Canada’s new Prime Minister Mark Carney has publicly acknowledged that he professes Catholicism, and he openly attended Pope Leo’s inauguration Mass — even going so far as to praise the Pope’s homily, and to explain to the press why he knelt during Mass. It also reported that he regularly “goes to Catholic church.”
It is also true that he has openly declared his unreserved support for abortion rights, perhaps even for their elevation to the status of protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is obviously difficult for faithful Catholics to accept, particularly as abortion in Canada is legal for any reason and practiced right up to the moment of birth.
It is a topic we should certainly take up with him.
On the other hand, he speaks Catholic when he wants to. It is reported, for example, that he once attended a Vatican seminar on the topic of building an economy that works for everyone, and that when he got home he wrote a book about how that might be done — a book that is framed in terms consistent with Catholic social teaching, and appears to be informed by it, even if it does not stress that fact.
The question we face is: do these things give us enough ground to at least try to start a respectful conversation, that includes both points of agreement and points of disagreement? We should perhaps reflect carefully on that, as recent history suggests that it might be unwise to wait on a better chance.
If we do want to start such a conversation, it would be well to start soon. Despite the fact that Mr. Carney has barely even begun to work at his new job, criticism is already flowing toward him, including unfortunately a measure of sharp personal criticism from Catholics. Left unchecked, this stream seems likely to sweep us right back down the drain of endless bickering and nagging, rather than constructive conversation, especially as it is sometimes difficult to discern legitimate Catholic grounds for complaint, as opposed to mere personal preferences.
For example, one charge frequently leveled at Mr. Carney, by Catholics and others, is that he is a globalist banker, a member of a “post-national management class.” This certainly sounds ominous, but is it necessarily damning? It’s clear the activities of many global bankers and managers are not aligned with Catholic thought. But is it not possible that some global bankers and managers might be good people, even Catholics, even if they are both bankers and managers at the same time? It would help if particulars of such complaints were be provided, but they too seldom are.
So, we are left with the question “is it a sin, in and of itself, for a Catholic (or anyone else) to be a globalist?” It would seem not. Much seems to depend on what kind of globalism is intended, and how it is approached. For example, the original, largest and oldest global organization in the world is the Roman Catholic Church, which has used its worldwide reach to accomplish untold good, along with a few things that we likely could have done better.
As Pope Saint John Paul II told the Pontifical Academy for Social Sciences 24 years ago,
Globalization, a priori, is neither good nor bad. It will be what people make of it. No system is an end in itself, and it is necessary to insist that globalization, like any other system, must be at the service of the human person; it must serve solidarity and the common good.
One of the Church’s concerns about globalization is that it has quickly become a cultural phenomenon. The market as an exchange mechanism has become the medium of a new culture. Many observers have noted the intrusive, even invasive, character of the logic of the market, which reduces more and more the area available to the human community for voluntary and public action at every level. The market imposes its way of thinking and acting, and stamps its scale of values upon behaviour. Those who are subjected to it often see globalization as a destructive flood threatening the social norms which had protected them and the cultural points of reference which had given them direction in life.
What is happening is that changes in technology and work relationships are moving too quickly for cultures to respond. Social, legal and cultural safeguards — the result of people’s efforts to defend the common good — are vitally necessary if individuals and intermediary groups are to maintain their centrality.
It seems that concerns such as this are what we should focus on, rather than condemning ideas out of hand. And it would seem wise to start working now, speaking up and encouraging or correcting where necessary, and doing what we can to ensure that any globalist initiatives are established in responsible fashion, that they seek to do only that which is needed and appropriate, and that they are consistent with the principles of both solidarity and subsidiarity, rather than mere schemes for maximizing profit.
We could start by listening. For example, this is exactly where Mr. Carney’s book begins, in what sounds like close agreement with Saint John Paul. From the introduction to Value(s), for example:
These are the questions that this book seeks to explore. It will examine how our society came to embody Wilde’s aphorism — knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. How by elevating belief in the market to an inviolable truth we moved from a market economy to a market society. And how we can turn this around… [to build an economy underpinned by the values and beliefs of]:
- dynamism to help create solutions and channel human energy;
- resilience to make it easier to bounce back from shocks while protecting the most vulnerable in society;
- sustainability with long-term perspectives that align incentives across generations;
- fairness, particularly in markets to sustain their legitimacy;
- responsibility so that individuals feel accountable for their actions;
- solidarity whereby citizens recognize their obligations to each other and share a sense of community and society; and
- humility to recognize the limits of our knowledge, understanding and power so that we act as custodians to improve the common good.
Much will depend, obviously, on whether Mr. Carney actually tries to build such an economy, and how well he does with it, and how well his values and beliefs turn out to align with Catholic thought.
It seems like we might be better off trying to have collaborative input into this than to stubbornly refuse to play. Saint John Paul is already pointing the way:
A sound globalization, carried out in respect for the values of different nations and ethnic groupings, can contribute significantly to the unity of the human family and enable forms of cooperation which are not only economic but also social and cultural. Globalization must become more than simply another name for the absolute relativization of values and the homogenization of life-styles and cultures. For this to happen, Christian leaders, also in the commercial sphere, are challenged to bear witness to the liberating and transforming power of Christian truth, which inspires us to place all our talents, our intellectual resources, our persuasive abilities, our experience and our skills at the service of God, our neighbour and the common good of the human family.
Likewise, the charge is that Mr. Carney is a member of a new government-by-management class. Is not government, no matter its form, simply another word for management? It is true that as the world’s population has grown and come together, with cultures mingling, blending, and confronting one another more closely than ever before, the “management” imposed by our governments has grown ever more intrusive, our “personal space” shrinking further and further. That is deeply lamentable. But is it avoidable? If so, how? Farmers of the 1700s, for example, resented the encroachment of towns and government. Cowboys of the 1800s disliked fencing of the land, and railroads crossing their grasslands; railroad magnates and other capitalists of that and other eras disliked securities regulation. And I believe it would not be difficult to gather evidence that the inhabitants of North America at the time the Western techno-commercial culture arrived were not thrilled, either.
Few of us welcome the idea of over-management. But again, it would seem that the answer is probably not flat (and especially futile) rejection. Rather, a careful, principled, gathering, and democratic approach to a process that has already begun is perhaps called for, offering thoughtful, justified policy alternatives.
Perhaps we are called to wipe off our glasses and start reading a little more closely, paying attention not only to our fears but both the broad scope and specific details of proposals, bearing in mind always that we share this planet, standing before God with a vast number of other people, and look for opportunities that balance solidarity with subsidiarity, the common good with individual rights and responsibilities.
Do we really want to wait until we have a leader who is perfect in the eyes of everyone before we start that conversation? Mr. Carney appears to have brought us more reason for hope than any of his recent predecessors. It’s far from perfect, but would it not be a matter of prudent stewardship to try to work with it?
Try writing him a letter, telling him what you like and don’t like about his past and his plans for the future, so far as they have been announced. Copy your local MP and your provincial or territorial representatives. Invite them all to join us in reflecting on the prayer Pope Francis shared at the bottom of his encyclical Fratelli tutti.
