Capital, Catholics & Commies

95 Problems

After 15 minutes in a typical liberal arts class at an elite university, a newcomer might think capitalism’s only legacy over the past 400 years is oppressing the lower and middle classes.

However, objectively speaking, the capitalist system—for the most part—has done a good job of increasing productivity and output through its efficient allocation of goods and services.

When looking at the 100 to 150 years preceding the 1917 Red Wave in Russia, there is quantifiable evidence that capitalism wasn’t simply an economic system meant to exploit the masses.

From 1800 to 1900, real wages for British workers more than doubled, the UK’s GDP per capita grew 4x and the US’s grew 3x, and life expectancy increased from 40 to 55.

Additionally, innovations like the steam engine telegraph, telephone, internal combustion engines, and more developed, and the middle class of merchants, professions, and small-scale industrialists expanded greatly.

Despite the obvious improvements in economic output and citizens’ quality of life, there were some obvious downsides.

Many workers faced harsh factory conditions that paralleled the imagery in Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle.

More specifically, workers often toiled for 12-16 hours in grueling conditions for six days a week without the modern amenities like vacation, overtime pay, or any type of legal protection.

Most industrialized nations clearly lacked regulation regarding machine safety and exposure to harmful substances. More importantly, many of these workers included young children.

Also, living situations for most were suboptimal, with tenement housing packing families into single rooms with little to no sanitation, leading to frequent outbreaks of cholera and tuberculosis.

Despite the steady expansion of the middle class, the lower / working class still held the largest proportion of people and the owners of large factories, mills, and other projects became visibly wealthy.

This inevitably sparked resentment among the masses and laid the groundwork for Marx to advocate for the abolition of private property and a classless and stateless society.

On another note, the Church in the 16th century had been fulfilling its duty of being the pillar and foundation of truth (Timothy 3:15) and the institution that represents heaven on Earth.

Its strongest foundations were in Western and Central Europe with most of the East being cut off due to the Great Schism in 1054.

Countries ranging present day Catholic countries like Spain, Italy, France Portugal to now Protestant western countries like Germany (formerly the Holy Roman Empire), England, Scotland, Switzerland, and the Nordic countries were all solidly Catholic.

The Catholic faith also was strong in a few Eastern countries like Poland, Lithuania, and Hungary in addition to parts of African and Asia through Portugal’s colonial efforts.

But these countries were not “Catholic” the same way France, Spain, and Italy are today given the secularization the West underwent.

Rather, Catholic in the sense that the Church wholly shaped Western society and was involved in nearly every aspect of life.

Not only was it the norm to regularly attend mass and receive all of the sacraments, but most institutions, like education centers and hospitals, were typically run by monasteries. In addition, any type of art or music was heavily influenced by Catholicism as well.

On the political front, the influence was even more conspicuous given the Pope’s entanglement with secular politics.

Kings often sought papal approval for their marriages and legitimacy, and some were crowned by the Pope—most notably Charlemagne in 800 AD.

While the domination of culture by the Church produced mainly good fruits, one externality was that any abuses of the Church were magnified exponentially.

And boy were there abuses.

The first of these was simony, or the purchase of ecclesiastical positions, which is infamously named after Simon Magnus attempting to purchase access to the Holy Spirit from the Apostles in Acts.

Peter was not going for that:

Another was pluralism–holding more than one office to receive multiple streams of income, which directly resulted in ignorance of the faith in many regions where the bishop or priest simply wasn’t present.

Other issues included nepotism, corruption, and moral laxity, with priests occasionally having mistresses and children in addition to living in salient luxury.

The issue that broke the camel’s back was the corruption surrounding the sale of indulgences.

Despite indulgences historically being granted for acts of prayer, almsgiving, fasting, or pilgrimage, certain churches implored the laity for donations in exchange for the indulgences.

While most of Europe was struggling with at least one to two of these problems plaguing the Church, Germany specifically was a hotbed of corruption, thus leading Luther to propose his infamous 95 Theses.

The idea that the Church needed serious reform is obviously what drove Luther to concoct his notorious piece–and he was correct.

What most people don’t realize is that the Church did implement numerous reforms that ushered in the glorious Counter Reformation.

The list is too extensive to adequately examine, but the major ones included:

• Every diocese was required to establish a seminary to properly educate and train priests

• Priests required to live in their dioceses 

• Priests were forbidden from engaging in commerce or military service

• Established the groundwork for excommunicating priests living in visible, unrepentant, and serious sin (i.e. concubines)

• Strict prohibition of simony and sale of indulgences

• Careful oversight of Church finances

• Standardization of Mass (Tridentine Mass), leading to the TLM that became standard until the 1960s (but is seeing a resurgence)

Combining the two events, the most similar connection between the two is that instead of identifying the reforms that the institutions needed and implementing them, German individuals instead sparked a revolution that had devastating effects that last until today.

Interestingly enough, Marx, despite being ethnically Jewish, was converted to Protestantism by his father–along with seven siblings–but would later become an atheist.

In a similar manner to the Church’s reforms listed previously, changes like child labor bans, maximum hour laws, and a variety of safety regulations were soon passed not only in the US but across most of the developed world.

The similarities in the two events extend beyond simply an unnecessary revolution.

First, both held extreme suspicion—if not contempt—towards tradition and the past.

Communist revolutions were infamous for the ruthless destruction of anything that represented the past: statues, monuments, paintings, and more.

In a similar way, Protestants despised the Catholic respect for tradition and customs and instead wanted to establish a form of Christianity that completely strips the authority of Sacred Tradition and elevates Sacred Scripture to the sole infallible rule.

Next, both were hostile towards the concept of authority, especially in the monarchial form.

The Bolsheviks notoriously overthrew Tsar Nicholas II and executed him and his family in Ekaterinburg, sparking the end of monarchy across the globe.

While Luther undeniably detested the binding authority of the magisterium, there was nothing more he hated than the Pope’s authority, saying “we are at last forced to conclude that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist.”

Lastly, both attempted to appeal to empower the masses, although communism’s was more direct and explicit.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the initial promise of a perfectly egalitarian society never panned out.

It was simply cunning way to discard of one form of centralized leadership for another–that just so happened to be multitudes more oppressive.

Luther’s appeal to the masses was more implicit.

By rejecting the Church’s power to interpret scripture, it falsely elevates each individual to the spiritual level of the Church and gives them the authority to essentially establish their own form of Christianity.

The effects of this are still felt until today, with constant new formation of denominations endlessly fragmenting the Church and making Christian unity seem more impossible with every passing day.

The main difference between the two situations is that while capitalism is objectively the best economic system in terms of providing goods and services in an efficient manner, capitalism, as an ideology, isn’t perfect.

More specifically, letting the “efficient and rational” market determine the allocation of capital has its drawbacks. The adults in the room–the non-libertarians—can agree that some level of regulation and intervention by the state is necessary.

What exactly that level should be is the quadrillion dollar question.

Catholicism, on the other hand, at its core is perfect.

While the imperfect leaders of the perfect Church will always have blemishes, the Holy Spirit will continuously be with the Church to guide it and ensure it doesn’t stray from promulgating the truth.

More specifically, while there have been Popes whose behavior has been far from perfect, no Pope or magisterium has ever used his full teaching authority to formally bind the Church to heresy.

And that’s what Luther didn’t understand.

Speaking of Luther, many nondenominational evangelicals praise him as the bold trailblazer that helped wrangle away Christianity from the oppressive hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

What most don’t realize is that there is actually very little overlap between the beliefs of Luther and most nondenominational Christians.

Be sure to tune in next week for a detailed breakdown.

If you enjoyed this article, feel free to share with your family, co-workers, and friends and tell them to subscribe.

Thanks for reading and until next time.

Headlines