In terms of obtaining automatic respect for a record of demonstrated discipline, even-handedness, authenticity, objective analysis about economic systems, something he presents as integral to his mission of proselytizing the Gospels, we think the answer to our posed question is yes.
His resent statement pushing for “the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State” has been defended by some conservative Catholics as out of context, or simply referring to taxes. We have read the statement in context and believe the use of the term is far more encompassing in his usage than taxes to pay for the costs of government. If that is not true then what has become typical with Pope Francis, is his maddening lack of clarification. Tossing out such terms with no distinction made as to what might be considered “illegitimate” allows that as long as enough Paul’s get together to out-vote the Peters, the “redistribution” is legitimate.
And what is the Church’s position on progressive income taxes or even the concept of income taxes as opposed to other forms of financing “legitimate” government? And what constitutes legitimate government . . . forced redistribution of wealth apart from the costs of government??? The forced part is inescapable and includes jail and confiscation or the Popes use of the term “the state” has no meaning. When does the “legitimacy” stop in economic matters?
Indeed the Pope is arguably off the deep end into doctrinal socialist thought. If not, then he owes us as to how his comments should not lead to the conclusion that he has adopted the socialist narrative of the alleged need for de jure economic leveling.
Why does a religious and ethical leader not a socialist at heart insist on using straw man analogies suggesting thugocracies crony capitalism and corporatism truly represent free market approaches to economic well-being? The greater the economic freedom to obtain property and maintain personal property rights, the greater the standards of living for all. Countries with such freedoms distribute opportunity and wealth quite well, better than top down systems that “legitimate redistribution” necessarily entails.
If advocating for the best distribution of material wealth is a key part of the Pope’s Gospel outreach, prioritizing the poor, then we would like to see his critique of the writings of Hernando DeSoto a renowned South American economist. If he is not anti-free markets, where is his clear statement as Pope that property rights and truly free markets provide economic benefits for the poor and need to be truly and consistently implemented?
It is past time that Pope Francis adjust his language and cease providing statements readily used for collectivist, big government, managerial, soul killing purposes that would happily overpower the Church’s proper moral influence. Right now as the Church’s titular leader he is cheerleading what Marxists use to bamboozle the poor. We pray the Pope will stop dancing with the devil instead of confronting his intentions.
Recommended articles predating the Pope’s most recent statement, critiquing his already established economic reasoning, include this one from Andrew Napolitano, The Pope’s Bad Grasp of Basic Economics. Tomas Salamanca writing in Mises Canada The New Pope’s Bad Economics provides another such critique. Bill Frezza, a contributor to Forbes magazine, had this to say early on in his article Pope Francis is No Economist. “This is not “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s.” It’s stick-‘em-up politics, plain and simple.”
A defense of the Pope’s statement, and that criticisms are taken out of context, is available from this article by Kathryn Jean Lopez writing at National Review. We ask readers to read the comment section as well to appreciate the rebuttals available to her comments. Ed Morrissey, writing at Hot Air, attempts a Biblical justification for the Pope’s remarks we find out of context in its own way, as well argued by our betters in Biblical exegesis.
We note that, in the face of existential threat from socialist – confiscatory- anti-religious economic movements, Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI issued encyclicals chastening such schemes. Indeed Pope Leo XIII firmly supported property rights as a Christian directive. Theirs were efforts to head off violent tendencies in those movements in Europe. Pope Francis’ unguarded statements, accuse “free markets” and “trickle down” economics of being hurtful to the poor, when it is corruption, lack of free markets, or the slower trickle down of government that are at the core of poverty problems in this world. His statements tend more to incite rather than be insightful.
Recent comments in these pages regarding Pope Francis’ statements, are available here and here. Excerpts and annotations regarding the encyclical of Pope Leo XII Rerum Novarum and that of Pius XI Quadragesimo Anno are available on our Papal Page on the page bar above. R Mall with DLH
