The Political Spectrum

In the spirit of Uncomfirmable, I would like to thank William Rees-Mogg for the advice he gives to the prospective Pope, but would like to also tell him to take a flying leap.

Normally I would be the first one to stick up for capitalist principles, but Mogg's piece is fundamentally incorrect in two areas, and is quite frankly misguided in its main premise.

First of all, Rees-Mogg essentially calls the Church socialist.

The next pope will be a socialist; no doubt a democratic socialist, but a socialist all the same. Almost every cardinal and bishop in the Roman Catholic Church, and probably every bishop in the Anglican Church, is a socialist. They are socialists in the same sense as Tony Blair, or Gerhard Schröder, or Jacques Chirac, or Bill Clinton. They are all socialists because they have never studied the liberal argument. That is a pity; liberalism may not be enough, but it is the basis of our culture.

Interesting to note that the same Church which still largely follows the teachings of Leo XIII as set forth in Rerum Novarum, an encyclical which outright condemns socialist theory, should be so labeled. Of course it could be argued that Church economic teaching is quasi-socialist in that it stresses the responsibility of the state to alleviate the condition of the impoverished, but it also teaches the doctrine of subsidiarity, which places the burden of responsibility on the individual person rather than the state.

These are mere quibbles. It is true that the Church hardly praises pure capitalism, but as others have noted, there really is no country on Earth that practices pure capitalism. But even if we are to admit - as I would - that capitalism is the best practicable economic system, it would be foolish to deny that there will be those that suffer as a result. Thus the Church, as it should, seeks to promote ways which help those who truly cannot help themselves. While it may be true that many of our Church leaders do not fully understand all the nuances of micro and macro-economics (who does, really?), it is highly arrogant to contend - as Rees-Mogg does - that it is a matter of ignorance.

Of course my evaluation of this piece is not helped by statements such as the following:

The United States is the product of Locke’s thought, both through the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Remember what I said yesterday about wishing to bang my head on a table? I really wish that anyone who deigns to write a sentence like that would be immediately hit with a bolt of electricity. While one can perhaps plausibly claim that Jefferson was inspired by Locke in writing the Declaration of Independence, I would truly like to know how one can read the hand of Locke on our Constitution. What exactly are the Lockean touches upon the electoral college, the United States Senate, and all of the basic structures within the Constitution that inhibits majoritarianism?

That's a bit of a tangent I know, but it is just the icing on the cake. Ultimately, it is getting more and more difficult to abide non-Catholics telling the Church what it ought or ought not do in selecting a Pope.(I am making an assumption that the author is a non-Catholic based on his saying during the piece that he "was a member of the congregation at St George’s Chapel for the Service of Prayer for the marriage of the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall") I do not care if it comes from a right-wing or left-wing perspective. The idea that the Church ought to change thousands of years of tradition based on the whim of some journalist strikes me as a very bad idea.

I am not saying that mother Church should close her eyes and ears to outside sources of ideas, but there are principles involved that go far beyond liberal political theory. It would be nice of these ever-so helpful buttinskis to keep that in mind the next time they decide to offer up such sage advice.