Ratzinger/Benedict on Economics and Catholicism

[Bubba_Switzler]

I found this interesting quote:

In the attempt to describe the constellation of a dialogue between Church and economy , I have discovered yet a fourth aspect. It may be seen in the well-known remark made by Theodore Roosevelt in 1912: “I believe that the assimilation of the Latin-American countries to the United States will be long and difficult as long as these countries remain Catholic.” Along the same lines, in a lecture in Rome in 1969, Rockefeller recommended replacing the Catholics there with other Christians 8 — an undertaking which, as is well known, is in full swing. In both these remarks, religion — here a Christian denomination — is presupposed as a socio-political, and hence as an economic-political factor, which is fundamental for the development of political structures and economic possibilities. This reminds one of Max Weber’s thesis about the inner connection between capitalism and Calvinism , between the formation of the economic order and the determining religious idea.

acton.org/publications/occasionalpapers/publicat_occasionalpapers_ratzinger.php

While it was not the focus of the talk, it is a question that has always tugged at me: why is the Catholicsphere so poor and the Anglosphere so wealthy? Do Protestants know something that Catholics don’t?

I really like the Father Sirico’s Acton Institute but they seem to be a lone voice in the wilderness.*

 

[AlwaysAsking]

While it was not the focus of the talk, it is a question that has always tugged at me: why is the Catholicsphere so poor and the Anglosphere so wealthy? Do Protestants know something that Catholics don’t?

I wouldn’t know how to respond to the rest of your post, but I have some ideas for you here:

The first church I went to, an evangelical church, made no secret of the fact that they had targeted an affluent demographic from the very beginning. The church had to look a certain way, etc. The explanation being that people with money deserve to be saved, too; and they will go to a church which makes them comfortable.

No kiddin’.

Who am I to say that they were really in it for the tithe money?

While I went to that church I carefully combed through Ross to find quietly tasteful designer clothing and drove a used luxury car. Believe it or not, I really don’t care about clothes and cars, or trying to impress people; but I am weak enough to try to blend in with my surroundings and ‘look respectable’. I’m happy that I’ve moved to another town and I can kind of relax now.

All the bible churches I’ve gone to pour money into their buildings and sound systems with the rationale that if the unsaved find the church appealing, they will come back. I guess when you’re looking for a church, I don’t think, “hm! Let’s look up all the little hole-in-the-wall churches and see what they’re up to?” Though little churches seem to look to big churches as role models.

Lavish amenities (multimedia presentations instead of bulletin announcements, espresso bars, convention-center chic) also serves to draw tithing Christians from other churches. I really can’t stand this attitude, but that’s why evangelical mega-churches are popping up all over, and they do lead people to Christ. So I still don’t know what to make of the shallow, showoff tendencies of churches.

But avarice is still a failing, last time I checked; so if your fellow parishioners have other priorities, you should probably be thankful.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Hmmm. “avarice: excessive or insatiable desire for wealth or gain”

Even with respect to the particular part of my post that you quoted you seem to be a bit offtopic.

The Catholicsphere and Anglosphere parted ways almost 500 years ago when Henry the VIII created the Church of England in s schism from Rome. At that time, the Catholicsphere was relatively wealthy and the Anglosphere, consisting only of England, an economic backwater of Europe. It was not until Elizabeth I that England even came close to being on par.

Over the centuries England, and her colonies, particularly the United States, prospered while Catholic countries stagnated and collapsed (see e.g. Spain and Austria-Hungary).

Among the theories that historians have offered is that 1) Catholicism is inherently authoritarian and, hence, Catholics tend to be more inclined to favor dictators and the like. I’m skeptical of that.

Perhaps the answer is, as you suggest, Catholics (at some level) equate economic progress with sinful avarice and don’t want to lift themsleves out of poverty.

But if poverty is a virtue, why all the fuss about “social justice”?

 

[AlwaysAsking]

Fair enough.

Actually I was kind of assuming that you had heard of that theory. So I’m glad that was the case.

So 500 years later, Christians still tend to go to the churches they find most appealing. I guess I’m suggesting, in real life examples, that it’s not much of a riddle.

How does this relate to social justice? I don’t know that it does. Outside of totalitarian governments, or political instability, you usually find wealth where people have put the most effort into acquiring money --and education. …Self-promotion, if you will, in a society which supports self-promotion.

Catholics, it seems, don’t really have a problem with immigrating to countries which provide more opportunities. So maybe your question is about governments which support Catholicism? If you don’t believe that Catholic countries are (or were, historically) more authoritarian, why not? Or culturally speaking: why wasn’t taking a siesta considered sinfully lazy?

Sorry! I hope your question gets better responses than mine.

 

[SamDash]

why is the Catholicsphere so poor and the Anglosphere so wealthy?

I don’t think religion is much of a factor. Are you not neglecting parts of the “Anglosphere” like India and much of Africa?

 

[Trader]

If you admit that economics (and maybe psycology but save that for another thread ) are really sciences, then we can depend on Church teaching that science and religion are never in opposition to each other. Science and religion both search for truth but the methods and scope are different.

The Catholic Church teaches “You shall not steal.” That presupposes the existence of private property. Economic systems that deny private property are contrary to church teaching, and not by chance, have proven to be distrastrous economically. In societies where great wealth is accumulated by a few who take from others without returning some equal benefit, the common good is ill served.

The Catholic Church also teaches respect for authority and that the family is the foundation of society. In countries where contracts and the rule of law are not respected, poverty abounds. In a country as rich as the United States the number one cause of poverty is the choice to disrepect marriage. I don’t know why that would suprise any Catholic. The contract of marriage is the most important of all human contracts. It was already a human good when Jesus elevated it to a sacrament.

The Catholic Church is certainly no get rich quick scheme. It just so happens that those who are faithful to the gospel also end up promoting both the individual and the common good. Neither greed nor lack of essential human needs are good theologically or economically.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I don’t think religion is much of a factor. Are you not neglecting parts of the “Anglosphere” like India and much of Africa?

The conventional defintion of “anglosphere” does not include India and Africa (for historical reasons beyond the scope of this discussion). See:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglosphere

Certainly if accept the above defintion of Anglosphere and we define the Catholicsphere as those countries where the Catholic Church has long held great influence then there is, at minum, a significant difference to be accounted for. Whether relgion is the cause is the question of this thread.

Why don’t you think religion is the cause of this difference? What would you suggest explains the difference?

Part of my question is this: why can’t the Catholic Church help Latin America out of poverty? (And, please, don’t point to Liberation Theology.) Why, for example, is Asia succeeding in getting itself out of poverty while Latin America falls back into the abyss once again?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The Catholic Church teaches “You shall not steal.” That presupposes the existence of private property. Economic systems that deny private property are contrary to church teaching, and not by chance, have proven to be distrastrous economically. In societies where great wealth is accumulated by a few who take from others without returning some equal benefit, the common good is ill served.

I am convinced by the Acton Institute (www.acton.org) that Catholicism and economic prosperity are at least compatible in theory. But the facts tell a different story.

The Catholic Church also teaches respect for authority and that the family is the foundation of society. In countries where contracts and the rule of law are not respected, poverty abounds. In a country as rich as the United States the number one cause of poverty is the choice to disrepect marriage. I don’t know why that would suprise any Catholic. The contract of marriage is the most important of all human contracts. It was already a human good when Jesus elevated it to a sacrament.

So why then are Catholic countries (e.g. Latin America) fertile to so many kleptocracies?

The Catholic Church is certainly no get rich quick scheme. It just so happens that those who are faithful to the gospel also end up promoting both the individual and the common good. Neither greed nor lack of essential human needs are good theologically or economically.

Surely you are not arguing that faithfulness to the gospel and promotion of common good are economic liabilities?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

How does this relate to social justice?

“Social Justice” is inherently avaristic, with envy thrown in for flavor. If the choice is between “social justice” and economic progress then you are simply choosing one flavor of avarism over another.

But if you begin by accepting that it is not a vice for people to seek to better themselves then the question becomes how is this best accomplished. History seems to show that the Anglosphere knows something that the Catholicsphere doesn’t.

 

[Trader]

Surely you are not arguing that faithfulness to the gospel and promotion of common good are economic liabilities?

Just the opposite. Being nominally Catholic does not mean you are faithfull to the gospel. Italian Catholics elected communists. A majority of Catholic Americans(although a minority of those who attend mass weekly) just voted for the most pro-abortion candidate in our history. Spanish monarchs for centuries justified slavery and the theory that all wealth belonged to the crown and was to be doled out to royal favorites as they saw fit.

A system where you can become rich by developing and marketing software that improves the lives of billions of people is good and just. A system where you become rich by flattering the king is not.

Countries where law depended on a single individual whether in Europe, Africa, Asia, or the Americas before the arrival of Europeans did not serve the economic interests of their people. It was a tremendous innovation for the Hebrews to say that even their king was subject to the law. They were never a great empire, but they survived as a people with an identity longer than any of the great empires that conquered them militarily.

In the American civil war, the side with the longer growing season and an unpaid labor force could not even feed itself. Denial of human rights to a large portion of a population is also terrible economics.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Just the opposite. Being nominally Catholic does not mean you are faithfull to the gospel. Italian Catholics elected communists. A majority of Catholic Americans(although a minority of those who attend mass weekly) just voted for the most pro-abortion candidate in our history. Spanish monarchs for centuries justified slavery and the theory that all wealth belonged to the crown and was to be doled out to royal favorites as they saw fit.

All, right, I agree that, at least in theory, being Catholic (being faithful to the Gospel) is not incompatible with economic progress. And this, by the way, was Ratzinger/Benedict’s claim that I quoted in the OP.

The problem is that, in practice, it is the more Catholic societies that were, for example, fertile grounds for kleptocracy. Is it that Catholics are less faithful than Anglo Protestants?

There are really two questions here: 1) What is the Catholic Church telling people in places like Latin America, and 2) If they are giving a positive message, why are they not being listened to?

On a related note, I read somewhere that Pope Benedict had indicated an appreciation for the American tradition of not using the state to promote religion (which is not the same as “seperation of church and state”). This was something of a reversal from criticisms from earlier Popes who had favored the European model of state-sponsored religion.

One argument is that, although the Church of England was state-sponsored, the English learned early on the futility of supressing other demoninations and that this pluralistic view became a social lesson in other areas with Americans taking the idea even further.

 

[mark_a]

[It may be seen in the well-known remark made by Theodore Roosevelt in 1912: “I believe that the assimilation of the Latin-American countries to the United States will be long and difficult as long as these countries remain Catholic.”

And their governments are trying harder than anyone to make this happen.
[/quote]

 

[Trader]

“Social Justice” is inherently avaristic, with envy thrown in for flavor. If the choice is between “social justice” and economic progress then you are simply choosing one flavor of avarism over another.

But if you begin by accepting that it is not a vice for people to seek to better themselves then the question becomes how is this best accomplished. History seems to show that the Anglosphere knows something that the Catholicsphere doesn’t.

I agree that “Social Justice” is often used as a cover for confusing equal opportunity with equal outcome. I do not believe in equal outcomes for unequal choices and neither does God. Both heaven and hell exist and our final outcome is determined by our choice to accept His will or not.

As far and Catholic and Anglo outcomes being different economicaly, the English were about as Catholic as any other European country when they moved to more democracy even before the Magna Carta in 1215. It is true they had numerous run-ins with the Papacy over temporal and religious matters, but so did other countries. It was greater participation in power with the rise of democracy that made a middle class possible. Don’t take this too far, because their economic and political power developed simultaneously.

Finally the British did advance economically from trading with their empire, but all that trade didn’t do much for the peoples they conquered. Their former colonies did a lot better when they could trade with the English as independent equals. It was probably a real shock to the Brits that they also benefited from trading with independent former colonies. Both sides in trade benefit from innovation that does not happen in a master/servant relationship.

 

[turtle18]

Catholicism draws poor people because its message is for everyone. It’s primary focus is salvation of your soul, whether rich or poor, good or bad. Of course this message of hope appeals to the impoverished because everyone is a sinner, rich & poor alike. The goal of the Catholic Church is to save souls, not to move people out of their socie-economic status. Social justice issues concern us helping the poor—brining the good news of the Gospel to them that despite their socie-economic status is life, they are saved. If you are poor, you might begin to think that God has favored the middle class & rich because all you can see is this life and what we have been blessed with materially. Social justice issues can never eliminate poverty–those who aim for this are really using this to advance their political agenda within the Church. We are called to help the poor by sharing our wealth with them, voluntarily, of our own accord, not through government measures. But our primary resonsibility is to save their souls first, provide material resources second.

Many Protestant demoninations believe their members have been graced with wealth & status as a blessing from God & that they “deserve” what they have been given by God because it is a reward for their Christian behavior/beliefs & hard work.

Catholics have always evangilized to poorer countries. Therefore, they have a larger presence in them.

 

[SamDash]

The conventional defintion of “anglosphere” does not include India and Africa (for historical reasons beyond the scope of this discussion). See:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglosphere

Certainly if accept the above defintion of Anglosphere and we define the Catholicsphere as those countries where the Catholic Church has long held great influence then there is, at minum, a significant difference to be accounted for. Whether relgion is the cause is the question of this thread.

Why don’t you think religion is the cause of this difference? What would you suggest explains the difference?

Part of my question is this: why can’t the Catholic Church help Latin America out of poverty? (And, please, don’t point to Liberation Theology.) Why, for example, is Asia succeeding in getting itself out of poverty while Latin America falls back into the abyss once again?

Thank you for the link. I had honestly never heard the term “Anglosphere” before.

I don’t believe that had England beaten Spain to Latin America that things would be much different.

That is why I mention the former British colonies in Africa which are predominantly Anglican in faith.

I have lived a good portion of my life in Latin America, and I just don’t know the answer. There is no reason why a country like Mexico, blessed with abundant natural resources, should not be prosperous. But the people keep electing thieves to govern them. Protestants have made large inroads there; prosperity has not.

Parts of Asia are embracing capitalism, while so much of Latin America is drifting back to the left. The Soviets really did a number on the place.

But you raise a good question. And I’m sure you’ll get much better insights than my non-answer.

I was born in Peru and have lived in Argentina, Venezuela, Uruguay and Mexico. The whole thing saddens me.

But I don’t believe that if the whole of the continent became entirely Protestant it’s economic outlook would improve a whit.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

But our primary resonsibility is to save their souls first, provide material resources second.

I would certainly be interested in discussing the relationship between these. I suspect a great part of the problem is in how this is viewed. If, for example, someone believed that economic progress was anathama to saving souls then they would certainly not favor choices that led to economic progress.

Many Protestant demoninations believe their members have been graced with wealth & status as a blessing from God & that they “deserve” what they have been given by God because it is a reward for their Christian behavior/beliefs & hard work.

But, again, remember that at the time of schism, Catholics were rich and Protestants were poor.

Catholics have always evangilized to poorer countries. Therefore, they have a larger presence in them.

I realize that this is a comforting thought but it doesn’t square with history overall.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I have lived a good portion of my life in Latin America, and I just don’t know the answer. There is no reason why a country like Mexico, blessed with abundant natural resources, should not be prosperous. But the people keep electing thieves to govern them. Protestants have made large inroads there; prosperity has not.

Then I would really like to hear more from you because you have lived it, I’ve only read about it.