Of France, Spirituality, Economics, Abortion Rates, and a Richer Understanding of Catholic Social Thought

My friend and colleague Tom Berg dismisses my recent post as “simple France-bashing” (although my e-mail correspondents argue that, if anything, I have understated the level of deterioration experienced in the French economy and society). Yet Tom grudgingly acknowledges the accuracy of my litany of French economic woes, even as he defends (while denying that he is defending) the French Nanny State.

More pertinent to the thrust of my post — which used France as but an illustration of an impoverishment in much of what passes for Catholic Social Thought — Tom fails to seriously question, critically examine, or qualify the supposed advantages of government-centric solutions to social problems. Yes, Tom does refer generally to “imperfections of all social and economic systems,” and he also mentions vaguely “the inevitable trade-offs.” But with respect to the collectivist attractions of the left, he cannot quite bring himself to name those “imperfections” (statism, bureaucratic callousness, economic decline, etc.) or “trade-offs” (social enervation, decline in incentives, weakening of personal responsibility, loss of liberty, etc.) Nor does Tom acknowledge the unfortunate propensity of too many on the Catholic left to elide these counter-factors when they propose yet another government program or endorse a new set of regulations as supposedly compelled by Catholic Social Thought.

Tom also rather quickly passes over the spiritual emptiness that is modern France, saying “[l]et’s set aside the loss of Christian faith, which we can all agree is very bad in spiritual terms.” Well, and other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? This loss of faith is hardly a tangential point when speaking about the French social welfare state. Is it not likely that the French deification of the state and submissive reliance on government as the answer to all problems has contributed to spiritual decay?

Still, Tom does make one powerful point that captures my attention and, pending further exploration, could win me over as well: that a social welfare system in France which more generously supports child-raising has produced lower abortion rates (and lower infant mortality rates) in that country. Assuming that abortion rates were to be empirically confirmed as significantly correlated with French social welfare benefits and regulations, and that alternative methods of regulating abortion would be neither practical nor superior, that enhancement of human life at its earliest stages would count as a strong mark in my book in favor of this particular set of benefits and regulations. Of course, that would make palatable only one small slice of the huge French pie of government benefits and rules.

And, in any event, acknowledging the potential force of Tom’s limited point about a single government project is not much of a rebuttal of my earlier post that was designed to challenge an unhealthy fixation on collectivism in some accounts of Catholic Social Thought. Contrary to Tom’s accusation that I have painted things in black-and-white terms, I have neither opposed all government programs nor proposed the libertarian ideal of the Night Watchman State as the preferred alternative. (When I do move occasionally in libertarian circles, I am inevitably and rightfully exposed as a heretic who contemplates a meaningful and robust — but still limited and carefully constrained — role for government in economic and social matters.) Rather, I mean to challenge the simplistic association of Catholic Social Thought with a government-centric agenda.

Tom speaks of a middle ground toward which those interested in a just society should strive. I’m not sure that a “middle ground” is a principled or inspirational goal, especially if it results in mediocre results from all standpoints. But I understand Tom’s point to be that we might find some common ground and through our engagement eventually develop a more refined approach to these questions.

Let me take a step in that direction: I have always acknowledged that government has a role to play, including provision of benefits to the disadvantaged and regulation of economic enterprises (at a level to be determined). I do not expect that discussions of social problems in the light of Catholic Social Thought will proceed stripped bare of any proposals for governmental activity.

At the same time, let us speak more deliberately and candidly about the unintended and negative consequences for economic vitality and opportunity, the risk of dependence and entitlement that enervates a society and diminishes individual flourishing, and the decline of freedom that may follow whenever government seizes private resources and imposes legal edicts on others.

Catholic Social Thought is neither a statist philosophy nor a form of laissez faire capitalism. It is so much more than either of these. The Mirror of Justice should be a venue for exploring the greater richness of Catholic Social Thought.

Greg Sisk