DEFENDING THE FREE MARKET
The Moral Case for
a Free Economy
By Father Robert Sirico
Regnery, 2012
256 pages, $27.95
To order: regnery.com
(888) 219-4747
Economics 101
By Father C.J. McCloskey
Father Robert Sirico could not have written a timelier book than his latest, Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy.
Father Sirico is a co-founder of the Acton Institute, a research institute in Grand Rapids, Mich., devoted to the study of free-market economics and religion. He is perhaps best known internationally for his moral-based argument that the free market economy is the economic model most compatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church and sacred Scripture.
Why do I say his book is timely? Because we are mired in the worst economic downturn since the 1930s, one that is all the worse for being global and that shows indications of worsening in the years ahead. All of this follows by a mere couple of decades the almost total collapse of Marxism throughout the world, with the fall of the Soviet Empire and its dependents.
As it turns out, many of the countries that were most responsible for the death of the Soviet Union (including the United States) have given themselves over to consumerism (in spite of warnings by Blessed John Paul II) and turned to neo-Keynesian economic policies that only produce widespread unemployment and (in increasing cases) the possible bankruptcy of entire countries. These formerly prosperous but currently struggling nations reached their current state by abandoning a market economy that was free, government spending that was frugal, budgets that were balanced and taxation that was low. In short, they encouraged what John Paul II referred to as a "circle of productivity" that, like "a rising tide," helped raise all boats. His encyclical Centesimo Anno presented convincing economic social teaching upon which Pope Benedict XVI has built his own social encyclical, Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth).
Father Sirico has written a delightful book that is in part autobiography. Readers will be surprised and perhaps startled by his itinerary from Brooklyn to California (where he became a student radical), to his return to the faith, ordination to the priesthood, and equally complete reversal in his economic views as he absorbed the teachings of the Church, free-market economists such as Mises, Hayek and Friedman, and simple common sense.
This book draws deeply on Scripture and the social teaching of the Church, beginning with Rerum Novarum near the end of the 19th century and proceeding to recent teaching by Pope Benedict. The book abounds in anecdotes and observations that bolster Father Sirico’s argument that the free market is the economic system that is most just, best at achieving prosperity and, in many cases, a means of growth in holiness. After all, according to Genesis, God created us to work and presumably to work freely for the good of all mankind and to God’s glory with freedom.
Father Sirico quotes Alexis de Tocqueville — perhaps the greatest observer of the unique character of America — who observed, "Freedom is, in truth, a sacred thing; there is only one thing else that better deserves the name," and that is virtue. And then he asks, "What is virtue if not the free choice of what is good?"
Both Father Sirico’s masterful endeavors at the Acton Institute and this book contribute needed guidance to help our country reclaim its status as "exceptional and virtuous."
Father C. J. McCloskey III
is a graduate of Columbia University in economics,
a Wall Street veteran and currently research fellow
at the Faith and Reason
Institute in Washington.
WHY CATHOLICISM MATTERS
How Catholic Virtues Can Reshape Society in the
21st Century
By Bill Donohue
Random House, 2012
304 pages, $22.99
To order: randomhouse.com
Virtue Is Key
By Leticia Velasquez
The purpose of Why Catholicism Matters, according to author Bill Donohue’s recent interview on EWTN’s The World Over, is to help those who would defend the Catholic Church with the facts, lest pride stem from mere tribalism; for those who are in danger of drifting away from the faith, that they may return; and to dispel some of the black legends leveled against the Church, like the Inquisition and the Crusades. It would be hard to find a timelier book for these times.
Donohue is widely known as a feisty, good-humored defender of the Church who never shies from confronting slander or blasphemy in the media, arts, entertainment, academia and government. Yet few know him as an academic capable of a scholarly book. With a doctorate in sociology, Donohue draws his facts from respected academic and ecumenical sources, and his ideas are fleshed out with an expansive knowledge of history, sociology, Church teaching and social policy.
Why Catholicism Matters contains a wealth of quotations useful in those discussions on the Church, where ordinary Catholics find themselves needing to defend the faith in the workplace or even after Mass in the parking lot. Because his book is so well cited and clearly written, it can be used by students of social sciences and theology. His citations are worth following as well: He uses unbiased, scholarly sources that reinforce Catholic social and moral teaching. There is no refuting Donohue’s solid logic, as he makes the case repeatedly that not only did the Catholic Church promulgate the ideals which made Western civilization possible, but she continues to assert those same eternal principles that would rescue it from the brink of self-destruction — if intellectuals and political leaders would refrain from jeering long enough to listen.
Why Catholicism Matters is organized into sections by virtues: prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance. "If Catholic social thought meshed nicely with the needs of the individual and society, offering a realistic approach to the attainment of the good society, in order for these teachings to be efficacious, they must offer concrete guidance," Donohue explains. "It is not good enough to say that we must thwart those behaviors proscribed by the Ten Commandments; we need to know what to prescribe. That’s where virtue comes in. In other words, the Ten Commandments tell us what not to do; virtue tells us what to do. To secure the proper answer, we need only turn to the cardinal virtues of the Catholic Church."
Give American society instruction on the virtues? This is not as farfetched as it sounds. It seems that as a society we have tired of making an increasing number of laws to curb aberrant behavior; it’s time to attempt to instill some internal self-control in our citizens.
In this book, Donohue demonstrates his gift for explaining in simple terms the principles of Catholic social and moral teaching and discussing their application throughout history with an emphasis on present-day social problems.
Catholicism matters, he argues, because it makes people happy today, not just in eternity; virtue is its own reward, according to Cicero. As a society, we are happier when the poor are treated fairly, workers get fair wages, babies have a right to live, women are treated with respect, and we do not live in fear of our government limiting our right to freedom of religion. These are the principles our nation was founded upon; it was assumed by the Founding Fathers that Americans had internalized a Judeo-Christian morality. This is no longer the case, and this book seeks to explain that the Catholic Church alone contains the remedy for this dilemma, quoting people like Blessed Mother Teresa, St. Damian of Molokai, St. Katherine Drexel and Dorothy Day. Donohue’s familiar chatty, confident tone makes for an absorbing read.
As Catholic and Christian organizations and individuals fight the Health and Human Services "contraceptive mandate," the urgency of understanding what we could lose if the Church is intimidated out of public life escalates. Donohue’s description of the immense contribution of Catholic religious women to the social welfare, hospital and education systems of this nation serves to dispel any claims that the Church is anti-woman. His writing reveals affection for the Church, a powerful intellect, an inclusive embrace of different faiths, and, most of all, his famous passion to defend his Catholic Church. This book is an attempt to spread this passion among his fellow Catholics in the United States.
Leticia Velasquez writes from Canterbury, Connecticut.
DEBATING SAME-SEX
MARRIAGE
By John Corvino and
Maggie Gallagher
Oxford University Press, 2012
281 pages, $16.95
To order: oup.com
(800) 451-7556
Marriage on The Rocks
By David Yves Braun
"Boyd and Josh walk down the aisle hand-in-hand. Everyone’s smiling. Were it not for the absence of a bride, you’d have a hard time distinguishing the scene from any other wedding."
Maggie Gallagher writes: "My jaw drops when I read this sentence." Most readers’ would. Indeed, the test of our cultural collapse may well be whether one finds nothing particularly askew that a bride is an optional extra in a "marriage."
Same-sex "marriage" is very much on this year’s electoral agenda. Notwithstanding 31 straight defeats whenever the public has been asked about it, the incumbent president has plighted his political troth to the idea, and four states will hold referenda on it this November.
John Corvino, a philosophy professor, and Maggie Gallagher, the co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage, have teamed up to produce this point/counterpoint book. Both first make extended cases for (Corvino) and against (Gallagher) homosexual "marriage." Then each offers a follow-up essay responding to the other’s arguments.
Does marriage have anything intrinsically to do with sex, and does sex have anything intrinsically to do with marriage? It is the nexus between marriage and procreation that same-sex "marriage" would legally sunder, with vast cultural consequences. Gallagher puts it this way:
Gay marriage undermines the presuppositions that marriage is sexual, is sexually exclusive, presumes joint parenting, is therefore inappropriate for family members, and requires two and only two people. Redrawing the boundaries of marriage in order to make same-sex unions part of "marriage" makes these presumptions less intelligible, less coherent and harder to defend. An institution with deep roots in human nature and human necessity becomes contingent and arbitrary, a product of will and politics, as the rational connections between its component parts are severed because we cannot both affirm these connections and also proclaim "marriage equality" to be our highest marriage value.
Some readers might object: Why do I need the pros and cons of this debate? I know where I stand. Perhaps, but do you know why? We stand at a critical juncture in American law and culture. Even St. Thomas Aquinas knew and engaged his opponents’ arguments, because, like St. Peter, one must "always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope." We need to engage those arguments in ways that are not only right, but also appealing, because marriage entails "the sense of participating in the great chain of being itself, rooted in a natural call that is larger than any one person’s desire. That is what you lose when you take the woman out of the wedding."
Readers have two good advocates to examine what’s at stake and how it might be spun. How will it turn out? Trusting in God, but using the last words in the book: "We shall see."
David Yves Braun is the pseudonym of a writer who wishes to remain anonymous.
Comments
Post a Comment
“RENDER UNTO CAESAR” BY ARCHBISHOP CHAPUT!
Don’t forget the Render Unto Caesar by Bishop Charles Chaput. I think it’s the best read on how a faithful Catholic should deal with the issues of civil society. On scale of five stars I’d give it six. It’s that good.
Is there a web site to go to that shows where
Each candidate stands
When discussing things like the free market, I think it is always best to define our terms so we are all discussing the same thing. I agree that the free market is the best economic system, but what is it? Is it an economice system in which there is no government regulation, such as the SEC? Did the stock market function better before that? Think of the great crash of 1929 - prior to the SEC. Should there be no government programs that impact the economy, such as the FDIC and the FHA? Should there be non CDC or government support of research? Is the Pure Food and Drug Act simply getting in the way of commerce? How about banking regulations? Should we do away with all of them? When we think of how great the American economy was after WWII, perhaps we should remember that the US was essentially the only industrial national left standing. Think of all the government programs that aided veterans that made the American economy explode while the rest of the world was attempting to dig out from under the rubble: the G.I. Bill - enabling veterans to go to college, the Veterans Administration which enabled easy purchase of homes, and so on. So the question becomes, what is the free market economy? Classical, mixed, or what? When responding to this, please resist the temptation to remind us all that even with government regulation, and so on, that things are not perfect. We know that.
A gay and committed loving couple sharing their gifts with their community live in a house only a block away from you. One is a brilliant surgeon the other is a gifted counselor specializing in child care. If it hadn’t been for a chance encounter at the hospital where you were being treated for cancer you might never known that the surgeon who removed your tumor was your neighbour. Later you learned that while you were being hospitalized his partner took time to look after your kids from time to time and took your kids to visit you in the hospital.
But two other neighbors seen as devout Christians, whom you have known for years, called to say that they were sorry you were ill but could not visit you because their businesses were experiencing difficulties and needed their constant attention.
In your opinion reader, which one of these three families acted like a true neighbour toward the individual in the hospital?
No matter what we think about the term ‘same-sex marriage’ the couple remain together as hopefully the other two couples will also. But then comes a time when the gay couple announces that they need God’s blessing on their union - not necessarily your blessing or that of the minister that would perform the ceremony – but God’s blessing! Then who are we to deny their private and very personal decision? Is this possibly a case were religious freedom should be denied to some? Or is this proposed gay union a matter for legal definitions of what exactly constitutes a marriage? Is it possible that the gay couple’s basis for sealing their loving commitment to each other under God is somehow become a politically and socially driven issue? Would the term ‘pairiage’ rather than ‘same-sex marriage’ be more acceptable for those who feel threatened by the word LOVE?
Why is it that any church-going Catholic needs to read any books about Catholic teaching and voting in this day and age? Could it be they are not well versed in what they say they believe and pray for in church on Sundays? If so, why not?
I call on the bishops and clergy in the United States, who are citizens and registered to vote, to make it easier for the laity to understand “Faithful Citizenship,” by simply telling us who THEY are voting for. They are private citizens and can tell anybody, anytime, anywhere who they plan to vote for and why. They don’t have to tell anybody who they have to vote for, but they certainly should tell us their picks so we have a better example of how to interpret what they are asking us to read and apply. If ever church-going Catholics needed to vote in a consensus, this is the election - because if we get this wrong, we may never have another one.
What is upsetting is this knee jerk attitude that:
Any elected government=always supper inefficient =always bad =amoral
Free market= all ways supper efficient= always good = moral
This is getting a little old. Pragmatic facts just do not support this.
There are plenty examples of good and bad on both sides.
There are several “industrial complexes”, that represent large chunks of the US economy that are free market, but make money on base human cravings/ideologies and are amoral (all the people that profit from 60’s “adult pelvic rights”; unhealthy food industrial complex; tobacco; the border control/selling junk military hardware to despots industries, etc ..).
Reverse examples also exist. For example, improvement in child cancer treatment would not have been possible without cooperation between, mostly non market driven groups working together with private enterprise (Pharma is just one element). This includes working with highly competitive government institutions, like the NIH (the world Marines/Seals of medical research).
But Randian “Opus Dei” catholics want to dismantle the later, based on some 20th century non Christian dogmas. They want to make these dogmas Christian. How can the pseudo philosophy of Ayn Rand, an atheist Hollywood screen writer who never owed a real business, be even considered catholic? This is just as ridiculous as using Marx, it seems to me.
Of course, I am not advocating giving out handouts. I am not against Austrian School ideas, like making banks follow market forces, like everyone else. I just have a problem when people make dogmas out things that are not.
There are functions that can not be done by government, and there are also functions that can not be done by the free market.
Free market is decided on the free exchange of goods and services.
Elected governments are decided on the free market of ideas, and elections. Both can be changed for lack of accountability.
For example, 1.2 million abortions each year are in large part due to evil free market forces, working in collusion with corrupt or misguided government officials (“adult pelvic rights” industrial complex). They brain wash the next generations, that reproduction is not reproduction, but a commodity, so they can make money on it.
This is what Catholics should be focusing on, in both parties.
Not creating new dogmas about “Ordinary Little Things”=“Holy Money”=”THE Work of God”.
Peace.
Peace.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID7o5L3CaRU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq-ZGktYWWA
What is upsetting is this knee jerk attitude that:
Any elected government=always supper inefficient =always bad =amoral
Free market= all ways supper efficient= always good = moral
This is getting a little old. Pragmatic facts just do not support this.
There are plenty examples of good and bad on both sides.
There are several “industrial complexes”, that represent large chunks of the US economy that are free market, but make money on base human cravings/ideologies and are amoral (all the people that profit from 60’s “adult pelvic rights”; unhealthy food industrial complex; tobacco; the border control/selling junk military hardware to despots industries, etc ..).
Reverse examples also exist. For example, improvement in child cancer treatment would not have been possible without cooperation between, mostly non market driven groups working together with private enterprise (Pharma is just one element). This includes working with highly competitive government institutions, like the NIH (the world Marines/Seals of medical research).
But Randian “Opus Dei” catholics want to dismantle the later, based on some 20th century non Christian dogmas. They want to make these dogmas Christian. How can the pseudo philosophy of Ayn Rand, an atheist Hollywood screen writer who never owed a real business, be even considered catholic? This is just as ridiculous as using Marx, it seems to me.
Of course, I am not advocating giving out handouts. I am not against Austrian School ideas, like making banks follow market forces, like everyone else. I just have a problem when people make dogmas out things that are not.
There are functions that can not be done by government, and there are also functions that can not be done by the free market.
Free market is decided on the free exchange of goods and services.
Elected governments are decided on the free market of ideas, and elections. Both can be changed for lack of accountability.
For example, 1.2 million abortions each year are in large part due to evil free market forces, working in collusion with corrupt or misguided government officials (“adult pelvic rights” industrial complex). They brain wash the next generations, that reproduction is not reproduction, but a commodity, so they can make money on it.
This is what Catholics should be focusing on, in both parties.
Not creating new dogmas about “Ordinary Little Things”=“Holy Money”=”THE Work of God”.
Peace
What is upsetting is this knee jerk attitude that: any elected government=always supper inefficient =always bad =amoral. Free market= all ways supper efficient= always good = moral. This is getting a little old. Pragmatic facts just do not support this. There are plenty examples of good and bad on both sides. There are several free market “industrial complexes”, that represent large chunks of the US economy that make money on base human cravings/ideologies and are amoral (all the people that profit from 60’s “adult pelvic rights”; unhealthy food industrial complex; tobacco; the border control/selling junk military hardware to despots industries, etc ..). 1.2 million abortions each year are in large part due to evil free market forces, working in collusion with corrupt or misguided government officials (“adult pelvic rights” industrial complex). They brain wash next generations of consumer to think that reproduction is not reproduction, but a commodity, so they can make money on it. This is what Catholics should be focusing on, in both parties. Reverse examples also exist. For example, improvement in child cancer treatment would not have been possible without cooperation between mostly non market driven groups working together with private enterprise (Pharma is just one element). This includes working with highly competitive government institutions, like the NIH (the world Marines/Seals of medical research). But Randian “Opus Dei” catholics want to dismantle the later, based on some 20th century non Christian dogmas. How can the pseudo philosophy of Ayn Rand, an atheist Hollywood screen writer who never owed a real business, be even considered catholic? This is just as ridiculous as using Marx, it seems to me.
President Barack Obama holds a 54%-39% advantage over Mitt Romney among Catholics, according to the latest voter survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=15711
“stilbelieve on Saturday, Sep 22, 2012 2:18 PM (EST):
Why is it that any church-going Catholic needs to read any books about Catholic teaching and voting in this day and age? Could it be they are not well versed in what they say they believe and pray for in church on Sundays? If so, why not?
“I call on the bishops and clergy in the United States, who are citizens and registered to vote, to make it easier for the laity to understand “Faithful Citizenship,” by simply telling us who THEY are voting for.”
It is this sort of attitude that allowed bishops to cover up abuse for decades. It is this sort of attitude that makes for dumb sheep that will follow any sort of lies and is what is sucking Catholics away from the Church right and left. Ignorance of the Scriptures [and the Catechism] is ignorance of Christ. Pope Benedict says, “Here…we see the need for an engaged, articulate, and well-formed Catholic laity….” This doesn’t happen by just showing up at Mass on Sundays, not by a long shot.
Cynthia Schrage -
What is your explanation for half or more of Catholics who give their name identification and votes to the pro-abortion party, including the clergy, some 39 years after Roe v Wade and 52,000,000 murdered babies?
You make a good point here! In my experience, many Catholics form their conscience (and the voting decisions determined by it) in the same way most other people do—by watching television and maybe reading their bulletin. They do whatever seems logical to them and is most passionately endorsed by their current viewing habits, for good or ill.
When people become aware of the authentic teaching of the Church, via papal teaching and other documents (Catechism, etc.), it’s easy to see the beauty of the Church’s teaching and espouse it. Furthermore, there can be no legitimate disagreement with the Church without this knowledge. This can only happen after a thorough (and prayerful!) reading of the various documents, and not just quotations gleaned from a newspaper or bulletin. This thoughtful process cannot happen during the brief amount of time allotted for the homily—nor should it—as that time is rightly designated for expounding on the Scriptures heard during that Liturgy.
Just going along with “whatever my priest tells me” is a recipe for disaster. Yes, a priest has a responsibility for his congregation, but we no longer live in an age of illiteracy where we cannot discover the truths of the church without having them predigested by whoever happens to be at the pulpit this weekend.
stilbeieve - have you seen the sexulaitzed caetechetics bishops allow to be taught in their schools without exception?
@Cynthia Schrage
“In my experience, many Catholics form their conscience (and the voting decisions determined by it) in the same way most other people do—by watching television and maybe reading their bulletin. They do whatever seems logical to them and is most passionately endorsed by their current viewing habits, for good or ill.”
Based on your experience, which way do those Catholics vote, Democrat or Republican?
Joe
No, I haven’t. What is “sexulaitzed” about it?
@Stilbelieve- There is not a pro-life organization that will expose the corrupting of youth in the U S bishop’s schools.
“Growing in Love” is a series of sexualized catechetics. I copied this portion from the referenced site listed below. Read what is destroying Catholicism. Also sex education in classromms is a root cause of abortion per the Guttmacher Institute.
“…in all Catholic sex education programs, including “Growing in Love” (GIL), sex and religion are mixed and stirred until sex becomes religion and religion becomes sex. Catechizing has become sexualizing. This is what today’s bishops across the country want for your children. They also want to draw in the parents as “partners” (silent partners, that is) with the diocese in the destruction of the faith and the sexualization of the minds of children. Parents who disagree are treated with contempt.
For years, Catholic youth have been led astray by such programs. Parents blame themselves, television, movies, music or society in general, but they seldom think to look at what their children are being taught in their Catholic classrooms. Yet, it is the schools where children spend six hours of the prime time of day when students are alert and eager to learn. Parents trust the schools; they don’t want anything to be wrong with their often-beloved Catholic schools.
Parents also turn a blind eye to the millions of dollars of parishioners’ money being dolled out in sexual abuse cases, and fail to see the connection with classroom sex education. Yet it is bishop-blessed sex instructions, like Growing in Love, that so desensitize youth that they become easy prey. The terrible crimes being perpetrated particularly, but not exclusively, against young boys by the religious and bishops has become so routine that such crimes have lost their shock value with the public. …..”
http://www.motherswatch.net/content/view/12/6/ - Part 1
http://www.motherswatch.net/content/view/15/6/ - Part 2
This thread is getting better with each posting!
“Sexualized Catechetics”.... Hmmmm… as a former Director of Religious Eduction, that’s a new one for me. I didn’t think it was possible to put those two words in a sentence together.
Stillbelieve: According to your stats, it’s over half, but that’s not what’s important. (Well, it is, but that’s not my point.) Personally, I know Catholics in this country who vote both Democrat and Republican. However, my point is that if they are truly well-informed, while they are more likely to vote for a pro-life candidate, they are justified in voting whichever way they want, because they are using valid reasoning for so doing.
@Cynthia Schrage
“However, my point is that if they are truly well-informed, while they are more likely to vote for a pro-life candidate, they are justified in voting whichever way they want, because they are using valid reasoning for so doing.”
Ahhh, that is my point. If they are using “valid reasoning” does that mean they have a properly formed conscience? If so, what would their bishops’ vote be compared to theirs? I would have to think that a bishop would have a properly formed conscience. That is why I urge the bishops in THIS election, which is sooooo critical for the Church and our country to exercise their freedom of speech rights and let his flock know how he is voting. If he is voting differently than some members of his flock, then that would be useful for those members to know so they can inquire on how they can do a better job in having a properly formed conscience.
Anywhere int he planet you might be yourself, however to a single customer you might be everybody. usine23 http://e55.fr/
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.