The Economy Kills

SINCE HIS ELECTION IN 2013, Pope Francis has been widely praised. But in this interview, conducted by Italian journalists Andrea Tornielli and Giacomo Galeazzi before the release of the encyclical “Laudato Si’,” Pope Francis speaks about the environment and economic justice; his perspectives on these topics have elicited harsh criticism from some.

How important is it for Christians to recover a sense of care for creation and sustainable development? And how do we ensure that this is not confused with a certain environmentalist ideology that considers humanity the real threat for the well-being of our planet?

Pope Francis: For the protection of creation we must overcome the culture of waste. Creation is the gift that God has given to humanity so it can be protected, cultivated, used for our livelihood, and handed over to future generations. The vocation to take care of someone or something is human, before being Christian, and affects all; we are called to care for creation, its beauty, and to respect all creatures of God and the environment in which we live. If we fail in this responsibility, if we do not take care of our brothers and sisters and of all creation, destruction will advance. Unfortunately, we must remember that every period of history has its own “Herods” who destroy, plot schemes of death, disfigure the face of man and woman, destroying creation.

But when humanity, instead of being custodian, considers itself to be the master, it ... moves toward destruction. Consider nuclear weapons and the possibility to annihilate in a few moments a huge number of people. Think about those who restore the tower of Babel and destroy creation. This attitude leads humanity to commit a new sin against God the Creator.

The real protection of creation has nothing to do with ideologies that consider humanity an accident, or a problem to be eliminated. God has placed men and women at the apex of creation, and has entrusted them with the earth. The design of God the Creator is inscribed in nature.

In your opinion, why do Pius XI’s strong and prophetic words against the international imperialism of money in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno [1931] sound to many—even Catholics—exaggerated and radical today?

Pius XI seems exaggerated only to those who feel struck by his words and hit where it hurts by his prophetic condemnations. But Pius XI was not exaggerating. He only told the truth after the economic and financial crisis of 1929, and, as a good mountaineer, he saw things as they were; he could look ahead. I am afraid that the only ones who are exaggerating are the ones who still feel called into question by Pius XI’s reproaches.

Populorum Progressio [a 1967 encyclical by Pope Paul VI], states that private property is not an absolute right but is subject to the common good, and according to Catechism of Saint Pius X [1908], the sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance are the oppression of the poor and defrauding workers of their just wages. Are these claims still valid today?

Not only are they still valid, but the more time goes on, the more I find that they have been proven by experience.

Because of some passages of the exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, a critic from the United States has accused you of being a Marxist. How did it feel to be considered a follower of Karl Marx?

I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended by these comments. But Marxist ideology is wrong.

The sentence of Evangelii Gaudium that most struck a chord was the one about an economy that “kills.”

And yet, in the exhortation I did not say anything that is not already in the teachings of the social doctrine of the Church. Also, I didn’t speak from a technical point of view. I simply tried to present a picture of what happens. The only specific reference was to the so-called “trickle-down” economic theories, according to which every economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably bring about greater equity and global inclusiveness. The promise was that, when the glass was full, it would have flowed over and the poor would have benefited from it. Instead, what happens is that when the glass is full it mysteriously gets larger, and so nothing ever comes out of it for the poor. This was the only reference to a specific theory.

I repeat, I do not speak as an economics expert, but according to the social doctrine of the Church. And this does not mean that I am a Marxist. Perhaps whoever has made this comment does not know the social doctrine of the Church and, apparently, does not even know Marxism all that well either. n