I personally think, that the church and/or the pope only have absolute authority in matters of morality and faith. Regarding other topics i consider error possible.
Correct or wrong?
As an example:
“Economic activity cannot solve all social problems through the simple application of commercial logic. This needs to be directed towards the pursuit of the common good, for which the political community in particular must also take responsibility. Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution.”
This entire passage consists of statements regarding the effects/outcomes of certain setups of society or suggestions what should be done.
With the first i agree, economic activity cannot solve all social problems. Though this might also cross into faith topic, because “solving all social problems” somehow reminds one of “salvation from evil” and that of course cannot be achieved by any way (e.g. economic activities) except through God.
Then follows advice, that since all social problems cannot be solved by the market, the government must intervene. With that i disagree to some extent, mainly because i think neither market nor market + government can solve all social problems. Therefore it is just a choice of lesser evil and that therefore from “market cannot solve all social problems” it cannot be concluded that government will be of much help, it could also be made worse that way. So in this “This needs to be directed” the church does not say anything about faith or morality, but offers opinion regarding the social/economic problem, whether government interference in general is capable of lessening social problems or not.
First part of nextsentence is similar to the first sentence, yes grave imbalances arise from economic action aimed for wealth increase. But grave imbalances arise from lots of social or specifically economic actions, thats the point about a sinful world, you have imbalances aka injustice all over the place and often arising without ill intent or even without perceivable cause.
The second part of the sentence is then again political advice, because here the advice is that when selecting between the two evils “economic detached from political action” and “economic action bound by political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution” the later should be chosen. Again this is socio-economic advice and to some extent i disagree, mainly due to the time this was written (2008/2009), too much market on a general scope was not the problem then and today at most too much market in some very specific areas. And i dislike this passage mainly because implicitely this whole passage could be understood by casual readers as a suggestion, that the removal of social imbalances and of (social) injustice can be achieved through state action.
Now the main part of the document discusses the problem, that without God economic actors will not be beneficial for mankind, which of course i have to follow, because its a question of faith what man can achieve without God.
So, is this something i have to confess and repent?