Catholic Social Thought and the 2012 Election
May 4, 2011
George Weigel
Barring an international conflagration or another 9/11, both of which may God forbid, the 2012 election is going to be fought on the question of America’s fiscal future: Will the United States get a grip now, and over the next several decades, on the costs associated with an aging society? Or will we spend-and-borrow ourselves into virtual insolvency? Greece, Portugal, Spain, and other European countries have chosen the latter route, causing serious distress domestically and some disruption in the international economy. If the United States opts to go down the same road, the consequences will not only be grave at home; they will be far graver abroad, as American profligacy puts unbearable strains on the international financial and economic systems.
In 2011, the United States is like a patient who has been told that he or she has a serious, advanced, but curable disease: curable if certain measures are taken. There is little debate about the diagnosis, for everyone can read the demographic and budgetary realities; thus just about everyone, left, right, and center, agrees that we’ve got a major, but solvable, problem, the resolution of which will determine whether our children and grandchildren thank us, or wonder why we didn’t have the wit and will to fix what was wrong when we had the chance. The question before the electorate in 2012 will be, what are the measures necessary to cure the disease?
Catholic social thought ought to be helpful in sorting this out. Its both/and approach to society and public policy—the individual and the common good, the market and a strong legal and cultural framework to guide it, the responsibilities of individuals and the responsibilities of government—are a refreshing antidote to the statist and libertarian ideologies of the day. Few, if any, comprehensive visions of the free and virtuous society are as balanced and supple, or as amenable to creative mixes of public and private initiative, as Catholic social thought.
Yet in the hands of some Catholics, Catholic social thought has been reduced to another argument for what Blessed John Paul II criticized in the 1991 social encyclical Centesimus Annus as the Social Assistance State—what Americans more familiarly call the Nanny State. In this view, virtually every problem on the 2012 agenda—from the solvency of Social Security and Medicare to federal budgetary discipline and debt reduction—can only be addressed by an increase in the government’s involvement in the economy, the society, the culture, and the lives of individuals. Such thinking betrays a sorry lack of imagination (not to mention a sorry lack of historical understanding, of the “been there, done that” school). It is also a crude caricature, and thus a betrayal, of Catholic social thought and the social doctrine of the popes from Leo XIII through Benedict XVI.
Because this statist misreading of Catholic social thought often flies under the flag of “Justice for the Poor,” it’s important to underscore one crucial point as the 2012 debate unfolds, this year and next: Catholic social thought is about the empowerment of the poor. It is not about failed polices of social assistance that treat poor people as problems to be solved rather than as people with potential to be unleashed. It is not about using public policy to create generation after generation of serfs on the state welfare plantation. Catholic social thought is about the empowerment of the poor, and its broad imagination allows it to think of that empowerment happening through private sector means, some public sector programs, and public/private partnerships where necessary. But contrary to the way some misrepresent it, Catholic social thought does not measure the rectitude of a society by the percentage of its GNP represented in governmental budgets.
One of the four core principles of Catholic social doctrine is the principle of subsidiarity, which teaches that decision making should be left at the lowest possible level in society, commensurate with the common good. A lot of Catholics forgot about subsidiarity during the 2009 health-care debate. That failure should not be repeated in 2011 and 2012.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Comments:
5.4.2011 | 12:12pm
Richard Nicol says:
I am a catholic and i agree Stephen i want nothing at all to do with this. Wasteful and Wreckless are two of the less strong words i can think of for this topic. We will be discussing this in great deal with my other catholic friends.
5.4.2011 | 12:12pm
Richard says:
The core practical principle of our representative government is that politicians, like many professions, succeed to a large extent on telling people what they want to hear. Sooooo, old people are told their benefits will continue and rich people are told their taxes will be cut. And this is not a dynamic that is confined to one party. Bush pandered to voters as much as Clinton or Obama. In fact, his pandering sunk to the low level of morals by bringing up his faith and his opposition to abortion in a thinly veiled appeal to emotions. That is hardly a path to good government as we saw in the poorly conceived path his administration took.
Otherwise I agree about the basic concept that the bottom line on Catholic thinking about poverty is about empowering the poor. This is always the best policy. Yet there is disagreement about helping position the lowest on the totem pole to succeed. That argument for the most part should be left to the people and the government and not part of the theological discussion about morals and doctrine.
Otherwise I agree about the basic concept that the bottom line on Catholic thinking about poverty is about empowering the poor. This is always the best policy. Yet there is disagreement about helping position the lowest on the totem pole to succeed. That argument for the most part should be left to the people and the government and not part of the theological discussion about morals and doctrine.
5.4.2011 | 1:29pm
HT says:
Yes, of course, we must all continue to do nothing for the common good while waiting for the Subsidiarity Fairy and the Invisible Hand Fairy to solve all our problems. Just work at a local soup kitchen, vote Republican and read Hayek and the Bible and everything will be peachy keen.
Nothing has done more to emasculate Catholic social teaching than this unfortunate and impotent semi-concept. It was merely a quick attempt by a single pope to come up with something that could serve as a label for an undefined alternative to communism and capitalism; it is not an enduring part of the tradition. Now it's being elevated by the Right into the *bedrock* of Christian social ethics. Significantly, the word 'usury' does not appear in the current Catechism, while the unfortunate S-word does. (File that under 'development/debasement of doctrine'.)
The principle is impotent for two reasons: (1) there are NO criteria for when some agency is small enough or local enough to qualify as Fully Subsidiary in any realm. Should a policeman pick up the trash in a public park, or should he leave it to the park's immediate neighbors, otherwise committing a 'grave sin' against the S-word? (2) Even when it is crystal clear that a serious injustice CANNOT AND WILL NOT be remedied by any real amount of 'purely local' action, the S-word excuses us from taking any workable action (especially workable government action) at all, since we can always clearly fantasize a Possible Cloud-Cuckooland in which 'private and local' Christian actors ('entrepreneurs') jumped in and remedied the situation.
Of course, this is precisely the stuff one expects from this website, and from Weigel in particular, so there's no point in objecting.
Nothing has done more to emasculate Catholic social teaching than this unfortunate and impotent semi-concept. It was merely a quick attempt by a single pope to come up with something that could serve as a label for an undefined alternative to communism and capitalism; it is not an enduring part of the tradition. Now it's being elevated by the Right into the *bedrock* of Christian social ethics. Significantly, the word 'usury' does not appear in the current Catechism, while the unfortunate S-word does. (File that under 'development/debasement of doctrine'.)
The principle is impotent for two reasons: (1) there are NO criteria for when some agency is small enough or local enough to qualify as Fully Subsidiary in any realm. Should a policeman pick up the trash in a public park, or should he leave it to the park's immediate neighbors, otherwise committing a 'grave sin' against the S-word? (2) Even when it is crystal clear that a serious injustice CANNOT AND WILL NOT be remedied by any real amount of 'purely local' action, the S-word excuses us from taking any workable action (especially workable government action) at all, since we can always clearly fantasize a Possible Cloud-Cuckooland in which 'private and local' Christian actors ('entrepreneurs') jumped in and remedied the situation.
Of course, this is precisely the stuff one expects from this website, and from Weigel in particular, so there's no point in objecting.
5.4.2011 | 1:54pm
Sona Tanna says:
Empowering the poor is right but at what cost. The rich will keep financing not only the poor but also the deficit finance of the government which have several roles to play in protecting its citizens in a terror world
5.4.2011 | 1:57pm
arty says:
@HT:
Wow, that's a pretty awful caricature. Who says "everything will be peachy keen"? Conservatives in general are skeptical about utopian solutions, so what is at issue isn't attaining or not attaining the peachy keen future, but about pursuing the least bad alternative.
As for the supposed incoherence of the subsidiarity principle, who needs "criteria" when all you have to do is look at what works? Do local faith-based rehab programs have a higher success rate? If so, then let them do their thing. Do local financial planning and debt help programs actually get results? Then let them do their thing.
Who needs criteria (which presumably government, in HT's view, will get to set), when you just look out your front door.
Maybe responding to this was a mistake, but what what great "fairy" is there than the view (which I take HT to imply) that much large-scale injustice in the world must be counteracted by decidedly non-local entities such as national governments. Or maybe HT will argue that the War on Poverty was a smashing success for the urban black family?
Wow, that's a pretty awful caricature. Who says "everything will be peachy keen"? Conservatives in general are skeptical about utopian solutions, so what is at issue isn't attaining or not attaining the peachy keen future, but about pursuing the least bad alternative.
As for the supposed incoherence of the subsidiarity principle, who needs "criteria" when all you have to do is look at what works? Do local faith-based rehab programs have a higher success rate? If so, then let them do their thing. Do local financial planning and debt help programs actually get results? Then let them do their thing.
Who needs criteria (which presumably government, in HT's view, will get to set), when you just look out your front door.
Maybe responding to this was a mistake, but what what great "fairy" is there than the view (which I take HT to imply) that much large-scale injustice in the world must be counteracted by decidedly non-local entities such as national governments. Or maybe HT will argue that the War on Poverty was a smashing success for the urban black family?
5.4.2011 | 2:02pm
George Weigel writes the following:
"just about everyone, left, right, and center, agrees that we’ve got a major, but solvable, problem...."
This is entirely false. There are many thoughtful and informed commentators on finance and economics who do not believe that we are faced with a solvable problem. Among them, the matter of debate is whether our PRESENT de facto insolvency will terminate in coming years in a deflationary depression or in a hyperinflationary outcome.
Please, Mr. Weigel, it is not as if the intelligent deflationists and hyperinflationist do not exist. If you comment on these matters publicly, do them the service of taking their views into account. They might even have the truth!
See, for example, the following websites:
www.oftwominds.com/blog
www.theautomaticearth.blogspot.com
www.thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com
www.zerohedge.com
www.denninger.net
www.maxkeiser.com
"just about everyone, left, right, and center, agrees that we’ve got a major, but solvable, problem...."
This is entirely false. There are many thoughtful and informed commentators on finance and economics who do not believe that we are faced with a solvable problem. Among them, the matter of debate is whether our PRESENT de facto insolvency will terminate in coming years in a deflationary depression or in a hyperinflationary outcome.
Please, Mr. Weigel, it is not as if the intelligent deflationists and hyperinflationist do not exist. If you comment on these matters publicly, do them the service of taking their views into account. They might even have the truth!
See, for example, the following websites:
www.oftwominds.com/blog
www.theautomaticearth.blogspot.com
www.thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com
www.zerohedge.com
www.denninger.net
www.maxkeiser.com
5.4.2011 | 2:45pm
bierce says:
Blessed John Paul II also warned against an "idolatry" of the market:
"It is the task of the State to provide for the defence and preservation of common goods such as the natural and human environments, which cannot be safeguarded simply by market forces. Just as in the time of primitive capitalism the State had the duty of defending the basic rights of workers, so now, with the new capitalism, the State and all of society have the duty of defending those collective goods which, among others, constitute the essential framework for the legitimate pursuit of personal goals on the part of each individual.
Here we find a new limit on the market: there are collective and qualitative needs which cannot be satisfied by market mechanisms. There are important human needs which escape its logic. There are goods which by their very nature cannot and must not be bought or sold. Certainly the mechanisms of the market offer secure advantages: they help to utilize resources better; they promote the exchange of products; above all they give central place to the person's desires and preferences, which, in a contract, meet the desires and preferences of another person. Nevertheless, these mechanisms carry the risk of an "idolatry" of the market, an idolatry which ignores the existence of goods which by their nature are not and cannot be mere commodities."
- Centesimus Annus, 40 (1991)
... and again:
"...More and more, in many countries of America, a system known as “neoliberalism” prevails; based on a purely economic conception of man, this system considers profit and the law of the market as its only parameters, to the detriment of the dignity of and the respect due to individuals and peoples. At times this system has become the ideological justification for certain attitudes and behavior in the social and political spheres leading to the neglect of the weaker members of society. Indeed, the poor are becoming ever more numerous, victims of specific policies and structures which are often unjust."
- Ecclesia in America, 56 (1999) (Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation)
"...The cover story used to bilk $700 billion from middle class taxpayers into the coffers of Wall Street mega-banks was that if we didn’t hand over the loot, the financial system would collapse and a Great Depression would ensue. Every program, policy, and rule change that has been rolled out since September 2008 by the Federal Reserve, Treasury, and Congress has benefitted billionaires, bankers, and politically connected corporations. The Federal Reserve has printed over $2 trillion out of thin air to save the billionaires that have been pillaging the middle class for decades.
The Federal Reserve bought $1.25 trillion of toxic mortgages from Wall Street, allowed these banks to borrow at 0%, threatened the FASB into suspending mark to market accounting so banks could fake the value of their loans, instructed banks to rollover commercial real estate loans as if they weren’t really worth 40% less than the value on their books, and rolled out $600 billion of QE2 in order to create a stock market rally, benefitting their billionaire constituents. The $800 billion stimulus program was shoveled to the corporate friends (contributors) of Congressmen across the land. Cash for Clunkers benefitted government owned car companies. The home buyer tax credit and changing loss carry back rules benefitted mega home builders. Every one of these deeds enriched bankers and billionaires while further impoverishing the working middle class. Real middle class wages continue to fall, unemployment remains near record levels, real inflation in food and energy is running above 10%, senior citizens haven’t gotten a Social Security increase in two years, savers are getting .25% on their savings, home prices continue to fall, and future generations will be stuck with the bill for the billionaire bailout."
- "A Fistful of Dollars - Part 2", The Burning Platform (Blog) 5/1/11
http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=15003
Apparently, the Social Assistance State ended up being a preferential option for the super-rich.
"It is the task of the State to provide for the defence and preservation of common goods such as the natural and human environments, which cannot be safeguarded simply by market forces. Just as in the time of primitive capitalism the State had the duty of defending the basic rights of workers, so now, with the new capitalism, the State and all of society have the duty of defending those collective goods which, among others, constitute the essential framework for the legitimate pursuit of personal goals on the part of each individual.
Here we find a new limit on the market: there are collective and qualitative needs which cannot be satisfied by market mechanisms. There are important human needs which escape its logic. There are goods which by their very nature cannot and must not be bought or sold. Certainly the mechanisms of the market offer secure advantages: they help to utilize resources better; they promote the exchange of products; above all they give central place to the person's desires and preferences, which, in a contract, meet the desires and preferences of another person. Nevertheless, these mechanisms carry the risk of an "idolatry" of the market, an idolatry which ignores the existence of goods which by their nature are not and cannot be mere commodities."
- Centesimus Annus, 40 (1991)
... and again:
"...More and more, in many countries of America, a system known as “neoliberalism” prevails; based on a purely economic conception of man, this system considers profit and the law of the market as its only parameters, to the detriment of the dignity of and the respect due to individuals and peoples. At times this system has become the ideological justification for certain attitudes and behavior in the social and political spheres leading to the neglect of the weaker members of society. Indeed, the poor are becoming ever more numerous, victims of specific policies and structures which are often unjust."
- Ecclesia in America, 56 (1999) (Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation)
"...The cover story used to bilk $700 billion from middle class taxpayers into the coffers of Wall Street mega-banks was that if we didn’t hand over the loot, the financial system would collapse and a Great Depression would ensue. Every program, policy, and rule change that has been rolled out since September 2008 by the Federal Reserve, Treasury, and Congress has benefitted billionaires, bankers, and politically connected corporations. The Federal Reserve has printed over $2 trillion out of thin air to save the billionaires that have been pillaging the middle class for decades.
The Federal Reserve bought $1.25 trillion of toxic mortgages from Wall Street, allowed these banks to borrow at 0%, threatened the FASB into suspending mark to market accounting so banks could fake the value of their loans, instructed banks to rollover commercial real estate loans as if they weren’t really worth 40% less than the value on their books, and rolled out $600 billion of QE2 in order to create a stock market rally, benefitting their billionaire constituents. The $800 billion stimulus program was shoveled to the corporate friends (contributors) of Congressmen across the land. Cash for Clunkers benefitted government owned car companies. The home buyer tax credit and changing loss carry back rules benefitted mega home builders. Every one of these deeds enriched bankers and billionaires while further impoverishing the working middle class. Real middle class wages continue to fall, unemployment remains near record levels, real inflation in food and energy is running above 10%, senior citizens haven’t gotten a Social Security increase in two years, savers are getting .25% on their savings, home prices continue to fall, and future generations will be stuck with the bill for the billionaire bailout."
- "A Fistful of Dollars - Part 2", The Burning Platform (Blog) 5/1/11
http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=15003
Apparently, the Social Assistance State ended up being a preferential option for the super-rich.
5.4.2011 | 2:56pm
HT says:
@arty
You don't get me. Subsidiarity is the Church's concept (adopted or whatever). It's up to the Church (not government) to provide criteria for when the concept applies; if the concept is so loosey-goosey that you never know when it clearly applies, then it is practically, epistemically and morally worthless -- it becomes a sort of vague thing for people to tack their prejudices onto, at best. When I perform a particular action involving collective action, have I been Subsidiary (righteous) or not? The Church has not explained how any particular act qualifies as truly Subsidiary or not (how local is local? My house, my family, my Facebook friends, my block, my club, my company, my county, my city, my state, the Feds? When does which locality apply? How grave does an injustice have to be to justify my moving up the subsidiarity ladder?). Just as no-one now EVER enters a confessional and says Forgive me Father, I have committed usury (it's a dead sin), no-one can either satisfy or flout the 'demands' of subsidiarity, because it makes no demands and solves no problems, and no-one will ever confess to 'violating subsidiarity'. Remember, it's supposed to be some lofty principle, not just a vague practical admonition or truism to the effect that 'charity begins at home'.
If one believes that no amount of private markets or local clubs in the real world will succeed in providing some actual people with something they truly need, then it is rational (and imperative) to inquire whether the need can be (imperfectly perhaps) met by less-local social entities (e.g. large charities, NGOs, municipal governments or even sovereign governments). Baldly ruling such things out on the basis of 'subsidiarity' and the presumptive horrors of 'statism' (as Weigel and friends do all the time), is simply to turn your head from another's needs.
You don't get me. Subsidiarity is the Church's concept (adopted or whatever). It's up to the Church (not government) to provide criteria for when the concept applies; if the concept is so loosey-goosey that you never know when it clearly applies, then it is practically, epistemically and morally worthless -- it becomes a sort of vague thing for people to tack their prejudices onto, at best. When I perform a particular action involving collective action, have I been Subsidiary (righteous) or not? The Church has not explained how any particular act qualifies as truly Subsidiary or not (how local is local? My house, my family, my Facebook friends, my block, my club, my company, my county, my city, my state, the Feds? When does which locality apply? How grave does an injustice have to be to justify my moving up the subsidiarity ladder?). Just as no-one now EVER enters a confessional and says Forgive me Father, I have committed usury (it's a dead sin), no-one can either satisfy or flout the 'demands' of subsidiarity, because it makes no demands and solves no problems, and no-one will ever confess to 'violating subsidiarity'. Remember, it's supposed to be some lofty principle, not just a vague practical admonition or truism to the effect that 'charity begins at home'.
If one believes that no amount of private markets or local clubs in the real world will succeed in providing some actual people with something they truly need, then it is rational (and imperative) to inquire whether the need can be (imperfectly perhaps) met by less-local social entities (e.g. large charities, NGOs, municipal governments or even sovereign governments). Baldly ruling such things out on the basis of 'subsidiarity' and the presumptive horrors of 'statism' (as Weigel and friends do all the time), is simply to turn your head from another's needs.
5.4.2011 | 3:07pm
Stephen says:
@ HT,
Who plans for whom? I prefer the many, not the few.
I prefer that individuals make their own plans and then coordinate their preferences via de-centralized free markets. This "system" has lifted millions out of the poverty which defined the majority of human existence.
It’s the delightfully humanizing marketplace- that virtual site of exchange where a man from Chile trades with a woman from France as though they are neighbors.
Our preferences conflict as multiple people want the same item. How do we resolve this? You could take it by force. You could plead your case before a judge. You could lobby a Senator for a favor. You could stand in line and submit a request to a bureaucrat. Or you could express your desire for the good directly to the person selling the item you desire. The seller can then compare the intensity of your desire to that of other interested buyers. We express the intensity of our desires (and our willingness to sell) with little tags of information called Prices!
Who plans for whom? I prefer the many, not the few.
I prefer that individuals make their own plans and then coordinate their preferences via de-centralized free markets. This "system" has lifted millions out of the poverty which defined the majority of human existence.
It’s the delightfully humanizing marketplace- that virtual site of exchange where a man from Chile trades with a woman from France as though they are neighbors.
Our preferences conflict as multiple people want the same item. How do we resolve this? You could take it by force. You could plead your case before a judge. You could lobby a Senator for a favor. You could stand in line and submit a request to a bureaucrat. Or you could express your desire for the good directly to the person selling the item you desire. The seller can then compare the intensity of your desire to that of other interested buyers. We express the intensity of our desires (and our willingness to sell) with little tags of information called Prices!
5.4.2011 | 3:32pm
Rick says:
This is an excellent post. I sometimes forget that Catholic social thought isn't just an abstract concept, it's something that needs to be implemented in concrete ways in order to be effective. I like the idea of the US being a sick patient, and I think it's not too late to start taking the right actions needed to "cure" us.
As far as the fiscal future, I would hope that as a country and as a whole, we learned how devastating the consequences of unethical spending can be, but I doubt this will stop the trends from continuing. I hope it does, though.
As far as the fiscal future, I would hope that as a country and as a whole, we learned how devastating the consequences of unethical spending can be, but I doubt this will stop the trends from continuing. I hope it does, though.
5.4.2011 | 4:55pm
JWM says:
I would like some FT commentators, Right as well as Left, to look at taxes in light of CST. Not in order to resort to stock (partisan) polemics about what programs tax revenues ought (not) to fund, but to address the more fundamental question of whether Catholicism has anything to say about the responsibility of fabulously wealthy corporations and capitalists to put their revenue to moral use.
I presume that CST does not defend the right of individuals to consume their inordinately large salaries any way they choose. Moreover, I presume that, as a corollary to Subsidiarity, individuals have a moral responsibility to use their excess to address problems locally. I interpret excess in a strict sense: personally, I do not believe that homes really need more than one bedroom beyond the number of people permanently living there or that collecting automobiles or boats is a personal choice worth defending.
The question then becomes: has a duly-elected State the right to decide what a proportionate income might be and then mandate the collection and yes, redistribution, of the rest? Consumer protections and regulations aside (I'm willing to let buyers and borrowers beware to some extent), do we not need an intelligent, fair tax system (based on consumption if you don't want the government reaching directly into your pocket) to make a free market work?
I presume that CST does not defend the right of individuals to consume their inordinately large salaries any way they choose. Moreover, I presume that, as a corollary to Subsidiarity, individuals have a moral responsibility to use their excess to address problems locally. I interpret excess in a strict sense: personally, I do not believe that homes really need more than one bedroom beyond the number of people permanently living there or that collecting automobiles or boats is a personal choice worth defending.
The question then becomes: has a duly-elected State the right to decide what a proportionate income might be and then mandate the collection and yes, redistribution, of the rest? Consumer protections and regulations aside (I'm willing to let buyers and borrowers beware to some extent), do we not need an intelligent, fair tax system (based on consumption if you don't want the government reaching directly into your pocket) to make a free market work?
5.4.2011 | 6:01pm
Stephen says:
@JWM,
When a non-involved 3rd party inserts itself into a free & mutual commercial exchange, there are suddenly less transactions occurring. This lowers supplies and increases prices.
Wages are the price of labor. Your definitions of "inordinately large" and "excess" are emotional and meaningless. Wages are set by the market as a function of productive capacity and alternative uses. If you disrupt the price system, you will find a cascade of unintended consequences. Capital and assets flow to their most efficient uses. You would prevent these flows due to arbitrary decrees of "excess." This might win you an election, but it will make people poorer (and not just the "rich" you target for redistribution).
When a non-involved 3rd party inserts itself into a free & mutual commercial exchange, there are suddenly less transactions occurring. This lowers supplies and increases prices.
Wages are the price of labor. Your definitions of "inordinately large" and "excess" are emotional and meaningless. Wages are set by the market as a function of productive capacity and alternative uses. If you disrupt the price system, you will find a cascade of unintended consequences. Capital and assets flow to their most efficient uses. You would prevent these flows due to arbitrary decrees of "excess." This might win you an election, but it will make people poorer (and not just the "rich" you target for redistribution).
5.4.2011 | 6:07pm
Stephen says:
I have to post again because so much of what JWM wrote is just horrible.
"fabulously wealthy corporations"
These corporations (unless they are panhandlers like GE) FREELY earn their just profits by providing a good or service that a consumer desires. These goods/services are offered at a cost cheaper and a quality higher than the consumer prefers to spend to make it himself.
Corporations earn very meager profit margins on average. As a hot new sector grows, competitors are attracted by the initial high rates of return. These competitors drive margins down, and soon the hot new sector will earn lower profits in line with the market average. It is like water finding its level.
Profits are plowed back into the business, employing more workers, creating new technologies, and decreasing costs for everyone. Or they are distributed to shareholders, billionaires and blue collars alike (via mutual funds and pension plans invested in equities). These shareholders can spend that income as they see fit for their families.
"fabulously wealthy corporations"
These corporations (unless they are panhandlers like GE) FREELY earn their just profits by providing a good or service that a consumer desires. These goods/services are offered at a cost cheaper and a quality higher than the consumer prefers to spend to make it himself.
Corporations earn very meager profit margins on average. As a hot new sector grows, competitors are attracted by the initial high rates of return. These competitors drive margins down, and soon the hot new sector will earn lower profits in line with the market average. It is like water finding its level.
Profits are plowed back into the business, employing more workers, creating new technologies, and decreasing costs for everyone. Or they are distributed to shareholders, billionaires and blue collars alike (via mutual funds and pension plans invested in equities). These shareholders can spend that income as they see fit for their families.
5.4.2011 | 8:14pm
A.M says:
'Seek ye first the KIngdom and its righteouness and everything else shall be added unto you ' ; it could be that many Catholics, being more familar with mysteries are also less trustful of the huge concrete numbers and scenarios !
Thus, easier to focus on which candidate would support more of the values of the kingdom ...and trust that such a person would be able to then make wise decisions .
Every so often, one reads reports of how there are mountains of gold and other ores on the sea bed ..the whole energy picture could change for the better ..and so on ..
Still , for the not so politically minded , it is unfathomable how simple things such as cutting off billions in foreign aid to countries that support terrorism or sizing down trade with China , to favor more jobs in the Americas are not done !
The O.T scene of the angel of Persia thwarting the arrival of the angel that was to help Daniel comes to mind - may be to indicate that the seeking of The Kingdom is a basic requirement , for wisdom in other areas !
Helping the poor may not be the bad that it seems to be ( fear of breeding dependancy ) ; many of those who get benefits do work at entry level jobs ;
interviewing candidates for a job made one realise how many trained young people are out there trying to find a job !
Sharing about the divine mercy devotion and giving them the prayer cards was one good that came out of it .
Dreaming of a Church sponsored program where such persons could be recruited , to spend time with nursing home candidates , senior citizen homes etc : , to share the devotion , to thus deal with the poverty of loneliness of the latter and make lives more fulfilling for the former !
Thus, easier to focus on which candidate would support more of the values of the kingdom ...and trust that such a person would be able to then make wise decisions .
Every so often, one reads reports of how there are mountains of gold and other ores on the sea bed ..the whole energy picture could change for the better ..and so on ..
Still , for the not so politically minded , it is unfathomable how simple things such as cutting off billions in foreign aid to countries that support terrorism or sizing down trade with China , to favor more jobs in the Americas are not done !
The O.T scene of the angel of Persia thwarting the arrival of the angel that was to help Daniel comes to mind - may be to indicate that the seeking of The Kingdom is a basic requirement , for wisdom in other areas !
Helping the poor may not be the bad that it seems to be ( fear of breeding dependancy ) ; many of those who get benefits do work at entry level jobs ;
interviewing candidates for a job made one realise how many trained young people are out there trying to find a job !
Sharing about the divine mercy devotion and giving them the prayer cards was one good that came out of it .
Dreaming of a Church sponsored program where such persons could be recruited , to spend time with nursing home candidates , senior citizen homes etc : , to share the devotion , to thus deal with the poverty of loneliness of the latter and make lives more fulfilling for the former !
5.4.2011 | 8:18pm
wineinthewater says:
HT,
Subsidiarity is not a system, it is a principle. It is not meant to be an alternative to Communism and Capitalism, it is meant to be an answer to them. It is a simple question, "could this be adequately handled at a more local level?" If the answer is yes, then it should be. If the answer is no, then it should not be. It is a principle that recognizes that centralization has a dehumanizing effect, but that lack of coordination has a deleterious effect. It provides a way to balance. Minimize the dehumanizing effect of centralization by only using it when, and to the extent, necessary. Maximize solutions to problems by coordinating as a society, even when that requires centralization through some means, even the state.
Subsidiarity is not a system, it is a principle. It is not meant to be an alternative to Communism and Capitalism, it is meant to be an answer to them. It is a simple question, "could this be adequately handled at a more local level?" If the answer is yes, then it should be. If the answer is no, then it should not be. It is a principle that recognizes that centralization has a dehumanizing effect, but that lack of coordination has a deleterious effect. It provides a way to balance. Minimize the dehumanizing effect of centralization by only using it when, and to the extent, necessary. Maximize solutions to problems by coordinating as a society, even when that requires centralization through some means, even the state.
5.4.2011 | 8:38pm
charles says:
Sadly, Weigel makes repeats mistakes he has made before on this subject, such as over-emphasizing one teaching (subsidiarity) at the exclusion of others, or over-emphasizing one social encyclical (CA) at the exclusion of others (such as Caritas in Veritate).
He is right is that some appliers of CST commit the same mistake by emphasizing some aspects of CST, such as commitment to the common good, over principles like subsidiarity. But, contrary to perception, those views are rare in today's hierarchy and even, believe it or not, in the staff at USCCB.
Not every government program is a folly and not every Catholic advocate for those programs believes that big government is the answer to all our problems.
He is right is that some appliers of CST commit the same mistake by emphasizing some aspects of CST, such as commitment to the common good, over principles like subsidiarity. But, contrary to perception, those views are rare in today's hierarchy and even, believe it or not, in the staff at USCCB.
Not every government program is a folly and not every Catholic advocate for those programs believes that big government is the answer to all our problems.
5.4.2011 | 9:00pm
Don Roberto says:
@HT, we humans are great at rationalizing whatever we see as being in our self interest, aren't we. But the concept of usury remains in the Catechism; the sin is still real. See for example the following, specifically §2438:
1931 Respect for the human person proceeds by way of respect for the principle that "everyone should look upon his neighbor (without any exception) as 'another self,' above all bearing in mind his life and the means necessary for living it with dignity." No legislation could by itself do away with the fears, prejudices, and attitudes of pride and selfishness which obstruct the establishment of truly fraternal societies. Such behavior will cease only through the charity that finds in every man a "neighbor," a brother.
1932 The duty of making oneself a neighbor to others and actively serving them becomes even more urgent when it involves the disadvantaged, in whatever area this may be. "As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me."
2432 Those responsible for business enterprises are responsible to society for the economic and ecological effects of their operations. They have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits. Profits are necessary, however. They make possible the investments that ensure the future of a business and they guarantee employment.
2433 Access to employment and to professions must be open to all without unjust discrimination: men and women, healthy and disabled, natives and immigrants.219 For its part society should, according to circumstances, help citizens find work and employment.
2434 A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice.In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. "Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good."Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.
2435 Recourse to a strike is morally legitimate when it cannot be avoided, or at least when it is necessary to obtain a proportionate benefit. It becomes morally unacceptable when accompanied by violence, or when objectives are included that are not directly linked to working conditions or are contrary to the common good.
2436 It is unjust not to pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority.
Unemployment almost always wounds its victim's dignity and threatens the equilibrium of his life. Besides the harm done to him personally, it entails many risks for his family.
2437 On the international level, inequality of resources and economic capability is such that it creates a real "gap" between nations.On the one side there are those nations possessing and developing the means of growth and, on the other, those accumulating debts.
2438 Various causes of a religious, political, economic, and financial nature today give "the social question a worldwide dimension." There must be solidarity among nations which are already politically interdependent. It is even more essential when it is a question of dismantling the "perverse mechanisms" that impede the development of the less advanced countries. In place of abusive if not *usurious* financial systems, iniquitous commercial relations among nations, and the arms race, there must be substituted a common effort to mobilize resources toward objectives of moral, cultural, and economic development, "redefining the priorities and hierarchies of values."
†
1931 Respect for the human person proceeds by way of respect for the principle that "everyone should look upon his neighbor (without any exception) as 'another self,' above all bearing in mind his life and the means necessary for living it with dignity." No legislation could by itself do away with the fears, prejudices, and attitudes of pride and selfishness which obstruct the establishment of truly fraternal societies. Such behavior will cease only through the charity that finds in every man a "neighbor," a brother.
1932 The duty of making oneself a neighbor to others and actively serving them becomes even more urgent when it involves the disadvantaged, in whatever area this may be. "As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me."
2432 Those responsible for business enterprises are responsible to society for the economic and ecological effects of their operations. They have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits. Profits are necessary, however. They make possible the investments that ensure the future of a business and they guarantee employment.
2433 Access to employment and to professions must be open to all without unjust discrimination: men and women, healthy and disabled, natives and immigrants.219 For its part society should, according to circumstances, help citizens find work and employment.
2434 A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice.In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. "Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good."Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.
2435 Recourse to a strike is morally legitimate when it cannot be avoided, or at least when it is necessary to obtain a proportionate benefit. It becomes morally unacceptable when accompanied by violence, or when objectives are included that are not directly linked to working conditions or are contrary to the common good.
2436 It is unjust not to pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority.
Unemployment almost always wounds its victim's dignity and threatens the equilibrium of his life. Besides the harm done to him personally, it entails many risks for his family.
2437 On the international level, inequality of resources and economic capability is such that it creates a real "gap" between nations.On the one side there are those nations possessing and developing the means of growth and, on the other, those accumulating debts.
2438 Various causes of a religious, political, economic, and financial nature today give "the social question a worldwide dimension." There must be solidarity among nations which are already politically interdependent. It is even more essential when it is a question of dismantling the "perverse mechanisms" that impede the development of the less advanced countries. In place of abusive if not *usurious* financial systems, iniquitous commercial relations among nations, and the arms race, there must be substituted a common effort to mobilize resources toward objectives of moral, cultural, and economic development, "redefining the priorities and hierarchies of values."
†
5.5.2011 | 10:20am
Don Schenk says:
The problem is what the late Catholic commentator called "reverse Robin Hood programs," like Social Security (which originally was enacted to encourage the elderly to retire so that the young could get jobs, but now exists so that elderly millionaires could receive welfare.)
But who's courageous enough to point that out?
But who's courageous enough to point that out?
5.5.2011 | 10:47am
HT says:
Thanks to Don Roberto for some important quotes from the Catechism, but I still maintain that usury is a dead-as-a-doornail sin. The word 'usurious' occurs only once in the whole Catechism text, and appears there simply as an unexplained derogatory adjective buried in a rather long sentence that seems to be concerned only with relations between nations. How abusive do our beloved 'usurious financial systems' have to get before they are criticized at all in a serious way by the Catholic Right? Cheerful tolerance of that abuse appears to be nigh unlimited for the Novaks, Weigels, Neuhauser, FTs, the Witherspoon Institutes, Actons, etc. If I miss a credit card payment by a day and my annual interest rate jumps 15 points up from that time on, what do you think guys? Could that be... usury, the... sin? Our whole economic system is built on such transactions.
And I still maintain that Subsidiarity is nothing more than a vague indication of preference for 'small and personal is beautiful', and cannot reasonably be used as a club to beat a more robust and radical understanding of the demands of real social justice.
(Admission of complicity: I have worked in financial IT for 24 years.)
And I still maintain that Subsidiarity is nothing more than a vague indication of preference for 'small and personal is beautiful', and cannot reasonably be used as a club to beat a more robust and radical understanding of the demands of real social justice.
(Admission of complicity: I have worked in financial IT for 24 years.)
5.5.2011 | 11:28am
Stephen says:
@HT,
Define usury.
Usury is compound interest. But a rate increase is NOT compound interest. The Church has also defended the right of creditors to charge fees for late payments.
Our financial system does not depend on usury. It depends on free exchange, liquid markets and price discovery.
Define usury.
Usury is compound interest. But a rate increase is NOT compound interest. The Church has also defended the right of creditors to charge fees for late payments.
Our financial system does not depend on usury. It depends on free exchange, liquid markets and price discovery.
5.5.2011 | 11:31am
Stephen says:
Did anyone force you to open a credit card?
You can use a debit card. Or a classic charge card that merely floats you $$ for 30 days and must be paid off.
You could paid in cash, or cheque or via PayPal.
Free and mutual exchange between parties... your personal finance errors do not become someone else's sins.
You can use a debit card. Or a classic charge card that merely floats you $$ for 30 days and must be paid off.
You could paid in cash, or cheque or via PayPal.
Free and mutual exchange between parties... your personal finance errors do not become someone else's sins.
5.5.2011 | 12:43pm
HT says:
Stephen, you get the Michael Novak "Just Giddy with the Beauty of Capitalism" marketolatry award for today. There's no arguing with an erotic infatuation.
5.5.2011 | 2:29pm
Stephen says:
@HT,
The beauty of the market is that there is nothing to idolize. It is the spontaneous coordination of billions of individuals, each using their own talents and resources to help one another.
For 99% of history, humans lived in extreme poverty. Free markets are the reason that average Americans live better than kings of ages past.
Your ideology may wish this weren't true, but reality is not optional.
The beauty of the market is that there is nothing to idolize. It is the spontaneous coordination of billions of individuals, each using their own talents and resources to help one another.
For 99% of history, humans lived in extreme poverty. Free markets are the reason that average Americans live better than kings of ages past.
Your ideology may wish this weren't true, but reality is not optional.
5.5.2011 | 2:46pm
pentamom says:
"Yes, of course, we must all continue to do nothing for the common good while waiting for the Subsidiarity Fairy and the Invisible Hand Fairy to solve all our problems. Just work at a local soup kitchen, vote Republican and read Hayek and the Bible and everything will be peachy keen."
Wait, which should we do? Work at a soup kitchen, or do nothing for the common good?
Wait, which should we do? Work at a soup kitchen, or do nothing for the common good?
5.6.2011 | 7:42am
JMG says:
Dr. Weigel is right on the mark, but Catholics should be wary of the "Justice & Peace Plus" crowd that will undoubtedly attempt to portray the reelection of the President and of Democrats in Congress as a triumph of "Catholic social justice" (sufficiently ignoring the right to life as THE paramount social justice issue of our time). The past few years redound in evidence of the effort of a certain segment of Catholic thought to advance a secular liberal agenda (while politely ignoring the right to life) fragranced with the occasional scent of an ersatz Catholic aroma (e.g., Doug Kmiec's 2008 Apologia pro vita Obamae, the Catholic Health Association's snatching defeat from the jaws of victory over abortion funding under Obamacare, the "marriage equality" crowd's effort to say that a good Catholic should really support "same sex marriage," etc.). Whatever 2012 holds, Catholics in the United States should beware of the internal Fifth Column likely to do its best to divide if not gut a common Catholic phalanx.
5.26.2011 | 2:39pm
John B. Day says:
George Weigel has a powerful metaphor when he states the American nation is like a patient w/ a serious, advanced but CURABLE disease. Weigel also accurately identifies the core problem of this national disease as the question of how the American nation goes about buying the medical services necessary to provide medical care for all its members, especially "baby boomers" born between 1945 and 1964. Obamacare was enacted into law in March 2010. On May 20, 2010, Cardinal DiNardo wrote to all Members of Congress stating as follows on behalf of the American Catholic bishops: "With the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), our country took an important step toward ensuring access to health coverage for all Americans" (http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/cardinal-dinardo-HR5111-ltr.pdf). Yes, the bishops objected to Obamacare on the dual grounds that the statutory language prohibiting funding of abortion was not sufficiently clear and that illegal immigrants were not given coverage. But the basic concept of Obamacare was approved by the bishops as an "important step toward ensuring access to health coverage for all Americans."
This leads me to my question. Who has a better understanding of Catholic Social Thought: the American bishops or Weigel?
This leads me to my question. Who has a better understanding of Catholic Social Thought: the American bishops or Weigel?
6.23.2011 | 4:34am
Blog Domenica says:
Wow, that's a pretty awful caricature. Who says "everything will be peachy keen"? Conservatives in general are skeptical about utopian solutions, so what is at issue isn't attaining or not attaining the peachy keen future, but about pursuing the least bad alternative. 2433 Access to employment and to professions must be open to all without unjust discrimination: men and women, healthy and disabled, natives and immigrants.219 For its part society should, according to circumstances, help citizens find work and employment.
6.29.2011 | 5:54am
Natalie Stone says:
I would lie if I say it isn't excellent statement. Many people often forget that Catholic social thought isn't just an abstract concept, it's something that needs to be implemented in concrete ways in order to be effective. I like the idea of the US being a sick patient, and I think it's not too late to start taking the right actions needed to "cure" us.
As far as the fiscal future, I would hope that as a country and as a whole, we learned how devastating the consequences of unethical spending can be, but I doubt this will stop the trends from continuing. I hope it does, though.
As far as the fiscal future, I would hope that as a country and as a whole, we learned how devastating the consequences of unethical spending can be, but I doubt this will stop the trends from continuing. I hope it does, though.
9.2.2011 | 3:38am
Otilia Krys says:
Dr. Weigel is right on the mark, but Catholics should be wary of the "Justice & Peace Plus" crowd that will undoubtedly attempt to portray the reelection of the President and of Democrats in Congress as a triumph of "Catholic social justice" (sufficiently ignoring the right to life as THE paramount social justice issue of our time). The past few years redound in evidence of the effort of a certain segment of Catholic thought to advance a secular liberal agenda (while politely ignoring the right to life) fragranced with the occasional scent of an ersatz Catholic aroma (e.g., Doug Kmiec's 2008 Apologia pro vita Obamae, the Catholic Health Association's snatching defeat from the jaws of victory over abortion funding under Obamacare, the "marriage equality" crowd's effort to say that a good Catholic should really support "same sex marriage," etc.). Whatever 2012 holds, Catholics in the United States should beware of the internal Fifth Column likely to do its best to divide if not gut a common Catholic phalanx. I would like some FT commentators, Right as well as Left, to look at taxes in light of CST. Not in order to resort to stock (partisan) polemics about what programs tax revenues ought (not) to fund, but to address the more fundamental question of whether Catholicism has anything to say about the responsibility of fabulously wealthy corporations and capitalists to put their revenue to moral use.
"Catholic social thought is about the empowerment of the poor. It is not about failed polices of social assistance that treat poor people as problems to be solved rather than as people with potential to be unleashed."
The Nanny State: wasteful, wreckless, undemocratic, corrosively secular, patronizing.
Catholics should want nothing to do with it.