Pope Veritaspac speaks
The Federalist, is a respected conservative pro-Constitutional publication featuring an impressive stable of regular and contributing editors. Two articles have appeared there in recent days that have reinforced our critiques of Pope Francis both as to appropriateness and substance. An article by D.C. McAllister appeared January 23rd titled Pope Francis Is Fair Game For Criticism, From Left Or Right
Most of the article is an apologetic for being an anti-apologetic of casual Papal utterances. Excerpts:
It’s not because I want to trash the pope or cause conflict. It’s because I care about freedom, and the social-justice schemes and leftist ideology of this pope are wrong and immoral, not because the pope is immoral, but because these ideologies rob people of freedom and of the opportunity to rise out of poverty. It is the duty and right of lovers of liberty—Catholic or not—to oppose any world leader who speaks out in the public square for destructive policies and who has a powerful influence on American voters—and it’s irrelevant what the Left thinks. . . .
Like many have said, the political pronouncements by the pope are not infallible, but they do hold authority and influence. Given that those pronouncements undermine the very principles American conservatives and Christians are fighting for every day, shouldn’t Catholic conservatives follow (William F.) Buckley’s lead and speak truth to power, even if that power resides in Rome?
Three days later (earlier today) Senior Editor of The Federalist Maureen Mullarkey added commentary in support of the need to challenge Pope Francis and also to the substance of critiques of Pope Francis. She points to various statements and actions as being infused with a socialist economic world view: Pope Francis Is A Leftist And Must Be Called Out
. . . It is a serious matter when a pope confuses political and ideological symbols for religious ones.
Civil society has an immense stake in that confusion. And the stakes are raised when papal preferences, masked in a Christian idiom, align themselves with ideological agendas (e.g. radical environmentalism) that impinge on democratic freedoms and the sanctity of the individual. Throughout the history of the Church, there has been tension between Peter and Caesar, between the Church and the state. Francis, raised in Argentina during the apogee of Peronism, gives every evidence of tilting toward the state.. . .
Francis is no naïf. He signals his priorities to anyone paying attention. You do not have to be a Republican or a conservative to get the message. In support of his green theology, he plans a speech at the United Nations and a congress of world religious leaders at the Vatican. He is preparing to lend this agenda the magisterial weight of an encyclical. Yet, when innocents are slaughtered in Paris by the same forces that are shedding Christian blood in the Middle East, the most he can muster is a hashtag, #PrayersforParis.
Let us be honest. Conservatives are damned if they do, damned if they don’t. While deferential observers are measuring their tones, Francis drives ahead with a demagogic program which makes the state the guardian and enforcer all values. To suppress challenge to a pope’s political biases or erratic behavior is no favor to the Church. It is little more than a failure of nerve that will earn no reward in the press. Silence is a form of collusion.
Mullarkey also hosts a weblog which appears on the Catholic intellectual magazine First Things’ website.
We note that Pope Francis in Evangelli Gaudum made the following statement
202. The need to resolve the structural causes of poverty cannot be delayed, not only for the pragmatic reason of its urgency for the good order of society, but because society needs to be cured of a sickness which is weakening and frustrating it, and which can only lead to new crises. Welfare projects, which meet certain urgent needs, should be considered merely temporary responses. As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality,[173] no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems. Inequality is the root of social ills.
Elsewhere he refers to himself as not a technician but he has no reticence about calling on priests to evangelize for structural (radical ) economic change. He blames poverty on the “absolute autonomy of the markets” something that exists nowhere on earth. However the poor would be better off if there were more and closer true examples.
Adding our two-cents to the extensive responses the two articles generated, and our reading of Gaudium we submitted the following signed commentary to The Federalist (slightly revised for this publication):
Pope Francis distorts economics in Evangelii Gaudium when he refers to what he must think is a wide spread system of economic organization called “unfettered capitalism” (otherwise why bring it up). In reality it exists nowhere on earth. No context he offers is sufficient to explain the innocence of that crack coming from someone who should be cognizant (we think he is ) of how his statements will be used. Or he is not a careful person, irresponsibly so.
The association of big business interests and favors from government a.k.a. crony capitalism is not capitalism and is closer to fascism (whatever the degree of militancy within the government). Too much “fettering” is the problem. His use of the term “unfettered” indicates he knows little of what he is talking about, including the root of the problem in Argentina.
If Pope Francis wants to speak of Christian charity and the need for more of it, then that is fine. No one seriously argues that that is inappropriate or unneeded. But Pope Francis has yet to indicate he has any serious understanding or appreciation of market freedoms and the importance of property and capital accumulation to achieve greater wealth for all. Instead, his is a rhetoric, and possibly a theology, of envy. If not he has irresponsibly allowed his views to be presented as such by not taking care. He owes the world and the poor better clarity so that they do not become victims of Marxist socialist propaganda.
It is one thing to be concerned with adequacy for all, “a piece of the pie,” it is another to presume the pie is fixed. That is a fundamental error of his sort of mind-set . . . along with rhetoric that calls for equality of income are a virtue, a charism, and not dangerous invitation to power grabs using envy in disguise.
He does not consider himself a Marxist because of the God thing, not because he has a long history of disdain for theories of confiscation, collectivism and forced redistribution. Have we anything from him as Pope Francis to clarify to the clergy the need to preach for expanded universal wealth creation through laws to eliminate favoritism, enhance free markets and reduce barriers to entry (hallmarks of capitalism by the way) – combined with voluntary Christian charity — the approach consistent with the Gospels in service to the poor — and not confiscation (taxation) and government trickle down redistribution? We think the burden is on him.
R Mall
