Reflections on Pope Benedict’s Visit to the United States, April 2008: Questions of Social Ethics

By Thomas Massaro, S.J.

In moments of honesty, social ethicists like me have to admit that we don’t have much to add to the fevered discourse about papal travels, such as the recently concluded visit of Pope Benedict to the United States. Catholic ethicists concerned about social justice issues are more attuned these days to rumors of a soon-to-be-released social encyclical, which some Vatican watchers expect as soon as this summer. Encyclicals stand as the highest level of ordinary teaching documents that popes publish, and this would be the first encyclical devoted primarily to social justice issues since John Paul II released Centesimus Annus, upon the hundredth anniversary of the original social encyclical Rerum Novarum, in 1991. I, for one, am most eager to see what this encyclical will contain, and I hope for ample treatment of globalization, the environment, the response to terrorism and the peaceful resolution of international conflicts.

Just a few comments, then, on the most interesting aspect of Benedict’s appearance here, at least from a social ethics perspective. On April 18, the Pontiff visited the United Nations in New York City, where he delivered an address, half in French and half in English, to the General Assembly. This fine tradition of papal addresses to that august body began with Paul VI in 1965. John Paul II followed suit in 1979 and 1995, and now Benedict in 2008. Notice the gaps of 13, 16 and now 13 years. Given Benedict’s advanced age (he turned 81 while in Washington, DC on this trip), it is unlikely that he would return to the U.N. if form holds. These realities perhaps conspired to lead Benedict to choose his words carefully and underline several key points in this, possibly the only address to the General Assembly he will ever make.

To the casual listener or reader, much of the pope’s speech might sound like boilerplate, a mere string of bromides without much bite. But we would do well to notice the way Benedict weaved together a set of specific concerns in the course of his address. Early on in his speech, he listed the following items of international import: “questions of security, the development goals, the reduction of inequalities, the protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate.” This constitutes a pretty good list of distinctive social justice concerns for our new millennium. Note the reference to the Millennium Development Goals adopted by many international agencies, as well as the invocation of ecological concern, a touchstone of a remarkable “greening of the Vatican” in word and deed in recent months.

The pope moved on to further themes that, while in definite continuity with previous Vatican social teachings, add up to more than just stale platitudes. The theme of “option for the poor” was invoked when Benedict expressed special concern for “the most fragile regions of the planet, especially those countries in Africa and on other continents which are still excluded from authentic integral development and therefore at risk of experiencing only the negative effects of globalization.” Sounds to me like a solid hint regarding the content of that upcoming social encyclical. In the same paragraph, the pope moved on to appeal for “a correlation between rights and responsibilities” and “a rational use of technology and science,” each of which are reminiscent of the personalist spin that his predecessor John Paul II placed upon venerable themes of Catholic social teaching.

Then a few surprises crept in during the course of the next paragraph. The pope placed front and center “the principle of the responsibility to protect,” an international relations principle that does not often find its way into papal diplomatic addresses. Benedict called attention to the obligations of states to protect both their own domestic populations as well as other members of the international community, from “grave and sustained violations of human rights, as well as from the consequences of humanitarian crises, whether natural or man-made.” His emphasis on collective security actions in subsequent sentences indicates what he probably had in mind: this is not a call for unilateralism, but international cooperation. In the wake of horrors like genocide in Rwanda and Darfur and numerous similar crises, a moral appeal for such responsibility on the part of those who have the power to act constructively is an important reminder from a respected voice. That the paragraph ends with a further appeal for managing international conflicts “by exploring every possible diplomatic avenue” underlines the pope’s preference for reconciliation through dialogue rather than through the precipitous use of force.

The remainder of the address contains further advice and analysis of world problems. A most appropriate celebration of the upcoming 60th anniversary of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights is followed by an acknowledgement of the need to balance individual human rights and concern for the life of the community. This reminder of the theme of solidarity is characteristic of recent decades of Catholic social thought, a tradition in which the common good emerges as a “master concept” dominating the whole terrain of church teachings on social relations. In those cultures (such as here in the U.S.A.) where crass individualism is a deep temptation, the Catholic community often constitutes the single strongest voice for communitarianism and high regard for the poor and vulnerable.

The final paragraphs contain one more “meaty” dollop of analysis, this time regarding the meaning of the right to religious freedom. A key sentence in this regard finds the pope affirming: “The full guarantee of religious liberty cannot be limited to free exercise of worship, but has to give due consideration to the public dimension of religion.” While this insight will seem blatantly obvious to most observers, those familiar with Benedict’s very first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est from 2006, will find the selection of words and concepts presented here most intriguing. In that encyclical, the Pope addressed the relationship between justice and charity, and certain sentences he included in the final text led some readers to conclude that he favored a rather sharp separation of private and public action, so that believers qua believers would bear practically no responsibility for the public order. Theologians at the time wondered precisely how the words of Benedict squared with previous Vatican calls for public engagement, such as those found in Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes. So it is intriguing to note here the way Benedict insists on keeping open at least the “possibility of believers playing their part in building the social order” as one face of the right to religious freedom. While Deus Caritas Est itself had already insisted that “the Church not remain on the sidelines in the struggle for social justice,” those who are particularly enthusiastic about church involvement in shaping a more just society (I hasten to place myself in that category) are encouraged by Benedict’s choosing this auspicious occasion to make this particular point.

The address concludes with several paragraphs devoted to saying the obvious: that the Catholic Church supports the goals and principles of the United Nations. Benedict says, “My presence at this Assembly is a sign of esteem for the United Nations,” and then “The United Nations remains a privileged setting.” Very much in line with his predecessors, particularly John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II, Benedict is eager to signal support for the many operations of international agencies in general, and the U.N. in particular, for promoting peace and economic development. On a personal level, both as a social ethicist and as a Catholic priest, I found it particularly edifying to witness on April 18 a “joint appearance,” as it were, of the two agents that inspire (at least in my heart) the most hope for a more peaceful world in the coming decades.

Thomas Massaro, S.J., author of Living Justice: Catholic Social Teaching In Action; The Classroom Edition (Rowman & Littlefield, 2008) is Professor of Moral Theology at Weston Jesuit School of Theology.