"The socialists wrongly assume the right of property to be of mere human invention . . . and, preaching up the community of goods, declare that ... all may with impunity seize upon the possessions and usurp the rights of the wealthy. More wise and profitably, the Church recognizes the existence of inequality amongst men."
—Leo XIII, Dec. 28, 1878
From Pew SitterDr. Jeffrey Mirus, founder of the excellent CatholicCulture.org, was surprised by the “bitterness” he found from readers responding to the Bishops’ support of extended unemployment benefits last week. He presses the need for some “cautions” and “perspective” particularly when we begin to denounce the Bishops as socialists. He insists that we be ‘very careful in using this term” and not resort to “inaccurate name-calling.” Why are the bishops not socialists? According to Mirus it is because they never have advocated the state ownership of private means of production.
This incomplete defense is followed by a lengthy and abstract discussion on balancing solidarity and subsidiarity, building “intermediary” institutions, correcting the tax structure, pursuing the “twin goals of stimulating the production or wealth and preventing the marginalization of those who fall behind;” and patient acceptance with the way things are until something better can be created. “Conservative Catholics need to recognize that it is not wrong in Catholic social theory to engage government in fostering the economic common good. ” Here we must wonder where a conservative may disagree. Would they be against the ‘economic common good,” or just against re-distributionist confiscation and its uniformly negative results?
This familiar lullaby is epidemic in faithful Catholic intellectual circles. It grows mainly out of pride and a misunderstanding of the social justice writing of Leo XIII, Chesterton, and the Distributists. Such destructive thinking needs to be addressed as it runs contrary to natural law and the laws of God. Furthermore the Bishops, as they manifest culturally and politically via the USCCB, are not only socialists, but function regularly as statist agents. They do not shout for socialism; they just enact it and applaud its ongoing construction. They should be assessed not by what they advocate, but by what they achieve and destroy.
Mirus predictably goes on to say that there is no place for the wrong kind of rhetoric in this “legitimate debate” and that we should approach the discussion as “Catholics,” and not as conservatives or liberals. This tired approach, which draws a moral equivalency between capitalism and socialism, only exists to drag Catholics and others leftward toward oppression and despair. The article’s thesis on growing the correct types of “intermediary” institutions to replace federal programs first; smacks of Friedrick Hayek’s utopian “planners” People do not need new kinds of well-conceived institutions in America. They need freedom and the Church needs faith.
Dr. Mirus urges that Catholics respect the correct role of the state to care for the poor and the needy, and that conservative Catholics be charitable. He tells us that “It is simply not possible to be a Catholic while embracing a morally-deficient conservatism.”
This somewhat veiled condemnation of right and left alike, handed down by Catholic thinkers over the last two centuries, must be unpacked then scrapped. If capitalism “makes no provision for charity” it is because it simply trumpets freedom, leaving people to do as they may and as they must. Capitalism should not even be an “ism,” as socialism is. It is just what happens when you leave people to their own lives and property. It does not contradict Church teaching, it is simply a necessary component of it, as freedom is necessary to salvation.
Free “capitalist,” individuals are still compelled to charity in the name of Christ. That has nothing to do with government. It’s like blaming public schools for not giving out better free lunches and daycare. That is not their role and the failure is not theirs. Discussions of give and take in economic systems are not within the subject of charity; which is the purview of free human beings and the associations they freely create.
The oppression that the Distributists ascribe to capitalism is really just the collusion of business titans and big government. Ubiquitous corporate empires which destroy families and property then marginalize the poor, are not the natural course of free people in a free society. Furthermore, they were never an aspect of Christendom, where true charity was a holy institution and subsidiarity reigned in life and politics.
The comparisons of the economic systems of socialism and capitalism are unsound, and people understand this, which is why they protest big government. When we say “socialism and capitalism,” what we are really talking about is oppression and freedom. Are both morally deficient? I say no. The peasants of the Old World, the American founders, and the wandering ancient people of God all understood: the freedom that comes from Him is ours to use for good.
Catholic thinkers rightly understand that the conservatism written into the American framework is not a complete system. What they miss however is that the founders understood natural law and a truly just society. James Madison, when asked to support a law which provided assistance to a needy cause, famously said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” In his mind, this would have been stealing.
The founders respect for freedom of individuals and property is, as many evangelicals will say, “biblical.” Christ did nothing to alter this scriptural truth. He was not political. His parables are full of support for the rights of individuals to their money and property. What he gave to us in terms of charity and mercy did not remove any “jot” of the old law; it only added to it. We must do the same and respect the ancient laws while adhering to the requirements of Christian love as free men and women. Dr. Jeffrey Mirus, founder of the excellent CatholicCulture.org, was surprised by the “bitterness” he found from readers responding to the Bishops’ support of extended unemployment benefits last week. He presses the need for some “cautions” and “perspective” particularly when we begin to denounce the Bishops as socialists. He insists that we be ‘very careful in using this term” and not resort to “inaccurate name-calling.” Why are the bishops not socialists? According to Mirus it is because they never have advocated the state ownership of private means of production.
This incomplete defense is followed by a lengthy and abstract discussion on balancing solidarity and subsidiarity, building “intermediary” institutions, correcting the tax structure, pursuing the “twin goals of stimulating the production or wealth and preventing the marginalization of those who fall behind;” and patient acceptance with the way things are until something better can be created. “Conservative Catholics need to recognize that it is not wrong in Catholic social theory to engage government in fostering the economic common good. ” Here we must wonder where a conservative may disagree. Would they be against the ‘economic common good,” or just against re-distributionist confiscation and its uniformly negative results?
This familiar lullaby is epidemic in faithful Catholic intellectual circles. It grows mainly out of pride and a misunderstanding of the social justice writing of Leo XIII, Chesterton, and the Distributists. Such destructive thinking needs to be addressed as it runs contrary to natural law and the laws of God. Furthermore the Bishops, as they manifest culturally and politically via the USCCB, are not only socialists, but function regularly as statist agents. They do not shout for socialism; they just enact it and applaud its ongoing construction. They should be assessed not by what they advocate, but by what they achieve and destroy.
Mirus predictably goes on to say that there is no place for the wrong kind of rhetoric in this “legitimate debate” and that we should approach the discussion as “Catholics,” and not as conservatives or liberals. This tired approach, which draws a moral equivalency between capitalism and socialism, only exists to drag Catholics and others leftward toward oppression and despair. The article’s thesis on growing the correct types of “intermediary” institutions to replace federal programs first; smacks of Friedrick Hayek’s utopian “planners” People do not need new kinds of well-conceived institutions in America. They need freedom and the Church needs faith.
Dr. Mirus urges that Catholics respect the correct role of the state to care for the poor and the needy, and that conservative Catholics be charitable. He tells us that “It is simply not possible to be a Catholic while embracing a morally-deficient conservatism.”
This somewhat veiled condemnation of right and left alike, handed down by Catholic thinkers over the last two centuries, must be unpacked then scrapped. If capitalism “makes no provision for charity” it is because it simply trumpets freedom, leaving people to do as they may and as they must. Capitalism should not even be an “ism,” as socialism is. It is just what happens when you leave people to their own lives and property. It does not contradict Church teaching, it is simply a necessary component of it, as freedom is necessary to salvation.
Free “capitalist,” individuals are still compelled to charity in the name of Christ. That has nothing to do with government. It’s like blaming public schools for not giving out better free lunches and daycare. That is not their role and the failure is not theirs. Discussions of give and take in economic systems are not within the subject of charity; which is the purview of free human beings and the associations they freely create.
The oppression that the Distributists ascribe to capitalism is really just the collusion of business titans and big government. Ubiquitous corporate empires which destroy families and property then marginalize the poor, are not the natural course of free people in a free society. Furthermore, they were never an aspect of Christendom, where true charity was a holy institution and subsidiarity reigned in life and politics.
The comparisons of the economic systems of socialism and capitalism are unsound, and people understand this, which is why they protest big government. When we say “socialism and capitalism,” what we are really talking about is oppression and freedom. Are both morally deficient? I say no. The peasants of the Old World, the American founders, and the wandering ancient people of God all understood: the freedom that comes from Him is ours to use for good.
Catholic thinkers rightly understand that the conservatism written into the American framework is not a complete system. What they miss however is that the founders understood natural law and a truly just society. James Madison, when asked to support a law which provided assistance to a needy cause, famously said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” In his mind, this would have been stealing.
The founders respect for freedom of individuals and property is, as many evangelicals will say, “biblical.” Christ did nothing to alter this scriptural truth. He was not political. His parables are full of support for the rights of individuals to their money and property. What he gave to us in terms of charity and mercy did not remove any “jot” of the old law; it only added to it. We must do the same and respect the ancient laws while adhering to the requirements of Christian love as free men and women.
