FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Dr. Thomas Woods Jr. in the Dock
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Dr. Thomas Woods Jr. in the Dock

While engaged in a discussion over Catholic Social Doctrine with a certain Protestant author, I was directed to the works of a certain Catholic libertarian by the name of Thomas Woods, Jr. The issue under contention was whether or classical liberalism is compatible with the declarations of the Church. It was the position of my acquaintance that Dr. Woods had demonstrated with great clarity that classical liberalism was in fact compatible with Catholicism. Apparently, Woods even went so far as to publish a book where he argued this at great length.

Upon investigating the daring doctor I found a handful of oddities. On the one hand, Woods is the associate editor for Latin Mass Magazine. Well, bravo! On the other hand, he is a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. Now, Catholics advocating classical liberalism has become all too common, but a Traditional Catholic? That is an oddity ranking somewhere between a three-legged ballerina and a quadriplegic valet driver.

While rummaging through Woods' online material, I stumbled upon a document entitled Catholic Social Theory and Economic Law: An Unresolved Tension. Jackpot! If there was anything written by Woods that would clear up the matter, this appeared to be it.

Much to my dismay, I didn’t get through the first paragraph before realizing that I was in for a rather uncomfortable ride. The preface began by assuring the reader that he has the most profound respect for the popes of the 19th and 20th centuries. Now, for those who are unfamiliar with this tactic, authors resort to these “assurances” when they are about to embark upon a crusade against those they claim to so profoundly respect. This trend turned out to hold no less true here than elsewhere.

From the get-go he displays nothing but hostility towards the declarations made by the popes he claims to profoundly respect.

Woods accuses the popes of advocating “fateful” ideas and goes so far as to arrogantly insist that “if the Church is going to presume to establish moral principles on the basis of the consequences that follow from this assumption, then some demonstration of its truth must be attempted.” To make matters worse – if this is at all possible – he sides time and again with a cherry-picked number of scholastics, all of whom the Editors at IHS Press have insist are taken out horribly of context.

In short, Woods makes abundantly clear to the readers that he prefers the company and wisdom of atheist/agnostic economists over against the declarations of the Magisterium in matters pertaining to all things economic.

If I may be so frank, the tone of the entire piece echoed the kind of anti-Catholic drivel that one may expect to hear from frightful figures such as Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises. It most certainly lacked the kind of prudence that would be expected in what was peddled as a humble criticism from a faithful son of Mother Church. The reason being, of course, that Woods had no intention of reconciling CSD with classical liberalism. Quite the contrary! He was hoping that his denunciations of the popes, the encyclicals, and many of her faithful sons would in some way justify his adherence to a philosophy that is inherently at odds with the teaching of the Church.

My primary concern, though, is with a number of assertions he made much later in the paper. In fact, they came just prior to his conclusion. The header of this particular section read: The Magisterium Has No Competence Here. Just reading it gave me the impression that this mad has no fear trampling where archangels fear to tip-toe. Here is what he wrote:

“... by any definition, it lay well beyond the competence of the Magisterium to presume to describe the workings of economic relationships.” He goes on to say that while one “hesitates to describe Catholic social teaching as an abuse of papal and ecclesial power,” it “seems dubious” that popes would“attempt to impose, as moral doctrine binding on the entire Catholic world, principles that derive” from their“intrinsically fallible reasoning within a secular discipline like economics.” To add insult to injury, he thunders, “at the very least, it appears to constitute an indefensible extension of the prerogatives of the Church’s legitimate teaching office into areas which it possesses no inherent competence or divine protection from error.”

But do his claims hold true? One need look no further than the encycicals or popes he referenced throughout the paper in order to conclude with full certainty that Woods assertions are worse then wrong, they were dead on arrival.

Woods references four encyclicals written by four different popes: Rerum Novarum, Leo XIII; Quadragesimo Anno, Pius XI; Pacem In Terris, John XXIII; and Laborem Exercens, John Paul II. The question, then, is what authority these documents, and the popes who wrote them, claimed to possess in the field under consideration.

Rerum Novarum, the Magna Carta of CSD, is not so outspoken in regards to the authority of the Church in matters of economic affairs as are later encyclicals, but it is certainly not left without a witness. In section 16 we read: “We approach the subject [economic and social theory] with confidence, and in the exercise of the rights which manifestly appertain to Us.” While Pope Leo XIII wouldn’t presume a monopoly on the putting together of a comprehensive program applicable to any and all people in any and all places, he would certainly declare that the Church is at the forefront among various authorities concerned with the putting together remedies for various economic ills and shortcomings.

Pope Pius XI was far more outspoken. In Quadragesimo Anno he wrote that Rerum Novarum was written in the “virtue of the Divine Teaching office entrusted to him [Leo XIII].” The pontiff goes on to write in section 11 that “the Pope clearly exercised his right” and that he declared “confidently and as one having authority” those things that “the Church, heads of States and the people themselves directly concerned ought to do.” He reiterates this in section 31 when saying that “the rules” which Leo XIII issues were “in virtue of his [papal] authority.”

It is in sections 39 and 41 of the same encyclical, though, that Woods will find himself in a great deal of trouble. A passing glance of these two sections ought to have caused him an extraordinary level of discomfort.

Section 39 declares that “those who would seem to hold in little esteem this Papal Encyclical [Rerum Novarum] and its commemoration either blaspheme what they know not, or understand nothing of what they are only superficially acquainted with, or if they do understand convict themselves formally of injustice and ingratitude.”

In like manner, section 41 says that “principle which Leo XIII so clearly established must be laid down at the outset here, namely, that there resides in Us the right and duty to pronounce with supreme authority upon social and economic matters.” The pope continues by saying that this would “bring under the subject of Our supreme jurisdiction not only social order but economic activities themselves.”

Conveniently, Woods was not inclined to deal with, much less reference, passages of this nature in his diatribe.

Pacem In Terris, written by Blessed Pope John XXIII, followed on the heels of another encyclical by the same pontiff entitled Mater et Magistra. The claims of authority and jurisdiction in Mater Et Magistra were foundational for any and all declarations that would follow, whether in that encyclical or in any other.

John XXIII says in section 16 of Mater et Magistra that “We approach the subject [social and economic theory] with confidence, and in the exercise of the rights which manifestly appertain to Us.” The pope goes on to say in section 218 that“the permanent validity of the Catholic Church’s social teaching admits of no doubt.” From here he spends the larger portion of the end declaring directives that he considers to be binding on all, especially the faithful children of the Church. He insists that CSD “is an integral part of the Christian conception of life” (222); that it should be taught in all seminaries, schools, religious instruction programs, and spread through all mass media (223); that beloved sons should put it into practice and strive to have others understand it (224); that they should be “convinced that the best way of demonstrating the truth and efficacy of this teaching is to show that it can provide the solution to present-day difficulties” (225); and that these principles must be put into effect (240).

Here, too, we see strong warnings for those, like Dr. Woods, who would fail to embrace papal instruction on social and economic matters. Section 241 requires that the faithful Catholic's "attitude must be one of loyal trust and filial obedience to ecclesial authority.” For the pope was concerned that “if in the transactions of their temporal affairs they take no account of those social principles which the Church teaches… then they fail in their obligations… [and] may even go so far as to bring discredit on the Church’s teaching, lending substance to the opinion that, in spite of its intrinsic value, it is in fact powerless to direct men’s lives.”

These words, possibly above all others, force men like Woods to their knees in fear and trembling. Instead, as with similar warnings in other encyclicals of this nature, Woods allowed them to hit the cutting-room floor.

As for the final encyclical referenced by Woods, it had little to say of its own authority. Pope John Paul II, in Laborem Exercens, had no reason to reiterate what had been said so many times over concerning the authority of the Magisterium in regards to social and economic matters. Still, in article III section 14, the pope states that “the many proposals put forward by experts in Catholic social teaching and by the highest Magisterium of the Church” are of “special significance.” While "special significance" may not bear the same kind of gavel pounding found in Mater et Magistra, I see nowhere within the enclyclical that the nature of things had in any way changed from the time of Blessed John XXIII and the writing of Labor Exercens.

It should be obvious, then, that Woods is in grave error concerning the issue of the Magisterium’s jurisdiction over both social and economic concerns. Consequently, he has chosen to side with a mongrel horde of atheists, agnostics, and a cherry-picked remnant of scholastics (taken out of context) over against the Bishops of Rome and the overwhelming majority of the Church’s faithful sons who worked long and hard towards the reconstructing of a Catholic social order. He gives aid and comfort to those enemies of the faith by boldly criticizing the Church and calling into question the very right to jurisdiction the pontiffs claimed for themselves and their decrees. Furthermore, he advocates those very social and economic dogmas that the sovereign pontiffs condemn. But, worst of all, his actions place him in the frightening position of an obstinate son as described, particularly, in Quadragesimo Anno and Mater Et Magistra.

It is my hope that Woods would reconsider his position, and that he would do so with a sense of great urgency. With this being done, I pray that he would put as much effort into educating others about the majesty and wisdom of CSD as he has into deconstructing it in hope of salvaging his commitment to theories the Church has steadfastly denounced.

Posted by Paleocrat

also:
http://fideidefensor.wordpress.com/2008/...economics/
THE PALEOCRAT TRIBUNELittle more than a gaggle of hacks and geeks.
On Ethical Dimensions of Economics
with 25 comments


It was only a matter of weeks ago that I first posted a critique of Dr. Thomas Woods, Jr. My contention was, and continues to be, that the distinguished scholar has placed himself in a dangerous position for his outright defiance of and hostility towards the Church’s economic and social doctrine. I still maintain this position.


The issue soon came up on YouTube. Various viewers wanted to know my position on the matter of Catholicism and economic liberalism, and most had not read my previous remarks concerning the subject. So as any arm-chair vlogger with too much time on his hands would do, I decided to produce a video. It was rather specific, maybe even too specific, in that it dealt only with the claims the popes have made of the Magisterium’s jurisdiction, competence, and supreme authority over social and economic principles, matters, and activities. I provided both positive affirmations from the Popes as well as their warnings and judgments upon those who would beg to differ.


Then, out of the blue, I get a YouTube message from none other than Dr. Woods. He was rather unhappy with the fact that I had criticized him without having first read his book. I must grant that I have yet to read his book, and I am not at all sure that I wish to. I have little time to spare, and even fewer pennies. More significant would be that my knowledge of him and his position, being derived from both written and audio material, is more than satisfactory. Nevertheless, I will grant that my having done as much would have fulfilled a common courtesy that falls somewhere between arbitrary and advantageous.


More important than his being irked by my having side-stepped lining his pocket was his one million dollar challenge. Well, he didn’t offer one million, but he did offer to “listen.” He went on to insist that an inability to do so would be to concede his belief that economics is an autonomous and amoral science. In any case, here is the challenge:


If anyone can point out to me a_theoretical_statement from economics that contains a moral dimension, then I will listen.


He went on to say:


As soon as you can find me one principle of economic theory that is bound up with morality, you be sure and let me know.


Now, lest anyone be confused as to what he is asking for, his request is limited to “ONE principle of economic theory.” Not four, or three, or even two; no, Dr. Woods only asks for one.


Should we go with profit, value, labor, private property, or any other single principle readily at our fingertips? Maybe next time. I’ll take the hard way.


For the sake of this blog entry, we will have to make a few things clear. First, Dr. Woods denies that the Magisterium has jurisdiction, competency, and supreme authority over economic and social principles, matters, and activities. He readily admits that this is in blatant contradiction to the declarations of the popes. Secondly, he denies that social and economic theory is to be guided by social justice and charity, as well as it being a matter of anthropology, thus placing it within the realm of moral theology. This, too, is contrary to the claims of the popes. Lastly, he would consequently deny that the papal warnings and judgments against those who would lack the kind of loyal trust and filial obedience to fearlessly uphold and apply the principles and directives given within the social encyclicals. Needless to say, such disregard is deemed scandalous and would formally convict one of the grossest of injustice and ingratitude. Once again, Dr. Woods doesn’t even wince. The popes have no jurisdiction, competence, or authority, so their verdicts, including their harshest warnings, are of no effect.


So what of his challenge? Does he have a point? Is economics a morally neutral science? Are economics theories without any ethical dimension?


Foremost amongst his problems is the idea that epistemology (in general) is ethically neutral. This is an unargued assumption. He may presuppose this, but that doesn’t necessarily make it so. In fact, one would be hard pressed to say that Christian epistemology allows it. One could, and should, work from the assumption that to know things as they are or ought to be is to known them rightly. If this is done, then we know things as God has made them or would have them to be. Seeing things in this manner would cause our knowing rightly to be theological matter and an ethical good. It is the equivalent of demanding that we think God’s thoughts after him. In so far as we do this, we are seeing and thinking things rightly and, consequently, ethically.


So from the outset we see that he has an epistemological problem on his hands. It is a presuppositional matter. This, being the framework wherein he rests his argument, poses a serious problem for all which is to come.


Let’s ignore for a moment this glaring difficulty, and just presume for the sake of argument that epistemology is neutral. Aside from it making all knowledge amoral, posing serious problems for the morality of thought and belief, such a notion is of no value in arguments of this nature. Even if I said that an economic theory, as a collection of symbols attempting to communicate a message to be decoded by a receiver, was neutral, the meaning of the words and the value judgments it makes would bear moral significance.


Take for example laissez-faire. The theory would have us believe that men and nations will prosper most under conditions wherein the state abstains from most, if not all, economic interventions into the free market where goods are freely exchanged. Sounds neutral enough, right? It’s just a theory, right? Well, no and kind of. The theory is riddled with moral dimensions. We must deal with how to define concepts like men, nations, prosperity, the state and its purpose, and what is or is not to be included within the notion of goods to be exchanged. Each and every one of these touches upon a moral and theological concept.


Moreover, it’s not so much the theory, as an accumulation of words, which is at issue here as it is with the underlying presuppositions of any given theory. The concern is with one’s notion of man, the world, how things relate and interact with one another, how things ought to relate and interact with one another, etc. To leave it as theory would be nonsense seeing that the theorist has in mind putting his theory into action. One could also point out that economics deals not only with how things work, but with how things ought to work, therefore tossing it headfirst into the realm of ethics.


In final analysis, it should be rather clear that Dr. Woods has wrongfully presupposed the notion of epistemological neutrality, causing him to gloss over the fact that economic theory, even as just a set of words, is not left without a moral dimension in so far as it deals with reality and is attempting to communicate with morally loaded words and concepts how things ought to be.


Why Dr. Woods continues down this road of ruin is left unknown. But those faithful sons and daughters of the Magisterium should begin holding his feet to the fire, demanding that he at least begin to listen.

Active content removed Active content removed
Number of articles on economics that Belloc posts daily: half a dozen.
Number of pages per article: two.
Number of Fish Eaters who read them: zero.
Seeing Belloc persevere: priceless.

And irritating.
More absurdities by people who themselves do not understand the nature of the debate.  Yes, to these people it's against the Magisterium to say that wages aren't arbitrarily decided.  How someone could be so uncomprehending and superstitious as to think a technical question like this is subject to ecclesiastical resolution is beyond me.  What we have here, in fact, is a nasty little blockhead who isn't content to debate the issues, which he is incapable of doing -- he has still not listed a __principle of economic theory__ that involves a moral question -- but who tries to shunt the questioner out of the Church.  Nice caricature of Catholicism.

Here's yet another smash of this stunted point of view: "Chesterton and Belloc: A Critique," by W. Block, M. Epstein, and T. Woods.  http://www.independent.org/publications/....asp?a=632
(07-28-2009, 11:45 AM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote: [ -> ]Number of articles on economics that Belloc posts daily: half a dozen.
Number of pages per article: two.
Number of Fish Eaters who read them: zero.
Seeing Belloc persevere: priceless.

And irritating.

Correction: at least one....ME!

Thank you for your time.
(07-28-2009, 11:41 PM)HailGilbert Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-28-2009, 11:45 AM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote: [ -> ]Number of articles on economics that Belloc posts daily: half a dozen.
Number of pages per article: two.
Number of Fish Eaters who read them: zero.
Seeing Belloc persevere: priceless.

And irritating.

Correction: at least one....ME!

Thank you for your time.

Two!
I stand corrected, though I still think that Belloc should not flood the forum for so small an audience.
(07-28-2009, 11:41 PM)HailGilbert Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-28-2009, 11:45 AM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote: [ -> ]Number of articles on economics that Belloc posts daily: half a dozen.
Number of pages per article: two.
Number of Fish Eaters who read them: zero.
Seeing Belloc persevere: priceless.

And irritating.

Correction: at least one....ME!

Thank you for your time.

Ich auch. Gibt's zwei dabei.  :P