The hubris of George Weigel knows no bounds. In a breathtaking essay at National Review Online, Weigel concludes that Pope Benedict’s encyclical Caritas in Veritate "resembles a duck-billed platypus" because it is, in his view, a bad combination of the Pope’s true thought with those "passages that reflect [the Pontifical Council for] Justice and Peace ideas and approaches that Benedict evidently believed he had to try and accommodate." Weigel suggests that the reader mark out the Pope’s passages in gold and the others in red, so as to discover the real significance of the text. Of course, in his reading, the gold passages are those that agree with Weigel’s worldview while the bothersome red sections are those which the reader should dismiss.
Weigel’s essay resembles nothing so much as the Soviet Union’s remakes of movies during its de-Stalinization period. During Stalin’s long reign, cinematic treatments of the Revolution always showed Stalin at Lenin’s side, even when the historical record had him hundreds of miles away. So, during de-Stalinization, rather than re-make the entire movie, the censors would have a soldier enter stage right and in front to obscure the image of Stalin behind. I go too far: Weigel’s effort is actually clumsier than the Soviet re-makes.
Unsurprisingly, Weigel celebrates Centesimus Annus which he claims "jettisoned the idea of a ‘Catholic third way’ that was somehow ‘between’ or ‘beyond’ or ‘above’ capitalism and socialism – a favorite dream of Catholics ranging from G.K.Chesterton to John A. Ryan to Ivan Illich." Actually, both Centesimus and even more so Caritas in Veritate stress that the "Catholic way" must be prior to the claims of any economic theory, that the disposition for grace and communion must be part of the system, not a mere add-on, that unjust systems produce unjust results, and that a system that produces – at the same time - material wealth and spiritual poverty must be seen as morally and humanly suspect.
Weigel repeats the now common neo-con canard that capitalism is morally wholesome because it is driven not by greed but by human creativity. So, creative like Bernie Madoff or creative like Steve Jobs? Either way, Weigel fails to note that this celebration of wholesome capitalism is not found in the many pages of Caritas in Veritate.
In his denunciations of the passages he dislikes, Weigel is not simply ideologically skewed but downright insulting to Pope Benedict. After citing a series of propositions found in the text the Pope signed that Weigel finds objectionable, he opines, "Benedict XVI, a truly gentle soul, may have thought it necessary to include these multiple off-notes, in order to maintain the peace within his curial household." Funny. Benedict does not seem like the kind of person who would jettison his insistence on truth merely to keep peace in the curial household. Could it be that he was not conflicted about signing the entire encyclical? Could it be that he sees what Weigel does not, that Catholic social teaching, to say nothing of the priests who work at Justice and Peace, is not to be reduced to a prop for democratic capitalism. Weigel applauds Benedict for devoting a large section of the encyclical to a discourse on the relationship between love and truth: Does he think the Pope merely abandoned that insistence on truth to get a document out the door?
Pope Paul VI is as prone to error as Benedict in Weigel’s worldview. The new encyclical was written to commemorate Paul’s Populorum Progressio but Weigel casts slurs upon that work for "misreading of the economic and political signs of the times." Of course, anything on human development written forty years ago, when colonialism was still gasping its dying breathe and communism was still a vital threat, can appear dated. For example, what Weigel considers as the fulsome endorsement of capitalism in Centesimus Annus reads a bit oddly today when the prestige of the market is rather lacking. Ah, but back in 1991, history had ended.
The gravest intellectual problem for Weigel is not his inability to see the validity of the influence of the good monsignori at Justice and Peace, nor that the Catholic social tradition permits several ways of approaching complicated economic and political issues. He claims some passages are "simply incomprehensible" and perhaps they are to him. But, the example he gives is telling. He writes that "the encyclical states that defeating Third World poverty and underdevelopment requires a ‘necessary openness, in a world context, to forms of economic activity marked by quotas of gratuitousness and communion.’ This may mean something interesting; it may mean something naïve or dumb. But, on its face, it is virtually impossible to know what it means." Gee. I don’t think it is that difficult to understand. It means that the stance of the Christian must be one of openness to the other, especially to the poor, and that we must create shares in the economic sphere for the poor, a share that sees them as a gift from God. We must see our relationship to the poor as one of communion not exploitation. And, does Weigel truly think Pope Benedict would write something "dumb"? Even if you disagree with Pope Benedict, he is never dumb.
Weigel not only misunderstands the relationship a Christian should have to the poor, he misunderstands the relationship a Catholic should have to a papal encyclical. I had thought that it was the Pope and the bishops who had the task of authoritatively interpreting the doctrine of the Church. Silly me. Mr. Weigel, with his gold and red pens, is the official arbiter of what passes as orthodoxy. He labels parts of the new encyclical "incomprehensible," he charges the curia with "fideism" for advocating the necessity of transnational institutions, and he casts slurs upon Pope Paul VI for Populorum Progressio. Benedict is a "gentle soul" incapable of controlling a text that bears his name and he has been duped into signing on to foolishness.
Weigel is wrong on the merits, but he is also wrong in his stance. This encyclical – all of it – bears the Pope’s signature and the respect due to all statements of the magisterium. Weigel’s arguments have long been tedious and are here tendentious. But, it is not only the intellectual dishonesty of this essay that rankles. Behind his knowing Vaticanology, Weigel betrays a disloyalty to Pope Benedict and to the memory of Pope Paul that surprised even me. I have long recognized a certain myopia and a pronounced hubris in Weigel’s writings but he has outdone himself. He should put his red and gold pens away and read the text in its entirety as an invitation to grow in discipleship. As I commented yesterday, Caritas in Veritate has something to challenge everyone.
As far as Charity to poor families goes, remaining entitlements are about 8% of the budget. Military spending and retirement is much higher.
I simply don't read George Weigel, so I have no problem being troubled by what he writes. You have to feel for him, however. He was operating under the delusion that God, or at least the Pope, is a Conservative. This encyclical pretty much shows that the Joseph Ratzinger of Vatican II is as much Pope as the Joseph Ratzinger of the CDF. It is pretty much impossible to read Caritas in Veritate and hold to the belief that all government redistribution is socialism, that union busting is good for workers or that the United Nations must be abolished. I'm not saying that Benedict is a Democrat either - as his stance on abortion would likely get him booed off the stage at any Democratic convention - however his mixing of the Gospel of Life with the social gospel does give hope to those Catholics who voted for Obama for his economic policies. We pretty much agree with what the Pope says in Caritas in Veritate. If the GOP ever wants this important swing constituency back, it needs to quit calling redistribution socialism.
Fahey:
Well, there have been some prominent public journalists who have
attempted to carve up the encyclical into little portions that are
acceptable for their ideologies and portions that are not. I found it
distressing that one or two well-known and reputably orthodox writers
determined to color the text: certain palatable parts were given a
golden ''papal'' sanction - these parts are, it was asserted, authentic
to Benedict XVI; other parts were tarred with a socialist hue - these
parts can be avoided, it was again asserted.
Link: 13 July 09http://zenit.org/article-26446?l=english
''The clearly Benedictine passages in Caritas in Veritate follow and develop the line of John Paul II, particularly in the new encyclical’s strong emphasis on the life issues (abortion, euthanasia, embryo-destructive stem-cell research) as social-justice issues — which Benedict cleverly extends to the discussion of environmental questions, suggesting as he does that people who don’t care much about unborn children are unlikely to make serious contributions to a human ecology that takes care of the natural world. The Benedictine sections in Caritas in Veritate are also — and predictably — strong and compelling on the inherent linkage between charity and truth, arguing that care for others untethered from the moral truth about the human person inevitably lapses into mere sentimentality.
''The encyclical rightly, if gingerly, suggests that thug-governments in the Third World have more to do with poverty and hunger than a lack of international development aid; recognizes that catastrophically low birth rates are creating serious global economic problems (although this point may not be as well developed as it was in previous essays from Joseph Ratzinger); sharply criticizes international aid programs tied to mandatory contraception and the provision of “reproductive health services” (the U.N. euphemism for abortion-on-demand); and neatly ties religious freedom to economic development. All of this is welcome, and all of it is manifestly Benedict XVI, in continuity with John Paul II and his extension of the line of papal argument inspired by Rerum Novarum in Centesimus Annus, Evangelium Vitae (the 1995 encyclical on the life issues), and Ecclesia in Europa (the 2003 apostolic exhortation on the future of Europe).''
One further theological point, which I intend to develop in another venue. The Holy Father is at pains to stress a hermeneutics of continuity in understanding both Vatican II and Catholic Social Doctrine. One wonders how such a hermeneutics squares with the notion that there are two social doctrine traditions, one issuing from Rerum Novarum and one from Populorum Progressio, with the latter in effect trumping the former. Pardon my, er, hubris in suggesting that such a question is not, in fact, a matter of hubris. Perhaps I may also be permitted to note that Mr. Winters' last foray into Vaticanology led to the ludicrous prediction that Benedict XVI would condemn the U.S. ''occupation'' of Iraq during the Pope's address to the U.N. Caveat lector.
In other words, if you own, or own stock in a business, how you pay your employees involves some level of moral responsibility. Simply automating them out of a job is not acceptable. Engaging in "innovative finance" is not acceptable. Dumbing down their jobs and shipping the job overseas is not acceptable. Actually, because we are dealing with truth - none of these things were ever acceptable. Simply relying on the government to clean up the mess is not what he has in mind.
Most firms do not hire or pay in a free market environment. There are barriers to entry, discriminatory practices and collusion with other employers to establish a wage below the market clearing price. This is called monopsonistic competition. You can actually measure how pervasive it is. It represents the workers who could be working but who have given up. Its about 6% of the workforce.
For the most part your critique of Weigel amounts to a series of ad hominems. Weigel's essential criticism that there seem to be claims that do not appear to be harmonized is essentially correct. There was clearly more than one hand in this letter.
I would like to know what you thought of Pope Benedict's introduction of Humanae vitae into the letter. Do you agree with Benedict's use of Humanae vitae? Do you assent to Humanae vitae?
On where the 50% goes, most goes to entitlement programs, i.e., charitable programs, not national defense.
Why is it that you're choosing to respond to this post, when you found it so convenient never to respond to this one? [url=http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=41D0F8E5-5056-8960-3268EF23B1EF7194]http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=41D0F8E5-5056-8960-3268EF23B1EF7194[/url]
-
It was my impression that Weigel was trying to mix his own nationalistic and economic notions with his ''assessment'' of what (in his opinion) the Holy Father should have said, meant to say, or perhaps got all wrong. Yes, 'hubris' seems the best word to describe his effort.
-
No amount of editorializing and otherwise parsing words, will change the fact of a fundamental incompatibility between western deregulated capitalism and the whole fabric gospel message of social justice. The former actually feeds on injustice as a means to a profitable end. It is the elephant in the room when Christians attempt to have it both ways in a marriage of politics and religion as co-partners of truth.
It is said that Paul VI put the first sentence in Vatican II's Gaudium & Spes in reply to this.
The encyclical is deeply spiritual-and therefore out of the reach of people like Wiegel who would reduce it to conservative politics, or Michael Novak who tends to see Capitalism as the savior of the world. Simply put B16 is saying we have to see economics, politics and everything sub specie aeternitatis. In my language, we are 21st century American expressions of Christ and we should see and do everything within that glorious context-seeing and working with the good that is in Capitalism, etc. and pulling out the corrosive influence that lives within them.
My biggest complaint-and here again I grind my perennial ax-is that the encyclical speaks in principles, which is O. K. but B16 does it to the point where I was crying for some practical material, especially for the laity. He points out that society is made up of government, business and civil society-the people in general, for me - Catholics. We need mechanisms to put the principles into practical prophetic action in order to influence government and business. If not, the sturdy three-legged stool is trying to stay up on two wobbly legs.
I doubt anyone wants to confiscate all of your wealth-that might be a bit of a straw man argument. And if the 50% confiscation you mention is what you pay in taxes, consider that a large chunk of that goes to national defense, and other money goes to services you can benefit from-roads, police, courts, social security, unemployment insurance in case you lose your job, etc. I suspect it is a matter between each of us and God what is the right amount to give, but I suspect most of us err on the side of giving too little, at least by the standards Jesus calls us to meet.
Jack, you seem to be so busy looking out for Number One you missed the meaning and certainly the spirit of of the encyclical. Did you even read it?
Thanks, too, for identifying some of the overlooked passages in your own essay - but after all, your praise concerns only some rather minor portions of this encyclical, and besides, Mr. Winters never suggested that you didn't praise the Pope, at least a little. In fact, in calling attention to the laudatory passages in your text, I can't help but wonder whether you aren't (even if not, at all, maliciously or deviously) reinforcing the view that the things you like in the encyclical are the important ones...whether you aren't just wielding your gold pen again and saying, "Look at what should matter most to Catholics who are really concerned with truth." Mr. Winters never said you're explicitly tearing the Pope down; his whole point is that you damn him with such faint praise that it makes it look as though you're not in some sort of schism from the Church on some key dogmatic points, and THAT'S what's so disingenuous about your text.
Finally, your last point could be an interesting one, though I can't escape the feeling that you are throwing around words like "hermeneutics" to lend legitimacy to a theory which you certainly haven't fully developed and which you certainly can't blame Mr. Winters for not addressing. (Not that you do -at least, not explicitly.) I call it undeveloped, by the way, because it seems to me that the Holy Father, who discusses both Rerum Novarum and Populorum Progressio in this new encyclical, seems precisely to be weaving them together with a conscious understanding of their different historical moments and thus demonstrating a continuity between them and the whole of Catholic social teaching over time, right on through to this in many ways revolutionary new document - even if you don't like the fact that his synthesis favors certain quote-unquote "liberal" politics at the end of the day.
But many apologies if I haven't gotten your gist...!