Catholic Social Thought - Opus Publicum

September 29, 2016 Catholic Social Thought, Economics, Politics

Oh, Catholic Socialism Returns

Over the course of the past year, several attempts have been made by well-meaning Catholics to effectively baptize socialism. For instance, Keith Michael Estrada, writing for Patheos, tried his hand at it last December (unsuccessfully, I might add). And though Jack Quirk took umbrage with my analysis, Christian Democracy jumped into the mix as well. For the most part, I think these Catholics have their instincts in the right place. Given that there is a noticeable contingent of Catholics who believe that almost all forms of taxation, redistribution, and regulation constitute socialism, it is necessary to show that the Church’s magisterium expressly contemplates all three under certain circumstances. (I have, on numerous occasions, defended this fact, e.g. over at Ethika Politika.) None of that represents socialism, either as it is commonly understood by socialists themselves or by the Church in her numerous condemnations of socialist ideology.

Now comes a new group, the self-proclaimed “Tradinista Collective,” which is comprised primarily of Ivy League priv-kids who hide under pseudonyms out of some outrageously misplaced fear that they will be persecuted for espousing a less coherent form of Bernie Sanders’s political platform. (You can peruse their half-baked manifesto here.) In addition to annoying people on Twitter, one of their members has also produced the first installment of a three-part defense of “Catholic socialism” [sic]. The argument of the piece is pretty simple: First, cherry pick certain papal statements condemning socialism (or some aspect of socialism); second, line them up in a row; and third, proclaim that you hold to a form of socialism which escapes all of these condemnations, albeit without much in the way of evidence or argument. Never once does the author deal with the papal decrees of Pope St. Pius X, particularly his motu proprio Fin Dalla Prima Nostra or his encyclical Notre Charge Apostolique, no doubt because of statements like this:

But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, ‘the reign of love and justice’ . . . What are they going to produce? . . . A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon [the movement Pius X is condemning in the document], its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.

Still, perhaps the author of the piece would maintain that the Tradinista brand of socialism is “exceptional” insofar that it is not built upon the intramundane ideologies that Papa Sarto and the whole Catholic tradition has no time for. And what is this exceptional form of socialism, this so-called Catholic socialism which the author wishes to defend? Leaning on Karl Polanyi, the author defines his version of socialism as “an economic system which, transcending the self-regulating market, subordinates a significant part of it to communal control.” To call this definition open-ended and vague would be an understatement.

For instance, what does it mean in the concrete to subordinate a “significant part” of the economy to “communal control”? It doesn’t take a lawyer’s bag of interpretive tricks to conclude that sectors ranging from airlines to agriculture could be susceptible to nationalization. Further down in the article, the author maintains that his form of socialism does not fall under papal condemnations concerning the denial of a right to or abolition of private property because some forms of property rights will be left alone. Noticeably absent from the article is any mention of the word “subsidiarity” nor a meaningful account of when it would be appropriate to nationalize a particular industry or hand it over to “communal control.” Instead of taking the position long maintained by advocates of Catholic social teaching that a wide distribution of ownership is the best means to meet the demands of justice and charity in society, the author of this piece—and the Tradinistas as a whole—want to start from the top and work down, instituting a command-planned economic order without any direct magisterial support (despite the claim that theirs is a “Catholic socialism”).

Of course, there are two more parts coming in this explication of Catholic socialism and so it is possible that the author will endeavor to take fuller account of the Church’s social magisterium while speaking more candidly about what he means concerning the institution and operation of his Catholic-socialist chimera.

September 18, 2016 Catholic Social Thought, Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Theology

Cooperation with Non-Catholics?

Today, during one of my infrequent visits to the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) on a Sunday, the priest spoke about avoiding unnecessary occasions of sin, including collaborating or fraternizing with non-Catholics. Obviously, there are times in our daily lives when we cannot avoid this, such as in the workplace. However, to the fullest extent possible, Catholics should probably avoid it, lest it imperil their faith.

I am not sure what to make of this. Despite the fact this priest was rooting himself in a once-common theological opinion, there is a growing sense among both conservative and traditional Catholics that there is a need for a “pan-Christian” coalition in the United States in order to hold back the ever-rising tides of secularism and liberalism. Those who recommend this option typically believe that such cooperation can be partitioned off from any particular faith commitments. In other words, if conservative Catholics and Lutherans form a local collation to start, say, the building of a strip club in their neighborhood or pass an ordinate limiting drinking on Sundays, that doesn’t mean Catholic participants are at risk of taking up sold fide. That’s probably right. However, it seems to me that the main concern about “pan-Christian” coalitions is that it undermines the evangelical spirit and leads to at least a light form of indifferentism. “That Gustav is a good fellow; very devout. I should let him be and not pester him about what a heretic Martin Luther was!”

There are numerous other examples that can here be given, but I suspect you get the point. The best response I have at the moment to this line of thinking is that it may be a nonissue given that there are increasingly fewer non-Catholic Christians which hold to any politically or socially relevant set of beliefs that Catholics can licitly get behind as well. Even within the Catholic Church today there is a noticeable rift between liberal and conservative Catholics, and a sizable rift as well between conservatives and traditionalists. It therefore behooves any faithful Catholic to exercise a great deal of prudence when deciding who to share common cause with and to discern which cases are in fact common.

As for concerns over indifferentism, they are well placed. Look, for example, at the Acton Institute, which is operated primarily by Catholics (including a Catholic clergyman). Catholic social principles are set the side in favor of building a coalition around liberal economic ideology which, sadly, members of other non-Catholic confessions, including Evangelicals and Eastern Orthodox, gravitate toward, too. Acton does not take as its mission to promote the Catholic Faith at the socio-political level but to deliver false baptism to liberal thought backed by tortured readings of the Church’s social magisterium. The end result is a culture of indifferentism at Acton toward any who are willing to wave the flag of free-market capitalism. All others must, of course be “evangelized” with the gospel of liberalism.

None of this is to say that Catholics should avoid all cooperation with non-Catholics. Although their numbers may be under assault, there are still Protestants and Orthodox in America who actively resist liberalism and all its works. The Orthodox in particular, who as Pope Leo XIII stated are close to Catholics the Faith, tend to be more conservative in their beliefs than most Catholics. As such, Catholics should not quickly dismiss the possibility of having closer association with the Orthodox so long as the temptation to apathy or indifferentism is resisted.

August 30, 2016 Catholic Social Thought, Politics

More on the Alt-Right

I have commented on the alt-right before (see, e.g., here, here, and here). It’s a phenomenon I still don’t understand completely, perhaps because so much of its (generalized) platform is indistinguishable from previous sub-conservative movements. Critics of the alt-right movement charge that it is linked to hyper-nationalism, white supremacism, neo-Nazism, and so on and so forth. Proponents of the alt-right claim that it is represents an authentic alternative to mainstream conservatism, particularly mainline Republican Party politics. Maybe. However, calls for stricter immigration controls and isolationism have been with the American conservative movement for a century or so now. If the alt-right differs in any noticeable way from mainline conservatism, it is with respect to certain economic issues such as free trade. Whereas the Republican Party has long championed free-trade accords and other liberal economic policies, the alt-right seems to favor protectionism as the best way forward.

Certain conservative and traditional Catholics (along with right-leaning Protestants and Orthodox) have started embracing the alt-right, either out of fear that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party will sweep the upcoming elections or because they believe a “strong man” such as Donald Trump is the answer to America’s woes (maybe both). As I have pointed out before, the problem with this embrace—at least for Catholics—is that it cuts so clearly against the actual social teachings of the Church. Racism is not Catholic. Excessive anti-immigration policies are not Catholic. Nationalism, to the extent the nation is placed above God and His Church, is not Catholic. I could go on, but I think you get the point. So why are an increasing number of Catholics comfortable setting aside the Church’s teaching to jump on the alt-right bandwagon? Perhaps because American Catholics of all political stripes have been setting aside the Church’s social magisterium in exchange for political relevance for decades.

Make no mistake about it. “Alt-right Catholics” are not doing anything more egregious than “libertarian Catholics” or “socialist Catholics.” All of these various political “brands” of Catholicism have one essential thing in common: an unfettered willingness to replace doctrine with ideology. There is no small amount of irony on hand when various social-media forums explode with fights between “alt-right Catholics” and “socialist Catholics.” Neither are witnessing for the truth, nor upholding the social rights of Christ the King. Rather, they are chucking ideologically charged hand grenades at one another with no hope whatsoever of resolving the issues between them. There is no true appeal to divine or natural law; there is only a race to amplify various bromides in the hopes of drowning out the opposition. And when that doesn’t work? Both sides resort to childish tactics such as name calling and hyperbolic accusations.

When will the situation improve? I can’t say. Part of me believes things will get worse before they get better, though I am endeavoring to check my pessimism whenever possible. For the current election cycle, though, there’s not much hope left that a majority of American Catholics will arouse themselves from their respective ideological stupors in order to confront the hard truth that liberalism has no authentic place for Christ and His Church, and that the Catholic faithful—along with all orthodox Christians—are not welcome under a horizon dominated by relativism, indifferentism, and hedonism. Still, that won’t stop Catholics from trying to “get by,” to be “team players” with some secular ideology or another. There’s an old saying: Pride comes before the fall. Capitulation will come before ours.

August 18, 2016 Catholic Social Thought, Politics

Shea, Zmirak, and Catholic Politics

Let me be clear: Neither John Zmirak nor Mark Shea are saints of my devotion. The former is often a mindless shill for the liberalism of the Right; the latter too often tries to baptize the liberalism of the Left. Both also accept the neo-Catholic narrative of Church history since Vatican II, though Zmirak, like the economic liberals who haunt the halls of the Acton Institute, enjoys playing pick-and-choose with the Church’s social magisterium. Shea, under the guise of faithfully adhering to that magisterium, tries to maintain the myth that the Democratic Party faithfully represents the Church’s teachings on economics, society, and “life issues” (broadly defined).

And so it should come as no surprise that the two are butting heads over pro-life issues during this election cycle. Those interested in getting a rundown of the controversy—specifically Shea’s smear tactics against Zmirak—should check out Jason Scott Jones’s recent piece over at Life Site News. In short, Shea insinuates that Zmirak is a supporter of “Right Wing Culture of Death Priorities” related to torture, war, the death penalty, gun rights, and so forth. As Jones discusses, however, it does not appear that Zmirak really defends any of that stuff, or at least not as forcefully and clearly as Shea implies. This is not to say Zmirak “gets it” entirely right. After all, his pro-market apologetics and faith in movement conservatism’s “small government” narrative betrays an adherence to liberal principles over the express teachings of the Church. Still, Shea has a responsibility to the truth and making Zmirak out to be pro-torutre or pro-unjust war is completely uncalled for.

This spat between Shea and Zmirak won’t settle anything. The two have been going at it for years. What it does reveal, though, is the rotten state of American Catholic politics. Instead of seeing what many faithful popes and theologians knew from the 18th Century on, namely that liberalism is the enemy of a just society and the Church, Catholics like Shea and Zmirak fall over themselves to prove that one can be a “good Catholic” and a “good liberal” (albeit of different flavors)—no questions asked. The problem is that this simply not true. It is not possible to love liberalism while being faithful to divine and natural law. Is that an unsettling truth? Yes, of course it is. Few men actually desire to feel “out of sorts” with his age; many want to “get by” with as little obstruction as possible.

That is a temptation, and like all temptations it is from the devil. God has not called us to be “good liberals”; he has called us to be faithful sons and daughters of the Church. It is not our place to uphold the “rights of man”; it is our duty to uphold the rights of Christ the King in society. Read the works of Shea and Zmirak and ask yourself, “Do either of them do this?” In fact, read the works of most contemporary Catholic pundits and ask the same question. The answers you reach will be unsettling.

August 15, 2016 Catholic Social Thought, Politics

American Solidarity Party

Recently there have been rumblings on social media and Catholic blogs about the American Solidarity Party (ASP), a small but growing third party which takes its bearings primarily from those Catholic social principles which are endorsed by a number of non-Catholics as well, specifically subsidarity and — naturally — solidarity. For those not inclined to click around the party’s website to get a grasp of what it stands for, Susannah Black, writing over at Front Porch Republic, has penned an extensive piece detailing the ASP’s history and vision. I suggest you all read it.

Now, from the get-go, there are several aspects of the ASP which I could quibble with. For instance, its absolute stance against the death penalty does not align with Catholic teaching, though, as a prudential matter, I can certainly see the utility in placing a moratorium on it until the United States undertakes more comprehensive criminal-justice reform. Moreover, there is room to discuss the appropriate limits of centralized government programs, entitlements, and wealth redistribution; at this point ASP is keeping its platform fairly general, not particular. And last, Catholics need to always be on guard against letting a political party or movement with non-Catholics turn into an opportunity for religious indifferentism or syncretism.

With that said, I encourage all of you dear readers — Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant — to give serious consideration to the ASP as an alternative to the dreadful options being walked out by the Democratic and Republican parties. The ASP may not fully capture every platform point you hold dear, but if you are faithful to your respective confession’s teachings, I think you will find the ASP comes far closer to upholding them than any other American political party. (For my part, my policy preferences are a bit closer to what a party like Ukraine’s Svoboda upholds, but I’ll save that discussion for another day.)

July 28, 2016 Catholic Social Thought, Politics, Uncategorized

A Word or Two on Ethno-Nationalism and Catholicism

Social media can be hard to assess sometimes, but it seems that Brandon McGinley’s latest piece for First Things, “Catholics Must Resist Ethno-Nationalism,” is generating some buzz (both positive and negative). Most of what McGinley has to say is pretty straightforward. For a good long while, Catholics in America were marginalized for religious and racial reasons; now (white?) Catholics are firmly a part of mainstream American life; and today that means (white?) Catholics have to contend with the racialist nature of contemporary American politics (or, rather, contemporary American conservative politics). Where people seem to take umbrage with McGinley concerns his strongly implied position that Americans (particularly American Catholics) should not support policies which exclude persons based on race or ethnicity. (What about religious background?)

On a certain level, McGinley is right. As I wrote about in my two recent posts regarding the so-called “alt-right movement” (see here and here), racism has no place in authentic Catholic social teaching or politics. A well-ordered society will not discriminate arbitrarily between its citizens, nor will it ignore concrete injustices being inflicted upon particular classes of persons (however defined). That does not mean that a well-ordered society cannot or should not exercise prudence when it comes to the status, rights, and opportunities of non-citizens, particularly if they pose a legitimate threat to public order. And this is where things start to get messy. For while it is no doubt true that some Americans who want to place stricter regulations on immigration (temporary or permanent) are animated by good old-fashioned redneck-style racism, that’s hardly true across the board. Americans — including American Catholics — have a genuine fear that increased Muslim immigration to the United States, Canada, and Western Europe poses a serious security threat which cannot be dismissed with guffawing and some finger wagging. Moreover, while the Catholic Church teaches that we are called to show charity toward all peoples, including refugees fleeing violence or other horrors, it does not state that such persons are to automatically enjoy all of the rights and privileges of citizenship. Under ideal circumstances, refugees should return to their native lands when the opportunity permits. If permanent residency is to be extended to them, that decision must be made with an eye toward the common good.

Where McGinley loses me is toward the end of his article where he seems to justify open-armed acceptance of all with the argument that American Catholics will soon find themselves on the margins of American life. While I agree with McGinley that American Catholics will find themselves increasingly pushed to the sidelines (if not cast out like lepers), I cannot wrap my head around the idea that letting in more people to the United States who profess a false religion which harbors murderous hatred for Christ and His Church is going to improve our situation. If anything, we should be pushing for looser immigration policies for those coming from historically Catholic countries (e.g., Mexico), along with opening our borders to persecuted Christian populations in the Middle East, a number of whom are Catholic (e.g., Chaldeans, Melkites, and Maronites). To hell with “American values” and “our nation’s history.” As faithful Catholics, it is not our duty to appeal to secular-liberal conceptions of tolerance or buy into fanciful ideas of “brotherhood” that have nothing to do with what the Church magisterially teaches. Our duty is to Christ the King and the conversion of society to His rule. Racism can have no part in that, of course, but neither can squishy platitudes.

June 28, 2016 Catholic Social Thought, Integralism, Politics

Three Thoughts on Integralism and “Alt-Right” Movements

Somewhat to my surprise, last Sunday’s post, “Traditionalist Worker Party?,” received far more traffic than expected, which prompted me to re-blog an earlier piece I had written for The Josias on integralism, nationalism, and racism. My main reason for doing so is because of the growing number of Catholics in America (and no doubt around the world) who believe the so-called “alt-right” (an extremely loose association of ostensibly conservative movements informed by everything from white nationalism to libertarianism) provides a way past the political turmoil wrought by mainline liberalism (be it from the Left or the Right). Although this is not the place to run down every problematic element of the alt-right movement, it should go without saying that the movement’s neo-/quasi-pagan elements, coupled with its infatuation with late-coming racialist ideology, has no place in any socio-political movement worthy of Catholic support. While certain alt-right positions on the economy, immigration, and foreign relations can be finessed with Catholic principles, that does not mean that the alt-right movement itself is in any way, shape, or form Catholic. In fact, the alt-right’s seeming obsession with racial and ethnic differences flies in the face of the Gospel’s universal message while reducing man to the status of a beast. This is not to say there are not distinct cultural differences between peoples as they are currently constituted on the earth, but those differences are temporal, not natural. Slavic culture (to the extent it existed) and Byzantine culture were clearly at odds during the first millennium of Christian history; that began to change substantially after the missionary efforts of Ss. Cyril and Methodius. And in today’s world, clearly Christian culture generally (the extent is still exists) is substantially different from Muslim culture generally, particularly in the Middle East. However, just as Christian missionaries worked and prayed for the conversion of the barbarian tribes in Eastern Europe, so, too, we ought to work and pray for the conversion of those millions of souls beholden to the false religion of Islam so that we may be one people under Jesus Christ our Lord.

With that noted, let me offer three loosely sketched thoughts on where integralism diverges from “alt-right” ideology with the hope that Catholics will see the former, not the latter, as the proper way forward.

June 15, 2016 Catholic Social Thought, Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Orthodox Social Thought

A Quick Word on #ActonU

Some of this is repeat from earlier web-log posts, and for that I apologize. However, the launching of “Acton University” (AU) 2016 compels me to remind Christians of good will (Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) that AU, despite its name, is not a credible academic endeavor on any level. Rather, it is a four-day indoctrination session which, inter alia, seeks to graft free-market ideology onto Christianity. And although the Acton Institute (AU’s chief sponsor) disclaims being a “Catholic organization,” the truth is that its chief operators are Catholic; a majority of its programs and publications are directed toward Catholics; and a great deal of energy is placed behind drawing both Catholic instructors and students to AU each year. In theory, this should mean that serious attention be put into making sure AU conforms with what is generally referred to as the “Catholic social tradition” or “Catholic social teaching” (or, as I prefer, the Church’s social magisterium) rather than worrying about making sure AU’s “message” coheres with the tenets of liberalism and capitalism. Moreover, AU should also endeavor to make sure that it presents Catholic teaching is a clear, open, and charitable manner rather than, say, offer a hit job course on Distributism taught by a free-market ideologue.

The problems with AU don’t end there, however. As a brief perusal of AU’s course list reveals, considerable emphasis is placed on economics and economic questions, and yet there is no evidence that the courses offered by AU are sufficient in scope and depth to both properly introduce a neophyte to the economics discipline and convey the considerable internal disputes which have animated economic research for decades. Rather, AU attempts to present the heterodox “Austrian School” of economics as normative while quietly setting aside the mountain of intra-disciplinary criticism of “Austrianism” (including its links to libertinism, materialism, and hedonism). Further, AU is geared toward promoting both liberalism and Americanism despite the fact the Catholic Church has routinely condemned both for nearly two centuries. Is any mention made of this during the AU lectures? Are those who attend AU even made aware that these ideological cancers are two of the chief culprits in the degradation of both society and the Church for more than a century? It would seem not.

Beyond just “Catholic matters,” AU should raise red flags for Eastern Orthodox Christians as well. Despite bringing on Orthodox priests and laity claiming to offer up authentic “Orthodox social teaching,” not a single course takes into account Orthodoxy’s strong anti-liberal tradition, a tradition recently reaffirmed by the Moscow Patriarchate in its statement, “Economy in the Context of Globalization.” While credit should be given to Dylan Pahman (a former Calvinist convert to Orthodoxy) for at least recommending students read “The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,” Chapters VI and VII of that document (on labor and property) does not endorse AU’s pro-market views. Given what Pahman has written before on “Orthodox social thought,” one has to wonder how open he truly is to conveying what the Eastern Church, including its Fathers and spiritual luminaries, has had to say about political and economic liberalism.

As we enter a point in history where it has become abundantly clear that the so-called “promise of liberalism” has failed both Church and society, the existence of ideological black boxes such as the Acton Institute and its AU program should be a source of deep sorrow for all Christians. Instead of trying to impress the princes of this world and genuflect before Mammon, Christians should be preparing for the great struggle which is to come, the struggle to maintain our Faith, our families, and our Christ-centered way of being. AU promotes the falsehood that Christians can, nay, should be both in the world and of it. It is that very falsehood which has helped usher in an age of rapid, even militant, secularization and, in the process, placed millions of souls in peril.