If so, I apologize, for that was not my intent.

I’m referring to Scott Richert of ChroniclesMagazine.Org, who has responded to my latest two posts in our exchange, HERE and HERE.

Mr. Richert appears not to wish to continue the exchange (he titles his second post "Final Thoughts in the Case of St. Thomas Aquinas, Leo XIII, Pius XI, et al. v. Jimmy Akin," and he refers to me "bring[ing] what remained of this conversation to a screeching halt").

Mr. Richert had requested that I do an analysis of the just price concept and how it compared to my own views, and in my previous post I did so. In his reply (the second link above), Mr. Richert does not engage my analysis on the merits but lodges a number of complaints against me as an author.

First, he takes exception to me saying that (and not providing examples
of how) the concept of the just price concept has varied considerably
over time. He appears to believe that this is not the case.

He also conjectures that I did this as a rhetorical technique to
suggest that the Church keeps changing its mind on what the just price
concept means and therefore we don’t need to consider it. This is absolutely not the case.

The just price concept has been articulated by many different writers
over the centuries, many (most) of whom lacked magisterial authority,
and I was simply noting this to make clear to the reader why I needed
Mr. Richert to provide a definition for me to interact with since I
otherwise couldn’t make sure that I was interacting with his view
rather than committing the straw man fallacy against him by critiquing
the what was said by a writer whose views on the concept Mr. Richert
does not endorse.

I was trying to avoid the straw man fallacy by making sure I was clear
on Mr. Richert’s view, not suggesting that his view (or any one else’s)
is irrelevant because others have given different articulations to a
concept. As my academic training is in analytic philosophy, I’m quite
concerned with getting precise definitions on the table rather than
dealing with concepts in an impressoinistic manner.

The reasons I didn’t provide examples were (a) the piece (like others
in the series) were too long anyway, (b) it’s obvious that there are
substantively different articulations of the concept (as can be seen by
comparing Mr. Richert’s passage from Fr. Cahill with the one found HERE),
and (c) any term not dogmatically defined by the Magisterium is
naturally going to be given significantly different articulations by
theologians over a period of several hundred years.

If Mr. Richert wants to continue the discussion, further examples can be provided to document this point.

Second, Mr. Richert objections to my inclusion of a bracketed insertion into the following statement from Fr. Cahill:

all commodities [in the Middle Ages] had a certain value
which common estimation could determine and which accidental
circumstances, such as scarcity or the special needs of the buyer or
seller, could not substantially change.

Mr. Richert suggests that the insertion "[in the Middle Ages]" is
another debater’s trick to alienate the reader from the just price
concept, as if the fact it applied to the Middle Ages meant that it is
unworthy of consideration.

This is not the case. I included the insertion because Mr. Richert
quoted this particular bit from Fr. Cahill as a working definition of
the just price and, as you’ll note, Fr. Cahill uses the past tense in
it. In his endorsement of this as a definition, Mr. Richert did not
quote the context that would enable the reader to understand what time
period Fr. Cahill was referring to by his use of the past tense.

I was attempting to help the reader out by explaining an unexpected usage of the past tense, not seeking to undermine the definition. If I had been trying to do the latter I would included a reference to the Middle Ages in the ultimate formal definition I proposed for critique. (A definition that doesn’t use the past tense since I could re-cast it.)

Third, Mr. Richert is very offended by my note to the reader:

(Warning to those who might want to look up the quotes from Fr. Cahill: Many readers will find parts of Fr. Cahill’s book extremely offensive. For example, he repeatedly laments the influence that “the Jews” have in various sectors of society.)

Mr. Richert thinks this is another debater’s trick whereby I hypocritically do a guilt by association smear on him (I had previously charged him with doing such smears against me.)

After noting that Fr. Cahill’s book has an imprimi potest and a nihil obstat (neither of which is a guarantee that the work won’t contain offensive material), Mr. Richert says:

It’s odd that Mr. Akin believes that “many” of his readers (presumably a predominantly Catholic audience) would find such a work offensive.

Let me be clear about why I included this warning: It was for self-protection.

I would have been happier if Mr. Richert had supplied his own definition for the concept of just price or if he had quoted from someone other than Fr. Cahill, for then I wouldn’t have had to interact with Fr. Cahill’s book.

Fr. Cahill says a number of things that, however socially acceptable they may have been in the 1930s when the book was written, are offensive to many today, including contemporary conservative Catholics. In fact, I know of cases of conservative Catholics complaining about this book before.

Aware of this, I did not want to engage in a discussion of Fr. Cahill’s book without making some kind of warning to the reader about the material it contains (people who read the blog regularly have seen me issue such warnings regularly). I didn’t want people getting the book (for example, because they’d like to read what it had to say on economic matters) and then complaining to me about the anti-Jewish material and potentially even accusing me of anti-Semitism.

I didn’t want to make this a focus of the discussion, which is why I didn’t reproduce any of Fr. Cahill’s anti-Jewish remarks. I also didn’t want to smear Mr. Richert, which is why I didn’t introduce Fr. Cahill as "an anti-Semitic priest." The fact that he made offensive remarks about Jewish people doesn’t mean that he doesn’t know economics or Church teaching regarding economics, so I issued the warning as mildly as I could.

I partitioned it (a) as a parenthetical statement, (b) as a warning to those who might want to look up the quotes, not as a warning to readers of the blog in general (though of course others would see it), (c) as a brief comment that gave no inflammatory examples, and (d) as a note tagged to the LAST of the quotes I gave from the book instead of the first, so that readers would have the chance to think about what Fr. Cahill said on economics before getting warned about his views in other areas.

I don’t see how much more I could have toned it down and still issued a warning. I could have simply said that his book contains material many will find offensive, but then I would be open to the counter charge, "Oh, but what IS this ‘offensive’ material? Why are you doing a hit-and-run on Fr. Cahill without even giving us any hint of what he says that is so ‘offensive’?"

As to it being odd that readers might take offense at what Fr. Cahill says since most of my blog readers are presumably Catholic, I would note (a) that my readership is actually quite diverse and includes people from many different perspectives, including some readers who are Jewish, (b) I’ve known conservative, non-PC Catholics to take offense at this book before, and (c) I think that many of my Catholic readers would take offense at passages from Fr. Cahill like:

Jewish Influence.–As in the case of Liberalism, Freemasonry, Bolshevism, and almost every modern movement that is essentially unchristian and anti-Christian, the formation and development of Individualistic Capitalism unquestionably owes much to the Jews. The whole modern system of finance, upon which modern capitalism pivots, is practically a Jewish creation, and the world of finance is to-day almost completely dominated by the Jews. Again, English Puritanism which is so closely associated with the rise of Indivdiualistic Capitalism, seems to exhibit a certain affinity with modern Judaism. The Jews were always specially favoured by the Puritan leaders, and attained much influence in England under Cromwell, the greatest and most typical of the English Puritans. Again, the selfish concentration upon matrial gain and the worship of worldly success, which are characteristic of the modern individualistic spirit, take the place of real religion with Jew and Puritan alike [p. 144].

Knowing that the book contained passages such as this (and it is one of many in which Cahill railed against "the Jews"), I concluded that I needed to warn individuals who might wanted to look up the references that they would find such material in the book.

This doesn’t mean Cahill is wrong about what the just price concept meant or that the just price concept is a bad one. Even people who are bigoted enough to say that "selfish concentration upon material gain and the worship of worldly success . . . take the place of real religion" with Jewish (and Puritan) people can correctly understand and articulate economic concepts and even endorse good ones.

Being a bigot in one area doesn’t mean that you’re wrong in others. It does mean, though, that your works will be quoted with warnings given about them.

Not wanting to sidetrack the discussion with Fr. Cahill’s prejudices, however, I didn’t quote such passages and issued the warning as modestly as I could think to.

Finally, Mr. Richert takes exception to my characterization of the Middle Ages as impoverished compared to modern times. His response is that modern times are spiritually impoverished compared to the Middle Ages.

This is quite true. The faith among the Christian population was stronger then and suffused their culture in a way it does not today. This aspect of the Middle Ages is much to be admired and, if possible, duplicated at some point in the future (though B16 doesn’t see that happening any time soon).

Mr. Richert points out that there are values that transcend economics and that must be pursued, and this is also quite true. He tells a poignant story involving Mother Theresa, which is spiritually compelling and a powerful testimony to the value of compassion over money.

These points do not mean, however, that the economics of the Middle Ages were correct, that they should be applied today, or that the Church requires us to believe in them.

If I have inadvertently given Mr. Richert offense, I again apologize.

It is disappointing that Mr. Richert wished to end his involvement in this discussion on such a sour note.

It is also disappointing that, having requested that I do an analysis of the just price concept, he would choose not to interact substantively with the reasoning I laid out.

Should he choose to continue the discussion, I would be very interested to hear what he might have to say to two of the points that I raised:

1. If the just price concept is to play a moral restraining function and not be identified from or solely from the free market price of a good and not be identified through a series of price controls then what criteria does Mr. Richert think that a merchant should look to that do not substantially involve considerations of the item’s supply or the needs of those who purchase it?
2. Does Mr. Richert acknowledge that by asking for a just price to be determined that is not substantially affected by "scarcity or the special needs of the buyer" that he is asking for a price to be determined in a way not substantially affected by considerations of supply and demand?