The Three Recent Papacies: Continuity or Discontinuity on Economic Issues
John T. Pawlikowski, OSM, Ph.D.
In the relatively short period of time in which he has occupied the papacy Pope Francis
has clearly established himself as a strong critic of the current global economic system. In his
Apostolic Exhortation The Joy of the Gospel (Evangelii Gaudium) he has called for immediate
attention to the flawed structural system of the global economy which leaves millions in poverty.
He has repeated this critique in many focused statements such his letter to Prime Minister Tony
Abbott on the occasion of Australia’s hosting of the G20 Economic Summit. Clearly concern for
the serious inadequacy of the current economic system has defined his papacy in a major way.
I shall return to a more in-depth analysis of Pope Francis’ perspective on the global
economy later in this paper. But at this point I want to turn to the basic question I posed in my
proposal for this presentation. Is Pope Francis’ stance on the global economy radically different
from his two immediate predecessors in the papacy? In order to provide some response to this
question it is necessary to outline the basic views of St. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict
XVI on the world economic system and compare them to the outlook that has dominated Pope
Francis’ papacy to date.
Let me begin with the views of John Paul II. Important statements on the world economy
appear in two of his social encyclicals Sollicitudo rei socialis (1987) and Centesimus annus
(1991) as well as the addresses he delivered in his many trips abroad from the very beginning to
the very end of his long tenure as pope. He also authorized the Pontifical Justice & Peace
Commission as well as the Vatican Mission to the United Nations to issue important statements
on the global economy.
Pope John Paul II entered the papacy with considerable experience in dealing with the
problems inherent in a socialist economy. Yet, as Pope, John Paul II never gave blanket
endorsement to capitalism. He placed considerable emphasis on human creativity in the
economic sphere, something he found lacking in the economic system with which he had to
contend in his native Poland. And he clearly drew upon the reflections regarding economic
matters of his predecessors, including Paul VI’s Populorum progressio which many
conservative Catholics hoped John Paul II would place in the dustbin of history.
John Paul II’s interest in economic matters is visible in the very first years of his papacy,
particularly in addresses given during his initial foreign trips. His 1979 speech to the United
Nations set a basic tone for his pontificate in terms of the global economic system. “People must
become aware,” he argued, “that economic tensions within countries and the relationship
between states and even between entire continents contain within themselves substantial
elements that restrict or violate human rights.”1 In that same address he criticized those who
think it is improper to gauge the performance of an economic system by other than narrowly
defined market criteria. “The fundamental criterion,” he insisted,
for comparing social, economic and political systems…must be the
humanistic criterion, namely the measure in which each system is really
capable of reducing, restraining and eliminating as far as possible the
various forms of exploitation of man and of ensuring for him, through
work, not only the just distribution of the indispensable material goods,
1 Cf.
David M. Byers, ed., Justice in the Market Place: Collected Statements of the Vatican and the United States
Catholic Bishops on Economic Policy, 1891-1984. General Introduction and Document Introductions by John T.
Pawlikowski, OSM. (Washington: United States Catholic Conference, 1985), 346.
but also a participation, in keeping with his dignity, in the whole process
of production and in the social life that grows around that process.
The 1984 addresses of John Paul II in Edmonton and Newfoundland, Canada, serve to
further clarify the basic framework of the Pope’s economic vision. They confirm even more
forcefully than the United Nations address and his presentation at Yankee Stadium in New York
on the same trip, his indebtedness to the teachings of Pope Paul VI and to the 1971 Synod
document on “Justice in the World.”
In his Newfoundland address John Paul II offered a critique of unrestrained capitalism on
two counts. First, he expressed grave reservations about the growing concentration of capital in
ever larger corporations which leaves control of the markets in the hands of a very small, select
circle. Such concentration destroys the organization of production by small units, a system that
John Paul II believed can better provide human working conditions for laborers. Secondly, John
Paul II argued that free enterprise alone cannot guarantee adequate production and distribution of
food and other necessities. There remains a definite need for governmental intervention and
planning: “The responsible stewardship of the earth’s resources, and especially food, require
long-range planning at the different levels of government, in cooperation with industries and
workers.”2
John Paul II went on in his address to recommend the promotion of fishing cooperatives,
collective agreements between fishermen and management, and even partnerships or other forms
of joint ownership. He also supported a basic principle of the Canadian Bishop’s economic
statement: “the value and dignity of labor.”3 Preserving this dignity requires the creation of
economic models according to John Paul II that allow for worker participation in decisions
regarding the work process and the use of capital produced by it.
John Paul II’s address in Edmonton, Alberta, was his most specific early statement on the
international economic order. He spoke to this issue in light of the incarnationally based theology
of human dignity he outlined in his first two major encyclicals, Redemptor hominus and
Laborem exercens. Speaking with clear moral indignation and sometimes departing from his
prepared text, John Paul II told Canada and other wealthy nations of the north that they will be
judged ultimately by their actions toward the poor people of the south: “Poor people and poor
nations, poor in different ways, not only lacking in food, but also deprived of freedom and
human rights, will sit in judgment on those people who take these goods away from them,
amassing to themselves the imperialistic monopoly of economic decision making.”4 Invoking the
New Testament parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, a persistent image in John Paul II’s early
reflections on economic matters, he cautions the world’s economic elite that to remain
comfortable amidst global poverty is to place their eternal salvation at risk. John Paul II’s
remarks in Edmonton certainly matched, and in some ways exceeded the criticism of the global
economy found in Populorum progressio as well as the 1971 Synod document Justice in the
World.
At this point let me summarize John Paul II’s first two encyclicals that dealt substantively
with economic issues: Laborem exercens and Sollicitudo rei socialis and then move on to his
subsequent social encyclical which generated a fair amount of controversy issued for the one
2 David
3 For
M. Byers, ed., Justice in the Market Place, 361.
the key sections of the Canadian Bishops’ Statement, cf. David M. Byers, ed., Justice in the Market Place, 480-
499.
4 David M. Byers, ed., Justice in the Market Place, 355.
hundredth anniversary of the first papal social encyclical. Titled Centesimus annus this
encyclical placed the market economy center stage.
In Laborem exercens John Paul II endorsed an economic model closely resembling the
societal plan developed by the Polish union movement Solidarity in the midst of its struggles
with the reigning socialist government in Poland. In examining this encyclical it must be kept in
mind that the Solidarity movement was envisioning a significant reform of the socialist state in
Poland, but not its total demise in view of Soviet military power. John Paul II maintained that an
authentic Catholic notion of private property diverges from the outlook on private property and
the means of production operative in liberal capitalism. He does not exclude the possibility of the
socialization of the means of production in certain circumstances.
Sollicitudo rei socialis, written to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of Populorum
progressio, is set in the then context of the continuing struggle between the West block of
nations and countries under the sway of Marxism. His bottom line was that both systems have
been responsible for the severe economic hardships experienced by millions of people
throughout the globe. Though he affirms the right of economic initiative and the creative
subjectivity of the citizen, he castigated both economic systems for their treatment of peoples in
the two-thirds world, a treatment John Paul II labels as imperialistic and neo-colonial.
Centesiums annus represented John Paul II’s most developed statement on market
economy. Its proper interpretation became a matter of some dispute among commentators. I shall
return to that controversy shortly.
In the text of Centesimus annus John Paul II posed a fundamental question regarding the
global economy. With the collapse of the Marxist system in most of the world, can we now say
that capitalism is to be considered the victorious system? The papal response is far from clearcut, recognizing the answer has to be a complex one. A lot depends on how we define the nature
of capitalism. If by capitalism we mean an economic system that acknowledges the importance
of business, the market, private property, the responsible use of the means of production, and
space for human creativity, then John Paul II certainly judged the capitalist framework in which
there is an absence of any judicial oversight that directs the market economy towards the genuine
service of the community and of total human freedom, including freedom from political
oppression and freedom from poverty, then the papal response is negative. For John Paul II an
unbridled market economy is clearly unacceptable. Governmental authority, as well as
international agreements, have to provide the juridical framework within which the market
economy operates. He remains convinced that the market economy by itself cannot adequately
meet human needs. The profit motive is integral to a successful economy according to
Centesimus annus. But other human and moral factors must be brought into play.
For John Paul II the demise of the Marxist economic model does not automatically mean
that capitalism is the sole acceptable form of economic organization. Centisiumus annus warns
that “The Western countries run the risk of seeing this collapse as a one-sided victory of their
own economic system, and thereby failing to make necessary corrections in the system.”5
One particular passage in Centisimus annus has been the subject of considerable debate.
It is paragraph 48 in which the Pope offered a strong critique of the “social assistance state.”
Michael Novak, from a Catholic neoconservative perspective, has argued that Vatican II
accepted the American idea of religious freedom and “in Centisimus annus Rome has assimilated
5 Centesimus
Annus, 56.
American ideas of economic liberty.”6 From a more progressive perspective social ethicist
Donald Dorr, who has had considerable experienced in the two-thirds world, expressed
disappointment over this passage. But he cautioned that this passage does not represent a retreat
from previous papal statements but rather an effort to find models that go beyond the social
welfare state. John Paul II was saying, according to Dorr, that states should not create economic
dependency on the part of the citizens. Rather the state should empower them to develop sound
economic initiatives.7 Fr. Bryan Hehir who worked for many years in the Social Development
and World Peace at the U.S. Bishops’ Conference in Washington found paragraph 48 rather
jarring in terms of the totality of the encyclical. As he read Centisimus annus the duties it
identifies for state authorities with regard to economic matters in various parts of the overall text
and in John Paul II’s other writings on the global economy include many, if not most, of the
activities covered by the label “welfare state.”8 The evidence for the centrality of restrained state
intervention in economic matters is so compelling in the overall corpus of John Paul II’s
writings, according to Hehir, that the few paragraphs highlighted in Centisimus annus by
commentators such as Michael Novak as well as George Weigel and the late Richard John
Neuhaus cannot undo the basic thrust of his thinking.
It may be that paragraph 48 was in fact a rather late addition to the final version of the
text. Soon after the release of Sollicitudo rei socialis a group of Catholic lay leaders, some of
them connected with the so-called Lay Letter on the Economy, issued at the same time as the
U.S. Bishops’ Pastoral Letter on the Economy, travelled to the Vatican to express criticism over
what they regarded as the excessively socialist orientation of that encyclical. They met with
Cardinal Jorge Mejia who was second in command at the Pontifical Commission for Justice and
Peace. Their protest basically fell on hard ground. As a result, they made a decided effort to
insure that the planned encyclical for the one hundredth anniversary of Rerum novarum included
something of their perspective on the market economy. Paragraph 48, inserted with the support
of certain leading Catholic hierarchs, was the result. This would account for the seeming clash
with other parts of Centisimus annus that Fr. Herir accurately noted.
David Hollenbach’s summary comments regarding this encyclical are to the point. “It
would be a serious mistake,” he insists, “to think that the Pope has blessed the form of capitalism
existing in the United States today. In fact the encyclical is a major challenge to much recent
U.S. economic and social policy.”9 In my judgment several of the original neoconservative
commentators on Centisimus annus such as Richard John Neuhaus, Michael Novak and George
Weigel considerably overstate John Paul II’s endorsement of capitalism. Neuhaus’ editorial in
the Wall Street Journal, printed one day prior to its official release, was especially egregious in
this regard, leaving the impression the Pope had conferred an unqualified papal blessing on the
market economy. Tough in Centisimus annus John Paul II affirmed free market mechanisms
more strongly and directly than any of his predecessors, he also explicitly warned capitalist
nations against any premature euphoria regarding the moral superiority of the capitalist system.
John Paul II’s critique undercuts the triumphant language about capitalism found i the writings of
Novak, “Tested by Our Own Ideals,” in Charles e. Curran and Richard A. McCormick, eds., John Paul II
and Moral Theology: Readings In Moral Theology No. 10. (New York: Paulist, 1998), 323.
7 Donald Dorr, Option for the Poor: A Hundred Years of Catholic Social Teaching, revised edition. (Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis, 1992), 345-347.
8 J. Bryan Hehir, “Reordering the World: John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus,” Commonweal 68 (14 June 1991), 394.
9 David Hollenbach, “The Pope and Capitalism,” America (1 June 1991),591.
6 Michael
Nvak and Weigel which have found their way into Poland and other parts of central and eastern
Europe.
In a number of public addresses subsequent to the insurance of Centesimus annus John
Paul II offered his interpretation of the encyclical, one that differs from the spin put upon it by
the likes of Weigel, Neuhaus and Novak. Most of these papal addresses received no mention in
their writings.
The first such address occurred on May 15, 1991, shortly after the release of the actual
encyclical. The audience was a group of international economic and political experts gathered in
Rome to commemorate the one hundredth anniversary of Rerum novarum. In his talk John Paul
II was highly critical of the growing economic imbalances among the nations of the world
brought on by large concentrations of wealth that are part and parcel of the market economy as it
actually functions today. He also cited the ravaging effects of pollution and clearly associated
these with the dominant global economic system. Coming as it did so soon after the release of
Centesimus annus, this address may be seen as a Vatican counterbalance to those commentators
who inaccurately interpreted this encyclical as offering a blanket endorsement of capitalism.10
The same can be said for a major statement on Catholic social teaching which John Paul
II delivered on September 9, 1993, at the University of Latvia in which he offered his own
explicit interpretation of how to read Solicitudo rei socialis and Centesimus annus in terms of
capitalism. The Pope emphasized that Catholic social doctrine cannot be viewed as a “surrogate
for capitalism.” While the Church has consistently condemned socialism, it has likewise
“distanced itself from Capitalistic ideology, holding it responsible for grave social injustices.” At
Riga, John Paul II underlined that, even after the collapse of Communism, grave doubts have to
be raised about the validity of capitalism. While he professed belief in the market economy, such
an economy acquires legitimacy only if it is circumscribed within a strong juridical framework
which enables it truly to promote the freedom of all people, a point strongly stressed, as we have
already seen, in Centesimus annus.11 Mention of a “juridicial framework” surely implies an
ongoing, active role for national governments and the international political community in the
management of economic affairs.
Several years later (April 25, 1997) the Pope spoke to the Pontifical Academy of Social
Sciences. In his address John Paul II clearly stated that the Church in no way condemns the
deregulation of the market economy. “History amply demonstrates,” he insisted, “the failure of
regimes characterized by planning that is harmful to civil and economic freedoms.” But he went
on to add that to promote economic models diametrically opposed to a planned economy cannot
be justified. “Experience shows,” he underlined, “that a market economy left to unconditional
freedom is far from bringing the greatest possible advantages to individuals and societies.” In the
papal perspective political activity is critical for a balanced market that incorporates the
principles of subsidiarity and solidarity. He likewise acknowledged that such political activity
cannot be restricted to nation states today in view of the global dimensions of the economy, but
must involve regional and global institutions with juridicial authority.12
Finally, in January 1999, John Paul II addressed the issue of the market economy in the
face of the challenge of globalization during a visit to Mexico. In that address he denounced
“neo-liberal” economic models that see “profit and law of the markets as its only parameters.” In
Catholic News Service, “Pope, criticizing Capitalism, laments widening rich-poor gap, ecological damage,”
National Catholic Reporter, 27 (31 May 1992), 8.
11 John Paul II, “What Church Social Teaching Is and Is Not,”Origins 23 (23 September 1993), 257.
12 John Paul II, “Toward a Balanced, Well-Regulated World Market,” Origins 27 (5 June 1997), 43.
10 Cf.
words that virtually echo Marxist language, the Pope exhorted his audience, “No more
exploitation of the weak…never again!”13
John Paul II followed up on his remarks in Mexico in April 2002 address to the Pontifical
Academy of Social Sciences. In this more formal address John Paul II insisted that it
“corresponds to the political sphere to regulate the markets, to subject market laws to solidarity,
so that individuals and societies are not sacrificed by economic changes at all levels, and are
protected from impulses linked to the deregulation of the markets.” He went on to encourage the
“agents of social, political and economic life to go further in the way of cooperation among
people, businesses and nations so that the management of our earth will be at the service of
persons and peoples, not just profit.” In order to achieve this objective, John Paul II proposed
“collective decisions” at the “planetary level” directed “to implementing [these documents]
through a process that favors the responsible participation of all…called to build the future
together.”14
From the above analysis it is clear that, while John Paul II regarded the market economy
as the best framework for organizing society currently available, re remains severely critical of
its failures thus far in terms of global poverty and increasing ecological destruction. Capitalism
cannot secure high moral prestige in the eyes of John Paul II until such time as it overcomes the
huge economic disparity in the world today and does a far better job in protecting the
environment. Capitalism for John Paul II (and he does not rule out possible alternate social
frameworks) must integrate solidarity as a central virtue if it is to serve genuine human
development. And it must be subjected to political control. The market in an uncontrolled state
will never attain the development goals laid out by the Pope for global humanity.
The emphasis by John Paul II on the need for a juridicial framework for the market
economy he received considerable support at the time from leading economists, political leaders,
and journalists. Louis Uchitelle, writing in the then International Herald Tribune, showed how
leading economist such as Paul Krugman and Lester Thurow, despite deep differences on many
issues within the market economy, agreed on a number of key points: “strengthening unions,
pushing education to improve people’s workplace skills, and income redistribution via
governmental policy to reduce inequality.”15 And the former Chairman of Goldman Sachs
International Peter D. Sutherland expressed views paralleling those of John Paul II. Sutherland,
who also served in leadership at the Overseas Development Council, stood in agreement with
John Paul II’s contention about the basic inadequacy of market mechanisms in terms of
economic solidarity; “I have been personally and deeply committed to promoting the market
system through my entire career,” he insisted, “yet it is quite obvious to me that the market will
never provide all the answers to the problems of poverty and inequality.”16 Sutherland underlined
the need for effective juridical structures that would be developed through a substantial
revamping of existing institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and
the World Trade Organization.
Doug Cassel, “Globalization with a Human Face—Or Else?” World View Commentary No. 18, Center for
International Human Rights, Northwestern University School of Law, (5 February, 1999), 2.
14 ”Keep the Wealth Gap from Widening, Asks Pope. Appeals to World Leaders for Measures to Globalize
Solidarity,” Rome: Zenith News Agency. (11 April 2005), 1.
15 Cf. Louis Uchitelle, “An Economic Donnybrook That’s More Than Academic,” International Herald Tribune, (20
February 1997), 1:6. Also cf. point #7 of the U.S. Bishop Statement, “A Catholic Framework for Economic Life,”
New Theology Review 10 (May 1997), 103.
16 Peter D. Sutherland, “Beyond the Market, a Different Kind of Equality,” International Herald Tribune, (20
February 1997), 20.
13 Cf.
And John Paul II’s perspectives were echoed by columnist William Pfaff reflecting on his
participation in the World Economic Forum which meets yearly in Davos, Switzerland. Pfaff
highlighted changes that have come to the WEF, changes I have seen myself as a twice
participant in the Forum. He emphasized that the WEF leadership has come to recognize that the
social ravages produced by the market economy by the stress on corporate and individual
interests at the expense of the common good cannot continue unabated. Citing the speech of
George Soros at the 1997 WEF, Soros, he wrote, now recognizes a “totalitarian tendency” in
unregulated market capitalism. The idea that self-interested behavior in the marketplace would
automatically advance the common interest now is recognized as naive ideology, or as a selfinterested self-deception. Soros, according to Pfaff, has come to recognize that “times are
changing and the marketplace now increasingly is judged with political as well as economic
discrimination and realism.”17 Both Soros and Pfaff have added to their original commentary. In
an article in Foreign Policy Soros wrote that “Public policy measures are needed to stabilize the
flows of international finance required by the global capitalist system and to keep the inherent
instability of financial markets under control.”18 Pfaff in the meantime he has questioned the
wisdom of imposing economic reform programs on beleaguered foreign societies that clearly in
his judgment do much harm in the short term. For Pfaff the justification for such programs is
based in a contested and unproven notion that they will produce long-term economic miracles.19
Two other important world figures also weighed in on the juridical framework around the
same time as John Paul II’s endorsement of the concept. The first was the former Secretary
General of the United Nations Kofi Annan. At the 2001 World Economic Forum, Annan called
on the world business leaders to provide a “human face” for the global market. And at a Vatican
sponsored conference hosted by John Paul II at his summer residence at Castal Gondolfo outside
Rome, Zbigniew Brzezinski argued that the global economy, if it is to remain successful, must
develop a greater sensitivity to the human dimension of economic life. With the growing world
impatience with economic poverty and social injustice, Brzezinski argued that “it behooves the
economic system to be increasingly sensitive to social responsibility. That sensitivity has to be as
important a consideration as efficiency and performance in the determination of economic
decisions and guiding economic development. That obligation pertains particularly to the
international financial institutions.”20 And Robert Lighthizer who served as deputy trade
representative in the administration of U.S. President Ronald Reagan acknowledged that most
supporters of global markets endorse internationally what they would never sanction within the
United States itself. Even free market enthusiasts with regard to the global economy generally
accept regulation in terms of clean air, worker safety, minimum wage, etc.21
In the twilight of his papacy John Paul II continued to push this notion of the need for a
global framework for the world economic system, insisting that an unregulated market can never
attain a level of justice for all through its own internal dynamics. He has done this directly as
well as through his representatives at the United Nations. In a May 2001 speech to the Pontifical
Academy of Social Sciences the Pope recalled his statement in Centesimus annus that the market
must be controlled by the common good of the community: “Now that commerce and
Pfaff, “Unregulated Market Capitalism Has Totalitarian Tendencies,” Liberal Opinion Week, (10
February 1997), 25.
18 George Soros, “Capitalism’s Last Chance?,” Foreign Policy (Winter 1998-99), 58.
19 William Pfaff, “Western Economic Theories Have Left Soviet Bloc Economies in Shambles,” Chicago Tribune,
(31 August 1999), 15.
20 Zbigniew Brzezinski, “Global Dilemmas Democracy Faces,” Origins 28. (3 September 1998), 210.
21 New York Times, December 1999, 27.
17 William
communications are no longer bound by borders, it is the universal common good which
demands that control mechanisms should accompany the inherent logic of the market.”22 Social
ethicist Kenneth Himes is quite correct in saying that the Pope was drawing our attention to the
fundamental void in the global market system. Himes sees John Paul II telling us that
There is no agency or organization at the international level comparable
to the state at the domestic level. For this reason Catholic social teaching
is supportive of various regimes and treaties which bring a measure of
governance to the developing global order. In this, the church’s teaching
will be at odds with those who equate globalization with an unfettered
market system of economics.23
In yet another address to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences in May 2003 John
Paul II re-emphasized the need for global regulation of the market. He insisted that “there can be
little doubt of the need for guidelines that will place globalization at the service of authentic
human development—the development of every human person and of the whole person—in full
respect of the rights and dignity of all.”24
One criticism that could be made about the statements on the global economy emanating
from the pontificate of John Paul II is a lack of specificity regarding the juridical framework that
he so often proposed, especially towards the end of his papacy. This was addressed to some
extent by Archbishop Clestino Migliore, the Holy See’s Permanent Observer at the United
Nations in New York in a presentation to the UN’s Economic and Social Committee (ECOSOC).
The Vatican proposal which envisions a private/governmental partnership called for the
establishment of a strong global alliance for the purpose of international development that would
include international organizations, governments, NGOs, and civic leaders as well as
representatives from agricultural and farming communities. Archbishop Migilore insisted that
there must be an integrated strategy for addressing world poverty. He argued that at the core of
such a strategy must be the recognition of “a principal of collective responsibility, by which the
shortcomings and less favorable conditions of poor countries should be tackled and remedied by
the richer countries as if they were internal problems of their own.”25 The proposal presented by
Archbishop Migilore in the name of the Holy See included a number of practical suggestions
ranging from equitable trade regulations, comprehensive debt relief and an emphasis on
agricultural practices that promote sustainable development, and enhanced technological sharing
by developed states with the developing states. Migilore ended his presentation to the UN
committee by insisting that “the international community cannot permit one more day to pass
wherein a real attempt to meet goals and make measurable progress toward the alleviation of
poverty is not pursued with all of the energy and resolve that we can muster.
Clearly the long pontificate of John Paul II did not warrant a tickertape parade on Wall
Street. When all is said and done his most significant contribution to the continuing debate about
the market economy was his insistence that a communitarian ethic must undergird any new
framework that will meet both the conditions of viability and humanization.
22
Cf. Origins 31 (31 May 2001), 58.
Himes, “Globalization’s Next Phase,” Origins 32 (23 May 2002), 21.
24 John Paul II, “Effective Mechanisms for Giving Globalization Proper Direction,” Origins 33
(22 May 2003), 29.
25 “Vatican Proposes World Alliance for Integral Development,” Rome: Zenith News Agency
(5 July 2003).
23 Kenneth
Neither Pope Benedict XVI nor Pope Francis have the kind of track record on economic
justice that we have just seen in the writings of John Paul II, in part because of the relative
brevity of their pontificates in comparison with that of John Paul II. But both have made
important contributions to church teaching in this area and it is to their thinking that I now turn.
Benedict XVI’s principal contribution to the discussion of justice and the global economy
came in his third encyclical Charity in truth (Caritas in veritate) released immediately prior to a
G-8 meeting in Italy in 2009. This encyclical was originally intended to mark the fortieth
anniversary of Paul VI’s Populorum progressio in 2007 but was delayed because of the global
recession.
In Charity in truth Benedict XVI borrowed extensively from Populorum progressio’s
discussion of integral human development. Such a notion of development certainly includes
economic growth. But it must also include the political, spiritual, moral and cultural realms as
well. Authentic development according to Benedict XVI needs to be rooted in a concern for
human rights and global poverty and it must include as central values solidarity, fraternity and
participation. The Pope observes that as our society becomes global, it transforms us into
neighbors. But such globalization does not insure that we become brothers and sisters. Truly
becoming a global family will require our economic system to free itself from the widespread
greed that characterizes it in so many places and to undergo a thorough transformation in which
the common good assumes primacy. The contemporary economy must become “personcentered,” an economy that views profit as central for effective functioning but not a sense of
profit that is detrimental for human flourishing and integral human development.
Benedict XVI ultimately opts for a market economy as the prevailing framework for
contemporary global society. But such an economy, he insists, cannot merely benefit
shareholders. We need to develop what he terms a truly “civil economy” which integrates all
stakeholders in the economic system. He labels this “an economy of communion.” (#46)
Benedict XVI also picks up on John Paul II’s insistence on some regulation of the market
economy by the political community both through individual nation states as w ell as
international bodies linked to the United Nations. Only such regulation can insure that the
common good is truly served. but he adds a word of caution regarding the governance
responsibility of nation states regarding the market economy. For this regulatory responsibility
truly to serve the common good it must be rooted in the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity.
Pope Francis’ reflections on the global economy are largely to be found in his Apostolic
Exhortation The Joy of the Gospel (Evangelii Gaudium).26 He adds to these reflections in shorter
addresses and interviews such as his letter to Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, host of the
G-20 of world political leaders27 and in a January 2015 interview in the Italian newspaper La
Stampa.28
Pope Francis has not engaged in an extensive discussion of differing economic models.
He speaks more as a pastor and a prophet. But he is clearly an “internationalist” in terms of a
perspective on the global economy. In The Joy of the Gospel he writes that “If we really want to
achieve a healthy world economy, what is needed at this juncture of history is a more efficient
26 Pope
Francis, The Joy of the Gospel: Evangelii Gaudium. (Washington D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops, 2013).
27 Pope Francis, “G-20 Summit Message: ‘Many Lives Are at Stake,’” Origins 44:25
(20 November 2014), 414-415.
28 Joshua J. McElwee, “In New Interview, Francis Strongly defends criticisms of capitalism,” National Catholic
Reporter Online (12 January 2015).
way of interacting which, with due regard for the sovereignty of each nation, ensures the
economic well-being of all counties, not just of a few.”29 He goes on to add that the current
economy cannot any longer be guided by trust in the inner forces and invisible hand of the
market. His message is simple and direct and often delivered in prophetic type language
resembling the words of John Paul II in Edmonton and Mexico.
The current market economy is leaving far too many in poverty, often a desperate form of
poverty. This is totally unacceptable from a moral perspective, a message he bluntly
communicated to Prime Minister Abbot and the other world leaders gathered at the G-20 in
Brisbane. Millions of lives are at stake. And along with John Paul II he has little confidence that
inner market forces can correct this dire human situation on their own. “Growth in justice,” he
emphasizes, “requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth; it requires
decisions, programs, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of
income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes
beyond a simple “welfare mentality.” (#204) Pope Francis follows up this statement in The Joy
of the Gospel with an amplification of his perspective in the La Stampa interview. He recognizes
that the global market economy has helped many people to escape from poverty. This economy
certainly has enhanced global wealth. But at what cost, he asks. This same economy has also
produced increasing economic disparity and new forms of poverty in many lands. People often
have become mere instruments of the current economic system, losing their fundamental dignity.
And the entire system is profoundly affected by waste, something Francis will no doubt address
in his coming encyclical on ecological issues.
Francis, in this La Stampa interview which was included in a book by two journalists
who regularly cover the Vatican for La Stampa, Andrea Tornielli and Giacomo Galeazzi titled
Pope Francis: The Economy Kills, embraces the view of Paul VI in Populorum progressio that
private property is not an absolute right and that no one can maintain exclusive use of vital
resources, especially when millions lack the basic necessities of life. Francis insists that his
perspective on economic issues is not his own invention but in fact is deeply rooted in the
teachings of Jesus and the vision of early Christianity. Political and economic leaders in today’s
global society must move the common good to the center of their decision making for, in his
words, “We cannot wait more to resolve the structural causes of poverty, to heal our society from
a disease that can only lead to a new crisis. Markets and financial speculation cannot enjoy
absolute autonomy.”30 With these words he stands side-by-side with Paul VI and Benedict XVI
on the need for integral human development and appears to side with Donald Dorr on the need to
move beyond a simple welfare state.
In summary we can say that all three recent papacies offer basically the same message in
terms of their textual output regarding global economic justice. But neither John Paul II nor
Benedict XVI were able to link their pontificates and fundamental Catholic identity to the quest
for economic justice in the manner of Pope Francis. In the public mind John Paul II and Benedict
XVI were far more identified with other issues (i.e. sexual morality and doctrinal purity).
Francis, on the other hand, has clearly integrated global economic issues into his papal persona
in a fundamental way. Unfortunately, in the case of Benedict XVI, as former New York Times
religion editor Peter Steinfels has said about Charity in truth, its language is too thick to appeal
to the conscience of ordinary people and serve to mobilize a constructive response. And both
John Paul II and Benedict XVI tended overall to allow their papacies to become identified with
29 Pope
30 cf.
Francis, Joy of the Gospel, #206.
Joshua J. McElwee, “In New Interview,” 2-3.
neoconservative movements and personalities such as Michael Novak and George Weigel.
Weigel in fact wrote a stinging critique of Charity in truth though he attributed most, if not all, of
its objectionable sections from his perspective to the Pontifical Justice and Peace Commission
rather than to Benedict XVI himself. Another difference between Francis and his two
predecessors in his personal experience of mass poverty as bishop, something that was never part
of the background of John Paul II or Benedict XVI in the same way. The real question that
remains is whether Pope Francis, having made global economic justice a central theme of his
papacy, can manage to incorporate it as a central imperative for contemporary Catholic identity.