On economic life, Pope Francis sees his responsibility in clear terms:
The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but the Pope has the duty, in Christ’s name, to remind the rich to help the poor, to respect them, to promote them. The Pope appeals for disinterested solidarity and for a return to person-centred ethics in the world of finance and economics. (5/16/213)
This strong call for ethics in economics is not new. He stands in continuity with his predecessors, particularly Pope Benedict in Deus Caritas Est and Caritas in Veritate. Francis’ mind is with the Church and its constant teaching. Where Francis is unique is his directness, urgency and passion. It’s where he comes from and where he stands that makes a difference. Francis’ heart is with the poor; his feet were planted in the villas miseriasof Latin America. He calls for a Church “of and for the poor” that is not turned in on itself, but “in the streets.”
He has lived the Church’s social teaching in his own ministry so he speaks confidently and bluntly on its demands. Having challenged the Marxist temptations of some elements of liberation theology, he is more than comfortable challenging some elements of “savage capitalism” (5/21/13). He refused to worship at the altar of Marxist utopianism; he won’t bend a knee to the utilitarian advocates of the invisible hand of the market. As someone who challenged government corruption and overreach in Argentina, Francis recognizes the limitations of the state, but won’t abandon Catholic teaching on the obligation of government to protect the poor and seek the common good in economic life.
Why should anyone “bend a knee” to the “invisible hand” of the market, let alone to its “utilitarian advocates?” The core of the proper role of the government with respect to the market is neither more nor less than:
• Rigorously enforcing the [i]Rule of Law[/i];
• Rigorously defending the right of private property, subject to the requirement that the property has been licitly acquired;
• Rigorously defending the rights of:[blockquote]• freedom of association (which includes the right not to associate);[/blockquote] and
[blockquote]• freedom of voluntary exchange.[/blockquote]
The failure of the state to restrict its involvement in the economy to these roles, and its deforming intrusions into the exercise of those rights is among the reasons that the general populace has been deluded into believing that we have a truly free market in the United States, and that the current economic situation is the result of a free market.
[i]Pax et bonum[/i],
Keith Töpfer
Martial Artist: you claim that the nation state should uphold various ideals. From a Christian point of view, [i]private property[/i] is not an absolute, neither is [i]freedom of exchange[/i]. Indeed, even the nation state (a creation of the 17th century or thereabouts) is not absolute. All people and all principalities and powers will in the end bend the knee to Jesus.
So, no, don’t expect Pope Francis to uphold any of those liberal institutions, but rather the challenge all of them with God’s law.
Mr. Boyland,
I do so claim, if the nation state wishes to be seen as just. I am quite happy to defend strong private property rights from a Christian point of view. Not only do I not recall asserting that private property rights are absolute, I distinctly qualified the right as subject to licit acquisition of property, and will be happy to define the conditions for licit acquisition of private property if those are not clear to the reader.
As to Pope Francis, I expect him to challenge us all, but such challenges are given to us as individuals before they are given to us in the collective. And I would expect him to challenge us on the basis of Scripture. I would further point out that Scripture makes quite clear that Christians are expected to respect private property rights–I should think I would not have to remind any reader on this thread of the contents of the Pentateuch. And the Church has made very clear those circumstances where the hungry may feed themselves, as they have made clear Her members’ responsibilities to feed the hungry.
Keith Töpfer
Yes, the Pentateuch supports property rights, but with several qualifications that would not please liberal economists:
@ Gleaners must be permitted;
@ Farmland was required to lie fallow on a periodic schedule;
@ All debts were cancelled every 7 years;
@ Property sales were reverted to the family every 49/50 years;
@ Even before then, a relative could redeem land and/or slaves.
@ There were a variety of tithes and taxes mandated.
Then we have all sorts of restrictions on work (Sabbath etc) and what contracts were enforceable.
There are plenty of commands to the collective (and to individuals) in the Pentateuch. And if we are allowed to stray into the rest of Scripture, we will continue to find commands to both individuals and communities.