Pope Urges Just Distribution of Goods

Pope Urges Just Distribution of Goods

Says Religion Is Basis of Solidarity

VATICAN CITY, JUNE 1, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI launched a call for a more just distribution of the wealth of the planet.

The Holy Father made this invitation today on receiving the letters of credence of five new ambassadors to the Holy See: Ayesha Riyaz of Pakistan, Larus Stefansson of Iceland, Juri Seilenthal of Estonia, Domitille Barancira of Burundi and Ahmed Hamid Elfaki Hamid of Sudan.

In his address the Pope said that "in the modern world it is more than ever important to affirm the bonds that unite countries, with special attention toward the poorest nations."

The Pontiff continued: "It is not possible to continue using the wealth of the poorest countries with impunity, without them also being able to participate in world growth.

"Authorities in all countries have a duty to work together to ensure greater distribution of the wealth and resources of the planet.

"Collaboration to this end will also have an effect on solidarity, peace and fraternity, within countries and between countries."

Benedict XVI expressed his desire "for a renewed commitment among all nations, especially the richest, to ensure that all human beings may become aware of their responsibility in this matter, and accept a transformation of lifestyle with a view to an ever more just distribution" of wealth.

More on globalization, but is this really what is required? As if globalization could be ameliorated without it ceasing to be globalization. Could we have such mobility of capital without exploitation? (What keeps the standard of living from reaching parity for all laborers the world over?) What would a transformation of lifestyle actually entail? It is one thing to inveigh against consumerism, but shouldn't the pope talk about what it means to live the simple life? People need to be reminded of the difference between necessities and luxuries, and the higher goods that cannot be purchased but are nonetheless essential (and more important than material goods) to human happiness.

Brotherly love

The Holy Father highlighted the role of the various religions of the world and "the duty they have to form their members with a view to creating fraternal relations among all the inhabitants of a country, and with ever more respectful concern for all mankind."

"No one should be subject to discrimination or be relegated to the margins of society for their religious beliefs and practices, which are such fundamental elements of people's freedom," the Pontiff said

The Pope continued: "Authentic religion cannot be a source of division or of violence between people or between human communities. On the contrary, religion lies at the basis of the awareness that all people are brothers, who must be protected and helped to develop."

How would the pope respond to someone saying, "Who is the pope to encourage people of other religions to do their job of teaching and forming well? By what authority does he do this?" It may be said that the pope and the bishops united to him are the guardians of the Natural Law. And everyone should be encouraged to be just and benevolent. But how would Catholics (or the pope) react if the Dalai Lama were to say "Christian leaders have the responsibility to make sure Christians are compassionate and merciful"? Now Christians should be humble enough to accept this sort of advice from non-Christians; but from what perspective would the Dalai Lama be saying this? From a Buddhist perspective, and one would assume it would be in accord with Buddhist teachings. So is the pope appealing to the Natural Law or to his authority as the vicar of Christ in an instance such as this?

What he is quoted as saying here is not new--it's in accord with previous comments he has made about religious freedom and Dignitatis Humanae. Still, is it the case that "religion" lies at the basis of the awreness that all people are brothers? Or is it "justice"? The two are not the same. And while there may be a natural affinity (depending on how seriously takes the descent of human beings from Adam and Even), still, this is not the same as saying that all are called to be brothers in Christ.

It is difficult to give a thorough response to his very limited and sparse comments, since they were not meant to be an exposition, but are they not representative of a certain mindset, one that is also to be found in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church?