Just one of many possible quotes from the Pope today:
As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world's problems or, for that matter, to any problems.
Now there's a man with the intention to change things.
Good.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
We shall see, Richard. The Catholic church has been good at PR for centuries, don’t forget. But certainly a contrast to his predecessor and also an example to some of our own men of the cloth, such as the Reverend Lord Green, who I seriously doubt has been troubled by the problems of the poor for many a long year.
I agree Ivan
I won’t be going to Rome
But I bet it makes Tony Blair uncomfortable
Now there’s a Venn diagram….
Reverend Flowers too…..
Curious as to what your thoughts are on something I always find tricky in dealing with this sort of pronouncement. When discussing such things with others, invariably neoliberals, the “in for a penny, in for a pound” argument comes up. How do we, as advocates for social justice, tackle the other non-just elements of Catholic teachings (anti-women, anti-gay, etc) and avoid being accused of taking an a’la carte approach in such situations?
Any philosophical or theological tips, perspectives, etc?
My answer is be a Quaker
I am
This does not embrace those non-just elements but recognises that of God in everyone
This view is held by most of Hinduism ( I say ‘most’ as it is a very broad ‘church’)Tat Tvam Asi “thou are that” means the divine -the Atman- is in everyone. Of course, they don’t always act on it as they human. Buddhism does not have the same belief but sees us as all part of the One. Some western groups such as the Theosophists teach the same (but there are no obligations to accept beliefs in Theosophy).
In my view there are three stages of religion, the magical, shaman level (capable of spiritual insight-look at some of the native American stuff), then the formal structured religions then a third stage where people see different spiritualities as streams flowing into the same river.
To accept the third stage people have to be prepared to say that the beliefs of previous generations can be modified. The refusal to do so -‘we can’t change anything’ such as allowing birth control or giving women clerical status or seeing scripture as written by men, not divine commands, I would find very frustrating if I were a member of a second level church.
James Fowler has a more elaborate schema for those who are interested.
This man is close to being a hero for me. 🙂
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think he’s the first Catholic leader to directly attack capitalism and in particular the financial markets in this manner. Since becoming Pope, he has shown a strong interest towards the issues of poverty. Very fitting that he chose the name “Francis”.
And I like his emphasis on the creation of jobs, something that most social democratic politicians have forgotten in their race to embrace the markets.
Catholic social teaching has actually long had this theme within it
Unfortunately it has not been noticed much
Catholicism, it’s a broad church!
@Anthony Zappia
Anthony, I have to strongly support Richard here, in two ways. First, Catholic Social Teaching – starting with Leo Xlll’s “Rerum Novarum” Encyclical of 1891 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum_Novarum) – is indeed profound, and profoundly critical of both ends of the politico-economic spectrum supportive of workers’ rights, but not of anything supporting the dictatorship of the proletariat or its equivalent, and it is a teaching that has continued to be promoted by various Popes, even by John Paul ll, though in a somewhat muted form.
Secondly, the support for Richard’s point about Quakers comes from the battle between form and content, and this has relevance to the question about whether Tony Blair is a Catholic. For far too much of the practice and teaching of not just Catholicism, but of all Christian denominations – and probably of Judaism, Islam or whatever – has focused on the “form” of a belief (i.e. its credal tenets, practices and disciplines) and rarely on its “content” (i.e. its real inner dynamic and meaning and justification and proper practice).
So, Richard’s admirable summary of the Quaker theology “This does not embrace those non-just elements but recognises that of God in everyone” shows a belief system that concentrates on content over form, and it is abundantly clear that Pope Francis is effectively a Quaker to in his approach to things. For he is looking at the central “content” of Catholicism, and re-discovering, or certainly re-emphasising and re-stressing, profound riches to be found in the deposit of faith.
It’s probably his Latin American background that has allowed him to do this (in contrast to Pope John Paul ll, whose hysterical (used advisedly) anti-Communism – the fruit of his growing up under Fascism and then Communism – caused him to condemn Liberation Theology and to treat the admirable Nicaraguan Sandinistas as devils incarnate) so it’s notable that this was said by Archbishop Oscar Romero on September 30, 1979 (and no doubt Thatcher would have called him a Marxist, even a Communist, had she heard this)
“A restructuring of our economic and social system is needed because there shouldn’t be this absolutizing, this idolatry of private property, which, frankly, is a form of paganism. The Christian cannot accept private property as an absolute.”
Archbishop Oscar Romero was a conservative Catholic who came to understand the reality of the lives of the poor and to stand with them in solidarity. Pope Francis comes from the same milieu – that of obscene wealth differentials, exacerbated by open racism between those of Spanish and non-Spanish (or Portuguese and non-Portuguese) descent – and is clearly ploughing the same furrow,(hopefully with a much better, happier outcome than that of Romero!), so it prompts the question: “Is Pope Francis a Catholic?”, to which the answer is – yes, definitely, but one re-connecting with another important thread in Catholic teaching, which has never been more needed now than today, that of justice and economic fairness, which has not been heard since Pope Paul Vl’s Encyclical of 1967 “Populorum progressio” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populorum_Progressio) which led to the setting up of the Catholic aid organisation “Progressio.
Thank you Andrew
Andrew/Richard, yes it’s in the teaching. But like I said, I’ve never seen a Catholic leader come out and blatantly attack the financial markets as such. It’s one thing to say “we must help the poor”, it’s another to point the finger at one of the problems (feral capitalism) and offer some suggestions for remediation (full employment).
With the rich, religion comes as an optional extra. An each-way bet.
“The latest groveling, inane defense of the “super rich” comes from none other than the gatekeeper of the largest oligarch whorehouse on planet earth. The Mayor of London, Mr. Boris Johnson”
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2013/11/26/londons-mayor-says-we-should-thank-the-super-rich-calls-them-tax-heroes-and-compares-to-the-homeless-and-irish-travelers/
It’s almost as if the Pope is ignorant of the way that the last 30 years (you know, the time of neoliberalism) has seen the greatest reduction in poverty in the history of our species. We even reached the poverty reduction goal in the MDGs five years early.
No Tim, the Pope is all too well aware of the reality of poverty
It is you who is not
All depends how one measures poverty really. For example, statistics from the European Commission show significant increases in EU poverty rates over the period since the great financial crash of 2008, largely due to the insane austerity policies pursued by the ECB (and echoed by our own ConDem coalition). In the light of this the Pope’s comments seem entirely correct and appropriate.
I have made enquiry as to why you were not invited to Monday’s event
I am assured, and can quite see why, that this was because of the offensive nature of much of your writing
I think that entirely understandable and appropriate
I support the withdrawal of your invitation for that reason
That’s odd. Because they told me something rather different.
“I should make clear, too, that the concern was not at all about you personally; it was about the explosive chemistry which might have resulted from having you on a panel with Richard and Prem. “
Have you noticed your language and offensive tone?
Don’t you think that may have been to what they were referring?
For some reason I believe this man’s sincerity. I foresee three problems, though. The first is one of credibility. It’s one thing to talk the talk, but as the head of what is, let’s face it, an immensely wealthy global corporation, he will be the focus of charges of hypocrisy that are hard to defend.
Secondly, unlike the Quakers the Catholic church does not have ideas of humility and Man’s equality before God at the heart of its teachings. The Catholic church is an hierarchical church, and that in itself is huge problem. In Britain we will never achieve an egalitarian society as long as we have a monarchy. It is an impossible syntagm (how can you create equality when the heads of state are maintained in lavish and luxurious lifestyles?).
The third problem is of course the structure of the Catholic church and the people who run it. The Pope may be the notional head of the organisation, but will he be able to change the hearts and minds of all those thousands of Ecclesiastes, functionaries, and bureaucrats who run it? ‘Fat Cats’ don’t only exist in corporate boardrooms.
All that being said though, I spent a lot of time in Poland in the 90’s. The importance of JP 2’s support for Solidarity (and subsequently Walesa) cannot be overstated. For many people involved in the struggle against the Russo-Polish dictatorship, the support of the Pope was, effectively, approval from God.
It may well be the case that ‘God’s vicar on earth’ meets stiff resistance from within his own church to any attempts to reform, but I’m sure that protestors currently on the streets of Brazil, and elsewhere, will take heart from his words. Perhaps as importantly, his attitudes may help to shift the debate back towards the centre-ground.
If nothing else, if it makes Blair uncomfortable that can only be a good thing!
Sound thinking
And appropriate caution
“All depends how one measures poverty really. For example, statistics from the European Commission show significant increases in EU poverty rates over the period since the great financial crash of 2008, largely due to the insane austerity policies pursued by the ECB (and echoed by our own ConDem coalition).”
Indeed, it does depend upon how we measure poverty. The absolute poverty (that World Bank $1.25 a day stuff) that I talk about or the relative poverty that you are mentioning here in the EU.
And yes, I agree that the ECB policies have been insane: they should have been expanding the money supply, not contracting it, as Friedman and Schwartz pointed out about the Great Depression.
Tim
Absolute poverty is a measure of desperation
Maybe you’re happy for people to live desperate lives
Most of us aren’t
Richard
We seem to have two competing versions of reality here:
“It’s almost as if the Pope is ignorant of the way that the last 30 years (you know, the time of neoliberalism) has seen the greatest reduction in poverty in the history of our species. We even reached the poverty reduction goal in the MDGs five years early.” – Tim Worstall
“Tim – Absolute poverty is a measure of desperation – Maybe you’re happy for people to live desperate lives – Most of us aren’t
Richard”
Well, if not of reality, certinly two different measures of poverty.
One is absolute and measured – the MDGs; I’m not certain of the provenance of the other. I can see, however, it refers to ‘a measure of desparation’ and you clearly place store by this particular measure.
Being a blood-sucking capitalist, I am of course very keen on whatever method leads best to the alleviation of poverty and the creation of more consumers to buy my product. So could you perhaps give me the source of your information so that i can compare, contrast and form an opinion.
Anyone can do this research for themselves
I am not your lackey
Tim Worstall’s view is the classic opposition to Catholicism.
I don’t, incidentally, know if he’s right to say that more people have been lifted out of poverty in the last 30 years than ever before. In fact, I don’t know how anyone could possibly say that. I imagine Genghis Khan enriched an awful lot of people. BUT, lets assume he’s right.
If he is, it seems odd to associate that with Neo-Liberal economics because the places where the poor were lifted out of poverty were China & India & neither Govt could remotely be said to have followed Neo-Liberal economics. The Chinese had a sort of Communism-lite & the Indians are so protectionist that, even now, there is a horror that Walmart might come & put the local stores out of business.
While not being your lackey either, if your post is sincere, you could start with Booth in the 19th century. Given the tone of your posts I doubt you’ll bother but I think that’s where the idea of a ‘poverty line’ originates. Note that Booth realized that any ‘poverty line’ was arbitrary. He understood that a ‘poverty line’ which really meant anything would have to be drawn individually for each family/person. His definition has caused controversy ever since.
There you go; start with Booth.
Yes they could. However, if they suspected you had just offered your subjective opinion, then they would be prety stupid to start that research wouldn’t they.
The problem is, here and now, it does rather leave Tim’s legitimately sourced facts as the only show in town.
Now, leaving facetiousness aside (and I know I am facetious), this debate on poverty and the morality of our various responses to it has been couched in terms of outcomes rather intentions of the various agents. In that case, the answers (if indeed there are ‘answers’) can be reached by empirical analysis can’t they. This brings us back to Tim’s data and the consequent claim he makes. Can you say that free market economics has made life worse in the past 30 years? Or the last 20 years following the collapse of Socialism?
At the heart of the complete flaw in your logic is the belief that matters such as poverty are purely empirical
This is where your logic and humanity depart from the reality that the vast majority know to be true
And it is why, quite rightly, the world is repelled by your logic
Assuming however (& as I said it is an absurd assumption) that Worstall is right. What he says is “Neo-liberal economics has made life better for many people therefore the RC church must be wrong to oppose it”.
Wrong, Tim.
One point the RC church has always been clear on is: you judge an action by its morality which you can measure at the time. Its long-term consequences, which may clatter away into the great funnel of time, will never be known.
What made Blair such a bad Catholic, as well as, obviously, a bad human being, was not merely that he started a war in Iraq, but that he used an anti-Catholic argument, “The end justifies the means”. No end ever justifies an action that is plainly wrong, plainly evil.
The Church has, since St Augustine, been pretty clear on that.
So, Tim, since your version of capitalism involves exploitation of the workers, despoilation of the environment & corruption of the western world by marketing then it CANNOT be good, even if it did (& as said I doubt this) lift people out of poverty.
I loved the line “no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems”.
It seems to have been over-looked but is the perfect response to the comments often made in our right-wing press that the church should restrict itself to the spiritual terrain & not involve itself in the temporal. (A stupid & invalid argument, needless to say.)
Well then, let’s not discuss your belief that you speak for the world: “…quite rightly, the world is repelled by your logic”
Let us instead simply note that Tim has produced soemthing empirical, something which shows people beong lifted out of poverty. This, he says, is done by applying a clear set of criteria and measuring against those empirically.
As an alternative measure you have offered: “Absolute poverty is a measure of desperation – Maybe you’re happy for people to live desperate lives”.
You have gone so far as to suggest that empirical measures of poverty and of people being lifted out of poverty are not of worth:
“At the heart of the complete flaw in your logic is the belief that matters such as poverty are purely empirical”
You and your contributors even gone so far as to suggest that it doesn’t matter if people’s material circumstances have been improved and continue to be improved:
” ‘Neo-liberal economics has made life better for many people therefore the RC church must be wrong to oppose it’.
Wrong, Tim. – you judge an action by its morality which you can measure at the time. Its long-term consequences, which may clatter away into the great funnel of time, will never be known.”
What you have not done is offer an alternative defintion of poverty, let alone a method to measure it. This may be legitimate on its own terms. However, having disavowed the empirical, what is not legitimate is to then make any attempt to link your personal opinions or preferred policies to any empirical analysis. So the claim that a bank’s business practices “are killing people in Africa” has no merit coming from you (even if it were true), because you don’t believe in Tim’s empirical measure and you don’t think it legitimate to gauge poverty by measuring empirical outcomes.
BTW William, as a Mass attending Catholic I agree with your last point. I do indeed see that material wealth can be coupled with a poverty of spirit. I am actually not “a blood-sucking capitalist” at all, working in anentirely different field. However, this debate begins with the word “pverty”, described entirely as a material phenomenon. So I enter the discussion on that basis.
This is you last post on this issue
Poverty is not purely a material phenomenon
That is a claim that, I reiterate reveals a lack of the spirit that the Pope refers to and which clearly passes you by
I sincerely suggest you pay more attention to the teaching of a chap from Nazareth