My commentary on the forthcoming social encyclical was published on National Review Online. Here’s the complete text:

On Tuesday, Pope Benedict XVI will release his first social encyclical, Caritas in Veritate. The pre-release buzz from the Catholic Left on each of his two previous encyclicals has so far proven wrong each time, so the rule should be to wait and see what the pope will actually say.

Each time, with previous encyclicals, we have been told that the pope is preparing to lambaste capitalism and call for state measures to heavily regulate it with an eye to redistributing wealth, cleaning up the environment, controlling consumption, etc. Each time, the final text has demonstrated that the pope’s conversion to progressivist causes has been greatly exaggerated. Invariably, his arguments have been highly sophisticated and have defied easy political categorization.

In advance of Caritas in Veritate, Catholic “progressives” are working themselves into a frenzy of predictions, recommendations, and anathemas — and not one of them, to my knowledge, has seen even an early draft of the encyclical which has been two years in the making.

Will the document draw attention to the weaknesses of Western-style capitalist systems? One hopes so. We might expect the pope to call on market forces to be regulated by moral concerns, within a strong juridical framework, and an exogenous apparatus of standards to curb excesses.

But here is the operative question: In what sense would such a call be a blow against the idea of free economic institutions? The short answer is that it will not be.

There are few advocates of market economics who advocate a complete lack of regulation rightly understood. Every transaction in the marketplace is in fact regulated by contract law, reputation, industry standards, competition, certification and monitoring, and profit and loss systems that reward prudence and punish excess over the long term.

Do these need strengthening? Certainly, and it should be noted that a main force for weakening them is not the market as such, but partisan interventions in the market.

Consider the drive for ever-lower interest rates as one of many examples. This is a subsidy for excess because it encourages borrowing at the expense of saving. If Benedict writes of the need for greater prudence and caution in economic affairs, permitting interest rates to rise to a market level would go a long way toward achieving that.

Will the pope overtly call for a global, centralized, state-based management of economic systems about which would-be central planners have long dreamed? I would be very surprised. This is a man who has stood firm against every form of statist control of society. As his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, illustrated, he has a deep attachment to subsidiarity as an essential principle for a free and good society, and I would be amazed to see him give up his love for liberty because the concern of the moment is economics.

But details aside, it is good to step back a moment and reflect on what Catholic social teaching is and what it is not, so that in studying the new encyclical, we gain a deeper appreciation of its intent and scope.

Since 1870, the papacy has explicitly claimed to exercise the charisma of infallibility in the very area that “progressives” — “dissenters” is a more accurate word — have labored to dilute and “episcopalianize” for 40 years: faith and morals. In fact, Catholic progressives will find themselves on the horns of an intolerable ecclesiological dilemma no matter what the contents of the document.

On the one hand (doctrine, liturgy, and sexual morality), progressives tend to take dissenting positions from defined and binding Church teaching. On the other hand (economic and social policy), they want to boast of the Church’s “best kept secret,” especially to the extent that they think it coheres with any number of secular-left platforms, while ignoring those aspects of Catholic social teaching that clearly don’t fit the leftist nostrums.

It is quite a spectacle to see Catholic progressives — who in other circumstances contort themselves into exegetical pretzels when they want to undermine clear, emphatic, authoritative, and repeated magisterial prohibitions on same-sex relations, female “priests,” and contraceptive acts — morph into virtual Ultramontanists on prudential matters such as the precise level of a minimum wage.

Let us be clear: The Church explicitly makes no such claims of infallibility on those policy matters that it considers a matter for prudential judgment (i.e., most policy issues) but allows for Catholics to hold a variety of viewpoints on such questions such as the exact size of the state’s share of the economy. Clearly no Catholic can be an anarchist or a communist — but there is a lot of room for prudential disagreement within these parameters. Benedict XVI has followed the model of John Paul II in saying that the Church has no infallible model of political economy to impose on the world. The Church’s social teaching is not, as John Paul stated, a “third way.”

Further, as pointed out by my friend Michael Novak, the word capitalism is being thrown around in reckless ways these days. Citing Fr. Thomas Reese, S.J., whom Novak charmingly calls “one of our most reliable leftist bellwethers,” in an article in the Washington Post, Novak shows how such thinkers don’t even know what modern capitalism is.

Fr. Reese asks, “If they think that Obama is a socialist, what will they think of Benedict after the encyclical?” and prophesies, “Conservatives will be shocked and disappointed by the encyclical, which will reflect Benedict’s skepticism toward unbridled capitalism based on greed.”

I am not sure who such conservative defenders of “unbridled capitalism based on greed” are supposed to be. Perhaps Fr. Reese has the disciples of the atheist Ayn Rand in mind, but they are hardly representative of those modern defenders of the market economy such as Rocco Buttiglione, Wilhelm Röpke, and William F. Buckley. I think it is a fair prediction to say that any pope would come out against any system “based on greed.” Erecting fictions about capitalism and its defenders — and then criticizing them — might take you a long way in the bubble of the Georgetown Faculty Lounge, but that hardly constitutes a serious argument.

  • Dave

    67. In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect[146] and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good[147], and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth.

    This quote from the Pope’s new encyclical, and others from it, are so bad, I don’t know where to start.

    I wish the Popes would stop speaking in official terms in areas that are outside their competency or the authority…or “Charism”…which Christ gave them! An instead, stick to preaching the Gospel. I find what the Pope said in his opinion to be disturbing and offensive in that paragraph.

    First of all, the Pope “assumes” that a poor nation should have “an effective voice in shared decision-making”. Says who? I mean, I’m all for looking out for the poor, especially the poor as an “individual”, but the Pope doesn’t even take into an account as to why a country may be poor. Maybe the reason that country is poor is because it’s government is…evil. Maybe it’s run by war lords (Mogadishu comes to mind)…are these same kinds of people then to be allowed to have the same “effective voice” and “decision making” power as nations that aren’t evil, and don’t oppress it’s people?

    But the two biggest problems I have with this “opinion” of the Pope, is:
    1.) At the very least, he seems not to care who runs these “world organizations”. Does it matter to him if they are run by Muslims, Muslim fanatics, atheist, satan worshippers, Buddhist, New Age liberals? Or does he expect them all to be run strictly by Catholics and with Catholic principals? And at the very most, he seems naive to think that these organizations would neither become corrupt, or be used in an anti-Christ way. The UN is a cesspool of corruption! And even when it’s not being corrupt, it uses funds in anti-Christian ways all the time. Why does he believe that these other world originations, organizations designed to re-distribute the world’s wealth- no less! will be able to do any better?

    2.) He seems to have forgotten the teachings of Pope Leo the 13th’s words in Rerum Novarum:

    18. In like manner, the other pains and hardships of life will have no end or cessation on earth; for the consequences of sin are bitter and hard to bear, and they must accompany man so long as life lasts. To suffer and to endure, therefore, is the lot of humanity; let them strive as they may, no strength and no artifice will ever succeed in banishing from human life the ills and troubles which beset it. If any there are who pretend differently – who hold out to a hard-pressed people the boon of freedom from pain and trouble, an undisturbed repose, and constant enjoyment – they delude the people and impose upon them, and their lying promises will only one day bring forth evils worse than the present. Nothing is more useful than to look upon the world as it really is, and at the same time to seek elsewhere, as We have said, for the solace to its troubles.

    The Pope seems, at least in this paragraph, to think that man is capable of bringing great justice and prosperity to the world on his own, without Christ (refer back to my point number 1 above).

    In this opinion of his, seems to neglect the actual moral and doctrinal teachings of the Church having to do with private property, or a nation’s sovereignty, or, again the teachings of Rerum Novarum that talk about how the government should be as less intrusive on the lives of it’s people as possible. What the Pope suggest here totally contradicts that. The mechanics alone on implementing what he suggests would totally violate that.

    The Pope, in my opinion, seems to imply or think that “we” as Catholic individuals, who are earning our wages are not allowed to decide…and discern…where we believe God may want us to use the fruit of our labors. Instead he is saying that our government should take our money away from us and then give it to some other organization, outside of our country, to decide who should get our money.

    Lastly, he promotes in this encyclical class warfare by suggesting that if you are wealthy, and someone else is poor…that’s unfair. And his answer to it, for a lack of a better term…is Socialism. Which goes against the Church’s teaching in so many different ways. The Pope actually says in this encyclical that wealth from wealthier nations should be re-distributed to poorer nations. Any way you want to cut it, that’s a form of Socialism.