this opinion which has never been confirmed by the fact expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those

wielding economic power. and the sec relies workings of the prevailing economic system. he has repeatedly condemned idolatry of the market and has said in the speech to which president carter referred to in bolivia when capital becomes an idle you get pain, and death and destruction and the stench of the dung of the devils. these are strong words. i would like to make the case the pope's critique of free-market ideology is traditional, systemic, ethical and finally anthropological. it is to grimsley traditional, pope benedict xvi said the conviction the economy must be autonomous, shielded from influences of moral character has led man to abuse the economic process and a thoroughly destructive way. pope john paul the second said the state of inequality between individuals and nations not only still exists, it is increasing.

it is obvious a fundamental defect or series of defects, and indeed the defective machinery is at the root of contemporary economic and materialistic civilization which does not allow of the human feeling to break free from such radically unjust situations. john paul ii said in speaking of the poor and disadvantaged it is and not only a question of alleviating the most serious and urgent needs through individual actions here and there but uncovering of the roots of evil and proposing initiatives to make social, political and economic structures more just and fraternal. hope all vi condemned erroneous autonomy, a phrase that the director of catholic university institute for policy research we ran a symposium last year called erroneous autonomy, a case against libertarian isn't. we have a followup conference in june on faith and solidarity using erroneous autonomy as a

way of highlighting the differences between libertarian fought and social thought. one of my favorite he proposed is from pious xi just as the unity of human society cannot be found on the opposition of classes the bride ordering of the economic life cannot be left to free competition of forces for from this source as from a boy isn't spurring the originator and spread all the errors of individualist economic thinking. we could go back even further to the gospel in which the blessed virgin mary says he has filled the hungry with good things and the rich he has sent away empty. so what is the difference with pope francis? i submit that he is quite blunt and you can spin him. john paul ii and benedict xvi were addressed by american conservative voices brought distorting lens to what both those two great pope said

tuesday. window pope francis there's no need to interpret. it is kind of funny. one of the early criticisms of pope francis was he is very confusing. there's nothing confusing about him. you can talk to some immigrant workers picking the tomatoes we have with our salad at lunch, they are not confused by pope francis. people levelling that charge just don't like what he has to say. the critique is systemic, the change pope francis calls for is not merely individual capitalists become more virtuous but is in favor of virtue and opposed to vice, but is deeper than that. if that predicates, it is only a matter of people behaving more virtually, any system would do. i remind you of madison st. men were angels there would be no need for government. the pope's critique of the free market system has two traps, one based on on the ground and the other at the level of theory and

in both, that they do not share the horror of government. government is an expression of the common good. government is called upon to enact a justice. no. 28 that just society is not, quote, directed against the market but demand the market be appropriately controlled. you could compare this with liberty is always freedom from the government. as benedick xvi pointed that out, there's no room for gratuitous this. pope francis would at mercy. compare this with the mosaic law required forgiveness of debts on a regular basis. the biggest problem is still interest versus the universal destination of good. self-interest is of course a sin and it can't be wiggled into a

virtue by reference to social and creative consequences. as david schindler has pointed out christians mean something different from creativity for what capitalist's mean. pope francis when he deals with these issues, schindler -- the overlap is obvious. a primary foundational belief of social teaching is the universal destination of goods which means all the goods of the world are to be distributed so that everyone has enough to live and participate in society. this claim is prior to property rights, classic domestic theory holds private property rights can be recognized but only as a consequence of the fall, though of original sin. another point of divergence obviously it comes out all the time is free-market ideologue always seem to have it in for organized labor. the church explicitly endorsed

the rights of workers to unionize and never drawn a distinction between public and private sector workers and the right to organize. turning to the reality, this is even more important for pope francis, he has that on several occasions reality is more important than ideas. it is often asserted with some basis in fact that capitalism and other accouterments of modernity have lifted millions out of poverty, but at the same time excludes others it is an unjust system and unworthy of the human person. inadequate as an economic system. with a look at the trans-pacific trade deal which seems to be stalled but if it goes through one of the things we can anticipate isn't jobs and factories in the nation in central america will go to malaysia, trade accords invite a race to the bottom with wages.

if you look at the issue of debt crises, why is austerity which disproportionately harms the boer always the first option? i was pleased to see last month the border region bishops and other religious leaders have called for a different approach to the crisis that pr is facing. and a situation in puerto rico, they fall between the stool, they're not a sovereign nations the can't work with the imf, they're not a city or state, can't go into bankruptcy protection, they have asked for the fed to help restructure the debt and to start not with mandating austerity but to start by giving a hair cut to the hedge funds. i am for that, that is a good idea. we can look at the 2008 economic meltdown here and around the world. even alan greenspan who i am sure is as devoted to free market ideas as anyone in public life in the last 50 years admitted that the crisis forced him to rethink his neil liberal assumptions. at the micro level we can point

to this attack on unions, we saw scott walker rollout and attack on that. be owe xiii defended unions. consider the circumstance of a shop owner who wishes to provide a living wage, but for the presented the american lexicon in 1906, john ryan stock dissertation at catholic university based on rio's writings, catholic belief is every person is entitled to a living wage but if the shop owner who is a good catholic and wants to live by his faith extends a living wage and his competition across the street doesn't, what in the market rewards the good guy? as fred gregory observes in the unintended reformation commenting on the transformation from a mercantilist to a capitalist system, quote, in effect outside the price protection capitalists practice is compelled myrtle competitors to act as if it were driven by increases in desires even when

they burn not. he describes the shift from the good society to the goods society which raises an additional problem with capitalism. it is married to consumerism, a third local construct the was not necessary but that it has played out. we can say capitalists in the west have succeeded where the communists failed, making the culture that is thoroughly materialistic. instead of one big party we have many titles in our department stores. the war on christmas every year when fox news gets worked out because this department store or that chain has dropped merry christmas in favor of happy holidays. if you walk through a department store between thanksgiving and christmas and you think the choice of happy holidays is the problem with what modern consumer capitalism has done to christmas i suggest you submit the point they have taken a holiday about god becoming for in human flesh and turned it into a chance to teach young children how to be greedy. that is exactly what christmas

has become in this country. i turn to the ethical considerations and difficulties. there is some debate about in free-market circles whether or not love free market ideology contains moral sense. milton friedman said economic freedom is an end in itself, freedom has nothing to say about what an individual does with his freedom. more on the issue of freedom in a bit. hayak compared the free-market to game in which, quote, there is no sense calling the result just or unjust. in this view of the market is a mutual that can be used well or used bad with the efficiency as the only relevant criteria. i think this is wrong. tools always imply theology, and results can be efficient and and just at the same time. pope francis explicitly warned about using efficiency and technology is the only criteria for evaluating economic and other social activity in isn't cyclical on the environment.

i would argue however there's a very obvious that the get the heart of market ideology by posing a few questions. what values does the market celebrate? who are its hero's? comparing these with the catholic view? the market celebrates the self-made man. not the man who evidences solidarity. it celebrates thrift and frugality, not gratuitous nest or generosity or simplicity which has a different flavor from frugality. the market demands of a surgeon, not self surrender. the market celebrate success and pope francis like all catholics worships the crucified god. the market runs on competition, not cooperation. need i go on? american capitalism would celebrate in a show called lifestyles of the rich and famous. pope francis has ministered in the name of christ to the poor and the forgotten. the christian ethical vision has

been clouded in u.s. culture. we tend to confuse fortune with blessing. pope francis reminds us the good news of the gospel is brought to the poor. or if i may quote the great ethical wit dorothy parker if you want to know what "the return of george washington, 1783-1789" thinks of money just looked at the people he gave it to. finally we turn to the anthropological difference. when i say anthropology, i'm not talking about tools from 5 and did years ago. the church means something rich and specific when it refers to the human person and that is the social meaning, not an autonomous understanding. i think the examples will highlight this difference. critics of government entitlement programs complain that they create a culture of dependency. in a pedestrian since this criticism is obviously valid. programs should create on ramps to participate fully in society, not create disincentives to work or to form a family.

at the deeper level and culture of entitlement and dependency is precisely what free-market ideology cannot deliver but what the christian vision demands. people really are entitled to a living wage, they are entitled to a roof over their head, to secure retirement. they are entitled to access to health care. for questions the human person is radically dependent first on gone every time we say grace, from your bounty, and on one another. the bond of dependence is called solidarity or neighborliness. i reminded the high-tech said we would gain, quote, from not treating one another as neighbors. jesus said we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. the christian vision requires a focus on face of our fellow men and women. the christians position to generosity and human relations

always takes priority. david schindler said selfishness becomes a mutual is not yet mutual generosity. another point of difference is the anthropological level is this word freedom which is a deeply ambiguous word carrying far too much weight in a variety of contemporary political discussions. negative freedom of the we have as the basis of our constitutional system, the freed men referred to earlier, this is not the freedom of the children of god. the catholic church cannot accept negative freedom from conception as freedom as adequate. you saw this in the debate over the decree on religious liberty at the vatican joel to which everyone focuses on the debate between advocates of religious freedom versus its opponents but the more interesting debate was among the murray writes who did embrace the kind of american

constitutional virtue, and the french intellectuals who saw its problems. when asked about this because that document like many was the consensus document. year later john murray said this was an issue we have to skate around. as we have seen in issues surrounding the age age as contraception mandate and i would argue here on these ashes of economic liberty we can along your skate around the issues. the catholic faith teaches that we humans are called to communion, to solidarity with god and one another. everything the church teaches about human relations including economics flows from our belief that the human person is created in the image and likeness of god. our most foundational doctrinal belief is god is in eternity, a community or person and it is in this image that we are created. to denounce or demean solidarity

then, to celebrate an autonomous of and build an economic theory around that is to challenge a christian's most basic belief about who god is. in this great free country of ours we are free to stand with i, i am happier to stand with pope francis. [applause] >> thank you very much. our last speaker is j.w. richards, a research professor in the school of business and economics at the catholic university of america. he is an executive editor of the stream and senior fellow at the discovery institute. richards is the author of many books including the new york times best selling book infiltrated in 2013 and indivisible in 2012. he is also the author of money, agreed and god which won the 2010 templeton enterprise award. his articles published in harvard business review, wall

street journal, washington post, 4 bands many other venues. with that please tell me welcome j.w. richards. [applause] >> wonderful to be with you and fun to be in this auditorium for this subject. since i went last time realize many of the things i was going to set things president garvey said or michael is already said sun will change my plans here a little bit. i want to address this question about how we understand pope francis because most, unless you are a full time pope scholar, you write for a catholic publication or teacher at a public university your surely everything you know where thing to know about any pope especially this one is coming to you second or third hand from the media's of very often what he actually says is something different from what he in fact says. michael quoted his statement about the dung of the devil and you quoted the actual statement pope francis said but if you do goal that would you will see is

pope francis called capitalism of the dung of the devil. in the speech he doesn't use the word capitalism. that is what is odd about the things pope francis as. he very rarely actually uses the word capitalism. i think that perhaps is delivered. my favorite example of media distortion has nothing to do with these topics. last year pope francis the of the pontifical academy of science and was talking about how the catholic and catholic theology understand god. it was reported in the english-speaking press the pope had said to these scientists that god is not a divine being. let that sink in. the pope said god is not a divine being. when i saw this as i could make money just finding media distortions i would try to monetize it. this can't possibly be right that the pope would say this so i went to the vatican news site, looking klystron insulation there. it was there. that is where the media had done its a you can trust the vatican news site at least in the short

term supply went to the original speech. what he said was god is not d i demiarg demiargos, he is not just the top member of low universe. he is transcendent creator over everything. straightforward christian catholic theology that once translated like a game of telephone internationally has the pope saying god is not a divine being. when you're tempted to think i know for sure what the pope is saying just remember that. that is how bad it can actually get. what we are going to talk about for a few minutes today and much of what i want to say has already been said is the idea of capitalism through the eyes of pope francis and so that is what i want to focus on. i mention pope francis very rarely actually uses the word capitalism. until yesterday i hadn't been able to find an example of amusing the term at all. it turns out if the story is to be trusted, a year ago or two

years ago in 2013 he gave a talk to a soup kitchen in rome in which he referred to something called savage capitalism. here we go. when you look and see what he meant, the way he did find this term savage capitalism was the logic of profits at any cost. that is a very specific idea, a fair interpretive capitalism as normally defend it or not, but we can see that is what he has in mind. many of the things the pope writes including in his most recent encyclical, in his previous apostolic letter he doesn't say a lot about these particular things. in his apostolic letter, if i am correct, it is only eight pages in which discusses economic topics that all. he says this from pages 53 to 60. he says we must say no, this is a direct quote, and economy of

exclusion, we must say no to the new idolatry of money. we must say no to a financial system that rules read the conserves. we must say no to inequality which bonds violence. if you are of defender of the free-market ask yourself do you disagree with that? anything he said here? would you say no to an economy of exclusion or an idolatry of money? inequality that spawns violence? he does however say he specifically condemns what he calls the absolute autonomy of markets. this is a term he has used several times, michael said pope francis and pope benedict of also used a term very much like that. i want to reiterate these things even though you heard once this afternoon. says those who continue to defend trickle-down theories which is an economic growth encouraged by free market will inevitably succeed in bringing

about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. such a view, he writes, which is never been confirmed by the facts expresses accrued at night dressed in the business of those wielding economic power in the workings of the prevailing economic system. generally says this. we can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. it would be fair to say, i would love to spin this and people try to do this especially those of us who think of the alternative economic freedom is the best thing to go, would like to spin this way but at least pope francis has an impression, let me fix this year, looks like it clicked off on me. i can keep going. here we go. got it. michael was telling me beforehand the reason he doesn't use power point. you have another reason to stick with that. >> i think it is fair to say his

view of capitalism at least as he understands it is generally not positive. he does have positive things to say about business in creating wealth and jobs but that is the best we could set a. taking together his apostolic letter in his most recent and cyclical, many of his written speeches, the better thing to do is to focus on what pope francis is saying, what he is intending to say and what he does say because he says many things over and over, we can take these as recurring themes, he speaks frequently about what he calls speculation. uses last week's speaking in italy to the association in rome, talk about economic ideology that deny human dignity, their embrace selfishness and greed. he talks began a lot about not

idolatry of money and ideologies that high dollar ties money, lot about greed as we said comes up again and again, doesn't distinguish him from virtually any other polk in the 20th or now the 21st century. he does invoke as you heard a minute ago about idea of the invisible hand, can no longer trusts in the guidance of the invisible hand which is the term that adam smith came up with. smith so far as i can tell only used the term--that is what most people remember that he said. bond all this, a crucial point, whenever pope francis is talking about these things, invariably he has one subject in mind, poverty. poverty is precisely the thing that motivates everything he says about the dirksen senate office building give you tend to be skeptical of the things pope

francis says about the economy at least understand this. the things he says, not simply because of an ideological predilection but because he is profoundly concerned, the reason he took the name francis is because of his concern about the poor. it is fair to say, my twitter handle incidentally is free market day. just so you know where i am coming for mondays question is some of the things he says feel like a caricature. that is not anything i would never defend and not anything any of the people i admire would never defend. the question is where does he specifically get the ideas he has about what free-market capitalism or entrepreneur real capitalism actually are? fairly clear reason for that, to make a useful distinction. many of the things he says about the global financial system, the global financial crisis, and many of the things he says about

the financial system ring true when talking about that. when i read him on that they ring true to me not as a critique of free-market capitalism but what we might call cronyism. insofar as you understand what he talks about if you say, what he is referring to is not a philosophical views of adam smith but the corporatism and cronyism that often stands in for those things, some in the united states but in many countries in south america. this is really important. and particularly brutal of what i would call hard corporatism if you want to call it that. you may not know much about argentina, have many friends who have been there and we talk a lot about the country, a crucial

thing to realize about pope francis's experience, the things he says when speaking about the socio-economic system in terms like this. argentine not was one of the world's ten wealthiest nations in terms for per-capita. in argentina. and largely the result with his wife. and ideology described in the left/right spectrum. it is a populist leftism. it appeals to the common people,

large economic actors in this state, if you think about what pope francis is actually saying in that light, his experience of cronyism in argentina, much of what he says starts to make sense. i don't want to say he is making these distinctions so far as i know distinguishing between the type of cronyism in argentina and the free-market capitalism you get some place like hong kong to or the type of general free economy have a place like south korea, i would very much like to see him make some. it is important, argentina is an economic basket case, the most recent index of economic freedom, comes in 169th out of 178 countries on the planet in

terms of economic freedom so between the democratic congress--democratic republic of congo, not doing very well. south america and the caribbean the only countries that do are venezuela and cuba. what everyone said about argentina, this is not a bastille of free-market capitalism. a powerful overbearing state, several large presumably private economic actors, massive amounts of inequality, and bill gates. and a form of any quality, plutocrats and peasantry. and the global economy. what pope francis says. here is look question. what to do, imagine you are a

catholic philosopher or economist and you study these things, look of the empirical details, different political economy is to bring about heaven on earth, no sense that there is the utopia, but nevertheless on empirical grounds the economic systems and economic freedom as it tends to be defended in terms of lovelock, private property rights, level of corruption, and wide-ranging economic freedom is the best of what live economical alternative for lifting large numbers of people out of absolute poverty. is our empirical facts. we are not in position of having to analyze competing economic ideologies. ultimately we are in position of asking an empirical question. what makes of structures and institutions and economic

structures and cumin flourishing and most conducive large numbers of people of poverty. what if you are a faithful catholic and orthodox catholic and convinced that it is free economic systems that do this? what are you to do? this is a dilemma. you have to understand a few things about the way in which authority works in the catholic church and the authority of the magisterial. president garvey has almost entirely covered what i was going to say here but you have to make distinctions. everyone that is not catholics of far as i can tell, all my evangelical friends city in christian theology, i asked them what does papal infallibility and tell, tend to think it means everything the pope says is invaluable. that is not true. you can discover this in five minute to the really good google search it tends to be people's impression of how these things work. unless there is a detailed

historical body of texts that have come to be called catholic tojo--social teaching that by conventions that with pope leo xiv and continued to the present in which the pope applying particular themes from catholic theology and also from natural law to the sort of current abiding question of economics and politics. i would refer to the central of biting and i would say in fallible core of these things as the principles that you see articulated and presupposed in these documents of catholic social teaching. it is a mistake to think at the social teachings = some details catholic political policy. not as if it articulate in detail the precise details of how late tax system should be put together or how immigration policy should be put together in a way -- it provides a set of principles but i would argue

have a wonderful lens and clarifying lens of thinking through these issues this doesn't provide, here is the catholic political position. that is why catholics of good faith disagree on particular political topics. nevertheless adhering to these principles of social teachings. here is how john paul ii put it. he is not saying anything that is idiosyncratic in this regard. the church of social doctrine is not the third wave between liberal capitalism and marxist collectivism, not even a possible alternative to other solutions less radically opposed to one another. rather it constitutes a category of its own. it doesn't mean it is orthogonal. doesn't mean the social teachings, they are hermetically sealed from economic concerns. what it means is they provide a set of moral and philosophical categories by which if you are a catholic, you don't have to reflect on anything. intrinsic dignity of the human

person, the universal destination of solidarity, the common good, these are categories you must and hot to bring to all these questions. that won't answer every single question about what level the minimum-wage ought to be set. that is a prudential question based upon your analysis and conclusions based on the empirical details as far as you understand. pope benedict xvi, francis's and immediate professor -- predecessor put it this way before he was pope, he was talking about morality and economics and how he thought these things ought to interact. i take this to be catholic social teaching is not a third way, not a completely filled out political system but neither is it irrelevant to moral questions. he said the morality that is able to dispense with the

technical knowledge of economic laws is not morality but moralism. is the antithesis of morality. egos on to put it the other way, and -- in economics that believes it can dispense with moral knowledge and moral principles is not economics but economy isn't. what we need is a maximum of economics and maximum of moral reflection so that when these things come together we have a hold that is much greater than the sum of their parts. that is what i say the task at least for the faithful catholic it was a faithful son or daughter of the church is appreciative of the good economic freedom brings to human beings. that i would say ought to be our goal. not to separate them or say catholic social teaching is one thing but economics just involves empirical questions. it is distinguishing of the economic ideology pope francis

talked about and michael talked about. from the empirical results and discoveries and the theoretical insights of economics integrating those things with perennial principles. and improperly, also economic freedom. [applause] >> we now open to q&a. please wait to be called upon for the benefit of our viewers. microphone will come to you and would you please be so kind as to make your question really short and in a form of a questions so we can get through as many of them as possible? are there any questions? the gentleman over here. >> wonderful talks by everyone.

i have a question of a dog that didn't bark. a classic domestic distinction between accident and substance. when the holy father talks about the capitalist, is he clear as to whether he is attacking the unfortunate accidents or the very substance itself? >> so far as i can tell he says not to make that distinction. pope john paul ii did make a distinction like that with respect to capitalism. i would love for the social and cyclicals to make this decision. very often they don't. pope john paul ii said if by capitalism we mean this, then no. it by capitalism we mean this, then yes but let's call it something else is what he said. the other one is the one that i

would understand is the proper definition and very often i think not just catholics but many people, many critics of free market economic don't distinguish between the mechanism will assumption, the ideologies that might be part of this package of someone making the case for economic freedom and the real system itself, simply the question, the empirical question if we look at the types of systems and a tight of institutions societies have, in which of those societies to people do better off or not but what we of will do and i did this as a college student, i preferred -- i accused ayn rand, her metaphysical assumption, her moral assumption, with the case for economic freedom but the catholic doesn't need rand. there are plenty of ways to make the case for economic freedom without that and we don't want to do that. if you want to be a catholic, in this area, use authentically catholic resources for economic freedom based upon our empirical

knowledge and key theoretical insight that and not dependent on ideology. division of labor, these sorts of thing, subjective theory of value versus labor theory value, these are in service run from economic study but not dependent on any particular ideology. >> in the back. just one second. >> the man with the baby. >> i was wondering how you would define economic freedom and if that concept exists anywhere in catholic social teaching and the people and cyclicals and formal documents. >> is this for anyone? >> no. i.t. don't think so.

the passage i referred to, the elite reference to the role of the market in lifting billions of people out of poverty, markets in china, but there is not a lot of reference. there's a lot of reference to freedom but it is important to realize freedom that is discussed in catholic teaching is not not merely negative freedom from. it is freedom for, what are called freedom for excellence and developing our purpose and the end to which we are designed for. >> i think this is my problem with the comments, you can't just say rand, we can dispose of this but keep that as if the one did not flow from the other. this is where the rubber hits

the road. all the way to the potential judgments. this idea of the somehow we have these theories and these prudential judgments where we can all disagree. there is something to that obviously. we all have different experiences that we bring to our judgment of given situations but prudential judgment is not a get out of jail free cards. there are still things. what was just forced on greece as about the force on pr is not acceptable. the economic system that makes those things necessary is itself implicated and indicted as unjust as well. we can talk all we want about it is where rosie and wonderful and this, it is not. i don't think we can benefit. the only other thing i have to object to is this idea that pope francis, all he knows his crony capitalism. crony capitalism to me is you look at the current economic

situation and the injustices it perpetrates and you have gone on to that, cronyism. complaining about the color of the curtains. i don't think that is the problem. it is insulting because i don't remember a single person ever saying to pope benedict he came from this snow globe village, pope francis is perfectly capable of speaking as universal pastor of the catholic church with this idea even only a understand because he is an argentine and all this is nonsense. >> i should respond to that. that is grotesque reference to what i said. i didn't say that. what i said is read pope francis and with the argentine and see if that helps understand why he is saying what he says that if that shapes what he is saying. everything he says must be revised because he is from argentina. >> on that side over there.

>> i am a card-carrying economist and i am also a profoundly disappointed catholic. i was really put off by the hand outs. >> forgive me -- keep it short. >> i want to say isn't a question even if you believe in capitalism the pope is saying we could do better. in my childhood there was what we call liberation theology which my irish father -- >> thank you very much. can we do better? anybody want to take that on? >> i will take that can we do better part because that is an

easy one, sure. like both jack and michael, there is that danger, of what the pope has to say in the same way as political writers in the united states, members of political parties in the united states tends to flatten things for public consumption. i think what the pope has to say about this is enormously complicated and sophisticated and should be understand in the same way and not flattened. let me give one example. when we talk about the economic recession we went through in the united states in 2008 that affected much of the western world's and has traveled around the globe to the other side there is a tendency to say this is the fault of the bankers who

were gouging people, concerned with the profit motive, packaging mortgages and deceiving people, that is one theory popular on the left. and other popular on the right is it is up fault of barney frank and fannie and freddie which forced banks to make people who should not be getting them but the pope talk about this sort of thing, he talks about both of those sides and the third side which is the materialism or consumerism of the borrowers. he said you are all guilty of the same sin which is lust for consumption and acquiring things. bankers want to make more money, the government can't be trusted because they are cumin beings like the bankers giving to their own prejudices and desires and the consumers who take out votes for 100% of their property value are guilty of the same kind of

materialism, we can all do better but we have to begin with ourselves. in this kind of world there isn't a solution that says the unregulated free market capitalism will be the right way to go. he says we need a government to tame the excesses of capitalism but we shouldn't trust the government either at he knows that better than anybody having lived under that system but there is something for all of us, this is a personal message as much as it is the message of political reform. >> anyone wants to comment on immigration theology? does have a place in catholic teaching today? >> there were a variety of liberation theology that were condemned in the 1980s. the condemnation was not -- there were other liberation

theologians that were not condemned and the problem with it, was focused on but anthropological understanding that certain theologians put forward at the materialist reduction in our understanding of the person. i have argued you could cut costs, that condemnation of certain liberation theologians and apply it to the aspen institute today, you would have to change some direct objects but they have to make the same anthropological mistakes in their effort to defend or baptized free market capitalism which of full's errant that cannot be done. at the level of endorsing kayak and pope francis said that the radical level the differences as i quoted in my remarks, these are directly in contradiction with one another. the night he was elected i spoke to a friend and had to go on a

tv show and talk about him, didn't know much about him but the thing to remember, he had been opposed to liberation theology and i knew that was an inadequate thing because of what it left out and he said the latin american bishops never stopped asking the question what does it mean to exercise a preferential option for the 4 even after this condemnation. this gets the discussion of levels of authority, the pope is on a different level than riding and in cyclical. this topic more than anything the level of authority could not be higher even on the plane because he is speaking straight from the gospel and there's no higher authority in the gaf faith and the gospel of jesus christ. americans don't always like to hear that.

>> i think michael is right. not every aspect of every liberation theologian was condemned. i would object to certain aspects of liberation theology on empirical grounds. to give one example, an idea from an argentine economist which held essentially that the southern hemisphere, at the south and central america were poor because the north is rich. the fundamental fema in the prominent liberation, if you really editions of theology of liberation almost the entire argument hinges on this dependency, the poverty of the south is the result, causal relationship between the poverty of the south and the wealth of a north. even gutierrez is an empirical details abandoned it. empirical questions are important, many questions talking about economics that are

not merely theoretical, not merely feel lost--philosophical aspect of this of. thursday on it. and respect the catholic tradition has for science properly understood plays a role to look at empirical details. >> i am not an economist but i am not lawyer and i spent 15 years on the senate fainting committee. i want to read something from the actual and cyclical itself when the pope said the principle of maximization of profits frequently isolated from other considerations reflects a misunderstanding of the very concept of the economy. you can have different types of capitalism in my view. in the united states from world war ii until 1985 or so, we had the stakeholder theory of capitalism. >> please -- >> the idea that capitalism has

responsibility to its workers, to its community and others, shifted into shareholder capitalism. the only responsibility is to your shareholders, tied their own compensation to increase shareholder value. that is quite a different capitalism from what we had in this country if 30 years ago. that is the important thing to understand is you can have different types of capitalism. net capitalism it as such but can be moderated to produce benefits for the whole society. >> thank you. >> i wouldn't refer to either of those things as capitalism. you are talking about a business model in which for instance managers are rewarded according to short-term monitoring of profits. it is the bad business model. there's a lot of evidence of that but on purely economic ground you could make a case may be and in fact immoral to simply treat profits as the only end of

a business. the opposite of profit is loss. it is not one of your indicators you will be in trouble and nobody will have a job but in the short term, structures that encourage managers and ceos to work for short-term profits the long term destruction are very bad business model. >> given pope francis's views what are his perspectives on taxation and more broadly what are his views on what the state should do to battle inequality? >> i don't know that he has specifically spoken about taxation but i can answer your question a different way. it was a photograph in the washington post three weeks ago when they were having horrible wildfires in washington state and it showed a man whose home had been saved and he is shaking the hands of firefighters that

hat on his t-shirt lower taxes, less government equals more freedom. that firefighter was not only a government employee but guarantee he was the union member. this guy whose house had just been saved was probably a tea party year, they make those t-shirts. there is the problem. perhaps they should have let it burn and he could have been freed from the concerns of all those possessions but the man, it was like the people who oppose obamacare, keep the government hands off my medicare. the catholic church never had this kind of hostile view which goes all the way back to before the american revolution, this hostile view of government as a of leviathan. that is not how catholic culture and theology have ever reviewed it. to answer your question, we wouldn't view taxes as

rapacious. when i ran a business the owner said unless there is 100% tax you always have incentive to make more money. we forgot that since the reagan years. this idea that if you raise taxes people lose their incentive, they got to put their money in something. i never bought that. >> in the back? >> for all of you, you are in higher education. what do you see the practical implementation of france's's vision coming from within higher education outside professional ethics courses? >> could you say where in higher education? >> where you can see and implementation of france's's vision? >> to put in a plug for the

school of economics, we are trying to bring together good economics and economic science and economics was originally a part of central the ethics, ethical philosophy. the business school, he was trying to bring together and integration of catholic social teaching with economics and philosophy. is one place, i don't want to say it is the only catholic institution trying to do this but it is the mission of the school of economics. >> i second that point. one of the interesting points francis's predecessor benedict always made was universities are called universities because they aspire to a universal view of human knowledge, that we should not segregate disciplines into economic and political theory and ethics and philosophies, then these disciplines ought to

be talking to one another and one of the aspirations of our university is to do that very thing, economics divorced from ethics brings about the kind of problems the pope is worrying about. >> our little institutes for policy research, it didn't say we have 15 fellows but we will keep going on our erroneous autonomy and do another one next june at the beginning levels of trying to place that together and it focuses on these issues very clearly, keep waving the pope francis flag. >> that is all we have time for. i am grateful to the panel for the conversation. >> thank you for coming. please come again. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

♪ >> all persons having business before the supreme court of the united states are at modest to give their attention. >> number 759, a petition. >> no. 8 team18 . change slavery was not legally recognized. >> putting the brown decision into effect would take presidential orders. in the presence of federal troops and marshals and the courage of children. >> we wanted to fit cases the change the direction and import of the court society and also

changed society. >> so she told them they would have to have a search warrant. and demanded to see the paper and to read it, see what it was which they refused to do so she grabbed it out of his hand to look at it and there after the police officer handcuffed her. >> i can imagine a better way to bring the constitution to life than by telling the issue and stories behind great supreme court cases. >> boldly opposed forced internment of japanese-americans during world war ii. after being convicted for failing to report for relocation he took his case all the way to the supreme court. >> quite often in many of our most famous decisions are once the court took that were quite

unpopular. >> if you had to pick one freedoms that was most essential to the functioning of a democracy it has to be freedom of speech. >> let's go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million people who stick together because they believe in the rule of law. >> landmark cases, an exploration of 12 historic supreme court decisions and that human stories behind them. a new series on c-span produced in cooperation with the national constitution center, the viewing monday october 5th at 9:00 p.m.. and as a companion to our news series landmark cases, the book. it features the 12 cases wheat selected for the series with a brief introduction into the background, headlines and impact of each case written by veteran

supreme court journalist tony tomorrow published by c-span in cooperation with congressional quarterly press. landmark cases is available for $8.95 plus shipping and handling, get your copy at c-span.org/landmarkcases. ..