“Never Again War!”

“No, never again war, which destroys the lives of innocent people, teaches how to kill, throws into upheaval even the lives of those who do the killing and leaves behind a trail of resentment and hatred, thus making it all the more difficult to find a just solution of the very problem which provoked the war.”

~Pope John Paul II
Centesimus Annus, section 52

Advertisements

Catholics Revolutionaries for Armed Resistance

“No Christian is an enemy, certainly not of the emperor. Since we know that the emperor is appointed by God, it is necessary that he be loved and reverenced, and that we wish him well.”
~Tertullian 

Conspiracy theorist are growing by leaps and bounds, and I must admit to there being a certain appeal to believing things aren’t as they appear, or at least not as “they” would like us to believe things appear. But it has been rather unfortunate to see so many Catholics, and particularly Distributists, sounding more and more like Alex Jones, David Icke, and Jim Marrs, not to mention Dr. Stan from Radio Liberty. 

It was not but a week or so ago that I came across a man asserting that Catholics have a right (or was it a responsibility?) to revolt against the police state. Years before I had said the same thing. Revolution, even armed revolution, was for me a fatalistic reality, bound to happen by the winds of Providence. But as I said, that was years before.

Since that time I have come to my wits, or so I would like to believe. I attribute this, at least in large part, to my enthusiastic study of Catholic Social Doctrine. This beautiful treasure of wisdom, order, and justice had become the centerpiece of my study. Am I an encyclical scholar? Far from it. But my fascination goes well beyond that of the average layperson. 

Now then, what does my passion for encyclicals have to do with a fellow Distributist talking about armed protestation against a tyrannical state? Very little and an awful lot. While my personal enthusiasm is relatively insignificant, what the popes have said most certainly is not. The fact that the popes have written on this very issue is as great a comfort as it is a challenge.

Pope Leo XIII wrote an encyclical entitled “Immortale Dei,” though it is typically referred to as “On the Christian Constitution of States.” In it he deals with the authority of the Magisterium in temporal affairs. The affair under immediate consideration concern the Church permission of various forms of governance (though not without certain prohibitions), the proper role of the government, a rightful rule of leaders, the appropriate conduct of the citizenry, the so-called freedoms of speech and of press, the moral repugnance of religious pluralism, as well as many other things. For the sake of this entry, I wish only to focus on the appropriate conduct of the citizenry. 

The state and its rulers are described throughout the entire encyclical in manner quite foreign to the American (or even modern) psyche. They are referred to as holding authority from God, worthy of reverence, to deserving of a love similar to that which children give to their parents, and that obedience is to contingent upon the God -given nature of the institution of the state and the office of the ruler. 

Concerning revolution, here is what the pope had to say in section 18 of this encyclical:

“The obedience [of the citizenry] is not the servitude of man to man, but submission to the will of God, exercising His sovereignty through the medium of men… it is felt that the high office of rulers should be held in respect; that public authority should be constantly and faithfully obeyed; that no act of sedition should be committed; and that the civic order of the commonwealth should be maintained as sacred.”

He states earlier on in section 5:

“Then, truly, will the majesty of the law meet with the dutiful and willing homage of the people, when they are convinced that their rulers hold authority from God, and feel that it is a matter of justice and duty to obey them, and to show them reverence and fealty, united to a love not unlike that which children show their parents. ‘Let every soul be subject to higher powers.’ To despise legitimate authority, in whomsoever vested, is unlawful, as a rebellion against the divine will, and whoever resists that rushes willfully to destruction. ‘He that resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist, purchase for themselves damnation.’ To cast aside obedience, and by popular violence to incite to revolt, is therefore treason, not against man only, but against God.”

These words are scathing to modern ears, especially those of us in the U.S. who thrive on the ridicule of the government, its laws, and its lawmakers. This is commonplace on the Internet, talk-radio, newspapers, and even around kitchen dinner tables… for those few souls who still eat at one. Just mention President-elect Barack Obama or President Bush in a room full of people. That is, if you really need to waste your time on an experiment that will only validate what you already know to be true, if not from hearsay, then from personal experience.

None of this is meant to preach at anyone. I am the guiltiest of the guilty. I am a talk-radio host who has been blogging about the government, law, and politicians for years! So what is the point of this entry? Simply this: That in light of what the pope has written, Catholic revolutionaries chanting for (or defending the legitimacy of) armed resistance should seriously reconsider their position, especially when their pontifications are plastered for all to see on the World Wide Web.

When the Distributist Tail Wags the CST Dog

… one shall find the golden mean.

Distributism, distributism, sweet distributism. Were it not for the uniquely American disdain for anything that sounds like the word “redistribution,” distributism would have a much larger audience. The name itself has a certain elegance. Far better than conservatism, libertarianism, constitutionalism, communism, or liberalism, though I have always thought the word liberalism had a rather pleasant ring to it. Socialism, as a word, may come close, but distributism is still by far the most wonderful sounding political “ism” on the books.

Regrettably, while the word may run off the tongue as smooth as milk and honey, the definition is about as elusive as a $3 bill.

Disagreement within any school of thought isn’t new, especially for the godfathers of of that beautifully idealistic school commonly reffered to as distributism. Chesterton, Belloc and Penty all had their differences. This is especially true of Penty. The very man who wrote the Distributist Manifesto later wrote a peice entitled “Why I am not a Distributist.”

For one to insist that distributism was, or even is, a unified school of thought would be to romanticize the system. Then again, romanticizing systems may be in our blood. A cursory glance of the aforementioned writers would demonstrate this beyond dispute.

So it shouldn’t be at all surprising to see differences amongst various modern distributists. One may insist, and rightly so, that such disagreement is healthy. Uniform agreement and lockstep devotion may work out well for “dittoheads,” but not for those devoted to a social theory that has both a sense of being and becoming.

Somewhere along the line, though, I came to the realization that there is an element of disagreement that is rooted in something that ought to give distributists pause. It is my belief that many identifying themselves as distributists are influenced more by the works of Chesterton, Belloc, Gill and Penty than popes Leo XIII, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II. This isn’t to say that the former list is of no use or that distributists should only concern themselves with the latter list, but that the latter list is primary and the former should be read in light of it. While these list form a splendid both/and (over against an either/or), the latter certainly hold primacy, as even their office would indicate.

Case in point: libertarian distributists. I have run across many distributists who advocate a system that more closely reflects the political and economic views of Lew Rockwell and Rep. Ron Paul than Pope Leo XIII or Blessed Pope John XXIII.

The typical excuse is that of subsidiarity. But subsidiarity, taken by itself, may allow one to make a case for the most extreme forms of libertarianism,  even those bordering upon the threshold of anarchy.

But it is at this very point that we face difficulty. The popes didn’t leave subsidiarity by itself. They didn’t leave all things to one’s ability to make a case for “the lowest level possible at all times and in all situations.” No, they describe a society made up of various institutions that provide us with the necessary framework by which to determine at which level various things could, should, and must be done. This included the state, and a state that was to be respected and revered in its majesty.

Now let’s make something very clear. I readily admit to being a novice. Nothing of what I have written here has been mean to insinuate that I have all the answers, or for that matter many at all. Far from it! Distributists, both past and present, never cease to amaze me. Reading their literature, or peeking in on their discussions, leaves me with the wonderful realization that I still have a lifetime of learning ahead of me.

The point of this entry, then, is to toss into the arena my relatively insignificant perception that, regardless of good intentions, many distributists have forgotten that the Social Doctrine of the Church develops, leaving the work of heroes such as Chesterton and Belloc as beautifully brilliant footnotes for the Catholic Social Doctrine contained in the encyclals given to us by Holy Mother Church.

Dirty Rotten Pinko!

“I knew it! Your’re a damn pinko, Paleo.”

NOTE TO SELF: Ask sensible questions, get labeled a commie sympathizer.

Nothing like being labeled a socialist. Could be worse. The poor wretch could have called me a Leninist, a Maoist, or even a dirty rotten liberal. Ah, the power of an emotionally charged word. Truth is, people are rarely required to know the meaning of the words they use. So long as they have the vaguest (i.e. misinformed) notion of what a word means, that is all modern America requires. Substance and meaning have flown south for winter, and it appears their flight was a one-way ticket.

But is thee any merit to my being accused of being a pinko?

I mean, sure I believe that man has a degree of responsibility for global climate change. Sure I believe that we should treat animals (whether domestic, gaming, or slaughter) in a humane fashion. Granted, I believe that the rich ought to carry a heftier tax burden the the poor  and middle class. Yes, I believe that agrarianism, organic foods, and local purchasing of goods is an ideal communities ought to work towards. I presume one could refer to my advocacy for some form of universal health, labor associations, economic nationalism, anti-interventionism, and the restructuring of monopoly laws that would include organizations such as, I don’t know, Wal-Mart. Oh, and lest I forget, I don’t hate the government, much less the Democrat party. 

Uh-oh! If the former beliefs didn’t do me in, the last one certainly did! 

But I am not at all sure that these are necessarily “pinko” positions.  Actually, I should reword that last remark. Let me give it a shot. It is my position that these are not of any necessity “pinko” positions. On the contrary, it is my contention that these positions, if only in principle, have a long history within Christian social theory.

Unfortunately, and for reasons I don’t wish to discuss in this entry, these positions have typically been identified with the Left. While this, in and of itself, does not bother me all that much, I hope and believe that the political winds are changing in such a way that what currently masquerades as conservatism and Christian social teaching will give way to a more historical and orthodox social doctrine. Then, just maybe, foolhardy accusations of “pinko!” will fall on deaf ears. Just maybe…

PUTTING MISES IN HIS PLACE

John Medaille of The Distributist Review has written an excellent piece on Mises and the attempt of  various Catholics and conservatives to baptize him as one of their own.

NOTE: The comment section is a must read.

Leo XIII on Freedoms of Speech and Press

Attacking the freedoms of speech and the press is dangerous business. This is especially true for those of us hoping to make a name for ourselves in journalism. The idea of a journalist writing against these freedoms sounds about as absurd as a man making a verbal case against breathing, with his ability to argue the point being conditioned upon the very thing he is arguing against.

It was all the better, then, that Pope Leo XIII wasn’t a journalist. In his 1888 encyclical “Libertas Praetantissimum” (On the Nature of Human Liberty), the pope dealt with the these so-called freedoms of speech and of press. Almost 100 years after the U.S. Bill of Rights had declared them to be recognized as both natural and divine rights belonging to men, the pope denounced them (or how they had become popularly understood and applied) as absurd and dangerous to the common good and the wellbeing of the State.

Of these two freedoms he said,

“[23] It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right as this, if it be not used in moderation, and it is pass beyond the bounds and end of all true liberty… it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice.”

In the same section of Libertas he goes on to say that material should be prudently propagated throughout the Sate, leaving public authorities with the power to repress those things made up of lying opinions, vices which corrupt the heart and moral life, as well as anything that may be considered ruinous to the state.

Were only this to have been written today. The American media, and presumably the majority of modern American Catholics, would be in a foaming frenzy! Politicians would simply add this to their already long list of issues where avoiding “the right thing to do” is their top-priority. Partisans and pundits would squabble over where truth and justice begin and where falsehood and justice end. Talking heads would be preaching doomsday to liberty as their ability to say whatever they want about whoever they want whenever they want is placed on the chopping block. And let’s not forget the corporations and advertisers! For the first time in many years they would have to admit that their brand isn’t number one, but rather comes in a close third. To say that America would be flipped upside down would be an understatement.

But the American media has no reason to fear, for American Catholics take Catholic Social Doctrine as seriously as Hollywood takes Macully Kulken. Still, for those Catholics few and far between who cherish the social teaching of Mother Church, this poses plenty of difficult questions requiring our serious consideration.

Links to other encyclicals related to this topic:

Christianae Reipublicae (On the Dangers of Anti-Christian Writings)

Vigilante Cura (On Motion Pictures)

Miranda Prorsus (On the Communications Field: Motion Pictures, Radio, and Television)

CATHOLICISM AND LABOR ASSOCIATIONS

“[3]…The social question and its associated controversies, such as the nature and duration of labor, the wages to be paid, and workingmen’s strikes, are not simply economic in character. Therefore they cannot be numbered among those which can be settled apart from ecclesiastical authority. ‘The precise opposite it the truth. It is first of all moral and religious, and for that reason its solution is to be expected mainly from the moral law and the pronouncements of religion.’

“[4]… Consequently, such so-called confessional Catholic associations must certainly be established and promoted in every way in Catholic regions as well as in all other districts where it can be presumed that they can sufficiently assist the various needs of their members.”

“[8]We are convinced, Venerable Brethren, that you will diligently take care to see that all these directives of Ours are conscientiously and exactly fulfilled, carefully and constantly reporting to Us concerning this very serious problem. Since We have taken this matter under Our jurisdiction and, after hearing the views of the Bishops, since the decision rests with Us, We hereby command all Catholics of good will to desist from all disputes among themselves concerning this matter. We are confident that with fraternal charity and perfect obedience they will completely and gladly carry out Our command.”

Singulari Quadam (On Labor Organizations)
St. Pope Pius X