Baptism Is Not an Economics Degree

by John Zmirak on February 18, 2012 · 11 comments

I’ve had my disagreements in the past with the learned Thomas E. Woods Jr., but as someone who has taken the trouble to read seriously in the discipline of economics (I wrote a book on the subject in the light of Catholic social teaching), I share with him a violent frustration at Catholics who grandstand about “distributive justice” and offer Rube Goldberg schemes for re-engineering our country’s economy, without knowing or caring how wealth is produced in the first place. Our country’s relatively recent, hard-won, and fragile prosperity they treat as if it had descended in pennies from heaven, and the only question now is how to divide up the windfall fairly. 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. Left-leaning bishops who wish to make this point note that Creation was given to man in common; they leave out the fact that our labor is our own, and that taxes enforced by the threat of imprisonment can mount up to a kind of slavery. (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.)

What’s missing from these people’s happy, totalitarian picture is something fundamental to the West, a fruit of Christian culture that it took Vatican II (yes, you read me correctly) for the Church to fully recognize: the fact of human dignity. In the early Church, up through the first writings of St. Augustine, the Church asked only for liberty of worship, confident that the gospel would sway people on its own. In his later years, frustrated by the intransigence of the Donatist heretics, Augustine changed his mind and asked the now-Christian emperors to “compel them to come in.” Building on Augustine’s later work, many popes and countless Christian kings used the coercive power of the State to persecute heretics — arguing that the free will of these individuals was outweighed by the danger to the souls they might lead to hell. Besides, they said in a phrase that became a little bit infamous, “Error has no rights.” Since no one has a right to do what’s wrong, how can those with false beliefs have a right to hold and practice an inaccurate religion? Do they have the right to lie about the gospel?

At Vatican II, the Council Fathers (under pressure from American prelates, as an unsympatheticMichael Davies argues) were more concerned about the very real persecution of Christians throughout the Communist bloc than the duty of (now-deposed) Catholic monarchs to uphold orthodoxy. They reframed the question as follows: Error may have no rights, but the person holding the error does. In Dignitatis Humanae, the Council teaches that the dignity of the human person forbids religious coercion by the State. Pope John Paul II was not, I think, misguided when heapologized for the actions of his predecessors that violated this precept.

Nor does human dignity stop at the church door. Throughout the Catechism, the Church insists on the rights of the human person to liberty of thought, association, and action — within the limits of justice and the countervailing rights of one’s fellow men. Only when our actions violate justice — not charity, but justice — is it right to use the violent, coercive power of the State to curb and restrict them. Indeed, it is only justice that can be enforced by the State. Mandatory charity is as moot as mandatory faith or hope.

So in all our discussions of health-care reform and other economic issues, let’s keep in mind that part of loving our neighbor entails not enslaving him at gunpoint to suit our vision of the Good — be it religious orthodoxy, economic equality, or anything else. 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. That’s power we won’t get back, and it won’t (given our Constitution) be used in the service or with the guidance of the Church. “He who is not with me is against me” (Mt 12:30).

Pages: 1 2

  • Davidtrad

    Why is it that every time a “Neocon traditionalist” starts to rant about others not knowing how wealth is generated, they begin by attacking traditionalists? Is it because the “traditionalist” part of “Neocon traditionalist” is a fantasy?

  • No

     It’s not only that; they often post about others not knowing things without knowing what those others know.

  • Davidtrad

    The link at “heliocentrism is a heresy” doesn’t work. Please document what you are referring to. I’ve never read any such thing at The Remnant Newspaper.

  • Daniel_Latinus

     Back in the late 1980s – early 1990s, The Remnant published an article by one Solange Hertz charging that heliocentrism was false.  I have the paper that contained this article somewhere around here, and if I had it handy, I’d cite chapter and verse.  Before Walter Matt retired, The Remnant was quite moderate as traditionalist publications go, but became shrill and highly unreasonable under its current editors. This tendency made me drop my subscription.

    I have a feeling that you only discovered the traditionalist movement in the last ten years; I’ve followed it since the 1970s, and noticed the many pathologies that lurk in some corners of the traditionalist movement, and which threaten to compromise much of the good work that had been done.  Ironically, these bad tendencies seemed to emerge at just the moment when the official Church was beginning to take traditionalist concerns to heart.  From Zmirak’s writings on the subject, it looks as though he has seen many of the same things I did.

  • Howard Richards

    The only good part of this article is the last paragraph.  The rest is hubris and insults, none of which are necessary for the conclusion.

  • Davidtrad

    Daniel, unlike you, I suppose, I don’t “follow” the traditional movement with an eye to find fault. I am a traditional Catholic, and I am also a columnist for The Remnant Newspaper, so I guess I’m shrill and unreasonable, much like the editorial staff at the Remnant. Such is life, I guess, at least as you and Mr. Zmirak see it.

    I became a traditional Catholic in 1995 shortly after leaving the seminary (where I earned a MA in Dogmatic Theology) because of the ordination of an openly homosexual man who was living the gay lifestyle and having sexual relationships with teen age boys, a fact that was known to his vocation director, and many members of the faculty at the seminary….Which brings me to your observation that there are “many pathologies that lurk in some corners of the traditionalist movement”: having lived and breathed in the traditional Catholic “movement”, as you call it, I have noticed some eccentric people. However, having been a seminarian at the Pontifical College Josephinum in the late 80s and early 90s, I can assure you I haven’t seen the kind of extreme pathologies, personal depravities and institutional malfeasance that I witnessed in the seminary. No eccentricities noticed among traditionalists even comes close to the kind of depravities that have ravaged our Catholic seminaries, rectories and chanceries.You and Zmirak may have noticed “many pathologies” among traditionalists; fair enough, given that those judgments are at best subjective. But are you really going to make the case, even from your subjective point of view, that the mainstream Catholic Church, where Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sebellius regularly receive Holy Communion, where children can’t be trusted alone with priests, where all manner of lewd and disrespectful behavior at Mass is not only tolerated, but condoned, where openly gay men have been ordained by knowing vocations directors and bishops, are you really, given all these egregious facts about mainstream Catholics, going to contend that traditional Catholics have some kind of monopoly on “pathology”?

    Dear sir, please remove the plank from your own eye, first!

    I’m sorry, but I’m just a shrill and unreasonable columnist at The Remnant.

  • gghd

    >All Catholics should contemplate the fact that Holy Mother our Church >avoids paying taxes whenever possible through both >time & geography.   Jesus Christ set up the Nation of Israel with a God centered government & 10% flat tax. (A teaching on governments.)
    >Many Catholics today want to use governments to do the work of Jesus Christ.  History has demonstrated that governments most often do the work of the devil.
    >In the 2nd Temptation, Jesus said, >No!- when offered all the governments of the world.> The price the devil wanted was too high.  What is gained if you have this world but lose your soul for all eternity?

  • Logan

    Good post, Dr. Zmirak. The link about your disagreements with Dr. Woods is dead, though.

  • helgothjb

    I think that what lies at the heart of the matter hear is a radical distrust of the I individual. One side trusts the government and the other trusts the corporations. Neither places much stock in individual liberty.
    As regards traditionalists, many are so angry about everything, from the smallest theological point to even the slightest liturgical error, or the innocent noise of a small child at their preciously quiet Mass, that one is left thinking, “well, if this is the alternative, then the hell with it.”

  • Noel Fitzpatrick

    I read her “Having read about an issue (perhaps for the first time) in some
    Church document or other, they seize upon a relative Good it recommends:
    . . . and health care.

    Then they treat this desideratum as an unconditioned absolute, as
    binding as the right to life, more important than liberty or property. ”

    I am intrigued by this article, but do not understand it.
    For me there are only two unconditional absolutes, love God and neighbor,  The right to life and health care derive from ‘love of neighbor’. 
    What do you think?

  • Brandon

    Great article!