JSRI's Fred Kammer, S.J, on Catholics and Capitalism

http://www.loyno.edu/jsri/catholicism-and-capitalism

Catholicism and Capitalism

“Catholic social doctrine is not a surrogate for capitalism.” [Blessed John Paul II]

by: Fred Kammer, SJ Jesuit Social Research Institute. Number 19. Feb 2012

Issues in the current political campaign season, the Occupy Movement, and claims made by free market extremists about Catholic social teaching require us to take another look at the uneasy relationship between Catholicism and capitalism. In the development of modern Catholic social thought, beginning with Rerum Novarum in 1891, there is a shift from an apparent “acceptance,” without formal endorsement, of capitalism by Pope Leo XIII in the beginning of this period. This initial acceptance is gradually changed by the doubts of Pius XI, by Pius XII's recognition of capitalism's tie to egoism, and John XXIII's call for its reform. Paul VI then seems to take a posture of greater neutrality on both capitalism and communism, allowing local church affirmation of the good and criticism of the evil in a plurality of economic and political models operative in local situations.

The In-Depth Criticism of Capitalism by Blessed Pope John Paul II

Pope John Paul II in his earlier writing then attempts to distance the Church from the dominant political and economic schools of both east and west. He harshly criticizes the underlying ideologies of both liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism and the devastating evil and destructiveness of their interaction.

Then, in Centensimus Annus (1991), Pope John Paul reflects on both socialism and liberalism in light of the fall of the U.S.S.R. and the dominance of capitalism on the world stage. He contends that Pope Leo foresaw the negative political, social, and economic consequences of the social order proposed by socialism, including its suppression of private property [no. 12 in text]. Socialism's flawed anthropology subordinates persons to socioeconomic mechanisms [13] and is rooted primarily in atheism [13] and class struggle [14]. "Real socialism" was embodied in the oppressive regimes which fell in 1989. Their fall, John Paul says, was due to violations of the rights of workers (private initiative, ownership of property, and economic freedom) [23], the inefficiency of the economic system as a consequence of violating human rights [24], and the spiritual void created by atheism [24].

Turning to capitalism and in the context of affirming the efficiency of "the free market," John Paul writes:

We have seen that it is unacceptable to say that the defeat of so-called "real socialism" leaves capitalism as the only model of economic organization. It is necessary to break down the barriers and monopolies which leave so many countries on the margins of development and to provide all individuals and nations with the basic conditions which will enable them to share in development.¹

Again, he asks whether "capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society?" John Paul's answer is:

The answer is obviously complex. 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. But 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.²

It is important to read this statement in full. Many commentators quoted it in part and out of context, even going so far as to reverse the two alternative "if" sentences to end with the affirmative (Richard John Neuhaus).³ Ringing praises of capitalism, as some claimed, or "the moral vision of a political economy such as that of the United States" (Michael Novak)⁴ were at best a new form of theological spin control and at worst a form of "market idolatry" [40] when judged in the encyclical's full complexity. As John Paul explained at an audience on the day Centesimus was released, the Catholic Church "has always refused and still refuses today to make the market the supreme regulator or almost the model or synthesis of social life."⁵

John Paul's position, consistent with the tradition, has been to criticize both socialism and capitalism, even the "new capitalism." As if to respond to the wishful thinking of some free market commentators, the Pope once more made clear in a 1993 address in Latvia his criticism of both communism and capitalism:

Besides, Catholic social doctrine is not a surrogate for capitalism. In fact, although decisively condemning “socialism,” the church, since Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, has always distanced itself from capitalistic ideology, holding it responsible for grave social injustices (cf. Rerum Novarum, 2). In Quadragesimo Anno Pius XI, for his part, used clear and strong words to stigmatize the international imperialism of money (Quadragesimo Anno, 109). This line is also confirmed in the more recent magisterium, and I myself, after the historical failure of communism, did not hesitate to raise serious doubts on the validity of capitalism, if by this expression one means not simply the “market economy” but “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” (Centesimus Annus, 42).⁶

Pope John Paul endorses neither capitalism nor communism, nor does he propose some third way between the two or some economic model of its own. The church's proper contribution is Catholic social teaching which, in the prophetic mode, "recognizes the positive value of the market and of enterprise, but which at the same time points out that these need to be oriented toward the common good" [43]. The 1999 discussion by John Paul II of “neoliberalism” in Ecclesia in America[56] adds further weight to the argument that Catholic social teaching remains profoundly critical of current market-driven societies and the injustices which they perpetuate.

Pope Benedict Continues this Critical Analysis

In Caritas in Veritate (2009), Pope Benedict follows his predecessor Pope John Paul II in Centesimus Annus (1991) by highlighting “the need for a system with three subjects: the market, the State and civil society” [38].

The Market

The pope understands and affirms the importance of the economic marketplace as the institution “that permits encounter between persons, inasmuch as they are economic subjects who make use of contracts to regulate their relations as they exchange goods and services of equivalent value between them, in order to satisfy their needs and desires” [38]. He further acknowledges that in the global era, the economy is influenced by a number of competitive and different models tied to cultures. Economic life requires contracts, the point at which commutative justice is most applicable to regulate relations of exchange. But, as the pope notes, “the social doctrine of the Church has unceasingly highlighted the importance of distributive justice and social justice for the market economy…” [35]. Benedict also makes it clear at various points that in a globalized economy, it is access to international and other markets that is most needed by the poor and by underdeveloped nations.

The State

The second sector or subject in society is political authority, which Pope Benedict promotes as ideally “dispersed” and “effective on different levels” [41], including the international. It is “the political community” which has responsibility for directing economic activity towards the common good [36]. Grave imbalances are produced, he writes, “when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution” [36].

Benedict further acknowledges that, “the State finds itself having to address the limitations to its sovereignty imposed by the new context of international trade and finance, which is characterized by increasing mobility both of financial capital and means of production, material and immaterial” [24]. This has altered the political power of States and calls for a reevaluation of the role of the States. Rather than “being too precipitous in declaring the demise of the State,” however, Benedict suggests that in the current world economic crisis the State’s role seems destined to grow in working towards resolution of this crisis [41]. In addition, he argues that governments must commit themselves to greater collaboration with one another to deal with a transnational integrated economy [41], as well as a stronger and reformed United Nations and other international economic institutions and international finance [67].

Civil Society

Pope Benedict is in continuity with his predecessors as well in emphasizing the importance of civil society which Pope John Paul II saw “as the most natural setting for an economy of gratuitousness and fraternity…” [38]. In this country, this sector is what we call the “voluntary sector” or “non-profit sector.” It is very consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, and in Catholic social thought this sector has been critical to arguments against the absorbing tendencies of centralizing governments. It also has been important to cushioning the worst aspects of the market. For Benedict, civil society is essential to preserving important aspects of human society and promoting integral human development. In his words:

When both the logic of the market and the logic of the State come to an agreement that each will continue to exercise a monopoly over its respective area of influence, in the long term much is lost: solidarity in relations between citizens, participation and adherence, actions of gratuitousness, all of which stand in contrast with giving in order to acquire (the logic of exchange) and giving through duty (the logic of public obligation, imposed by State law) [39].

Thus, civil society is a key counter-balance to both the market and the State for Pope Benedict and Catholic Social Teaching.

In conclusion, Pope Benedict highlighted the importance of markets, the necessity of justice to assure that markets are directed to the common good and function effectively, and the role of political authorities in making justice a reality. In response to free market extremists, Benedict is clear that “the conviction that the economy must be autonomous, that it must be shielded from ‘influences’ of a moral character, has led man to abuse the economic process in a thoroughly destructive way” [34]. One way in which he discusses the implementation of economic justice is the redistribution of particular goods to those most in need. (Beware, “Joe the plumber”!) Some examples where the pontiff cites the importance of redistribution are in the economy [37], redistribution of wealth on an unprecedented and worldwide scale through appropriate globalization [42], and a necessary worldwide redistribution of energy resources [49].

---

1. Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, op. cit., No. 35.

2. Ibid., No. 42.

3. Richard John Neuhaus, “The Pope Affirms the ‘New Capitalism,’” Wall Street Journal, editorial page, May 2, 1991. Neuhaus even violated the Vatican’s press embargo in order to give his own spin to the encyclical before other commentators could report on the encyclical.

4. Michael Novak in “The Pope, Liberty, and Capitalism: Essays on Centesimus Annus,” National Review, Special Supplement, p. S-12.

5. Cindy Wooden, “Marxism Worsened Problems of Working Class, Pope Says at Audience,” Catholic News Service, May 1, 1991.

6. Pope John Paul II, “What Social Teaching Is and Is Not,” in Origins, Vol. 23, No. 15, September 1993, pp. 256-58, at 257.

Not Enough to Go Around?

There are those who would have you think there is not enough to go around. Truth is, out global community, which will hit 7 billion any day now, does produce enough for all. We must learn how to better share our resources (or we'll end up like these pups, waiting for the one tree...)

Our Faith and Economic Realities: What is Jesus Asking of Us?

Fr. Rick Malloy, S.J., Ph.D.

In the next few weeks, as we near the end of this liturgical Year A, we will hear the great challenges to Love and do Justice that appear in the final Chapters of Matthew’s Gospel. “The greatest among you must be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” (Matt 23:11-12). “And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of the least brothers of mine, you did for me.' ” (Matt 25: 40).

What moves in our hearts and minds when we hear these words of Jesus and then ponder the economic realities of our age?

On Oct 16 2011, Nick Kristof reported in the New York Times that:

* The 400 wealthiest Americans have a greater combined net worth than the bottom 150 million Americans.

* The top 1 percent of Americans possess more wealth than the entire bottom

90 percent.

* In the Bush expansion from 2002 to 2007, 65 percent of economic gains went to the richest 1 percent.

Here are some other factoids to get us thinking.

* 22% of children in America live in poverty.

* 15.1% of Americans live in poverty. That’s 46.2 million people.

* According to the U.S. Government, the poverty line is $22,314 for a family of four.

* Business Week noted: “The Pew Research Center said its recent polling shows that a majority of Americans -- for the first time in 15 years of being surveyed on the question -- oppose more government spending to help the poor. The deep budget cuts by the U.S. House earlier this year included programs that helped the poor.”

* Globally, 80% of Planet earth lives on less than $10 a day.

* Across our planet, 21,000 children die each day from preventable causes

SOME SELECTIONS FROM CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING.

“There also exist sinful inequalities that affect millions of men and women. These are in open contradiction of the Gospel” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1938).

“The equal dignity of human persons requires the effort to reduce excessive social and economic inequalities” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1947).

“The needs of the poor take priority over the desires of the rich; the rights of workers over the maximization of profits; the preservation of the environment over uncontrolled industrial expansion; the production to meet social needs over production for military purposes” (Economic Justice for All, #94)

“The way society responds to the needs of the poor through its public policies is the litmus test of its justice or injustice” (Economic Justice for All, #123).

“Those who are more influential because they have greater share of goods and common services should feel responsible for the weaker and be ready to share with them all they possess... the church feels called to take her stand beside the poor, to discern the justice of their requests and to help satisfy them, without losing sight of the good of groups in the context of the common good” (On Social Concern, #39)

Ilia Delio on Science and Catholic Universities

Delio's book The Emergent Christ (Orbis 2011) is one of the best books I've read this year. She synthesizes evolution and science with Catholic theological reflection with the best in the business (e.g., Haught), and knows and communicates Teilhard's thought better than just about anyone. Here she challenges Catholic Universities to get with the program. - Rick
**************************************************

Faith and The Cosmos

Can Catholic universities foster dialogue between religion and science?

Ilia Delio | APRIL 4, 2011 AMERICA MAGAZINE

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12793

When I started teaching in 1996, I was hired by Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., to teach a course on science and religion. With degrees in both areas, I felt well prepared; but I soon learned that the amount of literature on the relationship between these two topics had swelled enormously. The growth rate of scientific progress in our time is astounding. Rapid advances in technology make it difficult to keep abreast of progress in such areas as genetics, robotics, molecular biology and neuroscience. Discoveries in cosmology, astronomy and physics continue to disclose a universe that is ancient, dynamic, interconnected and expanding.

As technology advances at an exponential rate, it drives other areas of modern life to accelerate exponentially as well. The rapidity of technological change, writes the philosopher Nick Bostrom, suggests that continued innovation will have an even larger impact on humanity in future decades. With these changes come new moral and religious questions, and the Catholic Church needs theologians willing to address them. Unfortunately, few Catholic universities have devoted resources to educating theologians willing to engage with the scientific world. This is a loss for both academic disciplines.

If the secular, scientific culture behaves like a rabbit, leaping across vast areas of discovery and invention, the Catholic Church too often behaves like a turtle, crawling up from behind, hesitant to accept new scientific discoveries. The slow pace of the church’s embrace of science is not because of a hesitant pope. Benedict XVI has worked to connect the two disciplines, establishing within the Vatican, under the Pontifical Council of Culture, a department dedicated to dialogue between science and theology. The pope has issued various statements on the sciences and their impact on humanity and the earth and has expressed to Catholic youth his support of new computer technologies, when used correctly, to connect with others. Overall, though, many theologians are reluctant to engage developments in science. It does not help that within the universities theology has been isolated from the sciences.

The mechanization and specialization of higher education has rendered the university a multiversity. Instead of educating students to know the universe and stars “turning together as one,” academic disciplines, including theology and philosophy, have become highly specialized, competitive fields. If the modern church is reluctant to embrace insights from modern science as integral to revelation, part of the hesitancy may be due to the place theology holds within the academy.

In his book The Soul of America, the historian George Marsden recounts how and when higher education in general became hostile to religion. By the 1920s many universities, despite their religious roots, had grown increasingly secular, sidelining or even scorning religion. The separation of science from such humanistic fields as religion, history and literature created a model of university life that did not allow any positive role for religious people, institutions or ideas on campus. One had to leave religion at the door or privatize it. As a result, students did not learn how to connect science with areas of meaning and value. Elaine Ecklund, a sociologist at Rice University and the author of Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think, suggests that by separating religion from the rest of university education, the American university lost its soul.

An Uneasy Relationship

The church has been a patron of the sciences throughout the ages, although not consistently. Major events like the Galileo affair and the rise of Protestantism “caused a psychic trauma for the church,” write Peter Hess and Paul Allen in their excellent book, Catholicism and Science. Although the church did not shut the door to scientific research, events like these also stifled openness to scientific innovations.

Theology, however, entered the 20th century as a closed set of neo-Thomistic discourses with questions and rules set by neo-scholastic philosophy with few, if any, other intellectual or cultural sources, says Paul Crowley, S.J., the chair of religious studies at Santa Clara University, that did not cohere with existing papal efforts to support scientific research. Still, in the 1930s the Vatican had moved its astronomical observatory out of the city of Rome to Castel Gandolfo and outfitted it with modern equipment and in 1979 established the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to demonstrate the church’s commitment to scientific research. “The Pontifical Academy,” declared Pope John Paul II, “is a visible sign, raised among the people of the world, of a profound harmony that can exist between the truths of science and the truths of faith.”

Some theologians have worked to connect these truths. Karl Rahner, S.J., did not shy away from exploring connections between matter and the soul or from considering the theological implications of life on other planets. Another Jesuit priest, Bernard Lonergan, drew on the scientific method to develop a method of theology. Today, some Catholic theologians (like John F. Haught) engage the sciences to illuminate areas of systematic theology like divine action; others (like Denis Edwards) are trying to deepen theological insight on questions in ecology, such as climate change. But on the whole, Catholic theology remains a product of Augustinian, Thomistic and Aristotelian ideas. Few Catholic theologians are grappling with the sciences on their own terms as a means of theological reflection.

In the late 20th century, as theology entered into dialogue with the cultural pluralities of gender, race, history and philosophy, it nonetheless settled into the university system as an academic silo, just as the sciences sequestered themselves into specialized disciplines. Religion and science grew more estranged.

Theology students are trained in departments independent of a broader integration with the sciences in the university. As a result, according to William Stoeger, S.J., of the Vatican observatory, “there are few theologians or theologically interested philosophers at universities where the most significant scientific work is done.” Even the annual meeting of the Catholic Theological Society of America, where attention is given to major currents in theology, does not show much engagement with the sciences. Of its 16 topical areas of discussion, only one is devoted to theology and the natural sciences.

In his book Religion and Science, Ian Barbour laid out four types of relationships between science and religion: conflict, independence, dialogue and integration. While scientists tend to see the relationship between the two disciplines as one of either conflict or independence, theologians, when they are interested, tend toward dialogue and integration. Undoubtedly, science and religion are independent disciplines, each with its own language, methods and tools of analysis, but the academic structure has kept them intellectually as well as spatially apart.

Reforming this structure to promote dialogue is key, since scientific language is technical and objective, and the descriptions of scientific findings do not readily invite theology-minded students into discussion without a teacher. Both disciplines present unique challenges, but it is not difficult to see why a theologian may more readily delve into the familiar theses of St. Thomas Aquinas over the unfamiliar formulas of Albert Einstein, or why the reverse might be true for scientists. Scientists who are interested in religion or express religious belief often have little opportunity in the academy to discuss religion as it relates to their work. Some universities, like Santa Clara, are making a concerted effort to engage scientists and theologians in discussion on meaning and value, but such initiatives are rare.

The Role of the Catholic University

The term “Catholic sacramental imagination” has long been used for the typically Catholic view that the material world can bring people into intimate relationship with God. The term captures the heart of the Catholic intellectual tradition, which is rooted in the richness of the material cosmos as a fit dwelling for the divine. While the church recognizes the importance of science for the development of faith, it also recognizes the limits of science as the ultimate horizon of meaning. The value of science, Pope John Paul II wrote, is that it can “purify religion from error and superstition,” just as “religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”

Although the church continues to bridge science and religion, the significance of this dialogue for the life of faith cannot be left to the institutional church alone. Theologians are needed to reflect on the big questions of meaning and purpose in light of evolution, ecology and technology, as well as to comment on the moral questions raised, especially by the biomedical sciences. Science and religion make their best contributions when each can speak to the other of the truth of reality. As Paul Crowley, S.J., observes, “If theology cannot engage a culture that has been framed by the paradigms of science, then theology itself risks self-marginalization.” It has “no voice at the table concerning the significant issues facing humanity today” and becomes an exercise in history and hermeneutics. On the other hand, unbridled science can become “scientism,” making broad philosophical claims without the development of philosophical foundations.

Catholic universities must become leaders in integrating science and religion. John Haughey, S.J., writes that the Catholic intellectual tradition is one of making wholes. Yet few Catholic universities offer courses or programs in science and religion, and those that do attract relatively few students, not all of whom are adequately prepared for such discussions.

Several years ago, a colleague and I initiated a certificate program in religion and science at Washington Theological Union, a graduate school of theology and ministry in Washington, D.C., but the program was eventually discontinued for lack of student interest. At the Gregorian University in Rome, Gennaro Auletta and colleagues have developed a program called Science and the Ontological Quest, which is responsible for coordinating science and religion courses in six Roman pontifical universities. Although only a small number of seminarians are taking such courses, the engagement of seminarians in the dialogue between science and religion may be one of the most crucial pastoral needs of our time.

Catholic universities need an invigoration of the Catholic imagination, for which dialogue between science and religion is a rich source. Theology cannot continue to develop apart from 21st-century cosmology and ecology, nor can science substitute for religion. The dialogue between science and religion has been developing in the last few decades, but Catholic universities have been slow to support this mutual enrichment. Developing collaborative structures of interaction between science and religion on the university level can benefit students and faculty alike, not only academically but also spiritually. While the current structure of academic specialization makes dialogue difficult as an integral part of university life and thought, universities must support existing centers of dialogue, like the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. Centers like these serve as bridge-builders and integrators, bringing together faculty, students and professionals across the disciplines.

To restore soul to the university may require a re-imagining of education, including a search for new ways to develop dialogue between science and religion. Development of this relationship can enrich personal life, community life and the life of the planet. As John Paul II wrote, “The things of the earth and the concerns of faith derive from the same God,” for it is one and the same Love “which moves the sun and the other stars.” Both the light of faith and the insights of science can help humanity evolve toward a more sustainable future