Why Libertarian Catholics are Wrong on Economics Part 2

September 16, 2022  |  1,925 words | Economics, Politics, Philosophy, Religion   

A Brief History:  Part Two

IV.

In analyzing the ideological schism that plagues present-day Catholicism, we tend to focus on the fall-out from the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and the sexual revolution of the 1960s that surrounded it.  With good reason, since both did indeed play a large role in splintering Catholics into the current opposing camps of “liberal” and “conservative.”

But our pre-occupation with sexual liberation and what some think of as the new theology of Vatican II has obscured what I consider to be the other revolution that was taking place in American Catholicism at the very same time.   

Just to recap the sexual aspect of this discussion as it pertains to my designated audience, the conservatives, it goes something like this:  These folks have ear-marked Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) as a pernicious piece of social engineering.  That’s the Supreme Court decision based on a case brought by the wife of the President of Yale University that made the sale of artificial contraception legal.  And they swell with pride at the mention of Humanae Vitae, the famous 1968 encyclical promulgated by Pope Paul VI that is subtitled “On the Regulation of Birth.”  It reiterates what liberals consider to be outdated Church teaching on family planning and other reproductive issues.  Paul did this in the face of heavy pressure from a blue-ribbon committee headed by John D. Rockefeller that recommended the Catholic Church bring its policy on birth control in line with what the Anglican Church decreed at its Lambeth Conference of 1930.

I offer this background only to point out how these self-styled cultural warriors overlook the conservative intelligentsia’s negative reaction to an important encyclical from a few years earlier.  Mater et Magistra (1961) is Pope John XXIII’s take on social and economic justice.  I find the oversight odd, since this is what greased the skids in the first place, if you ask me.  That negative reaction to Church teaching on economics gave Catholics in the pew a mixed message, and opened the door to what some might call our present-day schism.

The subtitle of this 1961 papal encyclical is “Christianity and Social Progress.”  It was intentionally promulgated on the anniversary of Quadragesimo Anno (1931) and Rerum Novarum (1891), the two big papal encyclicals that heralded modern-era Catholic teaching on the economic question.  In it, John XXIII has the audacity to re-iterate how the state must sometimes intervene in matters of health care, education, and housing, in order to promote human dignity and achieve authentic community.

This did not sit well with the conservative Catholic establishment at the time.  William F. Buckley, Jr. (1925– 2008), another likable soul, directed his flagship publication, National Review, to announce how the Catholic Magisterium was no longer the boss when it comes to economic behavior.  The phrase employed to describe this cavalier dismissal was “Mater si, Magistra, no”, penned by a young Gary Wills (1934- ).  Mr. Wills has since gone on to enjoy a long and illustrious career as, among other things, a reliably staunch critic of papal teaching. 

I believe the rejection of what I refer to as economic morality on the part of conservative/libertarian Catholics is the very thing that paved the way for what those conservatives see as the revolution in sexual standards on the part of liberal Catholics.  At the very least, both developments unfolded simultaneously, and were mutually supportive.

V.

The 1960s may have been when all this erupted into public view, but of course each movement had much deeper roots.  Staying with the apparently less-well-known economic revolution for a moment, we find that Mr. Buckley’s outburst in the early 1960s was proceeded by two decades’ worth of behind-the-scenes agitating on the part of policy wonks and political operatives.  In the late 1930s a conservative contingent was expressing frustration with the comprehensive legislative package known as the “New Deal,” on the grounds that allowing the federal government to play such an outsized role in economic affairs was un-American.

Prior to that, as a presidential candidate on the campaign trail in 1932, the politician who was to bring us that ground-breaking legislation was already going public with his admiration for Quadragesimo Anno (1931).  Franklin Delano Roosevelt described the author of that encyclical, Pope Pius XI, as being “just as radical as I am.”  FDR’s conservative Catholic critics were not amused, and by the middle of his second term those critics were positively climbing the walls.

Which is not to suggest every piece of legislation enacted by FDR during his three plus terms in office was worthy of the Pius XI seal of approval.  Only that his Catholic critics should have based their complaints on something other than a libertarian appeal to limited government and economic freedom.

This tendency to compromise Church teaching when it comes to economics – sacrificing the common good in favor of a rugged pursuit of individual advancement – is nothing new.  It’s the very same battle noted American intellectual, activist, one-time Universalist preacher, labor organizer, and Catholic covert Orestes Brownson (1803-1876) was waging in the 1860s and 1870s with the Catholic politicians of his day, who cleverly justified not allowing religious beliefs to inform their actions while in public office.

The genesis of this compromise can probably be traced all the way back to 1802, when the idea of separation of church and state first entered the American lexicon.  Though not formally established by either the Declaration of Independence (1776) or the Constitution (1787), Thomas Jefferson was able to insert it after the fact, and it has since become an accepted principle of our pluralist nation.

Rome, for its part, has been consistently trying to clarify things for its upstart American followers.  The Syllabus of Errors (1864), though not directed specifically at us, still spoke to the American version of the popular modernist trend sweeping over the West in the wake of the Enlightenment.   On Americanism (1899), a papal encyclical penned by Pope Leo XIII, was indeed aimed directly at us, and at our leading prelate at the time, James Cardinal Gibbons.  Cardinal Gibbons, you may recall, became a major proponent of the American Experiment.  By the time he appeared on the scene in the 1880s the Church in the United States was flourishing.  New parishes were being established left and right, beautiful cathedrals were getting built, convents and seminaries were full to bursting.  

Gibbons concluded America’s new form of government – a pluralist, liberal democracy – was good for the propagation of Catholicism.  But his rosy assessment didn’t account for the exploitation of the working class being perpetrated at the time by the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age.  Good thing Leo XIII was on hand to address the problem in his formidable 1891 encyclical, Rerum Novarum, sub-titled “On Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor.”

This special encyclical kicked off Catholic social teaching as it pertains to modern-day economic behavior. And this aspect of the Church’s Magisterium has been going strong ever since.  Every pope since Leo, in every single papal encyclical, has made reference to this economic teaching, to one degree or another.  And the conservative/libertarian Catholic brain trust in this country has been ignoring that teaching for just as long.

VI.

Well-meaning people on both sides of the aisle can disagree as to the underlying source of our present cultural stalemate.  Though I would think we can all agree the contentious nature of our politics has indeed brought us to a bit of a stalemate, since fights are likely to break out among friends and neighbors at the drop of a hat, over the average day’s headlines.  What can be done to improve the cultural climate, moving forward?

Well, most successful conservative Catholics I know think “righting the ship” will be as simple as reversing Roe v. Wade, and electing another Republican to the White House.  Then we can all sit back as the culture magically heals itself, and the familiar trickle-down economic policy prescriptions are once again put in play to solve all our economic woes.  

Whereas the more thoughtful (and typically less successful) conservative Catholics I know are given to a sense of despair.  They see the dissolution of Western civilization as being so pronounced, conventional political alternatives offer them little hope for improvement.  Such folks are busy implementing their own version of what’s been dubbed “The Benedict Option.”  The only reasonable way to address their overwhelming sense of spiritual ennui is to pull back from mainstream culture altogether.  These stout souls are out to build a new sense of community that strikes them as being more authentic than the consumer-oriented one we have now.  They are usually happy to live far from the madding crowd.

This latter approach certainly has a lot to recommend it, since good things usually happen when birds of a feather flock together.

VII.

The romantic appeal of the Benedict Option, as put forth by author Rod Dreher in his best-selling 2017 book of the same name, is undeniable to a solitary soul like me.  But romance aside, there is another strategy available to faithful believers in this secular world of ours.  To access it, though, we must hedge a bit on that ancient admonition to be in the world, but not of it.  If we seek a cultural restoration, we should not be so quick to exile ourselves from the mainstream.

My suggestion on how to alter the course of Western civilization for the better will not be easy for either brand of conservative Catholic to swallow.  Not for the Wall Street Journal crowd, who has the world by the tail and is enamored of Republican fiscal policy.  And not for the more modest Benedict Option types who distrust all political machinations, and harbor a special disdain for what they see as the openly immoral nature of certain aspects of Democrat social policy.

But my plan has an upside:  Achieving cultural restoration will not require any sort of dramatic about-face, or anything as drastic as a re-invention of the wheel.  We do not need to come up with an entirely new system of economic exchange, nor must we foment a political revolution that will result in a return to what some fondly remember as the confessional state of bygone days.  

Yes, it’s true, all of modernity has been fraught with problems.  But there is a reason the smart set sought the overthrow of the Christian ethos at the beginning of the modern era, all those hundreds of years ago.  Everyone was ready to try something new for a simple reason:  Christians were not doing Christianity very well.  So here we Christians now find ourselves, in the land of pluralism and liberal democracy based on majority rule.  And it’s our job as people of faith to make it work.

Contrary to conventional conservative wisdom on the subject, the fastest way to restore a semblance of moral clarity to contemporary secular culture is not to try and re-legislate morality back into the system by repealing Roe v. Wade, or rescinding the legalization of gay marriage.  Because in a nation dedicated to the proposition of individual liberty in the pursuit of one’s own definition of happiness, taking away choice in any area of personal behavior is not a winning strategy.

Instead of taking something away from people, better to provide something they currently lack.  In this case that something is dignity and a sense of authentic community.  Recasting our existing capitalist model from one based solely on supply and demand, to one that can work justice and charity into the picture, could provide both.  

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr

September 16, 2022

Why Libertarian Catholics are Wrong on Economics 1

September 12, 2022  |  1,571 words | Economics, Politics, Philosophy, Religion   

A Brief History:  Part One

I.

First Things has always been a classy journal featuring quality contributions from orthodox scholars and academics.  Father Richard John Neuhaus (1936-2009), the founding editor and famous Lutheran convert to Catholicism, was a prose stylist par excellence.  Anything he chose to write about in his monthly dairy entries was a pleasure to read.

But I stopped checking him out once I realized the magazine was another assembly of devout intellectuals who can’t seem to connect the dots between what they think of as our amoral culture, and what I consider to be our ethically-challenged economic way of life.  Another battalion of thoughtful writers who believe there is essentially nothing wrong with the economic status quo. 

At dinner recently a friend described a faithful Catholic of his acquaintance who attends Mass and goes to Confession weekly, yet is of the opinion, “economics has nothing to do with morals.”

Sadly, every conservative Catholic I know holds this view.  They have bought the libertarian line that self-interest is the best way for a free society to operate.  They have come to believe this harsh philosophy honors foundational Catholic concepts such as human dignity and free will.  They reach this conclusion by focusing their attention on the American version of individual liberty, which just happens to be at odds with the all-important Catholic formulation that we are all relational creatures by nature.

High-brow media outlets like First Things contribute mightily to what I would describe as a misdirection, since its influence far exceeds its limited subscription base.   Its editorial slant on economics represents accepted wisdom among all conservative Catholic commentators.  The faulty messaging is constantly being repeated on a variety of popular media platforms, and becomes the only one an orthodox believer takes seriously.

Father Neuhaus thought capitalism could be a reliable embodiment of Christianity.  With the operative word in that sentence being “could.”  Unfortunately, like all conservative intellectuals with a notable public profile, he was unable to grasp just how far capitalism has strayed from anything even remotely associated with the Christian ethos.

II.

Many respectable, law-abiding citizens assume we have arrived at our contentious cultural crossroads through a misreading of the moral law as it pertains to human sexuality.  But there is another important piece to this puzzle that has escaped their notice.  It’s the misreading on the part of conservative/libertarian Catholics (and other conservative/libertarians of goodwill) as to what the proper rules of economic engagement should be.  In fact, I would contend our free-wheeling economic system is far more responsible for where we find ourselves today culturally than any perceived deviation in sexual mores.

Like their secular counterparts, many practicing Catholics now believe the individual should be allowed to pursue his or her economic advancement without outside interference, and completely unencumbered by what the Founders describe as “outside affiliations.”  James Madison refers to this ideal condition as “an absence of obstacles” in one of the Federalist Papers.

But being left alone to do your own thing, which is a fundamental tenet of Americanism, is not exactly compatible with being your brother’s keeper, a fundamental tenet of Christianity.  Conservatives who are quick to revere our Founders as Christian stalwarts, and attribute today’s problems to the gradual abandonment of our Christian roots, are nostalgic for a thing that never was.  Since America was founded on the Enlightenment, and only ever possessed residual traces of Christianity.  

This is the misunderstanding that leads conservatives to mistakenly lay blame for what they don’t like in contemporary society at the feet of secularists, or secular humanists, in the form of liberal policy makers, big government, a radical judiciary that has legislated a new morality from the bench, etc., etc.  They absolve present-day Republicans of any complicity in the matter.  In fact, they see Republicans as their one, true ally in a noble crusade to “restore the culture.”

I agree the state has worked to undermine/redefine cultural norms.  But now, after reading Patrick Deneen’s snappy little masterpiece, Why Liberalism Failed (2018), I also see the state’s actions over the entire course of our nation’s history as having been executed in the name of Enlightenment principles such as expanding individual freedom and economic opportunity.  Both of which just happen to be cornerstones of the American Experiment, and central elements of the Republican Party’s (and before that, the Whig Party’s) “conservative” agenda.  

In a paradox few conservative and libertarians appreciate, the cultural trends today’s various traditional/orthodox populations bemoan ad nauseum have actually drawn their inspiration from and been driven by long-held Republican/Whig principles.

This is the underlying theme of Mr. Deneen’s (1964 -) book.  The unexpected conclusion is slowly revealed, page-by-page.  A professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame, Deneen offers up a broad historical overview.  He takes his time and provides lots of supporting argument in locating the source of our present day cultural/political divisiveness in a place where most readers would least expect to find it.

Mr. Deneen’s greatest gift to our public discourse is to calmly point out how both warring factions in our contentious political divide – liberals and conservatives – are in reality two sides of the same ideological coin.  He introduces the reader to what he describes as two forms of American liberalism.  First there is “classical liberalism,” whose followers are now called “libertarians.”  And then there is “progressive/modern liberalism,” championed by people we simply refer to today as “liberals.”  Both these forms of American liberalism implement the same flawed thought process, though under slightly different guises.  With individual emancipation superseding concern for the common good.  

My introduction to “classical liberalism” and the libertarian push for economic freedom came late in 2013.  It was the boisterous conservative backlash to those eight infamous “economic” paragraphs in Pope Francis’ first apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium (November 2013) that got my attention.  The same conservative influencers who had praised Francis to the skies when first elevated/elected to the papacy in March 2013, for his modest ways and man-of-the-people street cred, were now clamoring for his head over the impertinence he displayed by ever-so-briefly questioning the efficacy of unfettered capitalism.  

When Mr. Deneen’s book finally came along in 2018, it proved to be the cultural/economic/political Rosetta Stone I had been waiting for.

III.

The best thing one can say about First Things magazine is its editors and contributors are simply unable to see the big picture on economics.  The worst one can say is First Things is just another respectable tome that keeps conservative-leaning citizens in the dark about the true nature of Catholic social teaching on economics.

For some observers the big question is whether Father Neuhaus was duped, or if he actively participated in the deception.  But that line of inquiry does not particularly interest me.  I do know Neuhaus drew inspiration for his rosy view of the economic status quo from the work of Michael Novak (1933-2017), who first published his seminal book, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, in 1982.  Novak’s premise, that free enterprise is inherently moral, has been subsequently championed by a new generation of high-profile Catholics who proudly identify as politically conservative.

Among the most prominent of this next generation is Arthur Brooks (1964- ), who recently finished a ten-year stint as president of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).  Though his tenure at that organization is no longer part of his official bio.  Mr. Brooks was paid one million dollars annually to function as “rainmaker-in-chief” for this privately-funded think tank.  That meant convincing wealthy donors to shift some of their spare cash to AEI’s coffers, to underwrite a variety of worthy causes.  There are literally hundreds of “scholars” operating out of AEI’s gleaming new headquarters building in Washington, D.C., and no doubt some of them are busy doing really good work.  But AEI is also known for giving Republican legislators their talking points on economic issues of the day.  Such as arguing against a raise in the federally-mandated minimum wage.

Over the years Mr. Brooks has made his case in a number of non-fiction books that have been certified as New York Times best-sellers, such as The Conservative Heart (2015).  His final act upon leaving AEI was to produce and star in a documentary film, The Pursuit (2019).  In it, Mr. Brooks is seen visiting a variety of exotic locales around the world, while talking his way through many of his favorite themes.  In the end, his economic message boils down to a simplistic, decidedly non-Catholic view that laissez-faire free enterprise is always preferable to government interference in the economy.

And that’s my beef with otherwise likable souls such as Arthur Brooks, Michael Novak, and Richard John Neuhaus.  They ignore all pre-Vatican II (1962-1965) papal teaching on economics, which clearly and forcefully speaks of the occasional need for government intervention to protect the social fabric and honor the common good.  Then they cleverly crib select citations from the two main post-conciliar popes – John Paul II and Benedict XVI – to bolster their case.  

Pope Francis, in works such as Evangelii Gaudium (2013) and Laudato Si (2015), is either subtly passed over or outright disparaged by this contingent.  I guess that’s because Francis has a tendency to use unambiguous – and sometimes even a bit salty – language in reaffirming long held Church teaching on what ethical economic behavior should look like in a free market environment. Apparently, the libertarian Catholic (Republican) establishment doesn’t like being reminded of these inconvenient economic truths.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr

September 12, 2022