Re: Caritas in Veritate
MINT-AND-CORN COUNTRY, INDIANA — I’ve read part of it, and am printing it [PDF], with my painfully slow inkjet; eventually, I think I’ll have a thing or to two say. I recognize that this is not a Catholic (or even wholly Christian!) Weblog, but the Church’s long-standing tradition of social teaching offers a lot for those of use beyond the left-right spectrum to consider, particularly as we seek morally responsible economic policy. Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum significantly influenced the Distributists, who, along with Burke, tremendously guided Wilhelm Röpke, perhaps the best Catholic economist never actually to profess the Faith.
For now, I direct y’all to some solid commentary on this indescribably important papal pronouncement.
At the main TAC Weblog (@TAC, for the unfamiliar), Freddy Gray offers wonderfully nuanced reflection.
At Vox-Nova, the more progressive-leaning Catholic Morning’s Minion has a delectably snarky fable attributed to George Weigel, in response to Weigel’s predictably wrong-headed orthodox-capitalist response.
Davey (a fine Protestant, coming to Pope Benedict’s defense as these dissenters attack him!) at Theopolitical has his thoughts on Caritas here and a few comments on Weigel’s and Michael Novak’s thoughts (the latter of which I have yet to examine) here.
Halden, at Inhabitatio Dei, speaks of “The Heresy of Novak”.
Scott Richert, of Chronicles, offers his two cents at About.com
And at Mirror of Justice, Fr. Robert J. Araujo, S.J., presents this, which I’ve not yet read, either — but by my logic, it must be good because it’s long (and is at M.o.J.).
Novak hits the nail on the head, but he doesn’t go far enough (nor would I expect him to). The point of good Catholic religious daily life is to feel God’s love among a communion of fellow believers- By your own accord, through His will. One must not forget that charity and good works are valuable for a believer, but at all times must be exactly that- charity, not pilfered “donations”. We must never forget that the communion of believers must be free to practice their faith to the fullest, but also free from temptations to coerce others in the belief that it is “God’s will”. That kind of socialist-pseudo Catholic crap gets you juntas and banana republics. I subscribe to the philosophy of Christian libertarianism, which I think fits rather well with this new Papal dictum. No coercion by any party,allowing one to freely donate to the impoverished, and no influence of the state on the Church or vice versa. Social conservatives oftentimes seem to forget to judge not lest they be judged, etc.
Tripp:
1) “Christian libertarianism” – HA! Good one! Oh…you’re serious? You do realize how cognitively dissonant that phrase is, right?
2) Subsidiarity does not equal leaving everyone to their own little, private, individual sphere of charity.
Mark, are you saying that a Christian cannot love the ideals of the American founding? Is the “cognitive dissonance” that strong?
What type of Christian, exactly? Before you answer, it would help to consider the various governments Christians have lived under the last two-thousand years. What government should Christians support? Render unto Caesar…
Yes, I”m confused as well- I don’t see any inherent contradictions in being a Christian libertarian. Since when did coercion and soft tyranny become tenets of the faith? Using the government to implement one’s religious beliefs on others forcibly and usually violently is antithetical to anything I read in the Gospels, and trust me, as the son of a priest I would know. Render unto Ceaser, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, etc. This Church Lady attitude of the social right is neither perfect Christianity, nor sound philosophy, nor good politics might I add. People in our government aren’t our pontiffs and clerics, nor should they be.
The son of a priest? Haha I take it not a Catholic priest, unless we’re in The Thornbirds!
I have no interest, at least right now — or at least not the time — to get into this Christian libertarianism discussion (although I generally far in line with Mark on this one). However, I do ask Tripp that he refrain from any more arguments from authority. Let’s try not to engage too much in logical fallacies, here: Simply being the son of a priest doesn’t make you anything of an expert, to say the least.
Honestly Nathan, I cannot find any logical consistency in your political opinions. The only motif seems to be a nostalgic return to the past under an unspecified denomination of Christianity. Or is the denomination Origerism? (If it’s Catholicism, it sounds suspiciously like liberation theology.)
Otherwise, you have contradictory ideals, ranging from Marxism to Libertarianism to Anarchy. I suppose in your head these are integrated under a shifting definition of “localism,” whatever that is, and whoever espouses it. The bloggers you cite are either obscure conservatives adored by media liberals, with argumentation that is tenuous (at best), or liberals. Sometimes, in fact, I feel like I’m reading The Nation blog.
I do not understand how your affinity for Ropke fits into any overarching political philosophy, though I claim no expertise on the man. What is it that you like about him?
It is not enough to read seminal conservative works; one must synthesize, lest they wish to sound inconsistent. A journalist (or aspiring one, in your case), should be able to craft at least semi-coherent arguments, even if the assumptions they are working with are completely wrong-headed (a la, The Nation). What I’ve read so far is suspiciously close to nagging commentary better suited for a personal diary. It’s unsatisfying arguing with someone whose bedrock beliefs are amorphous and/or undefined.
In short, you sound like a novice. And yet you pick fights with conservative giants, such as Levin and Novak. Is there even any doubt in your mind that one quarter of either one of these men’s learning would humble you? Yes, a novice – and a punk.
Perhaps you care to rectify.
William P:
It depends what you consider to be the “ideals” of the American founding. And the type of Christian to whom I refer would be one of orthodox and apostolic faith.
As an aside, your “render unto Caesar” quip is a grossly miscontextualized non sequitor.
Mark: Ordered liberty, religious freedom, localized self-government, equality under law.
I’m not a libertarian, anyhow, and I do not support a number of libertarian goals including the legalization of: gay marriage, narcotics, prostitution… ah well that about rounds it out.
I don’t think my quip is grossly miscontextualized, at all.
William, you find no consistency in my political opinions? I’m not sure if I should thank you or call you insufferably ignorant. (I’m tempted, but ultimately disinclined, to cite Emerson here.)
Let’s tackle this first with your confusion about my “nostalgic return to the past …” and your not getting my affinity to Röpke w/r/t “any overarching political philosophy”.
As I believe I have noted before, I have no desire for such a “nostalgic return” and have cited Röpke to this effect (http://nathancontramundi.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/a-clarification-on-my-own-behalf-we-do-not-want-to-set-the-clock-back-we-want-to-set-it-right/):
One final word to those whose retort to everything we have said in this chapter is the reproach of romanticism. It certainly is romantic, if by that term we understand resistance to the destruction of dignity and poetry and the “unbought graces of life.” [What Burke calls the "unbought graces of life" -- nature, privacy, beauty, dignity, birds and woods and fields and flowers, repose and true leisure] If this is romanticism, we profess it unreservedly and proudly, and we will not allow ourselves to be intimidated or abashed by these would-be masterminds. We do not want to set the clock back; we want to set it right.
I merely seek a restoration of sanity, if you will, within contemporary context. I’m not advocating (save in my most radical moments) the destruction of factories or the evacuation of cities. I desire balance — in government, in economics, in the public sphere.
I don’t think there’s anything unspecified about my Christianity; that I’m an ardent Catholic should, by now, be obvious; please, though, do explain what I’ve said that possibly could be construed as “liberation theology” by anyone other than a right-wing cafeteria Catholic of the Weigelian variety. I am quite aware of my imperfections as a Catholic, but I have no interest in embracing any ideology, as liberationists, political neo-Catholics, or sedevacantists, inter alios, do.
At no point in my life have I subscribed to Marxism or claimed to. I have spoken of Mailer’s willingness to “think in the style of Marx in order to attain certain values suggested by Edmund Burke”, and offered sympathy to the position, but certainly have not championed Marxism or any form of totalitarianism, centralization, or planned economy. To suggest otherwise is both absurd and dishonest.
Nor have I expressed any ideals of Libertarianism. Some of my positions overlap with those held by some libertarianism, but never have I here, at Post Right, or at NathanContraMundi, embraced or offered vociferous support for libertarianism. In fact, I have a written a couple of small posts elucidate why I certainly am not a libertarian (or a conservative in the mainstream American liberal sense).
Aha, yes: Anarchism. Now, in a certain understanding, we are getting somewhere. I have called myself an “Aristotelian anarchist”; that may be somewhat redundant though. Only in the simple, myopic mind is anarchy limited to a bunch of graffiti-artists anti-everything punk leftists. I believe in subsidiarity and solidarity, rooted in the Teaching of the Holy Mother Church (and particularly Thomism), and believe that the family, and then local level, ought to be the fundamental and foremost focus of social, political, and economic activity. (Cf. Tom Fleming: the last paragraph, especially, of this: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/index.php/2009/06/26/a-credo-for-authentic-conservatives-and-other-sane-people/)
No, in my head they are not “integrated under a shifting definition of “localism”. Rather, they are all means that I am willing to consider, within the parameters of which I’m willing to consider working, to attain certain ends. If I am of the opinion that certain means is not intrinsically justifiable, then I’ll toss it aside, but I don’t think that, as I have discussed them, any of them are worthless. Marx, for instance (to head you off at the pass, as it were), offers important critiques of economic liberalism that we are unwise to heed, regardless of the viciously problematic solutions that he proffers.
The bloggers you cite are either obscure conservatives adored by media liberals, with argumentation that is tenuous (at best), or liberals. Sometimes, in fact, I feel like I’m reading The Nation blog.
Ah, yet another (implicit) fallacious appeal to authority! Welcome to that club. To be “obscure” is, I suppose, to be inept, uneducated, or otherwise incapable of contributing something beneficial to the discussion. Demagoguery, then, of the Levinista form, must suffice to qualify the well-known? Care to offer some examples of “tenuous (at best)” argumentation from those on whom I so risibly rely?
Is there anything inherently wrong with citing liberal Webloggers? I think not; moreover, I’m not sure of any liberals on whom I have relied for most anything I’ve contended here. Please clarify. At time, I’m quite sure it would be better for one to read The Nation than to read many of the offerings NRO or The Weekly Standard offer anyhow, so I think I’ll take that as something of a compliment. Thanks!
Röpke appeals to me as he should to any Catholic and any conservative: He more than acknowledges the benefits of a market economy, but tempers it with the admission that the market isn’t perfect — and, as Benedict has reiterated in Caritas et Veritate, that it often leaves people behind, people who, qua people, deserve to treated in dignity regardless of their “failures” in the economy and who deserve a bare minimum of the benefits, if you will, necessary for living the good life — and says the following about the prioritization of the market:
“It is the precept of ethical and humane behavior, no less than of political wisdom, to adapt economic policy to man, not man to economic policy.”
“[T]he market economy is not everything. It must find its place within a higher order of things which is not ruled by supply and demand, free prices, and competition.”
“Individual responsibility and independence in proper balance with the community, neighborly spirit, and true civic sense — all of these presuppose that communities in which we live do not exceed the human scale.”
I hope this sates your curiosity and vexation.
It is not enough to read seminal conservative works; one must synthesize, lest they wish to sound inconsistent. A journalist (or aspiring one, in your case), should be able to craft at least semi-coherent arguments, even if the assumptions they are working with are completely wrong-headed (a la, The Nation). What I’ve read so far is suspiciously close to nagging commentary better suited for a personal diary. It’s unsatisfying arguing with someone whose bedrock beliefs are amorphous and/or undefined.
My political beliefs and written defenses and elucidations thereof have been nothing if not consistent — to the extent, at least, that they should be. Petrified consistency in political philosophy — we may pejoratively dub this “ideology” — is hardly something of which to be proud; it is the close-mindedness of the progressive. I have, time and again, defended a broad conception of localism and traditionalism, rejecting liberalism in most any form, as well as totalitarianism and foreign interventionism. (You may disagree with my perspective on the latter, but I have been quite consistent in my opposition thereto.)
Contrary to your indefensible claim, I make quite coherent arguments. You may be incapable of comprehending them, but I’ve made them. Ah, but I am uncharitable: Please, refer me to arguments I have made that evince your claim here. I am more than happy to clarify, to amend, or to retract if truly I have been incoherent.
In short, you sound like a novice. And yet you pick fights with conservative giants, such as Levin and Novak. Is there even any doubt in your mind that one quarter of either one of these men’s learning would humble you? Yes, a novice – and a punk.
One, of course I’m a novice. Brilliantly astute observation. Well, something of a novice: I haven’t recently, ya know, saved a broadly right-of-centre student newspaper on a painfully leftist campus, in the heart of “Blue State” America from destruction or anything. Haven’t interviewed Ron Paul for that newspaper or written for others or had a book review published. But yes, I am, technically speaking, a novice, with only one paid writing assignment under my belt and only a few years of semi-dedicate writing to my name. What of it? You’ve not actually shown how I “sound like a novice”; rather, you’ve simply made vague references to incoherence and flatly false accusations of “inconsistency”.
I did not “pick fights” with anyone; I did call out what I think is wrong with Mark Levin, both in substance and in style, something that I think is crucially important, as I explained in “Against ‘No Enemies on the Right’” because I have no interest in seeing the 2012 GOP pull a 2004 Democratic move with an “Anybody but Obama” candidate, nor do I wish to see conservatism narrowly dominated and defined by cognitively dissonant demagogues. Also, when the hell have I picked a fight with Novak? I clearly mention that I haven’t read Novak’s reflections on Caritas and link to two replies to his reflections, one of which is named “The Heresy of Novak”; that wasn’t my title.
A novice, maybe; a punk, I don’t know, but if so, I’ll take being called a punk by a sycophantic Republican as a badge of honor any day.
I await a reply that actually addresses the substance of my qualms with your errant volley.
Ugh I need a day job that keeps me busier…
On a friendly note, while at college, I founded a conservative campus newsletter in Montreal, actually two.
You put together quite a response, but I don’t find it terribly persuasive. Your post does reinforce my belief in your ignorance at the folly of widespread economic intervention and your lack of knowledge of Islam.
I am not a market fundamentalist; I believe in a “safety net,” of limited intrusion, for the destitute, elderly, and the truly disabled. This should probably be at the state level, in my opinion. Any policy, whether you personally declare it sane or insane, that coercively puts local above global interests will ruin our economy. It has a name: protectionism. That was the thinking behind the commerce clause in the Constitution – to develop a large, economically homogenous zone for trade. Appeal to authority: to quote Bastiat, “When goods don’t cross borders, armies will.” (I’m not sure whether appeals to the latest Papal encyclical counts as an “appeal to authority,” so, being Sheriff of Appealsville, I’ll let you make that call.)
By obscure, I mean they hold bizarre opinions that are not suitable for political discourse – either they are way too personal to have political relevancy, or are clearly written by neophytes. They are free to hold those opinions, of course, but in no way are they useful to an understanding of politics. I’d rather not read the insufferable longings of Rod Dreher to establish his hermetically sealed village, or the sexual musings of ostensibly condomless Ross Douthat, whom I have heard speak. Whether you cite to these two in particular, I don’t know. But your fellow blogger here, Patrick Ford, has recently named The Road to Serfdom as the worst conservative classic, and does so in a stupendously idiotic way. Moreover, a link you provided for a critique of the critics of the encyclical was littered with swears (unless my memory is off and it was a link from one of your links).
“At time, I’m quite sure it would be better for one to read The Nation than to read many of the offerings NRO or The Weekly Standard offer anyhow, so I think I’ll take that as something of a compliment. Thanks!”
&
“have, time and again, defended a broad conception of localism and traditionalism, rejecting liberalism in most any form…”
See above for latest example of inconsistency.
As I recall, you called Novak a “sophist,” in a context which was meant to imply summary dismissal. As far as I know, he is one of the few living people to significantly alter the Church’s social teachings in the CCC.
“Petrified consistency in political philosophy — we may pejoratively dub this “ideology” — is hardly something of which to be proud; it is the close-mindedness of the progressive.”
I am not a progressive, nor close-minded. To paraphrase Bill Buckley, the purpose of an open mind is to clamp down firmly upon truth.
“I have called myself an “Aristotelian anarchist”; that may be somewhat redundant though.”
Aristotle was most certainly not an anarchist. I am not going to set out to prove this point, just like I would not set out to prove peanut butter is not jelly.
“Only in the simple, myopic mind is anarchy limited to a bunch of graffiti-artists anti-everything punk leftists.”
Again, I defer to simple, myopic mind of Aristotle: man is a political animal, naturally. Anarchy would not last long, and so long as it did last, in my opinion, would probably be crime ridden. I disagree with the anarcho-capitalists.
“I did call out what I think is wrong with Mark Levin… I’ll take being called a punk by a sycophantic Republican as a badge of honor any day.”
I would not take the time to read Norman Mailer. I find it somewhat incredulous you cite him, given his adulation of anal rape.
On interventionism, since you are by default against foreign intervention, you would need to educate yourself on the threat from the East. I can’t do that here.
As a sycophantic Levinite, I do my best to occasionally allow myself an independent thought, however difficult it is given his extraordinarily talented demagoguery. Today, one of those rare thoughts has formed: you really weren’t even worth him naming you a deranged blogger, despite the increasing certitude of his assertion.
Cheers!
I rushed that one, and it shows, but you go ahead and have a go at it.
Aristotle was most certainly not an anarchist. I am not going to set out to prove this point, just like I would not set out to prove peanut butter is not jelly.
Aristotle was not an anarchist in the sense you assume, but Mr. Origer has already explained what sort of anarchist he himself is. Aristotle certainly is not a believer in polities beyond a certain size (and arguably is an anarchist in Mr. Origer’s sense) or polities being excessively dependent upon trade for fundamental goods. And he doesn’t endorse “infinite growth” either.
I need a day job, period. Monday can’t come soon enough. I’m too exhausted (from what, I’m not entirely sure) to reply in depth now, but I’ll get around to it.
I reckon this would be a much better discussion over a few pints than over broadbrand… A few punches may be thrown, but, then again, Buckley made the threat to Vidal.
On interventionism, since you are by default against foreign intervention, you would need to educate yourself on the threat from the East. I can’t do that here.–William P.
In your response to me in a previous post you mentioned yourself to be no authority in regards to Islam. So as a matter of pure curiosity, what is it that is so inexpert about Mr. Origer’s characterization thereof?
Pons: I am not an authority. What I know about on-the-ground conditions in Muslim countries comes from personal experiences of friends and relatives over several years living “there” and a not in-depth study of the history of the region, plus whatever journal articles I’ve read.
I’ll say this – befriending a Catholic who grew up in Cairo for 16 years has helped. Even in “friendly” Egpyt the persecution continues. Come to mention it, most of the intellectual architecture of the Islamist movement originated in Egypt. Nassar was an admirer of Hitler.
T. Chan:
“Aristotle was not an anarchist in the sense you assume, but Mr. Origer has already explained what sort of anarchist he himself is.”
Being partially anarchist is a little like being partially pregnant, if you catch my drift.
It’s not really a question of “degrees” — it’s about using the word equivocally.