“Economic Law” versus Catholic Social Teaching

In "The Trouble With Catholic Social Teaching," a posting on LewRockwell.com today, my friend Tom Woods writes that he has completed a full-length book on what he calls the "unresolved tension between Catholic social teaching and economic law." I look forward to reading it. Tom and I, of course, have very different views on this matter, though we share an aversion to national economic policies that limit economic freedom.

I expect to have much more to say when I receive a review copy of Tom's book (and I'll probably offer a few more comments over the next few days on today's article), but, for today, let me note one thing, namely, Tom's use of such phrases as "economic law," "economic science," "the very nature of economics," "value-neutral, scientific discipline." This, it seems to me, goes right to the heart of the matter. Catholic social thought does not regard economics as a hard science, like mathematics; at best, it is a science in the sense that Latin and all European languages other than English can use the term—knowledge as the object of study. Thus, history can be a science without there being a science of history, in the sense of immutable laws that govern history. For Tom's book to make a serious contribution to any debate over Catholic social teaching, he must quit begging this question.

He stumbles (quite literally) across this in "The Trouble With Catholic Social Teaching" when he writes:

Pope Pius XI made a significant concession in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (1931), which marked the fortieth anniversary of the issuance of Leo XIII’s seminal Rerum Novarum. He acknowledged that limits must exist to what the moral theologian may legitimately say within the economic sphere, since "economics and moral science employs each its own principles in its own sphere." To be sure, the Pope then went on to deny that "the economic and moral orders are so distinct from and alien to each other that the former depends in no way on the latter." But once it has been conceded that economics is a bona fide science possessing an internal coherence of its own, problems immediately arise for those who would claim that Catholic social teaching definitively settles all major economic matters in an absolute and binding way.

First, note that Pius XI did not concede that "economics is a bona fide science" in the sense of mathematics, as Tom implies. Pius does not refer to "economic science," and his very use of the term moral science, which (Tom would, I trust, agree) does not have laws analogous to the laws of mathematics, makes it clear that he is writing—in Latin, of course—within the context of the broader understanding of scientia.

Second, Tom's almost parenthetical aside—"To be sure . . . "—is the primary point for Christians (not just Catholics). In a world created by God and redeemed by Christ, every action man takes is, for good or ill, a moral action—and that's nowhere more true than in actions that involve our relationship to others, as employers and employees, buyers and sellers, creditors and debtors, and, yes, beggars and almsgivers. I trust that Tom agrees that Catholics believe that it is the Church's role to provide guidance on moral questions. The question, then, comes down to the nature of economic science. If Tom's assumption is incorrect, and "economic laws" aren't the equivalent of mathematical laws, then the Church is well within Her authority to instruct Christians to act outside of such "laws"—or, indeed, even to act against them. What She cannot do is ask men to ask to act against natural law or against charity, both of which, of course, have something to say about the limits of the economic order.

Finally, a word of advice to a friend: This will be a very controversial book, Tom. You are making an argument concerning the limits of the Church's teaching authority. If you want it to be taken seriously by serious Catholics (and to ward off certain arguments that will likely ensue otherwise), you should attempt to obtain a nihil obstat for the text. If you cannot obtain a nihil obstat, you should modify your argument until you can. And if you find that you would have to do too much violence to your argument to obtain it, then you should reconsider your argument before you proceed with publication.