Catholic Social Doctrine and the Market Economy: Free Persons and Free Markets
It is free persons who make a free market possible
The free market must operate within certain moral, institutional, and legal norms, or else it becomes something other than a free market. The free market is not an autonomous, free-for-all area exempt from moral law or from the hand of positive law. The market must always be protected and kept free, and it must be safeguarded from those who would seek to use it wrongly, whether by fraud, manipulation, abuse of economic power, or monopolization. It operates within the Rule of Law.
PrintCORPUS CHRISTI, TX (Catholic Online) - The social doctrine of the Catholic Church undeniably puts great emphasis on the free market as a valuable, indeed "irreplaceable" economic and social institution. (Compendium, No. 349) Drawing largely from John Paul II's encyclical Centesimus annus, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church is bullish on the free market and supports it as the best general means to assure proper allocation of scarce economic resources, of achieving economic efficiency, and of benefiting the common good.
The free market is an institution of social importance because of its capacity to guarantee effective results in the production of goods and services. Historically, it has shown itself able to initiate and sustain economic development over long periods. There are good reasons to hold that, in many circumstances, "the free market is the most efficient instrument for utilizing resources and effectively responding to needs."
The Church's social doctrine appreciates the secure advantages that the mechanisms of the free market offer, making it possible as they do to utilize resources better and facilitating the exchange of products. These mechanisms "above all . . . give central place to the person's desires and preferences, which, in a contract, meet the desires and preferences of another person." (Compendium, No. 347) (quoting Centesimus annus, 34, 40).
The Compendium continues: "A truly competitive market is an effective instrument for attaining important objectives of justice: moderating the excessive profits of individual businesses, responding to consumers' demands, bringing about a more efficient use and conservation of resources, rewarding entrepreneurship and innovation, making information available so that it is really possible to compare and purchase products in an atmosphere of healthy competition." (Compendium, No. 347)
The free market, then, is generally the best means to achieve a number of desirable economic and social ends, and is justified as an institution to be promoted precisely because of these ends it achieves so efficiently. When the free market carries out these functions "it becomes a service to the common good and to integral human development." The free market, in fact, is precisely valued and judged because of the ends it achieves," and it is the market's social utility--and not the market itself independent of its ends since it is but an instrumental good--that justify it. The free market is a means to an end, in particular, the means to the promotion of the common good, where it finds its value and justification. (Compendium, No. 348)
For the same reason, therefore, the free market is only justified to the extent that it achieves these ends, as the "free market cannot be judged apart from the ends that it seeks to accomplish and from the values that it transmits on a societal level." (Compendium, No. 348)
For all its value, the free market ought not to be confused with a lawless or moral-less market. Nor should the free market be thought as all encompassing, so that all human goods are thought as commodities. We shall review briefly these two limits on the free market.
The free market must operate within certain moral, institutional, and legal norms, or else it becomes something other than a free market. The free market is not an autonomous, free-for-all area exempt from moral law or from the hand of positive law. The market must always be protected and kept free, and it must be safeguarded from those who would seek to use it wrongly, whether by fraud, manipulation, abuse of economic power, or monopolization. It operates within the Rule of Law.
To "safeguard the prerequisites of a free economy" and the benefits of a free market, the State has the "fundamental task" of "determining an appropriate" legal and juridical framework "for regulating economic affairs." This includes assuring "individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services." (Compendium, No. 352)
Importantly, the State's role in assuring freedom of markets must not be one where it tries to "direct economic and social policies" and "become abusively involved in the various market activities," and become "authoritarian--or worse, totalitarian" in its supervisory and regulatory role. Wherever State power becomes involved, however, such actions "must be consistent with the principle of subsidiarity." (Compendium, No. 351)
In some extraordinary cases, where the market has clearly failed or does not obtain for whatever reason (e.g., a natural disaster, an economic depression, or some other aberration), the State--again consistent ...
The free market is an institution of social importance because of its capacity to guarantee effective results in the production of goods and services. Historically, it has shown itself able to initiate and sustain economic development over long periods. There are good reasons to hold that, in many circumstances, "the free market is the most efficient instrument for utilizing resources and effectively responding to needs."
The Church's social doctrine appreciates the secure advantages that the mechanisms of the free market offer, making it possible as they do to utilize resources better and facilitating the exchange of products. These mechanisms "above all . . . give central place to the person's desires and preferences, which, in a contract, meet the desires and preferences of another person." (Compendium, No. 347) (quoting Centesimus annus, 34, 40).
The Compendium continues: "A truly competitive market is an effective instrument for attaining important objectives of justice: moderating the excessive profits of individual businesses, responding to consumers' demands, bringing about a more efficient use and conservation of resources, rewarding entrepreneurship and innovation, making information available so that it is really possible to compare and purchase products in an atmosphere of healthy competition." (Compendium, No. 347)
The free market, then, is generally the best means to achieve a number of desirable economic and social ends, and is justified as an institution to be promoted precisely because of these ends it achieves so efficiently. When the free market carries out these functions "it becomes a service to the common good and to integral human development." The free market, in fact, is precisely valued and judged because of the ends it achieves," and it is the market's social utility--and not the market itself independent of its ends since it is but an instrumental good--that justify it. The free market is a means to an end, in particular, the means to the promotion of the common good, where it finds its value and justification. (Compendium, No. 348)
For the same reason, therefore, the free market is only justified to the extent that it achieves these ends, as the "free market cannot be judged apart from the ends that it seeks to accomplish and from the values that it transmits on a societal level." (Compendium, No. 348)
For all its value, the free market ought not to be confused with a lawless or moral-less market. Nor should the free market be thought as all encompassing, so that all human goods are thought as commodities. We shall review briefly these two limits on the free market.
The free market must operate within certain moral, institutional, and legal norms, or else it becomes something other than a free market. The free market is not an autonomous, free-for-all area exempt from moral law or from the hand of positive law. The market must always be protected and kept free, and it must be safeguarded from those who would seek to use it wrongly, whether by fraud, manipulation, abuse of economic power, or monopolization. It operates within the Rule of Law.
To "safeguard the prerequisites of a free economy" and the benefits of a free market, the State has the "fundamental task" of "determining an appropriate" legal and juridical framework "for regulating economic affairs." This includes assuring "individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services." (Compendium, No. 352)
Importantly, the State's role in assuring freedom of markets must not be one where it tries to "direct economic and social policies" and "become abusively involved in the various market activities," and become "authoritarian--or worse, totalitarian" in its supervisory and regulatory role. Wherever State power becomes involved, however, such actions "must be consistent with the principle of subsidiarity." (Compendium, No. 351)
In some extraordinary cases, where the market has clearly failed or does not obtain for whatever reason (e.g., a natural disaster, an economic depression, or some other aberration), the State--again consistent ...
Rate This Article
1 - 10 of 20 Comments
Leave a Comment
More Living Faith News
- Receiving the Eucharist: I Have Decided to Kneel For Jesus
- Exorcism or not, it's still a miracle
- The Holy Spirit: Sanctifier and Giver of Life, Love and Truth
- Pope Francis tweets his prayers following devastation in Moore
- The Paraclete: The Counselor Who Helps Us Fulfill Our Calling
- Pope Francis calls for change within the Church
- Atheists to have their books placed atop Gideon Bibles
- Killer whale with missing fins cared for by its pod family
- C-section leaves mom fighting for life over dreaded flesh-eating virus
Featured News
- Fr. Paul Schenck: Finding Living Faith on Catechetical Sunday
- The Movie Yellow: Incest as 'Normal' and Cassavates's Slides Into the World of Woes
- The Chicago School Teachers Strike Reveals the Need For School Choice
- The Sexual Barbarians and the Dissolution of Culture
- The Happy Priest Challenges Us to Ask: Who is Jesus to Me?
- Michael Coren on Canadian Public Schools: Teachers, leave those kids alone
- We Cannot Ignore Our Consciences: Cardinal Dolan On Religious Liberty
- In the Face of Danger, Successor of Peter Travels to Lebanon as a Messenger of Peace
- Reflections on the Dignity and Vocation of Women: Who or What?
Most Popular
There's the problem! Americans are out of touch with scientific consensus on climate change Read More
Editorial: Is the Scandal Ridden Obama Administration Becoming a House of Cards? Read More
Sex In Uniform: Why the Increase in Sexual Assaults in the Military? Read More
Bill Donohue, Catholic League, Disclose Fight with the IRS, Demonstrate Courage Read More
Culture of Corruption: Why Obama's misuse of Marines is wrong Read More
Daily Readings
Reading 1, Sirach 4:11-19
Wisdom brings up her own children and cares for those who seek ... Read More
Psalm, Psalms 119:165, 168, 171, 172, 174, 175
Great peace for those who love your Law; no stumbling-blocks ... Read More
Gospel, Mark 9:38-40
John said to him, 'Master, we saw someone who is not one of us ... Read More
Saint of the Day
St. Rita
May 22: St. Rita was born at Spoleto, Italy in 1381. At an early age, ... Read More
Latest Videos
BREAKING: British Soldier Beheaded On UK Street 2013 View Video
Mass singing in St. Peter, Vatican View Video
Miss Crosswhite, the Oklahoma teacher that dared to pray View Video
Marketplace
Our Lady Says: Pray the Creed
In this book, Fr. Shamon highlights the importance of the Creed, ... Read More
Altar Bread
Church Goods product of Altar Bread (hosts or Communion Wafers from ... Read More
Thank you for emphasizing aspects of the Social Doctrine of the Church which many choose to ignore. We need more articles like this one.
Very well written article: clear, informative, precise, and encouraging. This article, if objectively analyzed, debunks many political ideologies in this secular age of moral relativism.
Paul-Emile Leray
You crack me up vance. Unlike you I'm well aware of what Obama and crew have done. But where we part ways is that I don't ignore facts because they may go against my political philosophy. I don't orchestrate a truth that isn't there. But I get it, you have to convince yourself of these things because then what would you do? To admit both parties are neck deep in it would probably cause you to go into a tailspin. I will say that anyone serving is responsible for the mess. Financial Modenization Act of 1999 was passed with bipartisan support with mostly democrats and 5 republicans opposing. You are right, because Pelosi and Reid voted yes for this bill, you are correct, they are responsible for the mess we are in. How you get ok with this GOP sponsored bill, even with it's main sponsor, who is now a VP for the very bank that helped push us off a cliff, I have no idea. Unfortunately vance, Obama wasn't in office yet. And guess what, Santorum voted for the darn bill too! Again, how you ignore that just shocks me. How we allow any of these clowns to continue to serve let alone have the audacity to run for president just escapes me. And every sitting politician since this party started is just as responsible. From the President to the house in senate in 1999 to the present, they are all responsible. Obama's role, he went along with the status quo. Allowed himself to be bought off just like everyone else. Solyndra, you do realize that the government's dealings with this company began under Bush right? The loan program that allowed for the money to be given to Solyndra was a Bush program and their administration tried to fast track that money to them prior to Obama taking office. Surely isn't the first time or last time our tax dollars will be wasted by politicians trying to score political points. I guess if I were a senior right now I sure as heck wouldn't want any of my government healthcare touched. My benefit when it applies to me and socialism when it's everyone else right?
Rob, Confused??? It sounds like it. I guess you forgot that the Marxist Democrat Party took control of congress in 2006 with your Dear Leaders Obama, Pelosi, and Reid at the helm. They wasted no time sky jacking the national budget BUT Bush didn't veto their big government spending that you acknowledged. Now, here comes your Hope and Change Savior Obama who "claims" he inherited a "Mess". Well, he did inherit a mess, the mess he, Pelosi, and Reid created. Wall Street!! oh yes, those big Obama Bundlers. You know, it's those Solyndra guys who received billions of dollars for going out of business? It turns out that the Solyndra CEO was/is a "Big Wall Streeter". It's the same old hypocritical clap trap like Michele Obama slamming the "Rich" while she is taking a super wealthy luxury vacation with the "Rich and Famous". AAANND let's talk about Medicare. It's you leftist beating your gums about Medicare and the Big Bad GOP are throwing grandma over the cliff. You don't remember that?? After all that clap trap, it is the Big Bad Marxists who are throwing granny over the cliff by stripping 1/2 Trillion from the program. They are doing it at a time when the Baby-Boomers are flooding the system. And so, the Marxist Democrat Party keeps slithering along.
The banks are controlled by the government??? Vance, you aren't serious right? Wall Street controlled by marxists? Serioulsy? I guess Wall Street types had no presence in the last republican administration right? They don't give anything to the GOP right? I must have missed the part about Senator Gramm being a republican, I didn't realize he was a marxist democrat. And I want to make sure I understand the logic, cuts to medicare is not caring for people so funding it is but providing people the means to eat food is marxists? So health care for seniors is "helping" and food for people is marxism? You do know that the program to increase the roles on food stamps was a Bush program that Obama continued right? So if I follow you, Big business and wall street (only the republican part) are allowed to do whatever they want because it's Christian, American or free, but everything else you don't happen to subscribe to (with the exception of Medicare) is big government marxism. And the solution thus far is to put into office guys who have made a fortune off the big government we are trying to cut? I have to say I am honestly confused.
Mark M, Slave to the Market?? How in the world are you a slave if you "CHOOSE" to shop anywhere you want?? You are NOT forced to shop at Walmart. You are NOT forced to buy a Chevy Volt. The banks are "Controlled" by the government. They have been government controlled since FDR in the 1930's. Wall Street is largely controlled by millionaire and Billionaire Marxists like Warren Buffett and the rest of the Obama "Bundlers". The late Steve Jobs was a Billionaire Leftist who financed Obama and the Marxist Democrat Party campaigns. Obama and the Marxists care about people??? I don't call 26 million people out of work caring for people. I don't call a "Record Number" of people on Food Stamps and welfare caring for people. I don't call forcing Catholics to kill babies against their will caring for people. I don't call stripping 1/2 Trillion Dollars from Medicare caring for people. Freedom is caring for people.
Andrew, thanks for the clarification. There definitely is a certain shook and visualization value to bringing this abominable practice up. Still the larger issue is humans in general treated as objects to be used with defacto slavery still occurring. It is not too much of a stretch to compare the practice of subsistence level wage workers who change employers with people being traded as producer, not consumer, goods. Very good article despite this oversight, for lack of a better word.
@Norm. The mention of corpses is not weird. I had in mind the horrible practice by the Bedouins with the cooperation of Egyptian physicians of harvesting organs from victims in the Sinai and then selling them for money. Google this and you will see how this horrid marketplace exists.
"Marriage contracts, orphans, human corpses or organs, the freedom of religion or free speech ought not to be traded as if they were consumer goods."
I was following this article well until this final sentence which mentions human corpses as an example of something not to be traded. Does this even have to be mentioned-don't we as civilized readers of this publication already know this? I would think "human beings" would have been a much more appropriate example to use. There is something weird going on in this article.
Andrew Greenwell writes some of the best stuff I've seen at Catholic Online. Not too long ago Deacon Fournier was advancing the case that just because the liberals (and here, Vance, you are cleared in "hot" to call them Marxists, because they are) had hijacked the concept of "social justice" to their own immoral purposes that we ought not to abandon the phraseology itself. In fact we can't because it is every bit of the Social Doctrine of the Church. And Andrew Greenwell is providing us with the clear statements of the Church in its Compendium that make that point. The errors are made when we equate equality of result with equality of opportunity. No one is guaranteed the "good life." Economics is as much a "science" with discernible "laws" as the law of gravity applies to Newtonian physics. Morality enters into the application of any science in how we use or abuse what God has given us. It does not alter the fact that E equals M times C-squared but what we do with that equation in regard to use (nuclear power plants) or abuse (nuclear weapons) can be deemed morally licit or potentially immoral respectively. The "free market" does have the potential for abuse (greed) but so too does "freedom." And in that regard we must remember the Jeffersonian admonition that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Life and social interaction does not take place on autopilot or as a "set piece" operation. It requires discernment and our active moral engagement.