Catholic Social Teaching and Conservatism

Here at Seton Hill, there is a strong emphasis on the lessons of Catholic Social Teaching (CST). Being a Catholic, myself, these lessons are nothing new to me--I've been taught to abide by them since high school. Just looking at them, though, it's easy to assume that a good number of these lessons go against the modern perception of conservatism or Republicanism.

I was sitting in my Senior Sem. class this afternoon, participating in a great lecture about CST when I heard something that really made sense--something that I had never heard in all the years that I have learned about these lessons: in order to properly enforce the lessons of Catholic Social Teaching, the outcome of your actions has to be beneficial to all parties involved. I had never realized that there were two sides to the coin of CST, but it certainly makes sense.

How does this apply to conservatism? While I'm not going to dissect every lesson from a liberal and conservative viewpoint (although it is totally possible), I'll just point out a few things. CST is supposed to inspire reflection and thought about our actions and how we contribute to society, and so therefore I totally believe that we are able to approach every lesson conservatively or liberally (it all depends on our personal choices). Some of the issues just lend themselves to Republicanism, like the lesson of Respect for Human Life, while others appear to skew more liberally, like the Principle of Participation (which deals with the forming of unions).

Looking at a number of these, however, I can see conservative means to reach the desired ends that CST has in mind. Principle of Participation stresses respect for each worker and their right to a fair and decent wage. But it also stresses the right to "private property and to economic initiative" (Reflections 5). In other words, the company is also allowed to benefit, and needs to think of its workers as well as its economic bottom line.

The example in class was about a company moving its factory from America to Mexico because it didn't have to deal with American unions and high wages. While it's easy to say "well they're slighting the American workers and taking advantage of Mexicans by paying them less!" I saw it a bit differently: firstly, they are paying them less because the peso is worth less than the dollar. But remember, CST says that the decision needs to be good for everyone. By moving their factory to Mexico, the American company is helping out the Mexican economy and helping their bottom line. If they intend to do this, however, it would be wholesome of the company to provide severance pay to the laid off workers. And if the American unions were trying to strong-arm the business into paying unfairly high wages, they're no better than the company that fired everyone. There must be a give and take in order for CST to work properly, and I believe that it's highly possible for a company to do what's best for itself while also looking out for others.

The lesson of Preferential Protection for the Poor and Vulnerable also seems, at first glance, to be a justification for support of Johnson's "Great Society" and welfare programs. While yes, I wholly agree that we must take care of the poorest members of our society, that doesn't mean we should just hand everything to them. Remember that this needs to be good for all parties. It would be much more beneficial for the government, and its welfare programs, to teach the poor to raise themselves up; it's the whole "teach a man to fish" saying. Building up the urban slums into respectable, safe communities will help bring people out of poverty (not raising the minimum wage). How do you build up these communities? Why, through small business and entrepreneurialism! If you have small businesses that are well-managed and that employ locally, then it will encourage other businesses and chains to move in as well, and more money will stay in the neighborhood, etc. It's a cycle that can work if the government can step back and let capitalism do what it does best.

Speaking of which, there is one aspect of CST that is one of the main aspects of conservatism: Subsidiarity. In the handout I received in class, written by William J. Byron for America, the National Catholic Weekly, it describes Subsidiarity as follows:

The principle of subsidiarity puts a proper limit on government by insisting that no higher level of organization should perform any function that can be handled efficiently and effectively at a lower level of organization by human persons who, individually, or in groups, are closer to the problems and closer to the ground. Oppressive governments are always in violation of the principle of subsidiarity; overactive governments frequently violate this principle.

When it comes to governments, less is more and local is better. Conservatism subscribes to the idea that the government is part of the problem, not part of the solution. If individuals or private companies can handle things on their own, then they should, and that states should certainly be able to decide for themselves what is best for their people (within reason). Just look at two examples of what the federal government has done that could have been handled on a state or local level: raising the minimum wage (something our state did do on its own, and now the whole country may be facing the same thing) and allowing abortion (something that more conservative states have been trying to break free from for some time). Now, there are some issues that are being handled by the states, things like voting to allow/disallow gay marriage, property tax reform, etc. It's great that states are deciding these things on their own, and a while it's impossible to please everyone in this case, we as citizens have a louder say in legislative decisions when it's at the local and state level.

As I said, I can't go through every aspect of CST in a single blog entry... but it's something to think about. Each one of these lessons can be solved liberally or conservatively, and while the initial outcome might be similar, the long-term effects may differ.