In light of Pesch’s Catholic vision of economic life, it is sadly

evident that the outspoken Catholic “Austrians” are liberals pure

and simple. Their contention that their criticisms of Pesch stem
from a true understanding of the history of economic thought and
the nature of economic science is just so much obfuscation. Pesch
was neither a “German Historicist” nor a “quasi-Socialist,” despite
claims to the contrary. He was a Catholic; he studied and wrote as
a Catholic (see his own list of “authorities” on p. 130). Any analysis
3 “...our study has in view...the question of the sufficient provision of the
people,
especially at its broader, lower levels, with good, fair-priced food, clothing,
shelter,
with all the material goods which they require for the satisfaction of their wants”
(Compendium of the National Economy, Vol. I, 459, quoted in Mulcahy’s summary of
Pesch’s economics on p. 23). Cf. pp. 155 and 160 of the present edition.
forEword
19
of his work that intends to appeal not only to Catholics but to anyone
even vaguely familiar with philosophy, history, and common sense,
will have to evaluate him upon Catholic, which is to say upon true,
terms. That so-called Catholic “scholars” must appeal to systems of
thought that both defy common sense and reject the philosophical
(not to mention the supernatural) truths of Catholicism in order to
justify their dismissal of Pesch speaks volumes about both Pesch’s
integral Faith and their own flirtations with the modern world.
Pesch’s Ethics is not an exhaustive treatment of Catholic
Social Teaching; it is a convincing presentation of one aspect of it.
Conspicuously absent is a discussion of the distribution of productive
property, particularly landed property – a discussion that preoccupied
many Catholics elsewhere in Europe during the time he was writing.
The omission is not a criticism of the Distributist or other projects,
for as we have noted Pesch’s treatment is a limited one. Solidarism is
very much interested in the “redemption” of the wage-earner, and in
making him into a property-owner. Azpiazu says as much in the Cor-
porative State: “Solidarism acts so that capital and property, the desire
for which is felt by all men...shall be apportioned in the best possible
way, if possible among all...;” and elsewhere, “Christian Solidarism
seeks...the raising of the proletariat to a higher status.” Additionally,
some sense of Pesch’s mind on the question can be had by looking
at Nell-Breuning’s book-length commentary on Quadragesimo Anno.
He discusses the lament of Pius XI, that numerous workers remain
“sunk” in proletarian (i.e., wage-earning) conditions, under the
heading, “Proletarian Conditions to be Overcome by Wage-Earner
Ownership.” Addressing the agricultural aspect of ownership, he
notes explicitly that the breakup of large estates by the State, such
that rural workers may come into the ownership of some land, should
not be ruled out as a possible course of action. And it is illustrative
that Dempsey (another student of Pesch’s thought), in his English
edition of Nell-Breuning’s work, recommends Belloc’s Restoration of
Property, the works of the English Catholic Land Movement, and
the writings of Southern Agrarians Herbert Agar and Allen Tate for
a deeper understanding of the property-ownership question. In light
of these facts it is not surprising that Bowen, in his work on German
Corporatism, notes that it was the agrarian wing of the German
Center Party that stubbornly refused to abandon the integral corpo-
ratist vision, and it was that same vision that Pesch and his scholarly
Ethics and thE national Economy
20
colleagues sought to preserve, even though it had long since ceased to
exercise a real influence over the practical policies of the Zentrum.
A candid assessment of the current state of the world would
conclude that we are in no better shape today, and that the corporatist
vision, the vision of the Social Doctrine of the Church, by no means
exercises a real influence over the practical policies of any nation.
Two points flow from this fact as conclusions; conclusions which
speak not only to Catholics but to all men of good will who have
some hope for the ultimate salvation of the social order. The first is
that we must apply ourselves to implementing the Social Doctrine
without waiting for it to become the preferred doctrine of any govern-
ment currently in power. There remain, even in the era of the Patriot
Act, a wide range of options and possibilities for so doing, especially
under more “private” auspices. What is needed of course is to act
upon those possibilities through a program of study, reflection, plan-
ning, and execution. Insofar as serious thought must precede any
serious action, we are hopeful that this little book by this (sadly) too-
little-known economist may contribute to those very serious thoughts
which the gravity of the present situation requires.
Secondly, if few of the “powers that be” today take the Social
Doctrine seriously as a platform of practical politics, we Catholics
and others of good will have, ultimately, only ourselves to blame. At
some point a spiritual world became a secular world; the medieval
world became the modern world; and the Christian world became
the fundamentally anti-Christian world of today. Notwithstanding
the aid of the netherworld, those profound changes were the result of
the free actions of free men. We are no less free today, in spite of the
odds. Let us then freely act, having studied and reflected upon vol-
umes such as this pithy treatise by Fr. Pesch; lest we become deserv-
ing of the reproach pronounced by Fr. Vincent McNabb: “Have we
Catholics contented ourselves with the implicit blasphemy of saying
something when we ought to have been doing something?”
The Directors
IHS Press
February 18, 2004
Feast of Ss. Simeon, Leo, and Paregorius