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...

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...

The Liturgical Nature of Distributism

When discussing distributism with a friend of mine, it led to a rather interesting discussion concerning liturgy. He was curious as to whether I saw a connection between liturgy and political science. The answer, at least for me, was quite simple. Yes! Liturgy is at the heart of it all, and for a number of reasons. 

As a safeguard of tradition, liturgy preserves those elements of life deemed to be of permanent value. These elements, while increasing in number over time, serve to expand our understanding of both the scope and breadth of its majesty and wisdom. It forms within the minds of men the concept of mystery, of awe, and of wonder. Liturgy teaches the faithful the value of nature, of the arts, and of the senses. Furthermore, it develops within us a sense of place and of purpose. There is hierarchy, their is the individualism of private meditations, and there is the communal dynamic of postures, common prayers, and the Eucharist. Most importantly, it is Christocentric. It places the Trinitarian God and his Church at the center of our individual, family, and social lives. 

This list, while far from exhaustive, is all well and good, but it hasn't explained why you contend that liturgy is at the heart of distributism. 

Distributism not only embraces each of these characteristics connected with liturgy, it is formed by them. It is formed by those things, both old and new, which are of permanent value. As Penty would say:

"Distributists work for a return to the past. But they do not wish to revive every in the past, for bad things as well as good things existed in the past.; nor yet to they reject everything that is new; they see to revive the things which are eternal in the past, the things of permanent value."

This philosophy, unlike the myriad of others, embraces the mysteries of life, the awe of the liturgical nature of days and seasons, as well as the wonder that accompanies the realization that he has placed man here for the purpose of dominion and reconciling all things in King Christ. Distributism embraces nature and its limitations as both inevitable and good. It wishes to preserve the beauty of the arts and crafts, imploring men and women to utilize their gifts and talents for the common good of both those present and those yet to come. The senses are relished amongst distributists, emphasizing on traditional architecture, dance, and song. Distributism places society in an organic context, finding that golden mean between atomism and collectivism. Each person has a gift and talent, and they were strategically placed by God in various communities to better both themselves and their neighbor. It gives men a sense of social placement, to honor both those under them and over them, and to treat their neighbors with charity, striving to ensure that their families and communities have a political economy that benefits both the individual and the common good. Lastly, distributism places King Christ and his Church at the center of social life. This is something that used to be reflected in the parish system and the construction of houses and businesses around the local church. While this may be diminished, or to have disappeared from our visual landscape, it remains vibrant in the hearts and minds of the distributist.

Repeating what I said in the beginning, liturgy is at the heart of distributism. Its incarnationalism results in a view of life that sees mankind as it really is and the destiny of mankind how it ought to be. This is not Utopian. This is accepting mystery, embracing limitations, making use of our God-given gifts and talents, and striving to bring all things under the dominion of King Christ. 

This is liturgical. This is distributism. And while helping Catholics and liturgical Protestants to see this correlation between our worship and our views of the political economy wouldn't fully resolve the difficulties that accompany attempting to persuade one of the wisdom, prudence, and justice of distributism, it would certainly set the ball in motion towards a place where people may be willing to abandon their inconsistencies for a more harmonious understanding of who we are, what we are destined to do, and the best means by which social reconstruction under King Christ may be accomplished.

Read more...

Should Distributism Be Given a New Name?

A rose is a rose by any other name... if only social theories were the same.

The topic of distributism comes up frequently in my day-to-day life. The word's use in my daily conversations would land it a place it somewhere between the words "and" and "the." While I may wish to chalk it up as the result of people clamoring over my views on the political economy, I fear that it has more to do with my being a blabbermouth, unable to stop talking about those things I hold near and dear.

This pleasant addiction to discussing distributism with friends and strangers alike has been accompanied with a great deal of inquiry and feedback. I often have people accuse me of being "a socialist" or advocating "Robin Hood economics." This is all too typical, particularly from those who have never heard of, or who have never read material pertaining to, distributism. It wouldn't be a fool's wager to bet the farm that many of you have been accused of much the same.

The question, though, is why people would accuse us of such things. In my humble estimation, it has more to do with the word distributism than with the actual substance of the economic system itself. People hear the word distributism and they immediately connect it with the redistribution of wealth, particularly at a federal level.

While these people certainly miss the mark, there is little room for doubt as to why they would harbor such an assumption. Words, like slogans, are tricky. This is especially true of political and economic schools of thought. Take just two examples: Conservatism and libertarianism. People don't have to be political wonks or economic gurus to have a general impression of what these words mean. Conservatives want to conserve something, being (at least historically) traditionalist in nature. Libertarians, though far less familiar to the citizenry, would deal with liberty or freedom. Both of these words have positive associations, dealing with things people generally like to identify with. The designations Progressive or Constitutionalist is much the same.

So what of distributism? Well, for better or worse, as was stated earlier, people associate the word with redistribution of wealth. While putting an economic system in place, as well as a political structure in order, where the wealth of the nation would be redistributed away from Big Business to local businesses would be a good thing, this is not the common perception of what we are hoping to achieve. Rather, they work under the definitions and intellectual framework provided for them by pundits and talking-heads hailing from both the Left and the Right. Both sides generally refer to the concept as the federal government taking money from the little guy in order to pay for an array of social programs and line the pockets of special interests. 

All of this has led me to a few conclusions. On the one hand, distributists can retain the name, only then to spend large amounts of time clarifying themselves and attempting to tear down walls of defense and skepticism surrounding those who otherwise be open to our ideas. Or we could consider formulating a new designation that would bypass negative connotations, saving us plenty of time and making our mission all that much easier.

On a personal note, this idea is not at all foreign to me. Back in 2002 I became frustrated with designations I would use when describing my personal political and economic beliefs. At the time I was still a Protestant, and I held to a hybrid of positions commonly found within Christian Reconstructionism (Theonomy) and paleoconservatism. To say that these didn't roll off the tongue with the greatest of ease would be an understatement. Christian Reconstruction was just far too long. Theonomy placed me (wrongfully so) alongside the ecclesiocrat ayatollahs. And paleoconservatism had a number of difficulties. People typically identified my conservatism with the likes of Bush, Limbaugh, and Hannity. Furthermore, for those who had an inkling of an idea as to what it was, they associated me with racialism so often found amongst its adherents. In short, these designations would not do.

So in hope of distinguishing myself from these groups, I began using the term paleocrat. A simple combination of words. Paleo meaning old or ancient. Kratos meaning rule or law. So there it was. I was an adherent to "the old rule" or "the ancient law." 

The problem, though, was that I was left having to explain not only what the word meant, but also the substance of that philosophy. For this reason, I chose to use the designation as little more than an internet identification. It was an experiment that fell short, but an experiment nonetheless.

Whether distributists choose to retain the name or look towards formulating a new one that steers clear of negative association while also providing people with a positive and familiar connotation is yet to be seen. It appears that there are those within the movement who are willing to discuss such an idea, and their motivations may be similar to those I've discussed here. My hope, at least for now, is to have stirred the imaginations within minds much brighter than mine, so as to begin a discussion that may be long overdue.

Read more...