Response to WSJ: Pope Not 'Left-Wing' About Globalization

I always find it odd that editors require credentials to write about sports, but not about religion. I guess it takes a specialist to cover the Mets, but any educated person can cover the Vatican.

Maybe that's just me...

So on Friday we had a Wall Street Journal article by Tyler Cowen that finds Pope Benedict's encyclical letter on globalization to be full of "left-wing rhetoric on economic matters."

Mr. Cowen has a PhD in economics from Harvard, and he is well qualified to write about globalization. But since the WSJ used an economist to criticize a religious document, we are left with the conclusion that the Pope is politically partisan. The encyclical is titled "Charity in the Light of Truth", and discusses love, ethics, and justice. I hardly find these to be "left-wing" issues, and I fully expect any religious leader to call for guardrails around globalization.

Christianity and Capitalism

I must also respectfully disagree with Mr. Cowen's conclusion. He writes that "a truly revolutionary document would have dealt with the rise of China and India"… and "…how the rise of non-Christian powers affect the practice of capitalism." The article concludes: "To consider such questions would be to admit that Christianity, and Catholicism, are not as universal as many people would like them to be. When the church comes to terms with that idea, maybe then we'll start seeing some intellectual progress."

Conflicting Paradigms

Indeed! So Mr. Cowen believes that this encyclical does not represent "intellectual progress?" I disagree, since I believe that Mr. Cowen is imposing his intellectual framework on Pope Benedict's text. The Pope measures success and failure based on his religious beliefs, so he puts primary emphasis on the ethical process--not results. Mr. Cowen, on the other hand, judges the success of a capitalist system based on its ability to generage profits, and to lift people out of abject poverty. These are laudable goals, but incomplete: If a firm exploits third-world workers and poisons the environment, we can hardly expect a letter of approval from Pope Benedict.

Mr. Cowen also says that considering certain questions would "admit that Christianity, and Catholicism, are not as universal as many people would like them to be." First of all, it is the Pope's job to evangelize, and to inform Catholics about ethics, love, charity, and social justice. Secondly, Catholicism is a form of Christianity, so I doubt that Pope Benedict would appreciate Mr. Cowen's reference to "Christianity and Catholicism." (This is what we get when generalists write about religion--confusion about the basics, and more heat than light.)

Ethics and Justice, Not Politics

Most of the encyclical is concerned with ethics, justice, and the common good, as Mr. Cowen correctly notes. This is the primary concern of the letter, and not economic globalization. In fact, Pope Benedict says: "The Church does not have technical solutions to offer and does not claim 'to interfere in any way in the politics of states.'"

Thus, economists and politicians are bound to be disappointed when they look for the Pope to do their job. As they should be: The Pope is a spiritual leader for people in many nations, and it's not his job to be "left-wing" or "right-wing."

Maybe when I read all 87 pages of the encyclical, I will see some validation of Mr. Cowen's criticisms. Until then, I respectfully submit that he is reading his own ideas into the text, rather than trying to understand the encyclical letter on its own terms as written by its author for a specific audience. (In seminary we call this eisegesis rather than exegesis.)

Disclosure: No positions

Comments

[Gregman2:]

Thanks Robert. I think the Pope also recognizes that if capitalism's extreme efficiencies were working so optimally, why are there so many people hurting right now? Why so much imbalance? The Pope is looking 50-100 years into the future, not just 3 quarters down the road.;-)

Jul 12 01:54 PM

[Robert Mart...:]

Gregman2:
You're welcome. As you noted, capitalism's "extreme efficiencies" have limits, especially when compensation systems encourage CEOs to look 3 quarters down the road, not 3 years down the road. For too long, the thinking has been IBG, YBG: "I'll be gone, you'll be gone." So now we're left to clean up the mess from a credit cycle that was turbo-charged by leverage and securitization.



On Jul 12 01:54 PM Gregman2 wrote:

> Thanks Robert. I think the Pope also recognizes that if capitalism's
> extreme efficiencies were working so optimally, why are there so
> many people hurting right now? Why so much imbalance? The Pope is
> looking 50-100 years into the future, not just 3 quarters down the
> road.;-)

Jul 13 08:59 AM

[jai hanuman:]

actually the Pope made a lot of sense. Much more than our Nobel prize winning economists.

Economics is a sham anyway, to steal from the poor to give to the rich and powerful.

Economists almost never agree with another, and worse, they will write anything if you pay them well. Caveat emptor.

Jul 18 09:48 PM