Nothing good can be done without freedom, but freedom is not the highest value in itself. Freedom is given to man in order to make possible the free obedience to truth and the free gift of onesself in love. -- Rocco Buttiglione, "The Free Economy and the Free Man."

A New Worldly Order: John Paul II and Human Freedom (Washington: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1992). p. 70.

Weigel [commenting on Buttiglione]:

"On this understanding of freedom and its relation to the nature of the human person, democracy is a substantive moral experiment. The procedures of democracy grow out of, and depend on, the ethos of the democratic society. And if those procedures are to serve human goods, that ethos must reflect the truth about the human person. This democracy depends on an ongoing process of moral-cultural revitalization. Democracy's self-governnence is never finally secured. Each generation must face Lincoln's question as to whether nations conceived in liberty and dedicated to equality before the law can long endure.

p. 127 (Soul of the World).

The last two chapters of Soul of the World contain very good reflections on Centesimus Annus and Veritatis Splendour. Despite the disagreements cited by the "Augustinian Thomists", I think it can safely be said that Weigel (Neuhaus, Novak) are very much in agreement with Schindler, Rowland, et al. on the deficiencies of secular democracy and modern liberalism, and concur with Pope John Paul II's "internal criticism" of the liberal democratic tradition.

The key source of disagreement, from what I gather so far, appears to be over the salvagibility and viability of the American experiment and the degree to which the philosophical foundations of the Enlightenment have tainted / corrupted classical liberalism such that it cannot be reconciled as a working political-economic model with the social teachings of the Catholic Church.

Interlude

Readers familiar with my website on The Catholic Church and the Liberal Tradition will note that the debate between the so-called "Whig Thomists"(Novak, Neuhaus, Weigel - and the journal First Things) and "Augustinian Thomists" (Dr. Robert Kraynak, Tracy Rowland and David Schindler of Communio) over the compatibility of the Catholic Church with the classical liberal tradition and the "American experiment" of democracy, human rights and the free market.

Not having the benefit of a grad school education (or the privileged access to an academic library), this is a debate I've been attempting to keep abreast of through what articles I'm able to access online and books I'm able to find in the used bookstores and public library (the latter being one of America's greatest institutions, I must say).

I'm grateful for those publications like First Things, Crisis and Commonweal that have generously put their back issues online (it's my hope that Communio will follow suite at some point).

This month I was also fortunate enough to find copies of Michael Novak's Freedom with Justice: Catholic Social Thought and Liberal Institutions and On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding. To aquaint myself with the Augustianian Thomists I've ordered David Schindler's Heart of the World, Center of the Church (Eerdmans, 1996).

I'd love to get my hands on a copy of Rowland's Culture and the Thomist Tradition: After Vatican II but it's a little pricey (Perhaps I'll treat myself this Christmas?).

Having finished Novak's Free Persons and the Common Good, I've started on Weigel's Soul of the World: Notes on the Future of Public Catholicism (Eerdmans, 1996) and Thomas Rourke's A Conscience as Large as the World: Yves R. Simon Versus the Catholic Neoconservatives (Rowman & Littlefield, November, 1996).

Novak's presentation of the "common good" in the liberal and Catholic traditions (via analysis of the Federalist Papers and the writings of Toqueville, Maritain, Yves R. Simon and Vatican II) was an invigorating read. I'm finding Weigel's book very refreshing. Focusing on the Church's social witness and relationship to the world, it covers some of the same topics as Schindler's Heart of the World, drawing on von Balthasar and John Paul II as much as he does John Courtney Murray, SJ.

Thomas Rourke's book,"a systematic critique of Catholic neoconservatism using the work of Yves Simon as a theoretical and practical lens of analysis," looks interesting as well. The rather curt First Things review notes that

"Yves Simon (1903-1961) was a very distinguished Catholic thinker who is, in fact, frequently and sympathetically employed by Novak, but Rourke thinks Novak got him all wrong. It is hard to know what to make of a book such as this, since it seems more than possible that Simon's views of forty and fifty years ago would have changed in the light of subsequent discoveries about the limits of the welfare state and the strength of market economies. Rourke himself is not much impressed by those discoveries, being a more or less unreconstructed "social democrat" of a markedly anticapitalist bent. What is clear enough, but hardly seems to warrant book-length exposition, is that the author does not like the gang of three. Whether or not Yves Simon is also "versus the Catholic neoconservatives," only Simon can say. We may hope for the answer to that in a better time and place.

Despite their skepticism, it seems like a novel approach and Rourke deserves better. I'll see how it goes. (BTW, a more detailed presentation of Rourke's thoughts are found in Neo-Conservatism: New Insights into Catholic Social Teaching, or just Old Liberalism in new Garments?, an assessment by Russel Sparks [.pdf format]

* * *

In the past several years of blogging I've had the pleasure of becoming acquainted with a number of fellow Catholic / Christians interested in this imporant debate as well. In addition to the familiar faces of St. Blog's Parish -- Chris Burgwald ("Veritas") and Kevin Miller ("Heart, Mind and Strength"), I'd like to give special mention to the following (relatively new) voices in our online discussion:

• la nouvelle thèologie by David Jones -- focusing of course on Hans Urs von Balthasar, Pope Benedict XVI and the ressourcement school of theology and the contributions of David Schindler, Tracy Rowland, et al. David keeps tabs on all aspects of this debate and is fast-becoming the "Drudge Report" of the WT/IT debate -- by that I mean, always on top of things with the most recent news and links.

• My friend Santiago, who currently blogs at Cahiers Peguy but has his own blog as well (Constantly Risking. As a Paraguayan studying English literature and philosophy at a midwestern Jesuit college, blessed with an appreciation of our nation's history and a desire to learn about our founding fathers that is rarely found in most native-born Americans these days.

* * *

Occasional notes on my readings will be posted here (Religion and Liberty). However, if you notice a lag or altogether lapse in blogging, it's because I'm (Lord willing) engaged in serious study and making productive use of these remaining summer evenings.

Cardinal Ratzinger On Europe's Crisis of Culture

Translation of the lecture given in Italian by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XIV, in the convent of Saint Scholastica in Subiaco, Italy, upon reception of the St. Benedict Award for the promotion of life and the family in Europe on April 1, 2005. Zenit News Service.

• Part I: "Excludes God From the Public Conscience"
• Part II: "A Confused Ideology of Freedom Leads to Dogmatism"
• Part III: "Meaning and Limits of the Present Rationalist Culture"
• Part IV: Christianity: "The Religion According to Reason"

I initially tried posting a few excerpts but the whole thing's just too good. The subject may be the Enlightenment philosophical presuppositions of the European Constitution, but there's plenty that Europe's neighbors 'across the pond" can learn from as well.

Excellent address. I spent part of Sunday afternoon in Barnes & Noble, halfway through Pope John Paul II's Memory and Identity, and there are definite parallels.

Any discussion of Church and society that is not marked by a sympathetic awareness of the sectarian option is not to be fully trusted. In Catholicism, the monastic tradition keeps alive the awareness that there is a radically "other way," and that, in some circumstances of cultural disintegration and hostility to the Gospel, it may be the best way, indeed the normative way. No matter how impressive its institutions or how large its numbers or how palpable its cultural influence, the Church must never forget that it is, in the final analysis, the "little flock" completely dependent on the promise of its Lord.

Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus, forward to Building a Free Society (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1993). xvi.

Ceasefire? -- Hardly, but it's a start.

In the April 1999 issue of First Things, Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus notes a symposium published in the The Catholic Social Science Review on "David Schindler vs. Neoconservatism". One of the contributors, Mark Lowry of the University of Dallas, offered an overview of the controversy and "concludes with a list of propositions to which he thinks all parties -- Schindler, Novak, Neuhaus and Weigel -- could agree":

a. While the Church respects the proper autonomy of the temporal order and never favors any one particular political regime in principle, the liberal state is compatible, in practice, with Catholicism, as articulated in Dignitatis Humanae.

b. The extent to which the liberal political order is a good setting for the Catholic faith is a legitimate matter for continued discussion. The "Catholic Moment" theory ought not be construed in such a way as to suggest that the liberal regime is necessarily the ideal home for the Catholic faith in this world, even if it is the best available home at the present time.

c. The liberal state is something of an indeterminate and, hence, vulnerable entity. While in its current American manifestation it is less than promising, it contains a capacity for improvement. Liberal ideology need not accompany liberal institutions.

d. Concretely speaking, the liberal regime, for all its vulnerabilities, is the best political option currently available. This is not to say that the Church endorses it (a strategic alliance) as her favored choice of all conceivable political regimes, which would violate the Church's principle regarding the proper autonomy of the temporal order.

e. The liberal state in America will never totally harmonize with the richness of the Catholic onto-logic (nor could any temporal regime); still, the cultural dimension of a liberal regime (as well as the economic and political dimensions insofar as they are affected by the cultural dimension) can participate in that logic. While shunning a strategic alliance with liberalism, we can make varying kinds of tactical alliances with it.

f. The degree of that participation, and the ways in which such participation might be increased, is an important matter for continued discussion. Varying kinds of tactical alliances can and should exist side by side. Undoubtedly, a Protestant ethos pervades much of American life, but even that ethos can and does participate in Catholic truth, and can be nourished by contact with the Catholic tradition.

g. Catholics should strive to bring the fullness of their faith to their engagement in the temporal order, even though the temporal order never will echo perfectly that fullness (the "eschatological principle" in Catholic social thought).

h. Because that faith is so much under siege, we must be especially dedicated to work in harmony with one another, nourished by a theological and pastoral magnanimity within the parameters of the authentic Catholic faith.

Neuhaus remarks: "I might have an editorial quibble with a phrase or two, but sign me on. I haven't checked with Novak or Weigel, but would be surprised if they did not agree."

I could easily envision the so-called "neoconservatives" nodding their agreement to this list of nuanced propositions. Based on what I've read -- and haven't read a great deal, although I hope to remedy that during the remainder of this summer -- I have a difficult time envisioning David Schindler or Tracy Rowland giving their consent. But it's something worth discussing.

Pope John Paul II on the American Experiment

The Founding Fathers of the United States asserted their claim to freedom and independence on the basis of certain "self-evident" truths about the human person: truths which could be discerned in human nature, built into it by "nature’s God." Thus they meant to bring into being, not just an independent territory, but a great experiment in what George Washington called "ordered liberty": an experiment in which men and women would enjoy equality of rights and opportunities in the pursuit of happiness and in service to the common good. Reading the founding documents of the United States, one has to be impressed by the concept of freedom they enshrine: a freedom designed to enable people to fulfill their duties and responsibilities toward the family and toward the common good of the community. Their authors clearly understood that there could be no true freedom without moral responsibility and accountability, and no happiness without respect and support for the natural units or groupings through which people exist, develop, and seek the higher purposes of life in concert with others.

The American democratic experiment has been successful in many ways. Millions of people around the world look to the United States as a model in their search for freedom, dignity, and prosperity. But the continuing success of American democracy depends on the degree to which each new generation, native-born and immigrant, makes its own the moral truths on which the Founding Fathers staked the future of your Republic. Their commitment to build a free society with liberty and justice for all must be constantly renewed if the United States is to fulfill the destiny to which the Founders pledged their "lives . . . fortunes . . . and sacred honor."

Pope John Paul II - John Paul II on the American Experiment First Things 82 (April 1998): 36-37. ["Pointed comments on the 'credibility' of the United States given by the Pope upon receiving the credentials of the Honorable Lindy Boggs as Ambassador to the Holy See on December 16, 1997].

Sound Criticism or Impediments to Fruitful Conversation?

David Jones (la nouvelle théologie) has alerted me to the following by Fr. Jape -- "Against Progressives and Progressivisms" -- written in response to a passing reference to him in the context of our discussion of the Zwicks' article "The Economic Religion of Michael Novak" here, as well as criticisms of David T. Koyzis aka. "Byzantine-Rite Calvinist.

I haven't read a great deal of Fr. Jape and The New Pantagruel -- actually, I was going to make a serious point to spend part of the weekend reading his contributions -- so I'll bypass weighing the merits of the allegation that he wishes "to abandon the western democratic project entirely."

Regardless of their critique of the admittedly real failures of liberal democracy, it seems to me the "Augustinian Thomists" are nonetheless content to remain residents (and presumably participants) in "The American Experiment." As Fr. Jape notes, it is erroneous to assume that "if one rejects the liberal premise of public involvement, one must by necessity become a mountain recluse mailing explosive packages to university professors."

However, having familiarized myself to some degree with Novak's works, I think I'm qualified to comment on Fr. Jape's charges of utopial idealism in the latter part of his post:

. . . Novak went so far recently as to make the absurd claim that the onset of a global economy has demonstrated that "it need not be the case that 'you always have the poor with you' [quoting our Lord]" and "that it is a moral obligation of societies as well as individuals to overcome poverty." It is central to Novak's progressive gospel to believe that, in his words, "the chains of poverty [can] be systematically broken" and there is a "moral imperative that they must be broken." Perhaps Novak will soon turn up authoring a UN declaration that progress in human enlightenment has reached such a point that "it need not be the case that 'all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God'" and that now it is incumbent upon society to break the yoke of human sin. But of course this is the logical outcome of the modern liberal state as developed and analyzed so clearly (and tragically) by Nietzsche's self-salvific proposal to deal grace to himself. Conservatives and Christians simply don't pay enough attention to Nietzsche

While Novak's turn of phrase is indeed susceptible to misinterpretation, I find Fr. Jape's interpretation nonetheless over the top and highly exaggerated. It's doubtful that Novak intended for his words to be taken in a utopian "make poverty history" sense of Bog Geldoff's Live8 concert campaign.

In fact, one might gain a better understanding of where Novak is going with this by reading the quotes in their proper context -- which is to say the rest of the paragraph, which Fr. Jape conveniently omits in his rush to castigate Novak for his presumed utopian faith:

While Americans retain a strong notion of human imperfection and affirm the need for checks and balances -- in other words, they hold to a nonutopian understanding of human nature -- they also take an almost Catholic delight in the goodness and possibilities and wonders of creation. "Chance," Tocqueville notes, "is an element always present to the mind of those who live in the unstable conditions of a democracy, and in the end they come to love enterprises in which chance plays a part. This draws them to trade not only for the sake of promised gain, but also because they love the emotions it provides."

In such a tumultuous nation, marked by extraordinary social and economic fluidity, people began to understand -- perhaps for the first time in human history -- that poverty was not necessarily a natural condition. The age-old class structure -- not to mention the seemingly inevitable premodern cycle of prosperity and economic decline -- could be broken. And if such progress were possible in the United States, why not in other countries? The chains of poverty could be systematically broken -- and if they could be broken, there was a moral imperative that they must be broken.

And so they were -- first in the United States, and then slowly, progressively, around the world. Little by little, people began to understand that it need not be the case that "you always have the poor with you" (Matthew 26:11) -- that it is a moral obligation of societies as well as individuals to overcome poverty. Whereas poverty had previously been taken to be the natural condition of most human beings everywhere, through the workings of capitalism it came to be considered as counter to nature, immoral, and the result of inadequate social planning and effort. In America, the process of moving up and out of poverty, generation by generation, came to be called fulfilling the "American dream."

Novak's optimistic assertions about the "American dream" and the potential of liberal institutions for moving the poor up and out of poverty, may indeed be subject to scrutiny, but I don't see how one could question the fact that we have a moral obligation to assist those in need and, insofar as it is possible, help them out of poverty.

Likewise, once Novak's quotes are read in context, it does not appear that Novak labors under the illusory utopianism of Fr. Jape's portrayal. He does, however, make the case that capitalist development in the context of liberal democracy presents the best opportunities for assisting the poor from the ground up, and is demonstrably better than socialist planning and other failed economic experiments of the past. "The greatest of all acts of charity is to teach the poor a system for escaping from the prison of poverty."^*

I think that in such discussions as this one must always be on the alert for taking a phrase or a passage out of context. It is possible to take Novak's praise of the free market and corporations and, isolated from the rest of his work, conclude -- per the Zwicks, that he is an "apologist for Enron" who, along with Fr. Sirico of The Acton Institute, "use Catholicism as window dressing to promote an economic system based solely on self-interest," or, per Pat Buchanan (in a recent Godspy inteview, that he belongs to "a sect that holds, heretically, that free market-democracy is mankind's salvation." These kind of characterizations make for memorable sound bytes or catch-phrases to be recited ad nauseum -- but, in my opinion, they do nothing in terms of promoting a serious discussion.

It has always been Novak's contention, as far as I have read of him, that the very success of the free market and liberal democracy is contingent on the degree to which it is grounded in the practice of virtue and the Judeo-Christian moral tradition. For further discussion see my post The Neocons - Apologists for Free-Market Utopianism? January 8, 2005.

I've already demonstrated this penchant for quoting out of context with respect to the Zwicks. Although it seems to be the case with Fr. Japery in this post, I trust he knows better and look forward to reading more.

* * *

Update Where Novak stands with respect to capitalism was briefly articulated by Novak in the correspondence from the latest issue of First Things, which I was fortunate enough to read during this morning's commute. As it is not yet available online I will take the liberty of posting:

While I cannot agree with every part of [the reader's] summation of my arguent, he is quite right on his main point -- that capitalism posits no moral end for the human person. (To be sure, this is also an advantage; it is a system open to many persons who have quite contrary perceptions of the best life for the human person.).

That is why my own conception of a sound social system calls for more than capitalism -- in fact, for three systems in one; not only an economic system anchored around the ownership and practical insights reached through invention and discovery, but also a political system that protects the rule of law as well as individual and minority rights, and that separates political, legislative and judicial powers; and also a strong cultural system based on the full flourishing of persons and communities, and rooted in the depths of the human spirit. Capitalism alone could not suffice for a full human vision, nor even for its own integrity and longetivity.

In my view, the fullest vision of human fulfillment, both for individuals and for the whole human community, is the Christian (Catholic) faith. That faith provides the fullest theory of political and personal liberty that I have ever encountered, and also -- and this is a newer discovery -- the best theory of the free economy. But two thirds of humanity are not currently Christian, so the open-endedness of capitalism, its limitation in one respect, is in other respects a strength to be grateful for.

Indeed, whatever the limitations of capitalism, which are many and real, its strengths should not go underappreciated. Capitalism is the best hope of the poor to be liberated from immemorial poverty. It is, on the material side, the best supplier of support for a rich and complex civil society. And empirically, at least, it appears to be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the successful rooting of democracy. These are not minor social virtues.

The specific complaint [against capitalism] -- that it tends to obscure Christian truth about the love of God, and to implicate us in too many worldly and pleasurable distractions -- was lodged just as effectively against mercantilism, feudalism, and every other economy in history.

Nonetheless, in a society as free and as rich in human possiblities as the United STates and Europe, I don't think that at the Final Judgement we will be able to plead as a mitigating circumstance that "capitalism made us do it."

We are, as history goes, remarkably free and remarkably endowed with the means to show our love for God in ways as numerous as the stars of the sky. If we do not do so, the fault lies not in our systems but in ourselves.

One might hope that Michael Novak's clarification will be enough to dispel the misunderstandings (and misrepresentations) of his detractors, and we can continue on a real and fruitful discussion of these issues.

---

* p. 108, The Universal Hunger for Liberty). To understand why Novak proposes this, I recommend part two of this book -- "The Economics of Liberty" -- as a brief introduction to Novak's thought, more fully developed elsewhere; and perhaps Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics: A Citizens Guide to the Economy (Basic Books, 2004).

Here and There . . .

• Justin Nickelsen, a friend and reader of David Jone's la nouvelle théologie -- has been inspired to start his own blog: RRCT: Retrieval and Renewal in Catholic Thought. One of his opening posts is on the "journalistic maturing" of John Allen, Jr., reporter for the National Catholic Reporter and the well-read column "Word from Rome".

• On la nouvelle théologie, a flurry of comments and a minor dustup btw/ Stephen Hand and myself, but may be useful reading in that I clarify exactly why I do not believe the Zwicks (of the Houston Catholic Worker) are "exactly on point" in their treatment of Michael Novak, but rather indulge in a misreading, and perhaps even a deliberate misrepresentation, of his position on issues in Catholic social doctrine.

  Presently I'm reading and enjoying Novak's Free Persons and the Common Good, a very rich and educational study in understanding the term from the Catholic perspective as well as Alexis de Tocqueville and the writings of our founding fathers. Novak wrote his book in tribute to Jacques Maritain and the 40th anniversary of Maritain's influential essay The Person and the Common Good.

. . . It is sometimes said that the dangers of State interference which made the strengthening of the papacy necessary for the defense of Christian freedom, are things of the past. The Church, some say, has never been freer than it is today. That is a very optimistic view. The presence of nationalisms and the growth of totalitarian States are facts of the present century, and even in regions where the Church is free in face of the public authorities, it is exposed to very many kinds of dependence on various social forces and the tyranny of what is called 'public opinion'.

Petrine Offices and Particular Churches by Henri DeLubac, S.J. (as posted to Pontifications).

On "The Preferential Option for the Poor"

Catholics who are the least bit aquainted with the social doctrine of the Church have encountered the term "preferential option for the poor." According to Charles Curran, the phrase has its origins in the "liberation theology" espoused by radical Catholic theologians in Latin America (excerpt from Catholic Social Teaching Georgetown UP, 2002).

In an article for the U.S. Catholic (Why the preferential option for the poor is not optional, November 1997), Jack Jezreel chronicles the use of the phrase from a 1979 pastoral document by the Latin American Bishops, to the 1986 statement "Economic Justice for All", revisited in 1994's "Communities of Salt and Light", as well as pontificate of Pope John Paul II.

[Update 6/19/05 -- According to one reader, the phrase "first appeared in official episcopal documents in the SECOND Latin American Episcopal Conference, that of Medellin, in 1968 -- the Liberation Theology movement in many ways grew out of this meeting. It is in the last pages of the Medellin documents, under the heading "Preferencia y Solidaridad"." Thanks!]

Pope John Paul II spoke of this preferential option on many occasions, preferring the term "preferential love for the poor" -- the website The Social Agenda, a collection of Magisterial texts compiled by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, from which we offer two excerpts that convey a sense of this "preferential option":

It will not be superfluous therefore to reexamine and further clarify in this light the characteristic themes and guidelines dealt with by the Magisterium in the recent years. Here I would like to indicate one of them: the preferential option or love of preference for the poor. This is an option, a special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity, to which the whole tradition of the Church bears witness. It affects the life of each Christian inasmuch as he or she seeks to imitate the life of Christ, but it applies equally to our social responsibilities and hence to our manner of living, and to the logical decisions to be made concerning our ownership and the use of goods. (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, n. 42)

In seeking to promote human dignity, the Church shows a preferential love of the poor and voiceless, because the Lord has identified himself with them in special way (cf. Mt 25:40). This love excludes no one, but simply embodies a priority of service to which the whole Christian tradition bears witness. This love of preference for the poor, and the decisions which it inspires in us, cannot but embrace the immense multitudes of the hungry, the needy, the homeless, those without medical care and, above all, those without hope of a better future. (Ecclesia in Asia, n. 34)

It should not suprise us that the phrase itself is subject to a wide variety of interpretations, often reflecting the political and spiritual orientation of the individual.

For instance, operating in the spirit of St. Francis, the Catholic Worker movement advocates the adoption of voluntary poverty. According to the Catholic Worker "Manifesto" Aims and Means:

"The mystery of poverty is that by sharing in it, making ourselves poor in giving to others, we increase our knowledge and belief in love." (Dorothy Day) By embracing voluntary poverty, that is, by casting our lot freely with those whose impoverishment is not a choice, we would ask for the grace to abandon ourselves to the love of God. It would put us on the path to incarnate the Church's "preferential option for the poor."

In his thoughtful post Blessed Are They The Poor in Spirit: A Catholic View of Economics (Cooperatores Veritatis June 7, 2003) Greg Mockeridge contends that the "preferential option" entails the necessary inclusion of those in need, helping the poor to better themselves, to improve their economic conditions by putting their creativity to use in the workplace and becoming financially self-sufficient:

The genius in the cultivation of resources and economic success finds its fulfillment in the preferential option for the poor. A society whose economic activity is exclusive to anyone because of race or social class cannot truthfully claim economic prosperity despite superficial appearances of it. In ignoring the poor, society not only fails in its duty to help those in need, but also deprives itself of the beneficial contribution of ingenuity that is gained by those who, through their circumstances, have discovered ways to make astoundingly productive use from the most meager resources. Growing up in a large blue-collar family myself, I know first hand how to make abundances from the scantiest of means. This sort of ingenuity has been the hallmark of American economic prosperity. We have seen immigrants come to this country with nothing more than faith in God and gratitude for their freedom build economic empires. The preferential option for the poor is not a political play toy exploiting the needy by creating an unhealthy dependence on government programs nor is it "...exclusive or discriminatory toward other groups", (Centesimus Annus n 57), but a recognition that the economic chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

In Reforming Our Attitudes (Religion & Liberty September / October 1995), Fr. Robert Sirico, President of the Acton Institute, discusses how we can practice Christian charity in ways which recognize the innate human dignity of the poor:

First, we can no longer believe that the call of compassion is satisfied by simply writing a check. The poor are asking for much more than our money. We must begin to make the more difficult sacrifices of our time, energy and talents. We must go to the poor where they live and enter into their poverty in order to help them rise above it. In our efforts to help those suffering the effects of poverty, dollars may be the least important consideration.

Another attitude that must change is our tendency to believe that as individuals we cannot make a meaningful contribution. When faced with a homeless person, the temptation is to think “What could I, with my limited experience and resources, do?” We therefore turn to simply giving money. We need to rethink this response and consider other ways we can contribute; perhaps volunteering at a private shelter, or maybe starting a shelter where there is none, or even having a conversation with a homeless person, as a person, and ask them what they truly need. This is the more radical approach because it requires that we listen to the poor and allow them to become part of the solution — not just the target of our pity.

A third attitude we must adopt is that we no longer view the poor as incapable. One of the most egregious faults of current government programs is the hidden assumption that the poor will always remain poor. While admitting that some people suffer from more than the effects of poverty which prevent them from becoming productive members of society, many of those receiving government assistance can contribute to the elevation of their standard of living. The poor themselves have to be a part of the solution to their own problems. Requiring some level of participation and responsibility on the part of individuals will offer the opportunity for more than dollars or a job, it will offer the opportunity for self-esteem.

Fr. Sirico's approach strikes me as being suprisingly close to Dorothy Day's -- at least in spirit, if not in policy. Browse through her extensive writings and you'll encounter a strong believer in personal responsibility and self-empowerment, highly critical of state-sanctioned welfare and handouts which leave the poor in a state of dependency.

Contrary to the Catholic Workers of today who indulge in either general dismissals or denunciations of "the neocons", I believe Ms. Day would have the desire and the capacity to truly listen to somebody like Fr. Sirico, or Michael Novak for that matter. They may not see eye to eye on the merits of the free market, but it's likely that they would have discovered common ground in an appreciation of the personalism and social thought of Pope John Paul II.

* * *

In his pastoral letter A Time for Honesty, addressing the scandal of "pro-choice politicians" and the argument that "the Church has many social teachings and abortion is one of them," Rev. John J. Myers, Archbishop of Newark, took a moment to clarify the Church's position on social teaching -- given the nature of this post it seems fitting to close with his words:

The Church's social teaching is a diverse and rich tradition of moral truths and biblical insights applied to the political, economic, and cultural aspects of our society. All Catholics should form and inform their conscience in accordance with these teachings. But reasonable Catholics can (and do) disagree about how to apply these teachings in various situations.

For example, our preferential option for the poor is a fundamental aspect of this teaching. But, there are legitimate disagreements about the best way or ways truly to help the poor in our society. No Catholic can legitimately say, "I do not care about the poor." If he or she did so this person would not be objectively in communion with Christ and His Church. But, both those who propose welfare increases and those who propose tax cuts to stimulate the economy may in all sincerity believe that their way is the best method really to help the poor. This is a matter of prudential judgment made by those entrusted with the care of the common good. It is a matter of conscience in the proper sense.

Related Links & Resources

The online archives of The Acton Institute offer much food for thought on how we can engage in effective compassion and assist the poor and financially impoverished. Here are just a few:

• In Human Capital and Poverty (Religion & Liberty January/February 1998), Gery Becker notes that "Human capital, e.g., the skills, education, and values of an individual, constitutes our most valuable and available resource for ameliorating poverty."

• In Effective Aid to the Poor, Dr. Digby Anderson, Director of the London-based Social Affairs Unit, addresses the two challenges which poverty-relief faces: Generosity and Efficiency:
  Giving away money is easy, provided youve got enough in the first place. But giving away money efficiently is very difficult. And that remains true whether the donor is the state, a voluntary association, or an individual. . . . The modern church rightly tells the rich to give to the poor. It presents the problem as one of lack of generosity. And so, in part, it is. But the church has little to say about how the poor are to be identified, how much each one should get, how to establish priorities among claims for charity, which forms of help are best, and how to avoid help becoming harm.

• In Poverty, Virtue, and Grace (1996 Lord Acton Essay), Fr. Robert Johansen -- yes, of the blog Thrown Back -- draws upon the thought of Lord Acton, who "held the conviction, expressed by Christian thinkers throughout history, that poverty is not a merely material problem, but a moral and spiritual problem as well."

• John Paul IIs Use of the Term Neo-Liberalism in Ecclesia in America, by Michel Therrien. Based on a paper delivered at the Pontifical College Josephinum April 8, 2000.

• Finally, Fr. Neuhaus illustrates the need for civil dialogue on such matters between Catholics in "Against Neoliberalism" (First Things 95 August/September 1999: 80-99.):
  The Zwicks essay is an extended polemic against neoconservatism, a.k.a. neoliberalism, a.k.a. capitalism. So, as might be expected, Michael Novak, George Weigel, and Father Robert Sirico come in for very unfavorable mention. The neoliberalism supported by this writer and his friends, say the editors, "mows down people who are in other countries through slave wages, international trade agreements and torture taught at the School of the Americas to ensure that ‘freedom prevails. It is very violent." But the Zwicks go beyond the usual suspects. They write, "Another well–respected priest, Fr. Avery Dulles, S.J., defends slave wages as being better than no wages." Fr. Dulles is not simply a well–respected priest, he is undoubtedly the most widely respected Catholic theologian in the United States (to whom, not incidently, Appointment in Rome is dedicated). And, if one really wanted to press the point, might one not be able to make the case that low wages, even very low wages, are better than no wages at all? But, in fact, what the Catholic Worker says is false.

  Fr. Dulles tells me that he remembers meeting the Zwicks at a meeting in Washington and, in private conversation, asked them what they thought of the argument of an acquaintance of his who does business in Latin America and claims that, although the wages he pays are low by North American standards, they are much higher than his workers could otherwise obtain. He says he does not recall how the Zwicks responded to his question, if they did. Since then, however, they have more than once published the claim that Fr. Dulles "defends slave wages" in Latin America. Such libel does nothing to enhance the legacy of Dorothy Day which the Catholic Worker supposedly champions.

  Surely, as reasonable Catholics, we can do better?

Update - A good follow-up discussion of this issue at the Catholic legal theory blog Mirror of Justice:

• Mark Sargent asks How Elastic Is the Preferential Option for the Poor? (6/20/05)

• MOJ colleague Rick Garnett counters inThe Prefential Option: A follow-up (6/21/05)

• Another lively discussion by the Commentariat at Amy Welborn. (6/22/05)

• A thought in progress @ Disputations:
  If poverty is an economic problem to be solved, then it's not my problem; I can barely handle my own economic problems, much less help others with theirs. If it's an economic debate, it's not my debate.

  And if it's an economic problem or debate, it's not really the Church's problem or debate, in any particular way. All the Church would have to do is remind everyone of the basic moral principles, then let the economists and policy makers go to town.

  But I don't think that's what the Church says. I don't think she regards poverty as a problem to be solved so much as a sorrow to be joined in. . . .

  The Gospel is not an economic development plan. The Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating or of drinking. Those of us who can speak of "the poor" rather than "we poor" must be in communion with those who can't, to share the life of the Spirit with them. Not in a patronizing way, assuring them they'll be just fine once they're dead; but in the way Christians were once known for loving each other.