Mirror of Justice

A blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory.
Affiliated with the Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School.

Saturday, September 22, 2007

Market Economies and the Catholic Conception of the State

One of fascinating papers delivered yesterday at the Villanova CST symposium was that of Robert Pecorella, a political science professor at St. John's University in New York.  Pecorella believes, as my earlier post suggests I do, that to be consistent with CST, market economies require careful balancing of the social values of efficiency and equity. But he also suggests that although Catholic thought includes a set of individual economci rights that may well require state-enforced redistribution, that such a state approach is not the preferred response to inequity.  Rather, he argues in favor of other remedies that take into account the principle of subsidiarity in service of solidarity.

In the portion of his paper in which he outlines "other remedies" to market inequalities, he suggests a path to an institutional form of commutative and contributive justice.  Because it already has an active commitment to commutative and contributive justice and because it has a workable diocesan structure arranged within the existing structure of state boundaries, he looks to the Church in the United States as the institution promoting change.  Pecorella suggets that it may be time for the US Church to move from making general statements about social justice to making "operationally clear assertions" of what is expected within the Catholic community.  He argues in favor of defining both economic floors beneath which no one should be allowed to fall and economic ceilings which define the point at which people of good faith "simply have enough."  He acknowledges the complexity (not to mention controversial nature) of such a proposal, and suggests that in order to secure voluntary compliance by economically well off Catholics, the ceilings on economic outcomes likely will need to be initially set artifically high.  He calls for organizational eforts within the dioceses to implement a floor and ceiling economic transfer program.

Leaving aside the complexity of picking an amount, the need to take into account regional differences, and whatever questions people may have about using the diocesan structure to effect change, the proposal is an intriquing one.  Perhaps my own reaction is affected by my views about executive compensation and the gap in pay between executives and rank and file workers, a subject about which I have written in the past.  But the idea that, not only that everyone deserves to have enough to flourish as a human person, but that there is a point at the upper end that is enough and beyond which is simply too much for a person of faith, is one worth thinking about.

More About CST and Markets

Although I'm not sitting at a gate at the airport, I thought I'd add to Rob's post about yesterday's wonderful symposium at Villanova on Catholic Social Teaching on the Market, The State and the Law.  I am a firm believer that CST has something real to say about the market and economic matters.  While I don't disagree with those who maintain that CST leaves a lot to prudential judgements rather than proposing specific solutions to many of the particular questions that were raised during the day, that does not diminish the force of the teachings.

The third panel of the day included presentations by Mark Sargent on the divergence of the secular corporate social responsibility movement and CST, Rob Vischer on questions of conscience and corporate identity and myself contrasting a secular and CST vision of human work, the worker and the relationship between the employee and employer (and also very helpful commentary on the papers by Lyman Johnson and Julian Velasco).  During the question and answer session following the presentations, someone argued that the free maket is the most efficient wealth creator and that corporations are an efficient structure in the free market.  Therefore, on what basis, he asked, could we justify imposing constraints on the corporation to behave in a moral fashion that might weigh it down and make it less efficient.  Of course, none of the speakers were arguing for jettisoning the free market.  However, while it may be true that the free market is the most efficient wealth creator, it clearly is so for only a segment of the population.  I recognize that there are many who believe that the rising tide raises all ships, but my own view is that is patently false.  If a significant portion of the population is being left behind as the tide rises, then there is a problem from a CST perspective; efficiency in wealth creation can not be the only criteria for judging a system.

The question of what implications CST has for how and to what extent the law should step in to force more just outcomes in the market is, of course, the difficult one.  Lyman Johnson observed during his comments that I seemed more hesitant to invoke legal mandates in the paper I wrote for this conference than I was in my 2004 Wake Forest article ("Using Religion to Promote Corporate Responsibility - the link to which is posted on the right sidebar) and he wondered why that was.  I certainly have no difficulty theoretically with the idea of a government mandate on corporate entities, for reasons I have discussed in some of my writings.  But he is correct that I have become increasingly nervous about direct government mandate, in part due to concern about the content and scope of norms that would be imposed on corporations if that were the route taken.  (For an example we have discussed on this blog and on which I have written - when it comes to the question of the wellbeing of employees, many believe that the interest of employees is served by forcing all employers - including religious employers - to provide prescription contraception coverage to their employees, a mandate I oppose.)  Another part of my hesitation is the belief we are at a point where some aspects of the workplace that are inconsistent with CST - for example, the fact that significant and increasing numbers of workers and their families lack access to affordable health care - are perhaps best dealt with outside of the employer-employee relationship.

Whatever position one takes on these matters, all of us who were present yesterday can agree that it was a wonderful, thought-provoking day.  Hopefully we'll manage further posts to share about the fine keynote by David Hollenbach, the second panel, which featured two papers - one on the development of American CST (Zachary Calo) and the other on the reconciliation of the American dream and God's dream in Economic Justice for all (Patrick Flanagan, C.M.), and political scientist Bob Pecorella's proposal during the first panel for remedies for market inequalities, including the attempt to specify economic floors and ceilings.    

Friday, September 21, 2007

Thinking About CST & Markets (or "Friday Night at Gate C24")

Today I (along with MoJers Patrick Brennan, Susan Stabile, Eduardo Penalver, and Mark Sargent) had the wonderful fortune to participate in the latest installment of Villanova's ongoing exploration of CST and the law at a conference titled, Catholic Social Teaching on the Market, the State, and the Law.  The conversations were much too rich to capture in a single blog post -- and indeed, I did not planning on blogging about it now, but my sixth hour in the Philly airport has led me to brainstorm new ways to pass the time -- but I'll try to convey the flavor of the day by focusing on one exchange that took place on one panel.

St. John's University (Minn.) economics prof Dan Finn kicked things off by setting forth "10 heresies that tempt neo-cons to stray from CST."  I won't list them all, but I will mention four of his points:  First, he pushed back against the suggestion that when solidarity is pursued by society via the law's coercive power, it becomes morally empty.  Instead, Finn challenged us to recognize that law can help virtue become a habit under certain circumstances.  Second, he argued, against what he perceives as the libertarian challenge, that the voluntariness of exchange ensures justice; instead, the voluntariness of exchange simply ensures mutual advantage.   Third, he suggested that instead of referring to government's "intervention" in the market, we could more helpfully refer to government's "structuring" of the market.  Fourth, he wondered why neo-cons tend to take particular failures of government regulation as evidence that government regulation does not work, but rarely take particular failures of the market as evidence that markets do not work.  For example, according to Finn, neo-cons blame public school failures on the government (rather than on individuals), but they blame consumerism on individuals (rather than on the market).

Villanova law prof Robert Miller responded by agreeing that all of Finn's asserted "heresies" are erroneous views of a just economic order, but he asserted that the vast majority of libertarians/neo-cons would deny holding the views attributed to them by Finn.  Tracing a variety of grounds on which Milton Friedman approved of state regulation of the economy, Miller essentially argued that Finn had erected a neo-con straw man.

Eduardo Penalver then provided a taxonomy of libertarianism in an effort to clarify the disagreement between Miller and Finn.  He contrasted a moral version of libertarianism under which the commitment to individualism is principled (found in the work of Ayn Rand and Robert Nozick, for example) from a consequentialist libertarianism grounded in the belief that less state intervention tends to produce better outcomes.  While Finn had challenged neo-cons on their principles, most neo-cons -- at least those who look to CST for guidance -- will resist the suggestion that their governing principles are drastically different from those traditionally espoused by CST.  The differences arise in the area of policy -- which practical measures will most effectively further CST principles?  In that regard, Eduardo challenged progressive Catholic theorists to undertake empirical work in an effort to verify the relationship between libertarian policies and CST principles.

Others can expand on (or correct) my recollection.  As always, thanks to Mark and his colleagues at Villanova for dedicating time, talent, and treasure to the Catholic legal theory project.

A followup to the Dutch Dominicans Revisited

Sincere thanks to Michael P. for his re-visitation of the Dutch Dominicans' pamphlet. It appears that their local superior and the Master General of the Dominicans have expressed their own reservations about this work of four members of the Order of Preachers. But they are not the only ones who seem to be interested in the matter.

For example: this past week, Pope Benedict met with some of his former doctoral students in continuation of his annual symposium-seminar that he has been conducting for many years with them. It appears that he reminded his former students, many of whom are now theologians, in the last several days that a theologian should not engage in "theological arrogance." I think when any of us pursue our own course in matters theological that separate us from a rich teaching, we exercise a form of arrogance that separates us from the Body of Christ, Holy Mother the Church.

Again, I ask the question I posed earlier when Michael first raised this topic: what do my Dutch presbyteral brothers responsible for authoring this pamphlet do on their weekends? Maybe they do go out to as many parishes as they can serve by bringing the Eucharist to God's people, but it may be that they do not. If the latter, should they not? I think so, particularly when one considers that they are not only members of the Body of Christ ordained in sacramental ministry as priests, they also belong to the Order of Preachers who have a great gift to bring to the Body of Christ, the People of God.    RJA sj

The Dutch Dominicans, Revisited

From the new issue of The Tablet:

To serve and celebrate
Andre Lascaris
Four Dominican theologians have caused a furore in the Dutch Church with their new booklet, arguing that the Church in future will have to allow ‘inspired members of the community’ to celebrate the Eucharist. Here, one of the authors explains their beliefs about who should preside.

Click here to read.

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Required Reading, It Seems

Charles Taylor's new book, A Secular Age (Harvard 2007).  Notice what Alasdair MacIntyre and Robert Bellah say, below.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. In his characteristically erudite yet engaging fashion, Taylor, winner of the 2007 Templeton Prize, takes up where he left off in his magnificent Sources of the Self (1989) as he brilliantly traces the emergence of secularity and the processes of secularization in the modern age. Challenging the idea that the secular takes hold in a world where religion is experienced as a loss or where religions are subtracted from the culture, Taylor discovers the secular emerging in the midst of the religious. The Protestant Reformation, with its emphasis on breaking down the invidious political structures of the Catholic Church, provides the starting point down the road to the secular age. Taylor sweeps grandly and magisterially through the 18th and 19th centuries as he recreates the history of secularism and its parallel challenges to religion. He concludes that a focus on the religious has never been lost in Western culture, but that it is one among many stories striving for acceptance. Taylor's examination of the rise of unbelief in the 19th century is alone worth the price of the book and offers an essential reminder that the Victorian age, more than the Enlightenment, dominates our present view of the meanings of secularity. Taylor's inspired combination of philosophy and history sparkles in this must-read virtuoso performance. (Sept.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Review
Kirkus Reviews (starred review) : If the author had accomplished nothing more than a survey of the voluminous body of "secularization theory," he would have done something valuable. But, although Taylor clearly articulates his disdain for the view that modernity ineluctably led to the death of God, he goes far beyond a literature review...In addition to its conceptual value, this study is notable for its lucidity. Taylor has translated complex philosophical theories into language that any educated reader will be able to follow, yet he has not sacrificed an iota of sophistication or nuance. A magisterial book.

Publishers Weekly (starred review) : In his characteristically erudite yet engaging fashion, Taylor takes up where he left off in his magnificent Sources of the Self (1989) as he brilliantly traces the emergence of secularity and the processes of secularization in the modern age...Taylor sweeps grandly and magisterially through the 18th and 19th centuries as he recreates the history of secularism and its parallel challenges to religion. He concludes that a focus on the religious has never been lost in Western culture, but that it is one among many stories striving for acceptance. Taylor's examination of the rise of unbelief in the 19th century is alone worth the price of the book and offers an essential reminder that the Victorian age, more than the Enlightenment, dominates our present view of the meanings of secularity. Taylor's inspired combination of philosophy and history sparkles in this must-read virtuoso performance.

The Economist : One finds big nuggets of insight, useful to almost anybody with an interest in the progress of human society...A vast ideological anatomy of possible ways of thinking about the gradual onset of secularism as experienced in fields ranging from art to poetry to psychoanalysis...Taylor also lays bare the inconsistencies of some secular critiques of religion.

Review
Taylor's book is a major and highly original contribution to the debates on secularization that have been ongoing for the past century. There is no book remotely like it.
--Alasdair MacIntyre

This is Charles Taylor's breakthrough book, a book of really major importance, because he succeeds in recasting the whole debate about secularism. This is one of the most important books written in my lifetime. I am tempted to say the most important book, but that may just express the spell the book has cast over me at the moment.
--Robert N. Bellah


Book Description

What does it mean to say that we live in a secular age? Almost everyone would agree that we--in the West, at least--largely do. And clearly the place of religion in our societies has changed profoundly in the last few centuries. In what will be a defining book for our time, Charles Taylor takes up the question of what these changes mean--of what, precisely, happens when a society in which it is virtually impossible not to believe in God becomes one in which faith, even for the staunchest believer, is only one human possibility among others.

Taylor, long one of our most insightful thinkers on such questions, offers a historical perspective. He examines the development in "Western Christendom" of those aspects of modernity which we call secular. What he describes is in fact not a single, continuous transformation, but a series of new departures, in which earlier forms of religious life have been dissolved or destabilized and new ones have been created. As we see here, today's secular world is characterized not by an absence of religion--although in some societies religious belief and practice have markedly declined--but rather by the continuing multiplication of new options, religious, spiritual, and anti-religious, which individuals and groups seize on in order to make sense of their lives and give shape to their spiritual aspirations.

What this means for the world--including the new forms of collective religious life it encourages, with their tendency to a mass mobilization that breeds violence--is what Charles Taylor grapples with, in a book as timely as it is timeless.

Warm fuzzies for God from North Korea

The North Korean army is worried:

Religion “is spreading like a cancer inside North Korea’s armed forces, whose mission is to defend Socialism;” for this reason it “must be eradicated without delay since it comes from our enemies from around the world,” this according to a booklet prepared by the Propaganda Department of the North Korean Army titled Saving Our Soldiers from the Threat of Religion. A copy reached a member of the Committee for the Democratisation of North Korea, a group of political exiles and refugees that had it translated and released. . . .

“Religion and superstition are like poison that corrupts socialism and paralyses class consciousness. Our soldiers must, more than ever, instigate a revolutionary awakening to defy the enemies’ manoeuvres.”

Religious worship is allowed in North Korea as long as it is the personality cult of Kim Jong-Il and his father, the late Kim Il-Sung.

Followers of traditional religions have obstacles to surmount, especially Buddhists and Christians, such as joining Communist Party-controlled organisations.

Those who do not join are persecuted, often brutally and violently. Anyone engaged in any kind of missionary activity is the recipient of a similar treatment.

Since the end of the Korean War in 1953 about 300,000 Christians have disappeared in North Korea—any priest or nun who was alive then has disappeared, most likely persecuted to death.

Maybe Kim Jong-il has been reading Christopher Hitchens . . .

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Intelligent Design and Conservative Journalism

John Farrell tears into conservative-leaning journals for their unthinking embrace of Intelligent Design.  The most reasonable treatment of science among conservative journals happens, in his view, in the most religious one: First Things.  He complains:

[A]s far as the current generation of gadflies posting 'science' articles to National Review and the American Spectator are concerned, if the philosophy suggested by science is intimidating or disturbing...well--by all means then, out with the baby along with the bathwater. Let's raise a generation of scientific illiterates so that they will have even fewer options to prosper in the challenging world of the future.

Rod Dreher's comments capture much of my own reaction:

[M]y personal sympathies are with the ID crowd. But that's not the same thing as saying I agree with them. To be sure, I believe in God, and that He created all life. It doesn't much matter to me how He did it. I am comfortable with the idea of Darwinian evolution, so I don't have anything personally at stake in this argument. At least I don't feel any personal stakes. I have a stack of books on my shelf that I've been meaning to get into to learn more about the controversy, but my intellectual curiosity simply doesn't run toward this issue. I find that I'm more engaged in trying to make sure the ID advocates get a fair hearing, because I don't like the way those opposed to them try to shout them down instead of engaging and attempting to rebut them.

Colbert on Mother Teresa

Readers might be interested in Stephen Colbert's interview of James Martin, S.J. about the recent revelations of Mother Teresa's spiritual despair.

More on the CDF Response on Food and Hydration

Many thanks to Rick for his posting the CDF's Response to the USCCB's inquiry regarding food and hydration and several of the comments the Response has produced. The CDF also issued its own commentary, which is HERE .   RJA sj