True profitability is not measured in percentages, but in managing with coherence what God has entrusted to us. We live in immediacy. Statistics say that about 60% of those who start reading an article abandon it before the end. If you are part of the 40% who cultivate patience and seek more than the immediate, I invite you to stay: we will talk about faith and investment.

One of the hardest experiences in Christian life is realizing that what we have is not so much the fruit of our merit as it is a gift received. Are we truly owners of our talents, our intelligence, our ability to work and produce, or are we rather stewards of something entrusted to us? The answer changes the way we live. If everything is a gift, then we are called to cultivate it, multiply it, and place it at the service of others.

The same happens with investments. Our assets—whether inherited, the fruit of effort, or entrusted to us for administration—are not neutral. They can be used to build or to destroy, to serve the common good or to deny it. Money speaks, and it reveals whom we serve. The dilemma is current: do we invest according to the Christian logic, or do we allow lukewarmness to settle us on the shore of convenience?

The Church’s social teaching reminds us that the economy is always a moral sphere, and investment cannot be detached from that truth. Every financial decision supports companies and sectors. And there lies the risk: our money may end up sustaining practices that contradict the Magisterium and call our coherence into question. Does it make sense to invest? What if with my savings I am supporting or profiting from companies that actively promote abortion among their employees or openly attack religious freedom? Investing is lawful and legitimate. What makes the difference is how you do it, because we cannot live with our backs turned to the truth that every gift has been entrusted to us to bear fruit. Capital cannot be sterile, nor can it be placed at the service of what contradicts the Gospel. Increasingly, Christian investors actively seek to ensure their investments do not conflict with the promotion of life, family, human dignity, and the care of creation in the integral sense proposed by the Church.

Parables help us see this clearly. The parable of the talents goes straight to the heart of the matter. God expects us to make fruitful what He entrusts to us. It is not about burying our wealth, being paralyzed by fear, or justifying our passivity. Fidelity involves creativity, risk, and courage. A Christian is not a timid investor: he is someone who knows how to look further ahead, who dares to “put out into the deep” (duc in altum), convinced that his effort and his money can be instruments of holiness and social transformation.

That is why the decisive question is not whether we have much or little, but whether we manage with coherence. The alternative exists: it is called faithful investing. It means aligning investment with faith to avoid the inconsistency that so often clouds our witness. This is not about moralism but about freedom. Money only becomes slavery when we let it rule; when we put it in its proper place, it can become a wonderful instrument of Christian witness and service to the common good.

In the end, to paraphrase St. Teresa of Calcutta, true profitability is not measured in percentages, but in fidelity to the gift received. Investing according to the Church’s social teaching is not only possible—it is necessary. More and more Christians are choosing to do all they can, without shirking responsibility, committing themselves to their faith even in economic matters. I can only join that vital attitude and, as Julián Marías said, “for my part, I won’t be the one to hold back.”

1. Surrogate motherhood is contrary to the unity of marriage and to the dignity of the procreation of the human person.

The unity of marriage, as taught in Catholic tradition, is a sacred bond that encompasses both the relational and procreative dimensions of human life. This unity is based on the belief that marriage is meant to be a partnership that naturally leads to the creation of life within the context of the couple’s unique relationship. Surrogacy, however, introduces a third party into this intimate process, disrupting the unity that is intrinsic to marital love. By relying on an external individual to bear a child, surrogacy undermines the personal and spiritual connection that marriage seeks to uphold in the act of procreation.

2. Represents an objective failure to meet the obligations of maternal love, of conjugal fidelity, and of responsible motherhood.

The obligations of maternal love and responsible motherhood are central to Catholic teachings on family life and the upbringing of children. In this view, motherhood is not simply a biological process but a vocation that involves deep personal commitment and care for the child. When surrogacy is introduced, the responsibilities associated with motherhood can become fragmented, as the surrogate’s involvement is often limited to the gestational period, with no commitment to the child after birth. This compartmentalization of maternal responsibilities is seen as an “objective failure” in meeting the ethical obligations of motherhood. Thus, faith-based views argue that surrogacy fails to uphold the full commitment that parenthood and fidelity in marriage require.

3. It offends the dignity and the right of the child to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world, and brought up by his own parents.

The dignity of the child is a paramount concern in the Catholic tradition, which emphasizes that every child has the inherent right to be born from and nurtured by his or her biological parents. This right respects the natural order and the personal connection between parent and child, which begins in the womb and continues through upbringing.

Surrogacy disrupts this continuity, as the child is often conceived through artificial means and gestated by someone outside the marital relationship, distancing the child from the biological and emotional bond with the parents. This separation is seen as an offense to the child’s dignity, as it treats the child more as a product of contractual obligations than as a person who is part of a family.

4. It sets up, to the detriment of families, a division between the physical, psychological, and moral elements that constitute those families.

Families are built on complex relationships that involve physical, emotional, and moral bonds among members. According to Catholic teachings, these bonds are meant to be interconnected, forming a stable foundation for family life. Surrogacy, however, introduces a division in these elements, as the physical process of carrying the child is outsourced to another person, while the psychological and moral responsibilities of parenting are retained by the biological parents. This separation can weaken the family’s unity, creating confusion and division around roles and responsibilities. By maintaining that the family should be an integrated unit, Catholic teaching cautions against practices like surrogacy that divide essential family roles, as stated in Domun Vitae. [1]

Additionally, Pope Francis stated last week:

“In this regard, I deem deplorable the practice of so-called surrogate motherhood, which represents a grave violation of the dignity of the woman and the child, based on the exploitation of situations of the mother’s material needs. A child is always a gift and never the basis of a commercial contract,”

In recent years, the corporate world has seen a surge in benefits programs supporting employees financially in their surrogacy journeys. Companies have expanded their benefits to cover surrogacy expenses, yet it is crucial to question the moral stance these actions convey.

As professionals and individuals, we hold the power to choose which practices and companies we support with our investments.

The alignment between our values and our investments should be reflective of our commitment to uphold human dignity and ethical standards.

[1] (DONUM VITAE  Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and  on the Dignity of Procreation Replies to Certain Questions of the Day 22 February 1987)

Chesterton Theory contribution:

Together with Hilaire Belloc, Gilbert K. Chesterton formulated the theory of Distributism and is now considered one of the most influential thinkers in Christian and modern thought. While he is perhaps best known for his prolific contributions to literature, Chesterton’s intellectual accomplishments extended into the realm of economics. His economic theory, Distributism, emphasized the importance of widespread property ownership and sought to address the social and economic inequalities of his time, based on the God-oriented nature of men rather than on just materialistic considerations. Chesterton’s perspective continues to inspire contemporary thinkers as we keep on exploring alternative economic models.

His formulation of Distributism is born as a response to the Church’s social doctrine, offering an alternative to capitalism and socialism. It is based on an authentic social anthropology, in which the aim is to give back to the person all the centrality that should correspond to them in any process of political and economic organization of society, processes in which only the person can be taken as an end in himself, and never as a means[1]. In this sense, it is a theory formulated on the basis of the philosophical foundation of the Catholic Social Teaching. In fact, this theory is inspired by the principles laid down in the encyclical Rerum Novarum and the contribution of Leo XIII which sought a just and harmonious balance between capital and labor to protect the rights and dignity of workers.

The main tenet of Distributism is that the only way to build a just world is to distribute property so that it is not concentrated in very few hands, condemning ever larger masses of people to a life of misery[2]. In his own words: “Property is merely the art of democracy. It means that every man should have something that he can shape in his own image, as he is shaped in the image of heaven”[3]. Chesterton and the distributists also promoted the idea that property should be primarily small-scale and rooted in local communities. They encouraged family farming, family businesses and local cooperatives as forms of economic organization. The belief was that this would contribute to a more decentralized economy and greater community solidarity.

Chesterton’s Distributism often faced criticism for its perceived lack of practical application. Some argue that distributism may be overly idealistic and that implementing it on a large scale could lead to economic inefficiencies or hinder economic growth. Critics also point out that Chesterton’s distributism sometimes overlooks the challenges of transitioning from existing economic systems to a distributist model.

These criticisms may indeed hold merit within specific contexts. However, what distributism proposes is not a change of system, but a spiritual transformation. It does not constitute a ‘third way,’ as it is often labeled. Every economic theory and practice implicitly rest upon some underlying anthropological view. Chesterton and Belloc’s proposition seeks precisely to alter such foundation. While both capitalism and socialism are rooted in a materialistic and utilitarian worldview, distributism finds its basis in Christian anthropology, as interpreted in the practical directives of the encyclicals that serve as its inspiration. Consequently, the change is much deeper than just that of a system. From this perspective, the critique of a systemic shift is tempered by the fact that what is proposed is a full-scale conversion. It entails a transformation of motivations and priorities rather than an overhaul of the system.

Lastly, Chesterton firmly supported the principle of subsidiarity, one of the most important principles of the Catholic Social Teaching regarding economics, which asserted that matters should be handled at the local or community level whenever possible. The principle of subsidiarity is aligned with the distributist vision of economic and political decentralization. Chesterton saw subsidiarity as a way to empower local communities and enable them to make decisions that best suited their specific needs, rather than being dictated by a distant authority. In the same sense, a distributist system grants genuine freedom upon families, which is why it poses a threat to established powers. It is a system in which every household possesses the essential means for its subsistence, free from reliance on either public administrations or vast corporate conglomerates or financial authorities. In doing so, it undermines some of the most time-honored tools of mass subjugation. This is the reason Chesterton contends that “the word rebel understates our cause”[4].

In summary, G. K. Chesterton was an advocate of distributism, an economic and social theory that advocated for a more equitable distribution of property, the promotion of local small businesses, and economic decentralization. His ideas revolved around the significance of private ownership, subsidiarity, and criticism of both capitalism and socialism. While distributism has not become a dominant economic system, it has exerted influence on the social and economic thought of certain groups and thinkers over time.

[1] Sada, Daniel, Gilbert Keith Chesterton y el Distributismo Inglés en el Primer Tercio del Siglo XX, 2005, Fundación Universitaria Española. Available at: http://ddfv.ufv.es/bitstream/handle/10641/1304/chesterton-COMPLETO-02.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y

[2] de Prada, Juan Manuel, Juan Manuel de Prada: “Chesterton disuelve las ideologías modernas”, 2019, Alfa y Omega. Available at: https://alfayomega.es/chesterton-disuelve-las-ideologias-modernas/

[3] Chesterton, G.K., What’s Wrong with the World, 1910.

[4] Chesterton, G.K., Utopia of Usurers, 2000. Available at: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2134/2134-h/2134-h.htm

Altum Faithful Investing

About this Catholic Investment Platform

Arimathea, accessible at www.arimatheainvesting.com, is designed to empower investors with a virtue-based investment strategy, allowing Catholic investors to align their financial aspirations with their faith. We recognize the common struggle faced by Christian investors—balancing professional investment management with moral principles.

Altum Faithful Investing provides the moral screening behind Arimathea, with a very clear mission: to provide Catholic investors the freedom to choose investment portfolios consistent with their faith. Borja Barragan, Altum’s CEO and Founder, emphasizes the significance of our parternship with GSAM: “Collaborating with an entity such as Golden State, which is committed to offering investment solutions faithful to the Magisterium, is an important step in enabling American investors to build professional portfolios without compromising their integrity.”

While Altum focuses on delivering Catholic Screening Research, the financial and investment strategy falls under the expertise of Golden State Asset Management. Daniel R. Catone, CEO and Founder of Golden State, shares our excitement about the partnership: “Our goal is to meet the needs of those American investors who want to be consistent with their faith, willing to prioritize their long-term financial goals and align their investments with the Catholic Church’s mission to create a more ethical, moral and just society.”

Arimathea’s portfolios will soon be available on Golden State’s digital advisory platform, offering American investors an opportunity to invest with a set of criteria that goes beyond ESG and stays true to the Magisterium.

For more information about Arimathea and to explore its virtue-based investment strategy, we invite you to visit https://arimatheainvesting.com/.

“The economic system of giving”

In first place, Martin Rhonheimer is widely recognized for his significant contributions to the field of economics, with his theses closely aligned with both the Austrian School of Economics and the Salamanca School[1].

The author emphasizes the historical contribution of capitalism in Europe in liberating the masses from famine and misery, democratizing welfare. He argues that the differences in living standards between workers and billionaires are becoming smaller and smaller in terms of basic material needs[2] and defends capitalism as a generator of employment and wealth through private investment. He warns against attempts to achieve greater “social justice” by taxing the rich and criticizes state intervention as a cause of economic crises. Rhonheimer argues that global poverty has declined thanks to capitalism and the market economy, and that inequality is inherent in economic development, but what is crucial is the increase in absolute welfare, especially of the poorest classes, where there has been more capitalism and free markets.

This position aligns closely with the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity proposed by the Catholic Social Teaching (and which we explained in our previous article on Hienrich Pesch). He emphasizes the importance of a just and humane economic order where solidarity calls for a responsibility to care for the less fortunate, and subsidiarity underscores the need for decision-making to occur at the most localized and efficient level, avoiding unnecessary state intervention. Rhonheimer contends that these principles, when applied thoughtfully, can contribute to a more equitable and morally sound economic system that respects human dignity and promotes the common good.

Corporate Social Responsibility: a misconception?

Rhonheimer has also been vocal about corporate ethics. His perspective on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) aligns with the idea that CSR is not a misconception, but it should be driven by strategic reasoning within businesses. He emphasizes that entrepreneurs engage in CSR successfully when they perceive it as beneficial for their enterprises, provided it does not compromise their competitiveness. Rhonheimer suggests that CSR should be viewed as a more accurate vision of business itself, considering stakeholders’ needs and contentment, similar to the importance of consumer satisfaction. He argues that market forces, rather than regulations, should stimulate CSR efforts. In market economies, businesses have a natural incentive to improve working conditions and respect stakeholders’ interests to maintain a positive reputation, which is a valuable resource for any enterprise.

Martin Rhonheimer has also made significant contributions to bioethics by addressing complex moral dilemmas, including the ethics of assisted reproduction, euthanasia, and stem cell research, all from a robust ethical standpoint rooted in Catholic principles and Thomistic ethics. His unwavering stance on the sanctity of life, opposition to practices such as euthanasia and abortion, and advocacy for conscientious objection among healthcare professionals have all contributed to a more profound understanding of bioethical issues and their implications for humanity.

A Thomistic approach to Bioethics

In conclusion, Martin Rhonheimer’s contributions to the fields of economics, ethics, and bioethics stand as a testament to the influence of Catholic thinkers in shaping these critical fields. His insights into the ethical dimensions of economic systems, firmly grounded in principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, provide a compass for creating equitable and humane economic structures. Furthermore, his unwavering stance on the sanctity of life in bioethical debates underscores the enduring relevance of Catholic ethics in contemporary dilemmas. Martin Rhonheimer’s work serves as a valuable resource for those seeking ethical guidance and moral clarity in the multifaceted landscape of economics and bioethics.

[1] Gómez Rivas, León, Campeones de la Libertad, 2019, Unión Editorial, p.208

[2] Rhonheimer, Martin, Libertad Económica, Capitalismo y Ética Cristiana, 2017, Unión Editorial, p.39

Altum Faithful Investing

From his application of ethics and justice in economic affairs, Covarrubias firmly believed in the importance of fair trade and the responsibility of individuals and institutions to act with integrity in their transactions. His vision emphasized the need for investors and entrepreneurs to consider not only the financial benefits, but also the social and human impact of their decisions.

His main economic contribution was to pioneer the formulation of the subjective theory of value[2] in his work, a contribution that was later inherited by the Austrian School, mainly by the German economist Carl Menger. The entire free market economy revolves around this idea[3]. Covarrubias affirms that “the value of a thing does not depend on its objective nature but on the subjective estimation of men, even if such estimation is crazy“[4]. Thus, he gave the example of wheat: “in the Indies wheat is valued more than in Spain because there, men value it more, and this in spite of the fact that the nature of wheat is the same in both places“[5]. Therefore, the great contribution of this thinker is to have anticipated concepts of economic liberalism such as market pricing (supply and demand, or in the words of the time “free competition”)[6]. This notion stands in opposition to the objective theory of value that would later form the basis of the Marxist theory of surplus value and much of modern economic thought.

Moreover, he was a precursor of Juan de Mariana’s thinking on the value of currency and devaluation, a theory that we exposed a few months ago to the Jesuit thinker. Covarrubias was an advocate of the thesis that manipulating the currency meant an artificial alteration that did not respect the natural dynamics of the market[7].

Like all these Spanish theorists, Covarrubias believed that individual owners of goods had inviolable rights over them[8]. A defense of private property that is fully in line with the Social Doctrine of the Church and ultimately with Natural Law. Finally, Diego de Covarrubias not only contributed to economics, but he is also a very relevant thinker in other fields, mainly legal. In this sense, he defended the causes of just war, the titles of conquest or the concept of the law of nations, being considered one of the greatest experts in Roman law[9].

In this way, the thought of Diego de Covarrubias once again highlights the importance of morality in economics, or more specifically, economics as a moral science. Thus, Covarrubias’ work is relevant to the present day insofar as it bears witness to the importance of applying ethics to economic activity.

[1] Gómez Rivas, León, Don Diego de Covarrubias, 2022, Unión Editorial, p.35.

[2] Huerta de Soto, Jesús, Estudios de Economía Política, 2020, Unión Editorial, p.45.

[3] Ibid, p.153

[4] De Covarrubias, Diego, Omnia Opera, «Veterum Collatio Numismatum, cum his, quae modo expenduntur, publica, et Regia authoritate perpensa», 1604, pp. 669-710.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Gómez Rivas, León, Campeones de la Libertad, 2019, Unión Editorial, p.150

[7] Ibid.

[8] Rockwell, Llewellyn, The True Founders of Economics: The School of Salamanca, 2018, Mises Institute. Disponible en internet: https://mises.org/wire/true-founders-economics-school-salamanca

[9] Rothbard, Murray N, Historia del Pensamiento Económico, 2013, Unión Editorial, p.144.

Altum Faithful Investing

In the last three articles we have been explaining that, although the 2030 Agenda has positive aspects, accepting it implies direct conflicts with the moral approach of the Church. In the face of the widespread acceptance of the Agenda, the question arises: what now, what should Christians do, where should our focus be?

Benedict XVI spoke on several occasions about the importance of non-negotiable principles: protection of life, recognition and promotion of the structure of the family and protection of the right of parents to educate their children[1]. These principles are not truths of faith, but principles inscribed in the nature of man and therefore destined for all people and essential for just and peaceful coexistence.

Faced with this situation, the Christian cannot remain a spectator in society and we must ask ourselves whether we have the moral responsibility to offer an alternative that is consonant with these non-negotiable principles, in the words of John Paul II:

” A new state of affairs today both in the Church and in social, economic, political and cultural life, calls with a particular urgency for the action of the lay faithful. If lack of commitment is always unacceptable, the present time renders it even more so. It is not permissible for anyone to remain idle”.[2]

Offering this alternative means being creative minorities in all areas. Benedict XVI has stressed on several occasions the importance of the Church as a creative minority. The creative minority is like yeast in the dough: it is capable of transforming the laws and properties of the dough, but it does so from within, as part of it[3]. Thus, in the face of the current proposal to detach all social aspects from transcendence, being a creative minority implies offering an alternative: placing value on the person.

Placing man at the center, the first social structure we encounter is the family. In all the literature surrounding Agenda 2030, the family is barely mentioned if not to undermine it through “family planning” rather than to promote it. However, the family remains one of the cornerstones for the development of a healthy society. On the one hand, because it is the one that generates human capital and, on the other hand, because it is the school where we learn to live, where we learn to love.

At Altum we have set ourselves the goal of being a creative minority in the world of finance and investment. Our way of doing this is to offer a morally responsible alternative to the current “sustainable investment” by introducing four pillars when selecting investments that put the person at the center: the promotion of life, of the family, of human dignity and the care and protection of creation for future generations? This has resulted in projects that have come to light in the last 5 years:

• Altum App: an app aimed at all investors and consumers, regardless of their wealth, to be able to check whether companies comply with the magisterium of the Church.
• Altum Explorer: a tool that allows professional investors to create portfolios consistent with Christian morals for their clients.
• Altum Certified: a system for certifying investment vehicles to enable investors to know to what extent the assets in which a fund invests do not conflict with the Magisterium.
• Altum 100×1: our program, framed within reciprocity and the logic of gift, to support Prayer, Mission and Vocations by promoting initiatives such as the recently published documentary “Libres” (Free).

We are all called to creativity, to generate new things, it is what man has done since he is man. We invite the reader of this article to stop and think about how he, together with others, can be a creative minority, wherever the Lord has planted each one of us, to continue generating a Christian culture centered on the person.

Because… where should our north really be? Our north should look beyond the 2030 horizon to just 3 more years, to the year 2033, when we will celebrate the event that really changed the world: the resurrection of the Lord.

Do you dare to build your own agenda for 2033?

Always duc in altum.

[1] Benedict XVI, Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the members of the European People’s Party on the occasion of the study days on Europe, 2006. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/march/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060330_eu-parliamentarians.html

[2] John Paul II, Christifideles Laici, 1988, n.3. Available at:

[3] Granados, Luis y Ribera, Ignacio, Minorías Creativas: El Fermento del Cristianismo, Editorial Monte Carmelo, 2011, p.22.

The great contribution of the German Jesuit was to develop a social and economic system around the principle of solidarity[1], trying to find a “third way” between socialism and individualistic capitalism[2]. Solidarism is a social philosophy derived from the natural law tradition that claims to be the proper interpretation of human nature and the philosophical-social and economic conclusions to be drawn from it[3]. This development also responded to the objective of systematizing the incipient Social Catholic Teaching that was being forged at the time, proof of which is the aforementioned influence of Pesch’s work in Quadragesimo Anno.

The principle of solidarity constitutes a fundamental pillar in the Social Catholic Teaching that has two dimensions: being a social principle and being a moral virtue. Solidarity as a social principle has the value of ordering institutions towards the common good[4]. Solidarity in Pesch’s words is “social interdependence and real reciprocal dependence among people”[5]. In this way, he develops an economic philosophy focused on applying solidarity at all economic levels: between employee and employer, between citizens of the same state and between different nations[6].

This solidarity is materialized in harmonizing individual welfare with the common welfare. A system that contemplates that the market and private property are legitimate and useful tools for economic development but must be subject to ethical principles that prevent abuse. These principles are the obligations of citizens to society, of society to its citizens or of citizens to each other as individuals, respectively: legal justice, distributive justice, and commutative justice[7].

For practical purposes, this theory is embodied in certain positions that are still relevant today. In the first place, Pesch defended the limited action of the State based on the principle of subsidiarity, its role being to reach where people, by their own personal capacities, cannot reach. Instead, he proposed orderly protection of their rights, effective assistance, and complementarity of their needs with the power that the citizens of a State have when they act in concert[8].

Secondly, for Pesch private property, derived from natural law, has both economic and moral value and is subject to certain obligations. In his own words:

“There is no “right” which, as such or in the ownership and acquisition of material goods in the way it is exercised, is independent of the moral order operating in the world”[9].

Finally, a fundamental issue for Pesch is the relationship of the employer to the employee. In Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII addresses the workers’ question with an impassioned defense of the inalienable dignity of workers[10]. This spirit is picked up by Pesch affirming the idea of a just and equitable cooperation between both parties. Pesch advocated an economic system in which workers received fair wages and adequate working conditions, and in which employers assumed their social responsibility towards their employees. This position constitutes one of the pillars on which Pius XI would rely in writing Quadragesimo Anno.

The importance of Pesch’s work lies in his ability to systematize the essence of the Social Catholic Teaching in an economic system that starts from the natural law and places the person at the center. In the words of Pope John Paul II in Sollicitudo Rei Socialis “the exercise of solidarity within each society is valid only when its members recognize one another as persons”[11].

[1] Ederer, J. Rupert, Heinrich Pesch, Solidarity, And Social Encyclicals, 1991, Review of Social Economy, 49:4, 596-610. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00346769100000050

[2] Ronheimer, Martin, Market Capitalism and Christian Social Ethics: A Contradiction?, 2019, Austrian Institute Paper Nr. 27, p.2. Available at: https://austrian-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Rhonheimer-Market-Capitalism-and-Christian-Social-Ethics-Ai-Paper-27-2019.pdf

[3] Koslowski, Peter. Solidarism, Capitalism, and Economic Ethics in Hienrich Pesch, 2000, The Theory of Capitalism in the German Economic Tradition. Studies in Economic Ethics and Philosophy, Springe. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04084-3_10

[4] DSI

[5] Ederer, J. Rupert, John Paul II, Hienrich Pesch and the Christian Virtue of Solidarity, 1997, Faith and Reason: The Journal of Christendom College, Vol. XXIII, No. 2. Available at: https://media.christendom.edu/1996/06/john-paul-ii-heinrich-pesch-and-the-christian-virtue-of-solidarity/

[6] Messner, Johannes, Hienrich Pesch, Das Neue Reich, 1926, vol. 8.

[7] Ederer, J. Rupert, John Paul II, Hienrich Pesch and the Christian Virtue of Solidarity, 1997, Faith and Reason: The Journal of Christendom College, Vol. XXIII, No. 2. Available at: https://media.christendom.edu/1996/06/john-paul-ii-heinrich-pesch-and-the-christian-virtue-of-solidarity/

[8] Pesch, Heinrich, S.J., Ethics and the National Economy, 2004, HIS Press, Norfolk, VA, P.52.

[9] Ibid, p.75.

[10] Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 2019, p. 138 (n.268).

[11] Pope John Paul II, Sollicitudo Reis Socialis, The Holy See, 1987, n.39. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/es/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30121987_sollicitudo-rei-socialis.html

Altum Faithful Investing

The 2030 Agenda has an undeniable state-run character since it is originated by States and supranational organizations. However, the global nature of the agenda also puts the focus on the private sector, with companies being key players in its implementation. Having analyzed in the two previous articles the different anthropological bases and the specific objectives that conflict with the Magisterium, in this article we will look deeper into the role that the State and corporates should have in social life in comparison to the approach offered by the UN SDGs.

The 2030 Agenda is based on a consensus decided by the heads of state, which is not necessarily bad. For a consensus or action voted by majorities to be recognized and respected, it must promote essential human and moral values which, as the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church states “derive from the very truth of the human being and which express and protect the dignity of the person“[1].  These values are not based on consensus or majorities that can modify or destroy them but are simply recognized and respected as elements of an objective moral law. The problem arises when the majority or consensus chooses to carry out an action that is contrary to these “human values” and is contrary to the natural law. There are several historical examples of consensuses that have changed over time. While slavery was widely accepted and even legally protected in the 18th and 19th centuries in the United States, it was not morally right because it was consensual. Therefore, an action is not good because it is consensual, but because it conforms “to the dignity of the human person and to the dictates of right reason“[2]. On the Day of Peace in 2009, Benedict XVI stressed the importance of a moral law that acts as an anchor: “ a ‘common code of ethics’ is needed, whose norms are not merely the fruit of agreements, but are rooted in the natural law inscribed by the Creator in the conscience of every human being “[3].

As we have seen in previous articles, the 2030 Agenda conflicts in some of its approaches with the dignity of the person. Additionally, if we consider what was stated in the previous paragraph, one might wonder: are States becoming the “moral authority”? Does it make sense that they become promoters and impose certain ideologies on the individual consciences of citizens?

From a business perspective, companies and especially large corporations play a very important role in the implementation of the Agenda (as already announced in the resolution of adoption of the Agenda[4]). As of today, there are many companies that have adopted, if not all, some SDGs as a pillar of their corporate strategy. We can also see a proliferation of investment funds focused on meeting the SDGs without (apparently) understanding the full implications of the SDGs.

These investment funds invest in companies that impose moral criteria on their stakeholders. One of the most striking recent cases is the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 where 14 states banned the practice of abortion in their territories. This situation triggered a wave of publicly traded companies that modified their internal policies to cover the costs of their employees’ travel to other states to facilitate the access to abortion.

All in all, we are seeing how, progressively but at an increasing speed, companies and states are using their social positioning to become moral “authorities” that determine how society should act in certain situations. This fact raises questions in the consciences of faithful investors:

– Does it make sense to invest in companies that cooperate openly and directly with abortion?

– Should the investment world simply surrender to consensus?

– To what extent does it make sense to invest in companies with positions contrary to natural law? 

– Is authority above morality?

[1] Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 2019, p. 199 (n.394).

[2] Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 2019, p. 201 (n.398).

[3] Pope Benedict XVI, Message pf his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for the celebration of the World Day of Peace 1 january 2009, The Holy See, 2009, n.8, Vatican Publishing House. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20081208_xlii-world-day-peace.html

[4] UN, Draft resolution referred to the United Nations summit for the adoption of the post-2015 development agenda by the General Assembly at its sixty-ninth session. ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, 2016, p.3. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf

Michael Novak (1933-2017) undertook the task of reconciling capitalism with Christian values by defending this system from the perspective of morality. Advisor to St. John Paul II and correspondent at the Second Vatican Council, Michael Novak was an American philosopher and theologian whose work has had a great impact on the economic thought of the last decade.

At a time in history when socialism was triumphing in the world, Novak understood the importance of reconciling Christian values with economic freedom. Novak’s great contribution is The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism (1982), which proposes the model of “democratic capitalism” based on freedom and social responsibility. Concepts that at first glance may seem opposed are in fact two sides of the same coin since freedom always implies responsibility for one’s actions. For Novak, the market is not an end, but a means, and as such, it must be placed at the service of human benefit[1]. This point is reaffirmed by John Paul II in Centesimus Annus[2] when he states that companies constitute a group at the service of society[3].

Novak’s perspectives expanded our conceptual grasp of economic liberty beyond dry formulas to include a more complete picture of the creative, human, and virtuous nature of entrepreneurship[4]. A vision he inherits in some ways from Ludwig Von Mises (1881-1973) and Israel Kirnzer (1930) and is fully consonant with the “creative human action” developed by John Paul II in his doctoral thesis Person and Action (1969)[5]. That human action is the entrepreneurial initiative of individuals and their consumption and investment decisions in the market. This positive vision of the market is the foundation of his theory of democratic capitalism: a social order favorable to inventiveness, discovery, and entrepreneurial creativity[6].

In this sense, Novak understood capitalism as a gear composed of three parts[7]:

1. A political system composed of governmental institutions.
2. A moral/cultural system composed of schools, churches and.
3. An economic system composed primarily of businesses.

Each of these parts interacts in such a way that each system controls the other and they need each other to function properly. Thus, Novakian capitalism is not a set of formal principles, but has a moral content: all decisions and actions that take place in the market have a meaning. Individuals, influenced by the moral/cultural system, through their consumption or investment decisions, influence the activity of companies, making it not a “ruthless system” but a system that pivots around morality.

Anyone could argue that the vision provided by the American thinker is naïve or idealistic, however, Novak, in one of his most famous quotes, acknowledges how capitalism, like any human institution, is not without flaws:

“Capitalism is neither the Kingdom of God nor without sin. Such hope as we have for alleviating poverty and for removing oppressive tyranny – perhaps our last, best hope – lies in this much despised system“[8]

Novak’s work shows a notable influence of the Austrian thinker par excellence F.A. Hayek (1899-1992), and in turn a clear influence of the School of Salamanca, of which we spoke in last month’s article. Hayek also inspired John Paul II in the writing of Centesimus Annus, as Novak himself, who witnessed their meeting, revealed[9].

Novak’s contribution is yet another example of the concern for morality in the field of economics, demonstrating that they are not watertight compartments. Thus, this reconciliation between Christian values and capitalism can guide us in the consumption and investment decisions we make, since it is these decisions that control the activity of companies.

[1] Novak, Michael, Juan Pablo II: La Nueva Ética Empresarial, 1992. Available at: https://www.ancmyp.org.ar/user/CONTINUACION-ANALES/14_TOMO%20XXI.PDF

[2] Acton Institute, Autor Michael Novak, 2023. Available at: https://www.acton.org/about/author/michael-novak

[3] Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, 1991, n.35. Avbailable at: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus.html

[4] Robert, James M., Michael Novak, Friend of Economic Freedom, 2017, Heritage Foundation. Available at: https://www.heritage.org/economic-and-property-rights/commentary/michael-novak-friend-economic-freedom

[5] Huerta de Soto, Jesús., La doctrina social de la Iglesia Católica y la aportación de Kirzner, 2023. Available at: https://www.jesushuertadesoto.com/articulos/articulos-en-ingles/ethics-capitalism/6-the-social-doctrine-of-the-catholic-church-and-kirzners-contribution/

[6] Robert, James M., Michael Novak, Friend of Economic Freedom, 2017, Heritage Foundation. Available at: https://www.heritage.org/economic-and-property-rights/commentary/michael-novak-friend-economic-freedom

[7] Tiemstra, John P. “Economic Analysis and the Spirit of Democratic Capitalism” CrossCurrents, vol. 43, no. 4, 1993, pp. 545–49. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24459455

[8] Novak, Michael, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalsim, 1982.

[9] Huerta de Soto, Jesús., La doctrina social de la Iglesia Católica y la aportación de Kirzner, 2023. Available at: https://www.jesushuertadesoto.com/articulos/articulos-en-ingles/ethics-capitalism/6-the-social-doctrine-of-the-catholic-church-and-kirzners-contribution/

Altum Faithful Investing