Catholic views on Economics

  • Thread starter Thread starter NickyMaz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NickyMaz

Guest
I recently read this blog post from Father Dwight Longenecker comparing protestant and catholic views on various topics. On the issue of economics he says "The Pentecostal model of economic improvement is essentially capitalistic inasmuch as it encourages self reliance, hard work and believes “getting ahead” is a good thing. The Catholic model is still wedded to a blend of medieval paternalism in which the “rich man in his castle looks after the poor man at his gate.” This has morphed into a left of center ideology which constantly criticizes capitalism, falsely idolizes poverty and enables the poor by demanding more and more handouts rather than a hand up. When are we going to learn that this economic model insults the poor and keeps them in their place? “You’re blessed when you’re poor”? the silent message is “So stay poor then.” Jesus said, “Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” This was a spiritual message–not an economic one.


I think the Father makes a very good point, I’m curious to hear the opinions of others.
 
Critics of social welfare have long posited that charity discourages the poor from taking steps to better their own lot. But the Father takes this a step further by suggesting that Catholic anti-capitalist sentiment actually enables the poor – indeed, entitles the poor – to “demand[] more and more handouts rather than a hand up.” And I think he is dead wrong. How would that even work? Does the Father really think that the Church’s moral suasion directed toward the “haves” is overheard by the “have nots” and emboldens them to approach the “haves” and insist that they follow church teaching by sharing their wealth?

The Father assumes that the Church’s critique of capitalism is not lost on the poor (who then somehow use it to advantage). I can almost assure him, it is lost on the poor, at least in any way that facilitates their call for action. As a socio-economic “group” they lack the organizational skills to mobilize themselves into any approach to the rich for more handouts based on religious duty. If they have nothing of their own to “sell” in a capitalist economy, they are certainly not going to sell the indulgences of heaven! (It isn’t theirs to sell.)

If the Church’s positions dissuade the economically disadvantaged from efforts to advance their own welfare, it is because of appeals to the wealthy emanating from the pulpit, not from the poor house.
 
Look up “Distributism.” A third way. Collectivism is condemned by the magisterium, and while capitalism is not inherently evil, it calls for those who have to share voluntarily - motivated by charity - with those who have not. Basically, the exhortation of Saint John the Baptist to those who asked, “What must we do?”
 
The condition of the poor can be made better, and they can be given opportunities to better themselves, but at the end of the day there will always be rich and poor. And a good system should do everything possible to avoid a perception of rich=virtuous. While there are lazy people out there, there are also people, many people, who are simply less naturally gifted, and it’s incumbent on the successful to ensure that they can live decent lives.
 
“The Church and the Market” by Tom Woods is an excellent book to read on the topic. He’s a Catholic, an Historian by education, and an “Austrian economist”.
 
Last edited:
RedFan said:
Critics of social welfare have long posited that charity discourages the poor from taking steps to better their own lot. But the Father takes this a step further by suggesting that Catholic anti-capitalist sentiment actually enables the poor – indeed, entitles the poor – to “demand[] more and more handouts rather than a hand up.” And I think he is dead wrong. How would that even work? Does the Father really think that the Church’s moral suasion directed toward the “haves” is overheard by the “have nots” and emboldens them to approach the “haves” and insist that they follow church teaching by sharing their wealth?
Click to expand...
I think you misapply the logic. It’s the Catholic body that would be pushing the view of what the poor are entitled too, not the poor themselves. The Catholic body does have the organizational skills to mobilize and take action.
 
Read ‘Res Novarum’ by pope leo xiii (i think its him… its one of the Leos) its the Churchs reaction to the rise of socialism in the early 1900s.
 
It’s all good and well telling poor people to work hard and get to the top, but the conditions to do such are not always in place. It is up to the government to ensure these conditions are there.
 
I don’t think we can draw much out of the short comments. I will say that I do think paternalism is an issue in our modern world. It may be a vestige of medieval times. It may be a vestige of Christianity. Regardless the Church and the local lord have been replaced by the state. This ideology is present not only among Catholics but also the older mainline Protestant Churches.
 
Maximilian75 said:
Read ‘Res Novarum’ by pope leo xiii (i think its him… its one of the Leos) its the Churchs reaction to the rise of socialism in the early 1900s.
Click to expand...
I find that it’s sequel, Quadragesimo Anno, is actually even more helpful in its critique of both collectivism/socialism and individualism and darwinistic “survival of the fittest” forms of capitalism as well as the proper role of public authority in coordinating otherwise free economic activity towards serving the common good.
 
Last edited:
The Church historically has had a problem with unbridled (laissez faire) capitalism since there generally is no or too little of a safety net. Therefore, it is not against capitalism per se.

Also, the Church historically has taught the money should not be the main goal in life and should, therefore, not be treated as an end in and of itself.
 
RedFan said:
Critics of social welfare have long posited that charity discourages the poor from taking steps to better their own lot. But the Father takes this a step further by suggesting that Catholic anti-capitalist sentiment actually enables the poor
Click to expand...
The church has a huge responsibility to take care of the poor. The church doesn’t have the right nor is it wise to insist that the government take care of its people or for people to pay taxes to help the poor.
Arkansan said:
And a good system should do everything possible to avoid a perception of rich=virtuous.
Click to expand...
Being Rich or poor is not virtuous unless your referring to being poor in spirit. You can be rich and virtuous and you can be poor and be virtuous. You can be rich and not virtuous and you can be poor and not virtuous.
 
Last edited:
I think the church needs to start taking the same approach to economic science as it does other sciences. Stick to the morality aspect and leave the mechanisms alone. It has been proven that free markets have done more to raise the standard of living across the globe than any other force. It is not perfect, and has to be paired with Christian’s willing to aid those at the bottom, but trying to use government as a tool to shape economic outcomes has proven disastrous time and again.

Free market economics are the only economic theory in which being able to gain means you must also have something of equal value to give, both parties in these transactions are enriched equally.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
I think the church needs to start taking the same approach to economic science as it does other sciences. Stick to the morality aspect and leave the mechanisms alone. It has been proven that free markets have done more to raise the standard of living across the globe than any other force. It is not perfect, and has to be paired with Christian’s willing to aid those at the bottom, but trying to use government as a tool to shape economic outcomes has proven disastrous time and again.
Click to expand...
Actually, some government projects contributed to economic growth. Our education system, even with its problems is vital to economic growth. Infrastructure projects such as the erie canal or the interstate highway system contributed to economic growth. Not all government programs are bad for growth, some are but some aren’t.
 
Infrastructure isn’t the same as trying to manipulate markets to achieve equality of outcome. Infrastructure and education help foster equality of opportunity, which I would say is a legitimate use of the government for “the common good”.

Tariffs, wage caps, punitive taxation, luxury taxes, etc. are examples of trying to use government to force social outcomes inorganically which leads to destabilization.
 
I think laissez faire capitalism is a strawman some trot out far too often. I don’t see a lot of laissez faire capitalism these days, rather I see a lot of heavily regulated markets, price controls and other means to frustrate economic growth.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Actually, some government projects contributed to economic growth. Our education system, even with its problems is vital to economic growth. Infrastructure projects such as the erie canal or the interstate highway system contributed to economic growth. Not all government programs are bad for growth, some are but some aren’t.
Click to expand...
No, they are all bad for economic growth. It is true that if the government funnels money into some project economic activity will result. But what can’t be ignored is the economic activity that would have happened had that money been invested in something else. Projects like the Erie Canal helped business in those areas of the country at the expense of business elsewhere. The same is true for the highway system. It hurt local, established business and the railroads.
 
exnihilo said:
No, they are all bad for economic growth. It is true that if the government funnels money into some project economic activity will result. But what can’t be ignored is the economic activity that would have happened had that money been invested in something else. Projects like the Erie Canal helped business in those areas of the country at the expense of business elsewhere. The same is true for the highway system. It hurt local, established business and the railroads.
Click to expand...
Is that why Somalia does so well? They don’t have to worry about wasteful government projects.
 
I agree with you to a degree… but I do think the Church should push more for distributism and flat out condemn socialism and “social democracy.” And the Church should continue to rightly condemn unbridled Capitalism, which is not something we have in the United States.

God bless
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top