THE PALEOCRAT TRIBUNE

While engaged in a discussion over Catholic Social Theory (CST) with a certain Protestant writer, I was directed to the works of a certain Catholic libertarian by the name of Thomas Woods, Jr. The issue under contention was whether or not capitalism and unbridled free trade are compatible with the declarations of the Church. It was the position of my acquaintance that Dr. Woods had demonstrated with great clarity that free trade and capitalism were in fact compatible with Catholicism. Apparently, Dr. Woods went so far as to publish a book on this very matter.

Upon investigating the daring doctor I found a handful of oddities. On the one hand, Woods is the associate editor for Latin Mass Magazine. All is well thus far. On the other hand, he is a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. It is rare to find a Catholic worth his salt advocating capitalism and free trade, but a Traditional Catholic? That is about as likely as finding a three-legged ballerina.

It wasn’t long before I stumbled upon a document written by Dr. Woods entitled Catholic Social Theory and Economic Law: An Unresolved Tension. I didn’t get through the first paragraph before realizing that I was in for a rather uncomfortable ride. The preface began by assuring the reader that the author has the most profound respect for the popes of the 19^th and 20^th centuries. For those who are unfamiliar with this tactic, authors resort to these “assurances” when they are about to embark upon a crusade against those they claim to so profoundly respect. This trend turned out to hold no less true here than elsewhere.

From the get-go he displays nothing but hostility towards the declarations made by the popes he claims to profoundly respect. He insists, contrary to all papal teaching on the matter, that the “just wage is the market wage.” He insists, contrary to John Paul II in Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, that CST is a “third way” rather than constituting a “category all its own” belonging “to the field, not of ideology, but of theology and particularly of moral theology.” Woods accuses the popes of advocating “fateful” ideas and goes so far as to arrogantly insist that “if the Church is going to presume to establish moral principles on the basis of the consequences that follow from this assumption, then some demonstration of its truth must be attempted.” To make matters worse – if this is at all possible – he sides time and again with a cherry-picked number of scholastics (whom the Editors at IHS Press insist are taken out of context) and atheist/agnostic economists over against the declarations of the Magisterium.

The tone of the entire piece echoes the kind of anti-Catholic drivel that dripped off the pen of Ayn Rand. It certainly lacked the kind of prudence that would be expected in a humble criticisms from a faithful son. Woods wasn’t wishing, as my Protestant companion insisted, to reconcile CST with capitalism and free trade; he was wishing to denounce the teachings of the popes and her faithful sons in hope of justifying his adherence to ideas that are quite evidently opposed to CST.

My concern, though, is not so much with the tone as with a certain claim he makes towards the end of the paper. The header of this section read: The Magisterium Has No Competence Here. Aside from the fact that he is trampling where archangels fear to tip-toe, he is horribly wrong in saying as much.

Woods states that “by any definition, it lay well beyond the competence of the Magisterium to presume to describe the workings of economic relationships.” He goes on to say that while one “hesitates to describe Catholic social teaching as an abuse of papal and ecclesial power,” it “seems dubious” that popes would “attempt to impose, as moral doctrine binding on the entire Catholic world, principles that derive” from their “intrinsically fallible reasoning within a secular discipline like economics.” To add insult to injury, he thunders, “at the very least, it appears to constitute an indefensible extension of the prerogatives of the Church’s legitimate teaching office into areas which it possesses no inherent competence or divine protection from error.” Dr. Woods gives bold and brash a brand new meaning.

But do his claims hold true? He would have done well to substantiate his remarks rather than to leave them as bare assertions of personal prejudice. In fact, he would have done best were he to have dealt with this at the outset of his endeavor. In any case, we will see beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Magisterium considers the teachings within the encyclicals to be fully authoritative and binding on the faithful.

Woods references four encyclicals: Rerum Novarum, Leo XIII; Quadragesimo Anno, Pius XI; Pacem In Terris, John XXIII; and Laborem Exercens, John Paul II. The question, then, is what authority these documents claimed to possess.

Rerum Novarum, the Magna Carta of CST, is not so outspoken in regards to the authority of the Church in matters of economic affairs as are later encyclicals (particularly those commemorating the groundbreaking encyclical), but it is not without a witness. In section 16 we read, “We approach the subject [economic and social theory] with confidence, and in the exercise of the rights which manifestly appertain to Us.” While Pope Leo XIII wouldn’t presume a monopoly on the putting together of a comprehensive program applicable to any and all people in any and all places, he would certainly declare that the Church is at the forefront among various authorities concerned with the putting together remedies for various ills.

Pope Pius XI was far more outspoken in regards to papal authority over matters of social and economic significance. In Quadragesimo Anno he said that Rerum Novarum was written in the “virtue of the Divine Teaching office entrusted to him [Leo XIII].” The pontiff goes on to say in section 11 that “the Pope clearly exercised his right” and that he declared “confidently and as one having authority” those things that “the Church, heads of States and the people themselves directly concerned ought to do.” He reiterates this in section 31 when saying that “the rules” which Leo XIII issues were “in virtue of his [papal] authority.”

It is here, though, that Dr. Woods will find himself in great trouble. There are two sections in particular that ought to cause him an extraordinary level of discomfort.

Section 39 declares that “those who would seem to hold in little esteem this Papal Encyclical and its commemoration either blaspheme what they know not, or understand nothing of what they are only superficially acquainted with, or if they do understand convict themselves formally of injustice and ingratitude.”

In like manner, section 41 says that “principle which Leo XIII so clearly established must be laid down at the outset here, namely, that there resides in Us the right and duty to pronounce with supreme authority upon social and economic matters.” The pope continues by saying that this would “bring under the subject of Our supreme jurisdiction not only social order but economic activities themselves.”

Conveniently, Dr. Woods was not inclined to deal with, much less reference, passages of this nature

Pacem In Terris, written by John XXIII, followed on the heels of another encyclical by the same pontiff entitled Mater et Magistra. The claims of authority and jurisdiction in Mater Et Magistra were foundational for any and all declarations that would follow, whether in that encyclical or in any other.

John XXIII says in section 16 that “We approach the subject [social and economic theory] with confidence, and in the exercise of the rights which manifestly appertain to Us.” The pope goes on to say in section 218 that “the permanent validity of the Catholic Church’s social teaching admits of no doubt.” From here he spends the larger portion of the end declaring directives that he considers to be binding on all, especially the faithful children of the Church. He insists that CST “is an integral part of the Christian conception of life” (222); that it should be taught in all seminaries, schools, religious instruction programs, and spread through all mass media (223); that beloved sons should put it into practice and strive to have others understand it (224); that they should be “convinced that the best way of demonstrating the truth and efficacy of this teaching is to show that it can provide the solution to present-day difficulties” (225); and that these principles must be put into effect (240).

Here, too, we see strong warnings for those, like Dr. Woods, who would fail to embrace papal instruction on social and economic matters. Section 241 insists that “their attitude must be one of loyal trust and filial obedience to ecclesial authority.” He was concerned that “if in the transactions of their temporal affairs they take no account of those social principles which the Church teaches… then they fail in their obligations… [and] may even go so far as to bring discredit on the Church’s teaching, lending substance to the opinion that, in spite of its intrinsic value, it is in fact powerless to direct men’s lives.” These words, possibly above all others, should cause men like Dr. Woods a great deal of fear and trembling. Instead, as with similar warnings in other encyclicals of this nature, he chose to allow them to go without even a subtle reference.

As for the final encyclical referenced by Woods, it had little to say of its own authority. Pope John Paul II, in Laborem Exercens, had little to no reason to reiterate what had been said so many times over concerning the authority of the Magisterium in regards to social and economic matters. Still, in article III section 14, the pope states that “the many proposals put forward by experts in Catholic social teaching and by the highest Magisterium of the Church” are of “special significance.”

It should be obvious, then, that Dr. Woods is in grave error concerning the issue of the Magisterium’s jurisdiction over both social and economic concerns. Consequently, he has chosen to side with a mongrel horde of atheists, agnostics, and a cherry-picked remnant of scholastics over against the Bishops of Rome and the overwhelming majority of the Church’s faithful sons who worked long and hard towards the reconstructing of a Catholic social order. He gives aid and comfort to those enemies of the faith by boldly criticizing the Church and calling into question the very right to jurisdiction the pontiffs claimed for themselves and their decrees. Furthermore, he advocates those very social and economic dogmas that the sovereign pontiffs condemn. But, worst of all, his actions place him in the frightening position of an obstinate son as described, particularly, in Quadragesimo Anno and Mater Et Magistra.

It is my hope that Mr. Woods would reconsider his position, and that he would do so with a sense of great urgency. With this being done, I pray that he would put as much effort into educating others about the majesty and wisdom of CST as he has into deconstructing it in hope of salvaging his commitment to theories the Church has repeatedly denounced since Rerum Novarum.