Pope Pius VI on Adam Smith
I spent most of my Easter break in St. Louis where I devoted several days to researching in Saint Louis University’s incomparable Vatican Film Library, which houses the most Vatican Library manuscripts on microfilm in the world (next to, of course, the Vatican). Scholars from all over the world use SLU’s Vatican Film Library in order access some of the rarest and oldest Church sources. I, myself, was researching the medieval and early modern Church’s socio-economic teachings for my masters thesis, which argues that the Church has advocated a sort of proto-socialism from its birth with the Apostles to the Second Vatican Council. During the break, I spent hours each day trudging through the single best source for medieval Church theology and doctrine and the single best source for local and Ecumenical Councils. Anyone who knows real Church history is familiar with the sources: Monumenta Germaniae Historica, which chronicles the Church in central and western Europe throughout the medieval and early modern periods, and Sacrosanctum Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, which includes every decree of virtually every council in the history of the Church, including most of the actual speeches delivered by bishops at these councils. Let’s just say that my Latin proficiency increased mightily during that week.
The trip to the Vatican Film Library was a tragic disappointment and a great joy for me. Let me explain. As I was pouring through the volumes of MGH, I came across a papal bull by Pope Pius VI, who reigned from 1775-1799, entitled Pecuniae Amori. Much to my surprise and dismay, Pecuniae Amori assesses the new soci0-economic ideas of the Scottish empiricists in a very positive light. This rare papal bull, which has never been translated into English, specifically tackles what the Catholic reaction to Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, a book I have grown to despise in my brief career as an academic, ought to be. Imagine my shock and disgust as I read the body of the papal bull. But I refuse to revise history. Pope Pius VI wrote what he wrote, and I have to accept that despite my allergy to capitalism.
I will provide here the section of Pecuniae Amori that nearly caused me to faint (translation, of course, is mine):
Saint Peter, the bedrock of the Church and the prince of the Apostles, charged his successors with caring and feeding the flock of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is without delay, therefore brethren, that we address a pressing matter that has taken seize within and without the borders of Holy Mother Church. The successor of Blessed Peter must point out and expose any errors which threaten his flock and sanction any novel ideas that may be beneficial to the faithful. It has come to our attention that a certain book, written and published during our tenure as Roman Pontiff, has caused quite a stir among the faithful, and we feel it imperative to task that we calm any fears and clarify any difficulties that may have befallen our people. Our predecessors of happy memory never hesitated to hold fast to what is true and good, and it is in that spirit that we write concerning the publication of an erudite volume entitled An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
Within its pages, we find a charted design for the liberation of the masses of peoples from the causalities of tyranny, oligarchy and Gallicanism. The preservation of liberty and the free exchange of goods highlight the many useful elements of this volume. That the human race is marked indelibly by image of our Creator, which reckons freedom and reason as its components, has been advocated therein. Let all remember that the judgment as to sound doctrine which the people should be nourished, that the government and administration of the whole Church belong to the Roman Pontiff, to whom has been confided, by our Lord Jesus Christ. It is in our judgment, brethren, that the aforementioned volume be studied diligently by the faithful both for its usefulness in the affairs of the secular domain and for its portrayal of human nature in its creative and communicative reality.
Pope Pius VI then enumerates the three main principles of the Wealth of Nations (liberty, exchange, polity), and encourages bishops and theologians to study these themes carefully and cautiously in order to buttress the Church’s tradition on the social order.
So that was quite a disappointment, and for the time being my thesis is suspended. But a great joy accompanied my discovery. After spending Easter Sunday translating the entirety of Pecuniae Amori, I contacted the Acton Institute to inform it of the bull. Yesterday I was called personally by Fr. Robert Sirico, and we are beginning negotiations to publish my translation of Pecuniae Amori with my own commentary (20-25 pages) in a future issue of the Acton Institute’s journal, Religion & Liberty. This is very exciting, and my hands are trembling as I write this.
So am I sure Vox Nova readers are wondering if I have changed my views on capitalism. Not yet. I take papal social teaching very seriously, but I find my intellect, which acknowledges Pope Pius VI’s bull, warring with my will, which obstinately clings to socialist outlook. Perhaps I can take the advice and viewpoint of some of my fellow bloggers such as American Papist or Gerald Augustinus and maintain that I do not have to accept the teaching of Pecuniae Amori, which loosely translates as “For the Love of Money,” since it is not infallible and because social teaching in the Church always changes. But then again, if I take that mentality, there is very little left to believe and do as a real Catholic.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
Chortle. (golf clap)
Wealth of Nations would seem awfully contemporary for Pius VI to be offering commentary directly.
The key thing here is to be aware of capitalism as a descriptive theory (that is, a theory describing how human beings tend to interact economically under certain conditions) versus capitalism as an ideological prescription (how to achieve an ideal interaction).
Since much of Smith is descriptive (and misunderstood to be prescriptive), it would not surprise me that a contemporary Pope may have received it rather well.
Socialism, unfortunately, only has a prescriptive/ideological mode (at least I’ve never encountered descriptive socialism), and that is where it has its limits.
Congratulations, Policraticus, that is exciting.
Ah, humor tag.
April first.
The joke is on us…
Hah,
I’m a moron.
Yes, I’m feeling rather sheepish about being so easily taken in by a fake writing by the shepherd…
Funny stuff. Adam Smith rocks, nonetheless.
Quite an elaborate story though.
Darwin and Zach,
Though my post was an April Fool’s joke (I thought “For the Love of Money” would give it away), I sincerely appreciate the good will you showed toward me. We often disagree on several things pertaining to society and economy, but you have shown me that disagreements and good will are not alien to one another. Thank you.
Adam Smith rocks, nonetheless.
I think his A Theory of Moral Sentiments, which provides the anthropological and moral underpinnings of Wealth of Nations would change your mind.
I think his A Theory of Moral Sentiments, which provides the anthropological and moral underpinnings of Wealth of Nations would change your mind.
I’m not sure it would change his mind. Fantastic post!
Heh. Funny post. Well done.
Oh dear. An April Fool! You certainly fooled me! But a Marxist might say something along the following lines, that in the eighteenth century capitalism was “progressive” and an advance over feudalism/absolutism, but that as a mode of production it has now outlived its usefulness and is no longer “progressive” today, indeed that it it constitutes a positive danger to humanity and the planet. Thus a Pope praising capitalism two hundred years ago would not jar with a Pope excoriating capitalism today. The point is that modes of production come and go, and that there are different judgements to be made at different times in history. Of course there are pertinent Catholic questions to be posed to Marxism about the fact that modes of production are often “theologised” into being as much as they burst forth in response to a supposed crack of the whip of the dialectic.
Actually, the title could be used for a devastating critique of capitalism. Certainly, on the love of money, deserves magisterial treatment. It is a big problem. Make sure to forward the title to P. Benedict.
You got me good. =)