“The [capitalist] system is vicious, both ethnically and ontologically…Capitalism degrades men to mere economic factors, to be bargained for at the lowest possible market prices… Brain and brawn workers are still treated as individuals, but not as persons, and therein lies the moral vice of capitalism. They are individual items of cost and not persons with souls, aspirations, self-determination, etc.. Human rights can be saved only by stressing the good Christian concept of person, which per se includes “individual,” as “individual” does not per se include person. At a turning-point in history like our own, when both the Christian and the unchristian revolts are against the pagan past of the Enlightenment, why cling to slogan phrases that arose out of the culmination of this very paganism?”
– Fr. Virgil Michel, 1937, quoted in Michael Sean Winters, Left at the Altar: How the Democrats Lost the Catholics and How the Catholics can Save the Democrats, 2008.
July 25, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Fr. Virgil Michel was very close to both Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin all of whom understood very well the relationship between work and the subject of work–the person–and at that time men were reduced to mere instruments of production, which is not far from reality today, sadly.
Again, it is in the context that understands the person as the subject of work that fair wages can be rightly discussed.
July 25, 2008 at 3:41 pm
When this topic comes up I feel sometimes Captialism is used in a sense that people that support Captialism support. It is almost like on the flip side we are comparing variant strains of socalism with Communism.
One of the commenters here (in fact while engaging a prior post on VOX NOVA) I thought did a ggod post on this
http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2007/09/pope-benedicts-critique-of-capitalism.html
I think the threshold question is of course what is Captialism. Well JOhn Paul the II states in asking if Captialism can be endorsed by Catholics
of whether ‘capitalism’ could be endorsed by Catholics:
“. . . The answer is obviously complex. If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”. But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.”
Centesimus Annus
You will find few Catholics of the more Captialist bent that are for the whole sale abolition of such things child labor laws, laws as to work place safety, laws allowing workers to roganize, etc etc
For instance while I susspoes of course we do not want to take Child Labor laws to the extreme I do not think that most conservatives or those friendly to the Captialist point of view would endorse the UNited States return to sweat shops populated by 8 and 10 years old.
July 25, 2008 at 3:45 pm
We disagree on any number of things, and will continue to do so, I would imagine, but with this I am in complete and unreserved agreement. The person, under capitalism (under any modern economics, socialism included) is regarded as a fungible unit of economic production; and when those fungible units protest their fungibility, or refuse to be made still more fungible, which is to say, disposable, capital exacts its vengeance upon them, proving to them that they are just that. To him who already has, more will be given; but from him who has but a little, even what he has shall be taken from him.
July 25, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Poor Fr. Michel did not have the advantage of the American Doctors Michael Novak, George Weigel and Richard Neuhaus, let alone the resources of the Congregation for the Propagation of Capitalism, a.k.a. the Acton Institute.
July 25, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Congregation for the Propagation of Capitalism, a.k.a. the Acton Institute.
Nicely done!
July 25, 2008 at 4:00 pm
John Allen is reporting that Acton put out a statement about Benedict’s many references to the environment while in Australia, saying that he is talking about personal morality and not global warming. These guys are becoming a parody of themslves.
July 25, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Mark though I so not agree with everything that comes out of the Action Inst, and I think the people in it have various viewpoints, I do welcome their contribution Just as Cardinal Ratzinger said:
“A morality that believes itself able to dispense with the technical knowledge of economic laws is not morality but moralism. As such it is the antithesis of morality. A scientific approach that believes itself capable of managing without an ethos misunderstands the reality of man. Therefore it is not scientific.”
SO they are a needed right besides the Gk Chesterton distribution folks.
July 25, 2008 at 4:11 pm
I bet this crap is reprinted by Tan Publishers.
July 25, 2008 at 4:16 pm
“John Allen is reporting that Acton put out a statement about Benedict’s many references to the environment while in Australia, saying that he is talking about personal morality and not global warming. These guys are becoming a parody of themslves.”
MM you might be interested in seeing the actual release that Action Gave
http://www.acton.org/press/20080717_green_pope.php
One person on their blog has taken note Of JOhn Allen’s column and responded here
http://blog.acton.org/archives/2433-Pope-Benedicts-Human-Ecology.html#extended
July 25, 2008 at 4:22 pm
MM — Acton has a website, from which one can procure their press releases. Here’s the press release in question: http://www.acton.org/press/20080717_green_pope.php Here’s what it says: A number of media reports covering today’s speech by Pope Benedict XVI at the World Youth Day event in Sydney, Australia, characterize him as being alarmed about “global warming” and “climate change.” In fact, the Pope’s nearly 2,700 word speech used neither term.
What Pope Benedict actually said was: “Perhaps reluctantly we come to acknowledge that there are scars which mark the surface of our earth, erosion, deforestation, the squandering of the world’s mineral and ocean resources in order to fuel an insatiable consumption.” In this, he simply affirmed the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on environmental stewardship, which not only decries the pollution of Creation but also consumerism.The Acton press release did not say that Ratzinger’s “many references” to the environment were only about “personal morality.” That characterization is just wrong.
July 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm
MM — Acton has a website, from which one can procure their press releases. Here’s the press release in question: http://www.acton.org/press/20080717_green_pope.php Here’s what it says:
The Acton press release did not say that Ratzinger’s “many references” to the environment were only about “personal morality.” That characterization is just wrong.
July 25, 2008 at 4:44 pm
It doesn’t cease to amaze me how global warming has become a political issue in this country. It is really sad. And how the Acton Institute goes through the trouble of pointing out that the Pope didn’t actually say the words “global warming” and “climate change”. I’m sure the guys from the Acton Institute could explain how the Pope didn’t mention “climate change” to poor farmers in low-lying areas in the world who are starving to death as a result to never-seen-before droughts, because “there is no such a thing” and it’s “all in their mind.” It is really disgusting. It truly is. It must be really nice to live in one of the nicest countries in the world and then just pretend nothing is going on outside of it. That is what disgusts me about the Acton Institute.
“Global warming” is simply an observation that human beings are making based on a changing environment and trying to find solutions to a problem by formulating hypotheses. Somehow, that is part of the “liberal agenda”. “Somehow” the fact that human beings are using their intellect to discern changing phenomena and data that has been collected for years is a liberal “trick.” Perhaps my everyday job (and many others’), which is based on doing exactly that: formulating hypotheses based on observed changing patterns is also part of an underlying liberal agenda! And then we complain because agnostics and atheists make fun of how Christians divorce faith from reason…
Ridiculous.
July 25, 2008 at 4:47 pm
When the Pope condemns abortion, it means everyone in the United States is obligated to vote Republican. But when he condemns capitalism in the same speech, it can be discounted, and conservatives have no problem opposing such things as food stamps or the minimum wage, because they interfere with the free market.
July 25, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Pope Benedict XVI and John Paul II both refer to climate change on frequent occasion, the latter explicitly linking it to human action.
The chief difference that I see between enterprises such as the Acton Institute and the popes on this question is not one of prudential judgment but of ethos. The popes maintain Catholic doctrine (faith, morals, social teaching) as the overriding concern. The Acton Institute, which is not strictly Catholic but nevertheless attempts to incorporate the faith, begins with a different ethos: the legitimacy of wealth creation, the sustaining structures of the free market, and individual rights. On the one hand, we have the Catholic patrimony, on the other, we have the barely-Christian Enlightenment patrimony. The clash, then, is not one of politics or prudential judgment, but one of spiritual and social foundations.
July 25, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Katerina ,
As to Climate change and Pope Benedict.
First the sake of clarity it is needed of course to explore what Pope Benedict has acutally said and the context. Second as we all try to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ it is necessary at times to make sure that people feel they must believe x to be Catholic or Christian. When one is talking about a issue as Climate Change and the Pope speaking on it one does sometimes have to explain to wary individuals that is not a Dogma of Faith
As Cardianl Pell hmself stated as to the Pope’s comments Catholics can have a variety of views as to the cause of Climate Change and needless to say he is still tad a of skeptic on what some are saying are the causes
As again to the Action Inst I suspect they are a tad more diverse on opinion with in the organization than is being portrayed here .At least that is the sense I got from reading bllogers talk about their recent conference
July 25, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Calling something “vicious” does not make it so. What a lame quote.
Poli,
Have you actually listened to any of their lectures or read any of their material? I mean, I know it’s easier to criticize something when you aren’t actually dealing with the thing itself, but I think you’re better than that.
Come on – of course the Acton institute has a different “ethos” – they’re not the Church and they don’t claim to be. A lot of their ecumenical work incorporates the social teaching of the Church, but they never have once claimed to be an alternative to the Church.
The way you define what the institute is about shows how you really aren’t familiar with their work. You say their ethos begins with “the legitimacy of wealth creation” – this is manifestly not one of their first principles. They would not describe wealth creation as “legitimate”, but a reality and one that has moved innumerable people out of poverty. You say they support “the sustaining structures of the free market” – if this means advocating for free markets opposed to centrally planned economies, then you’re correct, but it’s such a strange way to phrase it. “Individual rights” – if you are referring to individual rights against any totalizing state that would deprive people of basic human choices, then you are correct – but none of their contributors would advocate an ideology of individualism.
Aren’t you guys tired of coming up with asinine, uncritical insults (can’t call it criticism)? They’re dealt out here at an unpleasant frequency.
July 26, 2008 at 12:42 am
As Cardianl Pell hmself stated as to the Pope’s comments Catholics can have a variety of views as to the cause of Climate Change and needless to say he is still tad a of skeptic on what some are saying are the causes
Well, obviously. I mean, Cardinal Pell contributed an article to an Acton Institute periodical once. He’s one of Them.
July 26, 2008 at 10:01 am
…the apostolic zeal…
July 26, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Here’s my wild-eyed opinion about economics professors: if the person’s net worth is less than $1 billion, don’t waste my time.
Dear sworn enemies of the private sector:
Economics is studying the price that makes demand = supply; equilibrium, disequilibrium, marginal propensities to save or consume, etc., elasticities of S and D, etc. It gives me brain freeze. I imagine it’s Greek to you all.
What your priest economist is speaking about is monopsony where the mythic sole buyer/employer of labor has an oversupply and can pay low wages. The polar opposite would be professional baseball players like A-Rod who has negotiated $25 million a year. It works both ways.
The capitalist must produce products at prices that will sell and cover costs, wages and provide a profit. The worker will try to get the most pay he can. The employer will try to pay the least he can. Bring in 12,000,000 more workers and wages go down. That’s how it works. Imagine 12,000,000 PhD’s abscond into the US next year. Say :”Goodbye” to tenure.
Most refuse to obey centuries of Church teachings on abortion, contraception, gay marriage, pre-marital sex, etc. So, red priests make up for it by telling them collective virtue trumps personal morality and it’s morally good to hate rich people and call it social justice teachings.
The priest and philosophers are entitled to superstitions and misappreciations of economics, climatology and, essential class hatred (i.e., rich white men), etc. Still, superstitions and misappreciations, like metaphors and opinions, are not truth.
My comment is based on the assumption that “capitalist system” is your commie, liberal swear word for “rich white man.” If it’s not: the US is not a purely capitalist nation. There are tens of thousands of regulations, minimum wages, unemployment insurance, deposit insurance, socialist security, food stamps, school meal programs, medicaid, government housing, etc.
Here’s the scoop: You want to make us all beggars then we’ll be easier to control.
July 26, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Zach, calling something a “lame quote” does not make it so.
Great find, MM.
July 27, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Michael,
That’s why I didn’t just call it a lame quote. I gave a reason it was lame. I said it was lame because the quote amounts to name calling.
July 28, 2008 at 10:51 pm
The argument from silence is noted :P
July 29, 2008 at 9:32 pm
said it was lame because the quote amounts to name calling.
You didn’t quite say that, now did you?
The argument from silence is noted :P
Sorry, I have been on the road for about 2 weeks. You are far from my first priority.
July 29, 2008 at 11:12 pm
No I didn’t spell it out because I think a fair reader would see that I did not call the comment lame without justification.
I don’t expect to be your first priority. I should hope not, geez, what a strange thing to say.
But whenever an argument doesn’t go your way and there is no easy way out, you often stop responding and change threads. I’ve never seen you admit you were wrong about anything.
July 29, 2008 at 11:18 pm
How’s your liberation theology research coming?
July 30, 2008 at 7:48 am
Actually, no lie, UPS is shipping Gutierrez’ “A Theology of Liberation” to my house this week. I think I should have it by Friday.
I meant to get it much earlier, but I ended up taking a summer class and have been a bit busy with that for the past two months. But my class ends this week and I will have some free time to pursue more interesting things now. I intend to start reading it as soon as it arrives. I’m actually really looking forward to it!
July 30, 2008 at 9:45 am
I’m actually really looking forward to it!
You should be! :) I hope you post your thoughts on it.