Awesome piece on CE, Mark - that phrase "grace raises nature to fruitfulness" is a great one. That'll reverberate in my head for a while, I hope.

Thanks!
Kathleen Lundquist | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 4:23 pm | #

CE is a daily stop on my internet browsing trip. All the contributers do good work, especially the scribe from the Seattle ares. A great example of "thinking with the Church".
Ron Rolling | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 5:34 pm | #

Interesting article. Being an evangelical, I've seldom heard catholic doctrine on contraception explained clearly, although had some sympathy with it (well, I used to think it completely stupid, then came across Chesterton's comparison with vomitoria, which kinda struck me). So, thanks.

That said, I have to register my loathing of the word "persons", and to a lesser degree, "personhood". I dunno how it's used your side of the atlantic, but to my ears it sounds clinical and abstracted, like a police announcement. ('We must regretfully inform the general public that, under the influence of original sin, increasing numbers of persons have begun regarding other persons as things, even to the point of radical reduction of persons to property or cadavers. Members of the public are advised to be on the lookout for suspicious persons engaged in exaltation of the things of power and money over the personhoods of others. We have set up a special hotline for concerned citizens on 0-800...')
JRA | 04.26.06 - 7:07 pm | #

Gotta admire the conclusions of science.
Mary | 04.26.06 - 8:37 pm | #

Very nice piece on Catholic Exchange Mark. Well written and I enjoyed it.

God Bless
Chris Sullivan | 04.26.06 - 8:59 pm | #

(1) The analogy with vomitoria was Muggeridge's, I believe (Confessions of a Twentieth-Century Pilgrim, 1988, pp 140-41). Although much repeated, it's not a very close analogy. The Roman who eats to excess, spews it out, then goes back to eating has abandoned the physical pleasure of eating. This does not correspond to "You must not have sex solely for pleasure, at least not while adding anything to your body designed to impede conception."

A better analogy to contraception would be junk food -- ie, stuff you eat purely for pleasure, without it containing any nutrition. The Pope's position would then be analogous to arguing that it is wrong to eat (say) chocolate ice cream, because to do so means separating the nutriative from the tastiative aspects of the eatative act. Moreover, eating too much ice cream leads to obesity. it would be irrelevant that, after a dish of ice cream, you jog twenty miles and eat cucumbers. On the other hand, it would be morally licit to put chocolate on your waffles.

(2) Re: "Autonomy does not stop with mere contraception. It inexorably (and swiftly) leads to an abortion mentality"

Has anybody ever actually met a living, breathing, real-life person who said "I wasn't sure about the morality of abortion, but I figured contraception was okay so therefore abortion must be fine?" I'm not talking about judges extending precedents piece by piece to reach a result they've already intended (in which case, the real ancestor of Roe was a 1920s case, Pierce, where the Sup Court held that States could not ban parents from having their children educated by nuns... If only Americans had listened to the Nativists back then, no Roe!). I'm talking about individuuals forming their beliefs.

No? Me neither. Everyone I've met who's pro-abortion is pro-contraception as an result, not a cause. If you're willing to eat carrion, then of course you won't baulk at chocolate ice-cream. That doesn't prove eating choc ice cream leads to eating carrion.

(3) It is hard to square the predictions of Humanae Vitae with the fact that, for example, when Roe was decided in 1973, the Southern Baptists applauded the decision as upholding separation of church and state. Many evangelicals were blase. Since 1973, of course, evangelicals have become strongly anti-abortion -- yet without in any way rejecting contraception (apart from the occasional Hahns, Hoges or Torodes who don't remain Protestants for long). In the Catholoverse, this Does Not Compute. Accepting contraception is supposed to make you *more* pro-abortion. The Pope has said so. Any contrary empirical data are "anecdotal".

(4) Re "Why's that different from artificial contraception? Because it is cooperation, not interference."

Marty Crane [John Mahoney]: "I bargained with God once. I promised Him that I’d never drink another bottle of Scotch."

Dr Niles Crane [David Hyde Pierce]: "But Dad, you still drink Scotch."

Marty Crane: "Yes, but not by the bottle!"

To evade the Quran's ban on charging interest, "the (prospective) debtor sells to the (prospective) creditor a slave for cash, and immediately buys the slave back from him at a greater amount payable at a future date. This amounts to a loan with the slave as security, and the difference between the two prices represents the interest." (Ibn Warraq, Why I Am Not A Muslim, 1995, p 167).

(5) "That is, it is not an attempt to thwart God's creative purposes in order to wrench sexual pleasure and personal autonomy"

What does it say then that a leading best-seller promoting NFP is entitled "Taking Charge of Your Fertility" [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060950536/102- 6908580-1925728?v=glance&n=283155]? Does that sound like "submitting" to God and Nature?
Tom R | 04.26.06 - 11:11 pm | #

It's interesting the way these apologetics always describe the couple in complete isolation from one another:

"There is no difference whatsoever between how we ought to address the police and how we ought to address our lover."

Most couples who use contraception agree to do it mutually. Many do so with the intent to have children together one day--or have had children in the past, and intend to have more.

It's similar to the discussion about condoms and AIDS. One of the popular dodges is: why can't they just be chaste? If you loved her you wouldn't force her to risk that.

No, you wouldn't. What if bravely, even foolishly, wanted to take that risk because she loved you? But she did want to reduce it?

Well, too bad--if she can't get pregnant, it's not perfect self giving, and--and this is really the crucial part of the sexual teachings of the church: if it's not perfect, it's a mortal sin.

I'm not buying. ANd your artificial/natural thing is as weak as it always is. If the intent is what makes some interferences wrong and others fine, why is artificial contraception with the exact same intent you describe in that paragraph morally distinguishable from NFP? THe only way I can come up with to explain the position is that each individual sex act is presumed immoral and has to prove it's innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. If it's not perfect it's evil.
Katherine | 04.27.06 - 1:42 am | #

Yo, JRA -- re. "Person." It's clinical, yes, but it's very important, especially in the context you cited.

Legally, there are "persons" and "things." "Person" indicates that which has rights; "thing" that which does not.

A "natural person" is a being, such as God, man or angel, that has "inalienable" or "natural" rights, i.e., rights simply because He or he is what He/he is. An "artificial person" (a misleading label, but technically correct) has only those rights which natural persons have delegated ("reflected" in Aristotelian terminology) to it.

A natural person cannot be owned. Under Roman law, all things and artificial persons *must* be owned, that is, under the control of natural persons. This is the reason why Locke, et al. *always* include "private property" among the essential human rights -- without life, of course, all rights are meaningless. Without liberty, you do not have the ability to exercise them. Without property, you do not have the power. "Power," as Daniel Webster observed, "naturally and necessarily follows property."

The State can assure as far as humanly possible that people have life and liberty, but to ensure that everyone has property (directly owned, that is), is still socialism. This conundrum was "solved" by George Mason of Gunston Hall (the "Father of the [American] Bill of Rights") in his draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (12 June 1776 ... guess who plagiarized him ...) when he stated,

"That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

Mason, while a slaveowner, was a strong advocate of abolition, and the other Virginia delegates sidelined his implicit abolition of chattel slavery by adding that men only had inherent rights "when they enter into a state of society."

A slaveowner in favor of abolition? Yes -- but Mason was fully aware that if he was the only one to free his slaves, he faced economic and social ruin, and the freed slaves a condition much worse than the one they had under a humane master -- freedmen were frequently taken and resold as runaways, since the law forced them to move at least 400 miles away from their former master, thereby removing them from the influence of the man who could prove their freedom. Abolition was an "all or nothing" proposition.

So -- I agree that the term "person" is cold and impersonal (which sounds odd when you put it that way), but it is, nevertheless, an extremely important term and concept, especially in Catholic social teaching. All human beings are, ipso facto, "persons," and all persons have *dignitas* -- "human dignity." This must never be violated, i.e., their essential and natural rights to life, liberty and property infringed on.

Of course, limiting rights for the common good is not infringement, but the proper exercise of social prudence. Rights, however (especially private property) must never be defined in such a way as to make the right itself a nullity, as Pius XII pointed out. In short, there are two aspects to every right -- having it, and exercising it. The former, for a natural right, is absolute, that is, inalienable, while the latter is limited and regulated for the common good of all mankind -- the exercise of an absolute right is not absolute, but optimal, given existing social structures, conditions, and the needs of individuals and mankind as a whole.

There will be a test on this next week. For extra credit, read St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine's *De Laicis* and St. Thomas Aquinas' *De Regimine Principum.*
A. Nonymouse | 04.27.06 - 7:44 am | #

Mark, a superb piece.

Re the others arguing against:

First, and this may be wrong, but one gets the feeling that the writers are contracepting and trying to justify it.

Second, there is an issue bsides abortion to which contraception is linked -- same sex marriage.

If the marital act is not about bonding and babies -- that is, sexual intercourse being both unitive and procreative, then why could it possibly be wrong for two men to marry, or for two women, or more than two?
broed | 04.27.06 - 2:56 pm | #

Everytime I try explaining the Church's position to someone like my mom whose been married 27 years, she laughs when I get to the abstract arguments about openness to life, contraception leads to abortion. She decided to have every one of us while using contraception (just stopped using it for a week, bam! new baby). All of their friends use contraception and have good size families. I know a lot of couples who got pregnant while using it and all had their babies, and turned them into happy "suprises". And all have happy marraiges that don't lack love and sacrifice.

And when you throw the fact that NFP IS okay to prevent pregnancy, then people throw up their hands and say "What is the DIFFERENCE!" Start explaining it and people reply, "um, put that in clear English PLEASE."

The Church's teaching on marital love is beautiful. If you study theology, and you're really into it, it is very beautifully written and appealing. But unfortunately the Church's warnings on all of the bad things contraception causes within marraige, and the connections between it and abortion and stem cells, etc etc, are a HUGE stretch. They don't ring true in people's experiences of life. Most people who are pro-life use contraception. And any explination for why Artificial prevention of pregnancy is wrong but Natural prevention of pregnancy is not always spiral into philosophical and theological language that not only do most people not understand, even those who do understand it have to admit that it splits hairs and skirts the question with abstractions. That kind of theological hairsplitting is fine in the classroom in Stuebenville when you are discussing abstract theological issues. But when you are telling people that they'll go to hell if they do something that has absolutely NO discernable consequences to them, and a lot of benifits, you have to have a real reason for them that they can make sense of. Espeically when they ARE allowed to intend the exact same thing and get the exact same result from slightly different method (NFP). And don't give the BS that you aren't intending the same thing. If you are doing NFP to prevent a pregnancy because you have no money or the next pregnancy will annihilate your body or because you're on medication that will deform a baby, you are trying to prevent pregnancy. You are not any more interested in the will of God or openness to new life than someone using a diaphram.

That is why so few people follow the Church's teaching on Contraception; not because their selfish or evil or think marital love and new life is cheap. Its because no one can explain it to them in real clear convincing terms. And no one is going to conform their most intimate personal life to something that they can't make sense of.

We need a better explination. The Church should never change its teachings just because people don't like them. But the Church HAS to be able to defend and explain what it does teach in language people can understand and find convincing, and that doesn't skirt the issue. People can understand pretty simply why murder, adultry, lying, cheating, stealing, even sex outside of marraige and homosexuality, is wrong without much explination. They may not agree or they may break those commandments, but they understand why the Church teaches what it does. They see that those actions have direct negative consequences for self, society, and the soul. But they can't see those consequences with contraception, and abstractions and false connections don't help.

It would almost be easier if the church said, "Have as many babies as you can, no attempting non-procreative sex EVER." At least it would be consistent. And we do need more babies in this world!
AW | 04.27.06 - 3:00 pm | #

broed:

Not Contracepting currently, and don't intend to when marraied. I believe the Church's teaching; I am not sure WHY I believe it, but I accept that if the Church teaches it the Holy Spirit must have a reason, even if its not very clear. But I also WANT to believe it. Most people don't want to believe it. And they need a good explination.

And I think the point people are making is that most married couples that use contraception DO see their marraiges as being about sex and babies. They are using contraception for the exact same purpose that people use NFP. And again, maybe in the larger philosophical political realm, somewhere out there, contraception is connected to Gay Marraige. But a heterosexual couple who wants to space their kids with an artificial rather than natural device doesn't give a whit about Gay Marraige. They probably would vote against Gay Marraige (or have already.) In no way are they going to see how their using a pill or diaphram in the secret privacy of their bedroom instead of thermometors and things the read mucus to space their multiple children is going to contribute to the Homoization of America.
AW | 04.27.06 - 3:18 pm | #

AW,

You're right that this is a very difficult teaching to understand and accept for many people.

For NFP, it's important to realise that mutual abstainence by mutual consent for limited peroids of time is always licit in marriage. St Paul explicitly counsels this.

From this it follows that NFP is always licit.

There is a fundamental moral difference between abstaining from an act and changing the nature of the act by introducing a barrier to conception.

God Bless
Chris Sullivan | 04.27.06 - 4:00 pm | #

AW,

Perhaps it would be helpful if couples (and their doctors) read the little warning papers that come with birth control pills.

The three effects that birth control pills are built to have are:

1 -- regulating ovulation. This is done with the hormone estrogen. But the early "high dose' pills caused strokes and hemmoraging, so we now use "low dose" pills, which do not completely suppress ovulations.

2 -- creating a hostile environment to prevent the sperm from getting to the ovum. This is done by reducing the cervical mucus.

and

3 -- creating a hostile environment to prevent the fertilized ovum from implanting itself to the mother's uterine wall. This is done by altering the endometrium.

Number 3 is a chemical abortion. The birth control pill is an abortifacient.

A few years ago, my wife and I did not believe this. Neither did her OBGYN. Only when we read the data from the drug company did all three of us realize the reality of millions of chemical abortions going on.

The pill is an abortifacient.
broed | 04.27.06 - 5:46 pm | #

"There is a fundamental moral difference between abstaining from an act and changing the nature of the act by introducing a barrier to conception."

Thanks Chris. That helps. I think that it is very easy, jumping from that point, to argue that something like a especially a condom but also a diaphram or other device would distort sex artificially.

With the pill, I just want to hypothetically take out the abortifciant effect for a moment and pretend they made a pill that totally suppressed ovulation. Since that would't change the nature of the act due to an artificial barrier, but just would change a woman's body to be at a state of infertility ALL of the month rather than just a couple of weeks out of the month, how would that be immoral? The sex act is still natural and no barrier is placed; a woman just isn't fertile all of the time instead of just some of the time. What then could be said to argue that contraceptive pills are wrong?

Or, if you were taking a pill for a health reason that also rendered you infertile (like taking the pill for acne or some female problem) to treat a diseased organ, would it be a sin to be, deep down inside, thankful for its contraceptive effect? Or would you have to be sad about it and wishing you would get pregnant? If that would be a sinful attitude, then why is okay to will to prevent pregnancy with NFP, but its a sin to be happy that a side effect of your medical treatment is the suppression of fertility?

I also want to know, if the argument against contraception is based on the need for every sex act to be open to life, to be both procreative and unitative, why is okay to specifically will, through periodic abstinence, that some sex acts be for unitive purposes only? How does that keep the procreative aspect involved in sexuality any more than chemically supressing fertility so that a woman is in that condition at every time of the month? Especially if there is a serious condition that would make pregnancy dangerious for a woman that WOULD make her fertility, otherwise normal, to be a health threat?

And Paul approved of periodic abstinance to be devoted to prayer. He didn't specifically say to avoid pregnancy.

I'm playing devil's advocate because I have to teach this in a few weeks to a bunch of 16 year olds that think the Church's teaching on pretty much everything is crap, and I need help with good answers. And I frankly have never been able to understand it very well myself.
A W | 04.27.06 - 6:11 pm | #

Yes, but the advantage of NFP, as promoted by the NFP-ONLYites, is that it does allow you to have sex with a high degree of assurance (higher, indeed, many say, than condoms or the Pill) that you won't get pregnant. So it's not truly "abstinence" in any real sense of the word, any more than one of those diets where you don't eat carbohydrates before noon (but can knock yourselves out on them afterwards) is "fasting".

The Catholic Church has already accepted that it's legitimate for a married couple to enjoy, at times, non-procreative sex, provided they do not exclude children altogether. After Pope Martini or Pope Kriebehl, NFP-Onlyism will go the way of Latin Mass Onlyism, and the Catholic blogsophere will be full of praise for the flexibility of the Magisterium in the development of doctrine.
Tom R | 04.27.06 - 8:08 pm | #

> "First, and this may be wrong, but one gets the feeling that the writers are contracepting and trying to justify it."

Maybe so. And maybe you're someone who prays before graven images, to people other than God, and is trying to justify it?

Or maybe (to use an example that would -- I assume, although nothing in the Catholic blogosphere should ever be taken for granted -- be common ground between us) you're someone who eats pork and shellfish and is trying to justify it?

So should I only listen to arguments from people who say "I think your ban on XYZ is gravely mistaken, but nonetheless I too observe that ban?"

Or possibly, just possibly, people determine their theological stance first and then conform their conduct to it.
Tom R | 04.27.06 - 9:35 pm | #

They are using contraception for the exact same purpose that people use NFP.

True! And that is why we must get into issues of the objective act.
Mary | 04.27.06 - 9:54 pm | #

The "objective act" argument is circular.

"Contraception is intrinsically evil."

"Why?"

"Because it enables you to have sex without pregnancy."

"But so too does NFP."

"Yes, but NFP doesn't involve contraception."

"Why should that matter?"

"Because contraception is intrinsically evil..."

And so forth. The debate eventually settles into this groove and almost never gets out.
Tom R | 04.27.06 - 10:38 pm | #

In 1917 Sigmund Freud, certainly no fan of the Catholic Church, articulated the criterion for what makes a sexual act a perversion.

Do you know what it was?

That it removed reproduction from the act.
broed | 04.28.06 - 9:03 am | #

A. Nonymouse: 'I agree that the term "person" is cold and impersonal (which sounds odd when you put it that way)...'

Heh, touché.

'...but it is, nevertheless, an extremely important term and concept, especially in Catholic social teaching. All human beings are, ipso facto, "persons,"'

Agreed that this is an important term, but it'd survive being rendered as "people" instead, surely...

"There will be a test on this next week. For extra credit, read St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine's *De Laicis* and St. Thomas Aquinas' *De Regimine Principum.*"

...but... but... I can't read latin...

Tom R: good points also, and noted. Though Chesterton made the vomitoria comparison before Muggeridge: _'The nearest and most respectable parallel would be that of the Roman epicure, who took emetics at intervals all day so that he might eat five or six luxurious dinners daily...'_

(It's from his essay "Social Reform vs. Birth Control", which is chiefly concerned with arguing that birth control is a capitalist plot - http://www.freerepublic.com/focu...ws/703835/ posts )
JRA | 04.28.06 - 1:51 pm | #

Thanks. I didn't record whether Mugg. sourced the analogy to GKC, though I doubt he'd have tried to hide it.

A better sexual analogy to the vomitorium would be someone who consents to be "gang-banged", for whatever reason. I can't think why anyone woulddo this. But there was a porn actress a few years ago -- she had an Asian-American name, I forget exactly what it was -- who tried for some record with the maximum number of sexual partners in a day. My wife commented that she couldn't possibly have enjoyed it physically, and that in fact it would have been extremely painful. However, it would not necessarily involve use of any contraception. In fact, about the only motive I can conjecture for a woman to want twenty or thirty men to penetrate her in a single day, would be a desparate attempt to get pregnant.

I should add that while I don't regard contraception as, *in itself*, involving the sins of either murder (the older Catholic view) or adultery (the modern Catholic view), I do see it as opening a standing invitation to something akin to the sin of "gluttony", ie lifelong childnesses with every single act of sex solely for pleasure. (This seems to be more a vice of committed, even married couples: I'm skeptical that contraception *encourages* promiscuity, firstly because promiscuity long predates 1963, and secondly because people who are impulsive enough to be promiscuous are usually too impulsive to arrange contraception in advance -- hence the perceived "need" for abortions or morning-after pills).

However abusus non tollit usus, any more than alcohol should be banned because some people get drunk.
Tom R | 04.28.06 - 5:24 pm | #

Wasn't it also Freud who said he considered celibacy the ultimate sexual perversion?

Be careful whom you quote among critics of contraception. Some strange bedfellows there (NPI). I'd steer clear of Germaine Greer and (on sexual matters) Gandhi, for example.
Tom R | 04.28.06 - 5:27 pm | #

BTW, I posted this on a different thread but it should have gone here:

"Where have Asia's daughters gone?"

Australian Financial Review (Friday 28 April 2006)

http://afr.com/articles/2006/04/ ...5861479535.html

Original story is in the New Statesman here: http://www.newstatesman.com/Worl...ld/ 200604240018

and note this rather, er, judgmental sub-heading (which the Aust Fin Rev omitted):

"NS Special Report:... but what if it's a girl? Modern technology is helping parents in Asia indulge in a hideous practice - killing off their girl children. It's never been easier to identify a female foetus and abort it. "

Hmmm... the house organs of British socialism and Australian capitalism combining to condemn sex-selective abortions...
Tom R | 04.28.06 - 5:38 pm | #

GKC's criticisms of birth control prove too much, though, in as much as they apply equally to NFP and any form of family planning. If it's wrong to reduce the number of children being born among people who "can't afford large families" (within the limits set by society), then it's also wrong to tell them to accomplish this by adjusting the timing and reducing the frequency of their intercourse. There is no reason for teaching the brown people NFP if you don't believe there are (or soon will be) "too many" brown people.

GKC is right, though, about a living wage -- something the US Christian Right would choke on as godless Commie socialism, but that's where they're wrong.
Tom R | 04.29.06 - 12:23 am | #

Tom R --

(NB -- despite the screen of print which does not carry attitude and tone without more writing skill than I have, this is not a challenge, but a genuine request for information.)

What (and where) does Chesterton say (something) about the living wage? I've found about a ton and a half of material from the Chesterbelloc condemning the wage system, but can't locate anything from Chesterton (directly) to support the living-just-family, etc., etc. wage (which is the imposition of a wage system).
A. Nonymouse | 05.01.06 - 8:16 am | #

A. Nonymouse: the essay I linked earlier contains sentiments along the lines of living-wage advocacy, though Chesterton specifically decries the term "living wage" in favour of "family wage":

'The Birth-Controller... always insists that a workman has no right to have so many children, or that a slum is perilous because it is producing so many children. The question he dreads is "Why has not the workman a better wage? Why has not the slum family a better house?" His way of escaping from it is to suggest, not a larger house but a smaller family. The landlord or the employer says in his hearty and handsome fashion: "You really cannot expect me to deprive myself of my money. But I will make a sacrifice, I will deprive myself of your children."...

'But... there was another movement going on, notably among Christian Socialists and those called Catholic Democrats and others. There is no space to describe it here; its interest lies in being the exact reversal of the order of argument used by the Malthusian and the Birth-Controller. This movement was not content with the test of what is called a Living Wage. It insisted specially on what it preferred to call a Family Wage. In other words, it maintained that no wage is just or adequate unless it does envisage and cover the man, not only considered as an individual, but as the father of a normal and reasonably numerous family. This sort of movement is the true contrary of Birth Control and both will probably grow until they come into some tremendous controversial collision. It amuses me to reflect on that big coming battle, and to remember that the more my opponents practise Birth Control, the fewer there will be of them to fight us on that day.'
JRA | 05.01.06 - 12:31 pm | #

The debate eventually settles into this groove and almost never gets out.

I think that you meant to say "I reduce the debate to the above caricature, from which I never let it get out."
Ronny | 05.01.06 - 1:01 pm | #

Thanks -- that's very useful. I see nothing there to "undermine" my understanding of Catholic social teaching, viz. that the living/family/ etc., etc. wage is construed as necessary in the current state of society due to the fact that so many people lack access to the means of acquiring and possessing property.

As I see it, maintenance of any wage system can only be accepted if we are at the same time working to find the best means possible to establish a social order in which, as Leo XIII said (more or less) the great mass of people prefer to own property. In other words, we can accept a wage system if we are at the same time working to find an effective means to abolish it.

NB -- the wage system and the wage contract are two different things.

My reading of the quotes suggests to me that Chesterton was not supporting the family wage per se, but reminding employers that, as long as they maintained their workers in a condition of dependence on them (i.e., without significant ownership of the means of production), they were bound in justice to pay a family wage.

Once workers were co-owners instead of wage slaves, however, the point becomes moot -- a share of profits may or may not be enough to live on, but an owner is due no more than a pro rata share of profits, or he is stealing from the consumer or his fellow owners. If the business isn't making enough in profits to provide the owners with a living income over time, then either the business isn't viable, or there are too many owners.

I like your comment re. Chesterton and "living" vs. "family" wage. I once wrote an article that used both terms pretty much interchangeably ... and was violently attacked by a pseudo-socialist for not using the term "just wage," as well as for suggesting that we need to rethink today's near-total reliance on *wages* (heresy, heresy) as the sole source of most people's income instead of private property. The critic missed the whole point in his anxiety to attack me for economic incorrectness.

Well, watcha gonna do? (Organize with others to carry out acts of social justice, but that's a clunky way to end a comment.)
A. Nonymouse | 05.01.06 - 1:02 pm | #

As someone with increasingly libertarian sympathies I'd rather avoid the term "social justice" in favour of more old-fashioned terms like "charity" & "community", but that's a pretty minor quibble, and otherwise, agreed.

Although, some thoughts re: "watcha gonna do?" - Chesterton's answer to the wage problem was Distribut(iv)ism, giving people access to the means of production, which runs into the problems of "how do you give the land back to the people? Confiscation?" and "how does that work in a non-agricultural society?"; and I'd be curious to know what solutions you (or anyone else) have for the latter question.

As far as I can see, in the current 1st-world economy, "owning" the means of production means either everyone running a small business, or everyone owning sizeable chunks of shares in various businesses. Bush's idea of an "ownership society" fitted the latter description - encouraging everyone to become an investor and own a chunk of the economy - and the proposed social security reform was along these lines, replacing handouts with investment. Unfortunately, this idea appears to be gathering dust now (politicians, what can you do?), but I think the idea was along the right lines.

(I note I live across the pond, so the "ownership society" could be alive and well and just slipping under the radar these days and I wouldn't know.)

Re: a family wage - your reading of Chesterton makes more sense than simply demanding a family wage as a kind of minimum wage - which runs into the problem of what happens when a family wage is more than the labour of the family's breadwinner is worth. The answer to *that* question is that either you have external subsidies/charity (which has problems of its own) or several family members have to work, so their combined labour is enough (or of enough value) to feed the family. Which, if they don't own the means of production (eg the family can all work on the family farm/business), means economic necessity splitting up the family as they all head off for different jobs, something else Chesterton complained about.

I gather you've thought a lot more about the issue than I have, anyhow. Got any links to blog/forum/articles &c handy?
JRA | 05.03.06 - 2:13 pm | #

I have just the link for you: the interfaith Center for Economic and Social Justice, www.cesj.org.

A lot of what you raise is semantic; conceptual issues are intertwined a bit, but it sounds as if you're already oriented in the right direction. I think their e-mail is thirdway@cesj.org, but it should be on the web site.

The web site is a little intimidating at first just because of the sheer volume of material. Probably the best place to start is with the free downloads of "Introduction to Social Justice" by Rev. Wm. J. Ferree (hint: "social justice" is not a new term for the old virtue of charity ... even though most people seem to think so), and "Capital Homesteading for Every Citizen." "Intro" is a pamphlet, while "Capital Homesteading" is a full length book. CH is available I know on Amazon UK as well as a free download -- the downloadable .pdf is a little hard to find, though, as they've got brochures and other stuff right under it, but it was there the last time I looked.
A. Nonymouse | 05.03.06 - 2:58 pm | #

Thanks, looks interesting. Looks kinda like capitalism v.2.0. (I can't get Ferree's Intro to Social Justice to open in my browser, unfortunately, but I think that's a problem on my end.)
Anonymous | 05.03.06 - 6:18 pm | #

There's an order form (I think) somewhere (I recall) on the web site (I believe) for (most of) the publications in hard copy ... possibly.

I'm very definite maybeish this morning ... choir practice went late. Yeah ... that's my story and I'm sticking with it.
A. Nonymouse | 05.04.06 - 8:10 am | #