Working Together Part 2

Pro-Life Catholics are often accused of lacking concern for the "other social issues" and caring more for the unborn than for the living. While this is patently absurd it is important for the sake of clarity to set down some basic principles of what Catholic teaching is on the economic issues. In a similar vein as my previous post on "working together" it is important to highlight how we define terms in contrast to non-Catholics. Here are some general principles governing economic reform highlighted by Pope Pius X and taken from the encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII:

1) Human society, as God established it, is composed of unequal elements, just as the members of the human body are unequal; to make them all equal is impossible, and would be the destruction of society itself (Quod Apostolici muneris).

2) Consequently, it is conformable to the order established by God that in human society there should be princes and subjects, masters and men, rich and poor, learned and ignorant, nobles and plebians, who, united by the bond of love, should help one another to attain their final end in Heaven, and the their material and moral well-being on earth [A key point here is the bond of love necessary to help each other attain Heaven ultimately and their material and moral well-being on Earth. Too frequently today are people only concerned with their material well-being. This is particularly true of our secular government] (Quod Apostolici muneris).

3) To calm the strife between rich and poor it is necessary to distinguish between justice and charity. Only when justice has been violated is there a right to make a claim. [Two very misunderstand terms, especially that of "justice" as defined by the Peace and Justice groups} (Rerum Novarum).

4) The obligations of the poor and of the workman are these: to perform wholly and faithfully the work which has been freely and equitably agreed upon; not to injure masters in their property or person; to abstain from acts of violence, even in defence of their own rights; and never to turn their demands into disturbances (Rerum Novarum).

5) The obligations of justice for capitalist and masters are as follows: to pay a just wage to workman; not to injure their lawful savings by violence, fraud, nor by open or hidden usury; not to expose them to corrupting allurements, nor to the danger of scandal; not to entice them from a love of their family, and from careful thrift; not to impose on them work unsuited to their strength, age, and sex (Rerum Novarum).

6) It is an obligation of charity for the rich and for those who have means, to help the poor and needy, according to the precept of the Gospel. This precept is of such binding force that, at the day of judgment, as our Lord Himself tells us, a special account of its fulfilment will be required (Rerum Novarum).

7) The poor, on their part, ought not to blush for their poverty, nor disdain the charity of the rich, above all when they think of Jesus, our Redeemer, Who, though He could have been born in wealth, made Himself poor to ennoble poverty and enrich it with incomparable merits of Heaven (Rerum Novarum).

8) Capitalists and workmen may themselves largely help towards the solution of the labor question, by institutions formed to give timely aid to those who are in need, as also to draw together and unite the two classes. Such are societies of mutual help, numerous private insurance societies, what are called 'patronages' for the young, and, above all, workingmen's unions. [Regarding this last point, St. Pius X stressed the need for Catholic associations, in order that a Catholic's economic life and action may be in harmony with his religious beliefs: (Rerum Novarum)

Working Together Part 2

Pro-Life Catholics are often accused of lacking concern for the "other social issues" and caring more for the unborn than for the living. While this is patently absurd it is important for the sake of clarity to set down some basic principles of what Catholic teaching is on the economic issues. In a similar vein as my previous post on "working together" it is important to highlight how we define terms in contrast to non-Catholics. Here are some general principles governing economic reform highlighted by Pope Pius X and taken from the encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII:

1) Human society, as God established it, is composed of unequal elements, just as the members of the human body are unequal; to make them all equal is impossible, and would be the destruction of society itself (Quod Apostolici muneris).

2) Consequently, it is conformable to the order established by God that in human society there should be princes and subjects, masters and men, rich and poor, learned and ignorant, nobles and plebians, who, united by the bond of love, should help one another to attain their final end in Heaven, and the their material and moral well-being on earth [A key point here is the bond of love necessary to help each other attain Heaven ultimately and their material and moral well-being on Earth. Too frequently today are people only concerned with their material well-being. This is particularly true of our secular government] (Quod Apostolici muneris).

3) To calm the strife between rich and poor it is necessary to distinguish between justice and charity. Only when justice has been violated is there a right to make a claim. [Two very misunderstand terms, especially that of "justice" as defined by the Peace and Justice groups} (Rerum Novarum).

4) The obligations of the poor and of the workman are these: to perform wholly and faithfully the work which has been freely and equitably agreed upon; not to injure masters in their property or person; to abstain from acts of violence, even in defence of their own rights; and never to turn their demands into disturbances (Rerum Novarum).

5) The obligations of justice for capitalist and masters are as follows: to pay a just wage to workman; not to injure their lawful savings by violence, fraud, nor by open or hidden usury; not to expose them to corrupting allurements, nor to the danger of scandal; not to entice them from a love of their family, and from careful thrift; not to impose on them work unsuited to their strength, age, and sex (Rerum Novarum).

6) It is an obligation of charity for the rich and for those who have means, to help the poor and needy, according to the precept of the Gospel. This precept is of such binding force that, at the day of judgment, as our Lord Himself tells us, a special account of its fulfilment will be required (Rerum Novarum).

7) The poor, on their part, ought not to blush for their poverty, nor disdain the charity of the rich, above all when they think of Jesus, our Redeemer, Who, though He could have been born in wealth, made Himself poor to ennoble poverty and enrich it with incomparable merits of Heaven (Rerum Novarum).

8) Capitalists and workmen may themselves largely help towards the solution of the labor question, by institutions formed to give timely aid to those who are in need, as also to draw together and unite the two classes. Such are societies of mutual help, numerous private insurance societies, what are called 'patronages' for the young, and, above all, workingmen's unions. [Regarding this last point, St. Pius X stressed the need for Catholic associations, in order that a Catholic's economic life and action may be in harmony with his religious beliefs: (Rerum Novarum)

The Deception of "Working Together"

By now Pres. Obama's speech at Notre Dame has been thoroughly analyzed with many Catholics being duped by his rhetoric that we should find ways to work together. Now there is nothing wrong in principle in this idea so long as you agree on the major premises of your efforts. In his recent article for The Catholic Thing, Hadley Arkes demonstrates the fundamental incapatability between the two positions such that they are like oil and water. No matter how you try they cannot be mixed.

"In the case of Obama, as with Clinton and Gore before him, the unspoken premises are again the most astounding – and even more astounding yet in being unnoticed. The techniques of contraception may work well or badly, as people seek, artfully or clumsily, to avoid “unintended pregnancies.” But it is simply taken for granted, as a point well beyond questioning now, that there is a “right,” even a “constitutional right” to destroy an innocent human life for reasons wholly of self-interest, indeed for reasons that need not rise above convenience.

The remedy for an “unintended pregnancy” used to be regarded as an adoption, not a lethal surgery. Adoption is offered by Obama, as though offered in generosity, for those people who do not care to invoke their constitutional right to destroy an innocent life in the womb. It is a gesture that leaves that essential “right” quite intact, without the slightest concession to the notion that the nascent life has even a shadow of a claim to our concern or respect. This is what Obama and the “Obama Catholics” apparently regard as an earnest mode of “work[ing] together”: concede their major premises, unqualified, unmodified, and give them credit for a largeness of spirit.

Of course, it is worth noting also that an “unintended pregnancy” becomes far more portentous when young people are unmarried, with no serious intention of committing themselves to a life together. Obama’s premises conveniently leave in place the assumption that there are no moral inhibitions worth taking seriously any longer on that notion of sex as virtually free, detached from commitments or requirements, taken even as a freewheeling pastime for young people in college, learning a little about everything.

The Deception of "Working Together"

By now Pres. Obama's speech at Notre Dame has been thoroughly analyzed with many Catholics being duped by his rhetoric that we should find ways to work together. Now there is nothing wrong in principle in this idea so long as you agree on the major premises of your efforts. In his recent article for The Catholic Thing, Hadley Arkes demonstrates the fundamental incapatability between the two positions such that they are like oil and water. No matter how you try they cannot be mixed.

"In the case of Obama, as with Clinton and Gore before him, the unspoken premises are again the most astounding – and even more astounding yet in being unnoticed. The techniques of contraception may work well or badly, as people seek, artfully or clumsily, to avoid “unintended pregnancies.” But it is simply taken for granted, as a point well beyond questioning now, that there is a “right,” even a “constitutional right” to destroy an innocent human life for reasons wholly of self-interest, indeed for reasons that need not rise above convenience.

The remedy for an “unintended pregnancy” used to be regarded as an adoption, not a lethal surgery. Adoption is offered by Obama, as though offered in generosity, for those people who do not care to invoke their constitutional right to destroy an innocent life in the womb. It is a gesture that leaves that essential “right” quite intact, without the slightest concession to the notion that the nascent life has even a shadow of a claim to our concern or respect. This is what Obama and the “Obama Catholics” apparently regard as an earnest mode of “work[ing] together”: concede their major premises, unqualified, unmodified, and give them credit for a largeness of spirit.

Of course, it is worth noting also that an “unintended pregnancy” becomes far more portentous when young people are unmarried, with no serious intention of committing themselves to a life together. Obama’s premises conveniently leave in place the assumption that there are no moral inhibitions worth taking seriously any longer on that notion of sex as virtually free, detached from commitments or requirements, taken even as a freewheeling pastime for young people in college, learning a little about everything.

Cardinal Bernardin on the (Mis)Use of His Consistent Ethic

There is a tendency by certain groups to quote Cardinal Bernardin and refer to his "Consistent Ethic of Life" philosophy. This is done to minimize or excuse the murder of the unborn by attempting to focus attention on "other social issues." President Obama did just this at his acceptance speech at Notre Dame on Sunday. But what did Cardinal Bernardin have to say about this corruption of his philosophy? H/T to Richard Garnett in his response to an article at Commonweal.

With respect to the President’s invocation of Cardinal Bernadin, it strikes me as important to remember that, for the latter, the “consistent ethic” idea was never intended to minimize the importance of the abortion question or to excuse opposition to legal protections for unborn children. He said, for example, in 1988, “I don’t see how you can subscribe to the consistent ethic and then vote for someone who feels that abortion is a ‘basic right’ of the individual.”

And, in the same interview, he noted that “some people on the left, if I may use that label, have used the consistent ethic to give the impression that the abortion issue is not all that important anymore, that you should be against abortion in a general way but that there are more important issues, so don’t hold anybody’s feet to the fire just on abortion. That’s a misuse of the consistent ethic, and I deplore it.”

Cardinal Bernardin on the (Mis)Use of His Consistent Ethic

There is a tendency by certain groups to quote Cardinal Bernardin and refer to his "Consistent Ethic of Life" philosophy. This is done to minimize or excuse the murder of the unborn by attempting to focus attention on "other social issues." President Obama did just this at his acceptance speech at Notre Dame on Sunday. But what did Cardinal Bernardin have to say about this corruption of his philosophy? H/T to Richard Garnett in his response to an article at Commonweal.

With respect to the President’s invocation of Cardinal Bernadin, it strikes me as important to remember that, for the latter, the “consistent ethic” idea was never intended to minimize the importance of the abortion question or to excuse opposition to legal protections for unborn children. He said, for example, in 1988, “I don’t see how you can subscribe to the consistent ethic and then vote for someone who feels that abortion is a ‘basic right’ of the individual.”

And, in the same interview, he noted that “some people on the left, if I may use that label, have used the consistent ethic to give the impression that the abortion issue is not all that important anymore, that you should be against abortion in a general way but that there are more important issues, so don’t hold anybody’s feet to the fire just on abortion. That’s a misuse of the consistent ethic, and I deplore it.”

Feast of the Ascension

Today is Ascension Thursday, a national holiday celebrated throughout much of Europe but here we find it difficult to make it to Mass twice in a week so we have moved the Feast to Sunday. While there was much genuine outrage over the Notre Dame debacle we should find greater concern in a Catholic culture that finds difficulty getting to Mass an extra day but wouldn't have any hesitation in accepting tickets to an extra ballgame in one week.

Feast of the Ascension

Today is Ascension Thursday, a national holiday celebrated throughout much of Europe but here we find it difficult to make it to Mass twice in a week so we have moved the Feast to Sunday. While there was much genuine outrage over the Notre Dame debacle we should find greater concern in a Catholic culture that finds difficulty getting to Mass an extra day but wouldn't have any hesitation in accepting tickets to an extra ballgame in one week.

Christ Must Rule Over Nations

One of the elements from President Obama's speech was the emphasis on diversity and working together to meet the problems we all face as individuals and as nations. Unfortunately what is absent from his plan is that it neglects the place Christ must hold. He stated that no religion holds all the answers. Well I beg to seriously differ.

Read the following excerpt from The Kingship of Christ by Cardinal Pie of Poitiers and the re-read the speech Obama gave at UND in light of this text.

"So long as Christ does not reign over nations, His influence over individuals remains superficial and precarious. If it is true that the work of the apostolate consists in the conversion of individuals and that nations as such do not go to heaven, but souls, one by one, we must not forget, nevertheless, that the individual member of society lives under the never-ceasing influence of his environment, in which, if we may not say that he is submerged, he is, at least, deeply plunged., If the environment is non-Catholic, it prevents him from embracing the faith or, if he has the faith, it tends to root out of his heart every vestige of belief. If we imagine Catholic social institutions, with Our Lord no longer living in the hearts of the individual members of society, then religion has there become merely a displeasing signboard which will soon be torn down. But, on the other hand, try to convert individuals without Catholicizing the social institutions and your work is without stability. The structure you erect in the morning will be torn down by others in the evening. is not the strategy of the enemies of God there to teach us a lesson? They want to destroy the faith in the hearts of the individuals, it is true, but they direct still more vigorous efforts to the elimination of religion from social institutions. Even one defeat of God in this domain means the weakening, if not the ruin, of the faith in the souls of many.

President Jenkins has supported his decision to honor President Obama because of his commitment to other issues that are consistent with other social teachings of the Church. The problem I have attempted to raise the past year is that while many rightly attempt to defend the right to life position as trumping these other social issues in terms of importance, they frequently fail to address the myth that Pres. Obama's understanding of these issues is equivalent with the Catholic understanding of them. One can search my past posts as I have shown that his positions vis a vis healthcare, education, economics etc are more often contrary to Church teaching than in agreement. Perhaps the problem is that too few Catholics fully comprehend the Catholic Social Teaching but take them to be the platform of the Democrat Party.

Recalling what Cardinal George had to say after his earlier meeting with President Obama,

"He'll tell you anything to make you think he agrees with you."

Christ Must Rule Over Nations

One of the elements from President Obama's speech was the emphasis on diversity and working together to meet the problems we all face as individuals and as nations. Unfortunately what is absent from his plan is that it neglects the place Christ must hold. He stated that no religion holds all the answers. Well I beg to seriously differ.

Read the following excerpt from The Kingship of Christ by Cardinal Pie of Poitiers and the re-read the speech Obama gave at UND in light of this text.

"So long as Christ does not reign over nations, His influence over individuals remains superficial and precarious. If it is true that the work of the apostolate consists in the conversion of individuals and that nations as such do not go to heaven, but souls, one by one, we must not forget, nevertheless, that the individual member of society lives under the never-ceasing influence of his environment, in which, if we may not say that he is submerged, he is, at least, deeply plunged., If the environment is non-Catholic, it prevents him from embracing the faith or, if he has the faith, it tends to root out of his heart every vestige of belief. If we imagine Catholic social institutions, with Our Lord no longer living in the hearts of the individual members of society, then religion has there become merely a displeasing signboard which will soon be torn down. But, on the other hand, try to convert individuals without Catholicizing the social institutions and your work is without stability. The structure you erect in the morning will be torn down by others in the evening. is not the strategy of the enemies of God there to teach us a lesson? They want to destroy the faith in the hearts of the individuals, it is true, but they direct still more vigorous efforts to the elimination of religion from social institutions. Even one defeat of God in this domain means the weakening, if not the ruin, of the faith in the souls of many.

President Jenkins has supported his decision to honor President Obama because of his commitment to other issues that are consistent with other social teachings of the Church. The problem I have attempted to raise the past year is that while many rightly attempt to defend the right to life position as trumping these other social issues in terms of importance, they frequently fail to address the myth that Pres. Obama's understanding of these issues is equivalent with the Catholic understanding of them. One can search my past posts as I have shown that his positions vis a vis healthcare, education, economics etc are more often contrary to Church teaching than in agreement. Perhaps the problem is that too few Catholics fully comprehend the Catholic Social Teaching but take them to be the platform of the Democrat Party.

Recalling what Cardinal George had to say after his earlier meeting with President Obama,

"He'll tell you anything to make you think he agrees with you."