More Laudato Si' - Magistra No | National Catholic Reporter

More Laudato Si' - Magistra No | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: D.C. McCallister does not seem to realize that there are two sets of beatitudes and one actually speaks of real, not spiritual, poverty.  She ignores the fact that the kingdom of God is both a state of mind and the guide to a kingdom in dealing with the poor.  She misses Matthew 25, which even if figurative, says that to encounter Christ, you must do so in the poor - and Francis even repeats this, not ony with words but with deeds.  Indeed, the text from Romans does not justify cheap grace - rather it extols service to the poor as a sign of salvation.  In my view, salvation is the first step, not the last, of justification.  Francis knows of such steps, as they originated with St. Ignatius and parallel the twelve steps of recovery.  Franics shows us deeds, he is not the dilletante that DC seems to be.

I had thought I had already replied to David Brooks, but I can not find the post.  This is an easy one, however.  Brooks misunderstands (as does MSW) the difference between the free market and capitalism.  That latter exists in non-monetary exchanges, where two individuals or groups trade one item or service for another.  Capitalism is different - and it is what the Pope objects to. This is the system whereby capital, and its designated point person the CEO, seek to control all aspects of production and distribution (including monopsonistic hiring and monopolistic selling), with the returns going to owners (who only get what is called a normal return - the expected dividend for the industry) and the remainder of the profit that does not buy new equipment (often bond funded to take advantage of tax laws that the CEOs lobby for) goes to the CEO.  Francis is right to object to it.  It is organized crime, not a free market.  Its a bridge to far for self-interest (rather than mutual income, which is the hallmark of a free market).

As for libery and democracy, this one is easy and MSW would quit talking about it if he read and responded to comments.  Liberty is simply the realization that individuals have God-give free will, which seeks but cannot find the Good that fulfills it on this plane of existence because that Good is God.  Therefore, man has options - and some pick better than others.  Now, elites can try to force the democracy to their moral ends - this was the quite obvious and quite absurd mission of the Organization for Marriage.  The liberty piece is that the Constitution recognizes, even when the Church does not, that there are some spheres of life that the democracy has no business delving into - as will be affirmed in the next few days by the Supreme Court on this very issue.  This is not outside the thought of the enlightenment, which essentially says through Rousseau that unless the General Will is unanimous, it is or at least can be tyranny as it violates the God-given free will discussed above (which is my synthesis of Aquianas and Rousseau - consider the circle squared).

Some things deserve personal protection (like seeking concupiscence) and some do not, like fracking (Brooks' straw man) - especially if fracking can damage water sources that the energy developer did not pay to use - and it does damage water on a small scale. The mere fact that it has not done so on a larger scale does not imply it cannot - assuming it cannot is simply a failure of imagination.  We do have regulations on this, but they are usually for the good of the industry, not the common good.  Not exactly democracy, unless you mean the best democracy money can buy.  Seems like Francis is right, the problem is capitalism - including the problems with democracy.

Are there ways out?  Sure.  Francis has not been briefed on them, but they exist in some form of enhanced cooperative socialism.  In my book I call it Inter-Independence.  E.J.Dione has a copy he has not yet reviewed or given me notes on.  MSW is welcome to ask him for it if he is not going to use it.