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.

Pope Francis’ Ecology Encyclical: What Can We Expect?

December 29, 2014 The Jesuit Post on Millennial

This post by Henry Longbottom, SJ is also featured on The Jesuit Post.

The word emanating from Vatican corridors is that we can expect to see the long awaited environment-themed encyclical at some point during 2015.

The exact date has not been disclosed, but it could coincide with Francis’ apostolic visit to the Philippines in January, a country where the Catholic Church has been something of a trailblazer on environmental issues. Alternative possibilities are April 22 (World Earth Day) or October 4, the Feast of St. Francis (patron saint of ecology).

Another key “unknown” relates to exactly what the encyclical will contain. Until the document is finally promulgated, anticipating its content can only be guesswork, and of course Pope Francis does like to surprise us… This is at once frustrating and tantalizing for people like myself who have a keen interest in the relationship between faith and ecology.

And yet there are perhaps a few clues about the tone and emphasis it will have. The following is my attempt at summarizing seven possible areas the encyclical may cover:

1) It will build on the foundation laid by the previous two popes.

John Paul II often spoke out about the need to address issues related to pollution and global warming, and Benedict took this a step further in arguing for good environmental stewardship as a moral imperative during his World Day of Peace address in 2010. Benedict’s Caritas in Veritate made the case for protecting the natural environment for the sake of future generations. And let’s not forget Benedict installing solar panels galore and funding a small Hungarian forest to make the Vatican the world’s first carbon-neutral state!

2) It will focus on repairing our relationship with the natural world.

It could be said that Bergoglio’s choice of papal name really set his green agenda. Francis of Assisi loved nature and is said to have preached to birds and animals; no one could accuse him of theological “Speciesism”. And then there is his beautiful hymn, Canticle to the Sun, in which he calls the sun “brother” and the moon “sister”. Just after his election, the pope said he chose Francis of Assisi because “for me, he is the man of poverty, the man of peace, the man who loves and protects creation. These days we do not have a very good relationship with creation, do we?”

3) It will have a strong South American feel.

You can take the boy out of Buenos Aires, but you can’t take South America out of him. Commentators think that it’s highly likely the encyclical will be influenced by the insights of those working with people affected by environmental degradation, particularly in the Amazon region. Francis has apparently been corresponding with two prominent South American environmental advocates about the forthcoming encyclical. The first is Erwin Kräutler, Bishop of Xingu in the Brazilian rainforest. The second is the liberation theologian, and former Franciscan friar, Leonardo Boff.

4) It will make the link between care for creation and the preferential option for the poor.

Francis has often emphasized the fact that the poorest in the world are the worst affected by environmental problems like climate change, desertification and contamination. This theme connects with the ministry of Bishop Kräutler. Inspired by liberation theology, Kräutler was originally from Austria but started work as a missionary in the late 1960s, becoming one of Brazil’s most formidable advocates for indigenous minorities.

5) It will examine the relationship between human and natural ecology.

Francis is likely to emphasize that the way humans treat the natural environment (natural ecology) is symptomatic of the way humans treat each other (human ecology). Francis is well known for his criticism of our ‘throw-away’ society. The ‘use it and chuck it’ mentality infects not just the way we treat the world’s natural resources but also our human relationships. In a fascinating article for Thinking Faith, the theologian Donal Dorr observes that pope Francis is likely to draw less of a distinction between human and natural ecology than his papal predecessors and give more weight to the view that humans are one element within the ecology of nature. In this regard, he may develop the thinking of Boff, who argues for a covenantal language of humanity’s relationship with nature.

6) It will emphasize that environmental destruction is a sin.

This pope has not been afraid to speak about sin, and his statements about the environment are no exception! During a speech at the University of Molise in July 2014, Francis said that unacceptable exploitation of the earth is a sin.

7) It will view environmental advocacy as an opportunity for dialogue and evangelization.

Like other aspects of the Church’s social teaching, environmental stewardship is fertile ground for forging partnerships with non-Catholic organizations and individuals. It’s interesting that in one of his recent speeches from Istanbul on the theme of interreligious dialogue, Francis cited the natural environment as one of the “pillars” on which there should be solidarity between believers. Is it possible that the encyclical will help formulate a common language of our responsibilities towards the natural world which is universal to people of all faiths and none?

In relation to the latter group, my own experience of working with those involved in environmental campaign groups is that although they are often suspicious of conventional forms of religion, they nevertheless possess a sense of awe and a belief in something transcendent that puts them at odds with the dominant materialistic consumerism of our day. Lumping them into a “new age spirituality” category overlooks a shared outlook with people of faith. My hope is that the encyclical will develop the possibilities for greater dialogue and exchange with all people who are passionate about the planet.

The Catholic Case against Libertarianism: Steve Schneck and Mark Shields

June 25, 2014 Robert Christian

At the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies conference on libertarianism earlier this month, IPR Director Steve Schneck addressed the topic of libertarianism and politics, moving beyond the more narrow focus on economics and economic justice that was the focus of Cardinal Rodriguez’s keynote (watch here) and the first panel, which included Millennial’s Meghan Clark (watch here). Mark Shields then followed with a response to Schneck’s speech.

Schneck provided some historical context to the case against libertarianism, highlighting libertarianism’s roots, including its connection to the Enlightenment:

Libertarianism is best understood as epitomizing the Enlightenment. It shares in the Enlightenment’s anti-clericalism, suspicion of tradition and custom, and humanistic values. Most importantly it shares in the Enlightenment’s confidence that there is a kind of automatic Reason that can be relied upon for order in human life.

He argued that the central features of libertarianism have not changed significantly since their formation. He identified these features—which are each “at odds with traditional Catholic moral and social doctrine to varying degree”—as:

A negative conception of liberty and rights, egoism (often verging on solipsism), association of authority with regression and repression, antinomianism, suspicion of community and common good, absolute conception of private property, valorization of competition, suspicion of custom and tradition, automatic order or “invisible hands,” anti-institutionalism, suspicion of hierarchical morality, and obviously a negative conception of government and distrust of governmental action.

Schneck noted that these ideas and values directly conflict with recent papal encyclicals and Thomistic theology and philosophy. He described just how problematic they are, saying, “They are impossible to fully reconcile with the Catholic understanding of the person, with the Catholic understanding of natural law, with the Catholic conception of overcoming the self, with the idea of the Mystical Body of Christ, the communion of saints, and so much more.”

Schneck highlighted various criticisms of libertarianism from both the Left and the Right. With many critics of the Right, the Church asks, “Is the value of human life for the elderly or the unborn something for market forces to decide?” At the same time, “Catholics share with the Left a concern that this aspect of markets disenfranchises those in society who are marginal or who otherwise are unable to effectively compete.”

Schneck most powerfully highlighted the difference between Catholic and libertarian thinking in his clear description of the Catholic understanding of property, which is so radically divergent from libertarian thought. He explained:

For Catholic teachings, the starting point for understanding property is to realize that all legitimate property is ultimately something that we have been entrusted to hold for God. We can never really earn it; it has been given to us. Our labor, skill, talents, and social situations may have been part of the legitimate process by which we came to have property, but of course all those things are themselves gifts from God. Hence, property is something we hold in stewardship. We hold it for God’s plan, for the common good, and for the needs of others and for our own needs as part of our relationship with others. Its universal destination is to return to God and to the community of saints with the Second Coming.

Mark Shields followed Schneck by first noting that “there is a real libertarian political movement in this country.” This contrasts with some who have downplayed the real and detrimental impact of libertarianism on the common good. Shields argued that a libertarian compromise or “implicit libertarian bargain” seems to have emerged over the past generation. Liberals have deregulated and privatized American culture, while conservatives have done the same to the American economy.

He contrasted this with America’s past, citing Lincoln’s words: “Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” And he quoted a Democrat, FDR, to make the same point: “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”

Shields argued that nonjudgmental tolerance has become the highest virtue in a society where individual economic acquisitiveness and self-expression are so honored. He contrasted this “me culture” with Catholic teaching’s “we culture.” And he argued that the strength of a nation is based on the willingness of the people to make sacrifices for the common good. Shields spent a great deal of time talking about the importance of national service, seeing it as vital in fostering this type of shared sacrifice by getting Americans to look beyond themselves and their own interests. Ultimately, he argued, “We need the politics of the common good again.”