Volleying CAFTA and Life at the Acton Institute PowerBlog

David Phelps of the Acton Institute PowerBlog volleys a hot shot across his bow from a disgruntled reader. Mr. Phelps committed the unspeakable crime of daring to differentiate between Catholic Social Teaching and the Welfare State. Reasonable elites, and their Foolable apologists among the Episcopate and USCCB staff, will have none of it. Behold Mr. Phelps' anonymous interlocuter (well, he or she remains anonymous at Mr. Phelps' doing.):

Mr. Phelps,

It was with great interest that I recently read your blog entry “CAFTA/Culture of Life: Enemies?” as for some strange reason it recently appeared on the Google Alerts. I found it amusing how you worked John Paul’s teachings in without actually quoting or pointing how you perceive [Catholics for Faithful Citizenship] being in error. You say “They provide a list of vague quotes by a Colorado bishop and conclude (somehow--I cannot quite follow their reasoning) that free markets are “clearly” inconsistent with a culture of life.” It is interesting that you are willing to cast aside the better judgment of Catholic Bishops for what you perceive as “free trade”. Further more criticizing the stand of the Bishops lends one zero credibility with Catholics or an organization such as your that claims Catholic connections.

We are all for free trade, but as Catholics we are not for it when it puts lives at risks and seeks to disrupt the common good of all. I find it increasingly alarming that those on the extreme right somehow seek to their narrow view of the world into Catholic Teaching when the reality is , it simply does not fit.

Best Regards,
[Mr. X]

Mr. X writes as though he doesn't get it. Many have told Mr X, and those like him, the actual truth of Catholic teaching. There's a difference between defined doctrinal obligations and prudential applications of doctrine. One commands the assent of the Faithful and consistent obedience. The other involves an individuals particular judgement about which actions best apply doctrinal principles. Too often, Foolables misstate Catholic Social Teaching, portraying its principles as doctrinal obligations rather than the basis of sound judgements. This wrongheaded distortion needlessly deceives many as to what CST is and what Catholics are expected to do about it. Their unsound counsel makes moral equivalencies where none exist. To paraphrase former Secretary of State Madelain Albright, there's no moral equivalence between abortion and after-school lunch programs. There's no moral equivalence between murder and minimum wage.

Mr. Phelps tries to tell Mr X all of this:

Being a convert, I fully understand and respect the authority of the episcopate. But this is not quite the same thing as the Bishops advising on prudential matters. As I understand, the Church lays out the directives to, among other things, protect the dignity of the human person. But there are many ways the principles of the Church play out in the actions of persons and governments. Simply because a policy recommendation comes from a Bishop does not mean that it is the wisest, either in context of trade or even in the context of Church teaching. I am sure that both you and I could give handfuls of examples of Bishops that have given shoddy (at best) advice throughout the centuries (and some of them may be seated in American cathedrals as we speak!) “Bishop” does not necessarily imply “better judgement.” (Also, let’s be clear: even though there is more than one Bishop who would disagree with me, the article in question in my blog cites a single bishop, not the bishops as your email implies--you might also check out the political leanings of the Central Americans in Washington lobbying against CAFTA: this does not necessarily discount their argument, but it does give one pause).

Further more, I do not think that disagreeing with some of the Bishops automatically disqualifies me from credibility. This may be true for those who take all their prudential cues from the Bishops, but what are we to do when the Bishops themselves disagree? If a Bishop takes a particular stand on a policy matter, his position should not automatically be qualified as “the Catholic one”. I think many Catholics and non-Catholics understand this and are willing to listen to someone who happens to disagree with a Bishop on a particular matter of policy.

But the point of the blog post was that the article in quetsion used important and powerful Catholic terminology (Culture of Life) indescriminately. If there is anything that undermines Catholic teaching in this world, it is not calling out the Bishops on decisions that may be misapplications of Church teachings, but it is the irresponsible use of language that leads others to think a particular matter is settled “clearly” or is necessarily “the Catholic position” (a good example of the horrors a misuse of language can beget is some Protestants insistence that we Catholics “worship Mary.” A former Protestant myself, I can tell you that this faulty and intellectually irresponsible terminology is so fixed in some evangelical minds that you and I are worthy of being burned for idol worship). Also, the fact that you imply I am of the “extreme right” (as if this settles the matter) is evidence of the ‘portmanteau style’ of argument employed in this article: it is easy to discount arguments when you case them in ‘cover-all’ terms like ‘extreme right’ or ‘culture of life.’ There is a place for terms like ‘culture of life’; but unfortuntately, your use of ‘extreme right’ and the sentence “Clearly, supporting CAFTA is inconsistent with upholding a culture of life”--these are examples of a path of empty rhetoric and not of a carefully distilled prudence. And this is precisely what I was objecting to in this and other blog posts: the article does not lay out a clearly reasoned application of Catholic Social Teaching and implies that because a particular bishop holds the same position as your group, this is clearly the Catholic position. It is not, and to suggest so is, in my estimation, intellectually irresponsible.

Pope John Paul the Great certainly condemned a free market with no consideration for people over things. He found more to complain then complement about an economic system that did not subsist within an appropriate juridicial structure. His clear teaching guides any pro-market Catholics away from the cliff of darwinian capitalism. However, Pope John Paul the Great spoke just as strongly against Welfare States that perpetuated central planning and income redistribution. He condemned an economic system that eroded subsidiarity and elevated the State above society. While David Phelps and his collegues at Acton Institute may understate the former position of the late pontiff, many "social justice" Catholics certainly ignore the latter.

Ironically, Mr. X accuses Mr. Phelps of the very thing he and his "liberal" collegues commit every day. He says that Mr. Phelps tries to fit Catholic Teaching into a worldview too narrow to fit it. Well, Physician, heal thyself. Mr. X should take his own advice before he offers it to anyone else.