Pope Francis’ Idealism Misses the Mark
Pope Francis is everywhere these days. He commanded large crowds throughout his visit to the United States this past week, and he has millions of loyal followers on social media. He is the spiritual leader of over one billion people around the globe.
And yet, Pope Francis fundamentally misunderstands the world in which we live. His positions on capitalism, climate change, and immigration are normative as opposed to being based in reality. This means that he describes how the world ought to function, ignoring many of the complexities which makes implementing these prescriptions impossible. Pope Francis’ speeches in the United States have expanded upon this previously-established trend.
Regardless of Catholic Doctrine regarding the position of the Pope, I can only analyze Pope Francis as an individual, just as I would any other leader. Therefore, my criticism is directed solely toward his viewpoints, not to the entire Catholic Church. If we do not question the viewpoints of our leaders, then we as a society are not promoting the very dialogue and openness which we claim to so fervently cherish.
First, regarding immigration, the Pope’s comments simply ignore the complex dynamics that surround the issue. The Pope, who proclaimed himself “a son of an immigrant,” told the White House that:
“We must not be taken aback by their numbers, but rather view them as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories, trying to respond as best we can to their situation… We need to avoid a common temptation nowadays: to discard whatever proves troublesome.”
Though the Pope’s intentions are noble, his normative argument completely ignores the reality of immigration, especially along the southern border. What about the fact that illegal immigrants accounted for 37% of all federal sentencing in 2014? Or the fact that illegal immigrants commit murder at a rate of 3–10 times greater than the rest of the population? Or that illegal immigrants accounted for 75% of federal drug sentencing crimes in recent years? Added to this, border patrol officials have expressed concern that terrorists may be crossing the border, and we have no way to track this activity.
Conversely, we must express that “entry to the United States is not a right, but a privilege, granted exclusively at our discretion,” as proclaimed by the Center for Immigration Studies. In fact, the group suggested that we should increase our screening of immigrants to prevent against terrorist and drug infiltration. Even the Pope acknowledges that drug trafficking is a critical problem that needs to be addressed. Accomplishing these goals requires a comprehensive immigration process with strict standards for entering the country, as opposed to ad hoc border security. This is not inhumane, it’s a country’s logical response when pressed with rising crime due to an inability to enforce current laws.
Second, in his speech before the UN, the Pope proclaimed the creation of a non-existent “right of the environment,” and blamed environmental degradation on “a selfish and boundless thirst for power and material prosperity.”
Again, reducing emissions sounds great on paper, but blindly encouraging large reductions in pollution ignores the ramifications to everyone. If it were economically feasible, we would be producing energy through alternative energy sources because they’re relatively efficient. However, alternative energy companies, like Solyndra, cannot survive even with $535m in loan guarantees from the government. Hybrid cars cost at least 20% more than comparable news cars. Altogether, the DEA reported that alternative energy accounted for only 10% of U.S. energy consumption and 13% of electricity produced.
Our dependency on pollution-producing fossil fuels means that abating pollution would bear a significant price for everyone. The result will be an increase in the cost of electricity for millions of Americans and a loss of thousands of jobs, most in downtrodden Midwestern areas. For example, 32 coal-fired power plants have already announced their closure, and 36 more are in danger of shutting down pending new regulations. Ironically, the rising cost of electricity will disproportionately impact the poor, who have less disposable income to cover higher costs.
However, the Pope’s comments on capitalism and inequality are truly the most idealistic and unrealistic comments. In the past, the Pope has referred to unbridled capitalism as the “dung of the devil,” which “has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for social exclusion or the destruction of nature.” The Pope also added the following:
“No actual or established power has the right to deprive peoples of the full exercise of their sovereignty. Whenever they do so, we see the rise of new forms of colonialism which seriously prejudice the possibility of peace and justice… At times [colonialism] appears as the anonymous influence of mammon: corporations, loan agencies, certain ‘free trade’ treaties, and the imposition of measures of ‘austerity’ which always tighten the belt of workers and the poor.”
First, the Pope is mistaken for blaming the capitalist system for the ‘ends-justify-the-means’ mentality. It appears that the Pope’s underlying complaint is with avarice, which has been a “deadly” sin for far longer than capitalism has existed as a system. When a pharmaceutical company raises the price of its drug from $13 to $750, the problem is not solely the individuals responsible for making the decision. In fact, capitalism has helped spur technological and economic innovations that we all take for granted today, such as the light bulb, the internet, and insurance.
Contrary to the Pope’s comments, history tells us that capitalism is the least exploitative economic system. Before capitalism, the economic system of mercantilism encouraged countries to use military force to conquer lands and “steal” raw materials and wealth. In communism, individuals were assigned into lines of production based upon geographic location, need, or class status. In this regard, capitalism is inextricably linked to individual liberty.
The second point I would like to make is that the Pope has misconstrued the effect of free trade as negative to producer/third world countries. The data shows that the share of people living on $1.25/day (indexed to inflation) has fallen from 43% in 1980 to 14% in 2011. Since 1981, the total number of people in extreme poverty has fallen by 50% (despite growing populations), especially in heavy trading areas such as Southeast Asia and Latin America.
A perfect case study for the benefits of capitalism and free trade has been India. Since 1969, India’s GDP/capita has increased exponentially for a total of over 900%, and it has doubled in the last ten years. The number of jobs in India has doubled since around 1975. All of these advances have funded massive health innovations in India during the last decade, including basic necessities such as toilets and indoor plumbing to be provided to tens of millions of people.
Pope Francis’ only correct assertion about capitalism is that inequality has increased, especially among the OECD countries. However, the positive effects of free trade far outweigh this negative repercussions of greater inequality. For instance, in accordance with the Pope’s concern for life, the global child mortality rate has fallen globally by 75% since 1950, including declines of 90%, 85%, and 82% in Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and South Asia respectively. Meanwhile, global life expectancy has doubled since 1930, and its increase has been closely correlated with the spread of industrialization and capitalism in each region.
At the end of the day, there is no perfect economic system, and calling for structural change to the most productive and beneficial economic system in world history is nonsensical.
I want to reinforce that I truly respect the Pope and I sincerely believe he is trying to make the world a better place. Perhaps the Pope’s remarks can serve as a global ambition that we may one day achieve, but at present, their implementation would cause severe negative repercussions.
