Is the Pope Merely Being Cathartic ?

Seriously Francis, could you just stifle yourself a little bit?

Pope Francis has more than once made us wince because of his penchant for off the cuff remarks.  It is not that we do not appreciate his openness, friendliness and willingness to engage, nor because we always disagree with his ex-cathedra remarks in context. It has been because he has made these unguarded remarks using formulations that predictably both the secular media and leftist Catholic media outlets can breathlessly portray or sensationalize as representing some change of longstanding doctrine or tradition when that is not the case, as the Pope or his offices are compelled to explain.

Catholics and non-Catholic allies who are informed by, appreciate, share and reinforce those established well-vetted teachings are discredited, unnecessarily having the scope and integrity of their promulgation of those teachings undermined.  The sensational stories about “change in the Church” travel around the world, confusing people at best,  and become gospel by repetition and the malevolence of certain elements.  The faithful and their allies are left on their own.

Producing even more consternation, Pope Francis recently issued a prepared document entitled Evangelii Gaudium  the main theme of which was to  “breath life into the Church’s evangelical outreach.”  In it the Pope  ventured into economic matters, reflecting on capitalism and market oriented economies that are regrettably unstudied on his part.  As Samuel Gregg writes in National Review in a critique of the document:

In some cases, they reflect the straw-man arguments about the economy that one encounters far too often in some Catholic circles, especially in Western Europe but also in Latin America.

Throw in the American Catholic left and those elements are having a field day, finding all kinds of sustenance for their essentially socialist if not communist world views. More definitive church documents do not support that view but additional confusion is now out there thanks to the regrettably uninformed venture by Pope Francis into characterizing existent economic systems in a way that is in error, overwrought and right up the left’s ally. The Pope’s  reference to “trickle down” economics in Evangelii Gaudium was one of the more egregious. As if government takings and redistribution do not demonstrably inhibit job formation and are not “trickle down” through huge bureaucracies, susceptible to huge waste and irresponsible dependencies.

We have reread Rerum Novarum, (encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, 1891) and scanned  Quadragesimo Anno (Pius XI 1931), classic, authoritative (but not necessarily infallible) expositions on labor, the state, and economic systems and also Pope Francis’ Evangelii Gaudium economic statements.  The first two are encyclicals (formal letters to Bishops) establishing teaching doctrine for the Church, the latter an apostolic exhortation, which is not necessarily  doctrinal nor obligatory of Catholics to accept as authoritative. Indeed, to his credit, Pope Pius invites criticism which we intend to do. Of course the left will nevertheless selectively quote Evangilii Gaudium endlessly, as if their favorite quotes were set forth as infallible, which isn’t even true of encyclicals, per se.

In their encyclicals, Leo and Pius were dealing with current  labor and socialistic movements of one sort or another.  Those documents are often dishonestly excerpted to suggest support for actions they do not endorse, do not require or otherwise are inconsistent with their more careful reasoning.   They are bandied about by Catholics on the left to justify their concept of a welfare socialistic state, highly regulated, highly taxed, and redistributive. The left advocates for legislation, inherently seeking the force of law for tax rates and other legislative mandates and inextricably, temporal punishment for violations.  The concept of charity is turned on its head.

That is a huge corruption of authentic teachings on the Christian mission and should be rooted out by the Bishops. Collectively (I choose that analysis because Quadragesimo Anno refers to Rerum Novarum) the encyclicals are indeed critical of exploitations of labor by “capital” but they also condemn the envy and materialism of socialism.  Pius gives no quarter to Communism, which is presented as evil in itself, and criticizes socialism as not compatible with Christianity, by my reading, because of its obtrusiveness and likelihood to degenerate. We would argue that the tendency assuredness of degeneracy is just as clear, indeed experiential, with systems Pius suggested as more in keeping with important principles of social policy if and because they are established de-jure (by law).

The encyclicals collectively, (especially set forth in  Rerum Novarum), endorse private property as a natural right including land. They do not denigrate the accumulation of the fruits of labor. They recognize economic classes, they do not refer to their existence as evil in themselves. They recognize distinctions between management and labor.  Other than endorsing basic legal regimes to protect workers from hazards and fraud they in no way call, de jure, for a heavy intrusive hand of government creating a workers paradise. They essentially endorse the establishment of voluntary guilds and associations to advocate for worker’s lot.

Quadragesimo Anno emphasizes the need for cooperation between corporations, labor and government spheres to advance well being. Fine. But much can be criticized about that concept as applied de jure, reflecting a built in naivete about the inevitable politicization and protectionism and the adverse effects of essentially limiting competition.

Pope Leo and Pius also advocate the inextricable principles of solidarity and subsidiarity.  Dr. Jeff Mirus editor of Catholic Culture provides an instructive short summary/ synthesis of pontifical teaching on those key elements of Catholic social teaching, including recent elaborations by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI in this very readable article available here.

Many have confused solidarity with the adoption of governmental social programs. But in his social encyclical Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict identified this as an error when he wrote: “Solidarity is first and foremost a sense of responsibility on the part of everyone with regard to everyone, and it cannot therefore be merely delegated to the State” (38). He also discussed the propensity to rely on large, impersonal institutions, which can never be a substitute for solidarity:

Unfortunately, too much confidence was placed in those institutions, as if they were able to deliver the desired objective automatically. In reality, institutions by themselves are not enough, because integral human development is primarily a vocation, and therefore it involves a free assumption of responsi – bility in solidarity on the part of everyone. (11)

It is necessary to emphasize this point: Human development involves a free assumption of responsibility in solidarity. Yet this free assumption of responsibility in solidarity is precisely what is lacking when we turn to government to implement broad social solutions. (bold emphasis ours)

Quadrgesimo Anno which is used to justify all manner of de jure social action by Catholic leftists in any number of social action departments across the country is just as quotable for market oriented conservatives like us. And may we suggest more definitively so:

It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry. (Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 79)

The emphasis of the encyclicals, however often turgid, (and I am an authority on turgid writing) is not on government systems of control but on Christian ethical responsibilities.   They call for virtue and civic responsibility at length, but do not call for overwhelming government enforcement of concepts of charity or economic leveling.  If they do, this writer would consider them un-Biblical and counter to the Christian experience. Furthermore, the social principles of solidarity and subsidiarity are not definitive as a matter of faith or morals.  Laws regarding them are considered prudential matters.*  Conservatives look to subsidiarity as being in service to solidarity. The left looks to violate subsidiarity for a solidarity that in effect produces a wider spread of hopeless poverty.

As regards the socio-economic policy of governments, any thought that Quadragesimo Anno calls for extensive income redistribution de jure, would  swallow the statements clearly made as regards communism and socialism in Quadragesimo Anno and the support for property rights enunciated in Rerum Novarum.

Evangelii Gaudium is novelette in length, and most of its bulk, which the secular left cares not a twit about, is not devoted to economic matters. While there are important and respectable  insights contained in it with regard to its main theme, regrettably Pope Francis gets off into the weeds reflecting prejudices and little depth on economic matters, to the extent of being reckless, given his position of respectability.

Over the next few days we may provide additional  commentary from other analysts and relevant quotes from the encyclicals mentioned above and as regards other issues raised in the Pope Francis’ exhortation.  The implications of Pope Francis’ comments are unavoidably relevant to Republican outreach efforts to Roman Catholics and others on economic and other matters.          R Mall

Ed. Note: This article has been added to extensively from the initial posting.

* That aspect is unlike that applied to procured elective abortion, which is considered  a direct violation of the right to life of an innocent human being and an intrinsic evil, as are laws allowing it. Politicians who support, aid or abet such laws are notoriously cooperating with a defined evil.

0

0