Economic Individualism


You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at Jkfitz42@cs.com. This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.


I must admit that I was not that insulted to find myself in this man’s rogue’s gallery; it included people like William F. Buckley and William Bennett. But I was surprised, since I have written many columns calling for a greater role for the federal government than economic libertarians would think appropriate.

But my position on the ideological spectrum is not of great concern. What is important is to make clear that the social encyclicals do not prohibit a Catholic from coming to the conclusion that free-market theory offers the most perceptive insights into how an economy should work. Let’s cut to the chase: A Catholic is free to support the policy recommendations of libertarian economists such as Walter Williams and Milton Friedman.

How can that be, when the popes, from Leo XIII to John Paul II, have condemned “economic individualism,” a term that identifies the ideological position we call economic libertarianism nowadays? Well, it is true that in Quadragesimo Anno Pius XI states clearly that Catholics must move “beyond the restrictions imposed by Liberalism,” because “civil power is more than the mere guardian of law and order,” and because “laws and institutions, the general character and administration of the commonwealth, should be such as of themselves to realize public well-being and private prosperity.” No question: that is not what Milton Friedman would write. John Paul II has been as direct. In Centesimus Annus he instructs that there “are collective and qualitative needs which cannot be satisfied by market mechanisms” and “important human needs which escape its logic.” Isn’t this a clear rejection of free-market capitalism?

No, it is not, even though there are some Catholics who characterize the spirit of the social encyclicals in that manner. Whether those who take this position are being disingenuous, I cannot say. We cannot impute motives. But there are hard to overlook passages in every social encyclical that make clear that the Church is teaching moral principles, not the nuts and bolts of economic theory. John Paul II underscores the point in Centesimus Annus, when he states that the “Church has no models to present” and that it is only a “radical capitalism” which is unacceptable to the Church, a form of capitalism which holds to an “a priori belief that any attempt to solve” poverty and other social problems through government regulation “is doomed to failure, and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces.”

This is why, in their pastoral letter Economic Justice for All, the American bishops wrote that when the Church teaches on matters of economic justice “it does not embrace any particular theory of how the economy works, nor does it attempt to resolve the disputes between different schools of economic thought.”

At the risk of seeming presumptuous, permit me to offer some guidelines for how Catholics should apply John Paul II’s teachings on market capitalism. Here is the key. We must be sincere in our conviction that the economic policies we advocate will promote social justice; that they will serve the interests of the poor and the disadvantaged in an effective manner, without unduly threatening other important social values, such as political liberty and property rights. If we are convinced that an application of laissez-faire theory advances these goals more effectively than any realistic alternative, we are free to side with the economic libertarians. Calling for Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” to ameliorate an economic dislocation does not imply that we are indifferent to the needs of the poor; not necessarily, at any rate.

It is not that anything goes. The social encyclicals are not a collection of pious platitudes. They draw lines that a Catholic is obliged not to cross. And there are those who cross the line; who take positions that cannot be reconciled with the Church’s call for social justice. You know the type of person I mean: the angry character who will say, “I don’t give a damn about the poor. Let them starve. It’s their problem. I work hard for my money. The government has no right to tax it from me to care of anyone else.” These sentiments are unacceptable. The social encyclicals were written to elevate us from this sort of Social Darwinism.

But I would argue that most free-market advocates do not think this way. When, for instance, they oppose an increase in the minimum wage, they usually do so because they think the increase will drive up unemployment; when they oppose welfare programs, it is because they have seen the damage these programs do to the character of those who become government dependents. In other words, their advocacy of free-market theory is motivated by a concern for social justice. No one has the right to assume otherwise, absent some evidence to the contrary.

Let me be more specific. Walter Williams is not a Catholic. But what if a Catholic reader of one of his recent columns leaped from his seat and shouted “Bravo!” The column in question focused on the Farm Security Act of 2001, a recently passed law that seeks to provide economic security for poor farmers because our food supply is “vital to the national interest.” It was passed by a vote of 291 to 120.

At first glance, this Act would seem a perfect example of Catholic social teaching in action. It purports to protect the family farmer, struggling against the forces of nature and the irregularities of the market place. Who could object to helping these lean and sun-browned men and women toiling in their fields? Only a selfish lout, disdainful of Christ’s demand that we care for the least of our brethren, would object to a portion of his tax dollars being used to help them in their competition against the vast corporate forces threatening to drive them from the land. Right?

Not exactly. Walter Williams dug into how these compassionate farm programs work: “Current beneficiaries of taxpayer handouts to ‘poor’ farmers include: Ted Turner, whose five-year take was $176,000. The five-year take for Scottie Pippen was $131,000, David Rockefeller $352,000, Rep. Doug Ose, $149,000, Rep. Marion Berry, $750,000 and Hancock Mutual Life Insurance $211,000.”

I submit that any Catholic who looked at these figures, and agreed with Williams that this farm program has to go, should have no qualms of conscience in supporting politicians who seek to end it. Advocates for the Farm Security Act may use terms such as “compassion” and “caring” and “fundamental option for the poor” to make their case. It is not enough. Good intentions and lofty rhetoric are not the yardsticks for evaluating the nation’s economic policies. Results matter. Costs matter. Waste matters. Fraud matters. There is nothing in the social encyclicals that prohibit us from taking these factors into account.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

MENU