The Catholic Political Conscience

Who would have thougt that a saint would write this: 

“Therefore I must say that, as I hope for mercy, I can have no other notion of all the other governments that I see or know, than that they are a conspiracy of the rich, who, on pretence of managing the public, only pursue their private ends, and devise all the ways and arts they can find out; first, that they may, without danger, preserve all that they have so ill-acquired, and then, that they may engage the poor to toil and labour for them at as low rates as possible, and oppress them as much as they please; and if they can but prevail to get these contrivances established by the show of public authority, which is considered as the representative of the whole people, then they are accounted laws…”

Do you see why Catholics didn't follow their bishops into the Romney/Ryan camp?  Saint Thomas More would have a few things to say today about certain political philosophies. 

Rethinking God

I was struck last week when a politician said that even in the case of rape when a child is conceived it is the will of God.  At first I thought: “how could anyone believe that?”  Then I thought: “Wait, I believe that.”  Then I had to sit back and ask myself: "what do I believe about God?"

First, we need to clarify what the politician said.  He did not say that the rape was the will of God.  No one who is professes faith in the God of Jesus could say that.  There are certain Old Testament stories that might lead one to believe that an act of violence such as rape or murder could be God’s will but it would violate the image of God as Abba, as a loving parent, that Jesus presents in the Gospels.  Such Divinely ordained violence threatens to annul the paschal sacrifice of Christ which suffices to atone for all the evil in the world and to cancel once and for all whatever divine wrath is due to sin.  So much for the rape issue.  What about God willing a conception of life resulting from this act of violence?  When this issue came up, I realized that I had long believed that God directly willed the creation of each and every human life at the time of its conception.  But after reflection it also dawned on me—in this context—that I have not for some time believed that God has directly willed the creation of each and every human life at the time of its conception.  It took a shock like hearing this jerk say something as outrageous as God has willed the conception of a baby as the result of an act of violence for me to realize that my thoughts about God and his role in our lives have indeed changed over the years.  Now, I am not saying that God therefore gladly permits the termination of an innocent life because of the circumstances in which it was conceived, but what I am saying is that I have come to more clearly differentiate God the Creator of Life from Santa in his workshop.  The creation of life is a biological process not an artisan craftsman at his skill.  I don’t mean that God has a conveyer-belt that piles up souls and shoots them into embryos like Pepsi being mass-squirted into racked bottles passing through a machine.   To be honest, I am not sure exactly what a “soul” is.  I am not saying that I don’t believe in souls, only that I don’t know what one is and how one is joined to a biological product.  I haven’t gotten that far yet.  And to be honest, I probably won’t spend a lot of time figuring that one out.  The important thing is that I realized I have begun to seriously reconsider what I think about God, how I understand God, my “concept” of God—my theology.  And obviously I am not alone. 

This is no surprise.  We Christians have redefined God at any number of points in our history.   Indeed the People of Israel redefined God periodically through their history before Jesus ever came along and gave us a very new and very different notion of God than had been held by his co-religionists.  Maybe we should look at some of these shifts in our understanding of God.  I am not saying that God changes but rather that our human understanding of God has changed throughout the history of our religious thought. 

And it is this shift in our basic understanding of the most important object of belief that has so many Catholics frightened and the consequent polarization as some in our faith have moved into brave and new experiences of God and others are anxious to keep God in the same Box in which they found him in as children.  We are going to have to look at this conflict.

There is One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism

The Reverend Mark Schloneger is a Mennonite Pastor in Indiana.  The Mennonites come out of the Anabaptist movement of the 16^th century and like their theological siblings, the Amish, have a strong theology of what they believe should be the proper relationship of a Christian with the State.  Mennonites are committed to pacifism and insist that any loyalty to earthly government comes only after our total commitment to Jesus and his Gospel. 
I did an entry several days ago about Joseph and Michael Hofer, two Hutterite men who were arrested and died in prison during World War I rather than compromise their beliefs. Hutterites are also a part of the Mennonite family of Anabaptist Christians and demand that our first and only true allegiance must be to Christ and his Gospel.  Pastor Schloneger and several other Christian clergy came up with the idea of Election Day Communion as a way to remind Christians that Christ must shape our entire lives and that our politics need to flow from our commitment to the Gospel.  Sharing Holy Communion on this day is also a vivid reminder that while we may have differences in politics, we must maintain our unity in Christ first and foremost.   Pastor Schloneger’s idea of Election Day Communion is a good one.  For us Catholics, of course, we are used to the availability of Mass and Communion each day but that is not the case for almost all other Christians.  Even Greek and Russian Orthodox usually only celebrate on Sundays and maybe twice more during the week.   Episcopalians and Lutherans as well as Churches in the Campbellite tradition—Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ—almost always celebrate Holy Communion every Sunday but rarely during the week.  Most Protestants share Holy Communion only monthly or even quarterly so for a special Communion to  be shared on election day is a powerful reminder that we are called to be One Body in Christ’s One Body and One Fellowship in His Blood.
Let me reprint the internet article to which I was directed for more information.   You can find it for yourself on the CNN Belief Blog.  http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/

It seems frivolous, even foolish.

On Tuesday, as the world turns its attention to who will occupy the most powerful office of the world’s most powerful nation, hundreds of churches will gather across the United States to worship a servant. As votes are counted to elect a president, thousands of Christians will take the bread and the cup to remember their crucified Lord. As winners are projected and the electoral map is updated, Christians of many denominations will sing their praises and proclaim their loyalty to Jesus.  It seems ridiculous, even silly. After all, America is at a crossroads, and we are in the midst of one of the most critical presidential elections of our lifetimes. We know this because people have recited this same tired mantra before every presidential election.
Our fears, our hopes, our worries and our struggles are the currency that buys our votes. And how do politicians and their supporters acquire this precious currency? They invest billions of dollars to foment fear, inspire hope, create worry and exploit our struggles. It’s a power play. Some of us are pawns, and some of us are participants. But some of us are choosing a different part.
I initiated the Election Day Communion Campaign out of a concern that Christians in the United States are being shaped more by the tactics and ideologies of political parties than by our identity and unity in Christ. Out of this concern, a simple vision sparked the imaginations of congregations nationwide: the church being the church on Election Day, gathering at the Lord’s Table to remember, to give thanks for, and to proclaim its loyalty to Jesus. Gathering for Communion on Election Day seems fitting, for the practice of Communion is an inherently political act. It is both a pledge of allegiance to Jesus and a declaration of independence from all other powers making claims on our bodies, minds and souls.
Far too often, the church has abandoned its first love for the siren song of political parties promising protection, prosperity and peace. Far too many times, the church has ceded the practice of its faith to the spiritual and the private while leaving others to address matters of justice. And far too frequently, the church has attempted to speak truth to power while seeking and relying on that same power for protection. The bread and the cup are God’s antidotes to our fickle memories. As we eat and drink together, we remember that all things fall under the lordship of Christ. We remember our sin and need to repent. We remember that God has lifted up the humble, filled the hungry with good things, and chosen to reveal God’s strength through our weakness.  We remember that the only Christian nation in this world is the church, the holy nation that transcends all human-made walls, boundaries and borders.
As we gather at the table, we remember that the power to redeem, to save, and to transform comes not from atop the seat of power but from within the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
We will gather for Election Day Communion not because we think that the issues at stake in this election are unimportant or that our votes don’t really matter. No, we will gather for Communion because we think that the issues at stake in all elections are far too important to be relegated to our votes alone.
The Lord’s Supper reminds followers of Jesus to practice the politics of Jesus. To me, practicing the politics of Jesus means working to protect the sanctity of all human life, whether it is found in the womb, in prison, or in countries at war against us.  It means choosing the way of forgiveness and reconciliation rather than vengeance and violence. It means practicing an economy based on generosity and mutual aid. It means offering care and compassion to suffering people regardless of their immigration status, economic class or religious practice. It means being good stewards of God’s good creation. And, most of all, it means allowing God’s kingdom to break into the entirety of our lives, from the privacy of our homes to the politics we practice in public.
The bread and the cup keep calling me back to the table inscribed with memory. There, I remember God’s choice for the transfer of power. There, I remember where to go with my fears, my hopes, my worries and my struggles. At the table, with my sisters and brothers, I am in the presence of the Holy. Though I’m interested in the outcome of the presidential election, I won’t be watching the projected results as they are announced. I’ve made a prior commitment. I intend to honor it.

1 800 HELP NOW

When President Obama's team picked  a fight with the Catholic Church over contraceptive coverage for employees of Catholic institutions, I stopped contributing to the campaign even though I believe that the ultimate solution is a reasonable one--that the insurance companies and not the Catholic institutions themselves have to pay for the coverage.  I am disappointed and even angry that we Catholics who have supported the President in the face of so much internal pressure from bishops and priests were "left out on a limb" by a foolish policy decision.  So anyway I still have money I had budgeted for the campaign and now I want to contribute that to hurricane relief.  I have been trying to call the Red Cross all day at the ABC hurricane relief hotline--1 800 HELP NOW and just can't get through. It is amazing how tough it can be to give money away!  I will keep trying however as I think this is a worthy cause.  You might want to consider it too.   Oh, and by the way, I will be sending checks to Catholic Relief Services and Catholic Charities USA as well.  Maybe you might want to do the same

"Catholics" and racial bias

There are several serious reasons why a Catholic may decide to vote against President Obama.  Racism, however, is not one of them and it is an embarrassment to our Catholic faith to see an obviously racist posting on a blog that claims to uphold our faith.  

Check out the blog: Restore DC Catholicism  http://restore-dc-catholicism.blogspot.com/ and to Monday’s  (October 29 th) Posting: “Wow! New Migraine Treatment Under Obamacare!”    Hey Janet, Way to go, girl—you’ve shown us your true colors and they ain’t pretty. 

One Soul Wrestles With The Questions

A regular reader sent me this face-book posting from a friend of his.  I think It outlines well the dilemma that many good Catholics are facing in trying to use the principles of our Catholic faith in making their choice for which ticket in the presidential election they might vote.  Despite the pontificating  of some, it is not an easy choice.   

I am glad voting is such an easy thing for so many of my friends. In the recent months, the lines have been drawn and the troops allied on either side shooting at each other. I'm still hanging out in the middle, and I am taking fire.

For the sake of honesty, I should note at the outset that I am left leaning politically, but I am anti-abortion and it is a priority issue for me. I am a Catholic, and my faith takes precedence over all else.

I am deeply disturbed by the election choices this year.

I see on the one hand a man who would overturn the ACA. He says this often and proudly. Sometimes he throws a few pennies to the moderates who support the act, or most of it. He has, every so often, said that he would do something about the most popular components. But he has no firm plans, and the only clarity is that he absolutely will overturn. Setting aside questions of who can do what, this is not acceptable. My daughter has a genetic syndrome which has meant that her medical bills are incomprehensibly high. She has needed, and will need, multiple complicated surgeries. She has had multiple hospitalizations, for things like colds that barely keep most kids home from school. She has consulted with more specialties than I knew existed. I can credit a humbling number of doctors with saving her life, because her life has been saved more than once. She was diagnosed prenatally. I knew how complicated her life would be early enough that abortion was not just an option, but it was the option recommended to me by my doctor. Now, one candidate thinks that it is OK that people like me- who decide to cherish our unborn little one even when it is bound to be very difficult- should be bankrupted by medical bills. We have good insurance, and our insurance cannot kick us out when we reach a certain cap. If we did get dropped, another insurance company could not deny us based on her history. Thank you, ACA. The candidate that is comfortable with my family's financial ruin as a direct result of my choice to protect my wonderful daughter calls himself pro-life. The candidate who saw my situation as an emergency and fixed it, calls himself pro-choice.

I simply do not believe that Romney cares about the unborn. If you care about the unborn, you do not allow that they be punished for the crimes of their father. Either we are right, and the unborn are people deserving of the same protection as their older siblings or not. Or we are wrong. I just don't see the grey area here. If we are wrong, it is absolutely an assault on women to insist that they carry a pregnancy to term. If we are going to claim the moral high ground, we have to insist that the babies are babies. They are to be treated the same as their older siblings. The second we admit exceptions, (other than the life of the mother) we yield the moral high ground. Maybe it does not matter whether the candidates care about the unborn. Maybe it only matters what they will do to protect them. In that case, I have to weigh whether certain specific abortion restrictions will save more lives, or whether things like safety nets for women in crisis, affordable health care, and paid parental leave will save more lives.

I see one candidate who would throw a beloved family member out of the country because he has no documentation. He would leave behind a wife and daughter. This candidate calls himself pro-family. The other candidate seems to care, but has had neither the fire nor the political capital to address this assault, because my beloved family member is not among the most sympathetic of the undocumented. He was not dragged across the border as a child. He is not a grandmother. Nonetheless, I believe it is gravely immoral to break up his family.

I see one candidate who either does not understand the Catholic Church, or does not care. He is bound and determined to cut off her arms. The HHS mandate on contraception forces Catholics to violate the dictates of the Church. It is that simple. I am more angry than many of my Catholic compatriots on the subject. When Obama said repeatedly and specifically to Catholics, prior to his first election, that of course he would ensure that his healthcare reform would include strong conscience protection, I believed him. Now, he wants me to wait until after the second election to find out what accommodations his administration is willing to make to fix the promise he broke. I actually think that there is reasonable middle ground here. Conscience clauses have clear precedent. But any accommodation will bring out the noisiest rancor on the far left. Saying that women who don't want it don't have to get it is irrelevant. Saying that priests and parish secretaries are exempted is not enough. We, the Church, are our various ministries. We are charities, hospitals, schools, and universities. We hire and serve people who do not share our faith because the call to service is universal. We cannot choose between service and paying for contraception. You may think it is no big deal, but we think it is gravely immoral. We are not trying to make your choices for you. We just don't want to pay for them.

What about the economy? It is supposed to be the issue at the forefront of every thinking voter's mind this year. The truth is that the economy is not one issue, but many. Anyone who wants to reduce the economy to a numbers game does not understand what is at stake. It is also true that neither candidate is willing to be honest about how we are going to get out of debt. One candidate is promising rainbows and unicorns. No one will pay more and we won't cut anything. Yay! One candidate is pretending he can place the sole burden on the very wealthy. (You are supposed to hear, "not you." If you heard "you" than put another very in there. The very VERY wealthy. Not you, of course.) If anyone has sorted out who to vote for based on economic concerns, I am interested in your psychic powers. Now, of course, some of us will trust the democrats to act like democrats and the republicans to act like republicans. In that case, do I want raised taxes or tax cuts for not me? Do I want safety nets in place?

I will say this, the Ryan budget, which neither is espousing openly, has been condemned by Catholic bishops as immoral. Cuts are too deep and they leave too many falling through cracks which are widened into gaping holes by poor a poor economy.

Speaking of Ryan, that was an interesting choice for VP. Who is he? He is known for his immoral and unpopular budget. (That will pick up a few far right votes.) He is a Catholic. (That should sway some Catholics, and we are notorious swing voters.) And he has pretty blue eyes. What else? He actually has a record which we can assess- unlike Romney. He has a solid anti-abortion record, which he stands by. He is not good on crime, by which I mean, he votes for stronger sentences for juveniles and against alternative sentencing for rehabilitation. He is desperately bad on the environment. But here is where it gets interesting, at least to me. He voted against paid parental leave. He voted against mental illness being given the same standing as other healthcare issues. He voted in favor of denying treatment for lack of a Medicare copay, so long as it is non-emergency. (Just wait till it is an emergency, then come back.) Throw a little Ayn Rand in there and I just cannot get behind this guy.

On top of all of this, I am supposed to consider gay rights? War? More war? Not really a war, just a particularly violent non-war? The death penalty? Education? Euthanasia?

P.S. If one more person tells me to vote with my "lady parts" I swear I am going to scream. For those still out of the loop, women are not just baby making machines which are either currently functioning or not. We vote on the same variety of issues as men.

On All of Our Shoulders III

In my last two entries I have been posting the document “On All of Our Shoulders,” a critique according to the magisterium of Vice-Presidential candidate Paul Ryan’s social philosophy by more than 150 prominent Catholic scholars and theologians.  Here is the final section.  This is neither an attack on the Romney/Ryan ticket nor an endorsement of the Obama/Biden ticket but it does shatter the lie that the Republican ticket is “the Catholic thing to do.”  There is no clear choice for a Catholic at the polls this year—or most years.  Unfortunately this is not because both parties are offering us a platform consistent with our gospel values but rather because each of the two major parties has made serious moral compromises.  In the end it is up to each faithful Catholic citizen to examine his or her conscience and prayerfully choose the candidates whom they believe will do the greater good despite the shortcomings in their platforms.  We need to pray and to trust that God’s Kingdom will prevail not through any one of us but through the balance achieved in the common voice and thus we need to profoundly respect those who with due consideration make choices different than our own.   It is time for the hysteria to end and prayerful reflection to prevail. 

Five Principles of Catholic Social Doctrine Most in Danger of Being Forgotten or Distorted

There are many principles of the Church's social doctrine that are effectively communicated and widely known. Chief among these is the dignity and sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. Although this fundamental doctrine is far from adequately implemented in our laws, there is little or no confusion about the Church's teaching on this matter. We offer here a list of principles of Catholic social doctrine—not to argue their priority over others—but because we judge these to be the most in danger of being ignored or distorted in contemporary public debate.

1.    The Catholic view of the human person is social not individual. Congressman Ryan has stated that he learned from Rand to view all policy questions as a "fight of individualism versus collectivism." [7] The Catholic Church does not espouse "individualism," but rather sees it as an error as destructive as collectivism. [8] Blessed John Paul II described "individualism" as a dimension of the "Culture of Death" arising from an "eclipse of the sense of God." [9] The human person is "by its innermost nature, a social being. ["10] We are radically dependent upon and responsible for one another. Again, in the words of John Paul II, "We are all really responsible for all." This truth of the human person is tied to the central doctrines of the Church. It reflects the very "intimate life of God, one God in three Persons." [11]

2.    Government has an essential role to play in protecting and promoting the common good. The error of individualism leads to a mistaken understanding of the role of government. For too long politicians have echoed Ronald Reagan's misleading mantra "Government is the Problem." The Catholic Church, on the contrary, because of its social understanding of the human person, considers government to be as "necessary" for human nature as the family. The state exists to "defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies." [12] Thus, while the Church does not offer a specific blueprint for policy, it does view our government's action on behalf of the common good a positive good in itself.

Catholic apologists for small government repeatedly invoke a single paragraph from John Paul II's Centesimus Annus which cautions against the excesses of a "social assistance state" ignoring the decades-long papal consensus supporting social insurance and welfare systems. In the same document, John Paul described the "intervention of governmental authority" on behalf of the defenseless as "an elementary principle of sound political organization" taught by the Church for a century. [13] John Paul later stated "One can only rejoice" that "States set up social welfare systems to assist families…and pension funds for retirees." These express a sense of national "responsibility" and "solidarity." [14]

3.    The doctrine of subsidiarity both limits government and demands that it act when local communities cannot solve problems on their own. Subsidiarity has both negative and positive dimensions. Negatively, it limits overreach by government (as well as other large organizations, including corporations). Positively, the concept (which means "help" or "assistance)" requires that government act when problems cannot be solved on the local level.

Ryan has invoked subsidiarity to justify devolving management of Medicaid to states thereby ending centralization "in the hands of federal bureaucrats." At the same time, his budget cuts Medicaid by $750 billion over ten years, a policy that will cut healthcare for an estimated 14 to 27 million Medicaid recipients. [15]

The broader outlines of the budget plan will radically reduce the size of government and consequently cut funding for private and religious safety net providers such as Catholic Charities who depend upon federal grants and contracts for much of their funding. This fails the positive obligation under subsidiarity to render needed assistance.

4.    The "preferential option for the poor" demands both individual and collective action, including the acts of the state. In the words of John Paul II, the preferential option for the poor affects "our daily life as well as our decisions in the political and economic fields;" placing demands upon individuals as well as "leaders of nations." [16]

The portrayal of the Last Judgment in the Gospel of Matthew is a judgment of the nations based on how they treat the "least of these." This was the "central moral measure" applied by the USCCB in its evaluation of the Ryan budget. "The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first." [17]

Ryan, like Rand, sees "dependency" as our most serious problem. Thus, he describes his understanding of preferential option as "don't keep people poor, don't make people dependent on government so that they stay stuck at their station in life." [18]

It should go without saying that poverty is not caused primarily by a too generous government safety net that becomes in Ryan's words, "a hammock that lulls able-bodied citizens into lives of complacency and dependency." [19] It is much easier to cut government programs than to help people out of long-term poverty as the very mixed results of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act prove. [20] Ryan's 2012 budget achieves 62% of its designated savings from cuts to programs for low-income families and individuals while cutting the top marginal tax rate and the corporate tax rate. [21] It is impossible to justify this as a serious exercise of the preferential option for the poor.

5.    Economic forces must be reckoned among any serious account of the threats to society and human dignity. Ryan's budget resolutions speak mainly of overbearing government and free individuals acting in a private sector whose justice is never questioned. It is hard to reconcile this vision with the history of the past forty years, in which globalization has deindustrialized America and deregulation has increased the power of private corporations. At the same time, unions, which official Catholic teaching has long recognized as indispensible to the rights of workers and the common good, have been severely weakened. [22] Whatever the threat of government power, any adequate response to our challenges must address the facts of economic power as well. Modern papal social doctrine has addressed both threats since its inception.

In Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict XVI has offered an analysis more probing than that offered by either political party.

Benedict speaks of the loss of state power in the face of globalization and calls for the development of new forms of government engagement.

In our own day, the State finds itself having to address the limitations to its sovereignty imposed by the new context of international trade and finance, which…has altered the political power of States….[T]heir powers…need to be prudently reviewed and remodelled so as to enable them, perhaps through new forms of engagement, to address the challenges of today's world. [23]

Benedict continues the century-long papal teaching that the market alone cannot address the needs of the common good:

Economic activity cannot solve all social problems through the simple application of commercial logic. This needs to be directed towards the pursuit of the common good, for which the political community in particular must also take responsibility. Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution. [24]

Benedict offers a description of the temptation to reduce the social safety net that reads like an analysis of the Ryan Budget:

From the social point of view, systems of protection and welfare…are finding it hard and could find it even harder in the future to pursue their goals of true social justice in today's profoundly changed environment….[T]he market has prompted new forms of competition between States as they seek to attract foreign businesses…. These processes have led to a downsizing of social security systems as the price to be paid for seeking greater competitive advantage in the global market, with consequent grave danger for the rights of workers, for fundamental human rights and for the solidarity associated with the traditional forms of the social State. Systems of social security can lose the capacity to carry out their task, both in emerging countries and in those that were among the earliest to develop, as well as in poor countries. Here budgetary policies, with cuts in social spending often made under pressure from international financial institutions, can leave citizens powerless in the face of old and new risks. [25]

Conclusion:

The momentous challenges facing our nation cry out for the full wisdom of the Church's social doctrine. We live at time when the social indifference of libertarian thought is achieving broad cultural legitimacy and political power. This vision of the human person and society are fundamentally at odds with the Gospel and the principles of Catholic Social Doctrine. Legitimate disagreements with the Obama administration must not lead the Church to edit the fullness of its teachings for political expediency. Our political obligations as Catholics go beyond choosing a candidate for which to vote. In the words of Faithful Citizenship, "our participation should help transform the party to which we belong." [26] Ours is a moment that demands the fullness of the Church's teachings as few others have. To be truly prophetic, the Church—bishops, clergy and lay faithful—must proclaim the fullness of its message to all parties, movements, and powers.

Footnotes

7.    Address by Paul Ryan to Atlas Society "Celebration of Ayn Rand," 2005. 

8.    Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2425. "The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism." She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market." Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended."

9.    John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, #22-23.
10.Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, #12.
11.John Paul II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, #38, 40.
12.Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1882, 1910.
13.John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, #48, 10.
14.John Paul II, Address to Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, 2002.
15.Kaiser Commission On Medicaid And The Uninsured, "House Republican Budget Plan: State-by-State Impact of Changes in Medicaid Financing," May 2011. http://www.kff.org/medicaid/upload/8185.pdf
16.John Paul II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, #42.
17."Federal Budget Choices Must Protect Poor, Vulnerable People, Says U.S. Bishops' Conference," April 17, 2012. http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-063.cfm.
18."Paul Ryan Says His Catholic Faith Helped Shape Budget Plan," Interview with David Brody, Christian Broadcasting Network, April 10, 2012. http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2012/04/10/only-on-brody-file-paul-ryan-says-his-catholic-faith.aspx
19.The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America's Promise (2012 Budget Resolution), 25. http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperityfy2012.pdf
20."The prevalence of extreme poverty rose sharply between 1996 and 2011. This growth has been concentrated among those groups that were most affected by the 1996 welfare reform." "Extreme Poverty in the United States, 1996 to 2011," National Poverty Center, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan, February 2012, 4. http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief28/policybrief28.pdf
21."Chairman Ryan Gets 62 Percent Of His Huge Budget Cuts From Programs For Lower-Income Americans," Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, March 23, 2012. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3723
22.John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, #20, and Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, #25.
23.Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, 24.
24.Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, 36.
25.Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, 35.
26.United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, #14. http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-document.cfm

On All of Our Shoulders II

Yesterday I posted the first two sections of the statement “On All of Our Shoulders,” an evaluation of the Ryan Budget proposal according to the norms of the magisterium issued by 150+ Catholic scholars and theologians.  Today I am posting the next two sections.   My point, as I wrote yesterday, is not to portray Congressperson Ryan in a negative light and certainly not to make him out to be a “ bad Catholic,” but only to demonstrate that the choice for Catholic voters in this election is not a moral “slam-dunk” in the Romney/Ryan hoop.  I believe that a Catholic can, in good conscience, vote for the Republican ticket because of its opposition to legalized abortion.  I also believe that a Catholic can look at the moral issues of the Republican Platform’s economic policies and compare them unfavorably—again, from a moral standpoint—to those of the Democratic candidates and go for the Obama/Biden ticket.  There are serious moral flaws in the projects of each party.  Ironically the Democrats seem to understand this better than the Republicans, but I think it is important that we not only look at the spectrum of issues in making our choices, but respect those who also look hard at the same moral spectrum of issues and make a different choice.  So now, back to “On  All of Our Shoulders….”

Prudence Misused

Catholic promoters of Ryan's policies often invoke "prudence" to argue that since bishops are not competent to judge the details of policy proposals, there is no properly "Catholic" problem with his policies. This distorts the authentic Catholic meaning of prudence. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines prudence as "right reason in action." It is the virtue through which we "apply moral principles to particular cases." [2] In St. Thomas Aquinas's words, no one "can properly apply one thing to another unless he knows both the thing to be applied and the thing to which it has to be applied." [3] Thus, prudence demands both knowledge of the principles of Catholic Social Doctrine and honest attention to the details and realistic consequences of policies.
Aquinas also warned that prudence is a risky business. We are perennially tempted to use it as a cover for achieving goals contrary to our professed principles. Aquinas taught that the vice of "craftiness" often masquerades as prudence. Craftiness uses "means that are not true, but fictitious and counterfeit" to achieve its ends "whether good or bad." [4] For that reason, we must always scrutinize the principles that inspire our actions in prudential matters. Are our actions and policies consistent with the ideals we proclaim? Or would an honest assessment reveal they are guided by less laudable motives?
Prudence and Principle, Love and Truth:
The Church's social doctrine is not simply an imperative to believe in God and help the poor, for which any proposal can claim equal legitimacy by promising positive consequences. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church states that the Church teaches specific principles of social doctrine.
These principles of the Church's social doctrine "concern the reality of society in its entirety: from close and immediate relationships to those mediated by politics, economics and law; from the relationships among communities and groups to relations between peoples and nations." [5]
A Catholic use of prudence requires evaluating the compatibility between policy proposals and these substantial teachings.
Benedict XVI expressed the true challenge of Christian prudence in his great social encyclical Caritas in Veritate: the truth of Christian love must animate all dimensions of society. Caritas is more than a generic inspiration, if love is truth, it must give specific form to our actions.
Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way. In a culture without truth, this is the fatal risk facing love. It falls prey to contingent subjective emotions and opinions, the word "love" is abused and distorted, to the point where it comes to mean the opposite.
Without truth, without trust and love for what is true, there is no social conscience and responsibility, and social action ends up serving private interests and the logic of power, resulting in social fragmentation, especially in a globalized society at difficult times like the present. [6]

Prudence and Policy

Prudence also requires consideration of the full range of options available and an honest assessment of the outcome of policy proposals. After decades of tax cuts, honesty requires considering revenue increases in addition to program cuts. Government programs are not perfect and need to be improved. Proposals to slash or eliminate programs without proposing alternatives, however, is exactly the kind of indifference Jesus condemned in the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Rich Man and Lazarus.

Footnotes

2. Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1806
3. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II: 47, 3 resp.
4. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II: 55, 3 resp.
5. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, #161.
6. Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, #3,4.

On All of Our Shoulders

Two weeks ago, over 150 Catholic theologians and scholars issued a statement “On All of Our Shoulders” to help us focus on making moral choices in the upcoming election.  Drawing on the magisterium such Catholic intellectuals as John Langan, S.J., Thomas Reese, S.J., Bryan N. Massingale, Dolores R. Leckey, James E. Hug S.J., Peter Steinfels, Elizabeth Johnson CSJ, Anthony Ruff OSB,  Alexander DiLella, John F Haught, Jay P. Dolan, and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, (along with twelve dozen others) have put out a thought-provoking analysis of the philosophical arguments that underlay the political choices in this year’s election.  “On All of Our Shoulders” certainly does away with the lie that the question of for whom a Catholic should vote in the upcoming election is an open and shut case.  It particularly demolishes the misrepresentation that Vice-Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan’s Catholic faith is the root of his political philosophy.  This is not to say that Congressman Ryan is not a good Catholic—far from it.  The Congressman has shown us the importance of his Catholic pieties but it does show us that his social vision is directly opposed to the Magisterium.   I am taking the liberty of posting  “On All of Our Shoulders” in several segments over the next few weeks.  This is not an endorsement of the Obama/Biden ticket.  Our bishops and their allies in the Republican Party (read Carl Anderson of the Knights of Columbus) have made us well aware of the serious moral questions posed by the Democratic Platform, in particular by the Democratic support for legalized abortion.  They have also waved the canard of the Obama Administration posing a threat to Religious Liberty in an effort to divide the Catholic electorate from its traditional home in the Democratic Party.  That strategy does not seem to be working any better in 2012 than it did in 2008.  What “On All of Our Shoulders” does, however, is to make clear to the Catholic voter that the alternative is every bit as problematic and at least as fundamentally opposed to Catholic teaching.  But then you are all adults and can think for yourself, so I will simply post the statement, as I said, in readable size portions.     

On all of Our Shoulders

A Catholic Call to protect the Endangered Common Good

We write as Catholic theologians, academics and ministers concerned for our nation and for the integrity of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. We write to hold up aspects of the Church's social doctrine that are profoundly relevant to the challenges our nation faces at this moment in history, yet are in danger of being ignored. At a moment when the ideas of Atlas Shrugged influence public debate and policy, we write to proclaim the Catholic truth that the stewardship of common good rests upon all of our shoulders together. This is a responsibility we dare not shrug. We fulfill this obligation in myriad ways, but indispensibly among them, through the policies of our government. We highlight these principles of the Church's social doctrine in the hope that their substance will better influence our political and policy debates.

A Tipping Point

America is at a tipping point where the traditional commitment of our government to protecting and advancing the common good is in very real danger of being dismantled for generations. Members of the "Tea Party," libertarians, Ayn Rand followers and other proponents of small government have brought libertarian views of government into the mainstream; legitimating forms of social indifference. After decades of anti-government rhetoric and "starve the beast" tax cuts, some even appear to exploit predictable fiscal problems to establish a privatized, libertarian order that reduces society to a collection of individuals and shrinks the common good to fit the outcomes achievable by private, for profit firms.

A Threat to the Church's Teachings

Congressman Paul Ryan's candidacy for Vice President brings the threat of this social philosophy home to the Church. We do not question Paul Ryan's faith. We are concerned however, that defenders of Ryan have gone beyond highlighting the aspects of Catholic moral teaching with which his political positions are laudably consistent, to argue that his Ayn Rand "inspired" individualist and anti-government vision and the policies they inform are themselves legitimately Catholic. They are not.

We do not write to oppose Ryan's candidacy or to argue there are not legitimatereasons for Catholics to vote for him. Our concern is that Ryan and his Catholic supporters, must be informed—as prochoice candidates and Catholics who vote for them are perennially and appropriately reminded—that some of his positions are fundamentally at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church.
We fear the Church's legitimate disagreement with the inadequate exemptions in the Obama administration's contraceptive insurance mandate will lead some bishops to avoid giving due scrutiny to Ryan's disagreements with or misunderstandings of the Church's social teaching. This would be a tragic failure of episcopal oversight. Presidential campaigns have enormous power to legitimate their messages. If Congressman Ryan's Randian vision is allowed to be promoted as Catholic, many believers will be confused and our nation will be deprived of the Church's full wisdom.
Congressman Ryan has forthrightly proclaimed his inspiration by Ayn Rand. This was no passing youthful phase. Few politicians have offered so comprehensive a statement of a social philosophy and shown its links to their policy priorities and political strategies as Congressmen Ryan did in his remarkable 2005 address to the Atlas Society. In addition to naming Rand as the "one thinker" whom he would credit for his entering public service, he stated that he repeatedly returns to Atlas Shrugged to "check my premises so that I know that what I'm believing and doing and advancing are square with the key principles of individualism." From this perspective he judged "defined benefit" safety net programs such as Social Security and Medicare to be "collectivist" and "socialist based." He called for privatizing of Social Security and Medicare into individually funded programs in order to "change the dynamics in this society" and to form "believers in the individualist capitalist system." [1] These values and policy priorities are evident throughout the several budget resolutions he has authored. Defined benefit programs are an explicit target in themselves because they foster "dependence"—a term he invokes 5 times in his 2013 budget resolution. Congressman Ryan's concerns about the growing Federal debt are commendable. It is clear, however, that he had a prior philosophical bias against publically funded safety net programs independent of these fiscal concerns.Given these values, it seems reasonable to conclude that Ryan's deep cuts to Medicaid, Medicare and food stamps are policy priorities themselves. Thus, it is not surprising, that the savings achieved by these cuts are swamped by revenue losses resulting from massive new tax cuts for high earners and corporations.
Ryan's rejection of Rand's atheism is laudable, as are his public avowal of the thought of Thomas Aquinas and Catholic social doctrine. We do not question the sincerity of his convictions, but must note that a shift from the social philosophy of Ayn Rand to the social doctrine of the Catholic Church is a radical change indeed. Such a conversion would take much time and reflection. Congressman Ryan's policies have remained unchanged through this shift. This suggests that they may in fact still be more indebted to the social principles of Rand than to Aquinas and the Catholic Church. Clarification of the substance of Catholic social doctrine will assist him and other Catholics in discernment of these policies.

footnotes

1  Address by Paul Ryan to Atlas Society "Celebration of Ayn Rand," 2005. (Published transcript is incomplete. Quotes are taken from audio file.) http://www.atlassociety.org/ele/blog/2012/04/30/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rands-ideas-hot-seat-again.