The Catholic Thing
HOME        ARCHIVES        IN THE NEWS        COMMENTARY        NOTABLE        DONATE
American – and Catholic? Print E-mail
By Robert Royal   
Sunday, 17 October 2010

Two weeks from tomorrow, Americans will go to the polls in a rare mood. As you’ve heard ad nauseam, voters are angry, so angry that the opinion organizations don’t even know how to weight population samples. The media attribute this to “anti-incumbent” feeling. But the incumbents in danger are almost all Democrats. Current sentiment is more properly understood as an intuitive fear of colossal spending and concentration of power in the Federal government.

That’s a perennial attitude in America. The whole thrust of our founding was to create a nation that could enjoy the benefits of unity without the threats of tyranny. It takes a great act of imagination to see, but our Founders did not create a system, as we say now – in which essentially nothing lies outside government. They sought limited government with enumerated powers. And if any of those become – as the Commerce Clause has been – a license to create other powers, then constitutional order and freedom are at an end.

Americans do not learn such things in public schools anymore. We are a people almost bereft of social theory, but we have a lived experience of ordered liberty. It’s flawed, like all human things, but unlike any other nation, we sense how freedom and order may go together because we had both at the start.

Anyone familiar with modern Catholic social thought should be able to appreciate both those goods. The GPS for such matters appears in Quadragesimo anno, written in the 1930s when authoritarian and totalitarian regimes were ascendant. QA famously invokes the principle of subsidiarity: “Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do.”

But unfortunately, in my view, the text continues:

The supreme authority of the State ought, therefore, to let subordinate groups handle matters and concerns of lesser importance, which would otherwise dissipate its efforts greatly. Thereby the State will more freely, powerfully, and effectively do all those things that belong to it alone because it alone can do them: directing, watching, urging, restraining, as occasion requires and necessity demands.


      Pius XI, seven years before QA

Properly understood, it’s right that the state should be “directing, watching, urging, restraining, as occasion requires and necessity demands,” and not meddling in matters best left to others. But what this means is, in practice, almost never properly understood and has been used by Catholics who know better to justify ambitious statism. By the time John Paul II wrote Centesimus Annus (1991), the Church had further experience of modern nation states, and the pope cautioned about the exercise of power, even warning about the disincentives of the “social assistance state.”

The QA language is unfortunate because it assumes a state that – first – understands and – second – is capable of acting in measured and systematic ways – at best, only intermittently true propositions. Friedrich von Hayek, the Austrian Nobel Prize winner, once called this the “fatal conceit,” because it substitutes the alleged knowledge of experts for the vast practical intelligence of individuals and numerous civil societies in any nation. There are times when experts are needed, but they’re fewer than the experts think.

To take an example very much in voters’ minds: We have an administration headed by another Nobel Prize winner, educated at two Ivy League institutions, and a former law professor at the University of Chicago. The members of his economic team included, until recently, the former president of Harvard and the former president of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York. Because of the financial crisis, they were given virtually unlimited amounts of money and no limits on where to spend it. After two years of efforts, only the partisans would claim it has worked as intended.    

The crisis began with the housing market and involved sometimes criminal deception on the part of financial managers in the packaging and reselling of loans. But expert federal regulators looked at many of those loans and, in most cases, actually thought the derivatives “dispersed” risk by putting together diversified packages. Underlying political issues also reflect on the directing wisdom of the state. Many people now talk about “predatory lending” to poor people by mortgage companies who knew they would not be able to handle the loans. Often, the very same people once objected to “redlining,” refusal to lend in risky neighborhoods to poor people with low credit ratings. The state “watched” and usually “urged” greater lending to promote property ownership. Democrats and Republicans alike – along with our cultural and financial elites – thought this a fine, an American, idea.

The record since then has not been much better. We have spent immense sums to insure liquidity at the banks (good on balance) and at the same time to stimulate economic growth (mostly misguided and ineffective). Indeed, the stimulus may be the main culprit in continued high unemployment. One of the things that freaks out businessmen, who actually do create jobs in the normal course of things, is the sheer unpredictability that results from a federal government that assumes it has answers. Entrepreneurs are risk-takers and familiar with calculating uncertain future conditions. But even fluctuations in markets are small things compared with the disruptions that a modern state can suddenly introduce into economy and society. Quadragesimo anno warned about such things eighty years ago.

The lessons to be drawn from all this will probably not be learned. Neither political party seems to be much devoted to limited government. Or humility.  Or wisdom. Government is a blunt instrument. It produces many unintended consequences, among legitimate uses: “things that belong to it alone because it alone can do them.” Realistic appraisal of those uses – the wisdom of when to act and, perhaps more importantly, when to refrain – has been too long neglected. We’ll have a change of power shortly. It remains to be seen if we’ll also have a change of mind. 


Robert Royal
is editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, and president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C. His most recent book is
The God That Did Not Fail: How Religion Built and Sustains the West, now available in paperback from Encounter Books.

© 2010 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info at thecatholicthing dot org

The Catholic Thing
is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (8)Add Comment
0
...
written by Ray Hunkins, October 18, 2010
Yes, wisdom and humility are in short supply and we should pray that our leaders - secular and religious - are imbued with copious amounts of each - and with courage also because without courage there is paralysis in the public square
I would love to know a little more about the history and development of the principle of subsidiarity. Perhaps another column? Thanks for this excellent piece.
0
...
written by Louise, October 18, 2010
Thank you for an informative essay. I think what we need is a good course in the history of ideas. For example, I recently asked another TCT author if the U.S. Constitution could have been formulated if the Founding Fathers had been Catholic. Without meaning to be sarcastic or disrespectful or flippant, or anything other than legitimately curious, could Quadragesimo anno have been written in 1789 in the colonies, if those persons had been Catholic? Were Bellarmine's writings widely available to laity at the time? Did our own Founding Fathers have access to them and was Bellarmine known to them? Thank you for helping me work through my own confusion.

I should add that I can see that I am very quickly going to be in way over my head. Already by brain is tired.
0
...
written by Robert Royal, October 18, 2010
Louise, as you probably know, the Federalist Papers # 51 expresses something very similar to QA: " If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

The "auxiliary precautions" go a step further than the encyclical. As practical men, the Founders knew that neither "parchment barriers" nor wise statesmen could be relied on to make judgments about controlling the natural tendency of governments to move into every sphere of life. They recommended specific institutional arrangements, separation of powers, enumerated powers, and so forth.

An encyclical cannot and should not specify specific forms of government, since these can vary legitimately among different human communities. But it can warn about the need to understand the different levels and liberties necessary to a good society. In Centesimus Annus, JPII makes some general statements about proper structures to embody Catholic principles. Could QA have been written in the colonies in 1789, who knows? It may not even have been possible to write it in Europe. Certainly, European revolutions of the French kind had plenty of trouble controlling Napoleon and other ambitious men. America has made some practical contributions to political liberty, though we could do with a more robust sense of the natural law principles that undergird liberty.
0
...
written by Louise, October 18, 2010
Thank you so very much for your thoughtful answer to a very complex question. I don't think I realized how complex it was.

Since becoming Catholic several years ago, I have heard the Enlightenment and Protestant culture disparaged as the first steps in the secularization of culture and the rejection of God in culture and society, leading to where we are now. This led me to wonder whether our American ideals of government by the consent of the governed and such documents as the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution could have emerged from Catholic thought in 1789, or whether they could have emerged only from 18th century Protestant culture, rationalism, and the Enlightenment or whether there is no connection at all.

Thank you again for your time and thoughtfulness.
0
...
written by debby, October 18, 2010
for louise,
you may be interested in this recent work by Bradley J. Birzer: American Cicero, The Life of Charles Carroll (Lives of the Founders). available at amazon.com
i heard a radio interview with the author and ordered it for my husband....haven't had the opportunity to crack the cover but my neighbor borrowed it already and is enjoying it very much. have fun!
0
...
written by Louise, October 19, 2010
Thank you, Debby. I'll check it out. I appreciate your interest.


0
...
written by Mark, October 20, 2010
"Americans do not learn such things in public schools anymore."

They do in the U.S. history class I teach in a public school.
0
...
written by ruth , October 24, 2010
For Debby-
Thanks for the book tip.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 
CONTACT US FOR ADVERTISERS ABOUT US
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner