The press on the Pope’s new encyclical, Caritas in veritate, is downplaying the message and importance of the document mainly because he does not say what the Obamaite/left wants him to say.
The message of the large and theologically substantive statement is reduced, in the hands of the press, to a caution about profitability as an institution and the affirmation of the need to care for the poor. In fact, lacking anything to latch onto to confirm their worldview, The New York Times is happy to just make up the news, as when it claims that the document “lamented that greed had brought about the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.”
Guess what? The word greed never appears even once in the document at all. The reliably “progressive” Jesuit publication couldn’t really find much to help their cause either but at least they are more honest about it.
Fortunately, everyone can read the document for himself to discover that the Pope refuses to reject the idea of economic development and in fact praises economic development, blaming the economic crisis not on neither greed nor the market but on “the damaging effects on the real economy of badly managed and largely speculative financial dealing” (21). He specifically rejects the idea that the market depends on impoverishing people. “Society does not have to protect itself from the market,” he says in 36. He praises globalization and attacks protectionism by name (42). He praises international trade: “the possibility of marketing their products is very often what guarantees their survival in both the short and long term. Just and equitable international trade in agricultural goods can be beneficial to everyone.” (58). Profit as an economic institution is affirmed as is the market generally (“permits encounter between persons” – 35). He further attacks the view that changing institutions alone will fix all problems (“Man does not develop through his own powers, nor can development simply be handed to him” – 11). He warns against the tyrannizing effects of the welfare and regulatory states (57) and calls for radical decentralization to remedy them.
Most exciting for me is this wonderful passage: “On the part of rich countries there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property, especially in the field of health care” (22). I wish it had gone further to reject the whole idea of a IP but this is an excellent statement as far as it goes.
Overall, this encyclical–save one error concerning “equivalent value” in exchange–makes no great mistakes in economic analysis and offers no political blueprint that helps those who want to overthrow market institutions. Its focus is ethical and theological — which is sort of what one hopes for from the Pope.
{ 67 comments }
← Previous Comments
You speak of the Bible as if its writings were intended to be placed together in one consistent moral guidebook, and of Calvin and democracy as if they were worthy of praise.
Smart of you to notice, RWW! Well done!
And your point is…?
(Whilst Calvin and Democracy are not now considered ideal, they were better than other types of Government at the time, and democracy over public properties is still my preferred option- private properties should be personal monarchies.)
“No, freedom and liberty derive from free will which is a direct consequence of the Holy Spirit nature of God. Their context is absolute, they are an ends.” – David C.
Call me pedantic but I ‘liberty’ as a term closer ‘no-coercion’ favoured by Libertarian (note the ‘libert-’ parts) whereas ‘freedom’ (to me) can mean licensure (i.e. ‘freedom from’ being honesly punishe for a despicable crime). Horses for courses I guess.
RWW: “Any definition of “theft” in the common sense would have to make an incongruous exception for any organization calling itself a government…”
No, theft in the commons usage does not include taxes. Rothbard’s ethic makes taxation theft by making the right to property absolute. Natural law, which guided moral thinking for centuries, provides a legitimate role for the state and therefore its right to tax, just as Mises and Hayek did.
RWW: “The problem is that the Church’s ethical system is at odds with their supposed ends.”
Are you referring to the modern Church or the historical Church? The modern Church deviates quite a bit from its historical stance on property and the role of the state. If you read the Scholastics of the 16th and 17th centuries, you’ll find them very pro free markets and against state intervention in the economy except in times of famine and war. Of course, I’m a Baptist so I care more about what the Bible says than what the Church says.
Gil: “‘liberty’ as a term closer ‘no-coercion’”
Libertarians have no problem coercing criminals. Under natural law, a tax evader is a criminal.
Jeffrey, On further reflection, maybe I’m just not used to interpreting encyclicals as Catholics are. I can understand why the Pope is intentionally vague on technical details. His main purpose is to teach on the moral aspect of things, not get into debates on the techniques of economics. And we should keep in mind that he has a wider audience than just Americans libertarians.
I think if I were going to spin the encyclical in a positive way for libertarians, I would focus on the call for greater morality in the financial markets. Most people will see that as a rebuke to the investment bankers and mortgage lenders, but we could also see it as a condemnation of central banks and their dishonest manipulation of money. That interpretation would bring the encyclical in line with the Scholastics of the 16th and 17th centuries who condemned the dilution of gold coins and price controls by the king of Spain.
In addition, a central bank is a violation of the Church’s principle of subsidiarity. The appropriate institution for determining the value of money is the marketplace.
And the encyclical’s concern for the poor opposes inflationary policies that rob the poor and give to the rich. I can also see the encyclical as opposing the accumulation of debt by the federal gov because it removes the burden from our shoulders and places it on those of our children and grandchildren without their consent.
No, theft in the commons usage does not include taxes.
No, of course most people don’t intend to include taxation when they speak of theft, but if they attempted to exclude it from the definition, they would have to do so exolicitly. The exclusion of so-called taxation from the definition of theft is by no means a natural or automatic thing.
That should read “explicitly,” of course.
When asked about his opinions on the global economic crash, Oxford professor Tariq Ramadan told PBS: “It’s a systemic crisis but the system’s been living for 300 years. And they’ve saved it every time. And the question is: will they save it this time?
“And I think the bets are that they will. Because this isn’t just a question of finance, but a question of political power. And if the western financial system collapses, the western political body goes with it…The cost has always been paid by the people in the past. The elites have gotten away with it.” (quoted from http://www.newsy.com/videos/the_ethics_of_economic_survival)
So what does that have to do with this encyclical? I don’t see that this word from the Pope will carry that much influence in a largely secular society. The elite will do what benefits them, whether that’s maintaining the status quo or pushing for a NWO.
#36 seems to have many points that are in agreement with Austrian principles. However, I cannot see how the following squares with it:
“The Church’s social doctrine holds that authentically human social relationships of friendship, solidarity and reciprocity can also be conducted within economic activity, and not only outside it or “after†it. The economic sphere is neither ethically neutral, nor inherently inhuman and opposed to society. It is part and parcel of human activity and precisely because it is human, it must be structured and governed in an ethical manner.”
Economics (and the market he says above) is not inherently evil, which is good to hear, but where does this leave Austrians of an Anarcho-capitalist bent? I can’t square ethically governed economics with Austrian theory. Perhaps I am missing something?
Brian, I think it’s important to keep in mind that “thou shalt not steal” is the bedrock foundation of economics. It sanctifies property. Then if you build an economic system based on that moral principle and one which protects property as if it were holy from theft by anyone, you end up with the free market system of the Dutch Republic. After all, laissez-faire economics is nothing but the right to property, and its protection, instantiated.
What really chaps my hide about all Christians, not just the Catholic Church, is their emphasis on charity. Yes, the Bible commands it as an act of love. Yes, we all should practice it. But if Christians care about the poor as they claim, all Christians would the foremost champions of capitalism. Capitalism is the form of government that protects life, liberty and property through the rule of law with honest courts and police. Free markets are nothing but the instantiation of property rights.
Capitalist thought began with the Late Scholastics, especially those of the School of Salamanca. But it became a reality only in the Dutch Republic. As a result, the Dutch were the first people in the history of mankind to escape the Malthusian cycles of famine and mass starvation. Capitalism spread throughout Europe, North America, Australia and eventually Japan and everywhere it lifted people from excruciating poverty to amazing wealth.
In our own generation we have witnessed the Chinese miracle. In the 1970′s and 80′s, the US had to “loan†China billions of dollars to buy grain to fend off mass starvation. Then Deng allowed a tiny, tiny sliver of freedom in agricultural markets and the Chinese suddenly had abundant food. The rise of China has been miraculous for those who don’t understand the power of the free market. India is also experiencing similar reductions in poverty by freeing its markets.
The West has sent billions of dollars in charity to the poor countries of the world since WWII and we have nothing to show for it. Charity has been an absolute failure any way you want to measure it, while the limited spread of capitalism has created miracles. So why aren’t Christians the main cheerleaders of capitalism? Are they completely brain dead! Or are they lying and don’t really care about the poor as they claim to?
I thought of an analogy. The Bible talks about praying over the sick and anointing them with oil. The Good Samaritan used wine and oil to treat the victim’s wounds. Do Christians promote wine, oil and prayer as the only medical tools that Christians should use? Of course not! Christianity views scientific truth as valuable and useful as Biblical truth.
So why do Christians insist that charity is the only way to help the poor, especially when it has been such a dramatic failure? The science of economics has demonstrated that free markets with the rule of law and property rights can lift billions of people out of poverty. Charity has never done that in the history of mankind.
Maybe the Pope should consider making Deng Xao Ping a Saint. Who has helped more people out of poverty than him? At the least, he should make Mises a saint for his promotion of liberty as a means of poverty reduction.
fundamentalist,
In the Pope’s letter, you will note that he points out that charity that is forced is neither charity nor helpful (end of #39). Charity in the sense that the word is usually used is not supposed to be removed from caritas. Charity is a parent giving his kid a Christmas present. It’s not the government taxing the most productive people 5.4% so that they can “donate” their money to low-income health care. That’s why both you and the Pope, I believe, are in agreement that “The West has sent billions of dollars in charity to the poor countries of the world since WWII and we have nothing to show for it.” He’s quite harsh on the IMF/World bank and the idea that development can be obtained simply by short-term programs of tossing a few sacks of rice or bundles of dollars their way. It’s the old, “Give a man a fish, he’ll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he’ll eat for life.” idea.
Now, as to your analogy for Charity. If we find a guy beat up on the side of the road, we’re going to call 9-11, but even if we’re unable to do anything medically, we can all at least be there with him, comfort him, give him food/drink (if his injury allows), etc until medical help arrives. Charity does not conflict with logic, science, etc…it’s a supernatural thing, rooted in love.
Brian, I agree. Charity is important, but not so much for the poor as for the discipline is gives Christians. I don’t oppose charity of any kind. The more the better. But compared to what capitalism has done for poor people, charity appears almost worthless to the poor.
If Christians are going to trumpet their concern for the poor, then they should promote capitalism. Without capitalism, the appeals to charity are like a hollow.
I think some of the Christian emphasis on charity and lack of focus on capitalism comes from the old socialist fallacy that if all the wealth in the world were distributed equally, we would all be well off. Instead, we would all be equally poorer, and worse for the future we would all consume what we had and leave nothing to invest in capital formation.
Wealth comes from savings and capital accumulation and both need capitalism to happen. Charity provides a small meal for the poor to quickly consume. Capitalism teaches a man to fish while charity gives him a fish.
Fundamentalist, just as there is charity and something falsely called charity that is simply being virtuous at other people’s expense, so also is there capitalism and something falsely called capitalism that is simply going through the motions of the free market on the back of state support and privilege – and it is the latter that most people think of when they hear the word “capitalism”. That is why Kevin Carson calls his approach “free market anti-capitalism”. Indeed, to avoid confusion and the risk of having it thrown back in your face, it would be better to use different language than phrases like “compared to what capitalism has done for poor people, charity appears almost worthless to the poor”. You risk being told – accurately – what that other capitalism has done for the poor, very forcibly and in no uncertain terms, and then being ignored as someone who is completely out of touch.
PM Lawrence, You may be right. Everyone has his own private definition of capitalism. For many, captitalism means multinational corps bribing politicians with both working together to shaft the public. That’s what makes communication so difficult.
Socialists have always used the method of changing definitions in order to win the debate. That’s why they ca call themselves “liberals” even though when they adopted the term it meant exactly the opposite of socialism.
For the time being, I’m content to try to rehabilitate the term. I think it’s important to fight the socialist tactic of redefining words. I may give up before long, but the alternative is to use “free markets” with qualifications a mile long.
PS, After learning Austrian econ, I think the term “capitalism” is even more appropriate for the system of “natural liberty”, as Smith called it, because Austrians emphasize that the path to greater wealth requires more capitalistic methods of production, that is, using more capital in the production of consumer goods.
My understanding of the origin of the term is that socialists used it as an insult. But they didn’t realize how accurate their term was, and besides there is a long tradition of taking terms meant as insults and using them as a badge of honor.
Being a Catholic myself, I have read the encyclical and like others before me have found it to be very confusing and contradictory. The many preceding comments (and disagreements therein) are proof that Benedict did a poor job explaining his position at the very least. I sincerely feel there is no excuse for this.
For one, it’s clear to me that the Pope did not separate Capitalism from and injustice very effectively. Capitalism, by definition, CAN NEVER RESULT in injustice as he suggested, since it depends entirely on mutual respect for property and its voluntary trade. Granted, I agree with the Pope that absent compassion and love the world will suffer, but he seemed to have neglected the fact that both these things require a boundary of respect between individuals. Theft is theft no matter who is doing the coercion. The fact that we are imperfect mortals does not justify the call for a world-wide “authority” made up of imperfect mortals.
Secondly, as newson pointed out before me, the Church (and others like it mind you) appreciates a special position under the State through tax-exceptions and government subsidies. Very rarely will you hear a Catholic priest call out the tyrannical acts of the State, since, you know, that would make the Church “a political organization” subject to taxes and regulation. This is probably the biggest reason why it is losing membership; you can’t separate politics from religion without looking like a hypocrite. Compromising religious discussion to favor the State is anathema to Christianity itself.
It is no secret to me that the Catholic church (for the most part) supports Socialism so long, of course, that it doesn’t depart too far from Capitalism…which is a contradiction in terms of course! There are many church members, even leaders, who disagree with this. But we are the minority.
People like Fundamentalist are right; I cannot in good conscience agree with the Pope 100% based on his encyclical. His call for Charity and Love is just, but the State will only diminish both in quantity and quality.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.