Pope Francis Is Wrong: Free Market Is Not A Tyrant

Economics: It seems the official position of Pope Francis is that the free market is a wicked enemy that must be restrained. With all due respect, he's mistaken. The free market has been a heavenly blessing. Two days before our American Thanksgiving, the Argentinian pontiff, in his first apostolic exhortation, called the free market a "new tyranny." "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," he wrote in the Vatican report. Claims of free-market success, he said, have "never been confirmed by the facts." He went on to condemn "a financial system which rules rather than serves." Actually, no economic system has brought more prosperity to more people than free-market capitalism. Neither socialism nor communism has increased prosperity, and are themselves ruled by tyrants.

I think this Pope, like a lot in the Catholic church, are redistributionists at heart.

When the supposed definition of "Catholic" extends to Pelousy and Biden, of course you're right about "redistributionists". IMHO, I don't believe it extends to Pope Francis however. Two good articles referring to the Pope's new encyclical "Evangelii Gaudium" (The Joy of the Gospel) put additional context to his statements. Evangelii Gaudium is "a clarion call for a decisive shift in the Catholic Church's self-understanding, in full continuity with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI." However, it has unfortunately been subjected to being "celebrated, or lamented, as if it were an Occupy Whatever position paper for a G-8 summit."

Weigel: Pope Francis the Revoutionary (sorry, WSJ subscription only)

Williamson: The Problem of Selfishness (at NRO and more about 0bama than Pope Francis)

For the record, I concur with Williamson as he points out ....

... the default Catholic position seems to be delegating economic justice to the state, under the mistaken theory that its ministers are somehow less selfish than are the men who build and create and trade for a living rather than expropriate. Strange that a man who labored under the shadow of Perón has not come to that conclusion on his own.

p.s. Happy Thanksgiving! No shopping!

WILLIAMSON: "... the default Catholic position seems to be delegating economic justice to the state, under the mistaken theory that its ministers are somehow less selfish than are the men who build and create and trade for a living rather than expropriate. Strange that a man who labored under the shadow of Perón has not come to that conclusion on his own." ..and I think that agreeing with Williamson on that point makes it hard to take that WSJ editorial seriously. I may be a hard ass, but by the time somone is Pope, President, a netork anchor, or even a mere congressman, I think it's inexcusable not to understand basic economics, not to mention all of world history, which is that free enterprise has lifted more people out of poverty than charity, let alone Governments, ever can or will.

I saw that thread. Its argument is stupid.

“Let us assume that the original composition was Spanish:

54. En este contexto, algunos todavía defienden las teorías del «derrame», que suponen que todo crecimiento económico, favorecido por la libertad de mercado, logra provocar por sí mismo mayor equidad e inclusión social en el mundo.

Official English…

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.

Over at the other post a commentator pointed out that the official English rendering of EG 54 makes Spanish “por si’ mismo” into “inevitably”, but that it really means “by itself”.

Let’s swap in the “by itself” and read it again.”

So it assumes a Spanish original, translates the seen English into the unseen Spanish “original”, then provides an alternate translation to the invented Spanish to claim the English translation is bad. That borders on insane. It theorizes an original that it doesn’t see, and then assumes the translation (which was seen) was bad.

Bottom line - the Vatican provided the translation, and it is sticking by that translation. There has been no retraction or updated translation from the Vatican. And yes, the Vatican CAN afford good Spanish to English translators. Given the uproar, there has been ample time for the Vatican to review the supposed original Spanish and correct any errors in their translation.

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.