“Social Justice”: a phrase that’s tossed around a lot, but usually in ways that do serious INjustice to its original context. Paul Ryan, a Catholic economics expert from Wisconsin, is suddenly in the news; I thought it might be time to go back and take a look at some classic Catholic social justice theory…what it REALLY says. Let’s take a look.
Leo XIII came out with the seminal encyclical, “Rerum Novarum” in the year 1891. It was followed up by other letters that built upon that good foundation. The basic idea from this tradition that I want to underline is summed up in two words: ‘subsidiarity’ and ‘solidarity’. In Catholic social theory, these two values are presented as tied together, balanced and equally necessary in a healthy society. I know, this all seems pretty abstract to start with, but hang with me, here. If we could just grasp this, a LOT of common sense can flow from it. What are these two words?
Subsidiarity
In Catholic thought, ‘subsidiarity’ simply reminds us that a healthy society is made up of a whole lot of small, strong, independent social groups – ‘subsidiary’ groups. You have youth groups, charitable societies, local governments, schools, the Elks, religious societies, etc. (By far, the most important is the family, nuclear and extended.)
In order for things to work right, each of these smaller, ‘subsidiary’ units needs to be respected by the larger organs of power. THE State, THE Church, THE Press, THE Armed Forces must respect the independence and integrity of each of these smaller groups for the good of all. These larger groups shouldn’t overawe or super-cede jobs that are properly done by the smaller groups.
What this means is, a large group, such as the government, should neither take over the smaller functions of the family through force such as in Communist or totalitarian governments or through a sort of benevolent ‘smothering’, such as in socialism. When decisions within families, such as how to educate the children or how they will be taken care of are usurped, the result is massive social injustice and disequilibrium.
When Hitler forcibly shipped youths to retraining camps, he claimed to be serving social justice; but this severed children from their family and town roots and served as great brainwashing but horrible social justice in the long run. Hallowed family & regional traditions which had humanized and stabilized were ripped out, leaving a moral vacuum ripe for the greatest horrors. Scandinavia’s 80% taxation and 6 AM to 8 PM daycare led to unprecedented levels of 5-year old suicides among other things before they lurched away from total immersion socialism. This is not some abstract idea. It’s really there and has real consequences when it is violated. (John Paul II personally experienced what can happen with both the Nazis and the Soviet Communists.)
It was the genius of our Founding Fathers to build in and express respect for states and towns, families, churches and associations. It was this that de Tocqueville marveled about, because it worked so well. (This is not to romanticize all ‘small-town’ values, by the way. I understand these places can, indeed, sometimes, be petty, parochial or prejudiced. The larger point remains.)
Solidarity
However, it’s not good to ONLY have respect for subsidiarity. What if all the small groups did whatever they wanted without regard to other groups or larger supervisory groups? That wouldn’t work, either. (John Paul II warned not only about Communism and socialism, but, also, about untrammeled capitalism with no conscience.)
What is the antidote for such a danger? It is the idea of ‘solidarity’. (Have you ever wondered why John Paul used the word so much, or why Lech Walesa named his union with this word? Wojtyla knew how to put these classic ideas into practice in the real world!) This principle says that everyone should consider the whole of humanity or the larger group in whatever they do. We’re all in this together, after all. True, my grocery store can put up the price of milk far above wholesale if it wants and that might be good for the store in the short run, but how would that affect the needier people, and, therefore, the larger community? Patriotic sentiments and actions for one’s country are a perfect example of such ‘solidarity’. It might cost my family and my locality for me to serve in the military, but it serves the greater purpose of preserving the liberties of millions. We need to develop a community sense of charitable concern.
However, this ‘solidarity’ is absolutely USELESS if it is not entirely starting from yourself; you must be acting because that’s what you believe and what you are. (That is precisely where Marxism and socialism err, by theorizing that individuality is not important and conformity must be forced.) This internalization of ideals of solidarity is called virtue. If the larger organs of power seek to IMPOSE it, then it is NOT ‘solidarity’ at all! Solidarity must be learned on the knees of mothers, at truly free-standing schools, in the company of local friends and co-workers and in the pews of churches. It involves souls reared in such nurseries that go out “to give their lives to a cause greater than themselves”. (I think THIS is why Benjamin Franklin liked public religious expression and charities although he didn’t practice himself!) Can you see the perfect balance of the two extremes: subsidiarity AND solidarity? Precisely because you are so respectful of the smaller, organic groups, you are able to more perfectly promote the whole.
Perhaps you can see that both sides of the political spectrum can take some solace in this economic approach, as well they should. Truth avoids extremes; the via media is good. WELL, Paul Ryan is steeped in this approach and refers to it regularly. His budget plan doesn’t really change much fundamentally, but there is a bigger emphasis on ‘devolving choice’ to states, local groups and individuals; that general principle is a sound one quite consonant with what we’ve said above. The other side of the aisle has savaged him with the usual canards about killing old people and starving children, but, as you listen, just remember what I have explained is what he is really talking about. Perhaps we could elect people who would work together to find a balance that could actually work.
Crossposted from mlajoie
Please list your reference for the statement, “Scandinavia’s 80% taxation and 6 AM to 8 PM daycare led to unprecedented levels of 5-year old suicides….”
This is a stat remembered from my college days (B.A.) in the 70’s. The general phenomena starting in the 50’s is referred to here in a Princeton study: http://paa2005.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=50459 . The prevalence of child suicide in Scandinavia was even subjected to scientific sociological testing in regards to its causes; e.g.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9450.1966.tb01364.x/abstract . It was a factoid Eisenhower and later politicians often tried to use to influence policy . One study I found purports to demonstrate the problem of youthful psychiatric illness and suicide was societal not psychiatric: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-244X/6/51/ . I have an email into another expert to provide me with further info.
To see posts by mlajoie2 from years ago, go to here: http://mlajoie2.blogspot.com/
What an excellent historical slant on what we’re starting to already see under our disfunctional new reality under the dreams from Obama!
Seems that small group of men who got together (despite all sorts of differences) to found our nation had the foresight to see what the Catholic Church later enumerated.
Of course, when we elected a man who despises our Founders and even our country’s traditional values, it could be pulled into the dis-function we see.
But it is not too late.
I honestly had never looked at why various countries functioned or failed from this POV.
“Paul Ryan, a Catholic economics expert from Wisconsin…..”
Heck, maybe the expert could help out his Church with their economic troubles, all those pedo-lawsuits and shady real-estate holdings……. What exactly is a Catholic economics expert? Does he keep track of the communion wafers?
“Catholic economics expert” means what it says. He is a Catholic who is a trained economist, the point being he is an economist who is informed by Catholic social justice theory.
@mlajoie2: Is a Catholic Economics expert anything like a Constitutional scholar, or a Libertarian?
@Brian Miller:
Paul Ryan is a Catholic who is an expert on economics.
There, Brian, I dumbed it down so even you can understand it.
Is Ryan like the Union Leader pictured at the start of this article, standing with the enabler?
Is Ryan like the Union Leader shown standing next to the enabler at the start of this article?
Are all three sworn to defend our Constitution?
BM (how appropriate!) has been reduced to spamming threads.
That’s one step away from being banned.
@Nan G: Sorry about the double post, it was unintentional, but it did concern the article attached. I try to keep on topic, mention something to do with the original article, like this one about Ryan. I try to respond to exchanges. Not sure if that is spam or trolling (it’s not). I find the views here to be very insightful, and stimulating. But if you need to ban me inorder to not have your ideology disturbed, I can understand where you are coming from.
It seems like a Catholic economist, a Constitutional scholar, a Libertarian, a Union Leader, and the Pope might have some competeing issues. Especially when three of those are one man.
An economics expert? A bachelor’s degree with a major in economics and a couple of books by Ayn Rand hardly make anyone an economics expert.
Paul Ryan is a professional politician. He has never worked outside of politics, other than a handful of short term summer jobs. Calling him an economics expert is like claiming he’s a professional race car driver based on his one day behind the wheel of the Oscar Mayer Weinermobile.
Ryan has spend 13 years in the U.S. House of Representatives. During all of that time he has introduced only 2 bills that have passed. One of those was to rename a Wisconsin post office; the other was a bill to reduce the excise tax on arrow shafts. He voted for the Medicare Part D program, which both lacked any adequate funding mechanism and forbade the government from bargaining for the lower drug costs. That goofy, budget-busting combination would seem to run contrary to any claim of being an “economics expert.” It runs contrary to common sense.
Ryan’s Catholic background is probably most relevant in connection with his position on abortion rights. He doesn’t believe anyone should have any, under any circumstances. Period.
Democratic economic expert Erskine Bowles disagrees with you: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cut-ad-clinton-cos-ryan-guy-amazing_649942.html
Erskine Bowles isn’t an economist either. He’s a businessman. He’s certainly entitled to his own opinion.
He was in charge of Obama’s Committee on fixing this economic mess! My only intention here was not political argument, but to educate about the key concept behind “social justice” theory, because it’s sure front and center now. You don’t seem to think much of Catholics, but we have a right to try to explain ourselves, without rancor, to today’s world as much as Athanasius or Cyprien did to the Greco-Roman world that was persecuting them at that time.
Even Obama disagrees with Greg and any other who thinks Paul Ryan isn’t an economic policy expert.
Ryan was singled out by Obama as having a “serious” budget proposal during the 2009-10 health care debate. (Video of that, here.)
In 2011 Ryan was easily chosen as chairman of House budget committee.
Also in 2011 Ryan was chosen to deliver GOP response to Obama’s 2011 State of the Union address.
During that response Ryan argued the US was at a “tipping point” and that the country needs to “chart a new course.”
Between 1993 and 1995 Ryan was both an adviser and speechwriter at Empower America, a conservative think tank co-founded by Jack Kemp and William Bennett that would be merged into FreedomWorks, a lobbying group linked to the Tea Party movement.
Empower America championed conservative domestic policies.
Empower America was “devoted to ensuring that government actions foster growth, economic well-being, freedom, and individual responsibility. (mission statement)
Did the Cypriots have a Catholic running for VP also while they were beign persecuted like today’s faithful? Whatever happened to that Holy…oops…I mean the Roman Empire, anyway? What are the Libertarian theories on social justice?
The reference was not to ‘Cypriots’, but to St. Cyprien, who devoted himself to ‘apologetics’, or arguing for Christianity and the Church. His main message was that he thought they could offer a real positive change to the culture of the day, that it would not be so much a ‘culture of death’ as a ‘civilization of love’. By all means, what are the Libertarians’ views on social justice? A good question.
@mlajoie2:
I have nothing against any religion, provided its adherents don’t attempt to impose their own theological views on others by force of law.
Personally, I have considerable difficulty reconciling the republican preoccupation with personal wealth or Ayn Rand’s cult of the Superior Man with the social philosophy of Jesus.
St. Paul said, “Test all things and keep what is good.” Every Catholic I know rejects the atheism and anti-altruism of Ayn Rand – if they know about her at all! Her point about subsidiarity is something we Catholics can recognize, somewhat, in her thought, and accept or even praise. However, she has quite egregiously rejected the solidarity part – we can’t go along with that. St. Augustine borrowed a lot of the thought of Plato, but he was certainly no longer a ‘Platonist’ after his dramatic conversion. St. Thomas Aquinas borrowed heavily from Aristotle, Avicenna & Averroes, a ‘pagan’, a Muslim and a Jew; that does not mean he accepted things that were not consonant with the Apostolic Tradition and the Great Commandment of Love. You should read the famous book review by Whitaker Chambers on “Atlas Shrugged”; he ‘keeps what is good’ and then rips the rest to shreds!
@Nan G: “Ryan was singled out by Obama as having a “serious” budget proposal during the 2009-10 health care debate.”
Yep, and if Obama says it’s so, that’s good enough for you!
@Brian Miller:
I was addressing Greg who can be reasoned with, BM.
Actually, appeal to authority is another fallacy of logic.
So, I didn’t stop with the flattery from Obama.
I added plenty of facts from Paul Ryan’s biography.
@Brian Miller: You are trying to turn this into an, admittedly ironic, Argument From Authority. The point she’s making is, if Obama concedes the point himself – in fact, all those who know Ryan think he’s pretty sharp on these matters, why would you spend a lot of energy contesting that particular point?
I had heard that the poor quality of our present educational system leaves most students incapable of abstractualizing. (sp???)
Seems true.
“So, I didn’t stop with the flattery from Obama.
I added plenty of facts from Paul Ryan’s biography.”
Ryan himself says he is smart, Obama, a guy who is playing you all, says Ryan is smart….yep, good enough for this brain trust.
@mlajoie2: I do not see any statement of evidence in the studies that you’ve listed as demonstration of the thesis as suggested in my comment #1–that “Scandinavia’s 80% taxation and 6 AM to 8 PM daycare led to unprecedented levels of 5-year old suicides….” .
If I’ve missed the statement in the studies, please annotate in another comment.
greg, you just destroyed my irony meter.
@mlajoie2: There’s a difference between someone with a undergraduate degree in economics and political science, and an expert in economics.
@Nan G: It would be an interesting slant, if its veracity could be verified empirically. So far, though, such has not been the case.
@mlajoie2: There’s also a difference between someone who majored in economics, and an economist—differences make a difference.
@Liberal1 (objectivity): @mlajoie2: Yes, you are right about the particular stats. As I said, I have an email in to someone who might give exact numbers. I should not have trusted my memory after such a long time, but, yes, there was a rise in suicides among very young children, and yes, the tax rate – whatever it was – was dialed back after this. The link I gave does show they were trying to show scientifically if this phenomenon of young suicide was caused by societal factors as many believed.
@Liberal1 (objectivity): Granted.
@Liberal1 (objectivity): Sure.
@Nan G:
Citation please.
All these people you mention are politicians any way and don’t know any better.
mlajoie2
thank you for this very interesting fact, it is easy to understand if one read all the text,
but as you notice those two GREG and more of BRIAN MILLER, IDIOTIC ATTITUDE TO CHALLENGE YOUR PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, as oppose to ask intelligent questions without the smurf arrogance you surely have detected, the same was notice on all the last posts, where he BRIAN ATTACKED EVERY INTELLIGENT COMMENTS FROM ALMOST EACH ONE, SHOWING HIS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE BY BEING AN ASSHOLE LITERALLY. ATTACKING AND INSULTING THE TOLERANT CONSERVATIVES,
AND DISPLAY THE HATE FOR CONSERVATIVES WITH MANY COMMENT, THEREFOR, DISRUPTING THE POSTS, ALL OF THEM.
THIS I say to warn you of his arrogance and unreasonable way of communicate with other,
I did enjoy reading your previous POSTS, I found very different and a learning experience.
don’t let the trolls upset you. they are on the open and detected. by all the group
by
@mlajoie2: What, might I asks, is the rest—that is not-good—that Whitaker Chambers rips to shreds: Atheism?
@mlajoie2: I can’t wait.
@mlajoie2: Societal factors does not mean
Socialism, or 80% taxation, or extended day care—there are a lot of things which can be labeled ‘societal factors’. A scientific study will call these things out specifically.
@mlajoie2, #21:
That wouldn’t seem to be the case with Paul Ryan. Rachel Maddow ran this segment on her program yesterday evening. It includes a number of recent videotaped comments Ryan has made acknowledging the profound influence Ayn Rand has had on his thinking. As the segment demonstrates, Paul Ryan is most definitely a follower of Ayn Rand, and anything but a true fiscal conservative.
The public as yet seems to have no clue what the GOP’s real economic and social agenda is, or just how extreme some of the people they’re trying to put in control of the government actually are.
@Greg:
There’s no contradiction here.
You can like Rand’s understanding of capitalism yet not her atheism.
Ryan has read Atlas Shrugs and other NOVELS by Rand when he was young.
Atlas Shrugs is about capitalism, how government intervention can lead individuals to lose their personal incentive to strive for more success (and then they ”Go Galt.)
It has a part of a sentence he probably disagrees with. (…if devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking…. the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind.)
Most of us might disagree with more than one sentence in our favorite books!
Rand openly expresses her views on God more completely elsewhere. (Playboy interviews; her writing, Anthem; her writing, The Comprachicos, in The New Left; The Fountainhead)
Nan G.
yes for sure, how can anyone judge by a book your curiosity bring you to read,
and why not like some parts in that book, is in it what a book is written for?
that is to take what we agree with and probe what we don’t agree and find within our mind, why we like that an not the other, unless the book is written to depict your corrupt life which has been emphasize with
the use of drugs with a group of friends you have that fun with them, then the book is about a real person life of no morality, which lead him to be projected on the top highest position by having the right corrupt influence but by lacking the quality and skill to lead and serve the biggest COUNTRY AND THE MOST INFLUENCAL OF THE WORLD, AND ACHIEVING THE TASK OF DESTROYING ALL ON THE WAY
TO THE 4 YEAR TERM, WHICH IS ENDING VERY SOON WITH THE HELP OF THE GOOD PEOPLE WHO TOLERATE THOSE ALMOST 4 YEARS ENDING IN NOVEMBER BY THE GRACE OF ANYTHING WHICH IS GOOD IN THE PEOPLE OF THIS AMERICA GETTING TOGETHER AT LAST BY CROSSING THE DEEP RIDGES WHICH THAT LEADER AND CREW HAS DIGGED TO SEPARATE ALL OF THEM
INTO SMALLER GROUPS, SO TO MORE EASY GRASP POWER AND INFLUENCE OVER THEIR MIND,
@Nan G, #42:
These statements directly contradict what Paul Ryan has said throughout his political career, and directly contradict what he has said in the recent past. As Maddow points out, he can’t suddenly deny the truth of that; he has repeatedly made clear, unambiguous statements while looking into a video camera, and the record is there for anyyone to see.
Ayn Rand’s atheism doesn’t bother me much. What specifically bothers me is her Darwinian understanding of capitalism, the self-centered and selfish ethical system that evolved from that, her bizarre, nazi-like cult of The Superior Man, and her venomous condemnation of altruism. Ayn Rand’s ethical system and the social values advocated by Christ are totally incompatible. Her thinking and humanist values are incompatible.
What is compatible with Ayn Rand’s thinking is the Ryan budget proposal. It’s priorities reflect Randian thinking and values far more than Christian or humanist values. Here’s what the nonpartisan Center on Policy and Budget Priorities had this to say about it:
That’s a very strong statement.
So far as any pretense of being “fiscally conservative” goes, they have made this observation:
I agree that there’s a choice to be made this fall between two starkly different philosophies. Hopefully people will snap out of it and come to understand the true nature of the choice that’s being made. It’s not a choice between fiscal responsibility and fiscal responsibility. Truth be told, neither side is really coming to terms with that issue. What this choice is all about is the moral philosophy that will be our guide when we finally do.
GREG
YOUR MIND IS TWISTED AGAIN, AH YOU PREFER THE DESTRUCTIVE AGENDA OF OBAMA,
IF THE BUSYNESS HAVE LESS TAX TO PAY, THEY WILL HIRE MORE PEOPLE AS LONG AS YOUR SIDE GET OF THEIR BACK USING ALL THE AGENCIES PAID BY THE PEOPLE TO GET MORE MONEY UNDER A CORRUPT ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM WHICH THEY THINK WE DON’T SEE WHAT THEY ARE AIMING FOR, THAT IS REDISTRIBUTE MONEYS FROM THE WELL OF TO PRETEND TO HELP THE POORS,
PAUL RYAN HAS THE RIGHT INTENT AND THE RIGHT AGENDA, NOTHING CORRUPT
AND NOT TO GAIN FOR HIMSELF OR MITT ROMNEY, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT OUT TO RUIN ANYONE,
INCLUDING THE POORS WHO WOULD BE BETTER SERVED WITH THEM, AS OPPOSE TO OBAMA WHICH
IS MAKING MONEY ON THE POORS AND WANT THE MONEY FROM THE SMALL BUSYNESS,
PLUS MONEY FROM THE VERY RICH AND TO PROFIT,
THE RICHS CAN GIVE THEIR OWN MONEY TO WHO THEY CHOOSE, NOT GIVE TO OBAMA
UNDER THAT FALSE EXCUSE OF GIVING TO THE POORS WHICH HE CONSTANTLY ASK FOR.
IS IN HE RICH ENOUGH NOW, AFTER HAVING SWINDLE ALL THIS MONEY? NO HE WANT MORE
HE IS A SICKO SPENDING HABIT UN ABLE TO RESTRAINED, AND WANT YOUR MONEY TO SPEND HIMSELF, THERE IS MANY PEOPLE LIKE HIM, AND THEY ALWAYS SPEND THE MONEY BUT NOT THEIR OWN WHICH MAKE THEM VERY RICH AT THE END. IT’S A BRAIN DISORDER NOT ABLE TO HEAL. BUT HIS SICKNESS IS NOT THE RESPONSABILITY OF THE PEOPLE, THEY DON’T HAVE TO FEED HIM, THE PEOPLE NEED THEIR MONEY FOR THEIR OWN,
A liberal think tank & Rachel Maddow? Not persuasive to us.
Consider the message, not the source.
How can Paul Ryan have repeated something again and again, and now be saying the exact opposite, without people even wondering about the inconsistency?
How can Paul Ryan propose a budget that demonstrably falls short of adding up by $5 trillion, provide no clue about where that $5 trillion will come from, and be applauded as a “fiscal conservative?”
How can people not notice that Ryan’s proposal is little more than a formula for accelerating the upward transfer of wealth?
It must be some sort of FOX News-induced hypnosis, that simply blanks out all such inconvenient bits of reality, and overlays them with a message that Paul Ryan is Ronald Reagan reborn.
But what is the source of this particular “message” at this crucial time right after the announcement? Quoting politically motivated liberals as the source & justification for using the word “demonstrably”? don’t think so. There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. Informal logic dictates you should be able to trust the source; if someone has a very strong motivation for twisting things to look a certain way and a record of doing so, you can’t base much on it. Erskine Bowles is a Democrat with an impeccable reputation of honesty and being someone you could work with; this is so true that he was appointed, with Senator Simpson, to lead a bipartisan commission by Obama. (You HAVE to pick someone EVERYone can trust for that sort of thing!) He thought Ryan’s budget was “honest”, like Ryan himself! click here Now, you may try to claim he had some kind of axe to grind and that’s why he presented the budget as “honest” and I’m sure they are digging right now to find something, but that certainly hasn’t been the consensus to this point. I really am much more interested in the values of Catholic social theory and how much they are going to inform this process. I am leaving to go stay at the hospital for some tests, so I will not be available to respond to anyone for a while.
Peace & Love & JOY,
Mark Lajoie!
I’ve enjoyed the discussion. I hope all goes well with the tests.
mlajoie2
best to you