- comment
Roci - body
- I put my response here rather than monopolize your fine blog.
http://rociburden.blogspot.com/2006/12/for-catholics-loving-thy-neighbor-is.html
thanks for the tip.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Roci -- I'm certain you're going to post some of those questions here. :)
I have one:
Jeff, Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum mandates a "just wage" for workers. Leo XIII never specifically states how this should be acheived, but merely states this as an end.
Given studies that show increases in the minimum wage hurt rather than help lower income families, why is it an initiative of the VCC to increase the minimum wage?
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Another one:
Catholics are bound to oppose abortion in all forms, at all times.
Issues such as opposition to the death penalty, living wage legislation, social programs, etc. have typically been described as "other" -- items on which the Catholic faithful dissent.
How do you necessarily balance between what is mandated by the Magisterium as something all Catholics should work towards (end of abortion, a just society) and that which are means that may or may not be the best solution (e.g. government programs designed to help the poor)? How do you emphasise the difference to Catholic legislators?
- comment Roci
- body
- Question 1: What do you see as the legitimate role of the church since your legislative agenda is so focused on getting the state to fund charititable health, education, welfare and teaching moral consequences?
Q2: Do you believe that getting the state to fund charities relieves you of the responsibility to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, and care for the sick?
Q3: Do you love your neighbor when you compell that neighbor to contribute taxes to feed, clothe, shelter and medicate all his other neighbors?
Q4: When your needy neighbors receive their daily bread (and more) from the state, to whom will they be grateful and give the glory?
- comment James Atticus Bowden
- body
- Shaun: Note to the Bishops on economics. If you ship all the illegals back to their home country, then the minimum wage will rise due to market forces - more than a dollar an hour. Tough love is real compassion.
If you believe in the Rule of Law and the Bible to rend unto Caesar that which is Caesar then you don't have day work, centers, in-state tuition etc for ILLEGAL immigrants. I say again - ILLEGAL.
- comment Mike
- body
- How does the VCC think it is glorifying God here with "good" works done by a secular agency?? Such works clearly are not biblical good works since they are done by a secular entity for a secular purpose, with the glorification of God not being one of the goals. In addition, under what sections of the Virginia Constitution and what chapters/verses of the Bible does it justify these programs? I am most curious to see where the Bible calls most of these anything other than theft or lawlessness.
- comment Mike
- body
- James,
It's worse than that. The VCC is advocating a position that runs contrary to Romans 13, which states that Christians must obey the laws. Since the COTUS gives the federal government power to impose immigration restrictions, the VCC is in effect instructing Catholics to support state laws which aid and abet activity that is clearly illegal under federal law.
- comment James Atticus Bowden
- body
- Miket: You read my mind. I was thinking about the book of Romans and support for ILLEGAL immigrants when I wrote my post.
- comment Jeff Caruso
- body
- testing again
- comment Jeff Caruso
- body
- TEST 2
- comment Tom McKenna
- body
- How does the VCC justify a position such as abolition of the death penalty, which official Church teaching recognizes as just under particular conditions? Are they suggesting that Catholic officials who have the responsibility for ensuring the common good are acting wrongly in deciding to use this penalty where necessary to protect the common good against offenders who are judged likely to threaten the life and safety of prison workers and fellow prisoners?
- comment Jeff Caruso
- body
- test
- comment Jeff Caruso
- body
- As a result of the upcoming 2007 elections, I anticipate that many pieces of legislation deemed to be "controversial" will not make it through the General Assembly. Unfortunately, I think that some expansions of the application of the death penalty (which VCC opposes) have a good chance of passage, especially in an election year when some legislators may want to show they are "tough on crime." On the positive side, I think the current attention given to the minimum wage issue will increase the likelihood of some movement in that area. But on issues like abortion, embryonic stem cell research and school choice, the status quo may unfortunately prevail. I certainly hope I'm wrong about that.
- comment Jeff Caruso
- body
- Regarding a just wage, it is certainly true that you wouldn't find any specific dollar amount in a papal encyclical or other similar document. The question of what the minimum wage should be in any given time and place is a complex economic question. The U.S. bishops and the Virginia bishops in our time, place and circumstances support increasing the minimum wage beyond the current 5.15 per hour. Here they are making a prudential judgment based on the fact that this level has been stagnant since 1997, while the price of housing, energy, etc. have continued to skyrocket. They are asking Catholics and other people of goodwill to seriously reflect upon their position and its rationale.
According to research cited by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2005, in the four years after the last minimum wage increase passed, nearly 11 million new jobs were added. There were 10 million new service industry jobs, including more than one and a half million retail jobs, of which nearly 600,000 were restaurant jobs. Thus, the last increase did not increase joblessness, which is one of the common criticisms raised by the current opponents of a minimum wage increase.
- comment Jeff Caruso
- body
- Regarding the question about the distinction between issues involving moral absolutes and those involving prudential judgments:
First of all, it is important to make such a distinction, and I try to do that at appropriate times in communications with legislators and with grassroots advocates. There is no good public policy solution that permits things like abortion, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, or same-sex "marriage." In some other areas of concern to the Virginia bishops, the issues relate to economic or social matters on which prudential judgments are made. While it is true that Catholics in good conscience may disagree about what solutions are best in these areas, I believe several observations are important:
1) When the bishops make these "judgment calls", they do so very carefully after an issue has been thoroughly analyzed, and after specific principles of Catholic social teaching have been applied. As our teachers and pastors, the bishops deserve to have their prudential judgments viewed with a great amount of respect. They make these judgments after very serious consideration and ask for equally serious consideration by the faithful.
2) If someone in good conscience does disagree with one of these prudential judgments (e.g., an increase in the minimum wage to a specific dollar amount), one's obligation does not end there. Rather, the next question would be: What other solution would you support to make sure that working families can afford to pay the rent and feed and clothe their children?
3) Over the course of my two years as VCC director, and before that as an associate director at the Maryland Catholic Conference, I have repeatedly observed a tendency for some to view matters of prudential judgment through the lens of their politics rather than through applying principles of Catholic social teaching (such as preferential option for the poor, and the right and dignity of work). I'm not saying that thinking happens in any particular case, but I would urge everyone to resist such a tendency.
Some thoughts on the death penalty in particular: The late Pope John Paul II, the U.S. bishops, and the Virginia bishops have all specifically called for an end to the use of the death penalty in countries like ours. That's because the teaching of the Church is that the death penalty cannot be justified whenever nonlethal means are sufficient to protect society from an unjust aggressor. In other words, things like deterrence and the heinousness of the crime are not valid considerations in determining whether the death penalty is appropriate. The only appropriate consideration is whether we could protect society without using it. The US and Virginia bishops are convinced that, with our prison system and the life without parole alternative, the death penalty is not needed in our country and therefore should not be used.
- comment Jeff Caruso
- body
- Response to Roci's question:
Our agenda focuses on those who are the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. That includes the unborn child, the frozen embryo, the person living in poverty, those with disabilities, and many others. Sometimes, governments can play a positive role in ensuring that basic needs are met. Examples of safety nets that many rely upon are Medicaid, Medicare, Food Stamps, and WIC. Most people (or perhaps all people) would agree that these saftey nets are indispensable when (under the principle of subsidiarity) people "closer to the ground" are unable to meet basic needs.
Looked at another way, everyone has the right to life and to those things that make life genuinely human (e.g., food, shelter, clothing, health care, religious freedom, a safe environment, a decent education), and government's most fundamental obligation is to protect and ensure those rights.
In their 1986 pastoral letter "Economic Justice for All," the US bishops write, "Society has a moral obligation, including governmental action where necessary, to assure opportunity, meet basic human needs, and pursue justice in economic life."
I also think that there are definitely times when a more local provider (e.g., a faith-based provider) can play the primary role in distributing services. Government structures should simply supplement that role where necessary.
Lastly, I would make a distinction between charity and justice. They go hand in hand but are not exactly the same. In other words, charity can help someone in a desperate situation, but we also need to look beyond that toward governmental and economic structures that may be contributing toward widespread injustices in the treatment of workers, for example.
- comment Jeff Caruso
- body
- There have been several inquiries about the respective roles of faith communities and governments in helping those whose basic needs have not been met. Here, I think it's "both/and" rather than "either/or." No government program can substitute for the loving embrace of a family or a church community. However, sometimes people would go hungry and without shelter if there were not strong governmental safety nets in place.
As evdience of this, faith-based agencies often work collaborately with government entities to provide food, shelter, medical care, etc. As long as the values of the faith-based providers are respected, these arrangements seem to work well, and they are helped tremendously by public funding.
- comment Jeff Caruso
- body
- There have been several inquiries about the bishops' stance on immigration:
The US and Virginia bishops support the rule of law and do not in any way condone illegal activity. However, they also recognize that any serious examination of immigration issues does not end with this threshold observation. Instead, we must also ask questions like: What conditions in the migrant's country of origin is causing him or her to flee? Are undocumented workers in our country being exploited? Are families being separated for unduly long periods of time because of a backlog in the US visa program that's supposed to help families reunite?
These and other questions are important as well, and the bishops' support comprehensive immigration reform rather than an approach that looks only at enforcement.
Sovereign nations have every right to secure their borders, but our Church also teaches that people have a right to migrate when they cannot makes ends meet in their home countries. These two things should be carefully balanced when we look at policy solutions. It's also essential to note that basic human rights (like health care and protection against dangerous working conditions) can never be denied, even when one is in our country illegally.
- comment Jeff Caruso
- body
- Thank you for permitting me the opportunity to share with all of you more about the work of the Virginia Catholic Conference. For more information about the respect-life, social-justice, and education/family life issues we'll be working on during the 2007 General Assembly session that begins on January 10, please visit our website, www.vacatholic.org.
I'd also like to invite each of you, if you have not already done so, to sign up for our email network, which provides regular alerts and updates. Our alerts enable you to contact those who represent you in your own district very easily in a minute or less. To sign up, please visit our website and go to the Legislative Action Center box. Please encourage your familiy and friends to join this network as well!
Lastly, our website also provides info (and a registration form) about our upcoming Catholic Advocacy Day on Jan. 29. This is a wonderful opportunity to stand in solidarity with the Virginia bishops, and to meet face to face with legislators.
Thanks again for permitting me this "live blog" opportunity. May you have a happy and very blessed Christmas.
- comment Charlie Bishop
- body
- This has been an interesting exchange, one I'm grateful to Shaun for providing us.
However, like I learned some time ago that the little padded benches in front of the pews in a Catholic Church are not footstools, I know now I should just read and learn, not ask questions.
20 Comments:
http://rociburden.blogspot.com/2006/12/for-catholics-loving-thy-neighbor-is.html
thanks for the tip.
I have one:
Jeff, Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum mandates a "just wage" for workers. Leo XIII never specifically states how this should be acheived, but merely states this as an end.
Given studies that show increases in the minimum wage hurt rather than help lower income families, why is it an initiative of the VCC to increase the minimum wage?
Catholics are bound to oppose abortion in all forms, at all times.
Issues such as opposition to the death penalty, living wage legislation, social programs, etc. have typically been described as "other" -- items on which the Catholic faithful dissent.
How do you necessarily balance between what is mandated by the Magisterium as something all Catholics should work towards (end of abortion, a just society) and that which are means that may or may not be the best solution (e.g. government programs designed to help the poor)? How do you emphasise the difference to Catholic legislators?
Q2: Do you believe that getting the state to fund charities relieves you of the responsibility to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, and care for the sick?
Q3: Do you love your neighbor when you compell that neighbor to contribute taxes to feed, clothe, shelter and medicate all his other neighbors?
Q4: When your needy neighbors receive their daily bread (and more) from the state, to whom will they be grateful and give the glory?
If you believe in the Rule of Law and the Bible to rend unto Caesar that which is Caesar then you don't have day work, centers, in-state tuition etc for ILLEGAL immigrants. I say again - ILLEGAL.
It's worse than that. The VCC is advocating a position that runs contrary to Romans 13, which states that Christians must obey the laws. Since the COTUS gives the federal government power to impose immigration restrictions, the VCC is in effect instructing Catholics to support state laws which aid and abet activity that is clearly illegal under federal law.
According to research cited by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2005, in the four years after the last minimum wage increase passed, nearly 11 million new jobs were added. There were 10 million new service industry jobs, including more than one and a half million retail jobs, of which nearly 600,000 were restaurant jobs. Thus, the last increase did not increase joblessness, which is one of the common criticisms raised by the current opponents of a minimum wage increase.
First of all, it is important to make such a distinction, and I try to do that at appropriate times in communications with legislators and with grassroots advocates. There is no good public policy solution that permits things like abortion, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, or same-sex "marriage." In some other areas of concern to the Virginia bishops, the issues relate to economic or social matters on which prudential judgments are made. While it is true that Catholics in good conscience may disagree about what solutions are best in these areas, I believe several observations are important:
1) When the bishops make these "judgment calls", they do so very carefully after an issue has been thoroughly analyzed, and after specific principles of Catholic social teaching have been applied. As our teachers and pastors, the bishops deserve to have their prudential judgments viewed with a great amount of respect. They make these judgments after very serious consideration and ask for equally serious consideration by the faithful.
2) If someone in good conscience does disagree with one of these prudential judgments (e.g., an increase in the minimum wage to a specific dollar amount), one's obligation does not end there. Rather, the next question would be: What other solution would you support to make sure that working families can afford to pay the rent and feed and clothe their children?
3) Over the course of my two years as VCC director, and before that as an associate director at the Maryland Catholic Conference, I have repeatedly observed a tendency for some to view matters of prudential judgment through the lens of their politics rather than through applying principles of Catholic social teaching (such as preferential option for the poor, and the right and dignity of work). I'm not saying that thinking happens in any particular case, but I would urge everyone to resist such a tendency.
Some thoughts on the death penalty in particular: The late Pope John Paul II, the U.S. bishops, and the Virginia bishops have all specifically called for an end to the use of the death penalty in countries like ours. That's because the teaching of the Church is that the death penalty cannot be justified whenever nonlethal means are sufficient to protect society from an unjust aggressor. In other words, things like deterrence and the heinousness of the crime are not valid considerations in determining whether the death penalty is appropriate. The only appropriate consideration is whether we could protect society without using it. The US and Virginia bishops are convinced that, with our prison system and the life without parole alternative, the death penalty is not needed in our country and therefore should not be used.
Our agenda focuses on those who are the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. That includes the unborn child, the frozen embryo, the person living in poverty, those with disabilities, and many others. Sometimes, governments can play a positive role in ensuring that basic needs are met. Examples of safety nets that many rely upon are Medicaid, Medicare, Food Stamps, and WIC. Most people (or perhaps all people) would agree that these saftey nets are indispensable when (under the principle of subsidiarity) people "closer to the ground" are unable to meet basic needs.
Looked at another way, everyone has the right to life and to those things that make life genuinely human (e.g., food, shelter, clothing, health care, religious freedom, a safe environment, a decent education), and government's most fundamental obligation is to protect and ensure those rights.
In their 1986 pastoral letter "Economic Justice for All," the US bishops write, "Society has a moral obligation, including governmental action where necessary, to assure opportunity, meet basic human needs, and pursue justice in economic life."
I also think that there are definitely times when a more local provider (e.g., a faith-based provider) can play the primary role in distributing services. Government structures should simply supplement that role where necessary.
Lastly, I would make a distinction between charity and justice. They go hand in hand but are not exactly the same. In other words, charity can help someone in a desperate situation, but we also need to look beyond that toward governmental and economic structures that may be contributing toward widespread injustices in the treatment of workers, for example.
As evdience of this, faith-based agencies often work collaborately with government entities to provide food, shelter, medical care, etc. As long as the values of the faith-based providers are respected, these arrangements seem to work well, and they are helped tremendously by public funding.
The US and Virginia bishops support the rule of law and do not in any way condone illegal activity. However, they also recognize that any serious examination of immigration issues does not end with this threshold observation. Instead, we must also ask questions like: What conditions in the migrant's country of origin is causing him or her to flee? Are undocumented workers in our country being exploited? Are families being separated for unduly long periods of time because of a backlog in the US visa program that's supposed to help families reunite?
These and other questions are important as well, and the bishops' support comprehensive immigration reform rather than an approach that looks only at enforcement.
Sovereign nations have every right to secure their borders, but our Church also teaches that people have a right to migrate when they cannot makes ends meet in their home countries. These two things should be carefully balanced when we look at policy solutions. It's also essential to note that basic human rights (like health care and protection against dangerous working conditions) can never be denied, even when one is in our country illegally.
I'd also like to invite each of you, if you have not already done so, to sign up for our email network, which provides regular alerts and updates. Our alerts enable you to contact those who represent you in your own district very easily in a minute or less. To sign up, please visit our website and go to the Legislative Action Center box. Please encourage your familiy and friends to join this network as well!
Lastly, our website also provides info (and a registration form) about our upcoming Catholic Advocacy Day on Jan. 29. This is a wonderful opportunity to stand in solidarity with the Virginia bishops, and to meet face to face with legislators.
Thanks again for permitting me this "live blog" opportunity. May you have a happy and very blessed Christmas.
However, like I learned some time ago that the little padded benches in front of the pews in a Catholic Church are not footstools, I know now I should just read and learn, not ask questions.
Post a Comment
Home