At Catholic universities such as Notre Dame, there are many efforts to harmonize Catholic doctrine with neoclassical economic theory. However, these efforts are doomed to fail as there are four major reasons that neoclassical economic theory is subversive to Catholicism:
(1) Perfect competition throws ethics out the window. Neoclassical theory assumes perfectly competitive markets are the ideal, but in such markets, ethical considerations disappear. Imagine you are a business owner, and you want to pay your workers a living wage. If you do, other firms that pay lower wages will out-compete you, and you will go out of business. Either you leave the market, or you chuck your ethics out the window.
(2) Property rights redefined. It’s easy to go to the Bible and find many examples of people having private property; for example, from Genesis we know that God gave man dominion over all the land and sea. But the definition of property rights from Biblical times is very different from how we understand them today. Today, owning property means that you may do with it what you wish. In Christian thought, including Aquinas’ philosophy, it was understood that all land belonged to God; humans were only stewards of what belonged to God, and so it had to be used in accordance with God’s will. Needless to say, this attitude led to a very different management of land than we have today.
(3) Unlimited Wants are Disordered. Neoclassical theory assumes that “more is always better,” and so the economic agent has unlimited desires. In econospeak, we assume that you always prefer the larger bundle. But according to Thomas Aquinas, (who is one of the 33 Doctors of the Church, meaning that Catholics must take him seriously), unlimited desires are disordered. Those who desire God will have limited desires for wealth, (and he thinks you should probably desire God).
(4) The Market Has No Telos. Religious thinkers are all about the “end purpose,” or telos. For Aquinas, the end purpose is union with God, and all of his philosophy is derived from this starting point. Neoclassical economic theory has no telos, no discussion of any end purpose. So economists value efficiency, and increasing GDP, but in neoclassical there is never any discussion of WHY. What is the purpose of having the power to purchase all this stuff? Certainly, our end purpose cannot be to make loads of money and then spend our days on the golf course.
For these reasons, I believe that Catholics/Christians need to engage critically with neoclassical economic theory. Many will respond that other schools of economic thought, such as Marxism, are also subversive to Catholicism. And yes, that is true. But it does not mean that we should settle for neoclassical theory. Instead, take up the challenge to build an economics that does reflect your principles. A wonderful example of a similar project is E. F. Schumacher’s “Buddhist Economics.”
There have been a number of papal encyclicals on economic and social justice, setting forth the fundamental Catholic position binding on the faithful if one accepts the doctrine of papal infallibility when speaking ex cathedra.
Rerum Novarum (1891).
Quadragesimo Anno (1931)
Mater et Magistra (1961)
Pacem in Terris (1963)
Populorum Progressio (1967)
Octogesima Adveniens (1971)
Laborem Exercens (1981)
Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (1987)
Centesimus Annus (1991)
Caritas in Veritate (2009)
Certainly enough food for thought there for a Catholic understanding of how to approach economics and policy.
While the Church does not take a position regarding economic systems, it does regarding the conception of human nature and social justice in relation to scripture and tradition, as well as theology and philosophy. This, of course, does influence the Catholic view of economics and policy.
The Catholic position is that faith is rational. Hence, , regardless of whether one accepts Church doctrine and theology, a proper conception of economics recognizes that economics is a branch of political science and political philosophy, which are branches of ethics, which is informed by epistemology and metaphysics. Without considering these areas of inquiry, economics cannot be approached rationally.
Economics cannot be properly approached independently of considerations of its foundation (philosophy of economics); for doing so is attempting to construct a superstructure without an infrastructure. Such an endeavor is sure to fail.
Encyclicals are letters and none of these letters were offered ex cathedra. Papal infallibility is reserved for issues concerning faith and morals. Infallibility has been invoked only twice in the past 160 years –once outlining the Immaculate Conception and the other concerning the Assumption of Mary.
@amdg
Oops. I was under the impression that encyclicals were binding. I am not RC, and am not up on the details.
However, it would seem that these encyclicals are concerned with “morals.” Even if they are not binding, they do represent foundational Catholic teaching about morality relative to economics.
If you are not “up on the details” of Catholic doctrine, why are you offering your thoughts on the influence of Catholic teaching on economics? Perhaps you should do your homework before opining in this area. And, when you do, you will learn that the Church gives its members tremendous freedom in secular matters. There are some bishops and priests who got terribly confused during the 1960s, and concluded that “Catholic social justice teachings” meant the “Democratic party platform,” but that was an unfortunate hallucination, and the Democratic party’s blind embrace of abortion rights has cured most of that disease.
Cynthia, I was a RCC seminary student quite a long time ago. Since that time, I became disaffected with the Church in important respects and sought a more compatible path. I am a clergy person in another denomination now. As far as having “tremendous freedom,” well, ask Hans Kung and Matthew Fox, to cite only two prominent recent examples, about that.
My memory of the details about RCC is somewhat hazy, but I dont think that excluded me from debate. I would sincerely like to see ND with an economics department that reflects the Way of Jesus, even though I have come to the conclusion that the RCC has lost that way in some respects after my studies in theology and philosophy. But I am not here to debate theology or ecclesiastical policy.
I do think that the RCC has influential things to say, and it is a powerful voice for a lot of people, not just Church members. What the pope says about economics carries as much if not more weight in the world than the doyens of Harvard and the University of Chicago, whose words will soon enough be forgotten.
Hans Kung and Matthew Fox are heretics. Kung denied the doctrine of Papal Infallibility and Fox denied the existence of Original sin. These doctrines are not “secular matters” which Catholics can debate. They are fundamental truths of the Catholic Tradition.