EXCERPT:
More than a year before the next presidential elections, the battle lines are already being drawn--and one phrase already in the air seems likely to command increasing tension over the next 12 months. That phrase is “class warfare.” It’s a charge already being leveled against people as diverse as President Obama, billionaire Warren Buffett, and Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren. And it strikes me that this phrase offers a timely, even a perfect test-case for Catholic voters.
We Catholics now represent one of the largest “swing” voting groups in the country. In 2004, Catholic John Kerry lost that swing to George W. Bush, but in 2008 Obama won the Catholic majority from John McCain. In both cases, the Catholic vote swung to the winner. So now when we hear talk of “independent voters,” we can think “Catholic voters.” And I would like to think that this means “independent-minded” as well. I would hope Catholic voters are Catholics first, and party supporters second--that our Catholic values trump party platforms and political preferences.
It wasn’t so long ago that Catholic voters were largely working class, and many of them knew class warfare up close and personal (think “No Irish Need Apply”). And since the Democratic Party was, in the public side, the workers’ party, Catholics were often bloc democratic voters.
But since 1860, when JFK won 80% of the Catholic vote, Catholics have changed their class profile, emerging as among the best-educated and best-paid groups in America. The class profile of the two major parties has also changed, so it’s understandable if Catholics get confused about the issues and struggle to link their faith to their vote. It’s no longer as simple as checking the ballot for (D) or (R).
And when people start talking of “class warfare,” that makes matters even more confusing. It’s a serious charge, and demands a serious response. To get the clarity informed voting requires, we need to ask two things: What does class warfare mean? What should we think about it?
“Class warfare” sounds a lot like “class struggle,” the Marxist label for the process of workers wresting the means of production from the owners. But in today’s U.S. politics, “class warfare” has become a code word, like “socialism,” for any proposal to redistribute wealth within the population, especially through government action and taxation. It’s not about the workers seizing control of factories and companies, it’s about how much of their personal wealth rich Americans get to keep.
So what are the facts about the distribution of wealth in the U.S.? And what does our Catholic faith tradition have to say about it?
Friday, September 30, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
A Rock and a Hard Place
EXCERPT:
As a true child of the sixties, my vocational priority has always been for some kind of activism. I’ve spent my adult life in church work hoping to promote the local church as a “global force for good.” Maybe I was expecting too much, but I have not stopped hoping for a greater Catholic influence in public affairs.
So it pains me whenever I see official Catholicism squandering its potential for public influence--especially because it reminds me how damaging the last decade has been to the Church’s public image.
Last week offered a case in point, when the Catholic Bishops of Massachusetts issued a public statement opposing casino gambling in response to pending legislation authorizing three casinos in the state. In part, the statement said:
While the Catholic Church views gambling as a legitimate form of entertainment when done in moderation, the gaming legislation opens the door to a new form of predatory gaming which threatens the moral fabric of our society. We are concerned that the Commonwealth’s reliance on gambling revenue continues to escalate.…
Many of our churches, schools, and other non-profit organizations rely upon bingo and other games-of-chance for relatively small amounts of revenue. We hope the citizens of the Commonwealth will recognize the difference between a local fund-raiser managed by volunteers and a multi-billion dollar industry that exploits vulnerable members of the community for financial gain.
…My concern is not whether the Bishops are right. My concern is whether they matter--whether their position makes any difference.
…
This case demonstrates once again that, at this moment in U.S. Catholic history, the official church is truly caught between a rock and hard place. As custodians of Catholic tradition and its values and also as public figures, Catholic bishops should have a presence in the public forum. They must represent our values to the general public, so they must speak up on the issues of the day. On the other hand, doing so in the current situation raises as many problems as it solves—maybe more.
First, there’s the problem of credibility. Since scandal has tainted the public image of Catholicism, Bishops remain hard pressed to present themselves as experts on “the moral fabric of society.” Such language attracts negative attacks like a red cape attracts bulls. The Bishops would be better off spelling out the practical problems and consequences of bad policy without presenting themselves as moral authorities.
Then there’s the problem of hypocrisy. The statement expresses the hope that the public will see a difference between bingo and casino gambling, and it is true that casinos are big money operations compared to parish level bingo. But parishes run bingo for the same reason government support casinos: to pay their bills. And parishes, like governments, pay those bills with money that comes from people who like to gamble. Both of them “exploit vulnerable members of the community for financial gain.” For those individuals, the money they spend may well be money they cannot afford. Saying that the institution does not raise large amounts ignores the impact on the gamblers themselves.
Anyone paying close attention knows there are bingo players who migrate from one parish to another simply because they need to gamble every day. It is no accident that many church workers sadly refer to bingo as Catholicism’s “eighth sacrament” because they acknowledge that both parishes and parishioners have become dependent on gambling to survive--and that is the very definition of addiction.
Next, there’s the problem of special pleading: many people will assume that the Church opposes casinos to protect its own profits. And since the Church is not a neutral player on this matter, its authority to speak out is diminished.
Finally, there is an important side effect: the merits of issues can get lost when church officials take positions without presenting the strongest case…Recently, Catholic officials have shown a tendency to split hairs, making doubtful distinctions in order to express opposition that does not conflict with their own practices…In this case, the Bishops oppose “predatory” gambling so they can condemn casinos without banning their own gambling operations. In my view, such doubtful distinctions create the impression of cherry-picking the practices of others to oppose, while justifying the practices of the Church.
In a time like ours, the bishops have enough difficulty speaking out at all. Increasingly, they are reduced to preaching to the choir--and the choir itself is shrinking. Caught between a rock and hard place, they must nonetheless speak up, but how they do it matters today more than ever. They undermine themselves if their own language creates more heat than light.
As a true child of the sixties, my vocational priority has always been for some kind of activism. I’ve spent my adult life in church work hoping to promote the local church as a “global force for good.” Maybe I was expecting too much, but I have not stopped hoping for a greater Catholic influence in public affairs.
So it pains me whenever I see official Catholicism squandering its potential for public influence--especially because it reminds me how damaging the last decade has been to the Church’s public image.
Last week offered a case in point, when the Catholic Bishops of Massachusetts issued a public statement opposing casino gambling in response to pending legislation authorizing three casinos in the state. In part, the statement said:
While the Catholic Church views gambling as a legitimate form of entertainment when done in moderation, the gaming legislation opens the door to a new form of predatory gaming which threatens the moral fabric of our society. We are concerned that the Commonwealth’s reliance on gambling revenue continues to escalate.…
Many of our churches, schools, and other non-profit organizations rely upon bingo and other games-of-chance for relatively small amounts of revenue. We hope the citizens of the Commonwealth will recognize the difference between a local fund-raiser managed by volunteers and a multi-billion dollar industry that exploits vulnerable members of the community for financial gain.
…My concern is not whether the Bishops are right. My concern is whether they matter--whether their position makes any difference.
…
This case demonstrates once again that, at this moment in U.S. Catholic history, the official church is truly caught between a rock and hard place. As custodians of Catholic tradition and its values and also as public figures, Catholic bishops should have a presence in the public forum. They must represent our values to the general public, so they must speak up on the issues of the day. On the other hand, doing so in the current situation raises as many problems as it solves—maybe more.
First, there’s the problem of credibility. Since scandal has tainted the public image of Catholicism, Bishops remain hard pressed to present themselves as experts on “the moral fabric of society.” Such language attracts negative attacks like a red cape attracts bulls. The Bishops would be better off spelling out the practical problems and consequences of bad policy without presenting themselves as moral authorities.
Then there’s the problem of hypocrisy. The statement expresses the hope that the public will see a difference between bingo and casino gambling, and it is true that casinos are big money operations compared to parish level bingo. But parishes run bingo for the same reason government support casinos: to pay their bills. And parishes, like governments, pay those bills with money that comes from people who like to gamble. Both of them “exploit vulnerable members of the community for financial gain.” For those individuals, the money they spend may well be money they cannot afford. Saying that the institution does not raise large amounts ignores the impact on the gamblers themselves.
Anyone paying close attention knows there are bingo players who migrate from one parish to another simply because they need to gamble every day. It is no accident that many church workers sadly refer to bingo as Catholicism’s “eighth sacrament” because they acknowledge that both parishes and parishioners have become dependent on gambling to survive--and that is the very definition of addiction.
Next, there’s the problem of special pleading: many people will assume that the Church opposes casinos to protect its own profits. And since the Church is not a neutral player on this matter, its authority to speak out is diminished.
Finally, there is an important side effect: the merits of issues can get lost when church officials take positions without presenting the strongest case…Recently, Catholic officials have shown a tendency to split hairs, making doubtful distinctions in order to express opposition that does not conflict with their own practices…In this case, the Bishops oppose “predatory” gambling so they can condemn casinos without banning their own gambling operations. In my view, such doubtful distinctions create the impression of cherry-picking the practices of others to oppose, while justifying the practices of the Church.
In a time like ours, the bishops have enough difficulty speaking out at all. Increasingly, they are reduced to preaching to the choir--and the choir itself is shrinking. Caught between a rock and hard place, they must nonetheless speak up, but how they do it matters today more than ever. They undermine themselves if their own language creates more heat than light.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Ten Years Later
EXCERPT:
Is it possible to be happy in hell?
This question runs through my mind like an unwelcomed, stubborn tune as I reflect on last weekend’s observances of the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. For amid so many moving remembrances of that awful day lurked a desire to avoid remembering its aftermath.
Ten years later, our public observances stressed whatever is consoling and life affirming. We admire the perseverance and the courage of the victims’ families, we honor the memory of the victims themselves, we follow the healing and growth of their children, we praise the heroism of the first responders and rescuers, we salute the sacrifices and service of our servicemen and women, and we stand proud of our country’s resilience, power, and virtue.
But by lifting our hearts, we also distract our minds from the real consequences of those terrible attacks - - consequences far beyond the 3,000 victims we remember and mourn this week:
…
Ten years later, more than 5,000 U.S. troops have been killed.
Ten years later, more than 40,000 young Americans are permanently disabled or traumatized by their battle wounds.
Ten years later, nearly 200,000 Iraqis and Afghanis have been killed - - 80% of them women and children.
Ten years later, more than two million Iraqis are in exile, refugees who fled the war-torn land created by the U.S. invasion. These refugees are also mostly women and children--including girls as young as 10 who must prostitute themselves in Syria just to survive.
Ten years later, we remain simultaneously mired in the two longest wars in U.S. history, while insurgencies still disrupt civil order.
Ten years later, those wars continue to fuel the growth of terrorist groups.
Ten years later, those wars continue to strengthen the hold of Iran on life in Iraq.
Ten years later, the once-defeated Taliban has risen like a Phoenix after our paranoid invasion of Iraq took our attention away from Afghanistan.
Ten years later, our nation’s policies and practices are profoundly altered, even corrupted. We have engaged in systematic torture. We have paid others to torture for us. We have paid others to kill for us, spy for us, and even spy on us. We continue to imprison people beyond the reach of our justice system. We continue to send drones on killing missions that cannot tell terrorists from bystanders. We continue the explosive expansion of a “Top Secret America” whose 17,000 U.S. locations comprise, according to the investigative reporting of the Washington Post, a “huge bureaucracy that you can’t really see,” whose budget is a “state secret,” whose brand new headquarters of the Director of National Intelligence is as large as the Pentagon, and whose activities operate “behind a black wall,” beyond public view as well as congressional or judicial oversight.
…
Ten years later, our nation’s landscape has transformed. Police cameras track our movements, scanners record our license plates, warrantless intercepts record our calls and emails, and “fusion centers” in every state collect the data on us but keep it secret from us.
Ten years later, our economy has buckled from the burden of two prolonged wars bought on credit. Our huge surplus from 2000 (originally projected to total $3.5 trillion by 2008) is now a massive deficit (projected in 2008 to grow to $3 trillion within ten years), we have become the world’s biggest debtor nation, and our political system seems paralyzed by the challenge of the faltering economy.
We all know the 9/11 attacks were acts of terror - -but do we know what that really means?
It means that the attackers were not aiming at a conventional military victory: they did not seek to gain territory or treasure or control of power. The 9/11 attacks, as is typical with most terrorists, aimed to trigger a retaliation that would lead to aggressive attacks abroad and repressive, even police-state tactics at home. The real aim was to prove that our government cannot protect us without violating the rights of other nations and the privacy of its own citizens.
In short, Bin Laden’s goal was to damage the long-term moral character and reputation of our government both here and abroad - - and to accomplish it in a single day at a cost of 3,000 lives. In one day, this villain sought to disrupt the peace, tranquility, and security of the American way of life for years to come.
After ten years of war, anxiety, deficits, and the erosion of our rights, who is to say he did not succeed?
Ten years later, Osama Bin Laden is dead. Most Americans surely believe he is in hell, and they know he must be sorely disappointed to find himself thus punished, rather than rewarded by Allah, for his terror campaign against the west. But if it is possible to be happy in hell, he must be nonetheless pleased by the fruits of his labor.
Is it possible to be happy in hell?
This question runs through my mind like an unwelcomed, stubborn tune as I reflect on last weekend’s observances of the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. For amid so many moving remembrances of that awful day lurked a desire to avoid remembering its aftermath.
Ten years later, our public observances stressed whatever is consoling and life affirming. We admire the perseverance and the courage of the victims’ families, we honor the memory of the victims themselves, we follow the healing and growth of their children, we praise the heroism of the first responders and rescuers, we salute the sacrifices and service of our servicemen and women, and we stand proud of our country’s resilience, power, and virtue.
But by lifting our hearts, we also distract our minds from the real consequences of those terrible attacks - - consequences far beyond the 3,000 victims we remember and mourn this week:
…
Ten years later, more than 5,000 U.S. troops have been killed.
Ten years later, more than 40,000 young Americans are permanently disabled or traumatized by their battle wounds.
Ten years later, nearly 200,000 Iraqis and Afghanis have been killed - - 80% of them women and children.
Ten years later, more than two million Iraqis are in exile, refugees who fled the war-torn land created by the U.S. invasion. These refugees are also mostly women and children--including girls as young as 10 who must prostitute themselves in Syria just to survive.
Ten years later, we remain simultaneously mired in the two longest wars in U.S. history, while insurgencies still disrupt civil order.
Ten years later, those wars continue to fuel the growth of terrorist groups.
Ten years later, those wars continue to strengthen the hold of Iran on life in Iraq.
Ten years later, the once-defeated Taliban has risen like a Phoenix after our paranoid invasion of Iraq took our attention away from Afghanistan.
Ten years later, our nation’s policies and practices are profoundly altered, even corrupted. We have engaged in systematic torture. We have paid others to torture for us. We have paid others to kill for us, spy for us, and even spy on us. We continue to imprison people beyond the reach of our justice system. We continue to send drones on killing missions that cannot tell terrorists from bystanders. We continue the explosive expansion of a “Top Secret America” whose 17,000 U.S. locations comprise, according to the investigative reporting of the Washington Post, a “huge bureaucracy that you can’t really see,” whose budget is a “state secret,” whose brand new headquarters of the Director of National Intelligence is as large as the Pentagon, and whose activities operate “behind a black wall,” beyond public view as well as congressional or judicial oversight.
…
Ten years later, our nation’s landscape has transformed. Police cameras track our movements, scanners record our license plates, warrantless intercepts record our calls and emails, and “fusion centers” in every state collect the data on us but keep it secret from us.
Ten years later, our economy has buckled from the burden of two prolonged wars bought on credit. Our huge surplus from 2000 (originally projected to total $3.5 trillion by 2008) is now a massive deficit (projected in 2008 to grow to $3 trillion within ten years), we have become the world’s biggest debtor nation, and our political system seems paralyzed by the challenge of the faltering economy.
We all know the 9/11 attacks were acts of terror - -but do we know what that really means?
It means that the attackers were not aiming at a conventional military victory: they did not seek to gain territory or treasure or control of power. The 9/11 attacks, as is typical with most terrorists, aimed to trigger a retaliation that would lead to aggressive attacks abroad and repressive, even police-state tactics at home. The real aim was to prove that our government cannot protect us without violating the rights of other nations and the privacy of its own citizens.
In short, Bin Laden’s goal was to damage the long-term moral character and reputation of our government both here and abroad - - and to accomplish it in a single day at a cost of 3,000 lives. In one day, this villain sought to disrupt the peace, tranquility, and security of the American way of life for years to come.
After ten years of war, anxiety, deficits, and the erosion of our rights, who is to say he did not succeed?
Ten years later, Osama Bin Laden is dead. Most Americans surely believe he is in hell, and they know he must be sorely disappointed to find himself thus punished, rather than rewarded by Allah, for his terror campaign against the west. But if it is possible to be happy in hell, he must be nonetheless pleased by the fruits of his labor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)