12 comments

  1. I’m grateful for this: “If the principle of subsidiarity is truly what Catholics are after, why not speak instead of ‘localized government’? The expression has the benefit of being free from the ideological baggage long associated with “limited government” while pointing to the true meaning of subsidiarity.”

    This ‘limited government’ bull hockey is the same old same old (liberal) canto. It’s particularly attractive today to Catholic because our government pushes suicidal sex-socialist policy, and limiting it as much as possible seems like the right thing to do. But it is not. If we we were tomorrow to be able to set policy we would, like the old medieval states, put up plenty of restrictions–to prevent monopolies and many kinds of ills, including predatory lending.

    But what I am wondering about this morning, as I go out to take the wrappings off the roses, is whether a ‘localized solution’ that the Josias article attributes to Dorothy Day et al is better for us than the solution of FIDESZ. That is, use electoral politics to build a just society on the ruins of an existing nation.

    In our altar society meeting, our pastor Saturday went on about the wonderful benefits of competition. Just as if the American heresy had not been already exposed and trashed.

    1. Well, I don’t think The Josias supports one one “response” to the problems of secular, liberal democracy. What you find over is fairly diverse, though obviously everyone shares a certain set of anti-liberal commitments.

    1. So the writer of this link is an old Marxist, a man named James Petras, but his interesting analysis of the world situation is supported by what we see in the US, where both parties are liberal, only more or less neo-liberal, the WIKI def of which is, a supporter of “Free Markets.” They don’t put the term in quotations. He gives details of country after country where any opposition to neo-liberalism has been silenced.

      It does cross one’s mind to stop and to stop others from continually calling the Republican Party ‘conservative.’ It is liberal.

      In his line up, the only significant non-left opposition to triumphant neoliberalism around the world is Hungary and more recently Poland. Those are the only parties he calls conservative, although he does not provide a definition. My (unsympathetic) Polish neighbors say the movement in Poland is weak. In Hungary it was incredibly strong. I sure would like to visit and ask my own questions.

  2. These are confusing times.

    Before Trump’s current run, I could barely stand to look at the man.

    But when the Left, the neo-Catholics, the big media, the establishment GOP, and practically the whole upper third of society coalesce to oppose the man, I marvel at him.

    You are right that the NR piece was typical unimpressive Americanism. I am concerned that Trump is really pro-abortion, although he says otherwise. But the GOP is so useless, they are almost totally impotent in even those Catholic principles that they do support.

    And Trump is a liar. But unlike Obama and the GOP, I think Trump knows that you know he is a liar. It is a shared conceit. But the political class actually thinks you are fooled by their lies.

    The NY primary is coming up. Do I vote for the Evangelical who has showed callous disregard for Middle Eastern Christians, or for one of the two mediocre establishment sell-outs, or for one if the quality principled candidates who have dropped out, or Trump, or no one? I really don’t know.

    One more advantage of monarchy is that it doesn’t hang these ethical problems of leadership on the populace. I suppose election by lot would also relieve this nonsense.

    1. I just tend to refrain from voting.

      I have no love of Trump, and I would have deep reservations voting for such a man, but at this point it seems like Catholics, instead of standing strong, are choosing instead to capitulate to movement conservatism or just making the usual litany of excuses for voting Democrat. I am not impressed by either option, truth be told.

      1. The usual reply is thus … “But the Catechism and the popes say I have an ethical obligation to vote!”

        This always sounds simplistic to me, but I don’t have a good, studied reply.

  3. The NY primary is coming up. Do I vote for the Evangelical who has showed callous disregard for Middle Eastern Christians, or for one of the two mediocre establishment sell-outs, or for one if the quality principled candidates who have dropped out, or Trump, or no one? I really don’t know.

    You vote for the man most likely to push the whole thing over so the systemic constraints that prevent better options are liquidated. The time when the Courtney-Murrayite compromise with post-WWII democracy was a deal worth making has passed. It has most likely been dead since the Berlin Wall fell.

  4. This is kind of a frivolous critique of Dr. Pecknold. He should only be responsible for what he actually said…nothing more.

    Sanchez claimed that “#4 is code for free-market capitalism”…and Pecknold responded basically that “#4 says limited government (subsidiarity)…and that goes as far back as Augustine.”

    If he doesn’t want to enter into a debate about libertarian economics on Twitter, but prefers to keep comments on-topic to the actual published statement, that’s not disingenuous…that’s reasonable.

    1. He put his name on the document, meaning that he endorses its contents and their plain meaning. If he had a reservation to make concerning what the document stated and promoted, he should have asked for a modification to the text, an addendum stating his reservation(s), or simply withheld his name. Instead, he joined a number of other Catholic academics in aligning with movement conservatism and mainline Republican politics, though I won’t speculate on his reasons.

      The meaning of “limited government,” as understood and promoted by both the writers of the document and other Catholic (neo)liberals/neocons, is common knowledge. I believe Pecknold is smart enough to realize this and has instead resorted to an old smokescreen tactic, one which is commonly deployed by some of the folks at the Acton Institute. I’m sorry, but that dog don’t hunt.

Comments are closed.