I couldn't resist answering an
op-ed article in First Things magazine written by Charles J. Chaput, the archbishop emeritus of Philadelphia. He caught my attention when he claimed that happiness ties to wisdom. To be exact he says, "happiness grows out of risk and suffering, the beauty and hard edges of experiencing the real world." This bears asking: How many of his experiences would we commoners consider "real world?" For those, like me, ignorant of the class system within the church, a bishop is the highest rank of the Christian clergy. That translates to Chaput as a respected spiritual and administrative authority in the Christian churches. In fact, before his retirement, he was a man who oversaw all the priests and ministers within his church. After doing some research, I found that he made a public apology to the victims of sexual abuse by the Catholic clergy as part of that responsibility. Unfortunately,
in that apology he glossed over the parameters of oversight his position entailed and blamed "the negligence of the church's pastors" for allowing the abuse to occur. It seems to me that because authority goes upward, Chaput himself carries a massive load of that blame. For me, this speaks to his character.
I went on reading his op-ed, where Chaput, from his exalted place in society, warns that democracy advances "the forces of mass culture, which lower the tone of society… by lowering the aims of life from classical beauty, heroic virtues and otherworldly transcendence to the pursuits of work, material consumption, and entertainment." To be clear, the word 'democracy' is strange here. Democracy denotes freedom by way of our vote-by-majority representative governing. In fact, let's try the sentence again with that exchange: [Freedom] "advances the forces of mass culture, which lower the tone of society." Indeed, freedom to grow and change advances "the forces of mass culture." But do they, infact, lower the tone of society? No. I must disagree. Freedom to learn from past mistakes and develop new beliefs that fit our changing values evolves communities to match our better understandings and more accurate views. In short, I argue that it is antiquated beliefs and biases that lower the aims of human life, cloud our views on virtue, and make us believe we must battle one for survival. No, Mr. Chaput, I think it is oppression by generational prejudices that skew the intrinsic beauty of human empathy and block one person's tolerance for another.
Chaput's viewpoint does carry merit, however, if we change the word 'democracy' to capitalism. Now in this op-ed we find an argument with actual merit. Let's first define the concepts of democracy vs. capitalism to analyze Chaput's theory better. A democracy is a governing system that allows the control of an organization or group by the majority of its members. On the other hand, capitalism is a system of economy that allows the intrinsic value of goods and services to determine the value of those things based on natural demand. These things are quite different and hard to confuse.
Chaput posits that democracy lowers the aims of life to the pursuits of work, material consumption, and entertainment which is a relevant argument against capitalism. He appears to have borrowed the Marxist theory of capitalistic alienation and illogically ascribed it to democracy. Chapult's critique of democracy echoes Marx's logical premise that capitalism alienates us from our purpose as people. Marx's theory is that the drive for ever more stuff that capitalism creates obscures the value of spending our time enjoying life rather than spending money. In other words, he emphasized experiences over owning things. Marx went further when he exposed how the appreciation for a day's work loses its satisfaction in a capitalistic system. When we work for a company or boss, we get little psychological pleasure from "a job well done." Marx believed that creativity and pride in our production entice us to do good work and produce quality products. When we feel a personal connection to our productions we take pride in our work because it brings intrinsic happiness through fulfillment. In Marx's words "in your enjoyment, or use, of my product I would have the direct enjoyment both of being conscious of having satisfied a human need by my work, that is, of having objectified man's essential nature, and of having thus created an object corresponding to the need of another man's essential nature ... Our products would be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected our essential nature."
We, the workers, do not decide the craftsmanship and design of a product for a company. It's not even according to us, the consumers. The capitalist (company) or business owner makes all the product decisions, not based on quality or pride of creation. Instead, all decisions come down to extracting a maximal profit. Capitalism necessarily degrades products into cheap items that reap significant returns but bear no pride in creation.
I believe Chaput may have confused the terms democracy and capitalism purposely. Afterall, why would he he want to call out capitalism? Let's be honest, Capult is talking about materialism and capitalism thrives on materialism because if we, the consumers, become content with our lives we might stop constantly wanting and needing things. If we stopped buying junk the capitalistic economy would die out, and make no mistake; Capult is in the business of churches- capital-making machines. A quick Google search that the Vatican's wealth in 2022 at about $10 billion to $15 billion. Considering the church's priceless art, land, gold, and investments across the globe, it is easily one of the wealthiest institutions on Earth. The Vatican holds significant banking, insurance, chemicals, steel, construction, and real estate investments. (On a side note, It is also relevant to note that Pope Francis's Net Worth is $16 Million US Dollars.) Chaput claims to believe that materialism reduces us to "a one dimensional, animal existence that undermines human dignity and eventually leads to the abolition of man." How do we reconcile such an overwhelming amassing of money by a church that bemoans materialism? Further, Capult obviously upholds and uses the materialistic system of capitalism for its benefit while preaching the dangers of a fair and equality-based democracy.
Chapult talks about comfort as emollient we place between ourselves and the facts of everyday life. He claims that "a culture of pleasure and indulgence, a culture focused mainly on the pursuit of material wellbeing, is never really a culture of joy." His words ring particularly hypocritical in light of the riches of the church and his title, which bears the exact stamp of many "joyless" comforts.
Again, he is correct though, capitalism is an excellent component of comfort for the upper classes who enjoy lives of leisure and freedom at the expense of the workers they rely upon to make their capital.
Every American suffers in a lousy economy; however, to put Chapult's opinion into the bright light of reality, let's realize that the capitalist has the most to lose. To fully appreciate the fallout of a failing economy, let's discuss how money becomes power. The father of capitalism, John Adams, realized that money would intrinsically come with privilege at capitalism's conception. He knew that as people's wealth grew and the land got privately dispersed at disproportionate rates, unfairness would cause angst creating a need to protect inbalances of assets. I think that since capitalism was borne with the understood concept of exponential inequality and, perhaps even more alarming, the knowledge that justice would be another capitalistic commodity for sale, the threat of toppling the existing class system terrifies those with the most to lose. There is good reason for men like Capult to confuse terms and concepts to muddy waters. Religious America is a largely uneducated and tradition based group who are influenced by fear and magical thinking to be guided and molded into whatever the church pleases.
He says that to change the world, we must love each other, get married, stay faithful to one another, have lots of children, and raise those children to be men and women of Christian character. That doesn't seem like a change to me. Haven't we already done that, and isn't that how we got here? Capult says that to create new life, we must live according to "convictions that are greater than ourselves and shared with people we know and love." This hardly screams education and evolution. It sounds more like listen to me and keep doing what you are doing and have been doing for generations. On a bettering ourselves scale isn't learning and sharing new beliefs and virtues as a nation the change we need? Strangely, it sounds a lot like what a democracy delivers.
It appears to me that Chapult is a man who lives very comfortably, and has no reason to want change. He is living large, retired in this highly oppressive materialistic world where most have to work until the day they die. He preaches from an exalted place in society not only as an archbishop but as a white male, all the while decrying others the same privileges he enjoys. Chapult is correct when he touts that the church is powerful, "an authority figure who is hard to break." He threatens that it a problem for those who would revise the American story into a "different kind of social experiment." He talks in circles about change and freedom, but I ask for clarity. Are we not the America who pledged to take the tired, the poor, and the huddled masses yearning to breathe free? Is this America, one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all? Exactly which of these social experiments does he threaten to unhinge? What exactly are the moral values that the majority of Americans hold dear? Does democracy, perhaps with its "liberty and justice for all," threaten his exalted place in society?
America is known for obscuring terms and confusing political understandings to the outside world. Confusion and delusion are propagandistic ways of controlling the masses- us. Words with manipulated meaning are things any public figure with a voice can use for his advantage. I hope you leave with a straightforward understanding from this writing: Democracy is not synonymous with capitalism or materialism. Democracy is your voice in society, and Capult would have you continue forever, allowing him to speak for you. Do not be afraid to look up words. You have a right to understand what is said to you.
