I simply do not buy your thesis that Marxism was an unwelcome appendage to Liberation Theology that can be easily amputated. Liberation Theology is not undiluted Marxism but it is certainly inspired by it to its core.
Concern for the poor does not equate to Liberation Theology. The essential ingredient that distinguishes Liberation Theology is the belief in limited resources and, hence, a zero sum competition for them in which what is good for the rich (and middle class) is bad for the poor.
What capitalism offers, by contrast, is a view of the world in which resources are potentially unlimited and that leads to an entirely different set of prescriptions.
The basic difference between the preferential option for the poor and liberation theology is that the later calls for structural change. What was decades ago rejected from liberation theology is the atheistic Marxism that supported violent revolution to attain this goal. Has Pope Francis called for peaceful structural change? I would say the question has no direct answer. What
Laudato Si calls for is a new cultural paradigm. It would entail a process where results are unknown. But it would not seem possible to rapidly change what developed over half a millennium, and it is this I see as problematic with respect to the immediate threat of climate change and AGW.
In the U.S., markets are rigged and there is corporate lobbying that in effect is legal bribery of legislators who permit manipulation of the markets. It is a corrupt system, and from his many comments it seems Pope Francis knows it. The Catholic Church does not support this type of capitalism, as cited in comment #61.
I do not agree that economics and morality can be so divided as you and the Chicago school of economics seem to believe. As you may recall, Adam Smith’s first economic work was titled The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Pope Francis is not occupying a unique position when he makes moral arguments about economics. To the extent that he takes no interest in understanding capitalism, however, he comes at the subject lacking prudence, which, at least according to the CCC, is the cardinal virtue. That would not be a problem if Pope Francis limited himself to merely reminding the world of the plight of the poor or even to declaring that the poor must be regarded primarily. (If one were to weigh economic systems based simply on which best provided for the poor then capitalism would win hands down.)
I disagree with the Chicago school of economics and have not said economics and morality should be divided. That markets behave rationally could only be true if humans invariably behaved rationally, and it is known they do not. There was the near economic and financial meltdown of 2008, and it is likely capitalism would not have survived without the intervention of governments. Alan Greenspan acknowledged this when he said, “Now we are all Keynesians.”
I have in no way restricted our discussion to a “single-theory explanation” of history. I have only put the difference between north and south on the table for discussion.
I don’t pretend to know the answer. I would note this difference is only relative. There are both the wealthy and the well educated in Latin Amercia, as there are in the U.S. There are also the poor in the U.S., in its urban centers and in regions such as Appalacia and areas of South Texas. It is also true of many other rural areas of the U.S.
I live in South Texas where perhaps the majority of the population is of Latino heritage. I am of Irish Catholic ancestry but see the plight of the poor in areas toward the southern border with Mexico. Conditions resemble those of a Third World country. Latino immigrants, not legally present, at times pass through our property at night, and we have provided food and liquid. They present no threat at all and that they would is nonsense. There is a sense they are genuinely human and the salt of the earth. It is where the real is above the idea, and what is true in Latin America is as true here, in the U.S., on my own property.
I am open to a discussion of the cultural heritage of Latin vs. Anglo Europe. I have not concluded that Catholicism, itself, is the cause of widespread poverty in Latin America. But let’s not ignore that it is, at a minimum, a correlation. Pushing the cause of Latin American poverty back to Latin Europe leaves open that contrast since Europe, itself, is so divided.
It is invalid to infer causation from a simple correlation. Again, this contrast is relative. It exists in both the U.S. and Latin America and is a stereotype. What then is the common factor?
I truly hope that is the case. But I have very grave doubts that it is so. I think that would have been fair to say of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict. It is not at all apparent with Pope Francis. My impression is that Pope Francis is a Peronist and that he seeks a perfected Peronism for the world.
What is not so apparent is a shift in focus. I explained a commonality of theological views among the three popes, and you dismissed it as “the splitting of hairs”. The notion that the world’s resources are infinite is contrary to the laws of physics if nothing else, and I cannot see how viewing resources as finite is necessarily Malthusian thought. What seems likely, in light of
Laudato Si, is that Pope Francis sees climate change and AGW as an overwhelming threat to resources that science could not possibly cope with.
he has posted a lot…
