The New York Times interviewed Rev. Robert A. Sirico about a movement by professors at Duquesne University, a Catholic school in Pittsburgh, to organize a union. The Times writes that, “Duquesne is arguing that its affiliation with the Spiritans, a Roman Catholic order, affords it a special exemption from the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. It’s a conflict between church and state, the school’s lawyer argues, to allow workers to file for a union election.” Rev. Sirico, Acton’s president and co-founder, responded to the question of whether or not “the importance of unions in Catholic teaching is historically contingent.”

“In the industrial revolution, the church was concerned about communism, and not just capitalism but savage capitalism,” Father Sirico said. “People were being brutalized. That’s just not the case in Pittsburgh today.”

The Times piece provoked a harsh response from America Magazine’s In All Things blog. In “Sirico Completely Wrong on Church’s Support for Unions,” Vincent Miller, the Gudorf Chair in Catholic Theology and Culture at the University of Dayton, said it was “hard to find the proper tone to engage so serious a distortion.”

The Church’s support for unions based on Natural Law. They are forms of “private society” that serve the interests of their members within the context of the common good. The argument is based on natural law, not on any relativistic read of specific needs which vary from decade to decade. The natural right of such socieities to exist is a fundamental part of the doctrine of Subsidiarity, which pundits like Fr. Sirico are so fond of quoting without ever understanding.

Read “For Duquesne Professors, a Union Fight That Transcends Religion” by Mark Oppenheimer in the New York Times.

While you’re at it, pick up a copy of Rev. Sirico’s new book, Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy.

In the final installment of a three-part interview with Patheos, Joseph E. Gorra interviews Acton Institute president and co-founder Rev. Robert Sirico about social justice and his interpretation of its right societal implementation. In the interview, Sirico outlines some of the principles highlighted in his new book, Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy. To begin, Gorra asks Sirico about the proper interaction between politics, specifically economics, and religion. What follows is an intriguing discussion on faith-based activism and the origins of the term “social justice”:

Gorra:  You are making some important distinctions here, which perhaps also have some cash-value when discussing ‘social justice.’ For it is often conceptualized with wealth distributionist and equalitarian notions. Why is that a mistake, and is there an older (pre-Rawlsian), more robust concept of social justice that can be recovered?

Sirico:  The term “social justice” originates with 19th-century Italian Catholic thinkers who were trying to apply the Church’s teaching on the nature of justice and the common good to the post-Enlightenment, post-mercantilist world. In many ways, it is a synonym for “the common good,” which are the conditions that must exist in a given society if people are to be able to freely pursue human flourishing. In that sense, it is not value-neutral—as Rawls more-or-less tries to be—nor can it be reduced to efforts to equalize everything by eliminating differences or vast exercises in wealth-redistribution. Indeed, if you read some of the Italian writers on this subject—Blessed Antonio Rosmini being a good example—you discover that one of the things which they were trying to do was to remind individuals and communities that they also have responsibilities to their neighbor, and that they cannot and should not expect the state to do everything in this regard.

The “social” of social justice did not translate for them into a vast impersonal welfare state; rather, it was primarily about people fulfilling their responsibilities in justice to their neighbor in the circumstances they found themselves, with the state playing a subsidiary role.

Read “What if ‘Social Justice’ Demands Small Government?: Interview with Robert Sirico, Part 3″ on the Patheos Evangelical Channel. Part one:  “Is Capitalism Immoral” and part two: “Does Capitalism Promote Greed” are also available online.

Blog author: Mindy Hirst
Monday, June 25, 2012
By

Raleigh Gresham is senior pastor at Fellowship Bible Church in Colorado Springs. His passion is to help people understand that church is more than what we do on Sundays but reaches into all areas of our lives. He has begun a new way of interacting with the congregation through a concept called “Gathered & Scattered.” Join us as we listen to his hopes and dreams for the church today and a powerful example of a small win he saw while leading FBC on this journey toward becoming a church that “just loves people.”

(more…)

What does a school bus driver, a garbage collector, an antiques dealer, and an oil lobbyist all have in common? According to the Department of Labor, they all have “green jobs.”

This exchange between House oversight committee chairman Darrell Issa House and senior U.S. Labor Department officials is both absurd and amusing. But it’s also an important reminder that there can be a wide gap between the official government denotation of a term and its popular connotation (such as “green jobs” referring to work directly related to protecting the environment). While Governmentese may sound like English it often requires a translator to understand what a bureaucrat or politicain is really saying.

(Via: The American Spectator)

What would Diedrich Bonhoeffer have to say about the HHS mandate? Eric Metaxas–best selling author of the biographies on William Wilberforce and Bonhoeffer:Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy gives us some insight in this 2 minute video that explains the real issue behind the HHS Mandate: Religious liberty

He’s joined by economist Jennifer Roback Morse, a Catholic economist and founder and president of the Ruth Institute. The short video distills the fact that opposition to HHS Mandate is not about the morality of contraception or even abortion. It is about religious liberty and maintaing the freedom of religion that our Founders realized was so important to a free society. The mandate is uniting Catholics, evangelicals and people from all beliefs to stand for religious freedom.

Share this video so people can learn what the HHS mandates means for our religious freedom and learn more at Acton’s Healthcare Page and the Fortnight for Freedom

Marc Vander Maas and I just produced a podcast on Calvin Coolidge for Radio Free Acton. I have been doing a lot of research on the 30th president this year and have had the privilege of speaking about Coolidge in a few different settings. My recent Coolidge commentary for Acton is here.

One of the questions Marc asked me was about the ways in which Coolidge aligned with the thinking of the Acton Institute and in what ways he diverged from Acton thinking. I got so into the ways that he aligns with Acton in the interview but I neglected to address his divergence. Where Coolidge’s thinking parts with Acton is of course on trade. Coolidge, like many political leaders of his era, was a protectionist. He supported high tariffs on imports and advocated for government action to strengthen protectionist policies.

The podcast is a good introduction to Coolidge and his ideas. The 1920s era jazz music helps to set the tone. Listen below:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

The new issue of the Journal of Markets & Morality

The Spring 2012 issue of the Journal of Markets & Morality (15.1) has been posted at www.marketsandmorality.com and should be arriving in print to our subscribers sometime soon in the coming weeks.

In this issue, Jordan Ballor addresses Christian attitudes toward business across confessional lines and throughout history in his editorial. Sam Gregg and Philip Booth respond to Daniel K. Finn’s Controversy contribution from last issue. In further exploration of the convergence (or lack thereof) between libertarian philosophy and Roman Catholic social teaching, Bridget Kratz and Walter Block argue for common ground on the topic of immigration. Charles McDaniel and Marek Tracz-Tryniecki engage the all-too-relevant subject of financial crisis, the former pointing to insights from the Austrian, post-Keynesian, and Distributist schools of thought and the latter in the thought of Alexis de Tocqueville. Edward O’Boyle and Walter Schweidler (translated by Philip Harold) each offer contributions on the subject of human development. Johan van der Vyver examines federal and family barriers to children’s rights. Hunter Baker reflects on social justice, government, and society. Michael D’Emic demonstrates the logical identity of the sixteenth-century, Spanish scholastic Saravia de la Calle’s understanding of just price and modern equilibrium theory. Matthew McCaffrey engages three recent works on the morality of the marketplace in his review essay. We have another installment of our Symposium, offering papers from the Evangelical Theological Society’s Theology of Work and Economics consultation. This issue also has yet another stellar Reviews section (if I do say so myself). And lastly, this issue’s Scholia offers an update and translation (respectively) of two works of the English bishop John Jewel on the moral issue of usury, a selection from his commentary on 1 Thessalonians and some private notes that were written in Latin and never before translated into English.

Needless to say, it’s a full issue.

The release of issue 15.1 means that now content from 14.1 is open access to non-subscribers. Given the current financial climate, I would highly recommend James Alvey’s article “James M. Buchanan on the Ethics of Public Debt and Default.” I would gladly detail the whole contents of this issue as well, but I think I’m out of breath.

The ongoing debate about food trucks here in Grand Rapids took a step forward this week, as this past Tuesday the city commission “voted unanimously to amend its zoning ordinance so that food trucks can operate on private property for extended periods of time.”

As I argued late last year, “There’s perhaps no more basic way to serve another person than to provide them with food,” and food trucks are something that ought to be welcomed rather than disdained in the context of a vibrant and variegated urban social space.

Rick DeVos, the founder of Grand Rapids-based ArtPrize, framed the issue quite well:

It’s called free enterprise and we should be embracing it no matter who is on the receiving end of its disruption…. The more we build the experience of downtown Grand Rapids as a great place to spend time, the more everyone doing business in downtown Grand Rapids will benefit.

Let’s get out of the way…and celebrate greater food choice in Grand Rapids.

While things have taken a step forward in Grand Rapids, the fight for food trucks and free enterprise continues throughout the country, and bears watching. The interaction between regulations and the non-profit sector is of particular interest, as both charitable ministry efforts as well as the formation of non-profit advocacy groups have been impacted by governmental policies.

One of the most worrisome economic troubles coming down-the-pipe is the “student debt bubble” which many argue is caused by too many students seeking degrees in higher education as the costs of tuition increase. Because we understand that poverty and economic misfortune are serious barriers to human flourishing, it is very important to try and understand the economics involved in the education market. Dylan Pahman gave a good explanation earlier today about how administrative costs are rising to promote a myriad of diversity-advocacy programs, a process which is clearly affecting  the supply-side of the issue. What about the demand side where students are making the decision to go to college?

How is it that so many students are making a seemingly irrational choice? In a post at strategyprofs, Steve Postrel explains here that while it may be true that college degrees may be becoming more common and watered down in the quality of education they represent, that it is also true that high school quality is dropping. This means that college degrees represent a greater increase in knowledge than they used to, signaling a greater value relative to non-college educated persons.

Typical graduate business school education has indeed become less rigorous over time, as has typical college education. But typical high school education has declined in quality just as much. As a result, the human capital difference between a college and high-school graduate has increased, because the first increments of education are more valuable on the job market than the later ones. It used to be that everybody could read and understand something like Orwell’s Animal Farm, but the typical college graduates could also understand Milton or Spencer. Now, nobody grasps Milton but only the college grads can process Animal Farm, and for employers the See Spot Run–>Animal Farm jump is more valuable than the Animal Farm–>Milton jump.

So the value of a college education has increased even as its rigor has declined, because willingness to pay for quality is really willingness to pay for incremental quality. This principle holds true in many markets.

Interestingly, one of the best ways to help lower the cost of college education might to be to improve the quality of education that a high school diploma represents. Understanding why high school education is declining requires us to think beyond a knee jerk “just spend more” reaction and understand that our current public education system is insulated against the processes that wipe out nearly all other inefficient and inferior services: the market.

To effectively help others become productive agents in the market and realize their vocations, we need to advocate for steps that will cause education at all levels to reflect a true added value. School choice seems to be an obvious candidate for improving educational outcomes.

H/T Marginal Revolution

Mark Summers, a historian in Virginia, wrote two articles for Religion & Liberty on faith issues in the American Civil War. Summers wrote about the evangelical revival that swept through the Southern armies and then in a subsequent 2011 issue focused on the Catholic Church in the Civil War.

The articles were meant to draw attention to the 150th anniversary of the conflict. I wrote more about the R&L project in my own PowerBlog post back in December. Read the articles by Summers. They are well researched and very good. Below is a June 11 audio clip of Summers discussing Catholics in the Civil War on the Son Rise Morning Show with Brian Patrick:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Just a note: Summers is referred to as a “Catholic historian” during the interview, but he is in fact Presbyterian.