Monday, March 18, AD 2024 9:16pm

PopeWatch: Not a Marxist

VATICAN-POPE-AUDIENCE

 

Yet another interview.  Yesterday Pope Francis gave an interview with La Stampa.  It coverered a fair amount of ground.  Go here to read it.  Here are some of the more interesting portions:

Some of the passages in the “Evangelii Gaudium” attracted the criticism of ultraconservatives in the USA. As a Pope, what does it feel like to be called a “Marxist”?

“The Marxist ideology is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended.”

The most striking part of the Exhortation was where it refers to an economy that “kills”…

“There is nothing in the Exhortation that cannot be found in the social Doctrine of the Church. I wasn’t speaking from a technical point of view, what I was trying to do was to give a picture of what is going on. The only specific quote I used was the one regarding the “trickle-down theories” which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and social inclusiveness in the world. The promise was that when the glass was full, it would overflow, benefitting the poor. But what happens instead, is that when the glass is full, it magically gets bigger nothing ever comes out for the poor. This was the only reference to a specific theory. I was not, I repeat, speaking from a technical point of view but according to the Church’s social doctrine. This does not mean being a Marxist.”

PopeWatch exists mainly to glean evidence about Pope Francis in an attempt to understand him.  One conclusion that is self-evident to PopeWatch now is that Pope Francis is absolutely tone deaf to the starboard side of the political spectrum.  Can anyone ever imagine that if he had been accused of being a fascist that he would have denied it, but responded that he had known many fascists who were good people?  PopeWatch believes that Pope Francis has little use for conservatives politically.   PopeWatch fears that this is going to be a long papacy indeed for Catholics who do not share the left leaning orientation, at least on economic matters and government intervention in the economy, that the Pope obviously embraces.

 

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
52 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Monday, December 16, AD 2013 5:53am

Perhaps, the Pope’s remark about Marxists is merely an example of the old slogan, “No enemies on the Left.” It certainly implies no acceptance of Marxist doctrine. For all we know, from anything he has said, the Holy Father may prefer Proudhon, Sorel and Bakunin – Anti-Marxists to a man.

Jon
Jon
Monday, December 16, AD 2013 6:09am

Donald, William Jennings Bryan once pointed out the two contending ideas. It was his impression that raising the water level would lift everone up. John Paul II was very socially conscious, too. It is hard to express concern without sounding like an economic liberal.

Jon
Jon
Monday, December 16, AD 2013 6:23am

“They will not press down upon us this crown of thorns; we will not be crucified upon a cross of gold!” For a speech it was awfully good. I don’t know the answers to this. He was a theologian, not an economist, though he was definately a politician. And he took a stand against business and banking.

Jon
Jon
Monday, December 16, AD 2013 6:38am

Yes, he was a great orator. Unfortantely, since flowery rhetoric was insufficient in a debate like that, it probably did little good for the long term for strict or literal creationists.
He would have done better to point out the nature of language in general. For example, to this day we say the sun rises and sets. The biblical writers were not intereested in a scientific account as we have come to think of it.

Jon
Jon
Monday, December 16, AD 2013 6:39am

Was speaking of the “Monkey Trial.”

Tom Simon
Monday, December 16, AD 2013 7:16am

One conclusion that is self-evident to PopeWatch now is that Pope Francis is absolutely tone deaf to the starboard side of the political spectrum.

This should not surprise anyone: Pope Francis is not a U.S. national. What you refer to as ‘the starboard side’ is the uniquely American marriage of cultural conservatism with classical liberalism. This is not found in any other country – not even, except in a very incomplete form, in Canada or Australia – for the excellent reason that classical liberalism was never bred into the culture in any other country in the way that it was in the U.S. A classical liberal outside of the U.S. is never a conservative, because the traditions of his country invariably include things like aristocracy, monarchy, or at least a habit of submissive veneration towards ordained authority, which cannot be conserved if liberalism is to flourish. A classical liberal in the U.S. is concerned with conserving the work of the Founding Fathers and the culture that their successors built up. The upshot is that ‘the starboard side’ of U.S. politics does not powerfully resemble any political movement in any other country, and it is only reasonable to expect that the Pope has no particular familiarity with it.

After months of close observation, I have come round to the view that our new Pope’s problem is neither Leftism nor modernism; it is that he is provincial. He says things that are perfectly correct and understandable within a Latin American context, but are far too easily (and often wilfully) misinterpreted by people who don’t know that culture, its assumptions, or its language. My Spanish is not fluent, but even I can see where his Holiness’s translators simply make a hash of his original statements.

It doesn’t help, by the way, that ignorance of economics is pandemic in Latin America. I don’t think I have ever heard of an influential economist from that part of the world. In fact, I’m rather afraid that the average Latin American thinks of an economist not as a specialist with useful knowledge, but as a sort of ogre employed by the IMF to exploit the people and countries south of the Rio Grande. With occasional exceptions, the economic policy of those countries could be fairly described as ‘Perónism without Perón’. It would be remarkable indeed if a man who lived his life in post-Perón Argentina had any good understanding of the subject.

Mary De Voe
Monday, December 16, AD 2013 8:37am

“Was speaking of the “Monkey Trial.”
The Monkey Trial was about parental rights to educate their children according to their beliefs.

Michael Paterson-Seymour
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Monday, December 16, AD 2013 9:44am

Tom Simon is perfectly right about the unique nature of American conservatism.

In France, for example, both the dwindling counter-revolutionary, “Throne and Altar” conservatives and the right-wing Nationalists tend to be equally « dirigiste » in economic matters. They tend to be protectionist, not for economic, but for strategic reasons. Indeed, they tend to be remarkably authoritarian. It is the old French belief that, without a strong central power, the secondary powers in society (financiers, organized labour &c, &c) will run riot and oppress.

Here is a pretty little story: Under the Fourth Republic, Michel Debré at first supported the Democratic and Socialist Union of the Resistance, but defected to the Radical-Socialist Party on the advice of General de Gaulle, who reportedly told him and several other politicians, including Jacques Chaban-Delmas, « Allez au parti radical. C’est là que vous trouverez les derniers vestiges du sens de l’Etat » – “Go to the radical party. It is there that you will find the last vestiges of the meaning of the state.”

Kyle Miller
Kyle Miller
Monday, December 16, AD 2013 11:37am

The promise was that when the glass was full, it would overflow, benefitting the poor.

Donald, this is exactly what I thought when I read that line.
The Pope’s “explanation” of his “trickle down” remark gives me no confidence that he has the slightest understanding of how markets work either in theory or in practice.

Perhaps someone should send him the essay “I, Pencil.” It’s a good start in understanding trickle down. You tax the lumberjack or lay heavy unnecessary burdens on him, and those actions have negative effects which trick down through the system. Ditto for any positive actions.

Did the pope happen to mention if he knew any trickle down economists who are good people? Or, does he just know good Marxists?

I’m starting to wish he would take a vow of silence for a while. The more he speaks, the deeper the hole he digs.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Monday, December 16, AD 2013 1:54pm

The Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Is he infallible ihn matters of assigning complete control of the economy, all property, and fiscal/monetary policy to a tiny elite? Human beings are utterly fallible. So, marxism deifies dictators and, in today’s iterations, central bankers. It gives them vast powers to “mess up” by misallocating economic resources; mal-manipulating markets, imposing ruinous interest rates and prices; and promulgating massive economic disasters. That system has proven to be (Keynes here) dull, illogical, and destructive, not to mention epic genocidal crimes of the past century.

While the state engages in its victory laps: Fed and income tax 100th anniversaries, I will commemorate a far happier anniversary – the Boston Tea Party.

Steve Phoenix
Steve Phoenix
Monday, December 16, AD 2013 5:24pm

Yes, Kyle M, I am hoping for a self-imposed vow of silence on PF, but I doubt it is in the offing; As equally I have no doubt about my irritating everyone from the start on this pontiff, seeing “stormy weather ahead”, with his un-self-critical, proudly ivory-tower-Jesuit jargon (phrases like “self-absorbed Promethean neo-pelagians” you have got to know were thrown around the rec room somewhere with his SJ confidantes), and his sometimes bizarre jingle-like phrases (“Money should serve not rule”; “Time is greater than space”; “Realities are more important than ideas”, all these from Evan. Gaudium). The worst problem is his Montini-esque creation of confusion and contradiction in almost all his communications so far. Economic growth, he says, requires “programs” and “mechanisms” and “better distribution of income” (n. 204), yet he demurrs that he is advocating a new populism (205). He discusses in his interviews the problem of re-married Catholics but he states there will be no change in Church teaching. The evangelizer should evidence “attitudes which foster openness to the message: approachability, readiness for dialogue, patience, a warmth and welcome which is non-judgmental (165)”, so is there a dialogue between truth and untruth, life and abortion, the culture of life and the culture of death?
Oh: and watch ahead for how he intends to re-create the semi-autonomy of episcopal conferences(also in EG: 32), undoing all the work of JP2 and BXVI to bring these bandits back into the territorial governance; so we are likely to repeat the contradictions and deviations of the Dutch Schism of the 1960’s (remember the Dutch Catechism, that fine work of Catholic teaching!), when of all people, Pope “Let-it-be” Montini himself had to try to try to be disciplinarian when the inmates were only operating the asylum according to the Vat2 blueprint. Stormy weather ahead.

Steve Phoenix
Steve Phoenix
Monday, December 16, AD 2013 6:48pm

Also: Pope F: “The Marxist ideology is wrong: But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended.” My, my, this is a faint excoriation of a philosophy that killed a few million under Lenin, 20-50 million (or more) under Stalin, easily 40-70 million (or more) under Mao, and whose present leaders most notably in N. Korea and Cuba execute their own populace with impunity. “All for the cause”, the famous Leninist motto. All for the cause, But free-markets of course kill many millions more. Of course.

Anzlyne
Anzlyne
Tuesday, December 17, AD 2013 1:18am

“The promise was that when the glass was full, it would overflow, benefitting the poor. But what happens instead, is that when the glass is full, it magically gets bigger nothing ever comes out for the poor. “.
That is his opinion but I don’t think it is true, is it? I thought the relatively poor in an expansive economy had a higher standard of living than the poor in a struggling economy .

J.I.
J.I.
Tuesday, December 17, AD 2013 1:41am

I dunno if the Communist:fascist analogy is as perfect as you guys’re making it. One can be understood in drawing idealistic, somewhat naïve people to it even if it’s evil…the other, maybe some people’d fit that description, but that’s not usually how we think of it.

although, Communism:fascism is a closer analogy than Communism:Nazism.

Stilbelieve
Stilbelieve
Tuesday, December 17, AD 2013 7:04am

“The only specific quote I used was the one regarding the ‘trickle-down theories’ which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and social inclusiveness in the world. The promise was that when the glass was full, it would overflow, benefitting the poor. But what happens instead, is that when the glass is full, it magically gets bigger nothing ever comes out for the poor.”

In the 1980 Republican campaign for President, George H. Bush belittled Ronald Reagan’s economic plans for recovery calling it, “Trickle-down economics.” The rest is history. Reagan won the nomination, picked Bush as his running mate and skunked President Jimmy Carter. Reagan’s economic plans set in motion the greatest and longest economic recovery ever experienced, lifting employment, earnings, wages and ended the “misery index” created by Jimmy Carter. Oh, by the way, it also made the Soviet Union President realize they would never be able to compete with the U.S. militarily because of America’s roaring economic engine and lead to the breaking up of the atheist Soviet Union and freeing of hundreds of millions of people. Not bad…that “Trickle-down theory,” and the good Pope should learn a lesson from history, including Pope John Paul II teaming up with President Reagan and Prime Minister Margret Thatcher, another free-enterpriser, causing the Soviet Union to dissolve during George H. Bush first term as President 8 years later.

Clay
Clay
Tuesday, December 17, AD 2013 10:04am

I am not speaking from a technical point of view? Then what the HECK was the point of all those denunciations of policy? Macroeconomic policy reccos are, duh, technical! If you profess to have no competency in technical matters, then when it comes to recommendations about technical matters, please shut up.

I HATE it when people do this; clergy, the glitterati, the academy, and others who get paid the same whether they are right or wrong – just so long as they keep talking – always do this: “Here is a long list of technical policy suggestions”
“Hey, isn’t that totally wildly inaccurate?”
“Oh, well, I wasn’t speaking on technical matters; I was just advocating for justice or some such something [implicitly the same as socialism].”

Jon
Jon
Tuesday, December 17, AD 2013 10:45am

When we consider the implications of Christianity, we are brought to the realization that “no man is an island.” Thatcher was correct in one sense when she suggested there is no such thing as society–there is no society in the abstract, in other words. Society is made up of individuals, all of whom must choose community and justice. We make society. It does not happen by itself. But her policies suggested that each person remains atomized. That, I think, its the troubling aspect with classic economic liberalism. It posits a view where individuals are at war with one another, and each is concerned wtih taking advantage of the other.

anzlyne
anzlyne
Tuesday, December 17, AD 2013 10:46am

Thanks stillbelieve. I still remember the disdain in adult voices for the “trickle down” idea. It almost seems like I hear disdain from our pope today…. not only in his use of that phrase, but also “self absorbed promethean neo pelagian”
Some want to embrace the S-APNp label (on a coffee mug and proud of it) but I don’t accept that label.
I have journeyed in my faith. It isn’t juvenile, immature, narcissistic, self absorbed and anthrocentric. Those terms really seem to me to be more descriptive of the modern liberal idea of social justice.
In the movie “Christmas Candle” the young Anglican pastor left the pulpit to dish out soup in the soup line. He was not living out his faith more fully, but he was living out a Lack of faith in the transcendent, all powerful, all loving God.

Botolph
Tuesday, December 17, AD 2013 11:23am

In a post above Jon quoted former and now deceased British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher saying that there is no such thing as ‘society’-there is no society in the abstract: society is made up of individuals, all of whom must choose community and justice.

Before beginning, my arguement is not with Jon, and not even with Ms Thatcher per se. However, is that true? It is how the Western ‘liberal’ philosophy views reality [here ‘liberal’ is that much broader and deeper philosophy of which both ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ ideologies in America spring]

If this is true, that there is no such thing as ‘society’ and only a mass of individuals who must choose both community and justice [whatever those realities would mean if this philosophy were pushed to their logical conclusion] then there is no such thing as ‘the family’? [See where this view of reality takes us, and is taking us even now? (marriage is whatever two individuals want it to be?)] There are no such things as ‘family ties? Any ‘authority’ of parents is based on the consent of the governed [children in this case]? Any member of the family no matter who or what age can opt out of the family [husbands and wives can in divorce-and there is a growing sense of this with children doing this willingly or taken from parents in some cases for questionable reasons]?

Of course this does not simply effect ‘the family’ which is a ‘community of response’ (one is a member of it then one responds to it) rather than a ‘community of election (one chooses it) The Church is also a ‘community of response’ and not a ‘community of election’. Thus it makes a great deal of sense-from this ‘no such thing as society’ view-that the right people have is freedom of worship (each individual chooses his/her ‘god’ and right to ‘choose’ to worship that ‘god’) but not freedom of religion-since like ‘society’ the Church is therefore, according to this view, an abstraction, and all it really is, is a massive group of individuals choosing to form community [we call this a ‘denomination’] and do ‘justice’ [according to what the group thinks justice is-there is no real justice to be achieved]. And of course, there is ‘no right to govern’ in the Church (according to this view) except with the expressed will of the governed (here is where ideologies have a field day, then, to see who and what ideology gets into the ascendancy, transforming the Church into a carbon copy of American politics)

See, words count, ‘philosophies’ count-and we often ‘swallow’ before we have chewed and mulled over what it is we are chewing. Do we really believe that there is no such thing as ‘society’? Do we really believe that man is ‘condemned’ to his/her own solitary existence between the womb and the tomb as ‘an individual’? Do we not believe that we are in the image of God: One and Triune~~~~individual and social by nature?

Jon
Jon
Tuesday, December 17, AD 2013 11:32am

Great points, Botolph! Yes, the idea that there is no society is without validity. The classic liberalism from which today’s American liberals AND conservatives spring is at fault here. We are all liberals and that’s unfortunate. We must return to the Bible for our understanding of life. Family is not contractual. However, the church is something to which people are added on as they come to God. We do not find ourselves born into this; it requires a second birth. It is only then that we belong to it in the truest sense, even if our parents were Christian and we consequently found ourselves in that milieu. So I would disagree wtih that. I believe a faith response is required on the part of the individual. You speak of the Trinity. We are made in God’s image. We reflect him individually and in community.

Jon
Jon
Tuesday, December 17, AD 2013 11:34am

We do well to point out that no state of nature exists in the sense posited by Rousseau. Even for philosophic purposes, this was a very bad way to start. People are communal by nature. We exist in families and amidst others in community. We have been cultural from the beginning. There is no ‘state of nature’.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Tuesday, December 17, AD 2013 11:39am

It’s again snowing in NYC. Talk to me about frauds: global warming.

Ann Althouse and a Bloomberg.com op-ed take to task CST types, in general, and Pope Francis, in particular, for promoting sin: envy.

Here’s the skinny about CST from Instapundit: “Charity is good for the soul. Exercise is good for the body. Forced redistribution is not charity, and will do no more for your soul than making someone else lift weights at gunpoint will do for your biceps.”

Botolph
Tuesday, December 17, AD 2013 11:59am

Jon,

Ahh yes yet nonetheless the Church is indeed a ‘community of response’ and not a ‘denomination’. This is key to our self understanding and it is one more difference that we have with “Protestantism’:

The Church has been from the beginning (I know this is difficult to take in but the Church Fathers spoke of this. The whole of creation and the Old Testament point to and reveal in mystery the truth that is present in and through Jesus Christ. As the moon receives her light from the sun and as the first woman came forth from the side of man [not a teaching on biology but theology] so the Church comes forth from the side of the New Adam, asleep in death on the Cross. It is from the Church that we both hear the Gospel in order to believe and are born from above in the womb of the Church: the sacrament of Baptism. The Church is thus a community of response, not a denomination which is a community of election

Jon
Jon
Tuesday, December 17, AD 2013 12:11pm

Botolph, you reflect a more intuitive hermeneutical style that capitalizes on some metaphors through which we may attain insight.
Spiritual rebirth owes itself to the work of the Spirit. God draws people to himself with prevenient grace and we respond to that with free-will. Baptism is a symbol of our death and rebirth in Christ, and our entrance into the community of believers in Christ. I would venture to say that the church is a community of election in the sense that St. Paul explains in his letter to the Romans. He speaks of what we might term the plan of the ages. God called Israel as a corporate entity and he elects the church in Christ. His election is corporate. This is how I understand it. Of course the chruch is not a denomination. The church is comprised of all those who are ‘in Christ’, past, present, and future. It is also a term used to refer to local meetings, assemblies, or gatherings.

Michael Paterson-Seymour
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Tuesday, December 17, AD 2013 12:15pm

Botolph is quite right

It was a fundamental principle of the Enlightenment that the nature of the human person can be adequately described without mention of social relationships. A person’s relations with others, even if important, are not essential and describe nothing that is, strictly speaking, necessary to one’s being what one is. This principle underlies all their talk about the “state of nature” and the “social contract,” and from it is derived the notion that the only obligations are those voluntarily assumed.

This is why Yves Simon says that, in this state [of abstraction], man is “no longer unequivocally real.” To clarify, Simon then adds: “Human communities are the highest attainment of nature for they are virtually unlimited with regard to diversity of perfections, and are virtually immortal.” Simon insists that “Beyond the satisfaction of individual needs, the association of men serves a good unique in plenitude and duration, the common good of the human community” and that “The highest activity/being in the natural order is free arrangement of men about what is good, brought together in an actual polity where it is no longer a mere abstraction.”

Jon
Jon
Tuesday, December 17, AD 2013 12:23pm

Very well said, Michael.

Foxfier
Admin
Tuesday, December 17, AD 2013 5:45pm

I read the “I’ve known good Marxists” thing as an example of what Tom pointed to, though I’m not sure I’d call it “provincial.” (mostly, not sure WHAT I’d call it)

There’s places where it’s Marxist or Crony Capitalism– for some forsaken reason, humans tend towards “this or that” and heaven help whoever doesn’t fit.

Botolph
Tuesday, December 17, AD 2013 7:24pm

In my online reading today, I stumbled upon an article at Ethika Politika entitled “Pope Benedict defends Francis on Market and Ethics. I was intrigued. This is what I found:

“In order to find solutions that will truly lead us forward, new economic ideas will be necessary. But such measures do not seem conceivable, or above all, practical without new moral impulses. It is at this point that a dialogue between Church and economy becomes possible and necessary.

Let me clarify somewhat the exact point in question. At first glance, precisely in terms of classical economic theory, it is not obvious what the Church and the economy should actually have to do with one another, aside from the fact that the Church owns businesses and so is a factor in the market. The Church should not enter into dialogue here as a mere component in the economy but rather in its own right as Church.

[Noting that Ratzinger went after Smithin economics and in particular a ‘system where voluntary actions contradict market rules and drive the moralizing entrepreneur out of the game’ as a culprit against which the Church must align] he goes on:

“The great successes of this theory concealed its limitations for a long time. But now in a changed situation, its tacit philosophical presuppositions and thus its problems become clearer. Although this postion admits the freedom of individual businessmen, and to that extent can be called liberal, it is in fact deterministic in its core. It presupposes that the free play of market forces can operate in one direction only, given the constitution of man and the world, namely, toward the self-regulation of supply and demand, and toward economic efficiency and progress”

Like Pope Francis, the then Cardinal Ratzinger states clearly that Marxism ideology is wrong:

“In terms of the structure of its economic theory and praxis, the Marxist system as a centrally administered economy is a radical antithesis to the market economy. Salvation is expected because there is no private control of the means of production, because supply and demand are not brought into harmony through market competition, because there is no place for private profit seeking, and because all regulations proceed from a central economic administration. Yet, in spite of this radical opposition, THERE ARE ALSO POINTS IN COMMON IN THE DEEPER PHILOSOPHICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS. The FIRST of these consists in the fact that Marxism too, is DETERMINISTIC in nature and it too PROMISES A PERFECT LIBERATION as the fruit of this determinism. For this reason, it is a fundamental error to suppose that a centralized economic system is a moral system in contrast to the mechanistic system of the market economy. This becomes clearly visible, for example, in Lenin’s acceptance of Sombart’s thesis that there is in marxism no grain of ethics, but only economic laws.

Ratzinger continues: “Behind [the thirst for power and possessions] lurks a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God.Ethics has come to be viewed with a certain scornful derision. it is seen as counterproductive, too human, because it makes money and power relative. It is felt to be a threat, since it condemns the manipulation and debasement of the person. In effect, ethics leads to a God Who calls for a committed response which is outside the categories of the marketplace. When these latter are absolutized, God can only be seen as uncontrollable, unmanageable, and even dangerous, since He calls human beings to their full realization and to freedom from all forms of enslavement.”

“We can no longer regard so naively the liberal-capitalistic system (even with all the corrections it has since received) as the salvation of the world. We are no longer in the Kennedy-era with its Peace Corps optimism; the Third World’s questions about the system may be partial but they are not groundless. A self-criticism of the Christian confessions with respect to political and economic ethics is the first requirement.

It is becoming an increasingly obvious fact of economic history that the development of economic systems which concentrate on the COMMON GOOD depends on a determinate ethical system, which in turn can be born and sustained only by strong religious convictions. Conversely, it has also become obvious that the decline of such discipline can actually cause the laws of the market to collapse. An economic policy that is ordered not only to the good of the group-indeed, not only to the common good of a determinate state-but to the COMMON GOOD OF THE FAMILY OF MAN DEMANDS A MAXIMUM OF ETHICAL DISCIPLINE AND THUS A MAXIMUM OF RELIGIOUS STRENGTH. The political formation of a will that employs the inherent laws toward this goal appears, in spite of all humanitarian protestations almost impossible today. It can only be realize if new ethical powers are completely set free. A morality that believes itself able to dispense with the technical knowledge of economic laws is not morality but moralism. As such it is the antithesis of morality. A scientific approach that believes itself capable of managing without an ethos misunderstands the reality of man. Therefore it is not scientific. Today we need a maximum of specialized economic understanding but also a maximum of ethos so that specialized economic understanding may enter the service of the right goals. Only in this way will its knowledge be both politically practical and socially tolerable.”

Did Pope Benedict really come out with a statement to support Pope Francis against many critics, but especially against the ones claiming he is marxist? The answer is “yes”-however, it is not a statement made in the last few weeks. It comes from Cardinal Ratzinger’s writings in 1985! Granted, he was not yet pope, but it shows that the statements from Ratzinger and Bergoglio are not way out there somewhere-but arising from the center of the Church. Pope Francis’ statements are in continuity with earlier Magisterial Social Teaching.

anzlyne
anzlyne
Tuesday, December 17, AD 2013 8:22pm

o man Botolph- that title is a stretch not just because it is anachronistic or just because Cardinal Ratzinger was not speaking in support of the statements made by Pope Francis, but also because what he Was talking about the need for moral prudence and ethics. Sure they both talked about Marxisms failings, but “Benedict” did not talk about the efficacy (or lack of efficacy) of “trickle down” or did I miss that?

Botolph
Tuesday, December 17, AD 2013 8:46pm

Anzlyne,

I don’t blame you; don’t blame yourself. It is there but not obvious:

“….Although this position admits the freedom of the individual business man, and to that extent can be called liberal, IT IS IN FACT DETERMINISTIC IN ITS CORE. IT PRESUPPOSES THAT THE FREE PLAY OF MARKET FORCES CAN OPERATE IN ONE DIRECTION ONLY, GIVEN THE CONSTITUTION OF MAN AND THE WORLD, NAMELY, TOWARD THE SELF-REGULATION OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND, AND TOWARD ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY AND PROGRESS.”

Please pardon the caps Anzlyne, I was not shouting aat you lol It seems to be the only way of emphasizing a word or sentence in the blogsphere 🙂

To your point though: that deterministic view of the liberal economic system as if the only direction it is flowing in or can go in is toward ‘self-regulation of supply and demand, toward economic efficiency and progress’ is a more philosophical way of describing ‘trickle-down economics, IMHO. The then Cardinal Ratzinger and now Pope Francis are radically questioning this ‘deterministic direction in only one direction of what is called liberal economic theory

Please note that Cardinal Ratzinger went into a long condemnation of Marxism as well-but what even stunned me more were the common points both marxism and ‘democratic capitalism do have in common-per Cardinal Ratzinger. I mean: Pope Benedict is no radical nor ‘provincial’ as some might call Pope Francis.

Willaim P. Walsh
Willaim P. Walsh
Tuesday, December 17, AD 2013 9:03pm

Pope Francis points out things sometimes overlooked, the Imitation of Christ and the Corporal Works of Mercy, and that we should not judge the state of another’s soul. That’s for the Divine Judge. Yet, though we be gentle as doves, we must be wise as serpents. Serpents are rarely stepped upon but we will be, if we put our trust in princes such as most especially the Philosopher Kings of the Left. As to “trickle-down” economics, I recall the phrase as a pejorative appellation of the Left to ridicule the economic policy of the Reagan Administration. So I at last stagger to speculation on Pope Francis’ economic views, which may be favorable to Distributism. If so, he shares the good company of Hilaire Belloc, G.K. Chesterton and L. Brent Bozell Jr. Dare I say as well Pope Leo XIII? I understand that Ron Paul is engaging in speculation on Obama’s economic views and tentative concludes him to be a Corporatist. If so, I imagine of the top down variety like Mussolini. Our Lord said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s but did not elucidate as to how much Caesar should lay claim. I think the Widow’s mite is quite enough.

J.I.
J.I.
Tuesday, December 17, AD 2013 10:10pm

“That is correct J.I. because there are active Marxists still out there, sometimes occupying prestigious academic positions throughout the West, while fascism is relegated to the fever swamps of insignificance”

It’s possible for people to believe that Marx had certain insights, and be drawn to the egalitarianism of Marxist ideology in the abstract, while not being so keen on the “false consciousness” and “revolutionary vanguard” concepts that lead to all the destruction. Yeah it’s an evil ideology taken as a whole but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with recognizing its (one-time) appeal or studying it.

you could argue the same for fascism, but part of the reason it’s not taken as seriously is cuz it’s not universally aimed in the same way, and arose in particular circumstances where countries felt nationally “humiliated” post-WWI + died after.

Foxfier
Admin
Wednesday, December 18, AD 2013 12:16am

Please pardon the caps Anzlyne, I was not shouting aat you lol It seems to be the only way of emphasizing a word or sentence in the blogsphere

Lesser-than symbol, either the letter ‘i‘, ‘b‘ or ‘u‘, greater than symbol; word you wish emphasized; Lesser-than, slash, same letter, greater than.

Phillip
Phillip
Wednesday, December 18, AD 2013 6:26am

Botolph,

I have the greatest respect for Benedict XVI. But I am not sure that his economic analysis is correct either. Here I think is a better definition of Capitalism from Centesimus Annus 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.”

No where does John Paul see the market as a purely deterministic force but rather a human activity that, with proper limits, can contribute to the common good.

Michael Paterson-Seymour
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Wednesday, December 18, AD 2013 7:00am

T Shaw writes, “Forced redistribution is not charity, and will do no more for your soul than making someone else lift weights at gunpoint will do for your biceps.”

Paying taxes lawfully imposed would be an exercise of the virtue of obedience and St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that, after the virtue of religion, obedience is the most perfect of all the moral virtues, because it unites us closer to God than any other virtue, inasmuch as obedience detaches us from our own will, which is the main obstacle to union with God (Summa Theologicae IIa, IIae, 104)

Now, St Paul says everyone is to obey the governing authorities (Rom 13:1) and to be submissive to rulers and authorities (Titus 3:1). Thus, paying taxes lawfully imposed would be an exercise of the virtue of obedience and a mortification of self-will.

Botolph
Wednesday, December 18, AD 2013 8:01am

Philip,

You are absolutely correct in your assessment of JPII’s Centissimus Annus. In another line of discussions on this blog I mentioned-and agreed with CA’s more positive view of Democratic Capitalism. My point in quoting the then Cardinal Ratzinger is to show that Pope Francis’ comments on economics is not ” way out there” from the Catholic tradition’s view of economics.

To explain this a bit further, within the mainstream Catholic tradition there are two distinct streams or views. Both condemn Marxism and Statism. However, One has a pretty critical, if not negative view of capitalism ( Populorum Progression of Pope Paul VI, this earlier writing of Ratzinger, and noe Pope Francis). While it might sound funny, this would be the more traditional view. However, a newer more positive vie of capitalism developed with JPII’s Centissimus Annus. I believe that Pope Benedict attempted to synthesize both streams in his encyclical Caritas in Veritate.. Now the more traditional and critical stream is speaking once again.

Both streams will continue in the Church because both are orthodox. However, the direction of Democratic Capitalism will actually prove which one was more on target

Michael Paterson-Seymour
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Wednesday, December 18, AD 2013 8:10am

Donald R McClarey

St Paul almost certainly wrote Romans and Titus under Nero, or just possibly Claudius. Nevertheless, he declares “there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves” and “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honour, then honour.”

St Peter, under the same Emperors, enjoins, “Fear God. Honour the king.”

One could add that the Apologists of the 2nd century stress, over and over, Christians’ loyalty and obedience in all things but sin, especially in their addresses to the Emperors.

Anzlyne
Anzlyne
Wednesday, December 18, AD 2013 8:34am

Yes
Virtue is oriented to the Good. With Donald McClarey I say Obedience to manifest Evil is no virtue.

Example: Prudence is one of the cardinal virtues, but look at Stalin’s prudence … For what he wanted to achieve, he was careful, effective. outcome oriented- but oriented to Evil.
Of course our issue is discerning Good and Evil in our actions as American Catholics participating in a capitalist economy that is trending apparently to a more socialist system.
Catholics have identified the inherent evil Marxism; pitting people against God and against each other. We know there are dangers of sin attendant to capitalism; that it (capitalism) is a good way and that it requires people to be good. Individuals can be “good” and obedient under marxism but the blessings are not there because Marxism is not oriented to the good. Back in the 60’s many young people fell for the deception that socialism Is good, and that “liberal” was to be equated with “generous”.
We know that a morals holy economy depends upon a moral holy people which can only exist if the individuals are moral and holy. So in a way the way it works is not by “trickling down” but by “bubbling up”

Paul W Primavera
Wednesday, December 18, AD 2013 9:10am

I agree with everything Donald said in his last comment. However, God does allow us to have the leaders we receive. Rebellion against God is why Israel and Judah had some very wicked rulers. This was not God’s “perfect will,” but it was His “permissive will.” He lets man have a choice, hence 1st Samuel chapter 8 where the children of Israel demanded a king like that if other nations. For us in this post-modern, neo-pagan day and age, that is fulfilled both politically and religiously. We have our soft, pink tyranny because that’s what we wanted. God allows it and His “perfect plan” will go forward in spite of the fact that this occurs as a result of His “permissive plan.”

Bad leaders are in a sense God’s judgment on us for our wickedness and depravity because nothing happens that will not fulfill God’s “perfect will.”

Michael Paterson-Seymour
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Wednesday, December 18, AD 2013 9:29am

Paul W Primavera is right

Thus, in Jeremiah, God three times refers to Nebuchadnezzer as “my servant”

“Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the LORD, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them” (Jer 25:9)

“Thus saith the Lord now have I give all these lands into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, My servant!” (Jer 27:6)

“Where these stones are buried, behold, saith the Lord I will send and take Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, My servant, and on this place he will erect his pavilion and set his throne as the king over Egypt. I have given Egypt and all the civilized nations of the world into his hands” (Jer 43:10-13]

That wicked rulers are God’s scourge, when his hand is heavy on His disobedient children has been a common theme of Christian preaching over the centuries.

Of course, the Holy See, as Donald M McCleary rightly notes has deposed Christian princes and absolved their subjects from their allegiance. As the arch-conservative, Joseph de Maistre explains, power can be limited from above, not from below.

Michael Paterson-Seymour
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Wednesday, December 18, AD 2013 11:21am

Donald M McClarey

Joseph de Maistre was not alone among the “Throne & Altar” conservatives.

“Chateaubriand described Christian Rome as being for the modern what Pagan Rome had been for the ancient world—the universal bond of nations, instructing in duty, defending from oppression. Lamennais argued that without authority there could be no religion, that it was the foundation of all society and morality, and that it alone enfranchised man by making him obedient, so harmonizing all intelligences and wills. And thus the Church, as the supreme authority, became the principle of order, the centre of political as well as religious stability; the only divine rights were those she sanctioned, in her strength kings reigned, and through obedience to her man was happy and God honoured.” [Fairbairn]

In their favour, the Counter-Revolutionaries did not appeal to abstract principles, but to the judgment of a concrete living authority – the Holy See. It is not without interest that some Liberals are now seeking a secular equivalent in the international community and its organs, with the Security Council and the International Criminal Court replacing the Chair of Peter.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top