Replies

Marxism needs to vanish and capitalism has to have a conscience.

I call it “compassionate capitalism.”

Agreed. Unbridled avarice is as destructive as submitting oneself to the will of the collective. Both are a weakness of spirit. Death by Enron, or death by Marx - either way, you'll roast in Hell.

Good pithy way of summing it up!

Marxism needs to vanish and capitalism has to have a conscience.

IMHO substantial humility is required when critiquing "capitalism" (a word which IIRC was coined by Marx, and thus is suspect in its implications). What "capitalism" tends to do is, imperfectly to be sure, to give credit to "the man who is actually in the arena," and not to the critic who second guesses him.
Socialism is nothing but criticism and second guessing of those who actually do things. Theodore Roosevelt
There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The role is easy; there is none easier, save only the role of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds . . .
To criticize "capitalism" is all too often an exercise in second guessing and falling into the trap of agonizing over whether, considering social effects, to produce steam or diesel locomotives at a time when air travel was transcending train travel - and computers were about to become more important than airliners.
What does "a preferential option for the poor" mean when "capitalism" transforms the meaning of "poverty" to the point where an American secretary today would be ill served by having to live under the conditions under which Queen Victoria (1819-1901) "suffered." It makes poverty virtually meaningless, and thereby makes "the poor" a suspect category. It is easy to second guess "capitalism" in the short run, but in the long run it is very difficult to make the case that "the poor" suffer from too much capitalism.
The pope's case seems to be nuanced, and he talks properly of the priority of Christ in ordering moral priorities, but he seems to shades too close to Marxian analysis with his affinity for liberation theology.

Marxism needs to vanish and capitalism has to have a conscience.

"Capitalism" cannot have a conscience, any more than "society" can "care."

Only human persons have a conscience, and each individual is called to form his conscience in Christian faith and act according to its demands under any worldly economic system.

Agree with you. Which is the traditional view of the Church and the economy. Something which has been lost for a while now.

Greed, as your tag line says, is not a virtue.