Beware of economic Puritanism

by Kathleen van Schaijik

Thomas Storck has offered a convincing critique of capitalism from the point of view of Catholic social teaching, but I have a bone to pick with his distributist alternative. Perhaps I misunderstood, but it sounded like he was saying that no one should be allowed to become wealthy. “For if private property has a purpose and end… it surely is to allow a man to make a decent living for himself and his family by serving society. But one living, not two or three.” Philip Harold expressed something similar when he urged us to examine our economic consciences with questions like this: “Do we eat and drink for the sake of our bodily needs only, or with a view toward the maximum pleasure?”

Though I doubt either author thinks so, such statements and questions seem to suggest that there is something illicit in a Catholic’s having and enjoying wealth that greatly exceeds his material needs. But, not only is such an idea not to be found in the teachings of the Church; it is out of sync with the history of Catholic life and culture.

The Church shows a preferential love for the poor; she also warns us about the spiritual perils of material abundance; she exhorts us to give generously of our substance. But she never comes close to saying that there is something morally wrong or even compromising in being wealthy. If there were, there would be no such thing as a rich saint, while in fact there have been many.

Poverty-lived-virtuously gives witness to the next world; wealth-lived-virtuously reveals the beauty and plenitude of this one. Where we personally fall in the cosmic scheme of economic witnessing to God’s glory is a private question of circumstance and vocation. Am I called to sell everything I have and give it to the poor? Am I called to live moderately in the middle; or am I called to live leisurely and add to the material splendor of Catholic culture on earth? Only my conscience can say. Similarly only my conscience can settle for me particular questions of what to do with what wealth I have. And it seems to me the question to ask is not: “Do I need this [cell-phone, say, or beautiful painting]?” but “Is it good for me to buy it? Is this a right use of my money at this time in my life?” This is a question no one else can answer for me, since it depends so entirely on my own inward and outward circumstances, my sense of value, my myriad responsibilities, my unique make-up of strengths and weaknesses, my interior impression of God’s call in my life—what Newman calls my “illative sense.”

In the much-needed critique of consumerism and the system that engendered and sustains it, let’s take care not fall into a kind of economic Puritanism that equates abundance with extravagance and pleasure with self-indulgence.

issue cover

Related articles:

Same issue

Reforming our thinking about courtship and sexuality, William Craig Is St. Thomas’s thought egoistical?, Patrick Lee Shakespeare and the Catholic question, Glen Cascino Distributism or the Free Economy?, Kevin Schmiesing Prize announcements, the editors The influence of Puritanism, Jeff Zare Thank you, thank you!, Catherine Egan Arrogant idealism, Jason Negri A personalist point regarding economics, Philip Harold Fr. Michael’s achievement, Kathleen van Schaijik Charity may be severe, Kathleen van Schaijik On the other side of the same coin, Kathleen van Schaijik The Weimar Republicans, Kathleen van Schaijik Drawing out an analogy, Kathleen van Schaijik Beware of economic Puritanism, Kathleen van Schaijik How to support the Concourse by buying books, Kathleen van Schaijik Shakespeare debate update, Kathleen van Schaijik What the education debate is and isn’t about, Kathleen van Schaijik Dear Class of 2000, Kathleen van Schaijik Thanksgiving, Kathleen van Schaijik

Same topic: distributism

V,5 What is distributism?, Thomas Storck V,6 (re)Distributism (re)Considered, Joseph Zoric V,6 Towards a humane economy: a reply to Thomas Storck, Philip Harold V,7 The good of distributism: a reply to critics, Thomas Storck V,7 Inner life of society determines value of economic systems, Daniel Ellis V,8 Distributism or the Free Economy?, Kevin Schmiesing V,8 A personalist point regarding economics, Philip Harold VI,1 Distributism, state power and papal teachings, Thomas Storck VI,1 The legitimacy of wealth, Genevieve Belland VI,2 A different interpretation of the social encyclicals, David Schmiesing VI,2 Broadening the Distributism Discussion, Philip Harold VII,1 The economic role of the medieval guilds, Thomas Storck VIII,1 Social credit: a distributist reform of the financial system, Oliver Heydorn VIII,2 The unfeasibility of the Social Credit solution, Gabriel Martinez VIII,2 Social Credit is no alternative, Joseph Zoric VIII,2 Kudos to Heydorn, Thomas Storck

Same author

I,1 NFP, by itself, does not compromise the marriage vocation I,2 What is a ‘real’ Catholic education? I,3 Orthodox not paradox I,4 How does a university evangelize? I,4 NFP and connaturality I,5 Thomism and intellectual freedom I,7 Keeping our worship in step with ‘what the Spirit is saying’ to FUS II,1 Can charismatics and traditionalists peacefully coexist? II,1 The horror of polygamy and the persistence of chauvinistic theories in Catholic academia II,2 The challenge of the Concourse: discussion without (much) contention II,3 When old ideas are breaking up II,4 Why the polygamy problem is not as passe as it appears: Kathleen van Schaijik responds to critics II,9 Why ‘charismatic spirituality’ belongs at the heart of our communal life III,1 What is the University Concourse? III,1 How not to help households III,3 Silence betokens ... What? III,4 The freedom of stricture III,5 What were households meant to be? III,5 Different degrees of authority IV,1 Love Never Leaves IV,2 Faith and Reason IV,5 A different perspective on the modesty question IV,6 Strangers to the world V,1 New face, same spirit V,3 The ‘Stratford man’ and the Shakespearean canon: no match at all V,4 Bringing the masses from starvation to full strength V,6 Branching out through Christus Magister V,6 Kathleen van Schaijik replies to John Doman on Shakespeare V,7 A Catholic critique of a current notion of courtship VI,1 The evil of exorcising judgement VII,1 Jump Start VII,1 Abusing NFP VII,1 It’s not the Vatican, it’s the laity III,6 Last words (for now) III,6 A suggestion regarding Extraordinary Ministers III,6 Catholic teaching on capital punishment III,6 A final thought on the household issue III,6 What is our mission, really? III,6 What if Shakspere wasn’t Shakespeare? III,6 Clinton’s sorry legacy III,6 Evolution III,6 Intimidated? Please don’t be. III,6 A gift for the graduates of ‘98 III,6 A point of policy III,6 A point of principle III,6 A word of thanks IV,7 Happy & sad IV,7 Oxford gaining on Shakspere IV,7 Of private and collegiate morality IV,7 Newman, education and context IV,7 Witnesses to Faith in the face of death IV,7 Viva the class of ‘99! IV,7 A prize winning physicist out of his depth IV,7 A positive psychology IV,7 How to become a leader IV,7 Campus politics IV,7 Thanksgiving V,8 Fr. Michael’s achievement V,8 Charity may be severe V,8 On the other side of the same coin V,8 The Weimar Republicans V,8 Drawing out an analogy V,8 Beware of economic Puritanism V,8 How to support the Concourse by buying books V,8 Shakespeare debate update V,8 What the education debate is and isn’t about V,8 Dear Class of 2000 V,8 Thanksgiving

The University Concourse | What the education debate is and isn’t about

What the education debate is and isn’t about

by Kathleen van Schaijik

To clear up some apparent confusion: Here is what proponents of a stronger core curriculum are not saying about FUS’ education.

They are not saying that we should do away with professional programs and offer nothing but humanities courses.  They are not saying that professional training is useless.  They are not saying such training is unimportant, and that every student should choose his major as if he expected to enjoy a lifetime of leisure.  What they are saying is that training for a career is not the essence of higher education; its essence is the strengthening, expanding, deepening and perfecting of the mind.  (They add, by the way, that perfecting the mind is excellent preparation for any graduate program or career, as well as for evangelization.)  They say further that to achieve the proper end of education, a strong foundation in liberal arts is the time-tested, tradition-hallowed, insubstitutable means. Next, they point to the fact that despite some truly wonderful course offerings, the FUS core is comparatively weak and in need of fundamental reform so that it includes more liberal arts more thoughtfully arranged.

And for this they get labeled extremists, elitists and medievalists,  who are trying to remake FUS after the image of Thomas Aquinas College.  How does this happen?  Where does it come from?

The Core Curriculum Task Force has just unveiled its proposal for a new core, which apparently represents only a minor improvement over our current core.  For instance, it still includes only one philosophy course.  Professor Lee, who is on the Task Force, told me that he hasn’t been able to find a single other Catholic university that requires so little philosophy, nor one that dedicates as few total credit hours to the core.  Shouldn’t that tell us something?  He used the analogy of a father who asks himself whether he is spending too much time away from home.  One way—not the only way, but a helpful way—of finding out would be for him take note of what other Catholic fathers do.  If he discovers that every other Catholic father he knows is spending significantly more time with his family, he would have a pretty good indication—not a proof, but an indication—that some lifestyle adjustment on his part was in order.

If we continue this debate next year—and I hope we will, since we have a long way to go before we reach something like consensus—let’s make sure we dispute with one another’s real views and concrete proposals, and not with caricatures and straw men.

issue cover

Related articles:

Same issue

Reforming our thinking about courtship and sexuality, William Craig Is St. Thomas’s thought egoistical?, Patrick Lee Shakespeare and the Catholic question, Glen Cascino Distributism or the Free Economy?, Kevin Schmiesing Prize announcements, the editors The influence of Puritanism, Jeff Zare Thank you, thank you!, Catherine Egan Arrogant idealism, Jason Negri A personalist point regarding economics, Philip Harold Fr. Michael’s achievement, Kathleen van Schaijik Charity may be severe, Kathleen van Schaijik On the other side of the same coin, Kathleen van Schaijik The Weimar Republicans, Kathleen van Schaijik Drawing out an analogy, Kathleen van Schaijik Beware of economic Puritanism, Kathleen van Schaijik How to support the Concourse by buying books, Kathleen van Schaijik Shakespeare debate update, Kathleen van Schaijik What the education debate is and isn’t about, Kathleen van Schaijik Dear Class of 2000, Kathleen van Schaijik Thanksgiving, Kathleen van Schaijik

Same topic:

Same author

I,1 NFP, by itself, does not compromise the marriage vocation I,2 What is a ‘real’ Catholic education? I,3 Orthodox not paradox I,4 How does a university evangelize? I,4 NFP and connaturality I,5 Thomism and intellectual freedom I,7 Keeping our worship in step with ‘what the Spirit is saying’ to FUS II,1 Can charismatics and traditionalists peacefully coexist? II,1 The horror of polygamy and the persistence of chauvinistic theories in Catholic academia II,2 The challenge of the Concourse: discussion without (much) contention II,3 When old ideas are breaking up II,4 Why the polygamy problem is not as passe as it appears: Kathleen van Schaijik responds to critics II,9 Why ‘charismatic spirituality’ belongs at the heart of our communal life III,1 What is the University Concourse? III,1 How not to help households III,3 Silence betokens ... What? III,4 The freedom of stricture III,5 What were households meant to be? III,5 Different degrees of authority IV,1 Love Never Leaves IV,2 Faith and Reason IV,5 A different perspective on the modesty question IV,6 Strangers to the world V,1 New face, same spirit V,3 The ‘Stratford man’ and the Shakespearean canon: no match at all V,4 Bringing the masses from starvation to full strength V,6 Branching out through Christus Magister V,6 Kathleen van Schaijik replies to John Doman on Shakespeare V,7 A Catholic critique of a current notion of courtship VI,1 The evil of exorcising judgement VII,1 Jump Start VII,1 Abusing NFP VII,1 It’s not the Vatican, it’s the laity III,6 Last words (for now) III,6 A suggestion regarding Extraordinary Ministers III,6 Catholic teaching on capital punishment III,6 A final thought on the household issue III,6 What is our mission, really? III,6 What if Shakspere wasn’t Shakespeare? III,6 Clinton’s sorry legacy III,6 Evolution III,6 Intimidated? Please don’t be. III,6 A gift for the graduates of ‘98 III,6 A point of policy III,6 A point of principle III,6 A word of thanks IV,7 Happy & sad IV,7 Oxford gaining on Shakspere IV,7 Of private and collegiate morality IV,7 Newman, education and context IV,7 Witnesses to Faith in the face of death IV,7 Viva the class of ‘99! IV,7 A prize winning physicist out of his depth IV,7 A positive psychology IV,7 How to become a leader IV,7 Campus politics IV,7 Thanksgiving V,8 Fr. Michael’s achievement V,8 Charity may be severe V,8 On the other side of the same coin V,8 The Weimar Republicans V,8 Drawing out an analogy V,8 Beware of economic Puritanism V,8 How to support the Concourse by buying books V,8 Shakespeare debate update V,8 What the education debate is and isn’t about V,8 Dear Class of 2000 V,8 Thanksgiving