To participate in a democratic government is to accept that one won't always have his or her way of things but that on the whole those laws and institutions created will be in accordance with the will of the majority. As legitimate as the question 'why must I support someone other than myself?' is the question 'why are you opposed to helping others?'

In Christian terms there is no evidence to support that Christ was a capitalist and ample evidence to support that the early church lived in a state that would be considered pure communism by modern standards by their own volition. Never once are we or anyone else commanded or encouraged to look after ourselves first - when asked, Jesus instructed 'give all that you have to the poor and follow me' or at a minimum 'if you have two coats, give one to the man who has none'. He admonished his disciples as they embarked on their missions to 'give no thought to where you will sleep or what you will eat' and warned that 'it easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven'.

In political terms, is it more just to enslave our neighbors to improve the lives of others to ensure that everyone eats, is clothed, has adequate health care, and is housed or to enslave them to fight unjust wars, torture prisoners, and subjugate others to corporate tyranny for our own financial gain? We, as modern men and women believe slavery to be unjust (at least when we're the potential slaves - to a lesser degree when it's other people who are being enslaved) but there is no scriptural injunction against slavery or in becoming a slave, and in fact explicit rules for dealing with slaves and slavery.

I'm not advocating slavery, but rather that having to pay taxes for causes to which we are morally opposed does not constitute slavery except through hyperbole. I also wish to make the explicit point that if we, as faithful Catholics are forbidden to support implicitly or explicitly any law, policy, or institution contrary to the Church's teachings or scripture or wich may be used or expanded to become contrary we are effectively disenfranchised and will eventually be enslaved or imprisoned anyway.

The problem with your argument and others arguing similar points is that it far more concerned with advancing a political cause than truly adhering to the teachings of Christ. Many truly faithful Catholics, having examined the political realities of both parties, their own consciences, scripture and church teachings have in good faith concluded that their faith is more truly expressed by the left than the right. Quite frequently I find myself to be one of these. Except on the matter of abortion, I simply cannot reconcile my faith with the political right: I voted for G.W. Bush inspite of my personal opinions, because I listened to a BIshop when he decalred that the dignity of life as the foundation to all other good only to see the concept of the dignity of life utterly trampled and mocked for 8 years. Never again will I fall for that line. If it comes to it, where to vote against the nominally pro-life candidate becomes a grave sin, then I will simply shred my voting card and be disenfranchised, but I will NEVER support such a travesty again.

Charles, have you ever considered the possibility of more then merely a two party political system? Consider it. Reality is that both parties offer the illusion of choices when they are really the same party. Communist Russia had free elections too. Our system is little different.

Dear Mr. Rouse:
Perhaps it would interest you to read what I wrote last week, which eerily anticipated your point:
http://tinyurl.com/kr8wy7

Just to be perfectly clear: If it could be proved to me that Christianity really did teach people not to defend themselves or their families against injustice, slaves not to seek their freedom, or citizens not to seek their rights, I would be quite sure that the religion wasn't true. It really would be an "opiate" of the people. A cult that taught as universal monastic chastity would today be clearly seen as anti-human, and rejected. So should a church that tried to universalize monastic poverty and obedience, as the Catholic Left seems to wish.

The early Church had no political influence, and couldn't change the Roman state. The fact that it took so long for Christendom, once established, to abolish slavery is indeed embarrassing, although the Church acted quickly to mitigate and discourage it.

Sadly, Christians did not, for many centuries, acknowledge and accept religious freedom; why should it be surprising that economic and political freedom also remained to be discovered? It's comforting to note that all these freedoms were in fact the logical consequence of the Christian view of the person, and would probably never have been recognized without the Gospel.

I don't know that the way to make your point is to begin with the most ridiculous example. And your journey through Church history is too simplistic by half. Read Gregory the Great, the Victorines, the Greek Fathers and then tell me that it took Vatican II to recognize human dignity.

I find no portion of Mr. Zmirak's article that indicates he is opposed to helping others. I suspect he helps others a great deal, and prefers to keep his treasure in heaven. Meanwhile, here on earth, many of us take exception to having 50% of the fruits of our labor taken by a hugely oversized government, no longer capable of policing itself. And we are apparently expected to stand by mutely while that government uses our money to promote secular humanism throughout the land-- contraceptive mentality, abortion, the destruction of mothering, the destruction of fathering-- and it's result the destruction of the family.

No, charity cannot be forced simply because then it is not charity.

I do not support our President's efforts to provide universal, government run health coverage. However, I do see the need to initiate several reforms to ensure no one needs to do without health care. I prefer to decide which 'good works' constitute charity, and have some of my income left to make a difference there.

John:

Overall a great column but as a long time "Trad" and satisfied subscriber to "The Remnant", I object to the "strawman" creating cheap shot you took at the paper, which has a far better track record dealing with matters of Faith than most of its American based competition.

The pro heliocentric article you referenced was not published by Michael Matt.

It's rather obvious that The Faith is being attacked from within as well as without, calling for a convergence of all orthodox elements to its defense.

Neo-Catholics and Trads should be finding areas of working agreement rather than taking snide potshots at one another while Modernist apostates and heretics are running wild!

Maybe it is just me but whenever I read a Distibutist (and I am VERY sympathetic to their arguments and regularly read The Distributist Review and Chesterbelloc Mandate)and I am told I am not really a Catholic because thus and such I begin singing, "A hailstone, a hailstone, Jesus wants me for a hailstone.." (sung to the tune of "I'll be a Sunbeam for Jesus").

When others tell Dr. Z to read thus and such, I think to myself, he prolly already not only read them, he understands what they mean.

Well, far be it from me to recommend reading at Chesterbelloc Mandate how Austrian School is a heresy promoted by a cult. (yeah, a heresy. Mr. C. Ferrara - hello, Remnant - really claims that).

I'd rather recommend Catholics interested in Church history purchase and read Dr Z's, "The Bad Catholic's Guide to Wine, Whiskey, and Song," and "The Bad Catholics Guide to Good Living" and in those books alone they will learn more about actual Catholic History then anything you'd learn in most Catholic "Colleges."

Kudos, Dr. Z. How "Distributists," or anyone, can advocate given the secular anti-Christian State MORE power over we Christians is beyond me.

I used to be a subscriber to The Remnant but I dropped it because it was too liberal for my tastes.

But, before I did drop it I wrote letters to and received letters back from Solange Hertz and Paula Haigh and it was through their interevention that I received (from a Mr. Ellwanger in Texas, as I recall) a photocopy of Fr. William Robert's study which attempted to refute the "heresy" of heliocentrism which I will, in the interest of interesting things, post a link to here:

The Pontifical Decrees Against The Doctrine Of The Earth’s Movement and The Ultramontane Defence of them

http://www.alcazar.net/pont_decr2.pdf

Don't take my response personally. I'm a frequent reader of your columns and enjoy them even when I disagree with some or all of your points. If I expected to only read things I agreed with, I would hardly visit this site which all too frequently becomes a 'Conservatives for Jesus' party. Maybe that's the actual intent of this site, in which case I'll excuse myself.

I don't have a problem with conservatives until they begin to imply that non-conservatives are un-Christian and/or un-American. Until this point I simply consider them to be rational individuals who having duly considered the evidence have come to different conclusions than I have. On these terms we can compete civilly, with honor and dignity, as fellow christians in the democratic and public forum.

The gospel passage quote which gave you so much issue in your previous column gave me no such problems having interpreted as a reiteration and emphasis on the lesson from Genesis that we are our brothers' keeper - not in the sense of control as so many on the right would accuse those on the left of being motivated by, but in the sense that their needs are our needs.

As a final note, I wish to clarify that my question 'why are you opposed to helping others?' was not directed at you personally, but to those who consider taxation for 'their' causes to be fair and just, but taxation in the cause of the general welfare to be enslavement.

You must have had the same college sociology teacher I did.

In simple terms, what's taken from you at the point of a gun or at the point of the law isn't charity at all. The early Christians, who pooled their resources voluntarily, weren't communist or socialist. They were the first co-op.

Even Annanias and Sapphira weren't punished for withholding contributions, which, again, were voluntary. They were punished for lying. Big difference.

Communism of course was anti Christian. Capitalism or at
least our capitalistic country, did not start out
without Christian morals and philosophy being practiced.
Now that the Christian philosophy is disappearing misery
ensues, and simply changing economics is not really the
answer, or the most important one. The christian way of
living and thinking must return to make better sense
of the situation.

I like what you have said here and find the spirit of it, that ignorance is a current bane on our national conversation, to be quite accurate.

I do not pretend to know everything, and yet have certainly fallen victim to believing that what I knew was enough at a particular time or place.

As the saying goes: A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Nice piece, John.

We do not have a Democratic Government per se. We do have a Representative Republic. The design of which is to enable us to avoid the the excesses of the majority. The desire of some to have the government handle our health care costs is the case in point.

The thing about economics you're missing is this: ALL economics, private property and money and the concept of labor adding value, is an invention. It isn't God Given, it's a specific method for enslaving one's neighbors.



And I'm not at all sure it was the right thing to do. Consider this: A slaveowner, having put considerable investment into his slave, needs to provide food, clothing, shelter, and medical care to protect his investment. A factory owner, paying minimum wage, need provide none of this. One could argue that the slave is better off than the minimum wage worker, despite some nebulous freedom that the minimum wage worker simply can't afford to ever take advantage of.



I'm still unsure as to whether we should recognize them. Religious freedom, for instance, means you accept the right of Satanists to desecrate the Eucharist. Do you accept that right? Similarly, economic freedom means you accept the right of people to buy and sell other people, and political freedom means anarchy.

I'm not for chaos, are you?

Finally, I find it highly arrogant of you to assume that distributionists haven't studied "how wealth is created"- in fact, they seem to have a much better concept on it than Wall Street with their false wealth bubbles and fractional reserve con artist games, which do nothing but *damage* how wealth is created, or worse yet, the globalization free trade market which is neither free nor actual trade in anything other than wage slavery.

You may believe you have no duty, no responsibility, to use your property for the common good; that your property right is so incredibly unrestricted that you can use it to do evil.

I *refuse* to have that problem.

The debate about "how are we to provide assistance to the poor?" is ongoing.

One of the problems with it is an injunction from Our Lord to not tell other men about our almsgiving. We are not to "let our left hand know what our right hand is doing." If we do make it known how much we're giving, then "we have our reward."

Now it just so happens I oppose most compulsory federal programs to redistribute wealth to the poor.

On that basis, I am sometimes accused of heartlessness. I am accused of holding that position solely because I want lower taxes.

And this same scenario plays out with most folk who hold the same views as I do, and with political candidates whose policy positions agree with mine.

Now as it happens, I do care for the poor, and give, well, enough of my pre-tax income to charitable causes for it to really hurt my bottom line. But I'm not supposed to talk about that. (I suppose I just lost treasure in heaven. Hmm. Since I knew that in advance, does that make it a willing sacrifice in a good cause? Can I store up treasure in heaven by willingly sacrificing my treasure in heaven? But wait...now that I've mentioned that, I lost that treasure, too! Drat!)

My opposition to federal redistribution programs comes from another direction entirely: I believe that in general they're immoral, unconstitutional, counterproductive to the goal of assisting the poor, represent an ethical stumbling block to the recipients and the taxed alike, and that they undermine the role of the Church in society.

That's plenty of good reasons to oppose them.

But according to those who disagree with my reasons, it's all because I'm a heartless Social Darwinian.

Now it just so happens that, as documented by Arthur C. Brooks in his book Who Really Cares, this problem is commonplace. People who lean politically conservative in the U.S. give to charity at roughly double the percentage of their pre-tax income of those who lean politically leftward. And they also volunteer more (giving blood to the Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, Soldiers' Angels, and so on). This is true across all income levels.

They are, in short, the folks who "really care" ...if one judges by their private behavior instead of their public speechifying.

But they get vilified as heartless because they oppose federal compulsory redistribution. This accusation would be laughable if the actual data about giving were known. (In fact, it sometimes becomes laughable when the tax returns of political candidates are released: Does anyone recall when "Hope and Change" Obama's returns were released, and contrasted with those of "Darth Vader" Dick Cheney? I recall only dimly, but the average income percentages of charitable giving over the previous five years were something on the order of 0.5% and 30% respectively. Mr. Obama, whatever his other good points may be, truly represents "pocket change we can believe in.")

But this public knowledge is rare, because our tax returns are usually private, and our "left hands don't know what our right hands are doing."

So the very secrecy Christ admonishes us to keep, undermines the political arguments of those who have the stronger moral authority to speak on the subject of giving. How ironic is that?

By all means, obey Christ, keep your hands blissfully ignorant of their generosity, and reap rewards in heaven.

All the same, don't allow this datum about "who really cares" to sink into obscurity in the public debate. That it is generally unrecognized warps the debate, allowing the most innocent persons in the fight to have their motives maligned, giving an unfair political advantage to the very persons who lack credibility on the subject of charity.

And that kind of distortion is counterproductive, when we're dispassionately trying to exercise good judgment in helping the poor.

I love the co-op model; it has *always* made the most sense to me, as long as the co-op is restricted from getting too large (there is a reason why monasteries don't work with hundreds of thousands of monks- and it's the same reason both socialism and capitalism fail when tried on a national level).

But tell me, what is the difference between Annanias and Sapphira's lie, and the main lie of the Randroids that we are not our brother's keeper? What is the difference between those lies and the lie of the Banker who loans out more money than he actually has, thus creating money out of thin air (or computer bits, these days)? Or the stock broker skiming 20% interest off the top for himself? Or the credit card issuer hiding in the fine print an automatic rate increase to 36% and a 520% annual late charge for paying one second late?

I see no difference between these. Being uncharitable in business is fraud, and fraud is a form of lying.

John,

I thought that your article was great. I think that what many get confused about when speaking about this topic is whether we want to give of our own free will or have the state mandate our giving.

I believe that Catholic thought would bring us to the conclusion that we as Christians should give from our first fruits and that this would be preferable than the state deciding for us where our first fruits would go, especially since we have a secular (and not religious) government.

Imagine how many people we as Catholics would be able to assist through Catholic hospitals and charities if we were to give them but 10% of our money. If 10% went to the state, 10% went to the Church and another 10% went to our fellow man through the goodness of our giving, we would still come out 10% ahead.

I know that this is an ideal situation, not taking into account our greed, but I will tell you that I have worked for a state-run charitable organization and a privately funded organization and the state-run organization wasted so much money and came from a mind-set that the workers were the charity - not the people they were truly supposed to help.

My experience is very limited, but I can't help but extrapolate that mindset to the current California state financial issues and the huge financial burden that is brought on by highly compensated unionized state workers.

RC, I want you to consider two things:

First of all is the infamous "nun's law" that quite a few leftists have criticized, but I personally like. The man who gives away 80% of his net income, is exempt from our income tax. The nickname comes from a Catholic Saint, St. Elizabeth Ann Sutton, and the law was created especially for her.

Personally, I'd like to see it expanded, in a real world bet with the rich. I'd like to see us return to a similar tax structure to that of the 1950s- when the top bracket was a whopping 95% and the effect of progressive taxes was somewhat like communism, no matter what you did the maximum you could earn was $5000/person in your household (I haven't done the math, but I'd expect that to be, with inflation, more like $25,000/person/household now).

BUT I'd also want to see any use of private property for the common good become tax free. That means, if you owe taxes, you have the *choice* of instead of sending that money to the government, doing one of three things with it:
1. Provide a living wage job
2. Provide another family member food, clothing, and shelter
3. Give it to the charity or church of your choice.

ONLY if you refuse to do those three things, should you be paying taxes at all. If you do those three things, or even just one of them, then the money is better served going to that use than to government.

But it will never happen- *because the constitution doesn't support subsidarity*. It is specifically written to prevent subisdarity in economics (Article I, Section 10).

For once, Christine, I completely agree with you. But I'd go one step further:

The man who provides 10% of his profits in Payroll, 10% to the Church, and 10% to charity, should, rightly, pay NO income or sales tax to the State.

Other taxes- Property taxes, usage taxes, shipping taxes, licensing fees, are specific enough to his choice of profession, but sales and income taxes are too general.

I do believe that *some* men are so greedy as to believe in the absolute right of private property with no duty; these men *need* to be forced to use some of their private property for the common good.

But if a man is already using his private property for the common good, why reduce his ability to do so with taxes?

You betray your gross ignorance of Economics and Geo-political Realities repeatedly in your posts, and then dismiss counter arguments with an arrogant and self-righteous accusation that the opposition is "addicted to Sin"...as if there is no other well meaning alternative, which Newsflash: There is. Remove the Plank from your own eye, and then perhaps you should educate yourself on what the Opposition is actually saying, rather than the distorted caricature you constantly drum up as a dancing strawman for you to pillory.

This isn't "an attack" on you, this is an observation....

dialogue is a two way street....you sir, are not morally superior to the people on this thread....don't pretend like you are.

"The thing about economics you're missing is this: ALL economics, private property and money and the concept of labor adding value, is an invention. It isn't God Given, it's a specific method for enslaving one's neighbors."

Private property is not an invention. It is God Given. It is in The Ten Commandments - Thou shalt not steal, Thous shalt not covet they neighbor's goods.

I think everybody knows the social science of economics is not a result of Divine Revelation (neither are the Social Doctrine Encyclicals yet you cite them often) but nobody I know (other than Commies - and the man who wrote the lyrics for the song, "Signs," as sung by The Five Man Electrical Band) considers property as theft.

RC had the answer to that above:



He was talking about those who give, out of pre-tax dollars in secret, without letting anybody know.

Which brings me to a different Biblical verse, one I've used recently with non-Catholic conservatives quite often, but usually in rejection of Sola Fide:

Might I suggest that the real question is not, are the leftists giving secular government over Christians, but rather, have Conservative Christians proven that their faith is meritous of special consideration when it comes to the common good?

Any man who gives away 80% of his profits, under IRS tax code, is exempt from income taxes. But if you don't claim it, you don't get the tax break.

Okay, Ted. In this case I'll draw the line. If I ever see someone desecrate the Eucharist, I PROMISE you that I'll pull out a sword and chop off his ear.

As for your endorsement of slavery... well it really does speak for itself.

Kudos To Mark
Mark, you stated,

Absolutely. When the persons who participate in free markets are moral persons, following not their sinful (selfish) self-interest but rather following their enlightened (morally informed) self-interest, the free market is far and away more moral than an alternative system.

The fault is not in our stocks, but in ourselves.

As for another observation you made: Communism is anti-Christian. Yet folk in the early Church are often described as being "communist" in that they had "everything in common"; and of course there is a sense of community property in many religious orders. Is there a contradiction, here?

Force Is The Distinction
The answer is, no, there is no contradiction. The distinction hinges on the use of force.

I really wish everyone would wake up to this oft-overlooked distinction in debates about government policy: That doing a thing which benefits another because you voluntarily chose to do so is an entirely different thing from doing it under threat of violence.

Communism as a political system compels of individuals that which only God Himself has just authority to compel...and even He doesn't do so! (If even Jesus didn't call a thousand angels to compel the "rich young ruler" to sell all that he had and give to the poor, who are we, who lack Jesus' rightful authority and wisdom to do it, to do otherwise?)

The early Christians gave to one another willingly, and were not compelled. Consider Acts 5:3-4...

...and we know what happened next.

Notice Peter's words: "Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal?" He is saying that Ananias could have done as he liked with the money: He was under no compulsion to lay it at the Apostles' feet. He could have kept half, and laid the other half down, and still lived, had he only been honest about doing so. Ananias and his wife conspired to lie to the Apostles, claiming that what they were giving was the whole price, and died for "lying to God." But had they been honest about giving only half, they would have been merely commended for giving freely: The other half would not have been demanded of them.

So Communism, as a political and economic system, fails the test of morality because it authorizes men to compel what even God does not compel, tho' He has the authority to compel giving if anyone does! It makes an idol of the state, putting the state above God...or at the very least, rendering unto Caesar that which is God's.

Always pay attention to the use of force. Sometimes it is justified (else there'd be no such thing as a Just War Doctrine). But force is not always justified, not even in the doing of something which, when done voluntarily, is a good deed.

We must remember what government is. Government is different from any other organization in our society in this way: We delegate to government some of our God-given individual authority to use force to defend innocent persons from attacks on their rights.

That's unique to government. We can join the Lions' Club or the ASPCA or a religious order or any other kind of organization, without delegating to that organization any authority to achieve its goals through force. Only government has that.

And, notice: It is appropriate for us to delegate to government our authority to use force in the defense of innocent persons, because it is a type of authority we really have. We are normally required to take the peaceful approach, but God really does authorize us to "shoot the bad guy," in those rare cases when the "bad guy" is attacking an innocent and defenseless person, and there is no less violent way to stop the attack. So we delegate this authority to some of our employees, and call those employees government.

Hence the truth of the statement in the U.S. Declaration of Independence:
The just powers of government are for the securing of the rights of persons, and those powers are delegated to the government by those who already had those powers from God; namely, "We The People."

But to delegate authority to government to compel almsgiving is a very different matter. It assumes that we, ourselves, had that authority to start with. Is that so?

Does God really authorize us to compel one of our neighbors to give money to the other? May you really walk next-door with a weapon and say, "Greenpeace is short on funds. I've given all I can give. Now it's your turn: Give me your wallet, or else" ...? Is that a just use of force?

No? Well, if we don't have that God given authority in ourselves, how can we possibly delegate that authority to our employees, the government?

So pay attention to the difference between doing a good thing, and forcing someone else to do a good thing. It is often the difference between something which is morally commendable, and being the aggressor in something rather like an unjust war.

"And I'm not at all sure it was the right thing to do. Consider this: A slaveowner, having put considerable investment into his slave, needs to provide food, clothing, shelter, and medical care to protect his investment."

Not if slaves are cheap and easily available.

The idea that the end of slavery might not have been a good idea was never an idea supported or advocated in any of the books by Fr. Vincent McNabb that I have read.

In any event, this post has begun to focus on you, once again, as it has happened on other threads, and not Dr Z's post.

On a prudential level, we must take with grim seriousness the threat that any health-care plan, even if it for the moment excludes abortion and sterilization, will expand -- irrevocably -- the power over our lives of a grimly secular State

To me, that is a crucial point. When Conservatives supported all of the power grabs by Bush they never seemed to understand that the power would be retained for subsequent Presidents; men like Obama.

Ted:

It seems to me that in some ways you and I aren't as distant in our opinions as I had thought.

As a general principle, I agree with the notion of reducing or eliminating a person's tax burden when their charitable giving is unusually great. Of course!

Where you and I differ widely, though, is in details of implementation, as informed by the previous experience of mankind.

No, waitaminute, hold the phone. "Details" is not quite the right way to say it. By using the word "details" it makes it sound as if you would have a top tax rate of 95%, and I would have a top tax rate of 92.73%.

Which is emphatically not the case. The precise value of the number is, I suppose, a "detail." But you and I differ very widely on the values we think plausible for each of those "details."

The kinds of numbers you are proposing are ludicrous, not only because they really would represent a return to something like slavery, but because of the vast damage they would do to the poor, and because they represent a kind of heavyhanded compulsion which God Himself generally avoided. I think the instinct to over-do enforced righteousness is symptomatic of what Thomas Sowell calls the "unconstrained vision"; it neglects the reality of how human beings in society obtain knowledge and make decisions. It would fail, miserably.

For further context on the "unconstrained vision" watch this video (H/T to the Anchoress):
http://tinyurl.com/lh9nur

Now this particular video misstates some things in my view by not acknowledging the supernatural intervention of Christ. (I have no idea whether the speaker is a Christian.) But plug in "fallen nature redeemable only the Christ" for the phrase "fundamentally flawed unchanging human nature," and it comes pretty close.

Anyway, I believe your heart is in the right place, and even that many of the principles you articulate are Catholic and correct.

But, respectfully, I think John Zmirak's opinion-piece, at the top of this thread, describes you pretty well. You have your Catholic principles and you have your good intentions and you're all ready to go somewhere with them, and eager to get there as fast as you can.

But that's not the same as knowing how best to apply all that, and when force is justified, and how heavyhanded it can be before it becomes unjustified again. For that, dispassionate economic and social realism comes into play. And when confronted with that, well: The wiser you are, the more constrained your grand visions will be.

And by endorsing an economic system that celebrates it as a virtue, we're cooperating with evil.

The freedom to sin isn't freedom. It's slavery. Better to be a "slave for Christ" than the freedom to sin.

Well, I don't consider property as theft either- except when it is gained through fraudulent means, such as usury, taxation, invasion, or outright acts of thievery.

I am sorry Ted, but I don't believe that anyone should be forced to give to charity. Jesus himself did not do this, as he had asked the rich young man to give his money, but did not force him.

A man came to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to have eternal life?"

Jesus said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? Only God is good. If you want to have eternal life, you must obey his commandments."

"Which ones?" the man asked.

Jesus answered, "Do not murder. Be faithful in marriage. Do not steal. Do not tell lies about others. Respect your father and mother. And love others as much as you love yourself." The young man said, "I have obeyed all of these. What else must I do?"

Jesus replied, "If you want to be perfect, go sell everything you own! Give the money to the poor, and you will have riches in heaven. Then come and be my follower." When the young man heard this, he was sad, because he was very rich.

Jesus said to his disciple, "It's terribly hard for rich people to get into the kingdom of heaven! In fact, it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into God's kingdom."

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly surprised and asked, "How can anyone ever be saved?"

Jesus looked straight at them and said, "There are some things that people cannot do, but God can do anything."

Peter replied, "Remember, we have left everything to be your followers! What will we get?"

Jesus answered: Yes, all of you have become my followers. And so in the future world, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, I promise that you will sit on twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. All who have given up home or brothers and sisters or father and mother or children or land for me will be given a hundred times as much. They will also have eternal life. But many who are now first will be last, and many who are last will be first.

Matthew 19:16-30

R.C., if you're still watching this post, I've left my e-mail address with the IC administrator. I'd like to re-print some of your previously published comments on my blog and would like your permission. Would you contact me at your convenience?

I think, RC, the problem is you have a lot more faith in human dignity and goodness than I do.

To me, September 2008 was the last straw; I no longer believe human beings, as a group, to be capable of making rational moral decisions as long as the mortal sin of Greed is encouraged.

The fraud among usurious bankers was just the natural result of an entire nation spending beyond it's means for 40 years.

*WHO* to me is not as important as *WHY*. Yes, there will always be exceptions to the rule, but for the majority of Americans, our economic system has become nothing more than an excuse for sin.

Now to specific examples. The 95%? That was the tax rate during the greatest expansion of the middle class the world has ever seen. The middle class is not natural; private property usually results in a two class system of the very very rich and the very very poor. Only by reducing the gap between these two, does a middle class appear.

The lack of almsgiving is what compels the use of force in almsgiving. If almsgiving was done without the use of force, then the use of force would of course be prohibited, even unjust. In fact, that should be written into the authorization to use force to begin with (as it currently is)- almsgiving done without use of force should be rewarded handsomely, greed should be punished without mercy.

The idea isn't merely "Catholic morals run wild" it's "take a specific example of a specific time in our Nation's history when something remarkable happened, and imitate it".

I have a severe lack of faith that human beings *can* do the right thing without faith. The secular nature of the Constitution is what created this problem; both in it's lack of solidarity in the first amendment and it's lack of subsidarity in Article I Section 10.

Prove to me that your way will lead to a minimization of the gap between the rich and the poor- creating a middle class- and then I'll consider it a reasonable solution.

To be exact, Jesus sent him to Hell. I'd call that use of force.



All I say is that the economic system should be as Jesus has described "the future world" here: All who give up home or riches for Christ should be rewarded, richly. All who commit the sin of greed, should be punished, and put last. Sent to hell, not only in the future, but in this life.

That is EXACTLY what I'm asking for, and what supporters of "Freedom" don't want to see happen.

Ted,

FYI - the government consists of human beings.

The very people you lost faith in back in 2008.

Their sinfullnes will let you down as well.

Sorry, this is why I keep praying for you so that you may place your hope in God and not in social / geo-political engineering. The Star Trek, evolved society myth, is just a myth. Sin will always be here and we have to make individual choices against sin and for righteousness. We should not elect to have these choices taken out of our hands, just because we don't trust ourselves or other individuals who have their own choices to make regarding their righteousness.

God's greatest gift to us after life, was choice - for better or for worse.

Well, Ted, there have been societies that met your demands. Sad to note, most of them collapsed in 1989. The demand for heaven on earth frequently does create a hell, like the Gulag. I'm glad you're being so candid about what you have in mind. If I WEREN'T already so nervous about theocrats with political power, you would have been quite enough to convince me.

Argument peters out here. Prayers to St. Michael and St. Dymphna are in order.

Jesus let the rich young man walk away. Nowhere in the Bible is it even implied that Jesus "sent him to Hell." For all we know, the young man went home, considered Christ's words, and did the right thing. Who are you to assume that, because the rich man walked away and was never mentioned again, he must have gone to Hell? Who is anyone to assume that. Jesus answered his question and let him walk away. No one but God knows what happened to that young man after that.

And for pity's sake, don't be quick to condemn ANYONE to Hell--either in this life or (particularly) in the next.

I look forward to reading Mr. Zmirak's articles, and I've particularly enjoyed the comments by RC. You've made some interesting points in your comments to past articles, but can you maybe take a break, walk away and do some thinking about the issue before you again put fingers to the keyboard in a mad rush to prove to everyone here that you're in the right, and we're all condoning the capital sin of greed by not subscribing to your ideas.

Christine is right to pray for you. We all need prayers. And, now, I have a two-year-old who needs me, so off I go.

God bless you all.

If you had seen my comments in the Kmiec and Obama, you'd know they already have.


But we can't make the choice for righteousness, unless we first punish sin. It is not righteousness to let others sin.

Not Star Trek- but a return to the Inquisition, is what I crave. Just because sin will always exist, doesn't mean we have to tolerate it just for the sake of some human idea of freedom.



That's a post-Reformation Protestant idea that I reject. I don't believe God is evil- and the freedom to choose evil is cooperation with evil.

Not the USSR- Spain under the Inquisition. But let me ask you something- if you are against Theocracy and the Kingdom of God, why are you Catholic?

"The nickname comes from a Catholic Saint, St. Elizabeth Ann Sutton" - Ted

I believe you mean Elizabeth Ann Seton. Don Sutton was a great pitcher for the Dodgers... but thanks for combining two of my favorite things, Saints and sports.

St. Elizabeth Ann Seton had a fascinating life, here's a very concise bio:

"Born into wealth in 1774, Elizabeth Bailey was baptized in the Episcopalian Church. She married William Seton when she was 19. Together they had five children, and because of William's illness and failure in business, life was difficult for them. William died while they were traveling in Italy, and it was at that time Elizabeth became acquainted with Catholicism through friends. She was a widow at age 30, and entered the Catholic Church, drawn by her belief in the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and her devotion to Mary. She was for her the ideal of a woman of faith, and later called Mary "the first Sister of Charity on earth".

Because of her conversion her Episcopal family opposed her; friends abandoned her and she found herself in dire financial straits. She started a school and later a boarding house in New York City. A Priest from Baltimore hearing of her plight invited her to open up a school for girls there. After she did so she gathered round her a group of like-minded women and established a congregation of nuns. On March 25,1809 she took her first vows as a religious. The community adapted a religious habit and took the name of the Sisters of St. Joseph, and from then on Elizabeth was known as Mother Seton. Later they took the rule of the Daughters of Charity."


I do not believe that she (like most Saints) looked to the Fedgov for social justice. She (like most Saints) lived social justice.

Defined walking away from God, as going to Hell.

To be exact, God doesn't send anybody to Hell- we choose to go there when we choose material reward over his Way.

I mentioned some bad things the Indians have done to the European descendants of white men who were in America prior to those we call the Indians so I thought it'd only be fair to cite PBS and its coverage of The Miss Navajo Pageant.

From a PB Discussion Guide: “Miss Navajo” How many beauty contestants can say, “I competed in a pageant where I butchered a sheep?” Crystal Frazier can…

My point exactly, Mark. If all followed HER example, there would be no need for a federal government, or indeed any government, to step in.

It's only the LACK of following her example that makes force necessary.

And that is already written into our law- the man who follows her example can completely avoid the income tax.

....again and again Mr. Seeber.


Tyranny will not right the Moral Order....you are displaying the irrational emotionalism of the fervent Marxist...believing that we can just legislate sin out of existence.....utter madness.

So you admitted it Ted - God gives us all a CHOICE

This is what you wrote above:

"To be exact, God doesn't send anybody to Hell- we choose to go there when we choose material reward over his Way."

Jesus let the rich man choose NOT to give his possesions to charity, even though it could have potentially cost his soul.

Why then, do you propose to take away the very choice that Christ gave that man?

I am still praying for you, and I encourage all of the readers of this post to please place Ted in your prayers as well.

While you are at it, pray for me too. I can use prayers as well.

My point is that we don't know whether he continued his "walk away from God" until death. When we choose material reward over the narrow path, we certainly put ourselves in danger of going to Hell, but nothing is fixed until death. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that the young man might have come around before he died.

That sound you hear is Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterson spinning in their graves at about 1,000 RPM.

Ted, I do not know exactly what to call your proposed economic system, but it is not distributionism. A 95% tax rate? The "use of force" in almsgiving? Good grief.

Not out of existence. Just out of rationality. The sinful choice should never be the rational choice.

I think Ted is picturing a Walnut Grove (Little House on the Prairie) type setting for his idea. Eliminate running water and electricity and it might actually work.

If President Obama keeps dismantling our national defense, we may find out.

[Christine]So you admitted it Ted - God gives us all a CHOICE

This is what you wrote above:

"To be exact, God doesn't send anybody to Hell- we choose to go there when we choose material reward over his Way."

Jesus let the rich man choose NOT to give his possesions to charity, even though it could have potentially cost his soul.
[/quote]
Not potentially- WOULD cost him his soul.


I don't. I just propose we punish the wrong choice, consistently.

I will.

You're absolutely right. Too bad you missed the other half.

This is my response to a constitution that destroys subsidarity (Article I Section 10) and solidarity (First Amendment). A true distributionist system would not have a federal government AT ALL- it wouldn't be needed.

Capitalism requires a totalitarian response on the moral side, because it is totalitarian anti-moral.

Distributionism is anti-centralization, and thus has no "common market" between towns, farms, or cities. It would reject the idea of a common government as well.


More individual parishes. But why eliminate running water and electricity? Both of these can now be provided on the family level.

Defense nothing. Between Obama and Bush's response to the banking coup, we'll be finding out just as soon as the deflationary spiral stops and we hit the inflationary spiral of suddenly multiplying our money supply by 5.

Can anybody say Weimar Republic? 500% inflation at WalMart just might make people rethink globalization somewhat.

Thanks for the prayers Ted. You know that if you want this kind of interactive governmental structure, places that are under Sharia law might serve you well.

In Islam, there is no choice, only submission and the individual is able to mete out justice to sinners without legal reprisal.

In contrast, this is what our Lord proposes:

But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

"No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

"Any man who gives away 80% of his profits, under IRS tax code, is exempt from income taxes. But if you don't claim it, you don't get the tax break."

Ted,

Do you have a reference for this tax break?

I'm not arguing with you, but I am curious.

Daniel

Dear Carlist,
I didn't mean to offend, but I did indeed read articles attacking heliocentrism in the Remnant back in the 90s by the inimitable Solange Hertz.... I agree we should work together, when we can. I support Distributist goals, by mostly voluntary means. As Allan Carlson documents in "Third Ways" (ISI Books), an excellent study of alternative economics in the 20th century, even Belloc never called for more than a moderate tax to discourage large corporations, and legal restrictions on mergers and acquisitions. I could live with that....

Ted:

Chesterson and Belloc knew all about greedy men who cared about no one but themselves and, maybe, their own families. Those types of individuals did not just appear out of nowhere 25 years ago.

Yet, Chesterson and Belloc never advocated anything like "moral totalitarianism" as a valid response to those individuals.

Chesterson once remarked in support of distributionism, "Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists." Your system would result in no capitalists, so how could it be described as anything but anti-distributionism?

And who are you to decide that? It would require state repression, and that is totally against the Distributist ethic. That is Oppression, not Subsidiary.

They would if Islam was a *rational* religion. Unfortunately it isn't- the Koran contradicts itself.


On that, they're better than we are. Too bad their form of justice is "give hospitality to the Kufar" one day and "kill the Kufar" the next.


But you would have Jesus leave out "Go now and leave your life of sin". Instead you'd have him say "Go now and do whatever you will, I give you the free will to continue sinning".

Why tolerate sin?

I disagree that a 95% top tax bracket would result in "no capitalists", for a start. I'll give you a hint- we had such a tax bracket under Truman and Eisenhower. Are you claiming that the 1950s red scare was during a time when there were "no capitalists" in the United States?

However, you're right- but I'd say that under distributionism, not only would a 95% tax be unnecessary, but so would a *federal government at all*. In other words, to have distributionism, you must entirely dissolve the United States of America.

My demand is that we either return to a time that capitalism worked (the 1950s) *OR* we go ahead and dissolve the union and grant every town the right to print money and make trade treaties that make sense for their situation (more capitalists).

Under subsidarity, sin is never the rational choice anyway- why would you defraud your own family? But you are right, it is state repression- to balance the repression of the marketplace.

Are you arguing we should tolerate sin instead?

"Being Catholic gives me a high-minded rhetoric of noble-sounding values, a sense of moral superiority, and unrestricted license to speak and write as a crank." Yep, this seems to apply to much that emanates from the USCCB.

Ted,

Our greatest commandment from Christ himself is to love each other as he has loved us. This is both our hope and our challenge. The instances which I previously noted where Jesus offers a choice to the rich man to follow him, and forgiveness to the adulteress although she should have been killed is the emodiment of love.

Jesus himself said:

Matthew 22:36-40 (New International Version)

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."


I will elaborate on what love is in the next post.

Ted, to elaborate as to why love is the answer to your question regarding the toleration of sin - we are not tolerating sin, but loving our naighbor when we forgive their sins. St. Paul elaborates below:

1 Corinthians
Chapter 13

If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.

If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.

It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing.

For we know partially and we prophesy partially, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.

When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things.

At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.

So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

I couldn't find it online, so I *REALLY* hope it hasn't been closed, but I first read about it in _America: Who Really Pays the Taxes?_ by Daniel Batlett and James B. Steele. It was considered one of the less damaging loopholes often used by the superrich. I'm now of the opposite opinion- I think it's one of the shining examples of subsidarity in US Tax Law.

Your question, and my inability to find information about it online, does make me wonder though. Since 1994, when this book was printed, we've had a couple of rounds (first under Clinton, then under Bush) of *closing loopholes*. Anybody know if this law survived?

I've read both your posts on that- and to a large extent you do have a point. That is certainly the American Liberal version of unconditional love- toleration of sin, right up to and including abortion and same sex marriage.

But Jesus wasn't an American liberal. He didn't forgive the money changers in the temple, he threw them out. Yes, he gave people a chance to be repentant- but he didn't go out and say "do as you will and sin again", he said "Go and sin no more". There's a crucial difference there that I don't see in, for instance, the proclamation by Wall Street that "Greed is good".

Conservatives often claim that having the government give food, clothing, and shelter to the needy is dangerous to their human dignity; and they are right in that. Far better to give a man a fishing pole than a fish, which he can get for himself. But if that's true, how much more dangerous is it to give a bailout to a billionaire? Or to let a stockholder sit back and live off of the labor of underpaid and overworked people, just because we have a 23% unemployment rate in the United States?

"Give people the right to choose" and every time they'll choose to take your own gun and shoot you in the head. Human beings have proven that over, and over, and over. At what point do we stop handing them the gun?

Ted,

I will not argue with you regarding American politics, because we were discussing the fact that you wanted to create a governmental system which would force people to give to charity. This is the argument I am sticking to, because I am praying that you will have a change in heart.

Your proposed system, as I have proven above, is not compatible with the teachings of the Church and words of Christ himself.

Just because your way is wrong does not mean that we will ever have a perfect system of governance; which I believe with our sinful, fallen nature (again in keeping with scripture that we are fallen in nature and sinners)does not allow us to have a perfect system.

However, we can, through the grace of God, strive for a creation of a less sinful self. This is what Jesus meant when he told the adultress to sin no more. This is what is meant with the psalm "Create in me a clean heart O Lord", and what Saint Francis of Asisi's prayer "Make me an insturment of your peace" is all about.

Christ also told us to forgive others 70 x 7 times. We are called to love the sinner and hate the sin. This is why Jesus was crucified and died for us.

I'm not morally superior to people in this thread. Can you give me a reason to support, as a for instance, the fraud of fractional reserve banking and credit if one is NOT addicted to the sin of taking money from the labor of other individuals?

Hi Ted,

I was thinking about everything you have written and I would suggest that you pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet Novena.

You can find it on the EWTN website. I have found it a great prayer that is short and easy to pray. You can use rosary beads or your 10 fingers.

What we sinners need (and I mean all of us, not just you), is to tap into the fathomless mercy of Jesus. His mercy will help you forgive others and yourself. I know it has truly been a blessing for me and has helped me forgive others' hard hearts.

Try the novena (9 days) and focus on mercy for each group of people that are cited each day and let me know how you feel at the end of it.

I will be praying for you

Christine- I've said this prayer, every day, at 3:00pm since my Mother-in-Law's death in October 2001. It's what got me through. It's what prevents me from giving up entirely on this world of no justice and no mercy. It is indeed a great blessing!

I'll give the novena a shot.

I'd love to see a discussion between you and your fellow InsideCatholic author Mark Shea on the topic of "Baptism is not an Economics Degree".

The whole question of how to distinguish ordinary magisterial doctrine, prudential advice, and idle chit chat is a vexed one and needs a LOT more elucidation.

I find the whole social teaching area very difficult to come to a clear opinion about. On the one hand, economics does seem to have a scientific aspect to it.

On the other hand, it involves Human Action and therefore morality.

Where you draw the line between a principle the Church can teach on and stuff she has no particular expertise on is tough. I guess in the end, we let the Church TELL us what she's qualified to teach on.

The fact that someone as brilliant and faithful and holy as Joseph Ratzinger appears to think he is teaching with authority when he addresses social questions gives me pause.

What do you think, John? And how about a "friendly exchange" with Mark, whom I guess might have a bit of a different approach from yours?

Ted:

A few more replies:

What system? Not capitalism or the free market. Neither "celebrates" greed. Don't believe me? Read those who actually championed it.

The notion that capitalism (or the free market or whatever term we wish to use) glorifies greed is propaganda talked against free-marketers by those who propose state centralization of economic life. It reached its highest form in the 80's movie "Wall Street," in which Michael Douglas' character "Gordon Gecko" is called a "capitalist," and is depicted as the caricature or the apotheosis of everything greedy and amoral. It is one of the three common cardboard-cutout stock villains Hollywood has given us in nearly every film of the last forty years. (The others being the Jingoistic White American Military Officer, and the Christian Clergyman, which comes in the Greedy Charlatan and Sexually Perverted Hypocrite subtypes.)

As free marketers view the free market, a man who comes up with a better idea of how to make furniture, who hires a few folk to help him do it, whose profits increase in proportion to his genius, and who divides the increase in his income between the vacation he and his wife always wanted, more college funds for his children, getting his mother-in-law out of the state nursing-home and into a better private care facility close to his house, profit sharing and Christmas bonuses for his employees, and increasing his Church-and-Charity giving from merely tithe to more-than-tithe...THAT man is the ideal, the goal, the apotheosis of capitalism.

Greedy wretch, is he? Do you really think so?


Then why did God so enslave us? He, after all, is the one who granted us freedom to sin. He could have made automatons.

But then, of course, there'd have been no such thing as moral good, either. For moral good, and moral evil, imply choice. Without choice, there is neither, which is why we don't accuse a thundercloud of malice, when it happens to rain on our picnic.

Sin is slavery. The choice to sin is the selling of ourselves into slavery. But the fact that the choice exists is not, itself, slavery. Quite the opposite: It is the acknowledgment of the intrinsic human dignity of the person.

For God created man "in His own image." God is a creator; He chooses to make this and not that. Our creativity is only derivative; we are in God's image not God. Yet we are "little creators" in that everything we do sends ripples through His creation: Our deeds, for good or ill, in some way create the next state of the universe, a moment later.

This is God's usual pattern: He has all authority, but He delegates it and bids us "wield our little tridents"; All glory is rightfully His, but He exalts His creations so that we speak of "His saints in glory"; He is our one and only true Father, but He allows us to participate derivatively in His Fatherhood (ask any priest or parent).

So God's first gift to Man, after existence itself, is that we are free willed beings, able to choose the good or the evil. And a corollary: We are able to love. For of course love which is involuntary, which is forced, is not, by definition, love.

So, the freedom to sin, which is also the freedom to love, is not slavery. It is the intrinsic dignity of humanity, and much of what is meant by "we are made in His image." The actual choosing to sin is a choosing to enter slavery...but the availability of that choice is a prerequisite to love.


Quite the contrary! It is because I know that men are fallen beings, that I am so frightened of having a secular monarch, a philosopher-king.

For "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." And this is only true of corruptible beings. God, who has absolute power, is the only one who can be trusted with it. (And look how much leeway He gives us!)

I have a certain amount of trust in human dignity and goodness, of course. I do not believe that human beings are "totally depraved" through-and-through, either in the literal sense, nor quite in the same way that the Calvinists mean it.

So I meet my next-door neighbor (nice guy) at the border of our yards, and don't fear for my life.

But if he was heavily armed, and I knew he had immunity to punishment if he chose to attack me and take my stuff? That he had unchecked power, and the only thing holding him back was his good will?

Then I'd be concerned, nice guy or not. Because unchecked power is a dangerous thing to put in the hands of anyone. Even do-gooders. Sometimes especially do-gooders: They get bright ideas with unexpected consequences, and nobody can stop them from doing catastrophic boneheaded things, if they have unchecked power.

So I trust my neighbor because I know there are checks on his ability to run amuck.

What you propose is to take a person -- a fallible human being -- and put them in a position of power so great as to have no practical checks and balances. After that, everything depends upon them and their ministers and their soldiery and their judges being not merely honest and well-intentioned, but wise and self-restrained and hardworking and frugal.

I can't support that, because I don't trust human beings enough. I trust them when they're little guys like me, with constraints like mine. But with a grant of huge wealth and power and authority? I'd rather be somewhere else. A good king can be only so good, unless he's Christ. But a bad king can be terrible, and even a well-intentioned but foolish king can be even worse.

I think, Ted, you have too much faith in the good character of your prospective monarchs.

I don't agree with everything in the following videos, but for those who thing that free markets can't provide for the poor the way governmental redistribution of wealth can, I recommend watching Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" series (which has nothing to do with abortion). Friedman makes a very compelling argument (several, in fact) that the most charitable thing to do to raise people out of poverty is to allow markets to work free from coercion. As I said, I don't agree with everything in the videos, and even some of the stuff I do agree with is still pretty controversial, but I think the series is a must-see for people who are serious about confronting the moral dilemmas of the best way to provide for the poor.

The videos can be viewed at ideachannel.tv. I recommend watching the full original 1980's series, not the watered-down version aired in the '90s.

Thanks to the commentors who weighed in with wisdom, especially non-Spartacus (write me care of Thomas More College--I'd like to be in touch... see their website for my info), who's always too kind. And R.C., whose comments deserve to published on their own. You should approach Insidecatholic about becoming a columnist.

God bless. I have to go walk my dogs before the Masons fake a rainstorm.

Great article, Mr. Zmirak! Your common sense is truly Chestertonian--in fact, in rejecting Distributism, it is better than Chestertonian! (Chesterton was a great man, but his baptism did not confer economic knowledge, either.) Our elites are not to be trusted with our human dignity because they can't even protect the right to life. Let's not give them any more power.

I find it ironic that Zmirak cites a history Ph.D against the site Vox Nova whose most prolific writer on economics holds a Ph.D. in economics.

I speak only for myself, but I am the member of Vox Nova who posts most often on economics. I can assure you that I do indeed have a degree in economics, an advanced one. When I argue, I quote elements of Catholic Social Teaching in support of various arguments of practical reason. In short, I would contend, based on very solid evidence, that the approach to economics taken by the "free market right" (for want of a better term) is a flawed one.

If you compare GDP per capita between the US and Europe, you will not find any major difference in productivity, the driver of long-term growth. You will not even find much difference in employment, except for the young and the over 55s, where Europe has some problems. But for prime age men, the people for whom the concept of a living wage is most relevant (and always has been in Catholic social teaching), there is practically no difference. The big difference is in hours worked. Americans are richer primarily because they work far more hours. I would contend that Europe is actually beter here, and taht its shorter work weeks and larger number of vacation days reflect a pro-family policy.

And of course, inequality and poverty are far lower in Europe. This matters in CST, of course, as we apply the principles of solidarity and the preferential option for the poor. It also matters that for all the exalted growth in America, median real wages have been stagnat for decades, and actually falling for prime age men. Part of this reflects the diminished power of unions - I doubt Pope Leo XIII or Pius XI would be terribly surprised by this. Part of it represents a huge hidden tax for skyrocketing helathcare costs (what they don't tell you is that private healthcare costs are rising faster than public costs, even if they are far less visible). Then again, we "progresives" know what to do about that!

I contend that many (most?) Americans who defend its brand of free market economics do so on the basis of a liberal Protestant ideology (the ethic of individual freedom) and do not really apply practical reason.

To John Z and all,

I agree with the observation that there are some who insist that Catholic social teaching demands that we pursue one specific political course.

The problem is that Church teaching has made quite clear that:

a) reasonable levels of taxation are moral
b) redistribution of wealth is moral
c) redistribution of wealth for the specific purpose of combating various social ills is moral
d) that there is a clearly defined role for the state to play in the shaping of economic life

Now, I can't at all disagree with John's argument, that he has made here and in other places, that giving more power to THIS particular government is probably not a great idea.

What concerns me is an inability to differentiate between what might be best for this situation, and what is actually good and true. Our circumstances might dictate that we "starve the beast", but circumstances change. Eventually way may come to a point where a pure libertarian worldview comes into conflict with policies that, while not demanded by the Church, are nonetheless morally permissible in her view.

I propose that distributism is a nice and neat way around these dilemmas. In an article I had published here a while back, I mentioned the Employee Ownership Act of 1999. I suggest you google it, if for no other reason to see the list of co-sponsors to that bill. I can promise you that it is a list of names that you will probably not find together on any other bill. On how many issues do Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Bernie Sanders agree?

Yes, Ron Paul, that libertarian guy everyone likes. He's down with worker ownership of business, and apparently with policies that will help to promote it. There's a reason why the Papacy has endorsed distributist policies for the past 120 years as well, long pre-dating Vatican II and the Pontifical Council for Peace and Justice.

If you want to know more about my own take on the Church's position about redistribution of wealth, please see:

http://tiny.cc/h0O0T

Respectfully, and in hopes that it will be returned,

Joe H

We have a health care system in Canada which is public . You can choose your doctor, hospitalization is free, no one is turned away and all the state does is pay the bills. What are Americans afraid of? From my discussions with Americans the HMOs have a lot more say about who gets what treatment in the US than governments in Canada. Our system is not perfect but it does not exercise any control over who gets what procedure - the medical profession makes these decisions. It is true you might wait for an MRI or some operations because some provinces are trying to turn these over to the private sector. I fail to see any expansion of the power of the state over the lives of Canadians as a result of public health care, I think the opposite is true, private health care often means no health care. That kind of power should not rest in the hands of for profit health care providers.
We also limit gun possession in Canada and the government has not enslaved us either.

Dear Morning's Minion, Joe H,

Thanks for your thoughtful responses. Neither of you are among the targets of my critique in this article, as you clearly engage the facts and principles of economics in reasonable, prudential way on the path to discussing the moral implications of economic life. I hope that more people who consider themselves progressives or distributists follow your example. I consider MYSELF a "free-will" distributist--in other words, I try to shop at family-owned businesses, and encourage others to do so. I'm willing to pay extra to buy at stores like Trader Joe's that pay and treat their employees better than other establishments. If all of us who cared about that issue focused on supporting such businesses, we'd expand that sector of the economy without needing state coercion; look at the growth of home-schooling and the organic food sector. They're both examples of how free action by ethically-motivated individuals and families can counteract the ill-effects of destructive government policies (secular/egalitarian/union monopolized public schools on the one hand, subsidized unsustainable monoculture farming on the other).

I am not a free market purist, although I think their arguments deserve respect and need to be answered--especially when they point out the perverse effects and costs of economic restrictions such as mandated wages and union monopolies.

Neither the Austrian economists nor I would hold up the current American economic system as an example of economic freedom, so comparisons between the U.S. and European economies really don't establish much. They represent two different forms of corporatism, by which the State collaborates with certain economic elites for their mutual benefit--in our case with MASSIVE funds wasted on a global military empire.

Switzerland is a much better model of a relatively free economy under a free government, and its economic performance is far better. That said, it shares many of the social pathologies displayed in the U.S. and Europe; clearly, having an efficient economy that respects human freedom is NOT a sufficient condition to establish healthy family life and a robust birth rate.

Two important factors in the decline of median wages in Europe and on the Continent:

1) The ideologically driven entry of women into the workforce, driving down by competition the wages of fathers trying to provide for larger families with stay-at-home moms. In the U.S., the Civil Rights Act OUTLAWED the old "family wage" by which employers voluntarily paid fathers of families more than single people.

2) The influx of lower-paid, lower-skill migrants from countries where ideology had NOT yet suppressed the birth rate. This further drove down the wages of less-skilled men wishing to establish or support families--suppressing the native birthrate further, stimulating the apparent "need" for more immigration. That's how we ended up with massive mosques in Paris, Rome, and London.

Regarding Joe H's list of papal social precepts, I would say this: We must interpret these papal statements in the light of justice, not idealistic or utopian social goals. Wealth can be redistributed (although it is often not WISE or PRUDENT to redistribute it very much) to rectify specific injustices, such as the lingering impact of segregation, the displacement of Indians, the side-effects of U.S. foreign policy (e.g., the "boat people" from Vietnam).

I would NOT agree that it is legitimate to use state coercion to achieve mere desiderata such as "a more equal society." I believe that the papal statements which could be cited in support of such a notion (and there are statements, for instance by Leo XIII, that point in the other direction) are at a low level of authority--certainly no higher than Gregory XVI used (in Mirari Vos) when he praised the burning of heretical books, and lower than Boniface VIII used when he declared (Unum Sanctam) that submission to the Roman pontiff was absolutely necessary to eternal salvation. I don't know if a future council akin to Vatican II will someday rectify the flaws in authoritative but non-infallible papal statements on economics. But the example of what happened regarding religious liberty at Vatican II demonstrates that it is indeed possible for non-dogmatic Church teaching to correct itself, especially on the tertiary implications of morality as applied to the governance of the State. Such corrections may be motivated by external forces, but they will always be consistent with the fundamental principles of Catholic theology. Thus it is MORE truly Catholic NOT to burn Lutherans at the stake than to burn them. Likewise, I think it is more truly Catholic for us to rush about organizing and encouraging (even, pointing to the Gospels, demanding) private charity than to try grabbing the power of the State to replace charity with state-mandated subsidies.

Thanks for raising the tone of this debate!

As our government is our worst enemy, it behooves Catholics to fight against ANY governmental intrusion and/or increase in power. We may not always win or may compromise in the end, but starting from a position of adversity is always the prudent move.

It's fascinating hearing about Europe from "experts" who've never lived here. Here's something I posted a while back, but it seems relevant now. Witness the wonders of we're-all-equally-poor socialist Europe (from my previous post):

"As a resident of Germany, please allow me to disabuse you of the glories of "Christian" Europe.

Mass attendance is abysmal. In some cities, only five percent of Catholics attend Mass with any regularity. (http://tinyurl.com/kr9ocr) Germany, in particular, is having trouble keeping people in the pews, because Christians are taxed. Failure to pay this tax, called the Kirchensteuer, results in -- ahem -- excommunication. See, the church and the state are in bed together when it comes to pushing a "Catholic" agenda (http://tinyurl.com/knd5n3). One of the things the tax supposedly funds is religious education -- in public schools -- in order to raise new generations of "Catholics" who can't tell right from wrong, health care from abortion, or marriage from cohabitation. And who will, almost certainly, opt out of Mass attendance when faced with the economic sanctions that come along with being a Christian.

But families must be thriving, right? After all, there's "free" health care, low housing costs, and bounty, bounty, bounty in socialized Europe. Well, not quite.

In order to sustain the current number of citizens, a country needs a per woman birth rate of 2.1 children. Germany is currently at 1.37; other European countries are even lower (http://tinyurl.com/ly75mq). Young people in Germany don't even bother getting married; cohabitation for years, sometimes decades, is the norm.

The only reason Europe doesn’t have a negative birth rate is because of the large numbers of Muslim immigrants that have settled here in the last decades. Needless to say, the lack of assimilation evidenced by many causes no small problem. “Christian” Paris has no-go zones, where emergency services will not respond to calls for fear of violence (http://tinyurl.com/mlnlma).

But at least there’s free health care, you say? Sure, if a top marginal tax rate of 45 percent (Germany) is “free” and if the recent cutbacks in services don’t dissuade you from the unsustainability of such a massive welfare program (http://tinyurl.com/cumctd).

I could go on and on for pages, but work calls. Please don’t be naïve about “Christian” Europe and the glories of the socialist state.

Europe is to be prayed for in practice and shunned in ideology."

"If you want to feed the hungry, you don't need a Christian, you need a COOK"

--C S Lewis

(approximate quote)

John: Love your essays. Lots of people say, "Sure, error has no rights, but people have rights(or dignity)."

That seems to be your closig.

However, I think that misses the point. NOBODY has the supernatural RIGHT to publicly spread error.

So, both propositions are correct, but we need a third one to bring out the "fullness of the truth."

What you say

Not to get too sidetracked into replacement birth rates, but less than 2.1 is a "negative birth rate." 2.0 children per woman assumes a 1:1 replacement rate on the population. Less than that (far less! 1.37!) means the population is shrinking, and fast.

That strengthens Hess Family's point quite a bit. Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion with people that know about economics more than I. That is to say, at all.

Thank you, John. I thought the article was about as balanced as I have come across.

Having been a Protestant for more than 23 years and then coming back to the Church, I hungered for information and understanding. God answers and I was introduced to a wonderful program called Education for Parish Service or EPS. One of the classes they added to the curriculum just before I graduated was a 6 week class by CAPP, Centesimus Annus Pro Pontifice. They have a website that everyone should go to and they do have events throughout the states where one can hear and discuss all the papal documents on Catholic Social thought and teaching in context with the Faith. This is a pontifical group, it is orthodox and it does not propose what I have sarcastically referred to as the knee-jerk Catholic response to all things social, entitlement.

We confuse entitlement with human dignity and charity. It isn't hard to do when our entire culture has become one of entitlement. I see on a daily basis, that entitlement has done nothing but dilute the concept of human dignity to the point that we are a culture of death.

I was not an econ major, I was an Anthropology major which means I look more at the consequences of the culture and its economics on the person. While we have had a good run with a republic, we have forgotten what that is and our politics treats us like a democracy which inevitably fails and turns into totalitarianism; read your history books. It is where this gov't of ours is headed and where many of the proposals I see here would lead.

Catholics are very much like evangelical protestants when it comes to social teaching, picking and choosing the phrases or paragraphs that fit their worldview/ideology, and then using them as proof texts to beat over the head of their opponents. Remember it is clearly written in the Bible, if you don't work, you shouldn't eat. Hmmmm. Now I do not think people should starve who do not work, if they do not work because they cannot, but when a perfectly healthy person decides he would rather take a 'beach day'than come to work, and then goes into our boss/owner and says "my rent is due tomorrow and I need $500" which happens more than you can imagine, I become oh so much more conservative.

Catholic Social Teaching is based upon the dignity of the human person, from womb to tomb PERIOD. If what you believe has to wink at that or if you think it more important to give people with AIDS condoms or contraception (or a woman's right to choose) to 'alleviate' families that can't afford more children etc etc. Then according to the Church you are wrong. First comes life, womb to tomb, and then everything else. And John Paul II warns against pure democracy which leads to totalitarianism and he warns against putting solidarity upon a pedestal without balancing it with SUBSIDIARITY.

Some of the posters here are quite balanced and they appear to be on different sides of the 'political' fence. The key is they are CATHOLIC. The CHurch's social teaching is neither left nor right, as many have tried to prooftext otherwise, but it is supremely Catholic.

I highly recommend your seeking out CAPP and the representatives in your area. They do give many retreats and talks to area business executives, which we can all agree is a very good thing.

The advocates of 'Free Market Economics' explicitly point out that Economics is NOT a system for making moral decisions - it is a description of how markets function. No theory of economics can be invoked to guide morality NOR as a guide to identifying 'sinners that deserve hell on earth and hereafter' as Ted demands and wants to exercised in his government run model.

The morality of or ethics as applied to the actions of those acting in any particular economic scenario lies within the control of and decision made by the actor.

Having lived and worked in multiple European countries for well over a decade, I take strong exception to your statements about there being little difference in the life lived there versus here. Without a doubt, the US economy, until fairly recent takeover by socialist theory, has consistently provided a higher standard of living for a greater number of people with more freedom of action and rewards than any significant country in Europe. AND we've done it while supporting and protecting Europe at our own expense for over half a century.

Our unemployment rates historically run to half the rates experienced in France, Germany or the UK. There are those in Europe who live at desperate levels of poverty. No country in Europe has been the target of as much immigration (legal and illegal) nor successfully absorbed as many immigrants of varied ethnic backgrounds and functioned as well as we have. We have traditionally had more freedom of action and opportunity for individual growth. Unfortunately, those who are too blind to understand or see what we had here in the US and rush to embrace socialism and government control are rapidly dragging us down to European levels of economic performance and quality of life.

that's all

I'd love to see a discussion between you and your fellow InsideCatholic author Mark Shea on the topic of "Baptism is not an Economics Degree".

Not much to talk about. I basically agree with John. And my opinion on economics is basically worthless anyway. What do I know?

Normally I agree with you John, but this time..

I just got back from a year working in Switzerland. The Swiss have universal coverage, mostly through private insurers.

But those insurers are constrained by law to provide insurance despite pre- existing conditions, they cannot refuse coverage or deny care.

Then, they also have a public option, basic insurance provided by the cantons for about $100 a month, with a high c. $2500 deductible.

No one goes uninsured, the truly poor receive further subsides.

The Swiss love their system. They pay far less per capita than we do, have lots of choice and flexibility, receive world class care and beat us on many metrics of health and wellness..


We should have one like it.


It's smart policy, it makes sense ethically and economically.

As a follower of Ropke, I'm pretty much always willing to imitate the Swiss. Given the relative SIZE of the polities involved--Switzerland is the size of a small U.S. state--I'd say it makes more sense for any government-sponsored plan to start at the state level, funded by state income taxes. That way, Americans can choose whether they want to live in a state with high taxes and insurance, or low taxes and no insurance. Such decentralism is the American way. Or was....

This should not be difficult.

There is a world of difference between the man who says "It is right that I give my wealth to the poor" and the coward who says "I will keep my cable television and coerce you into giving your wealth to the poor."

A child can see the difference. Why can't liberals?

The fact is that virtually nothing the Left proposes and does is required by Catholic Social Teaching, and most of it is explicitly condemned. First of all, Statism--trampling the Principle of Subsidiarity in too many ways to count, from government schooling to Obamacare. Second, the whole panoply of policies designed to promote omnisexual satyrism: active promotion of contraception, legalization of abortion, redefinition of marriage, etc. Third, the rest of the Cultural Marxist agenda (which includes the aforementioned sexual agenda). Then, of course, there's the Left's hatred of Judaism and Christianity, the two actual revealed religions in the world, and the promotion of Islam and Jihadism as battering rams against Western civiliation.

You appear to have fallen for the scam wherein pro-abortion Leftists posing as Catholics propound a dozen policies as "Catholic," leading to the portrayal of the Right as "wrong on every Catholic issue except for abortion."

Does this mean that every putatively pro-life politician will seek, courageously, what is just and beneficial? Of course not. There is more to genuinely Catholic political action than waiting to see which putatively pro-life mediocrity ends up on the ballot every few years.

But it does mean that the choices Americans have been offered are not: 1) a Left that is "Catholic" on everything but abortion; 2) a Right that is "un-Catholic" on everything but abortion.

The notion that, in voting for the concrete pro-abortion American politicians, one is voting for a "mostly" Catholic agenda is a Big Lie--promoted from the top down in the Church (the "Seamless Garment" in all its variations, the beatification of Ted Kennedy, etc.) and, of course, by the pro-abortion apostate Catholic politicians themselves. It sells because it comforts people as they throw in the towel on the effort to reason their way out of Catholic tribalism and mindless Party loyalty.

I rarely say this, but: I couldn't have said it better myself.

I fired-off an email to you at Thomas More. I hope you get it. If not, the Administrators here have my permission to give you my email address.

Thanks for the kind words. I could not have been more delighted than if Lord Al his own self had emailed me to ask who he should select in next year's NFL Draft when the Raiders, once again, have a pick in the top ten.

"Medieval serfs paid only 10 percent of their wealth to their feudal lords; you and I pay up to 50 percent when federal, state, local, Social Security, and sales taxes are added up -- which means that half our time is spent working with a bayonet at our backs."

With regards to Mr. Zmirak, but I don't think this is correct. The following should be checked with a medieval ages expert, but as far as I know, the medieval serfs had to do 2 or 3 days a week of corvee labor for their feudal master, and the tithe (that is, the tenth, which went for the Church) was in addition to that.

Since no-one worked at Sundays, there were 6 workdays a week. For the optimistic case, 2 days' work for the secular lord means 33,3 per cent. The tithe was probably calculated from the remaining 4 days' labor and not from the whole 6-day working week, so the Church got 66,7%/10 = circa 6 to 7 percent. So the total tax rate would be around 40 percent.

For the pessimistic case, 3 days' work for the secular lord means 50%, and the Church got one tenth from the rest: 50%/10 = 5%. So in that case the total tax rate would be 55 percent.

I apologize if this was already pointed out before. There are a lot of comments, so I haven't read all of them, and searching didn't reveal anything. I happen to know this because it was mentioned on some forum a few weeks ago. My memory is hazy, that forum is not in English and I don't have a link anyway, but as far as I remember, the total tax rate in my country was said to be some 53% or something like that, and USA was favorably quoted as having it about 40% (which obviously clashes with your 50% number). Therefore, because the Internet is full of guesstimates like this, please also don't trust the content of this reply, but check it with a medieval ages specialized historian.

Regards, anon.

I've felt for some time that the Church has difficulty understanding the modern free economy and political order. The modern democratic state is not equivalent to the prince and his state. Our social order has only existed for some 10% of the history of the Church and is a very different thing.

Jesus commanded us to feed the hungry and give shelter to the homeless. He did not say that we should march on Pilate's palace and demand that he increase taxes for the support of the homeless and hungry.

"All property and all labor, they take for granted, is owned in common. It may suit the State to allow you to hold a "title" to your house, or keep some portion of your wages. But fundamentally you belong to the U.S. Congress, just as a Russian serf and every stick of furniture in his house was the property of the tsar."

Well, obviously you have read Tom Woods, but have not even bothered to read a darn thing from Distributists themselves...you make the same, old, tired arguement that Distributists watn the Govt to run everything (ergo, a socialist with a rosary).....

Distributist are FOR private property and the ability ofeveryone to have some and use it as they need to to live and make a living.We are opposed to centralization of Govt, centralization of services.we support subsidiarity, which makes your "slave to the Congress" statement rather silly...Belloc and Chesterton both argued passionatly against Hudge and Gudge, big business and big Govt...Tom Woods has placed himself outside of the Church in accepting the libertarian, values-free economics and the ages old Catholic mindset...

If JP2 was right for apologizing for his predecessors, then it implies they erred, no? ALso ,the Church has never supported offically coercion to the Faith, but, it has explicitly spoken against the indifferentism of "religious liberty". It is an Americanist mindset that suppports this thinking...and apparently many Catholic writers as well..

Suggestion-actually read Distributist thought and literature, avoid those who for self gain attack Catholic teaching (as Woods does) and maybe have less enthusiasm for America, more for Catholic teaching (yes, even when it conflicts with American "values")

Like the writers at traditioninaction.org, you do not even begin to grasp what Catholic Social teaching is or means...

Mr. Campbell,
I have in fact read Belloc and Chesterton on Distributism, as well as Allan Carlson's brilliant exposition of their practical program in "Third Ways" (ISI Books), which I highly recommend. I've also worked through all the relevant papal documents, as well as many, many other books on the subject--including Amitore Fanfani's, and Heinrich Pesch's, and histories of the interaction of the Church and the Market, along with the entire corpus of Wilhelm Ropke--the economist who tried to reconcile Market principles with Distributist goals. Also E.F. Schumacher, Wendell Berry, Peter Viereck, Russell Kirk, Eric Brende, Thomas Molnar, Erik von Kuenhelt-Leddihn, Robert Nisbet, and many other works by Traditionalists and Counterrevolutionaries. None of what I read convinced me that State coercion is necessary or even desirable in pursing the legitimate goals of Distributism. Hence I call myself a "free-will" Distributist, as opposed to the Bayonet-point variety.

Here's my challenge to those of you who want to enlist the bureaucratic State in pursuit of defending localism and small-scale enterprise: Why don't you spend your time convincing people to VOLUNTARILY shop at small stores and buy from farmer's markets, while repealing laws and smashing bureacracies that favor large organizations with elaborate means for complying with (and benefiting from) centralized State mandates? How about doing THAT instead of trying to lobby people to vote to force OTHER people to shop at such stores? Hmmm? Care to try that? The homeschooling community, the organic foods industry, the New Age movement, the Evangelical Christian book business and (God help us) the Christian Rock industry all arose by purely voluntary means--and some of them in the teeth of a hostile government. Nobody tried to pass laws FORCING parents to homeschool their kids--and if they did, the backlash might very well have resulted in homeschooling being more harshly restricted.

As for the Church not OFFICIALLY endorsing coercion, I ask you to read up a little on something called the Roman (not the Spanish) Inquisition. Papally founded, sponsored, and managed for hundreds of years. History is too big to fit down the Memory Hole.