Can Catholic Social Teaching Reduce Polarization?

December 24, 2018 Millennial

Robert Christian writes:

Polarization in the United States has increased dramatically in recent decades. At a Georgetown University event on polarization in a “broken Church and nation,” John Carr, the director of the Initiative on Catholic Social Thought and Public Life, described the grim landscape of American politics. He argued that Americans are more divided than united and that fear, cynicism and anger are leading to tribalism, resulting in the nation’s capital failing to do even basic tasks like fund the government. This division has created fault lines that run through the Church, not just the government and culture. Many Catholics feel “politically homeless,” while others have become polarized, mirroring the values and behavior of others in their political party.

The event featured four panelists who brought unique perspectives and insights on polarization and its impact….

Gehring said that now is the time to reclaim Catholic social teaching. He noted that we are a “both/and” Church that has the resources and worldview to transcend some of the deep divisions in American society. He urged a revival of the consistent ethic of life, an approach that challenges the reigning ideologies on the right and left in the U.S….

Elise Italiano, the founding executive director of The GIVEN Institute, also pointed to the value of the consistent life ethic and the importance of fully embracing Catholic social teaching. She noted that many young Catholics are showing a commitment to this approach in their activism, prayer life and on social media. However, Italiano pointed to high rates of stress, isolation and depression that millennials face. Many young leaders do not know to whom they should turn for advice or to emulate in their search for the best way forward. She closed by saying we can help each other and live as real neighbors, even if we disagree on certain matters.

Pope Francis, Catholic Social Thought, and US Public Life

June 29, 2017 Millennial

Georgetown University recently hosted a discussion on Pope Francis, Catholic social teaching, and US public life, featuring Emma Green of The Atlantic, Michael Gerson of the Washington Post, and Mark Shields, syndicated columnist and commentator for the PBS NewsHour. The moderator was John Carr, director of the Initiative on Catholic Social Thought and Public Life. You can watch the full nuanced, thoughtful conversation here:

And here are some highlights of their remarks:

Michael Gerson

It is not a normal political time….We have been called to consider…who we include as members of the community, who we value and who we dehumanize
In the budget, almost all of the cutting is done at the expense of the poor and the vulnerable and the elderly….Just the cuts in HIV spending could cost up to a million lives
In many ways, it’s the Catholic moment….The country really needs the powerful personalism that the pope presents. It really needs solidarity as the basis of our politics.
We’ve seen the return of nativism to the center of American politics and American life
Right now, the policy debate on the Republican side is almost completely sterile. And that’s because they’ve blamed the wrong things and people.
Now we’re having an argument about whether there is a common good to serve at all
Catholic social thought begins with first principles and applies them; it doesn’t begin with social controversies and then react to them
We have a tremendous empathy deficit in America
People turn to the news not for information but for ammunition and to support their preexisting biases

Emma Green

There’s really no party that fully represents a Catholic point of view
Many people feel politically homeless. This is particularly true of millennials.
There may be coalitions emerging that we may not have been able to imagine previously
On the eve of the March for Life, I spoke with a young woman who spoke passionately about how much she cared in equal terms about care for refugees and the poor and care for the unborn. There is a hunger among millennials for more coherent thinking (against old culture war bifurcations)

Mark Shields

The Democratic Party is a top down party. The reality is the Democrats have no farm system, they have not reached out to encourage people to become part of a majority party
The Democratic Party right now is at risk of applying—in minority status—a litmus test, of becoming a social club.
You’re gonna put together a majority in the country when you’ve got a third of Democrats who are pro-life? There’s got to be room for and voices for and attention paid to people like Bob Casey and Joe Donnelly. There wouldn’t have been an Affordable Care Act without the votes of pro-life Democrats.
Trump is as deep as bird bath, he is criminally uncurious
One is America First (Trump), the other is global solidarity (Pope Francis)

The AHCA Doesn’t Meet Catholic Social Teaching, Pro-Life Standards

May 26, 2017 Marcus Mescher

On May 4, Congressional Republicans gathered in the Rose Garden at the White House to celebrate a 217-213 vote to pass H.R. 1628 (the American Health Care Act, or the AHCA) that finally accomplished something they had tried more than 50 times before: to repeal and replace the ACA, also known as “Obamacare” (even though only 17% of Americans supported such legislation according to one poll). President Trump took the podium to boast, “We’ve come up with a really incredible health care plan, this has brought the Republican Party together.”

Republicans have been quick to defend the AHCA. My Congressional Representative, Brad Wenstrup (R-OH-2^nd District), praised the bill because it “restores pro-life principles to our nation’s healthcare.” He noted that pro-life organizations like the National Right to Life, Susan B. Anthony List, the Family Research Council, and the Concerned Women for America supported passage of the bill. But this cherry-picked list makes it seem like the AHCA is a slam-dunk for those concerned about defending human life at every stage. On the contrary, a number of Catholic organizations opposed the AHCA, including the Catholic Health Association of the United States and NETWORK, the Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, which coordinated and published concerns from more than 40 Faith Organizations. Widening the scope, Representative Jim Cooper (D-TN-5^th District) listed 50 groups opposed to the AHCA, including the AARP, American Medical Association, American Health Care Association, National Partnership for Women and Families, AFL-CIO, and National Council of La Raza, among others. Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA-2^nd District) denounced the bill in a most eloquent manner, calling it a “shameful” piece of legislation that was rushed after a “pathetic process.”

Indeed, it seems it was premature to celebrate and defend the bill without an updated Congressional Budget Office report. This nonpartisan review—released earlier this week—makes it difficult to claim this bill “restores pro-life principles to our nation’s healthcare.”

Here are a few highlights from the CBO report on the AHCA:

23 million Americans would become uninsured and it would increase costs for the sickest and oldest citizens.
In 2026, 51 million people under age 65 would be uninsured (compared to 28 million under the ACA).
Medicaid (federal and state health insurance for low-income and disabled Americans, as well as children and the elderly) spending would be cut by $834 billion and 14 million people would lose Medicaid coverage.
Low-income senior citizens could see premium increases as high as 800%, whereas the richest Americans would see their premiums drop. (The richest Americans will also enjoy a $346 billion tax cut over ten years.)
Current funding levels will cover only 110,000 individuals with a pre-existing chronic condition. If states use other funding, they could cover up to 600,000 individuals with pre-existing chronic conditions, which is not even a third of the 2.2 million enrollees who have a preexisting chronic condition at present. Others report that the AHCA would only cover about 5% of those with preexisting conditions.
The cost of maternity care could also increase by thousands of dollars, which would likely lead to higher rates of abortion. (The ACA provided prenatal and pediatric care to 9.5 million previously uninsured women, an enormous achievement for families.) Some have said the AHCA disproportionately targets women, especially women in poverty while others call the bill anti-life. Surely those who complain about having to pay for prenatal care for others—as Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL-15^th District) did in March—miss the point about what it means to be pro-life.
1 in 5 Americans struggle with mental illness, but the AHCA would let states drop coverage for mental health and substance abuse (the Surgeon General reported in November that almost 21 million Americans struggle with substance abuse), charge people higher premiums if they have a pre-existing condition (like anxiety or depression), and create high-risk pools, which would be another way to charge people with mental illness more and provide less coverage.

These features of the AHCA make it clear that “Trumpcare” falls well short of the standard set by Catholic Social Teaching, whether that refers to the life and dignity of the human person, the call to participation in social life, the preferential option for the poor and vulnerable, or solidarity. Read More

Faith, Francis, and the 2016 Campaign

April 4, 2016 Millennial

The Initiative on Catholic Social Thought and Public Life of Georgetown University recently hosted an event on Pope Francis, faith, and the 2016 campaign. The panel featured: Lauren Ashburn, EWTN News Nightly White House correspondent and political director; E.J. Dionne, Washington Post columnist and professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University; Emma Green, writer and editor for The Atlantic politics section covering religion and public life; Gregory Smith, associate director of research on religion and politics at Pew Research Center; and Michael Sean Winters, author and columnist for National Catholic Reporter. John Carr, director of the Initiative on Catholic Social Thought and Public Life, moderated the conversation. Check out the highlights:

Emma Green: evangelicals aren’t being swayed by the faith candidates. @emmaogreen #faithvote

— Christopher J. Hale (@chrisjollyhale) March 30, 2016

@emmaogreen notes evangelical voters have defied predictions in this election. Evangelicals are not a monolith. @Georgetown #FaithVote

— John Gehring (@gehringdc) March 30, 2016

“Very striking that Pope Francis is quoted most by Bernie Sanders in the 2016 campaign” @EJDionne #faithvote @GUcstpubliclife

— Tessa Pulaski (@tessapulaski) March 30, 2016

Pope is critiquing the entire campaign: love, not destruction; mercy, not vengeance #FaithVote @EJDionne

— Allison Walter (@allisonwalter91) March 30, 2016

@EJDionne says some evangelicals voting for Trump because they are fighting back against perceived hostile culture. #FaithVote

— John Gehring (@gehringdc) March 30, 2016

@GregSmith_Polls says struck by how many religious voters who say they don’t think Trump is religious but they like him anyway. #faithvote

— John Gehring (@gehringdc) March 30, 2016

“@PewReligion data surprisingly shows that religious voters are voting more on non-religious issues.” @GregSmith_Polls #faithvote

— Georgetown CST (@GUcstpubliclife) March 30, 2016

“Most surprising aspect of #Election2016 is level of anger. God is talked about, but doesn’t seem to be in it.” @laurenashburn #faithvote

— Georgetown CST (@GUcstpubliclife) March 30, 2016

@laurenashburn says “anger has trumped religion in this election.” @GUcstpubliclife #FaithVote

— John Gehring (@gehringdc) March 30, 2016

Michael Sean Winters: the right used to introduce cultural war issues to win elections. Now the left does it. #faithvote

— Christopher J. Hale (@chrisjollyhale) March 30, 2016

“#PopeFrancis has exposed a rift in #CatholicLeft on labor & culture issues, but not reflected by Democrats.” @MichaelSWinters #faithvote

— Georgetown CST (@GUcstpubliclife) March 30, 2016

Greg Smith: Catholics are the most diverse voting bloc in the United States. @GregSmith_Polls #faithvote

— Christopher J. Hale (@chrisjollyhale) March 30, 2016

“The one word to describe the #Catholicvote is diverse – demographically, geographically, politically” @GregSmith_Polls #faithvote

— Georgetown CST (@GUcstpubliclife) March 30, 2016

.@GregSmith_Polls: Young latinos are shifting the geographic and political center of American catholics #FaithVote

— Matthias Witt (@msbcw) March 30, 2016

Greg Smith: White, moderate Catholics are one of the most important swing blocs in the US. @GregSmith_Polls #faithvote

— Christopher J. Hale (@chrisjollyhale) March 30, 2016

.@EJDionne “there is no Catholic vote and it’s very important.” #FaithVote

— kathy saile (@KathySaile23) March 30, 2016

“There is no Catholic vote and it’s really important” 40-40-20 group @EJDionne #faithvote @GUcstpubliclife pic.twitter.com/59JJ9992pj

— Tessa Pulaski (@tessapulaski) March 30, 2016

@EJDionne: Anger is real in this election but misleading if we only have a “Trump-o-centric” view. @GUcstpubliclife #faithvote

— John Gehring (@gehringdc) March 30, 2016

Economic justice will be the defining issue determining the voting patterns of this generation – @emmaogreen #FaithVote

— Matthias Witt (@msbcw) March 30, 2016

“Anger in 2016 also among young #BernieSanders voters, particularly on econ. justice. Used to be a religious issue.” @emmaogreen #faithvote

— Georgetown CST (@GUcstpubliclife) March 30, 2016

“People are finding Catholic social thought valuable as a framework in #Election2016.” John Carr #faithvote

— Georgetown CST (@GUcstpubliclife) March 31, 2016

Abortion is still the only sacrosanct issue among conservative Catholic voters, everything else is debatable – @laurenashburn #FaithVote

— Matthias Witt (@msbcw) March 31, 2016

John Carr:”Catholic Social Teaching is looking at issues from the bottom up, from outside & who is left behind” @GUcstpubliclife #FaithVote

— Sara Benitez (@SaraStoryteller) March 31, 2016

“If the Church is being only modern, then it’s not being true to itself.” – EJ Dionne #FaithVote

— Cassandra Kienbaum (@CassieKienbaum) March 31, 2016

Amen! @MichaelSWinters “the best thing happening to the Catholic Church is Latinos”#FaithVote @GUcstpubliclife

— Sara Benitez (@SaraStoryteller) March 31, 2016

Catholic Social Teaching and the Poisoning of Flint

February 6, 2016 Meghan Clark

In The Poisoning of Flint: How It Happened, I outlined some key points:

The poisoning of the population of Flint, Michigan did not just happen – it was caused.
Democratic processes were overridden in the name of “fiscal responsibility.”
Those in positions of power (General Motors and State officials) were provided with safe, clean water quickly once the problem was noticed. While the residents of Flint, the majority of whom are African-American and 40% live below the federal poverty line were repeatedly lied to and blown off.
Lead poisoning leads to significant brain damage and other irreversible health damage to children. Every child in Flint Michigan under the age of 6 has been exposed to toxic levels of lead. This is known and indisputable. The effects of lead poisoning often take years to show up and properly evaluate. From child development to impulse control, the long term effects for the community in Flint will not be known for some time.
Lead is not the only poison being found in the water.
Flint is not the only city in America where corrosion and disintegration of lead pipes is a concern; it is only the beginning.

So what does Catholic social teaching have to say about all this?

At Symposium Ethics, Melissa Pagán has a fantastic piece that raises critical questions for the Church in response to this injustice. In “Watering ‘Strange Fruit’ trees: Flint and the Lack of Catholic Solidarity,” Pagán exposes, names, and challenges the Catholic community’s relative silence on issues of racial justice. In particular, just as Pope Francis highlights that the poor disproportionately bear the burden of ecological degradation, in the American context, this is complicated by racism. The effects of environmental disasters are disproportionately experienced by communities of color. This unjust reality has been exposed over and over again, and yet, we do not seem to change. (For a classic example see Jonathan Kozol’s Amazing Grace, which is focused on the South Bronx twenty years ago. It is just one of countless examples of what in moral theology we call environmental racism.)

As I read Pagan, I could not help but think back to the horrific massacre in Charleston and that there was little or no mention of Charleston when most Catholics I know went to mass the next Sunday. I had the privilege of listening to Fr. Bryan Massingale give the keynote address “The Evidence of Things Unsaid: The Silence about Racism in the Care for Creation” at St. John’s University’s poverty conference. Massingale issued a clear and profound challenge to American Catholicism, which seems allergic to facing the persistent reality of racism, and, within that, environmental racism in our response to care of creation. Pagán and Massingale offer a clear, powerful critique of American Catholicism and our inability to deal with racism. Part of the problem, as Massingale notes, is reducing racism to intentional, overt acts by individuals. The result of this is an easy ability to explain away racial injustice (through indifference to institutional racism). Over the last eight years, watching online blogs and debates during the Obama administration, I have been amazed at just how hard it is to have discussions on racism. Looking at persistent racism seems to have a beyond a reasonable doubt standard (that anything else could be going on) in many discussions, including within Catholic theological circles. Over at Daily Theology, John Slattery has a helpful piece on systematic bias; Flint, Michigan is simply exhibit A of a much deeper problem. Addressing it is something I find overwhelming – Flint deserves 10 posts not 2. But silence is complicity and so I offer one limited reflection from Catholic social teaching.

The injustice in Flint seems linked to the violation of the principle of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is a principle to help guide decision-making and protect the role of those at many different levels in society –from the family, local groups, local government all the way to the federal government and international community. When I turn to Flint, I see a clear and undeniable violation of subsidiarity in two ways:

The Governor of Michigan overrode the elected democratic government in Flint in giving power to an appointed emergency manager in the name of fiscal responsibility. Claiming Flint was unable to manage its finances, the state sent in an emergency manager. However, this emergency manager system continually overrode or ignored the voice of the people.
There currently remains a persistent inability or unwillingness to address honestly and fully the ongoing water crisis in Flint. It is not merely a matter of past failure; there is ongoing evidence of an inability or unwillingness to place the health and well-being of residents of Flint as a priority. Those charged with guarding the public good, including public health, have provided incontrovertible evidence since 2014 that they are unable or unwilling to put the people of Flint Michigan first.

From the perspective of Catholic social teaching, we need to offer our voices in conjunction with the citizens of Flint Michigan in their calls for federal oversight of what comes next. This should include an independent investigation into the Governor’s office and the emergency manager program (not only operative in Flint), holding officials legally accountable for the willing neglect of public health, and strengthening monitoring and enforcement of clean water standards around the country. For this moral theologian, these investigations and responses cannot simply be rhetorical or reports. Action, immediate and long term, is demanded. When Pope Francis identifies access to clean and safe drinking water as a human rights issue of immediate concern, this is not just about access in the developing world. And while we begin with Flint, the safety of water and of the pipes through which it flows in poor communities around the country demands our attention.