Since the publication of Fratelli Tutti, I've found myself in numerous conversations kindled by the encyclical. Ironically, they have also given me a renewed appreciation of previous Catholic social thought (CST).
CST and power
I hadn't previously grasped the profound analysis of power at the heart of CST, particularly in the thinking of Saint Pope John Paul II. St Paul insists that the powers to be feared are not flesh and blood, but invisible forces (Ephesians 6:12). Many centuries later, CST offers a critique of modernity that speaks of capital and the state in a similar way- as somehow having their own logic and motives above those of human beings.
John Paul II reflected back on Rerum Novarum, the first social encyclical, on its hundredth anniversary, and described the twin dangers that the document foresaw. Industrial capitalism in Europe had made it possible for labour to become a commodity to be bought and sold, detached from any personal context (Centesimus Annus, no. 4). Yet, the pope at the time, Leo XIII, also saw the danger of a revolution in reaction to this that would concentrate power and property in the hands of a central state (Rerum Novarum, no. 4-6). CST germinated amidst these two forces and thus sought to uphold the fragile values under threat: human dignity -as opposed to the individual abstracted from any social context - and the dignity of work - as opposed to the automation of all jobs or freedom from work. Thus, at various points in European history, CST has inspired people to organise for the common good of their communities, through unions, councils and other institutions rooted in places and democratically accountable to members.[1]
Sometimes conversation can capture a tradition or a school of thought in a vivid sketch - not the whole story, but something of its essence. For me, a vivid sketch of CST along these lines brings to the fore the crucial importance of subsidiarity- the word for the continual work of keeping the locus of decision-making close to the persons who will be most affected and their local "ecology". This makes CST particularly allergic to anything that seems to be about remote forces doing things to people. It is particularly palpable in Pope Francis’ conservatism about globalisation, which remains consistent with his call to embrace a diverse humanity of "different faces" ("An Ecumenical Christian Prayer") and is a thread running through the latest encyclical.
Fratelli Tutti and people
In Fratelli Tutti, Francis draws great attention to the cultural implications of the remote powers that act upon people. Whilst Evangelii Gaudium described how "new and often anonymous kinds of power" (no. 52) threaten the authentic celebration of the Gospel, Fratelli Tutti draws out the effects on our relationships -how we approach the issue of migration; how we see disabled people, the elderly, those we encounter on the streets; how we speak to each other, our use of the internet, how we treat criminals. In particular, it is the false openness of the finance sector, generating a "rapidified" (Laudato Si's language) culture, that in seeking to create the world in its own image, divides as it unites:
This culture unifies the world, but divides persons and nations, for “as society becomes ever more globalized, it makes us neighbours, but does not make us brothers”. We are more alone than ever in an increasingly massified world that promotes individual interests and weakens the communitarian dimension of life. Indeed, there are markets where individuals become mere consumers or bystanders. (Fratelli Tutti, no. 12).
Chapter 5 of Fratelli Tutti, "A Better Kind of Politics", focuses on an alternative model to this, which would tap into the power within people themselves: What is needed is a model of social, political and economic participation
that can include popular movements and invigorate local, national and international governing structures with that torrent of moral energy that springs from including the excluded in the building of a common destiny”, while also ensuring that “these experiences of solidarity which grow up from below, from the subsoil of the planet – can come together, be more coordinated, keep on meeting one another.
(no. 169).
The phrase "popular movements" is central here: Francis addresses to popular movements are quoted throughout the chapter. However, the "subsoil" where such movements might take root is, as yet, ill-defined. What the pope means by popular movements and "peoples" is clearly the key to understanding this better kind of politics and economics he is calling for. Another blog on this website has explored this with much greater knowledge of Francis’ thinking and its distinctive Argentine idiom.
There is no clear institutional shape to the idea of "peoples" or "popular movements", as it intended to give name to movements that unite people who "do not easily find a place in existing structures": "the unemployed, temporary and informal workers" (no. 169). Yet, when Fratelli Tutti does give some institutional shape to this task of taming the "international power" of finance, it develops Pope Benedict XVI's call, after the 2008-9 crash, for a global governing body. Hopes are hung on a reformed UN, another kind of remote international power, just a more peace-oriented, multilateral one (no. 172, 173).
Fratelli Tutti bears up a tension between its localism and its call for reform driven by global organisations (image by Kamaji Ogino: Pexels)
To me, this moves in the wrong direction, away from the focus on practices coming "from the subsoil" that might take the wind out of the remote forces stripping communities of their economic and ecological riches. Rather than "compensating" or "complementing" the higher authorities and the "international community" (no. 175), locally-rooted institutions like community land trusts and co-operative enterprises could be leading this work of the common good. As such, Fratelli Tutti's general affection for the local feels like it has dissipated.[3]
Underneath power
To end here, though, would be to miss something about what Francis is up to in his social teaching. The length of Fratelli Tutti might give the impression that it is intended as a comprehensive analysis of our world, when, it is more like a long and meandering journey. In contrast to, say, John Paul II, Francis is more a pastor than an intellectual - often conversational, sometimes pedagogical, less often analytical, in style. His encyclicals often pick-up buzzwords of the zeitgeist or of Catholic culture and prompt us to ask what they really mean.
This is not to say that Francis' encyclicals don't offer profound analysis- like the diagnosis, in Laudato Si', of the roots of our crisis in the "technocratic paradigm" (no. 101). Yet, Fratelli Tutti makes a pertinent point in this regard:
My criticism of the technocratic paradigm involves more than simply thinking that if we control its excesses everything will be fine. The bigger risk does not come from specific objects, material realities or institutions, but from the way that they are used. It has to do with human weakness, the proclivity to selfishness that is part of what the Christian tradition refers to as “concupiscence”: the human inclination to be concerned only with myself, my group, my own petty interests.
(Fratelli Tutti, no. 166)
I am reminded here that CST does not only offer an analysis of power. Anathema to the tradition is the idea that if power were simply put into the hands of the right people, we would have a perfect world. I recently heard of T. S. Elliot's warning about trying to design a world in which no one would need to be virtuous.[4] There is huge importance to an encyclical's personal summons to those who are entrusted with its ideas. Is it challenging, consoling, revivifying? Is it effecting interpersonal transformation? These questions must be continually asked, otherwise social encyclicals are documents left to gather dust, as is sadly indicated by the quip that CST is 'the best kept secret of the Catholic Church.'
Practising CST in a fragile context
In 2018 I had the privilege of visiting CAFOD partner organisations in Myanmar, a majority-Buddhist country which nonetheless has a committed Catholic population among other Christian denominations and religious faiths (also minorities). During the annual partner meeting, a participant spoke up in lament. When there was just the military government, he said, at least there was a common enemy, yet now, we are fragmented, businesses undercutting each other, ethnic groups pitted against each other, all without common goals. I have neither the space nor the knowledge to explain the incredible complexities of the nation's ethnic conflicts, nor their underlying political-economic roots, but this felt like a vivid sketch to hang on to.
CST summons Catholics to such situations of fragmentation in its aspirations for reconciliation and unearthing of shared goods. CAFOD has been able to fund the Catholic bishops in Myanmar to host a long-term "Nation Building" project. Bringing together religious leaders of different faith groups, the methodology of dialogue is used to coax common activities to emerge organically which may offer alternatives to people drawn into conflict or exploitation. Since its initiation, however, participants have discerned that before any interfaith dialogue can take place, intra-faith dialogues are a first step. The ground upon which to stand has to be built, firstly within the Church, so that clergy, women religious and lay people can converse without being constrained by the pressures of their rank within society or by the buried traumas of war and marginalisation.
Carrying the leaven of CST in the world is a tall order, particularly when the ground is fragile, when -within the church as well- people are having to find and re-find their feet amidst fragmentation. It takes not only power but people with an intensity of care and commitment. Perhaps this is why, so often, Francis offers not an analysis but a challenge. The last chapter of Fratelli Tutti leaves us with the challenge to be "authentic mediators":
Intermediaries seek to give everyone a discount, ultimately in order to gain something for themselves. The mediator, on the other hand, is one who retains nothing for himself, but rather spends himself generously until he is consumed, knowing that the only gain is peace.
(no. 284)
Francis is originally from Lancaster, studied Catholic Theology at Durham University and currently works for CAFOD Theology Programme
Learn more about our Fratelli Tutti project
[1] Maurice Glasman has found CST to be the only framework of political economy that could explain the success of the West German post-war economy. As the allies negotiated a post-War settlement, workers and their families were putting things back together at a more local level, rebuilding their society based on vocational colleges that regulated entry into work, and banks whose lending was kept regional, maintaining a connection between people's labour and their human context. It also included the practice of co-determination, whereby workers had a role on company boards to participate in decisions that are usually a managerial prerogative, like pension schemes.
See https://www.commongoodfoundation.org.uk/our-work/catholic-social-thought-and-the-economics-of-the-common-good and
"Unnecessary Suffering: Managing Market Utopia", 1992, Maurice Glasman.
[2] https://ccstp.org.uk/articles/2020/11/20/pope-francis-peoples-and-culture-preparing-for-a-future-post-covid-with-fratelli-tutti-covid-19-blog-no-38
[3] Perhaps there is an analogy with the way the document speaks about women's equal dignity without matching this with a single women's voice quoted. In Julie Hanlon Rubio's words: "generalizations contain truth but lack specificity, which seems to deny the very encounter Fratelli Tutti advocates." https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/responses/seeing-beyond-walls-in-fratelli-tutti-can-catholics-preach-what-they-cannot-do
[4] I thank Jenny Sinclair for this insight.