Catholic Memory Loss and the Response to Evangelii Gaudium

By Thomas Storck | December 6, 2013

As everyone knows, Pope Francis has just released an Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, dated November 24.

Evangelii_Gaudium-255x390

As was to be expected, in the sadly politicized state of American Catholicism, most commentators have concentrated on what the Holy Father said about the economy and economic policy. Is Pope Francis a closet liberation theologian? Or, on the other hand, did he learn from the loudly-trumpeted change of heart in favor of free-market economics that John Paul II is said to have experienced?

Though there is much that could be said about Evangelii Gaudium as a whole, and about the sections that deal with economics, I want to concentrate on one point only; that there is a need to do so highlights the profound ignorance of most of those who opine about the Church’s social doctrine as to what the popes in their social teaching have actually said. When people can express surprise or alarm or feel the need to explain away various of Francis’ statements, a student of the social encyclicals is tempted to throw up his hands in frustration. That more Catholics do not realize that Francis’ criticisms of market economics are actually very mild by historical standards is an example of that profound loss of Catholic memory that has afflicted the Church since Vatican II. The radicalism of Catholic social teaching has been forgotten along with so much else of our heritage. Even Pope Francis felt compelled to make this point, should “anyone feel offended by my words” (#208). As we will see by the tone of their statements, some of his predecessors did not have so much solicitude for the easily-hurt feelings of the defenders of “the absolute autonomy of markets.”

In order to highlight both the continuity of Francis’ teaching with that of earlier popes, as well as our present Holy Father’s comparative mildness of expression, I am going to set next to each other quotations from Evangelii Gaudium with those of earlier popes. I hope it will be apparent that what Francis teaches is entirely in line with the teaching of his predecessors.

Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, #53:

“Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless.”

Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, #3:

“Hence by degrees it has come to pass that Working Men have been given over, isolated and defenseless, to the callousness of employers and the greed of unrestrained competition.”

Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, #47:

“On the one side there is the party which holds the power because it holds the wealth; which has in its grasp all labor and all trade; which manipulates for its own benefit and its own purposes all the sources of supply, and which is powerfully represented in the councils of the State itself. On the other side there is the needy and powerless multitude, sore and suffering, always ready for disturbance.”

Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, #54:

“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. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.”

Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, #56:

“While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control… In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which becomes the only rule.”

Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, #202:

“As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world’s problems….”

Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, #204:

“We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market.”

Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, #88:

“Just as the unity of human society cannot be built upon “class” conflict, so the proper ordering of economic affairs cannot be left to the free play of rugged competition. From this source, as from a polluted spring, have proceeded all the errors of the `individualistic’ school. This school, forgetful or ignorant of the social and moral aspects of economic activities, regarded these as completely free and immune from any intervention by public authority, for they would have in the market place and in unregulated competition a principle of self-direction more suitable for guiding them than any created intellect which might intervene. Free competition, however, though justified and quite useful within certain limits, cannot be an adequate controlling principle in economic affairs. This has been abundantly proved by the consequences that have followed from the free rein given to these dangerous individualistic ideas.”

Pius XII, “Address to International Foundry Congress,” September 28, 1954:

“The demands of competition, which is a normal consequence of human liberty and ingenuity, cannot be the final norm for economics.”

John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, #35:

“Such a society [“a society of free work, of enterprise and of participation”] is not directed against the market, but demands that the market be appropriately controlled by the forces of society and by the State, so as to guarantee that the basic needs of the whole of society are satisfied.”

John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, #40:

“It is the task of the State to provide for the defense and preservation of common goods such as the natural and human environments, which cannot be safeguarded simply by market forces.”

John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, #42:

“…there is a risk that a radical capitalistic ideology could spread which refuses even to consider these problems, in the a priori belief that any attempt to solve them is doomed to failure, and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces.”

John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, #56:

“The Western countries…run the risk of seeing [the collapse of Communism] as a one-sided victory of their own economic system, and thereby failing to make necessary corrections in that system.”

Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, #182:

“It is no longer possible to claim that religion should be restricted to the private sphere and that it exists only to prepare souls for heaven.”

Pius XII, “Address to members of Rinascita Cristiana,” January 22, 1947:

“This task of the Church is indeed arduous, but they are simply unwitting deserters or dupes who, in deference to a misguided supernaturalism, would confine the Church to the `strictly religious’ field, as they say, whereas by so doing they are but playing into the hands of their enemies.”

I could probably fill 10 or even 20 pages with similar quotes. But I will stop here, and urge my readers, as I have urged in the past, to actually read the social encyclicals. It is hard to imagine how a Catholic would presume to express any opinions on social or economic matters who has not actually studied these documents and made their teaching his own. But in any case, I hope that those who have felt alarm at the Church’s latest social document can rest assured that Pope Francis is simply continuing the constant teaching of his predecessors, successors of St. Peter, who will without any doubt teach that same doctrine until the end of the age.

http://eastsidehunky.wordpress.com EastSideHunky

In Quadregessimo Anno, Piux XI clearly states one cannot be a socialist and a Catholic at the same time; Francis seems to disagree. No where in the world is there such a thing as “unfettered capitalism”. The phrase is a not so subtle direct shot at the US. Should we emulate his home of Agrentina, an economic basket case for decades of socialism and corruption, poverty and homelessness?
Kurt

During the Cold War period, in the admirable fight against Communism, there was an alliance among democratic capitalists, anti-Communist socialists (like me) and Christian Democrats (I suspect, like you).

With the fall of Communism, the free market Right has forgotten that they once stood with social democrats and Christian democrats as opponents of totalitarian Communism. They label every deviation from their own philosophy as Marxism.
Paul Roese

my conservative comrades are always going on about how we just need to get the government out of the way and let the private sector including churches and the “little platoons” handle societies needs. i think the Popes exhortations down through the years have been edifying but unfortunately largely ignored. it was the central government not the condemnations and documents of the Popes that ended slavery, child labor, allowed workers to unionize, broke up concentrations of economic power, allowed inter racial marriage, enforced the rights of minorities and other issues. relying only on the documents and good wishes of the Popes in themselves would not have resolved any of those issues i mentioned sad to say.
http://www.wwend.com Richard Simpkins

“In Quadregessimo Anno, Piux XI clearly states one cannot be a socialist and a Catholic at the same time; Francis seems to disagree.”

This logic only holds if you hold a Manichean view of economics. It isn’t a choice between the extremes of “socialism” and “capitalism.” Francis, and any pope, would say that one cannot serve the full beliefs of either system and be Catholic. After all, one cannot serve both God and money.

“there such a thing as ‘unfettered capitalism'”

I think it’s safe to say his words also apply to “underfettered capitalism,” just as Benedict lamented “unbridled capitalism” and John Paul, “unregulated capitalism.” In all cases, it’s fair to say that these popes believed capitalism currently to be insufficiently fettered, bridled and regulated. These all mean about the same thing.
trent

I’ve read all the documents you quoted from, as has many another traditionalist Catholic that takes issue with the pope’s exhortation. Your attempt to discredit those who object to this exhortation, by claiming that their objections are based on ignorance of an existing continuity between popes of the past and Francis, is just dishonest.

There is no continuity. The popes of the past were very careful to acknowledge the utility of free market capitalism while at the same time admonishing that unrestricted competition can only create an economic atmosphere which fails to address the needs of the poor. What Francis did in this exhortation was a blanket condemnation of money, power, and free market capitalism.

While the poor should be a concern to any Catholic, there are far, far more dire problems the Catholic Church is facing than the poor, “youth unemployment,” or “evil Pelagians.” Evidently, at least according to Francis, abortion and homosexuality aren’t them.
Thaddeus

“In Quadregessimo Anno, Piux XI clearly states one cannot be a socialist and a Catholic at the same time; Francis seems to disagree. No where in the world is there such a thing as “unfettered capitalism”. The phrase is a not so subtle direct shot at the US. Should we emulate his home of Agrentina, an economic basket case for decades of socialism and corruption, poverty and homelessness?”

Clear proof of Storcks’s thesis.
Thaddeus

“The phrase is a not so subtle direct shot at the US. ”

Of course it is, as it should be. America from the beginning had a fatal flaw in its attempt to be the capitalist utopia of the world, a nation of hustlers, as it were. See Morris Berman’s work on this: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/08/how-americas-culture-of-hustling-is-dark-and-empty/278601/
http://www.thomasstorck.org Thomas Storck

To EastSideHunky, You wrote, “In Quadregessimo Anno, Piux XI clearly states one cannot be a socialist and a Catholic at the same time; Francis seems to disagree.” In the first place, have you read Quadragesimo Anno? Do you realize that the reason Pius XI said that was because socialism in all its forms is essentially materialist and atheist? Pius specifically says that many of the economic proposals of moderate socialists “come very near those that Christian reformers of society justly insist upon.” #113. You’re quoting Pius without understanding what he meant. Then, where does Francis say one can be a socialist?

To Trent, You wrote, “The popes of the past were very careful to acknowledge the utility of free market capitalism while at the same time admonishing that unrestricted competition can only create an economic atmosphere which fails to address the needs of the poor.” In the passage from Pius XI I quoted in my article he does indeed say that free competition is “justified and quite useful within certain limits,” and I never denied that.
Other than out of contexts passages from Centesimus Annus, please show me even one place where popes acknowledged “the utility of free market capitalism,” as a general economic system.
R.C.

I have read the relevant parts of “Joy of the Gospel” and the encyclicals cited above, over and over.

That people should care for the needy is a given. That the encyclicals say so is no surprise.

That some people do not voluntarily do so is also a given. Men are sinners; some sin in this fashion and some in others.

But there are three things I have not seen answered in any of the encyclicals on this topic:

1. In any given instance wherein a person arguably failed to give the needy their due, what degree or kind of use-of-force is justified to pre-emptively compel them to give the needy their due?

2. In any given instance wherein a person might deny the needy their due, but has not yet actually done so, what degree or kind of use-of-force is justified to pre-emptively compel them to give the needy their due?

3. In any given instance wherein Group A is lawfully authorized to use force to compel persons to give the needy their due, and Group B is not lawfully authorized to do so…if Group A fails (in the opinion of Group B) to use their lawful authorization to compel persons to give the needy their due, is it morally okay for Group B to exceed their lawfully-constituted authority and wield the force that Group A failed to wield?

These, you see, are the critical issues for applying these teachings to the United States.

For it is not a matter of “conservatives” being greedy, stingy, uncaring. That’s mere libel by leftists, their version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. U.S. Conservatives, in every income bracket, both in absolute dollars and as a percentage of income, give more voluntarily to charity than U.S. left-progressives do. They also volunteer more, give blood more, serve in dangerous community-serving professions more; in short, they care more. The stats on this have been publicly available for decades; Arthur Brooks’ book was no surprise to anyone who’d ever studied the matter.

That is not the cause of the policy difference between U.S. leftists and U.S. conservatives.

The causes are many, and not all conservatives would claim them all, but among them are:

1. Enlarged welfare states exacerbate class warfare and actually substitute for, and undermine, the culture of private charity in a nation;

2. Enlarged welfare states compete with the church and drive the church out of the charity role in society, so that she is perceived as little more than a useless scold;

3. Enlarged welfare states give the state intrusive authority over everything they subsizidize; e.g., “you can have vocational training if you’re on the pill, but not if you aren’t”;

4. Enlarged welfare states corrupt politicians and produce sinecure for their donors and supporters;

5. Enlarged welfare states mysteriously spend enough money every year to, if divided among the poor, constitute middle-class incomes for the poor, but the poor somehow don’t wind up middle class, so where is it going, and why doesn’t it ever end up as savings producing class mobility?

6. The FDR and Johnson-era welfare state moves in the U.S. are mostly not constitutional to the U.S. federal government, which reserves such powers “to the states or to the people”; only a court-packing threat (or reality) or dishonest and anachronistic constitutional interpretations (eisegesis instead of exegesis, if you will) ever allowed passage of the relevant laws; thus the U.S. welfare state represents, even if it were good, a good achieved through unlawful means; the states could lawfully have done it, wherever their constitutions allowed it, but the U.S. federal government can’t, since it’s constitution doesn’t;

7. Welfare states represent the forcible transfer of not-ill-gotten wealth from one person to another, because the second man was able to vote to make it happen. Now, the government always uses force in everything it does (that’s what makes it “government”) and sometimes it’s a good thing: Force is morally justified to, for example, lock up rapists or robbers or murderers.

But force is not morally justifiable in ALL degrees to right ALL wrongs. One conservative argument is that the force-of-law imposed by the majority on the minority (within the lawfully- limited scope of government power granted by a constitution) to compel a welfare state is generally an excessive use of forcible “prior restraint”: “We think you might fail to give to the needy, or that you might not give enough, or that you might give to people YOU think are needy instead of the people WE think are needy; therefore, we will take around 30% of your income for that purpose (after we’ve taken our chunk out as a processing fee, of course), and if you hold it back, we’ll jail you, and if you try to escape, we’ll kill you.”

Oh, and most importantly,

8. Most leftist welfare programs have been so badly conceived, so inferior to alternative proposals, that they have been actually bad for the poor. Even if all Democrats were pro-life, anti-euthanasia, pro-homeschooling, anti-gay-marriage, and so on, I think I would not vote for one, on purely economic grounds: I would feel like I was stabbing my needier neighbors in the back, if I did so, and would not be able to look them in the face thereafter.

Now, of all these arguments, ones like “does it actually help or hurt the poor” or, “assuming it can be structured, for a change, to actually help them, what’s the best way?” are not within the Magisterium’s expertise, let alone its infallible charism. There is no reason to expect encyclicals to have anything to say about that.

But an encyclical can deal with such questions as the first three I listed: Given that, to U.S. conservatives, the matter is not lawful to be done at the Federal level save in military or disaster emergencies, or in the form of assistance to states (where the constitutional power lawfully resides), is it okay for the Federal government to lawlessly exceed its just authority and impose a national-level welfare state? Does “it’s for the poor!” override the question of lawfulness?

That’s something the Magisterium could answer.

So is the question: Given that the Federal government exercises force to produce wealth transfers, how much force is justifiable? Only Public Service Announcements saying, “Give to the poor?” Or only tax credits for charity? Or is pointing a gun at the taxpayer and saying, “Yeah, you already gave 10% of your pretax income to your Church and another 3% to missionaries in Africa, but now we want you to give another 20% to rescue Detroit from bankruptcy, ’cause they vote for us” a justifiable use of force?

The Church is very careful about justifying force, remember, at the highest and the lowest levels of social cohesion.

At the highest level, where nation makes war on nation, the Just War Doctrine does not allow that war is just because it has good intentions. The target must generally have done serious forcible harm, for them to be justly the target of warfare.

And at the lowest level, an individual cannot shoot a guy merely for listening to Britney Spears recordings or liking liturgical puppetry, despite these being crimes against nature and good taste. But if the guy breaks into his home in the middle of the night, he can, justifiably.

There is a high bar for justifying the use of force, or even the threatening thereof, against our fellow man.

I hold the U.S. welfare state as currently implemented is an unjustified, excessive, immoral use of force. And that it hurts the poor. And that it hurts the culture of private almsgiving (it totally destroyed it in Russia, and it barely survives in Europe). And that it displaces the church in society. And that it teaches man that he lives by bread alone.

Well, bread and circuses.

Well, bread and free condoms.

Does the Church teach that I’m wrong? I don’t think they’ve addressed the relevant points.
Stan Gilpin

Yes, I know that Evangelii Gaudium is not an encyclical but since the author has decided to compare it with encyclicals, allow me to do the same.
By what the author describes as “mildness” I would say that this document follows a pattern that is common to nearly all post conciliar encyclicals. I’ll permit others to perform a more exhaustive study but the most obvious would have to be Humanae Vitae as compared to Casti Connubii.
Casti Connubii represents the consistent teaching of the Church on the matter. But, Humanae Vitae is a liberal document written in the language of the majority report that overturns much of Catholic teaching on marriage, but it upholds the teaching on artificial contraception often with consequentialist arguments (many of which have come true). Yet the enemy doesn’t care about how Catholic doctrine is articulated , they only care that HV is still an obstacle to the revolution, albeit a weaker one. And THAT is why Evangelii Gaudium is also despised. The enemy doesn’t care whether or not the arguments are strong or not.
HV led to Cafeteria Catholicism on sexual matters, abetted by the fact that it wasn’t enforced. EG will do the same in the economic sphere.
http://www.wwend.com Richard Simpkins

Mr. Storck,

Pius XI specifically says “Religious socialism, Christian socialism are contradictory terms.” Presumably, Christian socialism isn’t atheist, isn’t materialist by virtue of its Christian faith. He doesn’t seem to think that the two can be blended at all. Reading the document closely, it seems to me that Pius was deeply distrustful of taxation, generally, saying “it is grossly unjust for a State to exhaust private wealth through the weight of imposts and taxes”. Now I know you have an out, here, by saying that taxation is still okay so long as private wealth is not “exausted,” but I think that rather misses the point. Pius quotes Rerum Novarum, saying “For since the right of possessing goods privately has been conferred not by man’s law, but by nature, public authority cannot abolish it, but can only control its exercise and bring it into conformity with the common weal.” Is there anything in the document that specifically endorses the taxation of wealth and its redistribution as the mechanism for state control over economics?
http://www.thomasstorck.org Thomas Storck

Richard Simpson wrote, “Is there anything in [Quadragesimo Anno] that specifically endorses the taxation of wealth and its redistribution as the mechanism for state control over economics?”

Nothing, that I recall, but why did you raise this point? I was talking of free competition or a free market as the ultimate regulator of an economy. This doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with taxation and redistribution. As you might know, Pius’ preferred means of regulation was by means of guilds or occupational groups.

As to socialism, without being able to sit down with you and go over the text, it’s difficult to have an exhaustive discussion here. But if you reread the section on socialism, you’ll note that he first rejects communism, then says that even though some of economic ideas of moderate socialists are similar to those justly demanded by Christian social reformers, nevertheless socialism is not acceptable, since socialism, as an historic movement, is atheistic and materialistic. That’s why the adjective “true” in his sentence, “no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist,” is crucial. In 1931, and today also I guess, there are Christians who call themselves socialists. Pius was pointing out that this is really impossible because any “true” socialists were inevitably linked to a movement whose historical manifestations were materialist, despite what anyone might claim.
maumauko

Excellent refresher…We had set aside the social teaching of the Church!
You did a great job researching the previous statements of the former popes that have shape my spirituality for decades. I thought the US Church had lost its bearings or I had lost mine…
http://www.wwend.com Richard Simpkins

So…social justice through regulation but not taxation? Is that the consensus within the Church?
http://www.thomasstorck.org Thomas Storck

Richard Simpkins wrote, “So…social justice through regulation but not taxation? Is that the consensus within the Church?”

Neither Pius XI nor any pope specifies all the ways that social justice can be achieved. I’m not aware of any exhaustive list. Taxation could be a legitimate means, at least in part. Of course, as in any proposal, the devil can be in the details.
http://www.theprinciplemovie.com Denny Austin

This is a very unfortunate article because it highlights the few areas where the Holy Father has echoed his predecessors but entirely misses the thrust of this papacy.
http://anglocath.blogspot.it/2013/12/the-next-asteroid.html
http://www.thomasstorck.org Thomas Storck

“This is a very unfortunate article because it highlights the few areas where the Holy Father has echoed his predecessors but entirely misses the thrust of this papacy.”

But my entire purpose in writing was to highlight Pope Francis’ agreement with his predecessors on economic morality. It simply wasn’t part of my intention to write about anything else. That would be a different article.
http://www.thomasstorck.org Thomas Storck

Moreover, Mr. Austin, when you write (as you do on your blog),
“With the whole world hopping up and down over Francis’s (frankly meaningless) economic witterings,” that seems to betray the fact that you were or are not acquainted with the previous economic teachings of Francis’s predecessors, which you now seem to admit are in fact simply part of our Catholic patrimony.
Gian

There is need for greater specificity. Vagueness is a problem with distributism as well. Why are not specific measures proposed?

What is exactly wrong with “speculation”, for instance?

Is there a fundamental problem in bigness as such?

Is there a problem when ownership is through stoc-holding at several removes such that the ownership is diffuse and anynymous and the managers exert supreme control?
http://www.thomasstorck.org Thomas Storck

Gian,

This article was not about distributism. I don’t think we should have a discussion about distributism in connection with an article dealing with something else.

R.C.,

Somehow I missed your comment when it was first posted. You made very many points; I’ll address just one, but a fundamental one. When the state taxes people to obtain funds to relieve the poor, this is not charity but rather a proper care for the common good, which is proper to the state. At least it can be, for I’d agree that not just any welfare program is well-designed or proper, but certainly in principle this is an appropriate use of governmental funds raised by taxation.
Rob Smart

I’ve enjoyed Dr. Storck’s analysis since the early days of NOR and he is correct in saying that this criticism is mild by historical standards.
But, that is to miss the point. By making the same points (some) as his predecessors, but in a weaker-more perfunctory manner, the Holy Father is damning the wisdom of other Vicars of Christ with faint praise.
In this respect alone the comparison to Humanae Vitae is correct above.
http://www.thomasstorck.org Thomas Storck

Mr. Smart,

Thanks for your words of appreciation. I think there are better explanations of the difference in tone between Francis and (say) Pius XI than that Francis is trying to damn “the wisdom of other Vicars of Christ with faint praise.” Aside from individual differences of temperament and personality, the entire tone of ecclesiastical discourse has changed since Pius XI. Pius XII began this to some degree, but it accelerated with John XXIII, Paul VI and especially John Paul II. Personally I find the style of Pius XI more refreshing and clearer, but I don’t attribute the change in style to sinister motives. I’d be happy to see a return to earlier modes of discourse, but it’s the substance of what popes say that counts, not their style.
Gian

Dr. Storck,
My point about vagueness was directed to the Papal production as well. The vagueness of the alternative is the most acute complaint directed to those that seek alternatives to free market paradigm.
If you read some of criticisms of Pope from right-wingers, they all say that Pope is never proposing anything specific.
http://www.thomasstorck.org Thomas Storck

“If you read some of criticisms of Pope from right-wingers, they all say that Pope is never proposing anything specific.”

Yes, I’ve seen that criticism. The popes have set forth certain ethical imperatives to which any just economy must conform. It’s permissible to have different ideas about how we should conform to those imperatives. But a free market will not cut it, and in fact, it’s been specifically ruled out. Moreover, Pius XI was more specific about how to achieve economic justice than some popes. In Quadragesimo Anno and Divini Redemptoris he calls for an economy of guilds. This is pretty specific.
Sharon Tanski

Some have said that Francis is damning his predecessors with faint praise. I think that may be too kind. After I plowed my way through this torturous document, I then picked my way through the footnotes. Not a single reference to anything written before Vatican II.
Austin Murphy

I too noticed that there was not a single footnote that referenced anything prior to the Second Vatican Council. I think that pretty much undermines this author’s case.
http://www.thomasstorck.org Thomas Storck

Mr. Murphy,

You wrote, “I too noticed that there was not a single footnote that referenced anything prior to the Second Vatican Council. I think that pretty much undermines this author’s case.”

How so? I argued only that what Francis said was in line with his predecessors’ statements. I said nothing about whether he did or should have actually referenced his predecessor’s views.