When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it–always. Mahatma Gandhi

This Sunday is the International Day of Non-Violence.  The UN General Assembly established this by resolution in 2007, setting it on the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi, a great pioneer of the philosphy and stragegy of non-violence.

According to the resolution, the purpose of this day is to communicate a ”message of non-violence” through both education and expanded public awareness.   It reaffirms ”the universal relevance of the principle of non-violence” and the desire ”to secure a culture of peace, tolerance, understanding and non-violence.”

Let us examine our own interactions, language, and hearts to transform internal and external violence into life-giving, gospel-affirmed peace.

from Gandhi’s words

I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

”Non-volence is the greatest force at the disposal of humankind.  It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of people.”

Non-violence is not a weapon of the weak. It is a weapon of the strongest and the bravest.

The common factor of all religions is nonviolence.

Nonviolence is a quality not of the body but of the soul.

Jesus was the most active resister known perhaps to history. His was non-violence par excellence.

If one does not practice non-violence in one’s own personal relations with others and hopes to use it in bigger affairs, one is vastly mistaken.

Love is a rare herb that makes a friend even of a sworn enemy and this herb grows out of non-violence.

With that in mind I would like to offer this reflection on the values of this nation from the consistent values of the Christian/Catholic faith (since my American identity is colored by my own Catholic perspective). This year I would like to reflect on the issue that Pope Benedict XVI calls us to reflect upon during his 2011 World Day of Peace message, the belief and support of religious liberty and expression. It is good to consider this particular concern especially during this occasion since it is an expressed value of our nation.

The Declaration of Independence which was authored by Thomas Jefferson is very much a theological statement even though its sets the values for a secular society. It is a theological statement in so far as it recognizes its values and inalienable rights as self-evident truths that are “endowed by their Creator”. Furthermore it recognizes a supreme equality that again is derived from the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”.  For us who are Catholics this statement is particularly meaningful since it attributes natural law as the force behind these divine principles. From these statements the founders extrapolated the concept of religious liberty and they eventually incorporated it within the legal framework of the U.S. Constitution.

Reflecting on his social concerns for 2011 Pope Benedict XVI raises this issue on a global scale sharing his concern for the development of religious fundamentalism on the one hand and secularism on the other. Vatican II set out this defense of religious liberty in the document Dignitatis Humanae and in this recent message Benedict asserted his support for this principle which as you can see follows the language of our own American founders.

The right to religious freedom is rooted in the very dignity of the human person, whose transcendent nature must not be ignored or overlooked. God created man and woman in his own image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:27). For this reason each person is endowed with the sacred right to a full life, also from a spiritual standpoint. … Respect for essential elements of human dignity, such as the right to life and the right to religious freedom, is a condition for the moral legitimacy of every social and legal norm. – Pope Benedict XVI, 2011 World Day of Peace Message

Religious fundamentalism and secularism are two opposing polarities that compromise the principle of religious liberty. Religious fundamentalism occurs when a particular religious view dominates and oppresses the rights of others to freely engage in their own spiritual relationship with God from the rich tradition of their own faiths. It starts by establishing unfair judgment and criticism on a particular religion or religions and then eventually moves to curtail those religious practices. Secularism acts independently of religion and extols a secular ideology that is used to put down the right of communal religious expression. The Constitution gives us the right to practice our religion individually and as a community. We are not allowed to superimpose our faith or secular ideology or to critique and degrade the religious belief and expressions of another. This is not only a legal issue for us but also a moral position that is based on our faith. Even though the Catholic Church defends the faith as revealed by Jesus Christ it still recognizes that the universal Divine truth transcends religious institutions and that all people have access to the Divine truth from their own faith tradition. Pope Benedict supports this belief and defends it by  quoting St. Thomas Aquinas who says that “every truth, whoever utters it, comes from the Holy Spirit.”

This being the July 4^th weekend let us reflect on the historical episode where our founders wrestled with this very question with great consideration for the purpose of defending religious liberty. The Constitutional debates of 1788 considered this issue but not so much with regards to its protection under the first article of the Bill of Rights. Instead they were concerned with the language of Article VI of the Constitution which stated that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office of public Trust under the United States”. Two concerns were recorded with regards to this clause: that “Pagans, Deists and Mahometans might obtain offices among us”, and that “the Pope of Rome might be elected President”. These concerns were addressed by a Federalist delegate from North Carolina named James Iredell.

In his response he respects the concerns that have been raised but he believes that the creation of a dominantly pagan society and the threat of Papal rule were both slippery slope fallacies. Instead he argues that the historical reality of religious persecution through the sponsorship of the state to a religious creed is very much a real and valid concern. Delegate Iredell defends the clauses for religious liberty in this way:

But it is objected, that the people of America may perhaps chuse Representatives who have no religion at all, and that Pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmely contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised on every part of the world. The people in power were always in the right, and every body else wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened.

As we celebrate the birth of our nation let us reflect on the concerns that our founders had in making sure that religious liberty would be the law of the land. Let us also value the universal truth that transcends all religious institutions and allow ourselves to value the truth that we all speak from the goodness of our own religious tradition.

With many Catholic and Christian voices advocating for a position of economic fairness and justice we now encounter a series of counter-argument that conservatives are using regarding their defense for Chairman Ryan’s budget. I have seen a couple of these positions and at best I can suggest that they make some grand assumptions, at worst they use rhetoric to twist and confuse the issue. Catholic presidential candidate Rick Santorum recently went on to defend the Ryan budget at an online conversation with voters. Candidate Santorum provides us with an example of how this budget plan is trying to twist the moral argument.

With regards to defending the tax cut for the wealthy Santorum suggest that there exist studies (although he could not recall them) that arbitrarily say that if people are taxed over a third of their income that they will not be willing to invest their money in a way that will stimulate domestic economic growth. He then goes on to say that this proven fact for stimulating economic growth is a greater value than a perceived notion of promoting economic fairness. Considering that the tax rate to the wealthy in America have not been lower than 25% since the New Deal it would be curious to see how such an assumption can be considered a proven fact. What we do know is that middle and low income Americans invest their money towards basic necessities such as paying their mortgage or rent and purchasing essential and local products that will keep local businesses operating. Giving further purchasing power to corporations and the wealthy have generally created streams of foreign investments that enhance their own financial gain at the expense of an unemployed American workforce. There are good arguments for lowering the tax rates related to economic growth but such a plan must specifically design a comprehensive policy for getting corporations and wealthy investors (both foreign and domestic) to invest in our own economy growth and not just assume that they will do so.

In that same talk Candidate Santorum goes on to address the concern that some people have about the current lack of basic food and healthcare services to children and how he plans to remedy this in light of his support of this budget. Santorum goes on to respond to this issue by interweaving his support for traditional marriage and argues that by supporting traditional marriage this will remedy the issue of child poverty. I support any
program that promotes the family and safeguards marriage but this position by Santorum is classic red herring argument.

We cannot allow assumptions and rhetoric that seem counter-intuitive to dictate this crucial debate. The Bishop’s and Catholic theologians called on Congress to develop a creative solution that is responsible in both reducing the deficit and protecting the poor and vulnerable. This calls for congress to lay aside all their partisan ideology and work together in a spirit of compromise and mutual respect while letting go of the sacred cows that have severely limited their creative vision. Moving on from Chairman Ryan’s budget we should draw our attention to the work of the Bipartisan Policy Center task force which developed a deficit reduction plan last November under a bipartisan team that came up with some creative albeit challenging ideas. Members of the Brookings Institution were part of this collaboration and they defined their goal in this way:

A fiscally responsible plan must be bold and comprehensive – and involve shared sacrifice by all except the most vulnerable. It must restrain spending across the federal budget, slow the increase of health care costs, reform the tax code and make Social Security strong for the next 75 years and beyond with modest changes to current law.

Members of Congress need to put aside their ideological plan and engage again with the creative wisdom of the group. In looking over this bipartisan plan I see some creative and challenging ideas that authentically lead to a plan that will actually reduce the budget without destabilizing our economic recovery while being attentive to necessary social programs. Jonathan Rauch, A guest scholar for the Brookings Institution, likened the deficit debate to the Israelis and Palestinian conflict. In what he calls “the contours of a fiscal settlement” Mr. Rauch offers some compromising points that need to be taken into consideration. He suggests that “there are going to be tax increases” and “There are going to be more spending cuts than tax increases.” He advocates for developing a tax reform law that will lower the tax rate and eliminated loopholes as a comprehensive way to increase tax revenue. As for the sacred cows he basically says “We can’t exempt defense. We can’t exempt entitlements. We can’t exempt anything. Not even farmers!”

The deficit issue must also be considered through other policy interventions outside of the budget. We must comprehensively review our military expenditures and consider shifting our effort to reshape our influence on international affairs by transferring part of our extensive military budget over to the State Department and the Diplomatic Corps of the US. Our banks ought to be given every incentive to expend their greatly expanded income by lending generously to small business enterprises and reduce unemployment. The home foreclosure procedures of these banks ought to be slowed so as to allow home-owners to keep money in their pocket for a longer period of time, to meet living expenses, instead of seeking governmental tax-supported subsidies to meet their necessary expenses while the banks hoard and invest their holdings. The legal status of the corporation must continue to be challenged until the Supreme Court reconsiders its fateful “Citizen’s United” case and recognize that a “corporate person” carries much more influence than an individual person in the election procedure, because of financial resources able to purchase avenues of communication. These are just some interrelated issues that need to
be considered as we attempt to face a new economic future.

The deficit crisis can be seen as an opportunity, a teachable moment that calls us to be open about new ideas and possibilities that our former partisan ideologies frowned upon. The strength of our Republic lies in the capacity that we have in setting aside our differences and listening intently at the creative wisdom that comes from the rich tapestry of our American experience. We do not have to reinvent the wheel since the Bipartisan task force has already given us enough food for thought with this debate. What remains to be seen is the political will and the congressional leadership that will move this process along.

The recent blogs that Fr. Sebastian and I wrote attempted to offer the Catholic social tradition’s perspective on economic justice. Going beyond any economic ideology the moral perspective of the Catholic faith has always opted for a creative harmony between values and principles that  exist in tension. Catholic social teaching seeks a balance between freedom and equality, between solidarity and subsidiarity. These are values whose tension will keep us on the balancing beam of social justice. Our recent blog post also demonstrate how creative solutions do exists that can help us strike this balance. What is required is an atmosphere of cooperation and civility in being open to the possibility of achieving this challenge. But instead the political forces on the right have developed this debate into an all or nothing argument forcing the American public to make a fabricated choice between deficit reductions or protecting social service programs to the poor and vulnerable.

Before addressing the details of the budget issue itself let us consider the importance of the issue that the Bishops are addressing and which a group of Catholic theologians also recently raised to the Speaker of the House John Boehner on the occasion of his commencement address at the Catholic University of America. The “Preferential Option for the Poor” is a principle of cherished principle of Catholic social teaching not least because it is a principle that consistently demonstrates a value that Jesus expressed in his own life of embracing the poor and  marginalized. Scripture tells us how Jesus lived with the poor, taught the poor and ministered to their needs throughout his public ministry. The “option for the poor” is a lens that the Church uses as a moral measure for social or economic policies. When the Church considers the moral measure of any policy it reflects on the impact that such policies will have on those members of society that are most vulnerable. Based on this reflection the Church sees itself as an advocate for the interest of those who are poor and vulnerable.

There is another principle however that has been accepted as the foremost principle of Catholic social teaching and that is the “Right to Life.” Our belief in the dignity of all humanity forces us to always appeal to the sanctity of life in all policies. Our position against abortion and the death penalty flows from this principle. What some may not know is that the issue of poverty is also considered by the Church as a Right to Life” issue.

And how can we fail to consider the violence against life done to millions of human beings, especially children, who are forced into poverty, malnutrition and hunger because of an unjust distribution of resources between peoples and between social classes? (Evangelium Vitae #10)

It is out of this moral vision that the Church expresses its grave concern for the poor and vulnerable within this budget debate.

The budget that is proposed by Chairman Ryan and endorsed by members of the Republican Party violate the “Right to Life” by eliminating or severely limiting services essential to the poor and vulnerable while protecting the financial security of the wealthiest members of our society. This is a grave violation to the dignity of life. Nearly two-thirds of the huge budget cuts that are being proposed come directly from programs for lower-income Americans. The chart provided by the Center on budget and Policy Priorities indicate the programs that Chairman Ryan intends to cut. These cuts are done with the argument that the primary responsibility of government is to reduce the deficit, a responsibility that we dare not pass on to another generation. Deficit reduction is indeed an important issue and the Bishops and Catholic theologians agree that a responsible budget must address this priority. However what makes the Republican budget immoral is that while it claims to make service cuts with the purpose of reducing the deficit the proposed personal and corporate tax cuts that they propose almost completely undermine deficit reduction. This report by James Horney who was the Deputy Democratic staff director at the Senate Budget Committee offers this report through an analysis of the Congressional Budget Office study on Ryan’s budget. This report demonstrates that the Ryan plan will cut services to the poor and vulnerable in order to provide further tax reductions to the wealthy five percent of Americans. This is what makes Chairman Ryan’s budget proposal an immoral policy.

Economic equity and the fair distribution of wealth is not only a component of Catholic social teaching (Compendium #328) it is also a principle grounded in scripture and our Catholic tradition. Chapter 15 in the book of Deuteronomy offers instruction to the performance of wealth distribution through its application of the jubilee social obligation whereby the wealthy periodically redistribute back to those who they have taken from. The Prophets tradition has always backed this position of economic justice. With the early Christian community in Corinth St. Paul the Apostle finds himself defending this biblical economic policy to a gentile community that seems to find this obligation a bit hard to swallow.

I do not mean that there should be relief for others and pressure on you, but it is a question of fair balance between your present abundance and their need, so that their abundance may be for your need, in order that there may be a fair balance. As it is written, “The one who had much did not have too much, and the one who had little did not have too little.” (2 Cor. 8: 13-15)

The Catholic Church recognizes that it is the moral obligation of the State to ensure that “tax revenues and public spending… is directed to the common good” (Compendium #355). The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church also offers the following principles that the State must observe in ensuring the common good:

• “The payment of taxes as part of the duty of solidarity”
• “A reasonable and fair application of taxes”
• “Precision and integrity in administrating and distributing public resources”

The Church participates in offering the State moral guidance through the wisdom of scripture and tradition. If we believe that our faith has a deep moral value then we must allow ourselves to see how the wisdom of our moral tradition can inform this debate. A budget is a moral document. Our public spending is the moral measure of our nations’ values and priorities. In the next blog post related to the budget we will consider some of the positions taken in this debate and explore the delicate compromises that will need to be made as we participate in the challenge of considering a creative solutions to develop a just and responsible budget.

At the May 18^th shareholder meeting of Northrop Grumman, a small but dedicated group of religious investors took up this gauntlet and brought to the floor a proposal to do just that. The shareholder proposal requested that the company provide a detailed report that disclosed to the shareholders the monetary and non-monetary political contributions that would influence the general public in support or opposition to any political candidate. I moved this resolution on behalf of the Congregation of the Passion and other religious investors at the shareholder meeting where it was well received by the shareholders even though the Board of Directors requested a vote against the resolution. The vote failed but there was enough support to keep this resolution moving and we hope to engage with the company on a discussion over promoting transparency on their political contributions.

In the wake of Citizen’s United many socially responsible investors have brought these resolutions to the floor at a number of different companies. Although many of us were displeased with the ruling of Citizen’s United in that it empowered the corporate community to have further influence in the political system we were pleased by the Security and Exchange Commission’s ensuing support for shareholder action on developing accountability on issues like political spending. It is in this judicial environment that socially responsible investors have come together to promote corporate accountability on political contributions.

As with so many other issues regarding corporate governance this issue remains an uphill battle but we have noticed a recent surge of shareholder support for the promotion of corporate accountability. With our federal government having relinquished this level of regulation many shareholders recognize that the further collusion of multinational businesses with the political system could further erode our representative system of government to the powerful special interest of corporations. We recognize that businesses like Northrop Grumman lobby the government with their interest in mind and as shareholders we also recognize that their business interest becomes our financial gain. But as Catholic religious communities we also recognize a moral responsibility to be responsible stewards so that our financial gain does not
become the cause for unintended social consequences. With that in mind the United States Catholic Bishops offered guidelines for socially responsible investments reminding us of the proper social role of our investments.

Individual Christians who are shareholders and those responsible within church institutions that own stocks in U.S. corporations must see to it that the invested funds are used responsibly. Although it is a moral and legal fiduciary responsibility of the trustees to ensure an adequate return on investment for the support of the work of the church, their stewardship embraces broader moral concerns. As part owners, they must cooperate in shaping the policies of those companies through dialogue with management, through votes at corporate meetings, through the introduction of resolutions and through participation in investment decisions. (U.S. Catholic Bishops, Economic Justice For All, 354)

While it is good that the shareholder community is becoming more engaged with promoting responsible corporate governance some of us continue to question the wisdom of the Supreme Court in deregulating the financial influence of the business sector within the American political system. Even if we succeed in establishing internal mechanisms of corporate accountability we must nevertheless recognize that many other stakeholders will remain disenfranchised from the development of corporate policies. In the long run we cannot hope to be an effective substitute for promoting the common good which is a principle responsibility of government. Catholic social teaching recognizes that “the free market can have a beneficial influence on the general public only when the State is organized in such a manner that it defines and gives direction to economic development.” (Compendium, #353) The State cannot be said to be “organized in such a manner” if it is under the influence of the corporations.

Taking gift/gratuity seriously plays significantly upon one’s sense of this world and all that is within it.  It points to the universal disposition of all earth’s bounty.  Ultimately, all of us are beneficiaries of God the gift-giver.  Furthermore, we are respondents to His command to till the earth and make it productive: we are to create wealth (Gn 1.28).  But, given its universal destination, this wealth is for distribution to all.  Here lies the basics of economics: to produce wealth and to distribute it.  Behind it, however, lies the sense of giftedness.

Corresponding to these two tasks are two values, one for each task: freedom to create wealth, equality of distribution to enjoy it.  Herein also lies the source of ancient problems: the freedom to produce is often affected by the inroads and requirements of its distribution, and equal access to these products is just as often impeded by an exercise of freedom that proves burdensome and restrictive.  Freedom and equality are not easy bed-fellows, despite the affirmation of our Declaration of Independence in upholding the unalienable rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” and brief reflection on these ideals will reveal the inherent tension of this relationship. In the famous documentary on Thomas Jefferson by Ken Burns a number of American scholars reflect on the uneasy relationship between these two values. Joseph Ellis who is the Ford Foundation Professor of History offered this thought:

They are the essential words of the American creed. And part of Jefferson’s genius was to articulate at a sufficiently abstract level, these principles, these truths that we all want to believe in. The level is sufficiently abstract so that we don’t have to notice that these truths are at some level unattainable and at another level mutually exclusive. Perfect freedom doesn’t lead to perfect equality, it usually leads to inequality. But Jefferson’s genius is to assert them at a level of abstraction where they have a kind of rhapsodic inspirational quality. And we all agree not to notice, not to notice that they are unattainable and not to notice that they are mutually exclusive or contradictory.     

Because of distortions that have emerged in the course of history between freedom and equality, we have been further gifted by God, with an addition to His initial creation program.  There is a redemption follow-up designed to remedy what, in the course of time, had gotten out of hand.  The bible enshrines this phase two of God’s action in our history, by a number of correctives seeking to restore the original gift-quality of earth’s bountiful resources.  The jubilee year program announced in the book of Deuteronomy proposes that, every 50 years, the Israelites redistribute the goods that have accumulated during this time interval by the creative enterprise of some, so that the early ideal of equality can be restored, and freedom and equality can coexist once again (Dt 15).  In a later book of the bible, we hear Jesus addressing the situation of a poor man begging at the door of a rich man, manifesting a debilitating inequality that was to be rectified after death (Lk 16.19).  The ideal community where both freedom and equality prevailed seems to have been the early Christian community described in Acts (4.32-37).

But, despite God’s efforts at restoration in these matters, freedom and equality have continued to be victimized over the years: the remembrance that all is gift has faded with the passage of time.  There is an updated version of this whole scenario in the current economic systems and the governmental arrangements coexisting with them.  We are well acquainted with capitalism and socialism as economic examples that favor certain forms of governmental systems.  Capitalism emphasizes freedom of enterprise to produce wealth.  Socialism stresses equalizing the benefits of this wealth.  There is potential here for a happy relationship between production and distribution, but seldom has it happened in modern times.  But what has developed has been antagonism between those in the business community, promoting freedom to produce, within the business community, and the championing of equality in the governmental system.  Each takes exception to the performance of the other.

An aggravating feature in each instance is that of size.  Both business and government have grown to mammoth proportions.  We speak of big business and big government.  It would be idyllic if both of these ventures operated mindful of the original gift received at the time of creation. Then too they might refer for guidance to the parable of Jesus about the man freely bestowing talents on his servants, before going on a journey.  He was engaged in gift-giving, and expected an appropriate use of his endowments, upon his return (Mt 25.14-30).   Each servant was a beneficiary of this largesse, and each was equally treated.  But it was not a completely successful transaction.  One recipient did not handle his gift well, small though it was.

Today, freedom and equality tend to be submerged in the immensity of the business and governmental institutions.  Their size is the problem.  The church has responded to this situation when Pius XI articulated the principle of subsidiarity in 1931.  He sought to restore the role of freedom and equality by looking to the potential latent in smaller units of business enterprises and governing bodies.  Subsidiarity reinvigorates their activity by way of the smallest units of free enterprise and equal access to common goods, corresponding   to the original gifts at the time of creation.  It rejuvenates freedom and equality in enterprises that are compact and manageable.

Smaller business ventures and governmental units are equal to the task of exchanging and managing gifts (the common goods) in a free and equitable manner, and are preferable to larger institutional expressions of these values because they safeguard and preserve participation and transparency in their performance.  Neighborhood establishments, for example, whether business or governmental, tend to involve the locals, and are known operations familiar to those with access to them.  In recent times, participation and transparency have come to the fore as socially desirable features of enterprises, whether economic or legal.

More strikingly, the principle of subsidiarity introduces a third element into the dominance of business and government: the many other features of society itself.  There is more to society than business and legal institutions.  There is a large social segment comprising education, entertainment, communication, church activities, recreational pursuits, and these constitute significant cultural components that support the values of freedom and equality. This element has been defined by the Church and others as the involvement of civil society and Pope Benedict XVI reflected on the involvement of civil society in his social encyclical Caritas in Veritate where he suggests that this social unit can give us an economic model based on value of distributing the gift package that God offers us through resources of his own creation.

My predecessor John Paul II drew attention to this question in Centesimus Annus, when he spoke of the need for a system with three subjects: the market, the State and civil society. He saw civil society as the most natural setting for an economy of gratuitousness and fraternity. …In the global era, economic activity cannot prescind from gratuitousness, which fosters and disseminates solidarity and responsibility for justice and the common good among the different economic players. It is clearly a specific and profound form of economic democracy. #38

What is more, they contribute what extremely large segments of society cannot provide: participation and transparency.  Or, in other terms, they preserve the personal component that tends to get lost in the bureaucratic compartmentalization that accompanies bigness, much as the immense size of the ancient dinosaur spelled its extinction before the demands of change and adaptation to which it could not readily respond. Benedict XVI reminds us in this same encyclical that contemporary social institutions, designed to facilitate access to the common goods of society in a free and equitable manner, have fallen victim to inflexible and impersonal bureaucracies lacking feeling and awareness.  Participation and transparency fall between the cracks in the operations of large institutional establishments.

Happily, other types of social units, apart from business and government as usual, have responded creatively to the requirements of freedom and equality in smaller but promising ways.  Even as Pius XI was articulating the principle of subsidiarity, Hilaire Belloc, with the help of G.K. Chesterton, was formulating the principle of Distributism, which locates the exercise of freedom in the personal possession of property by everyone.  Local coops developed in city neighborhoods, and among farmers, facilitating smaller financial transactions as well as the planting, harvesting and marketing of food products, and local repair and crafts shops, comparable to the neighborhood offices of ward committeemen.  The Israeli kibbutz has successfully exhibited a communal style of living where participants share the fruits of their labor, along with the benefits of education, housing, banking, etc.  Following the devastating Spanish Civil war, the Mandragon system got underway, especially in the Basque country, featuring a successful and large business enterprise in areas close to home, that competes well (with its employee base of 90,000 persons), manufacturing the kinds and quality of goods that participants need and want.  It features democratic organization, participatory management, and education, among other things.  The Focolare movement, under the guidance of Chiara Lubbich, has instituted The Economy of Communion among 800 companies that agree to distribute their profits among the needy, training programs for workers, and reinvestment of a certain amount back into the growth and development of the company.  Micro-credit agencies have emerged, engaging in extremely modest loans to small entrepreneurs in poverty-stricken parts of the world, who in turn have turned an adequate profit, part of which repays the loan, with the remainder reinvested in a budding enterprise.

While some of these are experimental ventures providing alternatives to the systems of enterprise and government under which we currently operate, they show that we need not be locked into just one way of advancing freedom and equality.  Our Catholic tradition (and some of the above examples are Catholic inspired) is a rich resource for pursuing these basic values.  Above all, the above examples suggest the contribution the principle of subsidiarity makes to the enterprises of business and governing by keeping them close to the lives of those engaging in them.  It elevates the significance of often overlooked segments of society itself as rich resources that encourage participation, that provide transparency and understanding, and, above all, that preserve the personal element in the impersonal era of big business and big government.

While this partisan duel is underway we in the Catholic community are also observing another important milestone within our social tradition. This year makes the 120 anniversary of the Papal Encyclical Rerum Novarum. This document that was promulgated by Pope Leo XIII in 1891 has sparked the Catholic social tradition which continue with the recent encyclical by Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate. The Catholic social tradition has addressed numerous issues of social concern but in light of the current economic crisis is worth noting that both Rerum Novarum (RN) and Caritas in Veritate (CV) have focused their social analysis on the economic question and the concern regarding Communism on the one hand and Market Fundamentalism on the other. With this blog post and the others that we will be developing within the next few weeks Fr. Sebastian MacDonald, CP and I will reflect on the Catholic social tradition and what it tells us about the current economic situation and financial crisis which is now manifesting within the budget debate. This post will highlight the tradition of economic justice as developed between these two encyclicals.   

In the most simple terms, capital and labor have always been pitted against one another. In a market system capital and labor are vital ingredients to the economic engine. Each side has historically set itself apart from the other by emphasizing its own position with regards to how it interprets freedom and control (rule of law).  For example, the capitalist system is big on freedom from external controls imposed on it by outside forces, distorting the free give and take of market mechanisms.  But, by a strange turn of the knife, this same system imposes extensive controls on the working class, disallowing them certain freedoms, such as those concerning the right to assemble and voice their opinions.  Similarly, the labor group is big on freedom to express itself, to assemble, to organize, to bargain for certain privileges, etc.  But it is also found on the side of controls, both of its members who have to conform to union dues and rules, and also of the owners, on those occasions when labor gains the ascendancy in its disputes with capital, and can call the shots about the privileges and benefits it demands from the owners.  So the freedom-control conflict is as central to this issue as the capital-labor dispute. 

In the current struggle for balance between these two forces labor is again at a growing disadvantage. The increase use of automation, the surplus of cheap labor in Asia and Africa and the current financial crisis has diminished the bargaining power of labor. The recent situation in Wisconsin where the bargaining rights of workers have been legislatively threatened highlights this concern. The globalized economy has brought us back to the original concern that the Church expressed 120 years ago with the struggle between capital and labor.

Hence, by degrees it has come to pass that working men have been surrendered, isolated and helpless, to the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition. … To this must be added that the hiring of labor and the conduct of trade are concentrated in the hands of comparatively few; so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself. RN #3  

Catholic social teaching has consistently reminded us that the economy is at the service of humanity and not vice versa. The tradition has been very critical of the emergence of profit as an end in itself and it has been condemned by both Pope Paul VI and Pope Pius XI as the “international imperialism of money.” Pope Benedict XVI adds to this consistent teaching as well.

I would like to remind everyone, especially governments engaged in boosting the world’s economic and social assets, that the primary capital to be safeguarded and valued is man, the human person in his or her integrity: “Man is the source, the focus and the aim of all economic and social life” (CV #25)

Nonetheless, wealth production is a worthwhile, indeed a necessary, ingredient of a healthy society based on possessions of one’s own goods. Paragraph 8 of Rerum Novarum stated a firm defense for private property and Catholic social teaching has consistently promoted that stance. There’s no question here of disregarding or diminishing the importance of wealth or private property.  It’s a matter of adequate distribution of wealth/capital, so that a truly capitalist system can prevail, wherein everyone is a capitalist, that is, a holder/owner of true capital.  When capitalism is understood as the prerogative of only a few, then the capitalist system fails its promise.

Based on these considerations a frustrated Catholic may find him or herself asking the question: “What economic system does the Catholic Church support? Does it support a socialist or a capitalistic system? The answer is neither.

As far as the Church’s teaching is concerned the struggle between the absolute power of the State and the absolute freedom of the Market is a struggle between two idols that enslave the human person by forcing it to serve an extrinsic value outside of itself. In absolute terms both the State (under communism) and the Market (under neo-liberalism) are idols and the Church has rejected such interpretation of either institutions.    

Instead the Church has defended a well ordered balance between the state and the market which serves the human community. In this regard the recent development of Catholic social teaching has offered a system that pursues the common good through a balance between the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity. Subsidiarity defends the freedom of the individual and the local social unit by professing that any social power, responsibility and authority that can be relegated to the most local social unit (eg. family, community associations, municipalities, etc.) ought to be. Solidarity on the other hand is a Catholic principle that dictates that our economic and social policies ought to take into consideration the common welfare especially with regards to those in need. Thus it is that Pope Benedict XVI articulates the interrelationship of these two principles in this way:

The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa, since the former without the latter gives way to social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need. (CV #58)

The Church refuses to be caught between a moral struggle between two absolute systems. Instead the Church challenges us to explore an alternate system that can integrate the freedom of the market with the responsibility of the democratic state in serving the basic dignity of every individual and the common good of all. In our next blog post we will explore an alternative economic system that can do this through the Gospel mandate to “Love one another” and to foster a system that can promote a compassionate rather than a competitive relationship between one another.

To suffer with the other and for others; to suffer for the sake of truth and justice; to suffer out of love and in order to become a person who truly loves—these are fundamental elements of humanity, and to abandon them would destroy man himself. … The Christian faith has shown us that truth, justice and love are not simply ideals, but enormously weighty realities. It has shown us that God —Truth and Love in person—desired to suffer for us and with us. … Man is worth so much to God that he himself became man in order to suffer with man in an utterly real way—in flesh and blood—as is revealed to us in the account of Jesus’s Passion. Hence in all human suffering we are joined by one who experiences and carries that suffering with us; hence con-solatio is present in all suffering, the consolation of God’s compassionate love—and so the star of hope rises. #39

Through the Good Friday service and the Via Crucis (Way of the Cross) our parishes offer us an amazing opportunity to walk with Jesus and to accompany him on the way to the cross. This accompaniment works in three ways. At an historical level we are walking with Jesus and honoring the Passion that he suffered. At a personal level God also accompanies us and brings meaning and hope to the suffering that we experience. These services however are done in the context of a worshiping community; this context forces us to contemplate a social level of accompaniment. We honor all the suffering that people bring to the cross and as we witness the adoration to the cross that is done on the Good Friday service. We witness and honor all the suffering and intention that people bring to the foot of the cross. We accompany Christ, God accompanies us, and we accompany one another.

Jesus’ life and passion transcended every social barrier and structure. The mystery of the incarnation reminds us that Jesus’ very existence incorporated the human with the divine thus transcending any barrier between God and humanity. But the manner that God chose to relate with the human community also demonstrates an intent to transcend social barriers by incorporating a lowly and marginalized existence. Scripture attest to the poverty of Christ but he is further marginalized by being a Galilean from Nazareth. Far from being in the epicenter of Jewish activity and identity Jesus was born on the margins where the Jewish and gentile community intermingled. To accompany Jesus on his way to the cross is to accompany a marginalized and poor Jew who empowered the poor and marginalized people of his society and for that reason was executed by the socially dominant Jewish and Roman authorities. To accompany Jesus in this social context is to accompany the poor and marginalized members of our own society that continue to face either persecution or neglect from the dominant social powers of our day. Theologian Roberto Goizueta describes this accompaniment from the perspective of U.S. Hispanic theology in this way:

Our mestizaje and exile are symbols of our identification with a Jesus who also transgressed boundaries. The public character of so much of our popular religion, especially pilgrimages and processions such as that of Good Friday, reflects our refusal to have our lives, identities, and above all, our God circumscribed and limited by the spatial boundaries which U.S. society has erected. This transgression of boundaries – even if only temporary – is already an act of subversion and, thus, of liberation.[i]       

In his recent World Day of Peace of Peace message Pope Benedict XVI invited us to address the two related issues of religious fundamentalism and secularism. Pope Benedict defines secularism as “sophisticated forms of hostility to religion which, in Western countries, occasionally find expression in a denial of history and the rejection of religious symbols which reflect the identity and the culture of the majority of citizens.” Many of us in the United States can attest to what is accurately perceived as either the trivialization or elimination of religious symbols for the sake of an overly strict concern regarding pluralism or political correctness. Celebrations such as Christmas or Easter have been redefined in such a way as to almost completely rob them of any religious significance.

The conservative Christian community has raised this concern in recent years but I suggest that progressive Christian community and those of us who preach the social message of the Gospel ought to also defend these religious symbols that offer a vision of justice that transcends social barriers. The Hispanic American experience has a rich tradition of engaging the community at this socially transcendental level with their celebration of Posadas during Christmas where they accompany the Holy Family and one another with their experience of poverty and homelessness and with the Via Crucis where they accompany Jesus, the sorrowful Mother and one another amidst the suffering of injustice and torture. Pope Benedict invites us during this time to challenge the errors of secularism and his invitation is built around the pursuit of justice and human rights.      

Today too, in an increasingly globalized society, Christians are called, not only through their responsible involvement in civic, economic and political life but also through the witness of their charity and faith, to offer a valuable contribution to the laborious and stimulating pursuit of justice, integral human development and the right ordering of human affairs. The exclusion of religion from public life deprives the latter of a dimension open to transcendence. Without this fundamental experience it becomes difficult to guide societies towards universal ethical principles and to establish at the national and international level a legal order which fully recognizes and respects fundamental rights and freedoms as these are set forth in the goals – sadly still disregarded or contradicted – of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Let us commit ourselves to the challenge of promoting these religious symbols and offering our society a transcendental public witness towards the universal ethic of justice and peace by accompanying Jesus and one another on Good Friday.   

This seems to be a curious title.  Certainly the Japanese situation is a problem.  But, what kind of a problem: a technological one, an ecological one, a scientific one, an ethical one?

Short of assigning some dark malevolence to the technological or scientific aspects of this nuclear catastrophe, e.g., that the major players deliberately calibrated data, formulae, materials, and construction techniques, or at least failed in due deliberation, so as to mislead, the problem area seems to acquire its ethical dimensions in the ecological area: pollution of the atmosphere, involving land, air and sea together, so that they cease to be life-supporting, and become life-threatening.

The precipitating causes of this terrible ordeal, the earthquake and the tsunami, are clearly acts of God.  It is this third phase, the nuclear malfunction, that is clearly a human act, raising ethical questions, first about any use of nuclear power, and second, about the particular instance of such nuclear energy in Fukushimo, Japan: was there a problem, without any moral implications, already affecting the facilities there (an accident waiting to happen, perhaps unforeseen, possibly of a systemic nature), or was there a moral problem attached to the immediate reactions to the nuclear malfunction, or might there be a moral concern affecting the subsequent follow-up to the incident? 

There has been an ongoing dispute for decades on the promotion of nuclear power, between conservationists and proponents of nuclear energy, and it intensified at the time of the 1979 Three Mile Island partial core melt-down of unit 2 in Pennsylvania, then, later, the Russian (Ukraine) meltdown of unit 4 at Chernobyl in 1986.  This disagreement has certainly affected continued construction of nuclear-sourced facilities, especially in the US, though not so much in other parts of the world.  And the issue of the storage of spent nuclear fissionable materials, with its potential for harmful radiation, also alarms  many Americans, none of whom wants to have them buried close to their homes (this opposition has centered on such storage in Yucca mountain, Nevada, ever since its first proposal in 1978).  It is only recently, with the spike in energy prices (mainly oil) and the increasing awareness of the damaging effects of coal mining procedures (the other major energy source in the US), that nuclear energy has once again become a promising avenue to pursue, at least for some Americans.

However, we do sanction the accumulated collection of nuclear materials in our awesome arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles, as well as the use of nuclear energy in relatively small amounts in certain medical procedures.  So there is a mixed picture in our acceptance of nuclear energy in some form or fashion, which complicates answers to the major question about the ethical propriety of renewing its use, on a larger scale, for energy purposes.

Whether the Japanese catastrophe will further weight the argument against the use of nuclear energy seems unlikely, despite its severe repercussions, since the causal factor of the precipitating events (both earthquake and tsunami) is assigned to God, not to human ineptness.  It has been observed that, had the Japanese built a higher retaining/protective wall around the nuclear facility, the onrush of tsunami waters would not have occurred.  The clear implication of this is that such construction is/was quite possible, so that a similar accident can be prevented in the future.

However, in assessing the moral implications of the subsequent follow-up to the rupture of the nuclear units within the Fukushimo facility, there is more of a problematic dilemma.  There have been accusations by the Japanese public that they were not fully and accurately informed about the dimensions of the nuclear fallout.  These charges were largely leveled against the government, which, in turn, depended on the information furnished it by the nuclear company responsible for the facility (Tokyo Electric Power Company).  The level of trust here seems to have diminished, though, in defense of the company, a realistic assessment notes the unforeseen complexity of the aftermath, which was of such immense proportions that a totally objective and accurate portrayal of the situation was hardly possible, at least in the immediate follow-up to the precipitating event.

But an ethical searchlight must also play upon the longer-term results of efforts to contain and reduce the nuclear fallout from the reactors that have so effectively foiled efforts at repair work.  Radiation-filled clouds have formed and spread eastward, swept along on  prevailing winds across the Pacific, even affecting US cities, but apparently in only insignificant ways.  The land within several miles of the nuclear facility has been exposed to radiation, so that the crops grown on it cannot be sold on the market.  Indeed, some nations, such as India, refuse to import any edibles from Japan.  Current concern centers on the discharge of waters, initially used to cool the reactors, into the sea, with admittedly  deleterious effects on it, including its marine life.  To what extent the vastness of the Pacific ocean can absorb so as to offset the harmful effects of such pollution remains to be seen.  If there is an ethical question here, it would have to be: was there some other way of more safely disposing of these tainted waters, or, on the other hand, is misinformation being presented about the extent of sea contamination?  This is as much a scientific question as it is a moral one, and presently trust must be extended to those who are competent and responsible, as the only viable course of action to follow.

In sum, this terrible incident is likely one of a kind.  It seems unreasonable to establish  nuclear energy policy based on it alone.  But it is reasonable, and ethically mandatory, to note any flaws or errors in nuclear facility construction, coming to light from the Japanese tragedy, so as to correct them for the future.  By the same token, the dimensions of this incident are so vast that they should accelerate efforts to discover substitute energy sources for the huge amounts of energy a country such as the US needs.  And religious leaders can take occasion from this event to promote the kind of lifestyle that is energy-conscious, that is, a simple way of living that conserves the resources that a provident God has placed at our disposal.

In offering a critique on the 1983 U.S. Bishop’s pastoral “The Challenge of Peace” former Passionist moral theologian Paul Wadell tells us that “A Christianity that no longer seems strange to us is a Christianity that has lost its nerve.[i]” Professor Wadell was very much impressed with the Bishop’s depiction of the non-violent Christ in Scripture and their acknowledgement of our call to follow the radical example set by Jesus. But then he is perplexed by what he considers the weak invitation by the Church to subscribe pacifism as merely an individual option of choice. Informed by his own Passionist spirituality where he meditates on the amazing non-violent response of the crucified Christ Professor Wadell suggest that discipleship does not simply invites us to consider the non-violent option but rather it obliges us to adopt this countercultural social stance:

Pacifism is a Christian’s obligation because discipleship is a Christian’s vocation. To refuse to be a pacifist is a sign that in a world torn apart by the violence of war we no longer believe God’s story can be told.[ii]

While I respect and agree with Professor Wadell’s critique I still admire the overall Catholic position on pursuing peace and limiting violence through the just war criteria. Vatican II set the tone for this development with the Pastoral Constitution “Gaudium Et Spes” when after assessing modern warfare, especially within the nuclear age, it declared that “all these considerations compel us to undertake an evaluation of war with an entirely new attitude.”[iii] It was with this document that while offering some general principles for avoiding war that it praised the non-violent response of others.

Motivated by this same spirit, we cannot fail to praise those who renounce the use of violence in the vindication of their rights and who resort to methods of defense which are otherwise available to weaker parties too. (#78)[iv]

When the U.S. Bishops developed this peace tradition with the 1983 Peace Pastoral they described the theological principle at the heart of the Christian debate between active non-violence and the just war tradition. It boils down to an issue of discipleship based on Christian eschatology. Christ preached the coming of the Kingdom of God and in preaching its emergence Jesus himself would go back and forth in describing it as already present in what he is doing but awaiting its full emergence at some point in the imminent future. So while we are invited to be disciples of the Christ that we know through the history of our faith we are also awaiting the final revelation of Christ and his Kingdom in what we call the “Second Coming.” This is called the “already, not yet” dilemma of the Kingdom of God where we are invited to live like Christ as citizens of the Kingdom while acknowledging the ongoing presence of sin in our world and being forced to address the social realities of injustice and violence in a world that has not yet reached this state of perfection. This theological dilemma is at the heart of the Bishop’s Peace Pastoral whereby they praise the individual pursuit of radical discipleship while on the social level offer a just war approach that curtail the devastation of war especially on its effect on the civilian population. Nevertheless, in light of this tension, it is worthy to note the praise that the Pastoral offers non-violent activist in calling their witness that which “best reflects the call of Jesus both to love and to justice.”[v]

In the midst of this theological tension the Church appears to be offering a more prophetic stand that further critiques the possibility of a just war within our modern era while supporting non-violent actions and throwing its support on humanitarian intervention rather than war. In his treatment on the Catholic peace movement Marvin Krier Mich suggests that the Church is indeed moving further in this direction.

As the Catholic tradition continues to follow the advice of Vatican II – to have its moral reflection more clearly rooted in the Bible and be Christ-centered – I believe we will see a shift in the church’s understanding of pacifism. The official teaching is finding it harder and harder to justify war in the modern era. This means that the tradition of nonviolence will be recovered and receive greater emphasis in the future. The Catholic tradition is still working on this question.[vi]  

Krier Mich’s assessment on the Catholic peace position seems to be quite justified when taken into consideration with the emphasis on peace from our current pontiff. I for one was impressed with the reason that Pope Benedict XVI gave for choosing his Papal name in his very first World Day of Peace message.

The very name Benedict, which I chose on the day of my election to the Chair of Peter, is a sign of my personal commitment to peace. In taking this name, I wanted to evoke both the Patron Saint of Europe, who inspired a civilization of peace on the whole continent, and Pope Benedict XV, who condemned the First World War as a ”useless slaughter” and worked for a universal acknowledgment of the lofty demands of peace.[vii]

Pope Benedict XVI has struggle hard to emphasize one’s personal commitment to follow what he calls the “Gospel of Peace.” This invitation is again primarily offered at the individual level while offering broad social critiques on violent conflicts and supporting disarmament and development strategies. While it is of course imperative for us to push the pacifist and non-violent tradition as a point of personal conversion we still do not have a social mechanism for the international community to employ a broad based non-violent strategy for real local conflicts such as we have currently in Libya. Recently I offered a post that reflected on the “Spiral of Violence” theory by Archbishop Helder Camara of Brazil where he suggests that non-violence is not only an excellent moral position but that it is also a rational position for bringing to an effective halt the tendency of retaliating and counter-retaliating. I would think that the Christian community would do well to invest in a social mechanism that could offer a strategic non-violent option as part of an overall humanitarian intervention that is more consistent with Christian discipleship.     

The Christian Peacemaker Teams  is an organization that coordinates non-violent accompaniment to civilians who are either persecuted, marginalized or in the midst of conflict. This organization and this strategy of accompaniment would appear to me to offer a valuable non-violent option to humanitarian intervention in a place like Libya. At the very least it would be a good place to start contemplating this social response.