Joy of Gospel Part Seven

At Chapter 62:

In many countries globalization has meant a hastened deterioration of their own cultural roots and the invasion of ways of thinking and acting proper to other cultures which are economically advanced but ethically debilitated. This fact has been brought up by bishops from various continents in different Synods. The African bishops, for example, taking up the Encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, pointed out years ago that there have been frequent attempts to make the African countries “parts of a machine, cogs on a gigantic wheel. This is often true also in the field of social communications which, being run by centres mostly in the northern hemisphere, do not always give due consideration to the priorities and problems of such countries or respect their cultural make-up”

Funny word that, invasion.  USA now has an Africa Command over that Continent, referring to sub-Saharan Africa.  I wonder why?  In any event, no doubt Africa would benefit from more Xhosa News Service and less BBC.

It should be recalled that this document is largely directed at Catholics, and the clergy he leads. After that paragraph above there are 30 paragraphs on church activity, and then these points:

In some people we see an ostentatious preoccupation for the liturgy, for doctrine and for the Church’s prestige, but without any concern that the Gospel have a real impact on God’s faithful people and the concrete needs of the present time.

and

96. This way of thinking also feeds the vainglory of those who are content to have a modicum of power and would rather be the general of a defeated army than a mere private in a unit which continues to fight.

Certainly those working in the Church know who he is talking about.  Maybe this is what has the right-wingers upset.  He is coming after those who have settled in and blame the poor for being poor.

After another 40 paragraphs of exhortations to the troops, comes this gem:

The homily is the touchstone for judging a pastor’s closeness and ability to communicate to his people. We know that the faithful attach great importance to it, and that both they and their ordained ministers suffer because of homilies: the laity from having to listen to them and the clergy from having to preach them! 

I tell you, having sat through endless terrible homilies, this rings so true.  We may have Jesus in the Catholic church, but the Protestants know how to preach.

There are another 50 paragraphs on evangelization and then he gets back into politics, in this case referring to solidarity with the poor:

The word “solidarity” is a little worn and at times poorly understood, but it refers to something more than a few sporadic acts of generosity. It presumes the creation of a new mindset which thinks in terms of community and the priority of the life of all over the appropriation of goods by a few.

So what we have here is setting up the problem.  This is alluding to capitalism. This is usually the watershed to start talking about income redistribution, and with no one except me and maybe another 30 people on planet earth talking about free markets, it is unlikely free markets are going to be included in the discussion.  I am used to it.  But free markets work on their own, unilaterally.  And one still needs to heed cautions, and judge independent, unique, unilateral action against the cautions and problems being highlighted.

The private ownership of goods is justified by the need to protect and increase them, so that they can better serve the common good; for this reason, solidarity must be lived as the decision to restore to the poor what belongs to them. .... Changing structures without generating new convictions and attitudes will only ensure that those same structures will become, sooner or later, corrupt, oppressive and ineffectual.

So given capitalism, and given injustice, there must be a change of heart behind and change of structures.  Now if you believe that the poor did it to themselves, then this is all nonsense.  If you believe capitalism is the best system for distributing goods and services (and why wouldn't you if you got rich by it?) then this is all nonsense.

But capitalism, by any of its own definitions needs state interventions to make possible those outsized results for the few.  To maintain those examples of immense personal wealth, the masses must pay for a a system of programmed violence to maintain that putative wealth.  This is all to complicated to sit and and try to reform.

We need to grow in a solidarity which “would allow all peoples to become the artisans of their destiny”,[156] since “every person is called to self-fulfilment”

You cannot get there from capitalism.

Seeing their poverty, hearing their cries and knowing their sufferings, we are scandalized because we know that there is enough food for everyone and that hunger is the result of a poor distribution of goods and income. The problem is made worse by the generalized practice of wastefulness”.

Travelling the world, this is so clear.  Seeing starving people on TV satisfies those who believe we have an overpopulation problem, when in fact famine is always a distribution problem.  (And the real problem we face is an underpopulation problem in certain age groups in many countries... good luck with that.)

Now this is where the right wingers will go off the rails, note "just wage":

We are not simply talking about ensuring nourishment or a “dignified sustenance” for all people, but also their “general temporal welfare and prosperity”.[159]This means education, access to health care, and above all employment, for it is through free, creative, participatory and mutually supportive labour that human beings express and enhance the dignity of their lives. A just wage enables them to have adequate access to all the other goods which are destined for our common use.

If you do not fixate on "welfare" and "just wage" and health care, you might read something more.  I've been defining wealth as that range of goods and services available to the widest range of people with their own money, as opposed to the common definition of celebrity wealth, that is how much one person has concentrated unto himself.  And I've been pointing out that prosperity is rooted in the word hope.  "Employment" in terms of free, creative, participatory and mutually supportive labor certainly excludes being an employee, and certainly refers to self-employment, something capitalism militates against.  In self-employed, a just wage is what you get as you fine tune your offer to what best serves the most people you can serve.  In this way you buy your own "welfare, that range of goods and services which support you in thriving, buy your own education and health care. It is a lifelong balancing act, in the service of others. Sure, you are free to be a drone for the surveillance state at Google, but if you try to braid hair for a living without a cosmeticians license, the full, violent weight of the state will come down on you.  And then, since at once the education you received will not qualify you to work at google, and state violence forbids you to be self-employed at what you are good at.  so take welfare, until your line dies out.  And then finally tells you that the state religion, Darwin says you are destined for extermination anyway, well, at some point, maybe sitting in a classroom, you connect the dots.


This Pope is saying no to all of that.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post