37

PopeWatch: Peronism

VATICAN-POPE-AUDIENCE

 

An interesting post over at Father Z’s regarding the Pope’s political views:

 

I saw in interesting interview at Real Clear Religion with Rocco Buttiglione, who played a role in the economic views of St. John Paul II.

[…]

RCR: Does Pope Francis have the same kind of philosophical heft that Wojty?a had?

RB: No. He is a different man.

RCR: Is that problematic for the Church?

RB: I don’t think so. We have had a pope who was a great philosopher, we had a pope who was a great theologian, and now we have a pope who has a great pastoral spirit. The Church needs all. I dare say that after those two popes we surely need a pope like Francis because the Curia is a mess and you need someone who has the capacity of clearing that mess.

RCR: You’re often credited for bringing Wojty?a to free market ideas, especially in the context of Centesimus Annus. How did you seem to persuade him?

RB: I would not put it that way, but I was a friend. As Don Ricci had done with me, I talked to Wojtyla about my friends and the things I saw in the world. Sometimes he asked me to do this or that for him, and that’s all.

RCR: Do you think Pope Francis needs a similar education on economics?

RB: Well, you had a pope from Poland who came to understand and love North America much more than anybody could imagine. Now you have a pope who comes from Latin America and in dialogue with him, we must try to explain other things. He is a pope that cannot be only Latin American, but he has to enlarge his horizons. How will he do that?

One of the first things John Paul II did when he became pope was go to Latin America. There he gave a series of homilies, which are a kind of regional encyclical. This encyclical is not against liberation theology, but it is an encyclical that says: We want a theology that is from the point of view from Latin American people. Fine. We want a theology that is written from the point of view of the Latin American poor. Even better! You think that you can produce this theology by using Marxism? That’s wrong. You need a different instrument to approach socio-economic realities from a point of view of a true liberation theology.

I remember one day Don Ricci and I were in Lima, Peru and we were talking with a group of liberation theologians. It was the day of the feast of Señor de los Milagros, and all the people were in the streets. I told the theologians: You talk about the people? Please open the door and look on the streets. They are the people! They are people who are not Marx’s proletariat; they are a people of culture and religion.

Then we started working in Latin America to create groups that wanted to make a true liberation theology. Some wanted to condemn all liberation theology, and there was the first instruction from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, which was very harsh.

I went around visiting different countries and when I came back, John Paul II invited me to one of his “working dinners.” In the end, he asked me: There is the theoretical side, but how is Gustavo Gutiérrez as a man? Does he say Mass? Does he pray the Rosary? Does he confess people? Yes? Then we must find another solution.

After that came the second instruction on liberation theology, which made a distinction between true liberation theology and Marxist liberation theology.

RCR: Which liberation theology is Francis influenced by?

RB: He is not a Marxist. Politically, he is a Justicialista. Westerners might call it populist. Justicialismo in Argentina has been a tremendous movement, giving for the first time to the people the idea that they have dignity. They are anti-capitalist and anti-Marxist. There is an Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism, which is the “self-made man.” That’s American. But that’s not capitalism in Argentina. Capitalism there is where a few people use the contracts given by the state without taking the risk of the market make an enormous amount of money and oppress other people. It is a capitalism created by the State.

If I could suggest to Pope Francis the reading of a book, I would suggest he read Friedrich Hayek’s The Counter-Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason. This might help him.

[…]

Justicialismo…  good grief.  Who of us up here in the North can grasp what on earth has gone on in Argentina?  The more I read about the place, and its modern history, the less I understand.  Do you have be Argentinian to get it?  Does anyone understand Perónism, with all its layers and bands along the ideological spectrum?  I’d be pretty skeptical were someone to make that claim.  Take a look on Google for something on Justicialismo.  There is nearly nothing useful in English.  I read Spanish, but… sheesh… this has been entirely ignored.

 

Go here to read the rest.  PopeWatch thinks the best way to understand Peronism for Americans is to imagine that Huey Long had not been assassinated by a dentist, and had lived to become president running on his “Every Man a King” economic populist/demagogue platform:

Now imagine that he rules like a dictator, and ultimately is toppled by a military coup.  Long is defeated but spawns a political movement in the US that becomes the dominant political party.  It is broad enough to embrace both an extreme left and an extreme right, but all proclaiming allegiance to the movement started by Long.

One of Father Z’s commenters gets to the heart of Peronism that embraces different ideologies and has served primarily in Argentina as a mechanism for politicians to gain power, always, of course, for the “good” of the people :

Argentinian here. Peronismo and Justicialismo are two different names for the same thing: the “Peronista” party had to change its name due to a new law which forbade political parties to include personal references in their names, so they re-branded it “Justicialista” party.

The main idea behind justicialismo/peronismo is not about economy or politics, it is about power. The peronist leader thinks: “The best thing that can happen to the country is not freedom or development or peace or education or whatever… the best thing that can happen to the country is ME. Therefore I have to amass as much power as I can, and for that I have to amass as much wealth as I can. Once I have the power, I will bring peace and prosperity. Somehow.”

That’s why you have liberal peronists, conservative peronists, marxist peronists, keynessian peronists, libertarian peronists, and so ad nausseam, because actual ideas about how to actually govern are secondary, the primary thing for the peronist is for he/she to be the one ruling.

Of course, they say that peronismo is about bringing social development to the poor. That may be true, but they don’t have any clear idea of how to actually achieve that. Some of them think that it is all about giving money and stuff to the people for free, others have some degree of formal socioeconomic thought. But power always comes first. If a peronist government has to choose between the welfare of the nation and power, the answer is always power. And if a peronist leader have to choose between his/her beliefs and power, the answer is, again, power.

So, if you have a vague desire for “social justice” and are willing to support whatever peronist is above you in the ladder in order to eventually take your turn there, that’s enough to be a peronist. Sociopolitical discussions are not to be had within the party. The most famous peronist adaggio is “Que se doble pero que no se rompa”, which roughly means, “let it bend but never break”. A marxist peronist and a capitalist peronist will sing the peronist march together and affirm that “the best thing which can happen to a peronist is another peronist”. Because they will support each other when the time comes. Schisms within the peronist party are always about power, never about doctrines or beliefs.

So, if you think that Pope Francis will bring collegiality to the Church you are dead wrong: it is his time to hold the power and he will use it. He will allow some form of collegiality but only for those thing which he does not care about, and only if he has no choice.

And, btw, doctrine is one of those things.

Pope Francis has emerged from a deeply dysfunctional political system where leaders make wild promises of social justice and then use the power they have obtained for purposes that prove disastrous for the nation.  Pope Francis often was embroiled in fierce disputes with Peronists in Argentina, but it would be fanciful to think that living his entire life in that political system has not left a clear, and PopeWatch thinks unfortunate, mark upon him.

 

 

 

 
Share With Friends
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Donald R. McClarey

Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three and happily married for 35 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.

37 Comments

  1. Back in 2002, the Economist noted that Peronism owes at least as much to Mussolini as it does to Marx.
    “Latin American populism is not a synonym for leftism; it is as close to fascist corporatism as to socialism, involving strong leaders who blur the distinction between government and state.”
    http://www.economist.com/node/2704437

  2. The authors of “Francis:A Pope For Our Times” have basically come to the same conclusions about Francis’s political leanings. They show in their book that he was involved with Peronism as a boy, and even wore Peronist badges in support of the movement. And even more alarming, during his teen years, he made a life long friendship with a woman communist that lasted for twenty five years. After reading this book, written by two Francis friendly Argentine journalists, there’s very little doubt in my mind that our Pope leans toward the left.

  3. Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay were in 1928 second echelon affluent countries with higher standards of living than the bulk of Eastern and Mediterranean Europe. The economic performance of these three over the succeeding fifty-odd years in comparison with the United States (much less France or Japan, which suffered tremendous war damage) should discredit what were the dominant currents in political economy in those three countries during those years. Chile, and in a more attenuated way, Uruguay, have been improving their standing in the last generation, which Argentina has not. Chilean growth vis a vis that in the United States has been rapid enough that one might reclassify the country as 1st world in a generation or so. Francis apparently has not noticed that economic orthodoxies in Chile are quite dissimilar to what they are in Argentina.

  4. there’s very little doubt in my mind that our Pope leans toward the left.

    That’s characteristic of people who do not work in commercial enterprise or in armed services and who do not have a head for statistics.

  5. Peronism is no more socialist than the Italian Fascist party or the Spanish Falange.

    It is, rather, syndicalist or corporatist and like its European counterparts, highly authoritarian.

  6. So the bottom line is power 🙂
    For all the spoken interest in social justice and in fairness and in non violence, the Justicialismo will bring his own answer to bear. Reminds me of a slogan on a t shirt my sister (Mother of 5 in 7 years) used to wear – “Because I am the Mother, that’s why!”
    “if you think that Pope Francis will bring collegiality to the Church …” I don’t mind authority, but I do mind Authority usurped to serve a eclectic ideology cum theology. Our pope’s motivator is no doubt mercy but he seems to me a bit passive aggressive.

  7. ” . . .highly authoritarian.”
    .

    “We have buried the putrid corpse of liberty.” Mussolini 1937.
    .

    But [snivel] peace and justice!!!
    .

    8/12/2014: Café Hayek quotes page 50 of the 2006 Liberty Fund edition of Ludwig von Mises’s 1956 volume, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality:
    .

    “[…] The poverty of the backward nations is due to the fact that their policies of expropriation, discriminatory taxation and foreign exchange control prevent the investment of foreign capital while their domestic policies preclude the accumulation of indigenous capital.

    .
    “All those resisting capitalism on moral grounds as an unfair system are deluded by their failure to comprehend what capital is, how it comes into existence and how it is maintained, and what the benefits are which are derived from its employment in production processes.”

  8. “Peronism is no more socialist than the Italian Fascist party or the Spanish Falange. It is, rather, syndicalist or corporatist and like its European counterparts, highly authoritarian.”
    .
    And exactly how is socialism NOT highly authoritarian?
    .
    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_28121878_quod-apostolici-muneris_en.html
    .
    Let people be free to own the sweat of their labors an to be responsible for the consequences of their decisions. Neither fascism nor socialism, neither syndicalism or corporatism allow this.
    .
    Indeed, what is the difference between Peronist corporate socialism and Obamamanic corporate socialism?

  9. Don, thanks for posting on this. Fascinating, especially the Argentine’s comment.

    Paul, of course a socialist must insist that central planning is not authoritarian. We freely do what the central planners tell us to do out of a sense for our sacred duty. We are free at any time to do otherwise, and without suffering sanction from the, er, authority.

  10. Who really thinks that Francis is capable of learning or changing his beliefs?

    A fool or a naive person.

    Attempting dialogue with him and his ilk is evidence of poor judgment.

  11. Worshippers of the great god Social Justice these days tend to greatly outnumber the worshippers of Mammon, and are apparently dedicated to making all equally poor, except those who distribute the funds in the name of Social Justice, of course:

  12. Paul W Primavera asked, “And exactly how is socialism NOT highly authoritarian?”

    Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. The character of the government can range from direct democracy to absolute dictatorship.

    Neither the Fascists nor the Falangists advocated public ownership and nor do most Peronists.

  13. Rocco Butiglione: “We have had a pope who was a great philosopher, we had a pope who was a great theologian, and now we have a pope who has a great pastoral spirit.” Well, it sounds to me like RB was forced to call PF “great” about something; I would have suggested “a great suppressor of the TLM Catholic.”
    ….
    “..We were talking with a group of liberation theologians. It was the day of the feast of El Señor de los Milagros, and all the people were in the streets. I told the theologians: You talk about the people? Please open the door and look on the streets. They are the people!” – RB

    My own direct experience with liberation theologians on the Very Left/Vladimir Lenin coast is that they eat at the finest restaurants, attend world conferences in the finest cities of the world (Chicago is a favorite), where they stay at the most plush hotels, and drink the very finest [and costly] liquor available, all as they of course profoundly plumb theology’s mysteries —but they would be shocked to actually have to be assigned to provide the sacraments to the occasionally unwashed, often pietist and traditional, garlic- and cumin- reeking ordinary soul of the streets, Latin America or US, for that matter. (“Nuestro Senor de los Milagros? Who’s that?”)
    ….
    Traditional Catholic devotion is also viewed as “holding people back” from experiencing true liberation. Ask Gustavo Gutierrez.

  14. There are places worse than bankruptcy court where one might end up. A Catholic would know this; a worshiper and defender of Mammon would deny it.

  15. Stephen Dalton:”…And even more alarming, during his teen years, he made a life long friendship with a woman communist that lasted for twenty five years.” Yes, incisive as usual, Mr. Dalton.

    And “the Pope’s Rabbi”, Rabbi Abraham Skorka of Buenos Aires, has directly commented also (60 Minutes interview, April 13, 2014: “He is a revolutionary. And he’s not a person who likes to go in the middle way, no, in the extremes.”
    ….
    I think we should take the good Rabbi at his word.

  16. Steve Phoenix asked, “Nuestro Senor de los Milagros? Who’s that?”

    A mural of the crcifixion in Lima, much venerated by the faithful and honoured with a three-day festival.

  17. Unlike you Howard I am familiar, professionally, with bankruptcy court and I know what usually leads there, wishful thinking and greed being at the head of the list. I will bow to any expertise regarding Hell you wish to lay claim to.

  18. Sorry, Donald, I lack your experience with idolatry.

    I would take these defenses of Capitalism more seriously if there were a hint of acknowledgement that Capitalism is at best morally neutral, and at worst promotes certain evils. The same can of course be said of other economic systems. None of these are part of the Divine Law — they are all of purely human invention, and thus guaranteed to be imperfect. From a Catholic I would expect at least some acknowledgement of verses like 1 Timothy 6:10 and Mark 10:25, which spells out the real dangers at the heart of Capitalism, not someone looking for an excuse as to why it is OK to dismiss the Pope as an incompetent who should be politely ignored. But for some people it is always 1962: there are only two real possibilities — Capitalism and Communism, the United States and USSR — and so these must be all-good and all-evil.

    Do you have a sense of humor? That’s hard to say. You’re not funny, merely defensive, just like all the Protestants I used to know. They always ignored the verses that they didn’t like, too, because their faith was too weak. Jesus said, “This is my Body,” but Calvin said it wasn’t, so they believed Calvin rather than Jesus — I even heard a Baptist preacher, during a Lord’s Supper service, say (rather than quote the Scripture), “Jesus explained to them, ‘This represents my Body….'” Well, St. Paul said, “For the love of money is the root of all evils, and some people in their desire for it have strayed from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains,” but your favorite economist appears to be one who says, “The love of money is the root of all economic development, which is the highest good of society, if not the individual person.”

    Sheesh! I could maybe take you seriously if you who claim to be Catholic and criticize the Pope could bear to have Capitalism criticized as well. It can be defended in exactly the same way as the Electoral College — flawed and problematic, but better than anything likely to replace it at this time. But no, in your world the reputation of the president must still be protected against any disclosure of the fact that he has been sleeping with Marilyn Monroe, and Mammon must be protected against any accusation whatsoever.

  19. “Sorry, Donald, I lack your experience with idolatry.”

    Please Howard, I have no doubt that you bow down before yourself in a mirror several times a day judging from your comments.

    “I would take these defenses of Capitalism more seriously if there were a hint of acknowledgement that Capitalism is at best morally neutral, and at worst promotes certain evils.”

    Capitalism is the worst economic system that I am aware of except all the others devised by Man.

    “Do you have a sense of humor?”

    Humor like beauty tends to be in the eye of the beholder. I think I outdo you on that score due to your humorless comments on this blog, which, of course, is the only way I have to judge.

    “The love of money is the root of all economic development, which is the highest good of society, if not the individual person.”

    No my favorite economist actually said this:

    “Well first of all, tell me: Is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course, none of us are greedy, it’s only the other fellow who’s greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system.”

    “But no, in your world the reputation of the president must still be protected against any disclosure of the fact that he has been sleeping with Marilyn Monroe, and Mammon must be protected against any accusation whatsoever.”

    What an odd juxtaposition of lust and greed. No, I am in favor of neither. I am also not in favor of popes making economic statements when they are obviously bone ignorant on the subject and make factual statements that are clearly erroneous. That does neither the Faith nor the Pope any good at all and pretending otherwise is foolish.

  20. MPS said, “Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. The character of the government can range from direct democracy to absolute dictatorship.”
    .
    Democracy = two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner = dictatorship.
    .
    Socialism implemented by democracy = socialism implemented by dictatorship
    .
    The Church opposes socialism:
    .
    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_28121878_quod-apostolici-muneris_en.html
    .
    Republic = free market, free society based on rule of law. People own the fruit of the sweat of their labors, and are responsible for the consequences of their decision. If Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s dinner, then a Republic is a well armed sheep contesting the vote.
    .
    Mors Democratiae Socialismoque! Vive Christe Rex!

  21. Howard,

    Socialism will work this time. My socialism professor told me!

    8/12/2014: Café Hayek quotes page 50 of the 2006 Liberty Fund edition of Ludwig von Mises’s 1956 volume, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality: .
    .
    .
    “All those resisting capitalism on moral grounds as an unfair system are deluded by their failure to comprehend what capital is, how it comes into existence and how it is maintained, and what the benefits are which are derived from its employment in production processes.”

    To wit.

    Walter Williams January 2000 essay “Capitalism and the Common Man“:

    “Henry Ford benefited immensely from mass-producing automobiles, but the benefit for the common man from being able to buy a car dwarfs anything Ford received. Individuals and companies that produced penicillin and polio and typhoid vaccines may have become very wealthy, but again it was the common man who was the major beneficiary. In more recent times, computers and software products have benefited our health, safety, and quality of life in ways that far outstrip whatever wealth was received by their creators.”

  22. there are only two real possibilities — Capitalism and Communism, the United States and USSR — and so these must be all-good and all-evil.

    Strange as it may seem, social organization does not have an unlimited number of equilibria.

    While we’re at it, you might work on critiquing what people say and not caricatures of what people say and also inserting paragraph breaks).

  23. but your favorite economist appears to be one who says, “The love of money is the root of all economic development, which is the highest good of society, if not the individual person.”

    I do not know that Mr. McClarey has ever declared who his favorite economist is (much less that that person made any statement like that). I tend to doubt you’re ever going to find an academic economist who would say that because the normative statements of academic economists tend to be oblique when they do not abstain altogether from making them. That aside, the economist is unlikely to adhere to any such statement more complex than ‘more is better’. He would not mean more money, but more goods and services which do benefit people up to a point. And his assessment would be that a social optimum can be had with individual actors pursuing their personal optima (with a number of qualifications, of course, and understanding there is a difference between an ideal type and a reality).

  24. Argentina’s political culture is as putrid as any in a country with a certain baseline of experience with electoral institutions. Advocates of a reconfiguration of state-society relations in a more libertarian direction are good for one voter in 15. That’s the thought world in which Francis has lived.

  25. Michael Paterson-Seymour: “Steve Phoenix asked, “Nuestro Senor de los Milagros? Who’s that?” A mural of the crucifixion in Lima, much venerated by the faithful and honoured with a three-day festival.”

    Mr Paterson-Seymour, my query was paraphrasing the puzzlement of many a liberation-theology professor (sadly all of them ‘priests’) who have no knowledge of the popular—and very effective— devotions of “the masses, ” e.g. Nuestro Senor de los Milagros. They are in a parallel universe and have no comprehension of “the common man” whom they proclaim to serve.

    I consider myself fortunate in my younger years to have lived in Latin America (although not Peru) and am familiar with the miraculous effect of the devotions such as to “Nuestro Senor de los Milagros,” El Santo Nino de Atoche, “El Negro Martin” (St. Martin de Porres), Santiago Matamoros (Yes, “Kill the Moors, very politically incorrect today) y su caballo blanco (When you complete a pilgrimage to Santiago Tlatelolco Church in Mexico City, Juan Diego’s parish church, you should also bring grass for the horse to eat and put it at the statue’s base, and my personal favorite Nuestra Senora del Carmen..
    ….
    I am also familiar with the utter disdain and distress at these and so many time-honored devotions by the Gustavo Gutierrez crowd, that such devotions “hold them back” from a “true faith”, such as their Vision of the Anointed.
    …. Just so that I communicate in a way so as not to be misunderstood…

  26. JPII emerged from an even more evil and dysfunctional system. He fought the Communists. It left an indelible mark in an extraordinarily good way. He recognized the evil and did not misplace its source. He could have learned to wield power, but he learned and taught about true freedom instead. And allied the Church to liberty, including economic liberty.

    Why is Francis unable to see the clarity of evil without it making him wield power similarly?

  27. Karol Wojtyla and Jorge Bergoglio are as different as two men could ever be.

    Argentina has nothing in common with Poland except that both are Catholic. Before and after the Partition, Poland had republican traditions. In the 17th century, kings were elected. In the 18th century, Poland enacted a Constitution much like that of the US – and was partitioned by its neighbors as a result. Moreover, Poland NEVER had a history of tyrants of its own making such as the caudillo Rosas – not since the eleventh century, anyway. Argentina has San Martin, but no Kosciuszko or Pulaski. Pilsudski ruled as a semi-dictator but he never ruled like the caudillos ruled.

    Karol Wojtyla was an intellectual, one of many brilliant Poles throughout history (Copernicus, Chopin, Marie Curie, the Poles who cracked the Enigma code and Paderewski, to name a few).

    Poland’s motto is “for our freedom and yours”.

    Argentina?

    Caudillos. War with Paraguay. Peron. Facsist Italians and Nazis escaping and finding sanctuary (of course Operation Paperclip allows the SS officer Werner von Braun to come to the USA). Military dictatorship. Picking a fight with Great Britain about the Falklands/Malvinas.

    Wojtyla traveled the world, spoke English, Spanish, Portugese, French, German, Italian, Latin and some Russian. Bergoglio has never set foot in North
    Americaand apparently knows nothing of the Catholic experience of Mexico, Canada or the USA – unique stories all.

    I could go on but it’s late and the kids need to go to bed.

  28. I get around the web, I read comments from all sides, and I have my own ideas.
    What I observe is those from the nominal “left” who want liberalism on moral issues and basically a redistribution of wealth. From the “right” I see a more traditional take on matters of the world.
    What I have taken notice of is that there are four deadly sins, two of which this country pretty well has covered, murder and sodomy, no arguing or ignoring that fact.
    The last two deadly sins have to do with money, with wages, oppressing the poor, things like that.
    Now, i know i may be entering hostile territory, but to me the Marxist critique, while somewhat outdated, makes quite a bit of sense.
    Look at our world, multi-national corporations spanning the globe, 16,000 companies controlling 80% of all commerce, and reigning over it all by binding treaties, the almighty UPC.
    The planet is dominated by commerce, people are treated as disposable objects, soulless automatons to serve the markets.
    I see the failure of the welfare state, the fatherless children, broken families, the violence, and I realize much of it is due to moral decay.
    All this being said, the Bible tells us the love of mammon is the root of all evil.
    There is more going on here than meets the eye, to say there is a free market in the age of globalism is to live in a sort of la-la land.
    There must be away to improve the lot of the great majority of people while threading a path between the competing imperatives of freedom and totalitarianism.
    We desperately need reform on both a personal and public level.

  29. unrestricted capitalism and unrestricted free enterprise are just as damaging as totalitarian communism to the average citizen.

    in other words, judicious application by the government of Christ’s teachings upon economic activity are necessary if we are to produce a better economy and a better social system. the ideal is a perfect equilibrium between the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity.

    we should always seek this perfect equilibrium even though we will always achieve it imperfectly.

    from experience, we know that usually subsidiarity is more threatened by the powerful than is solidarity. the powerful see solidarity as a more useful promotion than subsidiarity.

  30. judicious application by the government of Christ’s teachings upon economic activity are necessary if we are to produce a better economy and a better social system. the ideal is a perfect equilibrium between the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity.

    I think the above more aptly describes francis’ social and political objectives than labeling him a liberal or a moderate or a conservative or a capitalist or a communist or a socialist or a libertarian or an anarchist. based on all I have read and heard about francis, I believe it is impossible to apply the traditional labels to him.

    in practice, religiously, he is a monarchist.

  31. “unrestricted capitalism and unrestricted free enterprise are just as damaging as totalitarian communism to the average citizen.”

    Ludicrous. There has never been a communist dictatorship that did not have to employ huge number of troops to keep their populations from fleeing their “worker’s paradise”. The most free enterprise countries on earth have precisely the opposite problem with illegal aliens flocking to them.

Comments are closed.