Pontifical Council On P&j - Proposal For Global Financial Reg

[Aya Sophia]

Cath Q&A:

Regarding the new proposal put forth by the Pontifical Council on Peace and Justice for global regulation of the financial industry and the international money supply - is this a prudential matter? Is adherence to it a matter of Church discipline? Or is it a matter of dogma?

Thanks . . .

[Brother Adam]

It is best described as a 'white paper'. It is not from the Vatican and is no way binding. It is not part of the Ordinary Magisterium.

I recommend the following article for more information: http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/right-diagnosis-deadly-cure

[cappie]

This may prove helpful, it comes at the end of an article

From [url="http://dailytheology.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/global-problems-require-global-governance-the-vatican%e2%80%99s-note-on-financial-reform/"]http://dailytheology.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/global-problems-require-global-governance-the-vatican%e2%80%99s-note-on-financial-reform/[/url]

The present note by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace offers a helpful reflection in the present process of discernment about the future of the global economy, but it is limited in a few ways:[list]
[*]First, while the note is critical of specific policies, it diplomatically [b]avoids mentioning any countries or situations by name[/b]. Given the key role played by the United States, the European Union and China in the global economy it is strange that there is not more explicit reflection on these economies. There is no mention of the petty bickering in Congress and between European leaders, which is only making the situation worse or of the role of the United States and Europe in preventing real reform at the UN, IMF and WTO. This, in my mind, is too soft and makes the document somewhat abstract. The fact that it is Europe and the United States (and to a lesser degree some Asian nations) that have designed the present international financial system, benefited from the power imbalances, and have prevented effective regulation from developing should be publicly acknowledged.
[/list][list]
[*]Second, while it stresses the need for regulation, the document [b]does not [i]directly[/i] speak to the role and responsibility of transnational corporations[/b] in this period of globalization as Pope Benedict and Blessed John Paul II have done previously. We cannot speak about the global economic system without considering the power of these corporations (i.e., Wall Street) and the temptation to idolatry and greed. Christian CEOs, shareholders, and (as Benedict reminded us in his encyclical) [b][i]consumers[/i][/b] need to be challenged as to how we have contributed to this present crisis (for example, there were a lot of Catholics working in Lehman Brothers and many of us have benefited from the economic bubble that burst).
[/list][list]
[*]Third, the document could have been strengthened with a stronger message of support for NGOs, international church organizations, and other [b]“intermediary bodies”[/b] that help to build a sense of solidarity across borders or who are attempting to question the present context. As Jacques Maritain recognized, these bodies are essential for effective global governance. Effective global governance, placed at the service of the person and the common good, needs the popular support and participation of people on the ground. With its many international structures, the Catholic Church is in a prime position to engender solidarity.
[/list][list]
[*]Finally, the document is addressed mainly to people in the positions of power. While this may be effective in terms of global policy reform,[b] it seems distant from the reality of women, men, and children who are poor.[/b] This, perhaps, is the limitation of all Catholic social teaching. Indeed, there is almost no mention of the poor and the need for their empowerment. While penned by an African (Cardinal Turkson of Ghana), there is no mention of how this crisis is impacting Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
[/list]
Despite these limitations, this document is sure to have a constructive impact in the present discussion and it has surely been read today in capitals around the globe. Since it does not intend to offer a blueprint solution to the present crisis, the real responsibility will fall on our shoulders as Catholics; as citizens; as voters; and as consumers.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1319667033' post='2327457']
It is best described as a 'white paper'. It is not from the Vatican and is no way binding. It is not part of the Ordinary Magisterium.

I recommend the following article for more information: [url="http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/right-diagnosis-deadly-cure"]http://www.crisismag...sis-deadly-cure[/url]
[/quote]

I would consider it part of the ordinary but non-universal Magisterium. Everything that is not ordinary is extra-ordinary (i.e. defined as dogmatic). This document as a white paper is certainly not the case.

But you are correct in saying that it is not binding as we only owe religious assent to those things which are apart of the universal magisterium and extra-ordinary magisterium.

Edit to add

And to answer the first question. It is not a matter of discipline. Disciplines refer to certain practices or more plainly what we do. Often discipline is related to particular times and cultures. When those fade or change so often does the discipline. Certain doctrines also which are often tied to applications of and different emphases on reveled truth may change. (See the controversy over Religious Liberty for a good example of this).