Not that any professional writer would be very flattered to
receive my praise (I mostly get paid to teach mathematics), but after all of
the recent hoopla over the second major teaching document issued by Pope
Francis (but the first written by him), Evangelii
Gaudium (“The Joy of the Gospel”), I sat down to pen my thoughts on the
matter. Then I came across this piece by David
Harsanyi of The Federalist. “No need for me to continue,” was my thought after
reading his take on the Pope’s criticisms of modern capitalism.
Some of my favorite lines: “As fascinating as the context of
[the] Pope’s message might be, there is—or seems to be—something new about
this rhetoric. You could always detect a pinch of socialistic seasoning in the
Church’s theological stew…In this case, the Pope didn’t simply point out that
the wealthy weren’t doing enough to help alleviate poverty. He used the
recognizable rhetoric of the Left to accuse free-market systems of generating
and nurturing that poverty. And these platitudes—things that run wild in the
liberal imagination like unfettered capitalism and ‘trickle-down’
economics—were clearly aimed at the United States.”
And: “[I]s it really true that ‘absolute autonomy of markets
and financial speculation’ are the
driving reasons for poverty and inequality? People in places like Congo , Burundi ,
Eritrea , Malawi , or Mozambique live under corrupt
authoritarian regimes where crippling poverty has a thousand fathers — none of
them named capitalism. The people of Togo do not suffer in destitution
because of some derivative scheme on Wall Street or the fallout from a tech
IPO.”
There are many other good points in Harsanyi’s piece (on
trickle-down economic theory, federal economic regulation, abortion, and more),
and a full read of the piece is well worth your time. There is one thing in
particular that I would have added.
As a part of his solution for addressing the “economy of
exclusion and inequality,” Pope Francis bemoans the rejection of “the right of
states” to exercise properly “any form of control” over financial markets. While
criticizing trickle-down economics, the Pope also expresses frustration in what
he perceives as a “crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding
economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic
system.”
The Pontiff later adds that, “A financial reform open to
such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change of approach on the
part of political leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with determination
and an eye to the future…” Besides the blatant falseness of “any form of
control” in U.S. markets (As
Harsanyi notes, “The Federal Registry of the United States regularly comes in
over 60,000 pages.”), why does the Pope express such “crude and naïve trust” in
our secular government to regulate properly U.S. markets? When will the
Catholic Church learn its lesson? Big
Government can never fix immorality.
Was Obamacare not lesson enough? The Catholic Church teaches
that health care is “a basic human right,” and true to the Pope’s Big Government
ideas on financial reform, has been very supportive of efforts in the U.S. to
implement universal healthcare. Enter Obamacare. For months leading up to the
final passage of Obamacare, Catholic Bishops lobbied
heavily for its passage—minus federal funding of abortion. Once House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed to add the Stupak amendment to the House version of
Obamacare, the Bishops
were onboard.
Though the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
opposed the version of Obamacare that passed (because of the removal of the
Stupak amendment), they did not support GOP efforts to repeal it once
republicans took control of congress. Also, some
Catholic leaders supported Obamacare in spite of the lack of the Stupak
amendment.
Of course, it wasn’t long before the Catholic Church was in
an all
out war with the Obama administration over contraception. Again, why the
“crude and naïve trust”? Why does the Pope lament the lack of angels in the boardrooms
of large corporations but ignore the demons patrolling the halls of Big
Government?
In other words, as is typical with almost every elected
liberal in the U.S.
government, there was no reason to believe that Obama was going to be anything
other than a radical liberal on social issues. The time for “war” with Obama
was BEFORE he was elected leader of the free world. However, in partnering with
democrats and liberals, it seems that many within the leadership of the
Catholic Church have for far too long been willing to violate my proverb that,
“It is no act of charity to be generous with someone else’s money.”
Or, as Paul
Rahe put it in early 2012, the American Catholic Church decades ago “fell
prey to a conceit that had long before ensnared a great many mainstream
Protestants in the United States—the notion that public provision is somehow
akin to charity—and so they fostered state paternalism and undermined what they
professed to teach: that charity is an individual responsibility and that it is
appropriate that the laity join together under the leadership of the Church to
alleviate the suffering of the poor.”
The contraception mandate is a classic example of “state
paternalism.” It is exactly what one gets when the people surrender that kind
of power to a secular government led by those determined to ignore God’s laws.
If such liberals remain in power, the result will be no different when the
issue comes to economics or marriage or any other matter precious to Christians
and other like-minded Americans.
Left unfettered, the slow creep of liberalism knows no
bounds. Elections have consequences. If the Catholic Church continues to preach
a willingness to surrender more liberty in order to receive another
entitlement, or to “spread the wealth around,” we will even further embolden
those, who, while claiming to serve us, are seeking to become our masters.
Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
No comments:
Post a Comment