Yes to a Plan, No to this One

While I have never voted Democrat, have no Democratic sympathies or interest in joining their ranks, more and more I’ve become convinced the complaints about government interference on the part of the right are not over abortion, Obama, or an Orwellian future but about the preservation of a “pristine” conservatism and the thinning of wallets. This time Marx isn’t waging class warfare; the very capitalists are declaring it. And time and again conservatives raise the argument that public insurance violates Catholic Social Teaching.

My objections to the current Bill that passed the Congress and was signed into law by President Obama are based on sincere objections about the mechanics of the law. In particular I believe this plan will only benefit the already fat insurance companies, Big Pharma, fail in its goal to help the poor, and stifle any serious attempt to stop contraception, abortion, and other pro-life objectives. However, I should be clear that I do not oppose a plan rather I oppose this plan. Yet, some of my fellow distributists and Catholics oppose not only this plan but any plan at all.

The recent accusations leveled against the USCCB are deplorable. Bishops who unambiguously defend the unborn are labeled “socialists” or “traitors” by the conservative political establishment, which currently subsists in Catholic circles, for their support in favor of a public option of health insurance. They are attacked for representing the interests of the poor and for (allegedly) defying the social doctrine of the Church.

Does public insurance violate Catholic Social Doctrine? Perhaps John Paul II can clear it up for us. In Centesimus Annus he writes,

“When there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the defenseless and the poor have a claim to special consideration. The richer class has many ways of shielding itself, and stands less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back on, and must chiefly depend on the assistance of the State. It is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong to the latter class, should be specially cared for and protected by the Government." (§33. Emphasis Mine)

Government cannot solve all our problems. If the United States were to become the “Social Assistance State” criticized by Pope John Paul II in the same encyclical we should rightly stand against it. But it hasn’t. On the contrary this nation’s reputable past as a “Corporate Assistance State” climaxed with the recent financial bailout. So if, according to John Paul, the poor “depend on the assistance of the State”, what type of aid should they look forward to receiving?

According to the good Pope John XXIII:

“Systems of social insurance and social security can make a most effective contribution to the overall distribution of national income in accordance with the principles of justice and equity. They can therefore be instrumental in reducing imbalances between the different classes of citizens.” – (Mater et Magistra §136. Emphasis mine.)

Was the good Pope John a socialist? Was His Holiness betraying the Catholic faith?

The famed anti-Communist and Jesuit sociologist Fr. John F. Cronin provides the answer.

“In effect, this statement is an approval of the redistribution of wealth through social welfare programs. It considers acceptable the aim of seeking to narrow extremes in standards of living in a country. Conservatives generally do not favor governmental measures of such sweeping scope. They prefer to emphasize programs for economic growth and increased efficiency as the preferable methods for raising the living standards of a nation.” (Christianity and Social Progress: A Commentary on Mater et Magistra)

It is the conservatives who deplore those “controversial” aspects consistent with the traditional social doctrine of the Church and it is the progressives who will mistakenly applaud these comments as some sort of vindication for socialism.

If, as is supposed, a public program for health insurance infringes on CSD the claim is inconsistent with the impact the social encyclicals generated in nations which, in addition to public insurance, offer socialized medicine where the majority faithful is Catholic. Even in Malta, Apostolic See and perhaps one of the last bastions of Christendom, socialized medicine lives harmoniously alongside private medicine. Is it a coincidence that, while critiquing largesse government, none of the bishops of these nations have ever objected to socialized medicine, which according to conservatives conflicts with the doctrine of the Church?

Government funding for programs such as social insurance should be garnished primarily from the private sector. Fr. Joseph Husslein, in his book Work, Wealth and Wages reiterates how, for the employer, insurance should be seen as the cost of doing business:

“Social insurance against sickness, invalidity, unemployment and old age is therefore to be favored and legally promoted…[I]f social insurance is needed it should, as far as possible, be levied on the industry.”

Vocal opponents of social insurance often claim that social justice is synonymous with “Socialism”. More often than not, a finger is pointed in the direction of prevailing unorthodox expressions of social justice, exemplified by groups which have more in common with Karl Marx than with Leo XIII. The debate over the so-called incompatibility between religious orthodoxy and social justice has recently resurfaced on a segment of the Fox Network show Glenn Beck. And yet, in Msgr. John A. Ryan’s 1921 book, A Catechism of the Social Question he answers this very issue.

Q. 7. Is every legislative proposal called "Socialistic" condemned by the Church?

A. “To call a proposal Socialistic does not make it Socialism. Socialism is common ownership and management of substantially all the means of production. For the government to own a few industries and manage them is not Socialism; for the men in an industry to own it and manage it cooperatively under one form or another is not Socialism; for the government to own a few industries and the men in the industry either alone or with the assistance of the government to manage those industries is not Socialism. Workmen's compensation acts and social insurance laws are not Socialism.”

Should we remain unconvinced that a public option is in accord with CSD, shouldn’t we study whether remnant rulers of a declining Christendom introduced similar legislation in their respective countries? According to the pro-capitalist and conservative journal Libertad Digital, “…[in Spain] with the established Law of 1963 passed by Francisco Franco, we can truly speak of an authentic Social Security as we know it today.” It was perceived that through social benefits, “the workers participate in the investment of the nation…which belongs to them not just for the sake of solidarity, but justice”. In Austria, under Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss, “Only five days after the ceremony celebrating the official founding of the chamber, Dollfuss put forward the draft of a bill to create a national system of obligatory social insurance for all Austrians working in agriculture: peasants, their wives and children, as well as their employees.”

Public insurance, in principle, either violates Catholic Social Doctrine or it doesn’t. Should a public option of health insurance be consistent with our faith in most countries and a breach of it in ours, the inconsistency in the Church’s doctrine can only be labeled as schizophrenic. Should institutionalized public insurance defy Catholic Social Doctrine all around, a serious dilemma is present of immense magnitude.

(Nota bene: this is not non sequitur. An implementation of public insurance is based on prudential judgment. I am not insisting all nations must provide their citizens public insurance. Neither do I claim one must vote in favor of social insurance when it violates “non-negotiables”. I am simply submitting to the evidence that social insurance - in principle - does not per se violate CSD. On the other hand, some Catholics are claiming that public insurance does violate the principles of the social encyclicals.)

Public insurance is not a violation of Catholic Social Doctrine. It isn’t socialism. It isn’t government overstepping its bounds and interfering where it shouldn’t. Given this, is it possible public insurance may not be a Catholic predicament after all but rather a conservative one? Is it possible that public insurance is a challenge to American “rugged individualism”?

Read more...

Dr. Thomas Woods Jr. in the Dock

While engaged in a discussion over Catholic Social Doctrine with a certain Protestant author, I was directed to the works of a certain Catholic libertarian by the name of Thomas Woods, Jr. The issue under contention was whether or classical liberalism is compatible with the declarations of the Church. It was the position of my acquaintance that Dr. Woods had demonstrated with great clarity that classical liberalism was in fact compatible with Catholicism. Apparently, Woods even went so far as to publish a book where he argued this at great length.

Upon investigating the daring doctor I found a handful of oddities. On the one hand, Woods is the associate editor for Latin Mass Magazine. Well, bravo! On the other hand, he is a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. Now, Catholics advocating classical liberalism has become all too common, but a Traditional Catholic? That is an oddity ranking somewhere between a three-legged ballerina and a quadriplegic valet driver.

While rummaging through Woods' online material, I stumbled upon a document entitled Catholic Social Theory and Economic Law: An Unresolved Tension. Jackpot! If there was anything written by Woods that would clear up the matter, this appeared to be it. 

Much to my dismay, I didn’t get through the first paragraph before realizing that I was in for a rather uncomfortable ride. The preface began by assuring the reader that he has the most profound respect for the popes of the 19^th and 20^th centuries. Now, for those who are unfamiliar with this tactic, authors resort to these “assurances” when they are about to embark upon a crusade against those they claim to so profoundly respect. This trend turned out to hold no less true here than elsewhere.

From the get-go he displays nothing but hostility towards the declarations made by the popes he claims to profoundly respect. 

Woods accuses the popes of advocating “fateful” ideas and goes so far as to arrogantly insist that “if the Church is going to presume to establish moral principles on the basis of the consequences that follow from this assumption, then some demonstration of its truth must be attempted.” To make matters worse – if this is at all possible – he sides time and again with a cherry-picked number of scholastics, all of whom the Editors at IHS Press have insist are taken out horribly of context. 

In short, Woods makes abundantly clear to the readers that he prefers the company and wisdom of atheist/agnostic economists over against the declarations of the Magisterium in matters pertaining to all things economic.

If I may be so frank, the tone of the entire piece echoed the kind of anti-Catholic drivel that one may expect to hear from frightful figures such as Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises. It most certainly lacked the kind of prudence that would be expected in what was peddled as a humble criticism from a faithful son of Mother Church. The reason being, of course, that Woods had no intention of reconciling CSD with classical liberalism. Quite the contrary! He was hoping that his denunciations of the popes, the encyclicals, and many of her faithful sons would in some way justify his adherence to a philosophy that is inherently at odds with the teaching of the Church.

My primary concern, though, is with a number of assertions he made much later in the paper. In fact, they came just prior to his conclusion. The header of this particular section read: The Magisterium Has No Competence Here. Just reading it gave me the impression that this mad has no fear trampling where archangels fear to tip-toe. Here is what he wrote:

“... by any definition, it lay well beyond the competence of the Magisterium to presume to describe the workings of economic relationships.” He goes on to say that while one “hesitates to describe Catholic social teaching as an abuse of papal and ecclesial power,” it “seems dubious” that popes would“attempt to impose, as moral doctrine binding on the entire Catholic world, principles that derive” from their“intrinsically fallible reasoning within a secular discipline like economics.” To add insult to injury, he thunders, “at the very least, it appears to constitute an indefensible extension of the prerogatives of the Church’s legitimate teaching office into areas which it possesses no inherent competence or divine protection from error.”

But do his claims hold true? One need look no further than the encycicals or popes he referenced throughout the paper in order to conclude with full certainty that Woods assertions are worse then wrong, they were dead on arrival. 

Woods references four encyclicals written by four different popes: Rerum Novarum, Leo XIII; Quadragesimo Anno, Pius XI; Pacem In Terris, John XXIII; and Laborem Exercens, John Paul II. The question, then, is what authority these documents, and the popes who wrote them, claimed to possess in the field under consideration.

Rerum Novarum, the Magna Carta of CSD, is not so outspoken in regards to the authority of the Church in matters of economic affairs as are later encyclicals, but it is certainly not left without a witness. In section 16 we read: “We approach the subject [economic and social theory] with confidence, and in the exercise of the rights which manifestly appertain to Us.” While Pope Leo XIII wouldn’t presume a monopoly on the putting together of a comprehensive program applicable to any and all people in any and all places, he would certainly declare that the Church is at the forefront among various authorities concerned with the putting together remedies for various economic ills and shortcomings.

Pope Pius XI was far more outspoken. In Quadragesimo Anno he wrote that Rerum Novarum was written in the “virtue of the Divine Teaching office entrusted to him [Leo XIII].” The pontiff goes on to write in section 11 that “the Pope clearly exercised his right” and that he declared “confidently and as one having authority” those things that “the Church, heads of States and the people themselves directly concerned ought to do.” He reiterates this in section 31 when saying that “the rules” which Leo XIII issues were “in virtue of his [papal] authority.”

It is in sections 39 and 41 of the same encyclical, though, that Woods will find himself in a great deal of trouble. A passing glance of these two sections ought to have caused him an extraordinary level of discomfort.

Section 39 declares that “those who would seem to hold in little esteem this Papal Encyclical [Rerum Novarum] and its commemoration either blaspheme what they know not, or understand nothing of what they are only superficially acquainted with, or if they do understand convict themselves formally of injustice and ingratitude.”

In like manner, section 41 says that “principle which Leo XIII so clearly established must be laid down at the outset here, namely, that there resides in Us the right and duty to pronounce with supreme authority upon social and economic matters.” The pope continues by saying that this would “bring under the subject of Our supreme jurisdiction not only social order but economic activities themselves.”

Conveniently, Woods was not inclined to deal with, much less reference, passages of this nature in his diatribe.

Pacem In Terris, written by Blessed Pope John XXIII, followed on the heels of another encyclical by the same pontiff entitled Mater et Magistra. The claims of authority and jurisdiction in Mater Et Magistra were foundational for any and all declarations that would follow, whether in that encyclical or in any other.

John XXIII says in section 16 of Mater et Magistra that “We approach the subject [social and economic theory] with confidence, and in the exercise of the rights which manifestly appertain to Us.” The pope goes on to say in section 218 that“the permanent validity of the Catholic Church’s social teaching admits of no doubt.” From here he spends the larger portion of the end declaring directives that he considers to be binding on all, especially the faithful children of the Church. He insists that CSD “is an integral part of the Christian conception of life” (222); that it should be taught in all seminaries, schools, religious instruction programs, and spread through all mass media (223); that beloved sons should put it into practice and strive to have others understand it (224); that they should be “convinced that the best way of demonstrating the truth and efficacy of this teaching is to show that it can provide the solution to present-day difficulties” (225); and that these principles must be put into effect (240).

Here, too, we see strong warnings for those, like Dr. Woods, who would fail to embrace papal instruction on social and economic matters. Section 241 requires that the faithful Catholic's "attitude must be one of loyal trust and filial obedience to ecclesial authority.” For the pope was concerned that “if in the transactions of their temporal affairs they take no account of those social principles which the Church teaches… then they fail in their obligations… [and] may even go so far as to bring discredit on the Church’s teaching, lending substance to the opinion that, in spite of its intrinsic value, it is in fact powerless to direct men’s lives.” 

These words, possibly above all others, force men like Woods to their knees in fear and trembling. Instead, as with similar warnings in other encyclicals of this nature, Woods allowed them to hit the cutting-room floor.

As for the final encyclical referenced by Woods, it had little to say of its own authority. Pope John Paul II, in Laborem Exercens, had no reason to reiterate what had been said so many times over concerning the authority of the Magisterium in regards to social and economic matters. Still, in article III section 14, the pope states that “the many proposals put forward by experts in Catholic social teaching and by the highest Magisterium of the Church” are of “special significance.” While "special significance" may not bear the same kind of gavel pounding found in Mater et Magistra, I see nowhere within the enclyclical that the nature of things had in any way changed from the time of Blessed John XXIII and the writing of Labor Exercens.

It should be obvious, then, that Woods is in grave error concerning the issue of the Magisterium’s jurisdiction over both social and economic concerns. Consequently, he has chosen to side with a mongrel horde of atheists, agnostics, and a cherry-picked remnant of scholastics (taken out of context) over against the Bishops of Rome and the overwhelming majority of the Church’s faithful sons who worked long and hard towards the reconstructing of a Catholic social order. He gives aid and comfort to those enemies of the faith by boldly criticizing the Church and calling into question the very right to jurisdiction the pontiffs claimed for themselves and their decrees. Furthermore, he advocates those very social and economic dogmas that the sovereign pontiffs condemn. But, worst of all, his actions place him in the frightening position of an obstinate son as described, particularly, in Quadragesimo Anno and Mater Et Magistra.

It is my hope that Woods would reconsider his position, and that he would do so with a sense of great urgency. With this being done, I pray that he would put as much effort into educating others about the majesty and wisdom of CSD as he has into deconstructing it in hope of salvaging his commitment to theories the Church has steadfastly denounced.

Read more...