Wielding that weapon « Charlotte was Both

Wielding that weapon

June 2, 2008 by Amy

Why can’t he respect their consciences and the struggle to live out the faith in a pluralistic society?

Posted in Uncategorized | 36 Comments

36 Responses

on June 2, 2008 at 8:30 am Tim J

Yeah, what about primacy of conscience? God may be calling these people to hoard rice…

Don’t be intimidated by the hierarchy!

Okay, sarcasm over.
on June 2, 2008 at 10:10 am Tillic

Amy,

I’m from the Philippines and I’m a bit bewildered by your question.

The automatic excommunication may be a bit extreme, and not quite according to canon law, but exploiting the poor is really unconscionable, particularly where food is concerned.

The situation in Mindanao described in the story is one of price manipulation not a rice shortage, particularly since there should be a rice harvest soon.

Tillic: Thanks for visiting! My description is a sarcastic allusion to conflicts in the United States in which certain parties excoriate bishops for even suggesting that some who publicly defy Church teaching shouldn’t receive Communion. They are accused of “weilding the Eucharist as a political weapon” and not respecting the consciences of those who are, say supporting abortion, but at the same time trumpeting their devout Catholic faith. I agree with you!
on June 2, 2008 at 10:56 am Clare Krishan

This is more evidence of why we so desperately need an Encyclical on Social Teachings (heck, a Pastoral Letter from the Archbishop of the diocese where Wall Street is located or one from the Cardinal and Archbishops of the dioceses where we mint our money, Philadelphia, Denver et al would suffice to inform a few influential Catholics(*):
WE are the ones the Tagalog-speaking Bishop should be adjuring not his own flock! We permit our Sec. of Treasury to manipulate the money supply, creating an excess of fungible dollars chasing fungible commodities, driving up prices: | The Oil-Price Bubble |. Yet our Bishops are speachless?

Are they to be excused simply because its primary season this year, and it’ll be election season thru January ‘09, so they mustn’t not rock the boat? What about our much vaunted Catholic intellectuals (Notre Dame will cost $49,000 in tuition next year)? Could they not ghost-write a palatable paragraph or two? Or do they also lack courage to speak truth to power? Meanwhile trading in futures of next years’ harvest of the commodity in question is already heating up because the dictators in Burma can’t or won’t reclaim the rice paddies destroyed by cyclone Nargis (Burma/Myanmar, like Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, was the “breadbasket” of Asia, exporting food to feed their neighbors).

Hoarders actually serve the interests of the hungry: they guarantee that there will be a local supply when the market’s gone “global” – our Catholic Teaching on subsidiarity (the means to attain a particular common good may not be usurped by non-participants to that common good) supports this subjective price mechanism, while Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations labor theory of price promotes the agglomeration (the “institutional usury” of Fr. Bernard W. Dempsey.S.J.) of capital assets in the hands of global non-participants.

Why is Sec. Paulsen so concerned that the Gulf States not battle inflation using subsidiarity (their own islamic principles forbid interest taking or debasing the money supply) | Gulf dollar peg is sovereign issue: US treasury chief |
but continue to tag along (or peg along) with the hegemony of the US dollar and the whims of the Fed’s slash’n'burn interest rate policies? Perhaps he doesn’t want to ‘fess up that his policies created the bubble
that threatens to implode, and we need the oil states (and their high gas prices) to keep it inflated? Would explain why our so-called ally, the Saudi King, could rebuff us so easily in our hour of need, right? Its a game of barter: “Want cheap oil? Ok, give me dollars that keep their value!” Meanwhile mal-investments continue apace, where those who are rich in arable acreage plant ‘inexpensive’ crops to convert to ‘expensive’ fuel: | How the World’s Richest Governments Starve the World’s Poorest People |

and why is it the Phillipino who’s being threatened with ex-communication? Risible, if it weren’t so sad a denunciation of the state of the commonwealth…
___
* lets reserve Washington as a special case shall we, the guy in charge there can’t be held accountable for shepherding the Treasury, since all Americans have a vote in who gets elected to adminster that sinecure, he has the Red Mass and the Supreme Court to crack his head over, have some pity, he’s got enough on his plate already)
on June 2, 2008 at 11:05 am Thom

Finally, a Bishop with enough wisdom and guts to speak up about something OTHER than abortion and gays!
on June 2, 2008 at 11:15 am Clare Krishan

And lest folks think Catholics can’t influence markets, recall that father of 10, Joe Kennedy Sr. was the first Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission. He needed the guidance in faith and morals of a Churchman equal in standing and clout – is the Pope the only Catholic powerful enough to tell an American moghul what is good and true? If that’s the case its no wonder his son JFK was forced to promise not to listen to the pontiff in Rome!

Where are the men of moral certitude within our own ranks? Why don’t we expect them to pronounce on matters of public urgency? We only here them peep when splitting hairs on questions of Canon law? Why are they getting a “pass”? BXVI certainly doesn’t think they should have one – he spoke as forcefully as his temperament permits in the Basilica crypt in DC just a few short weeks ago on this very topic… episcopal responsibility…
on June 2, 2008 at 12:02 pm Clare Krishan

Sherry has the low down,
http://blog.siena.org/2008/06/benedicts-new-encyclical.html
perhaps my prayers are being answered as we speak-type-read!
on June 2, 2008 at 12:44 pm Anon this time

Clare:

I shudder to think what the USCCB staff would turn out regarding oil prices. The lack of economic understanding is very great at the USCCB.

[That said, I agree there is a serious problem. Much of the situation is due to the fact that we (US) no longer has monopsony buying power to dictate our own price--ie, rise of China. The Bushies let the dollar value drop too much...among other economic factors that I am unable to enumerate b/c I need to study it more...]
on June 2, 2008 at 1:21 pm Irenaeus

Funny, Thom. Most people wish there were more bishops than the handful who are willing to speak up on abortion and “gays.”
on June 2, 2008 at 1:35 pm Tom Jedrzejewicz

Lest we forget, God created the basic economic laws (i.e supply and demand) just as he created the basic physical laws (i.e gravity). If more rice is desired by the consumers, the price will rise. The fact that there will be a harvest in the future is irrelevant to the demand that exists today.

Thomas Sowell wrote an excellent article which discussed “price gouging” in the wake of Katrina. — http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4473

Money quote .. “Why do prices exist at all? To cause things to be produced and made available to the public — and to cause consumers to limit how much they consume. Why then do prices suddenly shoot up? Because there is either less of a supply available or more of a demand, or both.”

The price didn’t go up simply because the sellers decided to raise prices. Something else has to be going on to prompt the buyers to pay higher prices and to not allow others into the market to undercut the higher prices.

This smells like clerical extortion posing as activism. What’s next .. denying communion to a wealthy man who is not donating enough?
on June 2, 2008 at 3:57 pm Peggy

That was me responding to Clare.
on June 2, 2008 at 6:19 pm Deusdonat

Let’s not confuse formal excommunication with withholding the eucharist, which every good cleric worth his weight in salt SHOULD do for ANY Catholic who approaches in sin. A priest cannot in good conscience give the eucharist to anyone who has not been absolved of sin at the time they receive. Why is this case, of someone accused of greed/avarice any different? After reading the article, the bishop states clearly that the suspected individuals will be called in and questioned to make a determination beforehand, which is only just.

I have often wondered how it is possible that morbidly obese people who are physically and obviously showing signs of the sin of gluttony are not also questioned (i.e. to ensure they are not suffering from a genetic defect or the side-effect of medication etc). It does indeed often seem that to many Catholcis abortion/homosexuality are the only sins in the book worth withholding communion.
on June 2, 2008 at 6:21 pm Clare Krishan

Thanks Peggy, but you may have misunderstood the thrust of my arguement, when I say bishop of New York I do not mean the USCCB, and when I say Cardinal of Philadelphia I do not mean the translations of the liturgy committee at the USCCB which he heads. And neither does Benedict! He has a low opinion of “collegial” excuses for inaction.

I mean the individual Archbishop of the Diocese of New York ought feel obliged to write on the moral life most applicable to his flock, and heaven knows they ain’t rice farmers, can we agree on that?

It is within the powers of a Bishop to address the spiritual needs of his flock, he doesn’t have to wait to ask his brothers persmission, he does need to pray for courage and a prudential choice of words!
on June 2, 2008 at 6:24 pm Terrence Berres

Doesn’t seem like much of a weapon, if most Catholics are already wielding it against themselves by not attending Mass at all.
on June 2, 2008 at 7:27 pm Clare Krishan

Here’s The Most Rev. Robert Vasa, bishop of Baker, Oregon at CatholicOnline’s symposium :: Ending Clericalism ::
     ”There is, in the ideal world, the proper use of consultative bodies in the Church — finance councils, parish pastoral councils, liturgy committees — but the proper balance between an appropriate style of shared responsibility and avoiding the total abdication of pastoral responsibility is not easily attained or maintained.”
I wonder if the Bishops have enough humility to apply this wise metric to their own consultative abdication?

And here’s Ray Flynn former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican (from the same thread)

     ”Catholics themselves can best determine what is best for their country, faith, and family, with the aforementioned information and guidance from the clergy, which unfortunately is seldom given.”

And Mark Shea’s wisdom on why active Bishops are key to an active laity, to equip us to “renew the face of the Earth” as we prayed with Benedict at the altar in Yankees Stadium:
     ”Clericalism, though real, is not the main problem, but a symptom. The main problem is that we laity do not know that we are called to be lay apostles in the world, living out the work of love that we have been called and gifted to accomplish, and which no priest, bishop, or pope could possibly accomplish. We hang around the sanctuary because we do not know that the last words of the Mass are “Go. You are sent!” The job of the ordained is to equip us, so that we can do our vital and unique work in the world.”

At least the Phillipinos know what their bishop expects, I still don’t know why he thinks they can influence the price of rice or the purchasing power of the laborers evaporating wages (their government controls local rice production and in the absence of a true reserve currency the global market renders their cartel a virtual gold mine, corrupting those with insider connections, see identical phenomenon with wheat prices in Pakistan, etc.)
on June 2, 2008 at 7:39 pm Deusdonat

That’s a big “touché” there for Terrence.

Actually, I think the pendulum has swung on that one in that historically Catholics didn’t receive communion very often at all (the standard was once a year at Easter) even though they attended mass. Now, while mass attendance has decreased, communion has increased to a level that I think is actually a bit unnerving. I’m not saying we as a church should fall back to the levels of say, the Orthodox, who may take it once or twice total during their adulthood. But at the same time, I think a healthy reflection and reservation is in order, instead of the protestant-style stampede.
on June 2, 2008 at 7:41 pm Tillic

Tom,

There are sufficient rice stocks and when the harvest comes in there will be more. Mindanao is out of the typhoon zone, so destruction of rice crops by typhoons (as happens in Luzon) does not happen.

It is not the “unseen hand” of the market that is at play, but an artificial crisis created by a sensationalist media, and exploited by rice millers and rice traders.

Trust me on this. I live in the Philippines.
on June 2, 2008 at 7:46 pm Tom J

I stand by my assertion that this is clerical extortion. And I am pretty conservative.

I could be wrong, but the priest’s role is not judge and jury, and denial of the Eucharist is not punishment.

Deusdonat wrote, “the bishop states clearly that the suspected individuals will be called in and questioned to make a determination beforehand, which is only just.”

Actually, my reading of the article is that the bishop has judged them sinners, and that they will be denied the Eucharist until they submit to an interrogation and agree to “return what (was) stolen plus the damage.”. Somehow, I suspect that the proper vehicle for said return is as a donation to the church.
on June 2, 2008 at 7:53 pm Tillic

Terence,

Most Catholics here attend Mass, and in the provinces, the people are even more devout than in Metro Manila.

If Bishop Gutierrez calls the traders (and he is not a “for show” bishop) that means they are part of his diocese.

Withholding communion from them or asking them not to present themselves for communion would be a major matter.
on June 2, 2008 at 8:42 pm Tillic

Tom J,

Bishop Gutierrez is not in the habit of extorting donations. That is speculation on your part. He is a courageous man who has resisted Marcos, resisted the Communists, and spoken forthrightly against injustice.

One may take issue with his approach regarding the withholding of communion, but his integrity is unquestioned.
on June 2, 2008 at 9:44 pm Salaam

Tillic,

I gather that what you’re saying is that what we have in the Philippines today is essentially a future price of rice bubble. People, stunned by the recent rapid rise in demand and price of rice, are overestimating the future price of rice.

I don’t think this is a matter of morality, but rather of education and awareness.

Nevertheless, if they have overestimated the future price of rice, then the result is a relatively high price today and a relatively low price tomorrow. Though this may seem to cancel away, given people’s need for food, an even price today and tomorrow is preferred.

If their prediction of the future price is correct, then they are just ensuring that there will be adequate supplies of rice in the future. Nothing wrong with this.

It’s a bit complicated.
on June 2, 2008 at 9:48 pm Tom J

Tillic -

comment 19

You’re point is well taken .. I was speculating and I had no cause to question the integrity of the Bishop. I should have reflected more before posting. Here in the USA (Southern California to be specific) Filipino immigrants have become the rock of the church; that should have led me to more caution about the leadership there.

comment 18

a> OK, I trust your observation about the rice supplies, although it does in my mind defy (economic) logic.

b> A Bishop here in the USA recently directed a self-identified Catholic, abortion-supporting politician to not present herself for communion, and it was a HUGE deal.

Take care.

*Amy – please pass along notice of this comment to Tillic, as I wish to minimize offense.
on June 3, 2008 at 9:57 am Clare Krishan

Permit me one more stab at the free-and-fair markets view of our state of grace (if the Bishop is adjuring his flock to cease and desist from “mercantilism” he’s being fair, if he’s asking them to cease and desist from rice “commerce” he’s coercing their free will:

<a href=”http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/03/mercantilist_il.html”| Don Boudreaux on Mercantilist Illogic | … the poisonous core of mercantilism, you see, features the silly belief that a nation’s wealth lies in what its people produce rather than in what its people consume.

Mercantilism also includes the myth that protecting domestic producers of high-value consumption items makes the domestic economy thrive. Again I ask: suppose a generous Namibian scientist discovers a very inexpensive way to combine table salt, tap water, and ordinary bread crumbs into a medicine that cures — and inoculates against — cancer, tuberculosis, and erectile disfunction. This generous scientist gives his knowledge away for free, publishing it on the web so that ordinary men and women throughout the world can, at virtually zero cost, protect themselves from these diseases.

Would Americans be made worse off as a result? Treating these diseases today is big business. People pay lots of money for treatment by highly skilled specialists, as well as lots of money for medicines made by other highly skilled specialists. Does America’s wealth lie in the production of these high-valued outputs? Or does America’s wealth lie in Americans’ ability to consume these high-valued outputs — in our ability to take steps to cure ourselves of these ailments?

It’s true that, given the current scarcity of resources and knowledge that enable us to cure ourselves of these awful diseases, the prices that we willingly pay for access to high-quality treatments are high. Hence, the remuneration of the specialists who provide these treatments is generally high. But it is a mistake to assume that we are made wealthy by the existence of such high-paying jobs — for such an assumption implies that the greater the number of obstacles that we face, the wealthier we become.

If … mercantilist logic were correct, then America would become a poorer place if an inexpensive sure-cure for cancer, tuberculosis, and erectile disfunction were discovered and information about it widely distributed. But clearly we would be wealthier, not poorer, if such a wonderful discovery were made — just as we are wealthier the greater is our access to low-cost goods and services produced whereever, even abroad.”

The Phillipino rice “shortage” is a mercantilist’s worst nightmare – it proves how hollow their theories ring in the bellies of the poor!
on June 3, 2008 at 10:10 am Clare Krishan

And of course, the irony is
“…suppose a generous Nazorean reveals a very inexpensive way to combine salt, water, and ordinary bread crumbs into a medicine that cures — and inoculates against — sin. This generous man gives his knowledge away for free, publishing it in the Bible so that ordinary men and women throughout the world can, at virtually zero cost of attending Mass in a state of grace, protect themselves.”

we have the solution, but we are as blind, deaf and dumb as any cripple in the Gospels…
on June 3, 2008 at 10:34 am Steve Cavanaugh

Regarding the need for an encyclical on the Social Doctrine of the Church, aside from the many encyclicals that have been published, begining with Rerum Novarum, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, published in 2005, is a useful document.

Other documents, including the encylicals on this topic, can be found here.

Tom J wrote: Lest we forget, God created the basic economic laws (i.e supply and demand) just as he created the basic physical laws (i.e gravity).

I disagree. The “laws” of economics are not natural laws, they are descriptions of behavior patterns which differ from society to societ based on the underlying moral sentiment of the population and the level of involvement of the government.
on June 3, 2008 at 11:52 am Deusdonat

TOM,

I have to ask, are you Catholic? You wrote: “I could be wrong, but the priest’s role is not judge and jury, and denial of the Eucharist is not punishment.” If you are, then yes, you are very wrong. Scripture states emphatically “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” in John 20:23 Meaning, the priests role IS judge and jury in the case of the determination, punishment and forgiveness of sin. Have you ever been to confession? The punishments can range from small acts of contrition to actual restitution to the victims, so the bishop is not setting any precedent, but is acting in accord with canon law. I’m really at a loss by your statement here.

As for your reading of the article, once again, the bishop has every right to question any faithful Catholic he feels is in peril of sinning against their immortal soul. Nothing new here. And it says specifically that the bishop will call them in individually and ask “Why have you done this?” (translated from Tagalog) to those the bishop suspects of rice hording. If the “damage” is a donation to the church, then so be it. More poor fed.

I don’t know what your personal take on the word “conservative” is, but in my book there is nothing Less conservative than ignoring church authority. Here in the US, we should be so lucky to have brave bishops who defend Catholic teaching concerning social issues. The case you mentioned of the bishop exhorting the governor not to take communion would never happen here in California (in fact it happened in Kansas). Not only do I applaud bishop Naumann, but I wish he would take on our bishop in a no-holds-barred winner-take-all grudge match.
on June 3, 2008 at 1:41 pm MK

Steve,
I’m not sure I know what you mean by “differ from society to society based on the underlying moral sentiment of the population”

Certainly, based on the “system” those laws have varying effect. But supply/demand and price signals are universal. All that you call differences are just the ways that different political and economic systems supress or accept those laws.

I do agree – economic laws are “observational” and in that sense, not natural. But the way God made the world and made us (acknowledging the fact of Original Sin) makes those laws be the logical conclusion of our nature.

Remember, economic laws themselves do NOT prescribe hoarding or greediness – we bring that to the table our own selves.
on June 3, 2008 at 2:14 pm Terrence Berres

Tillic wrote “Most Catholics here attend Mass, and in the provinces, the people are even more devout than in Metro Manila.”

The only reported figures I find
http://cara.georgetown.edu/bulletin/international.htm
indicate weekly Mass attendance is higher in the Philippines than the U.S. but probably short of most Catholics.
on June 3, 2008 at 4:34 pm Deusdonat

Terrence,

I’m really skeptical of these surveys. I go to parts of Europe where churches are packed on nearly every day of the week (and this is in summer with no air conditioning). But yet I am told that Europeans never go to church. So, I beleive it is all relative to whatever population you are referring to. Big cities tend to have more distractions and are harder to get around in, so human beings, opting for the least road of resistance tend to drop in church attendance in such areas. Meanwhile, in the countrysides or rural towns many people see church as a weekly form of community social event as well as a support network they can rely on in crisis given there are less services around so attendance is usually higher.

My belief is that the rise in suburban evangelical and mega-churches is actually a direct consequence of evolution. Meaning as we humans become more and more accustomed to comfort and convenience, so too will religion cater to these trends and norms. The thought of kneeling during mass 100 years ago was a given. Now it is often seen as reactionary, degrading and simply inhuman. The same with fasting, wearing a scapular or any other sign or act of self-denial.

So, saying “yes, I go to church every week” when you are really going to a high-tech laser-light show complete with a sing-along and warm-fuzzy spiritual message, followed by an hour or so of socializing and networking doesn’t really weigh as much in my book.
on June 3, 2008 at 11:53 pm Tillic

Tom J,

Apology accepted.

Salaam,

Let’s limit it to Mindanao, because the situation can vary from place to place. But, yes, the hoarding is being done in anticipation of a price increase. However, the latest reports show that the hoarding is being done by farmers rather than the traders, since the warehouses have already been raided to check if they have been stockpiling rice.

It appears that the government will ship tons of subsidized rice to Mindanao, which should bring down the price of rice – hopefully.

So, Tom J, that is why you find the situation confusing, and why it does not seem to follow the law of supply and demand. Rice (like bread in some countries) is not only an economic but also a political issue. Faced with the prospect of a hungry, rioting population, a government cannot afford to sit tight and say, “Well, those are the market forces at work. Tough luck if you go hungry.” It will have to intervene, if it wants to save its own neck. So there, in the subsidy and in the unscheduled shipping of rice, you already have a distortion in the market. But anyway, in reality there are very few pure markets.

Terrence,

You have a good point. However, I took a look at the page, and this is what I found. CSES (an electoral survey) shows that in 2004 the weekly attendance in the Philippines was 48%. The WVS survey shows that c. 1995-2000 attendance was 56%. So in one survey, the majority of Filipinos go to Mass, in the other, less than a majority do.

It may be that the decline is due to the passage of time, but this is a large drop for a short period. Before we can accept the results as definitive, we have to know something more about the methodology, about which we can learn nothing from the web page itself.

For example, what was the sample size used? What populations were used – urban only, rural only, or a mix of the two? What cities? What sampling technique was used? What was the margin of error? And also – which was the local research unit that undertook the survey?

The credibility of a survey rises or falls on the basis of the methodology.
on June 4, 2008 at 12:01 am Tillic

Further to my post, to establish whether there has been a decline in Mass attendance over a period of time, you should have two surveys using the same methodology, at the beginning and the end of the stated time period.

In the case of the two surveys, comparing them would be like comparing apples and oranged. Different time period and most likely, different methodology also.
on June 4, 2008 at 10:45 am Clare Krishan

Ditto Steve Cavanaugh
contra
Tom J’s:
“Lest we forget, God created the basic economic laws (i.e supply and demand) just as he created the basic physical laws (i.e gravity).”

But IMHO the rationale of
Steve’s :
” The laws of economics are not natural laws”
is incorrect, founded as it is, on public ’sentiment’ on morals or the polis’ comfort with ‘levels’ of political authority. Behavior of man is indeed subject to natural laws, as objective truth tells us, including his economic behavior. Supply and demand are not laws, they are an imperfect hypothesis, a kind of old wive’s tale rule-of-thumb. Any acting person can only precisely express his or her own personal supply or demand, not an aggregate. A collective has no “agency,” only an individual can be “moral.”

This tenet of subjective marginal utility is the basis of Austrian Economics. Indeed back in 1957 Murray Rothbard in | Memorandum on Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism | argues that Marx’s mistaken views on collectivism is rooted in the same fallacy of aggregate ulility of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, aka the tyranny of relativism:

Kauder, in fact, turns the Weber thesis on its own followers by attacking Smith and Ricardo for being influenced by [Protestantism] to develop the “labor theory of value.” Schumpeter also leaned in this direction.
The brunt of this important new thesis is this:
rather than saying that Hume and Smith developed economic theory almost de novo,
economics had actually been developed, slowly but surely
over the centuries by the Scholastics and by Italian and French Catholics influenced by the Scholastics; that their economics was generally individualist methodologically, and stressed utility theory, consumers’ sovereignty and market pricing,
and that Smith really set back economic thought by injecting the purely British doctrine of the labor theory of value, thus throwing economics off the sound track for a hundred years. Here I might add
that the labor theory of value has had many bad consequences.
It, of course, paved the way, quite logically, for Marx. Secondly, its emphasis on “costs determining prices” has encouraged the view that businessmen push up prices or that unions push up prices, rather than governmental inflation of the money supply.
Third, its emphasis on “objective, inherent value” in goods
led to “scientistic” attempts to measure values, to stabilize them by government manipulation, etc.”

Interestingly the Italian layman Stefano Zamagni advising the Pope with his “Caritas in Veritate” encylical was a student of Schumpeter’s, as was Jesuit Fr. Bernard W. Dempsey.

For an Aristotleian-Thomist view (and co-incidentally a Theology of the Body phenomological ‘Acting Person’ view of our dear JPII of blessed memory) read O’Boyle in Acton Institute’s latest Journal of Markets and Morality (subscription necessary) also online as pdf at the Mayo Research Institute | Requiem for Homo economicus | here)
on June 4, 2008 at 10:57 am Clare Krishan

My bad! Rothbard citation extend thus far:

…economics had actually been developed, slowly but surely over the centuries by the Scholastics and by Italian and French Catholics influenced by the Scholastics; that their economics was generally individualist methodologically, and stressed utility theory, consumers’ sovereignty and market pricing, and that Smith really set back economic thought by injecting the purely British doctrine of the labor theory of value, thus throwing economics off the sound track for a hundred years. Here I might add that the
labor theory of value * has had many bad consequences.
It, of course, paved the way, quite logically, for Marx.
Secondly, its emphasis on “costs determining prices” has encouraged the view that businessmen push up prices or that unions push up prices, rather than governmental inflation of the money supply.
Third, its emphasis on “objective, inherent value” in goods led to “scientistic” attempts to measure values, to stabilize them by government manipulation, etc.”

(My emphasis)
My admiration for this train of thought follows thusly:
”Interestingly the Italian layman Stefano Zamagni advising the Pope with his “Caritas in Veritate” encylical was a student of Schumpeter’s, as was Jesuit Fr. Bernard W. Dempsey.

For an Aristotleian-Thomist view (and co-incidentally a Theology of the Body phenomological ‘Acting Person’ view of our dear JPII of blessed memory) read O’Boyle in Acton Institute’s latest Journal of Markets and Morality (subscription necessary) also online as pdf at the Mayo Research Institute | Requiem for Homo economicus |
on June 4, 2008 at 11:50 am Clare Krishan

May I humbly submit that my comment #32 mirrors #23 more than may be apparent immediately? The fault in the “labor theory of value” of the human practice of worldly economics is the same as the soteriological error “once saved always saved” human practice of divine economics… we are fallen, original sin prevents us from “aggregating” perfectly here below. Heavenly grace flows in communio liberating us as we live “freedom ever new.” His love flows in us as channels of his “imago dei.” He is not the de-hellenised “deus ex machina” removed from history, he is Emmanuel, the Real Presence, the conditor alme sidorum (*)

____
* no that’s not the | Marty Haugen “peace and justice” version | I’m hummin’ in my head, its this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvlyP0hefhw

sung by | Libera | the UK boys choir at the Yankees Stadium Mass.
on June 4, 2008 at 12:28 pm Clare Krishan

mea culpa – credit where credit is due – that’s
| Libera | the UK boys choir at the Yankees Stadium Mass “Concert of Hope” 20/4/08 see also (6 of 15) (7 of 15) (8 of 15) (9 of 15) (10 of 15) (11 of 15) (12 of 15) (13 of 15) (14 of 15) (15 of 15)
on June 4, 2008 at 12:53 pm Clare Krishan

And lest I be accused of a “vast right wing conspiracy” against freedom of assocation in socialism, that clip is from “Songs of Praise” BBC’s longest running religious broadcast.

___
N.B. I have petitioned EWTN that they would consider investing in something similar for audiences here in the USA preferring as I do private initiative to public coercion (taxpayers are forced to support not just TV but schools for Catholics in Britain too) but to no avail. American Catholicism is in a very peculiar place – many resouces some can only dream of, but a shortage of resources others take for granted. Political advocacy for Catholic positions will require that we “act” in the here and now, for our daily bread, not merely delegate our agency in a one-time visit to the voting booth!
on June 4, 2008 at 12:59 pm Deusdonat

Hmmm. I don’t think anyone would accuse you of anything as you seem to be the only audience for your conversation at this point.