Comments made by Cardinal Bergoglio in 2010
shed light on his understanding of capitalism, work, and the poor
In CWR
“The free-will actions of human beings, in addition to our own
individual responsibility, have far-reaching consequences: they generate
structures that endure over time and create a climate in which certain
values can either occupy a central place in public life or be
marginalized from the reigning culture. And this too falls under the
moral sphere.”— Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, 2010.1
“What happens is that the unemployed, in their hours of solitude, feel miserable because they are not ‘earning their living.’ That is why it is very important that governments of all countries, through the relevant ministries and departments, cultivate a culture of work, not of charity…. They have to cultivate sources of work because, and I never tire of repeating, this, work confers dignity.” — Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, 2010.2
I.
The
two major criticisms concerning the perceived economic thought of the
current pope are these: 1) that he does not understand how normal
capitalism functions with its relation to the poor, and 2) that he
habitually relies on the state for solutions, when the modern state is
usually a major part of the problem. In a homily in the Chapel of Santa
Marta (November 5), however, Pope Francis talked of state officials who
lose their dignity by taking bribes. On November 11, the Pope spoke of
the man who “puts one hand in his pocket that helps the Church, while,
with the other hand, he robs the State and the poor.” No doubt,
political and bureaucratic corruption in the form of bribes and
favoritism is a major cause of poverty and injustices in the world
today, not just for the poor. Few say so as bluntly as Pope Francis.
The
Pope has spoken of “unbridled capitalism,” which seems strange.
Capitalism today is almost totally bridled by extensive state control.
We do have a global flow of capital seeking a place to invest. This
financial power can be misused and too often is. But it is also one of
the great generators of economic growth. “Unbridled capitalism,” if it
exists, is much less a problem than the state-controlled capitalism when
it comes to impediments for increasing wealth and labor possibilities
for the poor. Moreover, as The Economist (June 1) wrote, the
world in fact has recently made enormous strides in the world-wide
alleviation of poverty, due mostly to capitalism and its imitators. I
have not seen any mention of this fact in any of the Pope’s discussion
of remaining world poverty. Both political corruption and government
controls are more harmful to the poor than so-called “unbridled
capitalism.” This fact also needs to be stated.
The Pope often
speaks of a “throw-away” society, something like the “consumer” society
that John Paul II used to chastise. But just what are the consequences
of not throwing useless or outmoded things away or not having
the free demand that causes investment and employment? To prohibit a
“throw-away society” seems close to mandating a stagnate economy in
which what is inefficient or useless is legally kept functioning at
higher and higher costs in the name of jobs or ecology. Innovation that
would change things is stifled. The sources of growth flee the
jurisdictions that prevent its growth. This movement, in fact, explains
much of the economic gains of many poorer nations in the world today,
particularly in Asia.
The Pope is likewise famous for having
remarked that the greatest problems in today’s world are “unemployed
youth and loneliness in old age.” Yet, we cannot talk of unemployed
youth without talking about what really causes the jobsthey need to
employ them. Insisting that the government will do the job simply will
not suffice, but as we will see below, Pope Bergoglio seems to
understand much of this. And it is clear that all old people, rich or
poor, experience loneliness. It is not basically an economic problem, as
Cicero said long ago. The Pope often says that the elderly should be
taken care of by their own families. But the Pope has also pointedly
warned of a control of the whole global economic system that seems to
him almost diabolical.
II.
With this
background, I want to comment on several interesting and surprising
remarks that Jorge Bergoglio made about economic affairs in the book of
conversations that took place in Argentina while he was still Archbishop
there. Pope Francis: His Life in His Own Words: Conversations with Jorge Bergoglio,
edited by Francisca Ambrogetti and Sergio Rubin, is a wide-ranging
discussion, not limited to economics. The Pope identifies himself with
the cause of the poor. Nothing is wrong with this concern, provided that
one also has some concrete insight into what would help most of the
poor. Otherwise, we are just ringing our hands.
Pope Francis
speaks like a man with a vow of poverty, which he is. An individual
person is always free to sell his goods, give them to the poor, and
follow Christ. This kind of voluntary poverty is designed as a witness
not so much to poverty itself as to the fact that our happiness, be we
rich or poor, does not lie in material things. Even here, those who do
give up these material things are told that they shall receive a
hundred-fold even in this life (Matt 16:29).
The vow of poverty
does not imply that material things are intrinsically evil. They are
good and can be put to good use; otherwise no virtue would result in
giving them up. They can be used wrongly, of course, but in themselves
they are good. The whole purpose of civilization is to show why and how
this further good use of a good creation can come about. Civilization
and culture aim to discover this use and bring it into orderly existence
for the good of each and all.
The earth is to serve man as its
own primary purpose. Man is given “dominion” over it, which does not
mean that he is supposed to let it sit there untouched. Often a correct
theology is needed to see this relation, as not all theologies see it.
But this order of man to earth can only come about through human
intelligence, work, freedom, and organization. God did not, in creation,
give us all the solutions. He gave us brains, hands, and imagination to
figure it out for ourselves, a much greater manifestation of divine
wisdom.
People with vows of poverty can use their freedom to learn
and do what they can to help others in a variety of ways. But the
essential issue concerns not those with vows of poverty, but the free
participation of the vast majority of men, who have no such vow, in a
purposeful enterprise for real human goods. By his own labor and mind,
man seeks both to earn a living and contribute to the good of others. At
the same time, he strives to make the earth itself a more beautiful and
abundant dwelling by his presence and work on it.
But the poverty
of real want is itself an important thing to identify and to think
carefully about. In the beginning, the whole world was poor, dependent
solely on what nature by itself brought forth. Agriculture that made the
earth more bountiful had to be discovered and put into operation. The
Pope wants a “poor Church,” as he has often said. But does he want a
poor world? As we will see below, I think not. One of the historic
effects of Christianity, as Pope Benedict XVI often said, was to make
the world more elegant, more beautiful, and more fruitful. Such a
position that wants everyone to be poor in the name of ecology or
asceticism would be contrary to the whole dynamism of civilization, even
when we recognize vividly that wealth can be dangerous and that we have
here no “lasting city.”
The question that we rarely hear asked by
religious leaders is this: “Why is not everyone poor?” Is it a bad
thing that many are rich and almost all desire a good level of wealth?
Do we not wish the poor to become, by comparison, relatively rich? The
answer is the only real issue when it comes to the question of helping
the poor. Simply giving wealth away, however, causes it to disappear and
often corrupts the receiver unless we also know how to increase it and
teach others to use the means that produce it.
We know how to help
the poor. But not every way will work. Modern economics and politics
are mostly clashes over the proper answer to the question: “What helps
the poor?” If we choose the wrong way, and many do, the poor will not be
helped in spite of our good intentions. We can only help the poor if
everyone, rich and poor alike, is gradually becoming richer. The
“redistribution” model for alleviating the poor—take from the rich give
to the poor—is little more than a slogan for making everyone poor. In
the New Testament, even, those who have something to give to the poor—a
cloak, some bread, a dwelling—were not poor by the standards of that
time. Why not? If they had nothing to give, how could they be chastised
for not giving? St. Paul said, “He who will not work, neither let him
eat” (2 Thess 3:10). Paul recognized that laziness, freeloading, and bad
will are factors in causing and relieving poverty.
The basic approach to poverty is this: “Do not talk of poverty without asking how one becomes not
poor” The poor are not poor because the rich are rich. Neither are the
poor in that condition because existing property is maldistributed. On
the large-scale, the poor are poor because responsible and just free
market economies are not in place with institutions mostly free from
state take-over but still within a regime of law and private initiative.
We
have to grant that some poor will always be with us for a variety of
human reasons. Moreover, poverty is almost always a relative thing. The
poor in some societies are by comparison fabulously rich by the
conditions of another society. The wealthy of yesterday seem poorer by
today’s standards. Moreover, the poor must not be treated as if they
have no part in this discussion. They are not simply passive victims
whose sole need is for someone else to take care of them. Often, they
too have crimes and habits that make any effort to improve their lot
almost impossible. We talk of the poor as if we want them so that we can
take care of them for our sake. The goal should be rather that we are
mainly interested in their taking care of themselves, with their own
proper work and virtue. The poor do not exist so that good people can
feel good about themselves by helping them.
III.
As
I cited in the beginning of this essay, Jorge Bergoglio understands the
relation between work and a man’s dignity. When sufficient work for
everyone is lacking, the Pope points to government’s responsibility, not
to the economy or free enterprise to create new jobs. It is true that
government has to “cultivate the sources of work” but these source are
little discussed. The Latin American tradition, from the time of the
Spanish, has had a rather top-down view of the economy. It is this
tradition which seems to look first not to an on-going economy but to
the state for employment.
Later on, Bergoglio points out that some
states, in order to keep jobs and employment, limit hours of work to
provide jobs for others. To this practice, the Archbishop of Buenos
Aires says something quite correct and, in the best sense, capitalist:
“Fewer people working means fewer people consuming. Man intervenes even
less in production, but at the same time who will buy the products?”3
These are exactly the right observations. The real problem, Bergoglio
remarks, is not leisure time but “the first step is creating the sources
of work.”4 This is correct. The question is still: “What does this first step in creating sources of work mean?”
Bergoglio
next follows with a comment on leisure. Leisure, he observes, can mean
either idleness or gratification. There must be a culture of work and
one of gratification. “People who work must take time to relax, to be
with their families, enjoy themselves, read, listen to music, and enjoy a
sport.”5 He sees working on the Sabbath a sign of eliminating leisure. It dehumanizes.
One might note here that Bergoglio unfortunately never seems to have read Josef Pieper’s seminal book, Leisure: The Basis of Culture.6
Pieper, in the Aristotelian tradition, points out that leisure and
recreation are not the same thing. Relaxation means a pause from work to
return to work. But the purpose of work is not more work but the higher
things. In this sense, work exists for leisure, not the other way
around. Bergoglio does not make this distinction and so he tends to
propose what is essentially a work society, and not a society that works
in order that something more human might exist.7
The
Marxist society that reduces everything to work, including the life of
the mind, is one to be avoided. This approach does not mean that work is
not important, but it does mean that work exists so that what is worked
on comes into being. To work for work’s sake is like digging a hole and
filling it up again just to be doing something. Work, to be human, must
always have a purpose. Pope John Paul II maintained that the worker was
more important than the work. This is true, but the worker cannot have
what he does or how he does it to be unnecessary or meaningless.
Bergoglio’s treatment of the famous movie Babette’s Feast
is worth noting in light of his understanding, as pope, of poverty. He
relates his discussion to a more general comment on pain. At times,
suffering has been “overemphasized.” The Calvinist community in the film
is pictured as closed in a narrow world. They see the “redemption of
Christ as a negation of the things of this world.” They are gradually
freed of this illusion by realizing the goodness of an excellent dinner.
“They were devoted to the grey side of life. They feared love.”
Obviously, the Pope is on the side of the blessings of the dinner and
its appreciation of things.8
Bergoglio remarks, as he often does, that he too is a “sinner.”9 He does not have all the answers, or even all the questions.10
He understands the difference between ideology and morality. “We are
redeemed only by what we accept. If we don’t accept that there are
people with different opinions, even opposing opinions that you don’t
share, and if you don’t respect them or pray for them, you will never
redeem them in your heart. We must not let ideology triumph morality.”11
The poor can be occasion for ideology: “Catholicism’s greatest concern
regarding the poor in the sixties was the issue of fertile ground that
could give rise to any kind of ideology.”12
His response to this ideology was not to join it but to get in touch
with the people and their own lives. “So the more that pastoral agents
discover popular piety that more that ideology falls away, because they
are close to the people and their problems.”13
Ought
the Church not say much about these things? “Denouncing human rights
abuses, situation of exploitation or exclusion, or shortages in
education, or food, is not being partisan. Catholic social teaching is
full of denunciations, yet it is not partisan. When we come out and say
things, some accuse us of playing politics. I say to them, yes, we are
playing politics in the Gospel sense of the word, but not the partisan
sense.”14
The Church has a place in the public forum not just because of its
transcendent orientation but because of its understanding about what man
is.
Why do people fall away from ethical standards? “I would say
that there is a devaluation of the exercise of ethical principles in
order to justify a lack of compliance with them.”15
Here again is where ideology comes as a presumed explanation of why it
is all right to fall away from moral standards. We need to give reasons
especially when we are wrong. The Argentine Archbishop put it in an
amusing way: “There is almost always an element of deceit involved in
selling someone the Brooklyn Bridge, and this is accepted because
‘everyone does it.’”16 If everyone does it, it still may be wrong.
IV.
Bergoglio
sees some cultural advance. “The fact is, in general, cultures are
progressing in terms of the appeal of a moral conscience. It’s not
what’s moral that's changing. What’s moral doesn’t change. We carry it
inside us. Ethical behavior is part of our being. What happens is that
we are continually defining it more clearly.”17
But this does not mean that we cannot slide back. When asked what he
thought about opposition to abortion as a religious question, he
answered: “Well, a pregnant woman isn’t carrying a toothbrush in her
stomach, or a tumor. Science has taught us that from the moment of
conception, the new being has its entire genetic code. It’s impressive.
Therefore, it’s not a religious issue bit. A moral issue with a
scientific basis. Because we are in the presence of a human being.”18
This reasonable/scientific approach to our opposition to abortion has
been one that Hadley Arkes has been arguing for years. Bergoglio is in
full agreement with it.
At first sight, it seems that Bergoglio
did not understand the importance of development to poverty. But in the
case of Argentina itself, he is quite clear:
I
can say that we (Argentinians) have not exploited what we have. On
God’s judgment day, we will count ourselves among those who ignored the
gifts we were given and did not use them productively, not only in terms
of agriculture and raising cattle but in mining as well… Throughout our
history, we have not created jobs tied to our natural resources. It
cannot be that most jobs in Argentina are found around large cities such
as Buenos Aires or Rosaio. It just can’t be.19
Part
of this problem, of course, is that modern agriculture is very
productive with relatively few laborers. Jobs
are tied to machines and
the capacity to use them, especially to the presence of the computer.
Cities are themselves generators of wealth and jobs.
are tied to machines and
the capacity to use them, especially to the presence of the computer.
Cities are themselves generators of wealth and jobs.
The
Archbishop reflects on Argentina: “God gave us everything; there is not
enough food or enough jobs. It is a great injustice and flagrant lack of
responsibility to distributing our resources.”20
The fact is that resources are not the real cause of wealth or the
means for caring for others. The real source of wealth is the
mind—learning how to use the mind and what it can produce. Not everyone
wants to learn this or learn it in a productive context. This is why, as
E. F. Schmacher used to say, the real problem is not simply economic,
but moral and political. Bergoglio senses some of this: “I would say
that, deep down, it is a problem of sin. For four years Argentina has
been living in a sinful existence because it has not taken
responsibility for those who have no food or work. It is everyone’s
responsibility….”21 But this responsibility needs to be directed to what works. What is it after all that generates work?
Bergoglio
seems quite aware of the complexity of this issue. He does understand
that work needs consumption, demand, and inventiveness. “The creative
capacity to generate work, and coming out ahead, seems to occur,
especially in the worst of cities, when there is nothing left to do.”22
Cities that were once poor are now rich. Asia is becoming full of them.
We need visions that work, that are related to reality. Bergoglio
graphically put it this way: “Let us not forget that utopias lead to
growth. Of course, the danger is not just in falling into the trap of
reflecting on the past, of patriotic duty, in being satisfied with what
one has received and not looking any further; but also in the
non-historical utopia, the one without tradition, the pure fantasy.”23 Traditional utopias can be models of stagnation or of fantasy. We need to imagine, to plan what can be done, and then do it.
One
of the remarkable but too little faced issues today is that of the fall
in the birth rate in many countries and what this fall does to the
economy and way of life. Bergoglio shows himself quite up-to-date on
this issue.
Of course I’m concerned
(about the falling birthrate). It’s a form of social suicide. By the
year 2022, Italy will not have enough revenue in its retirement
coffers—that is, the country will not have the funds to pay its
pensioners. At the end of 2002, France celebrated the figure of two
children per woman. But Italy and Spain have less than one per woman.
That means physical and social realities will be replaced; it implies
that other cultures and perhaps another civilization will emerge. This
will not take the slow form as the barbarian invasions of the year 400
or so, bur the territory left by some will be occupied by others. As a
result of the migrations, Europe may undergo changes in its culture.
Although, actually, that’s not a new phenomenon. Let’s not forget the
extensive Christian communities that inhabited northern Africa for
several centuries no longer exist there.24
Few
have put this issue better. Unfortunately, Bergoglio did not state
exactly what took over in Africa so that Christian communities no longer
much exist there.
The Argentine Archbishop was cautious about what goes on internationally. “But globalization is an ambiguous reality.”25
Yet, he made a surprisingly strong statement about where we ought to be
going: “That is what gives rise to a common ethic and openness toward a
destiny of abundance that defines man as a spiritual being.”26 The phrase “an abundance that defines man as a spiritual being”
is memorable. We are not defined by our tight, negative existence, but
by bringing forth that abundance that has been there for men to discover
since they first appeared on this planet.
Finally, Bergoglio
gives us his understanding of what, in his mind, a nation is. He does
not refer, say, to Maritain’s famous discussion of nation, state,
society, and community in his Man in the State. Rather he gives
a common sense reflection. He does not indicate that a nation comes
from common blood lines, which is what the word “nation” means, while
“state” is the modern post-Machiavellian word, in contrast to
Aristotle’s polity. Here is Bergoglio’s analysis:
What
is it that makes a bunch of people a nation? First of all, there is a
natural law and then a heritage. Second, there is a psychological
factor: man becomes man (each individual or the species as it evolved)
through communication, interaction, love for this fellow being. Through
words and trough love. And third, these biological and psychological
evolutionary factors become real and really come into play, in our free
will behavior, in the desire to bond with others in a certain way, to
build our lives with our neighbors in a range of shared practices and
preferences.27
One cannot help but seeing here his love of Argentina.
But
now the Argentine Archbishop remains a man, who, like John Paul II and
Benedict, does not forget his homeland. Yet he finds himself a world
figure. In the end, the papal economics of this Pope, I think, show many
signs of a practical wisdom that will serve us in good stead. Not
everything is clear, as he himself often reminds us. Most economists
themselves, in fact, admit that that “the dismal science” really has a
bad record about “predicting” what will happen. The Pope, as an
economist, is in good company. But that is the point. In pointing to
jobs, innovation, and the poor, he is reminding us of what it is all
for, what it is about. He wants us to know that it is not just about
economics, even for the poor.
ENDNOTES:
1 Pope Francis: His Life in His Own Words: Conversations with Jorge Bergoglio, edited by Francisca Ambrogetti and Sergio Rubin (New York: Putnam, [2010] 2013), 238.
2 Ibid, 18.
3 Ibid, 18.
4 Ibid. 19.
5 Ibid, 19-20.
6 Josef Pieper, Leisure: The Basis of Culture, Foreword by James V. Schall (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, [1946] 2010).
7 See Joseph Hebert, “Be Still and See: Leisure, Labor, and Human Dignity in Josef Pieper and Blessed John Paul II,” Logos 16 (Spring 2013), 144-59.
8 Bergoglio, ibid, 26.
9 Ibid, 46.
10 Ibid, 48.
11 Ibid, 88-89.
12 Ibid, 93.
13 Ibid, 94.
14 Ibid, 94-95.
15 Ibid, 100.
16 Ibid, 100-101.
17 Ibid, 101.
18 Ibid, 109-10.
19 Ibid, 127.
20 Ibid, 128.
21 Ibid, 129
22 Ibid, 133.
23 Ibid, 142.
24 Ibid, 225-26.
25 Ibid, 211.
26 Ibid, 240-41.
27 Ibid. 241.
