bate about the connection betweenneconomics and morality.nFather Schall’s collection of previouslynpublished essays is significant forntwo reasons. First, Father Schall, anpolitical scientist at Georgetown University,ndefends the free market bynretrieving from the Catholic tradition anrespect for the rights to property andnenterprise (a tradition superbly tracednin Alejandro Chafuen’s enormouslynimportant little book Christians fornFreedom: Late-Scholastic Economics,n1986). Second, this series of theologicallynastute pieces is published undernthe aegis of the Fraser Institute, anCanadian libertarian think-tank, whichnindicates the importance that libertariansnare beginning to place on moralnand even religious arguments in makingnthe case for a free society.nOne of the many enlightening sectionsnof Father Schall’s collection isnChapter 16, “Both God and Money.”nHere, Father Schall uses the occasionnof a visit to a Carmelite chapel tonbridge the gap between the spiritualnand material worlds. He acknowledgesnthat money may enable “us to do manynmore immoral things than we mightnwere we poorer,” but he also probesnmore deeply to observe that the “refusalnto make money, even if disguised asnreligious virtue, can be an injustice tonothers.”nA leitmotiv winding its way throughnthese essays is the production of wealthnas both a moral and a spiritual endeavor.nIn constructing this theme. FathernSchall displays an enviable talent forncondensing much wisdom into shortnsentences, such as, “The ‘right to benfed’ can be turned into a formula tonblame those who know how to producenfood for the condition of those who donnot. “nPoint those who would concludenfrom the above that Father Schall isnnothing but a papal lackey to his commentarynon John Paul II’s encyclicalnSoUicitudo Rei Socialis. Here FathernSchall engages the Pope’s argumentsnseriously and displays what critical yetnloyal dialogue with the magisterium onnmoral issues ought to look like, as whennhe laments, “The word ‘consumer’ is anperfectly good one, and it is a pity tonsee it used as some sort of substitute forngreed.”nIn private, Michael Novak once likenednFather Schall to his Jesuit-brothernJohn Courtney Murray. This causednme to think of Father Enrique Urenanas our side’s Juan Luis Segundo; withnthree separate doctorates, one each inneconomics, theology, and philosophy.nFather Urena brings to his study annumber of disciplines.nInterestingly, Father Urena’s booknwas translated at the behest of OrbisnBooks, the publishing house of thenMaryknoll community, and as such thenmajor printing arm of liberation theologynin the United States. Orbis did notninitially know what they had on theirnhands. When it became clear thatnFather Urena opted for the free marketninstead of for socialism, they decided itsncontent did not accord with their publishingnguidelines; it was at that pointnthat the book was recommended, by anthird party, to its present publishers.nThe events in Eastern Europe, theynsaid, “seem to be a confirmation of thenauthor’s thesis.”nOrbis’s confusion is understandable.nFather Urena reminds me in somenways of Father Avery Dulles, S.J. Bothnare writers who are so scrupulouslynobjective in stating the various sides tonan argument that it is necessary to readnthem carefully to see where they themselvesnstand on an issue. After pages ofnprobing with an “on the one hand, andnon the other hand” type of analysis,nFather Urena concludes that the freenmarket is practically and morally thensuperior way of organizing society.nBut Father Urena’s unique contributionnto the discussion of Catholicnsocial ethics does not lie in this conclusion;nothers have, after all, made thensame case in different ways. Rather,nFather Urena’s ability to write withoutna hint of partisanship is what is mostnvaluable. Father Urena simply asks, innessence: which form of social organizationnwill best demonstrate, from anhistorical and economic perspective, an”humanizing superiority”? It is not hisnintention to examine the theoreticalnbasis for the relationship betweennMarxism and Christianity; he seeks,ninstead, to engage “the practical vectornof the problem,” and • this leads hisnstudy more specifically into economics.nNo specifically economic treatment ofnthis question on the part of liberationntheologians readily . comes to mind.nFather Urena has taken as a point ofndeparture an area that is as critical as itnis absent in contemporary discussionsnnnof social ethics, from the corpus ofnliberation theology, to magisterial pronouncements,nto the pastoral letter ofnthe American bishops.nFather Urena puts it this way: “Anrespectable option for socialism (or forncapitalism) on the part of the Christianncannot be made directly from the demandsnof the Gospel, not from theology:nit must be preceded by a strictlyneconomic, political, and sociologicalnanalysis of the problem.” The theoreticalnimpact of Father Urena’s empiricalninvestigation is, however^ to “destroynthe myth that Marxist economic socialismnis theoretically closer to the Gospelnthan any possible form of market economy.”nA body of Catholic writers is beginningnto lay the groundwork for a contemporarynmoral perspective on libertynand on the institutions designed tonpreserve and enhance it. As contemporaryncontributions to the developmentnof Catholic social thinking, both FathernSchall’s and Father Urena’s books arenessential. History isn’t ending; rather itnmay be just beginning.nPaulist Father Robert A. Sirico is .npresident of the newly formed ActonnInstitute for the Study of Religion andnLiberty and currently works at thenCatholic Information Center innGrand Rapids, Michigan.nA DistantnEncounternby Gregory McNameenYankees in the Land of the Godsnby Peter Booth Wiley,nwith Korogi IchironNew York: Viking; 578 pp.; $24.95nIn the spring of 1847, RanaldnMcDonald, half Chinook Indian andnhalf Scots, jumped ship from the Yankeenwhaler Plymouth and steered hisnstolen dory toward Rishiri, a smallnisland in the Japanese archipelago.nHaving heard tales of Nippon fornyears — a land of cannibals, Americannsailors whispered; no place to be shipwrecked—nthe curious McDonald,nwho had roamed over much of thenworld, thought to have a look at thenMAY 1991/35n
January 1975July 26, 2022By The Archive
Leave a Reply