The Dangers of the mindset of X Economic System improves the lives of the poor so we don't need to regulate it

[catholictiger]

With all of the economic talk that has come out about Pope Francis latest writing I have gotten in some discussions with people who say something along these lines. Unfettered capitalism is fine and we shouldn’t change it because it makes the lives of the poor better.

Let me try and describe the argument as best I can.

First of all they believe Capitalism is the best economic system for improving the lives of people this world has right now.
Second because of this anything that limits that system is immoral because it hurts the economic growth of the society.
so when people argue that we should limit capitalism to so call help the poor you are actually hurting the poor because you are making them worse off.
therefore capitalism should be able to run without any checks from anything because it improves the lives of the poor.

Now I’m sure no Catholic would ever be for this but I fear that there is a growing number of people in this country who would be ok with this argument.

Let me try and explain why this argument, while it sounds good can’t be a catholic position.

Let me first say yes the poor will be better off because of capitalism, I never disagree with this.
The problem with this argumentation is that you are talking about the poor in general and you are not looking at the conditions of every single human person.
Let’s use an example someone is homeless and there is a freeze warning where he lives, no matter how well off the system as a whole is that man will die if he isn’t helped. Now thankfully we have many people who would be willing to help. But the mindset that unchecked capitalism is ok because it will help improve the well being of the system and this is good for everyone, this mindset could very well be ok with letting this person die. Let’s say this person goes up to a hotel and says I’m freezing and I need a place to stay can I please stay the night. The hotel owner fearing that a homeless person coming into his hotel may cost him money, so he says sorry no I can’t help you. His mindset that I need to do what ever I can to improve my well being as a hotel owner and the betterment of this hotel would be willing to sacrifice the life of one homeless person for the betterment of everyone else.

Now in the Catholic Church we explain something called the common good. The common good is a society of the whole type thing but at the same time it can only be fully realized when every single individual has it fulfilled in their life. The common good is not fully realized when someone freezes to death in the cold and no-one is willing to help him. The common good is not realized when someone starves to death because no-one is willing to help him.

so to put it simply what I believe the mindset that what is most important is the economic growth of society leads to is being ok with people dying in the streets. Maybe if you ask someone if they believe this sure they won’t say no I don’t believe in that but the way they live their lives and their attitude to the poor does reflect it.

So thoughts?

 

[phil19034]

Capitalism is currently the best possible system.

But Unfettered Capitalism is evil.

Just like Unfettered Socialism is evil.

Both Captialism and Socialism are not evil in themselves. But when unchecked, they both become evil.

The extreme ends of the political and economic spectrums are always evil. As close to the center as possible is where we want to be.

Unfettered Captialism creates a society corrupted by Greed and Power.
Unfettered Socialism creates a society corrupted by Oppression and Sloth.

As Pope John Paul the Great said, the best society is a Capitialist Society with Strong Morals.

In the US, as society’s morals continue to slip, more & more greed takes its place.

 

[RPRPsych]

Unfettered Captialism creates a society corrupted by Greed and Power.
Unfettered Socialism creates a society corrupted by Oppression and Sloth.

As Pope John Paul the Great said, the best society is a Capitialist Society with Strong Morals.

In the US, as society’s morals continue to slip, more & more greed takes its place.

Very well said.

I’m always reminded of this lovely passage from Chesterton:

“Father Brown had been drawn into some of the debates, being in some sense called in on both sides. And as the Capitalists all reported that, to their positive knowledge, he was a Bolshevist; and as the Bolshevists all testified that he was a reactionary rigidly attached to bourgeois ideologies, it may be inferred that he talked a certain amount of sense without any appreciable effect on anybody.”

I’m sure Pope Francis would enjoy it.

 

[J_Peterson]

Capitalism is currently the best possible system.

But Unfettered Capitalism is evil.

Just like Unfettered Socialism is evil.

Both Captialism and Socialism are not evil in themselves. But when unchecked, they both become evil.

The extreme ends of the political and economic spectrums are always evil. As close to the center as possible is where we want to be.

Unfettered Captialism creates a society corrupted by Greed and Power.
Unfettered Socialism creates a society corrupted by Oppression and Sloth.

As Pope John Paul the Great said, the best society is a Capitialist Society with Strong Morals.

In the US, as society’s morals continue to slip, more & more greed takes its place.

Greed is not the result of imorality, it is imoral in itself.

 

[catholictiger]

Capitalism is currently the best possible system.

But Unfettered Capitalism is evil.

Just like Unfettered Socialism is evil.

Both Captialism and Socialism are not evil in themselves. But when unchecked, they both become evil.

The extreme ends of the political and economic spectrums are always evil. As close to the center as possible is where we want to be.

Unfettered Captialism creates a society corrupted by Greed and Power.
Unfettered Socialism creates a society corrupted by Oppression and Sloth.

As Pope John Paul the Great said, the best society is a Capitialist Society with Strong Morals.

In the US, as society’s morals continue to slip, more & more greed takes its place.

I like what you have said but what makes it evil?

sure ok we need to find a balance and everything but please explain yourself.

I don’t disagree with you in principle but I want to know what is going on.

 

[FAB]

Capitalism is currently the best possible system.

But Unfettered Capitalism is evil.

Just like Unfettered Socialism is evil.

Both Captialism and Socialism are not evil in themselves. But when unchecked, they both become evil.

The extreme ends of the political and economic spectrums are always evil. As close to the center as possible is where we want to be.

Unfettered Captialism creates a society corrupted by Greed and Power.
Unfettered Socialism creates a society corrupted by Oppression and Sloth.

As Pope John Paul the Great said, the best society is a Capitialist Society with Strong Morals.

In the US, as society’s morals continue to slip, more & more greed takes its place.

The pope said unfettered consumerism, warning against a society of people that are only looking out for themselves and ignoring those in need. Christ’s parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
It is not a condemnation of capitialsim, but a warning to turn from greed power and self Integument.

Deacon Frank

 

[JB_Dugan]

When I discuss “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the claim that it represents the best way to achieve “the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects individual rights, and that its ruling principle is: justice

Capitalism has created the highest standard of living ever known on earth. Compare any socialist, communist or collectivist economy to ours. The evidence is incontrovertible.
Remarkably, there are those who proclaim their desire to eliminate poverty and are loudest in denouncing capitalism. Man’s well-being is not their goal.

Capitalism does not tell people to suffer, but to pursue enjoyment and achievement, here, on earth—capitalism does not tell people to serve and sacrifice, but to produce and profit—capitalism does not preach passivity, humility, resignation, but independence, self-confidence, self-reliance—and, above all, capitalism does not permit anyone to expect or demand, to give or to take the unearned.

Capitalism has been called a system of greed—yet it is the system that raised the standard of living of its poorest citizens to heights no collectivist system has ever begun to equal. Young people of today, who have not seen it, find it hard to believe.

 

[JimG]

Advocating for a free market as the most effective economic system is fine. But advocating for a free market does not dispense any of us from practicing the requirements of the corporal works of mercy. Those are individual mandates, to be practiced by everyone, and also to be practiced corporately by the Church through its multitude of charities.

There is no contradiction in practicing the corporal works of mercy and advocating for a free market.

One may even advocate for governmental safety nets, though they are nearly always less effective and more wasteful to operate than Church enterprises. (That’s why I find it inexplicable that many federal policies in effect try to put Church social work and Church operated charities and hospitals and schools out of business.)

The poor are obviously better off living in South Korea than in North Korea.

 

[JB_Dugan]

JMJ

 

[WarriorQueen]

For myself, it is the out of balance system of capitalism that is wrong: we cater to business, and give them huge tax breaks, or they don’t have to pay any taxes “so that they will promote job growth” (this hasn’t worked) and while giving large corporations huge amounts of money (and most are already making record profits) the system takes away what little shredded safety net was still there, leaving the most vulnerable subject to starvation and homeless. The fact that Jesus said we would always have the poor should not be an excuse to abuse them and cause them additional pain. The way I see it, if I am really living as Jesus taught, that means doing what I can to help the poor, and follow Him. Getting things financially out of balance has already hurt our country, and those in high places are so busy making more money that they seem to have forgotten that eventually there will be no one to buy what they are selling, and no one to work for them. Some regulation is needed to help keep things balanced, for the good of all.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

There is no unfettered capitalism. This is generally an imaginary construct. States are powerful virtually everywhere today. A free market economy requires a legal framework, both criminal and civil, and courts able to enforce contracts. In contrast, many countries today suffer from crony capitalism. Corrupt governments collaborate with favored corporations to restrict free enterprise which would compete with the government favored corporations. This explains why the wealthiest corporations almost always support socialist politicians.

 

[St_Francis]

First, I want to point out that Socialism has been condemned in and of itself by more than one pope as violating the principle that people have the right to their labor. There is no such thing as a difference between fettered and unfettered socialism; socialism is government ownership of the means of production.

Second, free marketry unfettered will naturally devolve to crony capitalism. It must be fettered in more way than government prohibitions on fraud, violence, and theft. The whole point of FM is materialistic–it “allows” religion but does not pay an attention to it and certainly does not allow religious considerations to affect it as a system.

 

[WarriorQueen]

First, I want to point out that Socialism has been condemned in and of itself by more than one pope as violating the principle that people have the right to their labor. There is no such thing as a difference between fettered and unfettered socialism; socialism is government ownership of the means of production.

So many people have no understanding of socialism, that I am very happy to see you post a definition. The term has been tossed around without a good understanding of the actual meaning.

Second, free marketry unfettered will naturally devolve to crony capitalism. It must be fettered in more way than government prohibitions on fraud, violence, and theft. The whole point of FM is materialistic–it “allows” religion but does not pay an attention to it and certainly does not allow religious considerations to affect it as a system.

Thank you. Well said.

 

[JB_Dugan]

Free Markets are powerful institutions.

They allow people to interact with one another and achieve things they could not achieve acting on their own.

They allocate resources in ways that no single individual or government bureaucrat could even begin to duplicate.

They lower the social costs of meeting human wants and needs far better than any other institution known to man.

Free Market outcomes may on rare occasion be improved by very limited, judicious regulation. But it is never worthwhile to suppress the market entirely in almost any field of human endeavor.

 

[ishii]

With all of the economic talk that has come out about Pope Francis latest writing I have gotten in some discussions with people who say something along these lines. Unfettered capitalism is fine and we shouldn’t change it because it makes the lives of the poor better.

Let me try and describe the argument as best I can.

First of all they believe Capitalism is the best economic system for improving the lives of people this world has right now.
Second because of this anything that limits that system is immoral because it hurts the economic growth of the society.
so when people argue that we should limit capitalism to so call help the poor you are actually hurting the poor because you are making them worse off.
therefore capitalism should be able to run without any checks from anything because it improves the lives of the poor.

Now I’m sure no Catholic would ever be for this but I fear that there is a growing number of people in this country who would be ok with this argument.

Let me try and explain why this argument, while it sounds good can’t be a catholic position.

Let me first say yes the poor will be better off because of capitalism, I never disagree with this.
The problem with this argumentation is that you are talking about the poor in general and you are not looking at the conditions of every single human person.
Let’s use an example someone is homeless and there is a freeze warning where he lives, no matter how well off the system as a whole is that man will die if he isn’t helped. Now thankfully we have many people who would be willing to help. But the mindset that unchecked capitalism is ok because it will help improve the well being of the system and this is good for everyone, this mindset could very well be ok with letting this person die. Let’s say this person goes up to a hotel and says I’m freezing and I need a place to stay can I please stay the night. The hotel owner fearing that a homeless person coming into his hotel may cost him money, so he says sorry no I can’t help you. His mindset that I need to do what ever I can to improve my well being as a hotel owner and the betterment of this hotel would be willing to sacrifice the life of one homeless person for the betterment of everyone else.

Now in the Catholic Church we explain something called the common good. The common good is a society of the whole type thing but at the same time it can only be fully realized when every single individual has it fulfilled in their life. The common good is not fully realized when someone freezes to death in the cold and no-one is willing to help him. The common good is not realized when someone starves to death because no-one is willing to help him.

so to put it simply what I believe the mindset that what is most important is the economic growth of society leads to is being ok with people dying in the streets. Maybe if you ask someone if they believe this sure they won’t say no I don’t believe in that but the way they live their lives and their attitude to the poor does reflect it.

So thoughts?

It seems to me, your entire post is based on nothing more than a straw man argument: who around here has ever proposed “unfettered capitalism” as an economic system? You might find a couple of libertarians say this over a few beers, but I highly doubt there is any significant number of people proposing this. Remember - “unfettered capitalism” allows for anything - child pornography, child labor, etc. I believe the latter was done away with nearly a hundred years ago.

I think “unfettered socialism” is the wrong term. The better term would be “true socialism” - as condemned by Pope Pius XI ( “No one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.”).

Ishii

 

[ishii]

For myself, it is the out of balance system of capitalism that is wrong: we cater to business, and give them huge tax breaks, or they don’t have to pay any taxes “so that they will promote job growth” (this hasn’t worked) and while giving large corporations huge amounts of money (and most are already making record profits) the system takes away what little shredded safety net was still there, leaving the most vulnerable subject to starvation and homeless. The fact that Jesus said we would always have the poor should not be an excuse to abuse them and cause them additional pain. The way I see it, if I am really living as Jesus taught, that means doing what I can to help the poor, and follow Him. Getting things financially out of balance has already hurt our country, and those in high places are so busy making more money that they seem to have forgotten that eventually there will be no one to buy what they are selling, and no one to work for them. Some regulation is needed to help keep things balanced, for the good of all.

WarriorQueen, who do you think hires people? It is the businesses which you seem to condemn. Businesses in the US have to deal with all kinds of regulations which make it hard for them to succeed. That is one reason why businesses relocate to other countries. If you look at the state of California, you will find that a lot of businesses have relocated to Texas because that state has comparatively fewer regulations and lower taxes. The unemployment rate in Texas is 6.1% whereas the unemployment rate in California is 8.5%. The corporate tax in the US is the highest among the industrialized nations.

What does this mean WarriorQueen? It means that excessive taxes and regulation of business leads to high unemployment and fewer jobs. That does not help the poor at all.

Ishii

 

[Abu]

St Francis #12
First, I want to point out that Socialism has been condemned in and of itself by more than one pope….

Correct.

The whole point of FM “free marketry”] is materialistic–it “allows” religion but does not pay an attention to it and certainly does not allow religious considerations to affect it as a system.

Erroneous. Some never learn.

Free enterprise was developed by the great Catholic Late Scholastics and originated in the Catholic monasteries in the ninth century. It is PEOPLE who by their vices and by their virtues and values who interact, transact, regulate and live in the real world.

As Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI taught so well:
“Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Caritas et Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36).

As Bl John Paul II taught in Centesimus Annus, 1991, #42.
If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.
‘CA 43. The Church has no models to present;’

 

[St_Francis]

Correct.

Erroneous. Some never learn.

I’ve learned a lot. I actually used to be closer to your position, but not comfortable there.

Free enterprise was developed by the great Catholic Late Scholastics and originated in the Catholic monasteries in the ninth century.

*Late *Scholasticism in the *ninth *century? Did you mean a different century?

And could you give some information about how to find out more about what these Late Scholastics taught? I have tried to find out but failed.

It is PEOPLE who by their vices and by their virtues and values who interact, transact, regulate and live in the real world.

Yes, it is true that bad people can mess up a perfectly good system, but what is generally proposed by people who write similarly to you is so loose and so focused on profits that it practically requires vice to function as y’all claim it will.

As Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI taught so well:
“Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Caritas et Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36).

I’m not convinced that he means what you think he means.
36. Economic activity cannot solve all social problems through the simple application of commercial logic. This needs to be directed towards the pursuit of the common good, for which the political community in particular must also take responsibility. Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution.

From para. 37:
Economic life undoubtedly requires contracts, in order to regulate relations of exchange between goods of equivalent value. But it also needs just laws and forms of redistribution governed by politics, and what is more, it needs works redolent of the spirit of gift. The economy in the global era seems to privilege the former logic, that of contractual exchange, but directly or indirectly it also demonstrates its need for the other two: political logic, and the logic of the unconditional gift.

As Bl John Paul II taught in Centesimus Annus, 1991, #42.
If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.

And here is the rest of the story…
But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.

‘CA 43. The Church has no models to present;’

And again:43. The Church has no models to present; **models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, **as these interact with one another.84 For such a task the Church offers her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal orientation, a teaching which, as already mentioned, recognizes the positive value of the market and of enterprise, but which at the same time points out that **these need to be oriented towards the common good. **

 

[Abu]

St Francis #18
Quote:
Free enterprise was developed by the great Catholic Late Scholastics and originated in the Catholic monasteries in the ninth century.
Late Scholasticism in the ninth century? Did you mean a different century?

Free enterprise originated with the monks in the ninth century and it developed gradually with the great Catholic Late Scholastics clarifying the principles. Both Bl John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have affirmed free enterprise and called on people to act morally.

And could you give some information about how to find out more about what these Late Scholastics taught? I have tried to find out but failed

Free enterprise economic development started in the great Catholic monastic estates of the ninth century, and a solid basis of economic Catholic thought developed from the fourteenth century. In the fifteenth century the Late Scholastics who were Thomists (followers of St Thomas) “writing and teaching at the University of Salamanca in Spain, sought to explain the full range of human action and social; organization.” They “observed the existence of economic law, inexorable forces of cause and effect that operate very much as other natural laws. Over the course of several generations, they discovered and explained the laws of supply and demand, the cause of inflation, the operation of foreign exchange rates, and the subjective nature of economic value…” For these reasons Joseph Schumpeter applauded them as the first real economists. (Thomas E Woods Jr, The Church And The Market, Lexington Books, 2005, p 8).

Advocating a minimum wage set by a government was not advocated by the Late Scholastics: a minimum wage sufficient to maintain the labourer and his family has never been proposed in the belief that set above the common estimation level it would cause unemployment. (Chafuen , p 130-131).

In his outstanding work Christians For Freedom, Ignatius 1986, p 43-47, (with a new edition, Faith and Liberty: The Economic Thought of the Late Scholastics (Studies in Ethics and Economics) (Jul2003), Dr Alejandro Chafuen has examined carefully the teaching of Christ and wealth. Citing the case of the rich young man in Luke 18:18-25, Dr Chafuen remarks that many authors think that Jesus was condemning the possession of riches, but “the Late Scholastics indicated that this was not the correct interpretation. Citing Luke 14:26, where Jesus says, ‘If any man come to Me without hating his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, yes and his own life too, he cannot be My disciple,’ the Scholastics pointed out that this passage does not enjoin Christians to hate their fathers. Such doctrine would contradict the Fourth Commandment. Thomist and Scholastic interpretations of this passage is that the entrance to the kingdom of Heaven is denied to anyone who values things more than God. In Matthew’s Gospel (10:37), the same passage reads: ‘Anyone who prefers father or mother to Me is not worthy of Me. Anyone who prefers son or daughter to Me is not worthy of Me.’ It would be a violation of the natural order to value a created thing above its creator, as did the young ruler who pursued riches as his ultimate goal.”
[See: http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Liberty-Economic-Scholastics-Economics/dp/0739105418]

‘Western civilization stands indebted to the Church for the university system, charitable work, international law, the sciences, and, important legal principles. … Western civilization owes far more to the Catholic Church than most people — Catholic included — often realize. … The Church, in fact, built Western civilization.’…. Woods points out that noted economic historian Joseph Schumpeter not only acknowledges the contributions of the late Scholastics to modern economics, but says "it is they who come nearer than any other group to having been ‘founders’ of scientific economics.’ ” (Father John McCloskey, reviewing* How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization* by Thomas E. Woods Jr. - published by Regnery Publishing, 2005).

Dr William Luckey tackles the confusion: “Pope John Paul II’s…reservations are not about the free market but the social context in which that market, or, quite frankly, anything else, operates. Everything in society functions in an environment of ethical/religious, political/juridical and economic reality. For the free market to work, there needs to be a moral society, backed up by revealed religion, and a system of just law, respected by the people and enforced justly by the courts. Economists have created a whole body of literature on the effect of institutions on economic life. If there is a problem with how the market operates, the first place to look is the society and the government. Obviously Pope John Paul II realized this. Now if only other Catholics would be as informed.”

BTW, Dr Luckey is Professor of Political Science and Economics at Christendom College and has expertise in Political Philosophy, Business and Economics, and Theology. He is an Adjunct Scholar of the Mises Institute and of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty. Dr. Luckey is also on the advisory board of the Center for Economic Personalism, and is on the Board of Scholars of the Virginia Institute for Public Policy Studies.

Also see:
How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and the Success of the West
RODNEY STARK
catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0109.html

 

[St_Francis]

Free enterprise originated with the monks in the ninth century and it developed gradually with the great Catholic Late Scholastics clarifying the principles. Both Bl John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have affirmed free enterprise and called on people to act morally.

They have also called for pretty tight oversight of the market–it doesn’t seem that their vision of an ideal economy looks at all like Dr Woods’s (just to take one example).

Free enterprise economic development started in the great Catholic monastic estates of the ninth century, and a solid basis of economic Catholic thought developed from the fourteenth century. In the fifteenth century the Late Scholastics who were Thomists (followers of St Thomas) “writing and teaching at the University of Salamanca in Spain, sought to explain the full range of human action and social; organization.” They “observed the existence of economic law, inexorable forces of cause and effect that operate very much as other natural laws. Over the course of several generations, they discovered and explained the laws of supply and demand, the cause of inflation, the operation of foreign exchange rates, and the subjective nature of economic value…” For these reasons Joseph Schumpeter applauded them as the first real economists. (Thomas E Woods Jr, The Church And The Market, Lexington Books, 2005, p 8).

Advocating a minimum wage set by a government was not advocated by the Late Scholastics: a minimum wage sufficient to maintain the labourer and his family has never been proposed in the belief that set above the common estimation level it would cause unemployment. (Chafuen , p 130-131).

In his outstanding work Christians For Freedom, Ignatius 1986, p 43-47, (with a new edition, Faith and Liberty: The Economic Thought of the Late Scholastics (Studies in Ethics and Economics) (Jul2003), Dr Alejandro Chafuen has examined carefully the teaching of Christ and wealth. Citing the case of the rich young man in Luke 18:18-25, Dr Chafuen remarks that many authors think that Jesus was condemning the possession of riches, but “the Late Scholastics indicated that this was not the correct interpretation. Citing Luke 14:26, where Jesus says, ‘If any man come to Me without hating his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, yes and his own life too, he cannot be My disciple,’ the Scholastics pointed out that this passage does not enjoin Christians to hate their fathers. Such doctrine would contradict the Fourth Commandment. Thomist and Scholastic interpretations of this passage is that the entrance to the kingdom of Heaven is denied to anyone who values things more than God. In Matthew’s Gospel (10:37), the same passage reads: ‘Anyone who prefers father or mother to Me is not worthy of Me. Anyone who prefers son or daughter to Me is not worthy of Me.’ It would be a violation of the natural order to value a created thing above its creator, as did the young ruler who pursued riches as his ultimate goal.”
[See: http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Liberty-Economic-Scholastics-Economics/dp/0739105418]

‘Western civilization stands indebted to the Church for the university system, charitable work, international law, the sciences, and, important legal principles. … Western civilization owes far more to the Catholic Church than most people — Catholic included — often realize. … The Church, in fact, built Western civilization.’…. Woods points out that noted economic historian Joseph Schumpeter not only acknowledges the contributions of the late Scholastics to modern economics, but says "it is they who come nearer than any other group to having been ‘founders’ of scientific economics.’ ” (Father John McCloskey, reviewing* How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization* by Thomas E. Woods Jr. - published by Regnery Publishing, 2005).

Dr William Luckey tackles the confusion: “Pope John Paul II’s…reservations are not about the free market but the social context in which that market, or, quite frankly, anything else, operates. Everything in society functions in an environment of ethical/religious, political/juridical and economic reality. For the free market to work, there needs to be a moral society, backed up by revealed religion, and a system of just law, respected by the people and enforced justly by the courts. Economists have created a whole body of literature on the effect of institutions on economic life. If there is a problem with how the market operates, the first place to look is the society and the government. Obviously Pope John Paul II realized this. Now if only other Catholics would be as informed.”

BTW, Dr Luckey is Professor of Political Science and Economics at Christendom College and has expertise in Political Philosophy, Business and Economics, and Theology. He is an Adjunct Scholar of the Mises Institute and of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty. Dr. Luckey is also on the advisory board of the Center for Economic Personalism, and is on the Board of Scholars of the Virginia Institute for Public Policy Studies.

Also see:
How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and the Success of the West
RODNEY STARK
catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0109.html
Thank you for all this information.

I am particularly interested in the orginal sources for all this modern-day commentary, if you happen to know of which Late Scholastics wrote and the names of the works which deal with economics, if you happen to know?