Mirror of Justice

Tom Berg’s most recent posting on this thread (our prior exchange may be found here, here, and here) links to a thoughtful post by Morning’s Minion on the “Reasons and Opinions” blog. In that message, Morning’s Minion offers a balanced economic comparison of France and the United States. Without endorsing every element, I find this message to exemplify precisely the kind of critical analysis (even when directed at my own assertions as well as those of my interlocutors) that I intended to provoke by my original posting. Attention to economic analysis is too often neglected in Catholic Social Thought circles. (On the merits, I am intrigued by the suggestion by Morning’s Minion based upon his evaluation of the data that the most effective and socially just society may be found in a combination of low-regulation of the economy and employers together with a generous welfare system through government benefits. This design stands in contrast to the French approach which imprudently joins high levels of government spending with extensive regulations imposed on businesses and employers, thus strangling economic opportunity and proving unsustainable in the long term.)

Re-reading the exchange between Tom and I over the past week here on the Mirror of Justice, as well reflecting on hallway conversations we have had here at the University of St. Thomas, I believe that we’ve often been talking past each other, because our messages have differed both in emphasis and goal. As explained in his last post, Tom Berg saw my messages as overstated broadsides against France, of a style that he regards as unfortunately common and reflecting smug American biases against that nation. Thus, to counter that trend, he understandably wished to add nuance and balance to the discussion, describing the upsides as well as the downsides of another country for which he has affinity.

For me, by contrast, France was merely a timely illustration of Big Government excess, brought to mind by the recent presidential election there. The purpose of my message was to counter what I see as an unfortunate and even careless tendency among some to readily equate Catholic Social Thought with government-centric programs and top-down social engineering, while ignoring the collateral damage that governmental intervention may cause to economic progress, intermediary institutions, social development, healthy incentives, and liberty interests. Thus, Tom Berg’s messages were somewhat frustrating to me because I perceived them as assiduously dodging the central question that I had raised and displaying a continuing avoidance by those on the Catholic left of any acknowledgment of the dangers that may follow when state power is employed toward preferred ends by imposing taxes and controls on the citizenry. In retrospect, I realize that Tom was not so much avoiding the subject as identifying and pursuing a different topic or emphasis.

So where do we go from here? By e-mail, Morning’s Minion has noted Cardinal Dulles’s definition of prudential judgment as “the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances.” This should lead, he argues, to an empirical over an ideological approach, such as that so well exhibited on his “Reasons and Opinions” blog.

Now we probably cannot and should not set aside ideology altogether, if by ideology we mean a reasonable and coherent set of philosophical premises or basic suppositions by which we organize our understanding of the world. When the empirical evidence is uncertain (as it often will be) or when a choice involves factors that cannot be objectively compared (such as asking how much liberty we are willing to surrender to government in order to achieve economic security), we unavoidably will fall back on ideology or political philosophy in coming to a conclusion.

In this respect, those on the political left and right on the Mirror of Justice plainly sart from different points and evaluate proposed solutions to a social justice problem by conferring differing weights on the factors implicated. My friends on the Catholic left begin with a liberal (pun intended) receptivity to proposals for more government benefits and regulations, while remaining more or less open to being convinced that a particular exercise of government power is unwise due to the detrimental consequences to the economy, social development, and liberty. By contrast, I and others on the Catholic right view with immediate skepticism any proposal to employ the forces of government, because restricting the powers of the state and preserving liberty takes priority of place in our political philosophy. Thus, we will differ as to the burden of proof demanded of proposals for government intervention.

We may also differ on what we believe to be the root causes of social injustice, and particularly the tragedy of poverty. Those on the Catholic left tend to see poverty as primarily a result of unjust economic structures, with some acknowledgment that other factors may play a role. Thus, a preference for governmental intervention understandably follows. Those of us on the Catholic right believe that poverty in a dynamic, open-entry economy like that found in the United States is primarily the result of social, educational, behavioral, and even spiritual factors, while acknowledging that the imperfections of market economies justify some level of governmental attention to lessen the burdens and fill in the gaps. Thus, conservative Catholics prefer solutions that enhance educational opportunity (such as school choice), encourage changes in self-destructive behavior (or at least do not facilitate or create perverse incentives toward pathological behavior), and that facilitate private intermediary institutions that are better able to address social and spiritual needs that are neglected by governmental bureaucrats.

Nonetheless, our shared Catholic faith, our respect for human dignity, our energetic aspirations for a better society, and a commitment to critical analysis should offer some opportunities for us to find common ground and thus to transcend the lines of political ideology behind which our secular counterparts are trapped. In this respect, the emphasis on empirical study that Morning’s Minion advocates should be an essential part of our bag of tricks in Catholic Social Thought. Tom Berg and I are unlikely ever to come to complete closure about the appropriate role of governmental power in achieving a good and just society. Yet those interested in Catholic Social Thought may be able to better to engage productively in deliberation about these issues by ensuring that concrete proposals for programs and projects are critically examined in all elements. A rigorous and candid exploration should become an expected and demanded element of any proposed course of action to promote social justice. And we must always elevate the spiritual element, as essential to and more important than any political enterprise.

Greg Sisk