It comes as a surprise to many people that the pope is as
entitled as anyone else to his opinion on what should be done about climate
change. This doesn’t make it a matter of
religious doctrine, nor could it be an infallible declaration.
 |
| Who am I to judge people who don't know what they're talking about? |
That’s because climate change is a matter of fact as to
whether or not it is happening. It is
outside the Church’s purview to declare infallibly that climate change is, or
is not, occurring. You might as well expect that the Church can make 2 plus 2 equal five, or demand as
a matter of faith that 2 plus 2 equal four — this is not what the Church does.
Pope Francis would be fully within his rights to say something
along the lines of, “Given [or assuming] that climate change is (or is not)
happening, and consistent with everyone’s duty of stewardship, here is my opinion
as to what should be done.” This,
however, could not possibly be regarded as an infallible declaration because
climate change is not a matter of (religious) faith or morals.
 |
| Knew more than the pope — about finance |
Neither the pope nor anyone else can demand the assent of
the faithful (or anyone else) on such an issue, any more than they can on the
belief, expressed by both Leo XIII and Pius XI, that the only way to finance
new capital formation is to restrict consumption and accumulate money
savings. In strict fact, that is the
worst way to finance new capital formation; “future savings,” i.e., monetization of the future stream
of income, is much preferred, as Harold G. Moulton demonstrated in The
Formation of Capital (1935).
The point to keep in mind here is that when the pope speaks as
pope in union with the whole Church on matters of principle regarding faith and
morals, he is speaking infallibly. When,
however, he speaks of how to apply those same principles, he is necessarily
speaking prudentially. His opinion is
entitled to respect, certainly, but it remains an opinion.
The bottom line here is, if the goal is to urge people to
carry out our duty of stewardship of the earth, and there are better ways to do
so than the pope might mention, you are under no obligation whatsoever to
follow any prudential prescription the pope might give. Rather, your duty in social justice — under
penalty of sin — is to organize with others and achieve the same goal by the better
means.
 |
| Guys ... GUYS! Wages are a means to an end, not an end! |
This applies as well to the goal expressed by both Leo XIII
and Pius XI: expanded capital ownership.
The means the popes suggested was that workers should be paid more so
that they can save in order to purchase capital.
Quiz time: what is the goal?
Expanded capital ownership. What
was the prudential means the popes suggested to achieve this goal? Increased wages. If a better means can be found, by all means
employ it — but don’t say that the goal is increased wages as an end in itself.
Of course, what baffles many people is that there is
another, more immediate (although hardly less important) reason for increasing
wages — at least in the short term, until people can begin getting income from
their capital: people have to live.
Thus, people should be paid what they need to live on as a short term
expedient, not as a solution.
 |
| [Sigh] We want an 'ownership system,' not a wage system. |
This amount of pay is determined by strict (commutative)
justice — the market value of the labor — supplemented with charity. As Pius XI explained: “Relations of one to the other [i.e., employers and employed] must be made to conform to the laws
of strictest justice — commutative justice, as it is called — with the support,
however, of Christian charity.” (Quadragesimo
Anno, § 110.)
There are serious problems
associated with paying people more than their labor contribution is worth in
the market, however, so the State should take a hand in matters and implement
programs intended to make it possible for as many people as possible to own
capital, thereby freeing them from utter dependency on wages and welfare, e.g., Capital
Homesteading. As Leo XIII said,
[Prudential
Matter] “If a workman's wages be
sufficient to enable him comfortably to support himself, his wife, and his
children, he will find it easy, if he be a sensible man, to practice thrift,
and he will not fail, by cutting down expenses, to put by some little savings
and thus secure a modest source of income. [Infallible Teaching] Nature itself would urge him to this. We
have seen that this great labor question cannot be solved save by assuming as a
principle that private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable. [Logical
Conclusion] The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its policy should be to
induce as many as possible of the people to become owners.” (Rerum
Novarum, § 46.)
#30#