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.
It was the LEAD article in the Acton News this week! It's even listed as "The Acton Commentary" on their MAIN website. Call me crazy, but they are officially promoting it by every means possible.
David, did you actually read the article? Or is this a reactionary post based on the title? -- If you disagree with the content of the article, please elaborate.
In any case, I do think you mischaracterize it as the "formal" position of the Acton Institute. As with any think tank there are a number of people who are called upon to offer commentary on an issue. When a new article (fresh content) appears, they run it on their homepage to get the word out. Same process as National Review, First Things, New Pantagruel, etc. Judging by their archive this particular comment is serialized -- new content every week.
Consider the following commentary that have appeared on the issue of Katrina in earlier weeks:
If anything could be said to be their "formal" position, it would be this:
Katrina Guide to Giving, urging "effective compassion" by examination of various charities and their financial accountablity prior to donating (proper stewardship).\
So is this a center-left, Christian socialist blog? Or is it stuck in the fantasy of distributism? Because the cheap shots against pro-free market people that this blog takes can be explained as coming from a variety of sources
Since it's unlikely that Dr. Morse's article will be adequately conveyed on this blog, let's summarize her chief points:
"It is really unseemly for the Governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans to be blaming the Federal government. After all, the state and local governments in America are supposed to have the authority and the responsibility to be the first responders to natural disasters in their jurisdictions." [While there are grounds for criticizing FEMA, it can be demonstrated that NOLA's city and state governments were gravely deficient in their response].
During his visit to America in 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville made some cultural observations about the attitudes between his fellow Frenchmen and the Americans -- especially with regards to their reliance on government -- that ring true to this day. To the degree that NOLA's city/state officials neglected to act and instead sat around waiting for "the calvary to arrive", their attitude resembled that of Tocqueville's countrymen rather than the American spirit.
Americans responding on an individual or small (often faith-based) organizational basis to the crisis in Louisiana have done so in a far swifter and more efficient manner than FEMA. Big government by its nature is often sluggish and bureaucratic and can impeded the efforts of "first-responders." Dr. Morse offers several examples from Katrina to back her position.
There were two ways to respond to Dr. Morse's article.
1) Provide an explanation of why you disagreed with the position of Dr. Morse, directly engaging with the substance of her article.
2) Simply post the (provocative but, let's face it, misleading) title of the article, call it "The official Acton Inst. position on Katrina" -- and let innuendo run its course.
The normal procedure I use on this blog is to post an article and allow a discussion in the comments. This post is no different than any others.
Christopher - your comments are reasonable and I appreciate the links to the other Acton articles. I still maintain the overall mentality of this article is very consistent with that of the Acton Inst. Let others judge if they feel the attitude taken by the author is an appropriate one.
I am neither a socialist nor a capitalist. I am Catholic.
In the past, including the recent past, I have posted many articles from Michael Novak, Fr. Sirico, and many others. I have been critical of them where I feel they are in error. I do not stand alone in this criticism.
Distributist thought is rooted in a long, long tradition of Catholic & agranian thought both here in America and England.
My thoughts on economics is very consistent with many great Catholic minds such as G.K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc, Emmanuel Mounier, Dorothy Day, E. F. Schumacher, David Schindler, Wendell Berry, and others. I am not worthy of shining any of their shoes.
Okay, well, can you apply this exagerrated humility in your treatment of Fr Sirico and his Acton Inst. as well? Because it does get misleading. This whole post is misleading.
Saying you are "Catholic" does not commit you to a certain way of approaching problems of economics or politics.
Distributism is essentially a Luddite way of thinking, we cannot go back in time and have each of us owning a plot of land, and growing our own food, that is silly and unrealistic to even bring it up. Technology has rendered Distributism ancient and useless.
To understand the impact on technology on our humanity, I recommend reading and taking to heart the thought of Charles Peguy, David Schindler, Wendell Berry, & Eric Brende.
15 comments:
Where does it say that this is the official position? Just curious, because the column was originall in townhall.com
It was the LEAD article in the Acton News this week! It's even listed as "The Acton Commentary" on their MAIN website. Call me crazy, but they are officially promoting it by every means possible.
David, did you actually read the article? Or is this a reactionary post based on the title? -- If you disagree with the content of the article, please elaborate.
In any case, I do think you mischaracterize it as the "formal" position of the Acton Institute. As with any think tank there are a number of people who are called upon to offer commentary on an issue. When a new article (fresh content) appears, they run it on their homepage to get the word out. Same process as National Review, First Things, New Pantagruel, etc. Judging by their archive this particular comment is serialized -- new content every week.
Consider the following commentary that have appeared on the issue of Katrina in earlier weeks:
It’s in the Details: Principled giving to help Katrina’s victims, by Karen W. Woods National Review Sept. 1, 2005
Rebuilding civil society in New Orleans, by Jennifer Roback Morse (Senior Fellow in Economics). Townhall.com Sept. 12, 2005.
"The State of Nature in New Orleans, by Jordan J. Ballor (Acton Inst. Blog) Sept. 6, 2005.
If anything could be said to be their "formal" position, it would be this:
Katrina Guide to Giving, urging "effective compassion" by examination of various charities and their financial accountablity prior to donating (proper stewardship).\
Which they promote with a static banner.
So this ISN'T the Acton Institute's position, then?
This article is very consistent with the overall mentality and beliefs of those that are actively supportive and active in the Acton Inst.
So is this a center-left, Christian socialist blog? Or is it stuck in the fantasy of distributism? Because the cheap shots against pro-free market people that this blog takes can be explained as coming from a variety of sources
Since it's unlikely that Dr. Morse's article will be adequately conveyed on this blog, let's summarize her chief points:
"It is really unseemly for the Governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans to be blaming the Federal government. After all, the state and local governments in America are supposed to have the authority and the responsibility to be the first responders to natural disasters in their jurisdictions." [While there are grounds for criticizing FEMA, it can be demonstrated that NOLA's city and state governments were gravely deficient in their response].
During his visit to America in 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville made some cultural observations about the attitudes between his fellow Frenchmen and the Americans -- especially with regards to their reliance on government -- that ring true to this day. To the degree that NOLA's city/state officials neglected to act and instead sat around waiting for "the calvary to arrive", their attitude resembled that of Tocqueville's countrymen rather than the American spirit.
Americans responding on an individual or small (often faith-based) organizational basis to the crisis in Louisiana have done so in a far swifter and more efficient manner than FEMA. Big government by its nature is often sluggish and bureaucratic and can impeded the efforts of "first-responders." Dr. Morse offers several examples from Katrina to back her position.
There were two ways to respond to Dr. Morse's article.
1) Provide an explanation of why you disagreed with the position of Dr. Morse, directly engaging with the substance of her article.
2) Simply post the (provocative but, let's face it, misleading) title of the article, call it "The official Acton Inst. position on Katrina" -- and let innuendo run its course.
Which approach would have done more justice?
The normal procedure I use on this blog is to post an article and allow a discussion in the comments. This post is no different than any others.
Christopher - your comments are reasonable and I appreciate the links to the other Acton articles. I still maintain the overall mentality of this article is very consistent with that of the Acton Inst. Let others judge if they feel the attitude taken by the author is an appropriate one.
Pedro,
I am neither a socialist nor a capitalist. I am Catholic.
In the past, including the recent past, I have posted many articles from Michael Novak, Fr. Sirico, and many others. I have been critical of them where I feel they are in error. I do not stand alone in this criticism.
Distributist thought is rooted in a long, long tradition of Catholic & agranian thought both here in America and England.
My thoughts on economics is very consistent with many great Catholic minds such as G.K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc, Emmanuel Mounier, Dorothy Day, E. F. Schumacher, David Schindler, Wendell Berry, and others. I am not worthy of shining any of their shoes.
Okay, well, can you apply this exagerrated humility in your treatment of Fr Sirico and his Acton Inst. as well? Because it does get misleading. This whole post is misleading.
Saying you are "Catholic" does not commit you to a certain way of approaching problems of economics or politics.
"Catholic" does commit you to certain values and principles...
Distributism is essentially a Luddite way of thinking, we cannot go back in time and have each of us owning a plot of land, and growing our own food, that is silly and unrealistic to even bring it up. Technology has rendered Distributism ancient and useless.
To understand the impact on technology on our humanity, I recommend reading and taking to heart the thought of Charles Peguy, David Schindler, Wendell Berry, & Eric Brende.
One could also add John Senior to the above list.
Post a Comment