Robbins, John W. Ecclesiastical Megalomania: The Economic and Political Thought of the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinity Foundation, 1999. 326 pp. $19.95 paperback.

Ecclesiastical Megalomania offers a critical analysis of Catholic economic and political thought. The book is well written, with an animated and participatory style that draws the reader. It is divided into short, easy to read chapters that are fairly self-contained. The content of the book is poor, however. It fails to meet the basic requirements of any critical analysis: to represent the ideas to be analyzed fairly, and to criticize them logically.

Dr. Robbins misrepresents Catholic social teaching. The most fundamental error occurs when he equates economic need with economic equality: “not only is private property at some times inexpedient, it is at all times of inequality (which is apparently indistinguishable from need) manifestly unjust” (40). He then argues against collectivization, as if Catholic social teaching promoted it. Because the treatment of private property is central to Catholic social teaching, this flaw contaminates the entire book. Like Don Quixote he spends the rest of the book fighting against the giants of his own imagination.

In addition, there are many statements that are false. He states that John Paul II has not explained how the Catholic “Church-State doctrine of property differs from that of the Marxists” (41). He claims that Roman Church-State economic thought encouraged the development of liberation theology (77) and that John Paul II supported it repeatedly (102). He states that Catholics support every mother becoming a welfare mother (88). He asserts that private property is not a natural law right in the Catholic tradition (59). He contends that the principle of subsidiarity is not a restraint on state power (152). All of these statements, and many more of the same ilk, are false. Whatever he is arguing against, it is not Catholic social teaching.

Sometimes, his interpretations take on the fancy of creative fiction: after quoting Laborems Exercens 43, which notes that the need for planning for unemployment ought not lead to “one-sided centralization by the public authorities”, Dr. Robbins interprets the opposite in the very next paragraph: “In any case, the Roman Church-State advocates and intends to participate in the centralization of power” (91). On page 61, he equates the term “liberal sociopolitical system” from the same encyclical to mean “a limited constitutional republic” in the American sense. In summary, the book displays a high level of ignorance of the context and meaning of terms as used in Catholic social teaching.

Perhaps these problems of interpretation arise from Dr. Robbins’ confidence in his own ability to judge which portions of Catholic social teaching are honest and which parts are disingenuous. For example, quotes that appear to lend support to Marxism and totalitarianism are to be believed as representing the “Roman Church-State” tradition; however when “the Roman Church-State seems to defend private property at times, it uses the term in an equivocal manner” (59). Of course, no proof is provided; but again on page 62, Dr. Robbins confidently tells us that “concern for human poverty is not the Vatican’s primary motive [for statements in Populorum Progressio].” How does he know?

But misrepresentation only goes so far, so the book contains a long list of depreciatory allegations without bothering to prove them. There are portions in the book where the fallacy of repetition (repeating the conclusion as its proof) so densely populates the text that there is no logical argumentation left at all. Among other incongruous allegations we find the following: “the semi-defense of property . . . leads the Church to endorse fascism and reject Communism” (57), “the doctrine of subsidiarity is one of the Roman Church-State’s subterfuges to achieve big government” (155), “the Roman-Church State was in no position to ask any questions about economic development, for its own teaching and hegemony were the cause of stagnation, poverty and suffering” (62).

The third most common element of the book, besides unproven allegations and misrepresentations, are logical fallacies. Among them, the most popular is that of guilt by association. Catholic social teaching is credited with an impressive list of allies and accomplishments. Communists, socialists, and fascists are the usual suspects (did the cold war end yet?), but on page 81 Protestant mainline denominations that “had also abandoned both Christianity and capitalism” become Catholic allies to form the Progressive movement in the United States. Catholics are also the architects of the New Deal, responsible for the growth of government expenditures, the graduated income tax (ouch!) and for evil social programs like social security. In particular, Catholic social teaching is dangerous because it promotes a long list of rights including the right to quality education, to food, to clothing, to medical care, and the like (85-86). The book has the flavor of a conspiracy theory novel, particularly when he quotes favorably Nino Lo Bello’s delusions of millions of “papal James Bonds, or pontifical 007s” (189).

Sometimes the logic just defies description and enters the twilight zone. For example, he argues that the right to health care in the Catholic tradition will serve as the rationale for enslaving portions of the citizenry to assure a continuous supply of physicians and nurses (94). Can you imagine the hordes of priests kidnapping young children to send them to medical school? With Sancho Panza we say to Dr. Robbins, they are not giants but windmills.

In the final analysis, Dr. Robbins presents a number of beliefs and positions that most Catholics, Protestants and secular humanists will find objectionable. He believes that the brief chapter 13 of Romans divinely sanctions unregulated capitalism, the absolute (and he means absolute) right of private property, and the American form of government prior to its contamination with the New Deal (46-52). He also believes that the concept of inalienable rights is incompatible with justice (155). He identifies Christianity with capitalism (52), Fundamentalism with Protestantism (158), and offers us the dichotomous choice to be good Catholics or good Christians (25).

Unfortunately, the book overflows with hatred for the Catholic church, referred to throughout as the Roman Church-State or simply Romanism (128). All the elements are present: derogatory terms, a whole chapter dedicated to how Catholics subvert the American republic, and the obligatory identification of the Pope with the antichrist. In page 115 we are told, “the antichrist can be heard in the encyclicals of the present pope.” All of the references are steps to the climax: “If and when it [the Catholic Church] regains its full power and authority, it will impose a regime more sinister than any the planet has yet seen” (195).

As a scholar, Dr. Robbins fails to detect the contradictions in his presentation of his own extreme beliefs. If the right of property is absolute and expropriation always wrong (35), how can he praise the historical expropriation of the vast holdings of the Catholic Church by Protestant states (15)? If inalienable rights are incompatible with justice, how can the American republic be the embodiment of Romans 13? If his approach is Biblical, why does he not quote Acts 4:32 (a reference to early Christians not claiming anything as their own and sharing everything), or Jesus’ own words (in Mt. 19,16-30) regarding the dangers of the accumulation of wealth in the encounter with the rich young man? Are we to believe Jesus supported unregulated capitalism and American constitutionalism, and only those systems of economic and political thought? Does the King James Bible say that wealthy capitalists will enter Heaven easily and we Catholics missed it?

Finally, Dr. Robbins laughs at Catholics in several passages (e.g., p.14 or p.18) for our naive belief in the “fallible” Pope rather than in the Protestant tenet that the Scriptures interpret themselves. Yet his own wild interpretation of Romans 13 provides Catholics with ample proof that free interpretation simply does not work, for to read capitalism and American republicanism in a 1^st century scripture is simply Dr. Robbins’ opinion, and it is not the Word of God.

Guillermo Montes, Ph.D.

University of Rochester