Fr. Thomas Reese posted a statement Friday at the Holy Post blog site saying that on Monday, Pope Benedict will issue a document about the reform of the international financial system that will be closer to the views of Occupy Wall Street than to those of the U.S. Congress–and far to the left of where any American politician stands. According to Reese, the document will focus on the dignity of the individual and the demands of justice, as we assess the morality of economic systems.
And, of course, for those of us schooled in the long, rich tradition of Catholic social teaching, this statement will, indeed, be welcome. It will be welcome, in particular, because so many of our church officials appear to have forgotten about that tradition of social justice teaching–notably, the Catholic bishops of the U.S., who move closer to the political and economic stances of the Republican party with each passing day.
For my part, I’ll be waiting eagerly to hear what the new document will have to say about the practice of economic justice within the Catholic church itself, and within Catholic institutions. I assume, of course, that the pope will address these topics, certainly so, since people will hardly pay attention to any critique of the injustices of economic systems in society at large if they come from the leader of an institution who is not also intent on addressing questions about how his own institution practices justice, about how the Catholic church and its institutions deal with the dignity of the individual and demands of justice in their own institutional life.
If the papal statement ignores such issues, people will rightly not pay much attention to any statement the pope might make about the practice of economic justice or of justice in general. Particularly if they have the impression that the institution the pope himself heads does not practice justice in thoroughgoing ways, but is blind in some conspicuous ways to the dignity of the individual and the demands of justice in its own practices. People will pay attention to what the pope says about these topics to the extent that the church and its institutions give credible—give sacramental—witness to what church statements proclaim through their words. In the absence of such credible sacramental witness to the words proclaimed, people will be inclined to treat the words of the pope and other church leaders as ornamental, perhaps interesting, perhaps pretty, but not by any means compelling.
And so I’ll be waiting to hear what this papal statement, which a number of those commenting on it in advance regard as prophetic, will be saying about how the church and its institutions enshrine justice in their practices. For instance, I’m assuming the papal statement will deal with (or at the very least advert to) questions such as the following: How are workers in Catholic institutions treated? Do they receive just wages and strong benefits? How do Catholic institutions regard the rights of workers? Do workers in Catholic institutions enjoy the right of association, the right to form unions and collective bargaining units? Do they have the right to air grievances publicly and without fear of reprisal from the Catholic institutions that employ them?
Are they afforded the right to participate in the process by which institutional decisions are made affecting the lives of everyone working in their Catholic institution? Do workers in Catholic institutions enjoy the right to participate in the governance process itself through open discussion (without fear of reprisal) of disputed matters that affect the common good for all those working in the institution?
If these principles are not at play in Catholic institutions, if they aren’t recognized and enshrined in the practices of Catholic institutions vis-a-vis the treatment of workers, it would be hard to see how Catholic institutions, in their own labor practices, respect the dignity of individuals and the demands of justice.
I’m assuming, too, that Pope Benedict will advert to questions about whether workers in Catholic institutions are protected from arbitrary firing. Do workers in Catholic institutions also enjoy protection from arbitrary and unjust discrimination on grounds of race, class, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.? Do Catholic institutions have fair and strong grievance processes for those who insist that they have been fired unfairly?
If clear, morally sustainable principles are not in place in Catholic institutions to deal with these issues, if principles of justice to deal with these issues morally aren’t recognized and enshrined in the practices of Catholic institutions vis-a-vis the treatment of workers, it would be hard to see how Catholic institutions, in their own labor practices, respect the dignity of individuals and the demands of justice. And it would be hard, therefore, to see what the pope or the church could teach society about economic justice, when its own institutions fail to practice justice in the workplace, and to protect the dignity of workers as persons.
I’m assuming that the pope’s statement will take a good look, too, at the church’s own record, in its internal life, as it deals with questions of human rights and the dignity of individuals. Some questions I’m assuming Pope Benedict will be dealing with in that section of his statement would be the following: Are the human rights of all groups within the church–theologians might be a valuable test case here–recognized and treated with respect? To take theologians as a test case: when theologians are accused of teaching something that is incorrect, are they apprised by church officials thoroughly, completely, and precisely of all charges made against them, before they are censured or punished? Are they allowed to know the identity of their accusers? Are they permitted to answer the charges of their accusers and of church officials acting on those charges? Are they permitted to engage in open, respectful exchanges in which they can answer the charges against them, explain themselves, and defend themselves?
If processes are not in place within the Catholic church to safeguard the human dignity of theologians, and to assure that the demands of justice are met as theologians are accused of error and silenced or fired from their jobs, then it would be hard to imagine what the church could credibly say to the world at large about practicing justice.
Another matter of justice in the internal life of the church that I am assuming Pope Benedict will discuss in his forthcoming call to the world to practice economic justice: are the rights of the laity in the Catholic church respected? Is the human dignity of lay Catholics safeguarded by the governance structures of the Catholic church? Do the governance structures of the Catholic church promote the demands of justice, when it comes to the treatment of lay Catholics?
For instance, when bishops close parish churches and schools that have been built and maintained by the Catholic people themselves, often at the cost of generations of sacrifice, are the laity consulted by the bishops as these decisions are made? Do the laity have a voice in these decisions affecting their own churches and schools? If not, it would be an uphill battle, I think, for the church to try to convince society at large to respect workers as individuals and to take into account the demands of economic justice. Not if the Catholic church in its own internal life and governance structures rides roughshod over the dignity of lay Catholics and is deaf to their demands for justice.
Another matter I’m assuming the papal statement will discuss: society at large has come increasingly to recognize that women are as fully human as men are and deserve the full range of human rights accorded to men. And so I am certain that, in this statement about the dignity of the individual and the demands of justice, the Holy Father intends to address the question of how the Catholic church regards and treats women. Since, if the church itself ignores the dignity of some of its members due to their gender, and treats some of its members unjustly due to their gender, it cannot make a convincing case to society at large when it calls social institutions to behave justly.
A church that calls the world and its institutions to the practice of justice, but which does not itself practice justice, cannot and will not give credible witness to the world as it issues its call to the world. Because I assume the pope is aware of this, I will be expecting anything he writes to call social institutions to the practice of economic justice—a praiseworthy goal, one I wholeheartedly endorse—to engage the kinds of questions I outline above.
Otherwise, people are likely to shrug their shoulders at anything this papal statement might have to say and to throw its words over their shoulders, as they mention something about noisy gongs and clanging cymbals.
Cross-posted from Bilgrimage, 22 October 2011.
Filed under: Catholic social teaching, Uncategorized Tagged: | Catholic social teaching, economic justice, Human rights, Pope Benedict XVI, workers' rights
opentabernacle
colkoch
Obie Holmen
Phillip Clark
Terence Weldon
William Lindsey
frankcocozzelli
Michael Bayly
Jayden Cameron
johnjmcneill
Betty Clermont
gaysurvivor
Bill,
I think most people are likely to shrug their shoulders at anything this papal statement says, unless it happens to suit their own political purposes. You have apparently already made up your mind about how you are going to judge the teaching – by a standard unrelated to the teaching itself.
This pope has issued 3 fabulous encyclicals on 3 difficult topics, love, hope, and social justice. I would expect that this teaching will be no different. Regardless of what you think about the administrative dealings of this pope, there can be no doubt that he is a superb theologian, a master logician, and a precise thinker.
Contrary to what you might think, this pope is not well-liked by the political right. Think Iraqi war, capital punishment, respect for Muslims and Jews, and social justice. Both the left and the right want to push the Catholic Church out of her ministry of proclaiming the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and into their own gospels. Perhaps the only difference between the right and the left is that the right still treats him and his office with some respect. The left shows little respect and is openly petulant, as if petulance were a virtue.
David, thanks for your reply. As Colleen notes, the initial news report that the statement would be a papal statement turned out to be wrong. The statement was issued by the Pontifical Council on Justice and Peace.
Perhaps you’re right, and the pope is a superb theologian. I’m not sure I would link that phrase to the subsequent phrases “master logician” and “precise thinker,” since theology deals in analogy–Catholic theology, in particular, does–and analogical and logical thinking are polar opposites. One cannot be precise and logical about what transcends human language. One doesn’t wish precision and logic in speaking about what transcends human language.
My point, above all, is that we Catholics will be listened to carefully about matters of justice and human dignity when we exemplify what we’re teaching. If our lived, sacramental example doesn’t conform to what we’re teaching, we’ll rightly be ignored when we talk about these issues.
Bill,
I have to disagree.
First, if the pope does not have the respect of people who call themselves Catholics, it is hard to imagine that he is going to command the respect of any large segment of the population. That explains why Pope John Paul II was largely ignored when he condemned the invasion of Iraq. Even though JPII was espousing “traditional Catholic values” regarding just wars, the left was simply unwilling to give credit where credit was due, and the right was content to ignore the teaching as being out of touch with political realities.
Second, even if the people who call themselves Catholic were to agree with the pope it is doubtful that such a stance would carry significant clout. For example, the Catholic Church is probably the largest charitable organization in the world. Every day, men and women give their lives to serve others as a sign of their commitment to the Gospel. There is almost universal support for the missionary work of the Church. Yet, governments rarely heed the social justice calls of the Church.
Third, when the pope does speak for the Church as a scholar and/or a theologian, he is generally not respected because many scholars and theologians have become like many lawyers – hired guns. If people don’t like the results, they can simply find themselves someone else to say what they want to hear. So, even when the pope states the obvious – like the distribution of condoms is not the solution to the AIDS problem – he is roundly criticized. The American intelligentsia has become so infested with political correctness that it often lacks the courage to speak honestly and openly about some of man’s biggest problems.
I, for one, am not willing to discount the thoughts of a wonderful mind and a dedicated servant just because of my petty grievances with his delivery or administration.
I can’t agree with you, David, because I see the church differently than you do. Where you see it as a pyramid with a chain of command running from a father figure down to children who should obey father, I see it as more of a circle comprising all of us, together, seeking to discern the Spirit as the people of God.
With the pope at the center, certainly. But in a dialogical relationship to the rest of the people of God, which demands mutual respect.
As theologian David Tracy has noted, arguing with the positions of others exhibits more respect than does receiving them in silence. I do not construe the willingness of members of the church, theologians included, to disagree with the teaching of the magisterium as a sign of lack of respect. Rather the opposite . . . .
Disagreement is disrespect only if the pope is a father figure with whom one may not disagree with impunity. And if we are children expected to obey implicitly, keeping our mouths closed as we do so.
And I would argue that the disconnect between what the church says about matters of justice, inclusion, respect for human rights, and so forth has everything to do with the refusal of people to listen when church leaders speak. As with parenting, when the authority figure proclaims what he does not model through his behavior, those over whom that figure has authority do not listen or learn.
How the church constructs itself, how it deals with matters of justice, mutual respect, the dignity of the individual, in its own internal life: this is vital to the question of whether people will listen to the teaching of the church. People have every right to stop listening when we talk about a justice we do not live as a community.
Bill,
I can understand what you are saying because I think people do act the way that you suggest.
On the other hand, people should stand up and pay attention when the Vatican speaks in a voice with which they agree regardless of whatever grievances they may have with the Vatican.
When it comes to social justice, the Vatican is often left of the left. However, if the political left is going to be so petulant as to ignore or dismiss even the teachings with which they agree because they don’t like unrelated teachings, then the social teachings are wasted. And, if the left doesn’t applaud the pope on leftist teachings, you aren’t going to hear any applause because the right doesn’t applaud these teachings either.
The real authority of any prophet comes not from the temporal authority but from the Gospel authority. If the pope is speaking with Gospel authority, his words should be heeded. Period.
My experience is that the pope is only applauded within the Catholic right, and then only on limited issues. The non-Catholic political right is often quite adversarial to the entire Catholic Church. They don’t vocalize their sentiments in public.
Thus, I disagree with the idea that the disconnect is causing the Church not to be heard. Rather, I think it is working the other way around. The unwillingness to listen is causing a desire to disconnect.
David, I can understand that it makes things easy for some of us to assume that those who can’t hear what the church is saying due to the disconnect between its proclamation and its practice are simply ill-intentioned.
That allows us to shrug our shoulders and absolve ourselves of responsibility, doesn’t it?
It strikes me, however, that this is not the response to which the gospel calls us Catholics.
Bill,
I can’t make you listen if you are unwilling. I can understand that you don’t intend to listen until pope acts the way that you want him to act. But, what can I do about it?
I think Colleen’s response is more honest; she has given up listening.
It just strikes me as odd that the left is unwilling to give the pope credit when credit is due – like on issues of social justice, capital punishment, war, etc.
David, it’s strange you’d imagine I’m not listening, when I keep typing out replies to you, knowing you’ll instantly type back a rebuttal that never engages my primary points at all.
As if you’re just not listening . . . .
What can you do about assuring that the church becomes an effective sacramental sign of its teaching in the world? A great deal, I’d assume. After all, you have a kind of institutional power at your disposal many others don’t have. You’re heterosexual, married, white, affluent, a professional, living in a nation with extraordinary resources: by all those measures, your voice counts more than the voice of many others in the world. You live in one of the more privileged communities in our nation. You enjoy power and privilege within that community as a member of some its leading organizations. You have enormous power at your disposal to do something, to make effective changes in the institutions that have given you such power–if you so wish.
You seem stuck, if I may say so, David, on issues of power and authority, as if Catholicism is equated with those–and with the dominance of papa. Most of us aren’t there, as Catholics. As the study released just this week of where Catholics find themselves, close to 90% of Catholics in the U.S. think one may be a good, faithful Catholic and disagree with papa.
Are you entirely sure what you’re defending isn’t really the right of papa to remain on top? It often sounds that way.
You might jump in and enjoy the water of a more vibrant form of Catholicism that a majority of us have found, in which the teaching of the church (and, yes, of papa himself) is appropriated in a critical, dialectical way by thinking human beings using their informed consciences as they engage and internalize that teaching.
Bill,
With all due respect, I am not sure that there is anything for us to talk about with regard to papal authority or teachings.
You (like many on the left) disagree with the pope when you think he is wrong, and you refuse to agree with him when he is right. So, what is there left to talk about? Should we talk about whether your petulance is justified?
You think that Catholics and others don’t listen to the pope because there are problems with the institution. I disagree. I think those are just excuses for the laity. On a scholarly level, the disagreements are just intellectual laziness.
David, thanks for your reply.
Unfortunately this was not a papal encyclical and Fr Frederico Lombardi has already distanced Benedict from it by pointing out is was a ‘note’ from the Pontifical Office for Justice and Peace and not a papal teaching. I actually find this very interesting since a great deal of this ‘note’ is Benedict’s writing from Caritas en Veritate.
David, I think the right has been given less reason to come unglued with Benedict than the left has if only because Benedict has taken the liturgy in their direction and held fast to the Church’s preferential option for heterosexuality as determined by heterosexual men.
I’m sure the right will be just as upset with the Vatican and the USCCB when bishops start threatening to deny communion to right wing politicians for supporting tax supported bailouts for banks, advocating immigration sweeps, or voting for billions of dollars in supplemental war funding. I won’t hold my breath waiting for any of that to ever happen.
Until Benedict starts threatening the right with excommunication for disagreements with social justice teachings or anti Semitism, the left has far more to be petulant about than the right.
Colleen,
I think we have to be careful not to mix apples and oranges.
If the political right demonstrated the same kind of defiance toward Church teaching that the political left demonstrated, excommunication would be the Church’s only option. The right has been better about leaving its political opinions at the doorstep; the left has not been as discreet. Taking the political disputes inside the walls of the Church confuses the political and the theological. Moreover, it is unhealthy.
The political left should celebrate papal statements consistent with their political agenda, rather than whining that they aren’t going to listen to anything the pope says until they get what they want on everything else. Some petulance may be justified; but, petulance about everything is just noise.
But David the Church itself is taking political disputes outside it’s own walls and into the political process, trampling on the rights of other Churches, as well and non believers. I don’t buy the idea that the right has kept it’s hands pure of the dirty political waters. The Republican presidential candidates are certainly attempting to confuse the political with the theological. see the Ricks Perry and Santorum.
I tend to celebrate the papal statements consistent with my spirituality which is why I wrote quite positively about Caritas en Veritate. As for my politics, I gave up on papal approval for most of that when Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae and JPII went after Archbishop Hunthausen. That was a very long time ago.
Now a days I’m more befuddled than petulant. Befuddled that so many people still fall for the double speak and don’t demand the Vatican actually walk it’s talk. I’ll believe Cardinal Turkeson actually speaks for the Vatican when the Vatican is a museum and it’s bank shares have been turned into plow shares.
Colleen,
I tend to agree with you that the Church has taken its theological positions into the political arena. In Minnesota, the archbishop has taken a very active political stance on the gay marriage issue. I am of the opinion that the archbishop has overstepped his competence. Whether the government should endorse or allow gay marriage is a different question from whether or not homosexual unions can be considered.
oops, should read when the Vatican Bank is a museum