I chose to take the name Leo XIV. There are different reasons for this, but mainly because Pope Leo XIII in his historic Encyclical Rerum Novarum addressed the social question in the context of the first great industrial revolution. In our own day, the Church offers to everyone the treasury of her social teaching in response to another industrial revolution and to developments in the field of artificial intelligence that pose new challenges for the defence of human dignity, justice and labour.
Pope Leo XIV.
In the light of the new Pope taking the name Leo XIV, let's revisit a major writing of Pope Leo XIII
Today is Mothers Day, as surely everyone in the US is aware.
I don't know if I've ever commented on Mother's Day before, but I'm going to for a couple of odd reasons.
The first is this comment by Robert Reich for the day:
Robert Reich@RBReich·14h
Your Mother’s Day weekend reminder that the so-called “party of family values” has historically blocked:
-Paid family & medical leave
-Universal childcare
-Universal pre-K
-Expanded Child Tax Credit
-Programs to support reproductive health
Doesn’t sound very pro-family to me.
First I'll note that I have sort of a love/hate relationship with Reich. Reich is very far left, but his economic commentary, in my view, is generally pretty good. And like him, I'm greatly distressed over what Donald Trump is doing to the country.
But like a far lefty, he's bought into the seas of blood position of the Democratic Party. "Programs to support reproductive health" is Orwellian speech for infanticide.
Reich is Jewish, which always makes me wonder how he can support a thesis that holds that infants in the womb, earlier than a certain number of weeks, aren't people. It's the exact same argument that resulted in the Holocaust. It's the exact same argument that expanded into eugenics based homicide in Nazi Germany, and which has advanced murder in the guise of "assisted suicide" in various Western Nations.
I'll be frank that I've never been a huge fan of Mothers Day or Father's Day which remind me, in some ways of the Alcohol and Old Lace episode of the Andy Griffith Show in which two elderly sisters were distilling moonshine for "holidays", of which there were an insane number of manufactured ones. But I really shouldn't be that way for Mother's Day. There are real reasons to honor motherhood and what it entails. But murdering infants isn't a good way to do it.
And there's no reason to pretend, no matter how much the left would like to, that the "my body, my choice" argument is a good one, or even a valid one. A fetus in the womb has a body and its choice i not likely to be murdered. And that body, genetically, is made up of the DNA of two people, not one. You don't get ot be a mother through a unilateral act of self will. Motherhood in some instances wasn't planned, of course, but then much of life is not and a massive murderous do over isn't every justified.
The other reason I chose to post is that somebody I know had been at a Vigil Mass in which the attending celebrant mentioned mothers, but largely, apparently, in the context how mother's support their men, which was pretty much apparently it. The celebrant was Indian (from India). I'm only noting this as its so easy to forgot for Americans, and probably Europeans, how we are actually a minority of the globes' population, and the culture view of other people may be very much not the one we hold.
That oddly enough occured on the same day, yesterday, in which I listed to a Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World episode on 1 Esdras, which is in some (all?) Orthodox Bibles, but not the Catholic Bible, which is itself larger than most Protestant Biles. In it, there's a debate between three Guards about what is the most powerful thing in the world. One Guard presents this, which references the prior two arguments that came before his.:
Then the third, who had spoken of women and truth (and this was Zerubbabel), began to speak: “Gentlemen, is not the king great, and are not men many, and is not wine strong? Who is it, then, who rules them or has the mastery over them? Is it not women? Women gave birth to the king and to every people that rules over sea and land. From women they came, and women brought up the very men who plant the vineyards from which comes wine. Women make men’s clothes; they bring men glory; men cannot exist without women. If men gather gold and silver or any other beautiful thing and then see a woman lovely in appearance and beauty, they let all those things go and gape at her and with open mouths stare at her, and all prefer her to gold or silver or any other beautiful thing. A man leaves his own father, who brought him up, and his own region and clings to his wife. With his wife he ends his days, with no thought of his father or his mother or his region. Therefore you must realize that women rule over you!
“Do you not labor and toil and bring everything and give it to women? A man takes his sword and goes out to travel and rob and steal and to sail the sea and rivers; he faces lions, and he walks in darkness, and when he steals and robs and plunders, he brings it back to the woman he loves. A man loves his wife more than his father or his mother. Many men have lost their minds because of women and have become slaves because of them. Many have perished or stumbled or sinned because of women. And now do you not believe me?
“Is not the king great in his authority? Do not all lands fear to touch him? Yet I have seen him with Apame, the king’s concubine, the daughter of the illustrious Bartacus; she would sit at the king’s right hand and take the crown from the king’s head and put it on her own and slap the king with her left hand. At this the king would gaze at her with mouth agape. If she smiles at him, he laughs; if she loses her temper with him, he flatters her, so that she may be reconciled to him. Gentlemen, why are not women strong, since they do such things?”
It is profound, and note how it came in an ear in which women, in most of the world, would have been regarded as second class citizens. I should note, however, that he went on to then discuss Truth, with that being the most powerful thing in the World.
While it likely shouldn't, that reminded me of Kipling's great poem, The Ballad of the King's Jest, which has this line:
Four things greater than all things are,—
Women and Horses and Power and War.
We spake of them all, but the last the most,
For I sought a word of a Russian post,
Of a shifty promise, an unsheathed sword
And a gray-coat guard on the Helmund ford.
Then Mahbub Ali lowered his eyes
In the fashion of one who is weaving lies.
Quoth he: “Of the Russians who can say?
“When the night is gathering all is gray.
“But we look that the gloom of the night shall die
“In the morning flush of a blood-red sky.
“Friend of my heart, is it meet or wise
“To warn a King of his enemies?
“We know what Heaven or Hell may bring,
“But no man knoweth the mind of the King.
“That unsought counsel is cursed of God
“Attesteth the story of Wali Dad.
It's interesting how Kipling put it, "Four things greater than all things are--Women and Horses and Power and War".
The heavy duty, or at least heavy, premium American automobile of the golden age of American manufacturing which Trump seems to dream can be restored through tariffs.
In reality, capitalism is based on the idol of money. The lure of gain gradually destroys all social bonds. Capitalism devours itself. Little by little, the market destroys the value of work. Man becomes a piece of merchandise. He is no longer his own. The result is a new form of slavery, a system in which a large part of the population is dependent on a little caste.
Robert Cardinal Sarah.
I don't use the term "insanity" here lightly. Donald Trump is, I am convinced, rather dumb, obviously economically ignorant, and suffering from dementia. That nearly half the country could vote for him is simply beyond me, but they did, and the Republican Party, which was once the party of business has fallen right into line.
I suspect Americans voted for him as they have a poor grasp of economics themselves and see it only through what they've experienced in their own live and that of their immediate predecessors. Americans, came to view the economy sort of like Billy Joel expressed it in Allentown:
Well, we’re living here in Allentown
And they’re closing all the factories down
Out in Bethlehem they’re killing time
Filling out forms
Standing in line
Well, our fathers fought the second World War
Spent their weekends on the Jersey shore
Met our mothers in the USO
Asked them to dance
Danced with them slow
And we’re living here in Allentown
But the restlessness was handed down
And it’s getting very hard to stay
Well we’re waiting here in Allentown
For the Pennsylvania we never found
For the promises our teachers gave
If we worked hard
If we behaved
So the graduations hang on the wall
But they never really helped us at all
No they never taught us what was real
Iron and coke
Chromium Steel
And we’re waiting here in Allentown
But they’ve taken all the coal from the ground
And the union people crawled away
Every child had a pretty good shot
To get at least as far as their old man got
But something happened on the way to that place
They threw an American flag in our face
Well, I’m living here in Allentown
And it’s hard to keep a good man down
But I won’t be getting up today
And it’s getting very hard to stay
And we’re living here in Allentown
Problem is, a sense of economic nostalgia evolving into economic rage doesn't grasp economics at all.
1968 Oldsmobile 442.
The US didn't become an economic and manufacturing giant because of something really special in the American system or some amazing native genius. It was the simple forces of economics that apply to corporate capitalism, combined with the Second World War, that caused it.
Largescale industry can really only be developed through capitalism or socialism. In Europe, it was capitalism that introduced it in the form of the Industrial Revolution. The US as a manufacturing titan came about as the Industrial Revolution came to the US late, not because we were better at it. The arrival of industrialism in the United Kingdom and a united Germany reflected the eras in which it occurred, and it occurred there first. Capitalism, in the end, just like socialism, seeks to serve itself, and in the case of capitalism it does it by viewing human beings as consumers, as opposed to the socialist workers, and trying to get them to consume as much as possible. It does that by seeking to make products faster and cheaper, amongst other strategies. Seeking efficiency products not only relentlessly advance, but manufacturing methods do as well. But manufacturing method require massive investment of capital. Once machines are in place, the economic incentive is to use them as long as they can be, given the investment. This means that new start ups always have the advantage in equipment, as they are starting with newer stuff.
Added to that, industrial Europe was destroyed during World War Two to a large extent. The Allied air forces bombed German industry into rubble. What was left after the war was taken back to the Soviet Union if was east of the Elbe. The Soviets themselves had suffered massive economic dislocation in of their factories, which were forcibly created in the Communist system. Japan's industry, which was real, but not nearly as advanced as the other major combatants, had been destroyed by the United States Army Air Force. The US, however, remained untouched and with a massive consumer demand built up due to the war and the Great Depression, US industry came roaring back and dominated the globe. . . right up until other countries could rebuilt, which very much started to show itself by the late 1960s.
One of the things nearly destroyed during the Second World War was Distributism. Distributism really came up as a line of thought as a "third way" between Communism and Capitalism during the 1920s and the Great Depression The tensions that came out of World War One saw the Socialist far left dramatically rise in power and take over the government of Russia, and briefly Hungary. They vied for control of Germany, and effectively did take over Poland in a modified form. Wars and struggles broke out in numerous places as Socialism sought to effect global change. In opposition to it rose not only fascism, but extreme capitalism. Distributists sought to effect a more sane and humane path. But when the war came they, and their intellectual fellow travelers the agrarians, put aside their efforts to support the war effort, which in the West meant unleashing capitalism in aid of the war effort. When the war ended, the economic crisis that it had brought about in Europe and the Cold War caused it to carry on, and very successfully, with Distributism being all but forgotten.
Capitalism, however, if not heavily regulated, results in the same end result as Socialism, single entity control of a machine that serves itself. In Socialism the machine claims to serve the workers, but claims to identify itself as the workers. In Capitalism the machine serves itself while claiming to serve "consumers". Neither system really cares about people at all.
American capitalism, particularly after Ronald Reagan, favored unyielding corporate growth, with one corporate machine eating another. As foreign economies rebuilt after the war, or started up after the war, corporations naturally moved manufacturing overseas, and the American government did not stop to do anything about it, believing fully in capitalism. To a certain extent, it favored manufacturing moving overseas as it conceived as many manufacturing jobs as less than ideal, and with some reason to look upon them that way, but just as the nation had a "cheap food" policy that hurt family farmers, it had a "cheap goods" policy that hurt the domestic manufacturing sector.
It can well be argued, and it has been, that something should have been done to arrest the relocation of American manufacturing. But in reality, that day was long ago. It was clear in the 1970s what was occuring, but the nation, lead by a much more sober and serious group of politicians, did not elect to intervene. Now, of course, we have Donald Trump, who doesn't seem to grasp even basic economics and who has made his money, it might be noted, in a highly anti distributist industry.
It's nearly impossible to define what Trump's economic vision is, as he probably doesn't have one. It seems to be ruled by nostalgia and a complete failure to grasp basic economic principals. Trump seems to look back on the econmy of his youth as a natural one, and believe that if tariffs are imposed all the old industries will come home. A very wealthy man, he doesn't seem to care what that does in terms of imposing his tariffs all at once, and if it creates a devastating trade war, so be it.
What Trump has no interest in, however, is disrupting capitalism. He's okay with whipping corporate entities into relocating into the US, or devastating the economy with the thesis he can make it happen, in what amounts to a type of autarky, but the basic evils of capitalism are of no interest to him.
Some closer to Trump envision something more sinister, it seems, a jump starting of an AI driving manufacturing economy. The concept is that tariffs will not only pressure industry to relocate here, but when it does, the next stage in the relentless Industrial Revolution evolutionary cycle will occur. Basically, baseball caps now made in Vietnam (none of them seem to be made here) will be made by robots in the US. Human laborers in Indochina, who depend on their jobs to feed their families, will be made unemployed while factories owning robots here in the US will profit.
It's immoral.
But what of Distributism?
Some of this probably should make any distributist rethink some basic propositions, as frankly Distributism, like Trump's tariff policy, would have the impact of making some things more expensive. Maybe many things. But the economic impact of it would be distinctly different.
Distributism policies, as long noted here, would take the corporations out of retail and agriculture. In agriculture, for the most part, that would not actually have a great impact on prices, save in certain instances (poultry for sure, perhaps pork). But it would also have a levelling effect. Virtually nobody would get fantastically wealthy in these industries, but many rank and file workers would get back up into the real middle class. Therefore the economic impact would be levelling, more than anything else.
Manufacturing, as we've noted here before, is a much tougher nut to crack. We've had some suggestions in the past, but frankly the lesson of the Trump tariffs is that they may frankly be unrealistic. We'd favor partial employee ownership of larger manufacturing entities. We could still argue for that, but it's tough for industries like the clothing manufacturing industry, whose workers are mostly overseas. I suppose it could still be argued for, however. A person here, however, can't be nativist. Economically, that is, it can't be argued that ownership in the corporation by Nguyen is any less important than Johnson, all things being equal.
It'd be pretty hard to effect, however, in countries whose economies are state run. Again, perhaps something could have been done about that, but it would have had to start in 1975, rather than 2025. Trump's policies, which don't fit this mold, are coming all at once, and fifty years too late. That might suggest, of course, that something could be done, but it would have to be done gradually.
If nothing else, however, Trump and his spastic policies might serve to give Distributism a little voice. Corporate Capitalism resulted in the situation Trump seeks to address. There's no reason to believe Corporate Capitalism is going to get us out of it. Distributists have been warning about capitalisms long term impacts for years. Socialism has demonstrated what its were, and that's what killed it.
Perhaps the Distributist Lament can get a little more heard.
In reality, capitalism is based on the idol of money. The lure of gain gradually destroys all social bonds. Capitalism devours itself. Little by little, the market destroys the value of work. Man becomes a piece of merchandise. He is no longer his own. The result is a new form of slavery, a system in which a large part of the population is dependent on a little caste.
There is nothing clever or funny about this image, Mr. President. We just buried our beloved Pope Francis and the cardinals are about to enter a solemn conclave to elect a new successor of St. Peter. Do not mock us.
New York State Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Trump, in something that's supposed to be a jest, posted a photograph of himself dressed as a Pope, no doubt generated by the onrushing curse of our age, AI.
I'm not going to post it.
This should serve as as warning to Trump supporting Catholics. Trump, who received widespread Evangelical Christian support and who has housed an faith advisor office in the White House which is staffed by a rather peculiar Evangelical pastor, shows no signs at all as taking religion seriously, and never has, but he is comfortable with coopting it. In spite of that, and this was inevitable, he doesn't mind mocking the oldest and original Christian religion.
That tells you what you need to know.
I've long held that a real Christian can't be comfortable with either of the two major US political parties or with their recent leaders. Only the American Solidarity Party comes close to being a party Christians can really be comfortable with. The presence of Catholic politicians at the forefront of either party does not change this. Biden advanced the sea of blood objectives of the infanticide supporting Democratic Party. J.D Vance has supported the IF policies of the bizarre Trump protatalist agenda and that's just a start. The Church has rarely attempted to hold Catholic politicians directly to account for reasons known to itself.
Before the Trump regime concludes, this is going to get worse. Trump will conclude that he doesn't need Catholics for anything, because he does not. A religion which is catholic, ie., universal, by nature will not ultimately be comfortable with a political philosophy which aggressively nationalist and nativist. This, indeed, has been the history of Catholicism in the US, with it only being after the election of John F. Kennedy that things changed.
Some will claim, of course, that this means nothing and its just Trump trying to be funny. That's politically disturbing enough, as Trump is already an embarrassment to the country. But those who think this should ask if Trump would have dared to depict himself as, for example, an imam. . . not hardly.
Trump's insult is offered as its safe to offer it. As has sometimes been noted, anti Catholicism is the "last acceptable prejudice". Trump offered this insult as it fits in nicely with his contempt for Christianity in general, but more particular, for his contempt for the Church, something that fits in nicely with the most extreme of his Evangelical supporters.
Catholics need to review the meaning of The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus. We're part of something larger, and once we surrender to something smaller, we need to be cautious. We can expect to be mocked and held in contempt, and if we aren't, there may well be something wrong with our witness.
But we don't have to accept the situation, nor tolerate it, where we do not need to.