British Cardinal: Economic Crisis May Cause Rejection of Selfishness

February 15th, 2009 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

According to the Archbishop of Westminster, the economic downturn could be the very thing that brings us to our senses, the The Times (London) reports. “It’s the end of a certain kind of selfish capitalism,” Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor said. “This particular recession is a moment – a kairos – when we have to reflect as a country on what are the things that nourish the values, the virtues, we want to have … Capitalism needs to be underpinned with regulation and a moral purpose.”

The reports adds that he will stand down soon as the head of the Roman Catholic Church in Britain, which he has been for nine years, but before he goes he wants to make one final plea to Britons to change their ways. He told The Times that he had advised Gordon Brown to complement his National Economic Council with a moral one, to “rediscover the things that make for a healthy society”.

He said: “One feels very sorry for those losing their jobs but in times of recession people have to rely on friends and neighbours and families and things that really matter to them. That may be a good thing. I think people did lose their way a bit. It has been difficult to bring up children with the kind of values we want. Let’s face it, we now have a ‘me, me’ society, a more consumerist society, a utilitarian society, and our values and virtues have become diminished.

“Some of it has got to do with having too much. If your worth just depends on your wealth, that is not healthy. Your worth should depend on who you are.”

So the free market and capitalism caused the moral decay of Western societies? OK. My reading of history is somewhat different, I am afraid. What ideology was created at the very moment the moral decay of society started? Let me think… somewhere at the end of the 19th century and causing even more havoc and destruction in the 20th… Hmm….

Was that capitalism or what’s that word again, socialism?

Right, moral values were destroyed when socialism, or its less radical but not less destructive little brother laborism, had tremendous impact. This is because not the ideology of freedom but socialism focuses completely on the material world. You can’t get more materialistic than socialism (well, communism tops socialism, but they’re brothers as well); socialism focuses solely on the material world. It aimed solely at creating similar living conditions for all people. Socialism rejects an afterlife, it rejects moral values, tradition, and everything else that serves as the foundation of a moral and just society.

The cardinal could use a history lesson or two; perhaps that’ll make him understand that not freedom but socialism caused his church to lose its relevance.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. c3
    February 16th, 2009 at 19:23
    Reply | Quote | #1

    I believe they will always be tensions between the “values” of the free market (though I’m not sure that word quite applies) and Christian communal values. Speaking as a Christian AND at the same time a free market believer, I think that tension is good.

  2. C Stanley
    February 16th, 2009 at 20:06
    Reply | Quote | #2

    I think your criticism is correct, Michael, and this sounds like a typical liberal Catholic viewpoint being expressed by this Cardinal (that’s what got the Catholic Church embroiled in the liberation theology movement in Latin America in the 80s.) Pope John Paul II, in my view, struck the right balance in rejecting that liberal theology (which is, as you state, Michael, necessarily a materialistic one- and Pope JP II famously once answered the question “Do you believe in liberation theology?” with a grin as he responded, “Who’s liberation theology?” Meaning, of course, that he believes in the liberation theology of Christ, not man.)

    But even as he rejected socialism, he also rejected the materialism that goes along with a secular capitalistic society and warned against it. I think that it’s important to remember that neither system is morally good or bad in and of itself, but that practically speaking, it seems that capitalism allows for either a materialistic worldview or a choice to reject that, while socialism doesn’t really allow much room for a spiritual view at all.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.