This blog explores both historical and current events guided by the thought of the leading thinkers, past and present, of this school or movement of theology. Refer to the Classic Posts, Great and Contemporary Thinkers, various links of all kinds, in addition to the Archives themselves. David is the founder and manager of this website, but many friends contribute to it on a regular basis.
Twitter @ressourcement Twitter @ltdan4123
Friday, July 08, 2005
The Economic Religion of Michael Novak: Wealth Creation vs. the Gospel
I honored to have your presence on my blog. Thanks for the question and for all the work you do on your websites/blogs. I am big fan of yours.
Yes I do own and have read many of Novak's books and articles. He is a giant Catholic thinker... He is someone whose thought deserves to be considered and talked about in-depth.
The reason I asked is that when I read the Zwicks' articles on Novak, I find myself asking that very question. Have they read him? -- Judging by Santiago's comment he's in agreement.
People have issues when JPII or Pope Benedect XVI is quoted out of context -- the Zwicks seem to make it a habit in their treatment of Novak of quoting him out of context or misrepresentating his ideas. They have done the same with respect to Cardinal Dulles and Father Neuhaus as well. I blogged about this some time ago. Consequently, when I saw another blogger posting links to the Zwicks' indiscriminately w/o comment I had to wonder . . . perhaps a better course of action in blogging would be to post links to the Zwicks w/ alternative -- and in my mind fairer and more objective -- presentations of Novak's thought, or perhaps something by Novak himself.
Thanks for all the resources you provide, I remain an avid reader of your blog as well. =)
I have in the past and will continue in the future to post multiple articles of or on the thought of Novak, Neuhaus, Weigel, etc. Please review my archives to verify. I post both pro and con articles and encourage a dialog about them. For example, I encouraged dialog about Novak's recent article in First Things.
I'm personally consider myself more of an Augustinian Thomist than a Whig Thomist. Christopher - you are much more a Whig than an Augustinian. On your website, you've made three pages of Whigs (Neuhaus, Weigel, & Novak) and none for the Augustinian Thomists. The Church and the Liberal Tradition portrays to be a neutral page, but it's decidedly more Whig (lop-sided). You've missed or left out many of the most important Communio articles of Dr. David Schindler and other Augustinian Thomists. Saying that though, your websites are still some of the best on the web. Thanks for all of your hard work there!
Yes, he does have Kraynak, Schindler, tNP, etc. The problem (which can be fixed) is that he leaves out many, many of their important articles. This might be unintentional or just because he is unaware of them. He also fails to mention or link several important books on this topic.
The fact remains that he has three separate webpages dedicated solely to Novak, Weigel and Neuhaus and not a single one dedicated to anybody in the other camp. How is this balanced? It's not. I'm just calling a spade, a spade.
The irony in all of this (considering whose websites we are talking about) is that B16 is much more a Augustinian Thomist than a Whig.
I'm not sure about how you are handling that dichotomy Augustinian v. Whig. If we are talking about choosing between outright rejection of liberal democracy, like some "Augustinians" (Fr Jape has said in a recent post that he is just waiting for it to collapse, for example) or working within it (Neuhuas, Novak, etc), I doubt that Ratzinger would be so radical as to call for outright rejection of liberal democracy. He didn't call for the outright rejection of the EU Constitution. He has spoken favorably of the "American system," and even today the pope's vicar is speaking favorably of America (which I found out thanks to your blog :) ).
I'm glad that I've provided some amusement here, but I was not trying to place His Holiness within either camp. All I am claiming is that, if the question that divides Whigs from Augustinians is the issue of how to reconcile the Church with liberal democracy, I think that the Pope would favor those who, rather than rejecting it on first principles, are trying to work out a truly just, democratic, a pluralistic system. My claim is based on the pope's previous praise of the American model (as compared to the European model), and on the fact that he did not see the need to reject the core idea behind the EU constitution (i.e., a liberal, democractic, albeit highly centralized, state), and on the fact that you don't hear him quoting MacIntyre and Eliot about the "End of Western Civilization."
...This is illustrated by the Holy Father's own commentary on Vatican II and DH as a "counter syllabus" meant to codify what had already been established de facto as the Church's changed relationship with national powers following the events of 1789. Yet this has not prevented Ratzinger from a muscular assertion of the Church's authoritative teaching and prerogatives in the public square and over Church members who are active participants therein.
I don't think any Whigs would disagree with the Holy Father or Jape on this point.
The dialog between the Augustinian Thomists and the Whig Thomists is much broader than just the issue of reconciling the Church social teachings with liberal democracy. It also involves economics, the preferential option for the poor, etc. Ultimately it involves questions about nature and grace.
On your website, you've made three pages of Whigs (Neuhaus, Weigel, & Novak) and none for the Augustinian Thomists. The Church and the Liberal Tradition portrays to be a neutral page, but it's decidedly more Whig (lop-sided). You've missed or left out many of the most important Communio articles of Dr. David Schindler and other Augustinian Thomists.
Concerning what some regard as my peculiar fascination with "the neocons" -- I've explained the existence of my personal tributes to Neuhaus, Novak, Weigel here, in a response to one of Stephen Hand's acerbic criticisms of my blog.
I do confess that I have a fairly eclectic website and taste in Catholic writers -- the personal tributes that you see are to those whose writings have influenced my journey to the Catholic Church.
As far as the 'Church and the Liberal Tradition' website goes, as you rightfully observe I do make the attempt to encompass all perspectives and contributors to the debate.
If I am not always successful in presenting both sides of the debate, it's not by intent but rather due to lack of available resources. As with my other websites, my references are usually limited to what's available on the web.
Regretfully, Communio hasn't yet followed the general norm of making their contents available online to the public (free or by subscription).
As representative of the "Augustinian Thomists" I appreciate Dr. Schindler's contributions to the debate, but as he is generally published in Communio he falls among those authors who aren't as accessible online.
NOTE: I've just added a link to your list of 'must read' Communio articles by Schindler and updated the 'additional articles' to include those from The New Pantagruel. In researching I've found that the Kraynak links you mentioned on your blog were already included.
Likewise, as in my other websites, I extend the invitation to forward me links to pertinent articles by said authors that I may have missed. (I've actually found additional articles by way of your blog, David, for which I'm sincerely thankful).
Saying that though, your websites are still some of the best on the web. Thanks for all of your hard work there!
Thanks (I think?) for the link to Stephen Hand's latest rant -- an example of what I'd call classic Handian vitriol. You can expect said comments to be excised from his blog in the next week or so, as it appears to be his revisionist tendency of late to remove such rants once he regains control of his Irish temper. =)
I've given up the habit of responding to Stephen's personal insults, but regarding his assertion that the Zwicks are "first rate thinkers" and possess a true knowledge of Novak's writing, one has only to compare the quality of their writing with Michael Novak himself.
For instance, in the article you linked to, the Zwick's summarize Novak's thesis in Free Persons and the Common Good:
The common good is redefined [by Novak] to mean only the private good of individuals based on self-interest, which someday may trickle down to the poor. According to Novak, in our complex world, it is impossible to know what the common good might be; therefore the solution is to work for one's own self-interest and someday that will help everyone.
Now, if one were to actually pick up the actual text -- as I happened to do this past week -- one would encounter a rather substantial reflection on this topic, written in honor of the 40th anniversary of Jacques Maritain's Free Persons and the Common Good. (Novak speaks of Maritain as his mentor and is influenced by his work -- for a personal tribute by Novak to Maritain, see: ).
I'm only on the second chapter, but suffice to say Novak clearly does not equate the commonn good "to mean only the private good of individuals based on self-interest."
Rather, he shows what both the liberal and Catholic tradition has to say on this subject, drawing from St. Thomas Aquinas (with special attention to Jacques Maritain and Charles De Koninck); the thought of our founding fathers and their contemporaries (ex. the Federalist Papers and Alexis de Tocqueville on "self interest rightly understood"); and Vatican II (Gaudium Et Spes s. 26, which defines the good as "the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment"). It's a fairly lengthy, detailed and in my opinion rich reflection on the topic.
Unfortunately, nothing more is said of this book by the Zwicks.
Likewise, I don't expect the Zwicks' readers will gain an appreciation of what Novak has to say in his 500 pg "magnum opus" The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism from their citation of a single line: "Democratic capitalism calls forth not only a new theology, but a new type of religion" . . . from which they conclude "this new religion, as defined by neoconservatives, emphasizes wealth creation" and their subsequent boast that "the authors of this article prefer the religion of the Gospels and the Tradition of the Church founded by Jesus himself."
Now, perhaps the Zwick's crude "summaries" of Michael Novak will suffice for Stephen Hand and readers of the Houston Catholic Worker, but I think those who content themselves with the Zwicks, so as to never pick up Novak's actual writings, will be sorely deprived.
This is not "first rate thinking." These are blatant and delibrate misrepresentation of another's work -- more of a passionate screed than anything else, and hardly rising to the level of a substantial academic critique / point-by-point rebuttal of Novak's arguments.
On second thought, perhaps the Zwicks should maintain this style of writing, if as a consequence of their "neocon" straw-man portrayal more readers like myself will be perplexed enough to investigate the writings of Novak and company for themselves.
I wish no ill-will towards neither Christopher or Stephen. Both do great work on their websites. My simple blog is not worthly of mention on either website. I deeply value my friendships with both men.
Stephen - thank you for posting my comments on the London Bombings.
Christopher - thank you for updating your 'Church and the Liberal Tradition' website.
I neglected to include the link to Novak's salue to Jacques Maritain which I had mentioned above -- the article is: A Salute to Jacques MaritainThe Catholic Writer: The Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute 2 (1989): 65-82.
You will botice how Christopher Blosser says he has given up answering Stephen Hand's "rants", and then goes on to ...answer him ----again.
Go figure.
I criticize Blosser in defense of the Zwicks' elucidations of the issue ---whose sandals Blosser is not worthy to pry the gum from---not as any gratuitous crack of the lash at Chris Blosser. The Zwicks, as any who read them know, are always exactly on point, which is what bothers our NeoCon friends, I suspect. Their criticism finds its roots in the tradition, not in any baptizing of one Adam Smith.
Finally, I must trim our Musings section all the time for lack of space (it has nothing to do with temper--Chris only seems himself in that section?). TCR's archives are rather vast, whereas our musings section is only one page! None of our musings remain forever, because TCR is not a blog but a news, opinion and information website with limited space, and only one Musings page. The issues dealings with the nonsense of others---as opposed to issues of substance--- are often the first to go or get trimmed (they would be endless!), for obvious reasons, but all our musings are removed. No need for Chris' conspiracy theories.
Blosser's criticisms of me are factional and reflexive by now, so one would do better to go to the source to see for oneself: TCNews.com Chris and co. follow us around the Net (though he will deny this) hoping to turn good Catholics into good, card carrying, NeoCons.
I respect Novak but not, I'm afraid, many of his groupies.
Stephen Hand
PS If Chris want to "not answer" this again it will mean he wants to drag it out again. I won't bite. Visit TCR instead.
Stephen: You will botice how Christopher Blosser says he has given up answering Stephen Hand's "rants", and then goes on to ...answer him ----again.
With respect to Stephen Hand, if I encounter a particularly nasty post directed at me, I try to pick out the legitimate points of criticism and respond to those, while ignoring the usual epithets ("money-imperialist"; "neocon"; "warblogger", etc.) which constitute an impediment to a honest discussion.
While I've largely removed myself from direct interaction w. Stephen as he seems incapable of civil dialogue, in this case, I felt it was necessary to clarify exactly why I do not believe the Zwicks are "exactly on point" in their treatment of Novak but rather indulge in a misreading and misrepresentation.
Having done so, I leave it to the good sense of David's readers to judge for themselves.
* * *
Secondly, contrary to Stephen's charges, I have no personal agenda for turning good Catholics into "card carrying neocons." (Stephen's apparent love of the term label may in fact compel me to blog at some point on the history of the term "neocon" and why it's use as an epithet tends to short-circuit a good discussion).
I will, however, maintain that one may disagree with the platform of the Houston Catholic Worker and/or TCRNews and yet remain -- like Weigel, Novak, Neuhaus, Cardinal Dulles and the host of others who have been unjustly maligned -- good and faithful Catholics.
On that note, I yield to the judgement of Pope Benedict XV in his encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum and offer it up to Stephen and our fellow readers as a model for future discussions:
"As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline - in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See -- there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline."
This has been quite the discussion, involving a couple of my fav bloggers (Christopher & David).
As (I think) both of you know, I place myself more in the AT camp when it comes to issues on which they disagree (the Iraq War being a notable exception). For me, it comes down to an issue noted early on by David: nature & grace. When it comes down to it, I find the AT position on the relationship between nature & grace far more compelling, both in its positive explication and in critiques of the WT view. Along with our beloved Holy Father, I see secularism as perhaps the predominant threat to the Gospel today, and I find the AT camp much better at rendering a substantial, thorough critique of that threat.
Relatedly, I've been convinced by the AT criticisms of modernity; although I count many WTs as friends, I thoroughly disagree with them when it comes to Kant and the implications of his thought for the West.
I think I'll end things somewhat abruptly here and see where they go...
Hey Chris, don't stop now, the fun's just started! =)
Relatedly, I've been convinced by the AT criticisms of modernity; although I count many WTs as friends, I thoroughly disagree with them when it comes to Kant and the implications of his thought for the West.
Can you elaborate on Kant and where he, specifically, figures in the WT position?
Christopher, I can try (by which I mean that I understand the point enough for myself, but perhaps insufficiently to explain it)...
In short, WTism argues that on certain points, Kant got it right; OTOH, ATism is highly critical of Kant, seeing him as the root of many modern errors.
One example (again, I think I'm getting this right)... "rights". ATs argue that the concept of rights is (at best) overdone, and that it carries with it serious problems (e.g. overemphasis on what is due me as opposed to my duty to others). WTs, OTOH, think that the Church's appropriation of the language of rights is a good thing, and is a step forward. In any event, both sides see "rights talk" as flowing from Kant and his categorical imperative.
I hope this isn't overly fuzzy and ill-defined... let me know what doesn't make sense. Heck, I probably haven't said anything you didn't already know!
(NB: the primary source for me on this is Tracey Rowland's book "Culture & the Thomist Tradition: After Vatican II"; Kraynak is another source, as David notes.)
Chris / David -- thanks very much for the recommendations, and Chris, it makes perfect sense.
I've ordered the particular issue of Journal of Markets and Morality - Volume 7, Number 2 -- looks like a good one. I'm investigating the 'used book' leads for Kraynak.
26 comments:
David -- have you actually read any books by Michael Novak?
Personally curious.
Christopher,
I honored to have your presence on my blog. Thanks for the question and for all the work you do on your websites/blogs. I am big fan of yours.
Yes I do own and have read many of Novak's books and articles. He is a giant Catholic thinker... He is someone whose thought deserves to be considered and talked about in-depth.
well, david, in that case, since you have read the books, you might what to tell the Zwicks what they're all about.
The reason I asked is that when I read the Zwicks' articles on Novak, I find myself asking that very question. Have they read him? -- Judging by Santiago's comment he's in agreement.
People have issues when JPII or Pope Benedect XVI is quoted out of context -- the Zwicks seem to make it a habit in their treatment of Novak of quoting him out of context or misrepresentating his ideas. They have done the same with respect to Cardinal Dulles and Father Neuhaus as well. I blogged about this some time ago. Consequently, when I saw another blogger posting links to the Zwicks' indiscriminately w/o comment I had to wonder . . . perhaps a better course of action in blogging would be to post links to the Zwicks w/ alternative -- and in my mind fairer and more objective -- presentations of Novak's thought, or perhaps something by Novak himself.
Thanks for all the resources you provide, I remain an avid reader of your blog as well. =)
I have in the past and will continue in the future to post multiple articles of or on the thought of Novak, Neuhaus, Weigel, etc. Please review my archives to verify. I post both pro and con articles and encourage a dialog about them. For example, I encouraged dialog about Novak's recent article in First Things.
I'm personally consider myself more of an Augustinian Thomist than a Whig Thomist. Christopher - you are much more a Whig than an Augustinian. On your website, you've made three pages of Whigs (Neuhaus, Weigel, & Novak) and none for the Augustinian Thomists. The Church and the Liberal Tradition portrays to be a neutral page, but it's decidedly more Whig (lop-sided). You've missed or left out many of the most important Communio articles of Dr. David Schindler and other Augustinian Thomists. Saying that though, your websites are still some of the best on the web. Thanks for all of your hard work there!
I don't know, David... Christopher has Kraynak, Schindler, The New Pantagruel, Hauerwas and the Zwicks in his blog...It's quite balanced.
Yes, he does have Kraynak, Schindler, tNP, etc. The problem (which can be fixed) is that he leaves out many, many of their important articles. This might be unintentional or just because he is unaware of them. He also fails to mention or link several important books on this topic.
The fact remains that he has three separate webpages dedicated solely to Novak, Weigel and Neuhaus and not a single one dedicated to anybody in the other camp. How is this balanced? It's not. I'm just calling a spade, a spade.
The irony in all of this (considering whose websites we are talking about) is that B16 is much more a Augustinian Thomist than a Whig.
I'm not sure about how you are handling that dichotomy Augustinian v. Whig. If we are talking about choosing between outright rejection of liberal democracy, like some "Augustinians" (Fr Jape has said in a recent post that he is just waiting for it to collapse, for example) or working within it (Neuhuas, Novak, etc), I doubt that Ratzinger would be so radical as to call for outright rejection of liberal democracy. He didn't call for the outright rejection of the EU Constitution. He has spoken favorably of the "American system," and even today the pope's vicar is speaking favorably of America (which I found out thanks to your blog :) ).
err, I said "Ratzinger," I guess I should have written, "Pope Benedict."
If Christopher would add the following links to his website, it would help to balance it out.
tNP articles (& don't forget to refer to the comments on this post)
Communio articles
Kraynak articles
To make the claim, or even hint at the possibility that B16 is a "Whig" is quite amusing.
I'm glad that I've provided some amusement here, but I was not trying to place His Holiness within either camp. All I am claiming is that, if the question that divides Whigs from Augustinians is the issue of how to reconcile the Church with liberal democracy, I think that the Pope would favor those who, rather than rejecting it on first principles, are trying to work out a truly just, democratic, a pluralistic system. My claim is based on the pope's previous praise of the American model (as compared to the European model), and on the fact that he did not see the need to reject the core idea behind the EU constitution (i.e., a liberal, democractic, albeit highly centralized, state), and on the fact that you don't hear him quoting MacIntyre and Eliot about the "End of Western Civilization."
The point is this: Does B16 reject liberal democracy as a mess that cannot be saved? No. And that already puts him at odds with a lot of Augustinians.
From Fr Jape:
...This is illustrated by the Holy Father's own commentary on Vatican II and DH as a "counter syllabus" meant to codify what had already been established de facto as the Church's changed relationship with national powers following the events of 1789. Yet this has not prevented Ratzinger from a muscular assertion of the Church's authoritative teaching and prerogatives in the public square and over Church members who are active participants therein.
I don't think any Whigs would disagree with the Holy Father or Jape on this point.
The dialog between the Augustinian Thomists and the Whig Thomists is much broader than just the issue of reconciling the Church social teachings with liberal democracy. It also involves economics, the preferential option for the poor, etc. Ultimately it involves questions about nature and grace.
Stephen Hand of TCRnews responds in his Musings to Christopher Blosser's comments.
On your website, you've made three pages of Whigs (Neuhaus, Weigel, & Novak) and none for the Augustinian Thomists. The Church and the Liberal Tradition portrays to be a neutral page, but it's decidedly more Whig (lop-sided). You've missed or left out many of the most important Communio articles of Dr. David Schindler and other Augustinian Thomists.
Concerning what some regard as my peculiar fascination with "the neocons" -- I've explained the existence of my personal tributes to Neuhaus, Novak, Weigel here, in a response to one of Stephen Hand's acerbic criticisms of my blog.
I do confess that I have a fairly eclectic website and taste in Catholic writers -- the personal tributes that you see are to those whose writings have influenced my journey to the Catholic Church.
As far as the 'Church and the Liberal Tradition' website goes, as you rightfully observe I do make the attempt to encompass all perspectives and contributors to the debate.
If I am not always successful in presenting both sides of the debate, it's not by intent but rather due to lack of available resources. As with my other websites, my references are usually limited to what's available on the web.
Regretfully, Communio hasn't yet followed the general norm of making their contents available online to the public (free or by subscription).
As representative of the "Augustinian Thomists" I appreciate Dr. Schindler's contributions to the debate, but as he is generally published in Communio he falls among those authors who aren't as accessible online.
NOTE: I've just added a link to your list of 'must read' Communio articles by Schindler and updated the 'additional articles' to include those from The New Pantagruel. In researching I've found that the Kraynak links you mentioned on your blog were already included.
Likewise, as in my other websites, I extend the invitation to forward me links to pertinent articles by said authors that I may have missed. (I've actually found additional articles by way of your blog, David, for which I'm sincerely thankful).
Saying that though, your websites are still some of the best on the web. Thanks for all of your hard work there!
Thanks -- I appreciate the compliment. =)
David,
Thanks (I think?) for the link to Stephen Hand's latest rant -- an example of what I'd call classic Handian vitriol. You can expect said comments to be excised from his blog in the next week or so, as it appears to be his revisionist tendency of late to remove such rants once he regains control of his Irish temper. =)
I've given up the habit of responding to Stephen's personal insults, but regarding his assertion that the Zwicks are "first rate thinkers" and possess a true knowledge of Novak's writing, one has only to compare the quality of their writing with Michael Novak himself.
For instance, in the article you linked to, the Zwick's summarize Novak's thesis in Free Persons and the Common Good:
The common good is redefined [by Novak] to mean only the private good of individuals based on self-interest, which someday may trickle down to the poor. According to Novak, in our complex world, it is impossible to know what the common good might be; therefore the solution is to work for one's own self-interest and someday that will help everyone.
Now, if one were to actually pick up the actual text -- as I happened to do this past week -- one would encounter a rather substantial reflection on this topic, written in honor of the 40th anniversary of Jacques Maritain's Free Persons and the Common Good. (Novak speaks of Maritain as his mentor and is influenced by his work -- for a personal tribute by Novak to Maritain, see: ).
I'm only on the second chapter, but suffice to say Novak clearly does not equate the commonn good "to mean only the private good of individuals based on self-interest."
Rather, he shows what both the liberal and Catholic tradition has to say on this subject, drawing from St. Thomas Aquinas (with special attention to Jacques Maritain and Charles De Koninck); the thought of our founding fathers and their contemporaries (ex. the Federalist Papers and Alexis de Tocqueville on "self interest rightly understood"); and Vatican II (Gaudium Et Spes s. 26, which defines the good as "the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment"). It's a fairly lengthy, detailed and in my opinion rich reflection on the topic.
Unfortunately, nothing more is said of this book by the Zwicks.
Likewise, I don't expect the Zwicks' readers will gain an appreciation of what Novak has to say in his 500 pg "magnum opus" The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism from their citation of a single line: "Democratic capitalism calls forth not only a new theology, but a new type of religion" . . . from which they conclude "this new religion, as defined by neoconservatives, emphasizes wealth creation" and their subsequent boast that "the authors of this article prefer the religion of the Gospels and the Tradition of the Church founded by Jesus himself."
Now, perhaps the Zwick's crude "summaries" of Michael Novak will suffice for Stephen Hand and readers of the Houston Catholic Worker, but I think those who content themselves with the Zwicks, so as to never pick up Novak's actual writings, will be sorely deprived.
This is not "first rate thinking." These are blatant and delibrate misrepresentation of another's work -- more of a passionate screed than anything else, and hardly rising to the level of a substantial academic critique / point-by-point rebuttal of Novak's arguments.
On second thought, perhaps the Zwicks should maintain this style of writing, if as a consequence of their "neocon" straw-man portrayal more readers like myself will be perplexed enough to investigate the writings of Novak and company for themselves.
Christ is in our midst!
I wish no ill-will towards neither Christopher or Stephen. Both do great work on their websites. My simple blog is not worthly of mention on either website. I deeply value my friendships with both men.
Stephen - thank you for posting my comments on the London Bombings.
Christopher - thank you for updating your 'Church and the Liberal Tradition' website.
Please pray for me and for my family.
chief among sinners,
David
I neglected to include the link to Novak's salue to Jacques Maritain which I had mentioned above -- the article is: A Salute to Jacques Maritain The Catholic Writer: The Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute 2 (1989): 65-82.
You will botice how Christopher Blosser says he has given up answering Stephen Hand's "rants", and then goes on to ...answer him ----again.
Go figure.
I criticize Blosser in defense of the Zwicks' elucidations of the issue ---whose sandals Blosser is not worthy to pry the gum from---not as any gratuitous crack of the lash at Chris Blosser. The Zwicks, as any who read them know, are always exactly on point, which is what bothers our NeoCon friends, I suspect. Their criticism finds its roots in the tradition, not in any baptizing of one Adam Smith.
Finally, I must trim our Musings section all the time for lack of space (it has nothing to do with temper--Chris only seems himself in that section?). TCR's archives are rather vast, whereas our musings section is only one page! None of our musings remain forever, because TCR is not a blog but a news, opinion and information website with limited space, and only one Musings page. The issues dealings with the nonsense of others---as opposed to issues of substance--- are often the first to go or get trimmed (they would be endless!), for obvious reasons, but all our musings are removed. No need for Chris' conspiracy theories.
Blosser's criticisms of me are factional and reflexive by now, so one would do better to go to the source to see for oneself: TCNews.com Chris and co. follow us around the Net (though he will deny this) hoping to turn good Catholics into good, card carrying, NeoCons.
I respect Novak but not, I'm afraid, many of his groupies.
Stephen Hand
PS If Chris want to "not answer" this again it will mean he wants to drag it out again. I won't bite. Visit TCR instead.
Stephen: You will botice how Christopher Blosser says he has given up answering Stephen Hand's "rants", and then goes on to ...answer him ----again.
With respect to Stephen Hand, if I encounter a particularly nasty post directed at me, I try to pick out the legitimate points of criticism and respond to those, while ignoring the usual epithets ("money-imperialist"; "neocon"; "warblogger", etc.) which constitute an impediment to a honest discussion.
While I've largely removed myself from direct interaction w. Stephen as he seems incapable of civil dialogue, in this case, I felt it was necessary to clarify exactly why I do not believe the Zwicks are "exactly on point" in their treatment of Novak but rather indulge in a misreading and misrepresentation.
Having done so, I leave it to the good sense of David's readers to judge for themselves.
* * *
Secondly, contrary to Stephen's charges, I have no personal agenda for turning good Catholics into "card carrying neocons." (Stephen's apparent love of the term label may in fact compel me to blog at some point on the history of the term "neocon" and why it's use as an epithet tends to short-circuit a good discussion).
I will, however, maintain that one may disagree with the platform of the Houston Catholic Worker and/or TCRNews and yet remain -- like Weigel, Novak, Neuhaus, Cardinal Dulles and the host of others who have been unjustly maligned -- good and faithful Catholics.
On that note, I yield to the judgement of Pope Benedict XV in his encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum and offer it up to Stephen and our fellow readers as a model for future discussions:
"As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline - in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See -- there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline."
In Christ,
Christopher
Wow!
This has been quite the discussion, involving a couple of my fav bloggers (Christopher & David).
As (I think) both of you know, I place myself more in the AT camp when it comes to issues on which they disagree (the Iraq War being a notable exception). For me, it comes down to an issue noted early on by David: nature & grace. When it comes down to it, I find the AT position on the relationship between nature & grace far more compelling, both in its positive explication and in critiques of the WT view. Along with our beloved Holy Father, I see secularism as perhaps the predominant threat to the Gospel today, and I find the AT camp much better at rendering a substantial, thorough critique of that threat.
Relatedly, I've been convinced by the AT criticisms of modernity; although I count many WTs as friends, I thoroughly disagree with them when it comes to Kant and the implications of his thought for the West.
I think I'll end things somewhat abruptly here and see where they go...
Hey Chris, don't stop now, the fun's just started! =)
Relatedly, I've been convinced by the AT criticisms of modernity; although I count many WTs as friends, I thoroughly disagree with them when it comes to Kant and the implications of his thought for the West.
Can you elaborate on Kant and where he, specifically, figures in the WT position?
Refer to Controversy in Journal of Markets and Morality - Volume 7, Number 2
A helpful book in this discussion is Christian Faith and Modern Democracy: God and Politics in the Fallen World.
Christopher, I can try (by which I mean that I understand the point enough for myself, but perhaps insufficiently to explain it)...
In short, WTism argues that on certain points, Kant got it right; OTOH, ATism is highly critical of Kant, seeing him as the root of many modern errors.
One example (again, I think I'm getting this right)... "rights". ATs argue that the concept of rights is (at best) overdone, and that it carries with it serious problems (e.g. overemphasis on what is due me as opposed to my duty to others). WTs, OTOH, think that the Church's appropriation of the language of rights is a good thing, and is a step forward. In any event, both sides see "rights talk" as flowing from Kant and his categorical imperative.
I hope this isn't overly fuzzy and ill-defined... let me know what doesn't make sense. Heck, I probably haven't said anything you didn't already know!
(NB: the primary source for me on this is Tracey Rowland's book "Culture & the Thomist Tradition: After Vatican II"; Kraynak is another source, as David notes.)
Chris / David -- thanks very much for the recommendations, and Chris, it makes perfect sense.
I've ordered the particular issue of Journal of Markets and Morality - Volume 7, Number 2 -- looks like a good one. I'm investigating the 'used book' leads for Kraynak.
Post a Comment