The Seventh Commandment

Thou shalt not Steal

Private property and Universal Destination of Goods are like love and marriage. You can't have one without the other. If we take another's property without justification or permission we are stealing. If we, individually or collectively, deny another access to what is rightfully his we are also stealing. If we use our private property to deny that access we are stealing. And we are all, by right of birth, entitled to the free and un-encumbered access to God's creation, to till it, care for it, make it productive, earn a living from it, enjoy it, and pass it on to our heirs more valuable than when we found it. We are more than entitled, we are duty bound.

There are important limits to private property rights, principally having to to with necessity, or the common good. The protagonist in Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, Jean Valjean, stole bread to feed his sister's hungry children. He committed a crime but no sin. He paid dearly and unjustly with nineteen years in the galleys.

In contrast the wealthy Hollywood magnate who owns waterfront property in Malibu and puts up fences, a fake garage, and phony No Parking signs to deny public access to the beach commits both sin and crime. It's against the law. That the state doesn't enforce it is also an injustice.

Not that there is anything inherently wrong with wealth, even great wealth. I don't envy Ross Perot his billions. Well maybe a little but in amassing those billions he also created thousands of jobs, well paying jobs. One of those jobs was mine. Perot didn't do that out of charity, though he is an active philanthropist, he profited from my labor but so did I. That was justice. My job enabled me to support a family.

We are a wealthy nation but we don't always use that wealth for the common good. When a labor union official negotiates a contract that protects union jobs and salaries but makes it more difficult for others to find work he is taking from others something that is rightfully theirs. When a lobbyist for agribusiness negotiates special protection for a favored crop at the expense of third world farmers, both he and the official who cooperates with him are stealing from those poor farmers, and from American citizens.

There are times when government can and should step in. That intervention can be and often is misguided so careful public oversight is needed, but when factories are spewing pollution they should be stopped. And the plight of third world farmers isn't always the fault of American agribusiness. It is often the result of poor governance at home.

There are some things we can do about it, at home and abroad. Better education and vocational training should be priorities. Good jobs are going unfilled for lack of skilled applicants. We may have gone too far in allowing employers to implement massive layoffs with impunity, particularly among older workers. We might want to rethink some of that.

The big opportunity internationally is in trade negotiations. They have been factors in establishing an improved world wide rule of law that has helped billions of the world's poor to lift themselves into the middle class. The more of that we do the better.

It is in our enlightened self interest. Prosperous trading partners are the life blood of commerce. It is also an obligation. We have the wherewithal to see to it a lot more people have access to meaningful work and the prosperity and dignity that come with it, dignity we are are all entitled to as creatures made in God's image. Not to do what we reasonably can to enable it is theft.

The End of Poverty

In 1950 the world's population stood at just over 2.5 billion people, about half of them living in extreme poverty, generally defined today as subsisting on less than $1.25 per day. By the end of 2011, with the population over 7 billion, the poorest of the poor amounted to about 1.1 billion according to the World Bank, the agency that measures such things. That represents a sizable reduction in absolute numbers, and a stunning achievement in percentage terms.

We don't have that kind of poverty in the United States. We have our issues with homelessness and food insecurity but the Department of Agriculture sets the poverty level here at an income of about $64 per day for a family of four. That is misleading because a family that poor often qualifies for subsidized housing, food, health care, and other benefits that aren't counted as income.

But in parts of India and Africa the poverty is real and it is desperate. Families are not properly fed, housed, or clothed. They don't have access to clean drinking water, sanitation, basic health care, or rudimentary education. It doesn't have to be like that. Where that kind of destitution exist the reasons are generally political. Poor governance accounts for most of the intractable poverty that still exists.

For proof, look around the globe at the regions that are no longer called third world. China, most of East Asia, and Latin America have all made enormous strides. How? They cleaned up some of the worst corruption, adopted rule of law, opened up markets, and invested in infrastructure like electricity, roads and water works. They educated their children and got out of the way so people could help themselves. Many of them have a ways to go before they achieve western living standards but their problems look a lot more manageable than they did a few decades ago.

It can happen in India and Africa too, the two regions where the numbers are the most imposing. The UN's Millennial Development Goals, set in 2000, expire in 2015 and new ones will be drawn up over the next year or so. The Economist has suggested one of them should be to move another billion people above the extreme poverty line. That's an ambitious goal but it could be done. Maybe we could even define poverty up a bit as we have in the United States.

There are some practical things we can do to help. Some of them we are already doing, but we can do more. Anti-malaria campaigns have done a lot of good. So have aids treatment programs. Catholic Relief Services and other NGOs have had good success with Fair Trade.

But I think the real heavy lifting will be done with good old fashioned liberal capitalism.  We've done a lot to tear down international trade barriers but the benefits don't always reach the poorest of the poor. We can include in our negotiations measures to see that they do. We can also pay a little more attention to Africa and India. Neither are included in the major trade deals currently under discussion. They should be. Prosperous Indians and Africans are in our strategic and economic best interests.

If we offer the right incentives, it is reasonable to expect our trading partners to implement reforms. Russia did. So did China. Neither is a Jeffersonian Democracy today but both are better places to live than they were a few years ago. It is my observation that liberal democracy normally follows economic prosperity, not the other way around.

We may have it in our grasp to all but eliminate the worst of global poverty within our lifetimes. Wouldn't it be nice to leave our grand children a better world than we inherited?    

Francis on the Preferential Option for the Poor

395...The preferential option for the poor demands that we devote special attention to those Catholic professional people who are responsible for the finances of nations, those who promote employment, and politicians who must create conditions for the economic development of countries, so as to give them ethical guidelines consistent with their faith. From the CELAM Aparecida Document

Concern for the poor has been the most persistent theme of Francis' young papacy and it is evident in the Aparecida document. References aren't just sprinkled throughout, the work is laced with them. I can see why. Far more than any other modern pope, Francis has literally lived among the poor. By all accounts he has been a regular visitor to the slums of Argentina throughout his priesthood.

Francis doesn't just commiserate with the poor, he looks for ways to help them lift themselves out of poverty. He doesn't call for massive wealth transfers but nor does he hesitate to lambast corporate officials and others who put greed and profit ahead of the common good. These people have fiscal responsibilities to more than faceless stockholders and their own selfish interests. The poor are stake holders too!

But the CELAM Bishops are careful to offer credit where it is due. They make it a point complement officials and business owners on the work they do in creating jobs and promoting the dignity of workers.

Francis sees the concentration of land ownership among a wealthy few, so common in parts of Latin America, as a moral outrage.  Private property rights must be respected but where they are used as obstacles to the common progress, then the rights of the poor must be represented. Governments must step in with needed land reforms.

Not all development is rapacious. Based on the Aparecida Document, our new pope wants to see natural resources, including the mighty Amazon, developed to the benefit of all, especially in the creation of jobs and new wealth for people who live near and are dependent on them. The church has a role to play in spelling out the common good, and the needs of the poor. So do Catholic lay men and women with well formed consciences working within respective development agencies.

Same thing with international trade. The CELAM Bishops want more of it and they want to be sure the benefits accrue to the common good. As with development of natural resources they see prominent roles for themselves and lay Catholics in making that happen.

It isn't just the CELAM Bishops. The heads of the national conferences of Catholic Bishops from the Group of 8 Nations have sent a joint letter to G8 heads of state urging them to consider issues of special interest at their upcoming meeting in Ireland. The Bishops voice concerns about agriculture, nutrition, trade, transparency, and tax evasion. Did you know citizens have a moral obligation to pay their fair share of taxes for the common good? The letter cites concerns and commitments for the poor voiced by Pope Francis in both his inaugural homily and in his Easter message.

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/poverty/global/upload/2013-G8-Letter.pdf

Popes at least since Leo XIII have expressed special concern for the poor. John Paul II expropriated the term Preferential Option for the Poor and Vulnerable from Liberation Theology. Not everything about Liberation Theology was bad. But I get the sense that Francis is different. He is more intense, more willing to speak out on sometimes controversial issues, more willing to get in the face of powerful politicians and demand justice. The more I hear from him the more encouraged I am.

Francis on the Church in Public Life

"504. Whether out of an exaggerated old-fashioned laicism, or an ethical relativism proposed as the foundation of democracy, powerful groups claim seek (sic) to reject any presence and contribution from the Church in the public life of nations, and pressure it to retire to church buildings and its “religious” services. Conscious of the distinction between political community and religious community, the basis for a healthy secularity, the Church will not shrink from being concerned for the common good of peoples, especially for the defense of ethical principles that are non- negotiable because they are rooted in human nature." From the Aparecida Document.

"...political commitment needs to be reconsidered... believers and non-believers must work together to promote a society in which injustices can be overcome and each person welcomed and given the chance to use their own personal skills to contribute to the common good.” Pope Francis speaking to Italian President Napolitano on June 8

I think it's  a safe bet Francis will not be an inward looking pope. He's right about the powerful groups. We hear them in our parish. Whether the issue is health care for the indigent, immigration reform, or dialog with Muslims there are those who object, often loudly. Some of them are my friends. They don't think we should be doing those things.

We've always had the support of our bishops, and at least the tacit approval of our pastor, but I'm not sure what they really teach in the seminary. Newly ordained priests don't seem to rank social justice very high in their priorities, or even know much about it. So far as I know ours is the only parish in Collin County with an active Social Justice Ministry. In the fifty years since Vatican II I have heard precious little from the pulpit on the subject beyond birth control and abortion. We can't blame that on "old fashioned laicism." Francis has some work to do getting clergy behind him as well.

Including bishops. Our bishops have enormous power and prestige. If parish priests don't place a big priority on social justice it is a reasonable conclusion their bishops don't either. But who am I to tell bishops what to do? Maybe Francis will tell them.

Actually we do quite a lot, even if much of it is simple charity, not the sort that will lead to recipients standing on their own. Far too little is controversial. There are some important exceptions. Catholic Relief Services does some really good work with Fair Trade, and with offering basic health care to the worlds poor. But their budget is only about $725 million or so, a fraction of the need. Some US bishops refuse to support even that, not allowing their dioceses to participate in the annual CRS Collection. CRS often works with groups they don't approve of. Fortunately CRS has access to other private donations and government grants.

It is governments that have the resources for heavy lifting in this work, and Francis wants to see more involvement from the church, lay and clerical. He will get some push back but this may be the area where we can do the most good. He wants more involvement for example in international trade negotiations, always of course with an eye out for the poor and excluded. The Vatican and the USCCB both already do that but neither takes positions for or against specific trade deals. Maybe Francis will change that.

He has a lot of ideas. The Aparecida document includes specific proposals for dealing with migrants, street people, the sick, addicts,  and prisoners, all with a healthy mix of church and state involvement. I expect Pope Francis to be an active advocate for justice and to issue more than a few calls to action.

Francis on School Choice

340. Because of its significance and scope, this non-transferable right (of parents to serve as first and primary educators), which entails an obligation and expresses the freedom of the family in the realm of education, must be firmly guaranteed by the state. Hence, government, which is charged with protecting and defending the freedoms of citizens, in keeping with distributive justice, must spend public aid—which derives from taxes from all citizens—in such a manner that all parents, regardless of their social condition, may choose, according to their conscience, from within the wide range of educational options, the schools suited to their children. This is the fundamental value and the juridical nature that grounds aid to schools. Therefore, no educational sector, not even the state itself, may claim for itself the power to bestow on itself privilege and exclusivity for the education of the very poor, without thereby undermining important rights. From the concluding document for the CELAM Conference at Aparecida, principle author Cardinal Bergoglio.

There you have it, from the man who has become pope. In retaining for itself exclusive taxpayer funding for education, and denying that funding for very poor parents who would prefer another option, the state violates a fundamental human right.

Read Section 10.2 Education as Public Good. The Cardinal makes a powerful argument for the indispensable role schools play in the formation of conscience for children. In restricting that formation to secular values and leaving no openness to transcendence as a dimension of human life, as is increasingly the case in our own public schools, children are denied the right to full, integral formation. If religion teachers are not to be allowed in public schools, then parents must have a right to place their children in schools where they are allowed. Bergoglio would have made a great constitutional lawyer.

The CELAM Bishops don't really address the issue of failing schools, the issue most often raised in arguing for school choice in the United States. The Texas Catholic Conference supported legislation in the recently ended legislature that would have provided school choice tax credits for low income families but, despite broad public support and a joint lobbying effort with the Texas Association of Private Schools and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the bills didn't make it out of either chamber. 

School choice has slowly been making progress elsewhere around the country with more charter schools, vouchers, and tax credits. They generally report good results measured in terms of educational outcomes. But the argument for school choice as a human right is not one I think I have seen before. It is not one TCC made in its lobbying efforts. But of course access to a quality education is a fundamental human right.

The question of whether forcing poor parents to send children to strictly secular schools is a violation of the 1st amendment right to free exercise of religion is an interesting one. I wonder if the argument has ever been put forth as a counter to the common objection that the use of vouchers in public schools is a violation of the establishment clause. I'm glad the CELAM Bishops raised the issue. I hope Francis goes on to raise it as pope.

Let me restate it. The Bishops are saying that if public schools do not teach religious values then they will teach secular values. That is a violation of the child's right to the proper formation of conscience. If poor parents are forced to send their children to such schools that is a violation of their right to choose what is best for their children.

In a nation obsessed with rights, this is an argument that could resonate.

Francis on the Environment

"475. Create consciousness in the Americas of the importance of the Amazon for all humankind. Establish a collaborative ministry among the local churches of the various South American countries in the Amazon basin, with differentiated priorities for creating a development model that puts the poor first and serves the common good." From the Concluding Document of the Aparecida Conference of Caribbean and Latin American Bishops, 2007, principle author Cardinal Bergoglio

Pope Francis hasn't had a lot to say on the environment as yet but if the Aparecida document is a guide he will take a refreshingly clear eyed view of green concerns. The CELAM Bishops see the earth, including the Amazon Basin, as the property of us all, especially of the poor and excluded. They don't suggest the Amazon be left pristine and untouched as some greens would have it. They see it as a priceless asset that can be used to serve the common good.

The Bishops have a biblical view of man's relationship with God's creation. We have been placed in charge. We are to till it, care for it, make it productive, and turn it over to our descendants more valuable than when we found it. They rightly chastise industrialized nations and their corporations for excessive pursuit of profit and often wanton disregard for Mother Earth. "471. a free legacy that we receive to protect, as a precious space for shared human life and as careful responsibility of human stewardship for the good of all. This legacy often proves to be weak and defenseless against economic and technological powers. Hence, as prophets of life we want to insist that the interests of economic groups that irrationally demolish sources of life are not to prevail in dealing with natural resources...The generations that succeed us are entitled to receive an inhabitable world, not a planet with polluted air."

But nowhere do the Bishops suggest the industrial revolution be dismantled. Rather, they see possibilities for serving the common good. Nations can act as the conscience for corporations. The church has a roll to play in developing that conscience, and "creating a development model that puts the poor first."

The CELAM Bishops have a couple of other constructive proposals. One is to "474. c) Pursue an alternative development model, one that is comprehensive and communal, based on an ethics that includes responsibility for an authentic natural and human ecology, which is based on the gospel of justice, solidarity, and the universal destination of goods, and that overcomes its utilitarian and individualistic thrust, which fails to subject economic and technological powers to ethical criteria."

There is a lot of theological jargon in that short passage but the thrust is the Bishops want to get the church involved in development plans for the Amazon Basin, and for its people. They want a strong moral component in planning and execution as we proceed to make the best use of precious natural resources. Those resources belong to us all.

The church should be in the middle of this, not impeding progress but making sure it is genuine. And this call is not restricted to church hierarchy. It  is to every Catholic, every Christian really, and it isn't optional. We are required by our faith and by Baptism to inform ourselves, our families, our communities, and our civic and corporate decision makers that we expect just outcomes as this development proceeds. This is powerful stuff.

The Aparecida document is too long and too filled with ecclesiastical hyperbole to appeal to most readers. But I think it offers valuable insights into the thinking of our new Pope on a number of issues, especially social justice issues. If you want a hint about what he thinks about care for God's Creation, read section 9.8. It's only a few paragraphs and the language is more reader friendly than in many such documents.

I think we are in for some interesting conversations.

Price Controls

While I was at West Point, 1960-1964, the Department of Social Sciences was headed by a former OSS general named George Lincoln. He was well regarded in academic circles but his students weren't so impressed. We called him Ether Lips. He could put you to sleep introducing a guest speaker.

Now faded into obscurity, General Lincoln came into political prominence in the Nixon Administration as head of the Office of Emergency Preparedness. The United States was experiencing raging inflation that peaked at well over 8%. President Nixon decided to combat it with wage and price controls. General Lincoln was to implement them.

I had an acute personal interest. After two tours in Vietnam I had two years earlier decided to leave the Army. It had been a difficult choice, not least because I loved the Army. The career change came with a substantial pay cut but I had been confident I could quickly make it up. It was important because I had a young, demanding, and growing family, a family I absolutely adored.

To put it mildly I was in need of regular salary increases and was working as hard as I knew how to earn them. When the wage freeze went into effect they stopped. Fortunately for us the effect was short term. The controls were a dismal failure and were quickly abandoned.

The lesson was there for all to learn. Wage and price controls don't work. But some folks never learn. Congress has been trying for years to hold down Medicare and Medicaid costs with exactly that, wage controls if you are the doctor, price controls if you are the payor. They aren't working any better now than they did for General Lincoln.

Medicare requires an annual "doc fix" to raise payment rates so doctors won't abandon the system in droves. My own doctor worries about it every year. Without the fix he would be quickly forced out of business.

Medicaid has been allowed to drift into dysfunction, with payment rates so low few doctors will accept it. Many of those who do focus on volume at the expense of quality. Some studies show that medical outcomes are often better for patients who have no insurance and can't pay. Some doctors will not accept Medicaid but will accept a limited number of indigent patients and give them the same standard of care as if they had insurance.

Obamacare proposes to raise Medicaid payment rates to Medicare Levels for two years, then gradually force down rates in both programs. The theory seems to be that with expanded eligibility, there will be enough constituents on Medicaid to force congress to include it in the yearly doc fix. It isn't clear exactly how the new health care exchanges will work but something like that seems to be the plan there too.

We have a lot of people in this country who need health insurance and don't have it. More than a few are one major illness from penury. Many wait until they are sick or injured and go to the emergency room, often needing costly hospitalization that might have been avoided. Too many of us are poorly served by the current system.

But price controls aren't the answer. Several states have implemented variations on Medicaid that seen to show promise. Florida is one. These require federal waivers but should be encouraged and allowed to continue. Some politicians have proposed premium support plans, subsidies for private insurance that would allow consumers to shop for plans that work best for them. These deserve a better hearing.

We have a crisis on our hands that rivals anything George Lincoln ever faced, in both seriousness and complexity. A federally imposed solution wasn't up to the task then and it isn't now. We need to rethink this.

Francis and the Hungry

"We should all remember, however, that throwing food away is like stealing from the tables of the the poor, the hungry!" Pope Francis on World Environment Day 2013

Francis' comment will remind Americans of my generation of our mothers telling us to think of all those starving children in China and eat our green beans. The Pope has a point, but it isn't that we should clean our plates. It's that we have too much on them in the first place. Once prepared and served it's too late for any excess to help the poor. 

We've always had more food than we've needed in this country, at least in my lifetime, and never done enough to see that it gets to the hungry. We've done outlandish things with it. I remember news reels from the 1950s reporting on a government program to buy up surplus wheat and bury it in the ice in Antarctica for storage. How's that for thinking of starving children in China!

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1300&dat=19551224&id=7VMRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=d5UDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2856,3596578

The program was suggested by no less a personage than Antarctic explorer Admiral Byrd. The thought was it was better than letting the food rot in the holds of the old mothball fleet, and could be used to feed a larger population 25 year later. I don't know but it's a good bet the stuff is still there and there are well paid bureaucrats in Washington who's jobs are to keep an eye on it.

Six decades on the great food boondoggle is ethanol, the diversion of roughly 40% of the American corn crop to a low grade gasoline supplement. The ethanol mandate has long since lost any economic, national security, or environmental rationale, but not its rent seekers. The list of negatives is long and at the top is the distortion of world grain markets. Most Americans don't notice the increase in the cost of corn syrup sweeteners or animal feed, but for the world's poor children an increase in the price of food staples can and often does mean malnutrition.

I'm not sure how much we can or should do to convince Burger King to reduce the size of a serving, or how much it would really help the poor if we did. But the impact of the ethanol madness is real, its cost is enormous, it is entirely political in its implementation, we can stop it, and we should, post haste.

It is encouraging that Francis is addressing these kinds of issues early in his papacy. It has been his habit to not only lecture his audiences on moral imperatives, but to propose practical steps toward archiving them. As principal author of the final document from the Aparecida Conference of Latin American and Caribbean Catholic Bishops he concluded several sections with recommended actions that lay men and women, clergy, the church, government officials, professionals, and business men and women can and should take to address the needs of the poor and excluded.

He is pro business, but let's make sure it works for the common good. He is pro trade, but protect the interest of the poor and the small farmer. He will be a powerful voice for parental authority in the education of children. He calls us all to be out working in the world, and rejects the notion that we should turn inward, focusing only on the sacraments and personal salvation. He wants to liberate the disenfranchised, but rejects the strident, revolutionary secularism of Liberation Theology. He thinks charity works best when it leads to people helping themselves.

And we can start by feeding the hungry. This is shaping up to be an interesting papacy.