"Three Fallacies about Catholic Social Teaching"

At Vox Nova, Morning's Minion identifies "Three Fallacies about Catholic Social Teaching".  They are:

1. The Church has no expertise in economics, which is a technical area best left to experts.

        2. We should emphasize private charity over state action.

3. We should draw a hard line between non-negotiable teachings and prudential judgments.

For what it's worth, I pretty much agree with him that these statements are not true (or, that they are sometimes deployed or understood in ways that are not true).  I also think, though, that the argument that, all things considered, the common good (understand as CST-embracing Catholics should understand it) will be better (not best, but better) served if Gov. Romney is elected, does not depend on any of those fallacies.  (So, his exposition of the fallacies strikes me as not-right in places.)

 

Anyway, I wonder what Morning's Minion would think of these (friendly) amendments:  

 

First, while it is true that it is a "fallacy" to say that the Church has nothing to say about "economic" questions is false (those questions are human questions, after all), it is correct to note that Church leaders, as such, do not have any particular expertise when it comes to identifying the likely costs, benefits, effects, and implications of this or that particular menu of policies.  And so, pronouncements about "economic" questions need to be made with caution -- not because the questions are "economic", but because the questions are really, really complicated. 

 

Second, while there is a role for the public authority in promoting the common good -- i.e., in creating the conditions necessary for the flourishing of persons -- it is essential that this role not be exercised in a way that crowds out civil-society associations, private charity, and the social-welfare and evangelical activities of the Church.

Third, while it is a mistake to think that questions involving "prudential" judgments do not have wrong answers -- even gravely wrong ones -- it *is* true that we are justified in having more confidence that this or that answer is the right one when we are talking about the "non-negotiables."