Is Charles I a Saint (Part I). by Chevalier Charles Coulombe

From Anglicanorum Coetibus Society Blog

January 30 marks the 369th anniversary of the judicial murder of King Charles I of England, Scotland, and Ireland at the hands of the Puritan-dominated Parliament, led by Oliver Cromwell. As every well-informed inheritor of the Patrimony knows, one of the reasons the King was murdered was his refusal to sanction the abolition of the Episcopate in the Church of England.  For this reason, said body essayed to canonise him during the Restoration, and his cultus within Anglicanism flourished or declined as the dominant party in the State was Whig or Tory. In 1859, the date of his Martyrdom was removed from the Book of Common Prayer. But by that time, the “Royal Martyr” had already found favour with the Oxford Movement.

John Keble lauded him in verse, and the Society of King Charles the Martyr was founded in 1894 to revive devotion to him alongside the other “Catholic Societies” and their attempts to reignite prayer for the dead, belief in the Real Presence, Marian devotion, and sundry other such things. Among its earliest members was Fr. Hope Patten, reviver of the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham; the Anglican shrine thereat boasts a statue of the King. A number of the founders were also involved with the Neo-Jacobite Order of the White Rose, which in turn involved several Catholics, including Lord Ashburnham. A few years later both organisations crossed the Atlantic; the American SKCM and its White Rose equivalent featured Ralph Adams Cram and Isabella Stewart Gardner among their first members (meetings of both societies were held in the chapel of the latter’s palatial home, Fenway Court). To-day the OWR is represented by the Royal Stuart Society, while the SKCM continues. It has numbered several prominent Catholics among its patrons, including Lord St. John of Frawsley and Fr. Jean Charles-Roux; to-day, the highest-ranking Catholic layman in the United Kingdom, Lord Nicholas Windsor, the Queen’s First Cousin, once removed, is an active patron and member. Without a doubt, the cultus of Charles I is part of the patrimony – but is it a part of the patrimony that should be brought into the Catholic Church?

Apart from mere anti-Monarchism among Catholics (which half-sympathises with the murders of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, and is uncomfortable with Bl. Karl of Austriaor any other canonised or beatified Crowned Head), a pathology that cannot be argued with, and often owes its origin to misunderstood Hibernian and Americanist influences, there are some real objections to be answered. Some will claim that the King was weak-willed and vacillating; others point to the Catholics “martyred under Charles I.” In any case, he certainly died outside the visible Communion of the Catholic Church. Yet while these natural questions must be answered, it is exceedingly easy to do so.

When examining the personal character of Charles I, one must admit that his policies do appear to the casual viewer to have gone back and forth. But the truth is he was faced with an impossible situation – humanly speaking – and was forced to deal with it from a very weak position. The British Civil Wars – now more poetically and accurately referred to as “The Wars of the Three Kingdoms” – were just that: conflicts involving an incredibly varied cast of characters and interests at cross purposes in three very different realms, the peaceable rule of any one of which would have been difficult. In England, the King faced a powerful oligarchy (ironically created by Henry VIII’s bestowal of stolen monastic lands upon his allies) desirous of taking complete control of the State and consolidating their economic power by enclosing the remaining Common Lands; Scotland saw Charles inherit his grandmother’s losing coalition of Catholics and Anglicans against the Presbyterians; and in Ireland his rule was upheld by the mutually antagonistic Royalists and Confederates of Kilkenny against the Ulster Scots – and even this quick description is a wild oversimplification. The sad truth is Charles inherited a horrible position, and can only be held responsible for what occurred during his “personal rule.”

This last is important to understand with regard to the Saints martyred “under his rule.”  The fact is that there were a number of priests in London’s prisons under sentence of death when Charles became King. Delicate as his situation was (and given his –as we shall see –well-deserved reputation for philo-popery, to say nothing of his Catholic Queen, whose pilgrimage to the site of countless martyrdoms at Tyburn Hill caused some unrest), he did not believe himself to be in a position to pardon them. What he did do, however, was to allow them out during the daytime to minister to the city’s Catholics, said clerics returning to their prisons each night. This situation continued for years, until the Long Parliament seized power, and murdered them as it did Strafford and Laud – whom the King was also unable to save. That these priests – some of whom have been subsequently beatified and canonised – were true martyrs is indisputable; but the King was no more responsible for their deaths than Charles II was for that of St. Oliver Plunkett. One might as well blame King Baudouin I for Belgium’s abortion and Grand Duke Henri for Luxembourg’s euthanasia – but we do not because they resisted to the utmost of their power. A better case might perhaps be made against the plethora of “pro-life” politicians who somehow are rarely able to effect any changes in the law, but are routinely elected on the basis of their self-proclaimed views; but it is always easier to demand perfection from the dead than from the living.

But what of the King’s own personality, apart from his unsuccessful policies? We have a number of useful contemporary accounts, of whom one is particularly telling – that of Bishop Bossuet, in his sermon on the death of Charles’ Queen, Henrietta Maria:

Charles I, King of England, was just, moderate, magnanimous, well informed about his business and the means of reigning. Never was prince more able to render royalty, not only venerable and holy, but also kind and dear to his people. What can he be blamed for, if not clemency? I will admit to him what a celebrated author has said of Caesar, that he has been lenient to the point of repentance: Caesari proprium and peculiare sit clementiae insigne, qua usque ad poenitentiam omnes superavit. Let it be here, if you will, the famous defect of Charles as well as of Caesar; but that those who wish to believe that all is weak in the unfortunate and the vanquished do not think for that reason to persuade us that strength has failed in his courage, nor vigor in his counsels. Pursued to all excess by the implacable malignity of fortune, betrayed by all his people, he did notbetray himself. Despite the ill success of his unfortunate arms, if we could defeat him, we could not force him, and as he never refused what was reasonable, being victorious, he always rejected what was weak and unfair, being captive. I can hardly contemplate his big heart in these last trials. But he has certainly shown that the rebels are not allowed to take majesty from a king who knows himself; and those who have seen with what bearing he has appeared in Westminster Hall, and in the Place of Whitehall, can easily judge how fearless he was at the head of his armies, how august and majestic in the midst of his palace and his palace courtyard. Great Queen, I satisfy your tenderest desires when I celebrate this monarch, and this heart, which has never lived except for him, wakes up, all powder that it is, and becomes sensitive, even under this mortuary sheet, in the name of a husband so dear, to whom his very enemies will grant the title of wise and righteous, and which posterity will rank among the great princes, if his history finds readers whose judgment cannot be dominated by events nor fortune.

In some Ordinariate communities, devotion has grown up to Bl. Karl of Austria-Hungary, beatified by St. John Paul II in 2004. This makes perfect sense, because so much that can be said of the one Charles can be said of the other. Both were eminent husbands and fathers – not only in love with their wives but seeing their marriages and fatherly roles as important parts of their attempts to win Heaven. Both fathered children while their fortunes collapsed, and provided as well as they could for the education of their offspring as Christians. In terms of personal piety, both Sovereigns were devoted to the Blessed Sacrament (bearing in mind that Charles I lived three centuries before Apostolicae Curae, at a time when the Holy See offered Laud the Red Hat – of which more momentarily), the Virgin Mary, relics, and the Saints. Lastly, both men ruled over and attempted to love incredibly diverse peoples whose internecine scandals in the end both destroyed their Monarchs and cast them into immense suffering and atrocities. The second Charles was not martyred outright; but given the nature of his death, he came close.

All of that having been said, it is certainly true that Charles I died outside the visible communion of the Catholic Church. Should not that, at least, disqualify him from being considered for Sainthood? Not necessarily, and here I leave aside the liturgical commemorations of Dr. Martin Luther King – several of which Masses, as a Knight of Peter Claver, I have assisted at. Rather, we should look at the veneration permitted by the Holy See to be given a number of putatively schismatic Eastern Orthodox figures. There are also Emperors Constantine I and XI (the latter considered a Blessed by the Greek Catholics of Istanbul). It should also be born on mind that Eastern Catholics venerate as well a great many martyrs who died rather than abjure Catholicism for Orthodoxy.

The King was an apostle of reunion of the two Churches, long before it was fashionable (it was indeed one of the things adduced against him at his “trial). Charles I had a Catholic Queen, the French Princess Henrietta Maria; not surprisingly, he favoured Catholics – bestowing on the Lords Baltimore both territory in Newfoundland and the colony of Maryland. Indeed, much to the annoyance of his Puritan and Scots Presbyterian subjects, Charles I kept up a close correspondence with the Holy See. In a letter of April 20, 1623, he wrote to Pope Gregory XV:

Never did they [his ancestors] carry the standard of Christ’s Cross against his most violent enemies with a more cheerful spirit than I will use and endeavour, that the peace and unity of the Christian Commonwealth, which hath been so long banished, may be brought back, returning, as it were, from captivity or the grave; for, since the subtlety and malice of the father of discords hath sown the seeds of such unhappy differences among those who profess the Christian religion this measure I deem most necessary… Wherefore by your Holiness be persuaded that I am and ever shall be of such moderation as to keep aloof, as far as possible, from every undertaking, which may testify any hatred towards the Roman Catholic religion; nay, rather I will seize al opportunities by a gentle and generous mode of conduct, to remove all sinister suspicions entirely; so that, as we all confess one undivided Trinity, and one Christ Crucified, we may be banded together unanimously into one faith. That I may accomplish this, I will reckon as trifling all my labours and vigilance, and even the hazards of kingdom and life itself.

As mentioned earlier, numerous witnesses and later authors attest to the King’s use of images and veneration of relics, Saints, and the Virgin Mary. But despite negotiations with Rome throughout his reign, three considerations kept him from reunion: A) the belief in the power of the Pope to depose Sovereigns (not a matter of Faith, to be sure); B) the intriguing of Cardinal Richelieu with his Puritan enemies (an experience shared with Holy Roman Emperors Ferdinand II and Ferdinand III); and C) the probable reaction of a large part of his people. In this last, of course, he was not mistaken. But, as Robin Davies observes: “It is significant that the King, in his last speech on the scaffold, did not make use of the word ‘Protestant,’ but described himself as ‘a Christian according to the profession of the Church of England, as I found it left me by my father.’ It must also be remembered that the word ‘Protestant,’ even in the 18th century, meant primarily, ‘pertaining to the Church of England,’ and that the sectarians, here [England] and abroad, were usually described by names indicative of their tenets – Anabaptists, Lutherans, Calvinists, etc.”  What may be regarded as certain is that the King believed himself to be Catholic, and believed himself to be of the same Faith as the Pope. Much is made of Laud’s laughing rejection of the Red Hat – but it could not have been offered without the King’s consent, and from what we know of Charles’ character, it would have been most unlike him to have insisted that Laud accepted an honour he did not want.

To Be Continued

The Angelic Doctor on the Averroists

This is how you call out heretics! (My emphasis)

“This then is what we have written to destroy the error mentioned, using the arguments and teachings of the philosophers themselves, not the documents of faith. If anyone glorying in the name of false science wishes to say anything in reply to what we have written, let him not speak in corners nor to boys who cannot judge of such arduous matters, but reply to this in writing, if he dares. He will find that not only I, who am the least of men, but many others zealous for the truth, will resist his error and correct his ignorance.”

Happy 157th Birthday, Kansas!

As I say in my siglines on fora, 'Kansan by birth, Albertan by choice, Jayhawk by the Grace of God'! For those who don't know, a Jayhawk is a fan of my alma mater, the University of Kansas.

Today is the 157th anniversary of the day Kansas was admitted to the Union, an event that many considered to have triggered the War of the Northern Invasion. HAPPY BIRTHDAY, KANSAS!

The Great Seal of the State of Kansas

The Kansas Creed

We believe in Kansas, in the glory of her prairies, in the richness of her soil, in the beauty of her skies, and in the healthfulness of her climate

We believe in the Kansas people, in their sturdy faith, and abounding enthusiasm; in their patriotism and their fidelity to the good things of civilization; in their respect for law and their love of justice; in their courage and zeal; in their independence and in their devotion to uplifting influences in education and religion.

We believe in Kansas institutions; in the Kansas language and in the Kansas ideals in her cleanliness of society, and in her demands that honor, sobriety and respect be maintained in public and private life; in her marvelous productiveness and in her wonderful future.

'Home on the Range', the State Song of Kansas 

The Feast of St François de Sales

Today is the Feast of St Francis de Sales, one of my favourite Saints, a great spiritual director and writer on spiritual subjects, and one of the immediate forefathers of the French School of Spirituality.

He was the author of the classic Introduction to the Devout Life.

Here is his life from Matins of his Feast,

Francis was born of devout and noble parents in the town of Sales, from which his family took its name. He was given a liberal education, devoted himself to the study of philosophy and theology at Paris and gained the degree of Doctor in civil and canon law at Padua. When he had been ordained priest and made provost of the church of Geneva, he carried out the duties of his office so well that Bishop de Granier sent him to preach the word of God in Chablais in order to win the inhabitants away from the heresy of Calvin. He undertook this mission with such great zeal and overcame so many dangers with the help of God that he is said to have brought back to the Catholic faith some seventy-two thousand heretics. When de Granier died, Francis was consecrated bishop. He founded a new order of nuns, named for the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin, and enlightened the Church with writings filled with heavenly teaching. At Lyon, he was seized by a grave illness and departed to heaven in the year 1622. He was declared a Doctor of the Universal Church by Pope Pius IX.

And here is the article on him from the (old) Catholic Encyclopedia,

SAINT FRANCIS DE SALES, BISHOP, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH—1567-1622

Feast: January 29

Francis de Sales was born at the Chateau de Sales in Swiss Savoy on August 21, 1567, and at his baptism in the parish church of Thorens was named Francis Bonaventura, for two greatly loved Franciscan saints. The room in which he was born was known as the "St. Francis room," from an old painting on the wall showing the friar of Assisi preaching to the birds; and it was this lover of all living creatures whom Francis de Sales was to choose as his patron in later years. His father, the Seigneur de Nouvelles, was an aristocrat who had served his country well in war and peace. On his marriage to the only child of Melchior de Sionnaz, who brought as her dowry the Signory of Boisy, he took the name of Boisy. When Francis was born, the eldest of thirteen children, his mother was only fifteen. The boy was frail at birth, but with devoted care he grew to vigorous maturity. (Read more...)

Memes of the Day

The Feast of Blessed Charlemagne, and a Prayer Written by Dom Prosper Gueranger O.S.B.

Today is the Feast of Blessed Charlemagne, Most Serene Augustus Crowned by God, the Great and Pacific Emperor Ruling the Roman Empire. If you're German, he's Karl der Große, if Serbian, Чарлс Великог, and if Swedish, Charles den Stora. In Latin, it's Carolus Magnus.

It is also, my middle son Charles' Name-day.

Born the son of Pepin the Short in AD 742, he became King of the Franks in AD 768 and King of the Lombards in AD 774. When he became King of the Lombards, it is likely that he was crowned with the Iron Crown of Lombardy, which in addition to being a regal crown is also a reliquary containing one of the Nails used to fix Our Crucified Lord to the Holy Cross.

He was raised to the Imperial Throne on the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord, AD 800, in succession to Constantine VI of the 'Eastern' Empire. Constantine had been deposed and the Throne usurped by a woman who pretended to be Empress in her own right. A woman may not be Emperor of the Romans any more than a man may give birth!

James, Viscount Bryce says in his monumental The Holy Roman Empire,

When Odoacer compelled the abdication of Romulus Augustulus, he did not abolish the Western Empire as a separate power, but caused it to be reunited with or sink into the Eastern, so that from that time there was, as there had been before before Diocletian, a single undivided Roman Empire. In A.D. 800 the very memory of the separate Western Empire, as it had stood from the death of Theodosius till Odoacer, had, so far as appears, been long since lost, and neither Leo nor Charles nor any one among their advisers dreamt of reviving it. They too, like their predecessors, held the Roman Empire to be one and indivisible, and proposed by the coronation of the Frankish king not to proclaim a severance of the East and West, but to reverse the act of Constantine, and make Old Rome again the civil as well as the ecclesiastical capital of the Empire that bore her name. Their deed was in its essence illegal, but they sought to give it every semblance of legality: they professed and partly believed that they were not revolting against a reigning sovereign, but legitimately filling up the place of the deposed Constantine the Sixth, the people of the imperial city exercising their ancient right of choice, their bishop his right of consecration.

Bryce, Viscount James. The Holy Roman Empire (Kindle Locations 741-750). Vook, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

His 'signature'. See the little 'point' forming a tiny square in the larger square at the centre of K(A)R(O)L(U)S? A scribe would write out the sentence, and the Emperor would 'sign' his name by making the two short lines to make the tiny square.

Here is a prayer in his honour written by Dom Prosper Gueranger O.S.B., and it is not a prayer to gladden the hearts of liberal 'Catholics' and their left-wing henchmen!

Prayer to Charlemagne 

"Hail, O Charles, beloved of God, Apostle of Christ, defender of His Church, protector of justice, guardian of good customs, terror of the enemies of the Christian name! 

"The tainted diadem of the Caesars - purified by the hands of Leo - sits on your august forehead; the globe of the Empire rests in your vigorous hand; the ever-victorious sword in your combats for Our Lord is sheathed at your waist, and on your forehead the imperial anointing was added to the royal unction by the hand of the Pontiff who consecrated you and confirmed your authority. As the representative of the figure of Christ in His temporal Royalty, you desired that He would reign in you and through you.

"Now God rewards you for the love you had for Him, for the zeal you displayed for His glory, for the respect and confidence you showed toward His Spouse. In exchange for an earthly kingship, transitory and uncertain, you enjoy now an immortal kingdom where so many million of souls, who by your hands escaped idolatry, today honor you as the instrument of their salvation. 

"During the days of celebration of the birth of Our Lord by Our Lady, you offered to them the gracious temple you built in their honor (the Basilica of Aix-la-Chapelle), and which is still today the object of our admiration. It was in this place that your pious hands placed the newborn garment worn by her Divine Son. As retribution, the Son of God desired that your bones should gloriously rest in the same place to receive the testimony of the veneration of the peoples. 

"O glorious heir to the three Magi Kings of the East, present our souls before the One who wore such a humble garment. Ask Him to give us a part of the profound humility you had as you knelt before the Manger, a part of that great joy that filled your heart at Christmas, a part of that fiery zeal that made you realize so many works for the glory of the Infant Christ, and a part of that great strength that never abandoned you in your conquests for His Kingdom. 

"O mighty Emperor, you who of old was the arbiter of the whole European family assembled under your scepter, have mercy on this society that today is being destroyed in all its parts. After more than a thousand years, the Empire that the Church placed in your hands has collapsed as a chastisement for its infidelity to the Church that founded it. The nations still remain, troubled and afflicted. Only the Church can return life to them through the Faith; only she continues to be the depositary of public law; only she can govern the powerful and bless the obedient. 

"O Charles the Great, we beseech you to make that day arrive soon when society, re-established at its foundations, will cease asking liberty and order from the revolutions. Protect with a special love France, the most splendid flower of your magnificent crown. Show that you are always her king and father. Put an end to the false progress of the faithless empires of the North that have fallen into schism and heresy, and do not permit the peoples of the Holy Empire to fall prisoner to them."

And here is a link to an article my friend, the Mad Monarchist, did a few years ago:

The Mad Monarchist: The Feast of Charlemagne

And, from even longer ago, a post from Roman Christendom.

28 January - the Feast of Emperor St Charlemagne, the founder of the Holy Roman Empire

Memes of the Day

Sickening Socialist Hubris

In Matins of Sunday, in the Roman Breviary according to the Reform of Pope John XXIII, which I recite, the sixth Psalm recited is as follows:

11Sing ye to the Lord, who dwelleth in Sion: declare his ways among the Gentiles:

12For requiring their blood he hath remembered the: he hath not forgotten the cry of the poor.

13Have mercy on me, O Lord: see my humiliation which I suffer from my enemies.

14Thou that liftest me up from the gates of death, that I may declare all thy praises in the gates of the daughter of Sion.

15I will rejoice in thy salvation: the Gentiles have stuck fast in the destruction which they have prepared. Their foot hath been taken in the very snare which they hid.

16The Lord shall be known when he executeth judgments: the sinner hath been caught in the works of his own hands.

17The wicked shall be turned into hell, all the nations that forget God.

18For the poor man shall not be forgotten to the end: the patience of the poor shall not perish for ever.

19Arise, O Lord, let not man be strengthened: let the Gentiles be judged in thy sight.

20Appoint, O Lord, a lawgiver over them: that the Gentiles may know themselves to be but men.

The antiphon appointed is 'Let not man prevail'. In more familiar translations of the Bible, such as the Authorised Version, verse 19 is translated, 'Arise, O LORD; let not man prevail: let the heathen be judged in thy sight', which variation is obviously the origin of the antiphon.

For some reason, as I was anticipating Matins earlier this evening, as I read the antiphon I was reminded of a work I had read in my younger, stupider days as a socialist.

In 1960, Erich Fromm, a cultural Marxist and an early member of the infamous 'Frankfurt School', published a book, really little more than a pamphlet called Let Man Prevail: A Socialist Manifesto and Program.

As I read the antiphon I was distracted from prayer with the thought, 'What hubris!' To deliberately mutilate a  Scripture verse as the title of a socialist tract. Is there any doubt of the deep underlying hatred of the left for Christianity? This is why Pope Pius XI said, 'Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth', and further and more to the point, '[Socialism] is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.' (my emphasis)

The War Against Christianity Continues, But With a Setback

At least the Good Guys won a victory in this one. Having lived in Iowa, I wonder how many Iowa voters know about this. It doesn't strike me as something they would agree with!

From LifeSite News (emphasis supplied)

Court orders university to reinstate Christian club booted for refusing to elect LGBT activist

IOWA CITY, January 26, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – A Christian group has prevailed in court and will be reinstated as a campus organization after being stripped of club status for disqualifying an active homosexual from running for its leadership position.

U.S. District Court Judge Stephanie Rose granted a temporary injunction blocking the University of Iowa’s (UI) ban against the campus Christian group Business Leaders in Christ (BLinC).  Tuesday’s decision allowed BLinC to recruit at a fair in the student union on Wednesday.

“The University has to stop discriminating against BLinC because of its religious beliefs,” Becket Fund attorney Eric Baxter stated in a press release. “Every other group on campus gets to select leaders who embrace their mission. Religious groups don’t get second-class treatment.” 

Gay activist Marcus Miller applied for BLinC leadership, but refused to agree to BLinC’s Statement of Faith, which includes sexual chastity outside heterosexual marriage.  “He expressly stated that he rejected BLinC’s religious beliefs and would not follow them,” the group explained.

Miller then filed a complaint with the university, claiming he was rejected because he is gay. UI in turn yanked BLinC’s status as a registered student group, effectively halting their activities on campus.  

In temporarily reversing the university’s ban, Judge Rose reasoned that the school is not consistently enforcing its own anti-discrimination policy. She noted as an example a campus Muslim group which excludes all but Muslims.

“BLinC’s motion is granted based solely upon the university’s selective enforcement of an otherwise reasonable and viewpoint neutral nondiscrimination policy,” Rose explained.

“Public universities can’t tell religious student groups what to believe or who to pick as their leaders,” Baxter said.  “The court has told the University of Iowa to stop discriminating against BLinC because of its religious beliefs.”

When Judge Rose asked why UI hadn’t punished the Muslim group or others that limit leadership, the school’s lawyer said enforcement of its anti-discrimination policy is in response to complaints, and UI hadn’t received any other complaints.

Even Marcus Miller’s own gay religious organization requires executive officers to “sign and agree to (its) Mission and Statement of Core Beliefs.”

“BLinC has shown that the university does not consistently and equally apply its Human Rights Policy,” Rose wrote. “This raises an issue regarding whether BLinC’s viewpoint was the reason it was not allowed to operate…while at the same time Imam Mahdi was not subjected to any enforcement action.”

BLinC’s lawsuit said just that, maintaining that they did not turn down Marcus Miller for leadership because he was a homosexual, but because he refused to agree to the organization’s Statement of Faith, which includes sexual chastity outside of heterosexual marriage.

A university statement says it “respects the decision of the court,” and allowed BLinC in the student union to recruit on Wednesday.

After the ninety-day injunction, both parties may take any additional action they deem necessary.

BLinC hopes its lawsuit “serves as a reminder to universities everywhere that they cannot discriminate against student groups just because they don’t like their beliefs.”

Nicole Russell at the Washington Examiner opined, “Hopefully, this will be a step toward ensuring that religious student groups are treated the same as all other groups on campus rather than being ostracized for their faith.”

In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that religious institutions have a constitutional right to determine their leaders without government interference.

Rediscovering Heinrich Pesch and Solidarism

As I said in my post, A Promise Fulfilled (Part II), one of the influences on my economic thinking was Father Heinrich Pesch, S.J. and the system he called 'Solidarism'. For those who are not familiar with him here is an excellent article that attempts to distill his thirteen volume Lehrbuch into a short summary and gives a glance at what can be and what cannot be done towards implementing it at this point in time.

From Crisis Magazine, 1 January 2014

The passing of the eminent American Catholic economist, Dr. Rupert J. Ederer, at the age of ninety on Thanksgiving Day 2013 calls attention to the great, but equally unsung, economic thinker and system that he devoted most of his career to furthering: Heinrich Pesch, S.J. and solidarism. Pesch, who died in 1926, was thought to have inspired Pope Pius XI’s great social encyclical Quadragesimo Anno five years later. In spite of Pesch’s relative obscurity, Ederer called him an economic “system builder,” on par with Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and John Maynard Keynes—although the system he constructed was based firmly on Catholic teaching and the natural law. The word “solidarism” rings of the principle of solidarity, which has been stressed more recently in Catholic social teaching. In fact, solidarism is also referred to as “the solidarity work system.” There is some indication that Pesch’s solidarism influenced the famed Solidarity trade union movement in Poland that rose to prominence a generation ago and led the way to the collapse of Eastern European communism.

What, broadly, are the basics of solidarism? First, it rejects both individualism and collectivism and seeks to uphold the good of both the individual and society. In short, it embraces the common good as understood by sound ethics. Second, there is a solidarity among all men because of, simply, their common humanity. There is also a more particular solidarity among people in the same nation and within the same occupation or industry or area of the economy. That means that there is or should be solidarity between employers and workers; both need each other to achieve successful economic results. This does not mean that there may not be competing interests on each side—so that, say, labor unions don’t have a purpose—but that these interests can be balanced and reconciled. Class conflict is not inevitable. Its stress on such solidarity distinguishes solidarism from both economic liberalism and Marxism.

Third, the worker cannot be reduced to a mere factor of production, nor can economics be made the be-all-and-end-all, so that everything is reduced to economic calculation. This is what Pesch termed “economism,” a term picked up by both the German economist Wilhelm Roepke and Pope John Paul II. Fourth, the market and its advantages are accepted as givens by solidarism and economic freedom is a good thing. Neither, however, may be unrestrained. While competition is valuable and plays a crucial role in economic life, it cannot be its ordering principle. That can only be human dignity.

Fifth, in line with this, while there are certainly market inclinations and forces (e.g., supply and demand) they cannot be treated as rigid “laws” (a notion that came from the Enlightenment). While market forces may help allocate resources effectively, solidarism rejects the notion that if the economy is just left alone the results will almost automatically work out to the good of everyone (indeed, this is the very thing that Pope Francis recently addressed). While self-interest, like the interests of labor and management, is legitimate, it can also be destructive and so—like what James Madison said about factions—must be regulated and channeled in a way that does not undermine the common good. Like Roepke, solidarism believes that economics cannot be separated from ethics, requires a sound social and cultural context, and there is an appropriate role for state action.

Sixth, the sense of solidarity motivates the solidarist to promote occupational groups or other sorts of arrangements of those taking part in a particular industry—which must be voluntarily agreed to, and not imposed by the state—which would aim at a kind of enlightened self-regulation. The state could thus step back and not engage in the heavy regulation and micromanagement that we have become so accustomed to (with all their attendant problems)—though it would continue to oversee economic activity and intervene where appropriate in its role as the chief guarantor of the common good. Quadragesimo Anno gave an approving nod to a reorganization of industrial economies along such lines.

Seventh, solidarism has no illusions about economic reorganization as some kind of panacea. The proper shaping of the human soul, of course, is a prerequisite. This requires formation of the virtues in the individual, which leads to the realization of such virtues as justice and social charity in the context of society that, in turn, makes possible solidarity. Proper personal formation requires serious religious commitment and sound family life. Even in his time, Pesch lamented the weakening of the family. Solidarism does not say that there must be a substantial restoration of a family-based economy—a position that some distributists would take—nor that industrialization inevitably undercuts the family, but it is aware of the serious strains put on family life by a certain version of “capitalism” (whose economism meant excessively long work hours and paid scant attention to the worker’s family needs).

Eighth, solidarism strongly defends private property, although private ownership—whether on the individual or large-scale corporate business level—can never be separated from the obligation of its social use (i.e., the concern about others and the community in the use of one’s property). The notion of absolute rights bestowed by ownership came from the economic liberalism that became ascendant in the nineteenth century and collided with the traditional classical-Christian understanding. Thus, the solidarist would very likely espouse the view of some Catholic writers in the first half of the twentieth century that large companies take on a kind of semi-public character, so they can be subject to more regulation and restraints for the sake of the common good. One example might be that laws could legitimately stop a company from just moving its plant facilities almost overnight to another part of the country or overseas when the economic effect on a community and employment would be disastrous. Nevertheless, solidarism would reject the suppression of private ownership of the means of production and distribution by something like the sweeping nationalization of a sector of the economy. It doesn’t outright exclude government ownership, but this would have to be the exception (e.g., mail service, local government ownership of utilities). It rejects socialism, but aims for socialization (a term mentioned by Pope John XXIII in Mater et Magistra, and grossly misunderstood). Socialization simply means insuring that all in an economy benefit, and like John Paul II the solidarist understands that this is not necessarily or even likely accomplished by government ownership. It is in line with what in Catholic social thought is now called the universal destination of created goods—that God has given man the bounty of the earth’s resources for all to partake of.

The concern for socialization and the universal destination of created goods perhaps underlies the ninth and tenth points. While the state could step back with a solidaristic-type economic restructuring, its role cannot be minimal. Besides the proper kinds of interventions in the economy it must provide what in the Reagan period first came to be called a “safety net.” While—consistent with the principle of subsidiarity—the family and religious and other civil-society-type groups should be the first to take care of the needy, the state as a matter of justice must help out when this is insufficient. Also, it cannot be indifferent to the situation of wealth distribution; disparities of wealth have to be addressed. This was not originally a Marxist idea as some might think, but goes back to Aristotle who seemed to advocate that an acceptable range of wealth-holding—avoiding a situation of extremes—was necessary to sustain a good and stable political society. This isn’t to say, however, that the solidarist would countenance an aggressive program of redistribution that would penalize achievers and reward the indolent. Finally, the state in promoting the common good must play a role—in association with the private sector and observing subsidiarity—in economic planning. Individuals, families, and businesses plan economically, so certainly it is necessary for nations to do so.

Eleventh, solidarism stresses the need for a just wage. This has direct implications for the state’s social welfare role: a just wage across the economy would mean that there would be less demand for public assistance programs. In line with its belief that nothing happens automatically in economic life, market forces alone cannot be the sole determiner of wage levels. Nor does merely the agreement of the parties make a wage contract just; a dignified life for oneself and his family must be the governing standard. From a public policy standpoint, the solidarist looks positively at such approaches as profit-sharing and family-wage escalators to help accomplish a just wage.

Twelfth, solidarism is concerned about justice in pricing (which, interestingly, is an area that has not been developed much in the social encyclicals). A just price is one that both covers costs and yields the producer or trader a reasonable gain (a profit). While Pesch provides much more analysis about this, some of his key points are that the consumer has no right to the lowest possible price (the workers producing a good, after all, must receive a just wage), the price should reflect the true value of a good or service (while the solidarist believes that the satisfaction of wants, and not just needs, is legitimate, some wants—say, for moral reasons—clearly should not be pursued), and that no one should be allowed to make an exorbitant gain (including profit) at another’s expense. Profit-making, like competition, cannot be the governing principle. An acceptable profit would be one that conforms to the normal level of profit for a company’s country or occupation, although a higher one could be acceptable if it were in line with the value of what one provides.

Thirteenth, any tax levied must be truly necessary, must take into account persons’ level of wealth, may be heavier on, say, investment income than income earned from work, and must be used to fund activities that will promote the common good and not merely the private good of some (e.g., interest groups). The fourteenth and final point is one that certainly collides with prevailing economic thinking: completely free trade must be rejected. This is because of commutative justice: certain countries are unable to derive the same advantage as others in a free trade regimen. Some would be hurt, as when cheap foreign products flood their markets and overwhelm their domestic producers. There is no problem with some measure of protectionism.

These are just highlights about solidarism. Pesch laid out his whole system in his mammoth thirteen-volume Lehrbuch (whose translation into English, like most of his works, we owe to Ederer). It is obvious—not surprisingly—that it sounds like the social teaching of the popes. One of my very capable students years ago commented after our class had finished Pesch’s Ethics and the National Economy (his short distillation of his thought) that she thought she was reading another social encyclical.

To be sure, Pesch’s thought could not just be picked up across the board and applied to our contemporary economy. He died almost ninety years ago, and it would need analysis and updating to address the many changes that have occurred since then. Popes such as John Paul II did not mention economic restructuring, although the participatory norm he stressed certainly was part of it. Maybe John Paul thought that with the moral and cultural decline since 1926 we have to think about more basic things. What is needed is for Catholic economic scholars and other social scientists to rediscover Pesch and consider how solidarist ideas could apply today.

It also offers Catholics of a politically conservative bent economic analysis—at the systemic level—that genuinely respects private property and a rightful role for the market but avoids a view of “capitalism” that is at odds with Catholic social teaching. While needing updating, it is a theory addressing the economics of modern—as opposed to, say, medieval—times, but is rooted in the classical-Christian tradition instead of the mindset of the Enlightenment. Perhaps it’s time to rediscover and think about Pesch and solidarism, especially at a time when Pope Francis asks us to think about whether at least significant aspects of our current thinking about economics is correct amid widespread, serious economic inequalities and conditions of poverty in the world.

Memes of the Day

My Name Day!

Today is the Feast Day of St John Chrysostom, my Patron Saint. In Serbian, he is Светог Јован Златоусти (Jovan Zlatoust). He was Patriarch of New Rome (Constantinople) from AD 398 to AD 404.

His name in Greek, Ἰωάννης ὁ Χρυσόστομος, means 'John the Golden Mouthed' from his eloquent preaching. His Paschal Homily is read to this day on Easter Morning in the Eastern Churches, and is often read as an introduction to the homily in Western Churches. He is the author of the primary Liturgy (Mass) of the Eastern Church, the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom.

In the Eastern Churches, he is honoured as one of the Three Holy Hierarchs, and in the Latin West, he was recognised as one of the Four Great Doctors of the Eastern Church by Pope St Pius V in 1568.

Of him, the Roman Martyrology says,

The feast of holy John, Patriarch of Constantinople, (in the years 398-407,) surnamed Chrysostom that is to say, golden mouth on account of the golden stream of his eloquence, whose word and example much profited the Church, but after many toils he ended his life in exile. Mention is made of him upon the 14th day of September, but the 27th of January is the day whereon his sacred body was brought to Constantinople under the Emperor Theodosius the younger, whence it was afterward brought to Rome, and buried in the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles. 

 The Readings on his life from the Office of Matins for today,

John of Antioch, who, on account of the golden stream of his eloquence, is called by the Greeks Chrysostomos, or, the golden-mouthed, was a lawyer and man of the world of much eminence, before he turned his great intellect and wonderful industry to the study of things sacred. He took orders, and was ordained a priest of the Church of Antioch, and after the death of Nectarius, was forced by the Emperor Arcadius to accept, though sorely against his own will, the Archbishopric of Constantinople. Having received the burden of a shepherd's office, (upon the 26th day of February,) in the year 398, he set himself zealously to do his duty, struggling against the degradation of public morality and the loose lives of the nobility, and thereby drew upon himself the ill-will of many enemies, especially the Empress Eudoxia, whom he had rebuked on account of the money of the widow Callitropa, and the land of another widow.

Come Bishops being assembled in a Council at Chalcedon, which Council the Saint held to be neither lawful, nor public, although he was commanded to go there, he refused. Whereupon Eudoxia, striving earnestly against him, caused him to be sent into exile. Soon after, however, the people of the city rose, and demanded his recall, and he was then brought back again amid great public rejoicings. Nevertheless he ceased not to war against vice, and absolutely forbade the celebration of public games round the silver statue of Eudoxia in the square outside the Church of the Eternal Wisdom. Upon this, a party of Bishops, who were enemies to him, banded together, and obtained that he should be banished again, which was done accordingly, on the 20th day of June, 404, amid the lamentations of widows and the poor, who felt as if they were being deprived of a common father. During this exile, it almost passeth belief how much Chrysostom suffered, and how many souls he turned to the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

At this time a Council was assembled at Rome, wherein Chrysostom's restoration to his See was decreed by Pope Innocent I., but meanwhile, he was suffering great hardships and cruelties on his journey at the hands of the soldiers who had him in charge. As he passed through Armenia he prayed in the Church of the holy martyr Basiliscus, and the same night that blessed conqueror appeared to him in a vision and said Brother John, to-morrow thou shalt be with me. On the next day, therefore, he received the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and, arming himself with the sign of the cross, resigned his soul to God, it being the 14th of September. As soon as he was dead a furious hailstorm took place at Constantinople, and after four days the Empress died. The Emperor Theodosius, the son of Arcadius, brought the body of John Chrysostom to Constantinople with great state, and numerously attended, and on the 27th of January, laid it with magnificent honours in the grave, beside which he prayed for the forgiveness of his own father and mother. The holy body was afterwards taken to Rome, and is now buried in the Vatican Basilica. The number, devoutness, and brilliance of St. John Chrysostom's sermons and other writings, his acuteness in exposition, and the close aptness of his explanations of Holy Scripture, have been and are the object of universal wonder and admiration, and often seem not unworthy to have been dictated to him by the Apostle Paul, for whom he entertained a wonderful devotion.