• Paul Schumann

    hear hear… the romantic appeal of soldiers vs grocers is one I’ve seen in Chesterton as well. I think that was a theme in the Napoleon of Notting Hill.
    Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry made a similar point, that often people allow an “aesthetic” ideal (working the land, etc) to guide their feelings on economics.

  • http://cosmostheinlost.com/ Artur Sebastian Rosman

    John Zmirak really is doing his best to resurrect the old altar and throne alliance by crowning the status quo, isn’t he? Hope it pays well, even if it doesn’t look pretty in the end:

    http://cosmostheinlost.com/john-zmirak/

  • Thaddeus J. Kozinski

    Zmirak is a worldly bourgeois attacking Catholic culture.

    • Paul Schumann

      So the guy who wrote the Bad Catholics books (which are designed towards rekindling Catholic culture) is opposed to it? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt though. Maybe you’re not familiar with much of his work.
      Your name sounds familiar. I do have fond memories of the Saturday morning Renaissance Man programs at the Montfort Academy I attended many moons ago.

  • Pingback: Catholicism and the Bourgeois Mind | Intercollegiate Review

  • Pingback: Zmirak is on a Roll | Old Life Theological Society

  • James Matthew

    Zmirak misconstrues Dawson’s original argument almost completely, which was about love. Dawson’s argument recalls G.K. Chesterton who speaks of contentment – the apple grower, grows apple not just because he loves apples, and not just to supply them for others to love but because it is an expression of himself (breeding and harvesting good apples, and crafting good cider) in this way he is a small reflection or rather an image of God in that he creates out of love. The Bourgeois by contrast create nothing, serving as middle-men, and the thing that is the outcome of their actions — money– is the only end they seek. While Apples are a tool for self-expression, the collection of money is sterile.

    Zmirak also repeats a slander against the Catholics. The Roman Catholics did not demand Indians convert or die by preaching the gospel in Spanish. The Spanish crown’s representative, circumventing the Church’s position versus enslaving people who never heard the gospel, commanded the Indians acknowledge the crown’s right to the lands or be considered rebellious vassal who would be punished with slavery. Referred to as the Requerimiento, and objected to by Catholic clerics such as Bartolome de las Casas.

    Zmirak points to Rerum Novarum on private property, but makes no mention of Distributism which is the papal approved economic system laid out in that document and in Quadragesimo Anno. The question of how to implement that system has never been figured out, but that is what several have called for. Pope Francis seems to be bringing this back to the fore with his Evangelii Gaudium.

    Nowhere did Dawson call for a return to aristocracy or favor soldiers over other citizens – Zmirak should be congratulated for his crushing and witty blows made upon that strawman that he built himself and pinned Dawson’s name on.

    • Thaddeus J. Kozinski

      Right on!

  • Pingback: PowerLinks 04.24.14 | Acton PowerBlog

  • Pingback: The Case for Bourgeois Oblige - The Imaginative Conservative

  • Pingback: Why Dawson Opposed Our Bourgeois Mind