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...

Fall of the Republic

There is an interesting video produced by Alex Jones called "Fall of the Republic", which in my view merits watching, and is available for free here.

Though I don't agree with everything in the video, and think certain things are overly sensationalist, the main points of the video are sound.

One of the amusing things is in the beginning is that one of the contributors attributes to America the concept of the separation of powers, limited government and the establishment of government in such a way that it serves a common good. This idea actually comes from St. Robert Bellarmine, whose political treatises never left Thomas Jefferson's desk.

Nevertheless, they trace the work of globalism and the current globalist banking industry in creating the crises that grips us presently. The contributors to this documentary compare it to oligarchy, and demonstrate how the international elite function by that and force various policies to erode the rights of the general population.

The video also exposes the establishment of a world governing body of scientists who enforce the state doctrine of population control, family planning, social engineering and climate change.

The significance of global warming doctrine is that by identifying carbon dioxide as the evil which is "destroying the planet", the world governing body will have the right to tax you and me for the right to breathe. This is essential to breaking down sovereignty and self government, which are so necessary to defending a society from control by an external force.

It also shows us many examples of how a police state is on the verge of being created, and (in my opinion) strongly makes the case for a hidden hand controlling Obama by demonstrating the numerous flip flops from his campaign promises of transparency and change and the reality of continuation of Bush policy, and has nothing at all to do with change.

The movie also has the benefit of not being partisan with respect to right and left, taking aim at both Obama and Bush and demonstrating continuity of Obama and Bush's administrations. In reality of course (as it seems to me), there is total continuity of government since 1988.

The film, bringing us several contributors in the form of economists, climate scientists, researchers and bloggers, really hits the nail on the head of the present crisis. It is also aided by numerous video clips of the elites themselves telling us from their own mouths that accountability, sovereignty and freedom do not matter.

Where the movie fails in my view, is in the concluding half hour they describe the work of the global financial elite as trying to destroy capitalism. What they fail to note is that it is the logical and necessary conclusion of capitalism. The instabilities of capitalism are only solvable, those who have can only make certain they continue to have if they turn modern economies into a slave state. The world the film attempts to show us was predicted by Hilaire Belloc nearly 100 years ago in his work "The Servile State", which he makes the case that capitalism must ultimately end in the restoration of slavery.

Another shortcoming (in my view) of the film is that they do not spend enough time explaining the mechanisms of banking. They spend some time talking about derivatives, and the breakdown of regulation with respect to them, but they do not spend enough time talking about banking either in its proper role or its abuse which is at the heart of today's problems.

The proper function of a bank is to put capital into the community. If x number of people have invested in a bank, and they find (as has always been the case) that people need only 10% of their money at a time, they make an investment on some kind of productive enterprise. This gains the bank a profit, and it was on a productive loan for something say such as mining or manufacturing. The fee they charge for the use of their money is just, it is a percentage of the profit earned with their productive loan. In that sense their money was capital, without which the productive venture could not have worked, and thus the bank has infused capital into the community.

Banking today by contrast takes capital out of the community, and then demands more from the government when they run out of money.

Another of the film's flaws is they act as if America is now the last country standing in the way of the global elite. There are many other countries with many members of their populace just as alarmed as we are, albeit they might be a little less organized and noted than resistance in this country.

Nevertheless, in spite of these and other shortcomings or its Amero-centric outlook, "Fall of the Republic" is an important movie with an important message, our allegiance ought not be to democrats and republicans, neither to 3rd parties, but to a unifying principle of society guaranteeing our freedom and sovereignty, which as Americans is the constitution and the bill of rights. Even as a monarchist I can take that over the new order that is coming.

Read more...

Will the Real Subsdiarity Please Stand Up?

*italics are mine and only used for emphasis*

One difficulty facing those who take a borderline libertarian view of subsidiarity is that doing so fails to take into into account what encyclicals have said concerning the state, its proper role and functions, and particularly its rightful involvement in the market. This, as I have contended elsewhere, results in allowing the distributist tail to wag the CST dog.

It is my hope, then, to herein demonstrate what I believe to be a more accurate understanding of subsidiarity and how it should function alongside the powers and responsibilities belonging to various spheres of authority within the political economy, be it the individual, the family, the workforce, the church, or even local, regional, state, national, or international civil authorities.

Let me demonstrate what I mean.

We would do well to first consider the role of what the Magisterium has said concerning the State. For sake of time and space, as well as the fact that this particular encyclical is an excellent source for material pertaining to this matter, I will focus most all of my attention on the papal letter Mater et Magistra. I will also add a few tid-bits from the CCC and its Compendium, both of which substantiate and further clarify those issues dealt with by the popes in their universal letters.

Pope John XXIII was no foe of the state. As with Pope Leo XIII and all those pontiffs before and after him, he saw the state as being a authority deriving its power from God. He believed its existence to be most natural in the order of men. And as we will see, he believed the role and function of the state to be much more broad than many of the libertarian-leaning distributists.

Read Mater et Magistra, and search out those portions I will reference here. See what the pontiff says of the State. Consider whether or not this view of the state is in harmony with the position advocated by those whose definition of subsidiarity would make the State an almost non-existent entity.

Take for example #20-21. Here we are told that the State “whole raison d’etre” is the realization of the common good in the temporal order. Echoing the Leonine theme of the Church’s insistance that the State take special, and even preferential treatment of the poor and working class, he praises “labor laws” regarding environmental conditions of laborers, child labor laws, and anything harmful to their material and spiritual interests.

Number 44 requires the state to intervene on occasions where individuals cannot work out matters concerning the division and distribution of work.

Number 60 makes explicit the responsibility of the civil government in areas of healthcare, education, career opportunities, and even the rehabilitation of those who are physically and mentally handicapped.

We find in 74 the civil authorities responsibility to “secure without interruption” the material conditions in which the citizens of the nation may fully develop. Number 79 goes further, indicating that the state is to be vigilant over and within the economy, assuring that work will be maximized amongst the citizenry, that privileged classes would not be permitted to rise up, that there would be an equilibrium amongst wages and the price of goods, that both goods and services would be accessible to the greatest number, and that the three branches of the economy (i.e. agriculture, industry, and service) would be regulated in such a manner as to ensure that they will grow together rather than for any of them to be absorbed with the dominance of any other. To top it off, the civil government was to have the authority necessary to direct the current contract system that divides capitalists from wage-earners to one resembling a partnership.

We could also deal with #s 104 (regulating Big Business so as to operate in a manner promoting the common good over against special interests), 115 (putting in place an economic system wherein the distribution of wealth, land, houses, tools and equipment used by various industries, and shares in medium and large business concerns would all be maximized), 116 (granting to the state various activities that “carry with them power too great” to be left to lower orders), 88 and 127 (dealing with state involvement in ventures such as roads, transportation, communication, drinking water, housing, healthcare and service providers, technical and professional education, religious and recreational facilities, and subsidies for family farms), 150-151 (demanding vigilant care as to the further elimination of economic and social inequalities and imbalances, the supply of labor, drif of population, wages, taxes, credit, investment, and the promotion of useful employment, enterprising initiative, and hte exploitation of local resources), and 168 (the redistribution of riches amongst all within the community and working towards ensuring that agriculture, service, and industry progress evenly and simultaneously). The list goes on an on.

For anyone to walk away from even this one encyclical with the idea that it proposes the kind of “lowest rung possible” subsidiarity regarding virtually every economic activity under the sun would be a sure indicator that they either didn’t really read the encyclical or they have a terrible case of selective memory.

But what of those places that deal with subsidiarity? We have discussed at some length the role and proper functions of the state, but what then are we to make of this principle of subsidiarity? Well, let’s go back to Mater et Magistra for a moment.

Number 53 within Mater et Magistra sounds much like the version of subsidiarity commonly promoted by those harboring a general distrust (or disdain) for civil government. But it would be injurious to tear it from its surrounding context. For number 53 is surrounded by affirmations that make absurd the notion that the pope(s) have promoted this “lowest rung possible in any and all situations” subsidiarity. Looking at #52, we see Pope John XXIII explicitly stating that “the civil power must also have a hand in the economy.” And this intervention is not merely an afterthought, or functioning as a clean-up watchman waiting for an otherwise private market to make a mistake. No, it is to “promote production” in a way that is “calculated” and has as its aim “social progress and the well-being of all citizens.” Remember, this is what immediately precedes the popes take on subsidiarity.

Following #53 we see the pope go right back into promoting state intervention and direction of the economy. In #54 he affirms the state’s obligation to minimize imbalances amongst various sectors within the economy, to implement policies that do not pit one people, region, or nation against another, and to erect safeguards against mass unemployment and fluctuations within the economy. Again, this follows on the heels of the section dealing with subsidiarity.

The pope further deals with subsidiarity in #117, but he presupposes what had already been established by other popes regarding the various spheres of authority within the political economy as well as the rights and responsibilities belonging to each. The civil government (as with the individual, family, the marketplace, and the church) had been assigned various functions. These were always to be kept in view when talking of subsidiarity, as it would be just as wrong for a lower sphere to take upon itself what rightfully belongs to a higher sphere as it would for the higher sphere to deprive or absorb those responsibilities properly acknowledged as belonging to a lower sphere. While libertarians may tend to see only a higher sphere absorbing a lower sphere as a form of aggression, the traditionalist and encyclical enthusiast would do well to see it as a two-way street.

While one could possibly construct a way that a specific function assigned to a particular sphere may be done by another sphere, be it replacing the function of the individual or family with the state or vice versa, this would not constitute subsidiarity. Rather, it would be for one sphere to break ranks, absorbing what does not belong to it. In short, even subsidiarity works in a manner that accepts the rightful authority and functions of other spheres within the political economy, be they higher or lower, belonging to the state or the individual.

Let us just for a moment take a peak at the encyclical known as Quadragesimo Anno. It is here where we find the birthplace of subsidiarity in Catholic Social Teaching. Yet even here we see civil and church authorities granting special care for the poor and weak in society (#25), the praise of labor laws (#28), the redistribution of wealth for the common good (#57), requiring the state to work towards establishing an “ownership society” (#82-83), the condemnation of laissez faire (#88 and #109), and even demanding that the state take hold of the reigns of the “free market” in order to direct it towards the common good (#110).

None of this sounds unfamiliar to those holding a position concerning subsidiarity and the state detailed ever so consistently in the papal letters. But it would sound awfully strange to those granting to subsidiarity a function and reach it was never meant to have, nor ever recognized by our most highly esteemed Roman Pontiffs as ever having in the first place.

Before bringing this entry to an end, I believe it would do us well to look at what the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) and Compendium have to say regarding the definition of subsidiarity. I believe that these two sources, and the definition they provide the Catholic, vindicate the premise of this entry, as well as the arguments used to substantiate it.

CCC 1883: Subsidiarity: according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view of a the common good.”

Compendium: 403: Subsidiarity: “The principle of subsidiarity states that a community of higher order should not assume the task belonging to a community of a lower order and deprive it of its authority. It should rather support it in case of need.”

Notice that both the CCC and Compendium make it very clear that subsidiarity does not mean that if one were to concoct a means by which a lower order could perform a task as good (or even better) than the order to which the function belongs, then it should absorb that function. Not at all!

In conclusion, each order, each sphere within society, is given various tasks it must or ought to perform. Sometimes these are clear-cut. Sometimes they overlap. Sometimes we are left with a great deal of gray. But subsidiarity must not be understood as some libertarian wishbone. Instead, it is restricted to the overlapping areas and those gray regions. Unfortunately for the libertarian-leaning distributist, this turns out being more of a bust than a boom, as so many of their policy proposals stand or fall on an accurate understaning of subsidiarity.

Read more...