The Joy of the Truth » Subsidiarity

The Entrepreneurial Spirit and Catholic Social Teaching

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:18:28 +0000

I am always fascinated when God introduces an idea to me from many directions all at once. It started with receiving a book from my brother-in-law that got me thinking about running From the Abbey as a serious business. From there, I have been led through a string of resources from a variety of places that have all brought me to the same theme. Here’s the list:

Making Work at Home Work by Mary M. Byers (from my brother-in-law)
A podcast from The Chesterton Society on an economic theory called Distributivism (see more below)
Various “training” / motivational CDs from Amway International’s training program
Conquer the Chaos: Hot to Grow a Successful Small Business Without Going Crazy by Clate Mask and Scott Matineau

So, we have an Evangelical Christian source (1), a Catholic source (2), a secular source from a specific (“affiliate”) business model (3), and a secular source from a general business writer (4). Strangely, all four of these sources shared the same core messages:

The old corporate model of capitalism is broken
People are seeking freedom by going into business for themselves
Going into business for yourself is better because it puts the decision making power in the hands of a few people
Going into business for yourself means that your skills and creativity can truly be appreciated, and can truly be applied to serving others
If they are able to do it right (of course, how to do it right is where each source differs), private entrepreneurs can find financial security (the two secular sources stress getting rich)
Getting rich is not the answer to happiness for the private entrepreneur (yes, even the secular resources said this!)
True freedom comes from having a transcendent purpose in your work and having more time to invest in relationships and family (yes, even the secular sources said this!)

So, all of these sources extolled the virtues of private entrepreneurship because it has the potential to give people control over their own lives, to truly serve others, to discover the dignity of their work and to get their priorities straight!

The second source, the podcast from the Chesterton Society, introduced me to an economic / social theory called Distributivism. This theory specifically promotes the idea of family-run businesses, seeming to capture the free market idea of capitalism while at the same time embracing the agrarian family-based economy promoted by Thomas Jefferson. I have not researched this theory extensively, so I cannot evaluate it personally. However, its proponents include G.K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc. On the other hand, its critics include the ACTON Institute, a trusted source for balanced views on the economy. I included links to both below for your further research and mine.

Whether you embrace Distributivism or not, Catholics can agree that private entrepreneurship is one way to promote the principle of subsidiarity. The freedom and control that private entrepreneurship gives to families and individuals is a very good thing. Going into business for yourself is not the solution for everybody. As all four of these sources also recognized, there are many challenges and dangers in doing so (becoming enslaved to your own desire for success, for example). However, it is one solution that is not often encouraged in our culture or in our educational system. Perhaps it should be.

I am finding that working at home, while not yet a financial solution for our family, offers me the ability to remain creative and actively engaged with the world while I stay home with my children. Finding the necessary balance between work and home is very difficult when they happen in the same place (I just told my 4-year-old to leave me alone so I could finish writing this article). However, there are also many joys – including allowing my children to participate in my work and being able to take breaks to read to them and play with them. I am growing in confidence that this will become more than a hobby business, that I can make it financially successful by finding the right tools and creating the right systems. I am greatly enjoying the creative challenge involved in building this business. Of course, since From the Abbey exists primarily as an apostolate, as the business grows so does my ability to serve Christ and His Church (including you!).

If you are looking for a solution to the slavery of the job, check out the resources that I found (and others – I am still hunting for more!) and see if a home-based business is right for you. It is a challenge and a risk, but it could just be the path to the freedom you are looking for. Subsidiarity works!

Sexting, Parental Standards and the Law

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Tue, 19 May 2009 14:00:22 +0000

A lot of buzz has been going around about the attempts made by Vermont and Ohio state legislatures to remove “sexting” (sending out naked pictures of others by cell phone) from the list of felonies that could label someone a sexual predator.

Some commentators have criticized Vermont and Ohio for not taking sexting (which is done especially by teenagers) seriously enough. Others have lauded them for saving young adults from a lifetime of stigma and legal problems due to youthful indiscretion. At the heart of this debate is the question, “How much should government legislate morality?”

I have to say that I agree with those who support removing sexting from the felony class of crimes. Sexting is not a sign of a sexual predator (though it can certainly be used for sexual harassment). It is a sign that young adults are not being taught to respect their body or their sexuality. This is the kind of respect that has to be taught in the home. While the government and law enforcement may need to back off from punishing texting, parents, teachers and our society need to step up.

The good thing about the various responses to sexting is that I have not yet heard anyone claim that it is a good thing, or that it is no big deal. Even Ellen Goodman, known for her lack of sexual wisdom, went no further than coming close to calling it good:

The vast majority of pictures are sent to romantic partners. A lot of what we are seeing is young people exploring trust and intimacy. But it’s often boyfriends — or ex-boyfriends — who hold the trump photos. And when that trust is broken and photos hit cyberspace, it’s girls who pay a social price in humiliation and ruined reputation.

Eighteen-year-old Jessica Logan of Ohio committed suicide after her boyfriend put her naked photos out in public, but it was also girls who bullied and harassed her. The girl who trusted was socially ostracized more than the boy who violated that trust. Go figure.

Of course, she cannot resist finding within the issue a feminist cause. That aside, she almost assumes that what’s happening with sexting is part of a healthy process of “exploring trust and intimacy.” Of course, to “explore” trust and intimacy by sending naked pictures of yourself to your “lover” is like “exploring” a financial investment by selling your home and all of your belongings to make an initial investment to see how things go. Sex is the physical sign of a willingness to totally give yourself in trust and intimacy to another person. It should be the last step in the growth of a relationship after trust and intimacy have been explored through friendship and a lifelong commitment to raising a family together has been made.

However, to Ms. Goodman’s credit, she does actually admit that sexting is misguided – a bad idea.

We do not need to criminalize sexting. Instead, parents need to step up and ask themselves some serious questions:

Is my adolescent child mature enough to use new technology wisely?

I’ll give you a hint -for most high school students the answer is no, despite the fact that most high school students have cell phones with cameras, etc.

Does my adolescent child need a cell phone?

Again, just because all of her friends do doesn’t mean your daughter needs one too. The answer is probably no.

Does my child know how to honor his or her body and fertility?

Having “The Talk” is not enough — and students in high school do not learn how to respect the bodies and their fertility even in “sex ed.” Parents – this is your job and it takes commitment, time and knowledge!

Does my child focus on developing friendships first before starting to date?

Dating in high school is focused on two things – status and sex. Students who do not have a boyfriend or a girlfriend feel unwanted, like they are losers. Many times dating relationships become a selfish quest for how much two people can snatch from each other – emotionally, financially and/or sexually. Selfless love is best learned when a romantic relationship starts out as a friendship and slowly progresses toward romance, giving two people a chance to know each other and slowly grow in trust and intimacy.

Parents, if you need help teaching your children to respect their bodies and their fertility, and to grow in trust and intimacy the right way, check out the Parent’s Place website. This is a parenting resource put out by the Diocese of La Crosse Office of Family Life. I had the honor of working on this website as designer and secondary writer. It is a great resource for parents.

Are We Citizens of a Global Community?

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:00:59 +0000

I ran across this interesting book review in one of the book sellers forums to which I subscribe.

The Vanishing Face of Gaia – James Lovelock (Penguin Books).

Why would a ninety year old man choose to defy his most trusted physician? Because in an act of splendid generosity Sir Richard Branson offered him the chance to fly into space, to share that transcendental feeling known only to astronauts – that our home is the Earth itself, not the house or the street or the nation where we live – which for a scientist who has spent a lifetime studying the way our planet works was irresistible.

This is a nice sentiment. It is something that we have heard before – early in the Presidential race Barak Obama made a similar statement in France. We are citizens of the world. What is a Catholic to make of such a claim? Are we citizens of the world, or are we citizens of our local communities? As is often the case, the Catholic answer isn’t one or the other – it’s both-and.

C.S. Lewis (who was not officially a Catholic, but who sure thought like one) made an interesting point in his book Screwtape Letters. Loving humanity as a vague generality is easy, and not of much value. The true test is how well we love the man or the woman next to us. To love man in general is easy. To love a particular man is often much more difficult. I see a parallel here. To be a citizen of the world is a vague, ambiguous construct. It is easy to generate vague feel-good feelings about such universal citizenship. To be a citizen of my local community is much more difficult. That level of citizenship requires me to actually interact with real people, to get personally involved in real issues and to seek out real solutions to real problems. It may even require a self-sacrifice (such as those who give themselves for the security and defense of their country in the armed forces) in a way that being a citizen of the world could never demand.

As followers of Christ, we are called to love all of humanity, but we are specifically called to love our neighbor. Jesus defines “neighbor” as any human being in need, but even his parables illustrates that we owe a particular love to those people we actually encounter. His question after the parable of the Good Samaritan was, “who was neighbor to this man?” The answer was the Samaritan, who directly took care of his needs.

On the other hand, being a member of the Catholic Church, the universal Church, immediately makes us the neighbor, indeed the brother and sister, of every human being on earth. Through Christ, all believers are members of One Body, and those who do not believe are invited to enter through Baptism and through lives of faith, hope and love. The love of a Christian needs to be both local and universal.

I might argue, though (and feel free to debate me on this), that the idea of being a “citizen” of the world is quite different than the idea of being a member of the human family. Citizenship invokes a very different response than family. It invokes a sense of legal responsibility and civic duty. It invokes a sense of shared immediate and proximate needs. I think this is the sense that both Barak Obama and James Lovestock are trying to get across. The idea of worldwide citizenship are especially evoked in the name of environmentalism and world peace. I think this view is naive. It paints the needs of individual nations and communities with a wide paintbrush. It glosses over real differences that will always cause conflicts and cannot be erased by mere sentiment. Unlike family and faith, citizenship does not call us to love and to be loved.

Care for our environment is important for two reasons. God gave us this world as a sign of His love for us. To care for this world is one way that we return that love. We also care for the world because we love our fellow human beings – as family. Environmental care is an act of love that protects real human beings, especially the poor and vulnerable. But we must care for the environment in real, concrete ways that meet our local needs while at the same time takes care of our planet.

World peace needs to be approached through negotiations between local communities in ways that attempt to peacefully meet the divergent needs of local communities. This is not easy, but it is the only way to do it. Sentimentality about being one global community does nothing but ignore very real differences. It also ignores the fact that war is caused by human sinfulness, which will not be conquered until Jesus brings all things to Himself.

How important is this paradigm shift? Perhaps (and only perhaps) the importance is illustrated by the rest of this book review. Lovelock’s environmentalism takes the typical liberal turn. The earth is an organism (this coming from a scientist?) and it is overloaded with “too many people, pets and livestock for the Earth to carry.” Is it too much of a leap to go from this erroneous view of the earth to seeing the world of which we are citizens as important and individuals as expendable resources or liabilities? After all, the nice thing about being a citizen of the local community is that we donate ourselves to the community, but the community exists to serve individuals.
[ad#seasonal]

Counting the Cost of Electing a Pro-Abortion Candidate

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:40:26 +0000

Despite our acknowledgment that electing the first African-American president of the United States is a great victory for justice, love and human dignity, advocates of the Culture of Life have approached Barak Obama with trepidation. His voting record as a senator has been unrelentingly pro-abortion. His campaign promises to Planned Parenthood to pass FOCA and make “abortion rights” a primary issue of his presidency reinforced the perception that Obama would be the most pro-choice president yet elected to office.Even so, many Catholics voted for the Democrat candidate, claiming that their choice was more pro-life than a Republican vote (voting for a third party was rarely, if ever, mentioned as an option). Their claim was that Obama would stop the war and promote social changes that would make abortions less necessary. As I watched listened to the inauguration of our new president, observing the great celebration of “change” and “hope,” I couldn’t help but wonder. At what cost had my fellow Catholics caused our country to pay for this moment of euphoria?

The first installment of that payment has already come due. As fully expected of a Democrat president, Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy by executive order, despite his promise to govern from the center and to listen to opposing voices. This policy prohibited tax dollars from being used to fund abortions in other countries (especially to fund the United Nations Population Control Fund). Our tax money may now be used to kill unborn babies in the name of fighting poverty. This move is a strong statement that the way to fight poverty is to keep poor people from reproducing. It is also a sign that President Obama is going to be more of the same as far as Democrat government goes. President Obama claimed that rescinding the Mexico City Policy would “settle” a “divisive issue” and bring unity. What nonsense. All he has done is to tip the argument toward death and to enrage advocates of life.

In all fairness, we have to admit that most of the buzz about Obama advancing the Culture of Death has been based on what he might do in the future. Rescinding the Mexico City Policy is the only concrete action he has taken so far. However, this action seems to be an indication of things to come.

Also in fairness, we must admit that the news about President Obama is not all bad. He has made at least three decisions that I think show some wisdom. First, he has overturned President Bush’s order that prohibited the states from enacting stricter vehicle emission standards than the federal standards. This action by President Obama returns control of clean air standards to the states, showing perhaps an understanding of subsidiarity (though it could just be typical Democrat environmentalism). It will also force automobile manufacturers to make some necessary changes that market forces have been unable to bring about.

Secondly, President Obama called for the removal of the contraception funding that Nancy Pelosi added to the economic stimulus package. He did so in response to pressure form Republicans and form pro-life advocates, perhaps showing that he is willing to listen to opposing voices after all. There is hope here. However, I am suspicious that his decision was to fight this battle later. If I am right, we haven’t seen the end of the contraception funding issue. For now, though, we can count this decision in the president’s favor.

Thirdly, President Obama has built on President Bush’s idea of “Faith-based initiatives,” except that he has expanded it to include nonreligious social organizations. As long as he does not include faith-based groups, I fully support the change. Supporting community organizations is an effective way to care for people’s needs. Local organizations know the needs of their people better than the removed federal government. Once again it is a sign that President Obama understands the principle of subsidiarity.

Unfortunately, these good decisions pale in scope and weight compared to the funding of abortion abroad. Lives of innocent babies are not a cost I am willing to pay for two small good actions.

What about the lives saved by not electing the war-mongering Republicans? I argued during the presidential race that I did not think that any president could simply withdraw us from the war. So far, indications point to my judgment being correct. Obama made a largely symbolic gesture of closing the Guantanamo Bay prison (some would say more than symbolic, since those prisoners may now be brought to speedy trial and finally receive justice), but early indications are that the war is business as usual – as it almost has to be for the sake of strength in the war against terror and justice for the Iraqi people who would greatly suffer in a power vacuum.

My purpose in this analysis is not to promote a partisan criticism of President Obama. To narrowly focused conservatives, Obama can do no right. Just as President Bush could do no right to narrowly focused liberals (the claims that Bush ranks among the worst presidents in history are utterly ridiculous). I want to be sure to point out what our government does right as well as what it does wrong. However, where innocent human lives are concerned, it is important to keep careful watch. An otherwise good president who advocates the killing of innocent lives is not a good president.I have to wonder if pro-Obama Catholics are keeping track. In the end, what cost will they pay for their choice? Only time will tell.

[ad#seasonal]

How Our Country Has Changed

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:09:35 +0000

Every presidential election has stirred this thought in me, but perhaps none more than the race that led to President Bill Clinton’s first term in office. I remember watching the debates and the “town hall meetings” hosted by MTV in which question after question started with the phrase, “As president, what would you do about . . .?” How times have changed.

As our country slowly solidified from individual and independent colonies into a united nation after the forging of the Constitution, the main political model in the United States was “Republican Virtue.” This beautifully idealistic philosophy had a number of tenets that you just don’t find in American politics today.

The role of the government was to protect the common good, but to leave as much freedom as possible to the states (of course, this was in conflict between the federalists and the anti-federalists, but even the federalists believed in subsidiarity).
The country as a whole struggled to balance liberty with order.
Citizens were encouraged to freely sacrifice their own good for the good of the country – to put others first
Virtue was seen as an indispensable requirement for the exercise of freedom
Family was the core of citizenship – mothers had an esteemed role of educating children in the ways of virtue and citizenship
Politicians were citizens who were elected to office primarily because of their proven character. They were people that the citizens trusted. Elected public officials, including United States senators, congressmen and presidents, served their term and then returned to their home and their normal occupation. There was not such thing as a professional politician

I do not mean to imply that America was perfect during this time of Republican Virtue. Negative campaigning, mud slinging, and corruption have always been part of politics (we are always fallen human beings). However, our country at least had an ideal to live up to. When did things change? Historians probably differ on this opinion, but I put the blame on the presidential campaign of President Andrew Jackson. Jackson’s campaign of “New Democracy” changed the public focus from Republican Virtue to competing self-interest. His message was the empowerment of the common man. Who could argue with that as a worthy goal? But “empowerment” meant that government exists to serve the individual citizen rather than that government exists due to the selfless service of citizens for the protection of the common good.

In my opinion, we are now bearing the fruits of the “New Democracy.” We have become a country of entitlement. We tend to see government as a great goodies box that exists to make my life easier. The principle of subsidiarity has been lost by both major political parties. Republican Virtue is viewed with suspicion and even contempt. The concepts of the common good and universal human rights have been replaced by universal private health care and the right to “privacy.” Idealism is scoffed and individualism is idealized.

We now have a Democrat government. Democrats have taken the House, Senate and the presidency. The Democrats tend to embrace the “New Democracy” much more wholeheartedly than Republicans. I think the next four years are going to show us the folly and the danger of such a public mindset. I am happy that we have finally elected an African-American president. However, I fear what free reign of “New Democracy” will do to our country.

We do still hang on to the shreds of what once made our country great. Let’s just hope that some day we can piece it back together and come to realize that responsibility for our neighbor’s welfare rests in our lap, not with the government.
[ad#seasonal]

What is Censorship?

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:29:15 +0000

Yesterday I participated in a televised panel discussion on censorship, related to a program sponsored by our public library to promote reading. The program focused on the book Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, which is popularly interpreted to be about censorship. I had a great time on the panel, which was truly a thoughtful exchange of ideas. However I was predictably the voice in favor of censorship compared to the other two panelists.

The first question was to define censorship. A public school librarian defined censorship as any attempt to suppress the free expression of ideas. When the moderator asked if I agreed with this definition, I said that I would add one more element to my definition. Censorship is the use of the power of authority to suppress the public expression of ideas. I stated that I did not consider the grassroots attempt to decide what should be taught in a community’s schools or what books should be in the school and public libraries to be censorship. It’s a matter of subsidiarity. Such decisions should be made at the lowest possible level of social organization. Furthermore, I believe that the public discourse that occurs when public works are challenged is healthy and good. A community should discuss what literature and media match the identity and purpose and which they consider harmful or contrary to community standards – and they should learn to critically, rationally and intelligently discuss these choices.

I do believe that whether or not particular expressions of ideas should be suppressed depends largely on the forum in which these choices are being made. Suppression of materials is perhaps less necessary in venues that offer more freedom, such as a public library. However, venues with a captive audience, such as school libraries and classrooms, may require more action to be taken based on community discussion. On the other hand, these forums need to offer more freedom by working with members of the community to offer alternatives to contested literature and media. Whether or not a particular public expression of ideas is suppressed by this process, I do not consider it censorship, but the free exercise of the democratic process.

I do not support a single person or minority making decisions for the rest of us what should be taught or made available in our community and what should not. Examples of disgruntled parents taking their case to court even though they were given alternatives to the contested literature would probably be considered censorship rather than public dialogue. Such action squelches community discussion. While authority may need to step in to make the final decision, it should do so only after listening to the community dialogue.

I summarized my point by challenging the popular interpretation of Fahrenheit 451. I don’t think the main theme of the book is censorship, but what happens when a community stops thinking. The blind acceptance of all ideas is just as detrimental to the health of society as blind censorship. The public discourse about ideas, including the occasional debate about whether or not a specific expression of ideas should be available in a particular venue, is healthy. The problem with the society in Fahrenheit 451 was not that the government started censoring ideas, but that the people did not want to be bothered with thinking. They would rather be entertained and taken care of by their government. They filled their lives with shallow, meaningless fun and entertainment. Books were burned because they led to the possibility of disagreement that would require people to think.

Of course, my ideas were not immediately accepted by the other panel members. To their credit, they were willing to consider them and we had a great discussion. As we discussed examples of “censorship” – both those that were considered acceptable and those that were not – we came closer to a consensus than I thought would be possible. We agreed that people need to think, judge and analyze what they read and see and hear. We agreed that sometimes choices need to be made in order to stay true to the mission of a community (to protect children, for example, or to offer good quality information, or to preserve the identity of a Catholic school). Also, I shared their anger at reports of valid scientific studies being suppressed because the results ran counter to the biases of the scientific community. I also agreed with their use of the standard of validity to select materials, even when the materials they would reject supported ideas that I believe are true (such as homosexuality being a condition that can be healed).

It was a fruitful discussion, and one that I really enjoyed. I can only hope that our culture will start to heed the warnings of Fahrenheit 451 – promoting intelligent public discussion rather than worrying so much about censorship. This reading program sponsored by our public library was a good start.

Read this book for yourself!

[ad#seasonal]

What Does It Mean to Vote Like a Catholic?

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:00:20 +0000

Catholics care about many issues. However, because of our faith and our belief in human dignity, certain issues take precedence. There are some good guides to the most important issues out there. I particularly respect the Voter’s Guide For Serious Catholics from Catholic Answers. Here are a few issues I think are important for serious Catholics to consider when they cast their vote.

Respect for Life

Respect for life is a foundational part of Catholic thought & belief. Catholics must stand against abortion, embryonic stem cell research that destroys embryos, therapeutic cloning, and euthanasia.

War

War can be a life issue if the war is unjust or unjustly fought, and if a world leader is acting like a tyrant that leader should indeed be removed. Good Catholics disagree about whether or not the war in Iraq fully meets the criteria for a just war. However, even those who oppose the war rarely accuse the U.S. of tyranny or indiscriminate killing. Their main opposition is the fact that Americans are dying in the war. If we were murdering, raping and pillaging innocent civilians, then immediate action would need to be taken. Certainly having our soldiers sacrifice themselves for an unjust cause is a valid concern. However, the fact that war is sometimes morally acceptable and even sometimes morally compulsory along with the fact that the justness of the war in Iraq is validly debatable means that the war issue is not on par with other life issues.

Subsidiarity

The principle of subsidiarity is key to Catholic social teaching. It states that social decision making power should occur at the lowest possible level of social organization. Higher levels of social organization should do what is necessary to empower the lower levels without interfering until it becomes absolutely necessary. Neither of the major political parties seems to truly embrace subsidiarity. Democrats, traditionally the “big government” party, tend to seek solutions to social problems at the highest level of social organization first, and to take recourse to more local organizations as a last resort. Republicans, with their reliance on the free market, also do not seek ways to empower lower levels of social organization. This makes it difficult to choose which party is most in line with Catholic social teaching.

Do you doubt the importance and power of the Catholic vote? Check out this book from Ignatius Press!

[ad#amcathvoters]

True Solutions to the Health Care Crisis

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:00:00 +0000

A friend of mine is moving away. I’m sad that she is moving, but I am also very excited. Her husband is a medical doctors in family practice. He is starting a unique clinic that I think is an example of how the health care crisis could be solved through the creativity of local communities.

This clinic will serve two sets of people. The first set, the patrons, pay a rather hefty annual fee but in return they receive “Cadillac” medical care with around the clock access to their doctor at the clinic during clinic hours and by phone and email after hours. They also have the ability to book appointments online. The second set of patients are people who do not have adequate health insurance and cannot afford regular medical care. These people pay only a small amount per visit. The rest of the expense for their care is covered by those with the capacity to pay for Cadillac care.

Such a clinic makes insurance unnecessary for regular care and by its very nature keeps the cost of heath care down. Doctors need to be prudent about expenses so that they offer quality care (in order to keep their patients) but are also able to serve the uninsured.

This is the kind of creativity that you will never see coming out of government. Such creativity is not the nature of government. However, government could do a lot of good by subsidizing efforts such as these. The principle of subsidiarity is too often neglected by politicians. We have come to expect government to solve all of our problems for us. Yet, if the principle of subsidiarity were followed it would empower true solutions that serve the real needs of real people.

Please pray for the success of this clinic and for Doctor Michael as he seeks to serve God by serving the poor.

Abortion vs. All the Other Issues?

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:46:00 +0000

There is still a belief among some Catholics that abortion is “just one issue among many.” Many Catholics who hold this belief belong to groups like Catholics for Obama. They claim that by looking at all the issues of Catholic concerns on an equal plain they judge a candidate like Obama falls in line with Catholic moral and social teaching much more than a candidate like McCAin or Bush.

The Bulletin – Philadelphia’s Family Newspaper – Catholics For Obama: Poverty As Important As Abortion

We take the abortion issue very seriously but at the same time abortion has been used as a wedge to divide voters,” said Peter James Kralovec, one of the designers of the Web site in an interview with CBN News. “We have seen some resistance in some circles, but we want to express some facts about the senator’s record on abortion and change the dialogue on this issue.

One argument they make is that Democratic leadership would do more to reduce the number of abortions than would Republican leadership. Even if this is true, pragmatically speaking, there is still a huge problem with this line of thinking. A vote for Obama, whose voting record and his campaign promises clearly show that he is willing to do everything possible to expand the availability of abortion, is to accept abortion as a solution for poverty and sexual promiscuity.

The prominent quote from Catholics for Obama in the article from The Bulletin is:

Senator Obama, by his words and record, is committed to a consensus-based approach to governing that seeks common ground and pragmatic solutions, not cheap appeals to division for political points,” [their website] says. “His brand of new politics can restore traditions of compromise and civility in public life that will finally make it possible to address the critical issues facing the American people, even the disturbing number of abortions that has remained stagnant over the last decade.

OK, my reaction to this quotation is more from the gut than from the head. Give me a break! Can’t you identify empty, meaningless campaign jargon when you hear it?

Le me try to get back to the head arguments. What exactly does this quotation mean? What is a consensus-based approach to government? Does this mean rule by opinion poll? I can’t believe that it means he will work with Catholics and other Christians who oppose abortion, homosexual marriage and cloning. In fact, there are some very intelligent Catholics who fear that Obama’s “consensus leadership” means forcing a consensus by force.

Finally, I wonder if the Democratic Party can even be truly said to be good for other social issues. In their zeal to eliminate poverty and suffering, many Catholics have embraced a socialistic mindset that says that the government should take care of these problems. This mindset directly opposes the principle of subsidiarity. Government should certainly help local communities to take care of these problems, but not take them over. It is sadly true that we haven’t seen much progress on President Bush’s Faith-Based Initiatives proposal. The war has clouded over what was once Bush’s primary goal as president. However, this was the right idea. The government should lend support to the organizations that are serving those in need on a local level.

I wish there were a political party that was more sensitive to all Catholic issues, but there is not. In the absence of such a party, we must try our best to vote in a way that is true to our faith. Yes, I have problems with the Republican love affair with “big business” and with aspects of the war in Iraq. However, to give a vote to socialism and abortion as a solution to poverty doesn’t seem to me to be a good solution. I don’t write this just to tote the party line (I’m really not a Reagan conservative). I encourage my readers to think critically and seriously about their choices this election cycle and I hope my arguments can help your thought process.

A Country of Virtue

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 16:40:00 +0000

Thanks in large part to modernist historians, the Christian roots of the United States have been brought into question. While for the most part I have no tolerance for modernist philosophies, we can thank modernist historians for a few trends that have the potential to actually improved historical studies, especially in high schools – abandoning hagiographies, examining primary sources, critical thinking, the awareness of multiple perspectives on an historical event. However, using these tools do not support modernist conclusions.

Take the very question of the Christian roots of the United States. The classical story is that English colonies came to America to find religious freedom. The facts show a multitude of motivations for colonization. Most of the colonies, including the first colonies (e.g. Jamestown) were profit-making ventures, the most common reason for colonization worldwide. New England colonies did come to America for religious purposes. However, their motivation was not to escape religious persecution. Their motivation was to oppose the brand of Anglicanism that they judged to be too Catholic. The name they took for themselves – Puritans – shows their motivation. They wanted what they considered a “pure” (Calvinist) Christianity without Catholic contamination. However, it is obvious that Christianity played a major role in the lives of every colony. The colonists came from a very Christian culture, and continued to foster their faith in the New World.

What about the philosophical underpinnings of our country? Are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution based on Christian principles? The answer may surprise you. The philosophy that drove the foundation of America during and immediately following the Revolutionary War was a strange mixture of Enlightenment philosophy and Anglican Christianity. The irony is that by mixing these philosophies the founders actually unconsciously based the American government on Catholic principles. You see, the fathers of the Enlightenment hated Christianity, especially Catholicism, but very much admired the Catholic intellectual tradition that preserved and updated Greek philosophy. The Enlightenment adopted rationalism – the belief in human reason in opposition to supernatural faith. The Catholic intellectual tradition has always embraced both faith and reason. By combining Enlightenment philosophies with Christian faith, the American founders actually returned to a Catholic way of thinking. The harmony between faith and reason explains how secularists such as Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin could work side by side with believing Christians such as Reverend John Witherspoon. The resulting philosophy is a “secular state” with religious freedom, based on principles very favorable to the Christian walk and also to Enlightenment rational thought. Implicitly, it was the perfect society for Catholic faith and intellectual tradition to flourish.

A major aspect of the resulting republicanism that cannot be debated (though modernists still try) is the importance of virtue. The founders envisioned an educated, virtuous populous, the best of whom would be elected to governmental positions to guide the country to prosperity. They envisioned a balanced government that followed the principle of subsidiarity (though they never use this term). Virtue was the core of our country’s success. The virtues of good citizenship, which they called “Republican Virtue,” included self-sacrifice for the good of the greater good, civility, active citizenship (voting, but also publicly and rationally debating issues), and volunteering to care for community needs. Such virtues are best taught in the family, so the founders advocated “Republican Motherhood” (a term that never ceases to raise the ire of modern feminists), the duty and privilege of mothers to educate their children in virtue. Modernists write these ideals off as government manipulation and indoctrination. However, these virtues were not specific thought-control techniques (“repeat after me – the government can do no wrong”). They were general virtues that encouraged citizens to seek truth and goodness and to demand the same of their communities and governments.

Can there be any doubt that such ideals are Christian – and especially Catholic – in nature? Yet, they also leave room for rational secularists and other philosophies to live in harmony within the same culture. The arguments about how many of our founding fathers were actively Christian, how many were pastors, how many were Masons, how many were secularists or deists are all well and good, but they do not paint a complete picture of the foundations of our country. Our country was and continues to be incredibly complex. However, when one looks at the original intentions, it cannot be mistaken that our country was a good place to be Christian.

The Joy of the Truth » Subsidiarity

The Entrepreneurial Spirit and Catholic Social Teaching

Related Links:

Sexting, Parental Standards and the Law

Related Links:

Are We Citizens of a Global Community?

Related Links:

Counting the Cost of Electing a Pro-Abortion Candidate

Related Links:

How Our Country Has Changed

Related Links:

What is Censorship?

Related Links:

What Does It Mean to Vote Like a Catholic?

Respect for Life

War

Subsidiarity

Related Links:

True Solutions to the Health Care Crisis

Related Links:

Abortion vs. All the Other Issues?

Related Links:

A Country of Virtue

Related Links: