As our new pope is quoted:
“When you pick up a volume of the social teaching of the Church you are amazed at what it condemns. For example, it condemns economic liberalism. Everyone thinks that the Church is against Communism, but it is as opposed to that system as it is to the savage economic liberalism which exists today. That is not Christian either and we cannot accept it. We have to search for equality of opportunities and rights, to fight for social benefits, a dignified retirement, holidays, rest, freedom for trade unions. All of these issues create social justice. There should be no have-nots and I want to emphasise that the worst wretchedness is not to be able to earn your bread, not to have the dignity of work.”
He also said, just the other day:
“And those words came to me: the poor, the poor. Then, right away, thinking of the poor, I thought of Francis of Assisi. Then I thought of all the wars, as the votes were still being counted, till the end. Francis is also the man of peace. That is how the name came into my heart: Francis of Assisi. For me, he is the man of poverty, the man of peace, the man who loves and protects creation; these days we do not have a very good relationship with creation, do we? He is the man who gives us this spirit of peace, the poor man … How I would like a Church which is poor and for the poor!”
I love that final exclamation of the Holy Father’s. Pope Benedict wasn’t one for “exclaiming”. Different Pope, different style…
Good for Francis. Good for the Church.
Worship of the “Free” Market in the West & in the US particularly has yielded much evil & misery.
A truly free market is a good way to order human economic activity. But it must be ordered, it must be moderate and fair, it must serve the needs of all people not a limited few. For us Catholics it means that this man made market must operate according to Catholic or Christian values. Even Adam Smith believed the market required basic decency & honesty to function properly.
The market has reflected man’s fallen nature far far more than his moral aspirations. The disordered nature of our modern market sreamingly, abundantly obvious, but not to those who don’t want to see. Hopefully Pope Francis will continue to bring discomfort to the comfortable that they may see. The purpose of a free economy is not profit but freedom for families & individuals to thrive thru the dignity of work.
Ben and I about cried tears of joy when we heard the name Francis!
Certainly economic liberalism can be workable as long as safety nets are established to catch those who find themselves suddenly out of work. However, there is always a balance needed: Socialism, and its cousin Communism, can be more destructive to a society of God than economic liberalism. It can remove from the individual the God given desire to work, even if the ability to work is present. The dignity of work is at the center of the human heart, and man is called to participate in society through work. This is part of God’s plan. And any removal of this right, or any destructive disincentives to man engaging in work comes from none other than the Evil One: an idle mind is the devil’s workshop. Each society must see that work is offered according to the ability of the person seeking work. And benefits should be offered according to the needs of the person. There must be fairness, but there must also be a mindset to work by the individual. One without the other leads to a godless society filled with rot.
Greg,
How do you deal with the texts, e.g., of Pius XI, which condemn economic liberalism? Or are you not aware of them? Of course, this does not constitute approval of socialism, as you’re aware, but it does mean a rejection of free competition as the ruling principle of an economy, a rejection of the notion that the common good will be achieved by the action of quasi-automatic economic laws, and that to intervene in the workings of supply and demand is to promote inefficiency or injustice.
Thomas, one needs to look at the whole of Church literature when determining the gray areas of economic liberalism, as it is constantly changing, For example Pope Leo wrote:
4. To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.
5. It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man’s little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels. Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.
RERUM NOVARUM (On Capital and Labor)
Pope Leo XIII
Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII promulgated on 15 May 1891
“the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich”
What a complete crock. Socialists don’t (and didn’t) want the poor to simply have what the rich have or to become as the rich. But this was the man who believed that priests should be in charge of workingmen’s associations. How cringeworthy.
Owen,
I could be wrong here (or I am conflating Leo XIII’s views with some others that circuited during and after his death), but wasn’t the idea of clergy being in charge or at the head of these associations due to Leo’s presupposition of a Catholic State? If you have a Catholic State, where there are not clear lines of demarcation between the secular and the sacred, wouldn’t the “best idea” be to ensure that institutions such as workingman associations have a decidedly religious character? That would be the “ideal,” yes? But of course the ideal is far from reality given that there are no more Catholic States (and, really, there were very few left in Leo’s time).
There’s a tension in a lot of the Leonine encyclicals between taking the world how it actually is while trying to maintain the Catholic Church’s insistence that all States ought to, by right, be Catholic and thus follow the precepts of the Catholic Church. Leo doesn’t want to concede to the existence of the liberal (pluralist) State, which can give some of his writings (and the writings of his successors) more than a faint air of “unrealism.”
I wonder as well how Leo’s vision of heavy clergy involvement in labor organizations squares with the teachings which followed. When St. Pius X wrote about Catholic Action some years later, he did so with a clear line of demarcation between struck between the clergy’s apostolate and the duties and initiatives of Catholic laity. Then, just a few years after that, Pius XI offered a new definition which effectively conflated the two, giving rise to heavier clergy involvement in social and labor movements in Europe. There are some traditionalists now who argue that the shift in emphasis instituted by Pius XI was a mistake.
I just reread RN again this morning and to answer your question, I don’t know. I’m not familiar enough with the rest of Leo’s writings to know if he is inferring that within RN, though it seems that would be in keeping with the tone of RN. One theme that is frequent in RN is that it is the right and duty of the working man to have work that facilitates, and in no way interferes with, his practice of his Catholic faith. Workingmen’s associations are to insist upon this (for instance, insuring that work not be done on Sundays, etc.). Certainly Leo supposed that clerical involvement would help secure this sort of emphasis.
But there is throughout RN this sick spirit of patronage. Rich Catholics who are said to have “cast their lot with workers” and benevolent societies are mentions many times, and Leo even has the stunning audacity to speak of the “efficiency” of these in providing for the needs of workers. So I wonder if having clerical involvement is also not a part of this whole paradigm of patronage.
I am struck again with how strongly property rights are defended in the encyclical – if you were to use text critical tools in evaluating it, I think that theme would be deemed the principal theme of the text. Clearly Leo is scared shitless by the idea of the poor and working classes expropriating their expropriators. Having priests in every association would benefit squashing any real resistance to the power yielding classes. It makes me sick to my stomach to read. Look at the division of property and capital assets in Europe in 1891. How the hell did those with large landholdings and control of large assets and the means of production (or those that passed them on to heirs) get those things? Sigh.
In any event, it’s clear from other things Daniel has quoted from later encyclicals that CST developed to not have so strict a view of the absolute nature of property rights. I’m not sure that RN is very useful today aside from very generic themes.
Owen,
Read the entire encyclical and you’ll see how balanced, and prophetic it actually was. He made some stark claims on the destruction of Socialism, which turned out to be spot on: “…it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal…”
http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/l13rerum.htm
I have read Rerum Novarum multiple times. In my re-reading last year, I was especially struck by the condescension and chauvinism in the tone concerning workers. There is an elitism there that is very regrettable. There are many statements concerning socialism that reveal a lack of familiarity with socialist texts (though, ironically, there are a few long phrases used which are directly from Marx – go figure, I supposed that rhetoric must have been used in very popular campaigns or somesuch) and ideas, and employs second rate tropes.
I don’t particularly find the passage you quote insightful or prophetic, unless one holds a very cliched and reactionary take on socialism and its history in the 20th century. Authoritarian socialism in the 20th century lasted longer than serious attempts at democratic socialism in the 20th century because capitalists killed or otherwise stopped all attempts at socialism that they could, and the non-authoritarian socialists, like Allende, well, it was shooting fish in a barrel. There are few things more intellectually deplorable than free market espousers gloating at the so called death of socialism in the 20th century in light of the horrific things their ideological allies did to insure that death.
It should be noted that when the Church condemns “socialism” it is condemning State ownership of the means of production, as in the Soviet Union and China. Pope Benedict said, on the other hand, that democratic socialism, where ownership of industry is by worker cooperatives, is kindred to what CST envisions.
At the time Rerum Novarum was written one can’t make this distinction. From Robert Owen until the Bolsheviks, the vast, vast, vast majority of thinkers and activist and red militants who described themselves as socialists or advanced a theory of socialism did not advocate an authoritarian socialism. Even if we consider Marx in the minority there because of his advocacy for a brief period of authoritarian socialism, it should be noted that Marx called for worker controlled cooperatives before, during, and after the so-called “dictatorship of the proletariat” – a key component of Marxist thought which the Bolsheviks conveniently forgot) But outside of the Marxist stream, socialism in the West was by and large decidedly democratic, and nearly all of the “who’s who of (non-communist) socialists” in the West from the mid 19th century until today have been anti-authoritarian (in terms of the state controlling all or most production – most democratic socialists have no problem with the state being in control of some services and some industry, such as those related to mail collection or utilities or energy or rail, etc.) and have advocated widespread facilitation of the worker owned and controlled means of production. This was especially true when Rerum Novarum was written. The authoritarian socialists became much more popular in the first decade of the 20th century (after the crushing of many attempts at democratic socialism across Europe, often by people with whom Popes were quite friendly) and then especially following WWI when authoritarian socialists could rather convincingly make the argument that democracy was a colossal failure. But in 1891, most socialism in Europe, far and away, was democratic socialism.
There is a huge difference between State Ownership and Stakeholdership, as those examining the *real effects* of Obamacare are finding out.
Greg,
Indeed, one does need “to look at the whole of Church literature when determining the gray areas of economic liberalism,” something I flatter myself to have done. I think you and I are concentrating on different points, however, since you seem especially worried about poor people being envious or perhaps becoming lazy – the way rich people sometimes are. But I think the heart of the question of liberal or neoliberal economics is the idea of a self-regulating market, and you won’t find any endorsement of that anywhere, from Rerum Novarum all the way to Caritas in veritate. Not even in Centesimus Annus, although it was certainly written in a curious manner. This latter encyclical needs to be taken as a whole, with one passage completing or even correcting another passage.
Thomas,
I believe everything I’ve said implies a balance needs to be struck, which keeps in mind the natural law, Christian charity, and the dignity of the human person, but also the tendency of man to fall into the traps of the Evil One, through greed, laziness, and envy should also be given the critical eye. And I believe that any reasonable economic system can achieve this balance if properly rolled out, and monitored. Even Pope John Paul said the same:
42. “Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?
The answer is obviously complex. 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”. 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.”
JOHN PAUL II
CENTESIMUS ANNUS 1991
Yes, indeed, there is the passage you quote, followed very soon by the following, ” Indeed, there is a risk that a radical capitalistic ideology could spread which refuses even to consider these problems, in the a priori belief that any attempt to solve them is doomed to failure, and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces.”
Centesimus is a very easy encyclical to pick out passages from to support one’s position. You may be interested in an article of mine, “What Does Centesimus Annus Really Teach?”, which you can find by googling.
Thomas,
Yes, and that is where the vice of “greed” becomes problematic from the employer side. In the end, though, the overarching objective should be a society that is based upon Christian principles, but one which must be ever cognizant of the vices of man: Pride, Lust, Greed, Anger, Laziness, Envy, and Gluttony. And these can come forth from not just the employer, but the employee, or the unemployed, as well. Systems that allow any of these to triumph, is an economic system that is not of God. But, as I said, any reasonable economic system that keeps Christian virtue in the forefront, should lead to a healthy society. I, however, do not like using classifications such as “economic liberalism,” or “capitalism,” as they are fluid, constantly changing, establishing new meanings with the passing of each day.
BTW, I will read your article. Thanks
Okay, read your piece on Centesimus Annus, and will say that my conclusion would be different. My thoughts are that the pope was purposefully vague–that the Church will not specifically endorse any particular system, but instead principle. It would be like the Church endorsing a presidential candidate, and then once that candidate wins the election, he changes his views, and continues to say, “hey, the pope endorsed me.”
How these systems are defined change all the time, and so it would be hard to make a solid statement on any of them. The Church instead endorses principle, and any system that embraces its principles is good (for the moment). For example PJPII refers to both “Socialism,” and “Real Socialism,” to highlight how Socialism has changed over time. Today we might use the term “Modern Socialism” to describe its current state.
Two interesting posts regarding Traditionalist Catholics (don’t know if these are off-topic):
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2013/03/high-church-low-class.html#comments
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/03/dear-traditionalists/#comments
Ugh, I used to consider myself a traditionalist until I met a couple traditionalists in real life and all these online ones who are obsessed with minutia and full of vitriol. Now I just say that I personally find it easier to enter a prayerful and loving state of mind in solemn worship heavy on ritual and precise in theological language, and I personally really like ‘high church’ aesthetics. I cannot bear the nitpicking and gleeful criticizing and the air of personal authority I find when self proclaimed traddies talk about church. Matthew 23:5 jumps out, “They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long.” And lest I commit the very sin I am condemning, I find them often to be good people, nice neighbors, hard workers, and pleasant company as long as church doesn’t come up. And I share their tastes in liturgy for the most part. But when they talk about church it turns into a Joan RIvers Fashion Police:Clergy edition and all charity and practicality and even-mindedness and humility goes out the window.
Zeb:
Believe me, I know what you’re talking about. Were my family to join the EF Community in Milwaukee, we’d be considered squishy liberals. But Fr. Z. is calling traddies to get involved in works of mercy, and Fr. Longenecker’s piece speaks of the fine Anglican tradition of “High Mass, low class.”
It’s a foundational part of the whole Caelum et Terra thing: social justice and beautiful liturgy (whether EF, OF, Eastern or Anglican) is not an either/or proposition. It’s both/and.
Zeb,
As has already been noted by David, there is definitely encouragement out there for trad Caths to get outside their liturgical bubble, but it’s a struggle to really make that a reality in some ways given the history of traditionalist “separationism” from the rest of the Catholic Church (lest they be contaminated!). There are also demographic trends that are hard to deny. Living in Chicago, my general sense is that most pro-Tridentine Catholics to be found in regular diocesan (or semi-diocesan) parishes are more affluent types who probably think of their support for High Mass with lovely choirs as akin to being a “patron for the arts” (only this time a patron for Gregorian Chant rather than, say, a jar full of urine with a Crucifix in it). But it would be disingenuous for me to quarrel with this since I, being a man who is certainly not affluent, enjoy the fruits of these expenditures when I attend Mass. And at the end of the day, I don’t have a big issue with it. Better an affluent Catholic spend money supporting liturgical choirs and church restoration projects than purchasing a new yacht. But anyway…
There is a significant “demographic shift” when you go to, say, the Society of St. Pius X chapel here in Chicago. While one doesn’t want to judge a book by its cover, I would guess that 80-90% of the parishioners are middle-to-lower middle class and the ones who do have means probably use a significant portion to keep the parish alive (I can’t imagine their weekly collections could support a full-time priest and a privately purchased church building that is in constant need of repairs and upkeep.) This is true of my experience in other SSPX chapels outside of Chicago as well. Regardless of what one thinks of “SSPX politics” with respect to Rome, the people who go there aren’t going there for a liturgical sideshow or because they are aesthetes. They are “true believers” in what the Society represents and they are willing to make sacrifices to ensure it stays alive.
My hope — and maybe that’s all it is — is that there can be some bridge built where traditionalist Catholics find common cause on the socio-political level. That is something I would hope they could represent to their fellow Catholics in a positive and thoroughgoing manner. If trad Caths believe what they preach, they should be on the front lines of Catholic charitable outreach. They should be on the front lines of protests against abortion clinics and the encroachment of the secular state on the rights of the Church. They should be the ones crying, “Foul!” at neo-Cath economic and political propaganda. (To its credit, The Remnant has been doing that for some time.) What is missing from trad Cath culture or, at least, is under-emphasized is a “holistic” approach that sees the traditional Mass as central, but central to a fully fledged Catholic life. There is too much compartmentalization even amongst traditionalist Catholics. As much as they claim to be against secularism and (post)modernity, they live too closely by the rubrics it has created.
I certainly have no criticism for the things tradionalists are in favor of – I yearned to find a Latin mass since my teenage years after getting to serve as an altar boy for a special one off celebration of our pastor’s 40th anniversary. But when I finally had a chance to visit one while living in Detroit felt kind of cultish and full of angry bitter extremism (in politics as well as liturgy) so I kept looking and settled in a Byzantine parish which led to my eventual transfer of rites. So I certainly have no objection to people seeking to worship in a way that suits them and holding up beauty and tradition. It’s what they are against and how they go about opposing it that turns me off. Admittedly this opinion is formed by knowing only a few personally (despicable antisemetic John Birchers those) and reading online commentary, which is universally more inflammatory and hysterical than the average for any group. But something is seriously unhealthy in a group where the reaction to the election of a new pope is horror that he wore black shoes instead of red slippers, and where doing works of charity is advocated as a means of beating out the liberals and currying favor with that pope. That said, good on them for maintaining the integrity of the Latin Rite and much respect to those who view their love of Gregorian chant and incense (which I share) as more of a subjective preference than a moral imperative and a mark of personal superiority. That may be how it is for the majority and the online contingent simply give the rest a bad name, I don’t know.
Modestinus:
A bit off-topic here, but are you familiar with the Monastery of the Holy Cross in the Bridgeport neighborhood? They’re OF, but “trending traditional”…I’ll be there April 13-14 for the oblate meeting.
Those who bash laissez-faire do so absent a clue about how an unfettered market would work. Damning “capitalism” for the sins of “corporatism” is an exercise in indecently exposing one’s abject ignorance.