Political Traditionalism and Its Adversary, "Conservatism"

[Michael Wilson]

A good reading list on Traditional Catholic Social teaching should include the Papal Encyclicals (not a complete list)
Quas Primas; Pius XI On the Kingship of Christ.
Immortale Dei; Leo XIII On the Christian Constitution of States.
Humanum Genus; Leo XIII On Freemasonry.
Vehementer Nos; Pius X "The Separation of Church and State.
Quanta Cura; Syllabus; Pius IX; Condemnation the errors of Liberalism.
Pius XII "Ci Riesce" address to the association of Italian Catholic Jurists

The Works of Fr. Denis Fahey CSSR are helpful, as they contain many of the same Papal teachings as they apply to the subject of government and the duties of Catholics especially: "The Kingship of Christ and Organized Naturalism"; "The Mystical Body of Christ and the Reorganization of Society".
Rev. E. Cahill S.J. "The Framework of a Christian State'' (online here: http://strobertbellarmine.net/books/Cahill%20--%20Christian%20State.pdf).
Those can give a Catholic a good sense of the Catholic social doctrine

[Jacob]

Members of SD who come from FE may remember Roger Buck, a member there who took part in an on-again off-again thread on Bozell, etc.

I see now today at Roger's website that he has posted a long essay that is worth a read on the subject of conservatism and political traditionalism.  Go check it out.

http://corjesusacratissimum.org/2015/09/mustard-seeds-a-conservative-becomes-a-catholic-by-l-brent-bozell-review/

[Kaesekopf]

Thanks guys!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Non Nobis]

Or you can get a hard copy of The Best of Triumph for $20
http://www.amazon.com/The-Best-Triumph-Christendom-Press/dp/0931888727

Of course you can also get "12 New from $12.96".  It is on abebooks for about the same price.

I ordered one.

[Prayerful]

It is interesting that someone hasn't scanned in all the issues of the magazine by now.  It certainly is influential enough in certain circles.  The interest is out there.

That would be great, as the magazine would reflect the stance of many here.

[Jacob]

Topic resurrection: GO!

I am in contact with a lady at Notre Dame who works for the Catholic Research Resources Alliance.  It is an alliance of institutions working to facilitate the preservation of Catholic research materials in the US (if your local diocese has recently digitized its newspaper archive, it's probably under their auspices).  I asked the lady if they accept suggestions for digitization of periodicals held by their members and then passed along Triumph.  We'll see what happens.

[james03]

I probably cross the line into fascism when it comes to social issues, so I find myself in agreement with many of your items.  This is incorrect:

It recognizes that issues of social justice are not simply private. Since these injustices regard temporal goods and public suffering, the State has a very formal place in addressing and rectifying them.

"Social Justice" was a term invented by Pesch.  It is not "political traditionalism", whatever that is.  Also the State has very little to do with "addressing and rectifying" "injustices" with regard to temporal goods.  The devil is in the details.  Relief of the poor is reserved to the Church.  So says Rerum Novarum.  More on social justice, if we take the literal meaning of the term it means people who don't work starve.  The more correct term is "social mercy", however leftists like yourself don't like the idea that people are free to give alms or not.  edit: delete

Likewise, it regards traditionalists as socialists or Marxists since they do not employ "The government is inherently evil" as their major premise for every argument.

A poor caricature.  Traditionalists that take no account for the fallen nature of man IN GOVERNMENT are not socialists.  They are utopians who reject Original Sin.  Especially in government where the State has a monopoly on coercive power strong restraints must be in place to limit State power.  England, France, and Russia have taught us this. 

On economics, the Calculation Problem must be addressed, and in a hundred years the left has no answer.

My ideal of government would be a constitutional aristocracy with government broken down to individual States, with a very small central government, similar to the government God set up, before the Israelites rebelled and demanded a king.  A constitutional limited monarchy would probably be ok, e.g. Liechtenstein, Andorra, and Monacco, however the counter example of Switzerland before the Sonderbund war, when it was very decentralized is relevant.  Interestingly it was the Catholic Cantons that fought to keep subsidiarity.  They lost.  Switzerland is still a decent place however and retains much in the way of subsidiarity.

[james03]

Interesting excerpt from Wikipedia:

The Sonderbund consisted of the cantons of Lucerne, Fribourg, Valais, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden and Zug, all predominantly Catholic and governed by Conservative administrations. The cantons of Ticino and Solothurn, also predominantly Catholic but governed by liberal administrations, did not join the alliance. ..... The liberal Free Democratic Party of Switzerland (German: Freisinnig-Demokratische Partei, French: Parti radical-démocratique) which was mainly made up of urban bourgeoisie and burghers and was strong in the largely Protestant cantons obtained the majority in the Federal Diet (the Tagsatzung) in the early 1840s. It proposed a new Constitution for the Swiss Confederation which would draw the several cantons into a closer relationship. In 1843, the conservative city patricians and mountain or Ur-Swiss from the largely Catholic cantons were opposed to the new constitution. These cantons combined to form the Sonderbund in 1843. In addition to the centralization of the Swiss government, the new Constitution also included protections for trade and other progressive reform measures.[1]

The Sonderbund alliance was concluded after the Federal Diet, with the approval of a majority of cantons, had taken measures against the Catholic Church such as the closure of monasteries and convents in Aargau in 1841,[2] and the seizure of their properties. When Lucerne, in retaliation, recalled the Jesuits to head its education the same year, groups of armed radicals (Freischärler) invaded the canton. This caused a revolt, mostly because rural cantons were strongholds of ultramontanism.

Doesn't fit into any neat category (edit: in the left/right Euro spectrum.  According to the American spectrum the leftists defeated the right).  My interpretation (and that's all it is) is that pre-war Switzerland was a loosely confederated system of individual cantons with a weak central government (my ideal), i.e. it was a system based on the Catholic principal of subsidiarity.  The Catholic governments were "conservative", which could mean they had strong social conservative policies, or that they were more of an aristocracy (patricians).  Likely both.  The "Liberals" wanted a strong(er) central government (contra what Louis claims), with more democracy and obviously less Church power.

The pre-war set up would be my ideal for a government, though only 9 of the cantons were Catholic.

[LouisIX]

I probably cross the line into fascism when it comes to social issues, so I find myself in agreement with many of your items.  This is incorrect:

It recognizes that issues of social justice are not simply private. Since these injustices regard temporal goods and public suffering, the State has a very formal place in addressing and rectifying them.

"Social Justice" was a term invented by Pesch.  It is not "political traditionalism", whatever that is.  Also the State has very little to do with "addressing and rectifying" "injustices" with regard to temporal goods.  The devil is in the details.  Relief of the poor is reserved to the Church.  So says Rerum Novarum.  More on social justice, if we take the literal meaning of the term it means people who don't work starve.  The more correct term is "social mercy", however leftists like yourself don't like the idea that people are free to give alms or not.  edit: delete

Likewise, it regards traditionalists as socialists or Marxists since they do not employ "The government is inherently evil" as their major premise for every argument.

A poor caricature.  Traditionalists that take no account for the fallen nature of man IN GOVERNMENT are not socialists.  They are utopians who reject Original Sin.  Especially in government where the State has a monopoly on coercive power strong restraints must be in place to limit State power.  England, France, and Russia have taught us this. 

On economics, the Calculation Problem must be addressed, and in a hundred years the left has no answer.

My ideal of government would be a constitutional aristocracy with government broken down to individual States, with a very small central government, similar to the government God set up, before the Israelites rebelled and demanded a king.  A constitutional limited monarchy would probably be ok, e.g. Liechtenstein, Andorra, and Monacco, however the counter example of Switzerland before the Sonderbund war, when it was very decentralized is relevant.  Interestingly it was the Catholic Cantons that fought to keep subsidiarity.  They lost.  Switzerland is still a decent place however and retains much in the way of subsidiarity.

Why don't you try citing things instead of just calling me a leftist. Don't be so lazy.

"Social justice" in this sense means just that: justice which is social in nature rather than private. You're going to have a hard time selling anyone who is familiar with the Church's social teaching (do you permit the term "social teaching"?) that She never spoke on the State's responsibility to effect economic justice for its citizens. The countless calls for a just wage are themselves a very real commission by the Church for the State to help combat poverty.

The State exists to safeguard the temporal goods of its citizens. If that's not its job, I do not know why it would even exist. The idea that only the Church would deal with safeguarding temporal goods is strange, as is the idea that all charity is somehow privatized to one's religion.

The State has a responsibility to respect the natural law. The natural law demands that we not deprive our neighbor of his due.

[Miriam_M]

The natural law demands that we not deprive our neighbor of his due.

"His due" might be interpreted variously.

Is it recompense for existing and residing within that State?
Is it compensation for inability to earn, in the same time period, what a more able-bodied or able-minded person could earn?  (i.e., Disability Payments)
Is it compensation for breaching the immigration laws of our country, and if so, what is "due" those who do honor those same laws?
Is it compensation based on political power or perceived political power of particular special interest groups?
Is it defensive compensation based on anticipation of political backlash or other consequences if the State does not anticipate the "due" of certain groups vs. other groups or all groups?
Is it another form of Unemployment Compensation?
Is it the closing of emotional and/or practical gaps due to greater earned economic status of the skilled vs. the less skilled?  (Is it an attempt to eradicate theoretical or actual inequalities?)

[james03]

You're going to have a hard time selling anyone who is familiar with the Church's social teaching (do you permit the term "social teaching"?) that She never spoke on the State's responsibility to effect economic justice for its citizens. The countless calls for a just wage are themselves a very real commission by the Church for the State to help combat poverty.

  The Church's solution for a Just wage is COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  Here's your quote:

If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice. In these and similar questions, however - such as, for example, the hours of labor in different trades, the sanitary precautions to be observed in factories and workshops, etc. - in order to supersede undue interference on the part of the State, especially as circumstances, times, and localities differ so widely, it is advisable that recourse be had to societies or boards such as We shall mention presently, or to some other mode of safeguarding the interests of the wage-earners; the State being appealed to, should circumstances require, for its sanction and protection.

As far as relief of the poor being reserved to the Church, here's your quote:

Nay, in order to spare them the shame of begging, the Church has provided aid for the needy. The common Mother of rich and poor has aroused everywhere the heroism of charity, and has established congregations of religious and many other useful institutions for help and mercy, so that hardly any kind of suffering could exist which was not afforded relief. At the present day many there are who, like the heathen of old, seek to blame and condemn the Church for such eminent charity. They would substitute in its stead a system of relief organized by the State.

  Pope Leo refers to you and your ilk "heathen of the old".

[james03]

The State exists to safeguard the temporal goods of its citizens. If that's not its job, I do not know why it would even exist.

Seriously, what the heck does that statement have anything to do with what I said?  Yes, the State should protect private property.  However they are forbidden by the Church to dictate its use.  By the way, Pope Leo described the right to private property as sacred.

The idea that only the Church would deal with safeguarding temporal goods is strange,

  I agree, that would be a strange belief.  The Church teaches that the State should protect private property.

as is the idea that all charity is somehow privatized to one's religion.

The Church teaches that the Church and individuals provide charity.  However she points out that this does not fall under the laws of Justice and can not be dictated by the State.  Above I quoted Pope Leo saying people that called for State relief are equivalent to "heathens of old".

The State has a responsibility to respect the natural law. The natural law demands that we not deprive our neighbor of his due.

  That is justice, and I completely agree.  I've never said otherwise.

[james03]

Here's a list of quotes for you:

"It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry. So, too, it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and a disturbance of right order, to transfer to the larger and higher collectivity functions which can be performed and provided for by lesser and subordinate bodies.(Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 79)"

  "it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. "Of that which remaineth, give alms."(14) It is a duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity - a duty not enforced by human law."  -- Rerum Novarum 22

"The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found." --RN

" 47. In order to place definite limits on the controversies that have arisen over ownership and its inherent duties there must be first laid down as foundation a principle established by Leo XIII: The right of property is distinct from its use.[30] That justice called commutative commands sacred respect for the division of possessions and forbids invasion of others' rights through the exceeding of the limits of one's own property; but the duty of owners to use their property only in a right way does not come under this type of justice, but under other virtues, obligations of which "cannot be enforced by legal action."[31] Therefore, they are in error who assert that ownership and its right use are limited by the same boundaries; and it is much farther still from the truth to hold that a right to property is destroyed or lost by reason of abuse or non-use."  -- QA

"Let them, however, never allow this to escape their memory: that whilst it is proper and desirable to assert and secure the rights of the many, yet this is not to be done by a violation of duty; and that these are very important duties; not to touch what belongs to another; to allow every one to be free in the management of his own affairs; not to hinder any one to dispose of his services when he please and where he please."LONGINQUA

By the way, the left called Pope Leo a sell out to capitalists.

If you want to learn about economics, just read my book.

[james03]

For those interested in economics, the Sonderbund war is an interesting example.  I always like seeing demonstrations in the real world that match theory, in this case, subsidiarity.  What is demonstrated is WHY you need subsidiarity.

So Switzerland was set up pretty similar to the way God set up the Israel government.  A loose confederation of cantons.  Evidently the Liberal party took over the central government and wanted to impose Enlightenment policies (unfortunately the Wiki article doesn't go into detail).  However, they COULD NOT.  Why?  Because they lacked the power.  So what they did was change the constitution to give them that power.  They had been thwarted by subsidiarity.  And thus we see the advantage, it is a natural check on government power.

There is also a lesson learned for those young lads that will survive the reset and author the next constitution.  You need an unamendable bill of rights and limitations.  I would suggest the following:

1.  Taxes limited to sales tax and import tariffs.
2.  Property tax outlawed.
3.  Government debt outlawed.
4.  Gold and silver are the only money.
5.  100% reserve requirement for the banks.
6.  No central banks or bankers's guild.
7.  Power retained by local governments.
8.  No redistribution payments or State pension schemes.  I like the Chile model of a required private pension with a required 5% deduction. 
9.  Catholic confessional State (obviously).
10.  Only Catholics in government, bank ownership, media ownership, and entertainment company ownership.
11.  Right to own, keep, and bear arms shall not be infringed.
12.  Civil courts can only award actual damages.  Fines such as punitive "damages" and triple "damages" are outlawed.

Probably others.

[LouisIX]

You're going to have a hard time selling anyone who is familiar with the Church's social teaching (do you permit the term "social teaching"?) that She never spoke on the State's responsibility to effect economic justice for its citizens. The countless calls for a just wage are themselves a very real commission by the Church for the State to help combat poverty.

  The Church's solution for a Just wage is COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  Here's your quote:

If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice. In these and similar questions, however - such as, for example, the hours of labor in different trades, the sanitary precautions to be observed in factories and workshops, etc. - in order to supersede undue interference on the part of the State, especially as circumstances, times, and localities differ so widely, it is advisable that recourse be had to societies or boards such as We shall mention presently, or to some other mode of safeguarding the interests of the wage-earners; the State being appealed to, should circumstances require, for its sanction and protection.

As far as relief of the poor being reserved to the Church, here's your quote:

Nay, in order to spare them the shame of begging, the Church has provided aid for the needy. The common Mother of rich and poor has aroused everywhere the heroism of charity, and has established congregations of religious and many other useful institutions for help and mercy, so that hardly any kind of suffering could exist which was not afforded relief. At the present day many there are who, like the heathen of old, seek to blame and condemn the Church for such eminent charity. They would substitute in its stead a system of relief organized by the State.

  Pope Leo refers to you and your ilk "heathen of the old".

Except that Pope Leo does not talk exclusively about collective bargaining. Throughout this same encyclical and many others, the idea of the just wage is laid down as a social justice, a matter of the law, not just what one brings up in the confessional. Pope Pius IX spoke about a proper distribution of private property, and it is to this that I was referring above.

You keep talking about how the Church deputes the State to maintain private property. That is true. But it also deputes the State to maintain an economic system which is just, that is, one wherein wealth is so distributed that it is easy for men to actually procure private property, as well as basic temporal goods.

This is what you keep missing. The "many" who are like "heathens of old" are the ones who state that the State should supersede the Church in dealing with problems that can only be fixed with charity and justice. James, for one moment consider the text and what I am saying before you starting throwing around insults and essentially label me a heretic. I am not in any way advocating for replacing the Church with the State, which is exactly what Leo is condemning. I already mentioned this earlier in this thread. If the State's authority and confession does not flow from the Church then the State will necessarily dominate the Church. Everything that I have advocated for in this thread is that the State acts as the handmaiden to the Church in its secular execution, especially in relation to temporal goods. The exact thing that Leo condemns is a relation of separation of the Church and the State which would see the State has overtaking the Church. When you claim that the State is essentially relegated to maintaining private property but that issues like justice and charity are relegated entirely to the Church, I think that you fall into the same error of separating the Church and State, such that the task of one does not flow into the temporal governance of the other. It is even a task of the State to prepare, via its laws and culture, the citizen for his supernatural end and the grace whereby one reaches it. Of course the Church can only provide this, but the State works with the Church to prepare the way, as it were.