"The joy of life is diminishing"
05/17/2013
I get a daily email from the Vatican Information Service which reports on the doings of the pope. A lot of it is dull stuff about meetings and ecclesial appointments, so usually I just scan it quickly. But usually there are at least a few remarks from the pope. And sometimes there's something pretty substantial. Usually I don't read those at once, because I'm at work and busy. I read the first paragraph or two of this one yesterday and thought, "this is good stuff, I'll read it later when I'm not in a hurry." Well, it's good stuff, indeed. Powerful stuff. So I'm just posting it in its entirety.
There are a few factual things I would quibble with here, but I think the pope is right on the money (so to speak) about the overall state of things.
Vatican City, 16 May 2013 (VIS) - This morning the Holy Father received the credential letters of four new ambassadors to the Holy See: Mr. Bolot Iskovich Otunbaev from Kyrgyzstan; Mr. David Shoul from Antigua and Barbuda; Mr. Jean-Paul Senninger from Luxembourg; and Mr. Lameck Nthekela from Botswana. In the address he gave them, the pontiff urged them not to forget the predominance of ethics in the economy and in social life, emphasizing the value of solidarity and the centrality of the human being.
“Our human family,” the Pope said, “is presently experiencing something of a turning point in its own history, if we consider the advances made in various areas. We can only praise the positive achievements which contribute to the authentic welfare of mankind, in fields such as those of health, education and communications. At the same time, we must also acknowledge that the majority of the men and women of our time continue to live daily in situations of insecurity, with dire consequences. Certain pathologies are increasing, with their psychological consequences; fear and desperation grip the hearts of many people, even in the so-called rich countries; the joy of life is diminishing; indecency and violence are on the rise; poverty is becoming more and more evident. People have to struggle to live and, frequently, to live in an undignified way. One cause of this situation, in my opinion, is in the our relationship with money, and our acceptance of its power over ourselves and our society. Consequently the financial crisis which we are experiencing makes us forget that its ultimate origin is to be found in a profound human crisis. In the denial of the primacy of human beings! We have created new idols. The worship of the golden calf of old has found a new and heartless image in the cult of money and the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking any truly humane goal.”
“The worldwide financial and economic crisis,” the pontiff observed, “seems to highlight their distortions and above all the gravely deficient human perspective, which reduces men and women to just one of their needs alone, namely, consumption. Worse yet, human beings themselves are nowadays considered as consumer goods which can be used and thrown away. We have started down the path of a disposable culture. This tendency is seen on the level of individuals and whole societies; and it is being promoted! In circumstances like these, solidarity, which is the treasure of the poor, is often considered counterproductive, opposed to the logic of finance and the economy. While the income of a minority is increasing exponentially, that of the majority is crumbling. This imbalance results from ideologies which uphold the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation, and thus deny the right of control to States, which are themselves charged with providing for the common good. A new, invisible and at times virtual, tyranny is established, one which unilaterally and irremediably imposes its own laws and rules. Moreover, indebtedness and credit distance countries from their real economy and citizens from their real buying power. Added to this, as if it were needed, is widespread corruption and selfish fiscal evasion which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The will to power and of possession has become limitless.”
“Concealed behind this attitude,” the Bishop of Rome warned, “is a rejection of ethics, a rejection of God. Ethics, like solidarity, is a nuisance! It is regarded as counterproductive: as something too human, because it relativizes money and power; as a threat, because it rejects manipulation and subjection of people: because ethics leads to God, who is situated outside the categories of the market. These financiers, economists and politicians consider God to be unmanageable, God is unmanageable, even dangerous, because He calls man to his full realization and to independence from any kind of slavery. Ethics—naturally, not the ethics of ideology—makes it possible, in my view, to create a balanced social order that is more humane. In this sense, I encourage the financial experts and the political leaders of your countries to consider the words of Saint John Chrysostom: 'Not to share one’s goods with the poor is to rob them and to deprive them of life. It is not our goods that we possess, but theirs'.”
The Pope asserted that “there is a need for financial reform along ethical lines that would produce in its turn an economic reform to benefit everyone. This would nevertheless require a courageous change of attitude on the part of political leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with determination and farsightedness, taking account, naturally, of their particular situations. Money has to serve, not to rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but the Pope has the duty, in Christ’s name, to remind the rich to help the poor, to respect them, to promote them. The Pope appeals for disinterested solidarity and for a return to person-centred ethics in the world of finance and economics.”
“For her part, the Church,” he reiterated, “always works for the integral development of every person. In this sense, she reiterates that the common good should not be simply an extra, simply a conceptual scheme of inferior quality tacked onto political programmes. The Church encourages those in power to be truly at the service of the common good of their peoples. She urges financial leaders to take account of ethics and solidarity. And why should they not turn to God to draw inspiration from his designs? In this way, a new political and economic mindset would arise that would help to transform the absolute dichotomy between the economic and social spheres into a healthy symbiosis.”
Finally, Francis greeted—through the ambassadors—the faithful of the Catholic communities present in their respective countries, urging them “to continue their courageous and joyful witness of faith and fraternal love in accordance with Christ’s teaching. Let them not be afraid to offer their contribution to the development of their countries, through initiatives and attitudes inspired by the Sacred Scriptures!”
Indecency. It occurs to me that one never hears that word anymore.
Good stuff. I'm on the KF which makes it too difficult to say more.
AMDG
Posted by: janet | 05/17/2013 at 01:32 PM
"Indecency" is a mord that desperately needs reviving and has plenty of scope for application.
I almost tore strips off a friend of mine recently who dared (I couldn't believe it, given that he knows what I think and feel about these things) to bring his new "girlfriend" to our farewell party, even though he is not even divorced.
I was so close to telling him that his actions were really crass, but I just stuck with telling him as calmly as possible how unhappy I felt.
Now, his action was indecent.
Posted by: Louise | 05/17/2013 at 05:04 PM
That is a great quote by Francis. I'm going to have to read it through a few times I think. Thanks for sharing.
Certain pathologies are increasing, with their psychological consequences; fear and desperation grip the hearts of many people, even in the so-called rich countries; the joy of life is diminishing; indecency and violence are on the rise; poverty is becoming more and more evident.
So true.
Posted by: Louise | 05/17/2013 at 05:09 PM
There are many kinds of indecency, too. There is indecent wealth.
I have to admit, I don't react to your friend's crassness as I ought to. I've seen (and done) enough that I sort of shrug it off. That's not good. Although tearing strips off a person is not good, either. :-)
Posted by: Mac | 05/17/2013 at 05:27 PM
"Tear a strip off." I learn more on this blog....
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/tear+a+strip+off
Posted by: Robert Gotcher | 05/17/2013 at 07:00 PM
This kind of quote leads to the question: what IS the proper "control" by the State?
Posted by: Robert Gotcher | 05/17/2013 at 08:02 PM
Well, that touches on one of those quibbles that I mentioned. It seems to me that the problem in this country at least is not so much that there isn't enough regulation as that it doesn't work. We have enormous amounts of regulation, but either they're the wrong ones, or people are determined to cheat and with enough money and lawyers are able to get around them. Some of both, I suspect. I think what we have here is an unhealthy symbiosis of big business and big government.
Posted by: Mac | 05/18/2013 at 08:04 AM
I'm sure that more subsidiarity in some areas (such as education) would be helpful. On the other hand, big business is big enough that it needs a pretty big government to keep it in check, unless, as you point out, government is a wholly-owned subsidiary of big business. It is like those 1960s dystopia movies where the computer takes over everything. Colossus: the Forbin Project.
A friend of mine and I were talking about Farenheit 451 the other day. I told him I'd make a deal. He could memorize the Brothers Karamazov (in Russian) and I'd do The Little Prince (in English, of course).
No, he doesn't know Russian. He does know some Italian, though.
Posted by: Robert Gotcher | 05/18/2013 at 10:23 AM
I used to be less riled by those kinds of things, Maclin, but as time has gone by I've become too unhappy about things which affect me greatly, mostly to do with the ridiculous things people have said over the years about my parents' divorce. I'm pretty sick of it.
At least I only *almost* tore strips off him :)
But really, the number of people who are engaged to someone, when they are actually still legally married to someone else just boggles my mind.
Posted by: Louise | 05/18/2013 at 01:18 PM
"...big business is big enough that it needs a pretty big government to keep it in check..."
I think that's pretty true, and in a perfect world it wouldn't be that way, but I find that in my old age I am less and less interested in schemes for remaking society along very different lines, even the ones I pretty much agree with, like distributism. I'd be happy with relatively small but meaningful reforms of the way things are now, whether by law or custom. I think a whole lot of what's going on now is more a product of culture than law. A CEO who is making multiple millions per year while his lowest-level employees aren't making enough to live on ought to be shamed, and ashamed.
Posted by: Mac | 05/18/2013 at 03:37 PM
It *should* boggle my mind, Louise. It's not good that it doesn't.
Posted by: Mac | 05/18/2013 at 03:38 PM
My understanding was that an "engagement" required setting a date, and prior to that it was an "understanding". I don't really see how you can set a date when still legally married to somebody else. The legal system just isn't that predictable round here.
Posted by: Paul | 05/18/2013 at 05:55 PM
I'd be happy with relatively small but meaningful reforms of the way things are now, whether by law or custom.
I would like things to be very different but I'd be pretty happy with simply seeing things heading in the right direction generally. I'm pretty happy that the pro-life movement seems to be on the offence, not defence, right now.
Posted by: Louise | 05/18/2013 at 06:16 PM
Paul, I don't know what it's like elsewhere, but in Australia, people "get engaged." I find it pretty weird that people will basically plan to "get engaged" - e.g. "we think we'll get engaged next year." I don't understand this kind of approach, myself and it's fairly recent - since about the 80s, I guess.
It's common for people to be engaged here without even an approximate date. Normally, they are shacked up anyway. Those who aren't shacked up are more likely to be religious and their engagements normally involve a wedding date, since their communal life has not already begun and they are in the process of planning it which does indeed seem to require a date. But this is far less common.
Maclin, to be fair to you, I think I may be the only person I know whose mind is boggled by such things. I don't know why and I don't consider myself to be better than those whose minds aren't boggled. Maybe my brain just works a particular way. I probably have some fancy-sounding neurosis :)
Posted by: Louise | 05/18/2013 at 06:25 PM
I just said "here" meaning in Australia, when I'm actually somewhere else, Paul! Old habits...
Posted by: Louise | 05/18/2013 at 06:27 PM
And now I'm thinking about neuroses! We had this great social commentator in Oz called Kerry Cue. She is so funny! In her book which I think was called "Hang on to your horses doovers" she described various parental neuroses. Her theory was that every parent had some particular thing they were obsessed with like cotton vests, or hankies. she thought this pair of parenting neuroses would be very compatible! Nick is neurotic about teeth cleaning and I am neurotic about fingernail clipping/cleaning(as was my mother and her father). Interestingly, my father was also neurotic about teeth cleaning. We don't care if the kids' hair is brushed or if they are wearing shoes etc.
Posted by: Louise | 05/18/2013 at 06:34 PM
"It's common for people to be engaged here without even an approximate date. Normally, they are shacked up anyway.'
Very common here, too, although I don't know how much the word "engaged" gets used in that situation. The degree and rapidity of the change over roughly the 10 years from 1970 to 1980 was astonishing. An awful lot of letters to Dear Abby begin something like "I've been with this guy for 5 years and we have two children..." and then goes on to complain that he doesn't want to get married, or he spends too much time with another woman and their children, or doesn't get along with her child by another man, etc etc. It's just sad.
Posted by: Mac | 05/19/2013 at 07:26 PM
I've often wondered if the successful onslaught against traditional social and religious values would have been achieved so quickly if our world hadn't been rocked by some fundamentally jarring happenings -- JFK killed; Vietnam War; MLK killed; RFK killed; Watergate/Nixon resignation. Any others I've left out?
Posted by: Marianne | 05/19/2013 at 09:17 PM
Fear of nuclear war. I think that was a big and underestimated one.
I tend to think of most of those as items on the upheaval list rather than causes, although you can never completely untangle that relationship. But for big-time causes, I'd go back to the two world wars, with the first being more decisive, in that it was the biggest break with the older order.
Posted by: Mac | 05/20/2013 at 07:21 AM
It seems to me that there was never to a time when people weren't beset by a regular sequence of traumatic events.
No one has ever lived in the pre-Lord of the Rings Shire ever, unless by accident for a short period of time.
Posted by: Robert Gotcher | 05/20/2013 at 11:17 AM
Very true, but some things are more traumatic than others.
Posted by: Mac | 05/20/2013 at 11:51 AM
One of my friends thinks that the first world war for sure was the biggest upheaval. Because the young male population of Europe was decimated. I think he may be right.
Posted by: Louise | 05/20/2013 at 03:08 PM
The degree and rapidity of the change over roughly the 10 years from 1970 to 1980 was astonishing. An awful lot of letters to Dear Abby begin something like "I've been with this guy for 5 years and we have two children..." and then goes on to complain that he doesn't want to get married, or he spends too much time with another woman and their children, or doesn't get along with her child by another man, etc etc. It's just sad.
Agree on all counts.
Posted by: Louise | 05/20/2013 at 03:09 PM
The change of things in Australia was just slightly later, about 1975-1985 by my reckoning, but surely the same wave.
Posted by: Louise | 05/20/2013 at 03:11 PM
"I think what we have here is an unhealthy symbiosis of big business and big government."
In his book Red Tory Philip Blond referred to this "the market state." I think of it as Hobbes' Leviathan, but with two heads.
Posted by: Rob G | 05/20/2013 at 03:26 PM
I probably should read that.
Posted by: Mac | 05/20/2013 at 05:21 PM
Building off what Mac said, I think the greatest trauma, is the rapidity of change itself, not so much any of the individual changes. I'm exhausted by the way thing are changing right now.
Posted by: Robert Gotcher | 05/20/2013 at 05:50 PM
Working in technology, I really feel that. I often think of people like my grandfather who grew up to adulthood, or close to it, in a horse-drawn world, and lived to see men in space. Social change really picked up speed with those technological changes, too. And was abetted by them, to say the least.
Posted by: Mac | 05/20/2013 at 10:19 PM
There's a lot of stuff in it that's specific to the situation in England, but the general thrust of the book and his arguments overall would apply here as well. A U.S.-focused revision was supposed to have come out last year, but it never appeared for some reason.
Posted by: Rob G | 05/21/2013 at 07:21 AM