Book Review: Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism
 |
TITLE: Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism (Price: $14.95)
AUTHOR: Amintore Fanfani
PUBLISHER: IHS Press
REVIEWER: Dr. Peter Chojnowski
"The present capitalist system is an immense cosmos, into which the individual is born and which is presented to him, at least in so far as he is an individual, as an immutable environment in which he must live."
This quotation from Max Weber's highly acclaimed book The Protestant Work Ethic and the Rise of Capitalism, is fittingly cited prior to any discussion of the newly republished book by Amintore Fanfani entitled Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism. In the above quotation, Weber recognized the totalitarian nature of Capitalism and the social, economic, and ideological absolute which Capitalism is. During the 1930's, when Fanfani, an internationally acclaimed Italian Catholic economist, wrote his work, Capitalism was recognized as such, therefore provoking a good or bad absolute response on the part of those who wished to challenge this liberal economic system. The essence of Fanfani's thesis is to show how true Catholicism is just such an absolutist system which must inevitably clash with the overriding claims of Capitalism. The two, if they are being genuinely adhered to, cannot coexist as what they truly are, systems of thought and life which give a complete account of the meaning of all events encountered and beings known by the human mind. For those adhering with their minds and wills to an absolutist system (whether it is erroneous like Socialism, National Socialism, or Capitalism, or true like Catholicism), everything is understood in reference to the main doctrines of the system. False systems are completely self-referential. The intelligibilities which make up the system only have meaning insofar as they are related to other intelligibilities within the system. For example, "the withering away of the State," only has meaning and significance within the context of Marxist ideology. In our world dominated by false ideological systems, we can only hope that anomalies crop up which do not "fit" the system, requiring men to rethink the validity of their false systems. Fanfani insists that Capitalism encountered its anomaly in the Great Stock Market Crash of 1929.1
As a professor of economic history at the University of the Sacred Heart in Milan, Fanfani spoke of Capitalism as an absolutist system. His meaning was that every goal, desire, institution, and attitude was more or less shaped and "tinted" by the primary goal of Capitalism which was maximum individual economic profit. This thesis serves as the starting point for the three main analytical and historical tasks of his book, Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism. First, there is the task of unfolding the implications of the fact that Capitalism is an absolutist–we might say totalitarian–system which has influenced most of the historical events of the last 400 years while gaining hold of the mentalities of our contemporaries. Second, the task of trying to understand the relationship between the absolutism of Capitalism and that of the Catholic Religion. Catholicism is "absolutist" in the sense that all of man's actions and all social, political, and economic institutions must be judged by the faithful according to the moral and doctrinal teachings of the Magisterium. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, all human actions are, since they all involve circumstance and intention, either morally good or evil. Therefore, all human actions, including the economic actions of men, either individually or collectively, come within the purview of the Church's moral teaching. From this fact, Fanfani asks the appropriate questions: Can the individual man live both as a creature of Capitalism and as a Catholic at the same time? Can the systems of Catholicism and Capitalism truly be what they are and still coexist? What is the historical relationship between these two social, moral, and intellectual systems?
As a good professor of economic science, Fanfani knew he could not adequately nor in the concrete answer these questions unless he traced the historical relationship between the two systems. As a historian, Fanfani dedicated part of his book to inquiring into whether or not Capitalism began in the Catholic milieu of the Christian centuries and whether it was Catholicism that initially promoted and facilitated the arrival of the Capitalist Spirit. With these historical questions answered, Fanfani then goes on to respond to the German sociologist Max Weber's claim that the Protestant "work ethic" is at the origin of Capitalism as a dominant social, political, and economic reality. If Catholicism is not at the origin of Capitalism, is Protestantism?
The Spirit of Capitalism
Fanfani defines very carefully what he means when he speaks of "Capitalism." According to Fanfani, Capitalism is
a system in which capital is predominant, a system characterized by free labor, a system in which competition is unbridled, credit expands, banks prosper, big industry assumes gigantic dimensions, and the world market becomes one.2
If this is what Fanfani means when he says "Capitalism," could we not understand it to be merely one economic system among many, with its sole end being the supply of necessary goods and services to those in need of such? Could not Catholicism then–which is a religious and moral system–live in harmony accord with the mechanism of Capitalism? In answer to this, Fanfani advanced a view that is accepted by most contemporary apologists for the Capitalist System (we think here of Michael Novak's book, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism). For Fanfani, the essence of Capitalism is the "Capitalistic Spirit." The "Capitalistic Spirit" according to Fanfani is a mode of life determined by a spiritual orientation. Here, he perfectly agrees with the assertion of Max Weber:
Inquiry into the forces that encouraged the expansion of modern capitalism is not, at any rate, an inquiry into the source of the monetary reserves to be utilized as capital, but, above all, an inquiry into the development of the capitalistic spirit. Where this spirit reveals itself and seeks realization, it procures monetary capital as means for its action.3
The Capitalistic Man
Since the "Capitalistic Spirit" which animates "capitalistic man" is an economic "spirit," it must primarily concern itself with the concept of wealth. The economic spirit of an age is determined by its current idea of wealth and its ends.4 The peculiarity about capitalistic man is that, in a certain manner, he has no concept of ends but only of means. The "end" for which capitalistic man strives–an ever more complete satisfaction of every conceivable need–is hypothetical and not real. It is simply the concept of human material satisfaction stripped of all limits. Since this "end" is merely hypothetical (i.e., no man has ever experienced a state of complete material and worldly satisfaction), true ends do not orient the life and the mentality of the capitalistic man. He is and wants everyone else to be an infinite material desire that is never sated. Wealth is not the end of capitalistic man. It is the means to the acquisition of further means to the acquisition of further means.5 One of the most distinguishing intellectual and moral characteristics of capitalistic man is his reduction of everything to the status of a useful good (bonum utile) and his blindness concerning the reality of those things which can be classified as "intrinsic goods" (bona honesta). An intrinsic good is something desirable for its own sake and not merely desirable for its ability to help us attain something else.
AMINTORE FANFANI (1908-99) (ämēntô'rā fänfän'ē) Italian political leader, and a noted scholar. He was secretary of the Christian Democratic party from 1954 to 1959. He was premier in 1954,1958-59, 1960-63 (twice), 1982-83, and 1987. Fanfani was foreign minister in 1965 and in 1966-68. He also served (1965-66) as president of the UN General Assembly. He entered the Italian senate in 1968 and served as its president. He returned to the senate in 1976 and was its president for six more years. He was Lecturer in Economic History and the History of Economic Thought at the University of the Sacred Heart, Milan. Fanfani wrote nearly 20 books and hundreds of articles on economic history and economic thought, and at age 25 he was given editorship of the great international Review of Social Sciences, a scholarly review founded by the Italian economist Giuseppe Toniolo and adopted in 1927 by the University's noted publishing house,Vita e Pensiero, as its official socio-economic journal. In 1936 Fanfani was appointed Chair of Economic History by the university's rector, Fr. Agostino Gemelli, where he remained until 1955. |
This "unlimited" horizon of capitalistic man differs profoundly from the understanding of Catholic man and even that of the ancient pagans, cultured or uncultured. Pre-capitalist man saw "limitless" material desire as irrational, since he connaturally recognized that he had a strictly limited number of needs to be satisfied in the measure demanded by his station in life. Contrary to capitalistic man, Catholic man sees wealth in its social and natural context. Since he understands his needs within the context of social structure and natural desire, his desire for material gain, and the actions which he takes to achieve such gain, will be strictly circumscribed by social customs, political regulations, and religious principles.6
Liberal Economics: The Wrecking Ball of Christendom
Since "limitlessness" characterizes the psychology of capitalistic man, all institutions and cultural norms that place restrictions on the limitless acquisition of wealth must be eliminated. According to Fanfani, Catholic culture, animated and fostered by the moral teachings and the ecclesiastical legislation of the Church, curtailed the unrestricted maneuverings of the capitalistic man.7 The most obvious restriction that Catholic culture placed upon economic activity was the social and legal obligation to respect feastdays. The veneration given to the saints and the mysteries of salvation was a good which had no utilitarian or economic value. Capitalism, however, is directed towards constant material production and acquisition, not to rest, contemplation, veneration, and worship. Since Capitalism, in a way, has no end, it cannot tolerate the feast, which is a foreshadowing of our enjoyment of the never-ending End. As Fanfani states, the economic liberty which came about when the State dropped the legal obligation for all to observe the feastday rest, soon eliminated the culture which was informed and lived-out in those feasts of the liturgical year.8
We also can identify the clash between the world-views of Catholicism and Capitalism when we consider the economic organisms (better than "organizations") called the guilds, which were the bedrock of the traditional economic order of Christendom. The idea of the guild or fraternal Catholic occupational corporation was of particular significance to Fanfani, since, during his time, there was a conscious effort on the part of the Church, laymen, and statesmen to resurrect an economic order based upon the guild system, which would serve as an alternative to liberal Capitalism and Communism. It is interesting and heartening that most of the nations in Western and Central Europe at the time had either governments ideologically and institutionally committed to Guild-System Corporatism or had large political movements dedicated to its principles. The guilds, as historically existing and theoretically understood, were the guardians of a system of economic activity in which the purely economic interests of the individual were sacrificed either to the moral and religious interests of the individual, or to the economic interests of the community.9
By this, Capitalism was rendered impossible. The dominant spirit of Capitalism today insists that we put our competitor out of business. To achieve this is to be "successful" in the Capitalistic System. The Corporative System of the past was ordered to ensure that a man would pursue his occupation in such a way that he did not put his "competitor" out of business. The common good of working men and families was put ahead of the unrestricted "right" to purchase any product one fancies. Economic "freedom" breeds the insecurity which is a consequence of ruthless economic competition.10
The Capitalist Attack on the Sovereign State
Once Capitalism has achieved relative mastery over the culture of Christendom by its suppression of the guilds and the marginalization of the Catholic Church with its various expressions in human culture, there remains for Capitalist conquest the ultimately necessary prize–the State. Without the State, Capitalist control of maximum material results through the utilization of minimum means could not be attained.11 The State, therefore, must be portrayed as having goals inimical to properly human goals. The ultimate goal of the Capitalist in his attempted hijacking of the sovereignty of the State is to neutralize it as an institution having goals of its own, both natural and supernatural. For the State to direct society as a whole–including its economic life–it must threaten force upon those who do not, at least minimally, pursue the goods which the State proposes to be the common good of the human society it governs. The tasks which Capitalism is willing to "allow" the domesticated State are several.12 The most obvious and necessary is maintenance of "security." "Security," as understood by the State hijacked by Capitalism, is simply the safeguarding of the conditions in which the capitalists can achieve maximum material gain from minimal expenditure. The ultimate guarantee of the stability and fixity of the Capitalist System is its threat of terror and ruin on those who would dare try to depart in any way from the "given" System. In a fully Capitalist society the State dies even when it seems to be at its most unforgiving and ferocious.
Protestantism or Catholicism–Which Is the Culprit?
When Fanfani addresses whether Catholicism or Protestantism produced the "Capitalist Spirit" he does not look at individual Catholics or Protestants, but looks at the existing Catholic culture of the late Medieval and early Renaissance, along with the "spirit" of the Lutheran heresy. His thesis is that, although the Capitalistic Spirit began to fully emerge in the Catholic society of the 15th century, this spirit was antithetical to the teachings and spirit of the Church and it progressed in society and the hearts of men only so far as the spirit of the Church was ignored or in retreat. Protestantism, however, with its rejection of the Church's doctrine concerning the necessity of good works in order to merit salvation, fostered the rise of Capitalism. If there is no direct correlation between how I act in the innermost recesses of my soul, in society, or in business, and my achievement of or failure to achieve my ultimate supernatural end, then my actions will no longer be guided by any supernatural motive. Luther's assertion concerning faith without works invalidates any supernatural morality, hence, invalidating the economic ethics of the Catholic Religion. According to Fanfani, it is the establishment of the great Protestant divide between the human and the divine, most perfectly expressed in Luther's denial of sanctifying grace, which resulted in the "divinization" of the mundane necessary for the advancement of the Capitalist Spirit. If man cannot achieve a likeness to God through works of piety and charity, the most palpable goal that shall be held out to him is the goal of money and the goods that money can buy.
Michael Novak vs. Amintore Fanfani
There is a very telling Introduction to an earlier edition of Fanfani's book Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism (Notre Dame Press, 1988). Written by Michael Novak, the current leader of American Catholic Whiggery,13 it dismisses Fanfani's text as "troubling," "abstract," "speculative," and, even, with regard to certain points, "absurd." Novak's claim is that Fanfani presents a caricature of Capitalism, his vision and understanding being hobbled by his lack of experience of the American System, which combines "free enterprise" with "free elections" and "free religion," not to mention "pluralism." Novak points to Jacques Maritain who wrote "abstractly" about philosophy, social and political systems, etc., until he experienced the US and its workings. The utopianism which marks Novak's outlook is shocking, not merely because of its blindness and naivety, but on account of his judgment that the civilization produced by the Puritan Anglo-Saxons is superior to the civilization of Continental Europe produced by popes, doctors of the Church, and saints. It is thought-provoking to find Abraham Lincoln, John Stuart Mill, and Adam Smith lined up by Michael Novak (a man calling himself a Catholic) against the molders of Catholic civilization–St. Benedict, St. Gregory VII, and St. Thomas Aquinas. Novak's contempt for the Catholic social and economic tradition can barely be concealed.
This short book of 1935 is a locus classicus of anti-capitalist sentiment among Catholic intellectuals. It helps to explain why Catholic nations were long retarded in encouraging development, invention, savings, investment, entrepreneurship, and, in general, economic dynamism.14
In another sideswipe at Christendom, Novak states:
Indeed, there is undeniable irony in the fact that the Catholic spirit, over many centuries, did far less to lift the tyrannies and oppressions of the pre-liberal era than did the capitalist spirit, in which Fanfani detects only moral inferiority.15
It is truly a service to the Catholic intellectual world, especially for those who seek to recover the rich and comprehensive thought of the pre-World War II Catholic brainpower, that IHS Press has republished (without Michael Novak's Introduction!) this classic text by an economist who took his Catholic Faith seriously and who recognized the obvious: there is never a Catholic moral or social teaching which is not meant to be implemented in the common lives of the faithful.
The list of things which Novak rejects and condemns and which Fanfani accepts and advocates is long. It includes the doctrine of the Social Kingship of Christ, the social encyclicals against Liberalism of all types, the institutions fashioned over centuries to embody Catholic morality, the Catholic view of man and human destiny, the idea that the basic bonds between men in society must be constituted by more than mere contractual relationships, and the recognition that it is impossible that a civilization originating in principles and doctrines antithetical to the Catholic Church could produce anything resembling a "utopia." As Chesterton would say, "A utopia for whom?"
Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism (From the Preface)His numerous references to guild regulations and statutes prove that Fanfani's approach is not just philosophical but also historical. His critique of capitalism is not based upon a simple evaluation of capitalist "theory" against the dictates of the Catholic Faith. It is a look at the capitalism that developed from the 14th to the 19th centuries, and the mentalities and activities that inspired it. Nevertheless, many of Fanfani's critics, Michael Novak included, accuse him of attacking an "ideal" capitalism which they claim is nonexistent Some of them even admit that a theoretical capitalism, which would have every man doing his utmost to amass material wealth at no matter what cost to the social order, would be incompatible with Catholic morals. But they insist that capitalism "as it is actually practiced" is fundamentally different from the "theoretical" one condemned by the Faith. Fanfani's analysis is an answer to this objection; for it is based not on a capitalist mental fiction but on the modern economic world as it grew out of the high medieval, precapitalist order "We have historical proofs," he writes, "that the neo-capitalist in the beginning sought to increase his profits by breaking all pre-capitalist rules against competition, and thus sought to gain a privileged position for himself" (p. 85). Thus began the long process of erosion, resulting in the eventual extinction of the Christian socio-economic order Thus begins Fanfani's analysis as well; it considers the Catholic world as it was before the development of capitalism, and the actions and ideas that caused it to change. For if there was once a "trend of public life and private activity in harmony with the social principles of Catholicism" (p. 118), something must have caused that trend to change.That something, as Fanfani demonstrates, was a mentality satisfied neither with a "sufficient" amount of wealth nor with the moral, social, and legal limits to the means for obtaining it. An illustration from Fanfani's work illustrates the point. A shop-keeper who "held out special inducements to passers-by," he writes, or a merchant who "bribed agents to secure him customers" would have been, at one time, a "sole rebel in the midst of those who respected the law." Trying to induce customers into a shop, and paying agents to represent wares to customers were both at one time actually against the law. Such laws make no sense if not as specific implementations of the Catholic social vision. They sought to preserve the delicate balance of market share among craftsmen and traders, to give all a reasonable chance of making a decent living, and to prevent that concentration of wealth and consolidation of enterprises which is the undisputed result of purely free competition. Under the old order, activities even in themselves not immoral were limited to preserve every businessman's right and opportunity to do business. A "freedom" to get ahead of competitors by any means legal or otherwise was not admitted. Once those willing to break the law established a relatively secure economic position (through activities that were previously forbidden by law and custom), others had no choice but to follow suit to remain "competitive." Fanfani writes: "Once this way has been opened, many will feel it inevitable to go forward, others will deem it more profitable, and others will feel it impossible to arrest their course or turn back" (emphasis ours) (p. 115). This observation pinpoints why the trend towards a capitalistic order was so hard to arrest; it explains today why it is almost impossible to resist. For just as the medieval merchant who respected guild rules was defeated by those who ignored them, so too a man who today attempted to compete while restraining himself in the name of some higher social or moral good would soon be put out of business. Who could imagine the CEO of a major company who "declined" an opportunity to capture market share because he was sensitive to his competitor's right to a percentage of the market? Nevertheless, the typical criticism of Fanfani's position is that within the capitalist economic structure men are "free" to approach economic life with any motive whatsoever. Because they can "choose" to act generously and philanthropically, capitalism allegedly permits and encourages generosity and selflessness. From this follows the "fact" that capitalism is not (quoting Novak) "absolutist, totalistic, pervading the whole of a person's being." Now Fanfani nowhere describes capitalism as such. But the implication is that critics of capitalism (like Fanfani) assume that all who participate in it are necessarily motivated by greed and materialism.The subsequent refutation of this straw man is then offered as a refutation of the whole anti-capitalist position, regardless of whether any Catholic anti-capitalist ever so maintained in the first place! Fanfani nowhere claims that participation in capitalist economic life necessitates an obsession with money. He does not assert that because businesses must advertise and hire sales reps, every modern merchant is motivated by greed. What he does suggest is that such capitalistic practices, though today sine qua non's of business, were in their origins evidence of a desire for gain powerful enough to warrant breaking the law. Once those laws were broken repeatedly, such that they ceased having any real effect, no shelter remained for the man who would not have otherwise been inclined to employ the new, capitalistic practices to keep up with his rivals. Without such shelter he learned to compete or he abandoned his trade.The argument is not that only materialists and misers get ahead; it is that under the capitalist system, the techniques employed by materialists and misers must be employed even by philanthropists if they are to survive.The point is not about intentions; it is about economic necessities. |
Dr. Peter E. Chojnowski has an undergraduate degree in Political Science and another in Philosophy from Christendom College. He also received his master's degree and doctorate in Philosophy from Fordham University. He and his wife, Kathleen, are the parents of five children. He teaches for the Society of Saint Pius X at Immaculate Conception Academy, Post Falls, ID.
1. Cf. Amintore Fanfani, "Declino del capitalismo e significato del corporativismo" in Giornale degli Economisti (1934).
2. Amintore Fanfani, Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1935), p. 51.
3. Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Rise of Capitalism (London, 1928), chap. 1, art. 2. Cf. Fanfani, Catholicism, p. 10, note 1.
4. Fanfani, Catholicism, p. 21.
5. Ibid., p. 22.
6. Ibid., pp. 24-25.
7. Ibid., p. A5.
8. Ibid., p. 44.
9. Ibid., pp. 50-51.
10. Ibid.
11.Ibid., p. A6.
12. Ibid.
13. See "Catholic Whiggery," The Angelus, April, 2003–Ed.
14. Amintore Fanfani, Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988), p. xlviii.
15. Ibid.
Current Issue
