Lux Lucet

To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle. ― George Orwell

Whether motivated by honest confusion, a sense of embarrassment, or a desire to misrepresent it is hard to say, but much of the public commentary on Evangelii Gaudium (EG), Pope Francis’ recent Apostolic Exhortation, is considerably wide of the mark. By Francis’ own admission, the economic statements in EG line up with the historic economic teaching of the Roman Catholic Church-State, but many commentators today, especially if they happen to be economically conservative Catholics, seem shocked and dismayed by the document’s blatantly anti-capitalist language. “The pope didn’t really mean to attack capitalism, only is abuses,” or, “the pope isn’t talking about the United States,” they are wont to say. But the history of Rome is against them. In fact, given Rome’s long-standing hatred of free markets and free men, it is safe to say that the pope without a doubt intended to attack capitalism and most certainly had in mind the United States when he made his comments. It’s simply a case of Rome being Rome. Unfortunately most Americans, and perhaps most especially most American Evangelicals, are ignorant of both Biblical economics and Rome’s longstanding war against it. And being ignorant of Rome’s doctrines on this subject, they are easy targets for propaganda campaigns designed to mislead them about the principles, history and ultimate intentions of Roman Catholic social teaching.

Take, for example, a recent article in The Cincinnati Enquirer, “Papal shot at unbridled capitalism stirs debate.” After reading the piece, I came away disappointed but not surprised. Apart from a Rush Limbaugh quote at the beginning, there was not a word was spoken against the pope’s blatantly socialist comments. Apart from the insights of a Jesuit priest and a catholic lawyer, the article consisted of local politicians – Republican, Democrat and Tea Party – who appear hopelessly confused by the pope’s words.

A partial explanation for their failure can be found in the article’s third paragraph, “But in the conservative and heavily Catholic region of Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky, both Republicans and Democrats didn’t think the pope was referring to them when he criticized capitalism.” In short, the politicians know their base and want to avoid offending it. But there is likely more it than simply electoral self-interest. Some of these politicians may have a genuine appreciation for capitalism and are struggling to square their economic principles with the embarrassing socialism of a man whom they wrongly view as a Christian leader. While one can sympathize with and appreciate the comments of Romanists who believe in limited government and capitalism, at the same time it must be said that in their attempt to cling both to Rome and capitalism, they show themselves to be double-minded.

A third reason for their misreading of EG could well be ignorance. That the pope is Catholic marks the limit of most evangelicals’ understanding of Romanism. How much the average Roman Catholic politician knows about Roman Catholic social teaching, I’m not sure. But if they are anything like Al Smith – when Smith, the first Roman Catholic presidential candidate, was confronted with statements in various papal encyclicals that called into question the ability of a Catholic president to faithfully carry out the requirements of the office, he supposedly responded, “would somebody please tell me what the hell a papal encyclical is” – the answer is, not much.

Most of the erroneous statements put forth in the article of designed to deflect criticism of the pontiff by casting his remarks in a light designed to make them more palatable to readers. For now, I will leave these aside. Instead, my comments below will focus on the most serious error advanced in the piece: the assertion that popes claim to speak authoritatively only on matters of faith and morals, not on questions of economics. The article quotes Kentucky State Senator John Schickel, a Catholic Republican to this effect. Said Schickel,

“I don’t dwell on what the pope has to say about economics…I’m more mindful of what the pope has to say about faith and morals.”

Addressing this mistaken but frequent assertion made by defenders of the papacy, John Robbins wrote in his book Ecclesiastical Megalomania,

“They [papal criticisms of capitalism] are not disjointed statements, but the logical conclusions of premises accepted in Roman theology. They are offered to the world by the Roman Magisterium as part of a package deal, and we are not at liberty, as some American Catholics would prefer to do, to accept the Church-State’s theology and reject its economic and political philosophy. That flies in the face, not only of the claims of the Church-State itself, but of reason as well” (Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 24).

Pope Pius XI made this point himself in 1931 when commenting on the 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, the fountainhead for all Roman Catholic social teaching since that time. “It [Rerum Novarum] laid down for all mankind the surest rules to solve aright that difficult problem of human relations called ‘the social question.’ ”

Robbins further commented,

We must emphasize the fundamental teaching of the Roman Church-State that it is both infallible and the authority on political and economic matters. Some people labor under the mistaken idea that only when the pope speaks on matters of faith and morals, narrowly considered, does he claim to be infallible and his statements binding on ordinary Catholic laymen…But the issue of the pope’s infallibility and how it is treated by some Roman Catholic writer suggest that they want us to think of the pope as some harmless, eccentric, and ineffective man in Italy who speaks for no one but himself. That, however, is not the teaching of the Roman Church-State, and any Roman Catholic who suggests it is either misinformed or disingenuous.

The Roman Church-State has made a different and much more encompassing claim. In his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, Pius XI said: ‘But before proceeding to discuss these problems, We lay down that principles long since clearly established by Leo XIII, that it is Our right and Our duty to deal authoritatively with social and economic problems.’ The 1983 revision of the Canon Law…contains the following language: ‘To the church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including, those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls.’ ” (ibid., 147, 148).

Although the above quotes from official Roman Catholic sources are not an exhaustive list, they should put to rest any thought that Rome claims authority in the realm of moral and spiritual matters only. Rome most certainly asserts its authority to pronounce on matters of economics and politics and does not hesitate to throw its weight around. Interestingly enough, the Enquirer article quotes Jesuit priest and Boston College professor James Bretzke admitting EG will indeed have political consequences in the US. Bretzke commented,

“I think it’s going to be difficult for the Catholic congressman in my home state of Wisconsin, Paul Ryan, to claim that his (proposed) budget is in tune with Catholic social teaching.”

Of course, Bretzke’s remarks leave a lot that is unsaid. He is too much the Jesuit pragmatist to admit that, not only does EG make it harder for Paul Ryan and other Roman Catholic politicians to defend capitalism and limited government, but further that Rome considers these politicians to be under moral obligation to advance the document’s socialist agenda.

One final consideration, if anyone should suppose that Francis’ statements in EG are not binding because it is an apostolic exhortation rather than a papal encyclical, this is refuted by the way Catholic writers themselves define the term. An apostolic exhortation is,

• [A] papal document that, as the name suggests, exhorts people to implement a particular aspect of the Church’s life and teaching. Its purpose it not to teach new doctrine, but to suggest how Church teaching and practices can be profitably applied today (see here).
  
• A category of document similar to an Apostolic Letter, which Pope John Paul II uses to communicate to the Church the conclusions he has reached after consideration of the recommendations of a Synod of Bishops. (see here).
  

Especially interesting for our purposes is the idea that Apostolic Exhortations are not meant to teach new doctrine, but rather to aid in the implementation of doctrines already developed. In an interview with La Stampa given after the release of EG, Francis defended himself against accusations of Marxism by saying, “there is nothing in the exhortation that cannot be found in the social doctrine of the church.” This is certainly correct. And if in agreement with the great mass of previous, authoritative papal pronouncements on social doctrine, then the evident socialism found in EG carries with it the same weight of apostolic authority.

One would hope that EG would serve to wake American voters up to the longstanding and well-documented socialism of Rome. But for this to happen, Christians must make the case for capitalism, the economics of the Bible. If this is not done, the Vatican latest socialist offensive will achieve what is likely Rome’s principle aim: winning to itself the many people put off in recent years by what they perceive as the failure of free market capitalism. The economic problems that have gripped the West for the past 5 years, far from being caused by free markets, are in fact due to the lack of them. Yet the constant drum beat in the press is that capitalism has failed and more government intervention is needed if the 99% are to be protected from the predatory 1%. This is completely bogus. The predatory bailouts of 2008 and the ongoing policy of Quantitative Easing which unfairly favor wealthy, vested interests at the expense of other Americans are not the result of capitalism, but rather of government intervention in the economy. In short, Rome is making the absurd argument that more government intervention is needed to correct the disastrous results of interventions already put in place. Such foolishness deserves to be held in contempt by all Christians.