. . . Adam Smith was fond of saying that nobody has ever seen a dog exchange a bone with another dog. He meant that only humans exchange goods for mutual benefit. Capitalism is uniquely human because it lifts us above the mere struggle for survival and forces us to reflect on our capacity to alter our environment. Capitalism is guilty of making our wants seem like needs and thus turning material objects into the stuff of our salvation, but it is also realistic in acknowledging that human solidarity cannot be achieved outside the making and trading of supplies and services. For that reason, capitalism has been a helpful corrective to theologies that portray salvation as an absolutely otherworldly affair.

At its best, capitalism imagines a world where the pursuit of the good involves the making of goods in a way that affirms both individual dignity and personal responsibility. It would be a shame if Radical Orthodoxy turned out to earn its adjective—and thus its right to be distinguished from ordinary orthodoxy—by its devotion to Marxism. Affluent theologians owe it to Christians struggling in the developing world to give them the same opportunity to develop prosperous economies as our ancestors gave us.

-- Stephen H. Webb. First Things April 2007 [Review of Theology and the Political: The New Debate (Duke UP, 2007)]

Pope Benedict XVI's Critique of Capitalism

Earlier this summer Benedict urged the nations of the world to embrace each other in solidarity and work towards "an ever more just distribution" of wealth," warning that "It is not possible to continue using the wealth of the poorest countries with impunity, without them also being able to participate in world growth." (Zenit: "Pope Urges Just Distribution of Goods" June 1, 2007).

Benedict revisited this topic during his September 23 Angelus. Commenting on Jesus' parable of the "dishonest steward", Benedict remarked on the "equal distribution of goods":

Telling the Parable of the dishonest but very crafty administrator, Christ teaches his disciples the best way to use money and material riches, that is, to share them with the poor, thus acquiring their friendship, with a view to the Kingdom of Heaven. "Make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous mammon," Jesus says, "so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal habitations" (Lk 16: 9).

Money is not "dishonest" in itself, but more than anything else it can close man in a blind egocentrism. It therefore concerns a type of work of "conversion" of economic goods: instead of using them only for self-interest, it is also necessary to think of the needs of the poor, imitating Christ himself, who, as St Paul wrote: "though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich" (II Cor 8: 9). [...]

Catholic social doctrine has always supported that equitable distribution of goods is a priority. Naturally, profit is legitimate and, in just measure, necessary for economic development.

In his Encyclical Centesimus Annus, John Paul II wrote: "The modern business economy has positive aspects. Its basis is human freedom exercised in many other fields" (n. 32). Yet, he adds that capitalism must not be considered as the only valid model of economic organization (cf. ibid., n. 35).

Starvation and ecological emergencies stand to denounce, with increasing evidence, that the logic of profit, if it prevails, increases the disproportion between rich and poor and leads to a ruinous exploitation of the planet.

Instead, when the logic of sharing and solidarity prevails, it is possible to correct the course and direct it towards an equitable, sustainable development.

Michael Joseph of Vox Nova has conveyed his thoughts on Benedict's remarks (along with a lively combox discussion) in "The Logic of Profit and the Logic of Equal Distribution" Vox Nova Sept. 24, 2007).

To this I wanted to contribute (in what meager way I can) by exploring other addresses of Pope Benedict on the economy. . . . READ THE REST

Benedict's Address to the Latin American Bishop's Council (CELAM) - Brazil

In May 2007, Benedict made an apostolic journey to Brazil, during which he participated in the opening of the Fifth General Conference of the Bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean. Speaking of the necessity to establish "just structures -- without which a just order in society is not possible," Benedict addresses the insufficient promises of capitalism and Marxism:

Both capitalism and Marxism promised to point out the path for the creation of just structures, and they declared that these, once established, would function by themselves; they declared that not only would they have no need of any prior individual morality, but that they would promote a communal morality. And this ideological promise has been proved false. The facts have clearly demonstrated it. The Marxist system, where it found its way into government, not only left a sad heritage of economic and ecological destruction, but also a painful oppression of souls. And we can also see the same thing happening in the West, where the distance between rich and poor is growing constantly, and giving rise to a worrying degradation of personal dignity through drugs, alcohol and deceptive illusions of happiness.

Just structures are, as I have said, an indispensable condition for a just society, but they neither arise nor function without a moral consensus in society on fundamental values, and on the need to live these values with the necessary sacrifices, even if this goes against personal interest.

Where God is absent—God with the human face of Jesus Christ—these values fail to show themselves with their full force, nor does a consensus arise concerning them. I do not mean that non-believers cannot live a lofty and exemplary morality; I am only saying that a society in which God is absent will not find the necessary consensus on moral values or the strength to live according to the model of these values, even when they are in conflict with private interests.

On the other hand, just structures must be sought and elaborated in the light of fundamental values, with the full engagement of political, economic and social reasoning. They are a question of recta ratio and they do not arise from ideologies nor from their premises. Certainly there exists a great wealth of political experience and expertise on social and economic problems that can highlight the fundamental elements of a just state and the paths that must be avoided. But in different cultural and political situations, amid constant developments in technology and changes in the historical reality of the world, adequate answers must be sought in a rational manner, and a consensus must be created—with the necessary commitments—on the structures that must be established.

According to John Allen Jr., Benedict's critique of capitalism comes as no surprise to those familiar with Joseph Ratzinger's earlier work (National Catholic Reporter May 13, 2007):

Benedict XVI’s stinging criticism of both Marxism and capitalism this afternoon may have caught some off-guard used to thinking of him as a consumate conservative, but it shouldn’t surprise anyone who knows Joseph Ratzinger’s history. . . .

In 1988, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger published a collection of essays under the title of Church, Ecumenism and Politics. In it, he argued that capitalism is little better than national socialism or communism, in that all three propose false idols (prosperity, the Volk, and the state, respectively). Ratzinger said that to build a humane civilization, the West must rediscover two elements of its past: its classical Greek heritage and its common Christian identity.

From the classical era, Ratzinger wrote, Europe should rediscover objective and eternal values that stand above politics, putting limits to power. Ratzinger used the Greek term eunomia to describe this concept of the good. In that sense, one could say that Ratzinger proposed a eunomic, rather than capitalist, model of Western culture.

Over the years, Ratzinger has been close to the Communio school within Catholic theology, which stresses the need for cultures to take their point of departure from the Christian gospel rather than secular ideologies. Its primary exponents have repeatedly criticized capitalism for promoting an ethos of individualism and “survival of the fittest” that is at odds with the communitarian thrust of Catholic social teaching.

Since becoming pope, Benedict has often criticized what he considers the injustices of a growing neo-liberal system of economic globalization.

Ratzinger on "Market Economy and Ethics"

The most extensive work that I could find online -- generously made available by the Acton Institute -- is Ratzinger's Market Economy and Ethics, a version of which was presented in 1985 in a symposium in Rome, “Church and Economy in Dialogue.” It was published in English under the title “Church and economy: Responsibility for the future of the world economy,” Communio 13 (Fall 1986): 199-204.

Ratzinger begins by challenging "the objection raised especially after the Second Vatican Council, that the autonomy of specialized realms is to be respected above all," including the autonomy of the free market from moral influence:

Following the tradition inaugurated by Adam Smith , this position holds that the market is incompatible with ethics because voluntary “moral” actions contradict market rules and drive the moralizing entrepreneur out of the game. For a long time, then, business ethics rang like hollow metal because the economy was held to work on efficiency and not on morality. 4 The market's inner logic should free us precisely from the necessity of having to depend on the morality of its participants. The true play of market laws best guarantees progress and even distributive justice.

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 position 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.

This determinism, in which man is completely controlled by the binding laws of the market while believing he acts in freedom from them, includes yet another and perhaps even more astounding presupposition, namely, that the natural laws of the market are in essence good (if I may be permitted so to speak) and necessarily work for the good, whatever may be true of the morality of individuals. These two presuppositions are not entirely false, as the successes of the market economy illustrate. But neither are they universally applicable and correct, as is evident in the problems of today's world economy. . . .

Even if the market economy does rest on the ordering of the individual within a determinate network of rules, it cannot make man superfluous or exclude his moral freedom from the world of economics. It is becoming ever so clear that the development of the world economy has also to do with the development of the world community and with the universal family of man, and that the development of the spiritual powers of mankind is essential in the development of the world community. These spiritual powers are themselves a factor in the economy: the market rules function only when a moral consensus exists and sustains them.

Ratzinger follows this with an observation about the growing attraction of Third World nations to a centralized economy by those who "identify the ground of their misery in the market economy, which they see as a system of exploitations, as institutionalised sin and injustice" -- who embrace centralization with something akin to a "religious fervor." Ratzinger summarizes the discussion as follows:

For while the market economy rests on the beneficial effect of egoism and its automatic limitation through competing egoisms, the thought of just control seems to predominate in a centralized economy, where the goal is equal rights for all and proportionate distribution of goods to all. The examples adduced thus far are certainly not encouraging, but the hope that one could, nonetheless, bring this moral project to fruition is also not thereby refuted. It seems that if the whole were to be attempted on a stronger moral foundation, it should be possible to reconcile morality and efficiency in a society not oriented toward maximum profit, but rather to self-restraint and common service. Thus in this area, the argument between economics and ethics is becoming ever more an attack on the market economy and its spiritual foundations, in favor of a centrally controlled economy, which is believed now to receive its moral grounding.

Capitalism and Marxism: Philosophical "Siamese Twins"?

Though sympathetic to this "reconciliation of economics and ethics," Ratzinger rejects the Marxist proposal. His criticism is fascinating: though it presents itself as the antithesis to the market economy, the centrally-administered Marxist economy belies the same underlying philosophical determinism as its utilitarian-capitalist neighbor:

This determinism includes the renunciation of ethics as an independent entity relevant to the economy. [In Marxism], religion is traced back to economics as the reflection of a particular economic system and thus, at the same time, as an obstacle to correct knowledge, to correct action — as an obstacle to progress, at which the natural laws of history aim. . . . It is also presupposed that history, which takes its course from the dialectic of negative and positive, must, of its inner essence and with no further reasons being given, finally end in total positivity. That the Church can contribute nothing positive to the world economy on such a view is clear; its only significance for economics is that it must be overcome.

Ratzinger notes with concern as well the typical hostility towards the Catholic faith -- citing the examples of Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, and Rockefeller in 1969, both of whom saw the Catholic majority in Latin America as an obstacle to relations with the United States and its economic expansion. Ratzinger notes the irony:

In both these remarks, religion — here a Christian denomination — is presupposed as a socio-political, and hence as an economic-political factor, which is fundamental for the development of political structures and economic possibilities. This reminds one of Max Weber's thesis about the inner connection between capitalism and Calvinism , between the formation of the economic order and the determining religious idea. Marx's notion seems to be almost inverted: it is not the economy that produces religious notions, but the fundamental religious orientation that decides which economic system can develop. The notion that only Protestantism can bring forth a free economy — whereas Catholicism includes no corresponding education to freedom and to the self-discipline necessary to it, favoring authoritarian systems instead — is doubtless even today still very widespread

Ratzinger calls for a “self-criticism of the Christian confessions," initiating a dialogue with those who manage the economy and countering the prejudice that would confine Christianity to the private realm, leaving the professional businessman to abide solely by the "laws of the market." According to Ratzinger, it is only in joining the market with a solid ethical foundation (sustained by religious conviction) that the pursuit of the common good can be accomplished. In fact, as we so often see today -- in tabloid stories of corporate scandals -- "the decline of such discipline can actually cause the laws of the market to collapse."

Ratzinger adds this note of caution to both parties [emphasis mine]:

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.

* * *

Depends on your definition of "capitalism"?

If Benedict criticizes "capitalism", it seems to me he is referring more accurately to neo-liberalism, the worldview which Pope John Paul II described in Ecclesia in America:

More and more, in many countries of America, a system known as “neoliberalism” prevails; based on a purely economic conception of man, this system considers profit and the law of the market as its only parameters, to the detriment of the dignity of and the respect due to individuals and peoples. At times this system has become the ideological justification for certain attitudes and behavior in the social and political spheres leading to the neglect of the weaker members of society. Indeed, the poor are becoming ever more numerous, victims of specific policies and structures which are often unjust.

and condemned as well in Centesimus Annus (in addressing the question of whether 'capitalism' could be endorsed by Catholics:

. . . 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.

The necessary corrective to such abuses, according to John Paul II, is "support must be given to all those who are examples of honesty in the administration of public finances and of justice," and support for "the process of democratization", which provides for greater control over potential abuses:

“The rule of law is the necessary condition for the establishment of an authentic democracy”. For democracy to develop, there is a need for civic education and the promotion of public order and peace. In effect, “there is no authentic and stable democracy without social justice. Thus the Church needs to pay greater attention to the formation of consciences, which will prepare the leaders of society for public life at all levels, promote civic education, respect for law and for human rights, and inspire greater efforts in the ethical training of political leaders”.

(Ecclesia in America, No. 57).

* * *

Michael Joseph states with conviction:

Capitalism, which Smith outlines in his magisterial Wealth of Nations, is founded upon an ethics of sentiment and want and takes on the form of exchange between parties–I give you what you want and you give me what I want. This is why Enlightment liberty must always be coupled with capitalism. If reason is not the arbitor of proper action, then all people must be free to pursue their wants according to sentiment. Toss in some J.S. Mill and Bentham in order to give capitalism the flavor of utilitarian mode–I am at liberty to pursue my wants, which I decipher from my sentiments, as long as such a pursuit works for the benefit of the majority. That is the capitalist/utilitarian ethic. . . .

[I]t is true without a hesitation that the capitalist ethic is fundamentally at odds with the entire moral tradition of the Catholic faith, and that the capitalist ethic (to use the words of Aladair MacIntyre) is a rival morality to Catholicism. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI understood this. Of course, the Catholic defenders of capitalism never care to debate its intellectual formulation for they know it is flawed. Instead, they refer us to the “material prosperity” of free market societies in order to justify the good of capitalism. But what else is such an empirical reliance than a consequentialist defense of a system that rejects the dignity of the human person (indeed, there is no person!) and reduces societal interaction to mere exchange!

Is the "free economy" and Catholic social teaching ultimately irreconcilable? -- Michael Therrien's essay John Paul II’s Use of the Term Neo-Liberalism in Ecclesia in America challenges precisely this claim. For Therrien, neoliberalism is but one possible outcome, "depending on the moral disposition of the actors within the market." He contends:

the Church has elevated certain elements of the classical liberal agenda—and without compromise—by divorcing liberalism from its historic excesses. By situating liberalism within a Christian philosophical and theological framework, the Church has sufficiently anchored liberalism’s vision of individual liberty and human rights in a proper anthropology. This process began with Pius IX’s 1864 Syllabus of Errors, which condemned the radical elements of the liberal movement, and has continued all the way through John Paul II’s encyclical letter, Fides et Ratio. By asserting this, however, I am also recognizing that the Church has condemned the excesses and abuses of liberalism. Among these would be the errors of atomistic individualism, the absolute right to private property, the idea that law originates from the will of the people, and the rejection of legitimate authority, especially the moral authority of the Church. Yet I would suggest that these condemnations, and others, have been carefully focused on specific errors of liberalism so as not to disregard many of the key insights that liberals advanced, such as religious liberty, freedom of association, and economic liberty. Admittedly, the Church has prudently taken more than a century to develop her teaching on these matters. Consequently, the nuancing of liberalism has been gradual and slow to develop.

In like manner, says Therrien, John Paul’s condemnation of neo-liberalism is not tantamount to a wholesale condemnation of the free economy as an economic system:

Neo-liberalism simply reflects those moral dispositions that are unacceptable to the Church in the marketplace. Thus, neo-liberalism is not synonymous with the free economy, nor does the market necessarily produce these excesses even though it might appear that way. I would even suggest that this moral disposition precedes any economic system, in as much as it is part and parcel of man’s fallen nature.

This distinction between the free economy and neo-liberalism is absolutely necessary if one is to properly understand the Church’s teaching about the economic order.

On the consequences of economic reductionism -- subordinating human dignity to profit and the "invisible hand of the market" -- Therrien asks a question which I would pose to Michael Joseph (and perhaps Benedict):

Yet is this intrinsic to the free economy—insofar as the free market refers to the voluntary exchange of goods and services and the protection of property rights—or is this simply a reflection of the moral blindness of those who espouse such a minimalist view of the human person? In other words, is it impossible to admit that individuals are capable of moving beyond selfish interest when acting in the market? Or is market activity fundamentally about greed?

* * *

One can appreciate Ratzinger's recognition of the "proper jurisdiction" of theologian and economist, so to speak. To reiterate:

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.

Or, to quote Gregory M. A. Gronbacher: "No matter how sublime the theology, it is no substitute for genuine economic knowledge, especially when the goal is to analyze economic structures in terms of their moral significance."

This advice is echoed in Benedict's May 2007 address to the Latin Bishop's Conference where, according to Benedict, the task of the Church is not so much the prescription of specific economic policy as the reaffirmation of fundamental principles which would guide our actions:

This political task is not the immediate competence of the Church. Respect for a healthy secularity—including the pluralism of political opinions—is essential in the Christian tradition. If the Church were to start transforming herself into a directly political subject, she would do less, not more, for the poor and for justice, because she would lose her independence and her moral authority, identifying herself with a single political path and with debatable partisan positions. The Church is the advocate of justice and of the poor, precisely because she does not identify with politicians nor with partisan interests. Only by remaining independent can she teach the great criteria and inalienable values, guide consciences and offer a life choice that goes beyond the political sphere. To form consciences, to be the advocate of justice and truth, to educate in individual and political virtues: that is the fundamental vocation of the Church in this area. And lay Catholics must be aware of their responsibilities in public life; they must be present in the formation of the necessary consensus and in opposition to injustice.

Just structures will never be complete in a definitive way. As history continues to evolve, they must be constantly renewed and updated; they must always be imbued with a political and humane ethos—and we have to work hard to ensure its presence and effectiveness. In other words, the presence of God, friendship with the incarnate Son of God, the light of his word: these are always fundamental conditions for the presence and efficacy of justice and love in our societies.

Catholics have responded to this call in many different ways. One way is that of the Catholic Worker, taking on voluntary poverty in solidarity with the least among us.

Then there is the Acton Institute, which according to its stated mission seeks to "to promote a free, virtuous, and humane society" by integrating "Judeo-Christian truths with free market principles." Which sounds, to me at least, not unlike what then-Cardinal Ratzinger had in mind when he spoke of joining "specialized economic understanding" with ethical discipline and religious strength, so as to properly order our economic activity.

I am reminded here of the collaboration of theologians and economists in the realtively new school of economic personalism, which upon initial reading aims to develop a "nuanced synthesis of free-market economic science and the science of moral theology grounded in a personalist anthropology" -- a laudable if not challenging task. (For starters, see "The Need for Economic Personalism" (Markets and Morality Volume 1, Number 1. March 1998).

Elsewhere:

• Does the Pope Blast Capitalism?", by Fr. Robert Sirico. Responding to allegations that Jesus of Nazareth contains an indictment of capitalism.

Does the Pope Blast Capitalism?, by Fr. Robert Sirico. Acton Commentary. May 11, 2007:

"Pope's New Book Criticizes Capitalism" said the Associated Press. It was speaking of Jesus of Nazareth, the hot selling book that Pope Benedict XVI began writing before he was elected Pope. Now it is big news and selling in the millions.

The Boston Globe, MSNBC, Fox News, Miami Herald, and a hundred other outlets repeated the claim that the book knocks capitalism. He reportedly says that capitalism inflicts a kind of cruelty on people.

Now, in reading these stories, my first reaction was: What is meant here by capitalism? If by capitalism we mean a system where the elites own the wealth and the poor exist in a servile condition, yes, that sounds cruel. But if we mean the free economy, it is another matter entirely. The free economy (and you can call it capitalism if you want) has been the number one source of material liberation for the poor the world over.

We need only look at the last ten years in China, Eastern Europe, and Asia to see how the free economy has boosted life spans, reduced infant mortality, increased overall health, and fed millions in ways that would be unimaginable under controlled economies. The free economy is a life support system for the whole world. Could Benedict XVI really be departing from the teachings of John Paul II that economic freedom is but a part of a larger system of freedom and rights that is embraced by the Church?

What a surprise, then, awaited me when I actually received the book. . . .

Dr. Samuel Gregg: "Pope Benedict on Morality, Economics and the Market"

Dr. Samuel Gregg, Director, Center for Economic Personalism, addresses Benedict XVI's thought on the issue of the market economy in a recent article "Morality, Economics and the Market in the Thought of Benedict XVI", Economic Affairs, (2005-09-01) [.pdf format]:

. . . But does any of this suggest that Pope Benedict XVI has ever been or is likely to be an outspoken supporter of the market economy? The answer to this question is 'no'. As a theologian and Vatican official, Ratzinger has always recognised that, within the limits established by the principles of Catholic social teaching (e.g. the dignity of the person, the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity etc.), the precise configuration of the economy or the degree of government intervention in the economy are matters for prudential judgement by Catholics. One cannot repeat enough that Catholics are free to disagree among themselves about those matters that the Church identifies as being within prudential judgement territory. This embraces the vast majority of economic questions. Thus, because he is content to let Catholics discuss prudential matters among themselves, it is not surprising that very few direct discussions of economic matters are found in Ratzinger's writings.

A rare exception to Ratzinger's reticence to examine economic questions in any detail is a 1986 article entitled 'Church and Economy' [Communio 13, no. 3 (1986): 199-204]. Keeping in mind the context and time of the article, it provides a number of interesting insights into Ratzinger's thoughts about economic issues.

The first point to note is that Ratzinger underlines the failure and counterproductive effects of development programmes promoted by Western aid agencies and governments throughout the developing world (Ratzinger, 1986, p. 200). He goes on to suggest that new economic ideas will need to be considered if the developing world is to escape material poverty. If one recalls that much of the world in the 1980s still believed in the efficacy of such programmes (which even many on the political left now disown), it is possible to view Ratzinger as one of that relatively small number of intellectuals (secular or religious) who were willing to question the redistributionist orthodoxy that reigned in many political, government and church circles.

The most significant part, however, of Ratzinger's 1986 article was its analysis of some of the philosophical questions raised by free-market economies. Importantly, at no stage does Ratzinger question the market's superior wealth-creating capacities. Indeed, he stresses that market economies have facilitated much prosperity throughout the world (Ratzinger, 1986, p. 201). Rather, Ratzinger devotes his attention to the moral, cultural and philosophical assumptions that may or may not underpin such economies. Ratzinger is, for instance, quite critical of what he describes as the deterministic tendencies that underlie the thought of some free-market advocates (Ratzinger, 1986, pp. 200-201). He argues that it is a mistake to assume that market exchanges in themselves provide sufficient moral validity for the nature or outcome of the exchange. The fact that an action is efficient or maximises utility is not, to Ratzinger's mind, sufficient to qualify it as morally good. Morality, to his mind, is not defined by utility. The market, in other words, does not somehow 'create' morality. Nor does the market render the demands of the moral life superfluous, and Ratzinger criticises those business figures who think and act as if it does. Significantly, Ratzinger notes that the tendency to substitute morality with economics is equally characteristic of Marxist thought in so far as figures such as Lenin accepted that 'there is in Marxism no grain of ethics, but only economic laws' (Ratzinger, 1986, p. 202). The expression of anti-determinist and anti-utilitarian views is hardly novel for an orthodox Catholic theologian. Indeed, many free-market promoters would join Ratzinger in insisting that the moral life cannot be reduced to economic analysis or market transactions. Many free-market supporters would also support Ratzinger's opposition to those who regard economics as the lens for understanding everything. Like all ideologies, 'economism' is deeply reductionist and thus anti-human in its implications.

Ratzinger further notes, as a historical irony, that many people dissatisfied with 'economistic' approaches have tended to embrace centrally planned economies as a way of attempting to bring moral guidance to economic life. This is despite the fact, as Ratzinger notes, that 'it is a fundamental error to suppose that a centralised economic system is a moral system in contrast to the mechanistic system of the market

None of this, however, is to suggest that Ratzinger believes that economics can be safely ignored. On the contrary, Ratzinger concludes his article by stressing that economics, as an intellectual discipline, enjoys a legitimate autonomy of its own. He even states that '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' (Ratzinger, 1986, p. 204). He immediately adds that 'a scientific approach that believes itself capable of managing without an ethos [i.e. the demands of morality] misunderstands the reality of man. Therefore it is not scientific' (Ratzinger, 1986, p. 204). Synthesising these points, Ratzinger states that 'today we need a maximum of specialised economic understanding, but also a maximum of ethos so that specialised economic knowledge may enter the service of the right goals' (Ratzinger, 1986, p. 204). One suspects that those familiar with the commentaries of many Catholic intellectuals on economic matters will recognise that, on the basis of his 1986 article, few have come as close as Ratzinger to integrating an authentic Catholic approach to the moral life with an appreciation for the real technical knowledge yielded by modern economics into particular problems. It is a grave error, Ratzinger believes, for those thinking about how to address poverty to ignore what economics tells us about poverty. He is, however, insistent that economics in itself is not capable of determining the correct moral response to problems. Though a powerful instrument of analysis that can tell us how to do certain things, economics qua economics is incapable of telling us whether we ought to do certain things.

Our Holy Father was interviewed recently by Zenit News Service on the person and legacy of Pope John Paul II, in which he remarked:

. . . Initially, in speaking of the Pope's legacy, I forgot to mention the many documents that he left us -- 14 encyclicals, many pastoral letters, and others. All this is a rich patrimony that has not yet been assimilated by the Church.

My personal mission is not to issue many new documents, but to ensure that his documents are assimilated, because they are a rich treasure, they are the authentic interpretation of Vatican II. We know that the Pope was a man of the Council, that he internalized the spirit and the word of the Council. Through these writings he helps us understand what the Council wanted and what it didn't. This helps us to be the Church of our times and of the future.

Given his specific interest in realizing the thought of his predecessor, it seems to me that the Holy Father will likely draw from the riches of John Paul II's encyclical Centesimus Annus, with its commentary on economic affairs and liberal and socialist philosophy, especially in issuing a necessary corrective to neoliberalism along with a qualified approval of the "market economy" or "free market." It seems to me that Pope Benedict XVI is very much of the same mind as his predecessor on these matters.

Dr. Samuel Gregg concludes:

. . . In a 2002 speech, for instance ["Eucharist, Communion and Solidarity" L'Osservatore Romano, 13 November, 2002], he reminded his audience of the evils committed in the name of the atheistic 'Marxist socialist system' (Ratzinger, 2002, p. 8). Ratzinger then added: 'It is undeniable that the liberal model of the market economy, especially as moderated and corrected under the influence of Christian social ideas, has in some parts of the world led to great success' (Ratzinger, 2002, p. 8). The then future pope went on to suggest that the absence of such moral-cultural forces in market systems could have profoundly damaging effects, especially in developing nations. Hence, he insisted that the 'globalisation in technology and economy' needed to be accompanied by 'a new opening of conscience', so that individuals become more conscious of the global demands of Christian morality (Ratzinger, 2002, p. 9).

Here again we see that Ratzinger did not dispute or disparage the market's superiority in wealth-creation. Nor does he engage in knee-jerk anti-globalisation rhetoric. Rather, his concern remains with the moral-cultural context in which free enterprise and free exchange live, move and have their being. On this basis, we can safely assume that any combination of a market economy with cultures predominantly shaped by variants of libertinism, materialism and utilitarianism is going to worry Benedict XVI as much as it concerned John Paul II.

Given, however, that these are cultural rather than economic problems per se, it seems reasonable to suggest that Pope Benedict is unlikely to be insisting that the state ought to be the institution to address such matters. Certainly the Catholic Church does not teach that moral problems, be they 'personal' or 'social', somehow enjoy an automatic immunity from the law or state authority. Nevertheless, Ratzinger has insisted throughout his writings that any society's moral-culture is primarily shaped by individuals, families and civil associations, especially the Church. Nor should we underestimate the effects of Ratzinger's experience of the state-worship promoted by Nazi totalitarianism, not to mention his very Bavarian Catholic consciousness of the Kulturkampf (literally 'culture-struggle') waged against the Catholic Church in Germany by the Bismarckian state in the wake of German unification in 1871.

As many know, the founder of Western monasticism, St Benedict, is credited even by many non-believers as saving Western civilisation from the chaos that followed the Roman Empire's collapse. In a similar fashion, attention to renewing the sources of Western culture is likely to be a priority in Benedict XVI's pontificate. To this extent, the papacy's attention to economic questions under Pope Benedict is likely to be focused upon the relationship between the market and culture, an area that, until John Paul II, remained relatively unexamined by Catholic social teaching. If in doing so, Benedict XVI continues to make the same careful distinctions that he did as the theologian and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, there is every reason to hope for thoughtful contributions to thinking about economic subjects from the new pope. Above all, we can expect the character of any such contributions to be neither 'right' nor 'left', but rather distinctly Catholic.

* * *

Dr. Gregg is Director of Research at the Acton Institute and an Adjunct Professor at the John Paul II Pontifical Institute for Marriage and the Family within the Pontifical Lateran University. He is author of several books on Catholic social doctrine including Economic Thinking for the Theologically Minded (2001), Challenging the Modern World: Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and the Development of Catholic Social Teaching (2003) and On Ordered Liberty (2003).

Related Links:

• Market Economy and Ethics translated by Stephen Wentworth Arndt, and republished by The Acton Institute -- courtesy of Dr. Johannes Stemmler, secretary emeritus of the BKU (Federation of Catholic Entrepreneurs) and secretary of Ordo socialis in Köln, Germany. This article appeared previously in English under the title "Church and economy: Responsibility for the future of the world economy," Communio 13 (Fall 1986): 199-204.

• Pope John Paul II Memorial Page, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty.

• Review Essay: Challenging the Modern World: John Paul II/Karol Wojtyla and the Development of Catholic Social Teaching, by Gregory R. Beabout (Markets & Morality Vol. 4, No. 2, Fall 2001): "[Samuel] Gregg's work, which flows out of his doctoral research at Oxford under the direction of John Finnis, is perhaps the most careful scholarly effort in English to date that aims to show the influence of Wojtyla's prepontifical writing on the social encyclicals produced by John Paul II."

Toward a Proper Understanding of Neoliberalism

In "Pope John Paul II condemns neoliberalism in Ecclesia in America, as social sin that cries to heaven", Houston Catholic Worker Vol. XIX, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1999, Louise and Mark Zwick reiterate Pope John Paul II's condemnation of "neoliberalism", equating it with 'neoconservatism':

Neoliberalism is known in the United States as neoconservatism. Its Catholic proponents are Fr. John Neuhaus, George Weigel, Michael Novak and Fr. Robert Sirico. Their publications are available through the American Enterprise Institue, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Acton Institute and First Things magazine.

One can find this charge often repeated on websites such as TCRNews.com -- the most recent being a notation by Stephen Hand on his blog 'TCRMusings' ("John Paul II on Neoliberalism" 10/20/05):

Despite the attempts of neoliberals to explain it away, John Paul II shed a lot of light on their dismissive commentary when he wrote plainly that neo-liberalism is:

"...based on a purely economic conception of man, this system considers profit and the law of the market as its only parameters, to the detriment of the dignity of and the respect due to individuals and peoples. At times this system has become the ideological justification for certain attitudes and behavior in the social and political spheres leading to the neglect of the weaker members of society. Indeed, the poor are becoming ever more numerous, victims of the specific policies and structures which are often unjust. (Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Ecclesia in America, (January 22, 1999), no. 56 emphasis ours)

Thus attempts to baptise this system must fail, just as oil and water do not mix.

Read the entire Apostlic Exortation of JPII, Ecclesia in America in context.

While Stephen does not "name names", it is a good presumption (based on past history) that he would concur with the Zwick's equasion of "neoliberalism" with "neoconservatism", identifying this philosophy with the individuals in question.

One may likewise presume that Dr. Hubert also concurs with the Zwicks, in light of his charge that ""Neoconservative economic principles repudiate the Natural Law and thus are largely incompatible with Catholic teaching in the economic arena." ("The New Stealth World View" TCRNews.com).

I've already addressed Dr. Hubert's article in my recent post Leo Strauss and the Neoconservative Cabal Religion & Liberty [blog] Oct. 6, 2005), noting that as his "fast and loose" definition of neoconservatism left something to be desired, it would be beneficial to

[come] to a more concise definition -- that is to say, laying out specific criteria by which one can accurately identify a "neoconservative" and/or a "Catholic neoconservative" -- including a substantiated list of "neoconservative principles" operative in U.S. economic/foreign policy.

Stephen advises us to read Pope John Paul II's charge against neoliberalism in the context of JPII's entire apostolic exhortation, which I agree is a very good idea. If we examine the particular section in which the condemnation is leveled ("social sins which cry out to heaven") and the two paragraphs which follow the cited passage, we get a sense of John Paul II's solution to the problem of neoliberalism:

On the basis of the Gospel, the best response to this tragic situation is the promotion of solidarity and peace, with a view to achieving real justice. For this to happen, encouragement and support must be given to all those who are examples of honesty in the administration of public finances and of justice. So too there is a need to support the process of democratization presently taking place in America, (208) since a democratic system provides greater control over potential abuses.

“The rule of law is the necessary condition for the establishment of an authentic democracy”. (209) For democracy to develop, there is a need for civic education and the promotion of public order and peace. In effect, “there is no authentic and stable democracy without social justice. Thus the Church needs to pay greater attention to the formation of consciences, which will prepare the leaders of society for public life at all levels, promote civic education, respect for law and for human rights, and inspire greater efforts in the ethical training of political leaders”. (210)

Comparing for a moment the prescription of JPII with the stated mission of the Acton Institute to "articulate a vision of society that is both free and virtuous, the end of which is human flourishing" and especially to:

[educate] religious leaders of all denominations, business executives, entrepreneurs, university professors, and academic researchers in economics principles, and in the connection that can exist between virtue and economic thinking. We exhort religious leaders to embrace the principles of economics as analytic tools in the consideration of economic issues that arise in their ministry, on the one hand, and, on the other, we exhort business executives and entrepreneurs, to integrate their faith more fully into their professional lives, to give of themselves more unselfishly in their communities, and to strive after higher standards of ethical conduct in their work . . .

Examining the various projects sponsored by the Acton Institute or George Weigel's Ethics & Public Policy Center, I'm inclined to think there is some degree of confluence between the work of Fr. Sirico and John Paul II in cultivating moral virtue in the business community and instilling a greater respect for the dignity of man. Likewise, one doesn't have to agree with every principle or program espoused by the Acton Institute or the EPPC to recognize that it is highly unfair to characterize their work (as Stephen and the Zwicks do) as a mere "baptizing" of unbridled capitalism.

In the interest of correcting the erroneous interpretation that John Paul II's condemnation of "neoliberalism" in Ecclesia in America amounts to a general condemnation of capitalism or the free economy per se (indeed, one would have to square this passage with JPII's qualified endorsement of the free market in Centisumus Annus), I refer my readers to Michael Therrien's essay, aptly titled John Paul II’s Use of the Term Neo-Liberalism in Ecclesia in America. Delivered at the Pontifical College Josephinum April 8, 2000, Therrien deals with the specific passage cited by Stephen Hand.

According to Mr. Therrien:

[Neoliberalism] is a worldview held by certain free-market economists who believe man’s social existence should be understood primarily in terms of economic considerations. This system of belief has led many to approach the market as though moral norms have no bearing upon market activity. In other words, an unfettered market itself, it is believed, will take care of the social problems we face.

However, Catholics need to grasp the distinction the Church makes between the free economy and neo-liberalism. This distinction is one of great import insofar as it distinguishes between a morally viable and important economic system in the first case and an immoral philosophical world-view in the second. Certainly these two realities can be related, but they are not necessarily so. In other words, neo-liberalism is not the inevitable outcome of the free-market system; it is only one possible outcome, depending on the moral disposition of the actors within the market. The Church, in as much as it values the fundamental principles of the free economy, understands this, and thus attempts through its social teaching to encourage the international community to place what it would prefer to call the "business economy" at the service of human dignity.

Of the term "neoliberalism" itself, Therrien notes "it is a word that has the potential for serious misinterpretation if it is not properly understood from within the Church’s ongoing dialogue with liberalism." (Thus in the context of the article he addresses some of the criticisms made by Dr. Schindler as well). The frequent use of the term by Stephen Hand and the Houston Catholic Worker, equated with "neoconservatism" and usually in reference to Fr. Sirico, Fr. Neuhaus, George Weigel, or Michael Novak, demonstrates this potential for confusion absent proper clarification and understanding of JPII's thought. For this reason I personally recommend Therrien's essay as a necessary corrective.

Memo to TCRNews: Context Matters

TCRNews's blog -- by way of la nouvelle théologie -- posts a rather curt Memo to the Acton Institute from John Paul II":

It is unacceptable to say that the defeat of 'Real Socialism' leaves capitalism as the only mode of economic organization. --Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus

In response, Santiago posts this quote from Michael Novak -- a good and necessary reminder to those in the habit of portraying Novak as an indiscriminate apologist for unbridled capitalism:

"Having always resented such moral imperialism as Paul Tillich's 'Every serious Christian must be a socialist,' and the British left's 'Christianity is the religion of which socialism is the practice,' I would by no means support he sentiment that "Every serious Christian must be a democratic capitalist," or that "Christianity is the religion of which democratic capitalism is the practice." As Centesiums Annus insists, the Catholic Church 'has no models to offer'--and, indeed, has powerful reasons to criticize many abuses and wrongs in the democratic capitalist societies. The Pope rightly insists that no worldly system can ever claim to be the Kingdom of God. What good would a Church be if it didn't constantly criticize the City of Man in the light of the City of God, sub specie aeternitatis? Indeed, as Thomas Pangle repots in his study of Tocqueville's Democracy in America, this emphasis on immortality and eternal life is the indispensable contribution of religion to the democratic experiment."

Michael Novak, The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, New York, NY: The Free Press, 1993. Ppg. 142-143 of Part 2, "A New Birth of Freedom: John Paul II," in the section titled, "Toward a More Civil Debate."

* * *

One might also add the following Initial reactions to Centesimus Annus by our favorite neocons (Neuhaus and Novak, Weigel in absentia), as compiled by The Acton Institute:

• From Richard John Neuhaus (First Things):

  "While Centesimus Annus is a ringing affirmation of the free economy, there is nothing in it to justify complacency among the friends of capitalism. Socialism is dead, but 'the new capitalism' has hardly met the challenges raised by the pope."

• From Michael Novak (The Washington Post, May 7, 1991):

  "The pope's splendid new encyclical. . . . adds a new characteristic to his defense of liberty. It has been clear for many years that Pope John Paul II supports democratic institutions more than any previous pope and sees them as the best way to secure human rights. It has also been clear to some that he supports a type of 'reformed capitalism.' But this new encyclical makes clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that the pope endorses the 'business economy,' the 'market economy,' or simply the 'free economy' as the goal he now proposes for formerly Communist and Third World societies. . . .

  "The institutional limitations on capitalism on which the pope insists are two: first, a juridical framework that protects other fundamental liberties besides economic liberty; and, second, a grounding of all liberties in a moral and religious core. In short, the economic system must be limited by a democratic polity and by a strong set of moral and cultural institutions. . . . Only in this way will it, better than other systems, meet basic needs and constantly raise the level of the common good of peoples. . . .

  "The pope's greatest originality . . . may lie in going beyond questions of politics and economics to questions of morality and culture. In a sense, the political argument of the 20th century has been resolved in favor of capitalism. Thinking of the chief battleground of the next century, the pope turns to the disappointing use that existing free societies are now making of their freedom. He turns to the inadequacies of modern culture and morals. . . .

  "You can tell the quality and depth of a nation's culture, the pope trenchantly states, by observing what it produces and consumes. This simple remark imposes a new moral accountability on capitalist firms, advertisers and media. In this century, the pope thinks free peoples have neglected their responsibilities to the quality of the moral atmosphere, the cultural ecology in which they try to raise their children and to be faithful to their destiny of free citizens. . . .

  "This is a great encyclical. It will release enormous energies in Eastern Europe, the Third World and advanced societies. It should read as well in 2091 as Leo XIII's accurate predictions about socialism in 1891 still read today. No other world leader could have produced such a profound tour d'horizon. Get a copy and see for yourself. You will be glad you did."

* * *

Returning to the paragraph of which Stephen Hand cited only the first sentence, let's study it for a minute in its entirety:

We have seen that it is unacceptable to say that the defeat of so-called "Real Socialism" leaves capitalism as the only model of economic organization. It is necessary to break down the barriers and monopolies which leave so many countries on the margins of development, and to provide all individuals and nations with the basic conditions which will enable them to share in development. This goal calls for programmed and responsible efforts on the part of the entire international community. Stronger nations must offer weaker ones opportunities for taking their place in international life, and the latter must learn how to use these opportunities by making the necessary efforts and sacrifices and by ensuring political and economic stability, the certainty of better prospects for the future, the improvement of workers' skills, and the training of competent business leaders who are conscious of their responsibilities.

I would posit that the above recommendation is wholeheartedly supported by the Acton Institute, Fr. Neuhaus and Michael Novak -- the latter of course contending that the best way to rescue individuals from material poverty is to open the doors of opportunity to small business with proper training and support -- or, in the words of John Paul II, enabling them to "acquire expertise, to enter the circle of exchange, and to develop their skills in order to make the best use of their capacities and resources."

Nevertheless, the "Whig Thomists" readily acknowledge that "free market" -- for all of its great potential -- is not without its flaws, and that John Paul II's endorsement of "the business economy" was a cautious and justifiably qualified endorsement.

To pursue this further, the Pope reminds us "there are many human needs which find no place on the market" -- and that in certain Third World contexts, the objectives specified by Rerum Novarum still remain valid and even constitute a goal "yet to be reached, if man's work and his very being are not to be reduced to the level of a mere commodity." Among these objectives are a sufficient wage for the support of the family, social insurance for old age and unemployment, and adequate protection for the conditions of employment.

The Pope goes on to affirm the legitimacy of trade unions and other workers' organizations in their demand for such rights:

In this sense, it is right to speak of a struggle against an economic system, if the latter is understood as a method of upholding the absolute predominance of capital, the possession of the means of production and of the land, in contrast to the free and personal nature of human work. In the struggle against such a system, what is being proposed as an alternative is not the socialist system, which in fact turns out to be State capitalism, but rather a society of free work, of enterprise and of participation. Such a society is not directed against the market, but demands that the market be appropriately controlled by the forces of society and by the State, so as to guarantee that the basic needs of the whole of society are satisfied.

Likewise, while acknowledging the legitimate role of profit as indication of a successful business, John Paul II reminds us that "profitability is not the only indicator of a firm's condition":

. . . It is possible for the financial accounts to be in order, and yet for the people -- who make up the firm's most valuable asset -- to be humiliated and their dignity offended. Besides being morally inadmissible, this will eventually have negative repercussions on the firm's economic efficiency. In fact, the purpose of a business firm is not simply to make a profit, but is to be found in its very existence as a community of persons who in various ways are endeavouring to satisfy their basic needs, and who form a particular group at the service of the whole of society. Profit is a regulator of the life of a business, but it is not the only one; other human and moral factors must also be considered which, in the long term, are at least equally important for the life of a business.

Note -- It is interesting here that the Pope's characterization of a company as a "community of persons" and his criteria for a business to be considered genuinely successful by demonstrating behavior above and beyond the task of earning profit is not unlike that laid out by Michael Novak's advice to businessmen in Toward Business as a Calling: Work and the Examined Life:

. . . business as a mediating institution has seven internal responsibilities that arise from the nature of the corporation itself and an additional seven external responsibilities that are derived from Judeo-Christian religious teaching. In order to succeed, a business must: (1) satisfy customers with goods and services of real value; (2) make a reasonable return on the resources entrusted to it by investors; (3) create new wealth; (4) create new jobs; (5) defeat envy by generating upward mobility and by demonstrating that talent and hard work will be rewarded; (6) promote inventiveness and ingenuity; and (7) diversify the interests of the republic, thus guarding against majoritarian tyranny.

The following additional external responsibilities are not found in business as business but in the convictions of its practitioners who bring their faith to the business world: (1) to shape a corporate culture that fosters the three cardinal business virtues ["creativity", "community" and "practical realism"] as well as other virtues; (2) to protect the political soil of liberty; (3) to exemplify respect for the rule of law; (4) to reflect and act in practical effective ways, individually and with others, in order to improve aspects of society; (5) to communicate often and fully with investors, pensioners, customers, and employers; (6) to voluntarily contribute toward the improvement of civil society; and (7) to protect the moral ecology of freedom.

[Summarized in Michael Novak's Portrait of Democratic Capitalism, Edward W. Younkins Markets & Morality Volume 2, Number 1. Spring 1999].

* * *

So whether one speaks of the "Whig Thomist's" endorsement of capitalism or John Paul II's oppostion to it, context matters -- and one cannot stress the necessity of examining the source to get the whole picture.

I'll close with John Paul II's address of the initial passage -- a lengthy citation, but bear with me, as he returns once again to the 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.

The Marxist solution has failed, but the realities of marginalization and exploitation remain in the world, especially the Third World, as does the reality of human alienation, especially in the more advanced countries. Against these phenomena the Church strongly raises her voice. Vast multitudes are still living in conditions of great material and moral poverty. The collapse of the Communist system in so many countries certainly removes an obstacle to facing these problems in an appropriate and realistic way, but it is not enough to bring about their solution. Indeed, there is a risk that a radical capitalistic ideology could spread which refuses even to consider these problems, in the a priori belief that any attempt to solve them is doomed to failure, and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces.

The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one another. For such a task the Church offers her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal orientation, a teaching which, as already mentioned, recognizes the positive value of the market and of enterprise, but which at the same time points out that these need to be oriented towards the common good. This teaching also recognizes the legitimacy of workers' efforts to obtain full respect for their dignity and to gain broader areas of participation in the life of industrial enterprises so that, while cooperating with others and under the direction of others, they can in a certain sense "work for themselves" through the exercise of their intelligence and freedom.

P.S. But don't take my word for it. As Novak says: "Get a copy and see for yourself. You will be glad you did."

Sound Criticism or Impediments to Fruitful Conversation?

David Jones (la nouvelle théologie) has alerted me to the following by Fr. Jape -- "Against Progressives and Progressivisms" -- written in response to a passing reference to him in the context of our discussion of the Zwicks' article "The Economic Religion of Michael Novak" here, as well as criticisms of David T. Koyzis aka. "Byzantine-Rite Calvinist.

I haven't read a great deal of Fr. Jape and The New Pantagruel -- actually, I was going to make a serious point to spend part of the weekend reading his contributions -- so I'll bypass weighing the merits of the allegation that he wishes "to abandon the western democratic project entirely."

Regardless of their critique of the admittedly real failures of liberal democracy, it seems to me the "Augustinian Thomists" are nonetheless content to remain residents (and presumably participants) in "The American Experiment." As Fr. Jape notes, it is erroneous to assume that "if one rejects the liberal premise of public involvement, one must by necessity become a mountain recluse mailing explosive packages to university professors."

However, having familiarized myself to some degree with Novak's works, I think I'm qualified to comment on Fr. Jape's charges of utopial idealism in the latter part of his post:

. . . Novak went so far recently as to make the absurd claim that the onset of a global economy has demonstrated that "it need not be the case that 'you always have the poor with you' [quoting our Lord]" and "that it is a moral obligation of societies as well as individuals to overcome poverty." It is central to Novak's progressive gospel to believe that, in his words, "the chains of poverty [can] be systematically broken" and there is a "moral imperative that they must be broken." Perhaps Novak will soon turn up authoring a UN declaration that progress in human enlightenment has reached such a point that "it need not be the case that 'all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God'" and that now it is incumbent upon society to break the yoke of human sin. But of course this is the logical outcome of the modern liberal state as developed and analyzed so clearly (and tragically) by Nietzsche's self-salvific proposal to deal grace to himself. Conservatives and Christians simply don't pay enough attention to Nietzsche

While Novak's turn of phrase is indeed susceptible to misinterpretation, I find Fr. Jape's interpretation nonetheless over the top and highly exaggerated. It's doubtful that Novak intended for his words to be taken in a utopian "make poverty history" sense of Bog Geldoff's Live8 concert campaign.

In fact, one might gain a better understanding of where Novak is going with this by reading the quotes in their proper context -- which is to say the rest of the paragraph, which Fr. Jape conveniently omits in his rush to castigate Novak for his presumed utopian faith:

While Americans retain a strong notion of human imperfection and affirm the need for checks and balances -- in other words, they hold to a nonutopian understanding of human nature -- they also take an almost Catholic delight in the goodness and possibilities and wonders of creation. "Chance," Tocqueville notes, "is an element always present to the mind of those who live in the unstable conditions of a democracy, and in the end they come to love enterprises in which chance plays a part. This draws them to trade not only for the sake of promised gain, but also because they love the emotions it provides."

In such a tumultuous nation, marked by extraordinary social and economic fluidity, people began to understand -- perhaps for the first time in human history -- that poverty was not necessarily a natural condition. The age-old class structure -- not to mention the seemingly inevitable premodern cycle of prosperity and economic decline -- could be broken. And if such progress were possible in the United States, why not in other countries? The chains of poverty could be systematically broken -- and if they could be broken, there was a moral imperative that they must be broken.

And so they were -- first in the United States, and then slowly, progressively, around the world. Little by little, people began to understand that it need not be the case that "you always have the poor with you" (Matthew 26:11) -- that it is a moral obligation of societies as well as individuals to overcome poverty. Whereas poverty had previously been taken to be the natural condition of most human beings everywhere, through the workings of capitalism it came to be considered as counter to nature, immoral, and the result of inadequate social planning and effort. In America, the process of moving up and out of poverty, generation by generation, came to be called fulfilling the "American dream."

Novak's optimistic assertions about the "American dream" and the potential of liberal institutions for moving the poor up and out of poverty, may indeed be subject to scrutiny, but I don't see how one could question the fact that we have a moral obligation to assist those in need and, insofar as it is possible, help them out of poverty.

Likewise, once Novak's quotes are read in context, it does not appear that Novak labors under the illusory utopianism of Fr. Jape's portrayal. He does, however, make the case that capitalist development in the context of liberal democracy presents the best opportunities for assisting the poor from the ground up, and is demonstrably better than socialist planning and other failed economic experiments of the past. "The greatest of all acts of charity is to teach the poor a system for escaping from the prison of poverty."^*

I think that in such discussions as this one must always be on the alert for taking a phrase or a passage out of context. It is possible to take Novak's praise of the free market and corporations and, isolated from the rest of his work, conclude -- per the Zwicks, that he is an "apologist for Enron" who, along with Fr. Sirico of The Acton Institute, "use Catholicism as window dressing to promote an economic system based solely on self-interest," or, per Pat Buchanan (in a recent Godspy inteview, that he belongs to "a sect that holds, heretically, that free market-democracy is mankind's salvation." These kind of characterizations make for memorable sound bytes or catch-phrases to be recited ad nauseum -- but, in my opinion, they do nothing in terms of promoting a serious discussion.

It has always been Novak's contention, as far as I have read of him, that the very success of the free market and liberal democracy is contingent on the degree to which it is grounded in the practice of virtue and the Judeo-Christian moral tradition. For further discussion see my post The Neocons - Apologists for Free-Market Utopianism? January 8, 2005.

I've already demonstrated this penchant for quoting out of context with respect to the Zwicks. Although it seems to be the case with Fr. Japery in this post, I trust he knows better and look forward to reading more.

* * *

Update Where Novak stands with respect to capitalism was briefly articulated by Novak in the correspondence from the latest issue of First Things, which I was fortunate enough to read during this morning's commute. As it is not yet available online I will take the liberty of posting:

While I cannot agree with every part of [the reader's] summation of my arguent, he is quite right on his main point -- that capitalism posits no moral end for the human person. (To be sure, this is also an advantage; it is a system open to many persons who have quite contrary perceptions of the best life for the human person.).

That is why my own conception of a sound social system calls for more than capitalism -- in fact, for three systems in one; not only an economic system anchored around the ownership and practical insights reached through invention and discovery, but also a political system that protects the rule of law as well as individual and minority rights, and that separates political, legislative and judicial powers; and also a strong cultural system based on the full flourishing of persons and communities, and rooted in the depths of the human spirit. Capitalism alone could not suffice for a full human vision, nor even for its own integrity and longetivity.

In my view, the fullest vision of human fulfillment, both for individuals and for the whole human community, is the Christian (Catholic) faith. That faith provides the fullest theory of political and personal liberty that I have ever encountered, and also -- and this is a newer discovery -- the best theory of the free economy. But two thirds of humanity are not currently Christian, so the open-endedness of capitalism, its limitation in one respect, is in other respects a strength to be grateful for.

Indeed, whatever the limitations of capitalism, which are many and real, its strengths should not go underappreciated. Capitalism is the best hope of the poor to be liberated from immemorial poverty. It is, on the material side, the best supplier of support for a rich and complex civil society. And empirically, at least, it appears to be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the successful rooting of democracy. These are not minor social virtues.

The specific complaint [against capitalism] -- that it tends to obscure Christian truth about the love of God, and to implicate us in too many worldly and pleasurable distractions -- was lodged just as effectively against mercantilism, feudalism, and every other economy in history.

Nonetheless, in a society as free and as rich in human possiblities as the United STates and Europe, I don't think that at the Final Judgement we will be able to plead as a mitigating circumstance that "capitalism made us do it."

We are, as history goes, remarkably free and remarkably endowed with the means to show our love for God in ways as numerous as the stars of the sky. If we do not do so, the fault lies not in our systems but in ourselves.

One might hope that Michael Novak's clarification will be enough to dispel the misunderstandings (and misrepresentations) of his detractors, and we can continue on a real and fruitful discussion of these issues.

---

* p. 108, The Universal Hunger for Liberty). To understand why Novak proposes this, I recommend part two of this book -- "The Economics of Liberty" -- as a brief introduction to Novak's thought, more fully developed elsewhere; and perhaps Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics: A Citizens Guide to the Economy (Basic Books, 2004).

Is The Market Moral?

The transcript of a discussion of the book, Is the Market Moral? A Dialogue on Religion, Economics & Justice, is now available online. The discussion featured co-authors Rebecca M. Blank (Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan) and William McGurn (The Wall Street Journal), as well as Lawrence Mishel (Economic Policy Institute) and Ramesh Ponnuru (The National Review). An executive summary of the book (in pdf) is also available online.

Is the Market Moral? is the second volume in the Pew Forum Dialogue Series on Religion and Public Life, published by the Brookings Institution Press.