The Catholic Book Club discussion

"Frenetic Intemperance" is a key concept in the book. Does Horvat define it in a way that makes sense to you? If so, how do you understand the term? If not, how would you define it?

I think the term is short form for what we have been experiencing in our society, specifically within these United States, for what generational theorists, Strauss and Howe, have characterized during our last period of collective history as one of the leading factors for societal unraveling, roughly since the consciousness revolution of the late 60s to about 2008, marked by the market crash. We have certainly been progressing towards an end, one that hasn't truly been all that clear but one in which the truth of the Gospel has often been denied or simply ignored. The resultant effect of that has been the further alienation of man from the nature for which he was created dissolving the bonds he has with the community and even his own family. Seeking instead for technological solutions to the problems he finds, man has become distracted from his calling, his proper vocation, driving himself further and further away from his ideal and at the expense of right order and truth. Hence now we find ourselves at the apparent end of the culture wars and in a crisis period wherein we will have to consider the logical conclusion of our 'frenetic intemperance', the embracing of all that is not truth, destructive alliances which are wholly inadequate and the deeply flawed facsimiles of organic communities and return to a proper path and ordering of society else continue the collapse and suffer the consequences of our collective turning away from a Christian worldview.

I think "Return to order" has made a mistake in signalling "frenetic intemperance" as the cause of all our problems: it has confused the fever for the cause of the disease. To me, it looks like a physician who would try to combat an infectious illness just by getting the fever down.

In my opinion, the author has mistaken what is just one symptom with the cause of the disease. The cause must be found somewhere else.

I tend to mistrust all the theories about the world that try to explain everything as the effect from a single variable. The world is usually much more complicated than that.

Manuel wrote: "I think "Return to order" has made a mistake in signalling "frenetic intemperance" as the cause of all our problems: it has confused the fever for the cause of the disease. To me, it looks like a p..."

I agree with Manuel's critique of "frenetic intemperance" as a single variable that explains all that is wrong in society and especially the economy. Horvat seems to start with the assumption of a previously existing idyllic society, but never points to where and when it existed. And now everything has gone wrong, and it is all due to frenetic intemperance - "a restless and reckless spirit . . . that foments a drive to throw off legitimate restraints and gratify disordered passions." This smells to me somewhat of utopianism.

But Horvat doesn't explain how this differs from plain old everyday intemperance. Except that it's extra bad intemperance. I think that this allows Horvat to say he's not against markets, just against frenetic intemperance in markets, he's not against large companies, just against large companies acting badly. There is, however, no objective guide that tells us when economic activity is right-mined growth and when it is tainted by frenetic intemperance, except that like Potter Stewart, Horvat knows it when he sees it.

It also seems to me that if we look at the problem as simple intemperance, the idea that there is a simple set of solutions becomes a somewhat silly idea because we are talking as though we can reform fallen man through a set of economic reforms. I suspect that is why the problem needs to be identified as frenetic intemperance.

I should qualify my answer above by stating that I am about 20% of the way through the book, so I may not have reached the points where Horvat gets more specific.

Related to what John just said about "reforming fallen man by a simple set of solutions":

The book defines and "organic society" to mean "a social order oriented toward the common good that naturally and spontaneously develops under the guidance of the principle of natural law and the Gospel". (Chapter 21)

But it is the opposite; any social order, naturally and spontaneously will degenerate. The Gospel and natural law may manage to keep the bad consequences in check, but they will do so against any spontaneity.

Manuel wrote: "I think "Return to order" has made a mistake in signalling "frenetic intemperance" as the cause of all our problems: it has confused the fever for the cause of the disease. To me, it looks like a p..."

Raul wrote: "I think the term is short form for what we have been experiencing in our society, specifically within these United States, for what generational theorists, Strauss and Howe, have characterized duri..."

I don't believe that the author has any delusions about 'frenetic intemperance' and its role in our current problems. Early in the book he writes that it is "one manifestation of a greater Revolution."

It is one observable sign of a deeper problem but not the sole indication we have.

Mariangel wrote: "The book defines and "organic society" to mean "a social order oriented toward the common good that naturally and spontaneously develops under the guidance of the principle of natural law and the Gospel"..."

I had also marked this paragraph. It looks like Horvat takes a position similar to Rousseau's, but rather than idealizing the "good savage" he idealizes the Middle Age economy.