United to the Way
In an amazing turn of events, many so-called “conservatives”[1] are calling into question the social doctrine of the Catholic Church. They act like it is a new idea, and riddled with errors. A common tactic is to say the Church should not be like the United Way; it should be looking for the salvation of souls.
To any Catholic with a traditional sense of Church doctrine, this appeal strikes as very Protestant and quietist. We have found ourselves once again in the midst of a debate between faith and works, where some people are trying to separate the two and make works insignificant and only doctrinal propositions as important. This, however, is far from what the Church expects of us when it comes to the matter of faith. Faith is not just mere belief, but fidelity — fidelity to Christ and his expectations. Indeed, since the Church is the Body of Christ, the Church is expected to follow the work of Christ, a work which is for the salvation of whole persons, both soul and body, with the realization that the two work together and are united as one.[2] This is exactly what Jesus reveals when he began his ministry and said he had in his persons fulfilled prophecy:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord (Lk 4:18-19 RSV).
In the Epistle of James, we find out that faith without works is dead. Our salvation is a thing of grace, yes, but we need to cooperate with that grace and to do the work of Christ if we want to receive its benefits. And if one reads the Epistle of James, St James makes it clear what he means by the works of faith. It is working for the wellbeing of our neighbor as a person; if they are in need, we supply that need. When the poor are before us, and we turn them away and yet could have helped them, we have shown how dead our faith actually is:
What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead (James 2:14 – 17 RSV) .
The Church, as the Body of Christ, has throughout history been doing the work of Christ, which is the work of social justice. This is not a new thing. This is the traditional work of the Church. Indeed, anyone who knows how the Church converted Rome knows that it was through its social work that it was able to converted Rome and turned it to Christ. Julian the Apostate realized this, and tried to have the pagans imitate the work of the Church, but without the grace of Christ, his imitation of the Church’s social doctrine ended up dead and without any success. To realize this is to understand that the social doctrine is indeed about the salvation of souls. It is not, however, just about the salvation of those souls who are outside of the confines of the Church (though it is about that), it is also about the salvation of the people who are in the Church as well. Christ expects us to follow his example and to continue his work; indeed, in his discussion of the Last Judgment, he points out it is this which will determine our salvation!
When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me’ (Matt 25:31 -36 RSV).
This is ever before us as Christians. We are to put on Christ and to follow him in his work. The preferential option for the poor is our demand because we are expected to work for them once we have put on the mantle of Christ. It is not an easy thing. I am as guilty as the next person, when I reflect upon the expectations of Christ on myself. We are all expected to give our whole selves to others, to show them love. When we neglect that love because it is not convenient, we risk judgment upon ourselves. The saints again and again and again tell us this. Saint Basil puts it very succinctly:
Care for the needy requires the expenditure of wealth: when all share alike, disbursing their possessions among themselves, they each receive a small portion for their individual needs. Thus, those who love their neighbor as themselves possess nothing more than their neighbor; yet, surely, you seem to have great possessions! How else can this be, but that you have preferred your own enjoyment to the consolation of the many? For the more you abound in wealth, the more you lack in love.[3]
St. Basil took this seriously, and thought that individual and corporate sins could not only cause damnation, but temporal disaster as well. He believed that sins could cause nature to turn against us, and indeed, when we see it going violent, it is indicative of social sin. Thus, the deadly drought he lived through was seen as God’s judgment upon the people for their sin. “Let us examine our lives, both individually and corporately, let us regard the drought as a guide leading us to remembrance of our sins.”[4] In his description of the drought, St Basil saw what we could only describe as climate change. When God’s good grace was taken away from the land, causing such unnatural weather, it was because of the neglect of the people for the poor and needy:
See, now, how the multitude of our sins have altered the course of the year and changed the character of the seasons, producing these unusual temperatures. [....] Scorching heat and biting frost, exceeding their boundaries in an unprecedented way, considered to wreck severe damage upon human beings, even depriving them of life itself.[5]
We are called to love our neighbor as ourselves. As Christians, if we do not do so, we show we do not know love, and if we do not know love, we do not know God. But if we wish for our own prosperity, we must wish for the prosperity of others, and work so that they might have it. “The state of love may be recognized in the giving of money, and still more in the giving of spiritual counsel and in looking after people in their physical needs.”[6] If we do not know this love and do not know how to love our brethren, we really do not know God. “Therefore, whoever loves his brother according to charity, which God is, loves charity itself in him as much as possible.”[7] How can we be saved if we do not know God? We are called to move beyond our greed and desire for self-possession and instead to look for our brothers and sisters and their needs: “… alms increases trust in God and produces spiritual fruit. For although every good work bears this fruit, yet it fits almsgiving especially, since through it we offer a service pleasing to both God and neighbor and it is a work that is clearly and obviously recognized as good.”[8]
The Church’s call for works of mercy is a call for us to work out our own salvation with much fear and trembling. Those who say such work undermines the Church’s work for the salvation of souls undermine their own salvation. The more works of charity we do, the more charity grows in our hearts and souls, the more we cooperate with grace, and the more we are capable of overcoming temptation which would lead us to sin:
A man who ministers with knowledge ministers because he is moved by sympathy [for the sufferer], because his heart is moved with pity. If anything happens externally that troubles him, or if the sick man is cantankerous with him, a man who aims at expressing this pity will bear it without being put out, because he sticks to his own intention and knows that the sick man is doing him more good than he is the sick man. You must believe that a man who ministers to the sick with knowledge is relieved of many evil tendencies and the battles they cause.[9]
We stand accused when we do not give what we can to the poor. We are called to share and give, because the world and all that is within it is God’s:
Consider yourself, who you are, what resources have been entrusted to you, from whom you received them, and why you received them more than others. You have been made a minister of God’s goodness, a steward of your fellow servants. Do not suppose that all of this was furnished for your own gullet! Resolve to treat the things in your possession as belong to others. After all, they bring pleasure only for a little while, then fade away and disappear, but afterwards a strict accounting of their disbursement will be demanded from you.[10]
We do not own what is in the world. Though we might claim it, we really do not possess it. When we assume we do, we become thieves. We claim possession over that which was put in our hands instead of realizing that it was placed in our hands so we can hand it out in stewardship:
You should think the same about those who are rich and greedy. They are a kind of robbers lying in wait on the roads, stealing form passers-by, and burying others’ goods in their own houses as if in caves and holes. Let us not therefore call them fortunate because of what they have, but miserable because of what will come, because of that dreadful courtroom, because of the inexorable judgment, because of the outer darkness which awaits them.[11]
If one is concerned about the salvation of souls, one would be concerned when our brothers and sisters in Christ becomes thieves and take what is not rightfully theirs as if it is their own. That is why the social doctrine of the Church is important and is not just a secondary concern. It is intimately related to the putting on Christ and becoming one of his. The world looks at possessions in one way. Christians, however, are to see possessions in the light of God’s truth. And when we try to possess what is not ours, the condemnation is clear. Greed, the love of money, is the root of evil, and those who work to protect systems of greed are risking damnation, not just of themselves, but for those who they encourage to keep on with the path of greed.[12] Such an attempt at theft of God’s resources will not go unnoticed by God:
Who are the greedy. Those who are not satisfied with what suffices for their own needs. Who are the robbers? Those who take for themselves what rightfully belong to everyone. And you, are you not greedy? Are you not a robber? The things you received in trust as stewardship, have you not appropriated them for yourself? Is not the person who strips another of clothing called a thief? And those who do not clothe the naked when they have the power to do so, should they not be called the same? The bread you are holding back is for the hungry, the clothes you keep put away are for the naked, the shoes that are rotting away with disuse are for those who have none, the silver you keep buried in the earth is for the needy. You are thus guilty of injustice toward as man as you might have aided, and did not. [13]
If we are moved by love we are moved by the option for the poor. If we love our neighbor we see their needs and want to have them met. If we can not do it individually, we want to work to have them met communally. If we follow Christ, we cannot excuse ourselves by popular culture. Our culture suggests we should accumulate wealth for ourselves. God tells us no wealth is our own. Popular culture tells us to love ourselves, God tells us to love others as ourselves. The culture of death which is around us comes from such egoism: “Death comes not from God, but from people hating their neighbors, ‘for God did not make death, nor does he delight in the destruction of the living’ [Wis 1.13].”[14] This culture of death is founded upon the continued accumulation of wealth, of appropriating to ourselves that which is meant for others. It is not just that we neglect the needs of others, but as St Gregory Palamas points out, we do something worse: we use our abundance as a means to take from those who have little so as to add to our greatness: “I wanted to say that there was no greater proof of hatred than preferring excess money to our brother. But I see that evil has found a greater proof of hatred for our fellow man. For some people not only do not give alms out of their abundance, but even appropriate what belongs to others.”[15] And, as, he further points out, we will be shown mercy and grace if we have shown others mercy and grace in acts of compassion: “Let us be merciful to ourselves by being merciful to others, gain compassion by showing compassion, and do good that good may be done to us. For we receive the like in return: good works, benevolence, love, mercy, and compassion, but not merely to the same value and measure of excellence.”[16] The only richness we should seek is that of good works: “But let us, brethren, be rich in good works. Let us fill the stomachs of the poor with what we have, that we may be deemed worthy to hear the promised voice and blessing, and inherit the heavenly kingdom.”[17]
Those who say they seek the salvation of souls and use that as an excuse to neglect the work of social justice prove to be wolves in sheep’s clothing, for they are encouraging us to act contrary to our own welfare. Yes, works alone do not save; we need grace for salvation, and grace is given to us in and through faith. But how can we say we have faith in Jesus if we ignore his commands? How can we say we love him if we show we do not know love? It is for this reason the Church wisely repudiates such wolves as faithless, because their fruit is the rotten fruit of self-love; if left unchecked, it can lead us to hell. If we want treasures in heaven, we must overcome the false riches of the earth- we must reject mammon! What will we tell Christ in the Last Judgment? Will we tell him we had faith in him, so he must save us? That is good, but how did we show that faith? Did we follow him and his path of love? If we did not, will he not say, “if you had faith, you would have believed me?” What will our answer be? “What then will you answer the Judge? Your gorgeously array your walls, but do not clothe your fellow human being; you adorn horses, but turn away from the shameful plight of your brother or sister; you allow grain to rot in your barns, but do not feed those who are starving; you hide gold in the earth, but ignore the oppressed.”[18] It is not too late. We still can turn to the path of love. “But let us change direction, repent and agree together to supply the needs of the poor brethren among us by whatever means we have.”[19] Repent now, for, as we know, the Kingdom of God is at hand!
Footnotes
[1] I call them so-called conservatives, because I would not say they are conservative, and this denial is to their claims at being conservatives in a political or religious sense; those who are conservative politically would follow the classical right in affirmation of a strong central government and reject libertarian values, and those who follow conservatism in a religious sense would show a far greater respect to ecclesial authority.
[2] “At the beginning of his ministry, in the synagogue at Nazareth, Jesus announces that the Spirit has consecrated him to preach good news to the poor, to proclaim release to captives, to give sight back to the blind, to set the oppressed free, to declare a year of favour from the Lord (cf. LC 4,16-19). Taking up the Lord’s mission as her own, the Church proclaims the Gospel to every man and woman, committing herself to their integral salvation. But with special attention, in a true “preferential option”, she turns to those who are in situations of greater weakness, and therefore in greater need. “The poor”, in varied states of affliction, are the oppressed, those on the margin of society, the elderly, the sick, the young, any and all who are considered and treated as ‘the least,’” Pope John Paul II, Vita consecrata. Vatican Translation. ¶ 82.
[3] St. Basil the Great, “To the Rich” in On Social Justice. Trans, C. Paul Schroeder (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009),43.
[4] St. Basil the Great, “In Time of Famine and Drought” in On Social Justice. Trans, C. Paul Schroeder (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009),80.
[5] ibid., 75. He then goes to describe what exactly is the problem: “Rather, the reason why our needs are not provided for as usual is plain and obvious: we do not share what we receive with others. We praise beneficence, while we deprive the needy of it. [...] This is why God does not open his hand: because we have closed up our hearts towards our brothers and sisters. This is why the fields are arid: because love has dried up” ibid., 76.
[6] St Maximus the Confessor, “First Century on Love 26″ in in The Philokalia: The Complete Text. Volume Two. Trans. G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard and Kallistos Ware (London: Faber and Faber, 1983), 55.
[7] St. Fulgenitus, “To the Abbot Eugippius 8″ in Flugentius: Selected Works. Trans. Robert. B. Eno, S.S. (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1997), 345.
[8] St Robert Bellarmine, “The Art of Dying Well” in St. Robert Bellarmine: Spiritual Writings. Trans. John Patrick Donnelly, S.J. and Roland J. Teske, S.J. (New York: Paulist Press, 1989), 275.
[9] St. Dorotheos of Gaza, “On Building Up Virtues” in Dorotheos of Gaza: Discourses & Sayings. Trans. Eric P. Wheeler (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1977), 205
[10] St. Basil the Great, “I will Tear Down my Barns” in On Social Justice. Trans, C. Paul Schroeder (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009),61.
[11] St John Chrysostom, On Wealth and Poverty. Trans. Catharine P. Roth (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984), 36-7.
[12] Hence, the Church works to overcome systems of sin and not just individual sins.
[13] St. Basil the Great, “I will Tear Down my Barns,” 69-70.
[14] Mark the Monk, “The Mind’s Advicr to its Own Soul” in Counsels on the Spiritual Life. Trans. Tim Vivian and Augustine Casiday (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009), 179.
[15] St Gregory Palamas, The Homilies. Trans. Christopher Veniamin (Waymart, PA: Mount Thabor Publishing, 2009), 32.
[16] ibid., 32-3.
[17] ibid., 517.
[18] St Basil, “To the Rich,” 47.
[19] St. Gregory Palamas, The Homilies, 31.
Comments are closed.
I wish you had been clearer here about the position of those with whom you disagree. I gather this is about the critics of CCHD, and it strikes me that they are not attacking the concept of caring for the poor but rather what Pope Benedict calls the “political path” of charity: the idea that we should alleviate poverty by addressing its underlying or structural causes. That’s why they say they would prefer that CCHD funds be used in ministries of direct service to the poor rather than for community organizing and empowerment programs.
Ron
I am critical of those who deny the social role of the Church and say social justice is in error. One can question methods of how to get to such justice, sure; but we must begin with an affirmation that the Church is indeed to promote social justice. If we give up on this, we give up on Christ — for Christ tells us constantly where our work is to be. When people say “the Church is not the United Way” and complain about all the emphasis on works of mercy instead of “saving souls,” as if the two are separate, then something is wrong. In this way, this post is beyond the issue of the CCHD but to basics which we need to agree on before we can discuss the CCHD. Indeed, is it not also political agendas behind many of those who are being critical of the CCHD? And the whole idea of community organizing and empowerment — read St Basil and his work. He was for communal work – as his quotes point out, social sin is real and requires the community to work to overcome it. Individualism ignores this at its own peril. The fact that people deny the very point of the CCHD itself says much. If they can show an understanding and appreciation of what good is done, then it would help explain that they really care about that good and are not just coming in with a political agenda using mistakes of the CCHD as an excuse to push people for their own agenda — one which appears to be united with GOP objectives, not Catholic Social Doctrine.
Nonetheless, while the CCHD discussions have caused people to question the social doctrine of the Church, I was not reflecting upon the CCHD discussions themselves, but the idea of social justice, which is being mocked and ridiculed alongside the CCHD. That to me is why something like this needs to be posted. To move beyond the CCHD and into the real question at hand.. which is Catholic Social Doctrine.
Great post, Henry. Yet again, most that goes awry in American Catholicism can be traced to the Protestant influence.
On CCHD, this only became an issue after the right decided that “community organizing” was something to be opposed, simply because Obama had done it. It’s sad that there are Catholic sheep in this movement, who bring this fight into the Church. Before this, the emphasis on empowerment was often praised on the right, as it fostered subsidiarity and avoided a dependency culture. But of course, times have changed, and marching orders must be obeyed…
MM
Thanks! I thought the post was needed — though I thought about saving the St Basil quotes on the famine for a post on climate change and the saints ;)
I actually think , and I aware of some United Way Problems, that many “conservative Catholics” would find if the CCHD was more like the United Way there would be less of a problem and in fact might be more effective. At least with the United Ways there is a real dialouge hwere this money is going.
As to empowerment and community organzing that is again a tricky problem. Where are the lines.
After the CCHD/ ACORN revelations of last year we seemed to learn that
Most Local Catholic Bishops have little idea what is going on as to this.
and
There was an appearance of a lot of INSIDE baseball both based on relationships and poltical ideals of where a nice bit of this money was spent.
Those problems I think had to some degree of legitimacy.
There is no doubt by some a GOP agenda. But it did not go beyond notice that much of these “empowerment” and human empowerment conisted of voting drives that seemed to to quite aligned with crucial democrat elections.
Let us suppose that the CCHD gave a susbtantial amount of money for empowerment and community organizing to the American Principles Project headed by Robert George and run I guess day to day by Ralph Peters. I cannot not imagine the howls. But why? In the matter of Catholic Social Justice their work on abortion and on immigration reform they would be doing a service. However underlying that would be a “conservative” viewpoint I suppose. Perhaps this would be healthy. A little competition of ideas which I think might be good. However we can see the underlying political mind field.
So I guess the issue here is how you empower the people and what is viewed as empowerment is the issue here. Which I admit is a thorny mess.
I certaintly agree that Catholic Social Justice should not be mocked. However part of the problem is a PR problem of its own making. It does seem like a very clannish operation at times.
Speaking of Morning Minions comments on Protestants Well I guess that is correct. Social Justice does not operate all by itself. Indeed some of the mistakes of the Mainline Protestant faith communities that have taken Social Justice by the horns is also aprt of the mix and mixed in together with us.
I am not sure it is true that conservative Catholics are increasingly questioning the social doctrine of the Church. I think conservative Catholics are just increasingly insisting that Catholics support conservativism an djust pull out whatever arguements seem to support the action of the moment they support or oppose.
Back in the day, conservative Catholics were quick to criticize priests enaged in social action. Their job was (as one told me) “to say Mass and hear confessions, not to get mixed up in politics.” The “politics” of this time was often marches or rallies for fair housing or peace in VietNam, not even any particular piece of legislation. Now conservative Catholics are quick to tell you exactly how to vote if you are to dare show up for communion next Sunday. Of course, every part of CST that is “liberal” is negotible and prudential judgment.
Increasingly, (see the bishop of Green Bay) it is wrong for Catholics to support even very precise social initiatives supported by the Church because success would be a victory for “liberals” and victory for liberal is support for abortion.
And “politics” has been expanded from voting and legislation to any action that empowers the poor so they are not dependent on charity — like CCHD does.
You see, if the poor are dependent on charity, then the wealthy benefactors of charity can withdraw it at anytime the poor get out of line.
I think you caricature, however unintentionally, those with whom you disagree.
You state, “A common tactic is to say the Church should not be like the United Way; it should be looking for the salvation of souls.” Common? I think it is not common, among serious Christians (Catholic or otherwise) of a conservative bent, to take this either/or stance which opposes caring for the poor (which is, I presume, the main implication of being “like the United Way” in this context) against the salvation of souls.
Indeed, I have never encountered it at all, and my experience of this group happens to be pretty broad. I am willing to say that it exists only because, in such a diverse world, it must exist somewhere. But it is not common.
I suspect this misunderstanding of the viewpoint of right-leaning Catholics may have come from misunderstanding a division existing in Protestant mainline denominations: The divide between “theologically liberal” congregations and “evangelical” congregations.
In the worst of the former, the leadership aren’t sure that God exists or that Jesus is His son, but they cling to the view that “It’s good to be nice to people”: So they perform gay marriages and ordain women and agitate for broad federal entitlements for the poor: “Nice” positions.
Their evangelical brethren (whether fundamentalist or conservative or neo-orthodox) counter that if Jesus was not raised, all our hopes are vain (St. Paul) and that theological orthodoxy is vital. They complain their “theologically liberal” brethren are merely heretics who, having lost the faith, found themselves without a reason to go to church (or anything to talk about when they got there), and who imported this left-leaning political platform as a surrogate.
Thus they might complain, “Christian churches must save souls. We’re not merely the United Way in clerical garb!”
Even there, however, we must note the use of the word merely. The Evangelicals don’t say that one shouldn’t care for the poor. They say that one should believe the gospel, and that the love and grace of Jesus Christ who really, historically rose from the dead should be the driving reason for all one’s charity. The theology comes first, and the charity follows immediately thereafter, but as with love and marriage, “you can’t [shouldn't] have one without the other.”
That’s the Protestant world, where they lack a living authority. In the Catholic world, I think the dividing lines are not so distinct because there are Catholics who are orthodox believers, while holding the political views held by the “theologically liberal” Protestants. They hold those views not as a substitute for the gospel, but because they see them as compatible with, even a logical consequence of, the gospel. I suspect most of the commenters at this blog fall in that category. (Score one for the benefits of a living authority in the church!)
But my purpose here is to debunk this view that those on the right, who disagree with your political views about entitlements and the like, are greedy heartless bastards who want only to save souls but never to feed bodies. You haven’t stated this in so many words, but it’s a common enough libel and I fear you came pretty close.
View From The Right
The Catholic or Christian whose political leanings are conservative or libertarian or “classical liberal” takes the view that:
1. Persons, by virtue of their divinely-granted human dignity, have many rights, responsibilities, and powers. (By the word “powers” I mean not only ability to act in certain ways, but the just authority to act in those ways.)
2. Persons may exercise their powers themselves, and in some cases they may delegate some of their powers to employees.
For example, I have a power (a just authority) to defend myself and other innocent persons against violent attack, by armed force if necessary. I could go around armed all the time fighting crime, but it isn’t practical: I lack the training and the time, and anyway huge problems will erupt if everyone takes all the responsibility for safeguarding their rights and the rights of everyone around them without any organization.
So we delegate most (not all) of this power to a particular set of employees called “government.” It is like hiring private bodyguards, except that as a society we all “go in together.” In the American political tradition, “government obtains its just powers from the consent of the governed.” Just so: We delegated that power to the government, our employees; they exercise it through the police power of the state. And we did not delegate all of it, retaining none for ourselves: For we still have just authority to defend ourselves or others “in the gravest extreme,” when the defense must occur now and the police are ten minutes away.
As an aside, this delegation and organization of the just use of force is exactly what makes government “government.” It is the only unique thing about government as an organization: That it may use force to achieve its ends.
In fact, no matter what government does, it uses force to do it, merely because it has that power. A man may stand before you trying to persuade you of some opinion in a winsome way through many eloquent arguments…but if he is pointing a gun at you the whole time, we know perfectly well that his chief power of influence does not come from his friendly demeanor or his rhetorical skill!
Thus we should always be conscious not to permit government to act more than it ought: Any use of force requires a high bar of justification before we may call it “morally justified”; anything government does involves force or the threat thereof; therefore, a strict standard of justification must be met for government activity to be morally warranted.
That is an aside, though it is applicable to this argument. But here in Point #2 I am mostly giving government as an example of Persons justly delegating their powers.
3. While Persons may morally delegate some powers, other powers may not be delegated, or may only be delegated to a limited degree. In particular, the powers which are most related to generosity and love between persons are properly not as freely open to delegation as are items of mere administration, setting of public standards, or the use of force for the securing of rights.
In the previous example, we illustrated the principle that one can justly delegate certain powers; here I must show that one cannot properly delegate others.
The easy example is the duty to love my wife: Is this something I can delegate? “Here honey, I hired this fellow to take you to the movies.” Clearly this is non-delegatable stuff! And we think rather less of the businessman who, because he hasn’t the time, sends his secretary to shop for birthday gifts for his children. Love, properly, is not delegated.
To a lesser degree, I think we would also frown a bit at a man who says, “I think I’ll help the poor today,” and calls in three of his bodyguards and instructs them: “Go out and help the poor in some way today. I don’t want to know exactly who or exactly how; I’ve no time for that. And I don’t want to be bothered by any poor folk standing in my office wanting my attention. Just get it done so I don’t have to think about it.”
And I think we’d all be opposed if that man’s bodyguards said, “Sure thing, Boss, but we think we’ll need about $3,000 to help the poor today” and the man answered, “Well, I myself have $1,000 — here you go — and I suspect my next-door neighbors on either side can make up the difference, so go hold them at gunpoint until they fork over the remaining two grand, and then, once you have it, go do your poor-helping stuff.”
Now the Catholic whose politics lean conservative or libertarian holds that it is in these areas (plus in other areas such as constitutionality and subsidiarity) that (politically) left-leaning Catholics persistently make errors. They say:
1. The duty of almsgiving is a manner of showing love for my fellow man;
2. Such duties are less delegatable than the other just powers of persons;
3. I am therefore personally responsible for caring for my fellow man.
4. I may not properly delegate the duty of loving my fellow man to my hirelings, which includes the government, or, if I am morally permitted to delegate some part of that duty, it must be the lesser part;
5. If any part of almsgiving is delegatable, it must not be the major part, and the gift should remain close to the giver, not many steps removed. Therefore, in accord with the principle of subsidiarity, most government-organized care-for-the-poor should be at the local level, a lesser amount at the county level, a still lesser amount at the state level, and least of all (or possibly none at all) at the federal level.
6. Furthermore, things should be done lawfully and honestly. In the United States’ highest law, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (Amendment X). As almsgiving is nowhere delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, this power is not justly wielded by the United States federal government. They are our employees: They have specific duties spelled out in their employment contract; but this duty is not among them. Maybe it should have been included, but it wasn’t.
So your right-leaning Christians do not say, “Our job is to save souls, not to help the poor.”
They say, “Our job is to do both, and neither duty is subject to much delegation. We can’t leave all the soul-winning to priests and apologists; we have to know our faith and share it. Likewise we can’t properly enlist the government to do all our almsgiving for us, let alone compel others to do it. We must instead give voluntarily out of our own pockets and our own time. And that is what we do. To a lesser degree we can organize into local charitable organizations. To a still lesser degree, into nation-wide or world-wide organizations.
“But we see very little moral warrant to go sending our gun-toting government employees around, compelling others to “give,” in the ways and amounts we choose, to whatever causes we like best.
“It frankly sounds a bit fascist to us — to use that term in the loose and ahistorical way it’s usually thrown around these days, vaguely indicating a sort of boastful and pushy predisposition to unwarranted force.”
Persuasion Rather Than Slander
I have stated all of the above, often using quotation marks to put words in the mouth of a stereotypical right-leaning Catholic, to demonstrate the following:
1. Right-leaning Catholics do not oppose charitable works, nor do they see an antithesis between soul-saving and caring for the poor.
2. Right-leaning Catholics have a variety of principled objections to using government force, especially when it is centralized in the federal government, to care for the poor.
On the basis of these principles, they reject many programs which are popular on the left side of the aisle as immoral uses of force and/or immoral delegations of our duty to love our fellow man.
If one prefers to slander rather than persuade, one can say, “Ah, that’s just an excuse. They’re greedy SOBs who don’t want to help the poor.” But this is false, and only provokes ire at the unjust accusation; it does not persuade. To persuade a right-leaning Catholic, one must argue that their principles are incorrect…or, better yet, that their principles are correct, but that other principles are also at work, which they have neglected.
My Own View
My own view on these matters is that there is a role for local and state governments, and even (to a lesser degree) the federal government, in caring for the poor, but not in almsgiving.
I think those on the right sometimes confuse almsgiving with giving the poor man his due, which is already justly his in view of the universal destination of goods. Almsgiving should exist on top of some basic layer of care for the poor, which falls not under the banner of “giving” but of “justice.”
Thus I think, for example, that public defenders should be better so that the poor man’s day in court gives him as good a defense as the rich man’s. And of course I agree with the policy in the U.S. which makes it illegal to turn away a person from necessary medical treatment merely because he cannot pay.
However, in the end, the policies I would see enacted at the federal, state, and local levels are not very different from those of the broader Catholic and Christian “right.”
I believe that equal protection under law is the correct goal, not equality of outcomes. Equality of starting points, which is mid-way between these two, is partly morally defensible, but partly not, when implemented through compulsion. Thus my inclination is to lean more on neighborhoods, towns, and counties to organize social justice at this level.
And of course I agree with the right that our primary exercise of love for our fellow-man is (or, ought to be) through voluntary organizations and voluntary individual giving.
And I think the existence of entitlement programs on such huge scales at the federal level is perpetuated because it’s a reliable vote-buyer, and as such is hugely corruptive, in addition to its questionable Constitutionality, efficacy, moral hazard, et cetera.
And finally, lest anyone caricature the whole Constitutional argument: No, of course I wouldn’t abruptly abolish all the federal entitlements. While I think there are superior and more moral ways to organize a just society, I am conservative, in the Burke v. French Revolution kind of way, about giving societies time to adapt to change, even when they’re changes for the better.
But my post was not primarily about my view. I stand mostly on the right, but in some ways I might be an outlier, and “my view” would not necessarily disprove the popular caricatures of the right.
My main point was to help folks understand that the average right-leaning Christians, Catholic and otherwise, are not Scrooge-like or Gordon Gecko-like caricatures, but are rather persons who think it’s immoral to go breaking all the rules in order to help the poor when there are better ways to help them which don’t break the rules.
Are they wrong about what the rules are? Maybe. Maybe the moral law actually permits, or even obligates, all the federal entitlements, and then some. In that case the right-leaning Catholics (and I) have misinterpreted the Moral Law.
But if so, the failure is one of misinterpretation, not of a lack of generosity, or a tendency to treat soul-winning and charity as opposites.
RC –
That is a very thoughtful post and I am better off having read it. I would diagree with small parts and offer that conservatives really don’t follow other parts, but it is something worth reflecting on.
The most important point is that we can’t contract out to others almsgiving — be it to the government, Catholic Charities or the United Way.
Kurt:
Thank you, that’s a very gracious response, and I do appreciate it.
You’ve made me curious about which parts “conservatives really don’t follow” in your view.
But whatever you had in mind, a critical distinction would arise: Is this item, which is inconsistent with the conservative mind as R.C. described it, something common and championed in conservative circles? Or is it a less common topic…perhaps something or hotly disputed among conservatives, or something they pass over in silence as embarrassing or irrelevant?
If the former, then that suggests my description of the conservative mind was incomplete.
But if it is the latter, it may be something better explained as part of the variability always found in a group as big as “conservatives.”
Anyhow, thanks for your reply.
Yes, Henry, a great post and more than a post (it’s a pretty substantial sermon, actually!), and not just because it is well-written and well-documented, but mainly because it begins with the Gospel and the seminal thinkers/leaders of the Church, and goes from there to address questions about social justice. So many conservatives begin with their conservatism, which is dear to them, and then mighily try to reconcile it with their religion, which they also value; and the same thing may very well go for some liberals (perhaps some exponents of “liberation theology” as well).
It goes without saying, as Christians we owe our first allegiance to Jesus Christ, and not to any political party or any side in a culture war between traditional and non-traditional values.
I was glad to see you brought up the point about the Church’s role in its first centuries as a pioneering social-welfare organization. If the Church today was more like the early Church, then we would not have to look to “big gubmint” as the main provider of social safety nets. If that was the case, you would not hear this “liberal” complain about it one bit, even while I recognize, along with the Magisterium, that government is a perfectly legitimate vehicle for expressing love of one’s neighbor.
David,
I’m glad you liked it as well!
And I very much agree with what you said — I really do wish the Church could somehow recapture the social justice of the early centuries. Not only would we not have to worry about issues like “big government,” but the world would once again see us as people of faith, living out the faith, and wonder — should they follow us? Do we have something they are missing? Of course we do, but right now, it doesn’t seem like it, because we fail to live it out. I know I fail!
And your last comment about government is also spot on. I wish people understood this.
R.C.,
How do you feel about food stamps?
What’s the difference between social justice and justice? Social justice isn’t really justice!
R.C,
Always searching for common ground, I think there maybe more between us than expected. I think you might be surprised that among us of the classic Left, there is less support for government charity than you think. In many ways it has been the centerists — Susan Collins, Evan Bayh, Blannce Lincoln, Olympia Snowe, to name some from the current Senate — who have been the forces for public charity.
The classic left has always been more interested in justice than charity, for example safe workplaces, workers’ compensation and Disability Insurance rather than hand-outs for the disabled.
I think the classic Left accepts that people will make bad decisions at times and should not always be insulated from those bad decisions. I think the most notable exception is that we do like like to see it extended to people who make a bad choice as to their parents. That is why we support public education, school lunches, SCHIP, etc.
The classic Left has a certain suspicion of charity –public or private. It is used to keep a surplus labor army as a check on the employed. It can be given or withdrawn as fits the needs of the benefactor.
What do you mean, Zach?