Speaker of the House John Boehner, a practicing Catholic, is scheduled to deliver the May 14 commencement address to the graduating class of the Catholic University of America (full disclosure: my alma mater). Now a group of Catholic academics, largely from Catholic University, have released what boils down to a theological/moral critique of the Ohio Republican’s voting record and, implicitly, his view of the state’s role in the economy.
The authors, who are drawn from multiple disciplines outside moral theology and include academics from architecture, media, social work, theatre, and dance departments from across the United States, say that the speaker’s voting record “is at variance from one of the Church’s most ancient moral teachings.”
Now what could that be? The Church’s teaching that marriage consists of one man and one woman for life? The Church’s insistence upon the need to legally protect unborn human life? Probably not, because Speaker Boehner has, from an orthodox Catholic standpoint, an excellent record on those questions, especially compared to his predecessor.
They go on: “From the apostles to the present, the Magisterium of the Church has insisted that those in power are morally obliged to preference the needs of the poor.”
They are correct on this. The problem, from the point of view of the social doctrine of the Catholic Church, is their next judgment: “Your record in support of legislation to address the desperate needs of the poor is among the worst in Congress.”
To jump so seamlessly from the Magisterium’s insistence on the fundamental and non-negotiable moral obligation to the poor to the specifics of contingent, prudential, and political legislation is wholly unjustified in Catholic social teaching. One suspects that the moral theologians who signed this letter know that. It would be good for them to say so.
Surely they know what the American Bishops stated in their own 1986 Pastoral Letter, “Economic Justice for All” : “There are also many specific points on which men and women of good will may disagree. We look for a fruitful exchange among differing viewpoints.”
Surely they recall the statement of Blessed John XXIII in Mater et Magistra that, “When it comes to reducing these teachings to action, it sometimes happens that even sincere Catholic men have differing views. When this occurs, they should take care to have and to show mutual esteem and regard, and to explore the extent to which they can work in cooperation among themselves.” (no. 238)
And then there is that passage in Pope Benedict’s most recent social encyclical Caritas in Veritate: “The Church does not have technical solutions to offer.” (no. 9)
It appears then that these Catholic academicians who have written to Speaker Boehner do not understand the distinctions the Church herself makes between fundamental, non-negotiable dogmas and doctrines, and the prudential and debatable give and take when it comes to applying the principles of Catholic social teaching. Here Speaker Boehner need only consult the text of the Compendium of Catholic Social Teaching, which the authors of the letter say they have delivered to him, wherein he will read: “The Church’s Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions.” (no. 571)
The specifics of the 2012 Budget proposed by the Speaker and his colleagues are, the letter’s authors contend, the result of either ignorance or “dissent.” I think they are neither; they simply reflect a different, and in many people’s estimation, more accurate and economically-informed way, of proposing how we achieve worthy goals. Indeed, it could be said that what these Catholic academicians are proposing is not a “preferential option for the poor,” but rather a preferential option for the State. They make the unfortunately common error of assuming that concern for the economically weak and marginalized must somehow translate into (yet another) government program.
That assumption is wrong, and flies in the face of another principle of Catholic social teaching — the principle of subsidarity. With good reason, this is something the Catholic Left — or whatever remains of it these days — rarely mentions or grapples with, because they know that it would raise many questions about the prudence of any number of welfare programs they support.
Indeed, what strikes me about this letter to Speaker Boehner is how reactionary it is. Instead of seeking to contribute to a creative discussion about how we best meet the needs of the poor in a time of economic difficulty, its authors cannot even begin to contemplate that there may be better ways to address such problems than government welfare programs. For a group of people who, I suspect, pride themselves upon having “progressive” views, their attachment to broken models from the past is rather perplexing and frankly, tiring.
— Rev. Robert A. Sirico is president and co-founder of the Acton Institute in Grand Rapids.
In Rev. Sirico's telling, the heavy emphasis in the Bible on aiding the poor and not excessively accumulating wealth is something about which good Catholics can disagree, and which we should not require people to adhere to through government. But when it comes to the few Bible passages that seem to concern divorce or gay marriage, those are definitely mandatory AND should be mandated by the state.
I'm glad Jesus only insisted that we follow the Republican parts of the Bible. That's very convenient.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA teachable moment for Boehner's audience, an opportunity for the Speaker to hit the ball out of the park.
We cannot help the poor by making the entire nation poorer, or by crushing job creation with fiscally insolvent programs and debt. Patiently explain that every dollar consumed by government is one less dollar for capital formation and, with it, jobs. True compassion is not measured by the amount of people on public assistance, but by the number of people lifted up from public assistance.
To paraphrase William Simon, the crude linkage between "compassion" and government programs is false, stupid, and of value only to parasites, criminals, and demagogues -- indeed the three groups that profit from the linkage."
Speaker should repeat his dollar-for-dollar commitment on the debt ceiling in EVERY forum.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePA Yankee: I see that your range of ignorance includes the Bible as well.
When the Bible speaks of charity, it is a personal charity. Nowhere does the bible instruct people to take money from others in order to give to the poor.
Nor is there any passage in the bible that condemns excessive accumulation of wealth. (And please, don't compound your ignorance by citing the camel through the eye of a needle passage, it is an example about the love of wealth, not a condemnation of wealth itself.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt would be interesting to see how much the complaining academics donate to charity each year. My guess is they are of the mindset that favoring greater government taxation and welfare programs covers their personal obligation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's easy to show how the welfare state has harmed the poor. So if these "scholars" are true to their belief that the govt is to take care of the poor, they should be advocating the dismantling of the welfare state.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLargebill: It has been my experience that the vast majority of liberals limit their charity to lobbying for other people to have their taxes raised.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"From the apostles to the present, the Magisterium of the Church has insisted that those in power are morally obliged to preference the needs of the poor."
The Catholic academics are not only wrong, but profoundly wrong - at least if the "Magisterium of the Church" includes scripture. Scripture clearly says that *NO* preference should be given in anything the government/ judges/ powerful do - not even preference to the poor. The individual is to provide charity, but the government is to be totally blind to such things.
The only "preference" for the poor shown in the "government" is when G-d allows turtle doves to be substituted as a sacrifice. And, really, that's not the government's call, that is G-d's.
@MarkW: "Excessive accumulation of wealth" is when you love it more than G-d and his commandments (the rich young ruler, the rich man vs Lazarus, some kings of Israel/Judah).
"Vastly wealthy beyond all reckoning" is not a problem. (Job, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Nicodemus) :)
@PA Yankee: If you want the state to totally get out of the business of endorsing marriage of any kind, then you have a point. Otherwise, you're comparing apples and oranges.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis was an excellent essay.
Others here have already spoken well about the difference between charity (a personal choice to give) VS Taxes/gummint programs (a use of the coercive power of the government). Paying taxes isn't charity, even if some small sliver of the money actually flows through all the hands in the government and winds up as a welfare check.
The other big issue here concerns the so called poor themselves. When the great society was first launched the results were impressive. The portion of the population that considered poor declined in short order. But then that portion stabilized. Why? Because we'd done what material goods could do for those folks who were poor but not poor in spirit. What we're doing now is just a trillion dollar methadone program to sustain those who are so poor in spirit that they cannot join us in the mainstream of American life.
I just don't see how confiscating more of my money and transfering it to people who have chosen to live off the system will help anyone. It makes no sense to me at all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIncreasingly, Catholic "academics" and activists are showing their allegiance to liberal dogma rather than this country or its Constitution. For instance "those in power are morally obliged to preference the needs of the poor.” Wrong. In fact, our Constitution demands otherwise. Catholic Priests and Nuns are some of the biggest enablers of illegal aliens and open borders fanatics. Hopefully, some of these Diocese will lose their tax exempt status for delving too deeply into politics.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMarkW writes to me: "Nor is there any passage in the bible that condemns excessive accumulation of wealth. (And please, don't compound your ignorance by citing the camel through the eye of a needle passage, it is an example about the love of wealth, not a condemnation of wealth itself.)"
There are two problems here. One, it's not at all clear that the "camel" passage is only about the love of wealth. The passage, from Matthew, read, "Verily I say to you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of God. And I say again to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." My problem with conservatives who interpret the Bible is the certainly they seem to possess. For MarkW, the passage simply could not refer to the "rich," even though that is what it seems to mean literally, but must refer to people who "love wealth." Any passage that casts doubt on his position could not possibly mean what it says.
The second problem, taking up MarkW's challenge, is that this isn't the only Bible passage seemingly criticizing the wealthy. From Mark 10:20, "You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Or look at the story of Zacchaeus in Luke 19:1-10.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree that it is a great essay.
A couple of points, Centissimus Annus (sp) by JPII and most of Pope Benedict's Encyclicals refer to the Government, civil society and the Market and that Charity is Rightly the role of Civil Society, which includes the Church.
From a definition of poor perspective even the poorest 5% in the US are on the level of the 70th percentile for wealth in the world.
Matthew 26:11 (look it up)
1 Timothy 5:8-13 (look it up)
We as individual believers have an obligation to be aware of the plight of the poor and respond to the plight of the poor.
There can be, and is significant disagreement on how best to address the plight of the poor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTruthTower: Unfortunately these Catholic "academics" and activists have shown that their allegiance to liberal dogma even exceeds their allegiance to the church and to Christ.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd this is a case in point of the error of the Catholic Church...for the Bible itself says that to give preference to the poor or rich alike is wrong.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePA Yank: You cannot read the Bible by taking individual passages and reading them out of context.
By modern standards, King David was wealthier than even Bill Gates, yet God called David a man after God's own heart. According to you, God should have been condemning David for having too much.
King Solomon was also judged a most righteous man, and he was probably even wealthier than King David.
By the standards of his day, Abraham was hugely wealthy, yet he is considered the father of both Judiasm and Christianity. The Bible refers to him as being a friend of God. Only one or two others reach that level in all of scripture. Read up on all the things Job lost during his trials. Then at the end God rewards Job by giving back to him 3 times what he had lost.
Reading the passages in full, and with a full understanding of the rest of the bible, it is more than clear that the Bible does not condemn the accumulation of wealth (in much of the early Bible, those who accumulated vast wealth were assumed to have the favor of God.). The Bible only condemn those who love their wealth more than they love God.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe main point this article wishes to make -- that the church only insists upon the value of helping the poor and vulnerable, and does not take sides between competing means to this end -- is a fair one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnfortunately, it does not help Mr. Boehner at all. The fact is that he proposes to slash programs to help the poor and vulnerable without offering alternative means of accomplishing these goals.
While the Church has no business dictating whether Democratic approaches or Republican approaches to helping the poor are more in line with Church doctrine, it ought to speak up when one party eliminates the institutional support that the poor and vulnerable depend upon without even proposing any substitutes. That's what Boehner and the House Republicans have done, and that is why they are being criticized so strongly.
St. Paul writes extensively that all are equal before God and that you are to give preference to no man or woman.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSister Ray: Can you offer any evidence that any of the programs being "slashed" actually help the poor.
Can you offer any biblical support for your belief that unless charity comes from govt, than it doesn't count?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am currently a student at Catholic University, and I have taken classes with several of the signees of the letter Fr. Sirico talks about. This is slightly inside baseball, but I will say that the list of faculty members who did *not* sign it is as interesting as those who did sign it. This sort of debate among Catholics does happen at our university, however; it reflects the larger disagreements American Catholics have over which party can be said to better stand for church teaching.
While I disagree with the signees in that they seem to think a large welfare state is the only acceptable way to help the poor, they did not call for protest or object in principle to Speaker Boehner giving the address (I do wonder how many would have objected to Pres. Obama speaking at ND in 2009). Insofar as they suggest that Boehner is directly violating church teaching, however, they are incorrect. The Church does distinguish, as Fr. Sirico says, between issues on which there can be disagreement, and issues on which church teaching is clear.
PA Yankee- as far as I am aware, the Bible sets forth no specific program for welfare. Do you think that is is more charitable to give money yourself, or vote for candidates who will take the money of others to 'help' the poor? Also, you seem to think that church tradition plays no role in the policies the Church should support. Have you read Rerum Novarum? It is not something out of Ayn Rand, but it is certainly not an endorsement of social democracy either. The point is that Boehner's positions are acceptable within the realm of Catholic social teaching; there can of course be disagreement about whether or not they are the best policies. But they are not utterly at odds with church teaching in the way the former Speaker's positions were. In that respect, I disagree with the letter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe liberal hacks that frequent these comment sections are so boringly predictable.
Yes, the Church teaches that we must care for the poor, the sick, the powerless. No, the Church does not have any special expertise as to which particular political or social policies are best for that purpose. It is entirely reasonable and consistent with Church teachings for a politician to conclude that liberty and free markets are better for the poor than heavy-handed, prescriptive government programs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFather Sirico's essay, and most of the comments to it, demonstrate a most interesting and purely American phenomenon: a belief that the Bible is a product of and reflective of unique American political and economic sensibilities. But guess what? The Bible is not an American phenomenon. It is timeless. It pervails over all economic systems that have been used by mankind since its was written. It is neither imperialistic, slavary-based, feudal, socialist or capitalistic. The Bible existed long before the economic system called "capitalism" did, and it will continue to exist and instruct long after capitalism is put in the dustbin of history. So let is be a little less myopic and thus insistent that "American" values, sympathies, institutions and documents of origin somehow trump or supercede Scripture, and let us realize the our uniquely "American" values and priorities will ultimately by judged by their adherence to Scripture. Let us be a lot less concerned about whether Scripture (and its clear and unambiguous directives) fits in American priorities, and a lot more concerned about whether American priorities fit with Scripture.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse