David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Business Ethics 7 (6):445 - 452 (1988)
One of the major criticisms of contemporary capitalist society which the bishops' pastoral letter raises is the increasing economic, political and social marginalization resulting from the concentration of wealth and power in the form of monopoly capital. The bishops condemn these contemporary inequalities as unjust, undemocratic and antithetical to the teachings of the Church and Catholic humanism. Given this criticism, we can better understand the bishops' policy prescriptions as intended to show how monopoly capital can be reconciled with the common good, the problem as explicitly posed in section 281 of their pastoral. Hence, their proposal for economic democracy and economic planning can be seen as one possible solution to this general problem of monopoly concentration and marginalization.However, as I criticize in my paper, the bishops' policy prescriptions are undermined by contradictions in their position as well as questionable assumptions implicit to their model for economic democracy. On the one hand and as motivated by the bishops' desire to promote greater democracy and social justice for marginalized groups, the bishops' propose greater state intervention in the economy, particularly in areas concerning the planning and control over investment decisions. On the other hand and on behalf of the rights and liberties of private property owners, the bishops' want to preserve a measure of laissez-faire and private initiative in the marketplace. In short, the bishops' seem undecided about which of their social sentiments should have priority — their egalitarian or libertarian sentiments. Apparently, and as I demonstrate in my paper, the bishops fear more the imagined threats of social democracy to the status quo of private property than the actual marginalizing effects of private monopoly capital.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Charles E. Curran (1988). Ethical Principles of Catholic Social Teaching Behind the United States Bishops' Letter on the Economy. Journal of Business Ethics 7 (6):413 - 417.
E. D. Hunt (1991). Barbarians and Bishops J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz: Barbarians and Bishops: Army, Church and State in the Age of Arcadius and Chrysostom. Pp. Xiv + 312; 7 Plates. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. £35. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 41 (02):417-419.
Daniel J. Koys (1988). Values Underlying Personnel/Human Resource Management: Implications of the Bishops' Economic Pastoral Letter. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 7 (6):459 - 466.
David R. Palmer (1988). Schumpeter and Reconciling Divisive Responses to the Bishops' Letter. Journal of Business Ethics 7 (6):433 - 436.
James W. Boettcher (2003). “Political, Not Metaphysical”. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 77:205-219.
Mary E. Hobgood (1997). Poor Women, Work, and the U.S. Catholic Bishops: Discerning Myth From Reality in Welfare Reform. Journal of Religious Ethics 25 (2):307 - 333.
Stephen Bickham (1988). The Bishops' Pastoral: A New Theory of Justice. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 7 (6):437 - 443.
William E. Murnion (1989). The Ideology of Social Justice in Economic Justice for All. Journal of Business Ethics 8 (11):847 - 854.
William S. Reece (1989). Why is the Bishops' Letter on the U.S. Economy so Unconvincing? Journal of Business Ethics 8 (7):553 - 560.
Peter Steinfels (1988). From Adam Smith to the American Catholic Bishops: Debating Visions of Economic Life. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 7 (6):405 - 411.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads5 ( #176,067 of 1,008,717 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,702 of 1,008,717 )
How can I increase my downloads?