Pesos

Eu pretendo neste post atribuir um peso relativo (em percentagem) sobre a influência que cada uma das correntes de pensamento que identifiquei no post anterior - a socialista, a liberal e a católica - possui em diferentes países da Europa Ocidental e da América do Norte. A avaliação é necessariamente subjectiva, reflectindo o meu conhecimento teórico acerca da presença de cada uma da correntes de pensamento em cada um dos países considerados, bem como a minha obervação directa da vida nesses países.

EUA: Soc: 20; Lib: 70; Cat: 10.

Países Escandinavos: Soc: 60; ; Lib: 30, Cat: 10.

Canadá: Soc: 30: Lib: 50; Cat: 20.

Portugal (Salazar): Soc: 10; Lib: 10; Cat: 80.

Portugal (actual): Soc: 50, Lib. 20; Cat: 30.

Espanha (Franco): Soc: 10; Lib: 20; Cat: 70.

Espanha (actual): Soc: 40; Lib: 40; Cat: 20.

Itália: Soc: 30; Lib: 30; Cat: 40.

Alemanha: Soc: 50; Lib: 30; Cat: 20.

Reino Unido: Soc: 40; Lib: 50; Cat: 10.

França: Soc: 50; Lib: 30; Cat: 20.

The Pendulum

The Pendulum: Towards an Economic Theory of the Catholic Society


Pedro Arroja (Ph.D., Economics)
Presented at the 7th Professional Seminar for
Church Communications Offices
Pontifical University of the Holy Cross
Rome, April 2010

1. Church Communication and Economics

Church Communication has been a crucial issue for Pope Benedict XVI for a long time. He has, on occasion, suggested that the Church may not have been effective in communicating its message. This is certainly the case in the area of Economics.

There is no Economic Theory of Catholicism, even though the Social Doctrine of the Church (SDC) provides a basis to build one, and some attempts have been made in the past (1). Economists are educated at universities in the political and economic theories of Liberalism and Socialism which are at the core of modern liberal democracies. Both of these currents of political economy have distinctly Protestant origins, Liberalism in the Scottish moral philosophers of the 18th century, Socialism in the German idealism of the 19th century. Among the 51 economists awarded the Noble Prize in Economics since its inception in 1969, there is not a single one from the predominantly Catholic countries of Southern Europe and Latin America. (2)

The purpose of this paper is to sketch a theory of the political economy of Catholicism. A comparison is also made between the socieconomy of a Catholic society with the socioeconomies of Socialist and Liberal societies, respectively.

The key idea emanating from Catholicism is equilibrium. Catholicism recognizes the same values as modern Liberalism and Socialism, but does not take them to extremes. It supports democracy, but not unlimited democracy; it recognizes the value of personal freedom, but not of unrestricted personal freedom; it preaches equality among men, but not absolute equality; it defends private property, but does not exclude public property. What distinguishes Catholicism from Socialism and Liberalism is that it combines these values in a delicate balance, acting as a sort of force of gravity which pushes the pendulum towards the equilibrium position.


2. Subsidiarity

The SDC is based on three fundamental theological pillars – subsidiarity, personalism and solidarity (3). Socialism shares one of these themes - solidarity - but not the other two. Liberalism shares two of them, but distorts both – Catholic personalism is transformed into Liberal individualism and Catholic subsidiarity is sometimes converted into Liberal minimality.

Liberalism defends a Minimal State, often referred to as a police-State, assigning it the minimal functions of external defence, justice, and homeland security. In contrast, Socialism defends the Welfare State which, together with the previous functions, combines a whole set of social, equalizing functions (social security, health, education, etc.).

Catholicism defends the Subsidiary State. The Subsidiary State is that which is called upon to perform the functions which the people within the community cannot fulfil using their own spontaneous arrangements. The Subsidiary State is compatible both with the Minimal State and the Welfare State, or with any other size of the state, depending on the traditions of each community.



3. Personalism

According to Catholic doctrine, man was created in the image of God, therefore man is, in the earthly order of things, the source, the subject and the ultimate end of all things (4). Socialism, which inverts this order of things and has man serving society, is a heresy of the personalistic doctrine of Catholicism. Modern Liberalism incurs yet another heresy as it replaces personalism by individualism, the idea that each man is a mere fragment of society and essentially equal to all other men.

Liberal individualism sees more similarities in men than differences, while Catholic personalism sees more differences than similarities. The distinction lies in the idea of human personality, the set of unique, distinctive and unrepeatable attributes of each human being. The modern return to the Greek view of man as an individual, rather than as a person, was the result of a change of attitude characteristic of modernity, which reached its peak in Kant. This attitude led to the development of modern science, but it also led to regard man as a mere fact of nature, sufficiently equal to all other men so that he could be massified and become a mere statistic (5).

Modern Economics, with its laws and empirical evidence based on the facts of reality (statistics), would never have been possible without this transformation. When man is seen as an individual, and no longer as a person with attributes that are distinctive, unique and unrepeatable – his personality – one of the immediate consequences is that human life is devalued. It is this same devaluation that is found in Socialism when it affirms the supremacy of the state over man.



4. Community

Solidarity, or the sense of community, is a central pillar of the SDC. Chesterton said that the idea of a Catholic Church is, in itself, sui generis in that it is the only Church that treats all men as being part of a community that embraces them all – a true universal community. (6). According to Catholic doctrine, man benefits from society and, in turn, he owes allegiance to society. Each man is encouraged to promote the common good, which is made up of all those goods which are for the benefit of all, such as peace. All men are brought together by a principle of unity, thus all of them are solidary. In this compromise between man and community, man ultimately prevails over the community. (7)

The family is the first human community. Starting from the family, the idea of community is then expanded, first to the so-called intermediate communities (8), then to the national and universal communities Personalism is a key element that unites the members of a community, which is seen as a web of interpersonal relations. Communities of larger order develop as an outgrowth of communities of lower order following a bottom up process.

This view of society contrasts with both Socialism and Liberalism. Under Socialism, the key community is the nation-state; the community is more important than the individual; society is built from above, according to a top down approach, using the state as an instrument; what brings together the members of the socialist community is common allegiance to the powers of the state. Liberalism places the individual above the community; it favours indiscriminately all spontaneous communities which promote the self-interest of the individual; what binds together the members of each community is mutual interest; societies develop as a free, spontaneous process of mutual adjustment between different kinds of communities, such as the family, the business firm, the nation.


5. Society

Socialism aims at maximimizing material equality among men, using the authority of the state as its chief instrument. Liberalism seeks to maximize personal happiness, freedom being its main instrument. Catholicism aims at maximizing human life (9) and charity is its key lever.

It is now possible to have a glance at the key institutions and social processes of a Catholic Society (CS) and compare them with those of the Socialist Society (SS) and the Liberal Society (LS), respectively.

Government. In the SS, government is the most important institution as it is through the coercive power of the state that socialism hopes to attain its goal of equality; politics pervades all sectors of society and is the key ingredient of social relations. The LS mimimizes the role of government and politics; exchange and contract are the hallmark of social relations. In the CS, spontaneous social institutions prevail over government which has a subsidiary role of regulator and arbiter in society; friendship is the characteristic of social relations.

Market. The SS society minimizes the role of the market which is seen as a source of social inequalities. The market is the key institution of the LS; it is through the unhampered interplay of man’s interests that each man can attain his own ends in life; the role of the market is maximized to the point of becoming global, i.e., impersonal (10). The CS also favours the market, but due to its personalism, it puts the emphasis on local markets where people know each other and have control over its outcomes (v.g., prices, production, employment).

Democracy. The SS favours universal democracy which is seen as the hallmark of equality and freedom. The LS also favours democracy which is regarded as the least evil of all political regimes, but it would like to see some limitations on the right of each man to vote (v.g., being a taxpayer or a property holder). The CS with its personalistic character favours limited or personal democracy where voters know each other and know the people they are supposed to vote.

Property. The SS favours public property, which is seen as a means to achieve its goal of equality. The LS favours private property which is viewed as a powerful means for man to achieve his own goals in life. The CS society also favours private property - which is regarded as constitutive of man’s personality -, but with an important restriction, namely, that it is also at the service of the common good; if this condition is not met, public property is favoured over private property.

Family. The SS does not favour the family; the state organizes society from above and provides a whole range of free services (v.g., health, education), and subsidies (v.g., unemployment, maternity, old age) which severely reduce the need for a family. The LS favours the family as a means of promotion of the individual and as long as it is in the interest of the individual to have one; once individual self-interest vanishes, divorce ensues. The CS puts the emphasis on the family as the main social institution; the family is both a protection-institution for the spouses and their children as well as a learning institution; it is in the family that man learns the values of freedom, authority, love, tradition, justice, temperance, etc.


Education. The chief educational institution in the SS is the state through a system of state-funded schools and universities; education has a political goal of conformity with the prevailing social order. The LS puts the educational emphasis on private institutions such as schools, universities, the family and the business firm; education has a practical bias and is seen as a means to prepare man for a professional carrier in business, or area of life. In the CS, the main educational institution is the family, followed by schools and universities; the main purpose of education is to prepare young people for adulthood.

Justice. In the SS, justice is seen as equality and the judicial system is a tool to attain the equalizing goal of socialism; judicial decisions are biased in favour of the poor and the needy; compassion is the main trait of judicial decisions. In the LS, justice is fairness, reflecting the prevailing business culture that no one should be left empty-handed; impartiality is the chief characteristic of judicial decisions. In the CS, justice is retribution; the idea of justice is to make offenders pay a penalty for their offenses; authority is the key characteristic of judicial decisions.



6. The Economy

This key economic institutions and processes of a Catholic Society (CS) can now be analyzed and compared with those of the Socialist Society (SS) and the Liberal Society (LS).

Companies and business. The most important economic institution of the SS is the state or the state-owned company which in general is a large company; production is directed at an impersonal, national market. In the LS prevails the private company, from the small to the large, multinational corporation; production is made for an impersonal market. The prevailing company in the CS society is the family-firm, typically a small company; production is focused on the personal, local market place.

Industrial organization. State monopolies and oligopolies led by a state-owned company are the dominant form of industrial organization in a SS; the private, competitive sector of the economy is small and prevails in industries which are not politically important. In the LS, natural monopolies and oligopolies are also found but are led by private, usually large corporations; the competitive sector of the economy is vast and strong. The CS is the realm of competition among predominantly small family-businesses; large firms are rare as the risk of losing family control prevents the family-firm from growing too large.

Employment. In the SS, the state is the biggest employer either directly or through state-owned companies, and the typical employee is the civil servant; employees are assessed by their adherence to follow orders that come from the hierarchy; promotions are based on political loyalty and seniority. In the LS the greatest employers are large, private corporations; people are evaluated based on their productivity and promotions tend to be based on merit. In the CS, the largest employers are family-businesses; employees are evaluated on the basis of diligence and loyalty, with promotions usually following the growth of the family-firm.

Entrepreneurship. In the SS, entrepreneurship is discouraged; the most important sectors of the economy are dominated by the state or state-owned companies which prevent the entry of new companies; new companies are allowed in the residual, private sector, subject to licensing and detailed regulation. In the LS entrepreneurship is encouraged; this is the country where the most successful and richest businessmen are found; barriers to entry might be found in some sectors dominated by large corporations. The CS is the realm of the small, competitive family-firm; big companies are rare and so is market dominance; there are no significant barriers to start a new business and the required start-up capital is usually small.


Creativity. In the SS, the economy is arranged to serve the needs of an impersonal, national market through state bureaucracies which have no incentive to be creative. In the LS, creativity is stimulated by profit but the impersonal nature of the market puts limitations on the identification of consumer needs. The CS is a face-to-face economy where the producer often knows the consumer personally; the direct knowledge of consumer needs, and the profit incentive, give the Catholic society a considerable potential for economic creativity.

Flexibility. In the SS, changing economic conditions are met by the vagaries of state bureaucracies which are slow to react and have no incentive to adjust; this economy is prone to severe and prolonged misallocations of resources. In the LS there is a powerful profit-incentive to adjust to changing economic conditions but the impersonal character of the market makes it difficult for entrepeneurs and managers to identify the source and direction of change. In the CS producers and consumers live face-to-face in local markets, providing producers both with the knowledge and the profit-incentive to adjust rapidly to changing economic circumstances; misallocation of resources tends to be minimal and of short duration in this society.

Economic Policy. The SS favours economic policy as a means to direct the economy towards the end defined by the state; economic policy is conducted by the state at both the macro and micro levels. The LS rejects economic policy on the belief that government intervention in the economy always produces more harm than good. The CS favours the use of economic policy as a solution of last resort to protect the community; it should be used primarily at the local level of government and subsidiarily at the regional and state levels.

Corruption. In the SS, politicians and managers of large, state-owned companies take decisions with the money of the anonymous mass of taxpayers who do not have sufficient means and information to control them; thus, the door is wide open for them to use this money for their own gain; corruption is a characteristic trait of the socialist society. In the LS, the same risk is present, but now with regard to large corporations, whose managers take decisions with other people’s money – the anonymous mass of shareholders. In the CS, corruption is minimized, as the family-firm prevails; this firm is usually run by its owner, and the owner is sufficiently close to his employees so as to prevent them from using the company’s resources for their own benefit.

Economic and financial crises. The LS is subject to economic and financial crises; all it takes is one or several large companies to go bankrupt for this to have devastating knock-on effects throughout the economy. In the SS, economic and financial crises can also occur, and their effects are even more widespread as the state is the largest employer and the biggest economic institution; in this society, crises are typically the result of the insolvency of the national state. In the CS there are no large economic institutions; the state is generally small, because of its subsidiary role, and even large family-companies can only reach a moderate dimension if they are to remain under family control; in this society, one or several family-firms may go bankrupt without any noticeable effects on the economy; the vast web of family-firms and personal relationships keeps this society insulated from the effects of serious economic and financial crises.


7. Summary and Conclusions

Church communication typically starts out with theology and then evolves to more mundane issues of morals, economics, law, politics, even science. Pope Benedict XVI has consistently argued that Catholicism is a rational doctrine and that there is no opposition between reason and faith. Faith and reason are complementary and faith is regarded as the end-limit of reason. This being so, one effective strategy for Church communication before certain audiences, such as academics, is to start out, not with theology, which is ultimately concerned with faith, but with the social sciences which claim to be the hallmark of reason. Catholic faith will then follow as a consequence and as a necessity of reason.

Modern Economics is from birth a Protestant science (Adam Smith, Scotland, 1776), and the two main competing broad schools of modern political economy also share a Protestant origin - Liberalism (Great Britain) and Socialism (Germany). There is no school of Economic thought which can claim to be distinctly Catholic. Yet, this does not appear to be the fault of the Church but of economists themselves. The SDC, within its broad principles, suggests a distinctive Catholic socioeconomy.

This paper sketches an economic theory of the Catholic society based on the SDC. The socioeconomic paradigm of Catholicism is confronted with the paradigms of Liberalism and Socialism, which together are at the base of modern, liberal democracies. The economic theory of the Catholic society is based on three pillars, personalism, community and subsidiarity and is aimed at maximizing human life.

The paper’s assessment is that a purely Catholic economy, in comparison with the purely Liberal and purely Socialist economies, is more competitive, more creative, and less corrupt; it promotes a closely-knit network of interpersonal relations which enhance job security and economic stability; it leads to a more flexible allocation of resources and less unemployment; it maximizes the probability of a worker becoming an entrepreneur; it is less exposed, and more resilient, to financial and economic crises and external shocks; etc. The purely Catholic economy is a sort of compromise or equilibrium between the excesses and the risks posed by both the purely Liberal and the purely Socialist economies.




Notes and References:
(1) Hilaire Belloc, The Servile State (1912); also E.F. Schumacher, Small is Beautiful (1973).
(2) Nobel Prize winners in Economics by country: USA (34), UK (8), Norway (2), Sweden (2), France, Germany, Israel, Netherlands, Russia.
(3) Michael Glazier and Monika K. Hellwig (eds.), The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 2004, p. 786.
(4) Cathecism: 1912; 1929.
(5) Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, Ignatius Press, S. Francisco, 2004, pp. 158-161.
(6) G.K. Chesterton, Por Qué Soy Catolico, Editorial Homo Legens, Madrid, 2009.
(7) Cathecism: 1880-81.
(8) Centesimus Annus: 49.
(9) Cathecism: Prologue
(10) By an impersonal social process or institution is meant a process in which persons do participate but where the final results of the process cannot be assigned to any single person. A national or global market and universal democracy are examples.

em dracmas

Os yields das obrigações do governo grego a dois anos atingiram esta semana 32%. Ora, com valores desta grandeza, aquilo que os mercado estão a descontar já não é que a dívida do governo grego será reembolsada em euros. Aquilo que eles estão a descontar é que será reembolsada em dracmas - e dracmas fortemente desvalorizados.

.

É possível prolongar a permanência da Grécia, bem como de Portugal e Espanha, no euro talvez um ano ou dois. Mas não é possível prolongar mais. A ajuda da UE/FMI à Grécia, se vier, vai prolongar a agonia, mas não resolve o problema. Um dos instrumentos-chave da receita do FMI, senão mesmo o principal, é a desvalorização da moeda. E dentro do euro a Grécia e Portugal não podem desvalorizar. Só podem fazê-lo fora dele.

.

A saída do euro, e a desvalorização que se seguirá das moedas nacionais, vai levar as economias dos PIGS a fecharem-se por alguns anos. O custo de comprar produtos estrangeiros vai ficar muito elevado, e a procura passa a ser para produtos nacionais mais baratos, fazendo surgir novas empresas nacionais, ou fazendo expandir as existentes, que produzem para os mercados locais e nacional. Esta é uma característica da economia de tradição católica que tenho vindo a descrever, a prioridade que os produtores devem dar, primeiro ao mercado local, depois ao mercado nacional e só em último lugar ao mercado global. Tal significa que para os PIGS, pelo menos, a globalização está prestes a acabar.

.

Num mercado local os produtores conhecem os consumidores e as suas necessidades, e podem orientar as suas produções para a satisfação dessas necessidades. Pelo contrário, o mercado global é uma abstracção, ninguém conhece ninguém, dificilmente as produções se podem ajustar às necessidades dos consumidores. Não surpreende que a experiência da globalização se tenha traduzido numa enorme crise que, na zona Euro, está a afectar os PIGS em primeiro lugar.

.

E está a afectar os PIGS em primeiro lugar porque sendo países de tradição católica estão habituados a produzir para mercados locais, em primeiro lugar. A instituição económica por excelência destas economias é a pequena empresa - a empresa familiar. Estes países nunca tiveram muitas multinacionais, que são as empresas adequadas a produzir produtos estandardizados para mercados globais. Essa é uma característica das economias de tradição protestantes (EUA, RU, Alemanha, etc.).

.

Para os PIGS a saída do euro representa voltarem a produzir de acordo com a sua tradição católica: pequenas empresas servindo em primeiro lugar mercados locais. Será assim também que em Portugal se vão revigorar as pequenas cidades do interior que a recente onda de globalização praticamente fez desaparecer do mapa económico do país.

Maria vai com as outras

A Grécia está à beira do colapso económico e político. Logo a seguir, na fila de espera, estão os países católicos, Portugal, Espanha, Irlanda e Itália.

.

O que é que correu mal na questão do euro? O facto de os intelectuais de cultura católica não pensarem pela sua própria cabeça, não darem importância às ideias, não terem uma doutrina económica que seja conforme à sua cultura. Nunca a desenvolveram. Fora da Teologia, não há doutrina católica sobre economia, política, sociologia, direito, etc. Os intelectuais de cultura católica, incluindo os professores nas universidades, limitam-se a repetir doutrinas de origem protestante em todos estes domínios.

.

Se existisse um pensamento económico católico, o que é que ele teria dito sobre a adesão ao euro, e com que argumentos? Teria rejeitado. O Euro é uma ideia tipicamente da tradição socialista (protestante) que acredita que as comunidades se constroem de cima para baixo. É o típico construtivismo social.

.

O pensamento económico católico teria argumentado que as comunidades não se constroem de cima para baixo. Constroem-se de baixo para cima e o povo, nos diferentes países, nunca tinha reclamado a necessidade de uma moeda única. O personalismo católico que, a nível comunitário, se exprime no respeito pelas diferenças nacionais, teria a acrescentado que aquilo que é bom para um país não é necessariamente bom para os outros. As diferenças de produtividade, por exemplo entre a Alemanha e Portugal, não iriam desaparecer com o euro. Pelo contrário, iriam manter-se, e, a prazo, isso seria fatal para o euro. Os alemães, na sua tradição protestante, vivem para o trabalho e realizam a vida no trabalho. Os portugueses, na sua tradição católica, vivem para gozar a vida, trabalhando o mínimo que podem para esse efeito. Finalmente, o princípio da subsidiaridade. Se as pessoas, nos seus arranjos espontâneos, nunca tinham acabado com as moedas nacionais, porque razão vai o Estado fazê-lo coercivamente, quando ninguém o chamou para isso?

.

Pronto, mas agora já é tarde. Agora, avizinha-se um cataclismo económico e político que acabará com o Euro para os países católicos e também com a classe política que ao longo dos últimos vinte anos não teve a inteligência para evitar meter-se nessa aventura. Faltando-lhes a capacidade e o engenho para pensarem pela sua própria cabeça, o que significa pensarem de acordo com a sua tradição cultural, os intelectuais de cultura católica são uma espécie de "Maria vai com as outras".

liberdade moderna

A concepção moderna de liberdade a que me refiro no meu post anterior também inclui isto, na realidade, como então argumentei, inclui o que se quiser (cf. tb. aqui).
.
Eu gostaria ainda de me dirigir ao Rui a., que tem posto em causa a importância da minha hipótese de base acerca da cultura católica portuguesa, para lhe colocar duas questões:
.
1) Imagina algums jornal português a conduzir uma campanha contra a visita do Papa semelhante àquela que tem sido conduzida pelo Times? Não imagina por certo. Porque o Papa estará em Portugal dentro de dias e nenhum a fez.
.
2) Suponha que a notícia de hoje do Times era publicada num jornal português. Imagina uma caixa de comentários igual à do Times, com todo o tipo de ofensas ao Papa? Não é possível imaginar, significaria que Portugal estaria à beira de uma guerra civil.
.
O Liberalismo que o Rui a. pretende defender está espelhado na caixa de comentários do Times. É um Liberalismo que se fosse implantado em Portugal conduziria à guerra civil (como conduziu depois da Revolução Liberal de 1820; como conduziu a uma revolução para se impôr na Inglaterra em 1688, onde o catolicismo foi derrotado e proibido por cerca de cem anos)

liberdade católica

O Rui a. afirma neste post que eu mudei muito nos últimos anos, ao ponto de desdizer praticamente tudo aquilo que havia dito no passado. Eu penso que mudei alguma coisa, mas não convém exagerar.

.

Um ponto onde certamente mudei é na concepção de liberdade - mas não na ideia de liberdade em si - e é sobre este ponto que gostaria de elaborar, tanto mais que me parece que é este ponto que é decisivo para a avaliação que o Rui a. faz do meu percurso. Para tanto uma pequena digressão filosófica é necessária, porque é nesta digressão que está a chave da mudança.

.

O tema central da Reforma Protestante foi a constestação da autoridade do Papa e é ainda esse ponto - aliás, o único - que ainda hoje une as diferentes denominações protestantes. O Papa é o representante de Deus, e portanto não seria nada surpreendente que mais cedo ou mais tarde a filosofia de inspiração protestante - que é a filosofia moderna - internalizasse esta ideia e contestasse a autoridade de Deus. Assim o fez.

.

Foi Kant o filósofo que matou Deus. Se se disser que foi David Hume antes dele, eu não contestaria, porque não me parece ser um ponto decisivo. Hume é o filósofo do protestantismo anglo-saxónico e Kant o filósofo do protestantismo continental, que é essencialmente germânico. O protestantismo que se exprimiu na filosofia moderna a partir destes dois filósofos rejeitou uma ideia de liberdade - que eu chamarei aqui de liberdade natural - e substituiu-a por uma outra - a que chamarei liberdade moderna.

.

A ideia de liberdade que prevalecia até à modernidade era, de facto, uma ideia de liberdade natural, aquela que emerge da família. E que liberdade é que um pai concede a um filho? A liberdade para fazer tudo aquilo que ele quiser desde que não seja mau para ele próprio ou para os outros. Quando o filho cresce, e se supõe que ele passa a saber aquilo que é mau para si próprio, a sua liberdade fica apenas limitada pela restricção de não fazer mal aos outros.

.

O primeiro aspecto a salientar é o conteúdo concreto desta concepção de liberdade: "podes fazer isto, aquilo e aqueloutro, contanto que não faças mal aos outros". O segundo aspecto a salientar é que esta liberdade é limitada pela autoridade, inicialmente a autoridade do pai, depois as diversas autoridades que um homem encontra pelo caminho ao longo da sua vida, como a do professor, do patrão, etc., e, em última instância, quando não restar nenhuma autoridade humana acima dele, a sua liberdade é limitada pela autoridade de Deus. Esta é a concepção cristã (católica) de liberdade.

.

Muito diferente é a liberdade moderna. Nós ainda hoje nos recordamos que no 25 de Abril que hoje se comemora toda a gente dava vivas à Liberdade, aliás a data é ainda hoje considerada o Dia da Liberdade. Trata-se, obviamente, de uma concepção abstracta de liberdade e, por isso, cada um dá-lhe o conteúdo que quer. Para uns, liberdade está na capacidade de votarem em eleições democráticas cada quatro anos, para outros em fazerem aborto a pedido, para outros ainda em depreciarem terceiros a seu bel-prazer; para outros ainda em terem um Estado mais pequeno; e para os homossexuais em poderem casar como fazem os heterossexuais. Já se vê que, nesta concepção abstracta, não há entendimento possível sobre o que seja a liberdade. Esta é uma concepção a-racional de liberdade, ao contrário da concepção católica.

.

Em segundo lugar, depois de a filosofia moderna matar a autoridade de Deus, a liberdade moderna é limitada, não por uma autoridade pessoalizada e em última instância por Deus, como a liberdade católica, mas por uma outra abstracção - a lei. Em última instância a lei é que define o que é a liberdade. Ontem não havia liberdade para fazer um aborto, hoje já há. Hoje não há liberdade para dois homossexuais casarem, mas amanhã já pode haver. As dificuldades aumentam quando o sistema judicial não é eficaz, como acontece em Portugal, porque passa então a ser liberdade tudo aquilo que o sistema judicial não consegue penalizar. A concepção moderna é uma concepção arbitrária de liberdade. Dois homens perfeitamente racionais nunca chegarão a acordo sobre o que seja a liberdade.

.

Era esta a concepção de liberdade que eu possuía no final dos anos 80 antes de saber no que ela dava. Hoje, perante os resultados que estão debaixo dos olhos, e fruto de uma mais profunda reflexão, não a perfilho. Perfilho a concepção de liberdade católica, que é uma liberdade concreta ("podes fazer isto, mas não aquilo") e uma liberdade que está sujeita a uma autoridade, em última instância a autoridade de Deus. Mas não me parece que, por esta diferença, eu seja hoje menos radical na defesa da liberdade do que era há vinte anos (como ainda hoje sou relembrado aqui).

The longest

The longest surviving institution in the World

É?

No seguimento do meu post anterior: as doutrinas saídas da reforma protestante, no domínio teológico, filosófico, político, etc., estão de tal maneira impregnadas de irracionalidade que tiveram de se inventar clichés para a ocultar. As pessoas repetem este clichés como se fossem verdades sem cuidarem de olhar para a realidade que os desmente conclusivamente.

.

Um dos mais divulgados é o cliché de que a democracia é o único regime político que permite a substituição pacífica dos governantes.

.

É? Foi assim que Hitler foi substituído no poder?

Kung

O Público divulga hoje uma carta aberta do teólogo suíço Hans Kung dirigida aos bispos católicos e publicada no New York Times. Kung foi colega do Papa na Universidade de Tubingen e mais tarde incompatibilizou-se com ele. A carta é uma crítica cerrada ao Papa. A principal reivindicação de Kung é antiga e é dessa que me ocuparei aqui - a substituição da autoridade suprema e absoluta do Papa na governação da Igreja Católica pelo poder colegial dos bispos.

.

A questão é muito importante. Primeiro, porque tornaria a Igreja Católica semelhante às igrejas protestantes. Na realidade, a única coisa que une as igrejas protestantes é a sua contestação à autoridade suprema e absoluta do Papa. Segundo, porque se trata do confronto entre dois regimes de governação - o autoritário e o democrático -, que teria reflexos imediatos na sociedade. Esta é uma questão política da máxima importância.

.

Eu fico sempre um pouco desconcertado como a Igreja Católica reage a estas críticas - ou permanece em silêncio, ou as reacções são conduzidas dentro de discussões teológicas mais ou menos complexas e de difícil compreensão para o público interessado, mesmo o inteligente. Se o Catolicismo é uma doutrina racional - e se a Igreja Católica é a guardiã da razão -, como eu julgo que é, não deverão existir impedimentos a confrontar os críticos com argumento racional fundado.

.

A Igreja Católica propõe-se defender e promover a vida humana como valor supremo. A questão é então a de saber que regime de governação de uma comunidade humana (seja a Igreja, o país ou a família) é mais favorável à defesa e promoção da vida humana - o autoritário ou o democrático?

.

Antes de responder, eu gostaria de invocar duas situações com o intuito de vivicar a questão. Primeira, os casos de pedofilia na Igreja levantaram uma onda justificada de indignação exigindo ao Papa responsabilidades e que ele tomasse medidas para corrigir a situação. Isso ele tem vindo a fazer. Porém, se a Igreja fosse governada por uma assembleia de bispos, a quem é que se iriam exigir responsabilidades?

.

Segunda, se Portugal tivesse sido governado por Salazar nos últimos quinze anos, há muito que ele teria sido deposto. Tinham-se-lhe exigido responsabilidades pela estagnação económica, o desemprego crescente, o estado das contas públicas. Porém, como o país foi governado pela maioria, pedem-se responsabilidades a quem?

.

Quando no topo da hierarquia da governação existe um homem com poder absoluto, e a governação corre mal, é possível falar racionalmente com ele, chamá-lo à razão, exigir reformas, de maneira que a governação seja reorientada para o bem comum e a promoção da vida humana. No caso de ele não aceitar os argumentos da razão, ou não ser capaz de os pôr em prática, então, ele vai ter de saír, a bem ou a mal. Mas se a governação é feita por uma maioria, ou pelos seus representantes, pede-se responsabilidades a quem, fala-se com quem, exigem-se reformas a quem?

.

A ninguém. É impossível, uma maioria não é uma pessoa, é uma entidade impessoal, não é possível falar racionalmente com ela. A razão não pode prevalecer. Nada garante que o curso da governação seja corrigido e reorientado para o bem comum. Pode mesmo acabar num grande desastre, na realidade, os grandes desastres do século XX foram todos provocados por governos democráticos. Impedida a razão de prevalecer, prevalece a a-racionalidade das massas.

.

A solução proposta por Kung retiraria à Igreja o instrumento principal que a tem mantido por milénios - a supremacia da razão, pessoalizada no Papa. Seguir a solução de Kung era desfazer a Igreja Católica em muitas igrejas independentes no espaço de poucos anos, à semelhança do que acontece com as igrejas protestantes, as quais já são 33 mil.

adversity

I consider my previous post one important step in my own understanding of Catholicism. I came to Catholicism as an adult shortly after Joseph Ratzinger was elected Pope. That evening in April 2005 I was working on financial matters and watching CNBC when the new Pope was announced. I had heard about him before, but did not know much about his work.

.

I knew he was a serious candidate for the papacy and even learned that he had been called a nazi by one of his former colleagues (Hans Kung) at the University of Tubingen. Probably this was the ringing bell, as I recall to have thought: "Well, to be attacked in this manner in Church circles he must be a very special man".

.

When I learned he had chosen the name Benedict XVI, my first reaction was: "How strange, Benedict...". Only later I learned that the Portuguese equivalent of Benedict was Bento. In the following days I tried to learn more about him in the Internet and later I started to buy his books, and books about him, both in Portugal and abroad. By now, I have some fifty of them.

.

I felt there was something in common between the Pope and myself. As I went through his books, the books of his critics, and his biographies, my first suspicions were confirmed, and my consideration for him increased sharply.

.

First of all, he was an academic like myself. He spend very little time of his life as a priest. Most of his active life had been spent as a Professor of Theology in Germany, and this included the famous Faculty of Catholic Theology of the University of Tubingen.

.

Second, since the mid-eighties that I had been writing for the Vida Economica newspaper and had been commenting on the Social Doctrine of the Church. Pope John Paul II published two Encyclicals in the eighties on social and economic matters, Laborem Exercens (1981) on human labour and Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (1987) on social and economic development. I was not impressed by any of them. To this day I do not hold Pope John Paul II in very high intellectual regard, certainly not in social matters.

.

Then in 1991 came the Encyclical Centesimus Annus on the centenary of Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum and it marked quite a change relative to the previous social Encyclicals of Pope John Paul II. I praised quite highly Centesimus Annus in two or three articles I wrote at the time for Vida Económica, all of them are reprinted in my book Catalaxia. I also suspected at the time that someone of a very high intellectual caliber was now advising the Pope. My suspicions were confirmed later. It was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who by then had been for ten years in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

.

When I read his works after he became Pope what impressed me most was his claim, forcefully argued, that Catholicism is a rational doctrine. I had abandoned Catholicism as soon as I could get rid off it in my early adolescence, after being forced by my mother to attend the Church and Cathequesis. Educated as an economist I was not supposed to pay any attention to Catholic doctrine. My preferred authors were people like Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and other famous economistas. In Mises I admired the rational economist, in Friedman the great, invincible, debater, even though Hayek was the most persuasive of them all. I consider now that I was educated in Protestantism, Economic Protestantism to be sure.

.

As I went through the works of Joseph Ratzinger, I became more and more persuaded that he was right. Catholicism is a rational doctrine. Then, I found out that what I had considered the great ideas of economists and philosophers, some of them having won the Nobel Prize, actually were all in Catholicism. For example, Hegel's famous trilogy of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, is actually the distinctive way of Catholic thinking, and the theological thought of Ratzinger is an excellent example at that. More recently, G. K. Chesterton put it in a better perspective to me: "The best os Protestantism is what it retained from Catholicism".

.

But what attracted me most to Ratzinger was a trait of his personality which I share with him, namely, his enormous capacity to attract adversity. He is a soulmate of mine, I thought, in this regard one of the very few soulmates I have ever encountered in my life.

.

I deeply admire his capacity to state the truth, however unpopular it might be, and stand for it, regardless of consequences. He does not do it on purpose, it is something that comes naturally to him. God put that trait on him and, as a Pope, he has been paying a heavy price for it. There is a price to be paid for truth and rationality. But there is no choice: the alternative is irrationality and violence. That is why I think we should stand for Pope Benedict and for the Church.

Human life

Socialism aims at maximizing material equality among men, using the authority of the state as its chief instrument. Liberalism seeks to maximize personal happiness, freedom being its main instrument. Catholicism aims at maximizing human life (Cat: Prologue; 1) with charity being its key lever.

.

Catholicism also supports the values pursued by Liberalism and Socialism, but it does not promote them to the rank of the highest values to be pursued in life. The highest value a rational man can pursue in life is life itself, whithout which no other value makes sense. Equality and personal freedom are certainly important values for Catholicism, but they are not the highest values. The highest value is human life, in its triple dimension of quantity, quality and duration.

.

From a Catholic point of view, then, rationality lies in all that promotes life, while Liberal rationality involves everything that promotes personal freedom and Socialism considers rational whatever furthers equality.

.

Consider the case of abortion. Catholicism cannot approve abortion because it does not favour life. Liberalism, on the contrary, endorses abortion because it promotes freedom. Socialism also favours abortion but on different grounds, because it alleviates poverty and promotes equality. All these answers seem to be perfectly rational in the sense that they are coherent with the goals pursued by each one of the three different doctrines. But, is there one that is more rational than the others?

.

Consider now the case of homosexual marriage. Socialism favours homosexual marriage because it promotes equality between homosexual and heterosexual people. Liberalism adopts the same stance, but on different grounds, arguing that homosexuals should be free to live according to the arrangements they wish, including marriage. Catholicism cannot favour homosexual marriage because it does not promote life, only heterosexual marriage does. Here again, all three answers seem to be perfectly rational. But, is there one that is more rational than the others?

.

The point I am trying to make is that there is no purpose in trying to discuss the relative positions of Catholicism, Socialism and Liberalism (or any other ism) on any particular issue without asking the question of higher order regarding the ultimate value that each of these doctrines pursues. Before doing so, no agreement is possible between Catholicism and Socialism on the one hand, and between Catholicism and Liberalism on the other hand, on the issue of abortion or homosexual marriage, and no standard exists to judge rationally their different positions.

.

The answer to the higher order question is life for Catholicism, equality for Socialism and personal freedom for Liberalism. Which of these values is the rational one to be made the end of man's life? The asnwer is: life, without which none of the others make sense. Therefore, Catholicism is the rational doctrine, and the rational answers to the issues of abortion and homosexual marriage are those provided by Catholicism.

Note to my readers

From now on I shall be writing predominantly in English in this blog, although I shall not exclude Portuguese. The reason is that I intend to publish a book in English, and make a number of conferences in anglo-saxonic countries, on some of the topics I have developed recently in Portugal Contemporâneo and which I shall pursue here.

Catholic culture must be defended on the camp of its enemies. Thus, an international language like English is the appropriate language to this end. Catholicism has been criticized for the emphasis it places on faith and less on reason. This criticism has come from predominantly Protestant countries, like Britain and Germany. My main thesis is exactly the opposite, namely, that Catholicism is the most rational doctrine when compared with the doctrines arising from Protestantism, such as Liberalism and Socialism.