How Leftwing is the Catholic Church?

[James Hannam]

Will Hutton has been talking to the Pope, according to his article in the Observer on Sunday.

Hutton quite liked what he saw (in contrast to many other ranters in the Guardian), but this worried me a little bit.

You see, Hutton is a member of the Society of the Professionally Wrong. He makes his living never being right about anything that isn't obvious, but telling his constituancy (the British left) what they want to hear (for instance here).

So, if Hutton is in agreement with the Pope, is the Pope wrong too? Is Catholic economic policy effectively keeping people poor by attempting to stifle the market. In fact, it may not matter much because I doubt the Church has much clout in this area. But I fear Benedict may not understand the difference between charity (good) and big government (bad).

Best wishes

James

[Mike D]

Maybe this is one of the "obvious things" that Hutton is right about?

The article seems to point towards a socially responsible capitalism, a capitalism that looks beyond immediate profit to long term economic consequences and quality of service. Which (I think) to anyone with moral sense (and some economic realism) is (as they say) fairly obvious...

Mike

[hawkinthesnow]

There can be no such thing as a socially responsible capitalism, or capitalism with a human face. Never has been, never will be. I don't think this is the Pope taking a left turn at all. He and his predecessor basically gagged the only socially astute people in the RC church when they condemned Liberation Theology. Ratzinger is trying to eat his cake and have it. There really is only one choice and that is between capitalism and socialism. The Catholic church is instinctively conservative and capitalist. This Pope is no different to any of the others in my view. As long as the Catholic church continues to provide justification for capitalism it is not being true to the gospel.

[Mike D]

hawkinthesnow,

I think I disagree - capitalism has a human face and is socially responsible insofar as the people in the system are likewise. I also don't see the gospel as being in favour of one economic system or the other - if the ssystem of ownership outlined in the Old Testament is not precisely capitalist (land is owned and (in theory) retained by families) it is certainly not socialist either (the land is not owned by the people as a collective, it is owned by individual families and individuals).

Mike D

[hawkinthesnow]

Hello Mike D.

It really doesn't matter whether capitalists are socially responsible or not. The idea behind a free market economy is that it basically runs itself. The system of ownership in the OT is most definitely not capitalist. Lending at interest is not part of the system, and based on the OT proscription of usury, the Catholic church was against it, at least until the Reformation, when the Reformers decided it was ok to lend at interest.

It would be anachronistic to read current political theories back int the Bible. However I am intrigued that in Acts you read tha the church in Jerusalem "held all things in common, they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all as any had need." Back in the 80s some Catholics in South America tried a similar experiment with what became known as "base communities", beleivng that that pattern of social existence was more reflective of Chrsitian values than the competitive spirit of capitalism. Regrettably the church hierarchy condemend it as Marxism, although it was nothing of the sort. One can extrapolate from the teaching of Jesus about the kingdom, that one of the things he was concerned about was justice, and that surely has to exclude the kind of inequalities that exist within capitalist societies.

[Petersean]

The Catholic Church has traditionally held something of a middle position on the issue of economics and property.

For example, it recognizes the right of the State to control property for the common good:

59. Hence, it is the noble prerogative and function of the State to control, aid and direct the private and individual activities of national life that they converge harmoniously towards the common good. That good can neither be defined according to arbitrary ideas nor can it accept for its standard primarily the material prosperity of society, but rather it should be defined according to the harmonious development and the natural perfection of man. It is for this perfection that society is designed by the Creator as a means.

Summi Pontificatus

But it also has a traditional suspicion of the State's ability to use its power to oppress, and some of its writings sound like Milton Friedman:

60. To consider the State as something ultimate to which everything else should be subordinated and directed, cannot fail to harm the true and lasting prosperity of nations. This can happen either when unrestricted dominion comes to be conferred on the State as having a mandate from the nation, people, or even a social order, or when the State arrogates such dominion to itself as absolute master, despotically, without any mandate whatsoever. If, in fact, the State lays claim to and directs private enterprises, these, ruled as they are by delicate and complicated internal principles which guarantee and assure the realization of their special aims, may be damaged to the detriment of the public good, by being wrenched from their natural surroundings, that is, from responsible private action.

Summi Pontificatorus was the first encyclical written by Pius XII. It was written in 1939 and clearly targets Nazi claims, including the Nazi insistence on racial purity - in Summi Pontificatorus, Pius XII made it a point to elevate 12 bishops from different racial and ethnic groups to the status of Cardinals at a time when the Nazis were attempting to get the Church to discriminate against Catholics of Jewish ancestry.

Then, there is this from Benedict's 2005 Deus Caritas Est:

The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply.

b) Love—caritas—will always prove necessary, even in the most just society. There is no ordering of the State so just that it can eliminate the need for a service of love. Whoever wants to eliminate love is preparing to eliminate man as such. There will always be suffering which cries out for consolation and help. There will always be loneliness. There will always be situations of material need where help in the form of concrete love of neighbour is indispensable.[20] The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need.

So, the left/right issue is probably not the relevant criteria; the real criteria probably has more to do with the question of which policy allows a flourishing of human dignity.

[isidore]

"However I am intrigued that in Acts you read tha the church in Jerusalem ""held all things in common, they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all as any had need."" Back in the 80s some Catholics in South America tried a similar experiment with what became known as "base communities", beleivng that that pattern of social existence was more reflective of Chrsitian values than the competitive spirit of capitalism. Regrettably the church hierarchy condemend it as Marxism, although it was nothing of the sort."

The Church's beef with Marxism in theory is the denial of private property, which she says is fundamental to humanity. The fact that the very early Christians lived like that doesn't mean that they were denouncing property, it just means that they were abstaining from it. Priests and religious vow virginity, they don't say sex is evil.

The Church says private property must exist. Trade will exist as long as private property exists.


"One can extrapolate from the teaching of Jesus about the kingdom, that one of the things he was concerned about was justice, and that surely has to exclude the kind of inequalities that exist within capitalist societies."

You can extend this to any venue where injustice can occur. The fact that one kid has more cake than another doesn't mean we abolish the institution of cake.

[hawkinthesnow]

Jun 6, 2008 18:53:01 GMT isidore said:

"However I am intrigued that in Acts you read tha the church in Jerusalem ""held all things in common, they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all as any had need."" Back in the 80s some Catholics in South America tried a similar experiment with what became known as "base communities", beleivng that that pattern of social existence was more reflective of Chrsitian values than the competitive spirit of capitalism. Regrettably the church hierarchy condemend it as Marxism, although it was nothing of the sort."

The Church's beef with Marxism in theory is the denial of private property, which she says is fundamental to humanity. The fact that the very early Christians lived like that doesn't mean that they were denouncing property, it just means that they were abstaining from it. Priests and religious vow virginity, they don't say sex is evil.

The Church says private property must exist. Trade will exist as long as private property exists.

I don't think that the early church was renouncing private property, I think Acts 5 (story of Ananias and Sapphira) make it clear that this donation of property for the common good was voluntary and not compulsory. I don't regard owning property as evil, but I don't think that private ownership is fundamental to humanity.

As I said earlier, it is anachronistic to read back current politics into the Bible. However, I do believe that modern capitalism is inimical to Christianity because it is based on the maximisation of profit based on interest, to the detriment of all else. It fosters selfishness and greed. It has created hugh imbalances between rich and poor in the world, it is destructive of the environment. I don't believe that capitalism is reformable. It is an all consuming monster.

I was not advocating Marxism either, certainly not as it has been practiced in places like Russia or China. Of course it could be said that Marxism has never been truly practiced anywhere. Again probably that too may be unachievable.

I think the ideal human community would be communitarian, without a division between those who govern and those who are governed; and there would certainly be trade, but between communities, and for goods, and not between individuals for profit. A communitarian society would of necessity be a small one, and clearly there would have to be a large number of them in order to replace our current national arrangements.

Short of a global catastrophe that destroys all the structures that make our current level of civilisation operable, I don't think communitarianism will come about. However, it is possible to have some even within our current system. Monastic communities are to some extent communitarian, in a limited way, they still come under the authority of a church hierarchy and they have to pay their taxes and so forth to the State.

"One can extrapolate from the teaching of Jesus about the kingdom, that one of the things he was concerned about was justice, and that surely has to exclude the kind of inequalities that exist within capitalist societies."

You can extend this to any venue where injustice can occur. The fact that one kid has more cake than another doesn't mean we abolish the institution of cake.

No, but we could address the causes of why one kid has more cake than another. And as I said earlier, Capitalism as embodied in the Global "Free" Market is one of the greatest causes of injustices of our time.

[James Hannam]

Jun 8, 2008 16:08:09 GMT hawkinthesnow said:

I think the ideal human community would be communitarian, without a division between those who govern and those who are governed; and there would certainly be trade, but between communities, and for goods, and not between individuals for profit. A communitarian society would of necessity be a small one, and clearly there would have to be a large number of them in order to replace our current national arrangements.

I think this is probably too idealistic and proven wrong by history. I've got a blog post in the works about why big polities are generally better than little ones.

Best wishes

James

[hawkinthesnow]

I look forward to your post James.