THE RISE OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL VOCATION

Every year, as we near Christmas, there is the usual parade of commentaries, sermons, articles, and general talk lamenting the season’s lapse into consumerism, materialism, capitalism, and whatever other ism happens to be handy.

Thus it was with mild delight that I read last week, in this publication, an article entitled “Is Capitalism Catholic?”, featuring the work of Father Robert Sirico and his Acton Institute - a research organization dedicated to the study of free-market economics informed by faith and morals.

To find anyone extolling the virtues of the free-market is rare these days, but finding a Catholic priest doing so is even rarer. Yet, Sirico does and has done so since 1990 when he first felt the unique call to an apostolate championing the virtues of free enterprise.

I am familiar with Sirico’s work and even visited his Acton Institute in the late 90’s not long after I made my career transition from teaching to the business world, a move necessitated by the need to provide for an ever-growing family.

I found Sirico’s insights helpful as I made that transition. Entrepreneurship as a vocation receives very little encouragement in the contemporary Catholic world, and more often than not, is viewed with suspicion. At best, for-profit enterprises are tolerated, but even that seems sometimes proportionate to their level of charitable giving.

This is where Sirico, especially as a Catholic, and even more-so as a Catholic priest, blazes a new trail. Whereas most of what is said relative to religion and economics is aimed at prescribing moral boundaries for marketplace activities, Sirico positions business as a “calling” (and thus a path to holiness), and the free-market as a potential moral agent.

For some, mixing words like free-market, moral agent, business, and holiness must sound like blasphemy. I will let Father Sirico make his own defense (Read his book: “Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy”), but I’d like to submit a few supportive thoughts.

First, who’s to say that entrepreneurship is not a calling? Why wouldn’t it be? For generations, making one’s own way as a farmer, blacksmith, carpenter, merchant, etc., in short, “being in business”, was the way most of the world’s people provided for themselves and their families.

Second, the family business - a farm, a bakery, a store, a gas station - played a quiet but integral role in strengthening family bonds. In contrast, the modern “job world” often separates families, subjects spouses to new temptations, and exposes a family’s financial stability to economic winds it can little control.

Third, decisions regarding family size are all too often governed by our income, or at least the amount of control we feel we have over it. Though entrepreneurship is filled with its own set of risks, business owners generally have more control than employees in responding to economic shifts: e.g, the price of wheat is down so a farmer plants corn; real estate sales are slow so a broker moves to property management, etc.

I realize that this all sounds a bit simplistic but for the most part, it’s how many of our parents, and even more-so, our grandparents, lived. In short, “Can we afford another child?” is a question not often posed by previous generations.

Some of this is due to a perceived increase in the cost of living. But Sirico believes that our economic limitations are often self-imposed, and are more due to a “learned rejection” of free-market economics and the whole idea of “business as a calling”.

This “learned rejection” is the result of a business-bashing bias that is common in academia, fashionable in the media, and all too prevalent from the pulpit - a fact which initially prompted Sirico to aim his Acton apostolate primarily at the education of clergy of all persuasions.

Sirico’s focus is easy to understand. Most clergy do not live under the same economic conditions as most of the people to whom they minister. And, almost always, at least for families, economic woes lie at the root of much family strife.

But Sirico’s aim goes beyond merely enabling minsters to better counsel their congregations: he positions entrepreneurship as a vocation to be encouraged and edifies entrepreneurial enterprise - when engaged virtuously - as providing the best potential economic environment for human flourishing.

Given the collapse of the job market we see happening all around us, and the growing need to find an alternate or at least a supplemental means of providing for our families, the discussion is no longer academic. We are fast moving away from a wage and salary based economy to a performance-based model wherein more of us will have to become more entrepreneurial and skilled at selling what we make, grow, or do...or go homeless and hungry.

Read THE ENTREPRENEURIAL VOCATION by Father Rober Sirico

Steve Jobs: World's Greatest Philanthropist

Printed in the U Matuna, the newspaper for the Archdiocese of Haganta, October 16, 2011

The recent death of Steve Jobs has invoked many thoughts about his life and genius. One story circulating on the web recounts his beginnings as an unexpected pregnancy of a young, unwed mother. Elective abortions were illegal in 1955 so baby Steve was given up for adoption. What the world might have lost! (And what we certainly lose now as we legally eliminate 4000 unborn children everyday.) 

Despite his origins, Steve Jobs was not exactly a pro-life advocate in his later life. In fact, Jobs doesn’t seem to have a history of advocating much of anything other than his business. Yet, Harvard Business Review recently called Steve Jobs “The World’s Greatest Philanthropist”. 

No, there is no Steve Jobs Foundation sending millions to far-off corners of the globe. There are no pictures of him with stage-sized checks made out to some charity or humanitarian group. There is no video footage of Jobs with sleeves rolled up in Haiti or some other ravaged place.  

As a matter of fact the only record of his philanthropy, aside from a foundation he started and closed after 15 months, is the record of all the philanthropic projects that he terminated after reassuming the leadership of Apple in 1997. In fact, Jobs was roundly scourged in the press for his LACK of philanthropy. So why call him “The World’s Greatest Philanthropist”? 

Jobs didn’t use his billions to run around the world creating charity photo-ops with other stars. He used his billions to make more billions and more billions until, in August of this year, the company he started in a garage some 30 years ago, passed the giant multinational Exxon as the world’s most valuable company! So why is that good? 

Modern philanthropy has devolved into hand-outs, euphemised as “giving back”. Jobs had a different approach. Rather than concern himself with “giving back”, he “gave forward”. Jobs gave his all to his creative work, and in so doing, generated employment for 34,000 people in Apple alone, an inestimable number of income opportunities for Apple-related industries, and immeasurable wealth for retirement funds and other investment vehicles which invested in Apple. 

In short, there are fewer hungry children not because Steve Jobs wrote a check, but because his company succeeded, which meant that Daddy, lots of Daddies (Mommies too), had a job.

The timing of Apple’s mythical rise from a garage to the zenith of the business world just as its founder was succumbing to the last stages of cancer is profound. Most of the world’s most advanced economies are in financial meltdown, flash mobs of disenfranchised youth are rioting in the centers of civilization, and the United States, the most prosperous nation in the history of the world, is poised to financially succumb by 2016 to the world’s newest and most aggressive superpower, Communist China. 

In the midst of all this, “little” Apple - quite without the aid of a government stimulus or a “jobs bill” - is churning out prosperity and better lives for millions, not with handouts, not with photo-op philanthropy, but by making stuff people want to buy because it makes their lives better.

Columnist Dan Pollota, in the Harvard Business Review, recently noted that Jobs, in addition to creating revenue generating opportunities for millions, had created products like the iPhone that helps the blind read text and identify currency, helps physicians improve their performance and surgeons improve their practices, and even helps charities raise money.

Pollota also notes that the iPad not only ushered in an era of electronic reading that saves forests and all the energy associated with converting wood to paper, but it has been used to improve health care, lessen the symptoms of autism, improve children’s creativity, and revolutionize medical training. 

Sure there are competitive products NOW, but without Jobs we’d be at least a decade away from these innovations, and who’s to say that we would have anything even close to what came from this man’s mind! As Pollota concluded: “What a loss to humanity it would have been if Jobs had dedicated the last 25 years of his life to figuring out how to give his billions away, instead of doing what he does best.”

There’s a lesson here. How much better we might all be if we spent more energy discovering the talents God gave us and using them, as Steve Jobs did, instead of shaking our fist at Government and Wall Street, demanding to be suckled. Oh, and by the way, next time you use an “i-anything”, think about the 4000 babies a day we throw away and the one that wasn’t.

Fr. P Gets It Wrong

The attack on "the businessman" continues, and this time it's "friendly fire". In a recent sermon Fr. P  recounted a discussion between "the businessmen" and a certain Cardinal of a major U.S. City about the closing of some the diocesan  schools.

"The businessmen" had advised the Cardinal to close the schools based on the realities of the "bottom line". The Cardinal countered with a short lecture on "service". The outcome of the dual was that the Cardinal overruled the advice of "the businessmen" and found a way to keep the schools open.

Fr. P's slam on "the businessman" is worth a discussion of its own. But the fact that it was most likely an unconscious slam is all the more worthy of discussion. Fr. P is not alone in his unconscious slams against "the businessman". This is a constant homiletic theme.

Sunday after Sunday, men and women who make an honest living and provide honest livings for others through employment, have to sit in their pews and hear their vocation impugned, maligned, and trivialized. According to most sermons, the only good businessman is one who gives away his money, and he is only good in proportion to the amount of money he gives away.

• Never mind the fact that because they are in business, they have left a job that someone else was able to take.
• Never mind the fact that their businesses provide employment for others. 
• Never mind the fact that their businesses use goods and services that are purchased from other businesses that help those businesses prosper and grow their payrolls. 
• Never mind the fact that the profits from those businesses enable the owners to purchase more goods which in turn stimulates other businesses which manufacture those goods and in turn employ more people. 
• Never mind the fact that the service or product that those business people provide is desired and needed by others and in some way makes life better for others...or else it wouldn't get purchased or used.
• And never mind the fact that "the businessmen" that advised the Cardinal were probably serving voluntarily on a finance council, taking time away from their businesses and their families to serve the Church, and probably were only giving the Cardinal the data he asked for in the capacity in which they served. 

It was not up to the businessmen whether the schools should be closed. It was up to them to provide the Cardinal with the numbers and their advice as businessmen. It is probably quite certain that those same businessmen, on a personal level, would have liked it to be otherwise. But to put their personal preferences ahead of their duty as tasked by the Church would have been uncharitable if not a lie.

The Cardinal, according to Fr. P's story, was able to take action and keep the schools. Wonderful. But he was only able to do so because he had in hand the financial picture provided to him by "the businessmen". And it is probably quite certain that those same businessmen were tasked with finding the finances to save the schools.

And it is also quite probable that "the businessmen", if not the ones on the finance council, then certainly other "businessmen", came up with a large amount of the money themselves to save those schools. For where else does money come from other than from Business, either as a direct donation from that business or from the employees of that business, who, through the profits of the business, receive a paycheck, and are therefore able to contribute to charitable causes.

Fr. P's unconscious attack on these servants of the Church, in particular, and, in general, all those who serve the Church by first following their vocation to grow a business, is a symptom of a disease that threatens the very work Fr. P is trying to do: save babies.

The number one reason people give for abortions is finances. Whether finances are the real issue or not is another matter. The fact is that whether it is abortion or contraception, what's in the bank usually determines whether one is "open to new life" or not. It's wrong of course, but it's a fact. The Church can preach at us all it wants about being "open to life" but to what effect if in the next sermon the means to sustain that life is ridiculed and belittled?

Money is neither good nor bad. Money is neutral. Business is neutral. There are good people in business and there are bad people in business. But "the businessman", with the unconscious help of sermons like Fr. P's, has come to mean greed, evil, selfishness, oppression, and "the only good businessman is the businessman who gives his money away".

My wife and I have 11 children. I'd like to say that we have 11 children because we are open to life. No. We have 11 children because after our 3rd child I saw the "balance sheet on the wall", and the bottom line said "no more children". Even 3 children was already one too many for our checkbook. So I started a side business just to survive. Once in business I realized something that as an employee I may never have realized: I was in control of my income (or at least more control than I had as an employee).

I realized that I didn't have to fear conceiving another child because my income wasn't limited by a pay scale. I could simply do more to make more and thus have more (children). I didn't set out to make money to have more children, but once money was no longer a limiting factor, my wife and I felt more free to be open to life. I began to see that my business was part of God's plan for providing for the children He wished to send me. At the time, I didn't realize it would be 11. But one thing is certain. If I didn't have a business and personal control of my income, I probably would have ended up like a lot of other Catholics who simply ignore the Church's teaching on contraception.

It's been said that the last accepted prejudice in America is the prejudice against Catholics. And within Catholicism, the most accepted prejudice seems to be the prejudice against those who are called to build a business. Church leaders can say all they want about the rights of the worker and the right to work and the right to a living wage, but unless someone starts a business, there will be no wages to have a right to.

It's Rare That I Disagree With the Pope, but...

...I disagree (sort of) with him here: "Pontiff calls for re-plan of economics" http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-29107

Actually, I do not disagree with him in principle. I do believe that "economics has an essentially ethical nature as "an activity of and for human beings." and:

"Rather than a spiral of production and consumption in view of narrowly-defined human needs, economic life should properly be seen as an exercise of human responsibility, intrinsically oriented towards the promotion of the dignity of the person, the pursuit of the common good and the integral development -- political, cultural and spiritual -- of individuals, families and societies."

But, the greed and bad guys in the private sector that have given us a handful of bad companies (e.g. Enron) is really but a small fraction of the problem when compared to the economic devastation caused by what countries like Greece and Portugal have done for years, and the U.S. is just gearing up to do, and that is to print money when there is none.

A private businessmen is sent to jail for "cooking the books" and making it look like his company has more money than it does. A politician who does the same thing gets re-elected. It's impossible for the handful of bad capitalists to take a country down all by themselves. It's those at the levers of power in the government that steer a country into ruin.

At the source of the U.S. financial crisis is not Lehman Brothers or Merril Lynch. They are but bit players in a much larger game managed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the congressional committee heads that run them. These are so-called "private government run entities". There's problem number one: "private" AND "government run"??

At the source of the Greek problem is not misbehaving bankers and stock merchants, but a government that has spent itself into irrecoverable debt through policies that negate private initiative. The U.S. has been on that road for many years with its ever expanding bureaucracies, but has super accelerated in the last 12 months.

It's fashionable and safe to blame the likes of Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street bad boys. But THEY ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING THAT CONGRESS ITSELF IS NOT ALREADY DOING, except Congress is doing it at exponentially higher amounts (e.g. the "Louisiana Purchase", the "Cornhusker Kickback", etc.)

I can't blame the Pope completely. I don't think he's ever had a job, let alone own a business. The main principles are correct, but the practical application is wanting. The serious culprit in the global financial meltdown is governments that have spent their countries (and states, e.g. California) into the "red hole" and killed the goose that laid the golden egg (private enterprise) by punitive and ignorant taxation and regulation.

Socialism and Communism are the alternatives to Capitalism. How's that working out? See U.S.S. R., North Korea, Cuba, etc. Some say China is a socialist success story. But in fact China has prospered only in areas it has allowed capitalism to grow. By the way, what the immigration rate into China?

Have the Pope, give me a call.

MAY 1, FEAST OF ST. JOSEPH "THE CAPITALIST"

"Interesting!" May 1 is the Catholic feast of St. Joseph the Worker. (For those who may not know, this is another title for Joseph, the foster father of Jesus.) I begin by saying "interesting" because of the sermon I heard. I'm sure it was well-intentioned and an innocent error, but the account of the institution of this feast seemed to vary a bit from actual history. So, first, some actual history.

History of the Feast

Pope Pius XII instituted the feast of St. Joseph the Worker in 1955 on the first day of May - chosen specifically to oppose the communist holiday on the same day known as "May Day" - which supposedly honored "the worker", the "proletariat".

The communist May Day was more than just a Soviet style Labor Day. The Marxist concept of "the proletariat" embodies the essence of the socialist ideology which subjects everything and everyone, including the worker, to the whim and will of the State.

In effect, the communist May Day, in the days of the U.S.S.R, was an "in your face" militaristic display of aggressive, expansionist, atheistic communism. The "worker" was but a prop for the communist hierarchy and their godless agenda.

Pius XII knew this. So, in the tradition of other Pontiffs who had previously christianized pagan holidays by inserting a Christian feast on or near a pagan one, Piux XII christianized a day devoted to atheism and the actual subjugation of "workers" to the man closest to Christ, St. Joseph "The Worker".

Today, with "the wall" down and the U.S.S.R. but a memory, it is easy to forget the threat Communism was in 1955. Stalin had already murdered an estimated 20 plus million of his own people. The Soviets had consolidated eastern Europe in their iron grip, and tanks were arrayed on the Hungarian border. All of mainland China had fallen to the Communists. And Communism was sweeping through Korea, Vietnam, and many other countries. The Soviets were amassing a nuclear arsenal and preparing to venture into space. It was a fearful time.

With an army of a couple of dozen Swiss guys dressed in bad pajamas, the Pope opted to deploy Heaven's most powerful male Saint to"sick" the Communists.

Thus, it was with some consternation that I listened to a sermon on this day which recounted the institution of the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker as the Church's response to "the extortionist of workers by the Capitalist" (actual words)!!

As we know, Communism grew out of the Marxist/Leninist rebellion against Capitalism. They are opposite economic systems. And, as history would have it, the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker was instituted precisely to COUNTER COMMUNISM - NOT CAPITALISM. But perhaps with the demise of the Soviet Union and eastern Europe now free, some feel the need to seek a new villain, and Capitalism is always handy.

However, though the USSR may be gone, communism is not. And while communism as an economic system has been severely discredited, its stepchild, atheism, is thriving. Communism isn't just the economic opposite of capitalism, it is the antithesis of Christianity, not just because it is atheistic, but because the basic disregard for the human person is inherent in communist ideology. In Communism, all, including every human person, is subject to the state.

Of course "state" is a euphemism for a self-serving elite whose rule has proven to be more ruthless and cruel than any bourgeois czar or king. With Stalin's murderous purge just coming to light (in 1955), another 36 million dead in Communist China in the name of the "Great Leap Forward", and Russian tanks clanking at the Hungarian border, the Pope wasn't thinking just then about the evils of Capitalism.

So Why the Attack on Capitalism?

Capitalist "evil" is standard homiletic fare. Perhaps its simply an innocent ignorance of history. Perhaps its a purposeful attack on an economic system that some, if not many, believe to be inherently unjust. But most likely the revisionist history is a combination of the progressive emphasis on social justice in the Church since the 60's and the natural economic gulf that exists between clergy and laity. Allow me to explain.

Essentially, most priests and religious, embrace a life of what can be called Christian socialism. In short, socialism teaches that there are no private property rights, that all is "held in common." The priest or religious who takes the vow of poverty cedes his or her right to personal ownership to the community which he or she joins and where all is "held in common."

Even secular priests, who may not take the vow of poverty and are allowed to maintain some degree of personal property, still participate in a "common life" much different than the laity, particularly those who have families to raise. The key difference though, is that this life "in common", the ceding of the right to private property, is "voluntary", not coerced, as it would be under a socialist or communist system.

The laity, because of their God-appointed duty to produce, educate, and socialize the next generation, are naturally required to put the well being of that "first community" ahead of the needs of the larger community. In order to do this, the family, or at least its head, must have access to the means of wealth creation for which the right to private property is essential.The priest or religious, while there are still bills to pay, does not have the same need. While they may be tasked to feed the poor, it is not quite the same thing as a father having to face a table full of hungry children because "daddy lost his job".

Few priests and religious have to worry about the daily crushing realities of food, clothing, shelter, and health care, etc. to the same degree that the laity, especially those who are parents, must. Thus, priests and religious would do well to address economic issues with caution simply because, for the most part, they are not subject to the same financial realities, or at least to the same degree of those financial realities, as the people they are addressing.

St. Joseph the Capitalist

But back to the title of this post. Of course it is "tongue in cheek", but St. Joseph was more "capitalist" than he was proletariat or "union guy" - which the particular sermon I heard made him out to be.

Good St. Joe bought materials, fashioned them into things people were willing to pay more for than what the material itself cost (e.g. wood = table), and used the money to care for his family and buy more materials so that he could repeat the process. It's possible that he was even an employer. Sure, he had Jesus around to help, but it's quite possible, that as a successful carpenter, he had some other local Nazarenes on the payroll.

We can also reason from Scripture that he probably did pretty well. In order for him to just pick up and go off to Egypt as instructed by the angel, he had to have some means. And the fact that Jesus was born in a stable and not a "hotel" was not due to Joseph's lack of funds. He obviously had the money or he wouldn't have knocked on the hotel doors first.

Also, we do not hear about Mary in want for her material well-being after Joseph died, so he probably socked away some of that profit to provide for his wife and Son's financial future. He may even have helped financed the ministry of his foster Son. The Scriptures don't mention it much, but we don't see Christ begging and He seemed to have the bucks when needed. So, yah, it could be said that St. Joe was a capitalist, a successful one. (Scripture does mention women who provided for his material needs. But of course that money was "made" somewhere. No government grants in those days.)

Private Property: The Essence of Capitalism
 
The essential feature of capitalism (in contrast to communism) is the right to own private property. This right is rooted in the Judeo-Christian principles upon which the U.S.A. was founded. In case you're wondering, it's the Seventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not steal". Obviously a thing would need to be "owned" (i.e."private property) before it could be "stolen". Thus it is no coincidence that capitalism grew up on American soil and generated the wealthiest nation in history.

Prior to the founding of the United States and the experiment in democracy, a thing could be owned until some king, lord, duke, or whoever had more power (and weapons) than you, wanted it. In short, the history of the world is tyranny.

America, in contrast,  was more than just an experiment in a new form of government, it was an experiment in the practical application of Judeo-Christian principles, as unashamedly attested to by many documents authored in the name of this country's Founding Fathers. The very idea of the equal dignity of persons ("All persons are created equal...") would have been, historically, unthinkable apart from Christianity.

So What's the Problem?

Capitalism and Christianity are essentially bound up with each other. Capitalism is a free system where people are free to do good or ill. As William F. Buckley once said, "The problem with Socialism is Socialism. The problem with Capitalism are Capitalists." Socialism inherently denies the Seventh Commandment because it coercively denies the right to private property.

Thus it is the system itself that is the problem. Capitalism embraces the Seventh Commandment and the right to private property. However, due to the personal freedom inherent in the system, bad guys are free to do bad things. Yet one can no more blame Capitalism for bad Capitalists than one can blame Catholicism for bad Catholics. Freedom is the essence of both.

But what to do about the obvious abuses in the Capitalist system? Can the Church just look the other way? No. As always, the mission of the Church is the mission of Christ, and that is: to call all men first to conversion. Then it becomes the mission of the laity, once converted, to "sanctify the temporal order", as did St. Joseph. Given the current economic crisis, perhaps the Church would do well to deploy the foster father of Jesus once again, as did Pius XII, as the patron saint of Capitalists. For what is needed is not a new economic system, but new men, which only the Church can make.

Bad Mouthing Gold...Again

In our local diocesan paper this week, in a column written by a member of the clergy, the
pursuit of wealth is once again impugned in favor of the "Golden Rule."

I say "once again" because the pursuit of wealth is a favorite "whipping boy" of the clergy. Time and again materialism, wealth generation, and business in general is castigated from the pulpit.

I have no doubt of the good intentions of the particular column, i.e. encouraging charity, etc. However, it's time our clergy begin to think of some new ways to encourage it without the obligatory swipe at the making of money.

The author contrasts gold with the Golden Rule. In doing so, he equates gold, and the pursuit of gold, with all that is wrong with the world: greed, lust, power, envy...the usual suspects.

I don't have time to do a whole Bible study here, but God commands the use of gold in the making of the tabernacle, the ornamentation of the temple, etc. In Revelations we find Jesus himself in a gold sash, as well as many references to gold. The Church requires that gold, or at least silver, be used for the liturgical vessels, etc.

I don't mean to be disrespectful here, but "Father" is going to be able to eat tonight and sleep in a bed. I don't have the same guarantee. Everyday I must find ways to "find gold" in order that my children can eat and sleep in safety.

The standard reply to my "need for gold" is "fine, as long as it is not excessive". But who get's to decide that? If I go out and buy an expensive house that is bigger than what "I need" or what others think I need, I would be judged, by common clergy standards, as being materialistic.

But how many people got to feed their families because I bought a house, regardless of whether or not it is what I need or not? How many people worked on that house and got paid because someone was going to buy that house? How about the people who may be hired to keep up the house and the yard? I could go on.

What amazes me most is that despite the tongue lashing the business community gets at Mass on a regular basis, the business community is the first people pastors will go to when they need something that costs money.

Let's stop the hypocrisy and the assumptions. On a material level, many of the clergy live better than we lay folks do. They have a place to stay, guaranteed meals, health insurance, and some degree of retirement security. Most of us have none of that, especially those of us who have children, lots of children.

Again, I understand Father's intention. But really, it's time to find another way of elevating charity other than demeaning those of us who must "pursue gold" every day.

Financial Advice from Scott Hahn

(Originally written 07/03/2006)

Scott Hahn gives some rare financial advice on his tape series “Calling All Catholics to Be Bible Christians. And Vice Versa”. Scott advises that if you want to make millions then you should invest in Zondervan, Moody, or any number of top Christian book publishers. He points out that Protestant Christians are ravenous readers and Christian book publishing is booming.

By contrast most Catholic publishers seem to be languishing. One major Catholic publisher recently put out a notice to its customers and resellers that it was going into bankruptcy protection, and I’ve heard (I own a bookstore) rumors of several other looming crises with other publishers with whom I deal. In addition I see the appeals from many Catholic publishers for donations & contributions to help them stay solvent.

So what’s the deal? Why are Protestant publishers booming and Catholic publishers bombing? (Allow the generalization for the sake of the discussion.)

Scott gives two reasons. First, Protestant publishers seem to understand the essence of supply-side economics: “If you build it they will come” In other words, the publishers themselves created the boom by building the business and promoting their books. In addition, Protestant church leaders constantly promote books and individual study. Good evidence of that on Guam is the fact that the only bookstore on this mostly Catholic island for many years was a Protestant bookstore.

By contrast, Catholics seem to be stuck in demand-side economics: “I will build it when they come.” This mentality became quite evident to me when I first floated the idea of a Catholic bookstore. I was told many times that it wouldn’t work because “Catholics don’t read.” Maybe I’m part Protestant but my thought was “well we don’t have anything to read”, and that maybe if we had something to read we might read it! In other words, I was confident that supply side economics would work. (It has.)

But Scott’s second point is that Catholics seems to have neglected part of Christ’s command in Mark 12:30:

“And thou shall love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment.”

What is of GREAT interest here is, as Scott points out, is that Jesus is not just repeating the first commandment from Deuteronomy 6:4-5, He actually is amending it, adding to it. The fact that Jesus actually adds to something as well known as the first of the Ten Commandments is worth noting. Here’s the commandment as stated in Deuteronomy 6:4-5:

“Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole strength.”

Now compare this with the above scripture from Mark. We note that Jesus added “and with thy whole mind”! Why did he add this? What does he mean by “our whole mind”? It appears that Jesus doesn’t just want us to love God (heart), have faith in God (soul), and do His will (strength). He also now commands us to KNOW God (mind)!

We must impress upon ourselves that every word that comes from the mouth of God is of eternal significance and consequence. Jesus didn’t just throw in “with thy whole mind” just to round out the paragraph. He obviously commanded something here.

We may claim to believe this, but languishing Catholic publishers tell a different story. Compared to our Protestant brethren we are, in general, not as encouraged to read, study, and invest in our faith.