Catholic Social Teaching
Charity in Truth 3: Economic Participation
27/03/10 17:39
"Goal of rescuing peoples, first and foremost, from
hunger, deprivation, endemic diseases and illiteracy.
From the economic point of view, this meant their
active participation on equal terms in economic
process” From Caritas in Veritate
One of the best elements of Benedict XVI's encyclical is its reminder that we are in charge of the economic process. We don't act or talk this way much of the time. But in fact, if we don't consume -- if we don't shop, or bank, or work and put money into the economic system -- then the economic system does not work.
What Benedict is calling us to do is to remember that we are responsible for participating in the economic system. We need, however, a state to protect our actice participation in this process, a participation that must be equal. An economic system that denies some participants participation or gives to some greater power or voice than others violates our human dignity.
Not only that, but it undermines the economic system. Why would we say that government works better through democracy but deny the same fact about the economy? A progressive and satisfying economic system is one in which each and every human beings can participate as equals.
Let's support those institutions which promote such equal participation, whether they be co-ops or credit unions or other forms of local economies.
One of the best elements of Benedict XVI's encyclical is its reminder that we are in charge of the economic process. We don't act or talk this way much of the time. But in fact, if we don't consume -- if we don't shop, or bank, or work and put money into the economic system -- then the economic system does not work.
What Benedict is calling us to do is to remember that we are responsible for participating in the economic system. We need, however, a state to protect our actice participation in this process, a participation that must be equal. An economic system that denies some participants participation or gives to some greater power or voice than others violates our human dignity.
Not only that, but it undermines the economic system. Why would we say that government works better through democracy but deny the same fact about the economy? A progressive and satisfying economic system is one in which each and every human beings can participate as equals.
Let's support those institutions which promote such equal participation, whether they be co-ops or credit unions or other forms of local economies.
Charity in Truth 2: Economy
20/03/10 14:27
In his latest social encyclical, Caritas in Veritate,
Benedict XVI asserts that love in truth must be the
foundation of the economy. He holds that human beings
are gifts, and, as such, mutual trust must be the
foundation of economic transactions. Charity -- love
-- is desiring the good of the other. That desiring
of the good for others must be part of the economic
system. Thus, gratuitiousness is the FOUNDATION of
justice not something over and above justice.
This is a powerful vision, a prophetic call on what the economy can be. It is not something that can be acheived by laissez faire capitalism or state socialism. It means a fundamental reorganization of the economy.
But how do we everyday citizens engage in such a reorganization?
One thing that Benedict XVI recommends is co-ops. Get involved in a co-operative grocery that has purchsing power throught the collective bargaining of its members. For those of us living in the Willamette Valley, one such co-op is Life Sources in Salem. But there are many around. The idea here is simple: we exercise our rationality and will by coming together as a collective based on charity and mutual trust to determine a common good and pursue it on the market. This common good is something above and more important than mere profit, which is an individual pursuit. Profit does not rely on trust; in fact, it's built on mistrust. The recent economic crisis which depended, in part, on banks taking out insurance policies that someone would efault on a loan is an example of what concern for profit can do. The gift of Bob Red Mill's foods to its employees is an example of what charity can accomplish.
We reorganize the economy by rejecting the big business model that looks at profit over people and embrace local ecnomies. Shop at your local farmers market or your locally owned grocery store (IGA), Grow some of your own food to control your economy. Eat at local eateries rather than chain restaurants. Choose a local bank or credit union over national and international banks who profitted from the government bailouts.
And place charity above justice, for there is no justice without charity.
This is a powerful vision, a prophetic call on what the economy can be. It is not something that can be acheived by laissez faire capitalism or state socialism. It means a fundamental reorganization of the economy.
But how do we everyday citizens engage in such a reorganization?
One thing that Benedict XVI recommends is co-ops. Get involved in a co-operative grocery that has purchsing power throught the collective bargaining of its members. For those of us living in the Willamette Valley, one such co-op is Life Sources in Salem. But there are many around. The idea here is simple: we exercise our rationality and will by coming together as a collective based on charity and mutual trust to determine a common good and pursue it on the market. This common good is something above and more important than mere profit, which is an individual pursuit. Profit does not rely on trust; in fact, it's built on mistrust. The recent economic crisis which depended, in part, on banks taking out insurance policies that someone would efault on a loan is an example of what concern for profit can do. The gift of Bob Red Mill's foods to its employees is an example of what charity can accomplish.
We reorganize the economy by rejecting the big business model that looks at profit over people and embrace local ecnomies. Shop at your local farmers market or your locally owned grocery store (IGA), Grow some of your own food to control your economy. Eat at local eateries rather than chain restaurants. Choose a local bank or credit union over national and international banks who profitted from the government bailouts.
And place charity above justice, for there is no justice without charity.
Charity in Truth 1: Integral Human Development
19/03/10 00:33
"Integral
human development implies the advance towards the
true good of every individual, community and society,
in every single dimension of human life: social,
economic, political, intellectual, spiritual and
religious."
This vision of human society is a PROGRESSIVE vision. It's a vision based in the Gospels, in the Christian tradition, and in the natural law tradition stemming from St. Thomas Aquinas. It calls for the flourishing of human beings -- each and every one -- in all dimensions.
Benedict XVI defends and elaborates on this vision in his encyclical Charity in Truth. I originally approached this encyclical with skepticism. But it paints a truly impressive picture of what human society can be. The notion of integral human development recalls the best of Aristotle and the words of Wilhelm von Humboldt quoted by J. S. Mill: the purpose of society is the fullest development of the human person for every one.
This vision of human society is a PROGRESSIVE vision. It's a vision based in the Gospels, in the Christian tradition, and in the natural law tradition stemming from St. Thomas Aquinas. It calls for the flourishing of human beings -- each and every one -- in all dimensions.
Benedict XVI defends and elaborates on this vision in his encyclical Charity in Truth. I originally approached this encyclical with skepticism. But it paints a truly impressive picture of what human society can be. The notion of integral human development recalls the best of Aristotle and the words of Wilhelm von Humboldt quoted by J. S. Mill: the purpose of society is the fullest development of the human person for every one.
Bob Red Mill's Given to Employees
12/03/10 00:15
http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2010/02/bobs_red_mill_natural_foods_ro.html
The founder and owner of Bob Red Mill's natural food decided to retire. He gave his company to the employees. A wonderful act of charity and justice. I can't say enough good things about this. Bob Red Mill's produces things like corn meal, polenta, whole grain stone ground wheat, pancake mix, etc. It's always good an made in Oregon.
A tremendous sign of hope for our society.
The founder and owner of Bob Red Mill's natural food decided to retire. He gave his company to the employees. A wonderful act of charity and justice. I can't say enough good things about this. Bob Red Mill's produces things like corn meal, polenta, whole grain stone ground wheat, pancake mix, etc. It's always good an made in Oregon.
A tremendous sign of hope for our society.
Denver Child Refused Catholic Schooling
11/03/10 13:33
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/denver_archbishop_explains_why_lesbian_couples_child_not_admitted_to_school/
The above is one of many stories about the decision of a Catholic elementary school in Denver to deny admittance to a child who has lesbian parents because her parents are lesbian. Let's say we agree with certain things, even if we don't: that lesbianism is wrong according to Catholic teaching, that the school has a responsibility to uphold certain Catholic moral standards, that the archbishop has a prophetic duty to witness to Catholic teaching, that the lesbian couple involved promoted their lesbianism to challenge the school's policy.
Does that mean that we punishb the child because her parents are lesbian?
I would think that charity-- love -- insists that we do not. What is the effect on the child from this decision: a lack of education in a Catholic faith, a lack of quality education provided by a Catholic school, removal from friends she's already met at the school, disruption of her life. Both the lesbian parents and the archbishop are responsible for putting the child in this situation.
And one must wonder whether the school expels the children of other Catholics who engage in practices that do not accord with Catholic teaching: what about divorced and remarried couples (without an annulment)? What about lawyers who defend criminals they know are guilty? What about people who support the death penalty or who are pro-choice?
All the archbishop has done here is make a bad situation worse. Perhaps if we cared more about individuals and less about dogma and doctrine, we might have more converts. Perhaps we should remember what Jesus said of the pharisees: white-washed tombs.
The above is one of many stories about the decision of a Catholic elementary school in Denver to deny admittance to a child who has lesbian parents because her parents are lesbian. Let's say we agree with certain things, even if we don't: that lesbianism is wrong according to Catholic teaching, that the school has a responsibility to uphold certain Catholic moral standards, that the archbishop has a prophetic duty to witness to Catholic teaching, that the lesbian couple involved promoted their lesbianism to challenge the school's policy.
Does that mean that we punishb the child because her parents are lesbian?
I would think that charity-- love -- insists that we do not. What is the effect on the child from this decision: a lack of education in a Catholic faith, a lack of quality education provided by a Catholic school, removal from friends she's already met at the school, disruption of her life. Both the lesbian parents and the archbishop are responsible for putting the child in this situation.
And one must wonder whether the school expels the children of other Catholics who engage in practices that do not accord with Catholic teaching: what about divorced and remarried couples (without an annulment)? What about lawyers who defend criminals they know are guilty? What about people who support the death penalty or who are pro-choice?
All the archbishop has done here is make a bad situation worse. Perhaps if we cared more about individuals and less about dogma and doctrine, we might have more converts. Perhaps we should remember what Jesus said of the pharisees: white-washed tombs.
Unemployment as Social Sin
15/12/09 11:48
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/us/15poll.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
The statistics here are frightening but not as frightening as they could be. How can anyone doubt the sinful nature of unemployment and the capitalism that causes it with this information? And yet, we hear more and more about abortion and so little about thespiritual cost that comes with unempolyment. These lives -- these lives of the unempoyed -- are just as valuable as those of the unborn and suffer just as much when their lives are aborted through capitalist profit. Where is the spiritual leadership for sustainable development, for sustainable green energy, for sustainable living.
Abortion results from the same carefree laissez-faire attitude that drives capitalism. It's the same as unemployment -- these lives are not valuable. These lives are not convenient. These lives are not profitable.
What we need is a change in attitude! A change away from the usury that controls our everyday lives. Until we live sustainable lives, we will always abort the unwanted because they aren't sustainable -- whether that's abortion of fetuses and embryos or abortion of whole living beings to a system of nihilism. Is it any wonder that zombies and vampires capture our modern minds they way they do?
The statistics here are frightening but not as frightening as they could be. How can anyone doubt the sinful nature of unemployment and the capitalism that causes it with this information? And yet, we hear more and more about abortion and so little about thespiritual cost that comes with unempolyment. These lives -- these lives of the unempoyed -- are just as valuable as those of the unborn and suffer just as much when their lives are aborted through capitalist profit. Where is the spiritual leadership for sustainable development, for sustainable green energy, for sustainable living.
Abortion results from the same carefree laissez-faire attitude that drives capitalism. It's the same as unemployment -- these lives are not valuable. These lives are not convenient. These lives are not profitable.
What we need is a change in attitude! A change away from the usury that controls our everyday lives. Until we live sustainable lives, we will always abort the unwanted because they aren't sustainable -- whether that's abortion of fetuses and embryos or abortion of whole living beings to a system of nihilism. Is it any wonder that zombies and vampires capture our modern minds they way they do?
Obama at Notre Dame -- OMG
13/04/09 15:55
A response to a NY Times article opposing Obama at
Notre Dame. Read
More...
Rolling back Bush Directive on Abortion -- NOT
28/02/09 00:43
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/27/conscience.rollback/
I read this story with some sort of amusement. There have been laws in place for decades that protect health workers from performing duties that violate their conscience. I couldn’t believe something so fundamental would be left up to the whims of the current president, whoever that might be.
But the headlines, as always, deceive in order to get the reader interested. Why were there no similar headlines when Bush created the rule that Obama is overturning?
The problem here is that, on his last day in office, Bush issued an order that changed some wording on how health care workers are protected from harassment or job loss if they refuse to perform a procedure they disagree with. But there was no need to issue such an edict, since medical professionals have had such protections for decades.
What is more interesting is this: if Bush were so concerned with protecting people in their jobs because of moral objections, then why did he not issue the order when he FIRST took office rather than as he LEFT office? The answer is simple, of course. He intended to trap Obama. Now hear me out. If Bush really cared about these issues, he could have issued the order eight years ago. So we have to ask, why did he wait to do it in his last day of office knowing that Obama would overturn it?
One answer suffices: Bush, playing for his party, established the rule so that Obama would get bad press over the abortion issue. This is simply another trick by the GOP to make Obama lose the next election. It’s rather ingenious. On the other hand, we should recognize the insincerity with which the GOP uses the abortion issue purely to win votes. They don’t really care about the unborn or about protecting people’s privacy. If they did, Bush would have passed the rule early on. Rather, they use these issues to drive a wedge into people to split them over “moral” issues as if the failing economy, the lack of oversight, and the unjust war were not moral issues.
In this time of lent, we should commit ourselves as Christians to look at the whole picture, not to vote with our hearts only, and to consider the ways the major parties try to divide and conquer.
I read this story with some sort of amusement. There have been laws in place for decades that protect health workers from performing duties that violate their conscience. I couldn’t believe something so fundamental would be left up to the whims of the current president, whoever that might be.
But the headlines, as always, deceive in order to get the reader interested. Why were there no similar headlines when Bush created the rule that Obama is overturning?
The problem here is that, on his last day in office, Bush issued an order that changed some wording on how health care workers are protected from harassment or job loss if they refuse to perform a procedure they disagree with. But there was no need to issue such an edict, since medical professionals have had such protections for decades.
What is more interesting is this: if Bush were so concerned with protecting people in their jobs because of moral objections, then why did he not issue the order when he FIRST took office rather than as he LEFT office? The answer is simple, of course. He intended to trap Obama. Now hear me out. If Bush really cared about these issues, he could have issued the order eight years ago. So we have to ask, why did he wait to do it in his last day of office knowing that Obama would overturn it?
One answer suffices: Bush, playing for his party, established the rule so that Obama would get bad press over the abortion issue. This is simply another trick by the GOP to make Obama lose the next election. It’s rather ingenious. On the other hand, we should recognize the insincerity with which the GOP uses the abortion issue purely to win votes. They don’t really care about the unborn or about protecting people’s privacy. If they did, Bush would have passed the rule early on. Rather, they use these issues to drive a wedge into people to split them over “moral” issues as if the failing economy, the lack of oversight, and the unjust war were not moral issues.
In this time of lent, we should commit ourselves as Christians to look at the whole picture, not to vote with our hearts only, and to consider the ways the major parties try to divide and conquer.
Obama's Address on Lincoln
14/02/09 15:11
Discussion of Obama's address on the 200th
anniversary of Lincoln's birth. Read
More...