Blog Published

Blog_16893639808551_E

16893639808551


In a recent article on the social doctrine of John Paul II in the Jesuit journal La Civiltà Cattolica, Father Fernando de la Iglesia Viguiristi, SJ, had this to say about one facet of John Paul’s epic 1991 encyclical, Centesimus Annus:

“To the key question, ‘After the collapse of communism, is capitalism the only alternative left?’ Wojtyła [i.e., John Paul II] replied, ‘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’” (CA 42).

Fair enough; that’s an accurate quote. But why did the professor of international economics at the Pontifical Gregorian University omit the sentence immediately before that negative judgment, to wit:

“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.’”

I completely agree with the late pope that “free economy” is the better term here, and not only because the word “capitalism” evidently causes European academics to break out into hives.

A free economy — one in which the market, not the state, is the dominant actor in economic life — is one of the three interlocking sectors of the free and virtuous society of the future that John Paul II outlined in Centesimus Annus, the other two being a democratic polity and a vibrant public moral culture. In John Paul’s view, both the democratic political community and the public moral culture were essential in tempering and directing the tremendous energies that free economies let loose, so that those energies serve individual human flourishing and social solidarity. The democratic polity does that by devising a legal and regulatory framework for the free economy, one that rewards honesty and creativity and punishes corruption. The public moral culture (which the Church helps shape) does that by helping form a citizenry which understands that some appetites are not to be indulged, because they harm individuals and destroy the virtues necessary to live freedom — including economic freedom — nobly.

Given 21st century economic and political realities, the issue is not choosing between a market-centered economy and the socialist fantasy that continues to seduce intellectuals. The real issue is the degree of regulation that should frame the activities of the free economy, on everything from minimum wages to pornography to carbon emissions to the development of artificial intelligence. The debate over the proper legal regulation of the economy is ongoing, as it should be. Right now, it’s quite heated, and the players in that drama include not just old-style liberals and conservatives, but populists and “national conservatives” who are unhappy with free trade and seem smitten by national industrial policies of the sort favored by social democrats and others on the left.

This ongoing debate can take two important lessons from Centesimus Annus, I suggest.

The first has to do with the nature of wealth in a post-industrial world, and the implications of that for economic justice. If wealth today is created primarily by economic imagination and entrepreneurial skills working through disciplined and expanding networks of production and exchange, then the prime imperative of justice in the economy is the inclusion of as many people as possible in those networks — which means anti-poverty programs committed to the empowerment of the poor. In a U.S. Catholic context, that 21st-century economic reality underscores the fact that the most effective of the Church’s anti-poverty programs are our inner-city schools, the survival of which is a moral and social imperative.

The second lesson is related to the first and touches the sharply debated question of “globalization.” No doubt globalization has had adverse consequences for some Americans; it has also helped lift as many as two billion people out of abject poverty. Living the social-ethical virtue of solidarity, so stressed by John Paul II, would seem to mean addressing those two facts of 21st-century economic life together, not setting them against each other in a nationalistic, zero-sum game of beggar-thy-neighbor.

The question of “how,” I leave to the economists. The principle is what the Church should address.

George Weigel’s column ‘The Catholic Difference’ is syndicated by the Denver Catholic, the official publication of the Archdiocese of Denver.

Comments from readers

Maria MAGUIRE - 09/05/2023 12:57 PM
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE HOLY FATHER, HE IS ADVISED SOMETIMES IN HIS SPEECH WRITINGS TO USE TERMS TO DESCRIBE "CAPITALISM" AS the only evil source OF INJUSTICE. THE HOLY FATHER'S BEST INTENTIONS CAN BE PERCEIVED (BECAUSE OF THE TERMINOLOGY IN HIS SPEECHES) AS THE MOST ANTI-CAPITALISTIC LEADER OF THE WORLD. THERE IS EVIL IN OTHER TOTALITARIAN REGIMES, LIKE THE ENLAVING AND ALL DICTATORIAL SYSTEM OF CHINA, WHICH WE RARELY HEAR HIM SPEAK ABOUT. WE FIGHT THE EVIL OF CAPITALISM AND FIGHT THE HORRIBLE AND DICTATORIAL EVIL OF COMMUNISM AND ANTI-GOD SYSTEMS LIKE THE ONE IN CHINA. POPE FRANCIS HAS A GOOD HEART FOR THE POOR, BUT HE SHOULD CHECK TWICE BEFORE SPEAKING IN TERMS THAT HE CAN BE VIEWED AS A SOCIALIST-COMMUNISTIC LEADER. THE CHURCH LOVES THE FUNDS GIVEN TO IT ALL THE TIME BY SO MANY CAPITALISTIC GOVERNMENTS. DON'T SEE THE COMMUNIST NATIONS CONTRIBUTING FINANCIALLY TO THE CHURCH. MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL - IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU USE IT.
Giuliana Gage - 09/04/2023 11:03 AM
I have two graduate degrees and your article is still above my head. I would have to read it multiple times and ultimately I may still not be quite able to understand it. I am sure it makes you feel better to write it, although I am not sure that your ''rationalizations'( as called in psychiatry)can help the thousands who,like me, cannot relate to them. But do not worry. If you have a conscience left from your catholic upbringing, it will remain like a pebble in your shoes to remind you in simple terms what is right and what is wrong. "Omnia munda mundis". Intentions count and God only knows what the real intentions are, regardless of the intellectual rationalizations. If the current morals are bad, it is not fault of the "wakos, progressives, or whatever' They were not given the mission to shape the morals of the people. The Church (or Churches) were. If you think the morals and the judgements are bad, they are the result of the Church's failure to inspire and shape characters. The Church has been here for over 2000 years, in spite of Her faults. The Church was corrupted in Dante's times, in Saint Frances's time, in the 500's etc... The Church used to have political power and gave it up through the centuries, begruggingly but still is tempted to maneuver the political powers through religious themes like abortion. My mother was a devoted catholic who ,however, used to say:'' priests, sons of God,what would do for money, nobody knows and nobody says''. My mother also used to say: ''seek the kingdom of God and his justice, and the rest will be given in surplus". The question is:'' are you teaching the Kingdom of God or an adaptation to suit God and Mammoth?''

Powered by Parish Mate | E-system

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply