I appreciate very much Rob's and Steve's posts, below, about the point or "value" of "Catholic legal thought." A few reactions:
I have huge respect and affection for Tom Shaffer but, like Steve, I do not believe that Catholic Social Thought supports, let alone requires the embracing of, Marx's core principles. CST provides, as I understand, a set of principles that, if implemented, should create a context within which human flourishing can and does take place. Borrowing from Rob's post, I regard CST itself as a "means" to the "end" of authentic human freedom. I am not an expert, but I do not believe that Marx ever did, or that Marxism really can, take human freedom seriously.
Next, Rob writes: "[t]he impact on the poor must be central to economic policy if the vision laid out by CST is to be taken seriously. The means by which the poor can best be helped should be debated with vigor, but the plight of the poor as a foundational concern of economic policy is non-negotiable." I think this is right, and well said. I'm not sure, though, that this means that a particular policy -- e.g., tax cuts -- must always be linked explicitly by its supporters to the good of the poor in order to be morally permissible. If President Bush says, in his speeches about tax cuts, that they are good because (a) they help the economy and (b) are more consistent with a vision of limited government and property rights, but neglects to state explicitly that (c) tax cuts are (he thinks) consistent with the preferential option for the poor, I don't think this omission undermines the CST case for the policy.
Finally, I wonder if "Catholic Legal Thought" is (or can be) more than and bigger than the Catholic Social Thought tradition? That is, our effort here at MOJ to develop a "Catholic Legal Theory" is about more than applying CST to policy questions or legal enactments -- isn't it? The Catholic tradition includes other claims and resources -- e.g., the possibility of actual knowledge about reality, the nature of the human person, etc. -- besides the rich resources of CST.
It is, as Steve points out, possible (if not inevitable) for reasonable people, thinking in light of CST principles, to reach different conclusions on a range of policy questions. (And, unlike Mark, I do not regard the Bainbridge / Novak / etc. approach as an "outlier", except in a purely descriptive sense). Still, a commitment to, and application of, Catholic thinking about, say, the reality of morality, will, I think, make a difference. So, keep on blogging!
Rick
Intuitively responding to Rob's post on "Salvation as a Selective Incentive" (which I have not read) I wonder if Jonathon Klick explored the possibility that Catholics may have larger families and thus less disposable income in earlier years. Hmm! Could this explain increased giving in later years?
The latest confirmation that empirical analysis is taking over the world comes in the form of this new paper by Florida State law prof Jonathan Klick titled "Salvation as a Selective Incentive." Here's the abstract:
As club goods, religions face the problem of free riding. Smaller religious clubs, such as cults or sects, can often surmount this problem through communal pressures or by requiring their members to provide easily monitored signals. Generally, however, such tactics will be unavailable or too costly for large denominations, and, as such, these denominations must look for other techniques to avoid free riding. This paper argues that the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification by faith and works serves as an Olsonian selective incentive, and presents empirical evidence in support of this claim. Specifically, I show that Catholics contribute significantly more to their churches as they approach death than do members of Protestant denominations. More generally, this paper suggests that church doctrines influence behavioral incentives and religious leaders may be able to capitalize on these behavioral effects for the benefit of their church.
Rob
