![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/635\/2019\/07\/Reeve_and_Serfs.jpg\")
<\/a>Christianity is a communal religion; it coheres in a Church, a body of believers spiritually- and socially-united in faith and deed. Whatever people may say about Vatican II seriously wounding Catholicism, no Christian group has escaped challenge from an individualistic modernity. In fact, some say our decline goes back<\/a> well beyond the Council. First and foremost, any decline in Christianity has stemmed from the destruction of our communities. People must move to find work, alienating themselves from structures of support. Poverty with little hope of help might follow. Even if it does not, extreme isolation and loneliness<\/a> often do. Those who remain behind face a plague of addiction<\/a>, with only broken communities left to offer any assistance. How can any ecclesial religion hope to weather such times?<\/p>\n Our problem is compounded\u2014in the American context\u2014by a failure of orthodoxy and orthopraxis to coincide. Many will disagree; I am sure. But I simply do not believe that whatever pluses American conservatism may offer to the Catholic voter, that the rest of its agenda may be excused. At first, if pushed on this point, many will bring up the issue of abortion. They might say that this issue outweighs all others on account of its moral gravity (which, to my mind, implies a certain kind of utilitarianism in which ethical problems can be assigned weights and compared willy-nilly). This position has its problems, but I can understand that, for someone who truly believes in the logic I have just outlined, this might seem a reasonable option. Rarely, however, does the reasoning stop here.<\/p>\n Many American Catholics believe that the principles enshrined in US conservatism best approximate those found in the social teaching of the Church; they do not merely believe themselves to be choosing a lesser evil, they see conservatism as the vision of the Fathers approximated in our modern context. This concerns me. As a result, I would like to consider three common arguments used to buttress this position; from there, I will examine the inverse problem facing the liberal wing of the Church. Taken together, the failures of both positions may help us understand what is to be done as regards to the size and state of our religion. In my eyes, we face rampant heterodoxy and heteropraxy. Learning from these modern mistakes provides us with an opportunity to build a brighter\u2014and more faithful\u2014future.<\/p>\n The first argument worth considering is that bishops have no business being involved in politics (one often sees this point used when the pope or some other hierarch speaks out about the environment). The second is that the Church fundamentally defends the sacred right to own private property. The third, and last, that I will examine is the idea that certain Church teachings are vague, and thus allow for substantial disagreement in a way others do not.<\/p>\n Bishops have always been political. I mean this in two senses: for one, they have always been involved in politics; secondly, they have always leveraged that power to various ends. We find this in nascent form in the Acts of the Apostles<\/em>:<\/p>\n They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers. \u00a0Awe came upon everyone, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one\u2019s need. (Act 2:42-45)<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Never mind their precise mode of organization (that\u2019s for another discussion), note that the Apostles organize the emerging community in a distinct way; they become their own polis <\/em>within the larger structure of Israel (and of Rome!). The heads of the Church teach in a specific way; the people follow. In short, they organize themselves through the teaching of their bishops.<\/p>\n In this, the Apostles are merely channeling the deep social consciousness of the Old Testament. There are the oft-forgotten jubilees<\/a>, entailing debt forgiveness, among other things. Better known are the prophets themselves. One could basically quote at random (that\u2019s how ubiquitous such passages are), but one passage from Ezekiel <\/em>summarizes things nicely, even if it lacks some of the pathos found in the other prophetic books:<\/p>\n If a man is just\u2014if he does what is right, if he does not eat on the mountains,\u00a0or raise his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel; if he does not defile a neighbor\u2019s wife, or have relations with a woman during her period;\u00a0if he oppresses no one, gives back the pledge received for a debt, commits no robbery; gives food to the hungry and clothes the naked; if he does not lend at interest or exact usury; if he refrains from evildoing and makes a fair judgment between two opponents; if he walks by my statutes and is careful to observe my ordinances, that man is just\u2014he shall surely live\u2014oracle of the Lord GOD. (Ezekiel 8:5-9)<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/p>\n A bishop is meant to teach his flock. This duty implies the teaching of right conduct to his people. This right conduct is not just manners; it is not just being \u201cdecent.\u201d It requires right belief; it requires serving the poor and not doing anything that harms or destroys another. In a word, it requires politics<\/em> in a broad sense.<\/p>\n Many more such passages can be found in the wisdom books of Scripture, though not merely there. Later bishops were intensely politically involved: Augustine, Ambrose, and John Chrysostom come to mind immediately. Each could be quoted at length to the effect that part of their duty is the instruction of their flocks. This means instructing them in how to act rightly, yes. Further, however, it implies that the individual right conduct of the believers develops into a just and justly-organized society. We should not fool ourselves into thinking God only judges individuals. What of Sodom and Gomorrah? What of Jericho? Likewise, the moral duties of the bishop do not end with the individual soul (hence why the bishop, like the Good Shepherd, tends a flock\u2014a collective). A famous quotation from St. Ambrose shows just how far this sort of exhortation to a group (here, the rich) could go:<\/p>\n How far, O rich, do you extend your senseless avarice? Do you intend to be the sole inhabitants of the earth? Why do you drive out the fellow sharers of nature, and claim it all for yourselves? The earth was made for all, rich and poor, in common. Why do you rich claim it as your exclusive right? The soil was given to the rich and poor in common\u2014wherefore, oh, ye rich, do you unjustly claim it for yourselves alone? Nature gave all things in common for the use of all; usurpation created private rights. Property hath no rights. The earth is the Lord\u2019s, and we are his offspring. The pagans hold earth as property. They do blaspheme God. (The Cry for Justice<\/em> 397)<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Medieval bishops extended their hands into politics, for better and for worse. Odo of Bayeux<\/a> fought at the Battle of Hastings (famously, he is supposed to have used a club, so as to get around the prohibition on clergy spilling blood). St. Thomas Becket<\/a> resisted Henry II. Bishop Despenser<\/a> led a crusade against the French in the Low Countries in the 14th<\/sup> century (never mind the extent of his involvement back home in England). Archbishop Arundel<\/a> played a leading role in Henry IV\u2019s deposing of Richard II. The list goes on and on into the modern era, when Bishop von Galen<\/a> spoke out against Nazism; other bishops, like those recently beatified<\/a> in the Romanian Greek Catholic Church, were killed for protesting Soviet rule.<\/p>\n The point, I hope, is clear enough: bishops have never not been political. Their influence\u2014for good and for ill\u2014has never been restricted to the care of individual souls; further, their interest in moral formation, specifically the moral formation of communities, has meant an aim at justice. For St. Ambrose, as seen above, to preach uprightness is to preach against social ills. The two can hardly be separated.<\/p>\n We might address the second argument\u2014pertaining to private property\u2014by beginning with the quotation just mentioned: \u201cNature gave all things in common for the use of all; usurpation created private rights. Property hath no rights. The earth is the Lord\u2019s, and we are his offspring. The pagans hold earth as property. They do blaspheme God.\u201d We might go even further here by quoting Aquinas as length (there is, of course, beauty in the subtlety of Scholastic prose):<\/p>\n Things which are of\u00a0human<\/a>\u00a0right cannot derogate from\u00a0natural<\/a>\u00a0right or Divine right. Now according to the\u00a0natural<\/a>\u00a0order established by Divine Providence, inferior things are ordained for the purpose of succoring\u00a0man\u2019s<\/a>\u00a0needs by their means. Wherefore the division and appropriation of things which are based on\u00a0human<\/a>\u00a0law<\/a>, do not preclude the fact that\u00a0man\u2019s<\/a>\u00a0needs have to be remedied by means of these very things. Hence whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by\u00a0natural law<\/a>, to the purpose of succoring the poor. For this reason\u00a0Ambrose<\/a>[Loc. cit.,\u00a0Article 2, Objection 3<\/a>] says, and his words are embodied in the Decretals (Dist. xlvii, can. Sicut ii): \u201cIt is the hungry\u00a0man\u2019s<\/a>\u00a0bread that you withhold, the naked\u00a0man\u2019s<\/a>\u00a0cloak that you store away, the money that you bury in the earth is the price of the poor\u00a0man\u2019s<\/a>\u00a0ransom and freedom.\u201d<\/p>\n Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need. Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a\u00a0person<\/a>\u00a0is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another\u2019s property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking\u00a0theft<\/a>\u00a0or robbery. (ST <\/em>II-II, Q66, A7)<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/p>\n The buck stops at God. All property is God\u2019s; we are merely allowed to steward it, or, in Thomas\u2019 language, \u201c[t]hings which are of human right cannot derogate from natural right or Divine right.\u201d Property rights exist to help man succor his needs, that is, to allow for human flourishing. As we saw in Ambrose, however, they do not exist to the end of luxury. If one man\u2019s hoarding too much puts another in danger, the human decision to divvy up property in x or y is abrogated by the fact that all belongs to the Lord. This, of course, does not mean that there is no place for property (not even a Marxist would say there\u2019s no need to have personal property, though that is a discussion for another time); rather, the point is that private property is not inviolable, or even really sacred. It is a human construct. Dom Bede Jarrett, O.P. summarizes the Scholastic opinion on this very well:<\/p>\n [I]t depended on specific conditions and stages of development. Thus nature dictated no division of property, though it implied the necessity of some property; the need of the division was only discovered when men set t work to live in social intercourse. Then it was found that unless divisions were made, existence was intolerable; and so by human convention, as St. Thomas sometimes say, or by the law of nature [Jarrett reads this as the same as the\u00a0ius gentium<\/em>], as he elsewhere expresses it, the division into private property was agreed upon and took place. (Medieval Socialism\u00a077)<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This view remains in more recent documents. Take, for example, Pope Leo XIII\u2019s Rerum Novarum<\/em>, which is often cut up to make it seem as if it is an argument for the absolute sanctity of private property. Let us examine a longer section:<\/p>\n With reason, then, the common opinion of mankind, little affected by the few dissentients who have contended for the opposite view, has found in the careful study of nature, and in the laws of nature, the foundations of the division of property, and the practice of all ages has consecrated the principle of private ownership, as being pre-eminently in conformity with human nature, and as conducing in the most unmistakable manner to the peace and tranquillity of human existence. The same principle is confirmed and enforced by the civil laws-laws which, so long as they are just, derive from the law of nature their binding force. The authority of the divine law adds its sanction, forbidding us in severest terms even to covet that which is another\u2019s: \u201cThou shalt not covet thy neighbour\u2019s wife; nor his house, nor his field, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is his.\u201d(2)<\/p>\n The rights here spoken of, belonging to each individual man, are seen in much stronger light when considered in relation to man\u2019s social and domestic obligations. In choosing a state of life, it is indisputable that all are at full liberty to follow the counsel of Jesus Christ as to observing virginity, or to bind themselves by the marriage tie. No human law can abolish the natural and original right of marriage, nor in any way limit the chief and principal purpose of marriage ordained by God\u2019s authority from the beginning: \u201cIncrease and multiply.\u201d(3) Hence we have the family, the \u201csociety\u201d of a man\u2019s house \u2013 a society very small, one must admit, but none the less a true society, and one older than any State. Consequently, it has rights and duties peculiar to itself which are quite independent of the State.<\/p>\n That right to property, therefore, which has been proved to belong naturally to individual persons, must in like wise belong to a man in his capacity of head of a family; nay, that right is all the stronger in proportion as the human person receives a wider extension in the family group. It is a most sacred law of nature that a father should provide food and all necessaries for those whom he has begotten; and, similarly, it is natural that he should wish that his children, who carry on, so to speak, and continue his personality, should be by him provided with all that is needful to enable them to keep themselves decently from want and misery amid the uncertainties of this mortal life. Now, in no other way can a father effect this except by the ownership of productive property, which he can transmit to his children by inheritance. A family, no less than a State, is, as We have said, a true society, governed by an authority peculiar to itself, that is to say, by the authority of the father. Provided, therefore, the limits which are prescribed by the very purposes for which it exists be not transgressed, the family has at least equal rights with the State in the choice and pursuit of the things needful to its preservation and its just liberty. We say, \u201cat least equal rights\u201d; for, inasmuch as the domestic household is antecedent, as well in idea as in fact, to the gathering of men into a community, the family must necessarily have rights and duties which are prior to those of the community, and founded more immediately in nature. If the citizens, if the families on entering into association and fellowship, were to experience hindrance in a commonwealth instead of help, and were to find their rights attacked instead of being upheld, society would rightly be an object of detestation rather than of desire.\u00a0(Rerum Novarum <\/em>11-13)<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/p>\n At first, this might seem an attack on attacks on private property (and, indeed, it appears in a section devoted to the errors of socialism\u2014what the Holy Father meant by \u201csocialism\u201d we may examine at some other time). Note, however, how his language binds private property to community. The good of one\u2019s own property is geared toward one\u2019s social roles, one\u2019s responsibilities to one\u2019s family, community, etc. What precisely this means is spelled out later in the encyclical:<\/p>\n The great mistake made in regard to the matter now under consideration is to take up with the notion that class is naturally hostile to class, and that the wealthy and the working men are intended by nature to live in mutual conflict. So irrational and so false is this view that the direct contrary is the truth. Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the result of the suitable arrangement of the different parts of the body, so in a State is it ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic. Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital. Mutual agreement results in the beauty of good order, while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity. Now, in preventing such strife as this, and in uprooting it, the efficacy of Christian institutions is marvellous and manifold. First of all, there is no intermediary more powerful than religion (whereof the Church is the interpreter and guardian) in drawing the rich and the working class together, by reminding each of its duties to the other, and especially of the obligations of justice.<\/p>\n Of these duties, the following bind the proletarian and the worker: fully and faithfully to perform the work which has been freely and equitably agreed upon; never to injure the property, nor to outrage the person, of an employer; never to resort to violence in defending their own cause, nor to engage in riot or disorder; and to have\u00a0nothing to do with men of evil principles, who work upon the people with artful promises of great results, and excite foolish hopes which usually end in useless regrets and grievous loss. The following duties bind the wealthy owner and the employer: not to look upon their work people as their bondsmen, but to respect in every man his dignity as a person ennobled by Christian character. They are reminded that, according to natural reason and Christian philosophy, working for gain is creditable, not shameful, to a man, since it enables him to earn an honorable livelihood; but to misuse men as though they were things in the pursuit of gain, or to value them solely for their physical powers \u2013 that is truly shameful and inhuman. Again justice demands that, in dealing with the working man, religion and the good of his soul must be kept in mind. Hence, the employer is bound to see that the worker has time for his religious duties; that he be not exposed to corrupting influences and dangerous occasions; and that he be not led away to neglect his home and family, or to squander his earnings. Furthermore, the employer must never tax his work people beyond their strength, or employ them in work unsuited to their sex and age. His great and principal duty is to give every one what is just. Doubtless, before deciding whether wages axe fair, many things have to be considered; but wealthy owners and all masters of labor should be mindful of this \u2013 that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one\u2019s profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine. To defraud any one of wages that are his due is a great crime which cries to the avenging anger of Heaven. \u201cBehold, the hire of the laborers\u2026 which by fraud has been kept back by you, crieth; and the cry of them hath entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.\u201d(6) Lastly, the rich must religiously refrain from cutting down the workmen\u2019s earnings, whether by force, by fraud, or by usurious dealing; and with all the greater reason because the laboring man is, as a rule, weak and unprotected, and because his slender means should in proportion to their scantiness be accounted sacred.\u00a0Were these precepts carefully obeyed and followed out, would they not be sufficient of themselves to keep under all strife and all its causes? (Rerum Novarum<\/em> 19-20)<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n How much he sounds like St. Ambrose! Yes, the laborer has duties, but most of this section is devoted to the duties of the capitalist or boss. He must not abuse the workers to the enhancement of his own property; he must not treat people as means to the end of enrichment (seemingly, here, he means both his employees and his customers). The worker should not be made to work so much that he is broken, or, as Utah Phillips put it, \u201cAll Used Up.\u201d<\/a> He or she should not be forced to work so much that time with family, or time to simply be a human being in some other context, becomes impossible. Underpaying one\u2019s workers is certainly forbidden.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n We will return to these precise requirements soon enough. I would, however, like to briefly note a recent restatement of these same principles in the woefully-under-read, Oeconomicae et pecuniariae quaestiones<\/em>. This document was released only last year (2018); it has much to teach us. For example:<\/p>\n Economic activity cannot be sustained in the long run where freedom of initiative cannot thrive.<\/a>[23]<\/a>It is also obvious today that the freedom enjoyed by the economic stakeholders, if it is understood as absolute in itself, and removed from its intrinsic reference to the true and the good, creates centers of power that incline towards forms of oligarchy and in the end undermine the very efficiency of the economic system.<\/a>[24]<\/a><\/p>\n From this point of view, it is easy to see how, with the growing and all-pervasive control of powerful parties and vast economic-financial networks, those deputed to exercise political power are often disoriented and rendered powerless by supranational agents and by the volatility of the capital they manage. Those entrusted with political authority find it difficult to fulfil to their original vocation as servants of the common good, and are even transformed into ancillary instruments of interests extraneous to the good.<\/a>[25]<\/a><\/p>\n These factors make all the more imperative a renewed alliance between economic and political agents in order to promote everything that serves the complete development of every human person as well as the society at large and unites demands for solidarity with those of subsidiarity.<\/a>[26]<\/a> (Oeconomicae et pecuniariae quaestiones<\/em> 12)<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here, Pope Francis does not deny the importance of \u201cfreedom\u201d in the economic realm. Rather, he builds upon the points made by Pope Leo, giving them more definition, allowing those principles to speak to our moment. He identifies avaricious in elements of our financial system, elements that concentrate private property in smaller and smaller group of people. This would seem to violate the duties sketched by his predecessor. In other words, private property, as Ambrose and Aquinas state, is not made sacred merely by being possessed. How much does one person possess? How did he get it? By what means has he held on to it? How are his workers and customers treated? The need to ask these questions betrays the provisional nature of such property (on the grounds sketched above). Personal property is important; it has a role to play in human flourishing. This does not, however, mean that once one possesses something he has an inalienable right to it.<\/p>\n We might even say that such a person is covetous (as St. Ambrose and Pope Francis imply). Often we think of the poor worker as the envious one, desiring what is not his. But might we not say that the man with much, refusing to give up little, begrudges his neighbor any gain? Might we not say that he is the covetous one who does not wish others to have from that which was ordained for all? Once again, this pope\u2019s recent writing gives us our answer:<\/p>\n Therefore, those whom fortune favors are warned that riches do not bring freedom from sorrow and are of no avail for eternal happiness, but rather are obstacles;(9) that the rich should tremble at the threatenings of Jesus Christ \u2013 threatenings so unwonted in the mouth\u00a0of our Lord(10) \u2013 and that a most strict account must be given to the Supreme Judge for all we possess. The chief and most excellent rule for the right use of money is one the heathen philosophers hinted at, but which the Church has traced out clearly, and has not only made known to men\u2019s minds, but has impressed upon their lives. It rests on the principle that it is one thing to have a right to the possession of money and another to have a right to use money as one wills. Private ownership, as we have seen, is the natural right of man, and to exercise that right, especially as members of society, is not only lawful, but absolutely necessary. \u201cIt is lawful,\u201d says St. Thomas Aquinas, \u201cfor a man to hold private property; and it is also necessary for the carrying on of human existence.\u201d\u201d But if the question be asked: How must one\u2019s possessions be used? \u2013 the Church replies without hesitation in the words of the same holy Doctor: \u201cMan should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need. Whence the Apostle with, \u2018Command the rich of this world\u2026 to offer with no stint, to apportion largely.\u2019\u201d(12) True, no one is commanded to distribute to others that which is required for his own needs and those of his household; nor even to give away what is reasonably required to keep up becomingly his condition in life, \u201cfor no one ought to live other than becomingly.\u201d(13) But, when what necessity demands has been supplied, and one\u2019s standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. \u201cOf that which remaineth, give alms.\u201d(14) It is a duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity \u2013 a duty not enforced by human law. But the laws and judgments of men must yield place to the laws and judgments of Christ the true God, who in many ways urges on His followers the practice of almsgiving \u2013 \u2018It is more blessed to give than to receive\u201d;(15) and who will count a kindness done or refused to the poor as done or refused to Himself \u2013 \u201cAs long as you did it to one of My least brethren you did it to Me.\u201d(16) To sum up, then, what has been said: Whoever has received from the divine bounty a large share of temporal blessings, whether they be external and material, or gifts of the mind, has received them for the purpose of using them for the perfecting of his own nature, and, at the same time, that he may employ them, as the steward of God\u2019s providence, for the benefit of others. \u201cHe that hath a talent,\u201d said St. Gregory the Great, \u201clet him see that he hide it not; he that hath abundance, let him quicken himself to mercy and generosity; he that hath art and skill, let him do his best to share the use and the utility hereof with his neighbor.\u201d(17) (Oeconomicae et pecuniariae quaestiones<\/em> 22)<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/p>\n Perhaps not obviously, we have already begun to address the third argument I mentioned above: that some Church teachings are so nebulous as to be undefinable. The easiest way to make clear what I mean is through an example.<\/p>\n Say you\u2019re a Catholic with no partisan affiliation speaking with a self-identified Republican Catholic. You make the point that, while you agree abortion is an important issue, that it cannot be used to excuse a variety of problems that are made worse by Republican policies. You note that jobs have been taken away because of trade laws that benefit the rich; these jobs have now been brought to other countries where sweat shops are common. You mention that, while the unemployment rate is quite low, this is a result of laws favoring companies like Uber that, while calling themselves \u201cside jobs\u201d often entice people to work insane hours for fairly-low pay. You mention that many people take these kinds of jobs along with others, meaning they work nearly every hour they are not sleeping, even though they continue barely to get by. You note how detrimental this is to family life. You note that the failure of banking regulators, in part because of their alliance with GOP politicians and other interest groups, has negatively impacted millions of Americans; in the most recent extreme case, during the Great Recession, but in many different ways in recent years. Your interlocutor responds that, for one, it\u2019s not clear what \u201can unjust wage\u201d or \u201coppressing a worker\u201d is. Better to work on issues we can pin down, like abortion. Further, private property is very important; envy drives these people who want more without working harder, not to mention how necessary freedom is. It is up to a boss how much he thinks he should pay based on the market. If that\u2019s not enough for people they ought to move and find a better job, or at least live in a place with a lower cost of living.<\/p>\n