← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident

The Trouble With Catholic Social Teaching

Thread ID: 12834 | Posts: 5 | Started: 2004-03-22

Wayback Archive

Texas Dissident [OP]

2004-03-22 18:24 | User Profile

[url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods25.html]The Trouble With Catholic Social Teaching[/url]

by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

*The Lou Church Memorial Lecture in Religion and Economics, Austrian Scholars Conference, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama, March 20, 2004. *

The points I made in that paper have been a source of controversy in some Catholic circles even as they were happily welcomed in others. In my remarks today, therefore, I wish to do three things. First, I shall briefly dispense with the implicit - and at times not so implicit - claim heard in certain quarters that someone who takes the economic views I have adopted involves himself in "dissent" from Church teaching. As I show at much greater length in my book, the nature of economics as a positive science possessing an internal coherence of its own renders this claim perfectly nonsensical. Second, I wish to speak at some length about a single example - that of labor and wage rates - that demonstrates the importance of sound economic analysis to proper moral judgment, and which provides a passing glimpse of some of the difficulties and frustrations with which the Catholic Austrian has at times had to reckon. Finally, I wish to say a few words about the philosophical attractiveness of Austrian economics from a Catholic point of view.

Paleoleftist

2004-03-22 22:53 | User Profile

This article is too simplistic. For example, he can´t be serious in saying:

"The only way child labor can come to a genuine end is when the need for it has dwindled or disappeared."

This is like saying: "The only way murder can come to a genuine end is when the need for it has dwindled or disappeared." Nope, you put those who engage in that kind of activity behind bars.

Also, incidentally, we have a saying here in Austria that we had all been well off until our politicians started to listen to the Austrian School! :lol:

Walter Yannis

2004-03-24 07:28 | User Profile

This is very interesting, I have it bookmarked for later.

I perused the article, though.

The author doesn't seem to make the connection between the problems of capitalism and the issue of corporate organization.

The more I reflect on the matter, the more thoroughly I'm convinced that the problem isn't the separation of labor from capital, it is rather the destruction of private property through the legalized separation of ownership from management and liability. The separation of labor from capital is more of an effect of this than is generally appreciated, IMHO.

We call stock "property" but it really isn't properly speaking. It's a sort of "virtual property", like our fiat currency. An maybe that's the problem at bottom: we mistake the virtual economy of fiat money and anonymouly held securities for the real economy of real people expending real sweat producing real goods and services.

Walter

Buster

2004-03-25 16:46 | User Profile

CURRENT ISSUE | SUBSCRIBE | CHRONICLES EXTRA | AUDIO | EVENTS | ROCKFORD FILES Monday, March 22, 2004

“Economic Law” versus Catholic Social Teaching

by Scott Richert

In “The Trouble With Catholic Social Teaching,” a posting on LewRockwell.com today, my friend Tom Woods writes that he has completed a full-length book on what he calls the “unresolved tension between Catholic social teaching and economic law.” I look forward to reading it. Tom and I, of course, have very different views on this matter, though we share an aversion to national economic policies that limit economic freedom.

I expect to have much more to say when I receive a review copy of Tom’s book (and I’ll probably offer a few more comments over the next few days on today’s article), but, for today, let me note one thing, namely, Tom’s use of such phrases as “economic law,” “economic science,” “the very nature of economics,” “value-neutral, scientific discipline.” This, it seems to me, goes right to the heart of the matter. Catholic social thought does not regard economics as a hard science, like mathematics; at best, it is a science in the sense that Latin and all European languages other than English can use the term—knowledge as the object of study. Thus, history can be a science without there being a science of history, in the sense of immutable laws that govern history. For Tom’s book to make a serious contribution to any debate over Catholic social teaching, he must quit begging this question. He stumbles (quite literally) across this in “The Trouble With Catholic Social Teaching” when he writes:

Pope Pius XI made a significant concession in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (1931), which marked the fortieth anniversary of the issuance of Leo XIII’s seminal Rerum Novarum. He acknowledged that limits must exist to what the moral theologian may legitimately say within the economic sphere, since “economics and moral science employs each its own principles in its own sphere.” To be sure, the Pope then went on to deny that “the economic and moral orders are so distinct from and alien to each other that the former depends in no way on the latter.” But once it has been conceded that economics is a bona fide science possessing an internal coherence of its own, problems immediately arise for those who would claim that Catholic social teaching definitively settles all major economic matters in an absolute and binding way.

First, note that Pius XI did not concede that “economics is a bona fide science” in the sense of mathematics, as Tom implies. Pius does not refer to “economic science,” and his very use of the term moral science, which (Tom would, I trust, agree) does not have laws analogous to the laws of mathematics, makes it clear that he is writing—in Latin, of course—within the context of the broader understanding of scientia.

Second, Tom’s almost parenthetical aside—”To be sure . . . “—is the primary point for Christians (not just Catholics). In a world created by God and redeemed by Christ, every action man takes is, for good or ill, a moral action—and that’s nowhere more true than in actions that involve our relationship to others, as employers and employees, buyers and sellers, creditors and debtors, and, yes, beggars and almsgivers. I trust that Tom agrees that Catholics believe that it is the Church’s role to provide guidance on moral questions. The question, then, comes down to the nature of economic science. If Tom’s assumption is incorrect, and “economic laws” aren’t the equivalent of mathematical laws, then the Church is well within Her authority to instruct Christians to act outside of such “laws”—or, indeed, even to act against them. What She cannot do is ask men to ask to act against natural law or against charity, both of which, of course, have something to say about the limits of the economic order.

Finally, a word of advice to a friend: This will be a very controversial book, Tom. You are making an argument concerning the limits of the Church’s teaching authority. If you want it to be taken seriously by serious Catholics (and to ward off certain arguments that will likely ensue otherwise), you should attempt to obtain a nihil obstat for the text. If you cannot obtain a nihil obstat, you should modify your argument until you can. And if you find that you would have to do too much violence to your argument to obtain it, then you should reconsider your argument before you proceed with publication.

/Economic Freedom/Theory versus Reality | print | permanent link | writebacks (3

Paleoleftist

2004-03-25 21:30 | User Profile

Summing it up in one sentence: Private Vice should never be considered Public Virtue. And Greed, upon which pure, unregulated capitalism cannot but operate, is most assuredly a Vice.

But this is what the assorted Economic "Schools" of Libertarianism, Classical Liberalism and Neo-Classical Liberalism (Chicago/Viennese School) all presuppose (not all economists agree with them, btw), or they can´t make their argument. These "Schools", intentionally or not, both presume and foster a moral-free attitude, at least concerning questions economic.

Now, apart from the obvious hypocrisy, a political force that appeals to Christian Morality concerning patriotism and sex, but to the amoralism of Adam Smith in things economic will not appeal to many, and consequently go nowhere.

"Smith's laissez-faire economics was a naive hope at best,but when it was combined with the bourgeois dogma of absolute property rights (the belief that one can do whatever one wants with one's own property), it became downright immoral and an immediate danger to the average worker. Not factored into Smith's considerations was the fact that at least one way in which manufacturers could operate in their own self-interest was by lowering labor costs. Individuals were not only the agents in society that created demand by purchasing products, but they were also the labor force and, thus, a integral element of the supply side that could be purchased at an ever decreasing price as labor became available in abundance. And far from competing for labor resources, manufacturers quickly discovered that people were quite desperate for money and were forced to sell themselves at less than a just wage-a dramatic instance of Smith's law failing to set a "fair" price.

Collective exploitation of this situation by the capitalists led to inordinately poor working conditions, long hours in sweatshops, child and woman slave labor, and a general degradation of the masses of humanity that had nothing other than their labor to sell-we enter here the world of Charles Dickens. The advent of unions and collective bargaining somewhat protected the worker who otherwise stood naked before these industrial giants; but, the problem remains with us today and shows no sign of relief. Once again, we have an instance of the impossibility of founding an economic system on an amoral principle and expecting the dignity of man to be protected. The origin of the second major event in the history of capitalist disorders, at least here in the US, is located with Calvin Coolidge and his generation. If we call the first phase of capitalism labor-driven in that exploitation was concentrated on the labor force, we may call the second phase consumer-driven because attention was shifted onto the consumer. Although we inherit both problems today, each surfacing in turn, consumer-driven capitalism is much more insidious in that it has been largely successful in absorbing our culture and churning it into mush." [url]http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/cw_jan98/crucified.html[/url]