Bishops and Citizenship

Post by Vatican Radio - English Section.

Post by ROME REPORTS.

NBC News

With what credentials did John Paul II and Benedict XVI travel to other countries? As head of state for the Vatican City? No doubt Francis will do the same, and it is said that Benedict XVI also kept his German passport. Therefore, one should not see the renewal of his passport as a repudiation of the sovereign status of Vatican City. Still, if the pope were to renounce his political independence, should he not then be a citizen of Rome or the Italian state, if he is bishop of Rome? Where should his political loyalties be? To another polity or state or people? The pope, like all Christians, should love all, but if we hold to the order of charity, his political community would have priority over other political communities.

Edit. There is a "second-hand" report circulating that Pope Francis did indeed express his desire to travel using his Argentinian passport: BERGOGLIO, Jorge Mario. Is the source reliable? If so, does Pope Francis intend to do so and not use his official credentials as the head of Vatican City at all? Does Francis's decision, then, differ from what Benedict did? (I have not found "official" confirmation that Benedict XVI retrained his German passport but did not use it; this "fact" was repeated by various people on posts about Francis's renewal of his Argentinian passport.)

Latest from Socci: The Papal Games by Christopher A. Ferrara



Terminology: What is the "official" name of the Traditional Latin Mass? Is it "Extraordinary Form"?

W. Winston Elliott III recommends Chris Ferrara's Liberty: The God That Failed. Does he agree with all the details of his historical narrative? Seems like it.

The Common Good, In the Concrete

Some brief comments on What If Aristotle was Right? by Thaddeus Kozinski - I don't think I would trace the source of the disagreement to the Declaration of Independence, even if Robert George were to cite it as support for his views. If George wrote that this understanding of the Declaration of Independence was foundational to his education in politics/political theory, that would be more convincing.

Let us agree that the nation-state, in whatever configuration it happened or happens to be (Federalist or Anti-federalist level of centralization, libertarian-market or welfare state, Republican or Democrat controlled, lower or higher taxes, Tea-Party or Occupy Wall St. ethos, Bush or Obama, Obamney), is what it is, that is, an alliance, not a common-good institution, suitable for and capable only of providing goods and services to those polis organizations that can (but only with the Alliances’s instrumental help, as George insists) embody and keep common goods. Thus, it is just good philosophy to recognize what is and must be the case, and to act upon it. This, to me, is where George is coming from.

The original [con-]federation of States was indeed an alliance and intended as such. Thus the good of the alliance was an instrumental good, subordinate to the good of each individual state. If a state no longer wished to live in alliance with the other states, it could separate, that is secede. Given the scale of the federation, it does not make sense to say that living with the peoples of other states is equal to living with one's fellow citizens in one's state. (And yes, that does raise the question of whether certain states were too large in themselves.) The unitary nation-state that arose from the War to Prevent Southern Independence may pretend to be fostering the common good as it is understood within classical or Thomistic political theory, but it cannot bring this about because of the disparity in scale. And so the power of the National Government must be checked lest it become unjust.

For the record, I agree with Hannon (and Kozinski) more than with George. Some of the disagreements I have with Kozinski in this essay are:

(1) Regarding the historical narrative of the founding. I reject the nationalist narrative (of the Yankee) in favor of the truly federalist narrative (as put forth by the paleos and Southron conservatives).
(2) Statements like this which absolutize and do not seem to have a historical foundation: "that the Federal Government always was opposed to the existence and autonomy of genuine, non-alliance, common-good seeking-and-embodying polises within its boundaries.
(3) The usefulness of Christopher Ferrara's polemic, Liberty, the God that Failed (which should get a response from a paleo). (You can find a summary of the book in this review by Matt C. Abbott. A review by John F. McManus.)
(4) Then there is the conception of the Catholic Church as a super-polis... but an essay dealing with the good of the political community and how it is related to the [intrinsic] good of the local Church (and the [intrinsic] good of the universal Church) needs to be done elsewhere.




Prof. Kozinski recommended the following: What is the Primary Intrinsic Common Good of Political or Imperial Community? The author, "sancrucensis," of this post writes:

"So I would say that the primary common good of political life is the reflection in the community of the order of the universe. A reflection that consists in each part realizing its proper function, in the various parts being ordered to each other in a hierarchy of subordination, and in the whole being ordered to the glory of the Creator."

I think I'd probably disagree with this formulation - while the political common good is open to the divine life (and "subordinate" to the common good of the universe, God Himself), it is also an intrinsic good in itself - the people living together ("as a community"). While the author refers to James Chastek's recent post, he does not address the question of scale, perhaps because of his support for some version of integralism and an acceptance of a traditionalist Catholic history of Europe.

One can probably see the same trends concerning the loss of local community and culture in Europe, with the pattern of centralization of power and the growth of the state, beginning in the 1500s?! The loss had been gradual, but accelerated with the centralization of economic power and its dependence upon cheap energy. I think the trend has been even worse in the United States with the loss of sustainable agrarian economies and the cultural norm of re-settling somewhere else in search of greater individual or familial prosperity. While the early settlers of the states may have had a common Anglo cultural core, this in itself is not the same as a group identity or solidarity. (It would be equal to a cultural idetity.) Such a group identity can only develop when people [men] stay in place, commit themselves to the group and work together for the benefit of the group. Such localized group identities (and local patriotism) probably still existed to a great degree in the states before Lincoln's war.

Related:
The Political Problem of Religious Pluralism
Thaddeus Kozinski Makes an Argument for a Catholic Confessional State

"Well-Being of Society" Subject of Upcoming Conference
UK Ambassador to Holy See Speaks on Challenges of Promoting "Happiness"

Marshall vs. Jefferson Then and Now: How the Intellectual and Political Struggle Over the Constitution Resonates Today by Phillip G. Henderson

Was There A Founding? by John Willson

Remnant Regulars and Correspondents on Pope Francis I

Pope Francis by Michael J. Matt







Traditionalists and Pope Francis: Can We Take a Deep Breath and Please Calm Down? by Taylor Marshall

The Reform Traditionalists Want?

Begun on February 25, 2013.

A post at the Orthosphere refers to this articlet by Christopher Ferrara from last year: The Legislating Church: ‘Vatileaks’ and Other Iceberg Tips.

Is not the Roman Curia not a part of the administration of the papacy itself? How can one decry "the legislating Church" that devastated changed the Roman rite, if it had not received the power to do so from the pope in the first place? We cannot say papal authority has been usurped, as it has been delegated "properly."

Mr. Ferrara outlines the changes in the Roman Curia and the great power that was accorded to the Secretary of State:

In 1967-68, under the authority of Pope Paul’s apostolic constitution Regimini Ecclesiae Universae, the Curia underwent a dramatic restructuring designed and implemented by then Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Jean-Marie Villot, another suspected Mason. The aim was to eliminate, as much possible, what we are now told is the old “monarchical model” of the Church in favor of the new “model” of collegiality. Before the Council, the Curia was indeed structured along monarchical lines. The Pope was Prefect of the Holy Office, to which all other Vatican dicasteries were subordinated, while the Cardinal in charge of the day-to-day business of the Holy Office was the Pro-Prefect, reporting directly and only to the Pope. The Pope, as Vicar Christ on earth, was thus at the head of a chain of command over which he wielded his authority directly or through the Holy Office.

Under the “reform” engineered and carried out by Villot, however, the Holy Office was renamed, becoming the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)—the name “Holy Office” being far too old-fashioned for the Church’s “new orientation” after the Council. The Cardinal Secretary of State was placed above all the Vatican dicasteries, including the CDF. Worse, the Pope was no longer Prefect of the former Holy Office, which (as the CDF) would now be under a Cardinal Prefect organizationally subordinated to the Secretary of State. In short, Paul VI “enhanced the powers of the Secretary [of State], placing him over all the other departments of the Roman Curia.” (Cf. “Cardinal Secretary of State,” http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Cardinal_Secretary_of_State).

Since the Council the Vatican Secretary of State has been constituted a kind of Vicar of the Vicar of Christ, with a resulting functional detachment of the new Legislating Church from direct papal control. This decidedly unfavorable development was only exacerbated by John Paul II’s apostolic constitution Pastor Bonus...

Apparently traditionalists like Mr. Ferrera want a purified or restored monarchical papacy and a reconstituting of the various offices of the Curia. The [post-conciliar] preference for "collegiality" gets the blame for the shift in power:

Today it appears that the Vicar of Christ has become a captive of the democratization of the Church according to a model of “collegiality” that purports to replace the monarchy which the papacy established by Christ the King really is. It seems that the Pope views himself as but a cog, albeit the biggest and most important cog, in the vast clockwork of a Legislating Church whose “decisions” must be allowed to operate autonomously and by consent of the governed in keeping with the collegial and democratic mechanisms of the new model. No longer seeing himself as a monarch with the prerogatives and peremptory authority of a monarch, the Pope of the Legislating Church feels constrained to rely on mere suasion and appeals to procedural due process in the hope of effectuating what he wishes to see done.

But would such ecclesiastical micromanaging desirable, even if possible? (And I do not think that it is possible.) Maybe the pope could better curb the bureaucrats and exercise greater oversight. Or we could reconsider the nature of the pope's authority and the limits to his powers, relating this to the structure of the Roman curia and its necessity.

Collegiality does not refer to the bureaucracy, but to all of the bishops, working together for the good of the Church. Small wonder that the Orthodox are concerned about the pope being a "super bishop," when traditionalist Catholics are holding on to this understanding of the papacy.

What would traditionalists recommend be done about "rogue" or "errant" bishops? How are they to be handled or disciplined? The inaction of John Paul II (and now Benedict XVI?) with respect to heterodox bishops and the like had been defended on the grounds that it was feared schism might result. But have they (and those attached to them) already cut themselves off the Church if they have knowingly rejected the Church's teaching in favor of their own opinion? What about incompetent bishops?

(Again, the question of who has control over Church property, especially here in the United States.)

Instead of acquiescing in the decision of some bishops to permit altar girls, what could the pope (or the curia) have done instead? This action pertains to "discipline" and not to the teaching of faith and morals... (Though it arguably pertains to the [practical] observance of faith and morals.) Would it have been better to be firm on this point and let he laity be exposed to the scandal of bishops and priests who are in disobedience? Was this a "hill" that the pope did not want to die on? Or was it necessary to give the image of a "united" Church?

What is to be done about the "patriarchate of the West"?

Christopher A. Ferrara on the Abdication of Pope Benedict XVI

Something Wicked This Way Comes (via The Thinking Housewife)

"Why, then, did Benedict XVI abdicate, and so suddenly? The proffered explanation of declining health and strength, which has afflicted any number of Popes who remained in office until God called them, would suggest a Pope who has simply failed in the virtue of perseverance and done something contemptible. (Dante for this reason places Pope Celestine in Hell.)"

A pious belief that is not really the true standard of service and perseverence? If one he without good reason (because one is "tired" of the work) then this may be a charact assessment of his character. But if decliningi health prevents one from carrying out ones duties well, or even adequately? That is entirely different. The good of the Church is at stake.

Tellingly, what appear to be Pope Benedict’s final three acts of canonization—generally acknowledged by theologians to be an infallible act of the Magisterium because it establishes a cult for the universal Church—involved only classic candidates for sainthood.

This has not be defined by the Magisterium? As for establishing a cult for the universal church - is this explicitly stated in the decree? I would have to check. Is it possible though that the pope could be confused as to whether he was making a proclamation for the Church universal as the supreme pontiff, rather than as the patriarch of Rome (or of the West)?

Mr. Ferrera offers a hypothesis:

This is quite unlike the non-infallible beatification of John Paul II, establishing only a local cult in the dioceses of Rome and Krakow (although this crucial distinction was promptly ignored). Concerning this beatification, Vatican spokesmen offered the astonishing rationale that “Pope John Paul II is being beatified not because of his impact on history or on the Catholic Church, but because of the way he lived the Christian virtues of faith, hope and love... John Paul II is being beatified for holiness, not his papacy….” A Pope whose beatification had nothing to do with his pontificate, and yet is called “the Great,” is another of the innumerable oddities that litter the post-conciliar landscape of the Church.

Now, Pope Benedict’s abdication is to take effect a mere seventeen days from today, on February 28, 2013 at precisely 8 p.m. This means that Benedict will avoid the dubious canonization of John Paul II and the simply absurd beatification of Paul VI. The steamroller driving toward those vexatious events, sweeping aside all reasonable objections, has suddenly been stopped dead in its tracks.  Did the Pope abdicate, at least in part, to slow down John Paul II’s saint-making machine, which was threatening to canonize the Council of which Benedict himself (in his more candid moments) has been so critical?  We may be permitted to think so.

But one might ask, was not Benedict XVI one of the biggest supporters for raising John Paul II to the altars? It would seem so from his public statements. Benedict XVI was the originator and the most public proponent of the "hermeneutic of continuity"? Could he himself have been thinking that this was merely a temporary face-saving measure, rather than a true salvaging of the council from abusive post-conciliar interpretations?  Mr. Ferrera has a response:

It stands to reason that if Benedict were at all committed to the idea of “Saint John Paul II the Great” and “Blessed Paul VI,” he would have remained in office at least long enough to perform the necessary papal acts. Yet he has left office, in a purely discretionary manner, just as those acts were slated to occur—during the ironically designated “Year of Faith” that is taking place in the midst of the “silent apostasy” that is our inheritance from the previous two pontificates.

Actually, two:

Or perhaps, even if this was not the Pope’s conscious intent, the Holy Ghost has intervened by prompting him to abdicate rather than inflicting further damage to the Church by acceding to the Council’s canonization via improvident acts of the Magisterium.

But, of course, Mr. Ferrara writes as a rather ultramontane traditionalist:

But we can be certain that the wolves the Pope has in view are preeminently the ones nearest to him, encircling him within the very confines of a Vatican bureaucracy that has crushed the monarchical papacy under the massive machinery of an ecclesiastical democracy installed during the post-conciliar revolution, with its “collegiality” and its “reform” of the Roman Curia.

He would probably not approve of any efforts to decentralize or reform the governing structure of the Church, as they would threaten the nature of the papacy itself.

The Church is in reform, but perhaps not in the direction that the ultramontanists or the traditionalists expect -  Benedict XVI may have realized from the very beginning of his pontificate that he was not the man for the task, given his advanced age and the current conditions of the Roman-rate churches. But is the slow process of placing good bishops the only possible avenue for reform? (Especially if the quality of the bishops and their orthodoxy is rather questionable, despite the appearance of doctrinal orthodoxy and fidelity?)

Related:

A traditionalist look at the Council, with remarks against collegiality - but can there not be false and true definitions of collegiality, epending on one's ecclesiology? Unless one subscribes to a strictly monarchical view of the pope and the Church. Indeed, to identify the Church as the People of God is hardly to ascribe some notion of popular sovereignty to the governance of the Church. It is an understanding of the Church rooted in scripture and salvific history. I find the piece to have mistaken ascriptions and a rather uncharitable reading of what the pope said. Did Sacrosanctum Concilium sanction what happened with the production and promulgation of the Missal of Paul VI? I do not think so. Was this what Paul VI thought the Council Fathers intended? I am not sure.
Will the Real Second Vatican Council Please Stand up! by Brian M. McCall

Is American Catholicism at a Crossroads? (What is American Catholicism?) by R. Cort Kirkwood

Part 2 of Ryan Grant's Review of Liberty, The God That Failed

The Distributist Review

Also, an interview with Richard Aleman.

Ryan Grant Reviews Liberty: The God That Failed

Part 1

Someone really should write a critique of the book from a paleo or tradcon perspective. Certainly someone more qualified than I should do so, though I may write something once I have read the book.

Related:
Patrick Brennan wrote the Foreward to the book.

Dr. Rao Interviews Chris Ferrera

Again, the traditionalist viewpoint on the American political system.

The Distributist Review

Well, Southron Patriots would dispute what CF says about the Confederacy, at the very minimum.

Christopher Shannon Reviews Ferrara

A Declaration of Catholic Independence by Christopher Shannon

He offers a critique at the end of the piece, but he ends it on more of a "traditionalist" note than not:

Any honest look at American history will show that negative liberty, “freedom from,” has consistently triumphed in its battle against positive conceptions of human flourishing and the common good. It will also show that there is nothing in our quasi-Masonic public religion, from Washington and Lincoln to Ronald Reagan, which could have prevented this development. Catholics can work with the American system, but they first must realize what it is. When the Church converted the Roman Empire, it knew that it was dealing with a pagan institution. American Catholics since John Courtney Murray have approached the U.S. Constitution, and the American ideal of liberty, as somehow crypto-Catholic and in need only of our full-throated assent. If Catholics are to be truly Catholic in America, and not just a branch office of the Church of Liberty, we need to first stand apart from a political tradition born in a revolt against the Catholic Church.

"Traditionalist" may be too narrow a term, in this case. Maybe there are some Catholic intellectuals on the "left" who would agree with Dr. Shannon, rejecting liberalism in favor of their own version of "Catholic" statism. (But Dr. Shannon himself is not a man of the left, as far as I know.)

Eleventh Annual Monterey Conference

Still can't find a webpage for the conference, but I did receive something in the mail about it today. It is taking place on November 17 and 18 at The Beach Resort in Monterey.

Special Guest: Robert Reilly, "Islam and Christianity: The Theology Behind the History"

Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J., "The Engine of Atheism"
Ronald G. Connolly, "Our Culture's Claim that Faith and Reason are Incompatible is Unreasonable"
Christopher A. Ferrara, "Onward Christian Soldiers: A Look at the New Hungarian Constitution and Other Possible Counter-Offensives Against the Dictator of Relativism"

If you are interested in attending, you can contact Keep the Faith at (201) 327-5900.

Personal Notes:
CL's wedding is that weekend, but my mother told me last night she would probably not be attending. I probably wouldn't go, despite the opportunity to visit Hong Kong again, because of work.

I thought Dave Grossman's seminar was on Sunday, but it is on Saturday.

I can attend only one or the other...

An excerpt from Liberty: The God that Failed

Over at the Distributist Review: The Logic of Christendom

Angelico Press

The part about traditional Christian polities seems all right. What about the contrast with the American experiment, given at the beginning?

Today, the principles of the “moderate” Enlightenment are what pass for a conservative inheritance to be opposed to the excesses of liberalism, an inheritance “We the People” were supposed to have “secured to ourselves and our posterity” following the American Revolution. These principles include:

• A hypothetical “social compact” or contract as the foundation of the State.

• The origin of political sovereignty in the “consent” of the governed (invariably presumed to have been given by those who happen to be wielding power).

• “Government by the people” according to the “sovereignty of the people,” meaning strict majority rule on all questions, including the most profound moral ones.

• Church-State separation and the non-“interference” of religion in politics.

• The confinement of religion, above all the revealed truths of Christianity, to the realm of “private” opinions and practices one is free to adopt (or to denounce) if it pleases him, but which are to have no controlling effect on law or public policy.

• The unlimited pursuit of gain, including the freedom to buy, sell and advertise anything whatsoever the majority deems permissible by law.

• Total liberty of thought and action, both private and public, within the limits of a merely external “public peace” essentially reduced to the protection of persons and property from invasion by others—in sum, a “free-market society.”

• The dissolubility of marriage, and thus the family, as a mere civil contract founded on a revocable consent.

1. Is the social compact theory applied by those who drafted and ratified the Constitution to each of the states? Or to the federal union of those states? It seems proper and valid to apply it to the latter.

2. Does sovereignty originate in the consent of the ruled? Or does it merely require their consent? (In so far as they desire to live with that group, then their consent is given. But what if they wish to separate themselves from the group?)

3. It is not clear to me if he is referring to democracy or "representative government." Government by the people at what level? And who is qualified to represent the people? What if those who are to be chosen must be qualified to serve in office on some other basis other than the fact of being chosen. How can a decision be made by a group of [relative] equals except by some sort of majority rule?

4. Under the Constitution, Church-State separation applies only at the Federal level.

5. This next point only follows if the previous point applies absolutely.

6. Is this a problem of the Constitution (or the Articles of Confederation) or a problem of American culture, coupled with a certain understanding of the right to property?

7. and 8. Are these formulated or advocated by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?

One could make the argument that the American political order has been warped by liberalism. (Or by the few pursuing their private interest, while pretending to be supporters of liberalism, or using liberalism to preserve their power.) Mr. Ferrara equates American conservatism with the upholding of "moderate" Enlightenment principles, but is this really the case? Others, such as Alasdair MacIntyre, have claimed that we are all liberals, and to a point this is undoubtedly true for most of us - our thought processes have been formed within liberalism. But has the Anglo-American political tradition always been 100% liberal?

An opposing view: A Revolution Not Made But Prevented by Russell Kirk

Dr.Rao on Acton

John Rao, Lord Acton Tends to Corrupt

Nineteenth-century counterrevolutionary Catholics were part of a movement of rediscovery of the fullness of the Christian past leading them back to the insights of Church Fathers regarding the message of the Incarnation and the consequences for human perfection of the full cooperation of nature and grace. They eagerly applied what they learned to one of the burning questions of their own day, the relationship of authority and individual freedom. Article after article in journals such as the Jesuit review, La Civiltà Cattolica emphasized the conviction that strong natural and supernatural authority was a precondition for the perfection of personal liberty as well as all other human goods. For obedience to the fullness of authority was bound to ensure the fullest opportunity for self-correction and introduction to the Truth that really set men free. Rejection or limitation of the fullness of authority, on the other hand, entailed an opening to passion and a stubborn commitment to ignorance which was certain to work in favor of the strong, at the expense of the weak, but to the ultimate disadvantage and perdition of both.

A romantic view of the counter-revolutionaries? Were they conservative (i.e. seeking to preserve true communities) enough?

During my talk with MB we touched upon the counter-revolutionaries, the throne & altar traditionalists, and he had apparently read that some had been involved with the occult. (Just like some of the "traditionalists" of the 20th century?) True?

Related:
A review of Dr. Rao's Black Legends and the Light of the World
Catholic News Service interviews John Rao
Chris Ferrara, A Resolute Denial of Reality

Christopher Ferrera on the Republican candidates: A Mormon? Seriously?. He puts his support behind Ron Paul.

Apologies Of An Economic Hitman

via JM
Distributism as a Way of Life Christopher Ferrara, The Austrian Version of the English Enclosures III

Items of Interest, 17 August 2011

Daniel Lerch interview on peak oil

An economy turned upside down by Mira Luna (EB)

Christopher Ferrara, The Austrian Version of the English Enclosures Part II

Theodore Dalrymple, Sloppy Riot Thinking
Are pre-2008 bankers the moral equivalents of British looters?


Whose values?

August Glut by (EB) Gene Logsdon

Despite flood, hail, drought, high winds, plant diseases, weeds, bugs, deteriorating muscles, coons, deer, squirrels, moles, stock market crashes, grain market inflation, skyrocketing land prices, root rot, robins, rabbits, and radio talk shows, once more the annual great miracle has occurred. We are (literally after the last downpour) swimming in homegrown food. The August Glut is upon us, and we dance among the corn stalks in sheer delight.

The most dangerous machine ever built by Erik Curren (EB)

Gareth Porter, Veto Over the Drones

How safe is the US?

Tot up the United States national security bill and you quickly reach US$8 trillion over the past decade and perhaps even a few trillion more. What did it all go on? No one can be very sure. And did it buy "security" - or make the country less safe? - Chris Hellman

The Thinking Housewife, Why the Love Ideal of Marriage Doesn’t Work

The Cult of Rothbard...

I think I saw links on Facebook to this piece by Christopher Ferrara, but I didn't read it until last night: The Apotheosis of McDonald’s. (A response to this piece by Jeffrey Tucker praising McDonald's. Someone needs to come up with a clever mockery of the corporation's name.)


(More from Mr. Ferrara in the Fury in the Cult of Rothbard)

Kevin Carson, Jehu Eaves' Critique of My Work . He mentions his thesis that "state's indispensible role in the primitive accumulation process and the rise of capitalism." Distributists would agree with this historical account. Read his blog (and book) for more?

Edit. Something related: The Austrian Version of the English Enclosures by Christopher Ferrera

The Distributist Review: Interview with Christopher A. Ferrara

TDR: You are mostly known for your writings on Fatima and the crisis since Vatican II in The Remnant Newspaper and Latin Mass Magazine, but not so much for economics. What sparked your interest in Catholic social teaching as it pertains to economics and the market? Were you ever of a libertarian persuasion?

CF: First, a quick course correction. Contrary to what certain liberal Catholic sophists have suggested, I have not written about “economics” as a purely academic discipline involving such technical matters as supply and demand curves or theories of price formation in neo-classical economics, including the “Austrian School.” Rather, I have written about the Church’s binding teaching in the realm of moral theology and natural justice concerning human affairs that happen to involve the exchange and distribution of goods in society and the moral limits on what can be bought and sold.

The Church, in line with the entire Western tradition since Aristotle, considers economics to be a branch of ethics oriented to the just exchange and social distribution of goods oriented to the life of the family as the basic unit of society—hence the etymology of the very word economics, derived from the Greek oikonomeia, which denotes “household management.” The Church’s social teaching thus defends the order of justice related to the support of the family in society. No “law of economics” can trump that teaching, which looks to the moral accountability of human actors whose actions are not determined or excused by any such law. So, for example, no “law of economics” can possibly justify the way Scrooge treats Cratchit, the family man. And yet, as I show in the book, liberal sophists of the “Austrian School” cite “economic law” precisely—I am not joking—“in defense of Scrooge.”

What sparked my interest in writing about the social teaching was the attack upon it by Catholics of the so-called “Austro-libertarian” movement—a combination of the “Austrian School” of laissez-faire capitalism and radical libertarianism. We are dealing here with yet another post-Vatican II Trojan horse in the City of God, whose occupants openly defy the command of Pope Saint Pius X in Singulari quadem that Catholics must “obey and firmly adhere to and fearlessly profess the principles of Christian truth… most wisely laid down in the encyclical letter ‘Rerum Novarum’…”—that is, Pope Leo XIII’s veritable summa of the social teaching, which was always present in the Magisterium but which he and all of his successors have developed and refined for modern circumstances.

Was I ever a libertarian?  Back in my college days I flirted, for about an hour-and-a-half, with Ayn Rand’s sententious drivel, and for much a longer time I dutifully observed the bourgeois liberalism I had thought was “conservative”—that is, what is good for Big Business is good for mankind. But that was before I returned to the practice of the Catholic faith in my late twenties. It was then that I realized that such works as Henry’s Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson and Frederic Bastiat’s The Law were superficial appeals to a bourgeois liberalism that insinuates itself into Catholic minds as “conservatism” by resorting to the spectre of socialism, defined as any “interference” in the “free” market and “free” interactions of other kinds among men. The Church’s teaching is the antidote to the poison of the false dichotomy—“freedom” or “socialism”—that has brought our entire civilization to the brink of self-destruction.

He responds to a question on whether there has been a change in Church teaching on usury by saying that there has been a change in its application. He continues:

CF: Belloc speaks of usury as taking interest on an unproductive loan. Such indeed is usury. If I loan you a bottle of wine and demand two in return, that is usury. If I loan you ten dollars today, and demand twenty tomorrow, that is usury.

But what if I lend you ten dollars today and you propose to pay me back ten dollars five years from now? In the modern economy, the question of usury in that case is not so simple as saying the loan is unproductive, for money today is essentially an unstable claim on goods and services in the form of currency whose value declines over time due to inflation and manipulation of the money supply, so that a lender who receives a year from now the same ten dollars he lent a year earlier has actually suffered a compensable loss.

Now, Catholic moral theology, even at the time of Vix Pervenit, has always recognized a title to “compensatory” interest when a lender actually loses value and thus suffers harm in the transaction. Moreover, in today’s financial markets a lender who advances funds foregoes opportunities to “grow” those funds by investments. Catholic moral theology has also always recognized a title to interest to compensate a lender for a legitimate foregone opportunity that he had to give up in order to make the loan.

The second claim seems shaky to me -- is there such a thing as a "certain" return on a possible investment? And is one entitled to that? If I there are two businesses in which I can invest, can I say that the one I pick owes me something because I chose to invest in it and not the other? The claim seems a bit greedy. (See David W. Cooney's comment.)

Jeremiah Bannister's Interview with Christopher Ferrara

Access it at the Distributist Review.