Interpreting Caritas : Did Frank Knight and Ludwig Von Mises Get It Wrong ?

Knight and Mises claimed Christianity, both in its early history and in its modern political role, was incompatible with market economics. Competition to satisfy partners in voluntary exchange, investment, and the achievement of property and wealth received little or no sanction from a religion that preached “no thought for the morrow” and commanded “love of one’s neighbor.” Prompted by their disagreement with the anti-capitalist policies promoted by some contemporary church leaders, they adopted faulty interpretations of early church history and caricatured Christian doctrine, in particular the implications of divine love, caritas. Later writers from both Catholic and Protestant traditions argue there is no incompatibility. Indeed Adam Smith’s concepts of self-command, Propriety and the Spectator can be used to help better approach a proper understanding of caritas. The antagonism of Knight and Mises may have had deeper roots than simply intellectual dissent from socialism. This paper contrasts the writings of Frank Knight and Ludwig von Mises, two economists from the first half of the twentieth century who were highly critical of Christianity, with the philosophies of the Christian writers Brian Griffiths and Michael Novak published closer to the century’s end. The former argued vehemently that the Christian faith was incompatible with market economics. Both were perturbed by the economic policies advocated by the church leaders of their day. They believed (perhaps correctly) that these policies were based on poor economics. They considered (perhaps wrongly) that contemporary church leaders were properly interpreting Christian doctrine.