The debate over Catholic social doctrine and U.S. social welfare policy took an unhelpful turn in May when a gaggle of academics fired a shot across the bow of House Speaker John Boehner, prior to his commencement address at the Catholic University of America. Their charge? That Boehner’s House voting record showed him to be a man who fails “to recognize (whether out of a lack of awareness or dissent) important aspects of Catholic teaching.” Why? Because he had not supported legislation that, in the professors’ view, addressed “the desperate needs of the poor.”
Speaker Boehner, a Catholic with a solid pro-life voting record, is a big boy who can defend his votes on various issues. What bothered me about the open letter to Boehner was its tone (smarmy), its assumptions about the one-to-one correspondence between the principles of Catholic social doctrine and the policy preferences of the Democratic Party, and its suggestion that anyone who challenges that linkage is in “dissent” from settled Catholic teaching.
The 2012 election seems likely to be defined by a major national debate on the welfare state, government spending, and social responsibility. If libertarian minimalism of the sort espoused by Ron Paul sits poorly with the rich and complex tradition of Catholic social doctrine, so does reactionary liberalism of the sort espoused by the anti-Boehner pedagogues. So perhaps a review of the basics is in order, to put the forthcoming argument on a more secure footing.
(1) The Church’s concern for the poor does not imply a “preferential option” for Big Government. The social doctrine teaches that the problem of poverty is best addressed by empowerment: enabling poor people to enter the circle of productivity and exchange in society. The responsibility for that empowerment falls on everyone: individuals, through charitable giving and service work; voluntary organizations, including the Church; businesses and trade unions. Government at all levels can play a role in this process of empowerment, but it is a serious distortion of the social doctrine to suggest that government has exclusive responsibility here. On the contrary: In the 1991 social encyclical, Centesimus Annus, Blessed John Paul II condemned the “Social Assistance State” because it saps welfare-recipients of their dignity and their creativity while making them wards of the government.
(2) Fiscal prudence is a matter of justice extended toward future generations, and is therefore an intergenerational moral imperative (as is provision for the retired elderly). To leave mountains of unserviceable debt to future generations is shameful. The reactionary defense of governmental pension and social welfare programs with no evident concern for their fiscal implications violates the moral structure of Catholic social doctrine: the portside analogue to a cool indifference toward the fate of the poor.
(3) There are legitimate disagreements about the implications of the Church’s social doctrine for American social welfare policy. To suggest that the social doctrine provides obvious, clear-cut answers to questions about the future of Medicare or Medicaid is to misrepresent that teaching. To charge someone with “dissent” from Church teaching because that someone disagrees with one’s own prudential judgments about the application of the social doctrine to complex policy issues is a serious misuse of the notion of “dissent” and borders on calumny (a false statement that “harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them”—Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2477). It ill behooves anyone to make such a charge; it particularly ill behooves academics who publicly dissent from settled Catholic teaching on marital chastity, sexual morality, and qualifications for Holy Orders from chairs at Catholic universities.
(4) The moral imperative to legally protect innocent human life from conception until natural death is a settled matter in Catholic doctrine. So is the nature of marriage as the stable union of a man and a woman. Catholic legislators who support the abortion license are manifestly in dissent and have damaged their communion with the Church. So have legislators who support “gay marriage.” Academics eager to demonstrate their fidelity to Catholic social doctrine might point this out—and support the bishops who do.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
RESOURCES
George Weigel, Catholic Social Thought and the 2012 Election
R.R. Reno, The Preferential Option for the Poor
Comments:
Class warfare shows envy and a ignorance of economics.
Catholic Bishops ought remain faithful to their core beliefs on life and marriage and stand firm in the face of a society that couldn't care less about the Chrurch.
First, from what I've read, since Reagan, nearly everyone has gotten wealthier. The disparity in income is the result of some getting wealthier faster. The point is that there has been no increase in suffering. What do I care that Bill Gates has gotten insanely wealthy if I make enough to live comfortably and support my family? Besides which, taking money from Bill Gates to redistribute to me only deprives him of incentives to innovate and invest (creating jobs that could increase my wealth) and makes me dependent and powerless (with all the pathologies attendant on that dependency).
Secondly, to what switch in Catholic social focus are you referring, and when did it happen? Evidence please.
I don't know what the point is of bringing up CST (at least where conservatives are concerned) if it is a set of principles so utterly broad that everything they propose is arguably as acceptable as anything else and if, for example, a "living wage" is automatically set by the free market. The mistake of the "gaggle of academics" Weigel criticizes was to think that there was any point at all in making arguments about conservative American politics based on Catholic Social Teaching.
Paragraph 1883 is a good starting point re: the "dangers" of big government and the virtue of "subsidiarity."
The left continues to sow and to rely on moral confusion among Catholics. This propaganda of confusion will only grow more urgent the closer we get to Nov. 2012.
You could not be more incorrect regarding income disparity.
Of those taxpayer households in the lowest quintile of income in 1999, 57.5% had moved up at least one quintile by 2007 and over 30% jumped two quintiles or more.
Of those taxpayer households in the highest quintile in 1999, 37.7% fell at least one quintile, with 14.4% falling two quintiles or more.
Of those in the top 1% in 1999, only 44.6% were still there in 2007.
The measurement unit of wealth, the household, also underwent dramatic shifts as divorce ripped apart households, dramatically splintering incomes independent of economic policy.
I am 61 and remember no such switch. Perhaps it was before my time? Then again, perhaps not.
Class warfare shows envy and a ignorance of economics."
Hmmm. This sounds like old trickle-down Reaganomics. Really?? I thought that idea was dead and buried with a stake through its heart as of Oct. 2008. Even Greenspan admits such thinking was deeply flawed. The rich did very well in the last ten years, and the rest of us, well... just look around.
And I agree about class warfare. The wealthy have been waging it quite successfully for decades, using the government (e.g. tax cuts, lobbyists), Wall St.(Greenspan, Summers et al.), advertising and even the pulpit to crush the weak and reinforce the social Darwinist/Calvinist concept that the wealthy deserve their wealth and the poor their poverty. So, yes, class warfare is mean and unchristian and has got to go. Out with Ayn Rand, in with Jesus and St Francis.
"The question in my mind is whether Catholic Social Teaching (CST) has any relevance at all for American politics, or at least for the American right. Apparently any proposal conservatives come up with is well within the parameters defined by CST. "
Sad to say but it probably doesn't. I am a Catholic and a Republican, but the "voice of Catholicism" is not heeded by either the Republicans or Democrats because--despite their major size (25% of the overall electorate)-- Catholics do not vote sufficiently cohesively to "get much respect" from the politicians on a national basis. Politicians are more likely to listen to well-organized groups that can be delivered by empowered representatives, such as AIPAC or the more political black and evangelical white ministers.
If Catholics are split more or less 40-40-20 among Rs-Ds and Is, then the available Independent Catholics are essentially deemed the equivalent of no more than 5% of the electorate. How to reach those 5%? Are they likely to be swayed by religious arguments or would pocketbook arguments be more likely to reach them? Or maybe ethnic arguments that ignore religious considerations such as a pitch to Hispanics qua Hispanics?
And then there is the reality that politicians, knowing that the Catholic vote is divided will foster dissent within a group (e.g., Catholics for a Free Choice) to make its voice even more diluted. That, of course, is nothing new. The Romans called it "divide et impera." This is the political calculus in which the "Catholic Vote" is going to be viewed and it is unlikely to change.
The only person discredited by the actions of Alan Greenspan is Mr. Greenspan himself.
Reagonomics is as sound today as when it added 19+ million jobs to the US economy:
-strong dollar/control inflation
-deregulate private industry
-reduce tax rates on investment
-reduce government spending
When the rich do well, we ALL benefit from it. When the rich suffer, we all suffer. They are the ones creating and sustaining innovation and growth.
Class warfare shows envy and a ignorance of economics."
Hmmm. This sounds like old trickle-down Reaganomics. Really?? I thought that idea was dead and buried with a stake through its heart as of Oct. 2008. Even Greenspan admits such thinking was deeply flawed. The rich did very well in the last ten years, and the rest of us, well... just look around.
Lets make things clearer. World Bank economist Brank Milanovic has published a book ( the Haves and Have nots) that makes some interesting points. First while wealth in the US is very asymetrically distributed we ahve created a society in which he least wealthy 5% of the US population has a higher standard of living that 68% of the population on the rest of the planet, and indeed very close to the standard of living of the wealthies 5% in India. This is a staggering statistic. It means in some sense compared to the rest of the world our poor people are really wealthy. Indeed this is true, drive through many poor neighbor hoods and it is not unlikely you will find most homes have satellite dishes for cable TV and internet access. ( at least thats the way it is in my hometown of Olyhphant PA, in the very depressed Northeast.) It is this fact that demonstrates that the dynamism of a free market economy is what abolishes poverty not any government engineering. This alos proves the point that the distribution of wealth matters little.
Income is more equally distributed througout the population in Bangledash ( it has a Gini coeffiecient ( which is a measure of wealth distribution, higehr means a bigger gap between the rich and the poor)) in the 60s, while the wealth distribution in the US is much more skewed ( the Gini coef is in the 80s) Where would you rather be a poor person.. Bangeldash or the United States...
Yet, the truth is that free economies, another name for capitalism, historically amply prove to have raised millions of people from material poverty. In recent years China and India following free economic principles have raised hundreds of millions of people from material poverty.
Of course, a free economy needs, also, to be coupled with serious Judeo-Christian religion, something that John Paul II pointed out in his encyclical, Centissimus Annus. JP II, having suffered under Hitler and Stalin well understood the value of a free Christian people.
mcasey and David Nichols are playing the usual leftist game of pointing out assorted societal imperfections that could be erased by some sort of leftist utopianism, something that was tried in the twentieth-century and found rather wanting.
http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=2219
If matters are only economic, then please remember the economy is to serve the people an people, not profit, are what is important.
You want small government? Empower people and have ethical business that respects the dignity of all people (another principle of CST) and rules and regulations and entitlements wont be necessary.
If you want slaves, keep the status quo. Pharoah taught the Egyptians well how to keep power.
The SDS taught Americans how to rule by fear.
Charity a personal responsibility — He commands us to "Love thy neighbor." Paying taxes is not a NOT form of Christian charity. Paying taxes is a civic duty mandated by law.
You have nailed it exactly. The Lord commanded His followers to minister to the poor, the poor in spirit, those in prison and sick, etc. Not once does He tell His followers to write to Caesar and pass laws, etc. You are exactly right that charity is Christian duty, not one that we can relegate to the government.
http://www.culturewars.com/2010/Weber%20Thesis.htm
http://www.culturewars.com/2005/Ederer.htm
"spending other people's money is in some circumstances evil (thou shall not steal, as do the left-wing liberals)"
Thanks for the enlightenment. I was unaware that the titans of Wall st. that stole billions of other peoples' money and sank the world economy for their own profit were "liberals". Had I known that Goldman Sachs, AIG etc. (homes of the century's most successful thieves) were run by liberals I might have voted differently in the last election. If I had Hank Paulson's phone # I would call and give him a piece of my mind: he and his pals are giving liberals a bad name!
†
forever on tap, nor indeed an entitlement. Such an attitude is ultimately more likely to produce universal poverty, rather than prosperity. John Boehner associates personal freedom with prosperity, and in this regard, he is right.
