One of England’s giants of literature, Catholic apologetics and social criticsm (with solutions).
Réquiem ætérnam dona ei, Dómine,
et lux perpétua lúceat ei.
Requiéscat in pace. Amen.
Capitalism had arisen through the misuse and exaggeration of certain rights, notably the right of property — the basis of economic freedom — and the right of contract, which is one of the main functions of economic freedom. Therefore, even under Capitalism, so long as the old principles were remembered it was possible to recall the principles whereby Society had once been sane and well ordered. But as a Godless greed pursued its career from excess to excess, it provoked a sort of twin hostile brother, equally Godless, born in the same atmosphere of utter disregard for the foundational virtues of humility and charity. This hostile twin brother of Capitalism was destined to be called Communism……..
– Hilaire Belloc
“It is imperative in the cause of civilization, that we save the small producer and the small distributor. . . . . He is all-important to human society and, under a scheme of properly distributed property, though his property would not be large it would be sufficient for this independence, his dignity and the security of his livelihood”.
– Hilaire Belloc
“After the Brexit vote, Britain’s politicians are scrambling around for ideas. They should begin with Pope Leo XIII’s masterpiece Rerum Novarum”.
Apart for the nonsense about Christian Democracy – i.e. in historical practice it was Social Modernism and Liberalism – of which Pope Leo XIII gave warning and which Pope Saint Pius X had to suppress [ “Moreover, Christian Democracy must have nothing to do with politics, and never be made to serve political ends or parties ; this is not its field….” ] this is a very worthwhile article.
The following was written principally for an American audience but it is universally applicable.
Political debate is often a matter of controlling the terms, since the names we call things often dictate the way we feel about them. For example, those who support abortion want to be known as “pro-choice” rather than “pro-abortion.” The preference is interesting in that it reveals that, even among its supporters, abortion is not really something worthy of support. “Choice,” however, sounds a lot like “freedom,” and hence is worthy of our highest support. Of course, since the “choice” is the choice for abortion, there is not really a functional difference between the terms; it is merely a matter of marketing.
By the same token, the anti-abortion movement would prefer to be known as “pro-life.” Here the situation is completely different, because while being pro-life means being anti-abortion, being anti-abortion doesn’t necessarily mean being pro-life; the different names really do designate different things. One can be anti-abortion on narrow moral grounds, on political grounds, or just out of certain fastidiousness. But families do a lot more than just give birth, and life is more than just its beginning. A true pro-life movement could be—and should have been—the foundation of a new Catholic politics. This is crucial because after the Second Vatican Council, Catholic politics in America severely deteriorated. What had been a strong presence dwindled so that there was very little difference between the Catholic voter and the rest of the population. The strong pro-worker bias of Catholic politics became bifurcated into radical divergent wings and highly partisan. But a pro-life party could have found areas of agreement between the factions and become a true “centrist” movement.
What would a pro-life agenda look like?