Carl Olson posted an article
this week (here) situating
certain recent statements by Pope Francis on economics in the context of
magisterial teachings from other recent Popes and showed - surprise! – that the Pope is Catholic. You wouldn’t know it from the media
reports. As it happens, I wrote a
similar piece earlier this year, which I’m re-posting for Throwback Thursday:
Pope Francis certainly
makes things interesting. Aside from keeping former kremlinologists
employed trying to discern the intent behind his appointments, he can’t seem to
help saying things that get people in an uproar. The most notorious case was
an interview with Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari, in which the Pope seemed
to be endorsing a rather generous (i.e., relativistic ) concept of
conscience. As it turns out, however, Scalfari, who is an atheist, did
not record his discussion with the Pope nor did he take notes; the “interview”
was actually his own recollection of the conversation (link).
He eventually admitted “some of the Pope’s words I reported were not shared by
Pope Francis.” Oops. The Vatican removed the interview from its
website. The Pope, it appears, is learning to be more careful.
 |
| Don't point the finger at Pope Francis . . . |
More surprising (perhaps) is the uproar over a statement in the
Pope’s Encyclical Gaudium
Evangelii (Joy of
the Gospel) that seemed to be a condemnation of Capitalism . . . at least
that’s the way the press reported it, and considering the great gaudium sinistri (Joy of the Left) that accompanied it,
how could they be wrong?
Easily, as it turns out. We’ll get
to that in a moment, but we need a little context for the Church’s teaching on
matters economic. Let’s start with four stipulations:
-1. The Magisterium of the Church in general, and the Pope (any
Pope) in particular, claims no particular competence in economics.
-2. The Magisterium and the Pope do, however, have the
competence to teach authoritatively on moral principles that Catholics are to
apply in their economic life.
-3. Since Leo XIII’s Encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891 the
Popes have been developing a body of Magisterial teaching on said principles.
-4. A pope cannot simply reverse prior magisterial teaching,
even in a formal proclamation such as an encyclical letter (and of course, he
can’t say anything authoritative at all in a newspaper interview).
Given that, the proper way to evaluate
what Francis said about the free market economy is to consider his remarks in
the context of the existing teaching. A good place to start is Pope John
Paul II’s 1991 encyclical Centesimus
Annus, issued one hundred years after Rerum
Novarum (hence
the name: “hundredth year”), in which he looks back at Leo’s encyclical, Pius
XI’s1931 encyclical QuadrigesimoAnno (“The Fortieth Year” – do you see a
pattern here?) and the economic events of the twentieth century. While
the scope of The Blessed John Paul’s encyclical is too vast to explore here, we
can at least get a glimpse at what he has to say about socialism and
capitalism.
Pope John Paul tells us, first of all,
that the “guiding principle of Pope Leo's Encyclical, and of all of the Church's
social doctrine, is a correct view of the human person and of his unique value,
inasmuch as ‘man ... is the only creature on earth which God willed for
itself”’ . . .and “his essential dignity as a person.” (Centesimus
Annus 5) These are not the concerns of socialism. John Paul
quotes from Rerum Novarum,
which criticizes the socialists because they "encourage the poor man's
envy of the rich and strive to do away with private property” and
their
contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that, were they
carried into effect, the working man himself would be among the first to
suffer. They are moreover emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful
possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in
the community. (Rerum Novarum 99)
All of which proved true on the occasions when socialism was put into practice during the twentieth century. This is not to say, however, that the Church favors an unfettered free
market:
There
is certainly a legitimate sphere of autonomy in economic life which the State
should not enter. The State, however, has the task of determining the juridical
framework within which economic affairs are to be conducted, and thus of
safeguarding the prerequisites of a free economy, which presumes a certain
equality between the parties, such that one party would not be so powerful as
practically to reduce the other to subservience. (Centesimus Annus 15).
The state’s role should be determined by the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity:
.
. . according to the principle of subsidiarity, by creating
favourable conditions for the free exercise of economic activity, which will
lead to abundant opportunities for employment and sources of wealth. Directly
and according to the principle of solidarity, by defending the
weakest, by placing certain limits on the autonomy of the parties who determine
working conditions, and by ensuring in every case the necessary minimum support
for the unemployed worker. (Centesimus Annus 15)
The meaning of solidarity should be evident in the passage above;
subsidiarity is described by Pius XI in Quadrigesimo
Anno 79 as follows:
[I]t
is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right
order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate
organizations can do. For every
social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the
body social, and never destroy and absorb them . . .
Pope John Paul also says:
It
would appear that, on the level of individual nations and of international
relations, the free market is the most efficient instrument for utilizing resources
and effectively responding to needs . . . But there are many human needs
which find no place on the market. It is a strict duty of justice and truth not
to allow fundamental human needs to remain unsatisfied, and not to allow those
burdened by such needs to perish. It is also necessary to help these needy
people to acquire expertise, to enter the circle of exchange, and to develop
their skills in order to make the best use of their capacities and resources. (Centesimus
Annus 35)
Notice
that the Pope is not describing a particular system, but putting forward
certain principles that should under gird the system: a
relatively free market, a state that protects property and ensures the rule
of law, protects the weak from exploitation, and in the process respects
the appropriate freedom to conduct their own affairs that everyone possesses as
part of his innate dignity as a human being made in the image of God.
The market (note well: properly regulated) is the best means of producing the most
prosperity for everyone; as Christians we need to find ways to include
everyone in its benefits.
Which brings us back to our starting
point. No system can take the place of the “unique value” of each human
person. In the matter “of overseeing and directing the exercise of human
rights in the economic sector”, for instance” primary responsibility in this
area belongs not to the State but to individuals and to the various groups and
associations which make up society.” (Centesimus Annus 48) As
John Adams said of the U.S. Constitution: “Our Constitution was made only for a
moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of
any other”, so can we say of the market economy. No system can be truly just
apart from the free choices of those who populate it. As Pope John Paul
says in another place:
It is not therefore a
matter of inventing a "new program". The program already exists: it
is the plan found in the Gospel and in the living Tradition, it is the same as
ever. Ultimately, it has its center in Christ himself, who is to be known,
loved and imitated, so that in him we may live the life of the Trinity, and
with him transform history until its fulfillment in the heavenly
Jerusalem. (Novo Millenio Ineunto 29)
Pardon the lengthy
excursus into papal documents, but this is the backdrop against which we need
to look at Pope Francis’ remarks on economic systems. In Evangelii Gaudium 54 Pope Francis says, according to the
official English translation:
In
this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume
that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably
succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the
world.
Catholic blogger extraordinaire Fr. Z rightly points out (link)
that the Spanish phrase por
mismo, translated “inevitably” above, is more accurately rendered “by
itself”. That is an important distinction, although even with the less
accurate translation any objective observer can see that what New Model Pope
Francis is saying is completely consistent with the teaching of the rigid,
right-wing, authoritarian, pre-Vatican II neo-Torquemada John Paul II in Centesimus Annus: The
system can’t do it alone, no system can, it can at most provide the opportunity. In fact, the system is only as just as
those people who animate it, who can only find true justice in the Good News of
Jesus Christ.
So, what’s all the uproar about? The key lies in the phrase “objective of
observer.” As I pointed out in an earlier post (link),
those on the left, both in the Church and in the secular world, need to protect their
worldview at all costs, and will often cite in their own support authorities
who, on even cursory inspection, don’t support them at all. I once knew of a
high school campus minister who had previously been a 100% pro-abortion state
legislator, but nevertheless would brandish (I mean physically brandish) a copy
of John Paul II’s Evangelium
Vitae when arguing against capital punishment. She seemed
unaware (or maybe she just didn't care) that abortion comes in for much harsher
treatment in that document.
That’s the story here. The secular
press and their religious counterparts will continue to snatch up and loudly
trumpet any remarks by this Pope that can even remotely be construed to support
their heterodoxy. So if you want to know what the pope really said, go to a
more sober source.
