I failed to do one of these last week, and I am sure a number of you have had enough CST-related posts to last you awhile.
One More Note on Catholic Social Thought
A couple of weeks ago I wrote some remarks on Daniel Saudek’s debut piece at Ethika Politika (EP), “Faith, Reason, and the Two Camps.” Two days ago, another EP contributor, Ryan Shinkel, wrote a response to Saudek entitled “Two Catholic Camps Worth Debating.” I don’t want to get into the details of Saudek’s piece right now. Suffice to say, I am deeply skeptical about his overarching claim that neoliberal/libertarian Catholics and so-called “illiberal” or “radical” Catholics are “all in the same Catholic boat.” Yes, we are part of the same Church, but that does not mean that all of the “camps” within her walls are equally faithful in representing and promoting the Church’s social magisterium.
Another Note on Catholic Social Thought and Regulation
Note: For some inexplicable reason, this post “pasted over” yesterday’s post, “A Note on Capitalism, Socialism, Economics, and Catholic Social Thought.” I have since retrieved and re-posted the original. However, there may still be some errors with respect to links to that post. My apologies.
Following up on yesterday’s post, “A Note on Capitalism, Socialism, Economics, and Catholic Social Thought,” I want to make clear that my hyper-simplified example using the Affordable Care Act was not intended to come within a continent of capturing the entire regulatory picture surrounding insurance and health care. Simplification has its benefits, but also its costs—as a friend of mine noted when he offered some critical remarks on the sufficiency of my example. So, in the interest of not tethering myself to the complex health-care market, let me use an example from a world I know a bit more about: aviation. After that, I’ll say a few more things on regulation and Catholic Social Thought (CST).
A Note on Capitalism, Socialism, Economics, and Catholic Social Thought
A more detailed post needs to be composed on this topic, but two recent comments on two separate posts tell me that a clarification is in order. Although the terms “capitalism” and “socialism” are bandied about in disparate and imprecise ways, it should be clear to most observers that Catholic Social Teaching (CST) — the magisterial deposit which began to emerge in its modern form in the 19th C. — prescribes neither. In fact, CST is not, in and of itself, a socio-economic “system” or “ideology”; it is, rather, an expression of principles, rooted in reason and revelation, for a just social order directed toward the common good. CST contemplates that different societies at different times will vary with respect their express legal and political makeup. At the same time, CST takes no stand on what, if any, insights might be gleaned from the broad and contentious discipline known as economics. That is to say, CST does not rule out the findings of economic science, though it does not bless any particular paradigm or school as inherently superior to all of the others. If one economic school deserves to triumph, that will only come to light through rigorous reflection, theoretical inquiry, and empirical analysis (though some schools of economics reject this component).
Samuel Gregg and the Rule of Law
I have never been an avid reader of Public Discourse, perhaps because of its manifest classical liberal leanings. Also, it looks like another forum for the Acton Institute.
Last week I discussed briefly Dylan Pahman’s article on religious liberty begetting economic liberty. This time I want to take a look at Samuel Gregg’s latest, “Poverty, the Rule of Law, and Human Flourishing.” Gregg, as many of you may know, is the Acton Institute’s Research Director and the author of Tea Party Catholic. (I have mentioned Gregg before in an earlier post, “The Crony Capitalism Claim.”) Like many of his fellow Actonites, Gregg promotes the marriage of Catholic Social Thought and economic liberalism while, more generally, maintaining that the principles of political liberalism are not only defensible in the light of reason, but essential for what he calls “human flourishing.” In fact, Acton has an entire “wing” dedicated to this idea, PovertyCure. One of the core components of Gregg’s article, and the PovertyCure, project is the idea of the “rule of law.” But what does that mean? And, more importantly, is Gregg (and other Actonites) concerned with the “rule of law” in the abstract or a particular type of law in the concrete? The “rule of law,” when put into practice, isn’t neutral, and it is not intrinsically libertarian.
Ressourcement and the New Theology
Sometimes I post links on here to distract from the fact that I am not updating Opus Publicum very often. At other times I post links because I sincerely believe, in my heart and mind, that they need to be read. This is one of those times.
Though I have never met the author of the excellent web-log Ursus Elisei, I have had to the privilege of corresponding with him through e-mail and social media. His latest post, “Letter to a Friend on Ressourcement and the New Theology,” expresses magnificiently what I hope will be a growing number of Catholics’ reservations concerning the intellectual inheritance left behind by the previous two generations of theologians. This post isn’t the mad screed of an aimless dissenter; it is the forceful indictment of a true reactionary whose incisiveness is trebled by his boldness.
Schola Sancta Caecilia Stocking Stuffer
A year and a half ago, New Liturgical Movement did a small feature on the Schola Sancta Caecilia, a choir of young women who regularly sing at the Tridentine Mass at Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Their first recording, Stella Splendens, received a great deal of praise. I am confident their new album, In Bethlehem, will receive even more.
From the looks of it, the CD has not had its full launch through the usual channels, but I thought I should make all of you aware of it now so you can let the possibility of purchasing it percolate in your brains for a bit. All of the proceeds from the album will go to support Sacred Heart’s outstanding music program.
I will post more details on the disc when they become available. In the meantime, if you don’t yet own Stella Splendens, you can purchase and/or download it here. The album is also available on iTunes.
Ropke on Income Distribution
As I was sorting through some old boxes of books I came across my copy of Wilhelm Ropke’s Economics of the Free Society. In flipping through the pages I was surprised to discover a great deal of underlining and some marginal notes that I must have made several years ago when I was still enraptured by libertarianism lite. This paragraph, which I had bracketed, jumped out at me (pg. 210):
As a last resort, there is available the extra-economic correction of the distribution of income. This consists in the state awaiting the results of the economic distribution of income as they are crystallized in the market processes, and then correcting these results by taxing the rich and spending for the poor. As a matter of fact, a considerable portion of the public finances is devoted to such rectification, supplemented by the efforts of private welfare groups. Obviously, there are certain limits here which may not be overstepped if paralyzing effects on the process of production are to be avoided. It is, of course, clear that the state can go much further in employing such corrective measures the smaller are its expenditures for other purposes.
More on Usury
To follow-up on the link I posted to Professor Brian McCall’s 2013 talk on usury, let me direct your eyes to Professor Stephen Bainbridge’s recent web-log post, “Catholic Social Thought and the Law: Usury.” Though not as comprehensive as one might hope (it’s only a blog post), Bainbridge’s comments, along with those of his students, shed some needful light on the tensions between the modern financial system and Catholic Social Thought (CST). Bainbridge does not engage with McCall’s work at all, and his assessment of the Church’s teaching on usury is limited to two encyclicals — one by Benedict XIV and one by Benedict XVI.
Regardless, Professor Bainbridge reveals that he has at least one very sharp student. Consider the following:
Given that reality, as one of my students asked, “What can be gained by continuing to talk about usury and how it should influence individual moral decisions, even when it will only have a marginal influence on the broader society?” His answer was that “it may lead individuals as Christians to approach their business affairs with more a grain of salt, shattering what is all too often a complacency with which Christians engage in the affairs of the world and the assumptions the demands of justice do not conflict with our behaviors as workers, business people, and consumers in a capitalist economy.” He also noted that “A return to a traditional understanding on usury might provide an impetus to restore Catholic charitable civic institutions, which can provide a more Christian alternative to the corrupt institutions of a secular society.” Indeed.
I think there is a larger question to ask here as well, which is, “Does CST condemn our contemporary financial system?” And if CST does condemn it, what should be put in its place? Keep in mind that reforming the present system does not mean the end of investment. The Church has never condemned productive loans where repayment is linked to the use of the loaned capital.
International Consensus
Rorate Caeli has posted an excerpt of a recent interview with Pope Francis where he, inter alia, condemns not just terrorism, but “State terrorism,” which apparently occurs when “each State on its own feels it has the right to massacre terrorists[.]” Even so, the Pope concedes that “[t]errorists must be fought,” albeit only with “international consensus.”