What do you think about the Acton Institute?

[markomalley]

Do you think that these Popes would be happy with CEOs being paid 360 X the amount that the average worker is paid?

I would certainly hope it wouldn’t matter to any pope what a person got paid.

On the other hand, I would certainly imagine that it would matter to any pope what a person did with his money, whatever the amount, to benefit the common good.

As Leo XIII said in Rerum Novarum,
There naturally exist among mankind manifold differences of the most important kind; people differ in capacity, skill, health, strength; and unequal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition. Such unequality is far from being disadvantageous either to individuals or to the community. Social and public life can only be maintained by means of various kinds of capacity for business and the playing of many parts; and each man, as a rule, chooses the part which suits his own peculiar domestic condition.
(Note that he also says in that same encyclical that it was the responsibility of the State to safeguard the rights of the working classes, as the wealthy are more than able to look out after their own rights)

Do you think that the Popes would be happy with jobs being pulled out from under people’s feet in favor of outsourcing?

That is a VERY interesting question.

Let me phrase it in a different manner: would a pope be happy if a perpetually impoverished area got a nice, bright, new shiny factory offering hundreds of relatively high-paying jobs.

Or let’s be a little concrete:

Do you think that the Archbishop of Muenchen was happy when a bunch of high-paying auto manufacturing jobs were outsourced?

How about the Bishop of Clermont, France, when a bunch of tire-manufacturing jobs were outsourced?

Do you think the Bishop of Charleston South Carolina worked to prevent those jobs from being in-sourced to his diocese (because, after all, I’m certain that a lot of perfectly qualified Germans and Frenchmen were displaced because of those moves…)

Catholicism is about intentionality, free-marketry is about whatever: whatever one wants, whatever works, whatever makes people happy. Pulling quotes from papal writings and pointing to the Scholastics who wrote under completely different circumstances, as the Acton Institute does, does not answer the questions I posed earlier.

When you mention “out-sourcing”, you are indicating a generalized trend toward a phenomenon known as “globalization.” I have not seen the popes condemn it. In fact, Benedict XVI said this about it:
The principal new feature has been the explosion of worldwide interdependence, commonly known as globalization. Paul VI had partially foreseen it, but the ferocious pace at which it has evolved could not have been anticipated. Originating within economically developed countries, this process by its nature has spread to include all economies. It has been the principal driving force behind the emergence from underdevelopment of whole regions, and in itself it represents a great opportunity. Nevertheless, without the guidance of charity in truth, this global force could cause unprecedented damage and create new divisions within the human family.

 

[St_Francis]

I would certainly hope it wouldn’t matter to any pope what a person got paid.

Pope Leo seems to have concerned himself with wages: Paragraph 45 Rerum Novarum: “…wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice.”

On the other hand, I would certainly imagine that it would matter to any pope what a person did with his money, whatever the amount, to benefit the common good.

Yes, I know the argument: they buy enormous houses which means jobs for people… but because the money comes from people far away, these jobs don’t benefit those people.

As Leo XIII said in Rerum Novarum,
There naturally exist among mankind manifold differences of the most important kind; people differ in capacity, skill, health, strength; and unequal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition. Such unequality is far from being disadvantageous either to individuals or to the community. Social and public life can only be maintained by means of various kinds of capacity for business and the playing of many parts; and each man, as a rule, chooses the part which suits his own peculiar domestic condition.

Yes, but there is not a difference in dignity. Back when our enlisted men who had families had to go on welfare, I was incensed by this. Now we have the same problems among many people in our country.

(Note that he also says in that same encyclical that it was the responsibility of the State to safeguard the rights of the working classes, as the wealthy are more than able to look out after their own rights)

That is a VERY interesting question.

Let me phrase it in a different manner: would a pope be happy if a perpetually impoverished area got a nice, bright, new shiny factory offering hundreds of relatively high-paying jobs.

Or let’s be a little concrete:

Do you think that the Archbishop of Muenchen was happy when a bunch of high-paying auto manufacturing jobs were outsourced?

How about the Bishop of Clermont, France, when a bunch of tire-manufacturing jobs were outsourced?

Do you think the Bishop of Charleston South Carolina worked to prevent those jobs from being in-sourced to his diocese (because, after all, I’m certain that a lot of perfectly qualified Germans and Frenchmen were displaced because of those moves…)
So maybe it doesn’t have to be either/or. Maybe it can be both/and… as a company gets bigger, build a subsidiary factory somewhere else, not pick up and leave for the sake of increased profits.

When you mention “out-sourcing”, you are indicating a generalized trend toward a phenomenon known as “globalization.” I have not seen the popes condemn it. In fact, Benedict XVI said this about it:
The principal new feature has been the explosion of worldwide interdependence, commonly known as globalization. Paul VI had partially foreseen it, but the ferocious pace at which it has evolved could not have been anticipated. Originating within economically developed countries, this process by its nature has spread to include all economies. It has been the principal driving force behind the emergence from underdevelopment of whole regions, and in itself it represents a great opportunity. **Nevertheless, without the guidance of charity in truth, this global force could cause unprecedented damage and create new divisions within the human family.
**

I would not call this an unqualified lack of condemnation. It seems that the Pope sees good points and bad points.

I personally think that expansion in a localized way would work better. And of course I think that the factories should eventually be locally- or worker-owned rather than multi-national companies taking that money out of the local economy and shipping it around the world so taxes are never paid on it.

 

[markomalley]

Interesting piece published in the Acton blog today by Joe Carter, What the Poor Need Most.

A little one paragraph extract from it:
The fact that the government needs a safety net to catch those who would slip between the cracks of our economic system is evidence that I have failed to do God’s work. The government cannot take the place of Christian charity. A loving embrace isn’t given with food stamps. The care of a community isn’t provided with government housing. The face of our Creator can’t be seen on a welfare voucher. What the poor need is not another government program; what they need is for Christians like me to honor our savior.
Compare that to something said by Benedict XVI:
b) Love—caritas—will always prove necessary, even in the most just society. There is no ordering of the State so just that it can eliminate the need for a service of love. Whoever wants to eliminate love is preparing to eliminate man as such. There will always be suffering which cries out for consolation and help. There will always be loneliness. There will always be situations of material need where help in the form of concrete love of neighbour is indispensable.[20] **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. **The Church is one of those living forces: she is alive with the love enkindled by the Spirit of Christ. This love does not simply offer people material help, but refreshment and care for their souls, something which often is even more necessary than material support. 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.

Deus Caritas Est, 28
​

 

[Reep]

Interesting piece published in the Acton blog today by Joe Carter, What the Poor Need Most.

A little one paragraph extract from it:
*The fact that the government needs a safety net to catch those who would slip between the cracks of our economic system is evidence that I have failed to do God’s work.
*

Yes and it is a vicious circle because the welfare state also discourages people from genuine charity. First it, takes away income that might or would have been voluntarily used to help the poor. Second, it makes it much too easy to say to the needy, “Go to the government. Be warmed and filled.” Both of these factors have been destructive of true charity.

 

[Captain_America]

Kinda sceptical. They hearts are in the right place, but they seem to dismiss out of hand the traditional approaches to Catholic Social Teaching. They seem to favor small government, which in itself is not a problem, but they seem to ignore that the Church is not so much for big government or small government as it is for moral government.

I think this is nicely put. Don’t forget the economic argument they put forward, which is a sensitized libertarianism.

NOW that’s not necessarily bad! We tend to ignore the good results that come from a working free market.

BUT at the same time, the market needs protectors and regulators. . . not self-serving Jamie Diamonds or Bernie Madoffs.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

This sounds a lot more like distributism than the folks at Acton.

Yes, because a genuinely laissez-faire economy would most closely resemble distributism, but there seems to be a consistent refusal to acknowledge this throughout the Catholic world, preferring to cling to the demonstrably ridiculous interpretation of economic history peddled by state schools.

 

[St_Francis]

Yes, because a genuinely laissez-faire economy would most closely resemble distributism, but there seems to be a consistent refusal to acknowledge this throughout the Catholic world, preferring to cling to the demonstrably ridiculous interpretation of economic history peddled by state schools.

I don’t know what you are talking about wrt to the ridiculous interpretation of economic history taught in the schools or what that has to do with Distributism.

What I don’t like about *some *people at Acton (don’t know enough about what the rest say to include them) as well as others like the Austrian economists and Lew Rockwell folks is that they have no problem with the current public-corporate structure and multi-natuonal corporations, etc. They seem to applaud that.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

I don’t know what you are talking about wrt to the ridiculous interpretation of economic history taught in the schools or what that has to do with Distributism.

“We used to have a free market, but that just made a bunch of monopolies! Then the progressives crafted a benevolent regulatory state to save us!”

No. There was no free market in the Gilded Age, and the monopolies were entirely state-supported through tariffs, land-grants, patents, and banking monopolies. The progressive regulatory state was a means to protect established economic players devised by their cronies. If they didn’t need it, they’d do everything they could to buy a free market and President Ron Paul. Yet, it is clearly they need as unfree a market as possible to do their dirty work since corporations do everything they can to undermine economic libertarianism.

What I don’t like about some people at Acton (don’t know enough about what the rest say to include them) as well as others like the Austrian economists and Lew Rockwell folks is that they have no problem with the current public-corporate structure and multi-natuonal corporations, etc. They seem to applaud that.

I wouldn’t be surprised about some people at the Acton Institute. But did you really just imply that Austrians support neoliberalism? That’s ridiculous. Murray Rothbard, the intellectual godfather of modern Austrian economics, was one of the most vitriolic anti-corporate writers of the twentieth century who hated big business as much as the hated the state. He co-wrote a book with a Marxist on the subject. His intellectual descendants have followed suit. You don’t know what you’re talking about. The Austrian school of economics, including Lew Rockwell, is the most visciously anti-corporate strain of economic thought in the modern world. Far from having no problem with it, they have a huge problem with it and would love to see it destroyed by the abolition of corporate privilege.

 

[St_Francis]

“We used to have a free market, but that just made a bunch of monopolies! Then the progressives crafted a benevolent regulatory state to save us!”

No. There was no free market in the Gilded Age, and the monopolies were entirely state-supported through tariffs, land-grants, patents, and banking monopolies. The progressive regulatory state was a means to protect established economic players devised by their cronies. If they didn’t need it, they’d do everything they could to buy a free market and President Ron Paul. Yet, it is clearly they need as unfree a market as possible to do their dirty work since corporations do everything they can to undermine economic libertarianism.

Oh, actually I get a lot of my economic information by watching what goes on around me in the small towns I keep living in. I do see that government intervention affects things, but bad stuff happens even without government intervention.

I wouldn’t be surprised about some people at the Acton Institute. But did you really just imply that Austrians support neoliberalism? That’s ridiculous. Murray Rothbard, the intellectual godfather of modern Austrian economics, was one of the most vitriolic anti-corporate writers of the twentieth century who hated big business as much as the hated the state. He co-wrote a book with a Marxist on the subject. His intellectual descendants have followed suit. You don’t know what you’re talking about. The Austrian school of economics, including Lew Rockwell, is the most visciously anti-corporate strain of economic thought in the modern world. Far from having no problem with it, they have a huge problem with it and would love to see it destroyed by the abolition of corporate privilege.

Oh?

Quoting Murray Rothbard (who Paul has a picture of on his office wall):

“It should be clear…that corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such men would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk. Thus, the government does not grant corporations a privilege of limited liability; anything announced and freely contracted for in advance is a right of a free individual, not a special privilege. It is not necessary that governments grant charters to corporations.” Murray Rothbard, in Man, Economy & State mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap15d.asp

From this article.

So he gives the same “corporations are just groups of people pooling their resources” argument that I have heard elsewhere. He doesn’t care about the size or activity of the corporation; he cares only that the government not give anyone special priveleges, with which I agree, but government action is not the only way that causes problems with corporations; among other things, how did they become powerful enough to warrant all that government intervention on their behalf?​

 

[MarcusAndreas]

You’re quoting Rothbard completely out of context. He’s talking about a specific way to organize a firm, not its social effects. Man, Economy, and State is an economics textbook, not an ethics textbook.

As for how corporations get legal privileges, it’s simple, they are already operating a system that permits such abuses, and if they gain the financial upper hand in some way, they can lobby for regulations to protect themselves from competition. Anti-corporatism does not mean opposition to the style of business known as a corporation, anti-corporatism is opposition to the domination of society by corporations. It used to be called anti-capitalism until the word capitalism took on a broader meaning that could simply just mean private property and voluntary exchange.

In effect, free market economics can actually be considered an anti-capitalist movement, depending on how you use language.

 

[Contarini]

You’re quoting Rothbard completely out of context. He’s talking about a specific way to organize a firm, not its social effects. Man, Economy, and State is an economics textbook, not an ethics textbook.

As for how corporations get legal privileges, it’s simple, they are already operating a system that permits such abuses, and if they gain the financial upper hand in some way,

This is vague. How do they do this? St. Francis’ point remains valid, I think: they presumably “get the upper hand” through the workings of the free market.

It used to be called anti-capitalism until the word capitalism took on a broader meaning that could simply just mean private property and voluntary exchange.

In effect, free market economics can actually be considered an anti-capitalist movement, depending on how you use language.

And in that sense I think there’s a lot to be said in favor of “free market economics.” It’s certainly less evidently evil than corporate capitalism. But I remain unconvinced that simply allowing the market to work freely will have the wonderful results claimed. I am totally unconvinced by the claim that the market is “self-regulating” in any morally relevant way.

One problem with the kind of free-market approach you describe is that it seems to be an ahistorical ideal. Point to any actual expression of capitalism, and we’ll be told that this wasn’t a truly free market. At least that seems to be your attitude. (Another issue is that I’m not sure the Acton Institute is quite as libertarian as you seem to be. But I may be wrong on that.) So if we say, “the free market needs regulation, because it’s always produced injustices,” and you say, “ah, but the injustices came from government interference and crony capitalism,” we are left with a “mythical” free market which has never existed in history.

It starts, in fact, to look a lot like Marxism. Marxists today make the same argument–that no actual Communist government really implemented Marx’s ideas.

In both cases, I think Pius XI’s condemnation in Quadragesimo Anno applies. He was referring to “moderate socialists,” so pro-Catholic Christians cite him as if he were condemning all socialist-like policies. But in context, he actually says that many of the policies suggested by socialists are in line with Catholic teaching. The problem with what he calls “moderate socialism” (i.e., socialism that doesn’t actually call for violent revolution) is that it looks to purely material means for human flourishing. That’s what I hear from the advocates of the free market as well: if we could just let the marvelous market work according to the economic norms ordained by God, then the poor would be taken care of and all the needs of society would be met. There’s a trust in the market, not only to create prosperity but to underlie a just social order, which I find idolatrous.

Edwin

 

[St_Francis]

You’re quoting Rothbard completely out of context. He’s talking about a specific way to organize a firm, not its social effects. Man, Economy, and State is an economics textbook, not an ethics textbook.

My point was only that Rothbard is *not *against corporations. The rest is irrelevant.

As for how corporations get legal privileges, it’s simple, they are already operating a system that permits such abuses, and if they gain the financial upper hand in some way, they can lobby for regulations to protect themselves from competition. Anti-corporatism does not mean opposition to the style of business known as a corporation, anti-corporatism is opposition to the domination of society by corporations. It used to be called anti-capitalism until the word capitalism took on a broader meaning that could simply just mean private property and voluntary exchange.

Contarini seems to have divined what I saw merely in shadow…

In effect, free market economics can actually be considered an anti-capitalist movement, depending on how you use language.

Well, sure. But if you use language the way it’s *supposed *to be used, then you wouldn’t.

 

[St_Francis]

This is vague. How do they do this? St. Francis’ point remains valid, I think: they presumably “get the upper hand” through the workings of the free market.

And in that sense I think there’s a lot to be said in favor of “free market economics.” It’s certainly less evidently evil than corporate capitalism. But I remain unconvinced that simply allowing the market to work freely will have the wonderful results claimed. I am totally unconvinced by the claim that the market is “self-regulating” in any morally relevant way.

One problem with the kind of free-market approach you describe is that it seems to be an ahistorical ideal. Point to any actual expression of capitalism, and we’ll be told that this wasn’t a truly free market. At least that seems to be your attitude. (Another issue is that I’m not sure the Acton Institute is quite as libertarian as you seem to be. But I may be wrong on that.) So if we say, “the free market needs regulation, because it’s always produced injustices,” and you say, “ah, but the injustices came from government interference and crony capitalism,” we are left with a “mythical” free market which has never existed in history.

It starts, in fact, to look a lot like Marxism. Marxists today make the same argument–that no actual Communist government really implemented Marx’s ideas.

In both cases, I think Pius XI’s condemnation in Quadragesimo Anno applies. He was referring to “moderate socialists,” so pro-Catholic Christians cite him as if he were condemning all socialist-like policies. But in context, he actually says that many of the policies suggested by socialists are in line with Catholic teaching. The problem with what he calls “moderate socialism” (i.e., socialism that doesn’t actually call for violent revolution) is that it looks to purely material means for human flourishing. That’s what I hear from the advocates of the free market as well: if we could just let the marvelous market work according to the economic norms ordained by God, then the poor would be taken care of and all the needs of society would be met. There’s a trust in the market, not only to create prosperity but to underlie a just social order, which I find idolatrous.

Edwin

Brilliant, as usual Thanks for elucidating a point which I was trying to grasp myself!

 

[Abu]

The reality on Socialism :
Pius XI declared emphatically in Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, #120: “If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it 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.”
Q.A. #128:
“We have also summoned Communism and Socialism again to judgment and have found all their forms, even the most modified, to wander far from the precepts of the Gospel.”

The reality on free enterprise:
In *Centesimus Annus *#42, 1991, Bl John Paul II:
‘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”.’

The very term “capitalism” is a derogatory term coined by Karl Marx, and that’s perhaps why Bl John Paul II dislikes it, as he makes clear as he emphatically affirms free enterprise in Centesimus Annus.

Since here capitalism = free economy, and reaffirmed by Bl John Paul II is the ‘fundamental human “right to freedom of economic initiative.” ’ *Sollicitudo Rei Socialis *(On Human Concerns), Encyclical, 1987, #42], and initiative = enterprise, it is clear what the pope means.

Pope Benedict XVI felt it necessary to teach that “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).

That gets to the heart of the matter – virtuous people who live faith and reason, allied with a government which has the right and duty to make wise laws. That’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and against monopolies as people can, and some do, undermine the common good, and the primary role of government is to support families in solidarity, and the role of the Church in subsidiarity and yes, the common good.

 

[Contarini]

The reality on Socialism :
Pius XI declared emphatically in Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, #120: “If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it 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.”
Q.A. #128:
“We have also summoned Communism and Socialism again to judgment and have found all their forms, even the most modified, to wander far from the precepts of the Gospel.”

Right. I already referred to this and described his reason, which he gives in sect. 118:

1. For, according to Christian teaching, man, endowed with a social nature, is placed on this earth so that by leading a life in society and under an authority ordained of God[54] he may fully cultivate and develop all his faculties unto the praise and glory of his Creator; and that by faithfully fulfilling the duties of his craft or other calling he may obtain for himself temporal and at the same time eternal happiness. Socialism, on the other hand, wholly ignoring and indifferent to this sublime end of both man and society, affirms that human association has been instituted for the sake of material advantage alone.

That, for Pope Pius, is what is wrong with “moderate socialism.” By citing him out of context you are misrepresenting him.

Edwin

 

[Abu]

Contarini #35
By citing him out of context you are misrepresenting him.

Incorrect – Fathers Rumble and Carty agree.

#1158
In his Encyclical letter Quadragesimo Anno of May 15th, 1931, Pope Pius XI., said, “No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist.” Does the Pope’s infallibility apply to this particular statement?
Extract:
“The Pope explains the sense of his condemnation by saying that even moderate Socialism which refuses to make use of physical force and which condemns class-warfare and the abolition of private property, is yet incompatible with Catholic doctrine. Why? Because it acts on the principle that material welfare is the purpose of man’s existence or at least the purpose of social organization, whilst the Catholic Church declares that men both individually and socially must primarily consider the praise and glory of the Creator by the fulfilling of individual and social duties for the love of God and in accordance with His laws. And this in order to attain not only temporal but eternal happiness. If a policy of social reform includes all these principles of the Catholic religion it is no longer real Socialism in the accepted sense of that word. Therefore no man can be truly Catholic and truly Socialist at the same time.”
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Socialism&db=2

 

[Contarini]

Incorrect – Fathers Rumble and Carty agree.

#1158
In his Encyclical letter Quadragesimo Anno of May 15th, 1931, Pope Pius XI., said, “No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist.” Does the Pope’s infallibility apply to this particular statement?
Extract:
“The Pope explains the sense of his condemnation by saying that even moderate Socialism which refuses to make use of physical force and which condemns class-warfare and the abolition of private property, is yet incompatible with Catholic doctrine. Why? Because it acts on the principle that material welfare is the purpose of man’s existence or at least the purpose of social organization, whilst the Catholic Church declares that men both individually and socially must primarily consider the praise and glory of the Creator by the fulfilling of individual and social duties for the love of God and in accordance with His laws. And this in order to attain not only temporal but eternal happiness. If a policy of social reform includes all these principles of the Catholic religion it is no longer real Socialism in the accepted sense of that word. Therefore no man can be truly Catholic and truly Socialist at the same time.”
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Socialism&db=2

1. Even if Frs. Rumble and Carty agreed with you, that would not prove you right; and
2. They just restate what I said.

My point, again, is that

1. Pope Pius was not talking about what right-wingers in America call “socialism.” He was not talking about any specific policies such as universal health care. He was talking about a materialistic philosophy. Thus
2. If we encounter attempts to reconcile Catholicism with free-market capitalism which are similarly materialistic, then the Pope’s condemnation would logically apply to them too.

Now one can argue whether the Acton Institute’s version fits this bill. But any ideology which speaks of the “self-regulating” nature of the market and praises fulsomely the ability of the market to meet human needs, while sneering at traditional Christian charity for its alleged ineffectiveness and unforeseen consequences, is at least somewhat dubious.

Your favorite quote from Pope Benedict about society not needing protection from the market is predicated on the idea that the market needs moral regulation, not just in order to prevent outright fraud but in order to ensure that it serves the common good, particularly the poor. Pope Benedict is condemning the idea that the market is an intrinsically amoral force which cannot itself be subjected to moral norms, so that society would need to be protected from it. He’s saying that there can be a moral market. But this is not a market which operates only by economic laws.

That’s the crux of my problem with pro-capitalist Christianity: the claim that because God created economic laws therefore we can just let these laws operate freely and trust that good things will follow.

Edwin

 

[Abu]

Contarini #37
That’s the crux of my problem with pro-capitalist Christianity: the claim that because God created economic laws therefore we can just let these laws operate freely and trust that good things will follow.

The Catholic Church and Her teaching is distinct from any other Christian sect. Further, in acknowledging the value of the free market, the Catholic Church has never “claimed” that the people who utilise economic laws are above the moral law, nor that governments can shirk the duty of wise law-making, as has been made crystal clear.

If we encounter attempts to reconcile Catholicism with free-market capitalism which are similarly materialistic, then the Pope’s condemnation would logically apply to them too.

The fact is that the free market has been emphatically endorsed by Bl John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, within the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, as quoted.

There’s no substitute for the economic laws discovered by the Catholic Late Scholastics, implemented in free enterprise, but those, including economists and central bankers, who prostitute those laws by cheating and their foolish meddling, create injustices which plague every economy.

Fr James V Schall, S.J., in *Does Catholicism Still Exist?, *Alba House 1994, p 184-185 sums up beautifully:
“Since the Catholic Church wants poverty confronted, since She wants this confrontation to be done justly and with the interest and cooperation of the workers and the poor, She has had to acknowledge, as did the socialist systems themselves, that there are certain ways that must be employed if mankind is to meet its economic problems. These ways can be known and imitated, but they must include a juridical system, profit, enterprise, knowledge, exchange, a market, voluntary organisations, a relatively independent economy, private property, and respect for work and excellence.”

Ayn Rand’s definition and meaning of “uncontrolled and unregulated” is quite unacceptable as the State has the right and duty to make wise laws.

 

[St_Francis]

The Catholic Church and Her teaching is distinct from any other Christian sect. Further, in acknowledging the value of the free market, the Catholic Church has never “claimed” that the people who utilise economic laws are above the moral law, nor that governments can shirk **the duty of wise law-making, **as has been made crystal clear.

I am sure that Edwin will have excellent things to say about this, but this is one of the many areas in which I see the political free-marketeers equivocating. Usually when it comes to government action, free-marketeers admit that materialist laws such as laws against fraud, theft, and violence are necessary, but no further laws! So I guess what you are doing here is saying the Pope agrees with you because you say that “wise law-making” contains but limits itself to laws dealing with fraud, theft, and violence. OTOH, the Pope may have meant that “wise-lawmaking” meant much more with which you might disagree.

The fact is that the free market has been emphatically endorsed by Bl John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, within the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, as quoted.

And it seems that the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity are precisely what hang the free-marketeers up.

There’s no substitute for the economic laws discovered by the Catholic Late Scholastics, implemented in free enterprise, but those, including economists and central bankers, who prostitute those laws by cheating and their foolish meddling, create injustices which plague every economy.

I have to wonder what these Late Scholastics would make of transnational corporations.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

Considering the fact that transnational corporations exist precisely because of state-capitalist collaboration, they’d condemn them right alongside every other morally consistent free-marketeer.