After several posts by Mark Shea on the subject of “conservatism”, I must admit I don’t like those conservative Catholics very much. Anyway, at least how Mark Shea describes them. Fortunately, I haven’t met very many who fit Mark’s description. And I think I would have run into them, for I am a conservative Catholic.
I won’t go point for point with Mark on this as he has so many points it would be rather pointless. A snippet then. Mark says things like:
But when alleged conservative Catholics tell me that they would rather get their social teaching from a talking hairdo on FOX than from the bishops, when they tell me that it is “moralistic” not to be willing to put your soul at risk of the fires of hell by committing what used to be called “war crimes”, when they make excuses for buffoons who think saluting the brave idealists of the Waffen SS with their sons is a sure fire indication of sound judgment—and that any criticism of this makes one vehemently suspect of heresy and a traitor to the Faith—I can only say that the Right is becoming as mindlessly ideological as the Left. And ideology is not the Faith.
So Catholics who also call themselves Catholic willingly admit that they would rather get their social teaching from “a talking hairdo on FOX.” Truth is, I don’t know these people. I know lots and lots of Catholics of a conservative political bent, and I don’t know anyone who puts Glenn Beck or any other host ahead of the Bishops. Not one.
Now obviously there are kooks out there I can’t speak for every person who call himself Catholic conservative (neither can Mark btw), but that is not any of the Catholic conservatives I know. Glenn Beck is an entertainer, not a …>>>>
October 19, 2010 at 7:48 pm
I refuse to read Shea for the same reason I refuse to read Ann Coulter i.e., personally insulting an opponent while making a point is repulsive. There is WAY too much of that on both sides of the liberal/conservative aisle. Folks who do that should become mud wrestlers, it'd be more in line with their personalities and their fan base would be more appreciative.
October 19, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Patrick Button,
I think Woods' article is actually quite poorly done. It conflates distributivism with "yeoman"-ism. This is understandable since one of his criticisms is spot on, not enough has been done to articulate distributivism for the modern world. In Chesterton and Belloc's time, distributivism would have looked a lot more like yeomanism. But things have changed.
The important thing to remember is that distributivism doesn't call for the absolute distribution of the means of production among the populace. Not everyone has to work their own farm or have their own business. Distributivism holds that the means of production should be as widely distributed *as possible*. This will sometimes require large corporations, because economies of scale are a very real thing.
I think that is the thing often missed. Distributivism isn't opposed to largeness, but rather to unnecessary centralization of capital .. either in the state (socialism) or a capitalist oligarchy (capitalism). It is the difference between advocating limited government and advocating small government.
October 19, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Wow, Paul – now I'm lazy! Fox News, if you don't know, seems to be the place that represents conservative values such as Mr. Shea speaks of. Personally, I rarely watch television and tend to avoid radio talk shows as well. As Mark suggests, perhaps reading the Compendium on Catholic Social Teaching may be helpful in regards to what positions we should take in regards to a myriad of issues. I mentioned immigration, because it brings a quick onslaught of rather hateful responses when the mere subject comes up. There have been bishops who have thoughtfully tackled the subject but many Catholics judge that they can disregard their counsel without much thought or reflection. If you don't know any people like that, I'm happy for you 🙂 Now I have to get my lazy self back into the kitchen where I belong 😉
October 19, 2010 at 11:23 pm
Shea is basically a liberal. He's anti-death penalty, anti-military, and seems to be uptight about folks who espouse and actively promote traditional and conservative polictical and religious values. And he's mean and petty toward people who disagree with his hobby horses. Why this over-rated intellectual bully is taken seriously by some Catholics is hard to figure out.
October 19, 2010 at 11:53 pm
He can be a highly enjoyable writer. I think it may boil down to a broken fact-vs-view meter.
October 20, 2010 at 12:17 am
This comment has been removed by the author.
October 20, 2010 at 12:58 am
I didn't call you lazy, I said relying on the Fox News meme is lazy.
October 20, 2010 at 1:10 am
Juscot: I would hardly call Shea anti-military. He opposes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but that doesn't mean he hates the military. As for the death penalty, the Church discourages execution if the public can be protected by a life sentence instead.
Wine in the Water: You raise some interesting points. I will have to research this issue more thoroughly. What seems to me to be another flaw in distributism is its implementation. How exactly would one create a distributist society without violating private property rights? When people start to talk about how much property someone "ought" to have, you're on the road not towards freedom but slavery. Forgive me if my understanding of distributism is lacking.
October 20, 2010 at 1:12 am
Patrick,
I don't know that it would be fair to say what distributivism would specifically recommend. I would defer to true experts on the matter.
But speaking generally, we have governmental and social policies and structures. These should be crafted to promote the wide distribution of the means of production. Currently, we have legal and social policies and structures that tend to favor the concentration of the the means of production into the hands of the wealthy and the state.
October 20, 2010 at 1:33 am
I rarely link to my own blog– don't think I've done it before– but here's my response to Mark Shea.
http://rantingcaolicmom.blogspot.com/th
October 20, 2010 at 1:58 am
I like reading Mark Shea. His writing is worth reading, even when I do or don't disagree. And…SHOCK! I don't always agree with the Archbolds, even though I love their blog. Things start getting very dangerous when we need to attack everyone who doesn't agree with us. That's the beauty of freedom.
October 20, 2010 at 2:29 am
http://rantingcatholicmom.blogspot.com/
Sorry, screwed up the link in my previous response.
October 20, 2010 at 2:35 am
Anon-
the need to attack those who disagree is a large chunk of why a lot of folks are so hurt and upset and don't read him anymore. He doesn't allow for legitimate diversity of opinion inside his view of events, let alone a different view on what actually happened.
October 20, 2010 at 3:02 am
Foxfier,
OK, I do hear that, and I have seen that comment made several places. After reading comments in the article that Patrick wrote on the NCR page that go back and forth between Patrick and Mark, they seem to be well-expressed and charitable. Or they were when last I read (which was about an hour ago:-).
Anon 8:58
October 20, 2010 at 3:15 am
Would that be where he's claiming those who disagree with him on the death penalty aren't taking it seriously, or where he says that since Beck has Catholics in his audience and sells a lot of books then there are Catholics putting him above the Bishops?
Perhaps where he responded to someone pointing out the actual text of the Catechism by claiming they were illustrating his point about not taking it seriously….
Elsewhere?
How about his actions in the water boarding issue? Because, after all, if you don't agree it's always torture you're evil, and spreading lies conflating it with other water-based agreed tortures is just hunky-dory. (Water cure and tormento de toca, that I've identified– I don't really have the stomach for researching ancient torture methods.)
It's been a long time, but I vaguely remember his BDS is what first turned me off from reading him… it put me in mind of the bullies from my high school, not someone with policy differences. You transgress, therefore all things are acceptable as an attack.
Again, it has been quite some time, and it's not like I hold close and polish this stuff in my memory.
October 20, 2010 at 3:16 am
Mark is often charitable with other major bloggers, but less than so with commenters. It's not an usual phenomenon, and I don't single Mark out for such behavior.
October 20, 2010 at 3:52 am
Thank you for the tip of Zippy Catholic. I've sent a word of thanks to him/her for the posts regarding the past Presidential election, although most of the theological analysis was way over my head for now. I was also personally engaged with a posse of pro-McCain voters who would demand people vote for McCain without giving informed consent about McCain's true pro-death beliefs. Most of what Zippy Catholic discussed was deja vu, sadly. It's good to know I wasn't the only one promoting full disclosure.
Oremus!
October 20, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Pat, Shea is anti-military. Go to his CALI blog and you will see a pattern of anti-military posts. Compare those posts with crap that was being written or spoken during the Vietnam war, and you'll see there's not much differance in spirit and attitude between them and Shea's posts.
The death penalty is taught from Genesis to Revealation in the Holy Scriptures. The Church has always taught the justice of the DP. It has only been in recent years that people who are influenced by liberal thought or who are just outright liberals have attempted to water down this historical orthodox teaching.
The idea that society can be protected by giving murderers a life sentence is a fallacy. When most criminals are caught and arrested for the first time, they have already commited several crimes. I'm not saying every murderer is a serial killer, bt why take chances? And the word of God commands us in Genesis to shed the blood of a man who has murderered another man.
October 20, 2010 at 6:29 pm
One of the great losses to the internet was when Zippy decided to hang up the blogging keyboard. I am sure he has his reasons, but man, do I miss him!
October 20, 2010 at 6:31 pm
The idea that society can be protected by giving murderers a life sentence is a fallacy.
Can't say I agree with that. It doesn't seem to be an issue that can be categorically determined. In some societies, in some places, with certain convicts, that may or may not be accurate.