Posted on 08/30/2014 3:01:15 AM PDT by matthewrobertolson
I have argued before that, in their fullest, libertarianism and Catholicism are incompatible -- but to what degree are they so?
Leaders of the libertarian movement have certainly said silly, anti-Catholic things. Ludwig von Mises, for example, compared Christ to the Bolshevists and also said, "..[I]t is the resistance which the Church has offered to the spread of liberal ideas which has prepared the soil for the destructive resentment of modern socialist thought" (Socialism, Chapter 29). Translation: opposition to liberalism of one stripe must be blamed for inspiring liberalism of another. Huh?
Much of the conflict between libertarians and the Church can be traced back to key misunderstandings. Mises assumed the worst and demanded that the Church accept "the indispensability of private ownership in the means of production" (Socialism). The thing is, She already does: that is what distributism is all about.
This conflict need not be so heated, because both sides have mutual points of interest. And you can see this in some of the writings of the famous Murray Rothbard.
Rothbard noted in his Memorandum on Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism (1957) that Protestantism had resulted in the elevation of work itself as "divine" and over the worker, causing a serious perversion of economics. He considered Catholic thought on the subject, overall, to be superior to ideas based in the supposed "Protestant work ethic". This is a huge admission, especially given the time period and the strength of misconception -- still in force today -- on that topic.
But he went even further, in Readings on Ethics and Capitalism: Part I: Catholicism (1960). He said that much of the Church's teaching is "fundamentally libertarian and pro-capitalist", mentioning later therein that it has "been interpreted (by Ropke, Baudin) as compatible with capitalism".
Rothbard admired Rerum Novarum's emphasis on Man over the State, its condemnation of socialism, and its insistence on "the absolute right of the individual to private property", which he recognized as "derived from natural law, the nature of man". He had his frustrations with Quadragesimo Anno, though. He said that the Church had a "fascist tendency" in response to the World Wars, about which he was not thrilled. He saw Pius XI as undoing Leo XIII's work. But the idea of Pius "misinterpreting" Leo here, on social justice, is absurd. Leo himself lamented the "misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class" and made multiple comments about it in his own letter. Both pontiffs demanded a return to Christian principles and worked to ensure "that a high standard of morality should prevail, both in public and private life".
Where he critiques Pius, Rothbard is not very well-grounded. Pius held concern for "those who needed [workers' associations] most to defend themselves from ill treatment at the hands of the powerful", yes, but that hardly makes him a socialist. Still, I do not blame Rothbard too much for these mistakes. Leftists like Franklin D. Roosevelt had been trying to take advantage of Pius' letter. For clarification, one merely has to look at Pope St. John Paul II's Centesimus Annus.
John Paul recognized transactions "mutually agreed upon through free bargaining" as "important source[s] of wealth in modern society", and affirmed them as long as they were subject to "the judgment of Christ". He wrote, "It would appear that, on the level of individual nations and of international relations, the free market is the most efficient instrument for utilizing resources and effectively responding to needs. But this is true only for those needs which are 'solvent', insofar as they are endowed with purchasing power, and for those resources which are 'marketable', insofar as they are capable of obtaining a satisfactory price. But there are many human needs which find no place on the market. It is a strict duty of justice and truth not to allow fundamental human needs to remain unsatisfied, and not to allow those burdened by such needs to perish. It is also necessary to help these needy people to acquire expertise, to enter the circle of exchange, and to develop their skills in order to make the best use of their capacities and resources. Even prior to the logic of a fair exchange of goods and the forms of justice appropriate to it, there exists something which is due to man because he is man, by reason of his lofty dignity. Inseparable from that required 'something' is the possibility to survive and, at the same time, to make an active contribution to the common good of humanity."
So, Rothbard clearly respected the Church's teaching on economic matters, but just failed to look at some of it in the fullest context. The Church is not necessarily hostile toward capitalism. She just wants safe-guards put in place -- and for them to be put in place at the lowest possible level, in subsidiarity.
On another issue -- secularism -- Rothbard argued a most interesting point: by demanding respect for human dignity and the natural law, the Church limited the power of the State to a degree that made libertarianism -- in practice, at least -- more possible. (Take that, statists!) This is no surprise, really. Monarchies, favored in Catholic countries, traditionally, have spent less than 10% of their GDP on average. Secular democracies, meanwhile, tend to turn into welfare states. Monarchs, usually, are more responsible.
With all of this in mind, a logical libertarian simply could never support those who (to, again, quote Rothbard in 1957) "place their theology -- and their ethic -- on a more emotional, or direct Revelation, basis". Protestantism is intellectually stunted, and, in many ways, it disables people. We know that. Consider the inherent subjectivity of the religion: Everyone is individualized by their own interpretation of a book of which they, typically, have hardly any knowledge. This shatters community, destroys economics, and benefits only secularism. Liberty cannot thrive in such an environment.
Libertarians, join the Church.
—
Follow me and Catholic Analysis on Twitter, Like Catholic Analysis and Answering Protestants on Facebook, Add Catholic Analysis and Answering Protestants to your Circles on Google+, and Subscribe to me or Catholic Analysis on YouTube.
—
Indeed he did, and it was a state based safety-net at that.
Personally, I believe the church + most organized religions to be better + more efficient at that role than the state in almost every case.
But there have been instances long past where the Catholic church in particular has sought to regulate private transactions. As a nation state - this does fly contrary to lassiez-faire beliefs.
Perhaps I misunderstood the context the author was using here as well. I think a few others on this thread did. Or maybe I need more coffee.
Because it teaches trust in a personal savior and self reliance in the economic realm?
You would be correct.
View all posts by Matthew Olson
http://catholicanalysis.org/author/matthewolson2/
A lot depends on the definition of things.
The “Church” as the body of Christ does not err, although individual Christians can and will.
The “Church” as an institution, including the Roman Catholic one, may certainly err. Both as individuals and as an institution.
The whole argument needs to be turned on its head.
Socialism is an atheistic *parody* of Christianity. If you rewrite the Bible, replacing “God” with “Man” at every instance, you have this parody in a nutshell. But socialism takes it further, by rewriting the Bible to replace the spiritual with the “natural and material”, as long as Man stays at the center of the universe, in charge.
Over time, some elements of this parody seem to have similar goals as does the church, for example, caring for the poor. But the *motivations* for doing so are entirely different. Socialists only care for the poor in exchange for their political support and embrace of socialism. The church cares for the poor to help their sustenance while they are spiritually enhanced and led in the direction of righteousness.
The failure of the church exists only in assuming that they have alliance with socialism for the same ends. For example, when some Catholic clergy embraced “Liberation Theology”, with the idea that socialism and even communism offered the poor better lives than the church could offer, this crossed the line.
Of late, the Pope offered commutation to those clergy who were removed for embracing political roles, which was interpreted by the leftist media that he was restoring “liberation theology” as a legitimate act. Fortunately this was yet another misinterpretation on their part.
Yet the temptation to embrace socialism remains in many clergy, though it is still as intolerable as any other grave heterodoxy or heresy.
Thanks for the clarification. Jesus, who once said “let your aye be aye and your nay be nay,” also spoke in parables and employed exaggeration and sarcasm. So, I don’t begrudge your mocking. But, when you use another person’s mocking (Mises) to make a point of your own, there is the possibility of miscommunication.
With regard to Mises, having met him during the 1960s, it was my impression that he was an embittered and defeated man who took a kind of refuge in insisting on his own correctness. Judging from his early work, it seems that he had been a more engaging fellow. His later demeanor might be understandable given that he came this far from being taken by the Nazis and was holed up in Switzerland through the course of WWII, and only secured a university position in the US after the war by reason of the benefaction of some generous admirers (as opposed to securing a university position by reason of his work). Having said this, his didactic and sometimes polemical style had a certain persuasiveness, and at an advanced age he wrote a major work (The Theory of Human Action) and influenced many students who went on to prominence.
Do you know how many of the original founders were Catholic? Only one.
Is what is written, therefore, more truthful that you might want to admit?
The USCCB has made mistakes. They aren’t the Pope. And the Pope speaks only without error when he speaks ex cathedra. (from the chair.)
Thank you for your post.
If I might add to what you say, the encyclicals of the 19th century castigating both liberalism and socialism might be viewed as castigating the assertion that reason alone is capable of knowing the truth. That we do not require the spark of truth available through special revelation.
To be sure, this was not a fair reading of all liberals, since many liberals were both Christian and liberal. The church has always had liberal thinkers, most obviously Aquinas, a doctor of the church, but also Erasmus, an acknowledged Christian Humanist, and of course John Paul the Great.
As for the non-liberal thinkers in the church, to include the current pope, who insist that all we need is good intentions, they deny man’s fallen nature. We are not only too evil to be trusted with unlimited power, we are also too ignorant. Socialism, says Hayek, is the pretense of knowledge. It is not merely a violation of the commandment against theft, it is a violation of the commandment against putting anything ahead of God. It is blasphemy. To say that the church is apostolic, or that the Holy Spirit is with the church, is not to say that Christian leaders can act like they are divine. It is merely to say that they should not persist in error. Democracy is not justified because the majority is right. It is justified because majorities change.
It’s also important to note that both are independent of the tyrannical state.
Thanks for the pings, bamahead.
For example, citing your own writings as support for your own opinions is not consistent with scholarly argument, unless you are citing to an earlier publication of facts, as sometimes happens when scientific researchers cite earlier research results.
In addition, you misrepresent the actual opinions of some of the authors you cite. For example, you write that "[Rothbard] considered Catholic thought on the subject, overall, to be superior to ideas based in the supposed “Protestant work ethic”, and characterize that as "a huge admission..." But Rothbard was writing about the history of economics, and referring to the contributions of Catholic intellectuals that also shaped modern economic thought. One of his conclusions, for example, was that "capitalism began in the Catholic Italian cities of the 14th century"
You attempt to use Rothbard's writings to suggest an endorsement of the church's teachings, but the actual text of the cited works doesn't support your opinion as you have expressed it.
It is also important to realize the difference between writings exploring the theory of libertarianism, or economic philosophy, and writings exploring morality, society, and spirituality.
As can be seen in the real world, spiritual and moral ideas are often mixed in with political theories and movements, often to ill effect, and occasionally to good effect. Understanding that process, and how to influence it is a worthy area of study.
The Roman Catholic Church always viewed themselves as creating a nation church on earth to which all nations would be subservient. Thomas More’s Utopia is about such an idea society. That is historical fact. The Reformation was fueled, in part, by some nations rejecting paying tribute to the Roman Catholics and falling under the rule of the “Holy See”.
But, nice try.
“Libertopians - anarchist who hate taxes”
And I add (cut and pasted from other FReeper posts)
More and more rinos realize that they aren’t “liberal” on social issues, instead they are “libertarian” on social issues. Libertarianism is a way to use a new vocabulary and new arguments to promote liberalism, for instance notice how many libbers try to tell us that this country was founded, not by social conservatives, but instead by “libertarians”.
What libertarians say is geared to fit the audience. To a Christian audience, they try to sound like Christian conservatives. To a liberal audience they do the opposite and concentrate on social libertarianism.
Interesting how you use your own writings as a reference. That’s quite a research technique.
You must have missed references (links) to John Paul II at the Vatican website, wiki, and others.
Putting everything into one basket doesn’t seem to work here.
This is one of his references.
http://catholicanalysis.org/2014/08/03/protestantism-disables-people/
I shouldn't be amazed (but I am) that Catholics would come onto a conservative website and pitch liberal and statist ideas. It's part-and-parcel of Catholicism:
Market Economy and Ethics By Cardinal Ratzinger(Pope Benedict XVI) 1985
Encycli-bites for reading “Caritas in veritate”
Pope says rich nations "plundered" Third World
Is Obama Thinking Like a Catholic?
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.