As I noted in a previous post, there are some who take the Church’s rejection of socialism, collectivism, and communism, as if it were a blanket affirmation of pure capitalism. That is as misleading as thinking that the Church’s preferential option for the poor entails full political support of the welfare state.
Neither are correct, and both violate the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, which again states that “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good” (Catechism, 1883).
The first problem with capitalism, one that is too little noticed, is that it’s something so loosely-defined that either crying it up or decrying it is impossible (at least for the clear-thinking, deep-thinking Church). In order to judge capitalism, we’ve got to be much clearer about it. We’ll find that the principle of subsidiarity will help us gain the needed clarity.
Does capitalism mean the enshrining of the vice of avarice as if it were a virtue? The Church categorically rejects the use of an evil means to achieve an alleged good (economic development), and avarice is one of the seven deadly or “capital” sins (Catechism, 1866).
The Church cannot affirm an understanding of capitalism as fueled primarily by a capital sin (and that goes for the other six capital sins, pride, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony and sloth). As noted in Part 2 of this series, “Subsidiarity Defined,” the principle of subsidiarity protects the “moral space” of individuals and their families from governmental intervention, and the worst kind of ruin such a government could inflict would be to support an economic view that would be the ruin of morality itself.
But the Church does affirm private property as a good associated with capitalism. . It not only rejects communism and collectivism, but asserts, “The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge” (Catechism, 2402).
Private property helps fathers and mothers to fulfill their moral obligation of providing for their families.
Does capitalism mean championing the belief that the sole aim of government is the protection of private property, and that each person has an absolute right to do whatever he wants with his own property? The Church says No to both.
To the first, the Church declares that the “human person,” not the protection of private property and the promotion of its increase, “is and ought to be the principle, the subject and the end of all social institutions” (Catechism, 1881; see also 2426). To put it another way, state power is limited by human nature.
We are not homo economicus but homo sapiens, the creature defined by the love of wisdom, and hence ultimately the love of God the source of all wisdom. Society must be defined by what is truly definitive in human nature, our God-like capacity to know and love the truth.
Economic activity is important, but subordinate to what truly defines us. The principle of subsidiarity protects persons from being turned into consumers. Therefore, “Any system in which social relationships are determined entirely by economic factors is contrary to the nature of the human person and his acts” (Catechism, 2423).
To the second error, the notion that we have an absolute right to property, the Church maintains that “the ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family” (Catechism, 2404).
That does not mean that it is the government’s job to take his property and make it benefit others. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the moral burden of using property for the benefit of others — and consequently, the moral punishment for failing to do so — both fall primarily on that individual’s shoulders.
That brings real seriousness to the question of what we do with our property. Jesus does not threaten those who fail to feed the hungry and clothe the naked with higher taxes, but with hell. So, while a modest use of the powers of taxation are proper to government, the redistribution of wealth is not. Furthermore, government intervention for those in need should supplement, not supplant, what can be done by families, local governments, private organizations, and the Church.
Does capitalism mean minimizing governmental interference in economic activity? “The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention” (Catechism, 1885).
Again, providing for our families and showing charity toward our communities is our moral duty, and as the principle of subsidiarity states, the higher order should not deprive the lower order of its proper functions, including its proper economic functions. As many have found out, you can’t function very well if you’re bound, hand and foot, by an endless skein of government regulations, and on top of that, hobbled by excessive taxes.
But that doesn’t mean an affirmation of the “free market,” if by “free” one means either entirely freed of any and all oversight, or “free” of any moral concerns. This is a truth available even on the natural level.
As the great 20th-century economist Friedrich Hayek made clear, state oversight is often necessary to keep the marketplace free of corruption, price-fixing, crony capitalism and monopoly so that there actually is real competition in the marketplace, real freedom of individuals to engage in economic activity. But state oversight is different from heavy-handed, centralized economic planning.
The Church agrees, and declares that “Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds,” but also that “regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice.” Therefore the Church affirms “Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives.” (Catechism, 2425).
So, does the Church affirm capitalism? No, the Church affirms the principle of subsidiarity, and uses it to judge among the various meanings of capitalism put forth in the “marketplace of ideas.”
Comments
Post a Comment
I understand that Church teaching is somewhere in the middle, between Capitalism and Socialism. But America has moved so far to the left, that we haven’t had Capitalism since the 19th century. America needs less intrusion of socialism into the “free market” for it’s economy to survive. Government doesn’t create wealth, the private sector does.
And under Socialism, hasn’t Religious Liberty been taken away?
“State oversight is often necessary to keep the market free of coruption, price-fixing, crony capitalism,and monopoly so that there is actual competition in the marketplace, real freedom of individuals to engage in economic activity”
My experience in the home building industry over the last 27 years is that the state supports all of the things that Hayek says thier oversight should be preventing. It is not because of a 100% use of planning, though it plays a part. It is more the use of crony capitalist looking out for thier own interest manipulating and appeasing the Government planners.
The industry and the individual would have been much better off without bureacratic government oversight. Judical oversight of torts such as contracts and liability would have served the individual and family much greater and totally averted the financial crisis -the forclosures, bankrupcies, unemployment, suicides of despair, etc.- of the last several years.
Have you been selectively quoting? So that your interpretation of Subsidiarity trumps all other Catholic values?
Let’s ask someone who is more expert on Catholic teaching than anyone else who will write on this website. Their extensive reading and understanding had them say:
In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.
Benedict XVI “Europe and its Discontents” 2006
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/04/europe-and-its-discontents—-50 . Worth reading the whole essay.
This is not a Magisterial document, but it is written by the foremost scholar of Catholic theology and cannot be dismissed easily. All of us should examine our political values and compare them to the gospel.
“What would Jesus do?” regarding political values? Pope Benedict (as a leading theologian) has given his answer.
Democratic Socialism is the natural central position for Catholics. Other positions are legitimate, but Democratic Socialism is the starting default as far as Values are concerned.
If B16’s quote sounds “un-American” and alien then consider if the “American values” you were raised in daily bombarded with are Catholic values.
The Church does go beyond merely assessing economic systems according to principles of subsidiarity and solidarity; its documents clearly allow for the possibility of an economy which arises from these principles straightaway, and from subsets of more specific principles contained under these principles (such those concerning the primacy of property ownership or the need of labor rights). So an article on this “third way” system of economics is in order I think.
“Democratic Socialism is the natural central position for Catholics. Other positions are legitimate, but Democratic Socialism is the starting default as far as Values are concerned.”
Then the Church is inconsistent in application of philosophy. This is from Leo XIII, “QUOD APOSTOLICI MUNERIS (On Socialism)”.
******
4. But it is to be lamented that those to whom has been committed the guardianship of the public weal, deceived by the wiles of wicked men and terrified by their threats, have looked upon the Church with a suspicious and even hostile eye, not perceiving that the attempts of the sects would be vain if the doctrine of the Catholic Church and the authority of the Roman Pontiffs had always survived, with the honor that belongs to them, among princes and peoples. For, “the church of the living God, which is the pillar and ground of truth,“6 hands down those doctrines and precepts whose special object is the safety and peace of society and the uprooting of the evil growth of socialism.
5. For, indeed, although the socialists, stealing the very Gospel itself with a view to deceive more easily the unwary, have been accustomed to distort it so as to suit their own purposes, nevertheless so great is the difference between their depraved teachings and the most pure doctrine of Christ that none greater could exist: “for what participation hath justice with injustice or what fellowship hath light with darkness?“7 Their habit, as we have intimated, is always to maintain that nature has made all men equal, and that, therefore, neither honor nor respect is due to majesty, nor obedience to laws, unless, perhaps, to those sanctioned by their own good pleasure. But, on the contrary, in accordance with the teachings of the Gospel, the equality of men consists in this: that all, having inherited the same nature, are called to the same most high dignity of the sons of God, and that, as one and the same end is set before all, each one is to be judged by the same law and will receive punishment or reward according to his deserts. The inequality of rights and of power proceeds from the very Author of nature, “from whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named.”
Again, this author is trying hard to make atheist Ayn Rand dogmas in to Catholicism. He also (?deliberately) confuses concepts. Private ownership is one thing. Subsidiarity in a different concept. Subsidiarity relates to how governing bodies should be organized, be they private or public. The author confuses both. Also the author does not define his catchall dirty words: “collectivism” or “socialism”. Richard Nixon would be a socialist, and successful cooperatives, like Minnesota butter makers Land O Lakes, or non for profit entities that do researcher and save lives in large part through competitive government funding, like St Jude Hospital, would be examples of “collectivism” to be abolished, according to the author’s definitions. He would also call a “socialist” the one that dared say: “..The members of the working classes are citizens by nature and by the same right as the rich; they are real parts, living the life which makes up, through the family, the body of the commonwealth; and it need hardly be said that they are in every city very largely in the majority. It would be irrational to neglect one portion of the citizens and favor another, and therefore the public administration must duly and solicitously provide for the welfare and the comfort of the working classes; otherwise, that law of justice will be violated which ordains that each man shall have his due. To cite the wise words of St. Thomas Aquinas: “As the part and the whole are in a certain sense identical, so that which belongs to the whole in a sense belongs to the part.” Among the many and grave duties of rulers who would do their best for the people, the first and chief is to act with strict justice - with that justice which is called distributive - toward each and every class alike… “ or “..The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government. “ Except that this was Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum. Of course, those are selected passage that makes the Pope sound “leftist”, but if one reads the whole thing, Pope Leo is very much on the side of family and private property rights. This is why one must stay clear form Ayn Rand /”Opus Die” catholics that twist Church teachings. They follow their self defined new religion of “holy dishonesty” and try to create new dogmas where there are none.
@Tom ATK:
Amen! The modern selective readings of Rerum Novarum are a joke. Leo XIII was a spirtual egalitarian, not an economic one: “The inequality of rights and of power proceeds from the very Author of nature.”
“state oversight is often necessary to keep the marketplace free of corruption, price-fixing, crony capitalism and monopoly so that there actually is real competition in the marketplace, real freedom of individuals to engage in economic activity.”
Are we reading the same Hayek? State Oversight is often the cause or mechanism of corruption, price-fixing, crony capitalism and monopoly-not its antidote. If you think so, I give you the crisis of 2008, which coincided with 75 years of federal securities market regulation which was addressed with unprecedented corruption and crony capitalism and erection of barriers to entry in finance. Please reread The Road to Serfdom or the Hayek’s 1974 Nobel address to see how little faith he put in the state to remain constrained and incorrupt.
@ATK.
Nice to see your regurgitate the leftist pablum that infuses every due suspicion of the government as Randian, but it doesn’t fly.
You look at St. Jude’s and think how wonderful it is that they receive “competitive government funding” (always choose a positive euphemism when trying to ignore details) as if the government is a font of wisdom, dispensing some financial spring. I lament their need to maintain a grant-seeking apparatus that doesn’t conduct a single experiment other than appealing to political or bureaucratic strictures. I would much rather free charity from state servility, at let them “compete” (funny how that’s normally a dirty word among the left)for my charity, which I assure you will be more easily obtained and gratutitious than anything the state dispenses.
Government (and I speak as real live bureaucrat who understands how it REALLY works, not a brainwashed wonk) is more often funding such derelict, but politically connected enterprises such as Solyndra, where an ambitious politician decided to blow 500 million dollars in a conspicuous expenditure of “green” energy, despite the fact the company’s auditor included a rather rare expression of doubt in its viability in its most recent report of the company.
On the internet search: “What Catholics REALLY Believe Source”; http://whatcatholicsreallybelieve.com .
Look at the answer to question #6.
Is there a conflict in the Church’s teachings on Social Justice, Solidarity, Subsidiarity, Commutative Justice, the Commandment to Love our Neighbor, the Commandment not to covet our neighbor’s goods? Please define Commutative Justice.
And in another question answer talk provides info our responsibility to help the poor.
They simply use the CCC - where there can be no misinterpretations, with mis-statements from people who want to use to push their own poltical agendas.
Interestingly something that most of our Bishops do not teach is “Comutative Justice without which no form of justice is possible”.
QUOTE: CCC ” 2411 Contracts are subject to commutative justice which regulates exchanges between persons and between institutions in accordance with a strict respect for their rights. Commutative justice obliges strictly; it requires safeguarding property rights, paying debts, and fulfilling obligations freely contracted. Without commutative justice, no other form of justice is possible.
One distinguishes commutative justice from legal justice which concerns what the citizen owes in fairness to the community, and from distributive justice which regulates what the community owes its citizens in proportion to their contributions and needs. ” UNQUOTE.
The USA is in such debt, that our credit rating has been downgraded twice in the last two years. Some States are in the same situation. Spending and Waste prevail.
Responsibility is a virtue - and it’s also the moral obligation of sensible adults.
Responsibility is also the moral obligation of governments.
In his 2010 book ‘Light of the World’, POPE BENEDICT XVI chastised Western governments for “LIVING at the EXPENSE of FUTURE GENERATIONS”.
With regard to DEBT, our Pope said, “WE ARE LIVING IN UNTRUTH.”
Bishop Aquila has stated: “We can not spend what we do not have”.
AdamBaum. First I am not a “leftist”, like you say. I do believe the free market is at the foundation of any modern society. I know thuis, because I did travel behing the iron curtain and saw the disaster under communism. Although I am not an economist, I do think Austrian school ideas, like letting banks be banks, and that interest rates should not be things dictated by governments, but by the free market are good ideas. Does that mean the debt needs to be paid: absolutely.
All I am saying is that there is also a free market of ideas, and that this is part of any democratically ELECTED government. If a product or a service on the free market is bad, we don’t buy it. If the government is incompetent or corrupt, it is up to us to change it. Neither are intrinsically good or evil. There are many functions that should be left to the free market, and not be taken over by government. But not all functions are amenable to 100% free market solutions. Some require cooperation with democratically ELECTED governments.
In regards to medicinal research in the US, baseless far right talking points are just that. Since its creation after WW2, the NIH grants highly competitive funding to less than 10% of applicants, by open peer review. This is the marines of medical research, the envy of the entire world. Do these researchers work in cooperation with industry or eventually create own businesses, sure. An other example: small pox eradication did not happen thanks to the “free market” but because US public health doctors in cooperation with international colleagues were determined to make this happen. Not that you seem to care, because for you accountable democratically ELECTED government=always bad; anarchic oligarch Ayn Rand capitalisms= always good. So why don’t you move to Honduras? From a Catholic point of view, moral issues, like abortion, are also about immoral free market forces. I can tell you that even if the government part of the equation was removed, free market forces would still be there (entertainment industry, pharmaceuticals, abortion providers etc.. etc..). But no, for Ayn Rand/”Opus Dei” catholics, the forces of $$$$ are always good, because the new “holy”=$$$.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID7o5L3CaRU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq-ZGktYWWA
This is a religious country. Part of claiming your citizenship is claiming a belief in God, even if you are not Christian. We’ve got the Creator in our Declaration of Independence. We’ve got ‘In God We Trust’ on our coins. We’ve got ‘one nation under God’ in our Pledge of Allegiance. And we say prayers in the Senate and the House of Representatives to God. An atheist could never get elected dog catcher, much less president. Up until now, the idea of being American and believing in God were synonymous. [snip] If Obama wants to win the next debate, he needs to wear God, as much as it offends him to do so.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.