"To met the requirements of justice and equity, every effort must be made, while respecting the rights of individuals and national characteristics, to put an end as soon as possible to the immense economic inequalities which exist in the world..."-GS 66
It is evident that despite a global economy, industrialization of resources, and effective means of distribution to every corner of the planet, there still exists terrible discrepancies in wealth and living conditions. If America's finest products can be delivered to Japan and Germany, then why not Africa and the Caribbean as well? It is a matter of money and financial security, everyone would rather be well off than broke, so we overcompensate. The will to act is inhibited by the fear of becoming destitute ourselves.
The consequence of a universal, but fragmented Church means that it can only influence rather than control the governments which possess the capabilities to end indecent living conditions. Therefore, it should be made clear that the Church does not align itself with a particular form of government, but instead will act according to Tradition:
The language of Gaudium et Spes and even recent remarks by Pope Francis seem to suggest the Church might be against governments that favor capitalism, instead favoring a socialist type government that would at least meet the needs of each citizen. BUT this conclusion is far too simple...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzoWdRMl4Jk
"Reforms are called for in these difficult situations: incomes must be raised, working conditions improved, security in employment assured, and personal incentives to work encouraged; insufficiently cultivated estates should be divided up and given to those who will be able to make them productive."-GS 71
Is the Church socialist? No. The teachings of the Church coincide and contradict with every sort of political creed. The Church supports the protection of basic human rights and works towards improving the dignity of every human being. Thus, on occasion, the Church seems to be aligned with political parties that favor government organized charities and health programs, but the Church might also oppose those parties if those programs diminished human dignity. For instance, an ideal form of universal healthcare (meaning every person could be taken care of with little to no expense) would be great! But such as form has not been created, and is unlikely to ever be created (for healthcare requires the manpower of physicians, nurses, and technicians as well as medical supplies and research. Those people deserve proper compensation to provide for their families and communities as well!). Therefore, the Church relies on the charity of individuals, encouraging each person, lowly or otherwise, to contribute within their capabilities.
Remember this Gospel parable?Those who can do more are called to do more! A CEO can organize a large-scale relief mission whereas a modest auto repair shop owner is unable. It is the mission of the Church to evangelize those with resources and talents to support those with less. Still sound like Socialism? Maybe, but charity and mandatory taxes are distinguishable, and this reflects the content of the giver's soul.
What goods for this world are your talents capable of producing?
I've heard socialist cries against Catholicism in the news myself, especially under the leadership of Pope Francis. I think what is truly telling of the Church's political and economic stance can be found in Jesus' advice on Roman taxes: pay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, but pay God what belongs to God. We are to pay tribute to the structures that keep our society intact; yet ultimately, as "Cooper" points out, our truest allegiance belongs to the no earthly power, but the Kingdom of God.That message needs to remain central to the Church's teaching on globalization. Otherwise, the Church loses it's claim to authority on the issue of social justice. The focus of the Church is primarily to bring the Gospel message, and we are able to witness to that message by the social good we can accomplish both collectively or personally. If we lose sight of that identity, and become wrapped up in primarily doing good, with no ultimate purpose.
ReplyDelete- Evan
What struck me was this part of your post: "If America's finest products can be delivered to Japan and Germany, why not Africa and the Caribbean as well? It is a matter of money and financial security, everyone would rather be well off than broke, so we overcompensate. The will to act is inhibited by the fear of becoming destitute ourselves."
ReplyDeleteI think there is more to it than fear of becoming destitute... But the fact that offering goods/services in a country where individuals don't always have the means to take part in exchange (and a culture that doesn't exactly share the same political and economic beliefs) fundamentally misses the mark on what trade or globalization is. I'm not saying that just because a country in Africa is not as developed as ours the individuals in that country don't deserve the opportunities we have, but I also don't think it's the fault of globalization.
I interpret globalization as a recent (and about due) interaction between cultures, whether they are cultures that promote opportunity and prosperity for the individuals or not. Because we are a globalized economy, we are confronted with cultures that may not share the same political ideas and economic practices as we do. So what then? I like to think it's an incentive for a prosperous company to realize a sort of human duty (assuming a corporation is an individual too!) to "give back," even if there is "something in it for them" like brand reputation. Not only that but there has been an increase in transparency laws that not only companies have to abide by but they are also used for marketing (I don't know about you but I would definitely pay more for a good I know came from a an ethically sound company--http://ethisphere.com/worlds-most-ethical/wme-honorees/).
Look at Toms, or how about Warby Parker? But maybe these companies can give back as well as prosper because they are established in a place where its culture breeds economic opportunity. I guess.basically I'm saying it's not globalization's fault that not every country has a booming capitalist economy like us... it's the fault of cultures that do not promote it. BUT since we are a globalized economy we are confronted with these issues of poverty in other countries... and so what do we do? Are we called to help or what? And I say yes because only good can come from it.