Three Showers for Epiphany

During the Mass on the Feast of the Epiphany, as the priest was speaking, three thoughts came to mind. These just seized my consciousness, as if I had my own little epiphany as I was sitting there carrying a sleeping Giana on my aching right shoulder. I call them showers. 

First, I realized that it was men of wisdom and learning, who made it their business to determine the location and position of stars, who appeared (“epiphanized”) to offer tributes to the baby in the manger. Those who made the arduous journey were no ordinary menfolk, who easily could fall for all sorts of myths and legends. They spent their lives in the study of the cosmos, contributed to a significant portion of mankind’s accrued knowledge, and thereby advanced human civilization. They were the Wise Men; that description suffices.

Second, these were learned men who never stopped learning. Their journey took them to a manger in Bethlehem, but they did not stop there. They were now enriched with the truth they saw for themselves with their own eyes at that manger. They went on to the presence of Herod, they came back to their own country, and continued with their profession of studying. Learning is a journey that never ends.

Third and finally, although learning starts in the mind, it leads to the heart. The men of the Epiphany are the Wise Men who did not get lost relying on their mind’s knowledge of the stars, and yet that knowledge led them not to the finality of the mind’s acknowledgement, but to the eternity of God’s truth. Today, just as in the middle of the twentieth century, there is that central tension between faith and reason, between church and state, and between science and religion. The Epiphany reminds us that there is no such dichotomy, for what the mind can conceive, the heart can receive. The Wise Men saw the star that could guide them, followed it, and became all the more knowledgeable—in experience and cognition—by what they found. Learning, knowledge, science, reason—these things do not end in the laboratory, but done properly, lead to the same truths yearned for by faith, church, religion, history.

Our Lord came to us not just to change our minds but to touch our hearts. It sounds clichéd, until one understands its deeper formulation: He came to touch our hearts AND change our minds. 

Thoughts on Evangelii Gaudium

The Economizer finds it easy to point when his passion for the free market started. It was some time in 2008, spending his lunch break in an Internet shop browsing for news, when he discovered the website of the Margaret Thatcher Foundation. There, all video and audio recordings of Margaret Thatcher’s life were posted and accessible for free to the general public. But most prominently displayed was the Prime Minister’s last speech in the House of Commons, defending the Government against the Motion of No Confidence tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, given on the day she announced her resignation on 22 November 1990. The author clicked, and watched, and never looked back. 

“People on all levels of income are better off than they were in 1979. But what the honorable Gentleman is saying, is that he would rather that the poor were poorer, provided the rich were less rich. That way you will never create the wealth for better social services, as we have. And what a policy! Yes, he would rather have the poor poorer, provided the rich were less rich. That is the Liberal policy.” – answer to Simon Hughes, then education spokesman for the Liberal Democrats and now their Deputy Leader

“During the past 11 years, this Government has had a clear and unwavering vision of the future of Europe and of Britain's role in it. It is a vision which stems from our deep-seated attachment to parliamentary democracy, and this Government’s commitment to economic liberty, to enterprise, to competition and a free market economy. …

“Twice in my time as Prime Minister, we have sent our forces halfway across the world, to defend a small country against ruthless aggression: first to our people in the Falklands and now to the borders of Kuwait. To those who have never had to take such decisions, may I say to them, that they are taken with a heavy heart, in the knowledge of the manifold dangers, but with tremendous pride in the professionalism and courage of our armed forces. But there is something else which one feels as well, Mr. Speaker, and that is a sense of this country’s destiny, for centuries of history and experience, which ensure that when principles have to be defended, when good has to be upheld, and when evil has to be overcome, then Britain will take up arms. It is because we on this side have never flinched from difficult decisions, that this House, and this country, can have confidence in this Government today.” (Source here)

This last paragraph, The Economizer can still recite from memory, having watched the video over and over and over again, downloading it to his iPhone and even showing it regularly to his months-old daughter in 2010 and 2011. There is fire in that speech, and a certain precise and confident way of elucidating conservative principles that make it engaging and repeatable. It can be said that that fire seared these words into memory, to smolder down the ages, and light a path through later challenges. These are not just fiery outbursts at the Opposition, but words creatively strung together to form ideas that fired one’s imagination.

Since then, other videos and more of the life of the great woman were explored, and as a result, The Economizer has resolved: simple ideas are true. Anyone who can speak with such force of logic can only do so if what he (or she) is speaking is also true. 

To the extent that the succeeding Governments headed by John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were able to consolidate prosperity and economic growth over two decades, they did so only by continuing the free-market policies of the Thatcher era. The same can be said for the US economy in the 1990s, as the less-conservative Clinton Administration followed the free-market Republicans Ronald Regan and George H. W. Bush. In short, the logic memorably expressed by Mrs. Thatcher was borne out by economic data and evidence accumulated for almost twenty years after she left office –- that is, twenty years and beyond. 

For the current Tory-led Government headed by David Cameron has embraced austerity policies, which have resulted in the best economic and employment growth among developed countries in 2013. Great Britain is the star economy of the OECD, thanks to Mrs. Thatcher’s successors in party and government.

These developments call to mind G. K. Chesterton’s equally memorable take on the durability of Christianity:

If the medieval religion had really been such a silly superstition as some of its simpler enemies represent, it quite certainly would have been swallowed up for ever in such an earthquake of enlightenment as the great Renaissance. The fact that the vision of a superb and many-sided human culture did not disturb the fundamental ideas of these late medieval Christians has a simple explanation:  that the ideas are true.

The faith of Christians is true, or the Renaissance would have revealed it to be false. Free-market principles must be sound economic policy, or the political leaders succeeding Thatcher and Reagan would have demonstrated its disastrous consequences. With today’s unimpeded hindsight, it can be confidently observed that it is the politicians that try to compromise free markets –- George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Gordon Brown – who inflict economic suffering on their countrymen and the wider world. 

To be sure, economics is not religion, and there is no equivalence between religious belief and economic policy. Indeed, Catholic social doctrine is often seen to be antithetical to capitalist economic systems. But if this blog can be reduced to a mote of an idea, it is that Christianity enables capitalism. 

The Economizer subscribes to both Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Chesterton’s views, each in his (or her) own sphere: Mrs. Thatcher’s monetarist economics, and Mr. Chesterton’s robust Catholic philosophy (Mr. Chesterton is on record deriding big business and capitalism, but that is for another day). For this blog is also a Catholic blog, which is to say it supports – or strives to support – the doctrinal positions of the Catholic Church. Crucially, this means reaching conclusions through argumentation, without resorting to deus ex machina tautology: meaning, that artificial contraception is not an unalloyed good because of the reasons proffered in an earlier blog post, not simply because the Church says so. 

The Economizer lives in a Catholic country, has devout Catholic parents, was educated only in Catholic schools from age six until adulthood (age twenty-four), was married in the Catholic rite by his college theology professor whom he counts as the most profound and longest-lasting philosophical influence in his life. Every Sunday, he and his wife and daughter go to Mass together, and every day he prays to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary before leaving for work or before going to sleep, or both times. Before too much time passes, he manages to read the Bible, mostly the Psalms to help guide him in prayer. The only Catholic “thing” he does not do regularly is go to confession, which he plans to change in 2014. 

But this blog, like The Economizer himself, is not fully Catholic – or, it should be said, it is not truly Christian in character. At least, not yet. This is because it has not yet become an instrument for helping the poor and the disadvantaged. A Christian not only thinks; he also does, and what this blog does not do – not yet – is to serve as a gathering place for those who need Christian attention the most: the lost, the non-literate, and the hungry. In time, it will be, but not yet. 

* * *

This central tenet -- that Catholicism should thrive where there is a free market and that the free market is actually strengthened by Catholic belief -- is the moving force of this blog and of The Economizer, and it will be articulated below. But it is first necessary to discuss what could be its most threatening counterpoint, as a sword dangling over its head: Pope Francis’s first “solo performance,” the first document to go out to all Christians under his name. 

The document is officially called a “Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation”, and it carries the title “Evangelii Gaudium”, which translates to “the joy of the Gospel”. Technically it is the Pope's response to what transpired at the recent synod of bishops, and as a result it is a complex document containing various threads of Catholic thought. But if it could be reduced to one basic idea, one needs to look no further than the cover: “the proclamation of the Gospel in today’s world” is a joyful endeavor, and let it be seen to be so. 

In ideal situations Evangelii Gaudium should really be read from cover to cover, especially if you are one of those Christians to whom the Exhortation is addressed. The Economizer tried to do it, but found it to be impossible, or at least counterproductive. The document is written in the warm conversational style favored by Pope Francis, not the formal academic thesis of his immediate predecessor, and it is long on brilliant nuggets of wisdom but short on structure. Like a reference book, it is better if you look up only what you need; unlike a reference book, it is best if you take mainly what you can. 

And what The Economizer took away from reading most of the document is the freshness of its break from the emphasis of the last two Popes. The excellent Ross Douthat of the New York Times “looked back” on the career of Benedict XVI soon after he resigned, and charted Western civilization’s cultural and religious turmoil during the 1970s.

In America, the ’70s were defined by not just a weakening in the institutional life of the church but a wholesale collapse. Thousands of priests and nuns left their holy orders each year. Mass attendance had fallen by a third in a generation. The church faced a rebellion from Latin Mass traditionalists, even as progressive theologians confidently planned for a third Vatican Council. Along with institutional instability there was moral laxity, and worse: revelations of sex abuse and cover-up were years away, but the rate of abuse was at its peak. 

Beneath these trends was a pervasive sense that Catholic identity was entirely up for grabs -- that having dispensed with Latin Mass and meatless Fridays, the church might be poised for further revolutions, a major schism, or both. ...

It was the work of Ratzinger's subsequent career, first as John Paul II's doctrinal policeman and then as his successor, to re-establish where Catholicism actually stood. This was mostly a project of reassertion: yes, the church still believes in the Resurrection, the Trinity and the Virgin birth. Yes, the church still opposes abortion, divorce, sex outside of marriage. Yes, the church still considers itself the one true faith. And yes -- this above all, for a man whose chief gifts were intellectual -- the church believes that its doctrines are compatible with reason, scholarship and science. (“The Ratzinger Legacy,” 3 March 2013)

This “project of reassertion” necessarily implies a centralization and imposition of doctrinal harmony. By contrast, Pope Francis – the first Pope to use the name of the Patron Saint of the Poor – asserts that “[e]xcessive centralization, rather than proving helpful, complicates the Church’s life and her missionary outreach” (Section 32, p. 30). “Christians,” the Holy Father writes, “[i]nstead of seeming to impose new obligations, they should appear as a people who wish to share [the non-Christians’] joy …” (S. 15, p. 14-15)

To spread the Gospel means is to spread Christian joy -- not Christian doctrine. It is not the time to clarify “where Catholicism stood”, but the time to show the world that Christians are happy because we have received, continue to receive, and know that we continue to receive, God’s love for us. As he put it in an interview with America magazine, 

“I see clearly that the thing that the church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful; it needs nearness, proximity. I see the church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else.” (30 September 2013)

Let us pause to catch our breath, the Holy Father seems to be telling us, to heal our wounds, to spend time on the most important things in life. This would help us become more effective in our missionary work, where he calls for “a fitting sense of proportion” in evangelization; otherwise, “precisely those virtues which ought to be most present in preaching and catechesis are overlooked” (S. 37, p. 33).

Let us also be a Church that is “open” to anyone “moved by the Spirit,” who “comes there looking for God” (S. 47, p. 40). “[T]he doors of the sacraments” should not “be closed for simply any reason.” For instance, 

The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak. [In a footnote, Pope Francis cites St. Ambrose and St. Cyril of Alexandria, who in effect say that -- since one can never be perfect -- it does not make sense to wait until one is “worthy” of receiving communion before partaking of the Eucharist.] Frequently, we act as arbiters of grace rather than its facilitators. But the Church is not a tollhouse; it is the house of the Father, where there is a place for everyone, with all their problems. (Ibid.)

The way to get your message across and gain converts is not to “hold fast to a formulation while failing to convey its substance” (S. 41, p. 36). It is to show the world what Christianity is all about: “We need to remember that all religious teaching ultimately has to be reflected in the teacher’s way of life, which awakens the assent of the heart by its nearness, love and witness” (S. 42, p. 37).

In short, the message of Christianity is not contained in rules or doctrines, and the Pope cannot say this often or strongly enough. Relying on St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Francis notes that the 

“Church has rules or precepts which may have been quite effective in their time, but no longer have the same usefulness for directing and shaping people’s lives. Saint Thomas Aquinas pointed out that the precepts which Christ and the apostles gave to the people of God ‘are very few’. Citing Saint Augustine, he noted that the precepts subsequently enjoined by the Church should be insisted upon with moderation ‘so as not to burden the lives of the faithful’ and make our religion a form of servitude, whereas ‘God’s mercy has willed that we should be free’. This warning, issued many centuries ago, is most timely today.” (S. 43, p. 37)

And so this is our challenge. To evangelize based on asserted rules may have had a valid force in the reign of Pope John Paul II, but today we need to re-establish the prominence of joy in the Gospels. Build a bigger tent, the Pope says, and you can fit more people in. Being fastidious about moral doctrines will not gain you more converts today; but being non-judgmental, being joyful, and sharing your joy, will. 

Commentators have tried to make the argument that there is no daylight between Pope Francis and his predecessors. Indeed, the first footnote in EG appears on page 4 and refers to Pope Paul VI's Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete in Domino (“joy in the Lord”), attributing the quote “no one is excluded from the joy brought by the Lord”. The next papal reference to “joy” is also by Paul VI in his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi, in footnote no. 6. Now Pope Paul VI was the immediate predecessor but one of John Paul II, but it is very important to note that he wrote these letters in 1975 and 1976, respectively, and that he began his papal reign in 1963 and died in 1978. In no way can it be said that these exhortations are the most significant of his papacy (that honor belongs to Humanae Vitae, the founding Catholic document regarding artificial contraception, published in July 1968). By contrast, Evangelii Gaudium is the first document written by Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio after he was elected Pope: that is why it is significant, and that is how the general public should view it. 

There can be no doubt that Pope Francis is not changing Church doctrine; this is not where he differs from his predecessors. Reasserted in the 1970's by then-Archbishop Ratzinger, still today the Church opposes abortion, divorce, women in the priesthood, non-celibacy among ordained men and women, artificial contraception, and so on -- and will continue to do so for the next few millennia. Where he stands out, however, not only from previous Popes who had had to deal with the aberrant 1960's and 1970's (oh why did the world have to pass through those two decades?), but also from today's relentless focus on political messaging and inane word wars over social media, is his attempt to rise above the culture wars. Our faith is truly bigger than this world, and by grabbing the seed of joy, breaking it open and scattering its contents through the four winds, Pope Francis just shows how much bigger our faith really is. 

* * *

If this is all that Pope Francis says in his Apostolic Exhortation, the nominally Methodist Rush Limbaugh would not have wasted one breath on him. But in sections where the Pope “mention[s] briefly the context in which we all have to live and work” (S. 50, p. 43), he describes present realities in words which are nothing less than provocative to the capitalist ear. In seven pages of passionate reporting, with references and footnotes conspicuous by their total absence, and in language that makes you long for the tenderness of the other paragraphs, Pope Francis denounces “an economy of exclusion and inequality”, an economy that “kills.” (S. 53, p. 45)

“How,” he asks, “can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? […] Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.” (S. 53, p. 45-46)

Pope Francis laments a “throw-away culture” that exploits and excludes the “leftovers” of society, who do not know “what it means to be a part of the society in which we live.” (Ibid., p. 46)

Then he drops the bombshell, the social teaching heard ’round the world:

In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept its dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person! We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.

While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule. (S. 54-56, p. 46-48)

Let us pause for a moment and take a deep breath at this point, because there is really no other possible human reaction to this manifesto. Before anything else, let us call a spade a spade: this is a papal condemnation of capitalism. There can be no other description of his words, or other apprehension of his emotions. Capitalism, at least as seen today by Pope Francis, is working not towards the common good, but towards the degradation of our humanity.

But leaving things this way is to be unfair about Pope Francis. One thing we can be sure of about Popes in the post-modern era is that they rose to become princes of the church not because they do not have ability or intelligence. Pope Francis is not stupid; so why attack the only way that people make a decent living throughout the world?

It is because the Pope wants to draw attention to the marginalized, the excluded in capitalist societies. Too often, as we go about our daily lives, we get too absorbed by our own problems. We do not have space in our limited memory to think of those who are starving in the favelas of Buenos Aires, the slums of Manila, or the ghettos of New York City. A capitalist system represented by stock markets, mining and oil industries, and enabled by pliant politicians of all stripes throughout the world is not doing any favors to the “leftovers” of society. The best that a political leader of worldwide stature can do, such as the Bishop of Rome, is to shout about these marginalized people, and make sure those capitalists in suits can hear it.

But there is a sense that the Pope has chosen these words not only as a result of cold calculation or intellectual reflection; beyond what makes sense in his rational mind, the Holy Father also feels their force and himself carries their emotional power. The “sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system” is a phrase that blows to the reader more than a whisper of the rasping voices of militant groups occupying the streets and bridges of Manila and the campus of the University of the Philippines Diliman, crying that “those wielding economic power” are “lacking a truly human purpose.” Those voices have been amplified in fact by some members of The Economizer’s family, who denounce “the culture of prosperity” that results in “widespread corruption” and aided by “self-serving tax evasion”. In a Catholic country such as the Philippines, it is not outsiders who say that “trickle-down theories … encouraged by a free market” tend “to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits”: it is the priests at Mass who give voice to this Marxist sentiment during homily.

How to reconcile this sentiment to The Economizer’s stated animating force -- Catholicism enabling capitalism -- is the real purpose of this post. This is done in three ways. First, this post tries to set the Church’s social doctrine against the economic evidence supporting capitalism. Second, it points out enlightening portions of Pope Francis’s Exhortation. Third, it offers a final synthesis.

Catholic social doctrine in the free market

First, it must be said that in all truth, the only system to have been proven—time and again—to alleviate the lot of the poor by any measure is capitalism. It can be easily detailed how those obsessed by wealth redistribution have misapprehended the evidence: 

1. The Wall Street Journal points out that although inequality in money income has dramatically widened in the United States, inequality in total income including transfer payments has “actually declined 1.8% during the 16-year period between 1993 and 2009, when the Gini coefficient dropped from .395 to .388.”  
2. Socialists such as President Barack Obama love to say that the middle class is “falling behind”. But the “real concern is that some people were getting too far ahead.”                                                                                                                    “With respect to upward mobility, longitudinal studies conducted by the U.S. Treasury have found that there was ‘considerable income mobility’ in the decades 1987-1996 and 1996-2005. For example, roughly half of those in the bottom income quintile in 1996 had moved to a higher quintile by 2005. The ‘median incomes of those initially in the lowest income groups increased more in percentage terms than the median incomes of those in the higher income groups’ in that decade, while the real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers experienced an increase.”        
3. The main point is: “In periods of high economic growth, such as the 1980s and 1990s, the vast majority of [people] gain, and have the opportunity to gain. In periods of slow growth, such as the past four and a half years since the recession officially ended, poor people and the middle class are hurt the most, and opportunity is curbed.” Sustainable economic growth, in case anybody has forgotten the first part of this blog post, is only possible in a free market.

But the phrasing of the criticism of the free market in EG marks the Pope out as an outsider to “the prevailing economic system”. The criticism is not of the details, but of the perception of the free market as a dog-eat-dog world, “survival of the fittest”, etc. This is a broad criticism, and to respond to it is to take a broader view of capitalism.

Let us be clear that EG espouses “the right of states … to exercise [a] form of control” over free-market activities. But to the shock of the generation that achieved political maturity during and after Reagan and Thatcher, it is also clear that this espousal is consistent with Catholic social doctrine. In this light-hearted blog post, the author Thomas Storck compares quotations from EG to previous papal letters and encyclicals. Here is a sampling:

Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, #3:

“Hence by degrees it has come to pass that Working Men have been given over, isolated and defenseless, to the callousness of employers and the greed of unrestrained competition.”

Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, #47:

“On the one side there is the party which holds the power because it holds the wealth; which has in its grasp all labor and all trade; which manipulates for its own benefit and its own purposes all the sources of supply, and which is powerfully represented in the councils of the State itself. On the other side there is the needy and powerless multitude, sore and suffering, always ready for disturbance.”

Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, #88:

“Just as the unity of human society cannot be built upon “class” conflict, so the proper ordering of economic affairs cannot be left to the free play of rugged competition.  From this source, as from a polluted spring, have proceeded all the errors of the ‘individualistic’ school.  This school, forgetful or ignorant of the social and moral aspects of economic activities, regarded these as completely free and immune from any intervention by public authority, for they would have in the market place and in unregulated competition a principle of self-direction more suitable for guiding them than any created intellect which might intervene.  Free competition, however, though justified and quite useful within certain limits, cannot be an adequate controlling principle in economic affairs.  This has been abundantly proved by the consequences that have followed from the free rein given to these dangerous individualistic ideas.”

Pius XII, “Address to International Foundry Congress,” September 28, 1954:

“The demands of competition, which is a normal consequence of human liberty and ingenuity, cannot be the final norm for economics.”

 John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, #35:

“Such a society [“a society of free work, of enterprise and of participation”] is not directed against the market, but demands that the market be appropriately controlled by the forces of society and by the State, so as to guarantee that the basic needs of the whole of society are satisfied.”

John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, #40:

“It is the task of the State to provide for the defense and preservation of common goods such as the natural and human environments, which cannot be safeguarded simply by market forces.”

John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, #42:

“…there is a risk that a radical capitalistic ideology could spread which refuses even to consider these problems, in the a priori belief that any attempt to solve them is doomed to failure, and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces.”

 John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, #56:

 “The Western countries … run the risk of seeing [the collapse of Communism] as a one-sided victory of their own economic system, and thereby failing to make necessary corrections in that system.”

Evangelii Gaudium is not a radical departure from the sayings of previous Popes; it is in fact a mild version of their teachings. But what runs constant throughout these passages is not a call to arms against the “individualistic” capitalism of Western civilization. It is, instead, a concern for those who are not in a position to reap the rewards of such a civilization: those who are too illiterate to know the laws of the free market; those who are too ill to work; those who would suffer first and foremost from environmental destruction—the indigenous tribes, and those who take their living from the natural bounty of the seas, rivers, woods and farmlands of nature. As Pope Francis’s sub-headings put it, “No to an economy of exclusion”, “No to the new idolatry of money”, “No to a financial system that rules rather than serves”, and “No to the inequality which spawns violence”.

If competition, which is but “a normal consequence of human liberty and ingenuity”, results in first the exclusion and then the destruction of certain groups of people, then individual men and women—not “other” political leaders and least of all “society” in general—must intervene to protect the vulnerable. This is not a cry for socialism, but simply a response to a call made a long time ago: “Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me” (Mt 25:34-36).

In no way is this a call for an alternative economic system. No other system is capable of lifting people out of poverty; Communist China and Vietnam have seen their poverty ameliorated only when they adopted the capitalist ways of their former enemies in the West. However, capitalism frequently leads to the abuse of vulnerable people, and Catholic doctrine calls for political leaders to exercise regulation of economic activity in a way that prevents this abuse. The broad challenge is for free-marketers to acknowledge the strong possibility of market failures, and to accept reasonable regulation.

But the broad challenge to capitalism is also a personal challenge to some. The Economizer's day job is one in support of the struggle against poverty, but uses the latest tools of capitalist finance: bonds and derivatives. Because these tools operate only under the capitalist principles derided in EG, should this work stop, then? Of course not. The author’s work is really a living, breathing proof that the free market exists to help those in need, not to destroy their basic humanity—not “to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits”, but to deploy those very profits to help those who cannot stand on their own.

But more to the point, nothing in the Magisterium contradicts the fact that free-market principles are the only way to make a decent, honest living this side of Creation. During the Cold War, the people of Eastern Europe fought for freedom, including the freedom to acquire private property and to spend one’s hard-earned wage in one’s own way. Among their inspiration was Pope John Paul II, and in 1989 and 1990 they finally triumphed, bringing about the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Since the Soviet Union was the ultimate example of “the right of states … to exercise [a] form of control” over the economy, was it wrong to fight against it?

Enlightening portions of Evangelii Gaudium

This is not merely a facile statement, because it leads to a more important question: what does Pope Francis really want to see as an alternative to capitalism? Simple: he just wants to include the poor in society. It is right there, in Chapter Four, Roman numeral II: “Our faith in Christ, who became poor, and was always close to the poor and the outcast, is the basis of our concern for the integral development of society’s most neglected members.”

What is the correct response to this concern? It is to be “docile and attentive to the cry of the poor and to come to their aid” (S. 187) And how do we come to their aid? By showing our “mercy.” And how do we show our mercy? By almsgiving. (S. 193)

The Holy Father brooks no argument here: “This message is so clear and direct, so simple and eloquent, that no ecclesial interpretation has the right to relativize it.” (S. 194) Charity done in good faith is a way of atoning for our sins.

This is because “God’s heart has a special place for the poor.” (S. 197) If individual men and women help the poor through almsgiving, it is a way of getting closer to God. But Christians must be permitted to ask: why?

The Virgin Mary’s many apparitions in France, Mexico, Portugal, and other countries, has never happened before the wealthy. The Savior was born in a manger; Jesus associated with fishermen in the Sea of Galilee, among the poorest in Hebrew society then, as recently excavated fishing boats revealed; the examples are without end.

Why?

The Economizer proposes that God is in the poor because they have the attitude of the poor, not because they are materially poor. When you have nothing in the way of worldly treasures, it is easier for you to be humble, and easier for you to welcome God’s help. But the challenge does not belong to the poor; it is more for the rich, that they may have the same attitude and outlook as the poor—humble in the knowledge that “there but for the grace of God go I.”

Pope Francis has a different idea. “This is why I want a Church which is poor and for the poor. They have much to teach us. Not only do they share in the sensus fidei, but in their difficulties they know the suffering Christ.” (S. 198)

But it should not be the case that material deprivation is a cause for celebration by itself. Poverty should be looked upon not simplistically and materialistically, but more fundamentally and spiritually: as gaining for the poor the humility of heart that is the only way to receive the gift of faith. There is nothing romantic about poverty; but there is something spiritual about it.

Pope Francis further calls for “appreciating the poor in their goodness, in their experience of life, in their culture, and in their ways of living the faith.” (S. 199) But this simply bears out the observation that it is not material deprivation that justifies the “preferential option for the poor”, but the interior realities of humility, contriteness, and hope, which should be our example in “living the faith”.

What this inclusion of the poor really means in practice, according to Pope Francis, is giving them spiritual care (“the worst discrimination which the poor suffer is the lack of spiritual care.”) (S. 200) But this raises the question, what about material care?

There is nothing here about material care. Even though it is material poverty that distinguishes the manger, the lowly maiden Mary, and Nazareth itself, it is “spiritual care” that is most needed by people in poverty. That is the meaning of the inclusion of the poor. 

But The Economizer is of the opposite persuasion. Because it is the spiritual dimension of poverty that makes it a fertile ground for receiving the gift of faith, it is spiritual care that must be applied most readily by the community of believers. Caring for their long-term material welfare—and talking about material deprivation—in all honesty, can only happen with free-market principles, and it is a completely separate question.

In sum, Pope Francis talks about the material deprivation of the poor as the Church’s paramount concern in today’s economy, but his main gift to them is spiritual care. Free-market analysis arrives at the conclusion that it is the spiritual dimension of poverty that gives it “a special place in God’s heart”, but what the free market can give is only material advancement, not spiritual nourishment.

Pope Francis carries this paradox further, saying that “the need to resolve the structural causes of poverty cannot be delayed” (S. 202).

As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of the markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems. Inequality is the root of social ills. (S. 202)

Almost every word of this passage offends the sensibilities of the capitalist. But let us first read on to know where this is coming from. It is driven, according to EG, by “a God who demands a commitment to justice.” (S. 203)

We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires decisions, programs, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor … (S. 204)

First off, socialism, corporatism and central control are not this world’s—or any world’s—version of divine justice. This sort of justice refers to the fact that when we sin, we are separated and cast adrift from our relationship with God. Jesus restored this relationship through his passion, death and resurrection. Justice—or "growth in justice"—has nothing to do with the socialist economic policies being precisely described in Section 204. Neither decisions, nor programs, nor mechanisms, nor processes can even approach the level of true divine justice that was paid for by “blood, toil, tears and sweat” of the Son of God.

This is why the Holy Father’s words provoke such reactions in capitalist circles: his cure is worse than the disease: to properly give spiritual care for the poor, we must disavow the free market. Beyond simply calling for a restraint in competition like the previous Popes, this Supreme Pontiff is calling for a reorganization of economic activity along socialist lines.

Synthesis

This blog post started as a meditation on the rabidly free-market rhetoric of Margaret Thatcher, and it will end as a reflection on the astoundingly Marxist rhetoric of Pope Francis.

Inequality is the root of social ills. That is what the Pope said, and no explanation suffices except that he views social issues through a radical lens. Common sense tells us that inequality is present at birth. “All men are created equal,” says Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, but plainly they are not born so. Some are rich, others are poor; some are healthy, others are not.

What our faith tells us is that we should care for those who are in the “not” category because we are all equal in dignity as children of God. We are all—rich, poor, healthy, sick—saved by the same love poured forth on the Cross at Calvary.

But caring for each other does not mean making all of us equal in wealth to each other. Just encoding this sentence on a computer makes one’s fingers weak at the cheapness of the idea. Jesus did not die that we may have the same wealth as the richest among us, and not even for the sake of social justice; he died for freedom—freedom from sin, freedom for love.

What it means is that inequality, far from being the root of anything, is a symptom caused by other forces. Greed is one, as rightly pointed out by the Pope. But to address inequality is to return to first principles: How did decent people achieve prosperity? Through freedom.

People all over the world do not need any more of the “decisions, programs, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income” that have only led to a worse distribution of income in no time at all. What they need is the freedom to pursue their work, to spend their money in the care of those who they think need it most, and the freedom to think and say things as they may. 

Of course, this freedom sometimes has led certain big businesses to be destructive of the environment and of poor communities. The Church, starting with Rerum Novarum in 1891, has rightly called attention to these abuses. But these depredations have their root in the belief that “I have done this alone”, without help from anyone. Such an arrogant pose, frequently observed among successful men and women, does not conduce towards having faith in God. Instead of attacking market competition, the Church should instead call for greater faith, for an acknowledgement from each of us that wanton disregard of other people’s welfare will soon come to destroy anything we have achieved, and for a realization that our faith requires us to be vulnerable to God.

But there is one final word that The Economizer has to say in defense of capitalism. In calling for almsgiving, the Pope must remember that it is the capitalist that has the most alms to give. Charity is most effectively done by those who have the means to help, and it is no use deriding the only system that increases this “means”. But what is more important is that in a free market, such charity is voluntary. Under socialism, everyone is already required to give all of oneself towards society; such charity is coerced and nothing else is available.

And so the question is: how do we reconcile capitalism with Christianity? The answer lies in charity and freedom. It is only under capitalism that one can freely engage in charity, and where the individual can have sustainable, honest and decent means for charity.