Pope Francis Shoud Not Bite the Hand That Feeds His Vision

Professor, from reading your last message, I think you maybe have not deeply studied catholic social teaching as outlined by Leo XII, Pius XI, John Paul II, etc. because it does not teach 'economic re-distributionism'.

It, in fact, opposes socialism and the placing of burdens on the state that ought to be left to lower units of society. The principle of subsidiarity teaches that the lower units of society should, motivated by Christian Charity, seek to improve the conditions of the people in front of them, and that people should not expect everything to be done by the state as though it were God. If, however, the lower units of society fail to carry out this task, then that state has a right and responsibility to intervene in order to correct the problem. It cannot say: "no intervention or else we interfere with some imaginary invisible hand"

The intervention I am speaking about, and which I think the popes (if I studied correctly) speak about, is not what Obama is advocating. For Pope Francis to attack unfettered capitalism and say that the state has to take some responsibility in ensuring that the poor are protected with access to healthcare, education, etc., would be totally in line with what the previous popes said, which is not economic re-distributionism; it is something different.

Pope Pius XI in the encyclical (I can find the quote if you like) explicitly stated that the state has no right to legally deprive someone of their property on the basis of abuse or misuse. This would, I think, be a condemnation of re-distributionism, whereby you take what is owned by the rich and force it to be given to the poor simply because they need it.

Those encyclicals are giving details on what the moral rights, the moral responsibilities, and the moral duties of the different classes and units in society are. Including the workers, the government, the owning classes, the trade unions, etc.

The teaching on the government's right and duties can perhaps be understood better this way, and I could be mistaken in my interpretation, but I will try my best: If in society you have the situation, wherein huge numbers of people are left in poverty and exploited by those who own the capital, while the rich, do nothing to help the poor and are content with continuing exploitation (this is not necessarily so much the case in the United States where those with money and live comfortably are more generous than the people who have money and comfortable lives in other countries, as it is, for example, in China, Indonesia, Bangladesh, etc.). Then the responsibility then falls upon the government to protect the poor. The government cannot morally say: "we must not intervene in anything, but just protect the law and order, because that would harm the economy", because governments have the moral responsibility to protect justice in society. The Pope is explicitly telling the government that it has a moral duty to intervene, not with re-distributionism, but through other means, in order to protect the livelihood of the poor. They could, for example (and they didn't write this explicitly, I am just speculating), punish companies that give unfair wages, punish companies that do not help the local community, reward companies that create more positions to cure societal unemployment, require labour disputes to be submitted to their arbitration, etc. - in other words to intervene to find ways to make sure that the poor are treated better.

A lot of the laws in developed countries today that protect workers rights, for example making it illegal for workers to work in unsafe or unhealthy conditions, limiting work days to eight hours and enforcing overtime pay afterwards, etc. are precisely examples of things that I am talking about, which people in the west enjoy today, and which came about partly as a result of the influence of the application of Catholic Social teaching. As Catholics we ought to be proud of our church and the achievements it gave to the modern world in that regard.

All these things are 'government intervention', and maybe people in the west take it for granted, but in most of the world these things are not the reality. In China, for example, such laws are on the books, but enforced nowhere in order to support foreign investment, and as a result a worker can be cheated of his salary, forced to work in unsafe and unhealthy conditions, forced to work ridiculously long hours with no remuneration, etc. and he has no choice but to accept it or quit; the government does nothing to protect him and he cannot form a trade union to organize workers because it's illegal without governmental permission. That is "unfettered capitalism". Look at huge parts of Africa, Latin America, Asia... whose populations constitute the vast majority of the working world and of humanity, and you will find something similar all across the board, and in many of these places the people who defend this system justify it by claiming that the government must not intervene in any way- I think that is the unfettered capitalism the pope is talking about.

I interpret and assume Francis' latest comments to be in continuity with this teaching. I don't think he's giving his support to economic re-distributionism or Obama's programs; I think that is a misreading.

St Alberto Hurtado pray for us

Thank you for your kind words and thoughts, and God bless you,

Well, you prove my case! A Pope who does not understand economics is not protected from making errors based on faulty theoretical knowledge. If I think medically that taking aspirins is lethal, I would morally condemn the medical use of aspirin, despite what my ignorance of what science says about the matter. Economics deals, ideally, with just how humans can direct their action in a rational manner to achieve economic goals. Three concepts are needed to be understood here. 1. What is "economic" activity and 2. what is "rational" re economic activity and 3. how is math (or what type of math) is applicable to economic activity? Without understanding how economic categories are generated and applied, anyone, pope or pauper, cannot adequately understand the problem. If people are hungry, one is morally obliged to help. How? The answer entails economic action. The nature of economic action is to be understood amorally, not morally. Moral judgments based upon faulty knowledge, though seeking a common good, are in order. But, please to not force me to reject, say, medically aspirin, should, hypothetically, some priest, bishop, cardinal or pope outline moral imperatives on what is moral in the science of medicine. The use of medical science to kill unborn is a morally false use of the science, although the use itself simply complies with theneutral science of medicine. So too with economics.

You are absolutely correct about the task of a pope re evaluating the use of, say, economic activity (or medical activity) in terms of morality. However, what a prelate may understand re the science entailed in the method used is open to being quite fallible, faulty and misleading. I took the exampe of "wisest" predictions. This "wisest" is hardly an economic term or?. But, say it is. What then is the NON-moral theory determining the use of '"wisest"? The answer is not moral, rather rationally attuned investigation into the area of human economic activity. Here Papal authority reaches its limits. The usuage, not the economic "wisdom" (sic) of theoretical analysis, is, indeed, open to papal comments, not foregetting the fallibility of papal understanding of scientific analysis of the subject matter.

We find ourselves today faced with a Pope who has made some outlandish statements, according to my opinion (and it is in and with my opinion that I judge truth). People take him seriously and use his words to support specific policies. I find politically liberal Catholics trying to force submission of my political support to the Obama/Bermanke redistributionism. Bernanke can be right or wrong re economic analsis. That is always a function of fallible judgment. I can only use my judging powers. The result is that I experience a misuse by the current Pope of the prestige of his office (which he is seeking to diminish as shown in "Katholisches.info") and take offense. My judgment is that the very Obama policy seeming in accord wiith Pp Francis's words has been harmful to the material/economic wellbeing of millions of Americans. This is a fallible judgment and the pope is subject to the same fallibility.

I judge that, alas, many popes to not remain withint the realm of their competency. Given the Francis comic book method of proclaiming his nicest ideas, I hold that prudentially the Pope should restrain himself. He is, alas, going to reduce his office to a comic book level, nolens, volens.

I do not think we are so far apart. Alas, we cannot discuss the matter adequately in the comments. I do appreciate your reasoned and respectful "opinions" (and even quoting a pope entail the "opinion" that the quote is pertinent to a thesis). Such discussion pleases me.

Prof Leonard Wesell: I'm not sure if you realize it, because you keep writing 'you contend', 'you write', but that in entire message below with the exception of the part of the bottom was not written by me. It was a quotation from Pius XI's Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno.

I am sure that I don't have as much historical or economic training as you, however, I would point out that there are accredited historians and economists who are published who do write the same thesis (including people who advised Pius XI or Leo XIII when they wrote these things), and I am sure they have good historical and economic training, so logically it would then appear to be a fallacy to claim that this conclusion is the result of poor training in those topics. And my own ideas come from them.

However, something really critical here needs to be maintained which is that the Pope does not have the authority to rule on which economic theory or system works best; that is not his authority. But the pope does have the authority to rule on what is a moral action and what is an immoral action.

And I think the pope is clearly stating in the piece I copy and pasted, that there is a moral aspect in that the government is required to do more than simply maintain law and order. That means to say, he is not claiming from the perspective of an economist that this produces the most efficient economy, but he is claiming from the position of the vicar of Christ that governments commit sin and fail to act justly.

The difference in this is very significant. The Pope's role in the church is to judge moral matters, and what we need to believe in order to have salvation; he is not a judge of science, economics, history, geography, etc. However, all those topics have moral dimensions to them, which he has the complete and rightful authority to pass judgment upon. When the popes say in these magisterial documents, that capitalism needs to be fettered, it is not a claim based in economic theory but in moral doctrine.

If this system that the pope writes does not produce a good economic model, then that only means that doing God's will in this world does not produce a good economy.

As catholics we are obligated to submit our consciences and our own ideas to the moral teaching of the church. If what the magisterium teaches on moral questions is in disagreement with what we ourselves think, then even if we believe (and even if we really do) we know more economics or history than the pope... it doesn't matter, because we still have to submit our own ideas to the yoke of the church's teaching authority.

Here is a quote from Leo XIII (Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus- 1900) It is, then, evident that those whose intellect rejects the yoke of Christ are obstinately striving against God. Having shaken off God's authority, they are by no means freer, for they will fall beneath some human sway. They are sure to choose someone whom they will listen to, obey, and follow as their guide. Moreover, they withdraw their intellect from the communication of divine truths, and thus limit it within a narrower circle of knowledge, so that they are less fitted to succeed in the pursuit even of natural science. For there are in nature very many things whose apprehension or explanation is greatly aided by the light of divine truth. Not unfrequently, too, God, in order to chastise their pride, does not permit men to see the truth, and thus they are punished in the things wherein they sin. This is why we often see men of great intellectual power and erudition making the grossest blunders even in natural science.

Mr. Reesorville, I compliment you for your reasoned presentation and your attempt to "fetter" capitalism, even though I do not think you made your case or are even aware of both historical evolution of "capitalism" (sic), let alone what "capitaism" is. I cannot in the space of a comment rectify what I see to be lacking. So, I will pick a point or two.

You refer to the confines imposed by Liberalism (not current Obamaian liberalism!!!), but that of the founders of the US Constitution who, to MISquote you, "fearlessly taught that government must --- be thought a mere (???) guardian of law anf of good order". I do not argue against and interaction between certain acts of gov. and civil society. I do stand upon the principle of subsidiarity, the application of which is not a simple logical deduction even by a rational pope such as Leo XIII, not to speak of the bubbling economic ignorasmus such as Franciscus (he sign Evangelii Gaudium without his title). So, a discussion must be based upon a function of subsidiary. I suggest that you seek out in YouTube the lectures of Prof. Thomas Woods, a convert to Catholicism and a stalwart supporter of the "unfettered" market economy called "capitalism". There is NOTHING in the essential range of the infallible and non-fallible teaching of a pope that frees him from any error in economic theory, particularly if he has not ever studied it. So, Leo XIII is a shining star among popes of the last 2 centuries, but is not free from faulty judgment beyond faith and morals. (I note that Leo XIII pushed the thought of Thomas Aquinas as a non plus extra and, indeed, as obligatory for Catholic thought. Aquinas is always a source of wisdom, but he is only correct when his arguments are correct. As an anglo-saxon idealist, I have problems. But, de facto T'homas is NO longer a dominant force in Catholic thinking. So, careful with quoting popes on economics --particularly with the spouting of Franciscus.)

Let me take one economic contention you make, just a small point that blows it all. You contend that investors seeking quick profit (as I did and lost my fortune and as my son did and established a mulit-million dollar business hiring hundreds of people in three countries) that "they nullify the WISEST forecasts of the producers." "Wisest"?? What does that mean? How is economic "wisdom" obtained? With astrology predictions or with math? Certainly math!! No disagreement or? What type of math? The usual bell curve math with its normal predictions of risk distribution or with Manelbrot's "chaos" math which, in contrast to the math used my most Nobel Prize winners (the very ones who mispredicted the risk dangers which let loose a crash in 2008), was able to find a formula for the a century of cotton prices, not by Nobel Prize math). What is my point?

You use gibly "the wisest forecasts" and, alas, do not even know how forecast are (mis)made by, say, the Fed. Chairman Bernanke who a few months before the 2008 crash said there was not problem. Oh, please look up Nassim Taleb (author of "The Black Swan" and other books on the failure of a math blind to risk theory) and you will read that Taleb compares that all-knowing bunglar, Bernanke, with a pilot of a plane who thinks he is flying over a desert and crashes, surprise of surprises, into the Alpes. That is an insult to "the wisest" controller of money in the US who could not see the crash coming nor has not of yet understood the reasons for it. For after all, he has been repeating the same bubble producing policies. I have only just touched upon the "wisest" forecasters.

The matter is far more complicated becausse there is no such thing as "capitalism", just competing "capitalismS". Compare von Hayek with Kenysian thought and you have two exclusive theories of capital. (I am sure that you do not want me to lists all the theories floating about.) I accept the method used by Ludwig von Mises to derive economic categories which can be used to understand "capitalism". Misian "capitalism" is my normative model. You can find in the US a website for The Mises Institute and do look up Thomas Woods.

As to the 19th Century space will limit me. Your history is poor. In the early 19th Century there was due to improved medicine a population explosion, inadequate agrarian production, resulting in massive emigration into the cities. So-called capitalism was a mixture of some markets and mercantilistic protectionisms. By the beginning of the 20th Century the US experienced the great expansion OUT OF poverty in its history and possibly in the history of mankind.

I have only made a few remarks. Your contentions are well thought out and your presentation orderly. Thank you for your efforts. Alas, your theoretical and historical knowledge is inadequate. And, in my opinion, I have never read a pope try to explain how humans act in an economically rational manner to produce and distribute goods. Without understanding here "rationality" (particularly the application of math to human activity) and an adequate comprehension of what "economics" is, no one, including a pope, can assert a really informed opinion, just react to the problems of the day with the best moral judgment possible.

For some reason, Capitalists, especially Americans, have a reputation for being greedy. Perhaps it’s because so many people have been conditioned to associate capitalism with greed. The truth is, the United States is the most generous nation in the world. Source

Send that fact to Rome.

25. With regard to civil authority, Leo XIII, boldly breaking through the confines imposed by Liberalism, fearlessly taught that government must not be thought a mere guardian of law and of good order, but rather must put forth every effort so that "through the entire scheme of laws and institutions . . . both public and individual well-being may develop spontaneously out of the very structure and administration of the State."

...

The easy gains that a market unrestricted by any law opens to everybody attracts large numbers to buying and selling goods, and they, their one aim being to make quick profits with the least expenditure of work, raise or lower prices by their uncontrolled business dealings so rapidly according to their own caprice and greed that they nullify the wisest forecasts of producers. The laws passed to promote corporate business, while dividing and limiting the risk of business, have given occasion to the most sordid license. For We observe that consciences are little affected by this reduced obligation of accountability; that furthermore, by hiding under the shelter of a joint name, the worst of injustices and frauds are penetrated; and that, too, directors of business companies, forgetful of their trust, betray the rights of those whose savings they have undertaken to administer. Lastly, We must not omit to mention those crafty men who, wholly unconcerned about any honest usefulness of their work, do not scruple to stimulate the baser human desires and, when they are aroused, use them for their own profit.

133. Strict and watchful moral restraint enforced vigorously by governmental authority could have banished these enormous evils and even forestalled them; this restraint, however, has too often been sadly lacking. For since the seeds of a new form of economy were bursting forth just when the principles of rationalism had been implanted and rooted in many minds, there quickly developed a body of economic teaching far removed from the true moral law, and, as a result, completely free rein was given to human passions. - Pius XI, Quadrageismo Anno (1931)
A critique of the thesis in the above article, is that it seems to suggest that capitalism alone was responsible for the material advancement of the west, and it fails to take into account that capitalism's development in the west for the course of the 19th century was filled with great misery and exploitation of the working class, whose condition did not really improve from the new inventions that were made. But in the 20th century, once states began to increasingly intervene in protecting justice and workers movements became stronger (and much of this can be thanked to Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum and the influence of catholic teaching), the condition of workers then improved greatly.

Capitalism is not evil; but human beings are prone to evil as a result of original sin, and therefore the state has a responsibility to put controls and laws where necessary to curb the evil passions in man. That is what "fettered" capitalism implies.