This article is part of a series of publications of academic debates, launched by the CEU Debate Society and The CEU Weekly. The views expressed below do not necessarily reflect the writers’ personal opinions but are rather roles taken up in the context of a debate.
Proposition – Kristina Georgieva (ECON ’13)
In the 21st century, we know better than to support radical religious views, we fear those who do and we try to constrain them by imposing laws restricting practices that we, as a “moderately” religious society, might find harmful. However, what we in Western Liberal Democracies have failed to recognize so far is that we are ourselves radical believers in God. Our God is money. And as all other fanatics, we take advantage of the weakest members of our “Church” and pile up personal gains on their expense. Having become “capitalist extremists”, we have marginalized the poor in a dead end street. This has resulted in global inequality – inequality in terms of money, but also in terms of opportunities.
This is the problem that Pope Francis points out in his critique of capitalism, and this is the problem that could be addressed if more people supported radically redistributive policies - Robin Hood practices that take excess resources from the rich to give to those who need them more. Such redistribution is not necessary simply for its direct impact of economically empowering the poor, but also for the message that it sends – those who are better off have a responsibility towards the rest, and those who are worse off deserve a second chance – the forgotten essence of social solidarity.
If we agree that this is an important shift in policy and more so – in mindset, that needs to be undertaken in order to stop the abuse of the poor for the sake of the rich, then who better to send this message than the head of the Catholic Church. By the token of his position, he is a man of influence with an outreach to millions of people, who are willing to follow his recommendations. Pope Francis in particular has even greater influence due to the humble life that he leads, for it brings him even closer to the members of his church. Pope Francis “practices what he preaches” and has thus become a man who leads by example and not by coercion. He is the one legitimate actor, who could successfully push forward social redistribution, because he is the one with legitimate moral authority.
Perhaps the Pope is not an expert in economics or labor market incentives, he cannot tell us whether to use flat or progressive tax, or how much to levy on corporations. But where did those experts in economics and labor market incentives get us? The Global Financial Crisis, increasing gap between rich and poor, youth unemployment – a sort of state of nature where everybody is trying to make it on their own. So we shouldn’t try to chicken out of our social responsibility to look after the weak members of “our church” simply by pointing out that the Pope does not have a PhD in Economics. Instead we should allow him to show us the direction which is going to be better for the many and not for the few.
Opposition – Olha Koshchiyenko (IRES’10)
As a spiritual leader of more than a billion of Catholics all around the world, Pope Francis is clearly right when counseling against consumerism and encouraging his followers to give priority to moral values over merely material ones. By promoting a special concern for the poor and marginalized, the Pope inspires people to show more compassion to each other and thus make the world a better place.
However, whereas teaching morals, faith and Christian values lies within the Pope’s traditional area of expertise, calling for specific government interventions with the market doesn’t. By translating a general moral directive of helping the poor into a certain kind of policy, Pope Francis might end up undermining both his authority and the authority of the Church of which he is the Head, not to mention that he might do more harm than good to the world economy.
Even though the moral message of helping the poor is an undoubtedly good idea, there are many differing views on how this should be done. Catholicism is one of the biggest world religions, and its followers live not only in Europe and North America, where most of the world's rich come from, but also in South America, Africa and Asia. In these regions, the radically redistributive government policy might not be an appropriate solution to the poverty problem, since an overwhelming majority of the population lives far below the poverty line. If, thanks to the Pope Francis’ direct encouragement, the governments choose to implement the policy of radical income redistribution and, for one reason or another, the policy goes wrong, the resulting backlash will be immensely harmful to the moral authority of the Pope and of the Church he represents.
Furthermore, one of the fundamental principles of the Catholic social teaching is that people should only get credit for good work done by their own will, not under the external compulsion. Christianity has been for centuries supporting private charity, which goes in-line with the Christian doctrine and which has proven successful in addressing the issue of poverty. If the Church turns to the government asking it to impose mandatory tax payments on the rich for the sake of the poor, it will go against its own principle of free will. Furthermore, it might discourage the rich from further voluntary charity work, thus turning caring for the poor into an unpleasant obligation rather than an inspiring spiritual activity. Such a move will further antagonize the two social groups instead of encouraging social solidarity and cohesion. This not to mention that by turning to the government, the Church will admit its failure to address the issue of poverty and will lose its credit among the believers.
Pope Francis has emerged as a powerful voice, looked up to by the Catholics, faithful of other confessions and even by non-believers. For this reason, he should wisely select the message he communicates to his followers and avoid using his authority to encourage implementation of subjective sets of policy positions.
Photo: patdollard.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment