Thanks to my student Kelby for pointing out that the Vatican has updated its list of deadly sins and that three of them sound surprisingly like liberation theology:
1. “Bioethical” violations such as birth control
2. “Morally dubious” experiments such as stem cell research
3. Drug abuse
4. Polluting the environment
5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor
6. Excessive wealth
7. Creating poverty
As a staunch defender of “traditional” Catholic values, over twenty years ago Cardinal Ratzinger had made his view on liberation theology clear: “An analysis of the phenomenon of liberation theology reveals that it constitutes a fundamental threat to the faith of the Church.”
But if the last three (or really even four) items are deadly sins, then by extension capitalism—and the U.S. effort to promote it--is also sinful. This is what Latin American priests were saying decades ago. It is, strangely enough, just a tiny step from saying that the only virtuous ideology is socialism, or at least democratic socialism. It is also just a tiny step from asking good Catholics to denounce any government that is sinful, e.g. capitalist.
26 comments:
I thought exactly the same about Liberation Theology. Sometimes it's hard to be Catholic when you see dumb shit like this.
But if the last three (or really even four) items are deadly sins, then by extension capitalism—and the U.S. effort to promote it--is also sinful. This is what Latin American priests were saying decades ago. It is, strangely enough, just a tiny step from saying that the only virtuous ideology is socialism, or at least democratic socialism. It is also just a tiny step from asking good Catholics to denounce any government that is sinful, e.g. capitalist.
A poor interpretation, I think. Ratzinger was pretty clear in his trip to Latin America that he is anti-socialist. It's one thing to say that high levels of inequality and "excessive wealth" are bad things in the abstract, but it's quite another thing to say that one advocates socialism. Since the church hierarchy is spiritual --not materialist-- in its philosophical outlook, it is just as hostile (if not more hostile) to Marxism as it is to laissez-faire capitalism. The church hierarchy's notion is that Christian morality --not human being's material interests-- should drive them. That doctrine is as hostile to working class mobilization (as a means to achieve certain material objectives) as it is to laissez-faire capitalism. Such a vague doctrine is probably not all that different from what one would find on paper in fascist treatises.
I'm with Justin on this. There is much less there than what Greg implies. The Church has always been about maintaining an "organic" conception of society, under the supervision of its own hierarchy. That is as non-socialist as it is non-capitalist, as both those secular ideologies presume the right of parts of the society to pursue their own material interest.
"The church hierarchy's notion is that Christian morality --not human being's material interests-- should drive them. "
Polluting the environment, and "excessive" wealth are material interests. This new list may not be exactly Liberation Theology, but it heads down that road. Greg is right on with this one.
I am just using basic logic:
1. There is a list of deadly sins
2. Capitalism necessarily leads to some of those sins
3. Therefore capitalism is sinful
"I am just using basic logic:"
That's where you lost Justin.
But even if we were to assume there's anything "anti-capitalist" there, it's false to suggest that any old vaguely anti-capitalist notion is socialist. That's a false duality. Feudalism was also anti-capitalist (and was, in fact, the breeding ground of most Catholic doctrine), but such a system was certainly not socialist.
Time for both Greg and Paul to brush up on their history.
Feudalism also creates these newly decreed deadly sins, so logically also would be sinful, regardless of what the Church thought about it in the past. I am open to hearing suggestions about what system would be considered most virtuous, e.g. creates these sins the least.
I am open to hearing suggestions about what system would be considered most virtuous, e.g. creates these sins the least.
But, you see, that's just the problem with your characterization of the church's words. Everybody says they're against poverty (including the most laissez-faire of capitalists). Everybody says their respective prescriptions (socialist, capitalist, or what have you) will result in the least amount of poverty in the long run.
So if the church says they're against poverty and "excessive wealth" but never actually specify what they mean by that, it doesn't tell us much of anything. (And given how close Ratzinger is with Opus Dei, we really ought not take such rhetoric too seriously).
I cannot say anything about the Catholic Church. Just in case, though, I want to point out that a person can be a bona fide socialist while being opposed to Marxism.
"it's false to suggest that any old vaguely anti-capitalist notion is socialist...Feudalism was also anti-capitalist.."
Uh huh, any Feudalists still walking around? You're splitting hairs here. Ridiculous.
Uh huh, any Feudalists still walking around?
No, but if you actually understood where Catholic social doctrine came from, you would understand that it has its roots in feudal as well as corporatist systems, of which there have been several varieties (including the Spanish falange). Greg presents these latest statements from the Vatican as if they're somehow new, but the truth of the matter is that the previous pope made identical (and perhaps even more pointed) statements criticizing capitalism run amok; the statements do not reflect any leftward shift of the church, though. The point I'm trying to make here is that the social doctrine of the Vatican has zilch to do with Marxism or even with the pre-Marxist utopian socialism advocated by people like Robert Owen.
So don't worry, Paul; Ratzinger's not coming to get you and Uribe.
Justin is right
I don't think there's much to be right or wrong about, unless there is something wrong with the logic (e.g. comment #5). You can argue that the Church has said the same thing in the past, but that doesn't change the logic involved. It only means that the Church continues to ignore that logic.
As I said in the post, it is interesting to juxtapose a clearly traditional pope with his new list of specific sins that collectively sound similar to liberation theology, which he opposes (and, as I noted, openly denounced at the time).
Where I disagree with your original analysis is that Ratzinger's criticism of Liberation Theology was not over the focus on the poor or on economics but on the "Marxist" idea that promoted class conflict.
His basic criticism is of the belief within some branches of Liberation Theology that class conflict is inevitable combined with the view that God sides with the poor in that class conflict.
Opposition to the concept of class conflict is not in contradiction with the sins listed.
Let's be more concrete. If capitalism creates at least three of these deadly sins, then what--if we follow the logic--would be the optimal solution for Latin America to eliminate/reduce those sins?
You can argue that socialism also creates those sins
A cynic might suggest that the Catholic Church is the most capitalist organization on Earth.
Extremely wealthy and cash flow positive
The church is an expert marketer with huge brand awareness. It also has many high profile customers who are happy to lend their name for endorsement purposes
Thousands of locations, many of which sit on very valuable real estate
It uses its vast political influence whenever and wherever possible ito influence government policy
It operates as a monopoly in most of its markets
Its employees must sign non-compete agreements in order to work there (priests, nuns)
Mike is right
I have a question about the list: Is waterboarding a sin?
I think there are a couple of points to be made for the discussion.
1: The 1968 CELAM in Colombia which effectively "birthed" Liberation Theology; condemns both marxism and capitalism as unjust social organizations, and you can't automatically call Liberation Theology priests and theologians Marxist or Socialist.
2: A think an issue that applies to the points Greg is making is the Liberation Theology notion of "collectivized sin". They believe in structural dimensions of sin: oppressive governments, institutionalized violence, exploitative economics, etc...that sin is not just acts by individuals. The implication being that the optimal solution is to alter or eliminate the structures that create those sins.
I think many people here are making good points. I tend to agree with Boz about Ratzinger...and I think Ratzingers enforcement against Liberation Theology in the 70s and 80s lends credence to Justins point of view.
But I dont think the document should be downplayed, because it at least offers the possibility of greater inclusion and participation of Liberation theology minded clergy in the larger Church institution.
Perhaps its a document of the Church trying to regain social relevance, and might be part of a concerted effort to play a more active role in society.
I mean, there has to be purpose behind releasing this document. Why else a would a proclamation like this be issued? I don't think you can call it irrelevant.
I agree with Boz's assessment of Ratzinger.
Where I fundamentally disagree with him is on this point:
Opposition to the concept of class conflict is not in contradiction with the sins listed.
Democratic class struggle --of the social democratic variety-- has been central to the reductions in inequality and poverty in the industrialized world. Any cursory glance at history reveals that organized labor built the social democratic parties of Europe (and social democracy itself). At least moderate forms of class struggle (including that in the United States in the 1930s) has been necessary to bring about many of the concessions --the social rights that many of us take for granted-- from big business and the state.
So I agree with Greg that there is an contradiction in what the church states, but it's just that: a contradiction. It's not by any means a call for socialism.
Now I think I understand many of these comments better. I meant to emphasize the contradiction, that these sins were incompatible with capitalism and logically were a step away from denouncing it, but not to say that the pope ever intended it that way.
Pope John Paul II - with Ratzinger who was his theological enforcer- have taken several positions, based on Catholic Social doctrines. And, they are also based on the Pope's understanding of Marxism. People forget he was a professor of philosophy in Communist Poland - a tightrope act where he had to know what he was talking about.
They condemned aspects of Liberation Theology as Boz says, because of a tendency to confuse the "preferential option for the poor" with the Marxist view of class struggle. Once that "commitment" was made, the conclusions that followed were informed by Marxist analysis - or leaned heavily in that direction.
This and the previous Pope also had issues with Marxist-Leninism and Capitalism, seeing them as dangerous, because they lacked a grounding in a faith-based ethic. Without that "mooring" their proponents could easily dehumanize their subjects.
Post a Comment