lems likewise downplays the development that has occurred within these
teachings.
At least once, Benedict indulges in a selective reading of an earlier papal
document. He claims that Paul VI, in Octogesima adveniens, pointed out
the danger constituted by utopian and ideological visions (no. 14, OS,
533). Octogesima adveniens, however, distinguishes between utopias and
ideologies and asserts that it would be dangerous to disregard the role of
utopias. Yes, there can be some problems with utopias, but they often pro-
voke the forward-looking imagination to see possibilities in the present and
direct them to the future (no. 37, OS, 294).
There is no doubt that Benedict XVI intended Caritas in veritate to be
part of the tradition of papal social teaching. Perhaps even more so than
his predecessors, he insists upon the continuity of this teaching, which
certainly is open to debate.
The most significant comparison between Deus caritas est and Caritas
in veritate concerns the earlier encyclicals understanding of the social mis-
sion of the Church, with the subordination of justice to charity and the role
of justice attributed properly and directly to the laity. Caritas in veritate has
a significantly different understanding of the three important concepts dis-
cussed earlier from Deus caritas estthe meaning of charity and its rela-
tionship to justice, the justice role of the Church, and the diaconal role of
the Church seen in terms of charity.
Whereas Deus caritas est contrasted the role of charity and justice, Car-
itas in veritate brings them together. Charity is love received and given. We
receive the creative and redeeming love of God poured into our hearts by
the Holy Spirit. We Christians who are the object of Gods love are called
to become the subjects of love and instruments of grace. Charity is more
than helping others in need. Caritas in veritate is the principle around
which the Churchs social doctrine turns. This principle takes on practical
form in justice and the common good, which are necessary for integral
development in our globalized world (no. 6, OS, 528). To work for the
common good is a requirement of justice and charity. . . . The more we
strive to secure a common good corresponding to the real needs of our

neighbors, the more effectively we love them. . . . This is the institutional
pathwe might also call it the political pathof charity, no less excellent
and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbor
directly outside the institutional mediation of the plis (no. 7, OS, 529).
Caritas in veritate never reduces the justice ministry of the Church to
the work of the laity alone. One is struck by the very few references to the
role of laity in this encyclical. The address of the encyclical itself includes
the lay faithful (OS, 526). The word lay appears only once in the text
of the encyclical, where it speaks about many economic entities that draw
their origin from religious and lay initiatives (no. 37, OS, 550). The under-
standing in Caritas in veritate thus is very much in keeping with Justice in
the Worlds insistence that action on behalf of justice and the transforma-
tion of the world is a constitutive dimension of the preaching of the gospel
and the redemptive mission of the Church (OS, 306).
Caritas in veritate does not speak about the threefold function of the
Church with its diaconal function, which the earlier encyclical had limited
to charity in the narrow sense of helping people in need. But it is obvious
that, unlike Deus caritas est, the diaconal mission of the Church includes
not just institutional works of charity but also the work of justice and the
transformation of structures and institutions. The first sentences of Caritas
in veritate emphasize that charity involves much more than just helping
those in need and involves the total social mission of the Church. Charity
in truth . . . is the principal driving force behind the authentic development
of every person and of all humanity. Lovecaritasis an extraordinary
force which leads people to opt for courageous and generous engagement
in the field of justice and peace (no. 1, OS, 526).
Lisa Cahill and Donal Dorr have come to different conclusions about
whether, according to Benedict, the Churchs role (understood as the
Church leadership) should involve direct or only indirect contributions to
justice and political life. Cahill maintains there are internal tensions in Deus
caritas est about this role, but there is a recognition that Church agencies
will work together with other religious and civic organizations to obtain
solutions to the social and political problems of the day. In light of what
Catholic agencies are doing throughout the world and in light of the latter
encyclical, she concludes that Deus caritas est does include justice and
political activity as a direct part of the charitable role of the Church.15 Donal
Dorr disagrees with Cahill on this particular issue. In Deus caritas est, pol-
itics is the domain of the laity. The Church in its teaching role makes an
indirect contribution to political life. Dorr maintains that there is nothing

in Caritas in veritate to contradict this understanding of the indirect role
of the Church with regard to justice and politics.16
In my judgment, the differences between Deus caritas est and Caritas in
veritate are not insignificant but quite substantialthe understanding of
charity and its relationship to justice; the explicit ecclesiology in Caritas in
veritate that never mentions the distinction between the role of the Church
and the role of the laity; the recognition that in the latter document justice
and the transformation of the world belong to the charity-inspired role of
the Church.
Notes
1. Pope Benedict XVI, Deus caritas est at www.vatican.va/holy_father/
benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_
en.html. The text will give the paragraph number (no.) as found in the document.
2. Charles M. Murphy, Charity, not Justice, as Constitutive of the Churchs
Mission, Theological Studies 68 (2007): 283.
3. Donal Dorr, Option for the Poor and for the Earth: Catholic Social Teaching
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2012), 34243.
4. Justice in the World, in Catholic Social Thought: The Documentary Heri-
tage, exp. ed., ed. David J. OBrien and Thomas A. Shannon (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis,
2012), 306. There are no paragraph numbers for Justice in the World.
5. Decree on the Apostolate of Lay People (Apostolicam actuositatem), no. 2,
in Vatican Council II: The Basic Sixteen Documents, ed. Austin Flannery (North-
port, NY: Costello, 1996), 405.
6. Charles E. Curran, The Social Mission of the US Catholic Church (Wash-
ington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2011), 8992; and J. Bryan Hehir, ed.,
Catholic Charities USA: 100 Years at the Intersection of Charity and Justice (Col-
legeville, MN: Liturgical, 2010).
7. Chicago Declaration of Christian Concern, in Challenge to the Laity, ed.
Russell Barta, 1927 (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1980).
8. Dorr, Option for the Poor, 35664; see also Duncan McLaren, Reining in
Caritas, Tablet, May 12, 2012, http://archive.thetablet.co.uk/article/12th-may-
2012/8/reining-in-caritas.
9. This description comes from the Catholic Relief Services website, http://
crs.org/about/.
10. E.g., Tissa Balasuriya, Companion to the Encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI
on God Is Love, Cross Currents 56 (2006): 22960; and Stephen Pope, Benedict
XVIs Deus caritas est: An Ethical Reflection, in Applied Ethics in a World Church:
The Padua Conference, ed. Linda Hogan, 27177 (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2008).
11. Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in veritate, in Catholic Social Thought, ed.
OBrien and Shannon, 526. Subsequent references in the text will give the para-
graph number (no.) of the encyclical and the page number or numbers in OBrien
Shannon; e.g., no. 2, OS, 527.
12. Lieven Boeve, Le vraie rception de Vatican II na pas encore commenc:
Joseph Ratzinger, revlation et authorit de Vatican II, Ephemerides Theologicae
Lovanienses 85 (2009): 30539.
13. Curran, Catholic Social Teaching, 2337.
14. Ibid., 5485.
15. Lisa Sowle Cahill, Caritas in veritate: Benedicts Global Reorientation,
Theological Studies 71 (2010): 30810.
16. Dorr, Option for the Poor, 38587.
CHAPTER 2
Methodological Considerations
This volume develops in some depth the methodological approaches

found in Caritas in veritate. This chapter focuses on three different method-
ological aspectsthe theological, the ethical, and the ecclesial.
Theological Methodology
A primary issue in theological methodology concerns the audiences
addressed and the sources used in the encyclicalthe distinctive theologi-
cal sources based on the Catholic faith tradition and the sources that Chris-
tians share with all human beings. The encyclicals, beginning with Rerum
novarum in 1891 and continuing through Pacem in terris in 1963, based
their teaching primarily and almost exclusively on natural law, which is
common to all human beings. Since these encyclicals did not base their
teaching on distinctively Christian sources, all human beings could under-
stand the teachings. PreVatican II Catholic theology clearly distinguished
between the natural order and the supernatural order. The natural order
referred to life in this world and was governed by the natural law. Thus, for
example, Pope John XXIIIs 1963 encyclical Pacem in terris begins by insist-
ing that the laws governing how states relate to one another are to be found
where the Creator and father of all things wrote them, that is, in human
nature.1
The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World recog-
nizes that the split between faith and daily life is one of the more serious
errors of our age (no. 43, OS, 202).2 In light of the general developments
of Vatican II, this document explicitly calls for faith, grace, Jesus Christ,
and scripture as distinctively theological aspects of the Christian life to
affect the daily life of Christian people.
14
Methodological Considerations 15
However, another aspect influenced the future development of papal

social teaching. John XXIII had explicitly addressed Pacem in terris not
only to the Church but also to all people of good will (OS, 137). This
encyclical was well received and discussed in the broader human and sec-
ular society.3 Subsequent popes continued this approach of addressing
both the Church and all people of good will in their social encyclicals,
thereby using some human sources of moral wisdom and knowledge that
are shared by all humankind. However, there exists a definite tension in
trying to address these two audiencesthe Church and the broader
human community. As a result of trying to address all people of good will,
the papal encyclicals even after Vatican II did not employ a coherent,
consistent, and integrated theological approach or method. For example,
Pope John Paul IIs 1987 encyclical Sollicitudo rei socialis devotes only one
of its seven sections to a theological reading of modern problems (nos.
3540, OS, 44955). This document thus makes no attempt to develop a
coherent, consistent teaching on social issues based on an integrated theo-
logical approach.
A document written primarily for a Church audience and based on a
fully integrated theological approach would obviously not be that appealing
to all those who do not share such an approach. Likewise, in the public
sphere, especially in the Western world, political and social leaders usually
rely primarily on arguments proposed on the basis of human reason, which
all humankind shares. In fact, according to one report, an early draft of
Sollicitudo rei socialis included a chapter on Jesus Christ, but the final ver-
sion omitted this chapter for fear of its potential impact on non-Christians
and secular society.4
Caritas in veritate breaks new ground by proposing a coherent and inte-
grated theological approach to the discussion of social and economic issues
in the tradition of Catholic social teaching. The very first sentence of the
encyclical insists that the social question is addressed from a distinctively
theological methodology. Charity in truth, to which Jesus Christ bore wit-
ness by his earthly life and especially by his death and resurrection, is the
principal driving force behind the development of every person and all
humanity (no. 1, OS, 526). The search for love and truth is purified and
liberated by Jesus Christ from the impoverishment our humanity brings to
it. Caritas in veritate is the principle around which the Churchs social
doctrine turns (no. 6, OS, 528). The theological corollary to this is that
the human alone cannot bring about true integral human development in
this world. Development requires a transcendent vision of the person, it
needs God: without him, development is either denied or entrusted exclu-

sively to humans, who fall into the trap of thinking they can bring about
their own salvation and end up promoting a dehumanized form of develop-
ment (no. 11, OS, 532). Only if we are aware of our calling as individuals
and communities to be part of Gods family as his sons and daughters will
we be able to generate a new vision and muster new energy in the service
of a truly integral humanism. The greatest service to development then is a
Christian humanism that enkindles charity and takes its lead from truth,
accepting both as a lasting gift from God (no. 78, OS, 578).
Although Benedict also addressed his encyclical to all people of good
will, he has proposed an integrated, explicitly Christian approach. Why?
One can only surmise that his entire work as a most significant Catholic
theologian influenced his approach. He might have also wanted to see this
encyclical as directly related to the approach of Deus caritas est.
What Benedict is saying here is in deep accord with the Catholic tradi-
tion. The human is basically good. Grace does not deny or destroy the
human but rather transforms him and brings him to his perfection. The
fullness of humanity could not be obtained without the gift of Gods grace.
The relationship of justice to charity resembles the relationship of the
human to grace. Charity goes beyond justice, because to love is to give, to
offer what is mine to the other; but it never lacks justice, which prompts
us to give to the other what is his, what is due to a person by reason of
ones being or ones acting. . . . Justice is inseparable from charity and
intrinsic to it (no. 6, OS, 529).
The relationship between grace and the human is analogous to the rela-
tionship between faith and reason. Catholic theology recognizes the need
for both faith and reason in its life and theology. Caritas in veritate likewise
insists on the goodness of reason, the need for both faith and reason, and
the inherent limits of reason with regard to faith. Reason by itself cannot
grasp the truth or realities of faith, but faith needs reason. Caritas in veritate
asks if it will be possible to obtain true brotherhood by human efforts alone.
Reason, by itself, is capable of grasping the equality between people and
of giving stability to their civic coexistence, but it cannot establish frater-
nity. This originates in a transcendent vocation from God the Father who
loved us first, teaching us through the Son what fraternal charity is (no. 19,
OS, 536). The demands of love do not contradict those of reason. Reason
by itself is insufficient to bring us to true integral development. There is need
to go beyond reason to charity in truth. Going beyond, however, never
means prescinding from the conclusions of reason, nor contradicting its
results (no. 30, OS, 545). Reason and faith must come together to help
one another. With regard to appraising and properly using technology,
reason without faith is doomed to flounder in an illusion of its own
omnipotence. Faith without reason risks being cut off from everyday life
(no. 74, OS, 576). Reason always stands in need of being purified by faith.
. . . For its part, religion always needs to be purified by reason in order to
show its authentically human face. Any breach in this dialogue comes only
at an enormous price to human development (no. 56, OS, 565).
Human reason itself can be a source of true moral wisdom and knowl-
edge. Caritas in veritate three times explicitly mentions natural law. Human
beings must look inside themselves to recognize the fundamental norms of
the natural moral law that God has written on their hearts (no. 68, OS,
573). In all cultures there are examples of ethical convergence as the expres-
sion of the one human nature willed by the Creator; the tradition of ethical
wisdom knows this as the natural law. This universal moral law provides a
sound basis for all cultural, political, and religious dialogue, and it ensures
that the multifaceted pluralism of cultural diversity does not detach itself
from the common quest for truth, goodness, and God. Thus, adherence to
the law etched in human hearts is the precondition for all constructive
social cooperation. The encyclical then goes on to say that every culture has
burdens from which it must be freed and shadows from which it must
emerge. The Christian faith, by becoming incarnate in cultures and at the
same time transcending them, can help them grow in universal brother-
hood and solidarity for the advancement of global and community devel-
opment (no. 59, OS, 567).
The third reference to natural law in the encyclical has an aspect that has
not been present in other references to natural law in papal encyclicals.
The natural law, in which creative Reason shines forth, reveals our great-
ness, but also our wretchedness insofar as we fail to recognize the call to
moral truth (no. 75, OS, 577). The natural law thus not only tells us what
to do; it also reminds us that we have not lived in accord with moral truth.
Benedicts integrated theological approach recognizes both the impor-
tance and the limitations of human sources of moral wisdom. He integrates
the understanding of the human and human reason into his Catholic
Christian approach. His predecessors tended to reflect on the human and
human reason apart from their role in the distinctively Christian perspec-
tive in order to more effectively address all people of good will. What will
happen in the future? Will papal social teaching adopt the approach of
Benedict or will it revert to carrying out the implications of addressing two
separate audiences? There is no right or wrong answer to this question. A

prudent judgment has to be made.
From a theological-ethical perspective, Benedicts approach is the better.
Caritas in veritate has been able to develop its teaching in a consistent
theological manner. This encyclical also explicitly recognizes that members
of the Church are able to dialogue with others who do not share the Chris-
tian faith and its theological perspective. In no way is the encyclical opposed
to this dialogue with others, but the dialogue is primarily shaped in terms
of members of the Church or Christians talking with others.
The argument for separating somewhat the two audiences of the Church
and all people of good will rests especially on the assumption that in this
way the Church can work together in a more effective manner in order to
bring about justice and peace. Obviously, the Church alone will not be very
effective in working for justice and peace in a global and pluralistic context
if it does not try to influence and work together with many people of good
will. Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical Centesimus annus, recognizes this
reason for addressing all people of good will. Leo XIII was convinced that
the great problems caused by industrial society could be solved only by
cooperation between all forces. This affirmation has become a permanent
element of the Churchs social teaching and also explains why Pope John
XXIII addressed his encyclical on peace to all people of good will (no. 60,
OS, 517). Benedict explicitly recognizes the possibility of dialogue, but the
emphasis is on the dialogue of the Church with others and the Churchs
ability to cooperate with others. The approach of two separate audiences
provides a framework in which all the parties can cooperate on a broader
level based on what they might share in common and not simply based on
the teaching of the Church.
Today, however, we are much more conscious of the difficulties in
addressing all people of good will. The approach in past papal social teach-
ing has appealed primarily to human sources of moral wisdom and knowl-
edge that all people share. Especially in the Western world, politicians and
policymakers generally recognize the importance of basing their positions
and decisions on such common human wisdom. For example, the United
Nations has employed this same approach.5 But on a global scale, there are
other significant dialogue partners, especially in terms of all the worlds
religions. The complexity and number of different perspectives in our glo-
balized and pluralistic society perhaps raise insoluble problems in having
Catholic social teaching dialogue with the many diverse religious traditions
in our world.
In addition, one must address the effectiveness of what has occurred

historically. How much effect has the papal tradition had in trying to influ-
ence all people of good will to work for global social, economic, and polit-
ical justice? It is very difficult to answer such a question. There seems to be
no historical proof that past social teaching has had that much influence
on governments and nongovernmental organizations to work for a more
just and peaceful human society. There are no easy answers to the question
of whether papal social teaching should separate out speaking directly and
in some depth to all people of good will and to the members of the Church.
Only time will tell what the future brings.
Change of Heart and Structures

Another issue connected with theological methodology concerns the need
for a change of heart and a change of structures and the relationship
between them in order to make peace and justice more present in our
world. This issue is also connected to the preceding issue of the intended
audiences of papal social teaching.
The documents of papal social teaching have given significantly more
importance to the change of structures than to the change of heart of indi-
viduals. The documents themselves bear witness to this emphasis. The pre
Vatican II documents are based almost exclusively on natural law, which
is shared by all human beings. Only at the very end do these documents
recognize the need for a change of heart. Rerum novarum, in its last para-
graph, mentions that religion alone can destroy at its root the evil that is
present in our world (no. 45, OS, 39). Very close to the end, Pacem in
terris maintains that help from on high is absolutely necessary for human
society to reflect as faithfully as possible the kingdom of God (no. 168, OS,
167). Even after Vatican II, the heavy emphasis is still on the change of
structures. Such an emphasis is not surprising. Social ethics by its very
nature tends to deal with social, political, and economic structures. Papal
social teaching would naturally follow such an approach. In addition, the
heavy emphasis given to addressing all people of good will also reinforces
such an emphasis.6
If one were to develop a coherent and integrated Catholic theological
approach, there would be a much greater emphasis on the interior change of
the individual person. In fact, there is historical evidence from a papal docu-
ment addressed only to the Church itself that emphasizes the change of heart.
In 1976, Paul VI issued the apostolic exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi, which
has the English title On Evangelization in the Modern World. This docu-
ment is not addressed to all people of good will but only to the Church.7
Evangelii nuntiandi frequently insists on the need for the change of heart; for
example: The purpose of evangelization is precisely this interior change, and
if it had to be expressed in one sentence, the best way of stating it would be
to say that the Church evangelizes when she seeks to convert, solely through
the divine power of the Message she proclaims, both the personal and collec-
tive consciences of people, the activities in which they engage, and the lives
and concrete milieux which are theirs (no. 18, OS, 328).
Caritas in veritate explicitly refers to Evangelii nuntiandi, but according
to Benedict, Paul VIs document does not have any direct link to Catholic
social teaching. Caritas in veritate, however, specifically uses two citations
from Evangelii nuntiandi to show that evangelization is closely linked to
development. Evangelization would not be complete if it did not take
account of the unceasing interplay of the Gospel and of human concrete
life, both personal and social. Between evangelization and human advance-
mentdevelopment and liberationthere are in fact profound links (no.
15, OS, 534).
Both logically and historically, one can show that a document written
from a coherent and integrated Christian theological perspective empha-
sizes the change of heart and gives it central importance in social teaching.
Caritas in veritate does exactly that since it begins with the primary thrust
of the role and importance of charity in truth with regard to integral human
development. The Gospel is fundamental for development. The encyclical,
while recognizing the goodness of the human and of human reason, stresses
the primacy, transcendence, and transforming power of grace and faith. In
this document, Benedict insists, The Christian vocation to this develop-
ment therefore applies to both the natural plane and the supernatural
plane; which is why when God is eclipsed, our ability to recognize the
natural order, purpose, and the good begins to wane (no. 18, OS, 536).
Thus the basic change of heart as found in one who tries to live by charity
and truth is necessary to fully achieve true development even in the natural
sphere. By starting from charity in truth and seeing its necessity and rami-
fications for total integral development, Benedict recognizes the central
importance of the new heart in the work of transforming the world. The
conclusion of the encyclical makes the point very strongly: Only if we are
aware of our calling, as individuals and as a community, to be part of Gods
family as his sons and daughters, will we be able to generate a new vision
and muster new energy in the service of a truly integral humanism. The
greatest service to development, then, is a Christian humanism (no. 78,

OS, 578).
Not only does Benedict strongly emphasize the need for the change of
heart and ethical responsibility in bringing about integral development, but
he also downplays somewhat the role of institutions and structure. No
structure can guarantee this development over and above human responsi-
bility (no. 17, OS, 535). In reality, institutions by themselves are not
enough, because integral human development is primarily a vocation and
therefore it involves a free assumption of responsibility in solidarity on the
part of everyone (no. 11, OS, 532). In fact, Benedict seldom refers to the
institutions and structures that are needed to bring about integral develop-
ment. There is no explicit structural analysis in the encyclical, but the
emphasis is on personal responsibility. Bernard Laurent concludes that
never before has Catholic social teaching sidelined institutions to this extent
by emphasizing instead moral reform as the solution to the problem.8 Per-
haps Laurent is too strong, but Benedict does downplay the role of institu-
tions and structure in trying to bring about integral human development.9
Eschatology and Sin

A significant aspect of theological methodology concerns the relationship
between the Church and the world, or the reign of God and the world
today. This relationship involves the theological concept of eschatology.
One way of raising the eschatological question is to ask if the Church is
countercultural. Does the Church see itself in opposition to the world? The
radical Christian sects have steadfastly seen themselves as countercultural.
The world is evil, and if Christians want to be faithful to the Gospel mes-
sage, they must leave the world and live in their own small communities,
striving to bear witness to the Gospel. Habitually, the sect type sees itself in
opposition to the church type. The church type understands the Christian
community as being in the world, interacting with it, and trying to make
the world more just and peaceful. The Catholic Church has been the best
historical manifestation of the church type. The sect is small, composed of
radical Christians who feel called to leave the world. The church is by defi-
nition big, including both saints and sinners, and living in the world while
trying to make it more just. The church type occasionally will have to make
some compromises as it tries to be effective in the world.10
Papal social teaching well illustrates the approach of the church type.
The Church lives in the world, does not see the world as radically evil, and
works with others in the world to transform it. Caritas in veritate well
exemplifies the church type at work. The whole thrust of the encyclical is
the need for the Church and people of good will to work for total integral
human development.
One should not and cannot expect papal encyclicals to explicitly develop
all aspects of their theological methodology, such as the aspect of eschatol-
ogy. There is no possibility even of such development in documents that by
their very nature have the more practical aim of trying to bring about truly
integral human development in our world. However, implicitly, there is an
eschatology at work in all such documents. In general, Caritas in veritate
follows the approach of the recent papal encyclicals, but that still leaves
open the question of how much continuity or discontinuity one sees
between the fullness of the reign of God and what is present today in our
world. As a result of how one sees this relationship, one is more or less
optimistic or pessimistic about bringing about a greater degree of justice in
human society.
One document in the broad genre of Catholic social teaching that
explicitly deals with eschatology is the 1983 document of the United States
BishopsThe Challenge of Peace: Gods Promise and Our Response.
This document has a specific section titled the Kingdom and History. The
Christian understanding of history is hopeful and confident but also sober
and realistic. The hopeful aspect is grounded in the fact that the reign of
God is already somewhat present in our world. The realistic aspect comes
from the presence of human sin in personal and social life. Because sin is a
part of history, the realization of peace is never perfect or total. Christians
are called to live in the tension between the vision of the reign of God and
its concrete realization in history. This tension is often described as the
already but not yet. We are pilgrim people in a world marked by conflict
and sin (nos. 5658, OS, 617).
Eschatology grounds the Catholic recognition that the Church is not
totally pacifist. In this imperfect and sinful world, justice and peace will
sometimes conflict. In the name of justice, it might be necessary to use
violence. The Church has traditionally accepted the just war theory, which
reluctantly recognizes that some wars might be justified, but there are also
strict limits to be applied even in waging a just war. There is need for justice
in going to war and justice in the conduct of a just war. There also exists a
presupposition in favor of peace and against war, and the need to continu-
ally work for peace (nos. 5665, OS, 61719). However, in light of the
tragedies of war and violence in our world, the bishops document seems
too optimistic in asserting that peace is possible but never assured, and
that its possibility must be continually protected and preserved (no. 60,
OS, 618).
The justification of war in limited situations is logically closely con-
nected with eschatology. The Christian Gospel emphasizes the importance
of peace, nonviolence, love of enemies, forgiveness, and the dignity and
even the sanctity of human life. How could war ever be justified? The
already-but-not-yet eschatology recognizes that the fullness of the reign
of God is not yet here. In this world, innocent people are often attacked and
need to be protected. The pastoral letter of the US bishops rightly sees the
eschatological perspective closely connected with the reality of sin. Sin is
present in our world and has significant effects.
Catholic social teaching has tended to downplay the role of sin. The
preVatican II approach was based primarily on the natural law. Such an
approach failed to give significant importance to either grace or sin. The
documents suffered from a natural law optimism. The human is basically
good, and humans can cooperate together to bring about justice. Pope John
XXIII titled his 1963 encyclical Pacem in terrisPeace on Earth. He could
just as easily have written on the basis of historical reality an encyclical
titled Bellum in terrisWar on Earth. There has never been a time in his-
tory where there have not been wars and rumors of wars throughout the
world. The infant twenty-first century well illustrates the reality and pres-
ence of war.
The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World of Vati-
can II (Gaudium et spes) insists on overcoming the distinction and even the
dichotomy between the supernatural order and the natural order. Grace,
faith, and Jesus Christ have to relate to and have an effect on daily life in
the world, but sin tended to be neglected. Joseph Ratzinger, as a theologian
during and after Vatican II, was quite critical of Gaudium et spes for its
soteriology, Christology, and optimistic approach.11 According to Mas-
simo Faggioli, Ratzinger referred to the astonishing optimism in Gaud-
ium et spes.12
In this light, one would expect Benedict XVI in his encyclicals and other
works to recognize the problem of utopianism and to emphasize the pres-
ence of sin in the world. To a degree, this is the case in Caritas in veritate.
Benedict explicitly stresses the role of sin in the beginning of chapter 3,
Fraternity, Economic Development, and Civil Society. Sometimes the
modern person presumes that she is the sole author of her own self, life,
and society. This is a consequence of what faith calls original sin. The
Churchs wisdom has always pointed to the presence of original sin in

social conditions and in the structure of society. Ignorance of the fact that
a human being has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious
errors in the areas of education, politics, social action, and morals (no. 34,
OS, 547). The pernicious effects of sin are evident in the economic order.
Convictions of human self-sufficiency have led to economic, political, and
social systems that trample upon true personal and social freedom and thus
are not able to produce the justice they promise (no. 34, OS, 547). Three
times the encyclical mentions the problem caused by utopian thinking. Just
as a persons development is compromised if one claims to be solely respon-
sible for producing what one becomes, the development of people goes
awry if humanity thinks it can recreate itself through the wonders of
technology or the wonders of finance. These Promethean presumptions
can only lead to very negative effects (no. 68, OS, 573; see also no. 14, OS,
533, and no. 53, OS, 563).
Caritas in veritate is quite realistic about the evils and problems facing
the work of integral development. A succession of crises, including the
financial crisis of 2007, afflicts the world today. There has been economic
growth but malfunctions and dramatic problems have affected the econ-
omy. The exclusive goal of profit continues to bring about glaring inequal-
ities (no. 21, OS, 53738). The encyclical frequently refers to the obstacles
that stand in the way of integral development (no. 17, OS, 535; no. 25, OS,
540; no. 49, OS, 560; no. 78, OS, 578).
Two additional comments about Benedicts understanding of sin deserve
mention. First, Caritas in veritate does not develop the concept of sinful
structures. As noted earlier, there is one reference to sin in the structure of
society (no. 34, OS, 547), but Benedict differs considerably from John Paul
IIs approach in Sollicitudo rei socialis, which also commemorated an anni-
versary of Populorum progressio. Recall that Sollicitudo devotes only one
comparatively short chapter to a theological reading of modern problems,
but here it gives central attention to structural sin (nos. 3540, OS, 449
55). In the very first paragraph he mentions that in a pastoral document it
is not enough to limit the analysis only to economic and political causes of
the underdevelopment. The negative factors working against a true aware-
ness of the universal common good are structures of sin. These structures
are related to personal sin and linked to the concrete acts of persons who
introduce these structures, consolidate them, and make them difficult to
remove. The encyclical recognizes that sin and structures of sin are cat-
egories which are seldom applied to the situation of the contemporary
world. However, one cannot easily gain a profound understanding of the

reality that confronts us unless we give a name to the root of the evils that
afflict us. To speak of selfishness, or shortsightedness, or mistaken
political calculations, or imprudent economic decisions does not go to
the heart of the matter. This general analysis of the role of sinful structures
needs to be supplemented by a number of particular considerations. Two
significant structures of sin are the all-consuming desire for profit and the
thirst for power. Not only individuals but also nations and blocs can fall
victims to these two structures of sin (nos. 3537, OS, 44951).
Why does Benedict not follow John Paul II with his emphasis on sinful
structures? One has to conclude that Benedict purposely avoided using the
concept of structural sin. One reason could well be the association of the
concept of structural sin with liberation theology, which, as is well known,
Cardinal Ratzinger strongly criticized.13
Second, some of Benedicts comments about this integral human
development still sound too optimistic despite his recognition of sin and
the fact that this development cannot be achieved immediately and is
always less than we might wish (no. 78, OS, 579). Sin does not seem to
affect what Benedict proposes should be done now and in the future. The
very last sentence in the encyclical indicates a quite optimistic perspec-
tive. We must continue to dedicate ourselves with generosity to the task
of bringing about the development of the whole person and of all per-
sons (no. 79, OS, 579). A partial explanation of this optimistic tone
comes from the hortatory nature that is part of these documents in their
attempt to encourage involvement in working for true and integral
human development.
Ethical Methodology
Good ethics, moral theology, and Catholic social teaching are ultimately
based on the truth. This has been the traditional position of Catholic under-
standing, and Benedict strongly follows this tradition in Caritas in veritate.
The mission of truth is something that the Church can never renounce.
Her social doctrine is a particular dimension of this proclamation: it is a
service to the truth which sets us free (no. 9, OS, 531). Truth enables
women and men to let go of their subjective opinions and impressions and
enables them to move beyond cultural and historical limitations. Without
truth there is no social conscience and responsibility and social action ends
up serving private interests and the logic of power (nos. 45, OS, 528).
The basic theme of the encyclical is integral human development. This

presupposes the truth about the whole person and all persons (no. 11, OS,
532). Such development insists on the dignity of the human person and a
truly universal human community that seeks the common good. This is the
criterion for judging the approach of all religions and cultures. Christianity,
the religion of the God who has a human face, contains these criteria
within itself (no. 55, OS, 565).
Benedict recognizes the importance of freedom, but he links human
freedom with the higher values of charity, fraternity, and truth (no. 73,
OS, 576). The truth sets us free; freedom must always be exercised respon-
sibly. Dangers of unlimited freedom exist in many areas. Todays interna-
tional capital market offers great freedom of action. But there is an
increasing awareness of the need for a greater social responsibility on the
part of business. Business management cannot concern itself only with
the interests of the proprietors but must also assume responsibility for all
the other stakeholders who contribute to the life of businessthe work-
ers, the clients, the suppliers, and the community in which business finds
itself. Business should not be free to make as much profit as possible at
the expense of all the other stakeholders (no. 40, OS, 552). Also, in eco-
logical issues, human persons are not free to do whatever they please with
the environment. We are called to deal responsibly with the environment
we have been given. Nature expresses Gods design of love and truth.
Nature is prior to us and has been given to us to use responsibly to satisfy
our legitimate needs while respecting the intrinsic balance of creation
(nos. 4850, OS, 55960).
There is also the danger of an absolute and unlimited freedom with
regard to our attitude toward the use of technology. Our freedom is pro-
foundly shaped by our being and its limits. The technical worldview is now
so dominant that truth has come to be seen as coinciding with the possible.
In the face of such a technological worldview, we must foster our love for
freedom that is not merely arbitrary but is rendered truly human by advanc-
ing the good that underlies it. We must reappropriate the true meaning of
freedom, which is not an intoxication with total autonomy but a response
to the call of being and truth (nos. 6870, OS, 57374).
Truth is the basis for a proper understanding of morality in general and
of Catholic social teaching in particular. But unfortunately, we live in a
historical and cultural context that relativizes truth, paying little heed to it
and showing increased reluctance even to acknowledge its existence (no. 2,
OS, 527). The increasing prominence of a relativistic understanding of the
human person presents serious problems (no. 61, OS, 568). Secularism and
fundamentalism also constitute significant errors today (no. 55, OS, 565).
Benedicts predecessor, John Paul II, in his long papacy and his thirteen
encyclicals, developed in much greater depth the basic understanding of
truth proposed by Benedict. John Paul II described his very first encyclical
as addressing the subject of the truth about the human person. His three
social encyclicalsLaborem exercens, Sollicitudo rei socialis, and Centesi-
mus annusinsist on truth about the human person as the basis of human
freedom, and on the need for freedom to be subordinated to truth. The
1993 encyclical Veritatis splendor develops the role of truth in great detail,
especially as it relates to the moral teaching of the Church that has been
contested even by some Catholic theologians. The encyclical deals with the
crisis of truth created by this disagreement with Church teaching.14
The very first paragraphs of Veritatis splendor recognize that obedience
to the truth (1 Peter 1:22) is not always easy. As a result of sin, the human
capacity to know the truth is darkened, and the will to submit to the truth
is weakened. Often human beings give themselves over to relativism and
skepticism, searching for an illusory freedom apart from the truth. But no
darkness of error or of sin can totally take away from humanity the light of
God the Creator. In the depths of the human heart, there always remains a
yearning for absolute truth and a thirst to attain full knowledge of it.15 The
rest of the encyclical explains the importance of truth and its central role
in moral theology and action.
There is one aspect of truth, however, that Benedict develops in greater
detail than does his predecessor or others in the Catholic traditionthe
relationship between truth and charity. Caritas in veritate recognizes the
reciprocal relationship between charity and truth. Truth needs to be
sought, found, and expressed within the economy of charity, but charity
in its turn needs to be understood, confirmed, and practiced in the light of
truth (no. 2, OS, 527). The very title of the encyclical Charity in Truth
points out how charity needs truth. The pope has purposely changed the
sequence as found in Pauls letter to the Ephesians (4:15)the truth in love.
In our contemporary world, charity is often misconstrued, emptied of
meaning, and frequently dismissed as able to give direction to moral respon-
sibility in all areas of human life. Truth is the light that gives meaning and
value to charity, both through the light of faith and the light of reason.
Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality and becomes prey
to subjectivity and distortion even to the point of opposing the real mean-
ing of charity. Truth frees charity both from emotionalism and fideism.
A Christianity of charity without truth becomes more or less interchange-

able with a pool of good sentiments. Truth preserves and expresses chari-
tys power to liberate in the ever-changing events of history. Development,
social well-being, and the search for solutions to our grave socioeconomic
problems all need truth (nos. 23, OS, 527).
In a short encyclical the pope cannot go into detail about all aspects of
truth. The encyclical, however, raises some issues that others have to address.
Benedict more often than not uses truth in a univocal sense. There are occa-
sional references to truths of faith and truths of reason, and also natural law.
Truth is not a univocal concept; it can be understood in different ways in
different contexts. Take, for example, reason as a source of moral truth.
Thomas Aquinas recognizes a significant difference between speculative
truth and practical truth. The conclusions of speculative reason are always
and everywhere true; thus, every triangle has 180 degrees. But the conclu-
sions of practical reason are true in most cases but can admit of exceptions
because of extenuating circumstances. Deposits should always be returned
to their owners. However, if the owner who left you a sword comes back
threatening to fight against your country, you should not return the sword.16
The document rightly emphasizes the important role of truth in working
for social justice and development but is not able to address the much more
difficult question of how one arrives at truth. Coming to the truth is never
easy, and sometimes truth lies beyond our grasp in the midst of the com-
plex and multifaceted realities of human existence. The difficulty is magni-
fied when one is dealing with the global context as the encyclical does.
An important question for the Church itself is, how does it arrive at
truth? Again, one cannot expect one comparatively short encyclical to deal
with such complex issues. A most important issue concerns how the
Church itself learns the truth. This question is more pressing in light of the
fact that in the past the hierarchical magisterium has changed its teaching
on a number of specific moral and social issues, such as slavery, usury, the
role of procreation in the marital act, religious freedom, and the role of
women in society.17 Caritas in veritate occasionally recognizes the impor-
tance of dialogue in order to arrive at the truth. The human person should
be in dialogue with herself and her Creator (no. 76, OS, 577). There is need
for a broad intercultural dialogue and for dialogue between nations (no. 26
and 29, OS, 541 and 543). Charity has to be in dialogue with the various
disciplines (no. 30, OS, 545). Dialogue is necessary between faith and
reason and between theology and sciences (nos. 56 and 31, OS, 565 and
545). The fact that all humankind shares a common human nature in the
natural law provides a sound basis for all cultural, religious, and political
dialogue (no. 59, OS, 567). History itself reminds us that the Church has
learned much from dialogue with the world, including the secular world,
especially in areas of social ethics. We learned from others, for example, the
evils of slavery, the importance of human rights including religious free-
dom, and the equal role of women in society. Caritas in veritate says noth-
ing about how the Church and the hierarchical magisterium can learn from
dialogue with others. The assumption is that the Church, understood as the
hierarchical magisterium, already has the truth.
Deductive or Inductive
An important question in ethical methodology concerns whether to move
from the general to the particular, which tends to be somewhat deductive,
or from the particular to the general, which tends to be inductive. John Paul
II definitely moved from the general to the particular. Without ever explic-
itly saying so, John Paul II, by using this method and referring to Catholic
social teaching, tried to refute a thesis proposed in the late 1970s by the
well-known French Dominican theologian Marie-Dominique Chenu.
Chenu used the term the social teaching of the Church to refer to the
method followed by the social encyclicals from Leo XIII until Vatican II,
and he called it an ideology. On the basis of prefabricated and abstract
concepts that claimed to be the eternal and natural law, the popes authori-
tatively proposed the plan that should be put into practice in our world.
According to Chenu, beginning with Vatican II and continuing especially
in Paul VIs Octogesima adveniens in 1971, a new inductive method
appeared based on the concrete experience of the people of God with the
help of the Holy Spirit striving to live out their Christian lives in their own
historical and cultural circumstances.18
Benedict follows the approach of John Paul II. Caritas in veritate eight
times in the Latin text refers to the doctrina socialis Ecclesiaedoctrina
is translated in English either as teaching or as doctrine (nos. 15, 31, 35,
36, 37, 39, and 45 twice). Benedicts encyclical definitely moves from the
general to the particular. The title and entire thrust of the encyclical moves
from charity in truth to its particular conclusions and teachings. Near the
beginning, Benedict succinctly describes his method. Caritas in veritate is
the principle around which the Churchs social doctrine turns, a principle
that takes on particular form in the criteria that govern moral action (no.
6, OS, 528).
The encyclical frequently refers to different principles that are then

applied to particular issues. The move, then, is from the more general prin-
ciples to the solution of more concrete issues. The encyclical refers to the
criterion of charity and truth (no. 55, OS, 565). The principle of justice
and the principle of gratuitousness are most important (nos. 3435, OS,
54749). Justice must be applied to every phase of economic activity (no.
37, OS, 549). The principle of the centrality of the human person as a
subject of development must be preserved (no. 47, OS, 558). The principle
of subsidiarity and the principle of solidarity play a significant role in the
encyclical and are frequently mentioned (nos. 5758, OS, 56566). In
addition to the heavy emphasis on principles, the encyclical also frequently
refers to applying Catholic social teaching to contemporary situations.
According to Caritas in veritate, Paul VI in Populorum progressio applied
the insights and aspirations of Rerum novarum on a global scale (no. 39,
OS, 551). Benedict describes his own encyclical as applying the teaching
of Paul VI to the present moment (no. 8, OS, 530).
Emphasis on the Person as Subject

A significant shift has occurred in Catholic social teaching from Leo XIII
involving a greater emphasis on the person as subject.19 Catholic teaching
has always recognized the dignity of the human being because every single
human being is created in the image of God. But Catholic papal teaching
in the hundred years after Leo XIII has developed by insisting on freedom,
equality, and participation, which are three important attributes of the
person as subject. This emphasis has shifted from the focus on human
nature to a greater appreciation of the person as subject. Leo XIII strongly
opposed the freedom, equality, and participation of the human person.
Leos encyclicals denied religious freedom. The Leonine encyclicals saw the
Enlightenment, with its emphasis on individualistic freedom, as the pri-
mary concern. As the twentieth century developed, however, a new prob-
lem arose in the form of totalitarianism. While still rejecting a one-sided
individualistic freedom, papal social teaching began to stress the freedom,
equality, and participation of the person and the need for democratic gov-
ernance. Vatican II accepted religious freedom.
Paul VI, in Octogesima adveniens, maintains that in the light of significant
developments two aspirations persistently make themselves felt in these
new contexts, and they grow stronger to the extent that human beings
become better informed and better educated, the aspiration to equality and
the aspiration to participation, two forms of human dignity and freedom

(no. 22, OS, 289). John Paul IIs first social encyclical, Laborem exercens,
recognizes the primacy of the person as subject in two important areas. First,
Laborem exercens extols the primacy of labor over capital. Capital is only a
collection of things. The human person is the subject of work; everything
else is a means of production (no. 12, OS, 39495). Second, John Paul II
emphasizes the priority of the subjective aspect of work over the objective
aspect. Such an understanding, according to John Paul II, practically does
away with the very basis of the ancient differentiation of people into classes
according to the kind of work done (no. 6, OS, 386). John Paul II thus
insists on the basic equality of all who work, regardless of the object of work,
precisely because of the primacy of the person as subject.
Benedict XVI firmly continues the emphasis on the person as subject.
The very first paragraph of Caritas in veritate insists that love and truth are
the vocation planted by God in the heart and mind of every human person
(no. 1, OS, 526). The human person . . . is actively involved in her own
development (no. 68, OS, 573).
In the economic realm, Caritas in veritate continues John Paul IIs high-
lighting of the primacy of the person as subject. The market is the economic
institution that permits encounters between persons inasmuch as they are
economic subjects (no. 35, OS, 548). There must be space within the mar-
ket for economic activity carried out by subjects who freely choose to pur-
sue other values than just profit alone (no. 37, OS, 550). In development
programs, the principle of the centrality of the human person as the subject
primarily responsible for development must be preserved (no. 47, OS,
558). Development does not involve giving help to the underdeveloped just
as objects of charity. The hungry and the poor make a dramatic appeal to
those blessed with abundance, but this is a call addressed by free subjects
to other free subjects in favor of an assumption of shared responsibility
(no. 17, OS, 535).
Ethical Model
A significant aspect of ethical methodology concerns the ethical model, a
fundamental way to describe the moral life in general and the social life in
particular.20 Three generic models have been proposed for moral theology.
The deontological model sees the moral life primarily in terms of the per-
sons conformity to duty or law. The teleological model considers morality
in terms of ends or goals. Here one first determines the proper ends to
reach and then chooses the means best suited to achieve these goals. The
third model, which I call the relationality-responsibility model, sees the
human person living in multiple relationships with God, neighbor, world,
and self, and acting responsibly within these relationships. There is need for
these three different realities of duties, goals and means, and responsibility
in relationship in ethical considerations, but one of them tends to be the
primary model.
Papal social teaching in the beginning tended to follow a deontological
model but shifts to historical consciousness and a greater emphasis on the
person as subject led to accepting the relationality-responsibility model as
primary. For example, in light of the emphasis on the person as subject,
Catholic social teaching has continued to give much greater importance to
the role of human freedom.
The best illustration of the use of this model in the tradition of Catholic
social teaching is found in the United States bishops document on peace
and war, which is titled The Challenge of Peace: Gods Promise and Our
Response. The introduction presents this letter as an invitation and chal-
lenge to Catholics in the United States to join with others in light of our
grave human moral and political responsibilities to see that a conscious
choice is made to save humanity (no. 4, OS, 6045). The relationality-
responsibility model in itself is quite generic and can be fleshed out and
developed in numerable different ways. By definition, the documents of
papal social teaching are not interested in this deeper ethical issue, but still
there remains no doubt that this model has become primary in describing
the basic understanding of the dynamics of social living.
Caritas in veritate definitely follows the contemporary approach of papal
social teaching by employing a relationality-responsibility model. The
encyclical highlights the fundamental importance of relationships. Rela-
tionality is an essential element of the human (the humanum) (no. 55, OS,
564). The beginning of the encyclical insists that charity gives real substance
to the personal relationships with God and with neighbor; it is the principle
not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with family members, or
within small groups) but also of macro-relationships (social, economic, and
political ones) (no. 2, OS, 527).
The encyclical, in its section on the cooperation of the human family,
sees the fundamental role of relationships for the individual person as a
model for relationships within the global human community. Isolation is
one of the deepest forms of poverty for a person. As a spiritual being, the
human creature is defined through interpersonal relationships. The funda-
mental importance of relationships for the individual human person in

constituting who that person is holds true for peoples as well. The human
relationships of the individual do not annihilate the true autonomy or
being of the person but rather constitute it. Similarly, the relationships
between individuals and communities do not annihilate the individual as
in totalitarianism. The relationships involved in a family do not submerge
the identities of the individual members of the family. The community of
the Church rejoices in each new baptized person incorporated into the
community of the Church. So too, based on relationships, the unity of the
human family does not submerge the identities of individuals, peoples, and
cultures but makes them more transparent to each other. True global devel-
opment calls for the inclusion in relationship of all individuals and peoples
within the one community of the human family. The Trinity serves as a
model for the relationships of the individual person and for the relation-
ships involved in the broader human community, including the global
human community. The persons in the Trinity are relationships. The unity
of the Trinity recognizes the three persons in the Trinity. Likewise, belong-
ing to various human communities including the broadest human com-
munity of all humankind does not destroy or annihilate the individual
members of that community (nos. 5354, 56364).
The word responsibility appears almost forty times in Caritas in veri-
tate. Benedict intimately relates responsibility to the two basic concepts of
the encyclicalcharity and truth. Every responsibility and every commit-
ment spelled out by the Churchs social doctrine is derived from charity,
which, according to the teaching of Jesus, is the synthesis of the entire law
(no. 2, OS, 527). Without truth, without trust and love for what is true,
there is no social conscience and responsibility, and social action ends up
serving private interests and the logic of power, resulting in social fragmen-
tation (no. 5, OS, 528). Benedict clearly links responsibility to the main
topic of the encyclicalintegral human development, which involves a
free assumption of responsibility in solidarity on the part of everyone (no.
11, OS, 532). Integral human development presupposes the responsible
freedom of the individual and of peoples: no structure can guarantee this
development over and above human responsibility (no. 17, OS, 535). In
addition to responsibility for development, we have responsibility for the
common good (no. 36, OS, 549), for technology (no. 70, OS, 574), and
for the environment (no. 50, OS, 561). There can be no doubt that Caritas
in veritate structures itself on the basis of the ethical model of relationality-
responsibility.
Ecclesial Methodology
Ecclesial or Church influences on the documents of Catholic social teach-
ing are more implicit than are the theological and ethical methodological
aspects. The documents seldom speak about the nature of the Church, but
the Catholic understanding of the Church and its role definitely color what
is said and how it is said in papal social teaching.
Right and Duty to Teach

The primary explicit approach to ecclesiology and the understanding of
the Church in the documents of Catholic social teaching concerns the
right and the duty of the Church to speak out on issues facing human
society. As mentioned earlier, the Catholic Church is not a sect but a
church type, which by its very nature lives in the world and has a concern
and interest in what occurs in the world. In his 1931 encyclical Quadra-
gesimo anno, Pope Pius XI explicitly addresses the role of the Church and
traces his teaching to Leo XIII. But before proceeding to discuss these
problems, we lay down the principle long since clearly established by Leo
XIII that it is our right and our duty to deal authoritatively with social
and economic problems (nos. 4142, OS, 52). The Church can never
relinquish her God-given task of interposing her authority, not indeed in
technical matters for which she has neither the competence nor the mis-
sion, but in all those that have a bearing on moral conduct. Economic
activity and morality are grounded in their own principles in their own
spheres, but they are not so distinct that economic activity in no way
depends on morality (nos. 4142, OS, 52). The sixth chapter of John
Paul IIs encyclical Centesimus annus, written on the one hundredth
anniversary of Rerum novarum, raises the question of why the Church
has developed its Catholic social teaching in the one hundred years since
Rerum novarum. Her sole purpose has been care and responsibility for
the human person, who has been entrusted to her by Christ himself. . . .
This, and this alone, is the principle which inspires the Churchs social
doctrine (no. 53, OS, 51314).
Benedicts Caritas in veritate follows in the tradition and occasionally
explicitly explains why the Church can and should develop such a social
teaching. At the end of the introduction, Caritas in veritate deals explicitly
with the role of the Church in proclaiming its social teaching. In this con-
text, Benedict recalls the previous papal teaching that the Church does not
have technical solutions to offer. She does, however, have a mission of
truth to accomplish, in every time and circumstance, for a society that is
attuned to the human person, to his dignity, to his vocation. . . . Her social
doctrine is a particular dimension of this proclamation: it is a service to the
truth that sets us free (no. 9, OS, 53031).
Caritas in veritate, like Populorum progressio, concerns itself primarily
with integral human development. In the design of God, every person is
called upon to develop and fulfill herself. This is what gives legitimacy to
the Churchs involvement in the whole question of development (no. 16,
OS, 534).
The two most significant particular issues in this encyclical are the econ-
omy and technology. Here again Benedict insists that these issues must be
seen and guided on the basis of the meaning of the human, thus justifying
why the Church needs to teach on these issues. The Churchs social doc-
trine has always maintained that justice must be applied to every phase of
economic activity, because this is always concerned with the human person
and her needs. . . . Thus every economic decision has a moral consequence
(no. 37, OS, 54950). The encyclical strongly opposes the dominant tech-
nical worldview that reduces everything to questions of efficiency and util-
ity. But human freedom is authentic only when it responds to the
fascination of technology with decisions that are the fruit of human respon-
sibility. Hence the pressing need for formation in an ethically responsible
use of technology (no. 70, OS, 574).
The justification for the Churchs need to have a social mission rests
on a proper understanding of the human and Christian ethical judgment.
The human embraces all the particular aspects that make it upthe psy-
chological, the sociological, the aesthetic, the economic, the technologi-
cal, the spiritual, and so on. The human must embrace all these aspects.
It can never be reduced to only one of the many aspects that comprise the
human. The Church with regard to its social mission and ethics, with its
concern for moral truth and good moral decisions, does not claim to have
expertise in the internal understandings of these particular aspects. In the
name of the truly human, however, the Church and ethics must judge
these particular aspects in light of the fully human. In my judgment,
whatever affects human persons, human communities, and the environ-
ment is a human issue, a moral issue, and, for the believer, a Christian
issue.
Authoritative Nature
The most distinctive aspect of Catholic social teaching is its authoritative
character, which definitely affects the nature of this teaching. The teaching
found in these documents falls under the category of authoritative, nonin-
fallible teaching. According to the Catholic understanding, Catholics owe
a religious assent of intellect and will to such teaching.21 This teaching by
its very nature will not deal directly with complex, specific issues that
involve disputes and disagreements. The teaching remains on a rather gen-
eral level where all Catholics should find agreement. By its very nature, this
teaching is not specific.
The question about the general or specific nature of Catholic social
teaching came to the fore in the 1980s in the context of a number of docu-
ments being written by different national Churches with regard to the
issues of peace and war.22 The reality was that different national bishops
conferences were prepared to take opposing positions on a number of spe-
cific issues. The United States bishops in the early drafts of their letter came
out against the first use of even the smallest nuclear weapon. On the other
hand, French and German bishops disagreed with this condemnation, per-
haps based on the fact that both NATO and the French defense systems
relied on the threat of nuclear weapons to deter an attack even with con-
ventional weapons. In this context, Cardinal Ratzinger, as head of the Con-
gregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, called a meeting in the Vatican to
discuss this situation with the various bishops conferences. If the bishops
conferences came to different positions on specific questions, what would
this say about the authority of Catholic social teaching? Ratzinger insisted
that Catholic social teaching by its very nature had to be general precisely
because it was authoritative.23 In a sense, he was defending the legitimate
freedom of believers with regard to their position on specific issues.
After the Vatican meeting, the subsequent drafts and final version of the
US pastoral letter on peace and war clearly distinguish three levels of moral
teaching: statements of universal moral principles, formal Church teach-
ing, and the application of these principles and teachings to specific issues.
Such applications involve prudential judgments based on specific circum-
stances but can be understood differently by people of good will. These
prudential judgments, such as no first use of nuclear weapons, do not bind
Catholics in conscience, but Catholics should give serious attention to these
proposals (nos. 911, OS, 606). The US bishops, in their later 1986 letter
on the economy, make the same basic distinctions (nos. 13435, OS, 729
30). In light of the whole tradition of papal social teaching and of Cardinal
Ratzingers intervention in the 1980s, it is obvious that Caritas in veritate

would follow the approach of seeing authoritative papal social teaching in
more general terms and avoiding prudential judgments.
The authoritative nature of these teachings explains the primary differ-
ence between Catholic social teaching and the social documents of the
World Council of Churches. The World Council of Churches has no
authoritative teaching role. The documents do not speak for the Churches,
but to the Churches. As a result, these documents tend to be much more
specific, challenging, and prophetic than the Catholic documents. On the
other hand, since they are not authoritative they have much less practical
influence than the documents of Catholic social teaching.24
Authoritative papal teaching sees its teaching role primarily as giving
direction and answers. Today many recognize that giving answers is not
the only teaching role, and maybe not even the most important teaching
role. A good teacher tries to challenge her students to think for themselves.
Sometimes raising questions can be as significant as giving answers. Papal
social teaching couldand in my judgment shouldadopt such an approach
that could be done while still recognizing the general nature of authoritative
teaching. The documents could raise significant questions for individuals,
groups, and even nations. This approach could be seen in terms of the tra-
ditional understanding of the examination of conscience. How do I as an
individual dispose of my material goods and money? What can our schools
do to make students more conscious of the need to protect the environ-
ment? How should individual nations deal with the question of climate
change? Challenging questions could also give the documents of papal
social teaching a more prophetic tone without denying the need to be more
general precisely because they are authoritative.
By reason of their authoritative nature, the documents of Catholic social
teaching are not only general but also universal in scope. By definition, they
cannot deal with all the social, political, and economic realities existing in
different parts of the world. In one sense this constitutes a limitation on
papal social teaching, but in another sense this universal perspective fits in
very well with the growing global aspect of the issue of development, to
which Caritas in veritate rightly draws attention (no. 42, OS, 55455).
Other Characteristics
Three other characteristics of papal social teaching related to the authorita-
tive nature of the documents are also found in Caritas in veritate. First, the
authoritative nature of these documents together with the fact that they are
often written on the anniversary of other documents tends to emphasize the
continuity and does not give enough attention to the discontinuities in the
tradition. As pointed out earlier, John Paul II purposely revived the term
the social teaching of the Church to emphasize this continuity. Caritas in
veritate stresses the continuity of these documents (no. 12, OS, 532).
The authoritative nature of papal social teaching has also colored the
sources cited and used in these documents. Before Paul VI, all these docu-
ments referred only to distinctively Catholic sources. In Populorum progres-
sio Paul VI broke from the existing model by citing modern authorsL.-J.
Lebret, a French Dominican scholar who was reputed to be one of the draft-
ers of the document; Jacques Maritain, the French Catholic philosopher
(cited twice); Oswald von Nell-Breuning, the German social ethicist who
was a drafter of Quadragesimo anno; Marie-Dominique Chenu, the French
Dominican who later characterized Catholic social teaching as an ideology;
Colin Clark, an English demographer; and Henri de Lubac, a French Jesuit
theologian (OS, 27576nn15, 17, 27, 29, 31, 44, 45). John Paul II did not
follow Paul VI in this regard, although in Centesimus annus he occasionally
cites documents from the United Nations (OS, 52021nn26, 30, 52, 63).
Caritas in veritate reverts to the older practice of citing only distinctively
Catholic sources and no modern sources. There is only one reference to
Augustine and one to Thomas Aquinas (OS, 583n88 and 585n130). The
vast majority of 159 notes are from previous papal documents, including
those of Benedict (OS, 58086). One very curious note, however, stands
out as an exception. Note 116 refers to Heraclitus of Ephesus, who lived
between 545 BC and 475 BC. The source for Heraclitus is a fragment pub-
lished in a 1952 German book. The exact quote from Heraclitus is the
phrase a heap of scattered refuse, which the encyclical uses to describe
what human nature is not (no. 48, OS, 559). Such a one-sided emphasis
in the notes stands in tension with Benedicts own call for dialogue with
others, and it raises again the question of how the papal magisterium learns
what it teaches.
The third characteristic associated with the authoritative nature of papal
social teaching that is common to Benedict and the earlier documents of
papal social teaching concerns the way they are composed. Some contribu-
tors work on the drafts before the final work done by the pope, but at the
time no one really knows who these contributors are. After a while, how-
ever, the names of the collaborators generally become public.25
Such a process fits with the understanding of a monarchical papacy that

was predominant until Vatican II. Vatican II, however, stressed the role of
the college of bishops and local churches. The way the documents of papal
social teaching are written should be in keeping with these contemporary
theological understandings. Local churches have made significant contribu-
tions to the broader reality of Catholic social teaching. Mention has already
been made of the two pastoral letters of the United States bishops on peace
and the economy. The American bishops, however, are by no means the
only ones making the most important contributions. Many other bishops
conferences have made weighty contributions to Catholic social teaching.
The papacy thus does not exist in isolation but in relationship to all the
bishops in the world and all the local churches in the world.26
Papal documents on Catholic social teaching have not mentioned what
comes from the local churches. One possibility would be for the papal
encyclicals to build on what the local churches have written. A major prob-
lem with such a proposal is the fact that there are so many local churches
that it would be impossible for a single encyclical to be built on what has
been said by national episcopal groups.
Another solution would be to follow the process used by the US bishops
in writing their pastoral letters on peace and the economy in the 1980s. The
drafts were sent to all the bishops, but even beyond that they were made
public. Comments, responses, and criticism came publicly from many of
those concerned with the content of these documents. The pope could eas-
ily send out a draft to all the bishops of the world to get their responses,
which would then be used in developing a final document. Such a process
would make a document truly Catholic social teaching. I would even prefer
that the draft be made public and give everyone concerned the opportunity
to comment on it. Such a process would also call more sustained attention
to the document itself in the popular press and the media. While it would
be difficult and complex to sift through all the comments and responses,
this would not be an impossible task.
Some might maintain that such a process fails to recognize the impor-
tant role that the Holy Spirit plays in assisting the papal teaching office.
The proposed approach in no way denies the role of the Holy Spirit, but,
in keeping with the best of Catholic theology, the Spirit works in and
through the human. A drafting process that is transparent and involves the
widest and broadest possible consultation is a better process than what
exists at the present. Realistically, however, the climate in the Catholic
Church at the present time is such that church leaders are not open to such
a proposed process. There has definitely been a retreat from Vatican IIs
emphasis on the role of bishops and the local Church with regard to the life
of the Church.
Expanding the Content

Benedict, from the perspective of authoritative Church teaching, brings
something new and different to the social teaching documents. He delib-
erately includes sexuality, bioethics, and the life issues in the social teaching
of the Church. Benedict recognizes that he is doing something new here.
After discussing Paul VIs Populorum progressio, he goes on to consider two
further documents by Paul VI without any direct link to social doctrine
the encyclical Humanae vitae (25 July 1968) and the Apostolic Exhortation
Evangelii nuntiandi (8 December 1975). . . . Humanae vitae emphasizes
both the unitive and the procreative meaning of sexuality, thereby locating
at the foundation of society the married couple, man and woman . . . a
couple therefore that is open to life (no. 15, OS, 534). Benedict in the
same paragraph points out that John Paul II considers the life issues in
depth in Evangelium vitae (no. 15, OS, 534), but John Paul II in his three
encyclicals on social teaching does not include the sexual issues and bioeth-
ics with the social issues.
Benedict also brings in a discussion of bioethics as a particularly crucial
battleground in todays cultural struggle between the supremacy of tech-
nology and human moral responsibility (no. 74, OS, 576). There are also
brief references to abortion (twice, in no. 68, OS, 543, and no. 75, OS,
576). Other documents in papal social teaching have occasionally men-
tioned abortion in the same way but Benedict breaks new ground in bring-
ing sexuality and bioethics into papal social teaching.
It appears that such a move came from his wanting to bring together the
authoritative papal teaching on social issues with that on sexual and bio-
ethical matters. Within the Catholic Church today, both so-called progres-
sives and so-called conservative Catholic theologians see strong differences
between these two areas of teaching.27 Many conservative Catholic theolo-
gians strongly support the sexual teaching but have a problem with papal
social teaching. Many progressive theologians strongly support the social
teaching but disagree and even dissent from the sexual teachings. Benedict
obviously wanted to see both teachings under the same umbrella of author-
itative papal teaching.
Conflict and Power

Before concluding a discussion of the methodologies used in Caritas in
veritate and their relationship to the papal tradition of social teaching, one
final consideration deserves attention. On the whole, Caritas in veritate
seldom mentions the realities of conflict and power. It seems that the most
conflict between the Church and contemporary culture comes through in
his discussion of bioethics (no. 74, OS, 576). Conflict and power are obvi-
ously not the same, but they are related. Any observer of social, political,
and economic life today sees the many conflicts existing in these areas, but
for the most part Caritas in veritate does not recognize such conflict. Car-
itas in veritate is not unique in this, for the whole tradition of papal social
teaching generally fails to recognize and deal with the reality of conflict.
The three methodological aspects developed in this chapter help to
explain the failure to deal with conflict. From a theological perspective, the
centrality of charity and truth leaves little or no room for conflict. Also,
theologically the papal teaching does not see itself in opposition to the world
but rather strives with all people of goodwill to work for justice and peace
in the society. In addition, theological approaches that give a greater role to
sin would be prone to see more conflict. From an ethical perspective, a
relationality-responsibility model has little room for conflict. We are called
to act responsibly within these relationships, which are understood to be
basically harmonious. Here again the primary ethical criteria of truth does
not have much room for conflict. The same is true of the important role of
reason, which in the Catholic tradition is often described as the ordering of
reason. Likewise, the ecclesial methodology has little or no room for conflict.
Papal social teaching is authoritative teaching that is proposed as something
to be accepted by Catholics. In light of this, the teaching remains on a quite
general level and does not get into specifics where conflicts arise.
Although power is not the same as conflict, it is related to conflict. The
same methodological factors that downplay the role of conflict also down-
play the role of power. I do not want to see conflict and power as the primary
realities in social ethics or teaching, but they do play a bigger role than papal
social teaching recognizes.
A Fascinating, Different Approach

While he was the prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith and even as pope, Joseph Ratzinger continued to write as a private
theologian. One of his primary concerns at the end of the last century and
the beginning of the present one was what he called the crisis existing
especially in European culture.28 Ratzinger devoted many articles and
books to this topic.29
The problem is a rationalistic positivistic philosophy that dominates
Western and especially European culture. Such an approach is totally rela-
tivistic, subjectivistic, and a mutilation of reason. Todays culture cannot
recognize moral principles inscribed in being because being is the prod-
uct of change and evolution and not the work of God the Creator. Ratzinger
feared that European culture was denying its Christian origins and pursu-
ing the logic of modernity that denies any transcendence.30
Ratzinger as a theologian sees this crisis in the light of Augustines under-
standing of human history as the struggle between two kinds of lovelove
for self, which goes so far as to despise God, and love for God, which goes
so far as to despise oneself. History is marked by this confrontation between
love and the inability to love.31
What is the role of the Church in this situation? Here the Church is
somewhat countercultural. The Church has an important responsibility
for humanity that it carries out by working as a creative minority for the
truly human in our world. The Church is not first and foremost a means
for social progress, nor should it try to justify itself by its deeds of social
reform. The Church must bear witness to its own truth by its life, love,
and suffering. In this way, the Church helps society to find its true moral
identity.32
Is there any role for natural law? Natural law has a significant role to
play, but Ratzingers understanding of natural law differs considerably
from that found in Catholic social teaching and in the Catholic tradition as
a whole. He raises a different perspective in dealing with natural lawits
evidential character. The Catholic tradition has generally held that human
reason can perceive the truths of natural law. But Ratzinger insists that
reason becomes persuasive only in a historical context.33 Only the historical
Christian tradition can provide the evidential and persuasive character of
natural law and true human morality. What about nonbelievers? They do
not have to become Christian, but they have to live in and appreciate the
historical tradition based on Christian roots in order to arrive at a knowl-
edge of natural law and true human morality. The natural law is convincing
only within this tradition, which has its roots in Christianity. But one does
not have to be a Christian in order to arrive at the knowledge of true human
morality.34
This is not the place to analyze and criticize Ratzingers understandings

of the problems of European culture and the role of the Church and natu-
ral law in that context. Ratzingers approach, however, raises many ques-
tions. Was it primarily a response to the particular problem of European
culture? Does the pope writing an encyclical in the tradition of Catholic
social teaching and addressing all cultures and the global scene call for a
different approach than his approach to European culture? Was he con-
scious of the fact that his own position in the discussion of European cul-
ture disagrees with the approach of Catholic social teaching and therefore
should not be incorporated into Caritas in veritate? Will his approach to
the European crisis find support from many Catholic theologians now and
in the future? At the present time there are no clear answers to these ques-
tions. The basic reality, however, remains: that Ratzingers methodological
and substantive approaches to the crisis in Europe differ considerably from
the approach of Catholic social teaching in general and from his own
encyclical Caritas in veritate.
Notes
1. David J. OBrien and Thomas A. Shannon, ed., Catholic Social Thought: The
Documentary Heritage, exp. ed. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2012), no. 6, p. 138. Sub-
sequent references in the text will give the paragraph number (no.) of the encycli-
cal and the page number or numbers in OBrienShannon; e.g., no. 6, OS, 138.
2. Unfortunately, the translation in OBrien and Shannon is wrong. The
translation there refers to the spirit between their faith and their daily lives. This
mistranslation resulted from a typographical error since the original word was
split based on the Latin discedium. The Latin text is available at www.vatican.va
/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_
gaudium-et-spes_lt.html.
3. John A. Coleman, Pacem in terris at Fifty, America, March 28, 2013,
http://americamagazine.org/content/all-things/pacem-terris-50.
4. Donal Dorr, Option for the Poor and for the Earth: Vatican Social Teaching
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2012), 37071.
5. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, available at www.un.org/en/
documents/udhr/.
6. Charles E. Curran, Catholic Social Teaching, 1891Present: A Historical,
Theological, and Ethical Analysis (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press,
2002), 4547.
7. There is no canon or official list of documents belonging to Catholic social
teaching, but OBrien and Shannon include Evangelii nuntiandi in their book
(32167).
8. Bernard Laurent, Caritas in veritate as a Social Encyclical: A Modest

Challenge to Economic, Social, and Political Institutions, Theological Studies 71
(2010): 534.
9. Johan Verstraten, Toward Interpreting Signs of the Times, Conversation
with the World, and Inclusion of the Poor: Three Challenges for Catholic Social
Teaching, International Journal of Public Theology 5 (2011): 328.
10. Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Church, vol. 2 (New
York: Harper Torchbooks, 1960), 691729.
11. Avery Cardinal Dulles, From Ratzinger to Benedict, First Things, Febru-
ary 1, 2006, 29.
12. Massimo Faggioli, The Battle over Gaudium et spes Then and Now: Dia-
logue with the Modern World after Vatican II, p. 7, www.georgetown.edu/
Faggioli-Gaudium-et-Spes/document/1242773362770/Faggioli-034+Vatican
+II+Georgetown2.pdf.
13. Harvey Cox, Liberation Theology versus Cardinal Ratzinger, Tikkun 3
(MayJune 1988): 1721.
14. Charles E. Curran, The Moral Theology of Pope John Paul II (Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press, 2005), 825.
15. Pope John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, no. 1, in The Encyclicals of John Paul
II, ed. J. Michael Miller (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 2001), 584.
16. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae (Rome and Turin: Marietti, 1952), Ia
IIae, q. 94, a. 4.
17. John T. Noonan Jr., A Church that Can and Cannot Change: The Develop-
ment of Catholic Moral Theology (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame
Press, 2005).
18. Curran, Catholic Social Teaching, 6365; see also Marie-Dominique Chenu,
La doctrine sociale de lglise comme idologie (Paris: Cerf, 1979).
19. Curran, Catholic Social Teaching, 6780.
20. Ibid., 8085.
21. Richard R. Gaillardetz, Teaching with Authority: A Theology of the Magis-
terium in the Church (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1997); and Francis A. Sullivan,
Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Church (New York: Paulist, 1983).
22. Charles E. Curran, Directions in Catholic Social Ethics (Notre Dame, IN:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1985), 18081.
23. Rome Consultation on Peace and Disarmament: A Vatican Synthesis,
Origins 12 (1983): 69195.
24. From a Protestant perspective, see Thomas Sieger Derr, Barriers to Ecu-
menism: The Holy See and the World Council of Churches on Social Questions
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1983); and Ronald H. Preston, Confusions in Christian
Social Ethics: Problems for Geneva and Rome (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994).
25. Kenneth R. Himes, ed., Modern Catholic Social Teaching: Commentaries
and Interpretations (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2005), 2.
26. Verstraten, Toward Interpreting Signs of the Times, 32225. Verstraten

also calls for a more inclusive conversation than just among bishops.
27. Peter Steinfels, People Adrift: The Crisis of the Roman Catholic Church in
America (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2003).
28. I am summarizing in this section Ratzingers analysis and reaction to the
crisis of European culture that I have developed in greater depth in Charles E.
Curran, The Development of Moral Theology: Five Strands (Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press, 2013), ch. 3.
29. The following books by Joseph Ratzinger propose his analysis of the crisis
in European culture: Turning Point for Europe? The Church in the Modern World:
Assessment and Forecast (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1994); Turning Point for Europe?
The Church in the Modern World: Assessment and Forecast, 2d ed. (San Francisco:
Ignatius, 2010); Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures (San Francisco: Ignatius,
2005); and Values in a Time of Upheaval (New York: Crossroad, 2005). See also
Joseph Ratzinger and Marcello Pera, Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Chris-
tianity, Islam (New York: Basic, 2006).
30. Ratzinger, Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures, 3945; Ratzinger, Values
in a Time of Upheaval, 6168.
31. Ratzinger, A Turning Point for Europe? 2d ed., 17980.
32. Ratzinger, Christianity and Crisis, 5253.
33. Ratzinger, Values in a Time of Upheaval, 6469.
34. Ratzinger, Christianity and Crisis, 5051.
CHAPTER 3
Substance and Content of Caritas in veritate
Whereas the previous chapter analyzed the methodology of Caritas

in veritate, this chapter examines the substance and content of the encyclical
in three sectionsthe understanding of person, of society, and of the more
concrete realities of development, the economy, ecology, and technology.
The Person
The previous chapter treated the human person from the perspective of
methodology; this chapter probes the nature and role of the person. Caritas
in veritate, like its predecessors, stresses the dignity of the person as the
fundamental and most important human value. The encyclical refers to the
dignity of the human person or human dignity more than ten times. Bene-
dict uses different adjectives to underscore the basic importance of human
dignitythe inviolable dignity of the human person (no. 45, OS, 557);
the persons transcendent dignity (no. 53, OS, 563); the essential dig-
nity of every man and woman (no. 63, OS, 570). In keeping with the
Catholic theological tradition, the basis for this dignity is the fact that all
human beings are created in the image of God. The Churchs social doc-
trine is based on the persons creation in the image of God (Gen. 1: 27)
(no. 45, OS, 557). God is the guarantor of the persons true development,
inasmuch as, having created human beings in his image, he also establishes
the transcendent dignity of men and women (no. 29, OS, 544).
From the theological perspective, the Christian person is seen in the light
of the gift of creation and redemption. Gods love and grace have come to
us in Jesus and have been poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit. We
who have received Gods love are called to share that love with others. As
the objects of Gods love, men and women become subjects of charity; they
46
Substance and Content of Caritas in veritate 47
are called to make themselves instruments of grace, so as to pour forth

Gods charity and to weave networks of charity (no. 5, OS, 528). Charity
in truth places the human being before the astonishing experience of gift.
Gratuitousness is present in our lives in many different forms which often
go unrecognized because of a consumerist and utilitarian view of life. The
human being is made for gift, which expresses and makes present the tran-
scendent dimension of the human (no. 34, OS, 547). Benedict is quick to
add, however, that charity in truth is a gift received by everyone (no. 34,
OS, 548). Catholic theology has always insisted on the gift of Gods love,
but the emphasis on gift and gratuitousness constitutes a new contribution
that Benedict has made to Catholic social teaching. Economic, social and
political development, if it is to be authentically human, needs to make
room for the principle of gratuitousness as an expression of fraternity
(ibid.). The effect of gratuitousness on the economic order will be devel-
oped later.
The topic of Caritas in veritate is integral, and authentic human develop-
ment and the encyclical discusses the human person primarily in terms of
this integral development. Quoting liberally from Paul VIs Populorum
progressio, Benedict sees the understanding of development as a vocation.
Every person is called upon to develop and fulfill herself, for every life is a
vocation. To regard development as a vocation is to realize that it derives
from a transcendental call but is incapable on its own of supplying the
ultimate meaning. Integral human development must be open to the Abso-
lute, which gives life its true meaning. The Gospel is fundamental for this
In keeping with the Catholic theological tradition, Caritas in veritate
points out that on the natural plane (as distinguished from the supernatu-
ral), integral human development is a response to a vocation from God
the Creator. But the encyclical also recognizes the problems involved on
the merely human or natural plane. When God is eclipsed, our ability to
recognize the natural order, purpose, and the good begins to wane (no.
18, OS, 536). Caritas in veritate thus has to live with the tension of the
vocation of all persons to development, but without the grace of Christ,
the human does not and cannot achieve the fullness of development, and
encounters problems in the way of achieving even ones own human
development.
A vocation is a call that requires a free and responsible answer. Integral
development presupposes the response and the freedom of the human per-
son, but integral human development as a vocation also demands respect
for the truth (nos. 1718, OS, 535). The encyclical here proposes the tra-
ditional Catholic notion of freedom. Freedom does not mean that one can
do whatever one wants. Responsible freedom is based on the truth, for the
truth will make you free. Fidelity to the truth . . . alone is the guarantee of
freedom (no. 9, OS, 531).
Benedict follows Populorum progressio in recognizing the many different
layers or levels of anthropology and integral human development as well
as the hierarchical relationship among these levels. Authentic human
development involves a continuum from the lower-level goods and condi-
tions to the higher ones. Every human being needs the basic material neces-
sities for a decent human existence; freedom from oppressive political
structures; the development of knowledge and culture; esteem for the dig-
nity of others; cooperation for the common good; the will and desire for
peace; recognition of supreme values with God as their source; and the gift
of faith by which we come to our fullest humanity, sharing in the life of the
living God (no. 21, OS, 537; Populorum progressio, no. 21, OS, 25758).
These aspects spell out the basic anthropological meaning of the integral
development of the person.
For Benedict, the human person in her development is not an isolated
monad but exists in relationship with God and many others. The ethical
methodology discussed earlier highlighted the importance of the
relationality-responsibility model. Relationship is an essential element of
the humanum (no. 55, OS, 564). The human person is defined through
interpersonal relationships (no. 53, OS, 563). These relationships con-
stitute the basis for the traditional Catholic teaching that the human person
is social by nature.1 In this encyclical Benedict refers forty times to solidar-
ity. His predecessor, John Paul II, in Sollicitudo rei socialis (also written on
the anniversary of Populorum progressio), likewise discusses solidarity in
the context of development. The virtue of solidarity helps us to see the
other, whether the other is the person, people, or nation, not just as an
object to be exploited but as our neighbor and helper, called with us to
share in the banquet of life to which all of us are equally called by God (no.
39, OS, 453).2 For Benedict, Solidarity is first and foremost responsibility
on the part of everyone with regard to everybody (no. 38, OS, 550).
Relationship and solidarity remind us that human beings are not just
isolated individuals who depend only on themselves. Benedict insists on
another strong reason for his opposition to individualismgratuitousness.
The human person is made for gift. Many moderns believe that the indi-
vidual is the sole author of ones life and society, but this is not true. We
have all been gifted by many different people in many different ways (no.
23, OS, 547). There can be no doubt that individualism is very strong in
the United States ethos. The emphasis is on the self-made person. The
American iconic heroine is the person who pulls herself up by the boot-
straps and becomes successful without help from anyone else. Such an
approach fails to recognize how much we have been helped by others
friends, neighbors, teachers. No person is an island. In addition, individu-
alism emphasizes ones own success and good and forgets about the good
of others and the common good. Many of the criticisms of the present eco-
nomic order, which are developed later, focus on the dangers of this one-
sided individualism.
Human Society
The realities of relationships and solidarity come to the fore in Caritas in
veritates basic understanding of public society and how it should function.
In keeping with the Catholic tradition, Benedict recognizes basic compo-
nents in public society and attempts to put them together in an orderly way.
The encyclical sees the individual person, the family, intermediate groups,
the political ordering of the state on the local and national level, and the
universal human family embracing all persons. In light of the encyclicals
emphasis on globalization, it focuses more than earlier documents on the
universal human family. Pope Paul VI, in Populorum progressio, called
attention to this international dimension, but there is no doubt that Bene-
dict develops it at much greater depth and length. Caritas in veritate uses
the term human family to refer to all people on the planet. Chapter 5 is
titled The Cooperation of the Human Family (OS, 563). He speaks of
building the universal city of God that is the goal of the history of the
human family (no. 7, OS, 529). The Christian ideal is a single family of
peoples in solidarity and fraternity (no. 13, OS, 533). The divine plan is
for all people to live as a human family under the Creators watchful eye
(no. 57, OS, 565). Creation thus serves as the theological basis for the
insistence on all people constituting one human family. Although Benedict
does not develop in detail the notion of creation, it is obvious that through
creation all of us are brothers and sisters of one another.
The encyclical also frequently talks about the nature, function, and lim-
its of the individual state. Benedict uses various terms here. He speaks of
the role of political authority at the local, national, and international levels.
He frequently refers to the state and often refers to the adjective national.
In all these instances he is generally referring to what we know today as

nation-states.
State as Natural, Necessary, and Good, but Limited

The Catholic tradition in general and Catholic social teaching in particular
have recognized that the state is natural, necessary, and good, but limited.3
The state is natural and necessary because it is based on our very nature.
We are social beings called to live in solidarity with one another. The state
provides the political ordering based on and contributing to human soli-
darity. Catholic social teaching has always seen the Catholic understanding
of the state as a middle position between two extremesindividualism and
collectivism. Individualism views the political order as a collection of indi-
viduals primarily interested in their own individual good. The contract
theory of the state begins with individual persons seeking their own good,
who then realize they have to form society with other individuals but then
do it in such a way that they can hold on to their individual goods as much
as possible. The individualistic notion of the state wants to limit the state
as much as possible. The phrase is often used the less government, the best
or that government is best which governs least. The other extreme of col-
lectivity stresses the collectivity and downplays the role of the individual
person. This aspect stresses the state as controlling all aspects of public and
social life, often termed totalitarianism. Here the individual person is
totally subordinated to the collectivity.
According to Benedict, metaphysics, reason, and Christian revelation
point out that the community and the political order do not absorb or
annihilate the person, as happens in totalitarianism. Both the individual
person and the community and political order are totalities that relate to
one another as totalities. The human person is thus not subordinated to the
community or the political order. Just as the family does not submerge the
individual identity of the members of the family, just as the Church rejoices
in the baptism of the individual person who is baptized into the body of
Christ, so too the political community or state does not submerge the indi-
vidual identity of persons (no. 53, OS, 56364).
In the beginning of the encyclical, the pope points out the important role
of the common good in working out the proper relationship between indi-
vidual persons and community. In addition to the good of the person is the
good linked to living in society, the common good. It is the good of all of us,
made up of individuals, families, and intermediate groups who together
constitute society. To take a stand for the common good is on the one hand
to be solicitous for, and on the other hand to avail oneself of, that complex
of institutions that give structure to the life of society, juridically, civilly,
politically, and culturally, making it the plis or city (no. 7, OS, 529).
The theory of the common good rests on the recognition as pointed out
earlier that the person is a totality that cannot be subordinated to the com-
munity or society, but the person is also social and lives in solidarity with
others. The nature of society based on the common good differs from both
the individualistic and collective notions of society, which emphasize either
individual goods or collective goods. The common good is the good for
society that ultimately redounds to the good of the individual person. Clean
air, for example, is good for society and also for the individual person.
Benedict, based on Catholic teaching, sees the role of the state as limited
by the principle of subsidiarity, which recognizes the various elements and
layers composing the public society, of which the state is only a part. The
state is over the intermediate groups and bodies, the family and the person
(no. 7, OS, 529). Benedict merely mentions the intermediate groups or
bodies without describing them. These intermediate realities begin with the
extended family, the neighborhood, voluntary associations, and all kinds
of economic, cultural, educational, and religious associations and bodies as
well as institutions such as the press and the media. The higher bodies need
to help the lower elements do what they can and only take over when the
lower realities cannot do it.
Take the example of housing in the United States. The primary respon-
sibility rests with the person and the family. Voluntary associations such as
Habitat for Humanity supply housing for others who cannot afford it. The
state tries to help both the intermediate groups and the family by providing
tax relief for mortgage payments. Individuals, families, and intermediate
groups and organizations, however, often cannot supply the housing that
is needed, so local government must step in at times to provide public
housing. Subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of
all-encompassing welfare state (no. 57, OS, 566). Subsidiarity thus
opposes any totalitarianism, but the principle of subsidiarity must remain
closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa. Subsidiarity with-
out solidarity gives way to social privatism, while solidarity without sub-
sidiarity gives way to paternalistic control (no. 58, OS, 566).
Benedict also discusses one factor limiting the role of the state that is new
to Catholic social teachingglobalization. The new system of international
trade and finance goes beyond the reality of any individual state. Globalization
affects not only the economic order through outsourcing and taking advan-
tage of cheap labor in other countries but also the cultural order with increasing
interaction between and among different cultures in the world. Globalization
calls for different forms of business activities and for dispersed political author-
ity (nos. 2427, OS, 53942). This does not mean, however, that the role of
sovereign states is going away; rather, it commits governments and states to a
greater collaboration with one another (no. 43, OS, 553).
Three Important Aspects in the State

Without developing the issue, Caritas in veritate recognizes the need for
democratic forms of government (nos. 21 and 41, OS, 537 and 553). The
encyclical pays special attention to three important aspects in the life of
democratic society and the political orderthe roles of religion, justice,
and human rights. The Catholic Church and other religions are part of the
intermediate groups existing and working in society. Catholic social teach-
ing came into existence to work for a better human society in its cultural,
social, economic, and political dimensions. By insisting that God has a
place in the social realm, Benedict continues to recognize the public role of
the Church. Such Catholic teaching calls for fruitful dialogue and collabo-
ration between believers and nonbelievers in working for a better society.
Yes, the danger of religious fanaticism exists, but the opposite danger
removes the religious from the public realm, thus depriving society of spir-
itual and human resources contributing to integral human development.
In this context, the encyclical insists on religious freedom in society (no.
29, OS, 54344 and 565).
Caritas in veritate gives special importance to justice as a criterion that
governs the life of society (no. 6, OS, 528). Pope Benedict recognizes the
three understandings of justice found in the Catholic traditioncommuta-
tive justice, distributive justice, and social justiceand points out that
Catholic social teaching has given increasing importance to distributive
and social justice (no. 35, OS, 548). Commutative justice deals with
exchanges between two parties. Such a justice involves arithmetic equality
and is blind and no respecter of persons. If I borrow ten dollars from a poor
person and ten dollars from the richest person in the world, I would owe
them both ten dollars. Distributive justice refers to how society and the
state distribute the burdens and benefits among people. Social justice con-
cerns the relationship of individuals to society and the state. In both these
cases, the justice involved is proportionate, and justice is not blind but
considers the persons involved. Thus, the Catholic tradition has held that
those who earn more money should pay more taxes and a higher percent-
age of their income than those who have less. Social justice was originally
called legal justice since the primary obligation of the individual to the
society was to obey the law. Today social justice emphasizes the active
participation of all in working for the common good. Here again, the Cath-
olic understanding often contrasts with the popular ethos in the United
States that, in the light of its individualism, sees justice heavily if not exclu-
sively in terms of commutative justice. As Caritas in veritate points out,
economic activity cannot solve all social problems through the simple
application of commercial logic (no. 36, OS, 549).
Caritas in veritate adds a significant new note to the understanding of
justice by insisting throughout the document on the need for redistribu-
tion, especially in light of the glaring inequities that exist in our world.
Political action should seek justice through redistribution (no. 36, OS,
549). Economic life needs just laws and forms of redistribution by politics
(no. 37, OS, 550). Benedict also calls for a worldwide redistribution of
energy resources so that countries lacking these resources can have access
to them (no. 49, OS, 560). Benedicts predecessor Pope John Paul II does
not mention redistribution in his three social encyclicals. Caritas in veri-
tate, however, does not discuss the difficult problem of the means and
structures to bring about redistribution.
Caritas in veritate also discusses human rights. The Catholic tradition
for a long time shied away from human rights because of the individualism
often found in human rights language. Pope John XXIII first introduced in
some detail the importance of human rights in his encyclical Pacem in ter-
ris, but even here he insists on the need for correlative duties and recognizes
rights not only involved in freedom from interference by others (e.g.,
speech, assembly, press, religious freedom) but also social and economic
rights, including rights to food, clothing, shelter, education, and health care
(nos. 1127, OS, 13941). Caritas in veritate carries on this tradition in
its chapter 4. Many people today are so concerned with their own rights
that they do not recognize the need for their own and other peoples inte-
gral development. Rights, however, presuppose duties if they are not to
become pure license (no. 43, OS, 5556). Caritas in veritate recognizes
both social and political rights, such as political freedom, as well as social
and economic rights, such as food and access to water, which are universal
human rights of all human beings (no. 27, OS, 542). Benedict also insists
on humanitys right to development (no. 11, OS, 532).
International Public Order

The previous section discussed Benedicts understanding of civil society
and the political order with regard to individual states. What was said there
is also true of the broader international public order. In fact, since the topic
of development is international by nature, Benedict has considered all these
realities and values in light of what should also be present in the interna-
tional order. The encyclical then goes on to discuss explicitly the aspect of
political authority on the international scene.
There is an urgent need to find ways to implement the principle of
responsibility to protect poorer nations and give them an effective voice
in shared decision making. To manage the global economy; to revive
economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis
and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and
timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection
of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent
need of a true world political authority as my predecessor blessed John
XXIII indicated some years ago (no. 67, OS, 572). In this paragraph, the
encyclical explicitly calls for a reform of the United Nations organization.
Such an authority must be committed to integral human development
based on the values of charity and truth, justice and the common good,
and subsidiarity and solidarity. This authority must be able to secure com-
pliance on the part of all parties; otherwise, powerful nations will control
things (no. 67, OS, 572).
In theory, it is easy to recognize the need for such a worldwide political
authority to ensure integral development. But is it realistic or possible? As
already mentioned, from a theological perspective, Caritas in veritate tends
to downplay the role of sin in the proposals it makes and from an ethical
perspective fails to acknowledge the important reality of conflict. Even the
fundamental proposal that all individuals and groups should work for the
common good suffers from these deficiencies. Many individuals, groups,
corporations, and particular institutions and organizations work not pri-
marily for the common good but for the good of individuals, the good of
the group, or the good of the institutions and organizations. To an even
greater degree, the realities of sin and conflict make the proposal for an
international political authority with power to enforce its decrees unreal-
istic. The present structure of the United Nations well illustrates the prob-
lem. The most powerful nations will not give up their sovereignty and
authority to an international political authority. In the present structure of
the United Nations, the five most powerful nations when the organization
came into being demanded a veto power. The powerful, whether individu-
als or groups or nations, will not easily give up their power. Benedicts
proposal for an international political authority to promote and safeguard
integral human development is unrealistic.
Development, Economy, Ecology, and Technology

The previous section considered the values that should be present in public
society, both on the national and international scenes. Now our concern
focuses on the issues discussed in the encyclicaldevelopment, the econ-
omy, ecology, and technology. As is obvious, the primary issue is authentic,
integral human development.
Integral Human Development

The first chapter of Caritas in veritate discusses Paul VIs teaching on inte-
gral human development while the second chapter deals with human
development in our times. Here Benedict begins by looking at how the
expectations proposed by Paul VI have been met in our world. There has
been some economic growth, but it continues to be weighed down by mal-
functions and dramatic problems highlighted even further by the economic
crisis that began in 2007. The scandal of inequality continues. In fact,
inequalities are on the increase (no. 22, OS, 538). Hunger and the lack of
access to food and water are major problems for many (no. 27, OS, 22).
Even in poor countries some groups enjoy a superdevelopment of a
wasteful and consumerist kind (ibid.). Problems include the damaging
effects of financial dealing, large multinational corporations failing to
respect the rights of workers, large-scale migrations of people, unregulated
exploitation of the earths resources, unfair trade practices, and efforts by
rich countries to gain all they can for themselves (nos. 2123, OS, 53739).
On a cultural plane, cultural eclecticism uncritically accepts all cultures as
good. On the opposite extreme, a cultural leveling denies the profound
significance of culture for different nations and people (no. 26, OS, 541).
In addition, there is a growing disrespect for life that is at the center of true
Technology or economics alone cannot solve these problems. They
require new efforts of holistic understanding and a new humanistic synthe-
sis (no. 21, OS, 538). Caritas in veritate develops this new humanistic
synthesis not in one concentrated place but throughout the following three
chapters of the encyclical. The values that constitute this vision are those
already mentionedcharity, truth, responsibility, reason, common good,
justice, rights and duties, subsidiarity, and solidarity. Integral human devel-
opment cannot be reduced to just one aspect of the human, such as the
technological or the economic.
It is surprising that the proposed solutions do not include structural and
institutional elements, but as mentioned earlier, Caritas in veritate down-
plays the role of the structural. In fact, when discussing hunger and food,
Caritas in veritate maintains the problem primarily depends on a lack of
institutional resources, especially a network of economic institutions
guaranteeing regular access to sufficient food and water (no. 27, OS, 542).
The problems of food insecurity require eliminating the structural causes
that give rise to it (no. 27, OS, 542). In the encyclical, however, no such
institutions and structures are described. In fact, the encyclical describes
the needed new humanistic synthesis as involving the new responsibilities
to which we are called by the prospect of a world . . . that needs to rediscover
fundamental values on which to build a better future (no. 21, OS, 538).
The emphasis here is once again on responsibility and values. The only
structure or institutional aspects developed in the encyclical are the inter-
national political order and a new form of economic institutions, which is
described shortly.
The lack of structural and institutional proposals in the encyclical comes
from the general nature of authoritative papal documents that do not get
into specifics where people can disagree. The failure to deal with structural
and institutional realities, however, prevents Caritas in veritate from ade-
quately dealing with the whole issue of integral human development in our
world, where structures and institutions play such an important role.
The Economy
In treating integral human development, Caritas in veritate primarily
addresses the issue of the economy. Here Benedict proposes a concept that
has not been developed in the previous documents of papal social teach-
inggratuitousness as an expression of fraternity. Charity in truth places
us humans before the astonishing experience of gift. The human being is
made for gift, which corresponds with the persons transcendence. The
predominant consumerist and utilitarian perspectives in our world fail to
recognize gratuitousness and the role of gift. Charity in truth is a gift
received by everyone, which can truly bring about a universal community
(no. 34, OS, 54748). Economic activity must be governed by all the real-
ities mentioned previously, especially justice in all its forms, and the com-
mon good. Gratuitousness, however, also has an important role to play. The
logic of gift does not exclude justice, nor does it merely sit alongside it as a
second element added from without, but economic, social, and political
development, if it is to be authentically human, needs to make room for the
principle of gratuitousness as an expression of fraternity (no. 34, OS, 548).
Without gratuitousness, there can be no justice in the first place (no. 38,
OS, 550). In keeping with previous papal teaching, Caritas in veritate
recognizes that the economic order involves three realitiesthe market,
the state, and the broader public society. Too often commentators accept
only a binary model involving the market or the state. Not only does Bene-
dict recognize the need for all these three aspects but he also insists that
gratuitousness must affect the other two aspects of the market and the state
as well as the broader civil society (no. 38, OS, 550).
In the light of this understanding, the encyclical calls for a new form of
commercial activity. Alongside profit-oriented enterprise and the various
types of public enterprise, there must be room for commercial entities
based on mutualist principles and pursuing social ends to take root and
express themselves. While not rejecting profit, these enterprises aim at a
higher goal than the mere logic of the exchange of equivalents, of profit as
an end in itself (no. 38, OS, 551).
Benedict here apparently has in mind the Economy of Communion
proposal, developed in the Focolare movement. Stefano Zamagni, one of
the popes economic advisors, noted the work of the Focolare in this area.
This approach sees profit as a means of achieving human and social ends.
Currently 750 Economy of Communion business enterprises are in opera-
tion in more than 50 countries throughout the world. Most are small and
medium-sized, but some have more than 100 employees. These businesses
want to see all their relationshipswith employees, customers, suppliers,
regulatory agencies, the general public, and the environmentpermeated
by Gospel values of love and respect.4 Benedict sees these enterprises as
existing alongside profit-oriented enterprises and the various types of
public enterprises and trying to have a civilizing effect on these other enter-
prises (no. 38, OS, 551).
What is the exact difference between these new enterprises and the for-
profit enterprises that Benedict recognizes will continue to exist? He clearly
states earlier in the encyclical that not only the common good, justice, and
the traditional principles of social ethics like transparency, honesty, and
responsibility but also that in commercial relationships, the principle of

gratuitousness and the logic of gift . . . can and must find their place within
normal economic activity (no. 36, OS, 549). All of these aspects thus
should be present in for-profit enterprises. Perhaps the difference is this:
In for-profit enterprises, all these values should affect the various means
(e.g., relationship with employees, customers, suppliers, the general public,
and the environment) as well as the end of profit. But these new enterprises
see profit as a means to achieve many other truly human ends.
How successful will such new enterprises be in achieving the purpose
proposed by Benedict? Will there be a critical enough mass to truly influ-
ence all other enterprises in the for-profit sector? I have my doubts about
these enterprises becoming a significant factor. Even now the Economy of
Communion involves mostly small and midsized enterprises. The whole
business ethos in the United States and the world in general revolves
around huge, for-profit corporations. Hopefully some changes can occur
in the way they do business, but it might be better to deal with such institu-
tions head on rather than hope that they will be influenced by what they
see in these other, smaller enterprises. There is an analogy here with the
cooperative movement, which had some prominence in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries both inside and outside Catholic circles. Such coopera-
tives were greatly in accord with Catholic principles.5 Pope John XXIII
mentions rural cooperatives in Mater et magistra (no. 43, OS, 112). In
Caritas in veritate, Benedict refers to consumer cooperatives that had
been in existence from the nineteenth century, partly through the initia-
tives of Catholics (no. 66, OS, 571). In reality, the cooperative movement
has little or no impact today on the broader economic ethos and reality.
Benedict sees the market as guided and directed by all the ethical prin-
ciples mentioned earlier. The market is not by nature evil, but it can
become evil by reason of human sinfulness in all its forms, including cul-
tural and philosophical ideologies, so that it becomes a place where the
strong subdue the weak (no. 36, OS, 549). The encyclical mentions some
specific realities that can have a very negative impact on the market and
business enterprises. Budgetary cuts made by poor countries under pres-
sure from international financial institutions often increase the power-
lessness of the poor in developing countries (no. 25, OS, 540). Large
multinational corporations as well as local producers often fail to respect the
rights of workers. Rich countries often assert an unduly rigid right to intel-
lectual property, especially in the field of health care (no. 22, OS, 53839).
In the light of outsourcing on the part of rich countries, developing nations
compete for this business often at the expense of the rights of their own
workers (no. 25, OS, 540). International trade laws must be just and
equitable, especially for the developing countries (no. 58, OS, 56). To
overcome some of these problems, Benedict insists on the importance of
labor unions, which have always been encouraged and supported by the
Church (no. 64, OS, 570). The dangers and problems that negatively
affect the market reinforce the need for the ethical principles developed in
some depth in the encyclical.
Since the encyclical addresses the primary topic of development, the
correlative problem is poverty. The process of globalization, if directed by
ethical principles, can open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale
redistribution of wealth on a worldwide scale. But if badly directed, it can
lead to an increase of poverty and inequality and could even trigger a global
crisis (no. 42, OS, 554). Unfortunately, the scandal of glaring inequalities
continues. Although the worlds wealth is increasing in absolute terms,
inequalities are on the increase (no. 22, OS, 538). Just as development
moves beyond the basic level of the material, so too poverty includes not
only the basic aspect of the economic but also other facets of truly human
poverty, such as isolation and alienation (no. 53, OS, 563). Caritas in
veritates discussion of poverty does not, however, explicitly mention the
preferential option for the poor, although John Paul II in Centesimus annus
refers to it (no. 11, OS, 479). Benedicts failure to mention the preferential
option for the poor could very well come from its connection with libera-
tion theology that, as noted earlier, he has strongly criticized.
In addition to the principles that guide development and the eradication
of poverty, Caritas in veritate discusses some practical issues affecting
development and poverty but without going into great detail and depth.
Unemployment and lack of education greatly contribute to the problem of
poverty. Migration today is a phenomenon of epoch-making proportions
that calls for forward-looking policies of international cooperation. Con-
sumers and investors have an important role to play. International devel-
opment aid, despite the donors intention, can sometimes lead people into
a state of dependence and even facilitate localized oppression and exploita-
tion in the receiving country. Aid programs must acquire the characteris-
tics of participation from the grassroots, so they truly serve the needs of all
people in the developing countries. Benedict urges labor unions to be open
to new perspectives. Unions should turn their attention to workers outside
their membership and especially to workers in developing countries whose
rights are often violated (nos. 5866, OS, 56672).
One very important aspect of integral development not mentioned in

the encyclical concerns the generally acknowledged need to attend to
investments in the status of women. Integral development will never occur
without empowering women through education, improved health care,
protection against HIV/AIDS, and political participation.6 Benedicts
objection to a womans right to abortion is well known, but he could have
used the encyclical to show that in other areas the Church strongly supports
womens rights and their struggle for equality throughout the world, espe-
cially in developing countries.
In the comparatively short discussion of development and poverty, the
encyclical emphasizes responsibility and the principles that should guide
and direct the economy. Caritas in veritate mentions some specific issues
and some structural aspects but they are not developed in any detail. It is
impossible in such a short document to deal with all these specific issues in
any depth. In addition, Benedict does not want to get into controversial
specific solutions.
Ecology and Technology

Caritas in veritate discusses ecology more than any previous document of
papal social teaching and makes it a part of the title of chapter 4 (nos.
4850, OS, 55961).7 In keeping with the general approach of the docu-
ment, Caritas in veritate begins by saying that the environment is Gods
gift to us, that we must use it with responsibility toward the poor, future
generations, and humanity as a whole. Nature itself expresses Gods design
of love and truth. Human beings are called to exercise a responsible stew-
ardship over nature. Benedict here insists on a covenant between human
beings and the environment. The encyclical adopts a middle position
between the one extreme of a neopaganization of nature as more impor-
tant than the human person and the opposite extreme of seeing nature as
raw material to be exploited by technology. The encyclical mentions soli-
darity and intergenerational justice as important principles to guide our
attitudes and actions toward the environment. Environmental concerns
include the energy problem, which has important ramifications for devel-
opment. The technologically advanced societies must lower their domestic
energy consumption and encourage research into alternative forms of
energy. The fact that some states and corporations hoard nonrenewable
energy constitutes a grave challenge to development in poor countries
(nos. 4852, OS, 55962).
The solution to the problem is again general, hortatory, and does not men-
tion structural change. The international community has an urgent duty to
find institutional means of regulating the exploitation of non-renewable
resources, involving poor countries in the process, in order to plan together
for the future (no. 49, OS, 560). A proper attitude to the environment calls
for new lifestyles to replace the tendency to hedonism and consumerism too
often found in the contemporary ethos (nos. 4851, OS, 561). In dealing
with ecology, economic incentives can be helpful, but the most decisive issue
is the overall moral tenor of society (no. 51, OS, 56162).
In keeping with the approach to development and poverty as well as his
intention to bring together the personal and social aspects of morality,
Benedict also insists on human ecology. Our duties to the environment
are linked to our duties to the human person. The book of nature is one
and indivisible involving the environment but also life, sexuality, mar-
riage, the family, and social relations. It is contradictory to insist on respect
for the natural environment while sacrificing human embryos for research
(no. 51, OS, 562).
Chapter 6 of Caritas in veritate deals with the development of people
and technology (nos. 6877, OS, 57378). The methodological section
proposes the basic understanding of the technological. The technological
is only one aspect of the human and must be guided and directed by the
truly human. Technology is a means and can never become an end. Tech-
nology deals with the material aspects of the human that must always
remain subordinate to the spiritual. Technology has made many contribu-
tions to human life by enabling us to exercise dominion over matter, to
reduce risks, to save labor, and to improve the conditions of living. Tech-
nology in this sense is a response to Gods command to till the earth. Prob-
lems arise, however, from the technological worldview or mindset that
reduces the human to the technological and fails to recognize the need for
the truly human to guide technology. This technological worldview is
aligned with seeing freedom in the sense of being able to do whatever one
wants. True freedom, on the other hand, calls for responsibility based on
our humanity and our human nature. The technological worldview reduces
the human just to the one aspect of the technological.
Too often development is reduced to a matter of financial engineering,
but integral development is impossible without upright women and men,
financiers, and politicians whose consciences are attuned to the common
good and the demands of justice (no. 71, OS, 57475). Likewise, peace can
be considered a technical product. Agreements between governments are
necessary, but they must be based on values rooted in the truth of human
life (no. 72, OS, 576). Linked to technological development is the increas-
ing presence of the means of social communication. Here too an anthro-
pological and civilizing purpose direct the media to promote universal
participation and the common search for what is true (no. 73, OS, 575).
Another problem in our culture is a neurological reductionism that reduces
the interior human life to the purely psychological. Such a reductionism
denies the importance and role of the spiritual aspect of the human person.
The integral development of individual persons and of all humankind can
never occur without taking into account the moral, spiritual, and physical
aspects of the person (no. 76, OS, 577).
Caritas in veritate is most negative about technology in the field of bio-
ethics, even calling bioethics a particularly crucial battleground in todays
cultural struggle between the supremacy of technology and human moral
responsibility. Papal opposition to in vitro fertilization, experiments on
human embryos, the possibility of manufacturing clones, and eugenic pro-
gramming is well known. These practices foster the materialistic and mech-
anistic understanding of human life. Here once again the pope is bringing
together the social and the personal aspects of papal teaching (no. 74, OS,
576). This short section on technology thus basically follows the fundamen-
tal approach of the encyclical as a whole.
Notes
1. Charles E. Curran, Catholic Social Teaching, 1891Present: A Historical,
Theological, and Ethical Analysis (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press,
2002), 13336.
2. Kevin P. Doran, Solidarity: A Synthesis of Personalism and Communitari-
anism in the Thought of Karol Wojtyla/Pope John Paul II (New York: Peter Lang,
1996); and Marie Vianney Bilgrien, Solidarity: A Principle, an Attitude, a Duty?
(New York: Peter Lang, 1999).
3. I have developed in detail the understanding of the political order and the
state in my Catholic Social Teaching, 13771, and 21546. That book will serve as
the understanding of Catholic social teaching developed in this chapter.
4. Amelia Uelman, Caritas in veritate and Chiara Lubich: Human Develop-
ment from the Vantage Point of Unity, Theological Studies 71 (2010): 4041.
5. E. R. Bowen, Social Implications of the Cooperative Movement, in Amer-
ican Catholic Sociological Review 2, no. 4 (1941): 195203.
6. Maura A. Ryan, A New Shade of Green? Nature, Freedom, and Sexual
Difference in Caritas in veritate, Theological Studies 71 (2010): 34748.
7. For overviews of Catholic social teaching on the environment, see Karl

Gosler, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church and the Ethic of the
Environment, in Applied Ethics in a World Church: The Padua Conference, ed.
Linda Hogan, 6572 (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2008); and Drew Christensen and
Walter Graser, eds., And God Saw that It Was Good: Catholic Theology and the
Environment (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 1996).
Conclusion
Catholic social teaching has been in existence for almost 125 years since
Pope Leo XIII issued the encyclical Rerum novarum in 1891. Subsequent
popes have continued the tradition of issuing encyclicals, which has become
a most important part of Catholic self-understanding. Many have wished
that ordinary Catholics in the pew were more familiar with Catholic social
teaching. However, in the last few decades, Catholic theologians and Cath-
olic universities, colleges, and even high schools have emphasized the
importance of Catholic social teaching and have taught courses in this area.
Efforts continue to be made to have this teaching become better known and
practiced in the life of the Church.
This volume analyzes and criticizes the contribution of Pope Benedict XVI
to Catholic social teaching, especially as found in his encyclical Caritas in
veritate. As a work in Catholic social ethics, this volume deals with the meth-
odological and content aspects of his teaching. This study well illustrates the
reality that Catholic social teaching is a living tradition. Recent popes Pope
John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have tended to emphasize the continu-
ity in this tradition, but significant discontinuities also exist.
From a theological perspective, the earlier documents culminating in
John XXIIIs Pacem in terris in 1963 used almost exclusively a natural law
approach, whereas the subsequent documents recognize the need to also
show how distinctive Christian approaches should affect the social teaching.
From an ethical perspective, the later documents, unlike the earlier ones,
employ a personalistic and relational approach brought about especially by
Conclusion 65
a greater recognition of historical consciousness. The ethical methodology

found in Paul VIs documents was much more inductive than in earlier
documents, but the encyclicals of John Paul II and Benedict XVI have
reverted once again to a more deductive approach, going from the general
to the particular and specific.
On the level of substance and content, greater emphasis has been given
over time to the freedom, equality, and participation of all people. In this
light, the later documents of Catholic social teaching strongly support
democracies, whereas the earlier encyclicals were suspicious and even neg-
ative about democracy.
However, significant continuities exist in this teaching both on the
methodological level and the content level. Even though the later docu-
ments do not rely primarily on a natural law approach, they recognize a
role for natural law and human reason as important sources of moral wis-
dom and knowledge for believers. With regard to substance and content,
the Catholic position has always recognized the proper role of government
as avoiding the extremes of individualism and collectivisim. The tradition
has always stressed the fact that the human person is created in the image
and likeness of God, even though the later documents give greater impor-
tance to the freedom and equality of all human beings. This volume thus
underscores the reality that Catholic social teaching is a living tradition.
This volume has at times been critical of some aspects of Catholic
social teaching in general and of Caritas in veritate in particular, but in
my judgment Catholic social teaching on the whole has been a very pos-
itive and significant aspect of the papal teaching office. Not everyone
would agree with the analysis and criticism given in this volume, but my
hope is that the Catholic theological and ethical community and others
can, by ongoing dialogue, contribute to the good of this teaching in two
different ways. First, from the theoretical perspective, the Church is well
served by those who want to strengthen the theological and ethical aspects
of the teaching itself. More than many other treatises on Catholic social
teaching, this volume emphasizes and to a degree criticizes the various
methodological approaches found in Caritas in veritate and in Catholic
social teaching in general. Likewise, while appreciative of many of the
content issues and substance discussed in Caritas in veritate, this volume
occasionally criticizes some of these. Second, the volumes analysis and
criticism from within the Catholic theological tradition strive to make
this teaching better known and appreciated in the living reality of the
Church itself.
What about the future of Catholic social teaching? One can predict with
great certitude that the tradition will continue. It has been in existence for
almost 125 years and has made a significant contribution not only to the
life of the Catholic Church but also to the greater public. Pope Francis and
subsequent popes will certainly carry on this tradition. Pope Francis, with
his special concern for the poor, will undoubtedly make this aspect a central
point in any future social encyclicals he writes.
It is more difficult to forecast ahead of time what Francis or others will
say in further encyclicals. However, since Catholic social teaching is a living
tradition, there will be both significant continuities with the past and also
some discontinuities or new approaches. One source of newer approaches
will be the changing historical situations that will emerge in the future. The
history of Catholic social teaching has shown how historical events greatly
affected this teaching. Leo XIII in 1891 responded to the industrial revolu-
tion and its effect on workers. Pius XI in 1931 considered some of the same
issues but in the context of the economic depression. John XXIII addressed
economic issues and the need for peace in light of the changing realities
after World War II. Paul VIs encyclicals emphasize the importance of
development, especially with regard to the emergence of developing coun-
tries. John Paul II strongly supported democracies throughout the world
and responded to the realities of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet
Union. Benedict XVI emphasized globalization and ecology more than any
of his predecessors.
On the other hand, significant continuities will be a part of this teaching.
The Catholic tradition will consistently recognize both the dignity of the
human person and the social nature of the human person as cornerstones
of Catholic social teaching. This teaching will continue to stress the dangers
of individualism in our society and the importance of the common good
on all levels of human social existence. The principles of subsidiarity and
solidarity will continue to frame the proper role of government. A special
concern for the poor will always come to the fore in Catholic teaching.
If we can rely on history, there will be some methodological develop-
ments as well as continuities. It is impossible at this stage to know what these
new methodological approaches will be. However, the future documents of
Catholic social teaching will continue to use the general methodologies
mentioned in this volume, such as the theological approach, which recog-
nizes the need for faith to influence public life but also places importance
on the role for human reason in discerning moral truth. In addition, a per-
sonalistic and relational ethical method will continue to be employed.
Conclusion 67
In light of the criticisms made in this volume, there are two aspects that I
hope will emerge in future documents of Catholic social teachingthe way
they are composed and the way they engage Catholics and others to think
more explicitly about what they can and should do. First, the way in which
the papal documents are composed should be in accord with the teaching of
the collegiality of all bishops with the pope and in keeping with the recogni-
tion that no one has a monopoly on the truth, but a broad dialogue is most
helpful in arriving at the truth. An original draft could be sent by the pope to
all the bishops of the world and even released publicly, asking for observa-
tions and feedback. In the light of these comments, the popeobviously with
some helpcould then issue the final document. Such an approach would
not only be in keeping with the best of Catholic theological principles but
would also involve more people and create more interest in what the docu-
ments are proposing.
Second, the documents should try to connect more with the Catholic in
the pew. One way to do this is to raise questions without giving any answers
about what individual Catholics or parishes, dioceses, or national groups
can and should do with regard to particular issues, such as preserving eco-
logical structures, improving education on a local level, overcoming dis-
crimination in all its various forms, or supporting immigrants. Another
way is for the documents to make more specific proposals. There is a ten-
dency for the documents of Catholic social teaching to keep on the level of
the more general because they are proposed as official Church teaching that
is binding on all. As a result, they do not want to get into complex, specific
issues involving prudential judgments. The US bishops, however, in their
pastoral letters on peace and the economy made more specific and concrete
proposals while recognizing that individual Catholics might come to dif-
ferent conclusions. In this way the documents of Catholic social teaching
would tend to engage Catholics to think more deeply about these issues and
how to respond to these many important specific questions facing them as
citizens.

Pope Benedict XVI - Curran, Charles E.-Catholic Social Teaching and Pope Benedict XVI-Georgetown University Press (2014) PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Pope Benedict XVI - Curran, Charles E.-Catholic Social Teaching and Pope Benedict XVI-Georgetown University Press (2014) PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Catholic Social Teaching and

Catholic Moral Theology in the United States: A History

Deus caritas est

of wisdom and knowledge. But after Vatican II the encyclicals incorporated

strive to secure a common good corresponding to the real needs of our

indirect contribution to political life. Dorr maintains that there is nothing

This volume develops in some depth the methodological approaches

However, another aspect influenced the future development of papal

needs God: without him, development is either denied or entrusted exclu-

separate audiences? There is no right or wrong answer to this question. A

In addition, one must address the effectiveness of what has occurred

Change of Heart and Structures

greatest service to development, then, is a Christian humanism (no. 78,

Eschatology and Sin

Churchs wisdom has always pointed to the presence of original sin in

world. However, one cannot easily gain a profound understanding of the

The basic theme of the encyclical is integral human development. This

A Christianity of charity without truth becomes more or less interchange-

The encyclical frequently refers to different principles that are then

Emphasis on the Person as Subject

the aspiration to participation, two forms of human dignity and freedom

mental importance of relationships for the individual human person in

Right and Duty to Teach

Ratzingers intervention in the 1980s, it is obvious that Caritas in veritate

Such a process fits with the understanding of a monarchical papacy that

Expanding the Content

Conflict and Power

A Fascinating, Different Approach

This is not the place to analyze and criticize Ratzingers understandings

8. Bernard Laurent, Caritas in veritate as a Social Encyclical: A Modest

26. Verstraten, Toward Interpreting Signs of the Times, 32225. Verstraten

Substance and Content of Caritas in veritate

Whereas the previous chapter analyzed the methodology of Caritas

are called to make themselves instruments of grace, so as to pour forth

In all these instances he is generally referring to what we know today as

State as Natural, Necessary, and Good, but Limited

Three Important Aspects in the State

International Public Order

Development, Economy, Ecology, and Technology

Integral Human Development

responsibility but also that in commercial relationships, the principle of

One very important aspect of integral development not mentioned in

Ecology and Technology

7. For overviews of Catholic social teaching on the environment, see Karl

a greater recognition of historical consciousness. The ethical methodology

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi