Pope Francis denounces ‘trickle-down’ economic theories in critique of inequality

[Bubba_Switzler]

Of course he isn’t; he’s Catholic and therefore in favor of free market capitalism; even with the mistranslated English version of his Exhortation. Here is the corrected version: catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=697 See also post #257.

Yes, I’ve seen this theory and it’s entirely plausible that the choice of the term ‘trickle-down’ was not the intent of the pope. But there are more fundamental problems that can’t be so easily dismissed starting with the pope’s reference to unfettered capitalism. Where is it exactly? And if there is none to be found why is he arguing against a straw man? If he regards mixed economies such as the Peronism of his own Argentina to be unfettered capitalism that would be even worse, in my opinion.

 

[seekerz]

I don’t think you are getting to my question here. I am referring very specifically to your assertion that “he is teaching against relying on free market capitalism to provide for the weakest among us without us setting specific safeguards in place to ensure this is done”.

Is he, in fact, teaching that we must support “safeguards” meaning welfare state solutions?

Or is he merely teaching that free markets are insufficient?

I agree that the pope is suspicious of free markets and shares a leftist view of them. It is unclear to me that he is actually crossing the line to declaring free markets plus charity to be insufficient.

Is the pope teaching that voting for politicians who favor cutting or eliminating the welfare state is a sin? Are now we required by Catholic teaching to steal from the rich to give to the poor?

Stealing from the rich? What do you mean by that, or by calling the pope “suspicious of free markets” and “sharing a leftist view of them”. Maybe you need to get some perspective on what leftism and socialism actually are. Not me, I have actually lived under a socialist regime - and to be fair, as oppressive as that regime was - even they never stole a single material thing from us (and yes, some people would have considered those in our social circle to be rich).

I would suggest not throwing the baby out with the bath water. One may legitimately disagree on how to help the poor as long as it is not to the extent that the poor at not helped at all because the disagreement is so intense.

I happen to believe that there is nothing bad about welfare as long as there are limits such as who benefits, how and for how long. You disagree, I get that. That’s all reasonable: neither us nor our view of the world are perfect. However I see no basis for categorizing the pope or his words into some ideological or political cubbyhole. Faith supersedes any worldly ideology everyday and twice on Sundays.

 

[KSU]

Originally Posted by KSU
"As you know, ishii, you are echoing the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. tfp.org/tfp-home/catholic…socialism.html

"As you also know, the folks comprising the Catholic Left will not be swayed, which is why they cling to mistranslations of the what the popes say (as evidenced by this thread), misrepresentations of our political history, platitudes and insulting conversation stoppers, e.g., ‘Yes, we acknowledge the killing of pre and even post-born babies, and defiance of Church teaching on sex and subsidiarity, but Jesus really emphasized feeding the poor’.

“The beat goes on.”

Are any of these Christian beliefs mutually exclusive? Jesus did not give multiple choice tests, He said: “Go and do likewise”…

No, of course none of the teachings are mutually exclusive. What are you trying to say?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Stealing from the rich? What do you mean by that, or by calling the pope “suspicious of free markets” and “sharing a leftist view of them”. Maybe you need to get some perspective on what leftism and socialism actually are. Not me, I have actually lived under a socialist regime - and to be fair, as oppressive as that regime was - even they never stole a single material thing from us (and yes, some people would have considered those in our social circle to be rich).

I would suggest not throwing the baby out with the bath water. One may legitimately disagree on how to help the poor as long as it is not to the extent that the poor at not helped at all because the disagreement is so intense.

I happen to believe that there is nothing bad about welfare as long as there are limits such as who benefits, how and for how long. You disagree, I get that. That’s all reasonable: neither us nor our view of the world are perfect. However I see no basis for categorizing the pope or his words into some ideological or political cubbyhole. Faith supersedes any worldly ideology everyday and twice on Sundays.

I appreciate your opinion as I have offered my own. Obviously we are disagreeing on how to help the poor. On the one side are those, like me, who favor free market capitalism (and such regulation as required by it) plus charity. On the other are those who insist on government provided welfare and various limitations on free market capitalism to dampen inequality.

However, I’m trying to figure out what the pope is saying in this document.

Where has the pope demanded “safeguards”? Where has the pope declared free market capitalism plus charity to be insufficient? What sin is being committed by those who give freely of their resources and time but refuse to steal from the rich to give to the poor?

 

[seekerz]

steal from the rich to give to the poor?

Isn’t that what Robin Hood did? We can discuss real economic policies or historical/mythical figures…which do you prefer?

 

[KSU]

This is the link I tried to provide in my post #555
PART ONE
QUOTE
What the Popes Have to Say About Socialism
Created on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 15:13 Written by Gustavo Solimeo
Anyone who examines the ideology of socialism will see the contrast between the socialist doctrine and the doctrine of the Church.
All the same, it is not out of place to review the condemnation of the popes starting with Pius IX and ending with Benedict XVI. Thus, we present what the popes have to say about socialism as they condemn the socialist doctrine thoroughly and entirely. This is not a comprehensive compilation, but just some samples.

PIUS IX (1846-1878):
“Overthrow [of] the entire order of human affairs”
“You are aware indeed, that the goal of this most iniquitous plot is to drive people to overthrow the entire order of human affairs and to draw them over to the wicked theories of this Socialism and Communism, by confusing them with perverted teachings.” (Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, December 8, 1849)

LEO XIII (1878-1903):
Hideous monster
“…communism, socialism, nihilism, hideous deformities of the civil society of men and almost its ruin.” (Encyclical Diuturnum, June 29, 1881)

Ruin of all institutions
“… For, the fear of God and reverence for divine laws being taken away, the authority of rulers despised, sedition permitted and approved, and the popular passions urged on to lawlessness, with no restraint save that of punishment, a change and overthrow of all things will necessarily follow. Yea, this change and overthrow is deliberately planned and put forward by many associations of communists and socialists” (Encyclical Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, n. 27).

A sect “that threatens civil society with destruction”

Leo XIII (1877-1903): Socialists assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law.
“…We speak of that sect of men who, under various and almost barbarous names, are called socialists, communists, or nihilists, and who, spread over all the world, and bound together by the closest ties in a wicked confederacy, no longer seek the shelter of secret meetings, but, openly and boldly marching forth in the light of day, strive to bring to a head what they have long been planning - the overthrow of all civil society whatsoever. Surely, these are they who, as the sacred Scriptures testify, ‘Defile the flesh, despise dominion and blaspheme majesty.’ (Jud. 8).” (Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, December 28, 1878, n. 1)

Socialists debase the natural union of man and woman and assail the right of property
“They [socialists, communists, or nihilists] debase the natural union of man and woman, which is held sacred even among barbarous peoples; and its bond, by which the family is chiefly held together, they weaken, or even deliver up to lust. Lured, in fine, by the greed of present goods, which is ‘the root of all evils, which some coveting have erred from the faith’ (1 Tim. 6:10.3), they assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law; and by a scheme of horrible wickedness, while they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title of lawful inheritance, or by labor of brain and hands, or by thrift in one’s mode of life.” (Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, December 28, 1878, n. 1)

Destructive sect
“…socialists and members of other seditious societies, who labor unceasingly to destroy the State even to its foundations.” (Encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888)

Enemy of society and of Religion
“…there is need for a union of brave minds with all the resources they can command. The harvest of misery is before our eyes, and the dreadful projects of the most disastrous national upheavals are threatening us from the growing power of the socialistic movement. They have insidiously worked their way into the very heart of the community, and in the darkness of their secret gatherings, and in the open light of day, in their writings and their harangues, they are urging the masses onward to sedition; they fling aside religious discipline; they scorn duties; they clamor only for rights; they are working incessantly on the multitudes of the needy which daily grow greater, and which, because of their poverty are easily deluded and led into error. It is equally the concern of the State and of religion, and all good men

 

[KSU]

What the Popes Have to Say About Socialism

PART TWO
QUOTE

SAINT PIUS X (1903-1914):
The dream of re-shaping society will bring socialism
“But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, ‘the reign of love and justice’ … What are they going to produce? … A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that theSillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.” (Apostolic LetterNotre Charge Apostolique “Our Apostolic Mandate”] to the French Bishops, August 25, 1910, condemning the movement Le Sillon)

BENEDICT XV (1914-1922):
The condemnation of socialism should never be forgotten
“It is not our intention here to repeat the arguments which clearly expose the errors of Socialism and of similar doctrines. Our predecessor, Leo XIII, most wisely did so in truly memorable Encyclicals; and you, Venerable Brethren, will take the greatest care that those grave precepts are never forgotten, but that whenever circumstances call for it, they should be clearly expounded and inculcated in Catholic associations and congresses, in sermons and in the Catholic press.” (Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914, n. 13)

PIUS XI (1922-1939):

Pius XI (1922-1939): “No one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.”
Socialism, fundamentally contrary to Christian truth
“… For Socialism, which could then be termed almost a single system and which maintained definite teachings reduced into one body of doctrine, has since then split chiefly into two sections, often opposing each other and even bitterly hostile, without either one however abandoning a position fundamentally contrary to Christian truth that was characteristic of Socialism.” (Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, n. 111)

Socialism cannot be reconciled with Catholic Doctrine
“But what if Socialism has really been so tempered and modified as to the class struggle and private ownership that there is in it no longer anything to be censured on these points? Has it thereby renounced its contradictory nature to the Christian religion? This is the question that holds many minds in suspense. And numerous are the Catholics who, although they clearly understand that Christian principles can never be abandoned or diminished seem to turn their eyes to the Holy See and earnestly beseech Us to decide whether this form of Socialism has so far recovered from false doctrines that it can be accepted without the sacrifice of any Christian principle and in a certain sense be baptized. That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.” (Ibid. n. 117)

Catholic Socialism, a contradiction
“[Socialism] is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.” (Ibid. n. 120)

 

[KSU]

What The Popes Have To Say About Socialism
PART THREE

Pius XII
PIUS XII (1939-1958):
The Church will fight to the end, in defense of supreme values threatened by socialism
“[The Church undertook] the protection of the individual and the family against a current threatening to bring about a total socialization which in the end would make the specter of the ‘Leviathan’ become a shocking reality. The Church will fight this battle to the end, for it is a question of supreme values: the dignity of man and the salvation of souls." (“Radio message to the Katholikentag of Vienna,” September 14, 1952 in Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, vol. XIV, p. 314)

The state can not be regarded as being above all
“To consider the State as something ultimate to which everything else should be subordinated and directed, cannot fail to harm the true and lasting prosperity of nations.” (Encyclical Summi Pontificatus, October 20, 1939, n. 60)

John XXIII
JOHN XXIII (1958-1963):
“No Catholic could subscribe even to moderate socialism”
“Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.” (Encyclical Mater et Magistra, May 15, 1961, n. 34)
Paul VI

PAUL VI (1963-1978):
Too often Christians tend to idealize socialism
“Too often Christians attracted by socialism tend to idealize it in terms which, apart from anything else, are very general: a will for justice, solidarity and equality. They refuse to recognize the limitations of the historical socialist movements, which remain conditioned by the ideologies from which they originated.”(Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens, May 14, 1971, n. 31)

John Paul II (1978-2005)
JOHN PAUL II (1978-2005):
Socialism: Danger of a “simple and radical solution”
“It may seem surprising that ‘socialism’ appeared at the beginning of the Pope’s critique of solutions to the ‘question of the working class’ at a time when ‘socialism’ was not yet in the form of a strong and powerful State, with all the resources which that implies, as was later to happen. However, he correctly judged the danger posed to the masses by the attractive presentation of this simple and radical solution to the ‘question of the working class.’" (Encyclical Centesimus Annus − On the 100th anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, May 1, 1991, n. 12)

Fundamental error of socialism: A mistaken conception of the person
“Continuing our reflections, … we have to add that the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property.” (Ibid, n. 13)

BENEDICT XVI (2005 - present):
“We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything”

Benedict XVI
“The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person − every person − needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. … In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live ‘by bread alone’ (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3) − a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.” (Encyclical Deus Caritas Est,December 25, 2005, n. 28) END QUOTE

Again this is from the The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property.

 

[StudentMI]

I would suggest you need to re-read “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” because what Reagan did was classic Keynesianism.
…
I actually am in favor of free market economics, but one has to be honest when evaluating the effect of economic policies. I realize it is not politically popular to take an honest look at things instead of canonizing Reagan and his policies. Reagan had some good policies, and some very bad policies as well.

Thank you for pointing this out. The contrast between the popular image of Reagan and his actual policies always surprises me.

As an aside, I’d just like to point out that all the talk of the magnificent economic growth due to free market capitalism is very shaky given the immense collision between state and business throughout the history of capitalism. From the beginning of the industrial revolution to the present day the state acted to protect the biggest firms and those firms acted through the state to protect themselves from competitors. I say this as someone who supports free markets.

 

[Ender]

However, I’m trying to figure out what the pope is saying in this document.

He opposes some kind of economic system which his translator has called “trickle-down”.
There is no reason to presume - or accept the presumption of others - that this is a condemnation of capitalism, the free market, entrepreneurs, Reaganism, the Ryan budget, the Tea Party, or conservative economic policies in general.

Where has the pope demanded “safeguards”? Where has the pope declared free market capitalism plus charity to be insufficient? What sin is being committed by those who give freely of their resources and time but refuse to steal from the rich to give to the poor?

The correct answers are: nowhere, nowhere, and none.

Ender

 

[KSU]

As an aside, I’d just like to point out that all the talk of the magnificent economic growth due to free market capitalism is very shaky given the immense collision between state and business throughout the history of capitalism… I say this as someone who supports free markets.

That’s not all bad, and it exists because any state–free or Socialist–knows that business is the lifeblood of its economy.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

He opposes some kind of economic system which his translator has called “trickle-down”.
There is no reason to presume - or accept the presumption of others - that this is a condemnation of capitalism, the free market, entrepreneurs, Reaganism, the Ryan budget, the Tea Party, or conservative economic policies in general.
The correct answers are: nowhere, nowhere, and none.

I do hope that you are right. I am challenging anyone to show otherwise.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Isn’t that what Robin Hood did? We can discuss real economic policies or historical/mythical figures…which do you prefer?

By some accounts, yes. By other acconts, no.

So is Pope Francis calling up on us to do the same as Robin Hood (supposedly) did? Is he demanding that we vote for politicians who promise to do similarly through the organs of the state? If some Sherwood Forest townsman refused to aid Robin Hood in his quest, what sin is he committing?

You see unwilling to confront the questions I have posed. Have I been unclear in any way?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Thank you for pointing this out. The contrast between the popular image of Reagan and his actual policies always surprises me.

As an aside, I’d just like to point out that all the talk of the magnificent economic growth due to free market capitalism is very shaky given the immense collision between state and business throughout the history of capitalism. From the beginning of the industrial revolution to the present day the state acted to protect the biggest firms and those firms acted through the state to protect themselves from competitors. I say this as someone who supports free markets.

Very shaky? It, or a somewhat modified version of it prevails in the First World, which is one of the reasons the First World is not the Second or Third World.

So what if there has been a collision between the state and business? Sometimes the state protects businesses. Sometimes it and businesses fight (they do lots of that) and sometimes they leave each other alone. It is to the credit of both in the First World that they dance warily and at arm’s length most of the time.

This world is nothing but a struggle from beginning to end. Always was, always will be.

 

[StudentMI]

That’s not all bad, and it exists because any state–free or Socialist–knows that business is the lifeblood of its economy.

It is not always bad. But it does show that insisting on governmental protection for one group and not for another is hypocritical. In addition, it has been done quite often to the detriment of communities and nations. The concern is rarely upon the well-being of society, and more often upon the monopolistic profit of the firm or firms under protection. As I said, I am in favor of free markets, but I want free markets for all. Not socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor as some author put it.

I would also like to state that the many documents you quoted showing Church teaching on socialism also contain approval given to state actions many American conservatives would not approve of. Just read the entirety of Quadragesimo Anno, or article 48 in Centesimus Annus. Church teaching cannot be reduced to the regrettable simplicity of American politics.

 

[StudentMI]

Very shaky? It, or a somewhat modified version of it prevails in the First World, which is one of the reasons the First World is not the Second or Third World.

I said nothing to contradict this.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I would also like to state that the many documents you quoted showing Church teaching on socialism also contain approval given to state actions many American conservatives would not approve of. Just read the entirety of Quadragesimo Anno, or article 48 in Centesimus Annus. Church teaching cannot be reduced to the regrettable simplicity of American politics.

One must be very careful to distinguish approval from requirement. To say that the Church approves of certain political practices without requireing is equivalent, for all practical purposes, to saying that the Church is not taking a dogmatic or even official position on the matter. If the Church disapproved of all allternatives to state action then we could say that it requires state action and not simply that it approves of it.

Insofar as the Church has not taken a posiiton on the matter it is left as a prudential question for the laity and as an open matter for academic study. That doesn’t mean that there is not a true and correct answer, only that the Church does not pretend to offer it.

 

[StudentMI]

One must be very careful to distinguish approval from requirement. To say that the Church approves of certain political practices without requireing is equivalent, for all practical purposes, to saying that the Church is not taking a dogmatic or even official position on the matter. If the Church disapproved of all allternatives to state action then we could say that it requires state action and not simply that it approves of it.

Insofar as the Church has not taken a posiiton on the matter it is left as a prudential question for the laity and as an open matter for academic study. That doesn’t mean that there is not a true and correct answer, only that the Church does not pretend to offer it.

I would agree with most of this. However article 48 of Centesimus Annie does say the state has a “duty”:

Rather, the State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis.

The word duty is something I find interesting. Regardless however my main point in what I said in what you quoted is simply to make note of what Church teaching does and does not allow for. Too often in American politics there is a tendency to see anything involving state action in the economy as socialism. Just look at the reaction to Evangelii Gaudium. When that tendency is mixed with Church teachings on socialism there is the habit of simplifying the depth of Church documents. It is why I said somewhere in this thread, in response to someone saying you can “call it what you like: socialism, liberalism, nanny state, etc.” (quoting from memory), that in Church teaching its not a matter of call it what you will.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I would agree with most of this. However article 48 of Centesimus Annie does say the state has a “duty”:

The word duty is something I find interesting. Regardless however my main point in what I said in what you quoted is simply to make note of what Church teaching does and does not allow for. Too often in American politics there is a tendency to see anything involving state action in the economy as socialism. Just look at the reaction to Evangelii Gaudium. When that tendency is mixed with Church teachings on socialism there is the habit of simplifying the depth of Church documents. It is why I said somewhere in this thread, in response to someone saying you can “call it what you like: socialism, liberalism, nanny state, etc.” (quoting from memory), that in Church teaching its not a matter of call it what you will.

I think this is more in the nature of advocating Keynesian-style or monetarist stimulation than supporting a welfare state. I think that is a mistake startign after “by”. The state can best sustain business activities by providing a reliable legal framework and otherwise not getting involved. But I would guess that this was more in the nature of repeating mainstream economic theory than an endorsement of the welfare state.

I do think it’s fair to say that Catholics have always looked with suspicion upon the “destructive” side of capitalistic creative destruction. When recessions or even depressions occur it’s tempting to mitigate them by proping up failing businesses or industries rather than to allow the painful restructuring to work through. This is ironic given the emphasis in Christianity upon taking up the cross and bearing suffering for the greater good.

 

[StudentMI]

I think this is more in the nature of advocating Keynesian-style or monetarist stimulation than supporting a welfare state. I think that is a mistake startign after “by”. The state can best sustain business activities by providing a reliable legal framework and otherwise not getting involved. But I would guess that this was more in the nature of repeating mainstream economic theory than an endorsement of the welfare state.

The point is that Church teaching allows for such things and that they do not constitute socialism.