Pafere

The encyclical considers the signs of our times, marked by the turmoil in a global economic order in the context of the Christian Revelation about the destiny of a human person. Previous encyclicals of Benedict Deus Caritas est and Spe salvi mention a few times the meaning and role of the State which is significant for the dialogue between the Church and the State. It is interesting to note that the Church’s dialogue with the world about these so called “secular” matters also helps also to articulate the message of the Gospels – as we try to encode the meaning of our times, at the same time we find a new beauty of the Christian message.

In this presentation I would like to share a few of my impressions from reading the encyclical letters of Benedict XVI.  These documents present several very important concepts on building a culture of commercial society.  I would like to highlight the meaning of “the logic of gift” and the “metaphysical interpretation of human society” in which, as Benedict expresses, the “relationality is an essential element.“ (CV 55).  My attempt will be to look at a free market economy and the State interpreting the necessity of the logic of gift and the transcendental meaning of a human person in these institutions.
 
The Logic of Gift

Caritas in Veritate introduces the principle of gratuitousness, or in other words the necessity that Benedict calls “the logic of gift.”  However, this principle as stated is not new to Catholic social teaching. This logic is evident in a life of a family in various activities directed toward the common good and overall how the Church understands the meaning of love and human freedom: these are various expressions of “the logic of gift.”  Nevertheless, the application of this principle to the market economy by Pope Benedict gives a new feature to Catholic social teaching.  The principle of gratuitousness talks about the necessity to imply into the economy the awareness that the market is destined to provide much more than calculative goods. Caritas in Veritate, talks about the “ways of civilizing the economy“ (CV 38) and it emphasizes that “in commercial relationships the principle of gratuitousness and the logic of gift as an expression of fraternity can and must find their place within normal economic activity.“ (CV 36).  As well the State must create an order which would not foster only a “duty giving” but also a “spirit of giving” among the citizens. Thus we must ask: how does this principle plays out in a free market and the order of a State?

The aspect of a human person who gives of his/herself in economic action was well presented in Centesimus Annus by John Paul II. He introduced the term of “creative subjectivity” of a person.  He spoke about free enterprise as an exposure of personhood and also about free human creativity as entrepreneurial ability.  In considering the meaning of a free market, Benedict XVI gives a strong emphasis on human responsibility for moral action and the need to sustain every form of justice in society as well as the “climate of mutual trust” (CV 35), since he notes, “without internal forms of solidarity and mutual trust, the market cannot completely fulfill its proper economic function.“ (CV 35).  President of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, Professor Mary Ann Glendon, while commenting on Centesimus Annus and Caritas in Veritate, mentioned that John Paul II made emphasis on the energy and power of the free market, while talking as well about its moral framework.  Pope Benedict brings more emphasis toward a moral and juridical framework needed for the proper function of the free market.  However, they both agree that the rule of law, which secures the principle of justice toward all, mutual trust achieved in society and moral power of a human person are the vital dimensions of a free market economy. As John Paul II had done before him, Benedict XVI expresses several times his positive approach toward the market economy saying that “in and of itself, the market is not, and must not become, the place where the strong subdue the weak.  Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations“ (CV 36).  He emphasized that “it is not the instrument of market that must be called to account but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility“ (CV 36).  As well, he reminds that, “the market can be a negative force, not because it is so by nature, but because a certain ideology can make it so.“ (CV 36).  This danger was also well expressed by John Paul II in Centesimus Annus as he spoke about the danger: of detachment of economic value from moral value, of the philosophy of utilitarianism and ideology of materialism which are fostered by a welfare state, of consumerism, of corruption and most importantly of devaluing a human person as being merely homo economicus. Benedict XVI and John Paul II express their trust toward a free market economy, however they mention that success of the market depends on the moral-ethical power of civil society and the proper juridical framework of the State which respect authentic human freedom.  Finally, according to the Catholic social teaching, the meaning and purpose of the market and the State are properly understood when it leads not only toward the prosperity of wealth but also toward the transcendental vision of human person and society.

The ability of “the free gift of self” can be encouraged by the free market.  Here in this part of the world, in Eastern Europe, we have experienced a system which discouraged people from their initiatives and the whole system became the demoralizing power in our societies.  The problem of alienation, fear and desperation paralyzed human energy to create, to take responsibility for the means of production and to be proud of the fruits of their own labor. I remember when we as children were looking with jealousy toward the glimpses of the West, as to “the other world” the world were people looked happy and “have everything.” Dull expressions of faces of our people and grey colors of the facades of our deteriorating houses even to us children pointed that here is something wrong among us.  John Paul II named the failure of socialism “the anthropological mistake.”  In this region of the world through the hard experience it became evident that the mistaken structure of social order can be so powerful that it suppresses the human energy to create and work.  It discouraged “the logic of the gift.”  

A commercial society, diametrically opposed to a socialist society, is based on free action and free exchange. As Samuel Gregg explains, “it demands a free as opposed to a coerced exchange.  The word free indicates in turn that the economic process that characterize commercial society presuppose a certain understanding of human beings that differs from the view of man promoted by, for instance, Marxist and other deterministic visions of human life.¹ This certain understanding, that a person must be free in order to give something of himself, is a vital premise of commercial society.  A person is defined by giving, and most importantly by giving of himself. This is a basic premise in the ontology of a person, since a person ultimately defines himself by the act of giving. When there is a majority of people who are willing to share “the gift of self”, their collaborative and creative work, when they are willing to act not only on pure materialistic motivation for their own well being, but toward the common social purposes, then the nation will move toward prosperity.  It is evident that pure selfishness and excessive individualism in society leads it toward division and decline.  However, there is a serious question as to what conditions in society encourage this “gift of self.”

Benedict XVI, we could say, explores the ontology of the gift saying that a “gift by its nature goes beyond merit, its rule is that of superabundance. It takes first place in our souls as a sign of God's presence in us, a sign of what he expects from us.“ (CV 34).  By explaining the notion of gift the Pope expressed his concern that the logic of giving in todays world is confused: the market expects to strive purely on “commercial logic” (CV 36) namely on simply calculational logic or solely on a “giving in order to acquire“ (CV 39).  The State expects to strive on “giving through duty“ namely on the logic of public obligation, imposed by State law (CV 39).  Both tendencies are inadequate.  Benedict emphasizes that the Church's social doctrine holds that the role of economic activity is also to strengthen “authentically human social relationships of friendship, solidarity and reciprocity.“ (CV 36).  These are “not only outside it or 'after' it” (CV 36).  He emphasizes that the free market economy if properly understood is able to produce this social capital, which is so vital for prosperity.  Additionally, the State needs to create the condition that would encourage the “works redolent of the spirit of gift“ that is more than only “just laws and forms of redistribution governed by politics“ (CV 37).  In his previous encyclicals Benedict mentioned that “we do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need.” (DCE 28).  With this he reminds us of the warning by John Paul II about the danger of the welfare state where people become the passive recipients of social benefits rather than their own creators.  The welfare programs do not tend to make people more responsible and free in their willingness to work and to help their neighbors. The welfare state disrupts in John Paul’s words “the subjectivity of society” or in Benedict’s words “the logic of gift.”  He warns about the new forms of dependencies saying that “at times it happens that those who receive aid become subordinate to the aid-givers, and the poor serve to perpetuate expensive bureaucracies which consume an excessively high percentage of funds intended for development.“ (CV 47).

Among various suggestions on how to civilize society, Benedict suggests fostering the culture of gift through his concept of “fiscal subsidiarity” by “allowing citizens to decide how to allocate a portion of the taxes they pay to the State. Provided it does not degenerate into the promotion of special interests, this can help to stimulate forms of welfare solidarity from below, with obvious benefits in the area of solidarity for development as well.“ (CV 60).

Benedict provides a helpful interpretation of subsidiarity as it “respects personal dignity by recognizing in the person a subject who is always capable of giving something to others. By considering reciprocity as the heart of what it is to be a human being, subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state.” (CV 57). The assumption of responsibility, fostering freedom and participation as well the autonomy of intermediate bodies of society are possible when this principle is respected.  It can be a reason of tranquility among diverse interest groups of society, since it respects a basic right of the human person.  As Benedict notes: “A particular manifestation of charity and a guiding criterion for fraternal cooperation between believers and non-believers is undoubtedly the principle of subsidiarity, an expression of inalienable human freedom.” (CV 57).  

The willingness of a person to give comes from the superabundance of what he has.  This “spirit of giving” can be encouraged by the order of market and by the order of the State.  The State and the market need to find ways to motivate people to give of themselves not by order of force but by their satisfaction of giving.  The nature of the human person is destined to create, to produce and to give, since the person is created in the image of God, the ultimate giver of self. Benedict reminds us that “the human being is made for gift, which expresses and makes present his transcendent dimension.” (CV 34)  He reminds that in this case the Church “is called to contribute to the purification of reason and to the reawakening of those moral forces without which just structures are neither established nor prove effective in the long run.”  (DCE 29).  Thus, we can say that the State and the Church by ordering human society must work according to principle of subsidiarity namely to leave the main responsibility to people who according to the needs and demands spontaneously form political, commercial and moral order. As the Pope says “the direct duty to work for a just ordering of society, on the other hand, is proper to the lay faithful.“ (DCE 29) Since the market and politics need “individuals who are open to reciprocal gift” (CV 39) Benedict expresses that “the key to development” of commercial and social order “is a mind capable of thinking in technological terms and grasping the fully human meaning of human activities, within the context of the holistic meaning of the individual’s being.“ (CV 70).  This holistic meaning of the individual is definitely a transcendental purpose of human existence.

The meaning of transcendental purpose of human existence

The translation of Caritas in Veritate from Latin means “Charity in Truth.”  This concept signifies the basic human and social premises: charity which must describe human relations and the truth which cannot be relative.  Why does Benedict feature “Charity in Truth” while emphasizing such subjects as Economy and State?  He does it for the contemporary society as a vital reminder to what brings an inner motivation or an animation of human action.  He says: “when animated by charity, commitment to the common good has greater worth than a merely secular and political stand would have” (CV 7).  And later as Benedict writes in the encyclical: without the universal concept of  truth, “it is easy to fall into an empiricist and skeptical view of life, incapable of rising to the level of praxis because of a lack of interest in grasping the values — sometimes even the meanings — with which to judge and direct it.“ (CV 9).

This time of global economical turmoil is a good occasion to consider what maintains the proper social and economic relations.  The various institutions of society are responsible for safeguarding relations based on mutual trust.  However, as we see now, the mere actions of the various institutions are not enough to accomplish this.  We need an inner motivation of human action, able to create the order of charity and truth.  Here Benedict warns about the importance of the Christian worldview in creating prosperous society.  Leo XIII in his “Rerum Novarum“ wrote that “the foundations of the organization (society) being thus laid in religion” (RN 58).  It is not a secret that the strongest motivation of self-giving human action comes from the personal relation with God, as Benedict says: “without the perspective of eternal life, human progress in this world is denied breathing-space” (CV 11).  The prosperity of society cannot be reached by technologies only.  The technocratic ideology can be even dangerous, since it leaves the development of society to a blind evolution.  In order to have the proper development of society we need to recognize, as Benedict points out, that this development is dependent on how well we embrace the best of the human nature.  Therefore, to know human nature is to know the key of prosperity.  The key of prosperity is not merely material means, but rather spiritual energy found in human hearts and minds. Pope Benedict observes that the development is a human vocation.  It is embedded in human nature. The message of Caritas in Veritate is very lucid: “the truth of development consists in its completeness: if it does not involve the whole man and every man, it is not true development” (CV 18).  This view toward a person and development the pope calls a “transcendental humanism.“

Caritas in Veritate defines a list of problems that the modern world encounters: divisions of society, the various forms of social and psychological instability, cultural eclecticism and of cultural leveling, relativism, the lack of respect to human life and others.  However, the main problem that Benedict points to is how a human person sees himself.  History has taught us that to mistakenly answer the question “who is a man?” has devastating consequences.  It is not a secret that in today's world there are two worldviews towards a person: “transcendental humanism” and “secular humanism.” The later is not adequate and is not an authentic view towards a person, since a “man is not a lost atom in a random universe: he is God's creature, whom God chose to endow with an immortal soul and whom he has always loved.“ (CV 29). Why is so important to clarify these standpoints?

The development depends on the view toward a person that motivates a creative human action.  This viewpoint is so important, since it bases the foundation of human relations, as well as all macro relations of a society.  If these relations are based on incorrect anthropology it can start a demoralization of society.  If the State forces a secular humanism as a “normative” or “legal” viewpoint of a man then it starts to devalue the authentic motivational power of human action.  Benedict is very clear on this: “when the State promotes, teaches, or actually imposes forms of practical atheism, it deprives its citizens of the moral and spiritual strength that is indispensable for attaining integral human development and it impedes them from moving forward with renewed dynamism as they strive to offer a more generous human response to divine love.“ (CV 29).

We understand that there is no stronger motivation to act than in charity, to be creative, to take various self-giving initiatives: this motivation which is understood as a vocation given by the Creator.  Other motives, no mater how well sounded they can be – cannot compete with this, where a person conceives himself as an image of the Creator.  We do not say that other motives to act are bad or weak, but they are not adequate when compared with the transcendental motivation.  If this understanding is disregarded, it endangers the development of science, technology, economy, democracy and overall human prosperity.  

The free market is a very sensitive system.  It is based on trust, on human creative capacities or human capital and on social capital.  That means that it is not enough to find mere technical solutions to fix economic instruments in creating economic prosperity.  The underdevelopment of countries in a higher degree depends on human capacities rather than on instrumental ones. A contemporary free market society need to look for answers that most effectively initiates a creative, collaborative and an entrepreneurial action.  Benedict emphasizes in this regard the need to reconsider the “the logic of economy” and to take a “further and deeper reflection on the meaning of the economy and its goals.“ (CV 32).  He says, “it is about broadening the scope of reason and making it capable of knowing and directing these powerful new forces, animating them within the perspective of that “civilization of love” whose seed God has planted in every people, in every culture.“ (CV 33).  In short he says that “business activity has a human significance, prior to its professional one” (CV 41).  Finally we can say that what we need is to foster a culture of hope which feeds a commercial society, culture of giving, and culture of transcendental motivation of human action.

The theology of the markets – a perspective opened by Caritas in Veritate

In the encyclical Caritas in Veritate, one of the most innovating concepts is the consideration on the development of nations when it “is illuminated in a striking way by the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity within the one divine Substance.“ (CV 54).  Pope Benedict founds his interpretation of human society on the concept of “the reciprocal transparency among the divine Persons“ (CV 54).  He points that “the unity of the human race presupposes a metaphysical interpretation of the “humanum” in which relationality is an essential element.“ (CV 55)  In saying that “relationships between human beings throughout history cannot but be enriched by reference to this divine model“ (CV 54) Benedict opens a new era of interpretation of the market and overall social order.  It should be seen as a calling to speak more openly about the theology of a free market.

The future for the exploration of the free economy from the perspective of theological anthropology lies in the consideration of the nature of the “theology” of the free market economy. The general audiences by John Paul II held during the first four years of his pontificate on the nature of human sexuality perhaps sounded to some listeners like “bold” proclamations on the “subtleties” of sexual activity, which were usually discussed and analyzed only in the “secular” context.  To some people this undertaking by John Paul II sounded like a provocative “project” challenging people to think, for instance, about the sexual intercourse of husband and wife as an “act of worship.”  John Paul II does not hesitate to look into the nature of the Blessed Trinity, the perfect self-giving and perfect receptivity of the Persons of the Trinity, and to recognize the traces of God’s interrelationship in the bond of the family.  In the “theology of the body,” John Paul II demonstrates that theological concepts are able to enrich the human understanding about our earthly reality and human relationships, thus showing their divine nature and purpose.  If we assume that our reality reflects the nature and glory of God, we need not hesitate to see free market exchanges as something which potentially reflects in some way the nature of loving God.  Of course, we are speaking here about a resemblance of the nature of God with that of human reality only in a metaphorical and figurative sense. Despite that, we are able to deepen the meaning of our human-social reality by concepts describing God’s nature and His action in the world.  Therefore, we can speak about the possibility of enriching the economy with theological insights.  It is the task of theology to describe human reality from the perspective of God and His Revelation.  A “theology of the markets” still waits a similar kind of systematic study from the perspective of theological anthropology, similar to that of the “theology of the body.”  The deepening of the meaning of the free economy from the perspective of theological anthropology is necessary, since it is a human and social reality which must reflect God’s intended plan for humanity. If a way could be found to develop the meaning of the economic terms via theological reflection, it could help to the “evangelization of the economy.”

One example of common language in theology and the economy is the area of creativity.  God is the Creator who calls a human person to be His cooperator.  However there are differences between the nature of God’s creation and human creative activity. We can talk about a common feature between God and man – the spirit of creativity.  The ability of people to create new products, to obtain new services, to find new ways of efficiency is in some sense “the new reality of existence” and reflects God’s creation ex nihilo.  Although human creativity, in the strict sense, is never the creatio ex nihilo, as the book of Ecclesiastes reminds us by saying that “nothing is new under the sun” (Ecc 1:9), it has an allegorical similarity to God’s creative act.  This concept is important not only for the sake of explaining the nature of human creativity and the purpose of entrepreneurship, but it is even more significant in terms of explaining the nature of the person, the market, and finally, the nature of God.  The free market provides “the land” in the words of Genesis to exercise the call to “subdue the earth.”  

Theology talks about the Blessed Trinity as the perfect unity of the three Divine Persons with the term “subjectivity” is used to describe the inner-personal relationship of the Holy Trinity.  The term “subjectivity,” which John Paul II uses to describe the nature of the person and society, tends to reveal the urge in human society for finding more advanced ways to realize the “personhood” of man and the inner interdependence among people.  For John Paul II, it also becomes a way also to talk about the “subjectivity” of human society.  This “subjectivity” is enabled in society if there are the right social conditions and the willingness of man for various forms of self donation.  The perfect “free gift of self” exists among the Persons of the Holy Trinity, which for John Paul becomes the concept of “self-giving” in considering the purpose of the free economy.  

The loving exchange of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit can also contribute to the insights about the free market exchange.  The exchange between two parties, in the deepest sense, is the exchange of subjectivity of personhood seen in human work, work with others, creativity, and entrepreneurship, which in turn raises the reality of “communal subjectivity,” the reality of “communal creativity,” or the “society of free work of enterprise and of participation.” The free market exchange is one way by which the reality of personal and communal “subjectivity” can be enhanced.  Indeed, this is not a “side effect” of the free economy.  This is one of its purposes.  

The theological meaning of “exchange” can be described using the concept of Eucharist.  This “holy exchange” between God and His people when they offer the bread, “which earth has given and human hands have made,” asking God that it  become “the bread of life,² brings into human existence a new reality – the special and actual presence of God for the strengthening and transformation of the human person.  This transformation of the person impacts the transition of the world for becoming a more “friendly” place for the human striving toward perfection.  God accepts this “fruit of the earth and the work of human hands” and makes it His own Real Presence in order that the human person receiving Him enters into a very personal communion with God.  Even if we cannot compare the meaning of the exchange in the mystery of the Eucharist and that which exists in market operations, the theology of the Holy Trinity and Eucharist can help us to understand how the exchange among the two parties enable this new reality.  This holy exchange in the Eucharist, which is the cause of the new reality can be metaphorically equated to the exchange in the market, which means that there is not only the exchange between the parties, but also the coming into existence of a reality in society which we call “communal subjectivity.”  

The Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ begins the definitive divinization process of the world, which moves toward its final consummation in God.   Therefore, there are no purely “secular” subjects in this world.  The free economy belongs to this process also.  A. M. C. Waterman express this reality by saying that “the efficacy of the market in organizing human action for wealth creation is evidence of divine wisdom and mercy in turning human frailty to socially beneficent ends.³ Attempts to consider the free market from the perspective of theological anthropology suggest a great area for exploration in CST in order to find new benefits from this collaboration between the sciences of theology and economy.  The separation of the markets and morality causes negative effects for both: markets without morality lead to various forms of totalitarianism, and morality which ignores the logic of markets devalues itself by narrowing its understanding of the concept by being “private” morality.  The “incarnation” of the Christian message about the nature of God and that of the human person into a proper understanding of the market economy is the task to which John Paul II invites us in Centesimus Annus and Benedict XVI in Caritas in Veritate.

Father Kestutis Kevalas

1.  Samuel Gregg, The Commercial Society, Foundations and Challenges in a Global Age, 2.
2.  The “Offertory” prayer in the Roman Liturgy of the Eucharist.
3.  Waterman A. M. C. Market Social Order and Christian Organicism in Centesimus Annus // Journal of “Markets and Morality”. 1999. No. 2. Vol. 2. P. 220-233, 231.