REVIEW | Francis and the Caring Society

COSMOS + TAXIS

REVIEW and the Caring Society edited by Robert M. Whaples CLARA E. JACE

Email: [email protected] Web: https://clara-elizabeth.com

I. INTRODUCTION Austrian school, takes subsidiarity particularly seriously as illuminated in F. A. Hayek’s (1945) classic work “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” Pope Francis and the Caring Society Each generation is converted by the saint who makes of itself a bridge. The genius of this new text is that it contradicts it most. breaks apart the lively complexity of Francis’s social teach- ing (and beyond) into manageable portions, allowing the –G. K. Chesterton, St. , 1933 relative expertise of authors to illuminate ways in which the pope might better understand economics, economists 97 might better understand the pope, and champions of soli- This is good news for a pope and a book that contradicts darity and subsidiarity might take steps toward one anoth- many current trends of thought, though in quite differ- er. Its author, Robert Whaples, should count this amongst ent ways. From its genesis in 1891 with , his proudest life accomplishments, for history repeatedly (CST) has in fact always been a reveals that ideas about economics often matter more than sign of contradiction. Its successive voices, building up we can foresee. + TAXIS COSMOS from the shared foundation of human dignity, emphasize The next few sections will go into more depth by illustrat- different aspects of the relationship between its two central ing three arenas in which the authors, mostly economists, principles: subsidiarity and . Subsidiarity calls for have argued that increased subsidiarity is actually the way the decisions to be made as locally as possible (beginning to achieve more solidarity. Taking Francis’s end as given, with the individual), while solidarity points to the intrinsic they propose the most efficient means. They are as follows: equality between all members of society and celebrates their level playing fields in the market, polycentric governance interdependence. The overarching goal of CST is always re- for natural resources, and the economic role of the family. ferred to as “the common good.” This concept continues to The penultimate section covers the other four chapters of be rather nebulous, thus, individuals often interpret it with the book, which do not enter into the subsidiarity-solidarity respect to the two previous principles. How are subsidiarity debate so much as add much substantial context and unique and solidarity balanced in practice? Does one precede the insight. The conclusion covers strengths and weaknesses of other? The way these questions are answered reveals a for- the text as a whole and contains a note on promising av- midable gulf in CST thinkers. Pope Francis has assuredly enues for future research. By merely opening up these dis- staked his camp in the land of solidarity; “We require a new cussions, the axis of the world’s caritas et veritate has been and universal solidarity” (2015, p. 14). In fact, the word “sol- tilted favorably. While the work is far from accomplished, a idarity” appears 14 times in Laudato si’ and 19 in Evangelii surprising amount of value—some might say mutual ben- Gaudium, while “subsidiarity” is used just two times in the efit— has already emerged from the trade in ideas. The fact former and once in the latter. Meanwhile, economists natu- that the first ten pages of the book are filled with the praise rally see all of the world’s problems through the lens of sub- of well-known scholars, archbishops, philosophers, and sidiarity (or to use its formal name, microeconomics). A professors attests to this. While detailed, empirical, and certain school in economics that comes up in the book, the technical in parts, nothing in Pope Francis and the Caring

REVIEW | Pope Francis and the Caring Society ------between

: “The insight general that natural inequality natural The FatalThe Conceit POLYCENTRIC GOVERNANCE OF OF GOVERNANCE POLYCENTRIC RESOURCES COMMON-POOL We are allWe the responsible for protection and care the of environment. This responsibility no knows boundaries. Inaccordance with the principle sub of sidiarityis it important everyone for be to commit ted his level, at working the proper her or overcome to prevalence particular of interests. While both Francis and Martinez di see (or improved rulesmust prevailspontaneity for flourish, to reapedas by andHume Kant, has been never refuted, neglected merely 73). p. (1988, forgotten” or minished) political action as part the of both solution, agree that the any of center change will arise the at personal level. “Gradually was it disclosed that me to the line separating good and evil passes through not states, between nor class es, between nor political parties either right - but through every human heart - and through all human hearts” All and women, children men, (Solzhenitsyn 615). p. 1973, are perpetually free comes that to when it choice; the very closest subsidiarity level of is in fact the basis our of most basic solidarity. III. something be to diminished. Martinez acknowledges that Francis levies a deep critique, though locates he a large por tion the in of state problem rules that winners pick and los ers. thriving a Rather, market structure basedtrue upon subsidiarity will arise only when the playing level. field is As wroteHayek in necessarily falling people have through the cracks. The easi est see to way the difference is that true subsidiaritywould the decision-makersempower closest seek the to to problem themselves, solutions out while false subsidiarity consists localof decision-makers capture who higher levels au of thority their solve to prohibitively them for (i.e. problems high industry regulations). An uneven playing of field is further concern since the growth generates isit inherently unsustainable. Political are favors unavoidably scarce; hu man ingenuity is pointed not. As out Julian Simon (1996) in his magnum opus, the unfathomable humanmind is it self the ultimate resource. inclusive, A healthy, and flour ishing is structured economy so that all human beings can make full use their of ultimate resource and thus become co-creators. the In such a way, each person can be a basis mutual for benefit, rather than ------, 2015 subsidiarity. An filled economy with Laudato si’ false is the beyond reach readers of want who know to

Whatcauses an uneven playing Skillfully, field? Martinez has immense engendered inequality, injustice and acts violenceof against the majority humanity, of since re sources in up end the hands the of firstor comer the most powerful: the winner takes all. Francis,– Pope The biblical The accountsof creation invite to us see each human being as a subject can who be never reduced to the status an of object… This“might of vision is right” political rather rent-seekers than real entrepreneurs will Charles make to Koch) his point that what Francis sees as a lack solidarity of is indeed symptomatic unsustainable of growth caused by playing field. utilizes a range sources the of (from Psalms an to article by be true no solidarity, thus common good, no until the mar ginalized societies are into the welcomed market. Martinez declares that what separates the two isthe lack a level of a vicious cycle poverty, despair, of and destruction. The first seems be to successfully nations) (or people groupof pursu ingthe common good, though Francis argues that there can Francis as paints he a picturetwo of societies, that one is caughtfavorably in up a virtuous circle knowledge, of ex change, and wealth creation, and another that is trapped in of economic andof political resources with a limited group of powerful This individuals” kind 70). responseof is (p. right in line with ancient Catholic tradition.follows The chapter in the affirmative,although not is problem to the inherent capitalism; what Francis “Rather, is addressing is our lack of concern: our indifferencetowards very large concentrations global uneven to is playing home economy fields, which would mean that the pope is correct in decrying the exclu marginalized of sion groups. Martinez, For the answer is ticians, religious leaders, and those living next “the to Joneses” in the past decade. Gabriel Martinez centers his contribution around thequestion whether of the not or Economic inequality has been a serious concern poli of II. LEVEL PLAYING FIELDS PLAYING II. LEVEL fied, equipped, welcomed and into the immemorial conver sation man about as profit-maximizer and political-actor perhaps even, God-seeker). (and Society the about more interplay between morality and economics. In fact, the readership will find doubt no themselves edi VOLUME 6 | ISSUE 1 + 2 2018 6 | ISSUE VOLUME

COSMOS + TAXIS 98 COSMOS + TAXIS

– Pope Benedict XVI, Message for the Celebration of ty can build solidarity, and is oriented toward the common the World Day of Peace, 2010 good:

A pioneering chapter of the book was Phillip Booth’s essay Both centralization advocates and privatization advo- on “Property Rights and Conservation,” culminating with a cates accept as a central tenet that institutional change compelling argument for the symbiosis of Elinor Ostrom’s must come from outside and be imposed on the in- work on common-pool resources (CPR) and Catholic social dividuals affected… Instead of basing policy on the teaching. Beginning with the ancient Church’s exultation of presumption that the individuals involved are help- communal property and modest living, he leads the read- less, I wish to learn more from the experience of in- er through Aquinas and the late Scholastics whom explic- dividuals in field settings. Why have some efforts to itly encourage private property rights – not as an absolute solve commons problems failed, while others have right, but for similar reasons that one would insist upon the succeeded? What can we learn from experience that wearing of clothes. Although religious and scholars quibble will help stimulate the development and use of a bet- about whether personal property existed pre-Fall, our loss ter theory of collective action—one that will identify of innocence requires guards so that we might learn to re- the key variables that can enhance or detract from the spect one another again. Thus, clothing and private prop- capabilities of individuals to solve problems? (p. 14). erty exist as barriers to eyes that can easily slip into lust and greed. Not only do these encourage peace and proper up- This is not to mention her intellectual humility, a role keep of the goods of this earth, but the right to private prop- model for religious and lay scholars alike. erty is also recognized (primarily by Leo XIII) as aligning What Benedict XVI, the “Green Pope,” attributed to sub- the common good with the grain of self-interested, creative sidiarity, Francis might consider as he approaches with his 99 behavior. comparative advantage of a solidarity-focused framework. The driving thesis of Booth’s chapter is thatLaudato si’ The enormous amount of case studies produced by Elinor missed a remarkable opportunity to build upon research Ostrom and her Workshop provide the perfect playing regarding the efficacy of property rights, quasi-property ground to unearth the ways in which these two principles rights, and polycentric governance to handle environmen- may be respected in practice. Trusting local communities COSMOS + TAXIS + TAXIS COSMOS tal dilemmas. The work of Elinor Ostrom on common-pool with the responsibility to craft and enforce the conserva- resources is important for researchers with concerns simi- tion of their own common resources will revive their per- lar to those of the pope; her framework is not simply pri- formance and once again place human closeness at the fore- vate vs. public, rather, it fills in the gaps between the theory ground of human life. Economic necessity begets voluntary of the firm and the theory of the state by producing some- association, “closeness,” getting “dirty,” and befriending thing like a theory of civil society. Contrary to the prevail- our neighbor, “with his or her familiar face, story, and per- ing thought of her time, Ostrom refused to believe that sonality,” to borrow the words of Francis (2015a; 2015b). humans, endowed with reason and ingenuity, could be ir- Again, a respect for subsidiarity provides fertile ground for reversibly trapped in “the tragedy of the commons.” Booth solidarity to grow. adds a fascinating historical note; the quintessential jour- nal article on environmental protection, “The Tragedy of IV. THE ROLE OF THE FAMILY the Commons,” was actually about compulsory population control. Hardin’s own epigraph: “The population problem Looking at [the family] in such a way as to reach its has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental exten- very roots, we must say that the essence and the role sion in morality.” The tragedy of the commons was simply of the family are in the final analysis specified by love. a metaphor for his argument in favor of governing “human Hence the family has as its mission to guard, reveal breeding.” Alternatives to the tragedy of the commons seem and communicate love… to be of Catholic interest through and through. – Pope John Paul II, , 1981 In her classic text, Governing the Commons, Ostrom (1990) echoes the themes of CST. Her work begins from an Allan Carlson’s chapter, the seventh and final, takes up the integral view of human dignity, identifies how subsidiari- concrete link the Catholic social teaching principles of hu-

REVIEW | Pope Francis and the Caring Society : - - - - - property Leisure, the Basis Interestingly, Francis writes that marriage amplifies the Against the exclusiveness the of paradigm as work of effort,leisure is the condition of considering things in a celebrating spirit.… Leisure is only possible in the assumption that man only is not in harmony with himself…also but is he in agreement with the world andits meaning.Leisure lives affirmation.on not It is the same as the absence activity; of the is it not same thingas quiet, even as or an inner quiet. is rather It like the stillness in the which lovers, conversation of is their 31-33). by fed oneness (pp. This seemsto be exactlyFrancis what exhorts hisreaders Francis and Carlson also see the family as a playing a differences betweenmen “wherein women: and hus the band his helps wife a woman become to ever and more wherein husband her the become to ever [helps] woman… All economists know the 221). sim p. a man” (2016, more formulaple that specialization begets trade, which in turn begets mutual gains. might picture We this becoming “ever asmore” an increase in resources available the to man and to reclaim,to writing extensively pursuing about the simple life, which the engenders understanding that “everything is Furthermore, 70). Carlson p. interconnected”poses (2016, the simplified, minimalist lifestyle as a “responseuniqueto the Malthusian argues he challenge.” that However, Francis could potentially find a great ally in the Distributists, Chesterton and Belloc, instead who their “place strongest emphasisthe on widest possible distribution of the ownership each by family a house, of acres a few land, of Againand arises small the scale theme 193-194). tools” (pp. greaterof subsidiarity making greater for room solidarity. beauty being of first: loved children loved before even are Every parent would agree that 166). they p. it arrive” (2016, takes an enormous amount individual of responsibility and bringhard to work a new person into the and help to world whatthem could social be grow (and more than that?). crucial part in rediscovering balanced a more life labor of and leisure.physical The structures surroundthat us in creasingly glorify business peace;over “Neighbourhoods, even thoserecently built, are congested, chaotic and lack ing innot meant to were sufficient be We in green space. undatedcement, asphalt, by glass and metal,and deprived physicalof might contact It be with nature” (Francis 2015b). good ask, to what exactly is lost when leisure Josef is lost? definesleisure in hiswork, Pieper (1952) Culture: of ------. Francis (2016) explicitly locates. Francis (2016) being , was the firstto articulate consumerism and having

True to orthodoxy, to FrancisTrue rejoices in the fact that man which wants to have more, not in order to be more but which but in wants be to more not more, order have to in spend to life order in as an enjoyment in end itself (p. 36). BothFrancis Pope and Carlson identify the family as the It is not wrong is not want to It live to better; what is wrong is a style life of which is presumed be to better when it is directed towards ‘having’ rather than ‘being’, and Ever-present in the Francis rhetoric of Ever-present are warn preciate the utterly gratuitous is it the dimension love… of who are compelled (or culturally arewho compelled (or full pressured) work to time. This willhusbands enable and wivesto wholeheart edly children welcome into their lives, us enable who “to ap cause, like John Paul II, Francis a greater hopes for rever ence be to submitted desire who women to fully to devote themselves motherhood, to rather than a society mothers of his comparative her or advantage in contributing the to common flourishingof the family. This plays animportant in role his functioning vision properly a of be economy, solidarity. and woman are different and equal in dignity—each with tury. Subsidiarity in economic and political life empowers stable, strong families use to their time, talents, and posses insions the service God of and thus another, one increasing (p. 174). In fact, the cultural 174). (p. material decay by on brought gorging is well accounted in for the every of words pope, almost mention to not any religious leader in the last cen this in power the family genesis of life, mothers, serve who as “the strongest antidote the to self-serving of spread in dividualism…Itis they testify who the to beauty life” of great antidote the to emptiness consumerism—a of rebal ancing of as this essential tension: ings regarding inordinate consumption. John Paul II, in pinbetween subsidiarityand solidarity;channels it spon taneity that might it be oriented toward the common good. harmony between labor and leisure,and har the “profound betweenmony” Through man eachof 190). and woman (p. these relationships, familial is portrayed love as the linch concerns? Carlson points threeto places familial where love restores right within order oureconomic lives: theneces sary harmony between “having” and “being,” the natural man dignity, subsidiarity, solidarity and the common good. That link is whichfor Love, the family is the earthly, God- given sign. What has this familial with do to love economic VOLUME 6 | ISSUE 1 + 2 2018 6 | ISSUE VOLUME

COSMOS + TAXIS 100 COSMOS + TAXIS

woman, which shifts out the production possibilities fron- V. CONCLUSION tier and creates greater value for society. Perhaps the spon- taneous order of love is what helps homo economicus to be- Before moving beyond the work, there is much low-hanging come ever more human as his activities extend from hearth fruit to be found directly in the essays, whether as exten- to city. Pope Francis and Carlson certainly believe so. sions or repeated testing of the hypotheses. Future avenues for research could investigate such questions: policy that V. CONTEXT, CHARITY, AND COMMENTARY causes uneven playing fields, the efficacy of different kinds of private charitable giving, polycentric governance struc- There remain four more essays to comment upon: Andrew tures for civil society, the responsibility of churches for busi- Yuengert’s “Pope Francis, His Predecessors, and the ness ethics, the impact of advertising on economic growth, Market,” Samuel Gregg’s “Understanding Pope Francis: theories of leisure and labor, the economic complementar- Argentina, Economic Failure, and the Teología del Pueblo”, ity of men and women… and the list goes on. As mentioned Lawrence McQuillan and Hayeon Carol Park’s “Pope at the genesis of this article, there is a particularly robust Francis, Capitalism, and Private Charitable Giving,” and A. symbiosis between Austrian economics and Catholic social M. Waterman’s “Pope Francis on the Environmental Crisis.” teaching. Not only do the works of Mises and Hayek still Yuengert and Gregg complement one another well in laying contain much to be applied through the lens of CST prin- the groundwork of a fuller context for Francis by displaying ciples, but modern thinkers like Elinor Ostrom and Julian the consistency of his thought with past and the con- Simon have produced work that sheds further light on the temporary experience of Argentinians. However, it is un- relationship between subsidiarity and solidarity. Francis fortunate that Yuengert’s analysis did not reach far enough and the economists may not agree on the theory of nonsa- back to explore the rich economic traditions of Aquinas, the tiation of present wants, but it can be safely assumed that 101 Late Scholastics, or even Pope Leo XIII. the desire for these sorts of conversations is still unsatisfied. McQuillan and Park take Francis very seriously as they Pope Francis and the Caring Economy addresses many lay out exactly how the reforms he is endorsing would lead important economic and political questions, but future ar- to lower amounts and lower quality of charitable giving to guments may need to take place on deeper levels in order to the poor. “When politicians around the world undercut the persuade Francis and those who agree with him. In a way, COSMOS + TAXIS + TAXIS COSMOS institutions of capitalism by raising taxes or assaulting pri- Pope Francis and economists are still speaking two differ- vate-property rights, they attack the heart of private char- ent languages. This is not a reference to any monetary jar- ity” (p. 102). They then take the opportunity to dispel many gon or theological parlance, rather, Francis is speaking to prevalent misconceptions about welfare and foreign aid by souls and economists to economic agents. Though both are compiling an impressive line-up of evidence showing the interested in a type of “utility maximization” for every indi- unfortunate unintended consequences of these well-intend- viduals, their analyses take place over drastically different ed policies. Waterman’s essay yields a much deeper, techni- time-horizons (i.e. eternal beatific vision). Former popes cal understanding of Laudato si’ by analyzing Francis’s eco- have been much more favorable in their estimation of capi- nomics, biology, and theology. Though he connects Julian talism, however, it came because they were convinced of the Simon with the optimistic and “pronatalist” Catholic belief morality of the enterprise, not purely it’s ability to enrich about the creative capacity of the human mind, Waterman the lives of so many. The point that Pope Francis continual- concludes that the message of Laudato si’ was weakened by ly makes is this: there is no Christ of economics. Technical its inability to give up its “pre-Malthusian view of nature” knowledge is not man’s savior, it is his tool. However, a per- and to see how “in public policy human sin makes it neces- fect starting place for this next conversation is the underly- sary to supplement virtue by an appeal to self-interest” (pp. ing point of the economists in this volume: it befits the dig- 144, 149). Finally, I have not yet applauded the foreword of nity of man that he is allowed to freely partake in and build Michael Novak, introduction of Robert Whaples, and con- up the market. Their thoughtful scholarship illustrates that, clusion of Robert Murphy. Their shared counsel was that in order for solidarity to flourish, society needs to be orga- economists and Pope Francis have a great amount to learn nized around subsidiarity as responsibility is the lifeblood from each other, and if we are humble enough to listen, of institutions closer to home (or home itself). They ask: Is both sides will gain greater insight. not this the common good?

REVIEW | Pope Francis and the Caring Society

. Oakland: . Retrieved

. Princeton: Princeton . Retrieved from . Retrieved from The Gulag Archipelago Familiaris Consortio Pope Francis andthe Caring Society The Ultimate Resource 2 Leisure: The Basis of Culture; The Philosophical . Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, Inc. Act http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/ hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno.html. http://w2.vatican.va/ content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/ _familiaris-consortio.html. documents/hf_jpii_exh_19811122 org/details/TheGulagArchipelago- https://archive. from Threevolumes. Independent Institute. University Press. Pieper, Josef. 1952. Pius XI. 1931. Pope John Paul II. 1981. Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr. 1973. Whaples, Robert. 2017. Simon, Julian. 1996). - - 162: will be

. Retrieved

Science The American . Cambridge: Washington Post . Retrieved from Lanham: Lexington Books. . Retrieved from http://w2.vatican. . Chicago:University The of Chicago . Retrieved from https://w2.vatican.va/ Faith and Liberty: The Economic

. Retrieved from http://w2.vatican. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Governing the Commons 35 (4): 519-530. Centesimus Annus Pope FrancisPope and the Caring Society Rerum Novarum Laudato si’ TheFatal Conceit . Retrieved from . 1988. . 2015a. Meeting. 2015b. with Taking Part in the World . 2016.

va/content/leo-xiii/en//documents/hf_l-xiii_ enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html Cambridge University Press. Press. http://w2.vatican.va/content/ john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/ documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus.html. Issue Where Bernie Sanders Is Right. from http://www.washingtonpost.com. content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa- francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf. 1243-1248. Economic Review: va/content/francesco/en/ encyclicals/documents/papa- francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html. Meeting Families. of Retrieved from https://w2.vatican.va/content/ september/documents/ francesco/en/speeches/2015/ papa-francesco_20150927_usa-vescovi-festa-famiglie.html. Thought of the Late Scholastics. Brethren. Translated Phillip by Schaff. Retrieved from xiv.ii.html. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf109. francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa- va/content/ francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html. Church https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view. cfm?id=7214&repos =1&subrepos=0&searchid=1815950. Like all good books, the reader isresting left with more Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Leo XIII. 1891. Koch, Charles G. (February Charles Koch: 2016). 18, This Is the One John Paul II. 1991. Hardin, Garrett.Tragedy 1968. The of the Commons. A.Hayek,Use 1945. The of F. Knowledge in Society.

Francis. Evangelii 2013. Gaudium. Retrieved from http://w2.vatican. Chafuen, Alejandro A. 2003. Chrysostom, St. John. 2005. Against Publishing the Errors of . 2004. REFERENCES years Chesterton the come. to At the of end might day, be exactly right in the openingmost The quote. convincing contradictors are those become who saints. picture reality, a handbook those for wishing engage to unique tension and symbiosis betweeneconomic and religious thought for able opportunityable allow to others illuminate to our blind- spots, and the do to same them. for how As a blueprint for multiple voices can bring to complete help a more about questions in his head than answers in his Through lap. con versation and shared experience, each the we have invalu VOLUME 6 | ISSUE 1 + 2 2018 6 | ISSUE VOLUME

COSMOS + TAXIS 102