Right and Wrong Thinking People Getting Things Wrong and Right (or Wrong?)

Two completely unrelated articles came across my news feed today, and somewhere in my brain alighted a tenuous connection between the two, but when I tried to grasp hold of it the bird had flown like the tricky minx in "Norwegian Wood." Good thoughts, like women, can be elusive that way. (And women can be a cause of reasoning going all crosswise, too - yet another connection worth exploring if only one could find the ends of the strand. But I digress.)

Despite my inadequate grasp of what I'm thinking, I'm going to try to express it anyway - and this, itself, will maybe end up seeming an irony in light of the subject I plan to explore, as we shall see.

The two unrelated articles seem to be sourced from opposite ends of so many spectra, but I really think they have more in common than first is apparent, both a falsis principiis proficscendi.

Practice in Full Gear

I dream of a "missionary option," that is, a missionary impulse capable of transforming everything, so that the Church’s customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures can be suitably channeled for the evangelization of today's world rather than for her self-preservation

 - Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium 27

Try as I may to put a limit on my own admitted tendency toward reading too much of the momentous into something that may be purely mundane, I just cannot break the habit. It's been with me a long time, a kind of quixotic playing-at-prophecy, which I really do think a fundamental kind of silliness about my worldview. On the one hand, I'll admit, it does have a certain charm and helps me to sustain the Chestertonian habit of wonder at the world and seeing old things new. And perhaps sometimes it genuinely is a conduit of graced insight, an exercise of the gift of prophecy contained in my sharing in Baptism through Christ Jesus. But I fear that most often it's a bit of tilting at windmills, a spur that is a useful and quick expedient to avoid acedia but not a true virtue rooting out the underlying problems. But then sometimes I figure - so be it. If I play the fool, I might as well play boldly and thoroughly.

The thing is, I've been sitting with Pope Francis's new exhortation Evangelii Gaudium since it first hit the internet, and the whole time I've only been able to feel like this is a really important moment for the Church.

Then I started, as I am wont to do when I think I've felt that vibration, that twitch on the thread, to try to trace and to follow that thread, to pick it up in what's come before. This is where I usually play the fool like I said. This is where I'll try to explicate the phenomenon, to try to explain why this is so momentous, where the ripples can be seen in, say, the former papacy or in the culture or - whatever. The habit, which serves well for maybe certain kinds of research or scholarship, is probably annoying from someone trying to comment on culture, though: and that's all that this blog is supposed to be about doing. And it is fighting this temptation, often enough anyway, that ends up keeping me away from bothering to blog at all.

So I'm not going to do that this time. Because something else has occurred to me recently, in study and prayer over this document: that there's something akin in this tendency of mine to a sports team that never practices in full gear before suiting up for the real game. Of course I need to theorize about culture - about how to restore Catholic culture and Western culture generally, about how to recover so much that's been lost, about the challenges that our milieu offers that may be unique and unforeseen, about which philosophies (like Distributism and Personalism) are best suited to meet those challenges - but the problem is that mere theorizing never gets me into gear and begins to test, to experiment, with those hypotheses. Tracing the thread of why this "moment" is here is one way of working out my vocation in the world, sure. But then, maybe there's another way: another kind of practice. Practicing in full gear. Getting in some hits. Maybe taking a few. And then reviewing the film. (Okay, you get the metaphor, sorry.)

---

So, here it is: I'm issuing a challenge, for myself and for anyone who wants to undertake it along with me, to take Pope Francis's words to heart in a really practical way.

The idea for this experiment arose for me when considering the season. At this time of year you will hear maybe more often than at other times of year snide remarks about "the Christmas and Easter Catholics." You know who I mean: those people who only come to Church on the major holidays.

"They should be ashamed of themselves," the Church Mice say. And I won't deny it at all: the Church Mice are right. They should. All sinners should, for their sins. But year after year the disputes arise over practical and pastoral approach in this regard: sure, they should feel ashamed of themselves, but is it any good for them to feel like we think they should be ashamed of themselves? Will that be liable to make them, in fact, ashamed of themselves, or just to think we're jerks and give them another reason to not want to come to Church the rest of the year? But if they do feel that way, is that our problem? ... and on and on. [And I hope that the presentation of the debate here registers my ambivalence and isn't mistaken as favoring one side over the other(s) - because I really don't know.]

It's a tough question, to be sure. But I don't want to raise that debate here, much less settle it. I don't want to address it at all. That's just running drills. I want to put on some gear and call a play. [And as a note aside here, I can't claim this idea as my own: it was actually urged by the Bishop of my own Diocese, the Diocese of Allentown, as a practice for Catholics of the Diocese to mark the Year of Faith. I'll admit that I didn't take his advice, and that's a shame. But now I want to try out what he proposed, but with a spin in the spirit Pope Francis has commended in his exhortation (and by his example).]

---

So here's the play:

We all know somebody who doesn't attend Mass despite the obligation to do so. Or at worst, if we don't know somebody in that predicament, maybe we know (or in the absence of totally knowing at the very least have a pretty shrewd idea about) somebody who hasn't been to the sacrament of Reconciliation in a pretty good while.

We tend not to make these things our business. But I think Pope Francis is challenging us to be missionaries in precisely this way (and so many more). And this is the easiest thing I can think of that puts the spirit he's advocating to the test: let's make it our business. Pray about, discern how, and then approach one person who needs to be 'evangelized' this way and do the work: make the suggestion, have the conversation.

But beware: don't just rush out to the first person you think of. Think of anyone you can, first; but then (a) pray for all of them but (b) try really hard to narrow it down and to figure out who the easiest 'target' is. Too often in spiritual endeavors we set ourselves up for failure, especially early on. We should make a practice when trying to grow in virtue of picking achievable goals. So don't pick the person most likely to fly off the handle. Don't pick the person for whom it will likely leave a weird mark on your relationship for the rest of time and render things never the same again. No. Pick the person who in the worst case scenario says, "Nah, bro, I'm just not really feeling that right now," such that - in that event - you'll be okay (at least for the time being) letting it drop there and you'll both be "cool" with the outcome.

See, it's the last bit of the plan there - about picking the easy target and what identifies that - that I couldn't really work through to last time I thought about doing this (when the Bishop of Allentown recommended it). But it is a key component because it isn't the last step.

Because the last step... well, second to last, really... is praying again. Regardless of the outcome: praise God, thank Him, and give Him glory. I'm not going to tell you how to pray, of course - that's a sub-plan that I'm keeping private in my own case as well. The point is, though, we need to return from this encounter to prayer, realizing that if it was a positive outcome it was God's work and that if it was a negative outcome it's still in God's hands anyway and we need to chill out. [And, although I did say I wouldn't tell you how to pray, I will make so bold as to add this as a, shall we say, 'practical necessity': don't forget Mary, especially if it has been a positive trial. She is the help of Christians, present at any conversion, and deserves recognition because if not Baby Jesus cries, the end.]

---

So, I said that wasn't really the last step, and here's why:

Because we need to share our experience and discuss our trials. This, in a sense, is really the most important part of the test. Well, that is to say, from my vantage point, considering it as a test. Obviously, yes, the conversion/recovery of a Christian soul and prayer and, well, all of that is of greater importance.

But I want this to be a proof of concept and that requires us to communicate and, well, 'commune.' I am firmly convinced that in a way we have been issued 'marching orders' by our Holy Father - but it's up to us to figure out how to deploy and some other tactical nuances. This is my proposed way of doing that.

Who's with me?

The Motific Overture

Fans of musical theater know how an overture works. Before the play begins, the audience is treated to a tasting of the sundry songs they may hear throughout the piece. In overtures from the likes of Rogers and Hammerstein, these are pretty baldly presented in something like a musical montage, one set-piece after another with sometimes abrupt transitions (a full stop with a boom from the timpani, a crash or a cymbal, or, in The King and I, perhaps a flourish of the gong). But in more sophisticated compositions (such as those of Leonard Bernstein, for example), these themes are interwoven in more subtle ways, becoming musical motifs that will resonate throughout the rest of the play: certain chords that will make a reappearance at crucial points in every song, particular instruments playing a single measure that later comes to be associated with one particular character, and so on. And it's fun once you've experienced the play a first time to note, on a second encounter, how this tightly interwoven foreshadowing in the overture works.

We similarly often reflect back on the careers of great movie directors, or writers, or statesmen, or yes, even Popes, and trace how early overtures can be observed to set out the motifs which in a way become hermeneutics for understanding that individual's legacy.

For Pope Benedict XVI, for example, his coinage of the phrase "dictatorship of relativism" is a monument in his career that helps elucidate his overall project and legacy. So, too, many have seen his famous Regensburg lecture as an important touchstone in interpreting his papacy and his intellectual oeuvre. There are many other examples one could offer.

Anyway, the reason I'm thinking about this today is because - at the risk of foolishly prognosticating - I think we've recently seen Pope Francis introduce one of those motifs in his own 'opening overture'. It's one of those coinages like "dictatorship of relativism" that could become something of a catch-phrase for his papacy: namely, the "globalization of indifference."

Francis introduced this theme in his recent homily at the Mass he celebrated during his visit to the immigrant island of Lampedusa:

Today no one in our world feels responsible; we have lost a sense of responsibility for our brothers and sisters. We have fallen into the hypocrisy of the priest and the levite whom Jesus described in the parable of the Good Samaritan: we see our brother half dead on the side of the road, and perhaps we say to ourselves: "poor soul…!", and then go on our way. It’s not our responsibility, and with that we feel reassured, assuaged. The culture of comfort, which makes us think only of ourselves, makes us insensitive to the cries of other people, makes us live in soap bubbles which, however lovely, are insubstantial; they offer a fleeting and empty illusion which results in indifference to others; indeed, it even leads to the globalization of indifference. In this globalized world, we have fallen into globalized indifference. We have become used to the suffering of others: it doesn’t affect me; it doesn’t concern me; it’s none of my business!

[...] The globalization of indifference makes us all "unnamed", responsible, yet nameless and faceless.

[...]  We are a society which has forgotten how to weep, how to experience compassion – "suffering with" others: the globalization of indifference has taken from us the ability to weep!

In a globalized and information economy, a technocracy in which day-to-day life seems to track at an ever faster pace of chaotic hurry, this sense of anonymity and atomisation increases with every passing year - even though this problem has been complained against and warned about since at least the beginning of the last century (one thinks of poets like Eliot of Auden, for example).

Interestingly, this isolating totalization of inhuman and structural forces above the level of individual or community action which nevertheless impacts the lower levels of society has been seen most graphically in our modern history in totalitarian states (or the fictitious dystopias written about such): in other words, it's striking to me that this "globalization of indifference" is itself a kind of "dictatorship." One wonders: is this just a name for the same complex of phenomena Benedict called the "dictatorship of relativism"? Or are these two things separate facets of larger forces at work within the broader spirit of the age?

In any event, I think this phrase is a fertile source for reflection and perhaps should become a monument in Francis's project moving forward, a helpful remembrance from early in his papacy that might aid us in understanding how things develop from here on out. Even if not, it will still have been a fascinating note sounded in the overture and worth savoring in its own right; and I for one will be thinking about it more in-depth in the days and weeks to come.

How to Swallow a Camel

The sideshow in the Press goes on unabated as the usual suspects (the "Catholic experts" whom the liberal media keeps on speed dial and who are conversant in Newspeak) get trotted on to the scene to clear things up for us. Thus, Fr. James Martin, SJ - a "prominent Jesuit," mind you! - proclaims Benedict's declaration on condoms to be a "game changer." (What exactly does "prominent Jesuit" mean? Prominent within the Jesuits? Within the Church? Or, having a few book deals and a familiar face with a collar beneath it?) FoxNews, at least, in an odd instance of really being fair and balanced acknowledges that not all theologians see it that way: Fr. Fessio - not called here a "prominent Jesuit" but I for one would like to see him and Martin arm-wrestle - says "nothing new has happened." John Haas and Germain Grisez (whose prominence is actually substantive and pertinent to the matter we're discussing, which is moral doctrine), both lament the confusion engendered by this unfolding of events.

And then there's I, who am neither prominent (alas!) nor a Jesuit (hooray!), but presume to try to add to this discussion within the small sphere of influence that I do (inscrutably) inhabit.

I wanted to urge a couple more points of consideration which - regardless of what the Pope actually intended to say - must shape our perception of this entire debate.

So, first, I want to make a point about language. Our impoverished capacity for nuance is contributing in an important way to this entire discussion. For one thing, there is the conflation of the notion of contraception with the tools which are often used to that end, but which are not bound inextricably to it. What I mean to say is that contraception is a moral object and not a (or several) material object(s). Thus, condoms are sometimes put to contraceptive use, and when this is the case, they may be spoken of as "contraceptives". However, they are not always "contraceptives", as in a situation when used between two men in an act of sodomy, an act to which the contraceptive end does not - and cannot ever - attain to the act. As such, I would propose another term which encompasses a broader meaning, namely prophylactic. If a condom is used in a situation to which the contraceptive end does not attain, for purposes of sanitation, then the condom is not a contraceptive at that point - it is, however, still a prophylactic. When, on the other hand, the contraceptive end attains - regardless of the intention of the individual - then, the prophylactic functions as a "contraceptive", whether a condom or an IUD or what have you. We need to be clear on this point, and I think it needlessly confusing to use the term "contraceptive" to describe the use of an object in an act to which the contraceptive purpose is irrelevant. This is regardless of whether the Pope's remarks actually do extent to cases when that end is relevant (as some have suggested they do, such as Father Lombardi, although I am skeptical whether the Pope meant to include such circumstances).

Once that bit of language is understand, we can begin to articulate meaningful distinctions on this issue. One could say that when a condom is used as a prophylactic but not as a contraceptive, it may be allowable per se.

Let's move on, then, to consider hypothetically whether the Pope's remarks can be taken in a broader way, to include scenarios of dual use for the prophylactic.

Now, as I mentioned in my early post on this matter, if the Pope is making such an argument, this is not "same old" theology and does represent a new turn in the discussion - at least, for the Pope, considering that this very issue was the subject of a commission at the Vatican a few years back which (significantly) never issued a concluding report. Nevertheless, there is a theological strain of argument that could make sense of the Pope's remarks even if they were taken to extend to heterosexual acts outside of marriage where a condom would be used to prevent the spread of HIV but also result in the prevention of conception.

Now, let us first note that this isn't a "double effect" argument per se, since contraceptive activity is inherently evil and certainly flows directly from the act with as much immediacy as the prophylactic function (it should also be always kept in mind that condoms are inefficient in achieving either end). But the argument would be that Humanae Vitae condemnation of contraception applies only to the bond of marriage; that is, since sex belongs in marriage, along with its two functions - the unitive and the procreative - then, outside of marriage we're already dealing with a disordered situation and the only effect that contracepting would have would be to perhaps increase the gravity of the situation.

An analogy could be drawn to the Church's Just War Doctrine, and its component of "proportional means." An aggressor in battle is bound to observe the rule of proportionality in order to maintain justice in its cause. Now, this only applies properly to situations in which the agent is capable of just action in the first place: only a legitimate State has the authority to wage war. Suppose an instance where an illegitimate agent undertakes to wage war. Here, the action undertaken already is illegitimate and disordered; in this case, whether the agent chooses to demonstrate proportional restraint is less consequential and somewhat a moot point. In such a case, demonstration of proportional use of force would be similar to what the Pope said about a male prostitute using a prophylactic to protect his partner: a step in the right direction, but a step taking place in a process which is already problematized by a higher level moral concern.

The gist of this would be in line with Fr. Lombardi's approach to this discussion: that the Pope is objecting the trivialization of sex that this whole line of discernment implies: that, in the context of sex being abused outside of its naturally ordered context (within a loving marriage that is open to new life), the use of condoms - and perhaps even the contraceptive use - is a matter of straining gnats while swallowing a camel. And if there's anything the media is good at doing for the sheeple of America, it's getting them to swallow a camel.

Again, I'm not entirely sure of the cogency of this approach. For example, I would argue that in the context outside of marriage, the rejection of contraception - remaining open to life, and abhoring the contraceptive function of prophylactics - would represent the same positive sort of step in the right direction as the use of a condom by a male prostitute infected with HIV. Note that the Pope said that part of this moral value was in the "acceptance of responsibility", which moral value is lost when the contraceptive end attains.

I won't go further on about this matter in this post, but I offer these considerations as another means of understanding what's at stake in this media circus. Let's bear these kinds of things in mind as the matter unfolds.

The Pope and Condoms

UPDATE - (11/20/10 at 1545 EST): Professor Janet Smith, a moral theologian of some repute, seems to be taking basically the same tact on this as I have done below.

---

This is going to get ugly - you've been warned!

I originally titled this post The Object of an Objectionable Act - which I'll come back to. But I've changed the title since this is sort of a breaking story, and I figured I could enhance my web-footprint a bit (and also disrupt the misinformation campaign rapidly ensuing) with this more straight-forward title.

It seems like we've been through all this before. You remember the score. The Pope, on a plane flight, observes to some journalists that condoms are not the right approach to stopping the spread of AIDS. A Harvard don backs him up. Chagrined, mass media lets slip its mask and becomes pandemonium seething.

Well... here we go again.

Now, for anybody who has taken any time in studying moral theology, this whole situation wants a stiff whiskey and a staunch wall against which to bang one's head. But I'm going to try to pre-emptively wade into this matter and make some distinctions which are necessary for understanding what the Pope is - and is not - saying.

First things first: the story. A new book coming out recounts an interview between Papal pundit Peter Seewald and Papa Benedict. This is not the first time this pair have met; Seewald interviewed then Cardinal Ratzinger for his book God and the World. This book will likely sell a bit better, though, for two reasons: one, Ratzinger is now Pope and it is the first book of its kind; two, a comment from the book with which the media is having a field day.

Here's the quotation from a representative news story:

Journalist Peter Seewald, who interviewed Benedict over the course of six days this ummer [sic], revisited those comments [i.e., the ones from the plane] and asked Benedict if it wasn't "madness" for the Vatican to forbid a high risk population to use condoms.

"There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility," Benedict said.

But he stressed that it wasn't the way to deal with the evil of HIV, noting the church's position that abstinence and marital fidelity is the only sure way.

Now, let's tuck in, shall we?

First, note that the quotation itself is the only direct wording from the interview that is selected for the news story. The paraphrase which follows the longer quotation is likely to be passed over in most of the media's treatment of this matter - and the content of that paraphrase is a very important caveat for fully appreciating the moral issues at hand in this discussion. It must be noted that this is not a reversal of the Pope's earlier comments on the use of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV. The Pope understands the scientific evidence, that condom distribution has not been correlated to reduced frequency of infection, and in fact that their distribution can cause a spike in high-risk behavior. The Pope's quotation from this latest interview does not address the issue of social organization and the treatment of epidemics: he is speaking about individual moral choice and responsibility. This is a crucial point.

Nor is this latest remark a reversal of the Church's long-standing teaching on contraception and condoms in general, which are seen to be intrinsically evil. But here we need to make some distinctions. The confusion caused by the press in coming days will be largely due to the fact that people don't understand in the first place what the Church means by Her condemnation of contraceptives. So, let's look to the Catethicism of the Catholic Church.

CCC 2370 - quoting the encyclical Humanae Vitae - succinctly states that

'every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible' is intrinsically evil" (emp. added).

The italicized text is important to our understanding. The dictum of moral theology is that a moral act is conditioned by the object of the act. This is not the "intention" - an important point, since intention is another of the sources of evaluation for the quality of a moral action and not to be conflated with the end of the act itself. Rather, the object (CCC 1751) "is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act." This chosen object "morally specifies the act of willing" (CCC 1758) and, in the case of intrinsically evil actions, can never be chosen, is never ameliorated by the intention or the circumstances. In the case of contraception, the moral object is not reducible to the material and genital particularities, althought these tend to be bound up with the act: the contraceptive act is the one which chooses "to render procreation impossible."

The use of a condom, in and of itself, is not the greatest concern in this regard. The use to which the condom is put is essential. For the sake of example, a condom could be envisioned as taking part in the (already disordered and perverse) act of masturbation. Yet, it would be absurd to see the role of the condom in this case as substantially changing the nature of the moral action. It might add in degrees to the gravity of the act, according to how it shapes the perverse intention of the person doing it. But here, the condom becomes primarily a factor in the other two criteria of moral action, namely intention and circumstances, rather than being bound up with the object of the act. The condom is being used: but it's not, morally speaking, "the use of a condom."

From there, we step over into the moral situation with which the Pope is grappling in his interview: the case of a male prostitute who is himself infected or servicing an infected client. We have seen at least how a condom is not necessarily bound up with the object of the contraceptive act (which is intrinsically evil). Now, in the quotation from the Holy Father which I provided above, we don't see any explicit address of this issue. However, in the Associated Press article floating around out there, there is a common trope being used:

Benedict said that for male prostitutes — for whom contraception isn't a central issue — condoms are not a moral solution. But he said they could be justified "in the intention of reducing the risk of infection."

We the readers are left wondering whether this notion of contraception not being "a central issue" comes from something the Pope explicitly stated in the interview, or is material implied by the context in which the discussion took place. To my mind, this question is central: because, as far as I can see, it will determine the difference of whether we're talking about a condom being used or morally distinguished "condom use" (i.e., the contraceptive act).

I cannot put words in the Pope's mouth, nor have I read the book. I'm only trying to make sense of the burgeoning firestorm in the media. This situation wants clarity, but until we have it, I think we can at least direct the matter to the appropriate evaluative measures by means of hypothetical consideration.

I'd suggest that the AP account of the interview implies a context for the dicussion - perhaps an unspoken understanding about the moral "players" of the hypothetical situation - which took "male prostitutes" to mean "homosexual male prostitutes." Now, I offer this because it's really the only way I have of making sense of what the Pope might have meant - if he really said it - by saying that, for these folks, "contraception isn't a central issue." In male-to-female (vaginal) sexual relations, it would be very hard to see how the use of a condom doesn't translate into an instance of the contraceptive moral act. However, in homosexual relations - a perversion of the life-giving act of sex between a man and a woman - the condom is not bound up with the object of the act in the same way, as with the example of masturbation given above. In this case, there's not question of disrupting conception since conception is impossible. Thus, - in terms of individual action, which is the focus of the Pope's remarks (as distinct from social planning to combat an epidemic) - the choice of the male to use a condom could be the kind of "first step" toward "responsibility" the Pope acknowledges. Plenty of objections will be raised to this, and it really forms the kernel of a whole other discussion. Suffice to say for now that the condom in this situation is not part of the intrinsically evil act of contraception; rather, it is something impacting the circumstantial and intentional parts of the moral action of sodomy, which is already intrinsically disordered. On the finer points of this we can - and I imagine will - have further debate.

In the meantime, we will have to wait and see what clarification comes out about these comments - as surely some clarification must. If the Pope meant male prostitution in general... well, then I simply must join the droves of perplexed readers waiting with eyebrows raised. Regardless,though, of what may be forthcoming, it is essential for any understanding of this discussion to know ahead of time what the Church means in Her teaching about condoms and contraception, about the end of the sexual act and the problems of its disordering. These notions a little clearer in our minds, we will be better poised to make sense of whatever it is the Holy Father really did say to Peter Seewald, and therefore help give this issue the nuance it requires (which certainly will be wanting in the main-stream media's treatment).

A Quick Note...

... to direct your attention to two wonderful catechetical utterances by the Holy Father during these past few weeks. The first, his Angelus message from the Second Sunday of Lent, coincides remarkably with the little reflection I offered here on that same occasion. In short, the Holy Father recognizes a focus of eschatology in the significance of that event:

[T]he Transfiguration reminds us that the joys sown by God in our life are not the destination, but they are lights that he gives us on the earthly pilgrimage...

Recently, the Holy Father has been offering a series of catecheses on the figure of Saint Bonaventure. The third one, published today, is particularly remarkable. Since it is short, I reproduce it here in full:

In our catechesis on the Christian culture of the Middle Ages, we turn once more to Saint Bonaventure. Bonaventure was a contemporary of Saint Thomas Aquinas, and the two great theologians reveal the rich diversity of the theology of the thirteenth century. Whereas Thomas saw theology as primarily a theoretical science, concerned with knowing God, Bonaventure saw it as practical, concerned with that “wisdom” which enables us to love God and conform our wills to his. Thomas’s emphasis on truth complements Bonaventure’s emphasis on love within the unity of a great common vision. As a Franciscan, Bonaventure reflects the primacy of love embodied in the life of Saint Francis. He was also deeply influenced by the theology of Pseudo-Dionysius, with its emphasis on the heavenly hierarchies which serve as steps leading the creature to communion with the Triune God. Pseudo-Dionysius also inspired his reflections on the darkness of the Cross, where, in the ascent of the mind to God, reason can go no further and love enters the divine mystery. As a great master of prayer, Bonaventure invites us to let our minds and hearts rise from the contemplation of creation to rest in God’s eternal love.

The Holy Father's Lenten "project", if you will, has a coherent strain of attention to the final end of man and the "practicality" of the Gospel and love of God.

I think this is worthy to reflect upon especially as it bears significance for the understanding and implementation of the Social Doctrine of the Church. It is precisely the dimension of Divine charity which is the most practical thing in terms of transforming our own lives to configuration to Christ, and, by extension, transforming the world into the Kingdom of the Social Reign of Christ. Knowledge, the Thomistic focus, is complementary to this: for he who knows better loves better.

Economics and politics can often become very rationalistic fields, even amongst confessing people. Those who would try to apply the Doctrine of the Church, or the tenets of Distributism (one school of interpretation of said doctrine) would do well to meditate on the practicality of charity. I personally think that understanding Benedict's ideological formation, especially the influence of Bonaventure and also of personalist philosophy, helps to elucidate his teaching in his most recent encyclical. The obsession with the "rationalization" of the economy must be placed squarely within a human context where love is seen to be the highest and ultimate end of man: the logic of love, more than cold numbers and mechanisms of scale, is the decisive determining factor for how we live our lives as individuals in communion.

The Pope Worships Gaia!

... at least, such a headline would not be a stretch to approximating the sensationalism in the press over the Pope's recently released message for the 43rd World Day of Peace.

First of all, it's worth pointing out that this isn't anything new.

Secondly, LifeSiteNews.com, at least, has a good editorial on the matter. They allude to the noteworthy fact that the Pope's document remained largely unnoticed by the media until somebody had a slow news day and decided there was something to be sensationalized here.

Third, the document itself isn't anything earth-shattering. Or, rather, it isn't remarkably innovative. It's earth-shattering in the sense that the Gospel and its ministers are like fire upon the earth and always seem supersubstantial in contrast to the mundane truisms we encounter each day. But it isn't like the Pope is sounding a clarion call of liberalism or saying that, after all, maybe trees is people too.

No, this is the same sort of thing we've heard before, although I have to say I love more and more Benedict's style. His message for last year on this occasion, as well as this one, have a neat style of recapitulation where the "theme" becomes something like an affirmative command at the end.

There's really not much in the document to parse. You really ought to read it yourself - it isn't long. And hopefully, if anyone tells you that this should be best understood under some divisive hermeneutic between the real Benedict and his Marxist "handlers," you can tell 'em where to go. (No, no, I didn't mean there. Here.)

It is noteworthy that the Pope does not in the document explicitly mention anthropogenic global warming, per se. He speaks of an "ecological crisis," which can mean anything from the depletion of drinking water sources to overfishing to deforestation. He also condemns any policies or philosophies that "end up abolishing the distinctiveness and superior role of human beings."

From a Distributivist point of view, there are certain passages in the statement which warm the heart. My favorite is from paragraph five:

Prudence would thus dictate a profound, long-term review of our model of development, one which would take into consideration the meaning of the economy and its goals with an eye to correcting its malfunctions and misapplications. The ecological health of the planet calls for this, but it is also demanded by the cultural and moral crisis of humanity whose symptoms have for some time been evident in every part of the world. Humanity needs a profound cultural renewal; it needs to rediscover those values which can serve as the solid basis for building a brighter future for all. Our present crises – be they economic, food-related, environmental or social – are ultimately also moral crises, and all of them are interrelated. They require us to rethink the path which we are travelling together. Specifically, they call for a lifestyle marked by sobriety and solidarity, with new rules and forms of engagement, one which focuses confidently and courageously on strategies that actually work, while decisively rejecting those that have failed. Only in this way can the current crisis become an opportunity for discernment and new strategic planning [emphasis in original].

His holiness goes on to saliently observe that "the issue of environmental degradation challenges us to examine our life-style and the prevailing models of consumption and production, which are often unsustainable from a social, environmental and even economic point of view" [my emphasis]. This is a particularly important point for Distributists, who alone seem to be very cognizant of the economic imperative arising from legitimate sustainability concerns. Infinite wealth creation, or reliance upon price mechanisms rather than on changing and shaping values toward better stewardship, are ill-conceived plans by theoreticians who would view sustainability as a threat (see, for example, Tyler A. Watts, "Sustainaibility: An Assault on Economics" on Mises Daily).

I was also very pleased by the Holy Father's handling of the need for "intergenerational solidary," which he called for in his encyclical. This is a sort of late-comer onto the scene of Catholic Social Teaching, and has very profound economic implications, especially with a fiat currency, money-as-debt system fueling Western nations' economies. We're running future generations not only into an unsustainable position with regard to natural resources, but in terms of financial sustainability as well. This all ties in very well with some research I'm doing currently into the idea of a "demographic winter" - that the homes and resources being used up and required by the current aging population will leave us, 30 years down the road, in quite a predicament. We think there's a bad housing market now? Well, what will happen if people continue to conceive and bear children at such a severe deficit compared to their grand-parents' generation? What will happen when only a quarter of the number of people currently retired in Florida, for example, are set to retire in a future generation when all those folks have died? Only every fourth house may be occupied. Think that won't cause problems to banks on the mortgage front? And that's just one of many scenarios in which we face disaster in light of current demographic trends. Intergenerational solidarity is going to become increasingly important: but all this is a for a future post. I'll be reviewing the documentaries Demographic Winter and The Demographic Bomb in the days to come. So stay tuned.

In the meantime, if you haven't yet, go and check out the Pope's message and keep an eye out for these important economically relevant points. Of course, really, the whole thing is economically relevant - a fact which is, itself, a major point which the Holy Father is making: "economic activity needs to consider the fact that "every economic decision has a moral consequence'."

I'm sure there are plenty more points worthy of discussion that I haven't hit. Please come back to the combox and share them. I'll take this opportunity to reiterate that I want this to be a place of discussion. So, please, lend a hand!

And now...

... the sound of one hand clapping.

The money quote:

What Benedict XVI has not spelled out yet is another forgotten lesson from St. Augustine: the ever-corrupting role of sin in the City of Man. Augustine points out how difficult it is even for the wisest and most detached humans to discover the truth among lies—and how even husbands and wives in the closest of human bonds misunderstand each other so often. The Father of Lies seems to own so much of the real world.

What are the most practical ways of defeating him? The Catholic tradition—even the wise Pope Benedict—still seems to put too much stress upon caritas, virtue, justice, and good intentions, and not nearly enough on methods for defeating human sin in all its devious and persistent forms.

Even the Pope’s understandable nostalgia for the European welfare-state too much scants the self-interests, self-deceptions, and false presuppositions that are bringing that system to a crisis of its own making. This was a crisis John Paul II saw rather more clearly in paragraph 48 of Centesimus Annus.

- Michael Novak

Where, O where, to begin? First of all, Joseph Ratzinger came of age in Nazi Germany, and I don't think a socialistic state gives him any warm-fuzzies of nostalgia. And how can Mr. Novak claim that it is the Holy Father (a confessor for over 50 years) who is naive about sin, when it is he who naively believes that market motives and the unrestrained pursuit of self-interest will somehow spark a society of justice and equity. Where does the corrupting power of sin enter into the market? O, that's right, I forgot, the market is amoral - not like there are sinful human agents operating within it, just automaton consumers responding to economic laws and mathematical motives. What a crock.

Finally, what the hell is more practical for defeating sin and overcoming evil in the world than "caritas, virtue, justice, and good intentions"? These are things which private individuals must foster and which a State cannot enforce, so it surprises me to hear Mr. Novak calling for something more "pragmatic" and "programmatic." But, apart from that surprise, I am still left to wonder - what is more practical for overcoming sin than caritas in veritate? Anyone? Bueller?

Now, I know I said I wasn't going to get into parsing and analyzing this document just yet. But apparently, people in the blogosphere are very concerned with a phrase from paragraph 39. Mr. Weigel doesn't understand what is meant by "forms of economic activity marked by quotas of gratuitousness and communion."

Now, first, let's read paragraph 39 in full:

Paul VI in Populorum Progressio called for the creation of a model of market economy capable of including within its range all peoples and not just the better off. He called for efforts to build a more human world for all, a world in which “all will be able to give and receive, without one group making progress at the expense of the other”. In this way he was applying on a global scale the insights and aspirations contained in Rerum Novarum, written when, as a result of the Industrial Revolution, the idea was first proposed — somewhat ahead of its time — that the civil order, for its self-regulation, also needed intervention from the State for purposes of redistribution. Not only is this vision threatened today by the way in which markets and societies are opening up, but it is evidently insufficient to satisfy the demands of a fully humane economy. What the Church's social doctrine has always sustained, on the basis of its vision of man and society, is corroborated today by the dynamics of globalization.

When both the logic of the market and the logic of the State come to an agreement that each will continue to exercise a monopoly over its respective area of influence, in the long term much is lost: solidarity in relations between citizens, participation and adherence, actions of gratuitousness, all of which stand in contrast with giving in order to acquire (the logic of exchange) and giving through duty (the logic of public obligation, imposed by State law). In order to defeat underdevelopment, action is required not only on improving exchange-based transactions and implanting public welfare structures, but above all on gradually increasing openness, in a world context, to forms of economic activity marked by quotas of gratuitousness and communion. The exclusively binary model of market-plus-State is corrosive of society, while economic forms based on solidarity, which find their natural home in civil society without being restricted to it, build up society. The market of gratuitousness does not exist, and attitudes of gratuitousness cannot be established by law. Yet both the market and politics need individuals who are open to reciprocal gift.

Alright, the phrase which has so many people so upset is "forms of economic activity marked by quotas of gratuitousness and communion." Now, this is understandable in some ways, since "quotas" are common in Socialist models of economy, and we would not want to say the Pope is encouraging that here. So, just what is he encouraging? What does this expression mean?

Well, on the one hand, I think knee-jerking at the word "quota" is a bit hasty. There is no Latin version of this document on the Holy See's website, yet. The Italian indeed does have "da quote di gratuità e di comunione." However, the French rendering is "par une part de gratuité et de communion" and the Spanish, "por ciertos márgenes de gratuidad y comunión." Certain margins characterizing a form of economy gives a much different sense than "quotas." So, perhaps we're reading too much into a word. Even so, what does this marginality mean and how does it get defined and who defines it? This too seems simpler than is being made out. The paragraph speaks before and after this quotation about the concept of "solidarity" as a necessary characteristic of economic activity, and also notes that globalization is not necessarily letting more people in but simply letting fewer people benefit at the expense of more and more marginalized (people only ostensibly enfranchised of power). If our motives to give are simply to receive in return, or because it is by mandate of the State, this falls short of the ideal and will not lead us to truly include others in economic life - just use them.

I could conceive of various Distributist models which capture the idea of this phrase, like Belloc's incentive-based taxation which tries to keep more people participatory in the economic activity of a region by making bigger business only WANT to accrue a certain part of property. They leave off what would be surplus and unprofitable, allowing others a chance to work with that property; then as others succeed and are able to pay their own greater share of the upkeep of the commonwealth, the larger owners benefit from a fall of their own taxes. The success of the other would be thus an incentive for a particular owner, albeit not until the system had been in place and begun to succeed.

Another thought is that it seems any small, family run business is already a local form of what Benedict is talking about. Two brothers open a store, and one day Brother A gets sick on his day to manage: will Brother B really take it out of his salary for his own coming in, knowing that Brother A had to pay the copay for a doctor's visit that day? No. The brothers will act first of all like brothers, and their business will be characterized by certain margins of gratuitousness and communion. They will be a family first, and a business second. This is what Benedict means by "economic forms based on solidarity, which find their natural home in civil society without being restricted to it." He means take what works (and is virtuous) about the local and try to keep the global in the same ethos. It might seem pie-in-the-sky, but given that the human race really is a family, under God, spread accross the globe, then this as a model for "globalization" is not all that far-fetched. So, the job of people like Novak and Weigel ought to be asking, "what would this look like on a bigger scale, and how could we do it?" rather than decrying it as nonsensical drivel.

Anyhow, I'm open for discussion whether this phrase is really as unmeaning as others make it out to be. To me, it does convey a sense, perhaps indeed somewhat imprecise, but only because it's not something to be seen so much in finer details as in the "big picture." Thoughts?

Very Initial Thoughts...

First of all, consider this thread an OPEN FORUM for any discussion that anybody wants to have in the com-boxes. I will turn off comment moderation for the time being (reserving the right to delete if that becomes necessary). I hope to shuttle some traffic over here from Facebook.

---

Anyway, here are my initial thoughts:

WOW! Benedict has been known for some heady writing, but this... wow.

I am initially very pleased after scanning the Encyclical, and find many points resonating therein which I will need to reflect upon here at length over the next few days. In the meantime, one that jumped out at me immediately is from Chapter 3:

Charity in truth places man before the astonishing experience of gift. Gratuitousness is present in our lives in many different forms, which often go unrecognized because of a purely consumerist and utilitarian view of life.... [W]e must make it clear, on the one hand, that the logic of gift does not exclude justice, nor does it merely sit alongside it as a second element added from without; on the other hand, economic, social and political development, if it is to be authentically human, needs to make room for the principle of gratuitousness as an expression of fraternity.

Caritas in veritate 34.

Which rather reminds me of the dearth of "humane" principles in economic theory, which I reflected upon earlier.

There's a lot in here, though, and it seems that nearly every paragraph can be subject for reflection, so pardon my silence today as I chew on this and try to organize my own response.

Reclaiming Homo Economicus

However, certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society. These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations.

This unbridled liberalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the "international imperialism of money."

Such improper manipulations of economic forces can never be condemned enough; let it be said once again that economics is supposed to be in the service of man.

(Populorum Progressio 26)

With the Pope's new encyclical signed and set to come out, debate rages over at Father Z.'s blog, and I must say I am not very impressed with any of the interlocutors at this point - neither in their display of tact and charity, nor in their argumentation.

The "camps" in the discussion are such as one might expect to find. There are those arguing something of a "collectivist" programme; and then there are standard free-market apologists waving the banners of Hayek and Novack. Both sides claim the body of Catholic Social Doctrine to support their claims. Accusations are made in either direction of "cafeteria Catholicism" and a "hermeneutic of discontinuity." Some hope that the Pope will provide specific policy directives in his new encyclical (and of these, some hope for more liberal economic advice, others for a collectivist sort), and there are still some who tremble that the specificity will resemble past statements (like the one quoted above) which still unnerve so many.

To all of this, I have simply to say: let's wait and read what the current Pope has said, and in the meantime, let's spend time going back and praying over what the previous Popes have said (yes, all of them, not just John Paul II). But whilst we study, we can try to continue discussion on some fundamental issues which seem to shape our understanding of what the Papal Magisterium offers us in this regard...

I will be working through a couple of the major philophical question which seem to be logically prior to any consideration of what the Pope might say, as they seem to condition us as to how we'll read and interpret what he does have to say. Put more simply, and to use an illustration: Michael Novack and I read Centesimus Annus very differently. And at the risk of sounding presumptuous, I simply will not defer to Professor Novack's greater learning and experience on this because I have read his reasoning as to why he reads that document how he does, and I see fundamentally different philosophical approaches. It is not a matter of greater or lesser understanding on different levels. It is a matter of ways of understanding. I hope to provide here over the next few posts suggestions of ways to read the Papal Magisterium on Social Doctrine.

So, please stay tuned, and chime in at any time.

And, oh yes, my title.... As I hope to demonstrate, the differences between the arguers on the post that has me so miffed lie deep down prior to any technical discussion of economic policy. The differences are philosophical: they concern what economics is all about, what the economy is, and what it is for. They concern how economics as a science should relate to other disciplines and questions. Anyway, at the end of all this, I will suggest that the Distributist position understands economics in such a way that, really, we might say that man is indeed homo economicus with no harm to the school. This is because economics is wider and interpenetrated with other concerns and "humanized" so to speak. And thus, perhaps the recovery of a true sense of man as an economizer (in our sense of the term) is precisely what is to be desired.

And so let us proceed.

(NB: The quote from PP at the top is not meant to relate substantively to this or any of the following posts, and I do consider this to be one of the many statements in the Social Magisterium that needs interpreting and careful consideration. In fact, I picked that quote as an intro precisely because it invites that question of "What do we do with this?" - discussion of which I hope can take place on this blog and elsewhere in the weeks to come.)

Nearly Here

Rocco has it, from the Pope's noon Angelus address today: the Encyclical, Caritas in Veritate has been signed and will now be prepared for translation/publication.

The Calm Before the Storm...

Well, I'm coming out of hiding. There is a lot to talk about. A lot of change, facing the rising seas and the waxing storm - both in my personal life and in the world at large. My mind has not been idle. I've been thinking, reading, praying about social charity and social justice every day. But I just haven't been able to catch fire and write. Something in me has been poised, waiting with a kind of baited anticipation, a still and serene snowscape before the pebble that starts the avalanche. Not that the flow down the mountain will be strong enough to overcome anything; please don't mistake me as trying to characterize my output here as formidable thought. I doubt whether I am very well equipped indeed to enter the discussions into which I will shuffle with my two cents. But my thoughts are honest thoughts, and they are I think thoughtful. And I will continue to share them with whoever will accept them in charity, and wait to receive any who will share their own in kind.

The "pebble" aforementioned is this: a rigorous discussion (although, I fear, somewhat heated and overblown with occasional meanness) taking place over at Father Z.'s. The catalyst for debate is rumour of the Pope's new encyclical which pundits expect may be signed tomorrow. When the translation will be prepared is uncertain.

The thought of a new social encyclical, the many possibilities that entails, obviously has me pondering. I am anxious to see Pope Benedict's mind turn to these issues for which John Paul II showed famous academic interest and solicitude. I am struck even with some trepidation, both for the encylical's contents and its reception. Like one of the commenter's at Father's blog, I hold my breath when the Vatican begins to express specific opinion about economic policy. I do believe in a certain autonomy to the (albeit soft) science of economics. However, I cannot subscribe to the classically liberal tenets of many squawking over at WDTPRS.

So, there the stage is set for my own holding forth on these matters. Whether the letter comes tomorrow or not, I'll have something to say, so stay tuned. And thanks for sticking with me through the long winter. There'll be more said of that, too, ere long. Oremus pro invicem, friends.

Hope Down Under

Benedict XVI’s remarks today during the welcoming ceremony with the youth at Barangaroo, Sydney Harbor were outstanding. The enthusiasm and hope of his message combined with an element that can only be called poetry to make this one of the most endearing speeches of his Pontificate. Of course, my ears were perked for any hints of the content of the upcoming encyclical, and I was not disappointed. I have posted below the sections of the speech which I found both most stirring and most pertinent to our topics here. However, my favorite aspect of Benedict’s words are his compassionate and personalist perspective – that is, he uses as a focal point the creature man, as the “apex of creation” and in relationship with God. Only in this context do any of the other “issues” addressed have any real meaning or weight.

[T]he views afforded of our planet from the air were truly wondrous. The sparkle of the Mediterranean, the grandeur of the north African desert, the lushness of Asia’s forestation, the vastness of the Pacific Ocean, the horizon upon which the sun rose and set, and the majestic splendour of Australia’s natural beauty which I have been able to enjoy these last couple of days; these all evoke a profound sense of awe. It is as though one catches glimpses of the Genesis creation story - light and darkness, the sun and the moon, the waters, the earth, and living creatures; all of which are “good” in God’s eyes (cf. Gen 1:1 - 2:4). Immersed in such beauty, who could not echo the words of the Psalmist in praise of the Creator: “how majestic is your name in all the earth?” (Ps 8:1).

And there is more – something hardly perceivable from the sky – men and women, made in nothing less than God’s own image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:26). At the heart of the marvel of creation are you and I, the human family “crowned with glory and honour” (Ps 8:5). How astounding! With the Psalmist we whisper: “what is man that you are mindful of him?” (Ps 8:4). And drawn into silence, into a spirit of thanksgiving, into the power of holiness, we ponder.

What do we discover? Perhaps reluctantly we come to acknowledge that there are also scars which mark the surface of our earth: erosion, deforestation, the squandering of the world’s mineral and ocean resources in order to fuel an insatiable consumption. Some of you come from island nations whose very existence is threatened by rising water levels; others from nations suffering the effects of devastating drought. God’s wondrous creation is sometimes experienced as almost hostile to its stewards, even something dangerous. How can what is “good” appear so threatening?

Benedict XVI went on to speak of the good and wholesome wonders which man has wrought, but afterward noted that “the social environment – the habitat we fashion for ourselves – has its scars; wounds indicating that something is amiss.” Some of these “scars” mentioned by His Holiness include drug and alcohol abuse, “entertainment” taking the form of sexual exploitation or violence, and of course relativism.

After enumerating these evils, Benedict XVI struck a resounding note of hope (by means of attack on materialism, especially in the forms of determinism and consumerism):

Dear friends, life is not governed by chance; it is not random. Your very existence has been willed by God, blessed and given a purpose (cf. Gen 1:28)! Life is not just a succession of events or experiences, helpful though many of them are. It is a search for the true, the good and the beautiful. It is to this end that we make our choices; it is for this that we exercise our freedom; it is in this – in truth, in goodness, and in beauty – that we find happiness and joy. Do not be fooled by those who see you as just another consumer in a market of undifferentiated possibilities, where choice itself becomes the good, novelty usurps beauty, and subjective experience displaces truth.

Sounding the challenge to action, Benedict XVI wisely noted: “If God is irrelevant to public life, then society will be shaped in a godless image. When God is eclipsed, our ability to recognize the natural order, purpose, and the “good” begins to wane.”

Before closing, Benedict XVI re-emphasized the central focus of his remarks:

My dear friends, God’s creation is one and it is good. The concerns for non-violence, sustainable development, justice and peace, and care for our environment are of vital importance for humanity. They cannot, however, be understood apart from a profound reflection upon the innate dignity of every human life from conception to natural death: a dignity conferred by God himself and thus inviolable.

The Pontiff called attention to the deep desire for hope in our world, even in the most secular corners. While pointing to many problems which highlight the need for such hope and the urgency of our societal and environmental situation, Benedict XVI was clear that only one place holds the true answer: “This is the hope held out by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is to bear witness to this reality that you were created anew at Baptism and strengthened through the gifts of the Spirit at Confirmation. Let this be the message that you bring from Sydney to the world!”

[Read the full speech.]