Francis Pushes Conservatives Into the Cafeteria

just 'cause he

clowns around,

don't think he 

doesn't mean 

business 

Well Pope Francis’ long expected encyclical on a Christian response to the impact of climate change on the environment is due to be released on Thursday and it is already causing a stir. Italian   journalist, Sandro Magister, an outspoken critic of Pope Francis and blogger for the Italian daily L’Espresso wrote the introduction for a bootlegged copy—or alleged copy—his editors had managed to purloin and was promptly and indefinitely deprived of his credentials by the Vatican Press Office.  But this is not simply a matter of a newspaper getting a scoop.  Magister has become one of the rallying forces in the anti-Francis movement and has close ties to some of the curial prelates who find Francis’ reforms very threatening to their lives of comfortable graft.  The Katholik Krazies are rallying around Magister in this latest kerfuffle as this encyclical is a particularly neuralgic point for them.  While previous Popes, including Francis’ predecessor Pope Benedict XVI, have spoken up to raise the issue of environmental responsibility (and Benedict was given the moniker “The Green Pope” in acknowledgement for his environmental concerns), with Francis a real danger to the industrialized establishment has arisen as Francis is not one to pull any punches.  Previous magisterial pronouncements have been limited to somewhat abstract moral principles.  Francis is not a theologian (he was trained as a chemist) but has a science background and tends to bring abstractions right down to the very concrete realities.  This makes nervous those semi-gnostics who like to divide creation into the material and the spiritual and think our only concern is to be about the spiritual. 

Sandro Magister is not the only water carrier for the big boys of industry whose productivity and wealth depend on an unlimited access to water, atmosphere, forests, and the earth.  Former Senator and professedly new to the Catholic Cafeteria, Rick Santorum, is no admirer of Pope Francis, espousing a Reform of the Reform Catholicism that is selective in its acceptance of the teachings and decrees of the Second Vatican Council.  The implications of the role of the Church in the modern world as outlined in Gaudium et Spes would seem to him and to many Catholics like him to put too much stress on the secular and to lose focus on the Church’s spiritual mission.  Of course the fact that Consol Energy, a Pennsylvania energy company with interests in coal and natural gas production, is one of Santorum’s clients compromises the former’s Senator’s objectivity when it comes to developing a Christian response to the moral imperative of environmental responsibility.  Senator Santorum said that the Pope should limit himself to spiritual matters and leave science to the scientists.  The Pope has an advanced degree in the sciences; Santorum’s academic background is Political Science (“not a real science” as Sheldon Cooper would say) for undergraduate; a Masters in Business Administration, and a Juris Doctor (Law School Graduate).  But then Cardinal Burke says that men need to dress like men so as they say on the lower East Side: “Go figah.” 

Jeb Bush is another Catholic running for President who weighed in against Pope Francis’ teaching on the moral issues regarding the environment though he was a bit more respectful in his tone than Senator Santorum.  The former Florida governor and latest scion of the Bush dynasty to seek the White House said that he would not pass judgment until he read what the Pope wrote, but thinks that the purpose of religion was about making us better people and less about “things that end up getting in the political realm.”  Again we hear the whine of that that mild gnosticism. Well, while Poppy Bush was devilishly intelligent (adjective meant to be taken literally), his sons are somewhat dim bulbs who seem incapable of making the connections between moral imperatives and political agenda even when a Pope sent Cardinal Pio Laghi, a family friend of the Bushes, to explain it. 

But the issue about Francis bugging the conservatives is more fundamental than his call for a responsible use of our natural resources and protecting the environment.  The heart of the matter is probably best explained in this morning’s New York Time’s article where Michael McKenna, an energy lobbyist and Republican political consultant—and a self proclaimed “conservative Catholic”—said the following

“For practicing conservative Catholics, the folks who sit in the pews on Sunday, this is not going to be an indictment of guys like Rubio and Jeb,” Mr. McKenna said. “Those guys have already made up their minds on climate change. For the real churchgoers, this is going to be an indictment of the pope.

“This pope is selling a line of Latin American-style socialism,” he continued. “This guy is not in sync with the American Catholic Church. Guys like Jeb and Rubio are more in line with the American Catholic Church than the pope.”

This is the problem: not that the Pope is speaking out on the moral imperatives of environmental responsibility but that the Pope is making it clear that unbridled free-market capitalism and the raping of the earth’s resources and environment that is consequent to lack of governmental—and international—control is not compatible with our Catholic faith and morality.  While previous popes—Leo XIII, Pius XI, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI—have spoken out loud and clear about the moral imperatives of social responsibility, Francis still represents a startling discontinuity with his predecessors.  The break is not so much in the message—it would be difficult to find more explicit challenges to the industrial and economic status quo than Rerum Novarum or Mater et Magistra—as in the stance from which the position is being declared.  At the end of the day Francis’ predecessors went home to the Apostolic Palace and its courtly life.  Francis, in his very public rejection of the pontifical life style and his frayed sleeves and down-at-the-heels black shoes lets you know that despite that friendly smile and his donning the occasional clown’s nose for a photo, means business.  His merciless reforms at the Vatican Bank, his virtual sacking of opposition Cardinal Raymond Burke, his plain-spoken off-the-cuff remarks to the press, his calling to account of Bishops who have covered up sexual misconduct by their priests tells us that this encyclical isn’t going to be ceremonially delivered and then go away.  Republican members of Congress (and potential Presidential candidates) should start sweating now about his September address to a Joint Session of Congress.  (Not that he will let Democrats off the hook when it comes to the unborn and probably same-sex marriage.)  But it will be much harder for Republicans in the upcoming elections to revive the Karl Rove strategy of convincing Catholics that our true political home is in the GOP. 

Francis himself has said that his papacy will be short but there is no doubt that he will not leave the Church as he found it and his legacy will be a pain in the ass for advocates of the old order of things.  It is a risky business for Francis personally but for the Church it is a defining entry into the realities of applying the Gospel to our contemporary world.  Angels need no longer dance on the head of a pin ‘cause we ain’t countin’ no more.  

Catholic amd Democrat--The Roots Are Deep

When a Methodist gets money, he becomes an Episcopalian

When a Baptist gets money, he joins the Presbyterian Church.

The Rev, Samuel D.

Burdhard whose quip

that the Democrats

were the party of Rum,

Romanism and Rebellion

sealed the deal between
Catholics and the
Democratic Party

When a Catholic Priest is named a bishop

He becomes a Republican. 

Catholics have traditionally been Democrats—after all, the Democrats are the party of Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion. (See entry for March 7, 2011.) What has caused our hierarchy to shift to the Republicans?  And why is our laity not following?

I was shocked to see that according to a recent Pew survey, President Obama leads Governor Romney among Catholics 54% to 39%.   While the majority of African-American Catholics and Hispanic Catholics are strongly pro-Obama, a slight majority of White Catholics are now sliding into the Obama camp.  A clue to this surge might be found in the surveys that indicate that the one faction of the Catholic vote that is not weighted toward the President are the White Catholic weekly Mass-goers among whom Romney has a slight edge.  Some attribute this to weekly Mass-attendees being “more faithful” Catholics who are inclined to follow the leadership of their bishops.  While that may be true, the converse conclusion must then also be true: that there is a majority of White Catholics, including both those who attend Mass weekly and those who have stopped attending regularly, who have lost their confidence in the leadership of the bishops.    
What shocked me about the Pew Survey results is not that the majority of Catholics are not following the bishops’ lead, but that I would have thought that since the majority of (white) Catholics in this country have gradually slipped up into the better-off classes and are no longer among the working (labor union) class, that their politics would have turned as well from the traditional alliance between the Catholic Church and the Democratic party.  But they haven’t.  What are the reasons that they are staying locked in the Democratic Party?
It may be that despite their newly acquired relative affluence Middle and Upper Class Catholics are still convinced of the basic Catholic view of society as a cooperative unit in which those who have more have responsibility for those who have less. Catholic social teaching over the 120 years or so since Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum has embraced the idea that not only are individuals responsible for works of charity but that society itself has an obligation from each of its members towards all of its members.   This corporate view is at odds with Paul Ryan’s Ayn Rand views of a world in which each person must look out for his or her own interest first rather than for the “common good.”   It may be that the boomer generation of Catholics gratefully remember their parents’ stories of  the Church’s support for organized Labor in the years of the great depression and realize that without the boost that Catholic Social teaching—along with the Democratic New Deal and the G.I. Bill—gave their parents, they—the boomers—would not have had the social and educational opportunities that empowered them to make the jump into the Professional and Managerial classes.   It may also be—and given that the Catholic boost in the Obama ratings comes because of the non-weekly attendees—a sign that not only have the bishops become irrelevant to many of the Catholics-in-the-pews but there is actually a backlash against their leadership among those whose disaffection with the leadership of the last twenty years or so has made them indifferent towards formal Catholicism.  Given the recent scandals and the poor quality of Episcopal leadership this factor cannot be discounted.  As hard as the Timothy Dolans and Sean O’Malleys try to pedal forward the bike of American Catholicism, the number of foot-draggers on the bishops bicycle built for 450 (or whatever the number of American bishops) is holding back the advance of the Institutional Church.  O well, there may be grace in that too. 

Fractured Leadership in the Amerian Church -1

Francis Haas, 1889-1953, Bishop of

Grand Rapids who championed the

rights of the working classes

You might remember from earlier postings (particularly March 5, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17 and April 5, and 10) that there was a strong division in the American hierarchy at the end of the nineteenth century between the “American” party and the ultramontanes or Europeanists.  The Americanist party, led by Gibbons, Ireland, and O’Connell (of the North American College and later Richmond) wanted Catholicism in the United States to adapt itself to American cultural patterns.   In fact, the Americanists thought that the American experience of democratic government, freedom of religion, and social equality had something to teach the old European hierarchical, monarchical, and religiously bigoted nations.  Rome was not so sure.  Well—that isn’t the whole story.  Leo XIII was of two minds as we shall see in a minute.  More to the point of this entry, the Americanists  in pushing their agenda of how great American institutions are, got behind the labor unions and were very outspoken in defending the rights of the working class (largely Catholic and immigrant) from the machinations of the industrialists (largely Protestant and blue-blood).  The Ultramontanes, on the other hand—led by Corrigan and McQuaid, took up the cause of Capital and championed the Social and Political Establishment.  They were more than surprised—they were left naked out on a limb—when Leo XIII wrote Rerum Novarum and clearly outlined Church treaching on the rights of labor.   Of course, Leo would later write Testem Benevolentiae which did not retract any of the social program he had laid out in Rerum Novarum but which did make it clear that American ideas of democracy and religious freedom where not to be exported to fan the ideological flames European liberals, especially the French. 
     Through the course of the twentieth century the American hierarchy has usually been of two minds regarding social matters.  Gibbons and Ireland found their heirs in such liberal prelates as John McNicholas, (1877-1950) Francis Haas (1889-1953), Edward Mooney (1882-1958), Bernard Shiel (1888-1969) and Richard Cushing (1895-1970) to name the more prominent.   There were also Monsignors John Ryan (1868-1945), George Higgins (1916-2002), and Geno Baroni (1930-1984).  Somewhat behind the scenes and usually not recognized for their support of liberal social reform, should be mentioned Cardinals George Mundelein (1872-1939),  Francis Spellman (1889-1967) and Patrick O’Boyle (1896-1987).  A key to this list is to not confuse social liberals for theological liberals.  Many of these prelates, and the last three in particular, were anything but theological radicals but they were very effective in championing social reform in their day.  O'Boyle merits special note for his desegrating the Washington DC Catholic Institutions when he became the City's second Archbishop in 1948. 
     Corrigan and his party found their heirs as well.  Cardinals Glennon of Saint Louis (1862-1948) and McIntyre of Los Angeles  (1886-1979) along with Archbishop Thomas Toolen (1886-1976) were notorious opponents of social change in general and racial integration in particular.  William O’Connell (1859-1944) and Denis Dougherty (1865-1951) were champions of the old East Coast Establishment that had no room for “ill-bred paddies” like themselves.   Ironically, you can even move Spellman from the social progressives (which he was in general) and lump him with Corrigan’s heirs when it came to how he treated Archdiocesan employees who went out on strike—not holding himself to the same standards to which he held others.   But don't we all do that.
     By and large by the mid-twentieth century the American episcopacy was liberal on labor, cautious on civil rights, and staunchly opposed to the first signs of the sexual-revolution that would strike in the late ‘60’s.  In this they reflected the values of their flock which were still for the most part from labor rather than management.  When the Civil Rights movement picked up steam in the ‘60’s the Catholic Church was slow to get behind it—embarrassingly slow.  When the picture of the Greek Orthodox Primate, the should-be-sainted Archbishop Iakovos, appeared walking alongside Dr. Martin Luther King at Selma in 1965 some Catholic bishops finally woke up and realized that we had better stand with the righteous on that issue or we would be left on the moral low road.  As the anti-Vietnam War movement then gathered speed Catholic participation was all the more difficult because most bishops were terrified of the wrath of Francis, Cardinal Spellman, who was not only Archbishop of New York, but Archbishop for the American Military as well and who was not without influence in Rome.  His death in December 1967 paved the way for stronger hierarchical leadership in the anti-war movement.   Catholics, at least led by the hierarchy, were late in coming to both these causes, but come they did eventually. 
     The sexual revolution provided the greatest challenge to the leadership of the Church and it merits multiple entries of its own.  For this entry let us simply say that the American Bishops have stood consistently with conservative social values, reflecting the universal magisterium of the Church.  The early battles were about birth control with the 1968 Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, but as the decades have passed the sexual revolution has become ever more complex  dealing with abortion, in-vitro fertilization, surrogate parenting, homosexual rights, transgender issues,  same-sex marriage, genetic engineering and dozens of wrinkles in each of these topics and more.  As if that was not complicated enough, the issue of Gender Roles is not confined to matters sexual but has raised serious issues both within the without the Church as the traditional roles assigned to women and to men are not so clearly delineated anymore. 
    Other challenges have risen as well with end-of-life issues involving nutrition and hydration protocols, brain-death, assisted suicide and a host of incredibly complex questions.    The growing international condemnation of the Death Penalty has demanded moral response from Church leadership—a response that is often muted, whispered, actually non-existent.  The excesses of American wars ranging from Vietnam down through our various covert and not-so-covert operations in Latin America and beyond to Iraq I and II, Afghanistan, and the war on terror have all cried for moral commentary.  Then there are environmental issues that have serious moral aspects and consequences.  I am sure that the bishops would love to return to the simple days of supporting the rights of labor but the moral complexity of our society requires serious study and clear teaching.  So where is it? and why is it so slow in coming?

The Origins of Radical Catholicism VI: The Church and Labor Unions part 2

The late nineteenth century saw the rise of Labor Unions as the working classes in the United States, Canada, Australia, and several European nations developed strategies to protect themselves against the exploitation that was making many of their employers rich.  Indeed American society had a numerically small but very wealthy upper class whose money was being made in industry, transportation, and exploitation of natural resources along with a moderately small middle class of professionals, a “survival class” of rural family farmers, and an immense poor class made of urban industrial workers.  When one sees the great mansions of Newport or the Philadelphia “Mainline” and contrasts them with the urban tenements that blighted so many American cities especially in the Northeast and Great Lakes regions, the discrepancy is truly shocking.  What is even more amazing  is that the urban poor accepted their situation with relative complacency while the rich ensconced themselves in their fashionable churches—mostly Episcopalian and Presbyterian—with nary a pang of conscience.  Christianity of every sort—Catholic and Protestant—simply did not question the existing social structures, and when clergymen did raise questions, as Father McGlynn had, they found themselves in very hot water indeed and from their bishops, not from outside the Church.  Even as the Irish bishops sided with the English landlords against their own poor faithful who were the tenant farmers on the English and Anglo-Irish estates, the majority of American bishops failed in their responsibility to look out for the temporal welfare of the vast majority—probably 80 percent—of their faithful.  Of course the majority of bishops, while coming from working class families—or like Dennis Dougherty who would become Archbishop of Philadelphia in 1918) had himself worked in the coal mines as a boy—were setting themselves up in fine mansions in the better neighborhoods of their See cities.  Labor Unions were seen to be socialist, even communist.  They threatened the rights of property.  The poor were to be the objects of charity not the reason for social reform. 

An exception to these establishment bishops was James Gibbons of Baltimore.  He was an unlikely exception in many ways.  He was every bit as much a prince-bishop as Corrigan was or O’Connell and Dougherty would be.   In fact, unlike a number of mitered pigs’ ears who fancied themselves to be silk purses, his manners were naturally genteel without being affected and he moved comfortably in the best circles.  The few other liberals in the hierarchy were not particularly interested in the issues of labor.  Of course Ireland was in the Midwest where most of his sheep were safely grazing on the farms of Minnesota.  O’Connell was still in Rome directing the seminarians at the North American.  Moore was in Florida—not an industrial area.  But when Archbishop Taschereau of Quebec attacked the Knights of Labor and declared its Catholic members excommunicate, Gibbons—like a mad dog awakened from his sleep by a trespassing cat—went straining at his chains to attack the Quebec prelate and let it be known that Knights of Labor in his diocese were perfectly free to continue as Catholics in good standing. 

Taschereau had no right, of course, to make rules for Catholics beyond his Archdiocese but he did not see himself as exercising a universal jurisdiction.  His ban was based on what he perceived to be the universal magisterium declared by popes and councils through the centuries that had defended the right of private property and condemned any form of socialism that threatened that right. 

Archbishops Taschereau and Gibbons received their red cardinalatial hats in the same 1886 consistory.  In fact they sailed over to Rome on the same ship.  They probably weren’t shipboard dinner partners as the atmosphere between them was rather chilly—or hot, depending on how you see things.  Taschereau’s complaints about Gibbons’ public disagreement led to the Pope’s taking the question to himself. 

Leo’s conclusion could clearly be foreseen--or so it was thought.  Leo was aristocratic and doctrinally quite conservative.  Taschereau was consistent with previous teaching.  It came as quite a shock, therefore when Leo published his encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891.  Leo did affirm the traditional right to private property and he condemned communism but he said that while the individual had the right to private property the state had the right to regulate it in the interest of the common good.  He also condemned unregulated capitalism.  And, most germane to Gibbon’s argument with Taschereau, he defended the rights of labor to organize.  He viewed the labor of the worker as a commodity that the worker brings to the production even as the owner provides the capital. 

This was a dramatic turn-about in Catholic social thought.  The economic and political establishment could no longer count on the Church’s unrestricted support.  Prelates like Corrigan of New York who had totally opposed the Church’s support of the working class were blindsided—it may be one of the reasons that Corrigan never got a Cardinal’s hat, the last Archbishop of New York to go so bareheaded to his crypt.  I think more important it secured the loyalty of the working class to the Church.  The workers knew that while their bishop and their employer might still enjoy a glass of port togehter on the terrace of one or the other's mansion,  the pope had blessed their struggle for a just wage.  But this wasn’t the end.  Nor is this the end of the thread on the Radicalization of Catholicism. 

The image today is Cardinal Gibbons  

History in the Making--Catholic voice in America today

History is not only the past--it is an awareness we bring to the present.  Even as the recent series i have been writing on Is Vatican II in Danger is History-as-it-happens, there are other things going on as well in which we can see History, and here History of Catholic America--unfolding.  I have recently received the following letter.  I have edited it slightly to take out the more partisan passages (as much as I could without hurting the substance of the letter) but it gives some interesting reflection on the tradition of the Catholic Church in regards to the Rights of Labor as it comes into conflict with contemporary events. 

Dear Friends,

The union-busting legislation of the new Republican Wisconsin Governor, Scott Walker, has dominated the headlines for several weeks now. By his own words, the Jesuit-educated Walker has acknowledged a hidden agenda, to diminish the collective bargaining rights of teachers, nurses, snowplow drivers and other state workers, with the ultimate intent of breaking the union. This former county commissioner, in a now notorious prank interview, compared himself to Ronald Reagan and said, "This is our moment, this is our time to change the course of history."

Walker's "moment in history" - paralleling actions taken by Republican governors in other states - marks the beginning of an ambitious movement to systematically dismantle a century of social progress.  As Catholics, we must respond to all those who trample these American values, borne out of the Catholic Social Tradition. Your help is needed today, and into the future, to embark on a crusade of sorts ...for the common good.    

The right of labor to organize - and collectively bargain - is a foundational principal of Catholic Social Justice, first enshrined in Pope Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical, Rerum Novarum. It has been further developed and amplified for over a century by popes, bishops and theologians. Most recently, Pope Benedict XVI addressed labor rights in his 2009 encyclical, Caritas in Veritate.  

Emboldened with an over-reaching confidence from the midterm elections, and led by the one-size-fits-all budget slashing Tea Party philosophy, other states with Republican governors and legislative majorities are in the process of passing similar union busting legislation. Ohio and Idaho are two of the states in a second wave of this ambush. Some Republican led state houses, including those in Indiana, Tennessee, and Florida, appear to be scrutinizing the outcome in Wisconsin before acting. It is also reported that Missouri, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, Maine and Pennsylvania are also considering legislation to limit worker's rights.

With the support of progressives, labor unions have taken a stand for justice in response to Walker's bad faith efforts (he did not campaign on breaking the union).  The views of the American public have become clear.  At least three public opinion polls (USA / Gallup,  Greenberg Quinlan Rossner, NY Times / CBS) have shown that both the citizens of  Wisconsin and people across the country support Labor's right to collectively bargain, by a margin of at least 27%, averaging 60% in support versus 33% in opposition.

At the same time, the Wisconsin Catholic bishops and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have also weighed in. The Wisconsin Catholic Conference has issued a statement that supports labor's right to organize, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has spoken out in solidarity with the Wisconsin bishops.  In the USCCB Statement, Bishop Stephen Blaire of the Diocese of Stockton CA says, "these are not just political conflicts or economic choices; they are moral choices with enormous consequences. The debates over worker ... collective bargaining are not simply matters of ideology or power, but involve principles of justice, participation and how workers can have a voice in the workplace and economy." 

The turmoil in Wisconsin and other States coincides with the budget battles in Washington DC. House Republicans are in a "fire, ready, aim" mode, seeking draconian federal budget cuts that do nothing to address the nation's long-term budget problem, yet cut programs for the most vulnerable in our society today. Speaker of the House and fellow Catholic, John Boehner, speaks of "moral responsibilities" while proposing budget cuts that would eliminate $7.6 billion in support to women and children (the WIC program), $2.5 billion in home heating oil subsidies for the poor, and $4.1 billion on job training programs, to name just a few. These symbolic cuts - which could be paid for by closing corporate loopholes - are not only an assault on the common good, and presumably the morality that Boehner wants to preserve, but are also bad economic policy. The investment bank of Goldman Sachs and conservative economist Mark Zandi of Moody's, who advised John McCain in his bid for the presidency, have projected these cuts would actually hurt the economy and job creation, let alone the people whom it is supposed to serve.

The Massachusetts Catholic Conference has issued a statement in support of working families and the poor that reflects their concerns for the budget cutting frenzy going on across our nation.  The Massachusetts bishops make a pledge to "do all we can ...to help our neighbor's in need." They plead for elected officials, such as John Boehner and all citizens to preserve "for the sake of human dignity, a special place for the vulnerable ...for whom the destination of every dollar is now so consequential."

The union-breaking legislation and the federal budget cuts House Republicans are demanding place an unacceptable and unnecessary burden on working families and the poor. Helping put this in its proper perspective, Newt Gingrich - likely presidential candidate and recent convert to Catholicism who proposed Republicans use the slogan "Jobs not Food Stamps" in the 2010 midterm congressional campaign - has coined the term "replacement conservatism" to describe this multi-front Republican assault on the common good, or as he sees it, on liberalism.

Walker's "moment" in history, Boehner's judgment on "moral responsibility," and Gingrich's "replacement conservatism" represent the strategic zeal brought to a political war being waged by ideologically conservative free marketers. Their goal - under the guise of liberty - is to roll back the social justice progress that defines our nation's growth over the past century. If successful, they would reshape our country and economy to put corporate interests and those of the wealthy first, rather than to serve the needs of people. They do so unapologetically at a point in time when we are facing record poverty and a concentration of wealth that has never been greater. 

If ever there was a time for patriotic social justice Catholics to fight for what we believe in, this is that time. So, we must mobilize our collective efforts like never before and embark on a crusade for the common good. 

What you can do:

1.     If you have a governor or legislature threatening to limit the rights of labor to bargain collectively, call or e-mail them to let them know you support the collective bargaining rights of public employees. Please keep us apprised of your efforts and of what is going on in your state.

2.     Contact your bishop and tell them that you support the Wisconsin Catholic Conference's and the USCCB's statements in support of the public employee's labor unions. Their influence is important in the public square. Ask them to consider doing the same if your state is facing a labor busting bill and to also consider issuing a statement similar to the one issued by the Massachusetts bishops in support of the poor. Please advise us if you learn that your bishops have issued the statement that we are urging them to make.

Thank you for your continued support. Let us all keep one another in our prayers this Lenten Season, particularly our elected officials and those most in need, as we work in pursuit of a more just society.

With warm regards,

Patrick Whelan MD PhD

Suzanne Morse

Lisa Schare 

Steve Krueger

 The image today is Pope Leo XIII whose encyclical letter Rerum Novarum--issued 110 years ago still has much to say for our Catholic values today