Economic Clarity
Sept 27, 2024 | 1,336 words | Politics, Economics, Religion
Over the course of his twelve-year run as pope, Francis has made it pretty clear appeasing First World sensibilities is not his top priority. We here in the United States have not always known what to make of this, since his lack of deference can seem like disrespect at times.
It can feel as if this Argentine pontiff is going out of his way to challenge our sense of exceptionalism, our sense of being a light to the nations and a city on a hill. And who knows, maybe he is. Or maybe he is just trying to broaden our perspective and bring a little Third World awareness to bear on the situation.
I chose to think he is not disparaging us so much as he is gently prodding us to see how much more work there is left to do. So that we should not be content to pat ourselves on the back and rest on our laurels.
In the service of this cause, Francis displays a unique ability to chide American conservatives and liberals simultaneously. This has always struck me as part of his charm, and a sign he is doing something right.
It happened again on his return flight from a grueling 12-day trip to four tiny countries in the Asia-Pacific Rim, when reporters on the plane asked him about our upcoming presidential election. He turned up his nose and declined to endorse either major party candidate, on the grounds that each is “against life.” Kamala Harris because of her position on abortion, and Donald Trump because of his position on immigration.
This bothered political partisans on both sides, since each group wants to see Catholic teaching applied in a way that endorses their preferred worldview. Each side thinks they hold the high ground, convinced the other is the obvious apostate.
Having said that, it is undoubtedly the conservative camp who has had the longest-running feud with Pope Francis.
They have never approved of his more “pastoral” approach to doctrine. But what really gets their goat is the way this pope raises the issue of economic inequity every chance he gets. Conservatives hear this as harping, and take it as a personal affront, an attack on their way of life.
This is especially true whenever Francis uses the term ‘social justice.’ That phrase puts American conservatives in a foul mood, as it smacks of the policy initiatives enacted by the Democrat left over the last hundred years, which they have steadfastly opposed as governmental overreach.
Never mind that these policies have been aimed at smoothing out the rough edges of ‘free market’ ideas advanced by conservatives. Whether this-or-that Democrat policy has been an effective way to legislate ‘fairness’ is certainly open to debate. My point is conservatives have always opposed these policies out of the gate, on the grounds they violate the hallowed concept of ‘limited government.’
Now, I am four-square in favor of keeping government as small as possible. But how small is just right? What size should a government be, to do what needs to be done? Namely, provide for or administer to a just society, or at least a ‘more equitable’ one. This should be an ongoing negotiation. But the discussion should center on ‘social justice’ every bit as much as it does on ‘fiscal responsibility.’
*
That, to me, is all Pope Francis has been trying to tell us throughout his papacy. He is talking to the Hey-I-don’t need-any-help, independent-minded contingent here in the United States, as well as the successful minority in all other ‘developed’ countries across the First World.
He was at it again on September 20, soon after he returned from that grueling trip the Asia-Pacific Rim, when he visited the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development in Rome, where he addressed a gathering of The World Meeting of Popular Movements for the fourth time in his pontificate. Here are a few excerpts…
“If there are no policies, good policies, rational and equitable policies that strengthen social justice so that everyone has land, shelter, work, a fair salary and adequate social rights, the logic of material waste and human waste will spread, leaving violence and desolation in its wake.”
“Social justice is inseparable from compassion,” Francis insisted. “True compassion builds the unity of people.” The opposite of compassion is “to look down on others as if they were worthless. It is the great temptation of our time. To look from afar, to look from above, to look with indifference, to look with contempt, to look with hatred.”
“This is how violence is conceived: the silence of indifference enables the roar of hatred. Silence in the face of injustice gives way to social division, social division to verbal violence, verbal violence to physical violence, physical violence to the war of all against all.”
Then Francis really got down to brass tacks, commenting on one of the foundational truths of free market ideology:
“Blind competition for more money is not a creative force, but an unhealthy attitude and a path to perdition. Such irresponsible, immoral, and irrational behavior is destroying creation and dividing peoples.”
“Dehumanized ideologies promote the ‘culture of the winner’… Some call this meritocracy… (but) it is paradoxical that many times great fortunes have little to do with merit: They are the result of income or inheritances, they are the result of the exploitation of people and the plundering of nature, they are the product of financial speculation or tax evasion, they derive from corruption or organized crime.”
Francis then repeated a familiar refrain of his:
“Sadly, it is often precisely the wealthiest who oppose the realization of social justice or integral ecology out of sheer greed.” They pressure governments “to sustain bad policies that favor them economically.”
On the bright side Francis also acknowledged:
“Some of the richest men in the world (do) recognize that the system that allowed them to amass extraordinary fortunes – allow me to say ridiculous fortunes – is immoral and must be modified” and “that there should be more taxes on billionaires.”
“If that small percentage of billionaires who monopolize most of the planet’s wealth were encouraged to share it… how good it would be for themselves and how fair it would be for everyone,” the pope said. “I sincerely ask the privileged of this world to be encouraged to take this step. They’re going to be much happier.”
*
There were about thirty representatives of different popular movements from various countries in the room as Pope Francis spoke on September 20, but many more were connected by streaming worldwide, and speakers from Sri Lanka and South Africa spoke to the group via Zoom.
Like his previous three talks to the World Meeting of Popular Movements, this 45-minute speech was a stirring call to action. It echoed and built upon themes of social justice his papal predecessors have stressed since at least 1891, when Pope Leo XIII drilled down on the economic disparities created by the first Gilded Age.
Unfortunately, this September 20 address received zero coverage in the mainstream media. Major news outlets did not mention the event or comment on the pope’s remarks in any way. And apparently there were no social media influencers in attendance, to help spread the word. What meager reporting it did receive was relegated to the religious press, which is where I found out about it.
The ‘silent treatment’ was no doubt the result of Francis’s choice of venue: A not-particularly-well-known international body that brings together organizations of people on the margins of society, including the poor, the unemployed, and peasants who have lost their land.
The absence of a big, splashy, headline story enabled American conservatives to dodge another chance for a close encounter with basic Christian principles regarding economic behavior, and how that behavior impacts social justice. Not just on the world stage, but here at home as well.
All is not lost, however. I have a feeling this aged, increasingly infirm Argentine pontiff will keep trying to get their attention.
Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.
bobcavjr@gmail.com