Is Pope Francis a liberal?

Here's a more thorough analysis of Pope Francis, who's garnered a lot of positive media attention, primarily because his comments were taken to mean he was a "liberal", e.g. less conservative on  abortion and homosexuality.  This is written by the director of the Acton Institute's Rome office.  Acton is an organization which promotes freedom and economic liberty within the moral vision of Christianity.

Some things in Rome never change. These include the hordes of tourists cramming St. Peter’s Basilica and the Vatican Museums (or so my tour guide friends tell me), the slow but steady increase in professional and academic activity as the month of October approaches, and political drama involving Silvio Berlusconi. I could also add the lack of economic growth and generally dire prospects for the future, unless, that is, you’re catering to the aforementioned tourists. But somehow Rome still manages to survive.

He knows that Catholic's on the left are excited  because they think they've found a kindred spirit in Pope Francis.

Another reliable occurrence is that a papal interview will create a stir, especially when the Pope wades into matters concerning human sexuality. This goes double for Pope Francis, whose interview was simultaneously released in La Civiltà Cattolica and other Jesuit publications around the world, including America magazine, on September 19. Since then, I’ve heard from friends asking me for my thoughts about what he had to say, especially regarding those who are “obsessed” with abortion, contraception and homosexuality. I’ve also been asked how to interpret some of his statements on the less alluring but equally important topic of economics, in particular those made during his September 22 visit to the Italian island of Sardinia. The Catholic left couldn’t be happier, or so it appears.

Pope Francis definitely connects with the common people in ways John Paul and Benedict didn't.

But first some general impressions on the overwhelmingly positive reception of Pope Francis these past six months. Talking with ordinary Romans, from the barman to the dry cleaner to the taxi driver, it’s obvious that Francis has reached the hearts of people in his diocese in ways that Benedict XVI (certainly) and John Paul II (perhaps) never did. No doubt some of this is due to Francis’s eschewing of some of the more monarchical trappings of the papacy and his homespun ways of addressing the crowds. He can talk about God, the sacrament of confession, and the devil in ways that people understand, clearly showing a more pastoral than intellectual approach compared to his immediate predecessors. While unfair to Pope Benedict as a world-class theologian who expressed himself in extraordinarily lucid ways, the “new style” seems necessary when speaking to the unchurched, a number that has been growing for the past several decades in North America and Europe. Whether this popular enthusiasm will result in people practicing the faith more regularly and attempting to live more Christian lives is another question.

He doesn't think the Pope comments put him at odds with established church teaching though apparently he's open to re-examining the situation of divorced and re-married Catholics.

In fact, it’s this connection between practicing the faith, i.e. following the rules of the Church regarding, for instance, Sunday mass attendance and especially sexual morality, and living a Christian life that seems to have some people perplexed about Pope Francis’s remarks. On the one hand, he criticizes a “self-referential” and “small-minded” Church, by which he seems to mean one that overemphasizes its own rules at the expense of charity and mercy. On the other hand, Francis calls himself a “son of the Church” who has neither the desire nor the ability to change Church teaching on fundamental matters. (The one area he has said he’s willing to explore is the situation of divorced and re-married Catholics, one that John Paul II and Benedict XVI also said may be re-examined.)

This apparent division between the “spirit” and the “law” of Christian life is indeed a common but serious one that has most likely contributed to the decline in Church attendance and general practice of the faith. If I think I can skip Sunday mass for no good reason and still be “ok” with God, why should I make the effort to go in the first place? One hour a week for God becomes too burdensome and, from there, it’s probably one or two steps to cohabitation, contraception, etc. and before I know it, I’ve joined the ranks of the non-practicing and am on the verge of being unable to explain why I call myself Catholic at all. But, hey, I’m sure God will understand, won’t He? Rather than create a mess by opposing “spirit” and “law,” we ought to be looking for ways to integrate them.

 His message change from his predecessors seems to be more one of emphasis though his statement's on issues abortion have caused concern among some Catholic pro-life advocates.

Much of the controversy over the Pope’s interview reminds me of several Gospel passages, where Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for healing people on the Sabbath, dining with sinners, not condemning the adulteress, and so on, and especially of the parable of the prodigal son and the elder brother who’s upset that his father never threw a feast for him. In all these cases, Jesus emphasizes mercy over justice in order to draw us closer to Him instead of remaining attached to our prideful selves. God’s justice would rightly condemn us all, while His mercy offers us a chance at salvation if we’re humble enough to seek it. But in no way does Jesus say that justice is useless or unnecessary.

As Pope Francis keeps reminding us, mercy is at the heart of Christ’s message, yet mercy can’t exist without, nor can it negate, justice. There’s no sense in forgiving someone for something that’s not wrong. And if there’s no objective measure of right and wrong, don’t we live under the “dictatorship of relativism”? (Yes, that is Pope Francis, not just Pope Benedict, talking.) So while some dissidents may think Francis wants to get rid of all those hard-to-keep, outdated rules of Christian morality and thereby eliminate the concept of sin as such, I’d still bet that he is on the side of “go and sin no more.” Janet Smith points out that Pope Francis may have unfairly caricatured those who have dedicated their lives to fighting abortion and other deeply unjust, damaging practices in order to bring others to Christ, while underestimating the timidity of many pastors and bishops on these issues. This is unfortunate and calls for clarification and action from the Holy Father. But our real outrage should be directed to others who seek to turn Church teaching on its head.

He doesn't seem to be an economic conservative though that really hasn't be a moniker of past popes.  They really haven't gotten into economic theory.  Pope Francis experience of capitalism is the crony capitalism of Argentina.

Church teaching is clear when it comes to non-negotiable issues such as abortion. On prudential matters such as the best way to create jobs, faithful Catholics can and often do disagree. So when the Pope told workers in Cagliari the indignity of unemployment “is the result of a global decision, of an economic system which leads to this tragedy; an economic system centered on an idol called ‘money,’” we may respectfully raise a few basic economic questions. There’s no question that money is actually an idol for far too many of the rich and powerful, with disastrous consequences for themselves and the poor who are striving to improve their living conditions. These are primarily the rich who hoard their money and capital for themselves, a.k.a. misers. But how about the rich and powerful who want to invest in new but unproven ventures? If we want jobs for the poor so that they can have the dignity of work, how can we do this without investments of money and capital? Don’t the poor need capital and therefore capitalists just as much, if not more, than the idle rich? As other popes have said, exclusion from the global economy is the main cause of poverty in the modern world, so what we actually need is more, not less, business.

Pope Francis undoubtedly believes what he says about the indignity of work and the idolatry of money. Being more familiar with Argentina than anywhere else, he has seen first-hand what “crony capitalist” arrangements that lock out competition, and hence new opportunities that could benefit the poor, look like. An economic system not based on money and capital would have to be based on something else, such as a barter or feudal economy. These alternatives may or may not claim to place “human beings at the center,” but one thing they do not do is offer the poor the same chance to become non-poor and even wealthy. Instead of blaming the instrument of money, I would prefer encouraging Christian capitalists and businesspeople to do their jobs well because by doing so, they make possible the kinds of jobs that Pope Francis wants for the people of Cagliari and beyond.

In the context of speaking about his authoritarian tendencies as provincial general of the Jesuits, Pope Francis admitted he “has never been a right-winger.” If by right-winger, he means forcing others to do what he says in the name of social justice, he’s describing a Peronista, which no sane person should want to be. Outside of Latin America, however, there’s another kind of “right-winger” who promotes economic freedom while also believing that Catholic teaching, moral and otherwise, is true. I should know because I am one. Perhaps the confusion has to do with how one understands the admittedly complicated relationship between human freedom, political order, and God’s plan for each and every one of us. Maybe political terminology dating from the French Revolution is the problem. Or can’t Catholics be truly liberal, after all?

I suspect the ultimate outcome of his comments, his posture on the issues and his actions means a public repositioning of the church in the public mind without any change in substance on any major issues.  In the long run, that will make true liberals more concerned.

Michael Moore hates capitalism, the very hand which feeds him.

Leftist filmmaker Michael Moore hates capitalism. Not surprising given his political and ideological sensibilities. However, it's the very economic system which allows him to be financially successful at what he does - make films. He's biting the hand that feeds him.

He debuted his new film, "Capitalism: A Love Story" at the Venice film festival. He says that "Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil." He goes on to say that “You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that’s good for all people, and that something is called democracy.”

I'm curious how democracy, a political system, can replace capitalism, a economic system. I can't say I'm surprised at Moore's confused thinking which is often voiced by those on the left who hate capitalism despite all the evidence that it's the source of wealth creation in the world.

Certainly, there are abuses by those operating in the free market, capitalist economic system. Just look at the financial activities by both private businessmen and government leaders who helped bring on the crisis. The problem isn't with the system per se but the people working in the system.

One has to ask what's the alternative to the capitalist, free market system? Beyond Moore's incomprehensible response, democracy, the answer by the left is ultimately socialism; government control of the means of production. The result as we saw with USSR and other communist regimes is poverty and despair.

This discussion does point out a significant worldview issue. The nature of man. People on the left view man as basically good and any problems in society are the result of bad institutions and systems. Those operating from a Judeo-Christian perspective view man as made in the image of God but also fallen or sinful. That's the fundamental problem not bad institutions.

The answer isn't getting rid of capitalism but restoring the moral fabric of our society. Frankly, Moore's secularist worldview undermines any sort of workable moral system, because it denies the existence of any transcendent truth in which morality is based. Moore's prescription for our economic system is sawing off the branch he's sitting on.

A wild interview with Obama's "green jobs advisor"; a revolutionary is joining the White House staff.

Here's an interesting interview with President Obama's green jobs advisor, Van Jones.

It's from 2008 and displays his radical worldview on economic and environmental issues.

First it was cap and trade, then health care, then educating our children from the oval office and now it's capitalism. What will be next?

Markets, Morality, Greed and Financial Crisis

I suspect for most people the bailout, declining stock market, warnings of financial crisis and deep recession leave one confused as to exactly what's happening in our economy. And as a result there are calls for government to step in and restore order. Markets aren't working; capitalism is the problem is what one hears.

I think the problem is fundamentally a moral one and ultimately has to be addressed at that level. The mentality that we can have it all immediately. Taking out housing loans one can't afford and the willingness of lenders to make such loans. The expectation that government should bail people and companies out from facing bad decisions. Incredibly low savings rates. All of these things point to bad moral decisions.

This is pointed out in a column by Dr. Samuel Gregg, Research Director of the Acton Institute.
Acton Institute explores the interface between religion and capitalism/free market system.

"Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice."

Adam Smith had it basically right when he described the essential pre-conditions for widespread economic prosperity. But if the current financial upheaval teaches us anything, it should be how much market capitalism depends upon most people developing and adhering to some rather uncontroversial moral virtues.

Smith himself always understood this. That's why his Wealth of Nations of 1776 should always be read in light of his 1759 treatise, The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

Of course, numerous economic factors underlie the financial meltdown. These include loose monetary policy, massive bank overleveraging, and the subprime-mortgage implosion, not to mention the social-engineering programs pursued by the government-sponsored, New Deal-esque behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

No matter that free markets have raised literally hundreds of millions of Indians and Chinese out of poverty in recent decades. Instead, continental Europeans such as Germany's finance minister, Peer Steinbrueck, loudly proclaim that "Anglo-Saxon capitalism" is "finished", while blithely ignoring the fact that many of the EU's dirigiste economies are presently lurching toward, or are already in, recession.

A little discussed fact, however, is that the financial crisis has also been driven by widespread moral lapses that have manifested themselves just as much on "Main Street" as on Wall Street. One example is the subprime-mortgage fiasco. We now know that thousands of Main Street borrowers lied about their income, assets, and liabilities when applying for subprime loans. Likewise, many lenders failed to do even the most rudimentary checks on borrowers' credit history.

Recklessness also features among the sins underlying our present financial turmoil. On Main Street, thousands of investors mortgaged themselves to the hilt on the highly-imprudent assumption that house-prices could only continue to soar. Meanwhile on Wall Street, investment banks overleveraged themselves, sometimes at ratios of 30-to-1.

Then there is the rampant materialism that has apparently permeated Main Street and Wall Street to equal degrees. The thrifty, even parsimonious Adam Smith would have been appalled by the "I-want-it-all-now" mentality that has helped the personal savings-rate in America to hover around 0 percent since 2005 - the lowest rate since the Depression years of 1932 and 1933.

It's arguable that the same mindset encouraged many on Wall Street, anxious to enhance their bonus prospects, to sell securities they knew were based on collapsing subprime foundations to Main Street buyers blinded by the prospects of quick profits. Such actions aren't illegal. No-one, however, seems in a rush to ethically defend them.

None of these moral failures amount in themselves to conclusive arguments for re-regulation. They are, however, fuelling populist demands for a return to failed interventionist policies of the past. So far, most free-marketers have tried to stem re-regulation pressures by reminding everyone of the powerful economic arguments against such policies. But relatively few - if any - have engaged the financial meltdown's moral dimension.

One explanation for this silence could be that some market-advocates have embraced, consciously or otherwise, the soft relativism so prevalent in Western societies but which renders coherent moral analysis impossible. It may also be that many free-marketers have long been incapable of articulating more-than-utilitarian arguments for markets in particular and liberty in general.

Make no mistake: The modern case for the market - so painstakingly developed against interventionists of all stripes since Smith's time - has been set back years by the disarray on financial markets. The very same calamity, however, should remind us that if we're going to loosen the political bonds imposed on economic liberty by assorted New Dealers and Keynesians since the 1930s, then society's moral bonds require constant renewal and strengthening.

In short, we're learning the hard way that virtues like prudence, temperance, thrift, promise-keeping, honesty, and humility - not to mention a willingness not to do to others what we wouldn't want them to do to us - can't be optional-extras in communities that value economic freedom. If markets are going to work and appropriate limits on government power maintained, then society requires substantial reserves of moral capital.

At the end of his life, Adam Smith added an entirely new section entitled, "Of the Character of Virtue", to the sixth and final edition of his Theory of Moral Sentiments. His reasons for doing so are much debated. But perhaps Smith decided that as he glimpsed a world in which the spread of free markets was already beginning to diminish poverty, he needed to re-emphasize the importance of sound moral habits for societies that aspired to be both commercial and civilized.

It's advice worth heeding today.

Gregg points out that Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism saw an essential link between prosperity, capitalism and morality. Capitalism was the economic system which created prosperity but required moral activity by its participants. When things go wrong capitalism, the system is blamed and calls are made for intervention by the government. This usually makes the situation worse and creates long term problems like declining economic growth and prosperity for everybody.

Inappropriate government actions usually shield those from the consequences of their bad decisions, whether individuals or companies. And gives the wrong incentives for actions. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government created institutions, encouraged the making of bad housing loans to people who couldn't afford them.

What ultimately has to happen is for people to realize they must live within their means. Government has an important role to play in promoting justice but it needs to do so in the context of its area of competence. I don't sense that's the tack being taken. Efforts are being made to stave off the consequences of greed and wanting it all now. This means more trouble down the road.