RiskProf

File This Under All things Financial

Who knew that the Vatican had ATMs in Latin? (you’ll need to scroll down to find it and unfortunately the picture is really too small to see the Latin text.) In addition, who knew that we had a blogging Cardinal Archbishop of Boston to tell us about commerce (among other things) in Vatican City?  I wonder if insurance contracts are written in Latin in VC?

via Amy Welborn

 

 

It is a Small World

The parish where my risque and I tied the knot is in the news. The important info:

“A Catholic priest was arrested Tuesday and charged with following a woman, breaking into her home and assaulting her.”

 The risque-in-laws still live there and are members of the parish.  This priest said the mass we went to Thanksgiving weekend.  Arrrrg.

via Amy Wellborn (who apparently is also from this parish).

Before I Go Part II

• I was just browsing David Giacalone’s f/k/a post regarding “fundamentalist-conservative Catholics” (a term I am not sure describes any Catholics I know).  I know fundamentalists and really conservative Catholics, but the intersection is a null set…. something about the earth being created in 7 days .. tends to separate the two. I do, however, get David’s point regarding the Priests for Life web poll on whether it the Congress should over rule the Supreme Court. This is a reaction to the Shaivo debacle. Well Congress can, of course, over rule the Supreme Court and has done so in cases of statutory interpretation where the Congress (and the President) believe the Court misunderstands the intent of a law.  The Congress passed an amendment to the civil rights act of 1964 to overrule the Court’s opinion in Grove City College v. Bell where the court held that federal student grants -so-called BEOGs constituted federal funding which triggered Title IX’s non-discriminatory provisions for athletics.  So, Congress can say  these grants were not supposed to be counted in determining whether title IX applies and Congress can over turn the Supreme Court’s ruling.  Congress can also alter the powers of the Federal courts to give jurisdiction (or take it away) and it can also refuse to give the judges and justices raises or appropriations for judicial activities.  Congress, however, can’t overturn the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution—maybe it could have it it had the incentive to do so right after Marbury v.Madison, but that power, if Congress ever had it, is permanently atrophied.  Thus, Congress’ ability to undue the incorporation doctrine of the XIVth Amendment or the penumbral rights which some claim come from thin air is non-existent.  All we are left with is campaigns to impeach Earl Warren or to get a constitutional amendment to over turn Roe v. Wade.  [Although after reading Prof. Althouse’s comments on the 11th Circuit’s opinion in the Shaivo case, it makes me think that the 9th Circuit is saying to itself—”Good! Someone else is taking the heat,” and that there may be Congressional pressure placed on the federal judiciary in terms of fewer resources.]
• I was looking at Professor Althouse’s post on her image search at Google.  She got Osama, but I got a headstone as the number 1 image.  I am not sure which is worse!

Catholic Insurance?

Insurance may not be mentioned in the bible (see post below), but OSFHealth Plans, an Illinois for profit insurer owned an operated by the Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis, is offering a contract that does not offer abortion, fertility, or birth control coverages.

The selection of the insurance plan is voluntary and it competes with a number of other insurance plans.

A critic from planned parenthood said that it was inappropriate for federal dollars to subsidize one religious point of view.  I could be wrong, but what subsidy is granted to for profit insurers?  Is it the fact that health insurance premiums are tax deductible form the employers corporate income tax?  That hardly qualifies as a "subsidy" unless all employee benefits are then considered subsidized.  In addition, other religions could provide insurance consistent with their underlying moral traditions.

via ActuarialNews

Update:  The plan is available to Federal workers (hence the alleged federal subsidy confusion).  However, as long as one has choice everyone is better off.  Catholics can meet their preferences better and non-Catholics can choose contracts that make them better off.  Everyone wins.

More on Libertarian Christians/Catholics

I haven't been able to think about these issues since the last post on this topic, but Eric Rasmusen has more brain cells than me. He has posted a nice object lesson about the intersection between law and morality.  I suppose (again, I am not a moral theologian) that the difference between my way of thinking about libertarianism and the way that Prof. Rasmusen is talking about it, is that I assume that there is some "true" standard by which to judge the state's law. 

If the state's law violates natural law (a supposed true standard) then it is unjust and unenforceable.  If, in contrast, the state's law is consistent with natural law (say a prohibition on killing crippled children) then I'd say that the state's interest in upholding natural law can not interfere with my natural rights as I do not have a natural right to cull the human herd.  I am less of a pure libertarian as a result.

 

Is There Such Thing as a Libertarian Catholic?

David Giacalone has thrown down the gauntlet! 

Well maybe the glove 
     just "a fluttered" softly down
kissing the soft ground. 

How does one justify being a Catholic and being a libertarian?  I have been thinking about this question for a number of years and while I am neither a moral philosopher nor a theologian, I may have some partially cooked ideas on the subject.  Because one could write a dissertation on this (and I already did that on another subject), I'll focus briefly on two items:  natural rights and social justice.  (Maybe David G. can inspire me write more, but I am pooped out after a hard day professoring about something I, at least, had some training in).

I am intrigued by the correspondence between Aquinas' version of natural law and the more modern Jeffersonian natural law notions of liberty and freedom.  The Catechism describes one's conscience.  When one has an informed conscience (can tell good from evil) one has a choice.  There is a God given freedom in this choice. I think of libertarianism as supporting the notion of freedom as long as it does not interfere with another's property rights.  In my thinking the Catholic version is a bit more circumscribed in that an individual has the freedom to choose as long as it does not interfere with another's natural rights (life, liberty, and property) or contribute to the destruction of another's natural rights by setting a bad example. For example, Catholic teachings (and natural law) would recognize the dignity of the person.  Thus, an individual who did not have a slave, but supported another's right to own a slave would be undermining the putative slave's natural rights.  This would be wrong under my version of Catholic Libertarian Thinking.

On a second approach, I think that libertarians are really sink and swimmers.  Given that I am the product of an economy based on the protestant work ethic, I have some sympathy with this notion for those who have ability. Ability as a I define it is the ability to work in a job that pays a wage. Ability, however, is distributed differently throughout the population.  Some people's ability, through no fault of their own, is so low as to provide no opportunity for self sufficiency.  I believe that natural law requires us to take care of these people.  Rawls made a name for himself by describing how a just society could be made by maximizing the utility of the least well off.  The problem that many social programs have is that while they are made with the best of intentions, they have incentives that reduce the incentive of people with ability to work to support themselves.  Welfare programs that provide no incentives for people to become trained and able to work, or that encourage people to stay on welfare seem especially pernicious.  If government spends money on those that can work, there is less for those that can not work due to their low ability levels.  I would say that the libertarian notion of no social programs is wrong but that those who argue for large incentive packed social programs are also wrong.

Next-how does a so-called "Catholic Libertarian Thinker*" think about the role of government in society?  Hint:  there is a lot of welfare maximizing going on through the relaince on free markets!

UPDATE:  Eric Rasmusen foreshadows this discussion by a day.  See his post on 19th Century Encyclicals on Church and State. 

 

*I think we need to create a Catholic Libertarian Society so we can have cool t-shirts and coffee mugs.  Perhaps we can use St. Thomas Moore's profile as our logo.

Oregon Archdiocese Update

Last July I noted the Portland, OR Catholic Archdiocese's decision to enter bankruptcy protection.  The Archbishop stated the insurers had abandoned them.  I also said that if this was true (from a contractual point of view) then we should see a lawsuit.  We'll it has happened.  The Archdiocese is petitioning the bankruptcy court to have a jury trial to force its insurers to pay for defense costs as well as to cover current and future claims. 

A Look at Insurer's Strategy re: Priest Abuse

Attorneys Fear Church Insurers Could Tangle Southern California Settlements

Attorneys Fear Church Insurers Could Tangle Southern California Settlements By Gillian Flaccus July 26, 2004 Attorneys for both alleged victims and dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church in Southern California say they're increasingly concerned that insurance companies could hold up settlements in nearly 700 lawsuits that accuse clergy of sexual molestation.

Essentially, the insurers are complaining that the Dioceses had breached their contract to act in good faith (by not containing the problem once it became known).

The Catholic Church Needs Tort Reform

I am supposed to be working on a project, but anything to avoid work.... Southern Appeal has just posted a link from Mark Shea which links, in turn to two important links. The first is a Washington Times article about a lawsuit by an L.A. based cannon lawyer who is suing Senator Kerry for Heresy in Ecclesiastical Court and the second is his complaint. Two things struck me about the complaint. First, this seems like an annoyance suit as valuable resources from the Archdiocese of Boston will be used dealing with this lawsuit. I don't believe they have money to burn. Second, this reads just like a complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Not having a clue about cannon law (although I have a book on it on my shelf sitting mostly unread) I would have thought that there would be a canonical complaint procedure. I guess one could say, when in Rome Boston .... (ha). However, getting to the meat of the argument it seems that this is merely an attempt to distract Mr. Kerry and get fellow Catholics all riled up. If one believes Sen. Kerry is a heretic, the best way to deal with that is to vote against him, contribute money to his opponent and the like. Punish him by ignoring him and voting for the other guy. Using the Church against him seems to violate the internal morality of the our political/election system. I understand the rationale behind the suit, but this just seems like an inappropriate use of the Ecclesiastical courts. Providing guidance to the faithful is the job of the bishops and not the job arch diocesan court system. The De Fide have published the complaint and are asking for all the baptized and non-baptized to join the "class action suit". Again, all we have to do is vote against him if we desire to "punish" him. The mixture of tort and cannon law requires some type of standing limitation, damage cap reform, expert witness restrictions (does the Catholic Church have a Daubert Rule?), or, perhaps, joint and several liability reform. On a less serious notes, what will happen to the price of heresy insurance if this case goes forward. Further, a successful heresy class action suit against a politician will drive Catholic politicians out of the market. They will have to retire or move to a more tolerant jurisdiction. Alternatively, it will may cause Catholic politicians to renounce their faith. Some people might say that is OK, but perhaps this is better left to the individual's bishop. Update: Here is the first mention of this complaint at Chateau de Meau. UP-Update: Keven Miller, a theologian brings some reason and context to this.

What is the Church's Objective Function?

Mirror of Justice Describes a sympisum at St. Thomas School of Law reagrding the intersection of business and legal eithics. It made me think about a question I asked on a final exam last year. Thinking of Professor Sisk's post I have an inital observation. One reason lawyers may be aggressive in protecting their clients is to prevent unmeritorious cases from being lumped into the meritorious cases. I guess I am being charitable here in ascribing that view to the lawyers providing advice to the various dioceses around the country. I agree, however, it is disingenuous for some in the hierarchy to say “our lawyers made us do it” when they are the leaders and the decision makers—not the lawyers. Lawyers are good at giving legal advice, but unless they are trained in moral philosphy, they may not be good at giving moral advice. Decision makers at the top need to look at the how choices they make affect the value of the organization as a whole. Delay and denial are rarely successful strategies for preventing bad information from leaking and developing adversely to the organization. This leads to the question: What is the Church’s objective function? In my course on Corporate Risk Management I asked a final exam question that was based on the scandal in the Archdioceses of Boston. The question I asked was whether the Archdiocese should declare bankruptcy to protect itself from further liability losses. Under traditional corporate finance theory, a firm should enter bankruptcy if the value of the firm is greater in bankruptcy than outside of bankruptcy. I received this answer from almost every student. I took this type of answer to be the text book answer for one who didn’t think about the institution that was the subject matter of the question. However, a number of them said something to the effect that “isn’t this a church we are talking about?” And if it is a church, are its objectives necessarily the same as a corporation’s?” This was an excellent observation as under economic theory we believe the firm should maximize the value to the shareholders. However, what is the objective function of a Diocese? It is not profit in the temporal sense, but it is something else. The good answers went on to say that the value of the organization for the long run may require the corporation to avoid bankruptcy if the sole reason to enter bankruptcy is to deny likely legitimate claims. Thus (and I am preaching here), dealing with the problem in a forthright way may cause some short-run costs, but are likely to be consistent with the values of the organization which involve charity and love. One student even compared the behavior of Johnson and Johnson with the Archdiocese of Boston and I am paraphrasing here: “Why is it that Johnson and Johnson took the fall for the Tylenol poisoning cases in Chicago when it was not its fault? It is because management wanted to restore the customers’ faith in its products. Why is it that J&J have a credo that places its customers first? It is because J&J wants to make sure the customer has faith in it.” I think it is funny faith and credo are associated with J&J and not the Church.