Both Gerson and a number of his critics here seem to me to be making the same mistake with regard to the phrase “Catholic social thought” (incidentally, why Gerson always uses the adjective “Roman” on first reference to Catholicism is something of a mystery to me). The mistake is to assume that it is a political philosophy that conclusively generates policy conclusions in the same way that libertarianism does. Hence Gerson’s opposition of the two philosophies. Gerson takes Catholic social thought to compel something that those of us to his right would consider “big government.” (I should note, however, that Gerson is not quite as statist as Freddoso makes him out to be. I see no reason to think that he wants to infringe on property rights or impose punitive levels of taxation, and I am pretty sure that he supports the “ownership society” agenda.) Some of Gerson’s critics in the Corner seem to agree with him, the difference being that they dislike this result and therefore look to Catholic social thought with skepticism or hostility.

But Catholic social teaching is more capacious than that. It does not claim to settle many questions about how to apply such principles as subsidiarity or concern for the poor. Two faithful Catholics, each of whom accepts his Church’s social teaching, can come to very different conclusions about the proper scope of the welfare state, which level of government should administer which social programs, and the like. It is true that most Catholics have tended to prefer a larger role for federal action than most conservatives (including me) would like, and it is also true that these Catholics can find support for many of their premises in Catholic social teaching. But it is simply not the case that Catholic social teaching leads inexorably to welfarist conclusions.