Jesus and the Money Changers

Posted on by

The American Right really doesn’t like His Holiness Pope Francis (hereafter HHPF). And we’re talking a big chunk of them; not just Rush accusing HHPF of being a Marxist. Patrick Daneen (in defense of HHPF) writes at The American Conservative:

Since the release of Evangelii Gaudium there have been countless articles and commentary about the economic portions of Pope Francis’s Apostolic Exhortation. Some of the commentary has been downright bizarre, such as Rush Limbaugh denouncing the Pope as a Marxist, or Stuart Varney accusing Francis of being a neo-socialist. American conservatives grumbled but dutifully denounced a distorting media when Pope Francis seemed to go wobbly on homosexuality, but his criticisms of capitalism have crossed the line, and we now see the Pope being criticized and even denounced from nearly every rightward-leaning media pulpit in the land.

Not far below the surface of many of these critiques one hears the following refrain: why can’t the Pope just go back to talking about abortion? Why can’t we return the good old days of Pope John Paul II or Benedict XVI and talk 24/7/365 about sex? Why doesn’t Francis have the decency to limit himself to talking about Jesus and gays, while avoiding the rudeness of discussing economics in mixed company, an issue about which he has no expertise or competence?

It’s probably the case that the American Left is overreacting also, for example, by making HHPF into a gay rights hero mostly for taking a pass on a chance to say something homophobic. Note that the recent replacement of an American anti-abortion cardinal with a more moderate one in the Congregation of Bishops probably has more to do with proposed reforms of Vatican bureaucracy than with abortion.

Still, he seems a breath of fresh air compared to the last guy. Having never been Catholic I tend to ignore popes, but Benedict just put off bad vibes, as far as I’m concerned.

Elizabeth Stoker has an interesting evaluation at The Week, in which she says that European and other political conservatives who don’t live in the U.S. are just fine with Frank. It’s only American conservatives who can’t process that a man can be pro-Christian and anti-free market at the same time.

Since outlining his vision for the Catholic church in late November, Pope Francis has endured an amount of criticism from the American right wing commensurate only with the praise piled on by the remainder of global Christianity. For most, Francis’ moving exhortation to spread the gospel and engage personally with Jesus was a welcome and invigorating encouragement. But for many right-wing pundits in America, Francis’ call to relieve global poverty through state intervention in markets was unconscionably troubling.

Francis’ message likely raises American conservative hackles because the American right wing has invented such a convincing façade of affinity between fiscal conservatism and Christianity over the last few decades. Though free markets, profit motives, and unrestrained accumulation of wealth have no immediate relationship with Christianity, the cross and the coin are nonetheless powerful, paired symbols of the American right wing. Catholic conservatives thus must carve a way around Francis’ difficult insistence that governments be harnessed toward the relief of poverty, not the creation of it.

Now, you’d have to be pretty far down the rabbit hole not to see how weird this is. In the Gospels, Jesus never said a dadblamed thing about abortion, or homosexuality, and not much about sexual conduct generally. But he talked a lot about helping the poor and the sick. One might even argue that his famous attack on the temple money changers was an anti-free market act.

But American wingnuts are slamming HHPF for being too political. In their minds, threatening to deny communion to politicians who support abortion rights is not political; but asking governments to take care that the poor are not utterly trampled by unchecked, rapacious greed is political. OK.

Back to Patrick Daneen–

These commentators all but come and out say: we embrace Catholic teaching when it concerns itself with “faith and morals”—when it denounces abortion, opposes gay marriage, and urges personal charity. This is the Catholicism that has been acceptable in polite conversation. This is a stripped-down Catholicism that doesn’t challenge fundamental articles of economic faith.

And it turns out that this version of Catholicism is a useful tool. It is precisely this portion of Catholicism that is acceptable to those who control the right narrative because it doesn’t truly endanger what’s most important to those who steer the Republic: maintaining an economic system premised upon limitless extraction, fostering of endless desires, and creating a widening gap between winners and losers that is papered over by mantras about favoring equality of opportunity. A massive funding apparatus supports conservative Catholic causes supporting a host of causes—so long as they focus exclusively on issues touching on human sexuality, whether abortion, gay marriage, or religious liberty (which, to be frank, is intimately bound up in its current form with concerns about abortion). It turns out that these funds are a good investment: “faith and morals” allow us to assume the moral high ground and preoccupy the social conservatives while we laugh all the way to the bank bailout.

That was in The American Conservative? Wow.

Back to Elizabeth Stoker:

Though they claim Francis’ message arises from an unduly political place, their arguments rely on a uniquely American political frame rather than a Christian one. Limbaugh, Shaw, and Douthat may claim to object to Francis as Christians, but they argue against him first and foremost as conservatives invested in the free market.

Douthat, for example, argues that global capitalism has been responsible for an overall reduction in poverty. But Francis’ exhortation never called for an elimination of capitalism, only that states, as creations of humankind, be structured so as to alleviate the poverty that arises after capitalism has done its work. For Francis, all institutions created by humanity — and yes, distributions of wealth are created, not spontaneous — must be intentionally shaped to further just goals. Since Francis’ notion of justice is informed purely by the teaching of Christ, just goals include establishing an equitable distribution of wealth that alleviates poverty and contributes to peace.

By now we have more than two centuries of real-world experience showing us that Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” theory is hooey, and that unregulated markets are easily corrupted by greed and become toxic to national and global economies. But for all their howling about wars on Christmas, American wingnuts have more faith in free markets than they have in God. Their God is a weenie who can be driven out of classrooms by Supreme Court decisions, and who requires constant prayers and praising and public displays of the Ten Commandments just to do his job of, you know, God stuff. But free markets (blessed be They) can perfectly spread the blessings of capitalism without intervention of humans, apparently because free markets are ordained by heaven and are not human creations.

Good luck, Frank. You’ll need it.

16 thoughts on “Jesus and the Money Changers”

  2. First: Adam Smith never believed in the invisible hand as corrupted by the Republican right (they are NOT “conservatives”).

    Second: The Republican right are CINOs: Christians In Name Only. They dwell exclusively in a cherry-picked Old Testament and the Apocalyptic Gospels, but ignore the vast majority, and the holistic meaning, of the remaining Scriptures.

  3. Their God is a weenie who can be driven out of classrooms by Supreme Court decisions, and who requires constant prayers and praising and public displays of the Ten Commandments just to do his job of, you know, God stuff.

    It’s not about their God being a weenie, it’s about what they perceive as threats to their tribe, particularly to their children. Over and over, they believe “our God is sovereign” (there’s a number verses in the bible to that effect), but they view themselves as an embattled minority in a secular culture that’s going to hell. Some take this to the point of viewing themselves as being “persecuted” even though nothing of the sort is going on.

    By now we have more than two centuries of real-world experience showing us that Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” theory is hooey, and that unregulated markets are easily corrupted by greed and become toxic to national and global economies.

    Wingnuts staunchly reject this.The battle will be won in this country, when an overwhelming majority sees this as axiomatic.

  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Religions_of_the_US.PNG

    Want to understand the potential political impact of a Pope who preaches the word of Christ? Look at this map of the US by religion, ‘Blue’ states declare to have the most Catholics. There’s a Mormon state, a Lutheran state, two Methodist states, thirteen Baptist states and 25 Catholic states. Alaska and Hawaii aren’t listed, there are a few ‘No Relegion’ states where the most popular response was, no declared religion. By far, Catholics outnumber the other sects and it’s impossible to calculate how influential Pope Francis is with other Christians (and non-Christians). IMO, there are a lot of good Catholic priests who have been intimidated by the conservative bishops to tone down a message that places high emphasis on the things Christ emphasized. Will there be more Catholic activism on social justice from the pulpit.. and in real practice on a local level?

    Conservatives may not be smart enough NOT to respond to what this Pope says about the obligations that institutions have, including the church, but also business and very emphatically government in alleviating poverty, inequality, homelessness, sickness. This Pope is likely to show up in an Italian prison unannounced to visit inmates.

    Which brings to mind two questions. What might happen in the world if Christians (lots and lots of Christians) started practicing in real life the teachings of Christ? Second, what might happen in the world if the US actually started practicing representative democracy? (ya’ know, ‘of the people, by the people and for the people)”

    I know – it’s a crazy thought but…. what if?

  5. I’m going to quibble over a small thing, because it showed up a couple of times in this post. Once that clearing out the money changers might be interpreted as an ‘anti-free market act’ Second, conservatives can’t process that ‘a man can’t be pro-Christian and anti-free market’. Pope Francis has not come out against free markets at all – he’s spoken out against ‘trickle-down’ economics (at least twice) and the ‘tyranny’ of ‘unfettered capitalism’. He’s been outspoken about the idolatry of money and pointed out as examples, the huge bonuses and salaries of CEOs. He’s denied that he is a Marxist.

    I think he and I are on the same page on inequality and the perverse economic systems that have evolved. I won’t speak for HHPF but I like free markets that are free, and restraints and controls that keep the ‘game’ fair. I also believe that some things can’t be provided for by the free market – education and health care are high on the list. However, rewarding innovation and creativity is an engine for progress.

    To be fair. Barbara wrote, “But free markets (blessed be They) can perfectly spread the blessings of capitalism without intervention of humans, apparently because free markets are ordained by heaven and are not human creations. As I read it, the proper intervention is all free markets need to function for the good of society – I

    • Doug — First, the “free market” absolutists will tell you that free markets cannot exist when capitalism is regulated at all. They believe capitalism must always be “unfettered.” What the Pope is suggesting certainly isn’t Marxism, but it is antithetical to a pure “free market” economy as the true believers define it.

      Second, if you spend time with them you realize they believe “free markets” are something natural and organic that exist outside of human manipulation. If you just turn people loose and let them buy and sell stuff as they see fit, and don’t interfere by imposing those nasty government regulations, then the mystical principle of the invisible hand will create a perfect, pure, balanced state of financial growth. Corruption only happens when government steps in and messes it up. I’m serious; they think that way. So do try to keep up.

  6. Damn computer!… Close quotes on Barbara’s words…’human creation’.. My conclusion..
    “As I read it, the proper intervention is all free markets need to function for the good of society – I disagree with idealists who think communism can work, but free markets can work nicely with government constraints and ‘socialism’ such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, etc.

  8. The wingnut concept of “free markets” has much the same relationship to a reasoned understand of the idea of “free markets” as the wingnut concept of “freedom” has to a reasoned understanding of the idea of “freedom”. The wingnuts may say the US brought “freedom” to Iraq, but reasonable people do not have to allow them to co-opt the word “freedom” by letting them make it mean whatever they want it to mean.
    Similarly, progressives make a mistake by allowing wingnuts to co-opt the phrase “free markets”. A free market requires a fluid competition. It does not require the absence of regulation. A market in which some parties (for example, polluters vis a vis controls on toxic wastes, or a giant retailer vis a vis the necessity of keeping employees well fed enough to work) can shove substantial costs off on the public while keeping all the profits is not a stellar example of free market competition. The concept of the free market is powerful. We should not let the wingnuts claim it nor should we accept their bizarre framing when we talk about it.

  9. Our American uber-Christian Conservatives love the old parts of the Bible that talk about begetting and smiting, and smiting the ones who like to beget too often, or practice begetting with someone of the same or different sex, but don’t want to, or can’t, beget any offspring. So, beget, or be gone!

    Christ, and his message of peace, love, and acceptance?
    Uhm… Not so much.

    They want to stick their Conservative noses in every bedroom – but keep your Libtard noses out of the boardroom!!!

    And we wonder why they’re so twisted?

  11. Why are these “Duck Dynasty” skankwads even famous? Has li’l Honey Boo Boo run out of sassy thangs to say?

    Gaaah, I hate television!

  12. oh boy, I wasn’t brave enough to comment at the Blaze…I had a few thoughts but, discretion is the better part of valor…

  13. Personally I think “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” sounds a lot like a scriptural endorsement of taxation.

  14. Hmmm…. bearded men with extreme religious views. Who does that sound like? As far as the catholic church goes, I bailed out when I was 17. Several years after I marred, my wife started hanging out with a sweet lady down the street who was a devout catholic. My sweetie decided she wanted to get back into the church, but I was the fly in the ointment, because we didn’t get married in the church ( a scrament).I suggested she ask a younger priest and circumvent the crotchity old Monsignor. It worked. At least for a while. I’m fully blown atheist, she is agnostic, but keeps a crucifix hanging in the closet, ” just in case”.
    Some times, I “zoom out” and look back at this big blue marble thinking “wtf”.I have to admit I like this new pope.he’ll shake things up, and that’s way overdue.

  15. In addition to the things that have been pointed out here, another reason the right is filled with rabid hate for this guy is that he screws up all that they have been working to build. They have worked so hard to make anyone who is poor into a “taker” , a “leach” .The poor is the last social class it is ok to hate. It’s not like a bunch of poor people are every going to form a lobby group to advocate on their behalf so it is a totally fool proof place to direct you hate since it is not ok to be a racist or a homophob any more. The pope risks opening people’s eyes to the idea of compassion for them and that leads to people actually expecting their fellow countrymen to benefit from the tax dollars paid in – everything the right has been fighting AGAINST.
    The poor doing better is a bad thing because every dollar a poor person gets is a dollar stolen from the very rich in their eyes. The last thing they want is for people to start thinking like that socialist Jesus!
    So here is what I can’t grasp ..These folks all understand we have to pay taxes. They are never going to go away. So why shouldn’t we GET something for our Money? I would rather see my neighbors eat than to send in my tax dollars in and never see them again.I want to see the money I spend on taxes work for our country. You should get what you pay for. We can pay to send the folks in Israel a new gas mask every year and no one complains about that , yet our own people don’t get them or healthcare, or food, ect. Go figure.

Comments are closed.