Reactionary Liberalism and Catholic Social Doctrine

CERC ^ | June 1, 2011 | GEORGE WEIGEL

[GonzoII]

---

Reactionary Liberalism and Catholic Social Doctrine

GEORGE WEIGEL

A review of the basics of Catholic social doctrine is needed.

The debate over Catholic social doctrine and U.S. social welfare policy took an unhelpful turn in May when a gaggle of academics fired a shot across the bow of House Speaker John Boehner, prior to his commencement address at the Catholic University of America. Their charge? That Boehner's House voting record showed him to be a man who fails "to recognize (whether out of a lack of awareness or dissent) important aspects of Catholic teaching."

Why? Because he had not supported legislation that, in the professors' view, addressed "the desperate needs of the poor."

Speaker Boehner, a Catholic with a solid pro-life voting record, is a big boy who can defend his votes on various issues.

What bothered me about the open letter to Boehner was its tone (smarmy), its assumptions about the one-to-one correspondence between the principles of Catholic social doctrine and the policy preferences of the Democratic Party, and its suggestion that anyone who challenges that linkage is in "dissent" from settled Catholic teaching.

The 2012 election seems likely to be defined by a major national debate on the welfare state, government spending, and social responsibility. If libertarian minimalism of the sort espoused by Ron Paul sits poorly with the rich and complex tradition of Catholic social doctrine, so does reactionary liberalism of the sort espoused by the anti-Boehner pedagogues.

So perhaps a review of the basics is in order, to put the forthcoming argument on a more secure footing.

1. The Church's concern for the poor does not imply a "preferential option" for Big Government.
   
   The social doctrine teaches that the problem of poverty is best addressed by empowerment: enabling poor people to enter the circle of productivity and exchange in society.
   
   The responsibility for that empowerment falls on everyone: individuals, through charitable giving and service work; voluntary organizations, including the Church; businesses and trade unions.
   
   Government at all levels can play a role in this process of empowerment, but it is a serious distortion of the social doctrine to suggest that government has exclusive responsibility here.
   
   On the contrary: in the 1991 social encyclical, Centesimus Annus, Blessed John Paul II condemned the "Social Assistance State" because it saps welfare-recipients of their dignity and their creativity while making them wards of the government.

• Fiscal prudence is a matter of justice extended toward future generations, and is therefore an inter-generational moral imperative (as is provision for the retired elderly).
  
  To leave mountains of unserviceable debt to future generations is shameful.
  
  The reactionary defense of governmental pension and social welfare programs with no evident concern for their fiscal implications violates the moral structure of Catholic social doctrine: the portside analogue to a cool indifference toward the fate of the poor.

• There are legitimate disagreements about the implications of the Church's social doctrine for American social welfare policy.
  
  
  

  On the contrary: in the 1991 social encyclical, Centesimus Annus, Blessed John Paul II condemned the "Social Assistance State" because it saps welfare-recipients of their dignity and their creativity while making them wards of the government.

  To suggest that the social doctrine provides obvious, clear-cut answers to questions about the future of Medicare or Medicaid is to misrepresent that teaching.
  
  To charge someone with "dissent" from Church teaching because that someone disagrees with one's own prudential judgments about the application of the social doctrine to complex policy issues is a serious misuse of the notion of "dissent" and borders on calumny (a false statement that "harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them" – Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2477).
  
  It ill behooves anyone to make such a charge; it particularly ill behooves academics who publicly dissent from settled Catholic teaching on marital chastity, sexual morality, and qualifications for Holy Orders from chairs at Catholic universities.

• The moral imperative to legally protect innocent human life from conception until natural death is a settled matter in Catholic doctrine.
  
  So is the nature of marriage as the stable union of a man and a woman. Catholic legislators who support the abortion license are manifestly in dissent and have damaged their communion with the Church. So have legislators who support "gay marriage." Academics eager to demonstrate their fidelity to Catholic social doctrine might point this out – and support the bishops who do.
  

  

  ---

  
  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

  George Weigel. "Reactionary liberalism and Catholic social doctrine." The Catholic Difference (June 1, 2011).

  Reprinted with permission of George Weigel.

  George Weigel's column is distributed by the Denver Catholic Register, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Denver. Phone: 303-715-3123.

  THE AUTHOR

[GonzoII]

"The Church's concern for the poor does not imply a "preferential option" for Big Government."

"Suppose a man is the head of an industry, he is entitled
to gain to all that is necessary for himself, for his family,
for their security and for his station in life; then what about
the superfluity? He may use that superfluity to poor it back
again into his business in order to increase employment and aid
the social good. That man is then doing a work of munificence
and liberality and is to be praised for it!"
--Ven. Bp. Fulton J. Sheen Lesson One In Economics

This is one reason why being a Catholic and a Capitalist is not oxymoranic.

[GonzoII]

oxymoranic=oxymoronic

[the invisib1e hand]

Seems like the most socialist nations are the ones that were most religious. The Church always seems buy into the universally appealing lie of socialism, and so goes the nation. Proof that the second generation always screws it up.

[Campion]

What the Popes have to say about socialism.

They [socialists, communists, or nihilists] debase the natural union of man and woman, which is held sacred even among barbarous peoples; and its bond, by which the family is chiefly held together, they weaken, or even deliver up to lust. Lured, in fine, by the greed of present goods, which is ‘the root of all evils, which some coveting have erred from the faith’ (1 Tim. 6:10.3), they assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law; and by a scheme of horrible wickedness, while they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title of lawful inheritance, or by labor of brain and hands, or by thrift in one's mode of life. -- (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, December 28, 1878, n. 1)

... no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist -- (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, 1931

[bibletruth]

…no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist -- Pope Pius IX

Good point...interesting to ponder, and by Pope Pius's own definition (quoted), then all the Catholics who voted (and it was millions) for Socialist Obama are not good Catholics. For since those who concurred with Obama's known socialist leanings in 2008, and still voted willing for that known socialist, then forfeited their good standing as a Catholic. It will be instructional to observe how Catholics vote in 2012: for the socialists or the free!

[Campion]

For since those who concurred with Obama's known socialist leanings in 2008, and still voted willing for that known socialist, then forfeited their good standing as a Catholic.

You don't need to pull Obama's economics into play to establish that. Catholics aren't permitted to vote for a pro-abort (and nobody is more pro-abort than Obama) if there is a legitimate pro-life candidate on the ballot, except in the presence of a "proportionately grave reason" not to vote for the pro-lifer.

Since abortion involves the murder of innocent children on a vast, industrial scale, the only "proportionately grave reasons" possible would be something equally morally reprehensible, like mass murder a la Hitler, completely unjustfied, aggressive war deliberately killing a million or so civilians a year, etc.

For whatever we may say about John McCain, we can't pin those things on him. There was no moral justification for a Catholic to vote for Bamster in the 2008 general election ... none whatsoever.

[eens]

Excellent post. While many popes have condemned communism and socialism, Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI gave us very strong and relevant statements. Two points especially underlie their condemnation, 1) the inviolable right of private ownership of property, and 2) the inevitable destruction of Christian society. Catholics today have been taught the lie that government transfer payments constitute charity. It is absolutely against Catholic teaching, specifically the 7th Commandment, to take from Peter to give to Paul.

On the other side of the coin, the popes do not defend the libertarian ideals that one may do whatever one wishes with his property. But more important is the admonition of Our Lord to give generously to those in need, and this duty is especially aimed toward those who have been given more. Our Lord did single out the rich.

We in America are rich compared to the general condition of men throughout most of history. But we have been very generous, too. This may be the reason the good God hasn’t annihilated us yet.

[the invisib1e hand]

Since when do Cathilics listen to popes?

[Cronos]

Actually, non-Catholics who are 75% of the population, 45% of them voted for Obama — that means that in pure number terms, these non-Catholics are the ones who got Obambi into power. Congratulations!