Select Page

Economic Clarity

Economic Clarity

Sept 27, 2024  |  1,336 words  |  Politics, Economics, Religion  

Over the course of his twelve-year run as pope, Francis has made it pretty clear appeasing First World sensibilities is not his top priority.  We here in the United States have not always known what to make of this, since his lack of deference can seem like disrespect at times.  

It can feel as if this Argentine pontiff is going out of his way to challenge our sense of exceptionalism, our sense of being a light to the nations and a city on a hill.  And who knows, maybe he is.  Or maybe he is just trying to broaden our perspective and bring a little Third World awareness to bear on the situation.  

I choose to think he is not disparaging us so much as he is gently prodding us to see how much more work there is left to do.  So that we should not be content to pat ourselves on the back and rest on our laurels.

In the service of this cause, Francis displays a unique ability to chide American conservatives and liberals simultaneously.  This has always struck me as part of his charm, and a sign he is doing something right.

It happened again on his return flight from a grueling 12-day trip to four tiny countries in the Asia-Pacific Rim, when reporters on the plane asked him about our upcoming presidential election.  He turned up his nose and declined to endorse either major party candidate, on the grounds that each is “against life.”  Kamala Harris because of her position on abortion, and Donald Trump because of his position on immigration.  

This bothered political partisans on both sides, since each group wants to see Catholic teaching applied in a way that endorses their preferred worldview.  Each side thinks they hold the high ground, convinced the other is the obvious apostate.

Having said that, it is undoubtedly the conservative camp who has had the longest-running feud with Pope Francis. 

They have never approved of his more “pastoral” approach to doctrine.  But what really gets their goat is the way this pope raises the issue of economic inequity every chance he gets.  Conservatives hear this as harping, and take it as a personal affront, an attack on their way of life.

This is especially true whenever Francis uses the term ‘social justice.’  That phrase puts American conservatives in a foul mood, as it smacks of the policy initiatives enacted by the Democrat left over the last hundred years, which they have steadfastly opposed as governmental overreach.

Never mind that these policies have been aimed at smoothing out the rough edges of ‘free market’ ideas advanced by conservatives.  Whether this-or-that Democrat policy has been an effective way to legislate ‘fairness’ is certainly open to debate.  My point is conservatives have always opposed these policies out of the gate, on the grounds they violate the hallowed concept of ‘limited government.’

Now, I am four-square in favor of keeping government as small as possible.  But how small is just right?  What size should a government be, to do what needs to be done?  Namely, provide for or administer to a just society, or at least a ‘more equitable’ one.  This should be an ongoing negotiation.  But the discussion should center on ‘social justice’ every bit as much as it does on ‘fiscal responsibility.’

*

That, to me, is all Pope Francis has been trying to tell us throughout his papacy.  He is talking to the Hey-I-don’t need-any-help, independent-minded contingent here in the United States, as well as the successful minority in all other ‘developed’ countries across the First World.

He was at it again on September 20, soon after he returned from that grueling trip the Asia-Pacific Rim, when he visited the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development in Rome, where he addressed a gathering of The World Meeting of Popular Movements for the fourth time in his pontificate.  Here are a few excerpts…

“If there are no policies, good policies, rational and equitable policies that strengthen social justice so that everyone has land, shelter, work, a fair salary and adequate social rights, the logic of material waste and human waste will spread, leaving violence and desolation in its wake.”

“Social justice is inseparable from compassion,” Francis insisted.  “True compassion builds the unity of people.”  The opposite of compassion is “to look down on others as if they were worthless.  It is the great temptation of our time.  To look from afar, to look from above, to look with indifference, to look with contempt, to look with hatred.”

“This is how violence is conceived: the silence of indifference enables the roar of hatred.  Silence in the face of injustice gives way to social division, social division to verbal violence, verbal violence to physical violence, physical violence to the war of all against all.”

Then Francis really got down to brass tacks, commenting on one of the foundational truths of free market ideology:

“Blind competition for more money is not a creative force, but an unhealthy attitude and a path to perdition.  Such irresponsible, immoral, and irrational behavior is destroying creation and dividing peoples.”

“Dehumanized ideologies promote the ‘culture of the winner’…  Some call this meritocracy…  (but) it is paradoxical that many times great fortunes have little to do with merit:  They are the result of income or inheritances, they are the result of the exploitation of people and the plundering of nature, they are the product of financial speculation or tax evasion, they derive from corruption or organized crime.”

Francis then repeated a familiar refrain of his:

“Sadly, it is often precisely the wealthiest who oppose the realization of social justice or integral ecology out of sheer greed.”  They pressure governments “to sustain bad policies that favor them economically.”

On the bright side Francis also acknowledged:

“Some of the richest men in the world (do) recognize that the system that allowed them to amass extraordinary fortunes – allow me to say ridiculous fortunes – is immoral and must be modified” and “that there should be more taxes on billionaires.”

“If that small percentage of billionaires who monopolize most of the planet’s wealth were encouraged to share it…  how good it would be for themselves and how fair it would be for everyone,” the pope said.  “I sincerely ask the privileged of this world to be encouraged to take this step.  They’re going to be much happier.”

*

There were about thirty representatives of different popular movements from various countries in the room as Pope Francis spoke on September 20, but many more were connected by streaming worldwide, and speakers from Sri Lanka and South Africa spoke to the group via Zoom.

Like his previous three talks to the World Meeting of Popular Movements, this 45-minute speech was a stirring call to action.  It echoed and built upon themes of social justice his papal predecessors have stressed since at least 1891, when Pope Leo XIII drilled down on the economic disparities created by the first Gilded Age.

Unfortunately, this September 20 address received zero coverage in the mainstream media.  Major news outlets did not mention the event or comment on the pope’s remarks in any way.  And apparently there were  no social media influencers in attendance, to help spread the word.  What meager reporting it did receive was  relegated to the religious press, which is where I found out about it.

The ‘silent treatment’ was no doubt the result of Francis’s choice of venue:  A not-particularly-well-known international body that brings together organizations of people on the margins of society, including the poor, the unemployed, and peasants who have lost their land.

The absence of a big, splashy, headline story enabled American conservatives to dodge another chance for a close encounter with basic Christian principles regarding economic behavior, and how that behavior impacts social justice.  Not just on the world stage, but here at home as well.  

All is not lost, however.  I have a feeling this aged, increasingly infirm Argentine pontiff will keep trying to get their attention.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.

www.robertjcavanaughjr.com

bobcavjr@gmail.com

Use the contact form below to email me.

2 + 10 =

Sowing Confusion?

Sowing Confusion?

Sept 22, 2024  |  1,041 words  |  Religion  

An aged and increasingly infirm Pope Francis may not be around much longer, but it seems he can’t leave this mortal coil soon enough to suit his conservative detractors.  The pattern of their remarks is by now well-established:  Start with a few carefully chosen words about what are no doubt the Argentine pontiff’s best of intentions, before coming down hard over his blatant disregard for this or that aspect of basic Church teaching.  These critiques are often quite erudite, and always leave the impression the commentator is far more Catholic than is the current pope.

The latest example of this ‘critical ardor’ was unfurled as the 87-year-old Francis ended his grueling 12-day tour of the Asia-Pacific Rim region.  It was the longest and among the most complicated trip of his papacy – visiting Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, East Timor, and Singapore.  These four island nations were chosen to demonstrate an outreach to what Francis has called “the peripheries,” his term for overlooked, faraway places with small, minority or persecuted Catholic communities.

The trip went from September 2 -13, and Singapore was the last stop.  During an interreligious meeting at a Catholic Junior College there Francis said religions “are like different languages in order to arrive at God, but God is God for all.  And if God is God for all, then we are all sons and daughters of God.”  Not exactly what could be described as a wild-eyed, heretical idea.

Then Francis added a call to enter into interreligious dialogue, which was also not a surprise move considering he was speaking at a meeting centered around the concept of interreligious dialogue, conducted at the tail end of an historic trip to an area of the world with small, minority or persecuted Catholic communities.

So where did he go wrong this time?  Well, it seems the pope spoke about this dialogue as if it were an end in itself.  “Interreligious dialogue is something that creates a path.”  That may seem the most obvious of declarations to some, but his critics were quick to pose this important follow-up question: A path to where?

Precisely!  The archbishop emeritus of Philadelphia, Charles A. Chaput, a highly regarded pillar of orthodoxy here in the United States, couldn’t respond fast enough to what struck him as the latest papal misstep.  

In a piece dated September 16 under the banner of First Things, that esteemed journal of conservative thought that prides itself on bringing faith into the public square, The Most Reverend Chaput came out with guns blazing:  “That all religions have equal weight is an extraordinarily flawed idea for the Successor of Peter to appear to support.”

The Archbishop then went on to wax poetic about how all the world’s religions express a human yearning, how humans have a need to worship, but that not all religions are equal in their content or consequences.  Chaput is a polished writer and is always a pleasure to read.  But I fail to see how his perceptive observations about religion in general and Catholicism in particular implicate Francis as being derelict in his duty to teach the faith clearly and preach it evangelically.

In one especially dramatic flourish, Archbishop Chaput writes: “To suggest, even loosely, that Catholics walk a more or less similar path to God as other religions drains martyrdom of its meaning.  Why give up your life for Christ when other paths get us to the same God?  Such a sacrifice would be senseless.”  Wait a minute, “drains martyrdom of its meaning”?  Here I must confess the archbishop has lost me entirely.  I thought the purpose of interreligious dialogue was to eliminate religious intolerance and religious persecution, thereby avoiding the need for anyone to die for their faith.

By now Chaput was on a roll, as he continued:  “But the witness of the martyrs is as important today as ever.  We live today in an age when the dominant religion is increasingly the worship of the self.  We need the martyrs – and each of us as a confessor of Jesus Christ – to remind an unbelieving world that the path to a genuinely rich life is to give oneself fully to another, to the other.”

This is a beautiful sentiment and is beautifully stated.  But for the life of me I cannot see where Francis has contradicted any of this.  How has he earned the ire of so many who feel that as the bishop of Rome and the institutional head of the worldwide Catholic Church he fails to teach and preach clearly.  Why are we always reading from his critics that “loose comments can only confuse,” and that “too often confusion infects and undermines the good will of this pontificate.”

Not to put too fine a point on it, but why does the archbishop emeritus of Philadelphia feel the need to remind this pope “Christians hold that Jesus alone is the path to God.  To suggest, imply, or allow others to infer otherwise is a failure to love because genuine love always wills the good of the other, and the good of all people is to know and love Jesus Christ, and through him the Father who created us.”

This may be true, Archbishop.  But while it is always good to lead a thirsty horse to water, you cannot always make that horse drink.  It is one thing to believe I have received an irreproachable deposit of faith.  It is another thing altogether to go around telling sincere believers of other religious traditions they have it all wrong.  

My Catholic faith is a tremendous gift that prompts not only a deep sense of gratitude on my part, but also a profound humility.  What Archbishop Chaput describes as the requisite stance he thinks we Catholics should take strikes me as the opposite of humility.  As well as being wholly inappropriate, considering his issue seems to be with an “unbelieving world.”  Missing from his staunch analysis is the simple fact interreligious dialogue is intended to help bring the world’s believers together, despite our many dogmatic differences.

That should not be too hard to understand.  I don’t know why so many smart people continue to go out of their way to dismiss this pope as well-meaning but hopelessly misguided.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.

www.robertjcavanaughjr.com

bobcavjr@gmail.com

Use the contact form below to email me.

1 + 1 =

The Dissemination of Distorted Information

The Dissemination of Distorted Information

October 16, 2023  |  113 words  |  Religion, Politics

Those of us who attend religious services on the weekends are routinely instructed by our clergy to show love for the “stranger,” with an emphasis on extending such love no matter how unusual or off-putting that stranger may initially appear to us.

It is a noble aim, as so many old-timey religious nostrums are.  But this one tends to go by the wayside at the first sign of trouble.

Also undermining the cause is the way many of the podcasts we listen to and YouTube videos we watch and twitter feeds we check on tend to work against developing a better understanding of the “other,” and serve instead as disseminators of distorted information.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.

www.robertjcavanaughjr.com

bobcavjr@gmail.com

Use the contact form below to email me.

6 + 13 =

Is the Pope Catholic?

Is the Pope Catholic?

September 12, 2023 | 1,624 words | Religion, Politics, Economics

Asking whether the Pope is Catholic used to be one of those funny rhetorical question that do not require an answer.  Like asking does a bird fly, or if a bear defecates in the forest.  But these days that first question is not so funny to some people, and not so rhetorical.

In the decade since Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina was elected/elevated to the papacy as Pope Francis, the complaints levied against him by conservative critics, especially conservatives here in the United States, have grown more pronounced with each passing year.  What started as semi-polite sniping over his so-called fuzzy pastoral emphasis has evolved into almost open warfare over much more serious issues.  He is now routinely accused of undermining the faith, and teaching error.  “Schism” is a word his critics are referencing quite a bit lately, when discussing the current pontiff and what lies ahead.

After ten years of this persistent opposition, Francis is now starting to return fire.  At age 86, and with his health having started to fail, he might be sensing the impending end of his run, as older people frequently do.  Last month he described the loudest conservative voices in American Catholicism as backward-looking moralists (“indietristi”) who are disconnected from the roots of the Catholic tradition and its history.  That tradition and history, as Francis understands it, is about the ongoing discernment needed to help live the Gospel message in current realities.

So who is right?  We are each expected to choose a side in this raging controversy, to either condemn Francis and champion his critics, or vice versa.  But my mind does not work that way.  I see merit on both sides.  The concept of unchanging truths the conservatives rally behind resonates with me.  On the other hand, I also think knowing the mind of Christ is no easy task, and is always a work in progress.  With Pope Francis being rather conspicuous in making a case for the latter approach.

I guess I have not been able to muster the same level of outrage toward Francis that his harshest critics exhibit on a regular basis.  Is encouraging priests to welcome and minister to people who are gay, divorced and remarried, as Francis does, a blatant violation of established doctrine?  Instead of dismissing the effort out of hand, as conservatives are wont to do, maybe we should be having an intelligent discussion about what the word “welcome” means in this context.

And why are we arguing about who is more Pro-Life?  Pope Francis has always upheld church teaching on abortion, and has been unequivocal in his defense of the innocent unborn.  Why do conservatives find fault  when he adds: “equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned.”  The latter concern does not undermine the integrity of the former position.

That Catholics of goodwill are so contentious, with the opposing camp picking apart every utterance and perceived mis-step the current pontiff makes, is a sign of the times.  The relentless partisanship of our politics has spilled over into every other aspect of our lives.  Another factor contributing to the alarm some folks are feeling is how different Francis is, stylistically and in doctrinal emphasis, from his two immediate predecessors, John Paul II (1978-2005) and Benedict XVI (2005-2013).

Both those men participated in and were products of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the big worldwide conclave in which the Catholic Church finally set aside its long-running objections to the American Experiment, and signaled that liberal democracy based on pluralism could be a legitimate form of social organization.  A little late to the party, you might say.  But better late than never, right?

These two helped craft the famous “liberating” documents that came out of that Council’s deliberations, yet as pope each went on to steer the U.S. hierarchy in a decidedly conservative theological direction.  As if to counterbalance what they still considered to be a very real problem, namely, the overwhelmingly secular influence of American culture.  

It has been clear from the start of his papacy that Pope Francis does not see this course-correction project as his top priority.  He is more interested in other things, like promoting from-the-ground-up collaboration within the church, which may lead to including lay people and even women in decision-making roles.  This is a hot-button issue for conservatives, who think such collaboration is opening a Pandora’s box that will result in confusion and error, and possibly even schism.

Hence all the talk of Francis “flipping the script” in a big, dramatic way.  But I find that to be largely a matter of interpretation.  He is, in fact, repeating many of the same themes his immediate predecessors stressed.  JPII and Benedict XVI did more than just push a conservative theological line, after all.  They also spoke and wrote extensively about the much broader mosaic of Catholic teaching around protecting life and promoting human flourishing.  Just as Francis does.

It is certainly true Francis does not mince words when speaking extemporaneously, especially when it comes to the economic stuff.  JPII and Benedict XVI were erudite and maintained proper decorum in their public statements, and this made it possible for conservatives to truncate the elaborate economic teaching they put down on paper, and frame it in a very limited way that flatters their preferred agenda.

Francis may be a little salty at times when responding to journalists, but in his plain-spoken way he is merely reiterating long-held church teaching on economic/social justice and care for the less-advantaged.  And he has made it impossible for conservatives to misconstrue his meaning on that score.

Conservatives really liked the staunchness and fidelity the last two popes displayed on certain theological subjects, and continue to cite those men wistfully.  But only because they conveniently overlook everything else those popes had to say that they do not much care for.

This current pope says quite a lot conservatives don’t much care for, and he seems to draw more than a few moral equivalencies they take issue with.  Such as tying together violations of pelvic theology conservatives consider to be doctrinally pre-eminent, with lying and cheating at the office to advance one’s career.  It seems Francis never tires of calling out those who are pre-occupied with sins below the waist but don’t lose any sleep over the exploitation of workers.  

There’s the rub, as far as I am concerned.  Conservatives can tell themselves their argument with Francis is over sexual morality or worship styles or climate change or a myriad of other things.  But what really sticks in their crawl is the way this pope openly challenges a revered concept like enlightened self-interest, and in the process comes across as anti-American or even worse, anti-capitalist.

In this regard Francis is not flipping the script at all.  Quite the contrary.  He is working from a very old and familiar one, at least in its broad outline.  A script used by every Catholic pope since our nation’s founding, each of whom have regarded the American Experiment with suspicion.

Over the last couple of centuries, a steady stream of pontiffs has issued periodic warnings about “Americanism” and “modernist” trends.  True, in the early days Catholic objections were centered on the separation of church and state, originally feared to be a danger to both individual souls and the state at large.

But Catholic tradition and history is about learning how to live out the Gospel message in current realities.  And so we find the nature of Rome’s complaint about the United States may have changed in some of the particulars, but remains in essence what it has always been:  It is our celebration of the individual, at the expense of concern for the common good, that has come under constant scrutiny.

We Americans have always taken issue with this Catholic critique of our way of life.  We do not appreciate being lectured on the common good.  And we certainly don’t appreciate having this same, tired lecture delivered by an aging pontiff from a backward Third World country who lacks a proper understanding of our singular achievement, a robust engine of economic growth predicated on small government and limited taxation.

Today’s conservatives continue to miss the larger message Rome has been trying to send them for centuries, and are pre-occupied instead by the new emphasis Francis is placing on being more pastoral toward those who have fallen short of their baptismal promise, and more inclusive toward those outside the mainstream.  Or how he consistently decries economic injustice and the treatment of migrants, while insisting on a universal right to health care, housing, and decent jobs.

Even though every pope in the modern era has talked and written at length about the very same things.  Including his two immediate predecessors.  

Accusing this pope of undermining the faith and teaching error is a very serious charge.  I have read the relevant papal documents promulgated over the last decade, the ones now being used as the basis for these mutinous claims.  And I just do not find the egregious violations of doctrine his detractors are coming up with.  If you are worried Pope Francis may be creating confusion and spreading doubt by unpacking the Gospel message and applying it to current realities, as some of his critics most assuredly are, the solution to that problem is to be a better teacher, not to skimp on the teaching.  

Shouldn’t we be trying to educate people in the fullness of the faith?  That is how I see Francis, that is how I experience his pontificate.  His critics strike me as wanting to “keep it simple, stupid” out of fear the rank and file may be too cognitively-limited to grasp the whole truth in all its splendor.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.

www.robertjcavanaughjr.com

bobcavjr@gmail.com

Use the contact form below to email me.

9 + 13 =

The Second Bill of Rights

The Second Bill Of Rights 

February 21, 2023 |  1,431 words  |  Politics, Philosophy, Religion

More on Christianity versus Liberal Democracy

Everyone is always singing the praises of liberal democracy, but these days many enthusiasts are expressing concern about the future of the institution.  Populist uprisings here in the United States and across Europe are seen as threatening the rule of law, and the idea of free and fair elections.  It seems the will of the people is not always a reliable arbiter of social policy, at least not when it contradicts that of our leading opinion-makers, or of the cognoscenti already in power.

But hasn’t that always been the dark underside of the radical autonomy ushered in by classical liberalism a half a millennium or so ago, and which defines the liberal democratic order?  

Most democracies have historically tried to mitigate the potential damage of an unrestrained outbreak of radical autonomy by limiting the franchise to the right kind of people.  While still describing their elections as “free” and “fair.”  In the case of our country’s Founders, some of the most revered signers lobbied hard for only property owners to cast ballots.  The common rabble was thought of as not having a vested interest in the outcome, and couldn’t be relied upon to vote responsibly.  This sort of gerrymandering has been happening ever since, both here and abroad, in one form or another.

The current state of classical liberalism, like that of liberal democracy, is also being hotly debated, at least among certain elite thinkers and opinion-makers.  Some are explaining “Why (Classical) Liberalism Failed.”  Others are contributing to forums asking “Is (Classical) Liberalism Worth Saving.”  The crux of the problem seems to be the way individual autonomy, when taken to an extreme, threatens the civil liberties of the wider community.  This puts a strain on the rule of law and makes it difficult to keep things from unraveling completely.  The potential for complete social unraveling has been a recurring theme under classical liberalism and liberal democracy, since it’s hard to avoid such extremes of behavior where flawed human beings are concerned.

As a culture we have agreed this strain is worth putting up with, in return for enjoying wonderful everyday liberties like religious freedom and freedom of speech.  Not to mention the crown jewel of classical liberalism: free market economics.  This last has bestowed untold riches on even ordinary working people, as basic income has increased 25 times in real terms since 1800.  

That is quite an impressive statistic, one many economists are fond of citing.  But there is more to the story, now that we are several centuries into the grand narrative.  After envisioning the ideal of a truly globalized economy for hundreds of years, we have finally arrived at its universal implementation.  And what is there to report?  The interests of most people in developing countries are being served quite well, along with the interests of elites in advanced countries.  Meanwhile, the interests of the working and middle classes in developed countries are being served hardly at all.  The very people that did so well in the three decades after World War II.

Which goes a long way toward explaining the populist uprisings being experienced here in the United States and across Europe.

It’s not that we should have stuck with the so-called “mercantile” economic system that proliferated in the 16th Century.  Only that when we started to substitute laissez-faire economics as part of an embrace of classical liberalism, we unfortunately turned our back on Christianity.  This expressed itself in a new focus on individual freedom as opposed to a concern for the common good.  This change in focus has yielded the injustices and glaring inequities we are experiencing in our free market system today.  Despite the post-1800 “enrichment” economists are forever raving about.  

*

We are taught the liberties and freedoms espoused by classical liberalism and codified in the liberal democratic order are contingent on limiting the size of government.  But when classical liberalism was first getting off the ground a half a millennium or so ago, it wasn’t “big government” in the cross hairs.  The new, revolutionary concept of individual emancipation was seen as a liberation from all previously held authority, custom, and tradition.  In other words, the elite thinkers and opinion-makers of the day were making a conscious decision to topple Christianity, the authority of record and primary keeper of custom and tradition, in favor of having us all go our own way.  In morals, politics, and economics.

The irony is that so many of today’s most enthusiastic advocates of limiting government so as to unleash economic growth consider themselves to be faithful Christians, without realizing their economic prescriptions are often at odds with the essential precepts of Christianity.

*

The presidential administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945) remains an object of ridicule for those who see a commitment to limited government as the driving force behind our nation’s remarkable success.  FDR is still a poster child for what many regard as socialist policies that are anti-American and stifle economic advancement.  While I am not qualified to debate the relative merits of Roosevelt’s many legislative initiatives, or care to defend his long and varied record in public office, I will say this: There is no denying the man’s life-long interest in social justice issues, first developed during his time at Groton Prep School in Massachusetts,  which he entered at age 14.

A much older FDR unveiled what he described as a “Second Bill of Rights” during his last State of the Union address, delivered to Congress  in January 1944.  (His better known and more frequently cited “Four Freedoms” speech was presented during his State of the Union address of three years earlier.)  By 1944 he had accumulated quite a bevy of boisterous critics, and they pounced on this particular speech as nothing less than a radical reworking of the American creed.

Instead of simply ratifying the central idea of classical liberalism, which defines “freedom” as protection from the abusive powers of government (described by some as “negative freedom”), Roosevelt proclaimed government could provide citizens with “positive freedoms,” in the form of tools they need to live lives of honor and dignity.

Here is the slippery slope of “How Classical Liberalism Morphed Into New Deal Liberalism,” as one scholar has put it.  FDR’s wacky and wild-eyed 1944 bullet points included:

  •  The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation.
  •  The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
  • The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
  • The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
  • The right of every family to a decent home.
  • The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
  • The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.
  • The right to a good education.

Roosevelt’s many ideological opponents, then and now, abhor even the slightest hint that government should provide any of the above.  And who knows, maybe they are right.  Maybe it is Corporate America that should take a closer look at this Second Bill of Rights, and figure out how to work a social conscience into its playbook.  Maybe being profitable isn’t the only thing a successful corporation owes the wider community. 

Regardless of who does what, it’s obvious there is a shortfall being generated by our current approach.  It is equally obvious that everything in Roosevelt’s idealistic (quixotic? unrealistic?) Second Bill of Rights aligns with the precepts of Christianity, and constitute what might be described as the Christian social order.  That we are no longer willing to acknowledge that, and no longer wish to discuss the situation in those terms, reveals how our commitment to the liberal democratic order has led to our complete rejection of Christianity.

So, listen, by all means let’s continue with this emancipation of the individual and this limiting the size of government.  Or, emancipating the individual and expanding government as needed to address the social fall-out.  Either way, if the objective is a well-ordered society, where every citizen has a reasonable shot at leading a life of honor and dignity, all these liberated individuals (and corporations) should consider an emergency infusion of empathy.  

Especially that segment of the population who are clever or advantaged and get to live above the fray.  For they too often employ a radical autonomy as their modus operandi.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.

www.robertjcavanaughjr.com

bobcavjr@gmail.com

Use the contact form below to email me.

3 + 10 =

Selective Ridicule

Selective Ridicule

February 13, 2023 | 1,198 words | Politics, Philosophy, Religion

Christianity versus Liberal Democracy

Everyone is always singing the praises of “liberal democracy” these days.  Not only is it universally thought of as the best possible form of government, it’s the only one any reasonable person will even consider.  This despite the strife and turmoil being experienced in democracies around the world.  And despite how we here in the United States have not done a particularly good job over the last 250 years keeping some of our own golden promises, such as the “all men (and women?) are created equal” clause in our country’s founding documents.

 

Somehow coming up short on such a fundamental premise has not prompted Americans to re-think their enthusiasm for, or question their commitment to, the liberal democratic “rule of law.”  Probably because they see it as the only game in town.

 

Christianity, on the other hand, has not been so lucky.  It no longer elicits the same degree of loyalty it once did.  In searching for a viable operational system that works for modern-day society, many elite thinkers and leading opinion-makers passed on the idea of religious belief and practice a long time ago.

 

And the rest of us have followed suit.  Christianity is no longer seen as a reliable arbiter of social thought or and public behavior, having been relegated to a merely private matter with no bearing on the larger community.

 

There is a consensus among opinion-makers and common folk alike that Christianity has been tried and found wanting.  It enjoyed its time at the top, running the show, but failed to deliver peace and prosperity.  Determined to find a better way, we adopted a system of “checks and balances” and now assume the problem is solved.  But there is something askew with the conventional wisdom.  Look how mightily our three branches of government have struggled to mete out simple justice over the last 250 years.  Then consider how much harder it has been for Christianity to get the mass of Western humanity to embody the divine directive “love your neighbor as yourself” for the last two millennium. 

 

Yet that degree-of-difficulty does not earn the Catholic Church, as the primary purveyor of Christianity for much of history, any wiggle room in the public eye.  Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, has been shunted to the side of any serious political science discussion.  Apparently, the Achilles heel of Catholicism is that it operates without consulting “the will of the people.”  This makes its shortcomings and outright failures more reprehensible, and less forgivable, than those of a run-of-the-mill secular institution. 

 

My contention is this: There was no reason to abandon the Christian social order half a millennium or so ago in favor of classical liberalism – the ideology at the heart of the liberal democratic order – due to the so-called failure of the former.  When things go wrong it is not necessarily the operating system in question that is to blame, but the people attempting to apply the system.  Flawed human beings trying to implement the lofty objectives of liberal democracy are no better or worse than the flawed humans who have been trying to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. 

 

We have been taught that liberal democracy is synonymous with reason, and is therefore the rational alternative.  But instead of an objective analysis of the advantages and benefits of one system (liberal democracy) versus the other (Christianity), we have embraced liberal democracy (and rejected Christianity) based on a highly emotional appeal to liberating the individual from any prior constraint: moral, political, and economic.  This liberation, it should be noted, is widely viewed as the key to “human flourishing.”

 

Having said that, I realize many Christians who embrace liberal democracy and the broader tenets of classical liberalism do not see themselves as rejecting Christianity.  Far from it.  In my experience, they typically see the liberal democratic order as a perfect embodiment of their Christian ideals.  A timely update, if you will, of the Christianity they know and love and profess belief in.  But to my mind that’s only because these well-intentioned souls have been let down by their teachers, and cannot see the forest for the trees.

 

*

 

There are many things to like about liberal democracy in the abstract:  Representative government with free and open elections.  The protection of individual liberties such as freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.  With these rights being codified in law, and therefore not subject to the whim of an unelected ruler.  Along with an emphasis on the separation of powers, an independent judiciary, and a system of checks and balances between branches of government.  But these lovely-sounding concepts are fatally undermined by the faulty  premise at the heart of classical liberalism, which serves as the ideological wellspring and jumping off point for liberal democracy.

 

That premise involves elevating individual autonomy and individual freedom and individual rights above any other consideration, such as the common good.  Classical liberalism asserts the individual knows best, does not require any guidance in moral, political, or economic matters, and should therefore be set free to direct his or her own path in life.  Unencumbered by any previously-held authority, custom, or tradition.

 

Following this line of thought, there is a corresponding belief in the power of the individual to figure everything out as he or she goes along, and that things in the larger society will work out for the better, eventually.

 

If you are looking for a quick explanation of how liberal democracy currently functions in opposition to Christianity, I would offer this straightforward observation.  The former encourages chutzpah in all things, while the latter encourages humility.

 

I would also suggest the Achilles heel of classical liberalism and liberal democracy is that it removes all limits to individual appetite.  It assumes an invisible hand and enlightened self-interest will corral and mollify age-old, socially-corrosive predilections such as pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony, and sloth.

 

*

 

It seems that Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, has spent the last century or so trying to adapt belief and practice to the liberal democratic order, in one way or another.  For the Anglican Church, a seminal event might be the Lambeth Conference of 1930.  For the Catholic Church, the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) comes to mind.

 

I am not critical of these efforts.  But I do think the larger society would reap more benefit if the adaptation came from the opposite direction:  If the liberal democratic order, which now reigns supreme, could bring itself to work the basic precepts of the Christian social order into its thought process.

 

Giving priority to individual freedom in social, political, and economic life, with the pursuit of individual happiness understood as the highest good, may sound reasonable.  And focusing on limited government and economic freedom to get there does indeed make a degree of sense.  Especially to the clever or advantaged among us. 

 

But this logic ignores the larger philosophical issue.  Namely, the important role humility and moderation (i.e., limiting individual appetite) play in a well-lived life, and contribute to a well-ordered society.  And how practicing these virtues naturally makes citizens more empathetic toward their fellow citizens.  Especially toward those citizens less advantaged or less clever than themselves.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.

www.robertjcavanaughjr.com

bobcavjr@gmail.com

Use the contact form below to email me.

12 + 5 =