Catholic Social Thought - Opus Publicum

August 1, 2017 Catholic Social Thought, Political Economy

Joe Carter Doesn’t Get It

I have no idea if the Acton Institute’s Joe Carter has ever been described as a stupid man, but he’s making a pretty powerful case that he’s an ignorant one. In his second lamentation on the apparent rise of “socialism” among conservative Christians, he speculates why 20-somethings might be attracted to socialist ideas while ignoring the fact that many Christians (specifically Catholics) who oppose the Acton Institute and the free-market ideology it promotes are neither in their 20s nor have been “burned” by the marketplace. Carter, like so many free-market apologists, prefers to take a condescending approach to those who disagree with him by purporting to unveil psychological and material causes behind his opponents’ arguments. In the end, Carter might as well just called those who apparently hold to “socialist” ideas lazy, immature, and uneducated. And even if he did, he would still be missing the mark.

Those who stand fierce against the Acton Institute and all of its works are those who are committed not to their personal self-interest but rather to the social magisterium of the Catholic Church. Promoting just wages and solidarity isn’t an “option”; it is a duty that all faithful Catholics are bound to uphold. Even in an age where the capitalist system militates against the true principles of Catholicism, Catholics must, with prudence, do all they can to ensure that their public behavior comport with the social doctrine of the Church. It is to Christ, not capitalist greed, that Catholics look to, or at least should. Carter, through his association with Actonites, no doubt realizes that many Catholics have no compunction about ignoring what the Church teaches in order to make false deals with the world. Indeed, the Acton Institute itself is run primarily by Catholics who would rather sit at the feet of Mises and Rothbard rather than Leo XIII and Pius XI. It is nothing short of a scandal that these men can continue to work against what the Church teaches without reprisal.

As I have discussed before, for Carter, almost any form of public regulation of the market is “socialism,” which in effect means that the guidance offered up by Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, etc. all falls under the banner of socialism since all of their writings contemplated the need for the state to step in under various circumstances to uphold the common good. As such, it is difficult to take his critiques very seriously. Perhaps he wrongly thinks that if he refers to a certain idea or instruction as “socialist,” it will instantly send Catholics running for the hills lest they be sullied by so terrible a term. Or maybe Carter thinks that he can lean on the Church’s longstanding condemnation of socialism in order to propagate the (false) idea that capitalism and capitalism alone provides the only sure and faithful path for Catholics to follow if they wish to fulfill the precepts of the Church. Certainly there are some Catholics like that, but their error cannot be taken as received wisdom. While socialism must be resisted at every turn, so does capitalism. This is what Carter cannot or will not understand. For him there are only two paths present, but those who are willing to open their hearts and minds to the Church know better.

In the end there is no need for faithful Catholics to be bothered with Carter’s carping. He will, to the best of his ability, try and throw up accusations against those who reject the lies of economic liberalism, but to no avail. There can be no appeal to “economic science” or materialism or base self-interest which can overcome the truth which only Christ’s Church teaches. It is not to Wall Street but the Cross where we must go, and if that places us out of step with the present age, an age shaped around entertainment and greed, then all the better. Let the economic liberals have their home in this world, for they have received their reward. The rest of us can look to our final end, which is Heaven.

July 28, 2017 Catholic Social Thought, Economics, Political Economy

Strain, Carter, and Socialism

The kerfuffle over Andrew Strain’s recent First Things website article criticizing the idea of free markets is starting to die down despite the Acton Institute’s Joe Carter having a panic attack over the specter of socialism haunting ostensibly conservative Christian publications. Carter’s rebuke to Strain (and others) is nothing more than the same old, same old. Almost all forms of public regulation, by Carter’s lights, constitutes socialism. It’s not entirely clear where Carter draws the line, or if there is room in Carter’s liberal-economic outlook for measures like antitrust law, environmental protections, and labor standards. What rings strange in Carter’s ill-conceived attack is his insistence that Strain himself is a socialist for no other reason than the latter suggested that Pope Pius XI, author of the towering social encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, offers up alternatives to free-market capitalism. In a brief Twitter exchange with Carter, he made it known that Strain might consider reading later papal documents which condemn socialism. Carter is apparently ignorant of the fact that Pius XI, like his predecessors, condemned socialism outright and no Catholic thinker worth his salt has ever suspected Pius of harboring crypto-socialist ideas.

The real problem here is that Carter, like so many “Actonites,” subscribes to a Manichean worldview with the capitalists on one side (“Children of Light”) and the socialists (or communists) on the other (“Children of Darkness”). There can be no “third way,” nor apparently sensible regulation of the market. And by “sensible regulation” I mean nothing more than the sort proposed by some of Carter’s fellow, but far more learned, economic liberals. Consider, for instance, law professor Richard Epstein’s more balanced take on the market. While Epstein is a strong advocate for private law doing the heavy lifting of protecting rights and redressing wrongs, he has defended the use of antitrust law to prevent monopolization and other restraints on trade while leaving room open for some public regulation to address collective action problems and the tragedy of the commons. Although I remains skeptical of many of Epstein’s claims, not to mention his reliance on neoclassical economics, his consequentialist approach treats the market as an effective means of maximizing social welfare while not ignoring the market’s imperfections.

Beyond this, the crucial issue for Strain and other faithful Catholics (which excludes Carter) is what does the Church teach? For well more than a century, the Church’s social magisterium has set forth clear principles for the proper economic ordering of society. Although no pontiff has ever claimed to provide a sure-fire roadmap for how particular economies are organized, none have dismissed the fact that a just economy demands just wages for workers; social, moral, and religious protections; solidarity; and the application of the principle of subsidiarity. Although these principles are best upheld at the local level through intermediary institutions, some form of public regulation is expressly contemplated by the Church’s magisterium. Moreover, the Church has never been blind to the need for social safety nets for the least well off in society and that moderate taxation, rather than being a form of theft, is indispensable for maintaining public order and justice.

Granted, some Catholics in recent years have jumped the rails a bit on these measures, believing—wrongly—that what they find in the Church’s social magisterium is a mandate for highly centralized regulatory schemas, entitlements, and massive wealth transfers. Their errors, however, do not justify scrapping Catholic social teaching as a whole, nor setting aside what great pontiffs like Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Pius XI taught. Sure, Pope Francis, with his penchant for off-the-cuff remarks and imprecise rhetoric, may have temporarily handed pro-socialist Catholics an apparent justification for their beliefs, but at the end of the day the timeless social principles of the Church—principles which cannot be squared with true socialism—remain to guide us up to the present day.

June 25, 2017 Catholic Social Thought, Political Economy, Politics, Uncategorized

#ActonU 2017 Has Come and Gone

For reasons unbeknownst to me, I was not automatically extended a scholarship to attend this year’s Acton University event in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Maybe next year. Much to my surprise, Acton did extend an invitation to Elizabeth Bruenig, someone who has never been shy about her association to the Christian Left or hesitant to critique the free-market ideology promoted by the Acton Institute. In a live-streamed panel discussion also featuring Acton head honcho Fr. Robert Sirico, Bruenig offered an eloquent presentation of her socio-economic views, including her skepticism that economic liberalism—if not liberalism as a whole—can provide a clear pathway to ameliorating poverty. Sirico, as he is wont to do, opened up the discussion by noting that to the extent there were disagreements to be had, they were disagreements over matters of prudence, not principle (or, in his words, dogma). No doubt due to time constraints, Bruening was unable to call Sirico to task for this oft repeated, but rarely defended assertion. For as several writers have noted over the years, including Thomas Storck in an excellent article on Acton and Catholic teaching, it is doubtful that Sirico’s brainchild fully upholds the Church’s social magisterium.

What Acton does accomplish with remarkable success is leading Christians (mostly Catholics) down the path of liberalism—if not libertarianism—while artfully dodging criticism by appealing to its alleged internal diversity. So, for instance, when Acton is confronted with the fact that it heavily promotes the heterodox “Austrian School” of economics, including offering several lectures on the topic at Acton University, Actonites opine that nowhere in the Institute’s mission statement does it claim to adhere to Austrianism despite borrowing Austrian-based concepts such as “human action” (a.k.a. the “science” of “people do things”) in its statement of principles. The silence is deafening when Acton and its adherents are asked why they do not teach other schools of economics in its lectures or unmask the shortcomings of Austrianism, of which there are many. Instead, Acton hides behind the claim that they promote “sound economic principles” without openly revealing where those principles are drawn from or discussing the numerous critiques of those principles that have long been in circulation.

And this, dear readers, is only one of many reasons why Acton’s “university” is nothing of the sort. It is not a place of learned disputation or the free exchange of ideas; it is a four-day long indoctrination program meant to provide a highly biased presentation of the Christian social tradition as fully compatible with capitalism and liberalism. Equally appalling is the fact that Acton endeavors to distort the thought and image of some of the modern Church’s greatest leaders, including Pope Leo XIII. In a course entitled “Abraham Kuyper, Leo XIII, and Modern Christian Social Thought,” Acton Senior Fellow Jordan Ballor brings together the social thought of a professed heretic in Kuyper with a pope who condemned economic liberalism, rejected the idea that the state did not owe particular duties to the Catholic Church, and promoted the social kingship of Christ. Leo XIII had nary an ecumenical bone in his body when it came to Protestantism and, in 1900, condemned Protestant proselytism toward Catholics in Rome.

As it currently stands, there is no counterweight to Acton’s propaganda machine. Because the Acton Institute supports capitalist interests, it is a well-funded enterprise that has achieved a global reach. By providing forums and funding for research projects that fit within its liberal vision, Acton claims to furnish important research on poverty, human flourishing, and the economy without having to submit such work to the usual channels of peer review and criticism. Moreover, too many Christians of a conservative bent remain enthralled by Acton’s claim that it stands as a bulwark against the excesses of the contemporary liberal state, including centralization, heavy handed regulation, and onerous redistribution schemes. While of these problems do exist, both in the United States and abroad, the way to address them is not through centuries-old liberal ideology, but rather the timeless truths of reason and revelation which the Church, as the pillar and ground of truth, has always taught.

So the question remains: Will Catholics follow the easy and seductive path of liberalism, one which holds out the hope of peace in this world and material comfort, or the narrow path taught to all men at all times and in all places by Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy Church? That question, though always pertinent, has taken on greater importance at this juncture in history where an increasing number of persons, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, are beginning to see that the promises of liberalism are empty declarations backed by false principles. Where will these disenfranchised souls turn? Acton would have them double down on the liberal project, even against their own self-interests—temporal and eternal. Holy Mother Church, on the other hand, would have them come to know the truth and work for the restoration of all things in Christ, a project which will only succeed once liberalism in all of its guises has been overcome.

June 20, 2017 Catholic Social Thought, Economics, Political Economy, Politics, Uncategorized

#ActonU is Upon Us Again

It’s that time of year again, when the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops promotes the anemic Fortnight for Freedom (FFF) and the Acton Institute, headquartered in my hometown of Grand Rapids, MI, holds its annual Acton University gathering. Acton University, as I have discussed before, is less of an academic experience and more of an indoctrination program where (primarily young) Christians can drink deep from the wells of liberalism. Although Acton University is ecumenical in nature, the Acton Institute itself is mostly run by Catholics and targets a Catholic audience. In recent years, has begun pulling in more Eastern Orthodox propagandists, likely because Orthodoxy, unlike Catholicism, lacks a strong social magisterium. That is not to say the Orthodox Church hasn’t spoken on matters such as democracy, the relation between church and state, and economic liberalism; it’s just that Orthodox Christians, particularly in America, are fond of ignoring teachings which does not fit snugly within their personalized worldviews.

The FFF, as most know by now, has been a failure. Since its inception, the United States has, inter alia, legalized same-sex marriage, compelled religious institutions to violate the moral law, and further marginalized Christianity from public life. Some, of course, rejoiced at the election of Donald Trump on the questionable belief that he would serve as a protector for Christians, both at home and abroad. That hasn’t happened, at least not to the extent expected. Instead, Trump has opted to aggravate the sorrowful conflict in Syria while targeting Chaldean Catholics for deportation and death on highly questionable grounds. The position of the Catholic Church in the U.S. has not improved since Trump’s election, and pandering to the empty promises of liberalism, such as “religious freedom,” won’t do a damn bit of good.

Don’t tell that to the Acton Institute, which leans heavily on largescale donations from economic liberals to advocate for an unholy union between Christianity and capitalism. The strategy of Acton University is rather simple. First, without regard for the deep-rooted methodological and philosophical disagreements at the heart of the economics discipline, Acton sells the heterodox “Austrian School” of economics as a “science” in a highly disingenuous manner. Second, with this misinformation in place, Acton’s next step is to selectively latch onto Church teachings or the private opinions of select theologians to convince those in attendance that rather than condemning core elements of capitalism, such as usury and unjust wages, the Christian tradition affirms the free-market system without regard to core questions of justice. For Acton, the only injustices worth focusing on are those allegedly perpetrated by the government when it imposes environmental, social, and labor regulations.

Orthodox and Protestants are likely more susceptible to this raw nonsense than Catholics, though that’s not saying much given the large number of Catholics ready, willing, and able to flush away magisterial documents such as Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno, and Pope Pius XII recently translated address on the 50th anniversary of Rerum. If they pay any mind to the social magisterium, it is usually focuses on more recent iterations such as John Paul II’s Centesimus Annos, and even then they must apply a strict hermeneutic of selectivity in order to avoid the hard truth that the document does not baptize the global capitalist order. As for the stern (albeit sometimes confusing and imprecise) statements of Pope Francis against capitalism, well, they are reduced to little more than the “private views” of a man yet to be enlightened by the tenets of “economic science.”

It is probably too much to hope for the Church to step in, investigate Acton’s errors, and demand that those Catholics who participate in or promote those errors cease immediately. We are long past the point when the Church can be bothered to redirect the faithful so that they do not lose their souls. However, dare we hope that small, but noticeable, shifts in the international order in recent years might inspire Catholics both old and young to rethink any attempt to fuse liberalism—specifically economic liberalism with its indifference toward moral and justice—with the Gospel? Might not the recent “rediscovery” of integralism, with its emphasis on the authentic and proper relationship been the spiritual and temporal orders, spur Catholics to call out liberal projects like Acton University and submit them to withering criticism? Much has already been written against Acton’s diabolical enterprise; a great deal more remains to be done.

June 13, 2017 Catholic Social Thought, Law, Politics, Uncategorized

Excommunicating Carl Schmitt

A recent article appears in Telos, “Carl Schmitt and the Nineteenth-Century Catholic Reaction on Original Sin,” by Brian J. Fox seeks to upend the narrative that Schmitt, despite his decades-long estrangement from the Church, was hewn to an orthodox Catholic worldview during his Weimar-era writings. Fox, who combs through Schmitt’s private journals and other writings, believes that Schmitt, contrary to the Catholic reactionaries he leans upon (Maistre, Bonald, and Cortes), had little regard for Catholic orthodoxy as it pertains to human nature and original sin. Rather, Schmitt drank from the well of Gnosticism, leading the controversial jurist to adopt a radically dualistic worldview which, according to Fox, is at the heart of Schmitt’s secular authoritarianism. While Schmitt superficially shares the pessimistic view of human nature espoused by someone like Donoso Cortes, when it comes to the state, Schmitt fails to appreciate its imperfect constitution, contrary to Catholic teaching.

What this means for the ongoing use (and abuse) of Schmitt’s oeuvre by the Left and the Right isn’t clear from Fox’s piece. Even if he is correct in his assessment of Schmitt’s anthropology and its connection to his apparent authoritarianism, it’s unlikely that the Left—who have never had much time for any religious element in Schmitt’s writings—will pay it much mind. As for the Right, many of whom would also prefer not to think of Schmitt in expressly religious terms either, a “de-Catholicized” Schmitt is probably an attractive figure. The impulse toward authoritarianism still remains strong, especially in pluralistic socio-political states which are unlikely to unify around any transcendent conception of the state and man’s final end. That human beings are an unhinged, murderous, and self-destructive lot is apparent from history; there’s no need to bring revelation into the discussion.

Catholics, by and large, have little use for Schmitt at this juncture in history. To some, Schmitt is an embarrassment: a (temporarily) excommunicated opportunist forever sullied by his association with the Nazi Party. To the extent that Schmitt’s works reflect an authentic Catholic outlook, it is an outlook now deemed to be “outmoded” by virtue of the Second Vatican Council’s teachings on religious liberty and the Church’s relationship to the modern (liberal) world. Schmitt’s preferred political thinkers, despite being faithful Catholics, are connected to the same shopworn anti-liberal sentiments that produced Pius XI’s Syllabus Errorum. Even more conservative Catholic writers are unlikely to repair to Schmitt due to his perceived aversion toward natural law, not to mention his secularized decisionism. Now that Fox has arrived to posthumously excommunicate Schmitt from the Catholic intellectual fold, the chances of Schmitt ever being assumed back into the Catholic socio-political tradition are growing slimmer.

Perhaps that’s not a bad thing. After all, given the confusing mess of secular-born ideologies that have been passed around as true expressions of the Catholic social tradition in recent decades, there’s no need to muddy the waters further—even if the dirt is coming from the Right. That doesn’t mean, however, that Schmitt can’t still be useful in a general sense. His instinctive anti-liberalism (which also manifested itself as anti-socialism) and penetrating critiques of liberal legal theory can still be useful tools for those of a certain bent to put to bed the lie that human beings are naturally good, and so too is any political system predicated upon that erroneous belief. And regardless of the origins of his pessimistic anthropology, Schmitt knew better than many today the dangers of liberalism, of the eternal “discussion,” and the promotion of life-as-entertainment, devoid of risk, commitment, and an ever-ready belief that there is more to existence in this world than what Leo Strauss called the joyless pursuit of joy.

May 30, 2017 Catholic Social Thought, Law

A Modest (Catholic) Objection to Richard Epstein’s Legal Vision

If I reflect back on my time in law school (I graduated 10 years ago) and my period working in a law school (which lasted roughly 5 years), there is a good chance I read more books and articles by Richard Epstein than any other soul. Epstein, an emeritus professor of the University of Chicago Law School and current professor at New York University School of Law, is easily the most influential libertarian legal academic in history. Though he has made some intellectual shifts over the decades, such as foregoing his youthful commitment to deontological libertarianism in favor of the consequentialist libertarianism often touted by those associated with the Law & Economics (L&E) movement, Epstein has remained surprisingly consistent in his belief that a good system of private law (torts, contracts, and property) can do a better job than public regulation in producing positive social-welfare gains. And though it seems like Epstein has written on every legal field under the sun (including Roman law), his primary focus remains private law and classical doctrinal analysis.

In a recent issue of the University of Chicago Law Review, Epstein comes to the defense of his preferred realm of legal concepts with an illuminating essay, “Concepts before Percepts: The Central Place of Doctrine in Legal Scholarship.” Epstein is disappointed that “the legal academy is awash in novel approaches to law, driven by a deep distaste for doctrinal analysis” for “[t]here is a strong push for empirical research, economic modeling and philosophical speculation, all at the expense of traditional doctrinal analysis based on close reading of decided cases.” As an empirical matter, Epstein is right. Ever since L&E took off in the 1970s, law review editors have found themselves drowning in submissions promising to revolutionize some area of the law by blending it with another academic discipline (philosophy, literature, basket weaving, etc.). Moreover, a premium is now placed on empirical analysis and fancy formulas, probably because they help make legal academia “look like” other, arguably more respected, fields. Without wishing to say there is no place in legal academia for such scholarship, there comes a point when it is necessary to look at the legal system itself and see if it is accomplishing what it ought to.

But herein lies the problem with Epstein’s article and, indeed, much of Epstein’s scholarship. Only by accepting Epstein’s conviction that the social end of the legal system ought to be “maximiz[ing] the welfare of all individuals under inevitable conditions of scarcity.” For Epstein, this means leaning on the “Pareto and Kaldor-Hicks measures of social welfare” because “they respect the subjectivity of individual preferences while using a compensation formula to measure collective social welfare.” Nowhere in Epstein’s writings is a clear defense of this position over-and-against thicker understandings of the common good, particularly the sort promoted by the Catholic intellectual tradition. Ultimately, what Epstein wants is a legal system that respects freedom of contract and property rights above all else, with the tort law serving as a private regulator of material harms. It is the market, not a clear conception of the common good, which orders society; any encroachment on free competition is anathema except in rare instances where there is a restraint on trade, such as cartelization.

This is a position no Catholic can accept, as Pope Pius XI made perfectly clear in his 1931 encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno.

Just as the unity of human society cannot be founded on an opposition of classes, so also the right ordering of economic life cannot be left to a free competition of forces. For from this source, as from a poisoned spring, have originated and spread all the errors of individualist economic teaching. Destroying through forgetfulness or ignorance the social and moral character of economic life, it held that economic life must be considered and treated as altogether free from and independent of public authority, because in the market, i.e., in the free struggle of competitors, it would have a principle of self direction which governs it much more perfectly than would the intervention of any created intellect. But free competition, while justified and certainly useful provided it is kept within certain limits, clearly cannot direct economic life – a truth which the outcome of the application in practice of the tenets of this evil individualistic spirit has more than sufficiently demonstrated. Therefore, it is most necessary that economic life be again subjected to and governed by a true and effective directing principle. This function is one that the economic dictatorship which has recently displaced free competition can still less perform, since it is a headstrong power and a violent energy that, to benefit people, needs to be strongly curbed and wisely ruled. But it cannot curb and rule itself. Loftier and nobler principles – social justice and social charity – must, therefore, be sought whereby this dictatorship may be governed firmly and fully. Hence, the institutions themselves of peoples and, particularly those of all social life, ought to be penetrated with this justice, and it is most necessary that it be truly effective, that is, establish a juridical and social order which will, as it were, give form and shape to all economic life. Social charity, moreover, ought to be as the soul of this order, an order which public authority ought to be ever ready effectively to protect and defend.

Of course, I don’t expect that Epstein, a man who has kept his religious leanings to himself, to accept the magisterial teachings of the Church. However, those Catholics inclined to agree with Epstein’s approach to law and the economy ought to think twice about how far they are willing to follow Epstein down his libertarian path. Even though Epstein has provided some of the best and most spirited defenses of a strong system of private law available, it is his unquestioned ideological attachment to certain libertarian premises behind his view of what the private law ought to look like which renders that view unacceptable by Catholic lights. Further, while Epstein’s instincts do appear to be in the right place with regard to private law holding a higher position in the social order over public regulation, the latter cannot be set aside or reduced to the level Epstein and other libertarians wish to see. Even freedom of contract—one of Epstein’s preferred legal doctrines—must be scrutinized in the light of what is being contracted for. For while there is no sensible reason Farmer Bob can’t contract to trade 10 chickens for Farmer Joe’s prized sow, it’s a different story altogether when Farmer Bob is contracting to pimp out his wife for that pig.

May 14, 2017 Catholic Social Thought, Church

Weigel, Liberalism, and Disobedience

Much to my delight, a kerfuffle has broken out over George Weigel’s ill-conceived column, “Let’s Not Make a Deal…At Least Not This Deal,” which takes aim at the (possibly?) pending regularization of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Weigel’s concerns are twofold. First, he objects specifically to the Society’s opposition to certain Vatican II novelties, particularly the Council’s controversial declaration on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae. Second, and more generally, he believes that if the SSPX should be regularized without foregoing its criticisms of the Council and its questionable fruits, it will kick open the doors to more dissent from Leftwing Catholics (is that even possible?). Though not discussed in detail, no doubt Weigel was also motivated to write his column by the simple fact Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society he founded committed the unpardonable sin of defying “The Great” Pope John Paul II with the 1988 episcopal consecrations. For Weigel, John Paul II is a singular figure of world-historical importance who, according to the type of neo-Catholic narrative Weigel himself promotes, made way for the triumph of neoliberalism by standing firm against Eastern bloc communism. To stand against John Paul II is to stand against the liberal order itself, or so Weigel thinks.

In response, Rorate Caeli ran a guest op-ed by Patrick J. Smith which calls attention to the reality that the interpretation and application of Conciliar texts like Dignitatis is not an open-and-closed affair. Here is Smith.

It is, of course, by no means clear that the Society actually dissents from or rejects Church teaching. Given the text and history of Dignitatis humanae itself, it is not clear what Dignitatis humanae actually means, and, therefore, it is impossible to say what dissent looks like. Even if the Declaration were wholly clear, that would not resolve the question. In 2014, the International Theological Commission issued a very lengthy document, “Sensus fidei in the life of the Church,” which discussed the sensus fidei, “a sort of spiritual instinct that enables the believer to judge spontaneously whether a particular teaching or practice is or is not in conformity with the Gospel and with apostolic faith” (para. 49). The document observes that, “[a]lerted by their sensus fidei, individual believers may deny assent even to the teaching of legitimate pastors if they do not recognise in that teaching the voice of Christ, the Good Shepherd” (para. 63). Given the sharp distinctions between Dignitatis humanae and the teachings of Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, and other good and holy popes, it seems eminently reasonable to discuss the Society’s position in terms of the reaction of an authentic sensus fidei. With all of this in mind, one must ask whether it is George Weigel who is staking out a position for largely political reasons.

More recently, over at Ethika Politika, Thomas Storck enters the discussion by highlighting the threat the SSPX poses to Weigel’s project of blending Catholicism and liberalism.

The truth of the matter is, that Weigel sees a threat to his cherished project of reconciling classical liberalism with Catholic doctrine, a project quite common among American conservative Catholics. Take away the supposed generalized right to religious liberty, and you take away the lynchpin of liberal society. Eventually the liberal minimalist state, the market economy, and the right of each individual to pursue happiness after his own fancy will all fall in turn. And George Weigel cannot permit that. Thus his attempt to link the SSPX to the Catholic left’s attacks on faith and morals, when in fact, it is Weigel and his like who provided and provide the basic justification for those who would like to alter Catholic teaching.

There is, however, an important limit to how far I can agree with Storck’s article. His excellent evaluation of Weigel’s panic is marred by the following declaration: “I am no particular friend of the SSPX. I think their disobedience unjustified, their rhetoric often shrill, and some of their critiques of post-conciliar developments in the Church wooden.”

Personally, I don’t recognize this SSPX to which Storck refers, though it’s possible that Storck—like others who criticize the Society—conflate the opinions of every SSPX cleric and layman who attends a Society chapel with the official positions of the Society itself. Moreover, it is strange to knock the SSPX for being “disobedient” when that disobedience—followed in good conscience—is why Catholics enjoy access to the Tridentine Mass to a degree not seen since the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae. It is also a major reason why critical discussion of the Second Vatican Council and the problem of liberalism in the Church was not snuffed out in the 1970s. While reasonable persons can disagree with this-or-that statement made by Archbishop Lefebvre or offer up contrary positions on certain unsettled theological topics, no faithful Catholic should forget the singular contribution the SSPX has made to keeping the light of traditional burning through the dark decades of a doctrinal, spiritual, and moral crisis which continues to afflict the Mystical Body of Christ.

As for Weigel and the ideology he represents, there is some reason to hope that the Church, at least in America, is starting to turn the corner (or, at the very least, keep around it). As I wrote about a couple of years ago for Front Porch Republic, various strands of what has been called “illiberal Catholicism” have emerged to counter the liberal position. Integralism, which promotes the proper understanding of the relationship between Church and state, now has a seat at the discussion table. Weigel might fear that his life’s work is starting to come undone, though he shouldn’t. Instead he should rejoice that his errors may not infect future generations and give thanks to God for the time given to reflect, retract, and repent of any conscious misstatements or mischaracterizations of doctrine he has made during his lifetime.

May 8, 2017 Catholic Social Thought, Political Economy

Catholic Economic Liberalism Continues

When Francis ascended the papal chair in 2013, some Catholics long dissatisfied with the unholy union of Catholic social teaching and liberal economics thought the winds of change were in the air. Despite teaching clearly against the tenets of neoliberalism, neither John Paul II nor Benedict XVI seemed all that interested in disabusing economic liberals of their false principles. Not so with Papa Frank. From his first official papal writing, Evangelii Gaudium, on through his numerous (sometimes problematic) sermons and interviews, Francis has never shied away from calling free-market ideology and greed on the carpet. Unfortunately, due in part to the fast-and-loose manner in which he handles other tenets of Catholic doctrine, many economic liberals have felt entitled to ignore the current Pontiff when it comes to things economic, arguing—with thin plausibility—that the Pope has no authority to instruct on economic matters and that liberal economics is a “science” like biology and physics, hence beyond questioning. Now that we are in the fifth year of Francis’s reign, it doesn’t seem like much has changed. Many conservative Catholics (not to mention more than a few traditionalists) are quite content to ignore him on economic issues, and the Acton Institute—one of the leading propagandists of Catholicism/liberalism fusion—is still going strong. In fact, just today Samuel Gregg, Acton’s Research Director, has an article up over at The Stream opining how to “make America great again” with no mention of Christ or the Church, but plenty to say on deregulation and “crony capitalism” (Acton’s favorite boogeyman).

And that is why enterprises such as Acton are so dangerous. For even though Gregg acknowledges that “[e]conomic growth isn’t the solution to all of humanity’s problems,” he and his cohorts seem to be perpetually blind to the truth that what people need above all else is Christ. Surely Gregg would acknowledge that even the best laid plans of liberal economists will not yield positive results across the board, and that unanticipated external shocks, ranging from famine to war, can quickly erode any potential economic gains made from deregulating specific industries or encouraging free trade. (It is a liberal myth that economic growth and integration leads to a cessation of crossborder hostilities.) Unfortunately, Gregg remains enthralled by the idea that a “rightly ordered” (read: liberal) economy will lead to social harmony, and this enthrallment seems to keep him from acknowledging widely that man’s final end is not two cars in the garage and a 4K Ultra HD TV but eternal beatitude with God. The Acton Institute likes to speak a great deal about “markets and morality” but has shockingly little to say on the latter. The market, in the Acton schema, stands above morality.

That this should be the dominant thinking of the Acton Institute is not at all surprising. Despite having a number of Catholics at the helm and directing a great deal of its resources toward Catholic audiences, Acton eschews publicly referring to itself as “Catholic,” no doubt to curry favor with donors and audiences who do not accept the Catholic Faith. Due to its “ecumenical” character, Acton cannot risk promoting the Church over-and-against material matters, the sort that brings in large grants from the Koch Brothers and the DeVos family. In the end, Acton is not concerned with the Christianization of society but rather with the promotion of a liberal economic agenda not at all dissimilar from what is advocated by quite secular think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute. While all three may have quibbles at the margins concerning certain policy prescriptions and theoretical concerns, they are tied together by a commitment to free-market capitalism secured by liberal ideology.

Although some pockets of resistance to the Acton Institute and other Catholic economic liberals have emerged over the years, they remain small, disorganized, and underfunded. (In a socio-economic environment where capitalism funnels lifeblood to the economic elites, who with wealth would dare oppose it?) The Church, which remains in the midst of a grave doctrinal and moral crisis, is not in a position to confront economic liberalism in a clear, coherent, and consistent manner; Pope Francis’s declarations, as noted, have been marginalized. As for the Church’s social magisterium as a whole, while the express words of Leo XIII and Pius XI indict the Actonite project through and through, that has not been enough to lead those Catholics associated with Acton to renounce their errors and work for the renewal of society in an authentically Catholic manner.

So what is to be done? If an organized counterweight to the Acton Institute and other liberal efforts is not immediately available, then those who are committed to promoting the Church’s full social magisterium, be they integralists, radical Catholics, or otherwise, should never sit idly by when they see economic errors enter into circulation. Do not ignore the Acton Institute as a harmless or distant problem; confront what it promotes and hold up for all to see that the liberalism it subscribes to has been condemned roundly by the Church for centuries. Do not fear when the liberals speak in economic jargon, for often they seek to drown reasoned disputation in a flood of terminology rather than engage arguments openly. Finally, do not give-in to malice or hatred; all correction should be carried forth with charity. Many who walk down the path of economic liberalism do so because they have not fully investigated the matter or have been told falsehoods by those who ought to know better. Talk to them; engage with them; and certainly, above all, pray for them. The errors of liberalism cannot be overcome on the natural plane alone.

January 30, 2017 Catholic Social Thought, Church

Van Engen on a Calvinist “Advance” of God’s Kingdom

Abram Van Engen, an associate professor of English at Washington University who recently published a book on the intersection of Calvinist theology and politics in New England, is pleading with people not to conflate Calvinism (or, more accurately, the Calvinism of the Christian Reformed Church (CRC)) with the political positions of one Betsy DeVos, President Donald Trump’s pick for Secretary of Education. Van Engen is concerned that that the mainstream media is making too much out of DeVos’s ties to the CRC and Calvin College, a private academic institution in Grand Rapids, MI which boasts both DeVos and Van Engen among its alumni. Welcome to America, where it has been a time-honored tradition since before the founding of this liberal polity to tar-and-feather Christians for their religious affiliation, only most of that was directed at Catholics and came not from the secular media, but Van Engen’s forebears. This is not to say that secularists haven’t had a field day going after Catholic politicians, judges, academics, journalists, etc. for their religious beliefs in more recent times; it’s only that it’s a tad bit ironic to find a Calvinist crying “foul!” over a tactic his coreligionists once employed wantonly.

As for the substance of Van Engen’s apologia, which has as its central thesis that Calvinists can indeed be good secularists, too, and that DeVos’s views are not necessarily a perfect reflection of the amorphous orthodoxy of the CRC, he’s probably right. Growing up in DeVos’s West Michigan, I can certainly attest that many CRC-goers are as secularized, liberal, intramundane, and materialist as the finest products of the American public-education system. The CRC, no less than other “magisterial” Protestant sects, has had no problem dialing-down its beliefs to fit with the times while turning the Great Commission into a call for social-justice action.

Consider, for instance, Van Engen’s discussion of the Reformed trope “advancing God’s kingdom.” That phrase is not a call for theocracy, Van Engen assures, but rather “a service-oriented vision of vocation.” At Calvin College “[s]tudents are called to serve, and they can serve in many ways” such as “regularly . . . work[ing] in the world for racial reconciliation. Why? Because racial reconciliation advances God’s kingdom.” Does it? Setting aside the fact that “racial reconciliation” is, at best, an ambiguous concept, there is no Scriptural basis for holding that the Kingdom of God amounts to a liberal-democratic dreamland to be established on this side of the eschaton, nor are “racial issues” (in the contemporary, secular sense) in themselves a concern of the Gospel. Yes, all men are made in the image and likeness of God, and racialism has no place in the Christian consciousness (especially since it is a modern ideological construct), but marching during a “Black Lives Matter” protest is a far cry from leading souls to Heaven.

Let me express in no uncertain terms with Van Engen’s observation that “those who pray together ‘thy kingdom come’ in the Lord’s Prayer, across many different Christian faith traditions every day, can still disagree quite powerfully about what exactly that kingdom looks like and how it comes about.” For Apostolic Christians whose horizon has not be clouded—such as faithful Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox—Christ’s Kingdom remains “not of this world”; “for we have not here a lasting city, but we seek one that is to come” (Hebrews 13:14). Or, to quote from the Epistle to Diogentus, they “live in their own countries as though they were only passing through.” Whatever concerns Christians once, and always should, have with earthly cares means nothing unless it is oriented toward man’s final end, God.

In closing, I want to acknowledge that American Catholicism, no less than Van Engen’s cherished CRC, is riddled with compromises, contradictions, and outright capitulations to the liberal status quo. Many American Catholics would likely agree with Van Engen’s tactic of trying to show why being a “good Calvinist” (of the CRC variety) can mean being a “good American,” which, in the end, means being a good secularist. For shame. However, faithful Catholics can at least take comfort in the fact that the Church’s authentic doctrine is unblemished, that her true teachings on the proper relation of Church and state remain—as they say—“on the books,” and that regardless of the world’s temptations, the only true peace, joy, and happiness, like “every perfect gift,” “is from above, coming down to use from the Father of lights” (James 1:17) rather than spewing forth from the liberal ideology that dominates here below.