Morality and economics, Pope Francis, and Rush Limbaugh

Pope Francis recently issued the apostolic exhortation "The Joy of the Gospel." Click here to read it.

Conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh isn't pleased with the document, calling it "pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope." (Source)

I sought comment on the matter from Father John Trigilio Jr., Ph.D., Th.D., president of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy. Below is Father's analysis (slightly edited).

I often listen to Rush Limbaugh and find him to be an intelligent man and an erudite conservative journalist. He uses common sense and logic to expose the fallacious arguments of liberal progressives. Unfortunately, he himself has fallen into a trap by which he erroneously extrapolates a false premise from the recent papal document from Pope Francis.

Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel) is an apostolic exhortation issued on November 24, 2013. While not an ex cathedra infallible document, it nevertheless contains ordinary papal magisterial teaching that demands submission of mind and will by faithful Catholics.

Rush is uncharacteristically inaccurate in his quotations. Pope Francis did not criticize unfettered capitalism; he used the phrase unfettered consumerism. The late and great Father Richard John Neuhaus defined consumerism as:

Capitalism is an economic and political ideology, whereas consumerism is a personal and individual ideology. The former is focused on a free market; the latter is obsessed with the acquisition of goods in and of themselves. Blessed John Paul II made the distinction that communism and consumerism are far extremes, and both threaten human freedom. One denies the right to access of necessary goods; the other deifies materialism and promotes avarice, greed and envy. A free market system, on the other hand, treats human beings equally, not giving undo advantage to card-carrying members of the Communist Party while penalizing those who express some political dissent.

What Pope Francis, Pope Benedict, Pope John Paul, Pope Leo and others have consistently been saying and teaching, however, is that the individual person is a moral agent. He must answer to God for what he did or did not do to help his neighbor in need. The Gospel of Matthew ends by separating the sheep from goats based on what each individual did or did not do to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, shelter the homeless, care for the sick, and so on. It is not a judgment of government policies or agencies; it is a personal judgment on each one of us.

That said, besides personal acts of Christian charity, it is logical and reasonable, prudent and necessary to pool resources and, even for the state, to help in cases where the most needy and most urgent cases are helped. Yet no pope ever promoted, nor called for, a welfare state that perpetually cares for the poor. The ultimate goal is to enable the poor to rise above poverty and reach a level of dignity commensurate with their human dignity.

Access to necessary goods is a natural right. That does not mean, however, that the natural moral law requires the poor to become enslaved to the state by permanently keeping them dependent. Rush calls Pope Francis a Socialist at best and a Communist at worst. Does this sound like a commie comment?

Contrary to what many modern public school textbooks currently tell our children, capitalism was actually created during the high Middle Ages and, as Michael Novak wrote in 2003, Catholicism is what created it. While feudalism sustained Christendom from the fall of the Roman Empire (476 A.D.) through the so-called Dark Ages, during the 12th to 14th centuries, the middle class arose thanks to capitalism, which eventually replaced feudalism. Medieval guilds and religious orders, such as the Cistercians, became contemporary entrepreneurs of their time.

Thomas Woods' How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization has an entire chapter titled "The Church and Economics" in which he, too, proposes that money was not an artificial product of government (crown or parliament), but a result of a voluntary process between merchants. Barter became more and more impractical when dealing with perishable items and dealing with transporting goods over long distances. Religious orders like the Cistercians devised accounting systems by which goods could be bought and sold between fellow monks, and this was duplicated by lay merchants who participated in the process.

While the secular states were governed by aristocracies and monarchies, and while the Church herself is hierarchical, it is still Catholic doctrine that all men and women are created in the image of God and by baptism are considered children of God. That spiritual equality was translated into an economic equality, which transcended the political. The emerging middle class came from the peasant class. They did so because their faith taught them they were equal in the eyes of God and therefore had equal opportunities to improve their material situation. Those who could not – the destitute poor, the lame, widowed and orphaned – relied on the Christian charity of the nobility and the emerging middle class.

It was the Church who literally created the colleges and universities, hospitals and orphanages, and who ran the poor houses and soup kitchens. The secular state (government) did not create these institutions; religious orders and dioceses did. Christian charity motivated those who had more to help those who had less.

When you read Evangelii Gaudium in its entirety, it continues the papal magisterium found in Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno, Mater et Magistra, Gaudium et Spes, Centesimus Annus, and, of course, the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The very reason a nation has banking and finance laws is that human beings are not perfect. Original sin affects everyone, and some people, be they CEOs, CFOs, bankers or brokers, sometimes make bad choices that produce bad effects that cause great harm to many innocent people. I know of no conservative or liberal, Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian who would advocate the repeal of laws barring insider trading.

We need laws to maintain some parameters on banks and stock brokers to protect people from abuse and exploitation. Republicans and Democrats dispute the length, breadth and depth of such legal regulations, but even a free market has some borders that cannot be ignored. Limited government is still very different from no government. Some, even if minimal, legislation is needed since not everyone acts prudently or fairly or for pristine motives.

That said, it was totally unfair and inaccurate of Rush to attack Pope Francis for addressing a letter as head of the Roman Catholic Church to his more than one billion members. The pontiff was merely reiterating consistent Church teaching that supports a free market, but also reminds the moral obligation to act responsibly, honestly and prudently. No one can command generosity but it is something which should be encouraged and promoted. Welfare dependency helps neither the individual nor the nation. Some welfare is necessary for those who cannot be helped by private or non-profit charitable organizations. However, the goal is always to help move those into economic independence and become self-sufficient.

Laborem Exercens teaches us the sanctity of human work. The Catechism tells us that the Catholic Church always believes justice and solidarity are essential and necessary to human freedom. Justice is distributive, commutative and social. Unfettered consumerism is not synonymous with capitalism. A free market system respects human freedom and autonomy. Consumerism is an abuse and an extreme. Communism wrongly treated human labor as a means of production for the state. Consumerism wrongly treats the product of human labor and of the free market as the final source of happiness and fulfillment.

Material things, while helpful, do not produce enduring and true happiness. They make life easier, more comfortable and more convenient. Technology helps cure sickness and disease and helps makes life less a burden. All Pope Francis is warning is that the possession and acquisition of goods is not salvific, nor does it bring lasting joy. Pleasure is temporary, whereas joy can be eternal.

The pontiff is not forcing any nation or government to abandon capitalism; he's not advocating socialism let alone communism. He is, however, reminding Catholics all over the globe that we must buy and sell prudently while using our consciences. In that light, I see no reason for Rush to take offense or issue with Pope Francis.

I highly urge Rush to read Father Robert Sirico's Defending the Free Market and John Horvat's Return to Order. Mr. Horvat does a splendid job explaining the notion of frenetic intemperance, which is a cousin of unfettered consumerism. Father Sirico precisely shows that freedom requires a free market and that greed is no friend of capitalism. Rather, greed flourishes under socialism.

I am very well versed in libertarianism in general, and understand Friedman’s theory. I would agree with libertarianism that in a society of moral people of homogeneous culture the free market without government distortions is the best vehicle of prosperity. I do not think the theory applies in diverse cultures and with intrusive governments at all points of international exchange, especially in secular societies. In the latter environment the “pockets of exclusion” as His Holiness called them will invariably be created, and it becomes the job of the national government to reopen these pockets to healthy commerce and moral behavioral patterns.

A good example is a black ghetto in any major US city: a combination of welfare, anti-business local government, and crime as prevailing economic policy, plus abortion and now free contraception on demand, no-penalty divorce, loose sexual behavior and diversity celebration as cultural policy, — create an environment that the Catechism would call “a system of sin” where moral behavior is not likely to exist, and therefore economic lifts are not likely to emerge.

Friedman is no libertarian. You obviously do not understand the nature of free markets. You can cite the ‘black ghetto’ all you want but none of what you blather on about has anything to do with being either excluded from society or a lack of compassion from the free markets. Your drivel doesn’t change the fact (and it is a fact) that free markets produce people who have the most freedom of choice and the most republican form of government.

if you wish a theocracy then move to a country that is run by a church

move to a country that is run by a church

I am free to vote where I am and do not intend to move.

If libertarian (or Friedman's) theory extends to poly-cultural crime- and government-infested pockets, and to international government-managed "trade" between the Third World and the First World then show me how. "You obviously don't understand", "move", and "drivel" are no substitutions for intelligent argument.

You and Limbaugh’s comments on Pope Francis appear to confuse capitalism with unbridled consumerism, crony capitalism, insider trading, stock manipulation etc and therefore give capitalism properly understood, a bad name. This is not what Sowell, Buckley and others believe in.

The distinction (Chicago School/Libertarian) was never important to what I wrote, because the Pope never addressed monetary policy or other specifics. The Pope's ideas are contrary to libertarianism broadly. Friedman himself never resisted the libertarian characterization:

He said that he was a libertarian philosophically, but a member of the U.S. Republican Party for the sake of "expediency" ("I am a libertarian with a small 'l' and a Republican with a capital 'R.' And I am a Republican with a capital 'R' on grounds of expediency, not on principle.")
Milton Friedman (as a part of Libertarianism Series)

and you missed his point completely.

Look the pope was very clear. You can decide that ‘ghettos’ in America are the fault of the free market if you want. It is historically and economically a false hood to say so. Go ahead and defend this jesuit all you want. He is not the friend of freedom nor of free markets

I think what bothers a lot of people--including many American Catholics--is that the Pope never published the original Latin version of what he wrote. As such, we end up with a lot of translation issues, and an improper translation could mean the Pope's message ends up being wrongly interpreted.

Indeed, that is a problem that still vexes Bible scholars trying to do a decent modern language translation of the Bible from the original languages used for each Book of the Bible.

capitalism with unbridled consumerism, crony capitalism, insider trading, stock manipulation et

That all rolls off your keyboard in such a scripted manner, you should submit it at the next shutdown (whatever city is the script) event and make them into signs for your anti capitalist crowd. Do you believe any of that leftist
Usually conservatives believe in a vibrant, economic daily reality. You obviously sit and see wrong in our economy to the point it is sickening. It is socialistic to the max and you should have learned different in grade school.

Sorry kid, you are annoying just as talking to my 11 year old grandson would be, but he knows what a profit is and knows all businesses need it to stay in business. You obviously did not get any of those lessons in 3rd grade.. yet.

As I think I conveyed in one of our earlier verbal checker matches (for most I say Chess matches), you are way past being tiring. Your anti-capitalistic dribble has gotten boring and annoying so I am done playing checkers.. or shuts and ladders don't bother to write back.

Forget the modern economics books, just read the books and writings of our founders. Subscribe to patriot post and you will receive their sayings every day in your email. They understood the need of profit and advancing ones station in life and it's need to advance their fellow countryman and the country as a whole. You seem to have missed all of it while on your commune or at the flop houses.

Sorry for you man.

Pope Francis does seem to be taking his cues on many issues from the liberal wing of Roman Catholicism. Where Limbaugh is off the mark, however, is in assuming that criticism of laissez-faire capitalism by the Catholic Church is somehow unprecedented or restricted to a leftist fringe.

In fact, the Church has always emphasized communitarian values, charity, and social justice over individualism, and (in contrast to Calvinism, for instance) never equated acquisition of wealth with virtue. This is as much true of rightwing traditional Catholicism as it is of the renegade "liberation theology" Left. Distributism, social credit, and corporatism grew out of traditional Catholic social thought and criticism of laissez-faire.

Where Limbaugh is off the mark, however, is in assuming that criticism of laissez-faire capitalism by the Catholic Church is somehow unprecedented or restricted to a leftist fringe.

I take it you are a Rush listener. How many times over the years have we heard Rush comment on one of his purported quotes by the msm - "I never said that!". Yet, he had no compunctions in accepting "their" interpretation of what the pope said. Rush has been on holiday for the past few days ... time to research and absorb the catholic responses to his rant. Let's see how he responds tomorrow.

Free market is an accessory to the freedom of man. What passes for “free market” today, especially in the Third World has nothing to do with either economic or spiritual freedom, and the Pope is a realist, — because he is, you know, Catholic, — unlike various libertarian sloganeers.

I know, difficult question. Here is a visual aid.

A Favela in Sao-Paulo

The people living in the foreground are unemployable as they are. Their personal work experience is crime, prostitution and picking city garbage. Their parents or grandparents worked sustenance agriculture. Their education is none or close to none. What theory, so you think, Limbaugh, Friedman and Co. have to give them gainful work, and how practical is their theory?

He never condemns capitalism. He says that it will not work on its own. He disagreed that ‘trickle down’ economics would INEVITABLY benefit the poor. It’s not INEVITABLE. It still requires virtue of the individual. It requires someone to be as conscientious about helping those less fortunate than himself as he is about getting in line to buy the next gadget.

He never ‘makes clear’ that the poor are morally superior. He says they are crying out. How does the Pope condemn those with wealth, when it’s the people with wealth he’s appealing to in order to help the poor? He doesn’t tell those with wealth to put themselves in the poor house. You’re making a false dichotomy.

I agree with you, Jesus did not say that only the poor are going to heaven, but he did say the poor in spirit would. He wants us to be more selfless, that is not the same thing as saying he wants to feel guilty about our wealth. He wants us to do good things with it. This message has been consistent in the history of the Church.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.