Catholicism and capitalism

[Benedictus]

​I actually hadn't heard the word "corporatism" used to describe Catholic social teaching until recently, though it seems 19th century Catholic thinkers used the word to mean something completely different than the fascist, statist sense of the term.  (Seems "corporatism" meant many different things to different groups of people).

Leo XIII was actually opposed to a massive centralized state controlling all aspects of life and society, as were his later followers.  If you read Rerum Novarum, you'd see that he advocates the rights of the family and those of private property and defends them against attempts to subjugate them to the state (as advocated by socialists and others).  He also supported voluntary fraternal organizations of workers and others, though what he advocated was actually closer to the trade guilds of the middle ages than modern labor unions.

John Paul II was probably one of the best and most thorough of recent popes on social teaching, and Centesimus Annus applied much of Leo XIIIs ideas to the modern world.  He advocated the principle of subsidiarity, and taught that matters should be handled at the small and local level whenever possible, rather than by centralized government, and cautioned against the growth of government bureaucracy.

They were hardly champions of a vast powerful centralized fascistic state.

As you might expect, I'm no fan of so-called "liberation theology," as it's little more than "baptized" Marxism.

​Thanks, I'll read those documents you mentioned.

I thought about to what extent the church implements these ideas. If the Church teaches subsidiarity for secular government then how comes, at least it appears to me, that the church doesn't implement the same approach in its own governance? At present the church operates on a more centralized structure, top down in focus, and there are ongoing disagreements over how collegiality should be realized post Vatican ll. This is greatly different to the governance of churches such as the Episcopalians or Baptists that devolve power downwards, be it end in a good outcome or not.

The ability for local parishes to make decisions is shaped, and at times curtailed, but those above them. Those in the pews have little ability to impact what happens in the parish, unless the priest or bishop agrees. They don't vote or make decisions in their own right, instead providing only advice or opinions to the clergy.

There are pro's and con's to this, and I can see why it benefits the church in many respects. But it seems to highlight that subsidiarity cannot ever be total and detached from a more central or 'higher' relationship figure, body or person that directs the shots on the overall leadership and scope. This would seem to suggest a pecking order pattern throughout life and governance.

Could it be that this influenced secular corporatism in Catholic majority countries to take on a style that was less than desirable once power was acquired? I'm not saying corporatism equals fascism or extremism, but it seems there were power/governance patterns already at play that allowed such ideas to be distorted once power was acquired.

I think there is a need for a free democracy at some level of the governance structure, even if not at the bottom, to remove the chances of a brutal leader. But I'm concerned this type of system would still work against the poor, vulnerable and minority groups who have less ability to match the power of those around and above them.

[Benedictus]

Hello all,

I'm new to this 'phorum' so let me introduce myself first. I'm Cymon, a thirty-something convert to Roman Catholicism. I studied Medieval literature at the university of Utrecht and I'm currently employed as the sacristan of a cathedral in the Netherlands. I was very excited to find this website as the discussions I've read so far are interesting and most have the spirit of sincere intellectual curiosity. I hope I'll be able to contribute to this forum in the same way.

For quite a while now I have become interested in the complicated relationship between catholicism and capitalism. When I read the encyclicals that make up the Church's social teachings, it was very clear to me that the church condemns communism, but that it does not favor capitalism in any special way and instead favoring a system known as corporatism. In the United States the pope has repeatedly been scolded as a communist for his criticism of capitalism. The liberation theologian Gustavo Gutierrez argued that capitalism institutionalizes sin, creating a system where greed is rewarded and where many people are being kept poor, robbing them of their human dignity as they struggle to survive in slums where they easily fall victim to crime, prostitution, drugs, etcetera.

I'm curious to hear the opinions of other Catholics on the subject. How do you feel about the Church's stance towards capitalism?

​I found this today via twitter from the BBC, hopefully it's viewable, and you might find it interesting. Is the Pope Communist? and here for a text article on the same topic

It deals with Catholic Social Teaching, especially the influences of Peronism and Argentinian specific Liberation Theology on the current Pope. It draws on academics, Cardinal Nicols and others.

[Peace]

Wealth creation is not a zero sum game.  Bill Gates or the late Steve Jobs (or pick your favorite zillionaire businessmen) making money does not cause other people to starve.  A free market economy increases the total amount of wealth, and makes more goods available to more people.  It was in the socialist USSR, not (then) "capitalist" America where people had to wait in bread lines.  It's in socialist North Korea, not (until recently) free market Hong Kong where people are literally starving to death.

It seems that here you are really getting into the politics/economics of it. That is fine. I already agreed that capitalism is a more efficient economic system, and I do not believe that many would disagree with you on that. But I do not see how that is particularly relevant to the matter that we have been debating - I do not believe that the Church advocates "the system that is economically the most efficient."  Such a system might be a pure form of capitalism, which the Church does not support, as She also does not support socialism. That is because both systems are deterministic - please refer to the article I posted from Pope Benedict that expands upon that idea.

There can be exceptions in extreme cases, such as someone is starving, and the only way to get food is to steal bread from someone who is hording it.

This would not be considered theft according to the Church. Why is that? Because the universal destination of goods trumps the right to private property (See CCC 2403, the section following the section that you quoted).  If there is any theft here, according to the Church, it is theft by the person who hoards the bread and refuses to hand it over to the starving person (See CCC 2406).  So, how is there a natural right to private property, if the property can legitimately be taken away depending on the circumstances (such as a starving person taking from a billionaire)? A right to private property is the right to do with it as one pleases, is it not? A private property right enables the billionaire to give the bread to the starving person if he so chooses, or to keep the bread to himself and allow the starving person to die, if he so chooses.  But the Church does not allow that. You have a duty to give the bread to the starving person. If the starving person takes the bread from you it is not theft. And if you withhold the bread from the starving person it is theft. I think you can see that the Church does not advocate a private property right in a strict economic sense. The common good of all men takes precedence over your right to hold property.

As for the various documents that you cited - there are statements in the very same documents that cut the other way. I do not think that I need to repeat them here, as they are already explained in one of the links that I posted above from the NTM website. Please feel free to have a look at them.

What is wrong is forcing someone at gunpoint to hand over his property to yourself or to be given to some third party.  That is theft, and theft is what socialism essentially amounts to.

It would seem to me that this is essentially what tax is. The government takes a portion of our incomes, some of which is given to persons that are less fortunate than ourselves in the form of food and health care subsidies, etc. If you do not pay your taxes, the government puts you in jail. But that is not what the Church would call theft. In fact, the Church explicitly advocates some of these positions (such as Universal Health Care, for example).

[Era Might]

It seems that here you are really getting into the politics/economics of it. That is fine. I already agreed that capitalism is a more efficient economic system, and I do not believe that many would disagree with you on that. But I do not see how that is particularly relevant to the matter that we have been debating - I do not believe that the Church advocates "the system that is economically the most efficient." 

​Good point, though capitalism (or a pure free market) is not necessarily the most efficient system. In fact, efficiency is always centralizing, trying to reduce the system to the simplest organization (for example, in technology the interconnectedness of the Internet is moving all data to the cloud, because it's more efficient than each business housing its own software and services). A socialist or communist economy can be very efficient, if it is operated by the best technique (and preferably if it is a universal economy, so everything can be economized into one efficient system). Free markets can be very inefficient (for example, when investors disrupt the market by withholding investment, or a company prevents innovation because it would harm its business model).

The efficiency of capitalism is dependent on centralized systems...corporations, industries, laws, governments, financial institutions, etc. Capitalism works best when it can bring everything and everyone into line with a centralized plan (for example, fitting workers into 8 hour days, exploiting foreign labor, amassing natural resources in foreign countries, planning production accordingly, etc). It's a very curious freedom to be a worker in the modern economy; in the ancient world, having to work for money was not a sign of freedom but dependence, it meant you had to hire yourself to make a living, you didn't have freedom/leisure (even in Victorian England the wealthy didn't like handling or talking about money, it was bad form).

Edited June 11, 2015 by Era Might

[Peace]

Era Might,

In some senses I think you are right. A single Walmart can do things much more efficiently than an equivalent number of mom and pop stores.

But I think we have seen that centralized decision making leads to results that are much worse than what you would get with free markets. Now, if it were God pulling all of the strings, then you would have a very good system, given that God has perfect wisdom, perfect knowledge, etc. In theory the decision makers would make the best decisions. In reality we have seen that it does not happen with much frequency. There are just too many people to manage, too many complex decisions that need to be made, and too much information required to make them well, to think that a continued centralization will continue to produce better results. I think it can increase efficiency up to a up to a point, but centralization has disadvantages in that it lends itself to putting decision making in the hands of people who are not most competent to make the decisions, and who lack the best information to make the decisions. It also suffers in that it tends to lend itself to people making decisions without having to bear the direct consequences of those decisions. Perhaps at the point where those disadvantages outweigh the benefits of economies of scale is where increased centralization leads to greater inefficiency. . .One Wallmart might be better than 100 mom and pop stores. But why not merge Walmart, Target, K-Mart, Macys, etc. into an even larger superstore? At some point the advantages cease, I think.

I am not quite sure that capitalism works best when everything/everyone is brought in line with a centralized plan. But you raise an interesting point about it being dependent on centralized systems. I am not quite sure that I would agree with that - but it is something that is worth thinking about.

 

[Socrates]

​That's pretty much the definition of government, "enforcement by someone." It doesn't matter what kind of government it is.

Your limitation of the state is arbitrary. One can just as easily call the bourgeoisie a gang of thugs who control the state (that's essentially the thrust of Marxism). As they say, follow the money if you want to know what's up.

I find it interesting that conservatives believe in the redistribution of power (which gave us liberal government and the bourgeoise state), but not redistribution of wealth. They are both based on the same principle...and redistributing power was just as revolutionary as redistributing wealth, and the church of that time was hardly championing the redistribution of power (which conservatives have come to see as some great eternal principle.

It's not arbitrary to be against the state violating the property rights of persons (aka theft).  I (as well as the popes I quoted) believe this to be a violation of natural rights, and outside the proper limits of government.

And conservatives are definitely not against the redistribution of wealth by legitimate and voluntary actions (such as poor people becoming rich, or rich people choosing to give away their wealth to others).  What we oppose is the (attempted) redistribution of wealth by forcibly taking property or money from persons under threat of violence to (supposedly) give to others (aka robbery).  (Though in reality, socialism does not better the lot of the poor, but only empowers government.)

As for conservatives supporting "redistribution of power" as "some great eternal principal," I have no idea what you're even talking about.  Conservatism tends to generally oppose violent revolution.  But such "liberal bourgeoise" notions such as giving "commoners" the vote, does not intrinsically involve theft or the violation of natural rights, as socialism does.

 I suppose a "purer" conservative might oppose liberal (in the classical sense) republicanism altogether, but "conservatism" is always a relative term.  I'm presuming your talking about American conservatism, which supports limited constitutional government.

[Peace]

Socrates - The government forcibly taking money from wealthy people in the form of tax and redistributing it to the needy in the form of food or health care subsidies such as SNAP or Medicare is not theft. The Church does not teach that. If anything, She seems to support this by Her position on Universal Health care, etc.

Which is more important, that a poor person gets fed, or that a person be allowed to do with his property as he pleases? You seem to think that the property right takes precedence over the poor person being fed. That he should only be fed if the person with money voluntarily chooses to feed him, but that it would be wrong for the government to take part of his money  and give it to the poor person. To me at least, it seems that such a point of view values property above people. I don't think it is consistent with what our blessed Lord teaches.

Why is this right to property so important to you? I support free markets because I think they ultimately produce a system where more poor people are fed than centralized economies. But I do not think that property should be of any value to a Christian beyond the purposes for which God intends it. At least to me, someone living a lavish lifestyle while there are literally millions of people who struggle to find a good meal or running water is a misuse of property, and I do not see what would be wrong with the government taking some of his money and using it to feed poor people.

[Catlick]

Which is more important, that a poor person gets fed, or that a person be allowed to do with his property as he pleases? You seem to think that the property right takes precedence over the poor person being fed. That he should only be fed if the person with money voluntarily chooses to feed him, but that it would be wrong for the government to take part of his money  and give it to the poor person. To me at least, it seems that such a point of view values property above people. I don't think it is consistent with what our blessed Lord teaches.

Any sane Christian would say that is more important that a poor man is fed than that a rich man can do with his property what he likes. But it's not up to the state to force citizens to conform to this hierarchy. On Sunday morning it's certainly more important to attend Mass than to sleep out, but that does not give the state the right to drag you out of bed. 

Let us not forget that respecting private property is one of the Ten Commandments, while state-directed 'charity' is not. 

 

Edited June 13, 2015 by Catlick

[puellapaschalis]

Any sane Christian would say that is more important that a poor man is fed than that a rich man can do with his property what he likes. But it's not up to the state to force citizens to conform to this hierarchy. On Sunday morning it's certainly more important to attend Mass than to sleep out, but that does not give the state the right to drag you out of bed. 

Let us not forget that respecting private property is one of the Ten Commandments, while state-directed 'charity' is not. 

 

​This, this, so much this.

(PS uitslapen == to sleep in. To sleep in != in laten slapen...gelukkig maar)

[Peace]

 Any sane Christian would say that is more important that a poor man is fed than that a rich man can do with his property what he likes. But it's not up to the state to force citizens to conform to this hierarchy. On Sunday morning it's certainly more important to attend Mass than to sleep out, but that does not give the state the right to drag you out of bed. 

But it does give the state the right to tax your wealth and redistribute it to the poor. (CCC 2406)

Let us not forget that respecting private property is one of the Ten Commandments, while state-directed 'charity' is not. 

1)  The First Commandment prohibits idolatry, whether the idol come in the form of a golden calf, or as more recently pointed out by Pope Francis, in the form of money. (Evangelii Gaudium p. 55 et seq.)

2) You seem to think that the state redistribution of wealth is not charity. I agree that it is not charity. But are you aware that a private individual giving money to the poor out of his excess is not charity, either? That is not charity, it is a payment of a debt of justice. You are giving the poor person what he is owed. (CCC 2446)

3) The Seventh Commandment does not mandate the respecting of private property. The Seventh Commandment prohibits theft. There is no theft if the owner's refusal to hand over property is contrary to the universal destination of goods. (CCC 2408) And there is theft (by the owner of goods) if he does not give the needy his excess. (CCC 2446; various quotes by the early church fathers in the NTM links I posted above).

4) I think that it would be insane for any Christian not to give lip service to the idea that it is more important that a poor man is fed. One might suspect that such a person does not truly believe that in the case where 1) there are many people who are much more needy than himself, and 2) he complains vociferously when the state takes a portion of his wealth and gives it to those persons who are more needy than himself. Where such is the case I think it is reasonable to conclude that he values his right to dispose of his wealth as he pleases more than he values the poor person's needs.

To the extent that poor person's needs can be taken care of on an individual or local level, I support that. I think that helps build solidarity. Where individual or local support fails, or in the areas where the state can more efficiently provide needs to the poor (such as with universal health care, for example), I do not see what is wrong with the state taking action to attempt to achieve ends that we all agree are good.

[Catlick]

But it does give the state the right to tax your wealth and redistribute it to the poor. (CCC 2406)

CCC 2406 teaches that the state has the right 'to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership.' It does not teach that it has the right to redistribute property to the poor. 

1)  The First Commandment prohibits idolatry, whether the idol come in the form of a golden calf, or as more recently pointed out by Pope Francis, in the form of money. (Evangelii Gaudium p. 55 et seq.)

What does respecting private property have to do with the sin of idolatry? Is the latter inherent to the former? That would be outright Communism and has always been condemned by the popes. 

2) You seem to think that the state redistribution of wealth is not charity. I agree that it is not charity. But are you aware that a private individual giving money to the poor out of his excess is not charity, either? That is not charity, it is a payment of a debt of justice. You are giving the poor person what he is owed. (CCC 2446)

Ja und? I never praised the rich giving money to the poor as charity. 

3) The Seventh Commandment does not mandate the respecting of private property. The Seventh Commandment prohibits theft. There is no theft if the owner's refusal to hand over property is contrary to the universal destination of goods. (CCC 2408) And there is theft (by the owner of goods) if he does not give the needy his excess. (CCC 2446; various quotes by the early church fathers in the NTM links I posted above).

Can you give a few examples of 'universal destinations of goods'? 

Btw, the ease with which St. John Chrysostom is used to justify the welfare state, which is a late 19th-century invention wholly foreign to the age St. John lived in. I'm even inclined to say that St. John would've rejected the redistribution for the poor, on basis that it pulls them away from the Church - as it has done with the underclass in the late 19th and 20th century. 

 

[Peace]

CCC 2406 teaches that the state has the right 'to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership.' It does not teach that it has the right to redistribute property to the poor. 

No. The right of the state to redistribute wealth is within its right to regulate the ownership of property. If the state does not have such a right, then why did the US Bishops recently write a letter stating the following?

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/federal-budget/upload/Letter-to-Congress-Federal-Budget-2012-03-06.pdf

We support proposals in the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget to strengthen programs that serve
poor and vulnerable people, such as Pell Grants and improved workforce training and development.
We also support proposals to restore cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, as well as
efforts to make permanent recent expansions of low-income tax credits.

 

As I recall, that letter and several other letters were written by the US Bishops after Paul Ryan proposed a budget that would severely reduce Federal Government programs that support the poor. Those letters are summarized here:

http://usccb.org/news/2012/12-063.cfm

So then, exactly how is it that the US Bishops support SNAP if they do not agree that the government has a right to redistribute wealth? Where exactly does the money for SNAP come from? It comes from tax money. The government takes a portion of your money and gives it to poor people in the form of food subsidies. It is the redistribution of wealth, and the US Bishops support it.

[Peace]

Can you give a few examples of 'universal destinations of goods'? 

Please refer to the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, CH. 4 Section III. THE UNIVERSAL DESTINATION OF GOODS.

[Peace]

2) You seem to think that the state redistribution of wealth is not charity. I agree that it is not charity. But are you aware that a private individual giving money to the poor out of his excess is not charity, either? That is not charity, it is a payment of a debt of justice. You are giving the poor person what he is owed. (CCC 2446)

Ja und? I never praised the rich giving money to the poor as charity. 

Good. Then you agree that giving to the poor out of one's excess is not charity. It then follows that the government need not distribute wealth under the rationale of charity. The government can redistribute wealth in the name of justice - just as in the case where the government imposes financial penalties on someone who has broken a contract, for example. That is a redistribution of wealth, but in the name of justice, not charity.

[Catlick]

 

So then, exactly how is it that the US Bishops support SNAP if they do not agree that the government has a right to redistribute wealth? Where exactly does the money for SNAP come from? It comes from tax money. The government takes a portion of your money and gives it to poor people in the form of food subsidies. It is the redistribution of wealth, and the US Bishops support it.

Many US Bishops are curiously unwilling to condemn politicians who sanction abortion and sodomy during the week and go to Communion on Sunday. Their view of rights is the French Revolution's: they shrug at infanticide and godlessness, but won't spare any effort in denouncing rich people. I have a very low regard for their opinions in these cases. 

Christ did not preach the welfare state. 'What concerns the Christ of the Gospels is not the economic situation of the poor man, but the moral condition of the rich man', said the Catholic writer Gómez Dávila.

It would be interested to read, say, St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas on advocating distributing wealth. For to support such a drastic measure - in many Western countries people are forced to give up to 20% of their money so that the government can provide food, health care, education etc. to the less-well-to-do - a Catholic should reasonably seek the advice of Tradition, not just Rerum Novarum and Populorum Progressio, but also De Civitate Dei and Summa Theologiae.