Reflection on "Caritas in Veritate:" Chapter 1

I started reading the synopsis of "Caritas in Veritate" found on Wikipedia.  This document was written by Pope Benedict XVI of the Catholic Church, the current Pope at the time of this writing.  Now, if you follow my blog, you are probably aware that I am not Catholic (I am in fact LDS aka Mormon).  The fact that there are many religious beliefs that I do not share with the Pope does not, however, mean that I consider his opinion invalid.  I am not so insecure in my beliefs that I will not listen to the reasoning of others, and further I recognize that in spite of differences in beliefs, truth can come from many sources.  I chose to look into this document when I came across an article by another religious minister (who happens to be protestant) suggesting that all Christians could benefit from reading it.

The synopsis of the first chapter (this is as far as I have gotten; as such, this may be the first in a series), found on Wikipedia says that it begins where "Populorum progressio" (a document written by a previous pope) ends.  It discusses poverty and charity.  Specifically, it discusses an idea from the previous document, that the primary causes of poverty are not disaster or other material things, but "the lack of brotherhood among individuals and peoples."  He quotes "Populorum progressio" again later, "the peoples in hunger are making a dramatic appeal to the peoples blessed with abundance."  He also points out that those working for the benefit of others, which I interpret as those employed by businesses or other people, need a sense of fulfillment.

The first part, discussing poverty and hunger gave me pause for reflection.  In the past, it has been common for civilizations to allow people to go hungry when they chose not to earn their keep.  This was seen as fair, because it put undue strain on society and its ability to provide enough for everyone.  In the past, people were barely capable of providing for themselves and their families, let alone anyone else.  If one person refused to work, or even was unable to work, the cost on society to care for this person could be disastrous.  Natural conditions that reduced food supply were common.  It was natural and fair that those who did not produce or otherwise provide useful labor should starve.  This is no longer the case, however.

One of the major points of Christian teaching is charity.  Jesus spent most of His recorded life giving care to those in need.  Many times, He helped people without the ability to help themselves, but there were also cases where He helped those who needed help because they had placed themselves in bad situations due to their own poor choices (generally with a plea to choose better in the future).  He never passed judgement on these people, and He never refused to help them, even when their situation was obviously their own fault.

This is what the first chapter of Caritas in Veritate is speaking of.  When Pope Benedict XVI quotes "Populorum progressio" saying that the primary cause of hunger and poverty is "the lack of brotherhood among individuals and peoples," he is pointing out that the problem is not laziness or the fault of those in poverty.  The fault lies with those who have plenty, but are too judgmental or greedy to share when needed.  Now, I admit that poverty is a natural consequence of laziness, but we are no longer a society where scarcity dictates that the lazy must starve so that the rest of society can survive.  The argument that since poverty is the natural consequence of laziness, it is just to withhold necessities from the lazy is no longer valid.  Would we allow the murderer to be put to death by starvation and exposure to the elements?  I hope we would recognize this as cruel and unusual punishment.  Is laziness such a bad crime that it justifies such a cruel punishment?  If our culture is so heartless that those with abundance will allow such suffering for such an insignificant crime, then we are worse than savages and barbarians.

Further, the teachings of Christ do not differentiate between the naked and hungry who are at fault for their situations and those who are not.  As I have mentioned, He did not judge those He helped.  He helped them because it was the right thing to do.  He recognized, far better than most people in our modern culture, that regardless of fault, allowing people to suffer in such ways is wrong, when you have the means to provide relief.

The second thing that impacted me was the part about how those who work for the benefit of others deserve fulfillment.  This is the difference between slavery and fair employment.  Employers who treat their employees like robots who should be able to do anything they are commanded to are treating them like slaves, not like human beings.  This includes employers who pay their employees only enough to survive and no more, or who do not even pay that much.  If a job is not worth enough to generate enough income to survive and have at least a little left over (employees deserve to profit as much as anyone else), then it is not worth being done at all.  When employers pay only enough to survive, they are treating their employees like machines that have regular maintenance and fuel costs, but who have no other needs or wants.  This is humiliating and unfulfilling to employees.  Disrespect of employees is equally wrong, and I would like to include in this requiring more labor than is reasonable for a single person, as well as deadlines that are excessively difficult to meet.  This also includes rating performance of an employee based on the performance of others.  If one employee performs better than the rest, it does not mean that the rest are lazy.  Often it means that the one employee has a higher capacity for work, or that that employee is taking credit for the work of others.  If an employee is not earning his keep, then it is reasonable to request higher performance or to dismiss him.  If most or all of the employees are not earning their keep, then maybe you have chosen a business that is not profitable enough to justify paying for labor.  Instead of demanding unreasonable performance, or paying wages that are disrespectfully low, you should get out of that business entirely and try something else.

Our world produces enough to feed every person on it.  If some people are lazy, there is no risk that the rest of society will suffer if we continue to support them.  I don't want to sound like I am justifying laziness.  The lazy should not be given every convenience without any labor.  Neither should they be allowed to starve or suffer from lack of necessities either, as long as there is enough excess to go around.  Even the lazy deserve sanitary living conditions, shelter from harsh weather, clothing, and sufficient water and nutrition.  This may be as limited as studio apartments with two people to an apartment, the cheapest thrift store clothing, clean water that is merely warm instead of hot, and healthy food from soup kitchens that does not always taste great, but provides all of the necessary nutrients.  Are we so cruel and uncaring that we will not even provide this little bit to reduce suffering?

I would like to briefly make a statement to all of the celebrities I hear say that they wish for world peace, or to end world hunger: What are you doing to fix this problem?  Yes, I see that many of you donate money to charities to cure breast cancer and AIDs, to fly food to starving people in Africa, that ultimately gets confiscated by their governments to be used to fuel hate wars, or to save some endangered animal, but what are you really doing?  There are people in New York, L.A., Chicago, Seattle, and every other large city in our nation (replace these with cities for your own country, if you do not live in the U.S.) who need food, shelter, and medical care, who cannot afford it, and you are pouring millions of dollars into charities to help minorities or people in other countries.  How do you think that we can eliminate world hunger by sending money to other countries, when we have not even managed to eliminate hunger in our own country?  When you get up in front on millions of people and say you want to end world hunger, and then go to the expensive after party and then your billion dollar mansion and never think about those starving people again, that is hypocrisy, which is the one thing that Jesus did judge people for.

I don't care if you do not believe in God, or Jesus, all of the principals still stand.  Society is only strong when those with excess help support those in need.  The stories of Jesus, true or not, are the single best example of this that we have.  Natural laws do not care if you choose to believe in God or not, if a civilization refuses to support its poor, it will eventually loose its civility.

This is a very controversial battle.  This is because most of the rich ignore their responsibility to the poor.  It appears that the majority of Americans recognize that there is a responsibility there, otherwise we would not have any welfare systems, but the rich are throwing huge amounts of money and influence into convincing people that no responsibility exists and that civilization is every man for himself.  If we can see that the rich have a responsibility to make sure the poor have sufficient resources to survive, and if we can see that a majority of the rich will do everything in their power to escape this responsibility, what do we think should be done about it?  Should we allow the poor to die in one of the cruelest ways possible, because we believe that the rich have a natural right to shirk the responsibilities that come with excess resources?  We claim to be a country dedicated to justice.  Is this truly justice, to allow people to suffer to death because they cannot or will not find a way to support themselves?  What rights are so important that the will of the majority should not be enough to allow the government to step in and right this wrong?  Are not all of our laws somehow based on religion (and Christian religion at that)?  How then is it so wrong to make laws that enforce this commandment (that those with excess help support those in need), when it is right to make laws that prohibit murder, theft, and other highly religious principals?  Ironically, the strongest opponents of these laws are those conservatives who claim to be Christians.

I do understand the argument that charity should be a personal choice, and really it is.  The problem is, where is the point where law should override personal choice (because that is specifically what law is designed to do)?  I would argue that when thousands or millions of people are suffering and dying, it is way past the point where law should override personal choice.  If we were still a nation of virtuous people, this would not even be an issue.  I agree that the government should not be involved in this.  Unfortunately, when the people refuse to fulfill their own responsibilities, and others suffer as a result, someone has to take that responsibility.  There is no one else as uniquely qualified to do this as a government, if the people will not do it themselves.  However, once the government has to take the place of individual charity, it is no longer charity, and the people giving no longer receive the benefits of charitable actions.  Even if you do not believe in God, if you have any ethics you must admit that giving to the poor because the government forces you to does not give you the good feeling you get when you do it entirely voluntarily without being compelled to.

I will continue reading the synopsis of "Caritas in Veritate."  I would suggest, as the protestant minister who's writings encouraged me, that all Christians would benefit from at least reading the synopsis of this document, if not the document itself.  Even non-Christians would likely benefit from reading it, as even in a non-religious sense, the principals make good sense.  I may choose to write more on this document, if I feel so inclined, as I continue to read through the synopsis.  I may eventually read the document itself, if I can find a translation and if I can find enough time.

Lord Rybec