The Notre Dame Forum 2010 panel on Morals and Markets included theologian Margie Pfiel, economist Bill Evans from economics, and Doug Cassel from the Law School. The video is certainly worth checking out, and will be available starting tomorrow on the forum website.
Dr. Pfiel discussed the notion of private property from the perspective of Catholic social doctrine. Her emphasis was on the idea of private property that is not an unconditional right. Caritas calls for gratuitousness, or giving freely what we have been given by God. Because of the common good, charity is not a gift to the poor, but giving to the poor what is theirs. She claims that the New Solidarity calls for a scaling down of consumption, and a moral conversion and lifestyle change that could possible be achieved through living in ecclesiastic communities.
Dr. Evans comes from the complete other side of the spectrum, arguing that the dramatic reduction in poverty has been achieved through markets. He claims that Pope Paul IV’s Popularum Progressio prescribes free trade. He says that the impacts of economic growth on changing lives cannot be overstated, even though in some circles “economic growth” is a dirty word. He claims that the Catholic church has always been an advocate of the market, and that the reviews of Caritas that suggest the Church is retreating from markets are wrong. There are no easy solutions to the downsides of globalization, but there is a silver lining: economic growth.
Dr. Doug Cassel gave the most balanced (and in my opinion, most accurate) account of Catholic thought on economics. He claims that the Papal documents have always been balanced, never a worship of the market, but an acknowledgement of both positive and negative aspects of markets. He cited John Paul II’s “Centesimus Annus” which warned against a capitalist ideology that could spread, putting a blind trust in market forces. He countered Dr. Evans’ example of China proving the superiority of market forces, reminding us that China if FAR from a free market. His understanding of Catholic teaching is that we should respect the fact of what the market has done for the poor, but not fall prey to China as an example of free market success. He cited the example of the Marlin mine in Guatemala. Gold Corp, a Canada-based company, has kept the vast majority of the wealth that the mine produced. Little was left to the Guatemalan people, but there were benefits to the company coming in. People had jobs, and wages. However, he reminds us to count the costs too. Heavy metals have been found in the water tables and the bodies of residents of the area, and these negative health effects due to the company’s negligence and disregard for the local population could outweigh the benefits. He suggests that if domestic governments are unable to regulate these situations, there should be a role for the company’s home country to do so.
The panel discussion is worth checking out. There was a bit of tension of the stage, and obviously these people have very different opinions about politics, economics, and what the Church advocates. The discussion will continue on campus, and hopefully we can keep a discussion going on this blog as well.
[...] Kasey Dufresne does a great job reviewing yesterday’s Notre Dame forum on Morals and Markets. [...]
Kasey,
Thanks for the summary of this event. I’ve met Margie Pfiel, who I really like, and it sounds like Mr. Cassel did an excellent job of balancing the nuances of Catholic Social Teaching and the benefits of markets. I doubt I would have liked what Bill Evans said. I don’t know how one can glean from any of the encyclicals an unabashed support of free markets.
Maybe you will disagree with this, but I always marvel at the beliefs of Catholic (neoclassical) economists. I’ve always thought of Catholicism as supporting the plight of the poor, especially after being informed of CST and the beliefs that follow from it, like the ‘Option for the Poor.’ But the Catholic mindset seems so at odds with the economists mindset. There are so many examples, the mind boggles. I just can’t wrap my head around how a person who thinks in terms of individual rational actors, information costs, etc… can combine that with the principles of CST.
If you have any thoughts on this, either from your own experiences or from the event, I’d like to hear them.
Catholicism does support the poor. And the rich. The purpose of the Church is to save souls, not to provide solutions to our temporal problems. Remember Jesus’ response to the man who insisted that he settle an inheritance dispute. We are all called to be detached from our material possessions and, indeed, from our physical life itself. Some of us are called to radical poverty, others to a life of celibacy, and a few of us are called to martyrdom. But most of us are called to live out our faith in the world, working and raising families and bringing Christ to the world through our everyday lives. That’s why it’s completely consistent with the so-called “Catholic mindset” for a Catholic to start and run a business, or to invest his resources in the businesses started by others. And a Catholic who does so in disregard of the principles of so-called “neoclassical” economics is a fool, who will waste the material and human resources with which God has entrusted him.
If you want some help in wrapping your head around these concepts, try reading “Business as Calling: Work and the Examined Life” by Michael Novak. He has an interesting discussion on the connection between the cardinal virtues and success in business.
Michael, there are certainly tensions between neoclassical theory and Catholicism – and that does make it interesting to see how people try to harmonize the two. I agree with you that an economics rooted in CST would probably look quite different than neoclassical theory. I’ve written my owns views on the topic here:
http://openeconomicsnd.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/how-ncl-theory-subverts-catholicism/
And Cynthia, I must admit I am no theologian, but Michael Novak does not strike me to be much of a theologian either. Having read his “Spirit of Democratic Capitalism,” he seems to be someone who has a political ideology, and then goes back to religious texts to find example and quotes that justify the position. Lots of people do it from the across the spectrum. I think William Cavanaugh does a better job:
http://www.jesusradicals.com/wp-content/uploads/unfreedom.pdf
Perhaps Cynthia, Novak and the other neo-classicists should wrap their collective heads around what Jesus said and did:
Luke 18:17-30: “Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.”
An official asked him this question, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
Jesus answered him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.
You know the commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother.’”
And he replied, “All of these I have observed from my youth.”
When Jesus heard this he said to him, “There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
But when he heard this he became quite sad, for he was very rich.
Jesus looked at him (now sad) and said, “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!
For it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”
Those who heard this said, “Then who can be saved?”
And he said, “What is impossible for human beings is possible for God.”
Then Peter said, “We have given up our possessions and followed you.”
He said to them, “Amen, I say to you, there is no one who has given up house or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God who will not receive (back) an overabundant return in this present age and eternal life in the age to come.”
Or, perhaps Jesus’s approach to unrestrained Capitalism is best described in John 2:12-13: “He found in the temple area those who sold oxen, sheep, and doves, 13 as well as the money-changers seated there. He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and oxen, and spilled the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables, and to those who sold doves he said, “Take these out of here, and stop making my Father’s house a marketplace.” [Notable that this is only the passage in the New Testament where Jesus is shown using force and anger to relay his teachings.]