The 1984 presidential election results were widely read as a victory for selfishness and a mandate for growing inequality. Then on November 11, in the midst of the bleak post-election mourning period, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops burst onto the political scene with a message that, given the context, could only be read as good news to the poor. That message was of course contained in the first draft of the bishops' pastoral letter, entitled "Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy." The bishops assert the priority of the poor in economic decision making and advocate a variety of public policies designed to reduce inequalities of wealth and power in the United States.
Since the pastoral letter is intended to instruct the faithful as well as influence public debate, it begins with reflection on Scripture and church tradition, moves on to establish some moral ground rules for economic life, and only then ventures into the realm of policy proposals.
In proclaiming the broad biblical and ethical principles of economic life, the bishops are at their best. They affirm the "preferential option for the poor" taken by the Latin American bishops as "a valid interpretation of the biblical witness" and the "fundamental norm" for their economic judgments. In examining the Genesis creation account, the bishops "find a constant affirmation that the goods of this earth are common property and that men and women are summoned to faithful stewardship rather than to selfish appropriation." And from their biblical reflection, the bishops conclude that meaningful work and access to the material necessities of life are fundamental human rights that any just economic order must respect.
The policy proposals in the bishops' first draft have already generated controversy in the public arena. This has especially been true of their assertion that the U.S. unemployment rate should not be allowed to rise above three or four percent. The letter advocates cooperation among business, labor, and government to reach that goal, with a federal public works program as the employer of last resort.
In recent years mainstream economists have taken to defining full employment as an unemployment rate of six or seven percent, claiming that reducing unemployment further will cause an unacceptable inflation rate. The inflation problem, however, is largely a matter of public perception, and by emphasizing the priority of the human right to work, the bishops' letter may help shift that perception.
The bishops also advocate raising the minimum wage to a level that will keep an average family out of poverty, raising and standardizing welfare benefits, and instituting a collaborative process of economic planning by government, business, and labor to guide the economy toward full employment and to revitalize ailing industries. They urge that everything possible be done to encourage worker ownership, cooperatives, and other experiments in economic democracy. The bishops also deliver an eloquent plea on behalf of the Third World countries trapped by an unjust economic order and crushing burdens of debt.
Some of these positions seem radical by U.S. standards, though they would be considered quite ordinary in most of Western Europe. Nonetheless the bishops' draft was strong enough to throw a healthy scare into some of the very rich and their hired theologians. A number of the rich and powerful who happen to be Roman Catholics banded together for self-defense early in the bishops' drafting process. Calling themselves the Lay Commission on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy, they hired Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute to whip up a theological defense of capital accumulation.
The Lay Commission was founded by Peter Grace, chairman of the conglomerate W.R. Grace & Co., with the Nixon administration's treasury secretary, William Simon, as its head. The Lay Commission's membership is mostly made up of big-business people. Initially, two labor leaders were recruited to give the appearance of balance, but both resigned after seeing that the commission's ideological agenda was already set. One of them, Edward Cleary, president of the New York State Labor Federation, told the National Catholic Reporter that he resigned after receiving copies of Michael Novak's books. Cleary said, "The more I read of his stuff, the more I realize that he represents everything I detest."
The fact that the bishops' letter has drawn so much resistance from the rich, even before it was written, is good evidence that it is on the right track. And the fact that the Lay Commission sham has received such serious attention from the media is good evidence that the bishops' option for the poor is desperately needed today. For one thing, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops may be the only voice capable of turning next year's budget debate away from further gutting of social service programs.
While the pastoral letter stands out as a beacon of hope in the bleak surroundings of the Reagan era, in its current form it is not the clear prophetic challenge to the American system's prevailing assumptions that many of us were hoping for.
As several bishops noted at their November meeting, the section addressing the responsibility of the church is especially weak. It seems to require no more of the community of faith than is elsewhere required of the state. There is little talk of active solidarity with the oppressed or of the value of proximity to the poor. And any implications that the "preferential option for the poor" might hold for the church's own considerable institutional wealth go unexamined. A church that doesn't give incarnational content to its option for the poor should not expect to garner much credibility when it demands that the government, and even the multinational corporations, do so.
The bishops' first draft also betrays a certain naivete about the structure of power in the American system. From the bishops' talk of collaboration and partnership between business, government, labor, and local communities, one would think that they hold equivalent power. In fact, corporate interests effectively dominate the state, and the regulatory restrictions that do exist are rapidly eroding. Labor unions today represent less than one-fourth of the country's wage workers, and their power is shrinking. And under the current arrangements, local communities have few effective legal tools to influence business decisions. They can bribe corporations with tax breaks and subsidies, but can do nothing to keep them from moving to Singapore. Under such unequal circumstances, any attempt at "partnership" is destined to serve the interests of private profit more than the common good.
By recognizing that the U.S. economy faces a definitive crisis, the bishops do an important service. Decisions are being made today that will drastically affect the lives of working Americans for the rest of the century. And the bishops understand that an economic path that results in the utter abandonment of entire regions of the country and creates a new class of the permanently destitute must be morally condemned. But they pull up short of recognizing that affecting those decisions may require choosing sides in a struggle for power.
The letter's adoption of the language of liberation theology is only a trendy abstraction if unaccompanied by a commitment to make the church an agent of liberation and empowerment. Many of the bishops themselves, including conference president James Malone of Youngstown, Ohio, have been personally involved in workers' struggles. One would hope that more of that experience of struggle is reflected in future drafts of the letter.
This period of intense discussion about economics could not be more timely. In addition to the choices that must be made about budget priorities, there is also every reason to expect that 1985 will see the second Reagan recession. If nothing else, the bishops are to be thanked for bringing the priority of the poor back into public debate at such a time.
Danny Collum was an associate editor of Sojourners magazine when this article appeared.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!