It is telling that the Washington Post report on the religious Left’s Circle of Protection campaign for big government describes the effort as one that would “send chills through any politician who looks to churches and religious groups as a source of large voting blocs,” because, in fact, this is not an honest faith-inspired campaign to protect the “least of these” from Draconian government cuts, as claimed. It is a hyper-political movement that offers up the moral authority of churches and aid organizations to advance the ends of the Obama administration and its allies in Congress.
The Circle of Protection, led by Jim Wallis and his George Soros-funded Sojourners group, is advancing a false narrative based on vague threats to the “most vulnerable” if we finally take the first tentative steps to fix our grave budget and debt problems. For example, Wallis frequently cites cuts to federal food programs as portending dire consequences to “hungry and poor people.”
Which programs? He must have missed the General Accountability Office study on government waste released this spring, which looked at, among others, 18 federal food programs. These programs accounted for $62.5 billion in spending in 2008 for food and nutrition assistance. But only seven of the programs have actually been evaluated for effectiveness. Apparently it is enough to simply launch a government program, and the bureaucracy to sustain it, to get the Circle of Protection activists to sanctify it without end. Never mind that it might not be a good use of taxpayer dollars.
It is also telling that the group’s advertised “Evangelical, Roman Catholic, mainline Protestant, African-American, and Latino Christian leaders” who are so concerned about the poor and vulnerable in the current budget negotiations have so little to say about private charity, which approached $300 billion last year. To listen to them talk, it is as if a prudent interest in reining in deficits and limiting government waste, fraud, and bloat would leave America’s poor on the brink of starvation. It is as if bureaucratic solutions, despite the overwhelming evidence of the welfare state’s pernicious effects on the family, are the only ones available to faith communities. This is even stranger for a group of people who are called to “love the neighbor” first and last with a personal commitment.
Although the Circle of Protection has been endorsed by a few Catholic bishops, the predictably left-leaning social justice groups, and Catholic Relief Services, the Catholic Church in America has long moved beyond the heady (and increasingly-distant) days of the 1980s when knee-jerk opposition to any reduction in government spending was the norm. That still holds, even if some of the staff and a few of the bishops at the Bishops’ Conference still imbibe such nostalgia.
The actions of Wallis and the co-signers of the Circle of Protection are only understandable in light of political, not primarily religious, aims. Wallis, after all, has been serving as self-appointed chaplain to the Democratic National Committee and recently met with administration officials to help them craft faith-friendly talking points for the 2012 election. And when Wallis emerged from that White House meeting, he crowed that “almost every pulpit in America is linked to the Circle of Protection … so it would be a powerful thing if our pulpits could be linked to the bully pulpit here.”
Think about that for a moment. Imagine if a pastor had emerged from a meeting with President George W. Bush and made the same statement. I can just imagine the howls of “Theocracy!” and “Christian dominionism!” that would echo from the mobs of Birkenstock-shod, tie-dyed, and graying church activists who would immediately assemble at the White House fence to protest such a blurring of Church and State.
But in the moral calculus of Jim Wallis and his Circle of Protection supporters, there’s no problem with prostrating yourself, your Church, and your aid organization before Caesar. As long as he’s on your side of the partisan divide.
— Rev. Robert A. Sirico is president and co-founder of the Acton Institute in Grand Rapids, Mich.
Provocative. I like it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEven more, consider the number of graduates from Catholic prep academies, and colleges, who are utterly leftist on issues such as abortion and "same-gender marriage." To my knowledge, TWO of them (most prominently Jerry Brown of California) wanted to be Jesuit priests at one time, and numerous others seem to have gotten ahead via the football team. Go Irish! Shall I clarify where it is you should go?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEasy there, Widening Gyre, easy. I went to a prominent Jesuit High School and a prominent Jesuit university during the 80's. The prep school, to my mind then and now, had and has no faults. Period. The University, however, was admittedly too concerned with "keeping up with the Harvards", but even still, I had no obstacles to speaking up very publicly against (and finding common ground with many others against) the leftist liberation theology so prevalent at the time. The university did not banish me, silence me, or anything of the sort. It welcomed my debate.
I won't deny that some Jesuit universities fall short of the mark by choosing secularist goals over those of the Church in an attempt to remain viable and/or relevant, but don't you dare paint with such broad brushstrokes about all those who labor and learn ad majorem Dei gloriam.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Think about that for a moment. Imagine if a pastor had emerged from a meeting with President George W. Bush and made the same statement."
Yes, imagine. Oh wait...
External Link
"Rev. Robert Sirico, president and co-founder of the Michigan-based Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, made the case for charitable tax credits as an essential component of the next step of welfare reform in a meeting Dec. 20 with President-elect George W. Bush in Austin...
"Today’s gathering will help pave the way for real progress, moving away from direct federal control of help to the poor and toward substantive faith-based solutions,” said Rev. Sirico."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHughman, that doesn't appear to be "the same statement". The one cited by the author was about linking church pulpits to the President's bully pulpit, i.e., the government. Your quote was about someone working to further the effects of private charity through tax deductions. Not quite "the same statement".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's all fine, but the real response to the type of argument made by "Circle of Protection" is not that government programs are duplicative or inefficient, or that we're in a debt crisis and have to take drastic measures. The real response is that seizing other people's resources by force (including through taxation backed up by force), even in order to do good, has no basis in Christianity, and is in fact contrary to the example and message of Christ.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseQuick question: "Circle of Protection" is a lobbying organization that seems designed to convince politicians that there are a large number of religious Christian and Jews who support the political left, at least when it comes to spending. Who thought it was a good idea to name this organization after a practice in ritual magic? External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLook, these folks are largely sentimental, "nice-guy" liberals, bleating in their declining years the bromides they learned back in the '60s and '70s. They speak for nobody but themselves--the idea that there is any kind of unanimity on issues among the people in their respective communities is laughable--and only come out of oblivion to give cover to Democrat pols who are suspected of being inattentive to religious matters. A fellow like Michael Kinnamon, the general secretary of the National Council of Churches, is influential only among the dozen or so of his fellow professional "ecumenists." They're annoying, sometimes galling, but harmless.
What's striking is how easily these folks were courted and co-opted by Soros. Back in the day they would have denounced him as a sinister figure simply by virtue of his wealth. The "religious left" will not survive his demise, and the withdrawal of his material support.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCircle of Protection? How about "Circling the Wagons" or "Circling Down The Bowl" instead.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"It is telling that the Washington Post report on the religious Left’s Circle of Protection campaign for big government describes the effort as one that would “send chills through any politician who looks to churches and religious groups as a source of large voting blocs,” because, in fact, this is not an honest faith-inspired campaign to protect the “least of these” from Draconian government cuts, as claimed. It is a hyper-political movement that offers up the moral authority of churches and aid organizations to advance the ends of the Obama administration and its allies in Congress."
This statement, with slight modifications, can be used to describe any organized political effort in which churches are involved. Churches enter the political fray to try to get the government to do (or not do) things re commerce, the slave trade/slavery, segregation, Indian affairs, abortion, civil rights, the environment, the poor, foreign affairs, war and peace, sexual conduct, pornography, zoning, marriage/divorce, child/parent relationships, etc.
To be effective, any such movement needs to be aligned with already-existing political factions at some point: So yes, it may well be that if you're trying to end the slave trade you are rightly charged with not really caring about the welfare of Africans but about helping whatever faction in Congress is interested not only in ending the slave trade but also with whatever it is that faction does that shares a common set of members.
To put it in a modern context, if you want the government to criminalize abortion you are likely to be aligned with Republicans - not because you necessarily favor the Republican platform over the Democratic one but because there is a current and general political alignment between the two groups. So you can plausibly be accused of not "honestly" caring about the unborn but about "advancing the ends of the Bush Administration (or the Republican National Committee, or the 'tea party' or whoever) and its allies in Congress."
This phenomenon is entirely unremarkable; any religious-based movement to do anything would be noted only for its incompetence if it didn't align itself with others who share its goals - even if those persons also had other goals that had nothing to do with the churches' goals.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBart -- I would agree with you, if this group was trying to influence the government with Christian ideas, but that is not what they do. They push political party ideas on the Church. I have some small experience with Jim Wallis and I have seen the corrupting influence of his group on a church. With these people the Democratic party comes first.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFascinating interview with Fr. Sirico here:
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSounds like "Circle of Protection: Red" to me.
Anyone have a spare Disenchant?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood, someone to defend the Jesuits from the anti-Catholic smears.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf the Church, the bride of Christ, is in bed with Caesar then it is adultery-- bride is much to nice a term in this situation!
I have been shocked that the Church would violate the common good by continued taking from workers the fruits of their labors to fund government programs where the government is doing the job of the Church--badly.
So little Faith, churches of God? You cannot feed the poor and trust God to provide the funds through the love of Christians giving donations without it being forcibly taken by the power of the government?
Does our Church trust in Ceasar rather than in God?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think you need to review Catholic history and theology. The Catholic Church in America supported the extension of government into arenas of social welfare and to monitoring labor unions. The exception being the far left like the Catholic worker movement. One reason that they chose to do so was because of the failure of Catholics and others to effectively help the poor through private charity alone.
From a Catholic perspective, the argument is on what level should the charity take place the parish, city, state, or national government. Please let me know the time when these matters were effectively handled at the parish level. It would be a mistake to misread Austrian economics or distributism like Fr. Sirico does often in public spaces.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wonder why any thinking person would think government bureaucracy could substitute for private (and church) charity.
Thank you, Father Sirico, for stating the obvious: this is a political ploy to continue, nay, even INCREASE, the control of government over individuals, and to negate the individual responsibility each of us has to care for our "neighbor".
May Jesus have mercy on us all who duck this personal responsibility.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse