Catholic Social Teaching and Political Conservatism (2)
Posted by Tony Listi on January 2, 2008
I realize the Church rejects all political systems, whether it is conservatism or liberalism in all their varieties. And yet at the same time, as political actors, as citizens with civic duties, we must act and choose something. And I believe conservatism, at least as I conceive of it, is eminently more reconcilable (if not perfectly reconcilable) with Catholic social teaching. The similarities just seem so numerous to me, such as federalism and subsidiarity as I mentioned. The US is more a Christian nation in its founding principles than an Enlightenment nation.
Of course, though, the Supreme Court received no such blessing as did Peter and his successors of infallibility and protection. Though we ask God to bless America, this country has not received and will never receive such protection against the Gates of Hades as the Church has received.
Sin overshadows all theories of the value of work. But in my mind, capitalism is the best, though imperfect in the sense that it does not preclude sin. The free market in the absence of monopoly should determine the value of goods and services. Why? Because the market is merely another term for the sum of the value that all one’s neighbors place on particular goods and services. The is what a price and wage represents, ideally. What is just about using the state to force others to value certain goods and services (or those sold by a certain business) more or less than they do?
Sure, sin distorts the ideal workings of the market. But sin distorts all other economic systems (welfare state, socialism, communism, feudalism, etc.) to an even greater degree. What could be more just than capitalism free from sin? Better a corrupt market than a corrupt govt. that became corrupt through being given the power to regulate a corrupt market. Moreover, corruption in the long term is not good business! Whether it intends to or not, the market, when competition is present, rewards the honest and the fair.
Yes, sin/poverty cannot be eradicated. That is not an excuse not to fight both of them, but it is a warning to think carefully about how to wage the struggle. Yes, we owe each other charity, not merely justice. This is what Christ teaches and commands when he talks of love. I accept the distinction between what a man owes his neighbor due to justice and due to charity. This is the very distinction that underpins conservatism. Conservatism holds that the state is intended by God to establish justice, not charity. But likewise, the state was not intended to strike down greed, but only theft and fraud, which may be motivated by greed.
It is liberalism that has forgotten or ignored this distinction. Liberalism wishes to enshrine the Christian duty to be charitable to one another in law. Conservatism does not deny the Christian duty; it denies the government enforcement of this duty. Why? Such enforcement is not prudent; it is too easily corrupted. That is what the American Founding Fathers and the ancient Greek philosophers (Plato and Aristotle) realized when they talked of democracy (connotatively, rule by the poor country bumpkins in the Greek). They realized that Envy is too powerful a force in the hands of democratic government.
This entry was posted on January 2, 2008 at 10:11 am and is filed under Catholicism, Christianity and Politics, Moral Philosophy, Political Philosophy, Politics and Religion, Written by Me. Tagged: Catholic social teaching, commandments, conservatism, covet, economic justice, legalized plunder, principle of solidarity, principle of subsidiarity, social justice, solidarity, steal, subsidiarity. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Conservative Colloquium 
n8 said
it is an important distinction, charity and justice, yes.
but with that said, if you read the papal quotes i gave as a basis, and simple political philosophy as basis as well, justice sometimes demands intervention, for basic access to the earth’s bounty, in some situations, where a hardcore conservative would call it ‘charity’ warranted. ensuring a person has enough to live, who is in good faith trying etc, is not a matter of charity, it’s a matter of justice.
the popes say it, and it’s good common political sense, to me.
that said, i agree with all else, pure socialism is always bad. pure capitalism depsnds on the situation, whether it’s bad (in the government needs to intervene sense), and even when it is, it’s not mostly bad as is socialism.
foospro86 said
There is no “earth’s bounty.” Goods and services do not just appear magically to be divided up. There is only the labor of people and their consequent fruits. Justice is allowing people to keep the fruits of their labor and trade them as they see fit, taking from them only what is necessary for the common good (national defense, maintenance of courts, etc.). Justice is nothing more or less as far as government is concerned.
Government cannot determine whether a person is “in good faith trying.” No, government is a series of forms, protocols, procedures, bureaucracy, etc. It is impersonal and does not get to know anyone. It cannot speak to the spiritual poverty that lies behind most material poverty. Why do you pretend that government can do what a community or church can do? Such pretension has been more harmful over the decades than you can imagine. Oblivious do-gooder who does not see the harm left in the wake of false and farcical “compassion.”
Social justice, as a matter of charity, has nothing to do with government intervention. It may have everything to do with pricking the conscience of the indifferent or ignorant wealthy, but it has nothing to do with using the sword of government to redistribute goods and services.