Understanding Common Good

Pope Benedict XVI has released his latest encyclical Caritas in Veritate (Love in Truth), which addresses many pressing issues related to the world economy.

As with all documents of this complexity and depth, there is much room for interpretation.  Much of the media is focusing on the discussion of common good.  Take for example the New York Times piece on that they titled "Pope Urges Forming New World Economic Order to Work for the 'Common Good'".

One has to be careful to understand what is meant by terms like new world order and common good.  Those who favor more government control and/or more socialistic policies assume that this plays right into their hands.

The writings of both Benedict XVI and John Paul II favor capitalism over socialism.  Their discussions of common good and economic reform are not open doors for centralized economies.  They are directing their words to each of us as individual actors.

It took me a while to fully understand this as Mike Naughton and I worked on our book, Bringing Your Business to Life.  When I first heard Mike talk about common good I found myself brissling, getting ready to defend against the onslaught of socialism.

But I soon learned that common good is not about economic structures, but rather about the moral responsibility we have as individuals to others as we go about our business starting new ventures, buying stocks, working, and managing others.

This quote on the newest encyclical from the Acton Institute makes this point very clearly:

Rev. Robert A. Sirico, president and cofounder of the Acton Institute, said the new encyclical will disappoint those who had hoped that Benedict would attack the free economy. Instead, the pope rightly focuses on two practical applications of the principle of "truth in charity." First, this principle takes us beyond earthly demands of justice, defined by rights and duties, and introduces essential moral priorities of giving, mercy, and communion. Second, "truth in charity" is always focused on the common good, which Benedict defines as an extension of individual's good who lives in society and has broad social responsibilities.

"If people are looking to this document as a blueprint for the political restructuring of the world economy, they will fail to find it," Rev. Sirico said. "If they look to it as a means for the moral reconstruction of cultures and societies, which in turn influence economic events, they will find plenty."

We should listen to Michael Novak's caution on the potential evils that lie in assuming that government is the key to a new economic reality.

For moralists, it is essential to see how often (not always) government itself sins grievously against the common good, out of a lust for power and domination over others. Furthermore, government often (not always) generates foolish and destructive regulations, and often dispenses justice that winks rather than justice that is blind. Government is more frequently the agent of injuring the common good than the ordinary lawful actions of free citizens. During the twentieth century, governments too often destroyed the common good of their citizens for years to come.

Do not assume that all small government advocates root for a survival of the fittest, every man for himself.  In fact, small government only works well when it is in the context of a deep moral culture in which man is challenged to be truly good.  Man is at his best when he performs good acts because he understands it is what is expected of him by God.  We should never let man off the hook by abdicating morality to governmental authority.