Is Thomas Woods a Dissenter? A Further Reply, Pt. 2
Dr. Woods’ article, “Catholic Social Teaching and the Market Economy Revisited: A Reply to Thomas Storck,” is, I must admit, superficially attractive. It appears to crush opposition under a weight of impressive learning. But, I would suggest, when his assertions are examined, Woods’ citation of authorities, like his argument in general, fails. I begin with one example because it gives me the opportunity to note another feature of Dr. Woods' piece, his frequent misrepresentation of what I actually say. Let’s look at what Woods says about the German historical school, a school of 19-century German economists who stood in opposition to many of the teachings of economists in the tradition of Adam Smith. Dr. Woods writes, “And if the scarcely mourned German Historical School is declared the winner, as Storck seems to wish, are adherents of all other schools thenceforth outside Catholic communion?" But did I say that the German Historical School is the “winner"? Hardly. In fact I said that “something like the original American Institutionalism, or the German historical school, or economic sociology, seems to be required if we are to examine the actual workings of economies in the manner that the popes have done.” And later I add, “Although I am not arguing that any of these alternative economic schools is by itself necessarily sufficient to ground a complete economic analysis, taken together they suggest an approach which Catholic social philosophers and economists should find fruitful, and which gives a wide field for further development.” But Woods seizes upon my supposed selection of the German historical school and this allows him to speak with an authoritative voice on the differences among adherents of the German historical school, their relations to Austrian economics and so forth. But none of this, I would suggest, is very relevant, since I was painting with broad strokes here, and merely pointing to those schools of economists whose methodology differs from that of the mainstream neoclassical school and Woods’ own Austrian school.
Now my paper was mainly an attack on mainstream economics, and I quote the recently deceased Paul Samuelson more than once as the expositor of its views. I mention the Austrian school only two or three times and simply as sharing in the generally deductive approach to economic analysis that neoclassical economists take. My approach is that of Anton Lowenberg, who, writing in the Cato Journal, said “I use the term 'neoclassical’ here very broadly; it includes all theories that are based on the economizing behavior of individual value-maximizing agents.” By a deductive approach I mean an approach which sets up a model of how an economy works based on a limited examination of actual economic behavior or a cursory examination of human nature and which excludes certain important factors, such as culture or the relative power of different groups in the economy, and thereafter simply deduces how economies are supposed to function based on that model. Admittedly the Austrian school eschews the attempts of the neoclassical school to use mathematics to make itself seem more scientific, but most observers consider the Austrians to fall under the head of what I call deductive economics and to be closest to the mainstream of all the alternative schools. Austrians, however, do not seem to like this characterization, and this may explain the tone of Woods’ piece, still more of his strange rant against me, which he delivered last spring at the Mises Institute.
Woods begins his reply by saying that Catholic “supporters and opponents of the market economy often talk past each other. The difficulty they encounter derives from a confusion over the very nature of economics. The phenomena that economics touches upon, which include money, banking, exchange, prices, wages, monopoly theory, and many other topics, are themselves replete with moral significance. But the positive, scientific statements about these phenomena that constitute the discipline of economics are necessarily value neutral.” This of course is true, but largely beside the point. For the chief point of my paper was that in the course of their pronouncements about economic morality, the popes necessarily make certain observations about economic phenomena, especially about the behavior of economic actors. And it would be hard to imagine them doing otherwise. Thus one of the points of contention is exactly over these “scientific statements.” Deductive economics claims that economies behave in certain ways and as a result they make certain statements which they suppose to be scientific, while other schools deny this. The main point of my paper was that the economic analysis which the popes employ in the course of their moral teaching seems to agree more with the latter schools than with the mainstream and Austrian approaches. So when Woods writes, “Describing the workings of fractional-reserve banking is a positive task, not a normative one. Discussing whether such a system is desirable is a normative task, and qualitatively separate from explaining the mechanics of that system,” this is true, but only if we are in agreement about how to describe a particular economic phenomenon. There would probably be little disagreement about his example here, about how fractional-reserve banking operates. But this is hardly true of all economic behavior or phenomena.
Woods then brings up another irrelevant example. He writes: “Frank Knight conceived of capital as a homogeneous unit whose individual processes occurred synchronously. . . . F.A. Hayek . . . conceives of capital as a series of time-consuming stages of higher and lower order. . . . Nothing in the Deposit of Faith even comes close to deciding this and countless other important economic questions one way or the other.” Fine, but again entirely irrelevant. Certainly there are points of economics on which no pope would dream of pronouncing—but does it follow that popes can never pronounce on any point of economic phenomena?
After this, Woods makes a statement that goes to the heart of the fundamental question of what competence does the Church have in the area of economics. “It is of course not 'dissent' merely to observe that the cause-and-effect relationships that constitute the theoretical edifice of economics are not a matter of faith and morals. They simply do not fall within the range of subjects on which a Catholic prelate is endowed with special insight or authority. Catholic laity cannot head up petition drives against them. They are facts of life. Facts cannot be protested, defied, or lectured to; they can only be learned and acted upon.” Again Woods is both irrelevant and begs the question. By definition the popes cannot pronounce outside the area of their competence, nor can they assert something contrary to fact. I do not dispute that. But what are the limits of their competence, and who gets to decide? Thomas Woods? Orthodox Catholics have protested about attempts to erect a so-called parallel magisterium, e.g., a magisterium of theologians to sit in judgment on the magisterium of pope and bishops. But here we have a magisterium of economists, competent it seems to pronounce in an area of moral teaching that the popes claim as a legitimate arena for their own teaching. Woods does not like the fact that I have found what he calls “an obscure paper of mine” in which he wrote: “The primary difficulty with much of what has fallen under the heading of Catholic social teaching since Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum (1891) is that it assumes without argument that the force of human will suffices to resolve economic questions, and that reason and the conclusions of economic law can be safely neglected, even scorned.” But is this not the entire argument in a nutshell? Who gets to decide about the apparently ironclad “conclusions of economic law”? Or for that matter, of the conclusions of psychology or of philosophy?
Entries(RSS)
It might be helpful if Mr. Storck provided: 1. A list of authoritative statements from the magisterium on economics (not just mere opinions of the popes on the matters of the day). 2. Woods' departure from them.
It also might be helpful to point out the difference, if any, between a "dissident" and a "heretic."
And for better or worse, recent popes have been very hesitant to proclaim someone a heretic. Even Kueng and Curran, although barred from teaching at Catholic schools, never were declared heretics, excommunicated, and defrocked. The late Schillebeeckx was investigated, but never even condemned, and continued to teach at the Catholic University of Nijmegen. Yet their errors were, and are, clear.
I remember stumbling upon the nub of this very argument with my economics lecturer over thirty years ago. I had been trying to express some feeling I had, that there just had to be "more to it" than his formulae and laws, which he had been insisting made up the entire content of the discipline, when I blurted out something like "But what about the moral aspect? Isn't there a moral question involved when you talk about making a living, wealth, etc.?" He and his female teaching assistant smiled at the naive undergrad and just let the question hang there. But it seems that my instinct did not err. Ironclad conclusions of economic law indeed.
@ Mr. Seiler (#1)
There probably isn't much difference between being a dissident and heretic, although the latter, from what I understand, involves a formal declaration by church authorities.
Heresy is the denial of a teaching of the Catholic faith. So, in fact, is dissent on a settled matter, for the simple reason that the conscience must not only be a teacher but also a student, and therefore must conform itself to the teaching authority of the Church. If you dissent, you disagree or deny a teaching.
This does not mean, of course, that everyone who does not accept a teaching is a formal heretic.
Here is what the New Advent Encyclopedia says:
"The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness--free choice--is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one's own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of "freely willed".
"Pertinacity, that is, obstinate adhesion to a particular tenet is required to make heresy formal. For as long as one remains willing to submit to the Church's decision he remains a Catholic Christian at heart and his wrong beliefs are only transient errors and fleeting opinions."
By this definition, Curran and Kung could easily be declared formal heretics.
Note that heresy is not the same as apostasy, although I suspect that the former often leads to the latter, just as indifferentism frequently leads to atheism.
Perhaps Scott Richert might explain it better.
Gilbert writes: “But what about the moral aspect? Isn’t there a moral question involved when you talk about making a living, wealth, etc. He and his female teaching assistant smiled at the naive undergrad and just let the question hang there."
You are in good company and a brave soul Mr.Jacobi. I remember asking an excellent poetry teacher what Emily Dickinson meant when she described "mirth as the mail of anguish." Mail in this case as the medieval armor made of metal links. He was an honest man and said he would need to think about that question and how to answer it after smoking some cigars with his friends that evening at their monthly poker game. Thank God for laughter,friends and good questions such as "what's love got to do with it."
So much of this economic debate involves the preference or choice between independence vs.standard of living. The Amish farmer for instance can say to the local Wal-Mart, "I won't buy your milk because compared to the milk I produce, yours tastes like slop." he can say this because he is not dependent on them for milk. Likewise,he can depend upon his neighbors to help build a hen house as they can depend upon him to help repair storm damage to their own . But when his wife needs emergency medical care, he must declare bankruptcy after the service is provided unless the local hospital or doctor allows them another avenue. Most of humanity does not own two or three cars and pay monthly insurance on them, or spend their children's inheritance on diesel fuel and travel trailers, or sporting events,dish television, fast food joints, one or two trips a year traveling abroad, etc.. Yet, these things while increasing and/or decreasing ones "standard of living" also effect their independence. The Church has always defended the ability of families to obtain the necessities of life without foregoing their unique independence or working against the very nature of men and women or the sacrament of matrimony. A couple of books I have enjoyed and recommend for the younger readers on this question are Hilaire Belloc's, Economics for Helen, The Restoration of Property and The Servile State; Wendell Berry's essay, Solving for Pattern, The Southern Agrarian's Collection, I'll Take My Stand, and Brent Bozell Sr. in The Best of Triumph.It is also helpful in these discussions to remember when the Church speaks in these social encyclicals, she is speaking to South America as well as North America, the West as well as the East, and it only seems like she is speaking directly to us because of our vanity and the truth in the principles (not plans) she is elucidating.
Robert,
Thanks much for the kind words. Full disclosure: there was a bit of self-serving in my complaint to the lecturer, in that it was the metrics that were giving me the most trouble in his course. Nonetheless, I've never forgotten the feeling of cold alienation emanating from that class.
BTW, I did get around to reading The Servile State, through your link. Thanks again. Now THAT is the way of studying economics I'd groped for back then.
Bravo, Mr. Storck.
I read somewhere that Mr. Woods is a convert. If so, he brings along with him some of that old anti-papist baggage of the Reformed churches. He really has a chip on his shoulder about the Pope.
You put your finger on it. In a dispute between two parties, who gets to draw the line of demarcation? Voegelin mentioned this in describing the modern state's determination to encroach on human lives, and to encroach on the Church. The answer is, the Holy Father gets to draw the line of demarcation, including what he will within his purview. He gets to do this in part by virtue of the demonstrated wisdom and survivability of the Faith.
Mr. Kirkwood, @3. Thank you for the definition for "heresy." The problem I'm getting at is that "dissident" may be a secular term that is applied to church matters, perhaps incorrectly. In Wikipedia -- often a dubious source, but for that reason in this case useful for illustrating common usage -- we find that at the First Vatican Council, papal infallibility was defined, "bishops Aloisio Riccio and Edward Fitzgerald dissenting." The New Advent/ Catholic Encyclopedia, which you cited, writes more technically, they "voted non placet." I found that Fitzgerald, bishop of Little Rock, then supported the definition, and presumably Riccio did as well.
My point is that people, perhaps with good reason, are using "dissident" because they want to shy away from using the word "heretic," which ratchets up the rhetoric a couple of notches.
Perhaps this is all part of what Newman called "the development of doctrine," in which the Church -- unlike any other body in world history -- is able to winnow out the truth with infallible precision. A good example is the Church's recent teachings on in vitro fertilization, stem cell research, and other bioethical matters, which are spot on.
Perhaps economics does not lend itself to such precision; or perhaps precision awaits further clarifications. In any case, I think that debate on many of these matters still should be encouraged. A good idea would be for some American bishops to sponsor debates on economics, inviting the conflicting parties to a civil discussion, with the debates televised on the Internet and papers submitted for everyone to read and comment upon at a Web site.
@ Mr. Seiler (#9)
Right. How about this: All heretics are dissidents, but not all dissidents are heretics.
You are probably right; dissident is a secular term, and the media uses it to portray dissidents as modern Galileos fighting against an archaic church. Even today, using the term heretic would be a negative description, I would think. But perhaps I am wrong.
Dissent, after all, can merely mean expressing an opinion on a belief that, while widely believed, is unsettled. Dissent can be legitimate.
Heresy, on the hand, goes way behond dissent. Heresy involves believing or promulgating a false teaching on a settled matter to mislead people.
At least that is how I understand it.
I have just reread Dr. Woods answer to Thomas Storck. There is nothing in Dr. Wood's answer that in any way disputes basic Catholic teaching. The people of the world are far better fed, clothed, and housed because of free market capitalism. How can that be a bad thing? I love Hillaire Belloc and believe in subsidiarity. That doen't mean I want to back to an age of guilds and serfs who produced everything they used. Belloc and some of you have this fanciful idea about guilds and order of society. He and you forgot that the guildmaster ruled many apprentices for years and restricted trade which cost the general community advancement. I used to employ hundreds of people at good wages. It is the duty of the church to encourage us that we treat those under us fairly. The means on how we do that are up to us.
Is there any way that we can get Tom Woods over here to recant, qualify, explain or defend his position? I once met him about ten years ago when he was giving a economics talk at some small little Latin Mass Chapel out here in the country, and thought his manners were sufficient, his demeanor pleasant, and his economic understanding very modern and "post Christian." But heck, imagine trying to study at Harvard while reading papal encyclicals, the church Latin of St Thomas Aquinas or even,Sertillanges or Garigou-Lagrange? There was no occassion after the talk to offer dissent or even polite disagreement so we just exchanged a cordial introduction and went on about our way.
John,
Don't start this condescending stuff: "Belloc and some of you have this fanciful idea about guilds and order of society." Please just state what you mean and let us confront the error, but I grow weary of these worn cliches about the "Romantic" and "cute" Mr. Belloc who drank too much, footnoted too little and all the other tired lies repeated from the last generation of fearful, lunatics.
Look I haven't got time to get into it but will say that I just went to a local chain store that is run by several branches of an Italian family. They have slightly higher prices but good quality. They have to compete on a level where people will use their store. The business I was in was all competition. I know and love the idea of a pastoral existence like the Amish have. Nobody is being stopped from following such a dream. That doesn't mean that my practical business experiece doesn't recognize the benefit of competition and free markets. Hillaire Belloc and GK Chesterton were fine writers but didn't have a lot knowledge about how to run a modern business. There are just a huge number of government regulations and other legal rules that even in their day day a business did not have to face. I hope to get back to this subject later.
#11
Mr. Marino,
I think the "Can one be a good Catholic and also a libertarian?" debate is only tangential to the fundamental point of contention between Storck v. Woods.
I think the fundamental point of contention is the question of where lies the limit of the Pope's authority.
That is, the issue is not to what extent free markets and laissez-faire actually fit into the Catholic vision, but whether a Catholic intellectual can say, "Ignore these papal encyclicals, because on this matter the popes who promulgated the encyclicals, though good-intentioned, didn't know what they were talking about."
Somebody can correct me if I've misunderstood, oversimplified, etc.
John,
Thanks for the response and I quite agree with you about "Hillaire Belloc and GK Chesterton were fine writers but didn’t have a lot knowledge about how to run a modern business." A.N. Wilson was astute when he said a few years ago, "that the only folks living outside London today who could live the life that Belloc attempted to defend was international bankers and stockbrokers." Again, the issue is not Amish country or Chicago Lakeside Drive. The issue is independence and/or standard of livingand how much of one is sacrificed in achieving the other.
Dear Mr. Sayler:
From what I remember of what Dr. Woods wrote about the most recent encyclical. He didn't question the Popes authority on faith and morals. He questioned his competence in economics. After reading it myself I agree with him. He didn't question the Popes right to preach on charity and duty to share with the poor. I love this Pope as a theologian and administrator of the Church. He just hasn't had the time in his life to study economic theory. I just think he had bad economic advisors helping with it. I think the Church has always allowed wide discussion on how to better the lot of mankind and Dr. Woods is following in that grand tradition.
Mr. Marino
" It is the duty of the church to encourage us that we treat those under us fairly. "
You say fairly, not charitably -- for most "fair" is interchangeable with "just." Is it not within the competence of civil government to determine what is just and what is not?
Mr. Chan:
Fair and charitable would be a more Christian approach. I think you need to do both. Fair means you give a man what he is worth. Charitable means you carry someone who is sick for awhile or give someone who has been a good an employee a break if he makes a mistake. I think a Christian doesn't need the government to figure out the right thing to do.
Mr. Marino:
A Christian may be able to rely on the Church for guidance, but what of a non-Christian?
"Fair means you give a man what he is worth."
I don't know if this formulation represents the exchange of goods in the marketplace, but Austrians are separated from Catholics on whether value/worth/price should be left up to the "market" to determine, or whether the government has a role to play in making this determination.
Mr. Marino (#17 above) wrote, "I think the Church has always allowed wide discussion on how to better the lot of mankind and Dr. Woods is following in that grand tradition." If Dr. Woods denies, as he does, the validity of certain papal teachings, how is that denial within the limits of the "wide discussion" which you say is allowed to Catholics? Please read the papal encyclicals, and see if you can find any place where one is allowed to object to the teaching on the just wage or many other points. And even more basically, please find the encyclical passages which allow a Catholic to deny to the popes their right to teach in this area.
As to the question of dissenter vs. heretic, it's obviously not in my competence, or that of any layman, to proclaim Woods a heretic. But he denies what numerous popes have considered legitimate for them to teach about. In the past several decades we have spoken of dissent and dissenters. Those terms don't have official definitions, as far as I know, but their meaning should be obvious and I suspect Mr. Seiler would have no difficulty with the term if we were speaking of someone denying the right of the popes to teach on contraception, say. Most people, including myself, use the term in an ordinary and usually understood manner, and I fail to see why that would be a difficulty for anyone.
@ Mr. Salyer (# 11)
“Can one be a good Catholic and also a libertarian?”
To be a good libertarian, you have to be a bad Catholic. To be a good Catholic, you have to be a bad libertarian.
The answer to the question: No.
Mr. Storck. I think the enclyclicals are meant for serious thought,discussion and guidence. Not every word or theory is written in stone with no chance of argument. Different Popes have different views on matters of their age. These economic arguments are not ex cathedra pronouncements of the Pope. Dr. Woods isn't attacking the Popes right to call for just wages and fair and honest treatment of all people. He is just giving discussion to an Encilyical which was poorly thought out and written. There are plenty of people at this webbsite who disagree with the latest Popes statements on the UN, the enviroment, foreign aid, immigration, and other matters. These disagreements on policy do not make them bad Catholics. This isn't questioning the basic doctrine of the Church. The Church in it's long history has always allowed discussion of important matters like this. Dr. Woods is just keeping with this tradition. The Pope is not dictator, but a leader trying to do his best for God.
Mr. Chan: Austrians think the market should determine prices and wages. As a former business man I agree with it. Without market rationalizing prices and wages how are they supposed to be determined, by government dictat? The question if you can be a Catholic and Libertarian is specious. A Libertrian Catholic would have to be honest in his dealings with customers and pay his employees wages that are fair. Like all moral quetions there is some room for disagreement. My idea what is fair may be different from my employee. In a free society he has the to right to quit and go elsewhere. In this country he can organize a union. In my experiece unions get in the way of what could be a more harmonious relationship between employee and employer. Both sides think of the other as the enemy. Both sides want to take advantage of the other. If a Catholic treats his employees fairly there should be no need for a union.
Mr. Marino,
Yes, you have a point in that the material needs of many people today are better met than in pre-capitalist times. That does not address, however, the millions who were thrown into poverty or wretched proletarian subsistence by industrialization and the rise of capital, to say nothing of the spiritual and emotional damage done when men lost their place on the land or in the guild. I can speak personally about how it feels to have had to let go of my grandfather's land. To say that "nobody is being stopped from following such a dream", whether it's to live the pastoral existence of the Amish, or, in my case, to live as a small wood-products producer off our ancestral land, is to ignore the very market forces you are obviously so familiar with. I am fanatically anti-communist/socialist - on my way to my grave I'll still be looking for Reds under my deathbed - but even I admit there's something amoral and wrong about capitalism. (Yes, I know we don't have much pure capitalism these days, but you get my drift.)
Furthermore, my experience as an apprentice mechanic (the trade I worked in until I decided to go back to school) leads me to think that I would have fared better under the old guilds. Being ruled and provided for by an experienced smith, joiner, wheelwright, etc., for a few years while craftsmanship and wisdom, or at least some semblance of judgement in the affairs of the world, has a chance to develop, seems to me much better, on the whole, for young men than being shoved out the door of a trade school after six months with a "diploma" and left to shift for oneself.
If a lucky few find employment in an oasis of decent wages and humane treatment such as your firm was, innumerable others are treated to the tender mercies of bosses who want only speed and slavish adherence to the most cost-efficient (for them) methods of work, methods which sneer at craftsmanship as nothing more than a roadblock to maximizing profits.
To respond to Dr. Woods' complaint that .... "Catholic social teaching since Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum (1891) .... assumes without argument that the force of human will suffices to resolve economic questions, ...." I would ask, to the extent our will fails us in this regard, is this not an indication of how far we have fallen away from attempting to conform that will to the will of Our Lord? If we abandon our will to "market forces" operating under "economic law", are we not preparing to be dominated by the will of the Devil?
I have found this discussion quite interesting. Mr. Storck's theological underpinnings are solidly orthodox, and his discussion of the magisterium on this question, equally so. The Church, as the Body of Christ, has the full competence to teach through the Chair of St. Peter on a variety of matters that touch on man's salvation, both directly and indirectly. That authority is not just in the form of solemn ex cathedra pronouncements or on clearly distinguishable and infallible matters of faith and morals, but more generally and normatively via encyclicals of the Sovereign Pontiffs on a variety of subjects when certain conditions of infallibility are met.
As Vatican I teachers authoritatively, when pontiffs direct their teaching to all the faithful, on a matter of faith and morals, consistently over time, with accompanying language that binds in conscience, the teaching would qualify as "infallible." Father Choupin's excellent standard study, VALEURS DES DECISIONS DOCTRINALES DE SAINT-SIEGE (1907), endorsed strongly by St. Pius X, includes examples such as the Church's condemnation of religious indifferentism (cf. Bl. Pius IX, "Quanta cura"), the insistence on state confessionality (cf. Leo XII and many other popes), and the Assumption of the BVM as examples (of course, the Assumption was proclaimed ex cathedra by Pius XII).
Understood here, let it be said, "faith and morals" must not be considered narrowly, but would include subjects that also indirectly affect the faith and morals of a people. Basic economic principles, the popes have consistently taught, are, in many cases, equally moral principles; and in fact, moral principles cannot be divorced from economics. The language of Leo XIII, Pius XI, St. Pius X, Pius XII, et al, is very clear. While the popes do NOT lay down a specifc economic system--do not lay out all the specific details of a system, they do insist that certain elements must be included in ANY system that is legitimate. Thus, the principles of subsidiarity and the just wage are eminently MORAL principles that are also fundamental in any correct understanding of economics.
Additionally, economics for the popes and the Church is not and cannot be an "autonomous science," as if nothing else but the profit motive or whatever, dictated its operation.
Rather than reading von Mises or Hayek, modern day "conservatives" would do well to read Professor Heinrich Pesch, S.J (his momental LEHRBUCH...., which I think is now translated), Wilhelm Roepke, Amintore Fanfani, and several of the volumes reprinted by IHS Press on economic matters and true human liberty.
Thank you, Mr. Storck.
-Dr. Boyd D. Cathey
Mr. Jacobi:
With all due respect; I don't believe the old guild system was very fair or just in comparison to todays methods of training trademen. There were often long years of meager wages and benefits for the apprentices. He was a virtual slave to the Master tradesman. It still depended on the indivigual master to be a Christian on how he treated his underlings. Many masters didn't want the competition of the graduated apprentices and held them back as long as possible.
Today the vast majority of constuction tradesmen are taught on the job by nonunion bosses. I was involved with union apprentice programs for years. Many unions have a historical aversion to hiring people of the wrong racial or ethnic backgroud. They also don't want too many apprentices, because of competition to their existing journeymen. I trained a lot of union apprentices over the years and also hired a lot of tradesmen who learned their jobs, on the job, in non union situations. There wasn't much difference, in my opinion. It just doesn't take that long to train people for these jobs like they claim in normal apprentice programs.
For example, a friend of mine's son is in a plumbers apprentice program. He was a probably a good plumber after 1 year but his boss has him chained to a 5 year program. Therefore he works for years at lower wages. Is that just? I will quote an old mason contractor friend of mine on training bricklayers, "two days to learn how to lay concrete block, and 2 weeks to learn how to lay brick." The European system of long years of apprenticeship and master craftmen just isn't fair or just in my opinion. My grandfather's both were trained in Europe under this system to learn jobs, that we teach here in a much shorter time.
Greatpost Gilbert Jacobi !!!! Not only are you thinking like a man but you are behaving like one as well. One of my old professors once gave a beautiful talk about St. Benedict to a group of graduate students and aspiring scholars only to be corrected and harrassed at the very end by conjecture and possible innovative interpretations of the saint's early life that were totally contrary to the traditional understanding of his life as given to us through the ages. I believe the man was suggesting to my old professor that the reference to St. Benedict "having been supplied bread by an old crow" was really a reference to some Italian banker who was bankrolling the whole effort --- and "nothing more." My professor responded by saying, " Well to hell with all of this, if that is what you really think!!!" As I mentioned the other day, Keep up the good work.
@ Mr. Marino (#26)
Mr. Marino writes of how little training it take to learn plumbing or lay bricks. I doubt he is correct.
Yes, it may take only two weeks to learn brick laying; but how long will it take to become a master at it?
I've been writing for more than 25 years. When I first began writing editorials at The Washington Times, it didn't take long to get the general hang of it. But I was much better at it four years later than I was after four months.
An old editor friend of mine and I were once talking about column writing. Once, when a friend asked him how long it took him to write what the friend thought was a particularly good column, the columnist replied thusly:
"25 Years."
I submit, Mr. Marino, that a bricklayer would say the same thing.
Having been a mason tender myself, I can say your friend is either exaggerating or you misunderstood him. Bricklaying involves more than laying bricks. You must read plans and blueprints, know how to mix mud, what kind of mud to mix, when to lay the bricks, etc., etc. You must know tricks of the trade that only years of experience can teach you.
If you really believe what you're saying, I recommend the following:
Let a 19-year-old bricklayer with two weeks experience build your next house with no supervsion.
Better yet, let a cardiovascular surgery intern with two weeks experience perform your bypass surgery, again, with no supervision.
After all, how long can it take to learn how to crack a chest and reroute coronary arteries?
Mr. Marino,
I would go even further and say that the very reason we opened the Southern border was that a true republican could teach a man who does not even speak their language, in three weeks or less, how to lay brick or do finish carpentry work that would be satisfactory for most Americans --- and a heck of a lot cheaper!!! The Reign of Quantity is an excellent read if one can still find a copy.
Robert:
Most bricklayers trained on the job come from the ranks of mason tenders. It is a job I did for quite awhile myself. They aren't people right off the street. The same can be said of other job taught trademen. They usually come from the laborers that handle material on the job. I guess I could have been clearer on that. It doesn't take long to learn how to read prints especially if you study it awhile. Of course experience makes a man a better mechanic, but you learn as you work on the job with older mechanics.
In regards to Mexicans who learn on the job. I had one who learned his trade long before he came to work for me. He had a sixth grade education in Mexico, but could read prints and lay out jobs. He was of the best men I ever had and was with me 15 years. I also broke in his 2 sons as tradesmen. The Mexicans I have seen around constuction are usually hard workers and many are family men. I can't see what denigrating them accomplishes.
50 million Americans were aborted in the last 40 years and have been replaced by 50 million immigrants. Until recently they were vitally need in the economy. There wern't a lot of Americans who wanted to do the backbreaking work that some of these people did. In this country everyone wants to be a college graduate sitting on his behind in a fat executive job. There has to be someone to do the grunt work.
Mr. Martino:
"Austrians think the market should determine prices and wages. As a former business man I agree with it. Without market rationalizing prices and wages how are they supposed to be determined, by government dictat?"
Ultimate authority for the care of the common good rests with the government, and the question of wages and prices is not of interest only to the parties involved in a transaction, since they affect the common good. To put it in another way, economic transactions are ultimately for the sake of the good life of the community, and not vice versa.
Mr. Storck, will you be dealing with the question of property rights in a subsequent post?
John,
I don't think I denigrated Mexican immigrants, rather attempted to illustrate the difference between a craftsman and a worker,or a citizen and an employee or laborer.Your point about "50 million Americans were aborted in the last 40 years and have been replaced by 50 million immigrants," is respected although the numbers are much greater. I think the worst aspect of abortion is it prevents the living from the opportunity to learn the redeeming qualities in sacrificing ones own desires for the love of another by substituting death and violent selfishness in its place --- which is at least one reason there is no longer a desire for honest or humble work among our own citizens. I appreciate your determination in this cvirtual conversation and certainly have benefited from your remarks in understanding my own position.
Mr. Marino,
Yes, there was a slower pace of wage growth under the guilds; but my point was that material gains are not the only nor necessarily the most important part of one's livelihood. During those long years of low pay and being at the beck and call of the master craftsman, the apprentice was also being given room and board, and had to be in by a certain hour; so the youngster was largely protected from the ups and downs of the economy and from the temptations that beset a youth with some money in his pocket cut loose from adult supervision. No doubt some of those old journeymen were harsh, but do you think that was typical, or the exception? And sure, being under such close control chafes when one is sixteen or twenty, but I wonder how many former apprentices held a grudge when they looked back, as opposed to being grateful for having been given a solid footing to make their way in the world, and an assured place in it? I'd be interested in hearing what your grandfathers had to say about their training, but even in their time, the guilds were long gone.
On a lighter note: when I read your line "It doesn't take long to learn how to read prints especially if you study it awhile", I immediately thought of Casey Stengel's line, that went something like "Baseball's a simple game. But then you have your finer points."
Mr. Marino's comment on regulation is tedious.
Nobody starts a business with a gun at their head. If you don't like being regulated, find something else to do. Regulation is to business what accountability is to people - if you won't behave yourself, you will have standards of behaviour imposed upon you. The conservative fetish for deregulation has interesting consequences - the law and order conservative demands that flesh and blood human beings lose their liberty for years, often for the pettiest crimes, while also endorsing the idea that corporations, notional entities that can't be said to exist in any corporeal sense but only through the operation of quite absurd legal fictions, should be free to what they want, to whom they want, however they want, and wherever and whenever they want. This preference for the non-existent in favour of the man in front of you is not a viewpoint, but a psychosis.
At #21, Dr. Storck writes:
"Please read the papal encyclicals, and see if you can find any place where one is allowed to object to the teaching on the just wage or many other points. And even more basically, please find the encyclical passages which allow a Catholic to deny to the popes their right to teach in this area."
As far as I'm aware, no Catholic writer in the English language - none at all - objected to Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno before Bill Buckley's emergence. If any reader of Chronicles can think of a single such writer, I'd be interested to know that writer's name. But when one reads F. J. Sheed's Communism and Man (published 1938, i.e. during the Spanish war), there is not the smallest suggestion there that the Church's economic teachings are any less binding on the Catholic faithful than are the Church's specifically sexual teachings. I really would like to know how Dr. Woods attempts to square this circle, because after trying to read him on the topic, I am none the wiser.
Mr. Stove:
I object to the economics in Quadrigisimo Anno. Pius The Eleventh was too into the economics of people Dr. Salazar and others like him. I think the basic point of these Papal letters is to emphasize the basic teaching of Christianity on economics. These can be put forth in a few statements.
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors property. Greed and Avarice are capitol sins. Share with the poor all that you have and follow me. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of needle as it is for for a rich man to gain paradise. The Popes give examples in these letters of how a Catholics could treat their fellow man, but they are not written in stone. I do love De Rerum Novarum which I think was the best letter any Pope has written on how employers and employees could follow Christian lives.
Mr. Jacobi:
Judging by my own experiece in life and from what I have read, I think a lot of masters abused their apprentices. These masters remembered their own harsh apprenticeships and dished it out as bad or worse. A true Christian would not do that of course but how many true Christians do we meet who have a lot of money and power? Don't forget these guilds set prices and restained trade. That could not have been good or just for the non guild memember. The guilds had their place but I don't see them returning anytime soon. They often did high quality work. Today with modern methods we do high quality work, pay good wages, and give much better working conditions to workers.
Materialism is the problem today. People want so much material wealth and physical pleasures that they are never satisfied. The high tax rates as well make people work harder to get all these worldly goods. The rat race is man made. You can live a simple life in this world and I highly recommend it. However many will see you as an oddball in this greedy modern existence.
Mr. Kelly: My comment on regulation in modern business is just a fact of life. When My grandfather started in business in 1908, he didn't to much have much to get started. He got the job. Did the job. He got paid in cash. He paid his men in cash. There were no income taxes and virtually no paperwork. In fifty years in business my father and grandfather had 2 file cabinets of records. When I closed the business down a few years back, I threw out 10 20 yard rubbish containers of old parperwork and still have some more stored.
No matter what business you start today you are overwhelmed with paperwork and regulation. Much or most of it is sensless and horrendously wasteful of money and time. If we want to have a simpler lifestyle somebody has to attack the problem of the leviathon that is the modern state.
Mr. Marino wrote:
"I object to the economics in Quadrigisimo Anno. Pius The Eleventh was too into the economics of people Dr. Salazar and others like him. I think the basic point of these Papal letters is to emphasize the basic teaching of Christianity on economics. These can be put forth in a few statements."
Mr. Marino, are you a Catholic? What is the difference between your saying, "I object to the economics in Quadrigisimo [sic] Anno" and someone else saying, "I object to the teaching on contraception in Humanae Vitae"?
You think the basic point of papal social teaching can be condensed into a few statements. Apparently the popes are of a different opinion. Please explain why anyone should pay any regard to your opinion on this matter versus that of the popes?
Mr. Chan, before I realized these comments on part 2 were still ongoing, I replied to your question about property rights briefly after part 3. See my original CSSR article where there is a short section on how culture conditions property rights according to Pius XI.
Mr. Storck: The difference is that sexual ethics are quite clearly in the province of faith and morals. Whether I agree with several different Popes uses of economics to make a point is another matter. Pius the 11th, a very holy man, had opinions on economics that were of his age and experience. So did Leo the 13th of his age, John Paul the 2nd in his writings, and now Benedict in his. There are conflicts between them and all these Popes had advisors with different opinions.
All these Papal letters are talking about how we as Christians can better follow the gospel. I can disagree with the methods they recommend but not the final goal. Should I be excommunicated because I don't like the bishops call for universal healthcare, If they can get the proper language on abortion? Should I be thrown out of polite Catholic society because I think the Popes recent writings on the UN and global warming are wrong and silly? The Pope's call in these Encylicals is for Christians to treat their fellow man with respect and charity. How we do that is a daily problem we all face.
Why would Dr. Woods complain that Catholic social teaching assumes that the force of human will suffices to resolve economic questions"?
Isn't the free market precisely about leaving everything up to the free will of people, to buy and sell, according to their own free FORCE OF HUMAN WILL, without ANY regulation (including the teaching of popes, it seems)? That is the libertartian creed : freedom of "choice," right? Please explain where I am misunderstanding. Thank you.
Mr Marino, several of those you have been debating are regular dissenters of Papal Encyclicals; Mr Chan is an apostate sedavacantist 'catholic' who believes all Papal authority ended in 1958. Mr Kirkwood writes for a Traditionalist Catholic newspaper - The Remnant - while loyal to the Holy Father has no problem critiquing Encyclicals. You'll notice not many of them are citing Encyclicals after Pius XII; critiquing any post Vatican II pope is ok, you see, but all statements before that were infallible.
Mr. Marino writes:
"I object to the economics in Quadrigisimo [sic] Anno. Pius The Eleventh was too into the economics of people ["like"? - there seems to be a word missing here - RJS] Dr. Salazar and others like him."
Oh dear. Let us leave aside the fact that encyclicals are perhaps best discussed by those who can spell their titles, rather than by those who cannot. Let us further leave aside such Valley Girl phraseology on Mr. Marino's part as "too into". I would merely point out that in 1931 Salazar had not even become Portugal's Prime Minister. (He was, admittedly, very powerful in the country's government before that date.)
So the correlation between Pius XI and Salazarism was, if anything, operating in the other direction: from the pope to the P.M., rather than the other way around. I am sure that my own ignorance on the topic is fairly spectacular, though having written the preface to the soon-to-be-republished book The Portugal of Salazar - by the late English journalist Michael Derrick - I might possibly be less ignorant than some.
I await, with interest, a clear yes-or-no reply to Dr. Storck's entirely civil and lucid question: "Mr. Marino, are you a Catholic?"
#44 Mr. Maxwell:
"Mr Marino, several of those you have been debating are regular dissenters of Papal Encyclicals; Mr Chan is an apostate sedavacantist ‘catholic’ who believes all Papal authority ended in 1958."
You're either mistaken or you have me confused with someone else, because I don't think you can support this claim.
Oh, even if the above allegation is true, it'd be beside the point, since the question is whether the authority of the Magisterium extends to economics or not.
I wholeheartedly apologize Mr Chan. I confused you with poster 'J Meng' who was a regular sedevacantist poster for some time. And yes, perhaps it would be beside the point; I only bring it up because some here do exactly what they are accusing Dr Woods and Mr. Marino of doing, albeit on different topics.
Mr. Ezzo,
Perhaps because he doesn't want the burden of the moral responsibility that teaching implies? Perhaps professional jealousy? If human will can alter the outcomes of economic activity in ways that economists can't predict, because we behaved less selfishly or less rationally than his model tells him we ought to, that would be embarrassing, wouldn't it?
As I understand it, Dr. Woods is complaining that Catholic social teaching wants to substitute human will for the "laws" of economics, or more precisely, to assert that human will can operate independently of these laws. I have not read Woods' whole paper, but it sounds to me that he wants, if not to absolve man from moral responsibility in the economic realm, at least to refute the idea that by enforcing certain moral principles we may have a substantial degree of control over the outcomes of economic activity. In other words, he seems to want to blame harmful outcomes mostly on immutable market forces, and he sees the popes as naively (inconveniently?) asserting the power of mere good intentions. And, as I rejoined in my post above, I think the fault lies not in the naivete of good intentions, but rather that we don't try hard enough to conform our intentions to Christ's.
I don't see where you have any disagreement with Woods, actually. What do you mean by the "it seems" in your line about the teaching of popes? I can't tell if you are ambivalent, or being ironic.
Do you see any place for moral principles in economic transactions?
Mr. Maxwell -- apology accepted. It seems to me that there is a difference between denying a teaching about the authority of the Magisterium and denying that there is someone occupying the papal office.
Thanks for your elucidation, Mr. Jacobi. Please don't misunderstand : I was being absolutely facetious by that "it seems" statement. It does not reflect my belief. I try to follow all papal teaching, even if it means changing a previously held viewpoint. So it looks as if I do not share Dr. Woods' position.
I just read parts of Mr. Storck's brilliant essay from five years ago (referenced in his introductory essay), and it cleared up a lot, particularly the quote of Lumen Gentium, wherein the pope clearly states that Catholics are to assent to all papal teaching even if not ex cathedra. That pretty much ends the argument for
me, regarding who has the sound position in this debate. I recommend others to read it too if possible.
I don't believe any economic law exists independent of
the actual choices that real men make in real economic situations. And I see what you mean when you say that men might be tempted to just blame harmful outcomes on immutable market forces.
That seems rather un-Christian to me. Probably to you too.
So, it appears that I do see a place for moral principles in economic transactions, if I understand what you mean. Thank you for
your patience and helpful wisdom.