Writeback to Scott P. Richert's THE ROCKFORD FILES

Fri, 26 Mar 2004

“Economic Law” versus Catholic Social Teaching, Part III
by Scott P. Richert
My earlier posts (Part I, Part II) on Tom Woods’ article “The Trouble With Catholic Social Teaching” have generated much discussion, on this site and elsewhere—a healthy sign, it seems to me, that many conservative and traditionalist Catholics are trying to grapple with the Church’s consistent social teaching rather than simply bracketing it and substituting some form of conservative economics.

One writeback that I’ve received on Part II is important enough that I’d like to respond to it here in a post rather than in the writebacks. Al Gunn writes:

A quick question for clarification: On placing the onus for “solidarity” solely on the order of Charity (understood in the scholastic sense), does that properly do justice to what Pius XI following St. Thomas called the “social character of ownership”: “Therefore, public authority, under the guiding light always of the natural and divine law, can determine more accurately upon consideration of the true requirements of the common good, what is permitted and what is not permitted to owners in the use of their property.”(QA, 49) This would seem to be the second aspect of ownership St. Thomas talks about in ST II-II, q. 66, a. 2 and q. 32, a. 5 where he says in the repl to the 2d obj: “The temporal goods which God grants us, are ours as to the ownership, but as to the use of them, they belong not to us alone but also to such others as we are able to succor out of what we have over and above our needs.”
This is a very good point, and it’s something that I haven’t previously addressed, namely, Does the Catholic Church teach that the state has any role to play in a Christian social order? The answer is undoubtedly “yes,” and, once again, this is a teaching that extends back to the New Testament. The essentially anarchist Austrian can only accept this teaching by engaging in some intellectual gymnastics: for instance, by endorsing a sort of free-enterprise monarchy that never really existed and never will. Within any other context, the teaching has to be rejected. Indeed, for Austrian true believers, the modern state can never be legitimate—and yes, despite the claims of many to be true constitutionalists, their belief in the illegitimacy of the modern state extends even to the American republic of 1787.

What role does the Church believe that the state legitimately plays in the social order? There is a certain range of opinion on this, even within Catholic teaching, but, for the most part, the consensus lies somewhere between St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, both of whom saw the state’s role (and, more specifically, the role of the Christian ruler—on which, more in a moment) as primarily one of restraint—not demanding that men develop virtue but preventing men from doing harm, both physical and moral. That’s precisely the type of state action that Pius XI is discussing in the passage quoted by Mr. Gunn (“what is permitted and what is not permitted”—not, say, what is commanded). St. Thomas, however, is not discussing state action in the passage Mr. Gunn quotes; instead, he is discussing the positive duties of charity, which are commanded by the Church but cannot be coerced by the state.

The problem in the modern era is that states are no longer Christian or even presided over by Christian rulers; indeed, they are usually actively anti-Christian. Under those circumstances, Christians may be right to be skeptical even of state actions that are primarily taken in restraint.

It is important, therefore, to understand the historical context in which Christian social teaching developed and, particularly, in which the social encyclicals of the past century and a quarter were written. As Tom Fleming points out:
Quadragesimo anno comes two years after the historic concordat between the Church and the Italian state, granting the Vatican City area virtual statehood and full diplomatic powers to the Vatican state. This is the immediate context of the encyclical—the hope that the Church can once again play an active role in Italian society—while the intellectual background is the teaching of Leo XIII on workers. In Quadragesimo anno (which adheres to the theory of subsidiarity and virtually defines it, as I recall), as in its predecessor statements, the Church understands what an ideal society is and also the reality of the world in which She finds Herself, whether it is anti-Catholic liberalism (the very liberalism embraced today by Tom Woods) or anti-Catholic but pragmatic fascism.
Seen in this light, it is profitable to read the entire paragraph 49 of Quadragesimo anno, of which Mr. Gunn cited but a part:
49. It follows from what We have termed the individual and at the same time social character of ownership, that men must consider in this matter not only their own advantage but also the common good. To define these duties in detail when necessity requires and the natural law has not done so, is the function of those in charge of the State. Therefore, public authority, under the guiding light always of the natural and divine law, can determine more accurately upon consideration of the true requirements of the common good, what is permitted and what is not permitted to owners in the use of their property. Moreover, Leo XIII wisely taught “that God has left the limits of private possessions to be fixed by the industry of men and institutions of peoples.”[32] That history proves ownership, like other elements of social life, to be not absolutely unchanging, We once declared as follows: “What divers forms has property had, from that primitive form among rude and savage peoples, which may be observed in some places even in our time, to the form of possession in the patriarchal age; and so further to the various forms under tyranny (We are using the word tyranny in its classical sense); and then through the feudal and monarchial forms down to the various types which are to be found in more recent times.”[33] That the State is not permitted to discharge its duty arbitrarily is, however, clear. The natural right itself both of owning goods privately and of passing them on by inheritance ought always to remain intact and inviolate, since this indeed is a right that the State cannot take away: “For man is older than the State,”[34] and also “domestic living together is prior both in thought and in fact to uniting into a polity.”[35] Wherefore the wise Pontiff declared that it is grossly unjust for a State to exhaust private wealth through the weight of imposts and taxes. “For since the right of possessing goods privately has been conferred not by man’s law, but by nature, public authority cannot abolish it, but can only control its exercise and bring it into conformity with the common weal.”[36] Yet when the State brings private ownership into harmony with the needs of the common good, it does not commit a hostile act against private owners but rather does them a friendly service; for it thereby effectively prevents the private possession of goods, which the Author of nature in His most wise providence ordained for the support of human life, from causing intolerable evils and thus rushing to its own destruction; it does not destroy private possessions, but safeguards them; and it does not weaken private property rights, but strengthens them.
This, it seems to me, is—within the context of a Christian society—an outline of both a more just economy and a radically more free one than that under which we suffer today. It’s also important to note that, in the next paragraph, Pius discusses the duty of Christian charity entirely as a voluntary exercise, something which cannot be coerced by the state:
50. Furthermore, a person’s superfluous income, that is, income which he does not need to sustain life fittingly and with dignity, is not left wholly to his own free determination. Rather the Sacred Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church constantly declare in the most explicit language that the rich are bound by a very grave precept to practice almsgiving, beneficence, and munificence.
And, in a passage that ought to warm the heart of any Austrian (right before it makes his blood boil), Pius notes:
51. Expending larger incomes so that opportunity for gainful work may be abundant, provided, however, that this work is applied to producing really useful goods, ought to be considered, as We deduce from the principles of the Angelic Doctor,[37] an outstanding exemplification of the virtue of munificence and one particularly suited to the needs of the times.
In other words, the rich can fulfill one of their three duties of charity (munificence) by reinvesting in their business (heart-warming), provided their business produces something of greater value to society (blood-boiling). The simple fact that someone will purchase your product does not mean that you have met this criterion. And even if you do meet it, you are still obliged, out of your “superfluous income,” to “practice almsgiving [and] beneficence” in addition to this form of munificence.

After reading my two earlier posts, Tom Woods e-mailed me to say (in part) that “It would be hard to put [Quadragesimo anno] down and not think that the public authorities are being called upon.” To which I reply: Indeed, it would be, if you approach it (as he apparently has) with the preconception that “the public authorities are being called upon.” If you simply read it in light of the Church’s tradition of social teaching, it’s not hard at all.

10 writebacks


James Korman wrote

Economic Law, Part III
Dear Mr. Richert,

I doubt that we 'Austrians' are counting the angels on a pinhead in this matter. It is in my view that the state is cunsumetely evil simply because it can and does tax and kill. Inherently as Mises states it is impossible for the state to do good over time for the same reason that 'Socialism' can never work.

The reality to me, the individual whether he be a janitor or the CEO of IBM should be able to distribute whatever portion of his income he so desires to the ends that he desires.

The state will always and ineffably blunt any individual action to its own immoral ends.

For me that is the essence of the 'Austrian' argument. While only an aspirant, I believe I capture the essence of Misean thought in this matter.

Also, I donot see and conflict with Sts. Augustine or Aquinas. The Scholastics in Spain had quite a bit to say about this in the late Middle Ages.

Thanks for your article.


Jim Korman

Scott P. Richert wrote

Regarding James Korman's Remarks...
You state "I donot [sic] see and [sic] conflict with Sts. Augustine or Aquinas," yet you also state that "It is in my view that the state is cunsumetely [sic] evil simply because it can and does tax and kill. Inherently as Mises states it is impossible for the state to do good over time . . . " Yet both Augustine and Aquinas believed that the state can do good--indeed, is required to do good--and both believed that it could legitimately wage war and impose capital punishment. If you can't see the conflict with Augustine and Aquinas, you're simply blinded by your economic ideology, which seems to be confirmed by your statement that "The state will always and ineffably [sic--do you mean inevitably?] blunt any individual action to its own immoral ends." Yet that assumes that all state action must be immoral, which contradicts the teaching of the Church from Her earliest days.

Finally, you've contradicted the essence of 2,000 years of Catholic social teaching with your statement that "the individual whether he be a janitor or the CEO of IBM should be able to distribute whatever portion of his income he so desires to the ends that he desires." First--and this is extremely important--the Church does not believe in the "individual," a term which is central to the liberalism--political and economic--condemned so strongly by such popes as Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X. Second, while it may not be the province of the state to tell men how they may use their wealth (though the Church has always acknowledged that government may, under certain circumstances, restrict the use of material goods for immoral purposes), it is certainly not true, according to the Church's teachings, that a man may "distribute whatever portion of his income he so desires to the ends that he desires." Indeed, he is obliged to distribute that portion of his income that charity demands, and he is forbidden to distribute it for immoral ends.

Al Gunn wrote

Just a further point of clarification: I omitted to draw the link between the Thomistic citation and QA not by way of playing fast and loose with the distinction (between the public authority and the obligations under Charity for the individual) but just to avoid belaboring the point and being pedantic.

The issue is one that frequently comes up in assessing liberal, or neoliberal economics, more usually by the "Catholic Neoconservatives" (as they are called in Thomas Rourke's book), but also by more traditionally minded Catholics. That issue is the requisite role of authority in the pursuit of the "Common Good," to which the "social character of ownership" seems to be directed.

This is a oft debated (and misunderstood) subject in Catholic Social Teaching, the "Common Good" being frequently misrepresented as some kind of aggregate individual good as opposed to a good which can truly be said to be really held in common. In fact, I believe for St. Thomas, the competence to pursue the "common good" really only appertains to the public authority charged with the particular governance (city, state, nation). (ST II-II, q. 47, a. 11).

Now the "social character of ownership" is not exclusively to be observed in the order of Charity, but in the order of Natural Justice as well: "Wherefore the division and appropriation of things which are based on human law, do not preclude the fact that man's needs have to be remedied by means of these very things. Hence whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor."(ST II-II, q. 66, a. 7)

Thus this common destination of property requires the public authority, because of its particular and exclusive competence to ordaining things to the end of the "Common Good", as quoted above from QA "Yet when the State brings private ownership into harmony with the needs of the common good, it does not commit a hostile act against private owners but rather does them a friendly service." As St. Thomas says "It is no robbery if princes exact from their subjects that which is due to them for the safe-guarding of the common good, even if they use violence in so doing:"(ST II-II, q. 66, a. 8, repl. 3d obj.) Yet this obligation of the public authority, while not preempting or usurping the individual onus of Charitable solidarity, nonetheless requires the expropriation of what is excess to the public authority (assuming its legitimacy, proper constitution and ordination. . . ) as a function of the order of justice rather than charity (distributive as opposed to commutative, ST II-II, q. 61). Thus the demands of the common good not only require that he with excess, from that social character of ownership spontaneously succour the poor in the order Charity, but also the public authority in the order of justice order that excess to the end of the Common Good, by expropriation under limited circumstances.

I believe we saw the issue of the relationship of the public authority and the common good quite promimently misunderstood (and misrepresented) in the run up to war in Iraq. In asserting autonomous rights to action on the basis of particular authorities, not vested with the authority which regards the proper Common Good in question, we saw a failure to understand the nature of the Common Good itself, as a product of proper action of the appropriate authority. This misunderstanding hearkens back to the debates early in the century between Jacques Maritain and DeKonnick (and others) over such issues as the UN Universal Declaration (or the ideals contained therein), and the loss of this understanding has lead to failures as we see in the interpretation of Just War Doctrine and the Social Doctrine of the Church in QA.

Al Gunn wrote

I believe that no one (except the most ardent libertarian) would have problems with this function of the state in regards to things like infrastructure (roads. . .), the common defense and disaster relief/prevention. But recognizing the caveats Mr. Richert enumerates regarding the fundamentally compromised character vis. a vis. the true Common Good of modern states, nonetheless in principle we must preserve the prerogative of Govt. to expropriate the excess towards goods which are not defined simply by aggregate goods--like schools, and even gross inequities, which themselves may pertain to the common good with regard to scandal, or famine. . . . From these examples I hope it is more clear what might pertain to the order of Justice from the expropriation by the public authority from excess toward the end of the true common good.

Generic Viagra wrote

Generic Viagra
By some weird coincidence I stomped on your site. so Hi!

Generic Cialis wrote

Generic Cialis
Everyone is gifted. Some open the package sooner.

Online Casino wrote

Online Casino
Friends come and go, enemies accumulate.

Mike in Brazil wrote

Mike In Brazil
By some weird coincidence I stomped on your site. so Hi!

paxil wrote

What's this stuff about people being "released on their own recognizance"? Aren't we all out on our own recognizance? paxil

Generic Prozac wrote

Generic Prozac
By some weird coincidence I stomped on your site. so Hi!


TrackBack ping me at:

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/rockfordfiles.cgi/Economic Freedom/Theory versus Reality/_Economic_Law__vers_20040326100617.trackback


URL/Email: [Note: You must prefix http://... or mailto:you@wherever] (optional)
Title: (optional)
Save my Name and URL/Email for next time