Ethika Politika's recent series on "virtuous capitalism" tackled a number of points concerning the common good vis-à-vis the aims and methods of a market economy. Doing it all in just 500 words was a challenge, yet a connecting theme emerged that Christian anthropology requires more of us than strict conformity to a systematized worldview.

Stephen P. White made the case against (practical) materialism, arguing that poverty is more intensive than clickbait headlines would suggest. Similarly, Andrew Kidd recommended looking past the capitalist-communist divide to "see ourselves primarily in an interpersonal relationship with all people of society." For his part, Jose Zeron gave strong admonition against the "perverse incentives" of self-seeking capitalism, where virtue is "implicitly discouraged." And most recently, Morning's Minion argued for the fundamental incompatibility of libertarian and Christian anthropologies.

If anything "synthetic" can be said about "virtuous capitalism" as a result, it might only be that most think it's at least an incoherent phrase, if not also somehow damaging. (Sorry, Cardinal Dolan.) From a holistic point of view (via Morning's Minion), capitalism is taken to oppose classical Christian virtue since its telos is at odds with the natural social end of man. Each demands a total investment of oneself—especially if we are to understand self-ownership as a prerequisite for authentic capitalism—yet only one allows, in the words of Pope Benedict, for "human relationships of friendship, solidarity, and reciprocity [to] also be conducted within economic activity, and not only outside it or after it." From an analytical perspective, on the contrary, capitalism just isn't the sort of thing that can take a predicate like "virtuous."

For my part, both of these critiques make sense. Yet I think another point can be made concerning the very example that spawned the phrase "virtuous capitalism" in the first place, and which is indispensable to scrutinizing the Holy Father's much-embroiled approach to questions of economy: namely, the scriptural story of Christ and Zacchaeus. Sadly absent from Dolan's account is the personal encounter and vocation that precipitates Zacchaeus's "radical decision to put his economic wealth at the service of others." It's not as if this virtuous act was spontaneous, motivated by Zacchaeus's heretofore rational decision making. In fact, it cascades from a direct intrusion into that process: Christ commands to him—in response to Zacchaeus's attempt to optimize his vantage point from the sycamore tree—Zacchaeus, come down quickly.

From there, things happen fast; and indeed Zacchaeus's conversion is one of "inspiration." But it's also very much a conversion.

Quoting Dolan, "virtuous people, acting justly, compassionately and honestly, are the foundation of good economic or business activity that can produce prosperity for all, and not just for a few." Yet virtuous people—especially of the compassionate Christian variety—aren't formed only by rational decisions or chasing equilibrium. Just as well, the virtue they espouse—like the sudden self-emptying of Zacchaeus—is incompatible with an anthropology of absolute self-ownership. An economic system is neither the source nor the end of Christian right action.

If this doesn't muddle a concept like "virtuous capitalism," I don't know what could.

Editor’s note: This article is part of a series on “virtuous capitalism” designed to explore the topic in 500 words or less. The entire series may be found here.

Andrew M. Haines is the editor and founder of Ethika Politika, and co-founder and chief operating officer at Fiat Insight.