Weekend reading.
No one can accept the precepts of neoliberalism and consider themselves Christian,” he wrote in his days as Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, archbishop of Buenos Aires. As pope, he puts the matter more directly: “Such an economy kills.” In Laudato si’, he regards the environmental crisis as an economic-justice crisis as well: “The same mind-set which stands in the way of making radical decisions to reverse the trend of global warming also stands in the way of achieving the goal of eliminating poverty.”…
So does the pope’s assault on the economic order represent continuity, or an actual break? Has the content of faith changed, or just its emphases? And how much can (or will) Francis really do?…
There’s no comprehensive school of economics to describe all this. One attempt, championed by G.K. Chesterton and others a century ago, was dubbed “distributism.”Italian economist Stefano Zamagni, a leading contributor to the economic teaching of Benedict XVI, tells me the reading lists at the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences have lately included Elinor Ostrom, the Nobel Prize–winning theorist of the commons. Rather than the market or the state per se, Catholic economics often attends to those common treasures in between that we manage for ourselves.
Zamagni belongs to the school of “civil economics,” which regards the notions of a utility-maximizing Homo economicus and an impersonal “invisible hand” ruling the market as impoverished visions of economic life. “If all you do is increase growth, you destroy social relations, family relations, and the environment,” he says. Civil economics, by contrast, seeks to evaluate companies according to more humane metrics than just profit and loss, and to identify ways that people can shape the economy with their values.
Zamagni belongs to the school of “civil economics,” which regards the notions of a utility-maximizing Homo economicus and an impersonal “invisible hand” ruling the market as impoverished visions of economic life. “If all you do is increase growth, you destroy social relations, family relations, and the environment,” he says. Civil economics, by contrast, seeks to evaluate companies according to more humane metrics than just profit and loss, and to identify ways that people can shape the economy with their values.…
In an address to members of Italian cooperatives last February, Francis championed what he called “an authentic, true cooperative…where capital does not have command over men, but men over capital.”….
Laudato si’ was drafted by a cardinal from Ghana and cites bishops’ conferences from all over the world. It calls for international institutions to address the climate crisis and for governments to act. But mainly it calls for a widespread conversion to local economic resistance, following the lead of the poorest and most vulnerable.The Nation
How Pope Francis Is Reviving Radical Catholic Economics
Nathan Schneider
11 comments:
Best Pope...... ever!
I'd be a catholic today. If I could only bring myself around to believe a book of stories, selectively edited by a bunch of priests about 2000 years ago, is the only true word of an all powerful supernatural being who "coincidentally" is the image of a weird bunch of ape like creatures in a far flung corner of the Galaxy.
Makes you wonder how such a clever Pope believes it all himself.
"capital does not have command over men, but men over capital."
He is getting close here...
but the more he works to pervert the purpose of the ecclesia into an anti-neoliberal crusade, the more neoliberalism he will get...
Andrew it says WE are created in the image of God, not His Christ... His Christ is the image of the invisible God, the complement of the Diety, the part that remains in God... we (man and mankind) are representative of God in His entirety...
rsp,
We are in his image but he is not in our image? and the image of "invisible" has just confused me. There's clearly some wordplay at work here I'm not quite getting. Then again there's that three way thing with the Holy Ghost, I could never stretch my head around that one. Is he invisible or just translucent like Caspar?
Never mind, I'm reliably told faith is all that is really required, so I'm reconciled that we don't really need to understand the pesky metaphysical details.
Mind you, faith can do a bit of good if mountains really need moving.
Can you understand that three: electron, proton and neutron are one(1) atom?
That is what is meant.
Mother, father, kids as one family.
I like this pope too, but he doesn't yield any power to change things and his words will be ignored by most Christendom anyway. Or they will assent and then go on their way to hate 'socialism' and 'the government', talk about charity and all that rubbish.
Andrew I'm not religious, hell I'm an atheist, but theism (not even religiousness, I have a hard time believing in human-made religions) or atheism is a matter of faith IMO. Faith is emotional, I don't buy Aquina argument that we have to understand rationally to prove the existence of God.
Metaphysics by it's own definition cannot be proved or falsified, so no matter the story or version is all rabble, in the end is a matter of faith IMO.
P.S: I believe if there was any God it would be an Aristotelian sort of God, this is not an an anthropomorphic God. Most "modern" religions are at core atheistic, in the sense that god is actually not anthropomorphic/animalistic and is A PART of the universe, is the "unmoved mover" of Aristotele. The scholastics after all recovered the classics and tried to build up on them adapting the religion to what the classics had said before.
" The scholastics after all recovered the classics and tried to build up on them adapting the religion to what the classics had said before."
Ignacio I think this is very true... and most if not all of the problem... they were philosophers...
They should have just stuck to what Paul taught via 'rote'method ... rather than trying to go the way of the 'disciple' or 'creative learner' via 'reason' ... then you end up with non-scriptural concepts like the 'trinity' (1 is 3 and 3 is 1 blah, blah.... whaaaaattt?????) which Andrew ably destroys in the comment above, etc...
'trinity' changes the whole geometry from what Paul taught, ie, authority is linear, to a planar geometry...
Paul wrote about these people to Timothy: "as to the faith, they swerve", the word 'swerve' there translated from the original Greek, means 'UN- in a row' ie they make it nonlinear... so Christendumb right on cue makes it planar....
This is the way it works:
Paul says 'its linear', Christendumb says "its planar!"
Paul says 'fondness for silver', Christendumb says "love of money!" (btw which we are "out of!")
Paul says "dispense the well-message of the grace of God", Christendumb says "lets instead open up a chain of soup kitchens!"
Paul says "dispense the well-message of the grace of God", Christendumb says "lets instead torment homosexuals!"
Paul says "God wills the salvation of all mankind", Christendumb says, "lets threaten them with hell"...
etc, etc..
But this is encouraging, the part Tom highlighted where he points out how 'man is subject to capital rather than capital being subject to man...' this starts to get to the issue of 'authority' ie "who is in charge here? we or a bunch of metal from the ground?" or perhaps today "we or the abstract accounting concept of capital?"
WE are in charge. WE have authority.
rsp,
Very good Matt, agreed on all you said.
I think that the New Testament is pretty good even for non-believers, there is certainly knowledge that can be applied to achieve a better live for all.
But others prefer to focus on the 'fear of God' and the human sins instead of the 'love of God' and the virtuosity. Bunch of unhappy defeatist angry people...
In the end I think how one wants to interpret the scriptures says more about the interpreter than the scriptures themselves. Beliefs conform to personality and behavior, not the other way around, IMO.
So the people who is interpreting in a defeatist way can't help it IMO.
I think you are right... we seem to not have "free will" at least in these matters imo..
But what seems to be happening, is that whatever these people try to turn
it into, just the opposite seems to be happening...
Like this pope seems to be trying to turn it into some sort of human anti-neoliberal institution so therefore we have the most rampant out of control neo-liberalism we've ever had...
I dont know how it is over there, but over here there is a lot of anti-homosexual behavior in some of these sects so now we have all of these people coming out...
They want to turn it into a soup kitchen franchisor so now we have more people hungry...
They want to turn it into an anti-abortion crusade (FD: of which I am very partial to....) so now we have partial birth abortion and people being exposed selling baby parts for USD balances...
It is starting to seem to me that whatever these people try to turn it into, then just the opposite happens...
So I would be very wary of Francis "anti-neoliberal" efforts in this regard... but again the part where he touches upon the subject of our 'authority' is (to me) a welcome step in the right direction....
rsp,
This Pope seems to be inching towards liberation theology, the kind of Christianity that is genuinely admirable (along with modern day Quakerism) and popular.
But God help this Pope if he starts publicly advocating these radical preachings of Jesus, rather than the very different (even diametrically opposed) teachings of St Paul, the great interloper and corrupter, as Thomas Jefferson put it, of the teachings of Jesus. All those years of Christian teaching I was subjected to never bridged the gigantic chasm of what Jesus taught and what Paul's really existing Christianity.
Pope Francis may not personally get his brains blown out like all those liberation theologians in South America during the eighties, but I don't fancy the chances of anyone else preaching the same message. After all, there's no one more radical than Jesus! Near pacifism, love for all, denouncing the rich and siding with the poor isn't going to endear you to the powers that be in this world.
John what about the part where the Lord tells Israel that not one serif or iota shall pass from the law till all will be fulfilled and part of the law was that sodomites and people caught in adultery should be stoned to death?
I for one can tell you am not going to be stoning sodomites and aldulterers.
Many in Christendom go all around saying "Jesus loves you!", but I cannot actually find a scripture that says that... the relationship is not defined (at least primarily) as one of "love"... it is defined as one of authority.
Yes, the Bible is full of some truly grotesque and frankly weird stuff (the chapter in the Book of Judges where a man pleads for the gang rape of his daughter and then murders her for fornication is truly bizarre, to name one of very many instances), but the Gospels are full of so many beautiful and socially radical exhortations it is no surprise that so many have taken solace in them and been empowered to take action.
My Christianity is long gone (the books of Bart Ehrman are a good reason), but I appreciate that the teachings of Jesus are fuel and ammunition to many to go out and remake the world. That's one of the reasons I hate with a passion some of the new atheists (or neoconservatives as I prefer to call them).
I readily appreciate how these teachings can spark people like Martin Luther King and Cornel West to action, or inform the thoughts of thousands of doctors, nurses, nuns and priests who spend their whole lives caring for the poor and the sick. The Christian Church pre-Constantine was very different to what it is now.
Spiritually, liberation theology was as close to the pre-Constantine Christians as is practically possible. If that can be resurrected, as it were, and displaces the nasty, super-rich, warmongering Pat Robertson's and Jerry Falwell's of the world, then that's to be commended. If Jesus came back, he'd personally nail Robertson to a cross.
I may be an atheist but I very much like a lot of liberation theology and what is called the preferential option for the poor. It may not be economically sophisticated, but if your heart is in the right place, as it looks like with this Pope, the economics follows. There is no need for twenty thousand children to die of hunger every day, or for a gigantic military-industrial complex, or to invade countries and blow children to smithereens. I won't have a bad word said about modern day Quakers or the liberation theologians.
I may no longer be a Christian, but I still like real Christians: they've got heart, they tell the truth no matter what, they fight for justice and they're as brave as they come. They're religious Bertrand Russells!
Post a Comment