Read carefully: We should see in this critique (by Pope Francis), not an embrace of socialism, or a condemnation of the market economy, but a call to adopt a different ethic for the marketplace.
Pope Francis is a Jesuit, a prelate from the southern hemisphere and, of course, we all know what that means: he is, almost by default, opposed to the market, business, and entrepreneurship. He is, no doubt, an advocate of some species of socialism. In fact, a conservative’s worst fears are now vindicated by the Pope’s recent critique of “trickle-down” economics, “the absolute autonomy of the market and financial speculation,” and the “idolatry of money” amidst a “globalization of indifference,” which is guided by an “invisible hand” we can “no longer trust.” Clearly, we are experiencing a shift in Rome’s stance toward capitalism; something is taking shape that looks analogous to the liberation theology the previous two pontiffs have exiled. With such strong sympathies toward the poor, and a striking condemnation of the market economy, will there be a place in the Church, during this pontificate, for the businessman or the wealthy?
Such have been the reactions of some to Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium. Of particular concern has been what some perceive as a failure to distinguish between the U.S. experience of the market economy, and that of his native Argentina. Despite the legitimate reservations this pope elicits among those, such as myself, who appreciate the more nuanced teachings of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, his remarks invite a serious and thoughtful consideration. Before I proceed any further, however, I would like to preface this essay by acknowledging that what Francis says in regard to the economic order needs future clarification.
In what follows, I would like to unpack the Pope’s remarks on the market economy in Evangelii Gaudium, and analyze them within the context of the New Evangelization to which the document is dedicated. I will argue for three points: that we can best understand the Pope’s remarks within the context of his stated purpose for the document; that he is not departing substantively from previous social teaching on the market economy, but offering a radical critique of certain moral failures prevalent in the global economy; and that he is not recommending a socialist solution to the problem of poverty.
For the Sake of the New Evangelization
Catholic social teaching presents a moral vision of the social order that calls us to a deep conversion, even if it challenges our own deepest convictions about politics, the economic order, etc. As Francis himself states, “We need to distinguish clearly what might be a fruit of the kingdom from what runs counter to God’s plan. This involves not only recognizing and discerning spirits, but also—and this is decisive—choosing movements of the spirit of good, and rejecting those of the spirit of evil (§51). He does not advocate for a particular social system, nor propose “technical” solutions to the economic challenges we currently face (cf. Sollicitudo rei socialis §41). Consistent with the nature of Catholic social teaching, his remarks insist upon a moral vision for the social order.
The Church’s stance toward any social system is to draw the historical reality of the social order back to its anthropological roots, and moral center in Christ. In the case of the market economy, this does not constitute a rejection, but rather a necessary nuancing and moral grounding in the requirements of the Gospel. The Church exercises a certain prophetic capacity in this; or put otherwise, her social teaching is an expression of the Church’s mission of evangelization: “The condemnation of evils and injustices is also part of that ministry of evangelization in the social field that is an aspect of the Church’s prophetic role” (Sollicitudo rei socialis §41). It is in this light that I suggest we take Pope Francis’s critique of the current state of global economics.
Upon a close reading, I find it difficult to defend the position that the document is a substantive deviation from what the Church has always taught about economic activity. Sensitive to what he acknowledges as a “diagnostic overload” that often fails to improve matters or “a purely sociological analysis,” what he proposes is “something much more in the line of an evangelical discernment … the approach of a missionary disciple … ‘nourished by the light and strength of the Holy Spirit’” (§50). In fact, he explicitly states that he takes for granted “the different analyses which other documents of the universal magisterium have offered,” and that he wishes only to “consider briefly, and from a pastoral perspective, certain factors which can restrain or weaken the impulse of missionary renewal in the Church, either because they threaten the life and dignity of God’s people, or because they affect those who are directly involved in the Church’s institutions, and in her work of evangelization” (§51; emphasis mine). This means that his purpose in these rather disquieting remarks, as the document’s broader intent makes evident, is to call the faithful to a renewed missionary vigor and honesty in regard to the economic order, precisely because the New Evangelization necessitates it.
Is the Market Economy a Social Structure of Sin?
While the Pope’s critiques are insufficiently nuanced and “loose” in their aim, it is critical to see his incrimination of the global marketplace as a challenge to be more self-aware and critical as to how deeply social sin contributes to the problem of poverty and marginalization. The target of the Pope’s critique, most broadly, is the moral corruption that distorts the economic order in structural ways. Quoting Cardinal Ratzinger, he states that a commitment to mercy, love, and justice “means working to eliminate the structural causes of poverty and to promote the integral development of the poor, as well as small daily acts of solidarity in meeting the real needs we encounter” (§188).
In point of fact, nowhere in the document does the Pope claim that the market, as such, or business, for that matter, is to blame for poverty, or is evil per se (see also Caritas in Veritate §26). The market itself is not a structural cause of poverty. An attentive reading bears this out. Indeed, he calls business a “noble vocation” but with one ineluctably moral provision, “that those engaged in it see themselves challenged by a greater meaning in life; this will enable them truly to serve the common goods of this world, and to make them more accessible to all” (§203). With prophetic candor, he names the root evil outright, and notice, it is not the market economy:
Behind this attitude (which this author will discuss momentarily) lurks a rejection of God. Ethics has come to be viewed with a certain scornful derision. It is seen as counterproductive, too human, because it makes money and power relative. It is felt to be a threat, since it condemns the manipulation and debasement of the person. In effect, ethics leads to a God who calls for a committed response that is outside the categories of the marketplace. … about balance and a more humane social order. (§57)
He then calls both political leaders and financial experts to reconsider the obligations they have to the poor. His point is not that the market is evil, but that too many people act without reference to God, ethical standards and, thus, without any regard for the good of others, especially the poor. It is this that gives rise to social structures of injustice.
Francis’ comments on the economic order appear in two places: in chapters two and four. When the Church exercises her prophetic office, she does so in three ways. The first is by proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The second is by reading the signs of the times. Pope Francis achieves this in chapter two, where his purpose is diagnostic—namely, to describe the context of our present reality (§50). The third, which he does in chapter four, is the application of the Church’s doctrine to those areas identified as being in need of the saving truth of the Gospel. The intention here is prescriptive. For the remainder of this article, I wish to focus primarily on chapter two and the Pope’s reading of the signs of the times.
As the overarching social critique of chapter two, Pope Francis draws attention to the fact that many people remain excluded from the global economy. This is true. But what are its causes? Interestingly, he nuances his understanding of “exclusion” in some surprising ways. Significant in this regard is what he judges to be an attitude (as quoted above), a misplaced focus that represents a sinful and structural apathy toward the alleviation of poverty. “How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? … Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving?” (§53). He continues, “Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded.” What he describes as a “throw away” culture is no longer “simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. … The excluded are not the ‘exploited’ but the outcast, the leftovers” (§53). Such remarks are quite relevant to the global situation today.
In attempting to identify the underlying causes and instantiations of this mindset, he takes aim at those mentalities that most deeply offend human dignity at its root. First is an attitude that often informs the market economy, although it is not intrinsic to it: “Today, everything comes under the laws of competition, and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless” (§53). The point here is not that we should deny competition its natural place in the ebb and flow of economic exchange. It is that human beings are not expendable according to a social-Darwinian criterion of evaluation. Competition cannot be a justification to use or exclude people. There are among us some who act with this mindset and will to use people for their own personal enrichment, without regard for human dignity. Such an attitude is often justified by an appeal to the competitive forces of the market.
A Christian must reject “survival of the fittest” as a social principle. If business failure is inevitable, one must accept this as a consequence of competition, and even Providence, but an attitude that excludes or exploits for the sake of personal enrichment must be rejected. It is “in this context” that Pope Francis then levels his critique of “trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about a greater justice and inclusiveness in the world” (§54). Arthur Brooks, of the American Enterprise Institute, deserves credit for pointing out that the Spanish “logra provocar por sí mismo” translates literally as “will alone succeed.” The statement rejects the idea that the market alone will succeed in bringing greater justice.
Note that in taking exception to “trickle-down theories,” the Pope is critiquing those that almost one-sidedly defend the free market as being sufficient to effect justice for the poor and marginalized. As he says, “this opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power, and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system” (§54). The key to this sentence is his identification of the problems with the “prevailing” economic system. In effect, the current state of affairs gives evidence that trickle-down theories and the free market alone cannot resolve the problem of poverty. And why is that? It is not because the market economy is a flawed structure of sin, but because human beings are sinners. Too often, we place a naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power. How true this is. Such trust is misplaced, and that is not, in any way, to suggest that all (or even most) business people are corrupt. It is, however, to affirm that there are powerful individuals in the world who, indeed, are corrupt, and exploit their economic position, thereby perpetuating the problem of poverty. And because of this, a “survival of the fittest” mentality does triumph in the “prevailing” system. The market, thereby, is unable to serve those who most need it.
Read carefully: We should see in this critique, not an embrace of socialism, or a condemnation of the market economy, but a call to adopt a different ethic for the marketplace. Without a clear moral vision, without a perpetual commitment of all economic players to the good of the human person, without a solidarity obligated by the moral imperative of universal participation, the market will fail the majority, and benefit the few—actually, human sin will lead by necessity to this failure. The market cannot work, as it ought, without virtuous people acting out of a commitment to charity and justice.
The commitment to a new ethic is how we ought to read his subsequent critiques of the “current financial crisis” as well, which he argues originated in a “profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person!” Can anyone honestly deny the truth of this? He further exposes the crisis as a form of “the idolatry of money, and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose” (§56). These are harsh words, but diagnostically speaking, they describe the “prevailing” system. In addition to the debt crisis, tax evasion, a thirst for power and possessions, that “knows no limits”, and a “deified market”—all moral indictments, none of which indicate a doctrinal critique on the level of economic theory—he appeals to a financial reform open to such “ethical considerations” and committed to “a vigorous change of approach on the part of political leaders,” such that money is made to serve, not rule, that is, an ethical approach “which favors human beings” (§57-58). Again, can we honestly deny that such exhortations are inconsistent with the Church’s mission?
Besides his critique of “trickle-down theories,” probably the most disquieting remark concerns “the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation” (§56), a phrase he repeats in chapter four (§202). I wish to affirm here that I completely understand why some are led to believe he is rejecting the free-market economy. I was a bit jarred myself when I first read this comment, in particular. I also sympathize with those who raise the question, where does such an economy exist anywhere in the world? We all know that the global market is highly regulated, and often manipulated by political activism. We also know that many businessmen and political leaders are in cahoots with each other, utilizing political leverage to enrich themselves—a very anti-market practice, a deplorable cronyism, to be sure.
Is Socialism the Pope’s Answer?
Nonetheless, upon a closer reading, I have concluded that we are mistaken if we think he is raising the specter of “laissez-faire” capitalism in what might be construed as a straw man argument. The term “unbridled” does appear in the document, but it is attached to the word “consumerism” (§60). Such a statement, which is simply a nod to John Paul II’s own teaching in Sollicitudo rei socialis (§36), would require much unpacking, for which I don’t have space here. Suffice it to say, we do have a problem of “unbridled consumerism” in our world today. In good faith, we cannot deny this. So what, then, does he mean by “the absolute autonomy of the market and financial speculation?”
The key to a proper interpretation is in identifying accurately that from which the market and financial speculation are operating autonomously. Interestingly, the question of government regulation aimed at redistributing wealth never really comes up in the document as a remedy to the problem of the market’s “autonomy.” There are a few statements that might be construed in this way, so let me address them squarely. Immediately after his first reference to the “absolute autonomy of the marketplace,” which he calls an” ideology,” the Pope states:
Consequently, they {the wealthy minority} reject the rights of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules (§56).
This is a point previous popes have addressed in the context of the challenges local, underdeveloped economies can face within the global marketplace. Multinational business enterprises are able to operate outside any rule of law within a given locality, such that local governments become inept to govern (see also Caritas in Veritate §41). This, I believe, is all he is trying to say.
Elsewhere, the thrust of his remarks bears a striking resemblance to previous papal teaching, as well. In speaking of private property, for instance, he states that, “the private ownership of goods is justified by the need to protect and increase them, so that they can better serve the common good; for this reason solidarity must be lived as the decision to restore to the poor what belongs to the poor” (emphasis mine). This statement follows a definition of solidarity as “a spontaneous reaction by those who recognize that the social function of property, and the universal destination of goods, are realities that come before private property” (§ 189). Following Pope Leo XIII, private property should be private in ownership, and common in use (Rerum novarum §22), meaning that property is under a “social mortgage,” to quote John Paul II, that is, to be used in a manner that serves the common good (Sollicitudo rei socialis §42). In this context, Pope Francis quotes Pope Paul VI that “the more fortunate should renounce some of their rights so as to place their goods more generously at the service of others” (§190). For this, he enjoins the practice of almsgiving (§193). In referring to the preferential option for the poor, he clarifies that this is “primarily a theological category rather than a cultural, sociological, political, or philosophical one.” He then defines the term utilizing Pope John Paul II’s definition, “a special primacy in the exercise of Christian charity” (§198).
In referring to the distribution of food, he states, “we are scandalized because we know that there is enough food for everyone, and that hunger is the result of poor distribution of goods and income. The problem is made worse by the generalized practice of wastefulness.” Note what he says immediately after this, to promote the general temporal welfare and prosperity of the poor, we need to provide for “education, access to healthcare, and above all employment, for it is through free, creative, participatory, and mutually supportive labor that human beings express and enhance their dignity” (§192).
Consistent with Pope Leo XIII, he even prescribes a limit to the welfare solution. The need to resolve the structural causes of poverty cannot be delayed … Welfare projects, which meet certain urgent needs, should be considered merely temporary responses” (§202; emphasis mine). Previous to this statement, he states clearly what he has in mind for helping the poor:
Our commitment does not consist exclusively in activities or programs of promotion and assistance; what the Holy Spirit mobilizes is not an unruly activism, but above all an attentiveness that considers the other, “in a certain sense as one with ourselves.” This loving attentiveness is the beginning of a true concern for their person that inspires me effectively to seek their good. This entails appreciating the poor in their goodness, in their experience of life, in their culture, and in their ways of living the faith. True love is always contemplative, and permits us to serve the other, not out of necessity or vanity, but rather because he or she is beautiful above and beyond mere appearances: ‘The love by which we find the other pleasing leads us to offer him something freely.” The poor person, when loved, “is esteemed as of great value,” and this is what makes an authentic option for the poor differ from any other ideology, from any attempt to exploit the poor for one’s own personal or political interest. Only on the basis of this real and sincere closeness can we properly accompany the poor on their path of liberation.” (§99; emphasis mine)
Honestly, such words could never be construed as an endorsement of socialism or redistributionist regulatory law. He is speaking consistently with previous papal teaching and actually criticizing those of a Marxist bent.
So, the solution to the “autonomous marketplace and financial speculation” is not welfare-statism. Rather, we may not allow the market to function autonomously from the ethical criteria he explicates in chapters two and four. The market functions autonomously, and we can also say that financial speculations become autonomous, when individuals act without regard for the good of the human persons affected by their business decisions. Admittedly, much more needs to be said on this and clarified, but let us not forget that this document is not intended primarily as an explication of the Church’s social doctrine. The purpose is to call Christians to be witnesses in the world to the saving truths of the Gospel. Being enjoined to act in an ethical manner when conducting business clearly falls within that mandate.
It is because of our obligation to a standard of ethics rooted in human dignity that Pope Francis declares, “We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth” (§204). We must certainly acknowledge that extensive government intervention in the market is the norm today, rendering such a statement seemingly naïve or out of touch; and yet, he goes on to state, “it {growth in justice} requires decisions, programs, mechanisms, and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment, and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality.” He rejects both what he calls an “irresponsible populism”—i.e., a condemnation of ineffective big government promises—and also attempts to “increase profits by reducing the work force” (§204; emphasis mine). Both of these approaches lack serious moral commitment, which is why he concludes in paragraph 205 that “charity” and “openness to the transcendent can bring about a new political and economic mindset which would help to break down the walls of separation between the economy and the common good of society” (§205).
The Church’s first priority is to attend to the deepest crisis of humanity, the moral and spiritual depravity of the human heart, which results in such things as the idolatry of money, materialism, and the relentless pursuit of consumption. Original sin—with its triadic exhibition of pride, lust, and covetousness—does pervert the marketplace, leaving it, and the lives of millions, in the capricious hands of the powerful; hence, the need for conversion, Christian witness and, thus, a New Evangelization. A properly functioning market system will decentralize the effects of human sin to some degree, but by no means will this alone suffice to eliminate poverty and the exclusion of the poor.
Pope Francis is a liberationist pope, but not of a Marxist stripe. His commitment to the poor, and his willingness to challenge us to a renewed missionary vigor for the poor and marginalized, should inspire us, not provoke our consternation, even if he hasn’t expressed himself as we might wish he had. The question he puts to every Catholic is whether we can make our way of doing business a witness to the New Evangelization.
About Dr. Michel Therrien, STD
Thank you for a great article. I haven’t had a chance to read Evangelii Gaudium, yet. I am glad I read this first. This would be a good article for Mr. Limbaugh to read.
God bless!
The Church Dogmatic Teaching Is There Is No Salvation Outside The Roman Catholic Church exCathedra! It’s good to remind our good Holy Father Pope Francis this very crucial point towards Salvation through the Holy Church and not some other New Age means!
The church does not teach this, and Pope Francis does not need to be reminded of any such thing. The official teaching on salvation is much more nuanced. Check the catechism, the V2 documents, and your local bishop. An all-just, all-merciful God could not be so exclusionary of His children. I was never taught this anywhere in the church by any clergy or layperson. Ask yourself why you want to believe this. Do you really think you will bring people to a saving knowledge of Jesus by spreading this idea? It sounds judgmental and arrogant, like a noisy gong and a clanging symbol. There are lots of Christians who are not Roman Catholics; they are our brothers and sisters in Christ, heirs to the same promise as we.
“”Outside the Church there is no salvation”
“How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
“Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.”
–The Catechism of the Catholic Church 846
So the Church does indeed teach that “Outside the Church there is no Salvation”
It goes on to say that “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.”
However that salvation is achieved through Christ and his Church. Francis himself has said,”It’s an absurd dichotomy to think one can live with Jesus, but without the Church, to follow Jesus outside the Church, to love Jesus and not the Church.”
I would say that your formation has been lacking if no one has explain this to you
We cannot save anyone though falsehood. Christ is Truth. God wants to save everyone, he will however, not save someone against their will. Why would someone want to accept God as Father after death if they have spent their life rejecting him? At that juncture should God then, against their will, force them to spend eternity with Him?
As for people rejecting this teaching:
“Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” “- John 6:60.
“As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.”
John 6:66
When Barak Obama came on the scene speaking similar words, people thought he could not possibly mean what he was saying, and therefore set about to reinterpret his remarks and their meaning. He meant it all, and more. Now that it is too late, people are waking up. One responsibility of a Pope is to say what he means and mean what he says. And so it goes. Wake up.
Dr. Therrien thank you for a clear explanation of Pope Francis and his teaching on relationships between persons. I like it.
The pope only speaks with authority when it comes to morals, nothing else. When real popes speak with authority on liberation theology, they spoke truth. AlI I can say, is beware.
So who is being the “moral relativist”? Clearly you are.
I really enjoyed this article. The reality is just this; folks just do not take time to research and reflect on what Pope Francis says or writes.
This paper from Dr. Therrion is on the right track on Pope Francis who similar TO St. Thomas Aquinas is a conceptual realist.. St. Thomas in his tracts on law and happiness has influenced Pope Francis. When teaching on moral , and on doctrine the pope is infallible that comes with office.. This is not that
Excellent teaching article that helps readers reflect on the issues to be considered. Nonetheless, it appears to be an apologetic rewrite of troubling comments in Evangelii Gaudium. One wonders why so many have had to do so much heavy lifting to bring the passages into acceptable focus. An inherent problem with the passages is the manner in which they echo Marxist critiques. At the end of the day one might arrive at the conclusion that something else was meant – as you do – but it begs the question of why the original passages so resembled the language of Marxism. Perhaps the alarm with which some responded was due to the historical attempt of Marxists to co-opt the faith with what appears to be Christian concern with the poor but which was merely rhetorical deception. So I can understand those who were wary. They might ask, with good reason, why was such language used (?) when it would have been easier to simply say, “We oppose greed and corruption that have harmed the marketplace. We oppose those who use deceit to rob man of his free will in economic matters and thus rob him of his dignity. Thus, we call for a renewal of a moral perspective among all who engage in economic exchange, a revival of love for one’s brother and respect for his dignity. And thus, we call for a new era of ethical economic dealings between men.” That could have been said without even a hint of anything resembling Marxist critiques of the free markets. But then, I suppose, there would not have been the opportunity for your astute restatement.
I think this is an excellent point. The pope’s words needed clarification because they were not well nuanced, as we have seen in his other remarks. Nonetheless, that doesn’t mean he is a marxist and that’s an important distinction to make. I see nothing but orthodoxy in his teachings–JPII and BXVI were very supportive of his leadership in Buenos Aires, which makes it unlikely that he subscribes to the ideology of liberation theology. However, he does have a pastoral flair about him that is controversial. Certainly, one is free to dislike the style and manner of his communication. The chord he strikes on the economic order is no different than those sounded all the way back to Pope Leo XIII.
I join others in thanking you for the article; in light of so much criticism this is helpful. But I must ask what does this all mean to the families of the dead simstresses in Bangladesh who were burned to death producing cheap shirts for U.S. markets? What caused those deaths was more than corrupt officials or bad business decisions, part of the cause is the market system itself. I am a part of the system every time I buy one of the shirts produced by people who risk their lives every day to produce the cheap item I buy. What is my moral responsibility for the workers who produce the cheap shirts I buy? Can we answer this question with our present traditional ethical and moral categories that have little to say about structural sin?
This is a great tip particularly to those new to the blogosphere.
Simple but very precise information… Thanks for sharing this one.
A must read post!
> We should see in this critique, not an embrace of socialism, or a condemnation of the market
> economy, but a call to adopt a different ethic for the marketplace. Without a clear moral vision,
> without a perpetual commitment of all economic players to the good of the human person,
> without a solidarity obligated by the moral imperative of universal participation, the market will
> fail the majority, and benefit the few—actually, human sin will lead by necessity to this failure.
> The market cannot work, as it ought, without virtuous people acting out of a commitment to
> charity and justice.
But Dr. Therrien, “the market” does indeed have a clear moral vision and a perpetual commitment of all economic players to the good of the human person. To wit: 1) Autonomy is the Highest Good; 2) Each owns himself absolutely and [corollary] has no natural duty towards another; 3) physical force and fraud are property crimes, and therefore forbidden in any social interaction. That’s what circumscribes behavior in “the market”. At least this is what’s held up as a model or the ideal: listen to the howls when some restriction of autonomy is proposed in order to deal with the inherent instability and inhumanity of “the market”.
I reject categorically the premise underlying “the market” — autonomy is not the highest good, even here below, and “yourself” is about the last thing on earth you could “own”. But what you keep calling “the market” depends on these premises. In your defense, it is “the market” in the sense that it is the only or at least hegemonic existing market. But it isn’t the only possible market.
The “ought” of a market is built into its institutions. The existing hegemonic market reduces justice nearly to the vanishing point as a premise, strictly because of a very faulty anthropology and THAT’S why it cannot work given fallen human nature. We can (and indeed have had) markets with institutions markedly different from the ones we have now: the medieval notion of a Just Price has its roots in pagan Rome, for example. Of course any system of institutions can (and will) be gamed — the main trouble with “the market” we have today is one doesn’t have to game it! To deal with this, myriad incongruous “patches” and “regulations” are applied to it — everything from minimum wage laws to anti-trust laws are there to prop up an inherently shaky edifice. It is inherently shaky even on its own terms. But nobody wants to rebuild on a different foundation.
The Market as we currently experience it isn’t meant to “work” in a human, much less Christian sense. The Popes propose a different “market” — one founded on a correct understanding of the human person. But it seems to me most writers, even Catholic ones, talk about “the market” as if there could be only one and the only problem with it is that we’re all sinners. I don’t think so, but maybe I’m mistaken about this — maybe “the market” is a homonym, homophone, and homograph for this different “the market” the Popes clearly have in mind. That confusion can be cured though. When speaking of something other than the hegemonic Liberal market we currently suffer, maybe try this: instead of saying something like “The market cannot work as it ought without virtuous people acting out of a commitment to charity and justice” try “A market cannot work…” or “No market can work…”. That would be correct and distinguish “the market” from some other market within a political economy whose institutions on different premises; ones that require only ordinary virtue from the mass of ordinary men.
t
I wonder how much nuance is lost in translating the document? Would a different translator have said things differently? Sometimes the Pope’s words seem confusing but maybe that is because of the different language?