Vatican City, May 17, 2018 / 12:20 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Two Vatican offices called Thursday for the development of new forms of economy and finance with regulations directed to the common good and respect for human dignity.
“It is especially necessary to provide an ethical reflection on certain aspects of financial transactions which, when operating without the necessary anthropological and moral foundations, have not only produced manifest abuses and injustice, but also demonstrated a capacity to create systemic and worldwide economic crisis,” read Oeconomicae et pecuniariae quaestiones, (Economic and financial issues), a document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development presented May 17.
The document, signed Jan. 6, presents considerations for an ethical discernment of economics and finances, and argues that profit should not be an end in itself, but must be pursued with the goal of achieving greater solidarity and a more equitable distribution of wealth.
It presents fundamental considerations, such as the need for ethics for the economy to function correctly, and treats at length of specific ethical issues in financial and economic markets.
It was presented during a press conference by Archbishop Luis Ladaria, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Cardinal Peter Turkson, prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development.
Sitting alongside the prefects were professors Leonardo Becchetti from Rome’s Tor Vergata University and Lorenzo Caprio, from the Catholic University of Milan.
Archbishop Ladaria said the aim of the document is to provide a correct anthropological vision for the current market, since “the common good has disappeared” from many areas of economics and finance.
According to Becchetti, the document also identifies a major problem in the global economy: “we have a growing global wealth, which is a good thing, but we have a huge problem of distribution.”
“Regulation is key” to bringing more balance, he said, citing the need to be attentive to a growing dependence on technology while also ensuring people have work. The main problem, he said, “is fiscal,” and he stressed the need to give attention to areas with fewer resources.
The document frequently cites Pope Francis and Benedict XVI, but also includes citations from Pius XI, the Second Vatican Council, and the subsequent magisterium.
Oeconomicae et pecuniariae quaestiones cites the growing influence of financial markets, saying there is a need for “appropriate regulation of the dynamics of the markets and, on the other hand, a clear ethical foundation that assures a well-being realized through the quality of human relationships; rather than merely economic mechanisms, which by themselves cannot attain it.”
The recent global financial crisis, the text read, is an invitation to “develop a new economy, more attentive to ethical principles, and a new regulation of financial activities that would neutralize predatory and speculative tendencies and acknowledge the value of the actual economy. ”
What is at stake is the well-being of men and women throughout the planet who risk being excluded and marginalized from true well-being, while a small minority, “indifferent to the condition of the majority, exploits and reserves for itself substantial resources and wealth.”
The document said the time has come to begin recovering “what is authentically human,” and to expand minds and hearts to they recognize what is both true and good, “without which no social, political and economic system could avoid bankruptcy, failure, and, in the long term, collapse.”
Competent and responsible authorities, the text read, have the duty “to develop new forms of economy and of finance, with rules and regulations directed towards the enlargement of the common good and respect for human dignity along the lines indicated by the social teachings of the Church.”
The text flagged erroneous and misguided approaches to the economic and financial markets such as consumerism, materialism, and an over-emphasis on profit, citing them as mentalities which endanger the common good and increase inequalities throughout the world.
“Our contemporary age has shown itself to have a limited vision of the human person, as the person is understood individualistically and predominantly as a consumer, whose profit consists above all in the optimization of his or her monetary income. The human person, however, actually possesses a uniquely relational nature and has a sense for the perennial search for gains and well-being that may be more comprehensive, and not reducible either to a logic of consumption or to the economic aspects of life.”
“No profit is in fact legitimate when it falls short of the objective of the integral promotion of the human person, the universal destination of goods, and the preferential option for the poor,” the text said, stressing that a legitimate economic system “thrives not merely through the quantitative development of exchange but rather by its capacity to promote the development of the entire person and of every person.”
On this basis, the document urged that universities and business schools provide as a foundation an education by which students will “understand economics and finance in the light of a vision of the totality of the human person”, avoiding “a reductionism that sees only some dimensions of the person.”
Well-being has to be measured by more than just Gross Domestic Product but must also take into account safety and security and “the quality of human relationships and of work. Profit should be pursued but not ‘at any cost’, nor as a totalizing objective for economic action.”
Profit and solidarity “are no longer antagonists,” the document said. However, “where egoism and vested interests prevail, it is difficult for the human person to to grasp the fruitful interchange between profit and gift, as sin tends to tarnish and rupture this relationship.”
“It is impossible to ignore the fact that the financial industry, because of its pervasiveness … is a place where selfishness and the abuse of power have an enormous potential to harm the community.”
The documented lamented that “Capital annuity can trap and supplant the income from work, which is often confined to the margins of the principal interests of the economic system. Consequently, work itself, together with its dignity, is increasingly at risk of losing its value as a ‘good’ for the human person and becoming merely a means of exchange within asymmetrical social relations.”
It pointed out an inversion between means and ends, in which work has become an instrument, and money an end.
Oeconomicae et pecuniariae quaestiones said that credit has an “irreplaceable social function,” but that “applying excessively high interest rates, really beyond the range of the borrowers of funds, represents a transaction not only ethically illegitimate, but also harmful to the health of the economic system. As always, such practices, along with usurious activities, have been recognized by human conscience as iniquitous and by the economic system as contrary to its good functioning.”
Instead, financial activities are called to serve the real economy, “to create value with morally licit means, and to favour a dispersion of capital for the purpose of producing a principled circulation of wealth.”
“What is morally unacceptable is not simply to profit, but rather to avail oneself of an inequality for one’s own advantage, in order to create enormous profits that are damaging to others; or to exploit one’s dominant position in order to profit by unjustly disadvantaging others, or to make oneself rich through harming and disrupting the collective common good.”
The text then highlights the need for greater communion, collaboration, and solidarity in the market, and offers suggestions for ways in which these can be implemented.
In a healthy market “it is easier to respect and promote the dignity of the human person and the common good,” the Vatican offices wrote.
The experience of recent decades has demonstrated the need for both ethics and regulation, the document states.
With an increased globalization of financial markets, the system “requires a stable, clear and effective coordination among various national regulatory authorities,” allowing them to share binding decisions when necessary, especially when it comes to threats against the common good.
“Where massive deregulation is practiced, the evident result is a regulatory and institutional vacuum that creates space not only for moral risk and embezzlement, but also for the rise of the irrational exuberance of the markets, followed first by speculative bubbles, and then by sudden, destructive collapse, and systemic crises,” Oeconomicae et pecuniariae quaestiones states.
The text condemned the tendency of business managers to establish policies which aim “not at increasing the economic health of the companies that they serve, but at the mere profits of the shareholders, damaging therefore the legitimate interests of those who are bearing all of the work and service benefiting the same company, as well as the consumers and the various local communities (stakeholders).”
The document suggested that ethical committees be established in banks to support the administration, and to help cushion them from the impact of losses.
The text then pointed to financial instruments such as derivatives and credit default swaps, which going unchecked, can lead to “unacceptable” consequences from an ethical point of view, essentially gambling with a person’s future.
Use of offshore accounts as tax havens was also condemned, though it was noted that tax systems throughout the world are not always equal, which can damage weaker parties in favor of wealthier ones.
Despite the fact that more nations are cracking down on offshore accounts, penalties have not been enforced and norms have either not been applied or they have not proved effective due to the political powers pulling the strings.
All of these problems are “not only the work of an entity that operates out of our control,” but are “in the sphere of our responsibilities.”
Oeconomicae et pecuniariae quaestiones states that it is “therefore quite evident how important a critical and responsible exercise of consumption and savings actually is.”
As an example, the text said shopping is a daily task by which we can choose to avoid purchasing products produced by chains which violate “the most elementary human rights,” such as sweat-shops.
“Through the gesture, apparently banal, of consumption, we actually express an ethics and are called to take a stand in front of what is good or bad for the actual human person.”
Likewise, persons are called to direct their savings to “those enterprises that operate with clear criteria inspired by an ethics respectful of the entire human person, and of every particular person, within the horizon of social responsibility.”
“Each one is called to cultivate procedures of producing wealth that may be consistent with our relational nature and tend towards an integral development of the human person.”
The document concludes with a call to hope in light of the challenges of the economy, saying, “every one of us can do so much, especially if one does not remain alone.”
“Today as never before we are all called, as sentinels, to watch over genuine life and to make ourselves catalysts of a new social behavior, shaping our actions to the search for the common good, and establishing it on the sound principles of solidarity and subsidiarity.”
[…]
I would believe the Synod are addressing the major dogmatic and political differences. I’m no expert and I have to leave church policy to the learned. However, I feel the most important is that Lutherans have only two sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist. I see major differences that will be hard to change our “separated brethren”, many of which have been addressed before. Like the unmarried celibacy of clerics. Women pastors.
Martin Luther added penance. That leaves four. Pastors at mainline Protestant churches are much more likely to identify as liberal. Catholics lean toward Republican ideology, mainly on the abortion issue. Protestants have traditionally rejected the pope’s authority, the seat of St. Peter, Jesus’ rock.
We must pray that the Synod fathers will succeed in this effort. That massive unity of the children of God will change the world for the better.
To Morgan:
Most Lutherans and protestants in general only retain two Sacraments that the Catholic Church would recognize as valid in some cases: Baptism and Marriage. Lutheran eucharist isn’t valid because they don’t maintain apostolic succession from the Twelve, therefore the mystery of transubstantiation doesn’t exist in their faith. The Orthodox Sacraments are valid because they retained Apostolic succession from the Twelve, but they aren’t licit because they reject the authority of the Pope as the universal leader of the worldwide Church, both East and West. Hopefully they’ll reunite because they were one Church 1000 years ago. As for the other Christian denominations, like the Lutherans, episcopalians, other protestant groups and the methodists (who recently caved to the neoliberalism agenda to allow transgender/lgtbtq people to enter their clergy orders), they were doomed from the beginning since those particular faiths were founded off the teachings and ideas of men and not the Christ.
Catholic and Orthodox were One until the 1054 divorce.
The original founders of the protestant faiths of today such as Lutheranism and Anglicanism destroyed the unity by rejecting the Pope, and by trying to play God.
The Filioque was added in the West as a bulwark against resurgent Arianism. Are we to interpret a signal, here, that Arianism is now passe in both the West and the East, such that next year in 2025, the 1700th anniversary of Nicaea (deepened later at Constantinople), the Filioque can be dropped in the West—but only voluntarily, of course, in some polyhedral diocese and perhaps not in others?
And, are we to understand that the differences between Churches of the East and West on the one hand, are cut from the same cloth as differences with the Protestant ecclesial communities (lacking the apostolic succession)?
Walking with Pope Francis, how now to pick up where St. John Paul II left off, in his General Audience of November 7, 1990 in his Instruction on the “Filioque Debate, which concluded with this: “After the Council of Florence the West continued to profess that the Holy Spirit ‘proceeds from the Father and the Son,” while the East continued to hold to the original formula of the Council of Constantinople. But since the time of the Second Vatican Council a fruitful ecumenical dialogue has been developing. It seems to have led to the conclusion that the formula ‘Filioque’ does not constitute an essential obstacle to the dialogue itself and to its development, which all hope and pray for to the Holy Spirit.”
The most recent problem is that Cardinal Fernandez has possibly squandered the needed legitimacy for productive dialogue with the East (Fiducia Supplicans), and with believing Protestants as well by hanging his red hat a bit too much (some say) on the time-piece U.N. Declaration of Human Rights (Dignitas Infinita).
What, exactly, is the supposedly smooth fit between the historical “time is greater than space” and the historic Incarnation of the Triune One?
It seems that the issue of the Filioque (and the Son) isn’t today’s main divider of the Catholic/Orthodox split. It’s the authority of the Pope as the leader of the worldwide Church, Eastern and Western alike, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady.
Fiducia may not have helped matters, but the document did not greenlight gay “marriage”. It only gave priests permission to bless the two individuals. I’ve mentioned before that Eastern Catholics, like the Orthodox, have a different interpretation of the meaning of “blessing”. Many people think of blessing as: ie, a priest making the sign of the cross over you, or for example “May God’s great blessings come upon you”. Both mean just that.
Blessing also means to give permission for something, and the Church can’t give permission for gay “marriage”. The UGCC Patriarch Shevchuk said that the Fiducia document doesn’t apply to the Eastern Catholic Churches because of their different interpretation of blessing.
I think it was Coptic Orthodox Church that suspended ecumenical relations with Rome over Fiducia. They’ve been separated from the Catholic Church since 451, over matters completely unrelated to this Vatican document.
The Filioque also affirms there is only One Son Of God, One Word Of Perfect Love Incarnate, One Lamb Of God Who Can Taketh Away The Sins Of The World, Our Only Savior, Jesus The
Christ and thus The Blessed Trinity Is a Trinity Of Persons, Father, Son, And Holy Ghost, Who Proceeds From The Ordered Communion Of Perfect Complementary Love Between The Father And The Son.
The original text of the Nicean/Constantinopolitan Creed in 325 stated the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. As Beaulieu mentioned above, the Filioque was added to combat the Arian heresy, which at the time was denounced by Christians in both the East and West, and ultimately, Arius’s credibility was rightfully shattered. Christ also says that “The Father and I are One”. I usually point that out when talking about the Filioque. Unlike in the Roman Church,
many Eastern Catholic Churches recite the Creed without the Filioque, yet are in full union with Rome.
No matter how you look at it, we’ll never fully understand the mystical nature of the Trinity, One in Essence, and Undivided.
That’s where we should leave it.