Charity in Truth

The Seven Themes of Catholic Social Teaching are sometimes called the church's best kept secret. I have a theory about that. When we talk about them we often use abstract terms like solidarity, subsidiarity, man's dignity, and option for the poor and vulnerable. We know what those concepts are but we have to stop and think about them. They aren't words and phrases we use in ordinary conversation or necessarily see application for in everyday life, and they can serve to obscure more than clarify.

US bishops say that if we really want to understand Catholic Social Teaching we should read the foundation documents, mostly papal encyclicals and conciliar documents from the Vatican. But these documents would put most of us to sleep. The men who write them are theologians and they write in language designed for the consumption of other theologians, a language very difficult for laymen like me to understand. I can get through it but it takes some effort.

In theory it is the task of bishops to interpret these ideas for their flocks. They have done well in some areas, most notably in respect for human life from conception to natural death, less well in others like man's entitlement to a life of dignity as a creature made in God's image. But all of this teaching is important for us to understand if we are to work for genuine justice in this world.

Caritas in Veritate is a case in point. Pope Benedict XVI is trying to get us to broaden our view of a subject we think we already understand. We all know what charity is, right? Well no, not according to Benedict. In truth charity is far more than alms giving, donating to worthy causes, and doing nice things for people. He begins by citing the perfect example of charity, Jesus' death and resurrection. Now that's a pretty heavy concept and Benedict is just getting started. He goes on to develop a number of themes that I frankly have trouble getting my arms around. At the risk of over simplifying I'm going to try to lay some of them out in words I can understand.

Benedict equates charity with love, and God is love, still too deep for me but he goes on to define it as love of neighbor. Easier for me to handle. We all know we are commanded to love our neighbor, especially the poor and vulnerable. When we love someone we wish them well and do what we reasonably can to see to it they do well. So far so good.

The pope then turns to truth. There are two sources of truth; faith and reason. He says Jesus is truth. There he goes again. Benedict has done this before. He likes to use the word "logos," the Greek word John used in the opening of his gospel, usually translated as "the word." In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. There is a lot of theology here I don't fully understand but I've heard it often enough I can accept it as a matter of faith.

Here is where I am. Charity in truth is love of neighbor through faith and reason. I don't quite yet have this down.

Benedict refers repeatedly to Populorum Progressio, Pope Paul VI's encyclical on the development of people. Charity in truth leads to authentic development of the whole man and every man. The whole man includes body, mind, and soul. Authentic charity leads to progress in the complete development of people and the communities they live in. A healthy man or woman has a fully developed body, intellect, and relationship with God. A healthy community offers an environment that is conducive to that development. True charity fosters that development and those sorts of communities. It is the responsibility of us all, as individuals, families, communities, and nations to work toward justice in true charity.

OK, I think I'm ready to read Caritas in Veritate again.

More on Families

Lynne and I served as sponsors for  candidates in this year's RCIA class. We met every week from September through the Easter season. One of the candidates at my table was a man I had known for more than thirty years but had never known very well. We watched each other's children grow up. I was surprised he wasn't Catholic because he has always been a regular at Mass. He also obviously has a strong marriage. That was enough for me to form a positive image of him and consider him a friend, a brother in Christ if you will. I enjoyed getting to know him better through RCIA.

Strong marriages are pretty much the norm our circles. Through the years there have been divorces among our friends of course, and in our family. But they have been the exception. My own marriage has had its rough spots but has survived, so far. I guess I should consider myself fortunate.

I came across some truly alarming statistics this week. Just 36% of adult Americans think a successful marriage is one of the most important things in life. 51% of children born to women under thirty have unmarried mothers. Most black women will be single parents at some point.

The rise in single parent households seems a mostly American phenomenon. Birth rates are down in Europe and so are marriages. But when a child is born it is usually to a couple who are if not married at least living together in a long term relationship. Here cohabiting couples typically split by the time a child is five years old. It makes a difference if only economically. For a family in or near poverty the addition of a second income, even a low income, has a big impact.

I'm not sure what the difference is here but it is worrisome. Sociologists say a child, even a child born into poverty, has a 75% chance of making it into the middle class if he does three things; graduate high school, marry,  and wait until 21 to have children. A child raised in a single parent household is much less likely to do those things. We may be creating a large persistent multigenerational under class.

The most perplexing part of this is the seeming indifference. How can people think marriage isn't that big a deal? Of course it is a big deal! One of the highest compliments I ever got was from my daughter. We were having a serious talk about where her life was going and she told me what she really wanted was what I had. She meant a strong marriage and family.

Marriage may be more important than some of us realize. Several years ago I was working in Germany, commuting essentially with three weeks there, a week home, and back again. On a couple of those trips instead of me coming home Lynne joined me there. They were wonderful trips and we have great memories. The first time she came I was staying in a city I wasn't particularly enjoying. I found the people a bit dour. But when Lynne came people lit up. Waiters and hotel clerks that hadn't looked me in the eye before were suddenly giving us big hellos, bright smiles, and asking about our day. The change was remarkable and persisted after Lynne left. I don't know who or what those people thought I was before they saw Lynne, but because of my marriage I had become respectable, someone they were glad to see. I think it speaks volumes about our attitudes toward the most fundamental institution in any society.

Oh, and my early impressions of my friend from RCIA? Spot on.

Empty Places

How does someone so vacuous as Gail Collins get to be a columnist for the New York Times? Is hers what passes for intellect in New York these days? She has a column, reprinted in yesterday’s Dallas Morning News, trying to make the point that "the tea party is so Empty Places (sic) and "Texas [is] the  New Empty (sic). Unlike people who live in crowded places like New York Texans "don't see the point" of having a government "that sets boundaries on public behavior, protects [us] from burglars and cleans the streets.

I have lived in Texas forty years now so most of the people I know are Texans. It might surprise Ms Collins that all of the Texans I know do indeed expect government to set boundaries on public behavior, protect us from burglars, and clean the streets. I don't own a gun. I don't think I need one for protection, that's what we have police for. Two years ago when a trip line came up in the sidewalk in front of my house I called the city and they came out and fixed it. I don't even mind paying my homeowner's taxes. They aren't that high.

It is Ms Collins who misses the point. The tea party is objecting to government excess; excessive spending, debt, and regulation. I'm not necessarily a tea party supporter but I have to agree with them to some degree. Government, at least at the federal level has grown too big, too expensive, and too intrusive.

My parish is a member of Dallas Area Interfaith, an organization that advocates for community issues including funding for more police officers in Dallas. DAI has an iron rule; never, ever do something for someone when they can do it themselves. Catholics call it the principle of subsidiarity; decisions and actions should be taken at the lowest level competent to take them, individual, family, community, state, or what ever. Individuals cannot effectively police their neighbors. That is a city responsibility. Air quality affects everyone and should be regulated at the highest level practical. Reasonable men and women can disagree on exactly when that regulation becomes excessive. Organizations like DAI and the tea party are formed quite properly so that like minded citizens can try to influence government policy. But individuals decide for themselves where to live, whether and whom to marry, what career to pursue. Parents have primary responsibility for educating their children, and should have more say than they often do in where and what they are taught.

Ms Collins is engaged in blatant Texas and tea party bashing. She contributes nothing to the discussion of the underlying issues. The editors of the New York Times and the Dallas Morning News know all this. Publishing this drivel ill  becomes both newspapers. That they sometimes print reciprocal sarcasm from the right doesn't provide balance. It only contributes to the  incivility.

The sad part is that we do have serious issues to discuss and the discussion is being lost in a shouting match. Whether the subject is the scourge of abortion, the tragic rise in single parent households, a dysfunctional conflict between the rights of citizens and the common good, a maddening increase in poverty in our community, the dehumanizing effect of joblessness, the unprecedented challenges of globalization, or the very real dangers seven billion people present to the planet, there are things we really ought to be thinking through. The sort of punditry set out by Ms Collins and her ilk from left and right is less than helpful.

We should expect better from a media we once respected. I don't know where the conversation we need is going to come from but it isn't likely to come from them. 

War on Families

US Catholic bishops think the American family is under assault. I think they are right, and not just from same sex unions.

The Department of agriculture just announced the average annual cost of raising a child ranges from $12,290 to $14,320.  Young people saddled with staggering student loan debts are already deferring decisions on things like marriage and buying a house. Those who think about such things will wonder where they are going to get a half million dollars to raise two children to age eighteen, and maybe another half million or more to send them to college. The relatively large families of the past are simply not affordable for any but the most affluent. That we don't often see them even there speaks to other priorities but that is for another discussion.

Add cost to rampant divorce and teen pregnancy and the bishops are right to be concerned. The traditional family is being stressed. We are creating conditions where we will at the same time bring fewer children into two parent households, and more to single parents. That's not good. Not only do children need the two parents environment, single parent families are much more likely to be poor. Children may sometimes have to go without other things they need.

This is far more than a "values" issue. The most fundamental function of any society is to produce the next generation and prepare it for adulthood. The society that gets this wrong is dysfunctional and we are getting it wrong.

We aren't the only nation facing serious demographic issues. The decline in Japanese and European birth rates has been well chronicled. We certainly don't want to follow them down that road and our rising population has been a bright spot, even if much of it is due to immigration.

It seems to me we are seeing some of the same financial pressures on families that other developed countries have seen, and we have begun to see similar results. Shouldn't we all be asking if there is something we should do about it? Are there things we could do to encourage young couples to marry, stay married, and have children? Don't most people want that lifestyle? Is anything more natural? Are there things we could and should do to reduce the costs?

There are lots of places to look. Education costs have been rising faster than inflation for many years with disappointing results. There have been some promising innovations, particularly at the el-hi level with charter schools and vouchers. Less has been done with higher education. Too many graduates are coming away with far too much debt and near worthless degrees. That has got to change.

Urban living is showing some promise too. There are some interesting trends in the gentrification of what once were slums. Maybe we could encourage more of that, but careful. There have been a lot of spectacular failures in urban renewal.

I'm not sure government has much role to play in addressing the rise in single parent households, though education should certainly be a factor. Religious leaders could be doing more than they are, especially in preparing young people for marriage. We could probably all, especially media and the arts, do a better job getting them into church in the first place. This is a cultural matter more than anything else and it will need a cultural answer. It also appears to be uniquely American. I don't see it happening in other countries. 

We really need to address this issue. I believe it is, save only abortion, the great domestic social concern of our day. If we don't get it right America really is in long term decline. The weakened family will lead the way.

The Church on International  Trade

Our Church has what seems to me an ambivalent attitude toward international trade, the social activity which in my view has the greatest potential for moving large numbers of people out of poverty and into the middle class. Nothing has made a greater contribution toward that in the years since WWII than the phenomenal increase in global trade. The church acknowledges that but grudgingly, choosing to focus on potential abuses. It's odd when you consider that none of the themes in Catholic Social Teaching, save only Life and Dignity of the Human Person, gets more emphasis than the Preferential Option for the Poor and Vulnerable. US Bishops say that a basic moral test for society is how we treat the most vulnerable in our midst.

The poor need more than increasing prosperity to be sure but it's a great beginning and nothing promotes prosperity more than trade.

The USCCB mentions trade in its goals for political life, but only in passing reference to overcoming poverty. Trade is listed along with development assistance and debt relief.

The bishops lobby congress on trade issues but doesn't take positions for or against specific agreements. I'm not sure why. They haven't hesitated to take positions on other proposals with moral dimensions. Witness the recent health care bill or the DREAM act. When congress took up legislation last year on three trade agreements the bishops directly addressed only the one with Colombia, and really only to express concern, especially for the rural poor, small farmers, the large number of people displaced by years of strife, and the ongoing violence in Colombia. They quoted Pope Benedict's comment that trade can be good for everyone, and wished the committees well in their work but offered no specific suggestions for the legislation. They adopted a similar posture on agreements with Peru in 2006, and on CAFTA before that.

I wish they would be more proactive. There are provisions that can be written into these agreements to address flaws in things like labor rights, agricultural subsidies, and environmental concerns. The church is right to advocate for those provisions. But more trade at lower tariffs is generally a good thing. It is the most effective tool around for fighting poverty and is one of the few levers we have to address the root causes of illegal immigration, another priority for the USCCB. We should be promoting more trade and promoting it loudly.

So far as I can tell the church has been largely silent on current negotiations for the nine nation Trans Pacific Partnership, though the Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers in Houston are members of the Texas Fair Trade Coalition, a blatantly protectionist organization comprised primarily of organized labor. It's a shame. I wouldn't like to leave the impression that our support for fair trade means we oppose most other forms of trade. We would be in a better position to influence TPP if we were on the inside advocating for the provisions we most want to see in it. I don't see how standing on the sidelines making generalized pronouncements on moral issues helps much.

The Vatican could do more too. I didn't hear much from them last year as the Doha round of global trade talks died a whimpering death. The WTO is the one global organization with mechanisms in place to negotiate trade rules and enforce them. Russia and China have been forced to implement human rights reforms to get membership. Imperfect true, but those are better places to live than before the WTO came along.

The WTO can be a positive influence too in regulating international affairs as we proceed with globalization, something Pope Benedict has repeatedly expressed concern about as the nation state increasingly finds its powers limited. The Pope thinks the UN is the proper forum for that. He's wrong. The WTO would be a better place to start.

The Missing Theme - Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers

"Workers also have responsibilities - to provide a fair day's work for a fair day's pay, to treat employers and co-workers with respect, and to carry out their work in ways that contribute to the common good." Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship (52)

It is one of the Seven Themes of Catholic Social Teaching. It was the principal subject of Rerum Novarum, the first of the great papal encyclicals on social justice. Writing in 1893, Pope Leo XIII addressed the great social issue of his day, the right of workers to organize. The industrial revolution was still young, the ideas of Karl Marx and Frederich Engels were all the rage, and the Russian Revolution was just around the corner.

But in 2011, in their quadrennial call for political responsibility in advance of the US presidential election, American bishops barely mentioned the rights and responsibilities of organized labor. It's a shame. The topic may not carry the drama or the historic impact it did in 1893 but it is again being called into question, most notably in the Wisconsin recall election for Gov. Scott Walker.

It's time the bishops took another look. The questions aren't just ideological, they are moral and practical. What happens when employees abuse their rights and ignore their responsibilities? More than one company has gone out of business because rising labor costs made them uncompetitive. Who benefits from that? Do public employees have the same rights as those in the private sector? That was the question in Wisconsin. What about off-shoring? Do the benefits to workers in underdeveloped countries outweigh the costs to those who lose their jobs? These are major questions of justice in a world that is changing rapidly. Shouldn't the church have more to say?

Union membership has been in decline in the US for as long as I can remember, in no small measure through the unions' own doing. When I was in school I subscribed to the New York Herald Tribune and later the New York Journal American. By 1966 they were both in financial trouble and tried to lower costs by combining operating facilities with two other newspapers. Unions struck to block the merger and within a few years all four newspapers failed.

When airline deregulation came in 1978 proud Eastern Airlines found itself beset with no-frills competition. When they tried to respond their machinists union balked and partly as a result of the ensuing strike the airline declared bankruptcy in 1989. Two years later they sold all their assets to make partial payments to lenders. Thousands lost their jobs.

Last year organized labor tried and failed to eliminate the secret ballot in union votes, a brazen effort to put themselves in position to intimidate employees. Their allies at the NLRB also tried and failed to block the opening of a major new Boeing assembly plant in South Carolina, because South Carolina is a right-to-work state.

The current economic slowdown has made it obvious in a wave of cities and states across the country that negotiated salaries and benefits for public employees are not sustainable. Promised pensions will have to be cut. It has become clear that unions have not been working for the common good. They have not even working for their own best interest.

The United States needs a strong organized labor sector and we are losing it quickly. To turn that around will require some serious reforms. That in turn will require a cooperative spirit among management, labor, and government, something popes since Leo XIII have been calling for but has been largely absent. The USCCB could and should be a temperate voice in rebuilding some broken relationships.