"Catholic Capitalism?: A View from behind the Counter," the cover article I wrote for the orthodox but feisty Catholic magazine Culture Wars over a decade ago, is an extended feature and will serve as the sole text of my second critique. Of course, at over 6,000 words, this article is as long as many pamphlets and thus should, if written with the right ethical, pathetic and extrinsic proof, be able to stand on its own with no problem. On the other hand, finding the right balance (ethos) between an academically acceptable article and a roller coaster of personal pathos is not easy, but I believe it's still possible to a loyal Catholic if you remember your faith and one important fact. In other words; pray and make sure the pope is on your side!
Unlike the Elmhurst Press (and almost any other publication), Culture War's editor, E. Michael Jones, lets you make your points about orthodox Catholicism boldly rather than subtlety, and gives you enough space to state your argument both openly and completely--so you'd better be ready to stand and deliver. Realizing it's better to start off a CW essay with a cannon than a cap gun, I open the article with two opposing quotes from "Catholic" authorities that couldn't be more contrasting if I had made the words and people up myself. While even the most ardent of agnostics can see these openings on the poor are polar opposites, these quotes (and authorities) were chosen precisely for this point; far from the liberal-pseudo Catholic talking heads who falsely claim their opinion is just as important as the pope's, the formerly left-leaning Michael Novak now claims to be a conservative Catholic, loyal to all the pope teaches. By juxtaposing the quotes, I am already insinuating that Novak's case for Catholic capitalism is ambiguous (Ancient Rhetoric, pgs.175-176) at best.
The way I establish my ethos in the first paragraph may strike one as a bit unorthodox, but then again Culture Wars is a curious (but orthodox) Catholic publication and I a curious (and ironically, orthodox) writer. Although a large percentage of its readers should be sympathetic to my logic, to have the CW cover story written by someone without even a masters degree, let alone a doctorate, was definitely an oddity, and it was my job to show them that my background made me uniquely qualified to write this piece...or at least keep them entertained enough to continue on to paragraph two. Thus, while the sentence "Blessed with real world experiences that ivory tower scholars on both the right and left lack..." contains not only my lofty goal but my usual dose of parallel structure and alliteration, my academic sounding opening "a comparison of the social-economic theories of the post-industrial popes vs. those of neo-conservative Catholic critic..." was quickly undercut by the purposely colloquial "I didn't make a heck of a lot of money...living in a single room in a boarding house eating bologna sandwiches..." in hopes that if my intellect didn't impress the reader, my humility or humor would.
The opening paragraph also served as a springboard to the next section, where I relate the story of my own retail history (interspersed with quotes form Mr. Novak and the various papal social encyclicals) to see whether or not my experiences confirmed the Catholic work-ethic theory. Although I go into both my first two jobs (Osco and Friendly Spirits) with an open mind, I also do not present myself as overly optimistic that either would become a "calling," at least in the long run ("It didn't inspire me to feel as John Paul did in Laborem Exercens...but it was alright,") so while the way I presented my demises (looking up at the "Count on People Who Care" sign above the door after having been told to get lost; explaining how "Dave probably cared more about his cats than capital,") may have been entertaining, they are hardly unexpected. In fact, the sort of reverse poetic justice that takes place (Dave is bought out and his unique corner becomes another Jewel-Osco) seems to preclude any possibility that I find happiness in retail again...only to have the perfect suitor come along...
For the next five paragraphs, I build up Emmett Malloy and Sav-Way with almost nary a discouraging word. The "company parties" were fun, the "long time employees" got "along quite well," and "it wouldn't be long" before I moved up the company ladder. I not only knew "corporate," but he was both a gracious Irish family man and a Notre Dame football fan whose monetary gifts in addition to the regular paychecks had me thinking of him as a second "father." Sadly, just as steadily as the house of Malloy is built up, in the next five paragraphs Emmett's empire comes crashing down, in an ethical if not economic sense. Now, quoting not only condemnatory passages from the ultimate Catholic community authority's, the popes, but the number one Christian authoritarian source, the Bible, I show how contrary to right ethics Emmett's later actions were. And, while you can conclude with Quintilian (AR pg.153) Emmett's brand of "Catholic" capitalism (given what human nature is like), is the likely probability, I can also deduce (as I do later in the article) with Aristotle (or John XXIII's Mater et Magistra) that, based on my early days at Sav-Way, Catholic capitalism is at least possible.
While I could not truly have strengthened my ethos defending the Church's social teaching without reading (and incorporating) the papal social encyclicals (especially Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, which, written in 1891, was the first ever Christian document to extensively defend workers' rights in democratic industrialized societies, and John Paul II's Laborem Exercens, which in 1981 brought the workers' plight up to date) I could not fully have wrecked Emmett's ethos without delving into, and denigrating, the writings of his mentor, Michael Novak. Like Mike, Emmett Malloy claims to be a practicing Catholic, but when push comes to shove he'd rather be a profitable one. Indeed, Novak (and Malloy) often substitute the Protestant work ethic (which allows one to be a bastard in business as long as you're a choir boy with the wife and kids) for the Catholic labor ethos, which allows no such dichotomy. And the easiest way to expose Novak's was to highlight his disastrous choice of "the greatest man...who lived business as a calling," Andrew Carnegie.
To those not used to the fiery tones of Culture Wars, my comparing Emmett Malloy to a man who ordered his striking workers fired upon might seem extreme, but I can only reply that Emmett, being a businessman who also did all he could legally to get away with concerning his employees, almost certainly would have used Carnigie's 19th century worker strategy if he had lived in the era of Leo XIII instead of John Paul II. In fact, the souls of Andrew and Emmett ( the one giving money to self-named Carnegie charities, the other to the non-profits that would agree to name him "Man of the Year" rather than pay their own employees justly) are so similar that my ironic line "For example, while Emmett never paid me enough that I could buy my own house, he headed a commission that discusses how other poor people can," brought more than a couple cynical chuckles. In the end, I sum up this contradiction by showing Novak's capitalist motto, "To want to be rich is no sin," is nearly the polar opposite of the Catholic Catechism's cry "The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects..." or the Bible's classic "The love of money is the root of all evils" (see "Catholic Capitalism," pg.25). Finally, to those who still feel my criticism of my former boss is too harsh, I throw in the reaction of Carnegie's former manager, Henry Clay Frick, after the former tried to arrange a make-up photo-op after Frick left the company in a huff. Indeed, Frick's hilarious come-back, "tell Mr. Carnegie I'll meet him--in hell!" make my rejoinders look mild by comparison.
Unlike Frick, I close with pathos, trying to reconcile with my opponents, hoping for Novak's "complete conversion," and praying that Emmett sees his membership in "the mystical body of Christ" is more important than that of "the country's economic elite." Sure, I trash Novak's TV speech along the way, but this is merely in keeping with Quintilian's contention (as summarized by Ms. Crowley) that "The Roman's were confident [dishonest men] could not become successful orators because their immoral...intentions would...be detected" (AR pg.11). Meanwhile, my final symbolic comparison, that of the coin and the host, is probably nearly as mysterious as my "genuine" "Catholic Capitalism" suggestions (that of owners paying a just wage even when their store is not profitable, or Catholics not shopping on Sundays) seem quixotic. But I would hate to have my tale persuade someone that the Malloy/Novak way of doing business is false only to leave them with nothing to pursue that (at least to those Christians of honest ethos) is true.
"Catholic Capitalism?..." was certainly my most ambitious published piece up to that point, and with the possible exception of my book, still my most prolific piece to date. Published just before the boom in the Internet, this article was never put online, so its impact was somewhat limited. In addition, since the technology at the time didn't allow works of this size to go over in proper format, the whole thing had to be retyped for the magazine, and although Mr. Jones kept his promise to not edit the content, the typing job ("but he is wrong" not "but he are wrong" and "earthly states," not "earthly statues" on pg. 17 to name a few) was mediocre at best, and our clever inside/cover photos (can you tell that I was holding the Catechism?) my wife took of me could have been reproduced clearer. And yet, after looking back after all these years, I am still for the most part pleased with my efforts and feel that, despite its age, the article still makes some important points about the way a Catholic business should be run. What I am surprised about is my naivete; that it took me that long to figure out that Emmett was filled with more bologna than those sandwiches I used to eat!
No comments:
Post a Comment