Some Definitions and a Few Papal Statements

"The tension between East and West is an opposition...between two concepts of the development of individuals and peoples, both concepts being imperfect and in need of radical correction.... This is one of the reasons why the Church's social doctrine adopts a critical attitude towards both liberal Capitalism and Marxist Socialism." (Pope John Paul II "Sollicitudo Reis Socialis")

Before entering into any serious discussion, argument, or debate, it is always imperative to define ones terms. Any form of argumentative reasoning, or reasoned discussion which lacks definitions, or offers at best poor definitions, is bound almost almost inevitably to lead towards confusion rather than towards clarity. It is also likely to lead away from the common goal of truth, rather than towards it.

My previous two posts, "The Anti-Capitalists Creed" and "The Anti-Socialists Creed", serve as a starting point to what I hope will be a fairly lengthy series of posts dealing with economic issues. As their titles suggest, both posts were credal in nature-- more focused on statements of belief, than in forming arguments or demonstrating proofs. However, as this series continues, we will turn more to the argumentative side of these topics, and hence I believe that it is necessary before going any further to define a few important terms. Also, since the perspective from which I will be writing these posts is unapolagetically Catholic, I feel that it is also important to cite a few Papal statements to better clarify the Church's own position on economic matters.

Today I would like to focus particularly on the issue of Capitalism-- to define the word and to examine its various forms. In my last post I did offer a brief definition of Socialism, although I hope to go into this in greater detail as well in some future post. I also cited the statement from Pope Pius XI from his encyclical Quadregesimo Anno, in which he writes that "Socialism...cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church, because its concept of society is utterly foreign to Christian truth." However, as concerns both definitions and Papal statments, the issue of Capitalism is far more complex. Many forms of Capitalism exist which do not resemble the basic definition of the word itself, and Church's own position on Capitalism, while generally critical, is mixed and less clear than her position on Socialism. For this reason it will be necessary to divide between various forms of Capitalism, and to offer a balanced sampling of Papal statements concerning Capitalism.

Merriam-Webster has this to say about Capitalism: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."

Similarly, the American Heritage College Dictionary defines Capitalism as "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."

Finally, capitalism.org says that:"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), just like the state is separated from religion."

It is not difficult to note the repeated emphasis on private ownership in all of these definitions. Such an emphasis should be pleasant for me since my conviction concerning the rights of private ownership run very deep indeed. It is also worth noting that the statements of the Catholic Church on economic issues (as has been demonstrated in the previous posts) show firm support of the idea of private property. Yet the Church has been highly critical of Capitalism at many times. It seems that there may be a disconnect between the definition of Capitalism and its core ideals on one side, and its actualization on the other.

Concerning the basic principle of Capitalism Pope Pius XI wrote: "...hence it is evident that this system is not condemned in itself. And surely it is not of its own nature vicious." Yet we have the also the quote at the beginning from Pope John Paul II to consider as well.

To see if there is a disconnect between the definition and the actualization of Capitalism one merely has to look at the various forms of Capitalism. There is such a thing as State Capitalism. That seems oxymoronic given the strict emphasis on the separation of State and economics found in the definition from capitalism.org, cited above. Again, Corporate Capitalism is a form of Capitalism which involves some measure of market interference from the State in the form of bail-outs, etc. Thus we see clearly that the Capitalism of which Pope Pius XI spoke and that of which Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI spoke need not necessarily be precisely the same thing.

In opposition to state and corporate controlled forms of Capitalism, we have liberal or laissez faire Capitalism. Laissez faire ("Let them do" or "Leave them alone") is a form of Capitalism in which the free market is everything, and the State has no part in the market whatsoever, being relegated to merely protecting property rights. This idea was strongly promoted in the 18th century by Vincent de Gournay and others, and remains to this day the Capitalist ideal for many people. "When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church." (Ayn Rand)

While it may be possible that men such as Gournay were protesting against unfair government regulations of the market, it may be wondered if they ever fully thought out the consequences of a completely unregulated Capitalism. Regardless, the key point to laissez faire is the idea that left alone the market will automatically right itself if it should become unbalanced. Let nature take its course, in other words. To a simpleton such as myself that sounds a lot like saying "Don't worry about the overpopulation of deer in the forest, the wolves will take care of them soon enough." That may be very good and well for the animal kingdom, but have we forgotten that markets are made up of people? How much abuse must be tolerated, how many fortunes lost, how many impoverished spirits crushed, as we leave it alone to fix itself?

I am afraid that I find laissez faire Capitalism to be a very pretty way to say "Greed". A certain unscrupulous type of fortune seeker loves an unregulated market, and woe to those who stand in his way! However, I also believe that laissez faire also actually leads to State or Corporate Capitalism. This will be examined more in future posts, but for now let it suffice to say that when I refer to Capitalism I am referring chiefly to laissez faire, Corporate, or State Capitalism, not so much to the ideals of private ownership as described in stricter definitions of Capitalism.

Let me close with another Papal quote, this one from Benedict XVI. In his New Year's Day address this past January he spoke of "the prevalence of a selfish and individualistic mindset which also finds expression in an unregulated capitalism, various forms of terrorism and criminality." Crime and terrorism. Lovely company in which unregulated capitalism was so unceremoniously dropped by the recent pontiff....

Interlude

 "'His office let another take'....And they cast lots for them...." (Acts 1:20, 26)

The date has finally been set.

Tuesday, March 12, 2013. The first day of the Conclave of Cardinals in the Sistine Chapel begins in just a little over seventy-two hours.

It's a strange thing, really. This power to bind and loose. It almost seems a  little profane, that men in red hats should write names down on pieces of paper and cast votes to determine who shall be the next Vicar of Christ on earth. It feels a little like gambling with God, casting lots like the Apostles did to fill the office of Judas. And God bows to it, accepts it, and ratifies it. And He sets His protection of infallibility around it, so that the  gates of hell will not ever prevail against His Church, His Body, His Bride.

And some people will say that all of this is impossible. Men cannot decide such things, men have not been granted such power-- a power that God Himself seems to obey. And others will point out that the Men in Red have picked some tremendously rotten Shepherds in times past. And all that I will say today about all of that is that none of us can see Behind the Scenes...and the Spirit is alive and with us still.

Regardless of personal opinion and belief, few events (if any) receive more worldwide attention than the election of a new Pope. This one has been no exception, especially since it was preceded by the resignation of the previous Pope-- a thing which hasn't happened in about seven hundred years. Imagine! A Bishop of Rome, and a Bishop Emeritus of Rome! What does this mean?! The media is all abuzz. Every question is posed, every concern is voiced, every bit of gossip passed along and worried at. Why did the Pope resign? Was the Vatileaks scandal to much for Benedict? Will the next Pope be a media figure? Can we start talking about women priests again? What about liturgical reform?....and on it goes, ad nauseum. And in the midst of all this (perhaps weirdest of all) PaddyPower is taking in thousands of pounds in bets and crunching odds on who will be the next Supreme Pontiff. Yes, gambling on the heir of Peter as if this was a horse race. I can hear it now: "Looks good, but inexperienced", "He's good in the mud, and we need a mudder with all the dirt in the Church right now", "Him? No, too old, should have been turned out to pasture years ago."

Between Vicar number 265 and Vicar number 266 we have this little interlude, this little time to reflect. To think about the Church and the world and the way things are going, and where they need to be going. Yes, we all have our favorites, we all have our "picks". I have a few of my own, I'll admit. And I am as interested as the next sinner in line to know if the next Pope will follow in the footsteps of Vatican II and JPII, or if he will be even stronger on liturgical reform and more traditional than B16 was. I too am curious to see how he deals with people of other religions, and particularly what he can do to help heal the Great Schism between east and west. I wait eagerly to see what he will say about social justice and economics. I want to know if he will bring about a renaissance among the abbeys and convents.

But the chief characteristic which comes to my mind right now is courage. Any Pope in these dark and secular days will need great courage. Courage and simplicity. All due diplomacy and peace-making aside, I want a Pope who will call a spade a spade; who will praise good and condemn evil; who will turn the Vatican inside out and rid it of corruption; who will be fearless in speaking truth to countries, tyrants, and politicians; who will purge the Church of wicked leaders, liberal bishops, and predatory priests; a Pope who will shake us up, and wake us up, and bring us face to Face with Christ.

So we wait. Let us offer some very serious prayers these next few days for the Conclave.

And to the great man and Shepherd I have so long admired, all that I will say now is this: May God bless you and make His Face to shine upon you. May He fill the final stage of you pilgrimage with mercy and spiritual blessings. Go with God, Holy Father, all your children love you.