Should Catholics support a One World global economic plan?

[seabird3579]

Anyone who has had at least one eye and one ear open in the past 10 years knows that this world is quickly heading to a globalized one world economic plan.

My question for discussion is, does the Church have any teachings in this regard? Are all nations to be treated equally regardless of their say, “human rights” abuses, etc…? Should countries of the world be supporting nations through the purchase of their products, who are notoriously known for, paying slave wages? These issues are on the forefront everyday, does the Church speak with one voice on these matters?

 

[seabird3579]

Are there at least any Catholic theologians who can comment on the Church’s teachings in this area? Has Pope Benedict spoken on the issue either as Pope or as Cardinal Ratzinger?

I’m trying to decide where to ‘draw the line.’ There are countries in the world who are large economic players and they have atrocious human rights grievances. Yet, I rarely hear any instruction in this area. Any idea why?

Truthfully, I would rather a priest give a “harsh” homily and call all of us to greater holiness, than gloss over things and try to remain politically and socially correct.

…though the social justice issues are somewhat politically incorrect to discuss with the “free trade” global economics crowd. They seem to develop a rash when this issue comes up, papal direction would help a lot.

 

[Eileen_T]

seabird3579:

Are there at least any Catholic theologians who can comment on the Church’s teachings in this area? Has Pope Benedict spoken on the issue either as Pope or as Cardinal Ratzinger?

I’m trying to decide where to ‘draw the line.’ There are countries in the world who are large economic players and they have atrocious human rights grievances. Yet, I rarely hear any instruction in this area. Any idea why?

Truthfully, I would rather a priest give a “harsh” homily and call all of us to greater holiness, than gloss over things and try to remain politically and socially correct.

…though the social justice issues are somewhat politically incorrect to discuss with the “free trade” global economics crowd. They seem to develop a rash when this issue comes up, papal direction would help a lot.

When a priest gives a clear and authoritative homily that does not gloss over things, and calls us to greater holiness, he risks being censored by his bishop. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=101424

On the other hand, we have the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops charity, Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace, publically endorsing the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the Sierra Club, the David Suzuki Foundation, KAIROS Canada, Greenpeace, who have strong pro-abortion and depopulationist agendas.

I strongly suspect that a One World global economy would enforce those agendas.

 

[mosher]

If you read the documents of the Church on social justice from Rerum Novarum to Laborem Excergens you will find what you are looking for. It seem that at least John Paul II was in favor of globalization. The reason for this is simply because if the wealth of one country is spent in a poor country then in time the poor country becomes wealthier. This is why the so called “out-sourcing” of jobs from the US to other countries is not a bad thing but is rather a good practice for the world as a whole.

I think that we need to take great care when we look at third world economic issues. It is not responsible to claim that these countries give nearly slave wages to their people. A friend of mine is a Franciscan who opened a friary in Honduras. In the area that the friary was built an American company built what some in the US would call a “sweat shop.” What those people in the US don’t understand, he would say, is that those near slave wages that the company was paying them made them middle to upper middle class in their country. The company had to be careful to not pay them an American wage or else it would have plunged the country into Civil War because it would have caused a radical shift in economic status in the country. Rather the process must be slow and careful in order to not cause great inflation and to not cause war and at the same time provide a wage that is good for the work that is done according to that nations economic level.

International economics is tricky and if too much prosperity is given too fast it is like giving a severely dehydrated man a glass of water. Instead of helping him it may just kill him.

 

[seabird3579]

Thanks Eileen T and Mosher for your responses. I just have a few thoughts about both comments.

First, Eileen it does appear that the Holy Father supports globalization at least at an economic level to some degree. He’s obviously looking at the charity that it provides for the underprivileged and considers it in keeping with the gospel. However, and I have yet to read the documents that Mosher sites, I wonder if the Holy Father has expounded on what would happen to Catholicism in general if we truly became a One World government? Would the Catholic Church itself soon after be “censored” for say, intolerance of abortions, etc…? Where would this One World rule stop? Surely, it would not resemble the American Constitution, the United Nations was formed in the likeness of the former Soviet Union. It will be intrinsically more and more oppressive, the more power and sanction it gains around the world.

Second, Mosher it does sound as though American corporations do raise the standard of living in nations like Honduras, but I do wonder why the Honduran government doesn’t attempt to enact laws that would raise the lifestyle of their own citizens.

Corporations are opportunists in this instance. I believe their goal is a high profit margin with as little investment as possible. This attitude alone goes against basic christian beliefs. I personally don’t believe most corporations would offer to make community improvements to provide clean drinking water, good plumbing, proper waste disposal and health benefits to its workers in third world countries, they are opportunists, not humanitarians. This is what’s intrinsically evil about what’s going on. As soon as the workers’ health begins to fail and they are no longer “useful” these businesses will move on, I have no doubt. Their ends justifies the means is not a christian principle.

Some how, some way, christians and people of good will are going to have to find a way to hold these companies accountable and make them play by humanitarian means. This is why I ask, should christians “support” products that are from ill-gotten means?

If these companies were the type that “cared” about their workers, they would have stayed in America and paid a Living Wage, something a man could support his family on in a frugal manner; instead, they looked for a better opportunity where they weren’t required to part with their ‘pot of gold.’

I will look forward to hearing Pope Benedict’s pronouncements in the future addressing the issue.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I’m all for globalization of economics under a free trade capitalistic system. Freedom of trade enterprise begets freedom of religion and freedom of expression. These are freedom’s wholly consistent, compatible and in fact critical to God’s gift of free will.

On the other hand, I’m wholly opposed to globalization of politics. The more central politics becomes the less free it becomes. And as it becomes less free, it becomes an obstacle for freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of movement (the ability for the oppressed to search out an environment more conducive to their free self-expression. Oppression is de facto incompatible with God’s gift of free will.

I know that people will talk about the abuses and injustices that come from raw capitalism. However, in raw capitalism, individuals are free (in fact called by God) to undertake Christian corporal acts of mercy and charity to mitigate these abuses and injustices. It is in these acts we fulfill our Gospel calling to feed the hungry, comfort the afflicted, etc. When these “responsibilities” are undertaken and fulfilled by a Godless government, they cease to be Christian acts (regardless of the motives of their political advocates) and deny our INDIVIDUAL responsibility to perform these acts.

I have a real life example of how a Godless state is wholly incapable of solving difficult social justice issues (isn’t this what Jesus taught- without God, nothing is possible but with God, everything is possible). My state has a significant challenge regarding our Native Americans (alcohol, child, spouse abuse and poverty). If you were to ask ten tribal leaders, ten tribal members, ten government bureaucrats involved in tribal issues, and ten concerned non-Native citizens knowledgeable about the solutions, you’d get 40 different solutions (who has the wisdom to decide which is best besides God). However, all 40 would agree that the only universal positive force in the problems are private (primarily religious) entities engaged in what us Catholics would call corporal works of charity and mercy.

In short, Jesus promised that we would always have the poor and oppressed among us. No utopian political philosophy can solve the problem that he promised would only be remediated in His kingdom. Jesus then admonished is as individuals to go forth and preach/live the Gospel.

Please don’t interpret my views to mean that I don’t believe that the government can’t be involved and positive contributors. However, in the problem I discuss above, there is a meaningful consensus among both Native and non-Native citizens in my state that the federal government has not been overall a positive force in the solution but rather a negative contributor to the problem. If the federal government of the US can’t be a positive force, who can rationally advocate that an even farther removed government can solve local problems of injustice and suffering? I believe that the solution will come from more local decisions and actions of individuals and governments w/o involvement and interference from more remote governments and individuals.

 

[seabird3579]

Orionthehunter:

I’m all for globalization of economics under a free trade capitalistic system. Freedom of trade enterprise begets freedom of religion and freedom of expression. These are freedom’s wholly consistent, compatible and in fact critical to God’s gift of free will.

Well, there’s no proof of that. It is only your assumption, your hope that free trade would beget freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

But what would happen if in one religion, expressing its outrage of the “evils” of free trade, it gets shut down and oppressed, to benefit free trade of course?

You see, it isn’t all that black and white. In fact, given the huge backlash against people who speak up against free trade, we could assume that those who oppose this speech would ban it, and of course, they’ll have the capital to do it with, won’t they?

 

[jman507]

I would think that a one world government would be everybit as bad as a free reign capitalism. There needs to be some government to be able to regulate trade. At the same time people should be free to have their own property and not have it on loan from the state. The more local the governance the better it will be at figuring out problems and dealing with them. The more people have ownership of a modest amount of property and governance the easier it will be to take care of problems.

 

[Orionthehunter]

seabird3579:

Well, there’s no proof of that. It is only your assumption, your hope that free trade would beget freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

But what would happen if in one religion, expressing its outrage of the “evils” of free trade, it gets shut down and oppressed, to benefit free trade of course?

You see, it isn’t all that black and white. In fact, given the huge backlash against people who speak up against free trade, we could assume that those who oppose this speech would ban it, and of course, they’ll have the capital to do it with, won’t they?

Backlash or even being shut down because people boycott a religion or business so long as it isn’t accompanied by the power of the State to imprision, fine or otherwise restrict action is only free speech from the other side. We can’t applaud one’s free speech and then advocate that another’s free speech should be prohibited.

Secondly, regarding your opening comment about “proof”, free trade is by definition a free expression. Restrictions on trade are by definition are restrictions on free expression. In a related matter, if the government has the power to restrict expression in trade, they have the power to restrict religious expression.

If you can name a single example in history when a strong, centralized government that practiced restrictions on commerce didn’t also restrict religion, we can have a debate on the parameters and mechanisms for insuring that this strong government restricting economic expression will not be able to restrict religious expression.

In the meantime, it is fully rational to assume that a government that refrains (or is unable via Consitutional/Rule of Law restrictions on government power) from restricting economic expression will have certainly less capacity to restrict religious expression. Keep in mind that the power to tax and regulate economic behavior will restrict personal behavior which will then inherently have an impact on religious expression. This is born out by the fact that the nations of the world with the most free economies also have the most free religious expression and the nations with the least free economies have the least free religious expression.

 

[ChrisR246]

seabird3579:

it does sound as though American corporations do raise the standard of living in nations like Honduras, but I do wonder why the Honduran government doesn’t attempt to enact laws that would raise the lifestyle of their own citizens.

Because an increase in standard of living can not be legislated. It comes about through economies of sclae, specialization, capital investment, competition, etc ie a free market system

Corporations are opportunists in this instance.

Corporations are businesses with hundred and eventhousands of owners. The only goal they can all agree on is maximizing profit. Certainly one would be free to form a business with a different goal. The hard part is getting other Christians to put their money where their mouth is and support it. And even if they did, you could very easily throw a local economy into turmoil

I believe their goal is a high profit margin with as little investment as possible.

I’d say that was the same goal of every individual consumer, too. Very few people are willing to actually pay more for a product than they have to.

Consider big bad Walmart. Everybody bemoans how Walmart drives local businesses out of business in small town America. Walmart doesn’t drive them out of business. The nieghbors who’d rather pay Walmart’s lower prices drive the small businesses out.

I personally don’t believe most corporations would offer to make community improvements to provide clean drinking water, good plumbing, proper waste disposal and health benefits to its workers in third world countries, they are opportunists, not humanitarians.

The residents who have these new jobs can save and invest in these improvements.

If these companies were the type that “cared” about their workers, they would have stayed in America and paid a Living Wage, something a man could support his family on in a frugal manner;

Wages are simply a part of the cost of a product. Other Americans were not/are not willing to pay the price for products that would support those wages.

 

[estesbob]

No!

 

[mosher]

seabird3579:

Second, Mosher it does sound as though American corporations do raise the standard of living in nations like Honduras, but I do wonder why the Honduran government doesn’t attempt to enact laws that would raise the lifestyle of their own citizens.

Very simply put, in most third world countries the governors are not there for the sake of the governed but are there for the sake of themselves. The Honduran government does not have the desire nor the inclination to help their native people improve their situation because then those common folks would have the same status as the political leaders. This type of corruption is normal in these types of countries. The difference with America is that while there is obviously corruption it is not because of financial gain to the political leader. Most of our elected and appointed representatives in the government have given up jobs that would pay on average five times what they make in public service. I think this helps to keep some corruption in check

seabird3579:

Corporations are opportunists in this instance. I believe their goal is a high profit margin with as little investment as possible. This attitude alone goes against basic christian beliefs. I personally don’t believe most corporations would offer to make community improvements to provide clean drinking water, good plumbing, proper waste disposal and health benefits to its workers in third world countries, they are opportunists, not humanitarians. This is what’s intrinsically evil about what’s going on. As soon as the workers’ health begins to fail and they are no longer “useful” these businesses will move on, I have no doubt. Their ends justifies the means is not a christian principle.

This is where I take issue with what you said. The myth of the Big Evil Corporation died with the RICO statutes. All major US corporatons know that they cannot do business if they are exploiting people in other countries.

Corporations are made of people like you and me. Of course they have to answer to stock holders and so yes it is an opportunity to go to a country where they can pay comparitively low wages in perspective to the US. However, they are paying more than a living wage to those people in their country.

Further, the concept of a living wage in the first place is not consistant with our Catholic understanding of morality. This is why I have rigorously opposed a hike in the minimum wage. We have to remember which is the greater virtue - giving a man a fish or teaching a man to fish. This is why Socialism is not consistant with our faith as Catholics. It has been American corporations that have helped secure peace, freedom and economic prosperity around the world. While major corporations of other countries may not hold themselves to such practices it is not the case of the US companies.

 

[seabird3579]

mosher:

This is where I take issue with what you said. The myth of the Big Evil Corporation died with the RICO statutes. All major US corporatons know that they cannot do business if they are exploiting people in other countries…

Well, now they simply get big oppressive governments such as China to do their dirty work, they like oppressive governments, its good for “profits” and stockholders like profits. Christian stockholders don’t like these kinds of companies, but plenty of stockholders don’t really care one way or the other, gold is gold as far as they are concerned.

mosher:

Further, the concept of a living wage in the first place is not consistant with our Catholic understanding of morality. This is why I have rigorously opposed a hike in the minimum wage. We have to remember which is the greater virtue - giving a man a fish or teaching a man to fish. This is why Socialism is not consistant with our faith as Catholics. It has been American corporations that have helped secure peace, freedom and economic prosperity around the world. While major corporations of other countries may not hold themselves to such practices it is not the case of the US companies.

I don’t know what catechism or encyclicals you’ve been reading, but All of the ones I’ve been reading deal precisely with a living wage. They even use the phrase living wage.

The Church is very much against the abuse and “use” of human beings for profit motives. This would be referred to in different teachings as “using human beings for utilitarian purposes”.

For that matter, RICO has to do with American laws and does not have to do with teachings dealing with fair labor practices as explained in some encyclicals.

Not all American laws, though legal, are always moral. The abortion rights laws should be proof of that.

You mentioned the phrase, “giving a man a fish, or teaching a man to fish.” Well, these predatorial corporations don’t teach a thing. They are there to use the indigenent people for their talents and labor at a very cheap cost, use them up and move on.

They actually would be admired IF they built the community up with needed clean water, plumbing, proper waste disposal, and built schools — but they don’t.

The issue is the bottomline. The profit margin matters more. So it’s quite convenient when there is an oppressive government to deny the people proper labor conditions and a living wage.

U.S. labor laws are “not compatible” with their *bottomline * mentality, so they go to third world countries. This attitude is not acceptable for Catholics desiring to live out their Faith.

 

[seabird3579]

Greed and insecurity are very powerful motives.

**The love of money is the root of all evil. ** If a company feels that it must make humonguous profits every year (billions of dollars) and then tries to sell the idea that low wages are necessary, only a fool would believe their smoke and mirrors. It flys in the face of common sense, no matter how many times they repeat the lie.

What is insecurity? Insecurity basically says, “I don’t trust God, I trust me.” “I must make myself (and my company) safe for any future disaster.” Like Scripture says, “without Faith it is impossible to please God.”

Greed says I (or my company, my investments, etc.) must make more money than they did the year before, with the least amount of investment.

There is absolutely nothing Christian about the above statement. **Greed is one of the seven deadly sins. ** And why is it deadly? Because it has the capability of killing our relationship with God and denying us eternal life.

"So what does it matter a man if he gain the whole world and lose his very soul in the process?"

 

[seabird3579]

jman507:

I would think that a one world government would be everybit as bad as a free reign capitalism. There needs to be some government to be able to regulate trade. At the same time people should be free to have their own property and not have it on loan from the state. The more local the governance the better it will be at figuring out problems and dealing with them. The more people have ownership of a modest amount of property and governance the easier it will be to take care of problems.

I agree, jman.

 

[seabird3579]

Orionthehunter:

Secondly, regarding your opening comment about “proof”, free trade is by definition a free expression. Restrictions on trade are by definition are restrictions on free expression. In a related matter, if the government has the power to restrict expression in trade, they have the power to restrict religious expression…

IMO, you are comparing apples and oranges here.
Governments have the right to restrict immoral behaviour. They do it all the time, they are known as civil laws. That is why a civilized country has “labor laws.” However, it is not the same for the free expression of religion.

At least in the American Constitution, the free expression of one’s religion is known as an inalienable right from God. There is no “inalienable right from God” to have free trade with no moral restrictions — such as a living wage and healthy working conditions. No such right exists, no matter how many times lobbyists try to get lawmakers to “write it into” the bill of rights.

The monetary profits of free trade would only benefit corporations with little regard for the employee *if * Civil laws did not prevent their total abuse of employees.

In conclusion, there is no* Right * to free trade. All trade must come under the laws of the country in which they operate. But there is an inalienable right to free expression of religion.

 

[seabird3579]

mosher:

Most of our elected and appointed representatives in the government have given up jobs that would pay on average five times what they make in public service. I think this helps to keep some corruption in check .

Actually, I think they are able to give up high paying jobs to serve as congressional representatives because they are moral people. They’re not doing it to make money. That is what keeps the corruption in check, their morality, and the fact that the U.S. has some pretty tough white collar criminal laws on the books.

 

[seabird3579]

Orionthehunter:

In short, Jesus promised that we would always have the poor and oppressed among us. No utopian political philosophy can solve the problem that he promised would only be remediated in His kingdom. Jesus then admonished is as individuals to go forth and preach/live the Gospel…

The Utopian philosophy that I’m talking about are *christian principles put into action. *

Surely you don’t believe Jesus was implying that we not help the poor, just because they will always be with us.

In order to believe that you would have to jump a lot of *major * moral hurdles and, disregard the thousands of other teachings in the Bible where Jesus and others proclaim it is our duty to assist the poor.

Like I’ve said, Greed is a powerful motivator – if we give into it, it will make us believe things that just can’t be justified.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Part 2

From Seabird: Well, now they simply get big oppressive governments such as China to do their dirty work, they like oppressive governments, its good for “profits” and stockholders like profits. Christian stockholders don’t like these kinds of companies, but plenty of stockholders don’t really care one way or the other, gold is gold as far as they are concerned.

I don’t buy products of companies that use what I consider exploitive practices or make a substantial % of their money from immoral products (porn for example) and I don’t invest in them. However, it is grossly simple to say that manufacturing in China is immoral. Unless you somehow think that the Chinese people are inferior to white people, the workers in these Chinese factories love the opportunities they now have. If we ever want to have economic justice for these people too, we need to give them economic opportunites. Furthermore, there are many who believe that political justice in China will be a by-product of them developing their economy (in essence, making them capitalists will ultimately make them free). You may disagree and you have your right to your opinion but you are “bearing false witness” if you characterize in a generalization that the people using Chinese manufacturing or buying those products are being “exploitive.”

from seabird: Governments have the right to restrict immoral behaviour. They do it all the time, they are known as civil laws. That is why a civilized country has “labor laws.” However, it is not the same for the free expression of religion.

Absolutely. However, you seem to imply that economic activity w/ the goal of profits as immoral. I couldn’t disagree more. I run my business to make profits and I do so always conscious of my obligations to my Lord. This is one way I am being a good steward of my blessings- all of which are a gift from God. I’ve been in business for 20+ years and by a very large preponderance, the majority of the people I’ve dealt with have been moral, honest people running their business w/ integrity.

from seabird: The monetary profits of free trade would only benefit corporations with little regard for the employee if Civil laws did not prevent their total abuse of employees.

Profits benefit stockholders. Stockholders of public corporations are retirement plans and individuals. Stockholders of private corporations are individuals. And it is with these gains, we are able to do God’s work by supporting charities.

from seabird: The Utopian philosophy that I’m talking about are christian principles put into action.

Surely you don’t believe Jesus was implying that we not help the poor, just because they will always be with us.

In order to believe that you would have to jump a lot of major moral hurdles and, disregard the thousands of other teachings in the Bible where Jesus and others proclaim it is our duty to assist the poor.

I agree. That is my point. Did you read what I said? Governments are tools like corporations. While they can be tools for good, they can be tools for evil. In fact, the stronger and more repressive they become (especially when they restrict economic activity), they become more evil. Except for tiny exceptions where the country is small and has a very homogenous populations, there has yet to be a single one in history that as it grew more intrusive into economic activity didn’t become more intrusive into free expression. Small governments w/ limited power are the best protection we have for free expression of religion.

From seabird: Like I’ve said, Greed is a powerful motivator – if we give into it, it will make us believe things that just can’t be justified.

Greed is just one of the deadly sins. Pride, Lust, Sloth, Envy are also equally damaging to our souls. If we give into any of them, we are at risk of loss of eternity with God. But please, you are bearing false witness when you make broad generalizations that everyone in business who strives to make a profit are being greedy. Some of the most generous people I know (in giving their time, talent and treasure) are business owners or corporate executives.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Seabird, there is so much to reply to.

In summary, my main problem is your belief that corporations are to be held to moral principles like people. God gave us His revelation to guide us and not the animals or the tools we use when we practice our dominion over His creation. Corporations are just a tool. Just as there is nothing inherently immoral about a gun or even the internet, there is nothing inherently immoral about corporations. Corporations are formed for one and only one purpose- to aggregate capital, labor, and intellectual property for the purpose of providing a good or service of value to its customers in such a way that the investors can make a return on their investment. Underlying all of your comments, you seem to imply that profits are bad. Without profits, there would be no jobs, no economic opportunity, and ultimately no standard of living worthy of God’s loved ones.

Now to some specifics:

From Seabird: I don’t know what catechism or encyclicals you’ve been reading, but All of the ones I’ve been reading deal precisely with a living wage. They even use the phrase living wage.

The Church is very much against the abuse and “use” of human beings for profit motives. This would be referred to in different teachings as “using human beings for utilitarian purposes”.

I couldn’t agree more. However, it is me as an employer called to pay a “living wage”. But a simpleton would define that only by the wages. More than once, I’ve “hired” an intern for no pay because the primary “pay” I gave to these young people was the chance to learn skills and knowledge that they were able to parlay into greater economic earnings for somebody else. If I were required to pay them when they were producing nothing of real value to my business, I wouldn’t have been able to afford to do it. I have a loyalty to my other employees and customers to run my business profitably so we can survive. To do so would be an abrogation of my responsibilities to the people working for my company who depend on it for their living.

See the next post for Part 2. I apologize for hte length. Just wanted to respond to all the points since my last visit to the site.