Several points of the encyclical letter re-iterates the concept that gratuity must not be only at the basis of human and social relations, but also at the very heart of economy. This is an operation of revolutionary character; if there is a dimension that generally we think to have nothing to do with the market and with enterprises, it is just gratuity. Which gratuity does the Holy Father refer to?

Of course, gratuity is not what is gratis, (zero price), we must rather associate it with an infinite value, but we cannot identify it with the gift, perhaps with gadget or discounts. Finally, it is wrong to associate gratuity with a pure gift, thus putting it in conflict with what is dutiful, with contracts and with the market.

In reality, according to what the Pope reminds us in the first paragraph, gratuity relays us to charis, grace, agape, the Greek word, which the Latin language translates into caritas, or, in some translations, chiarita, in which the "h" shows even more clearly the bond between fraternal-agape and charis. In fact, gratuity is grace, since it is a free-gift not only for those who receive gratuity acts, but also for those who perform them.

The Encyclical calls us to put this gratuity at the centre of our economic, political, social relations, where it seems impossible, but where many live it already.(no. 46). This is the dimension of every human action, of every enterprise, not only of the non-profit. It would be very seriously wrong to associate gratuity only to the volunteer, to social economy.

This is why the Encyclical Letter associates the principle of gratuity to the finance. On one side, it highlights as positive some experiences of ethical finance (no. 45), on the other side the Pope moves beyond, "we should strive …not only so that sectors or "ethical segments" of economy or finance may be born, but so that the entire economy and the entire finance may be ethical. It must be so not only for an external labelling, but also to respect exigencies intrinsic in their very nature". (n. 45).

The Encyclical letter puts us before the challenge of overcoming the fence between ordinary economy and finance on one side and alternative forms on the other. Indeed I believe that we can no longer speak of alternative economy, simply because, as the recent crisis proves it, either the economy and finance are animated by the principle of gratuity or, simply, they are not.

To ensure that the entire economy and the entire finance be ethical, and to see that the principle of gratuity may be spread, the encyclical proposes the way of economic democracy. The first step we have to make is that of favouring the plurality of actors, within the market and the finance, recognising economic dignity and not only social dignity, to all such typologies of enterprises that consider profit as a means to realise human and social finalities. In fact, with their example they can recall all the other actors to what they must be.

In fact, only from the coexistence of different subjects in the market and, therefore, from the presence of economic democracy, the market and finance can evolve towards more civilian forms.

The Holy Father calls to this plurality all the works that are born from religious initiatives. I think that this is a challenge for the institutes of consecrated life. These are called to manage their works well and efficiently, causing the shining of their charism and the principle of gratuity within it, just to prove that it is possible to have ideal motives and to know how to be in the market.

If, as we have stated above, true development is for the whole person, then it must be also for all men, otherwise it would not be integral.

The second reading key of the Encyclical Letter is that of fraternity, "the aim is the realization of authentic fraternity" (no. 20). This is the reason why we mobilise ourselves concretely and with all our "heart" so that the economic processes may evolve.

According to some readers and commentators of the Encyclical, we can criticise this text for the fact that the author has left the talk on sobriety and life-style too much in the background. In reality, according to paragraphs 50 and 51, the Pope has entered the very heart of the problem also here: he has not limited himself to stir up our respect for nature and environment, our responsibility in consuming things, our adoption of sober lifestyles.

All this may seem to be useless, Benedict XVI states, if we do not understand that "the modalities with which man behaves with the environment affect the modalities with which he treats himself and vice versa" (n. 51). In fact, "our duties towards the environment are linked with our duties towards the person considered in itself as well as in its relation with others" (n. 51).

In this sense, nature is not an independent variable. It is integrated in the social and cultural dynamics. It is from the awareness of this inter-dependence that binds us reciprocally, as well as from the urgency of fraternity and communion, that respect for nature flows: "when human ecology is respected within society, the environmental ecology also is benefited". (n. 51).

The relation is one-to-one. The deterioration of social relations, of solidarity and friendship always lead to environmental degradation. At the same time, the environmental degradation leads us to the dissatisfaction of being together, because beauty and goodness always go hand in hand. In fact, the new lifestyles proposed by the Encyclical are those "in which the search for truth, beauty and goodness, as well as the communion of men for a common growth, are elements that determine the choice of consumptions, of savings and investments" (n. 51).

As for the ethical finance, also in this case, the Pope spurs us towards the overcoming of dichotomies by making us notice that the new lifestyles are not for someone, but for all men and women, as far as our wellbeing in society depends on the quality of interpersonal relations. If we learn conviviality, respect for others, pushed by our longing for fraternity, we shall not be able to live without feeling responsible of the environment, without being sober in our choices of consumption, which we limit because we love others.

When God asked Cain about the assassination of Abel, "Where is your brother?", he answered, "Am I my brother’s guardian?" (Genesis 4, 9). It is significant that the author of the Gospel uses the same verb, shamar, in few verses before (2, 15), to express our reciprocal relation with the earth.

Whenever we break our relation with the other, we break also our relation with nature: if I do not guard my brother, I cannot guard the earth; I cannot work it as an experience of blessing. On the other hand, if I stand before my brother with gratuity, knowing how to see the beauty and goodness in him, I shall know also how to guard the earth and to share it with others.