����ӰԺ

Note: Below is the full text of an article that Thomas Aquinas College President Paul J. O’Reilly submitted to the National Catholic Reporter, which published in the form of a letter to the editor on May 2, 2025.

Busch, Monaghan & Co. Aren’t “Libertarians” — or Acting in Bad Faith

by Paul J. O’Reilly, Ph.D.

Reading former National Catholic Reporter editor Tom Roberts’ 2,300-word, against Tim Busch, Tom Monaghan, and sundry others he decries as champions of “unbounded capitalism” makes me wonder: Does Roberts actually know any of these people?

“Busch has long been an unabashed advocate for a brand of American religion,” writes Roberts, “that seeks respectability for the unbounded economic ambitions of its practitioners by wrapping itself in a veneer of piety.”

“Both men have dedicated considerable effort to placing Christ and His message before our country’s business leaders. Isn’t that a good thing?”

This harsh description bears no resemblance to these Catholics, most of whom I do know, and none of whom can be characterized as advocates of “unrestricted capitalism” or “libertarians” (Roberts’ other favorite epithet). In the spirit of our polarized, tribalistic times, Roberts seems to have fallen into that all-too-common trap of assuming the worst about one’s political opponents without making much effort to understand them.

What ignites Roberts’ ire is an op-ed that Busch authored for the National Catholic Register, , which describes the current White House as “the most Christian I’ve ever seen.” That statement may sound hyperbolic, but it’s tempered. Busch concedes that Trump’s enthusiasm for in vitro fertilization “is a huge moral problem” and his “rhetoric toward immigrants shows a lack of charity.” What’s more, Busch does not contend that the Trump Administration perfectly embodies Catholic social teaching, only that it does so better than recent predecessors that have fought to defend an unlimited “right” to abortion or launched unjust wars. (Being the “most Christian” administration in recent memory is, sadly, not a very high bar to clear.)

Yet regardless of what one makes of Busch’s assessment, neither it nor the administration he applauds is remotely “libertarian.”

The tariffs and immigration limitations that Trump has made the hallmark of his second term are antithetical both to unfettered capitalism and to business interests, the latter of which have suffered from the resulting uncertainty in the stock market. Big Business has likewise profited for decades from the immigration policy that Trump seeks to dismantle, which produces a seemingly limitless stream of low-paid and easily exploited laborers. And there has been no greater cheerleader for the abortion-on-demand and gender ideologies that Trump resists than Corporate America, which wants its workers unconstrained by familial obligations and favors a commodifiable version of human sexuality.

Moreover, though Busch and Monaghan are obviously successful, it is unjust to accuse either of being governed by “unbounded economic ambitions.”

Throughout their careers, both men have recognized that their God-given gift for business brings with it a tremendous capacity to do good and its own set of temptations. For this reason, Busch contributed tens of million to The Catholic University of America School of Business and established the Napa Institute, so that business leaders could learn to keep Christ and the teachings of His church at the center of their work and philanthropy. Monaghan, similarly, has spent decades looking to give away his fortune, with the aim of dying penniless. He created Legatus to help keep Catholic CEOs connected to their faith, and he founded Ave Maria University, just as Busch has established two Catholic schools.

In our interactions, I have found Busch and Monaghan to be gracious, humble, and eager both to learn about and to share their faith. Monaghan has visited our ����ӰԺ campus to offer our students free pizza and, more significantly, free tuition at the Ave Maria School of Law. For years, Thomas Aquinas College has hosted seminars at Legatus and Napa conferences on topics such as the Sacraments, Mary’s role in the Wedding Feast at Cana, Genesis, and more. Both men have dedicated considerable effort to placing Christ and His message before our country’s business leaders. Isn’t that a good thing?

“Catholic social teaching tolerates a wide range of economic perspectives that embrace neither the libertarian nor Marxist extremes, where Catholics can disagree without accusing one another of bad faith or donning a deceptive ‘veneer of piety.’” 

Last year, Busch helped to organize a 3,500-person Eucharistic procession through New York, a city — perhaps more than any — of “unbounded economic ambitions.” He was literally bringing Jesus to the streets of Manhattan, to the rich and poor alike, imploring all to turn away from worldly distractions and, for just a moment, to gaze upon Christ’s beauty and humility. Robert, however, denounces this evangelistic effort as “project[ing] a muscular Catholicism beyond the reach of ordinary people.”

What could be more within the reach of ordinary people than a street procession? While it’s true that most of us lack the resources to shut down Midtown Manhattan to make way for Jesus, isn’t that all the more reason why those who do have the means should do so?

Roberts’ essay is similarly unmeasured in its treatment of other prominent Catholics who don’t share his politics. The Ethics and Public Policy Center, whose president, Ryan T. Anderson, has bravely stood at the forefront against efforts to undermine the family and impose gender ideology, is blithely dismissed as one of sundry groups attempting “to make Catholic teaching compatible with unrestricted capitalism.” Same, too, for the Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo, who played an invaluable behind-the-scenes role in helping to end constitutionally enshrined abortion, and George Weigel, biographer of Pope St. John Paul II.

Even the Acton Institute, which, Roberts derides for its mission of “integrating Judeo-Christian truths with free market principles,” recognizes that markets exist to serve humans, not the other way around. Its president emeritus, Rev. Robert Sirico, acknowledged unequivocally in a 2022 with Catholic World Report that the Church condemns “capitalist ideology.” He went on to invoke our late Pope Francis’s statement in Evangelii Gaudium that “Business is a vocation, and a noble vocation, provided that those engaged in it see themselves challenged by a greater meaning in life; this will enable them truly to serve the common good by striving to increase the goods of this world and to make them more accessible to all.”

This idea of business and economics grounded, as the Church prescribes, in the common good — not “unbounded capitalism” — is the vision that unites Tim Busch, Tom Monaghan, and the others that Roberts castigates.

Roberts’ real complaint, I suspect, is his belief that these Catholics fall on the “side of the economics debate that would defang Catholic social teaching of its more biting reality.” He is entitled to that opinion, of course, but the Church has never declared the appropriate size and scope for the U.S. government and its programs, or just one permissible way to care for the least among us. Catholic social teaching tolerates a wide range of economic perspectives that embrace neither the libertarian nor Marxist extremes, where Catholics can disagree without accusing one another of bad faith or donning a deceptive “veneer of piety.” They are also free to disagree about how well, or how poorly, modern presidential administrations uphold the Church’s teachings.

Having known Busch, Monaghan, Anderson, Leo, Weigel, and Fr. Sirico, I have every reason to believe that they are Catholics of good faith. I have not met Tom Roberts, but I do not doubt his love for Christ or his desire to serve Him.

As we celebrate Our Lord’s resurrection, we must not allow political disagreements or tribal loyalties to make us turn on our brothers in Christ. As Roberts puts it so well, “Catholicism is at its best when its witness and teachings inform political processes, not when it aims to subsume them and not when it becomes a partisan player.”