#464: Is the Common Good the Enemy of Sovereignty—or Vice-Versa?

  A recent Harvard discovery suggests why this Sunday's French Presidential Elections French should interest Americans, and especially American Catholics.

"France for the French" vs. France, member of Europe

The French Election

Some observers have said the 2017 election for president of France is all about sovereignty, since Marine Le Pen wants to pull France out of the European Union and Emmanuel Macron wants to stay in the EU but reform it.

Le Pen’s supporters believe the EU Impinges on France's sovereignty as a nation; they want their country back, their money back, their borders closed, their industries protected, their immigrants expelled. They want “France for the French.”

Macron's supporters often do not actually support his politics or agenda, but they support France's continued membership in the EU. They know this means sacrificing some of the nation’s sovereignty: the Euro replaced the Franc, trade is subject to EU "free trade" regulations, the borders are open to anyone from the EU, even the traditional French license plates have been replaced by euro-style plates. But those prepared to vote for Macron believe that giving up some national sovereignty serves the common good of both the French people and Europe as a whole, especially in bringing peace to a chronically war-torn continent (see CrossCurrents # 463).

Catholic Social Teaching (CST) acknowledges the dilemma here. On the one hand, CST makes promoting the common good a top priority, which leaves little room for a self-serving agenda that ignores the effects on others. Pope Francis in particular has decried the “Exclusion” of others that occurs when policy is set to benefit some narrow part of any population.

On the other hand, CST also values “subsidiarity”—the principle of keeping decisions at the most local level possible, and solving problems by the participation of those closest to the problem.

The EU clearly aims to serve the common good of Europeans, but that means decisions get made, not at the local or regional or even national level, but at the international level which sometimes is far removed from the people affected. So common good and subsidiarity sometimes clash. How can this clash be addressed?

Some, like Julius Krein, editor of American Affairs, take a hard line view of sovereignty. He argues that internationalism of any kind cannot really achieve the common good: for him, the real common good comes only with national sovereignty:

“The only democratic institutions that we have are national institutions.  So if you get rid of the nation-state, what you’re really doing is getting rid of democracy.”

In other words, Krein considers that, to serve common good, all sovereignty must be national.  This is exactly what Le Pen is proposing in her campaign, and it is exactly what Macron is opposing.

Wednesday Night's Debate

But it strikes me that such a hard line is completely arbitrary and also completely contrary to our experience as Americans.  That’s why last week’s Harvard discovery is so interesting.

The Harvard Find

Two Harvard researchers, Danielle Allen and Emily Sneff, have recently reported the discovery of an early handwritten parchment copy of the Declaration of Independence--only the second such copy in existence.  They call it the “Sussex declaration” after the location of its discovery in England. 

The significance of the discovery is that this version is slightly different from the one in the national archives.  That original in 1775 reflected the practice of the Continental Congress of having state delegations sign official documents as a group, with state labels for each group.

But the Sussex declaration dates from the 1780s.  By then the War is over, and war debts have led to conflicts among the states, especially farming states vs. the coastal mercantile states.  Eventually these conflicts would lead to a constitutional convention, but already the clash was between federalists (who saw the new nation as a single united people) and anti-federalists (who saw it as a collection of states).  The issue here was whether sovereignty would belong to the nation as a whole, or whether each state would retain its own sovereignty. 

The Sussex Declaration

This newer version shows the balance shifting to the federalists. Allen points out the key difference:

“The Sussex Declaration scrambles the names so they are no longer grouped by state. It is the only version of the Declaration that does that…This is really a symbolic way of saying we are all one people.”

Of course, during the time between these two versions, the US was governed by the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1777 and ratified in 1781.  The guiding principle here was to preserve the independence and sovereignty of each state.  It legalized the Continental Congress, but gave that Congress very little power. There was no president, no judiciary, no executive agencies, no tax base--which meant no way to pay off the war debts.  Even the Congress had only one body, comprised of state delegations.

Shifting Sovereignty

The Articles of Confederation failed, because the national government lacked enough power to perform its essential duties.  This provoked a Constitutional Convention and eventually led to the U.S. Constitution which governs us today.  The essential difference is that the U.S. Constitution shifted much of our sovereignty from individual states to the nation as a whole.  But the shift involve major compromises, including a Congress split into two houses; Senate representing the states, and the House of Representatives representing the people by proportional vote.

In other words, US history is rooted in a compromise which recognized that sovereignty needed to be shared between the nation and its member states.  When Krein says that our only democratic institutions are national institutions, he is simply ignoring our own history.

What is happening in Europe follows a direct analogy to U.S. history.  If we think of France as a member state of the European Union, we can see that the issue of sovereignty, and the conflict over how much sovereignty France should sacrifice to the common good of Europe, is precisely the same issue as the argument over States’ rights vs. Federal power in the US.

From the point of Catholic Social Teaching, this means that American history can help show us how the tension between the common good and the principle of subsidiarity can be resolved.

We don’t need to look into the distant past to observe this history.  Recent events provided ample examples.  These show that debates over shifts in sovereignty reflect a tension that still exists in American Life.

Current Examples

1. Death Penalty. When Dhzokar Tsarnaev was tried for his role in the Boston marathon bombings, his trial took place in Massachusetts, which rejects the death penalty—and yet he received a death sentence, because his crime was determined to be a violation of Federal law.  Thus Massachusetts could not control the judicial process because the authority of the Federal government prevailed. The state does not enjoy absolute sovereignty

2. Sanctuary Cities. When Donald Trump attacks the notion of sanctuary cities, he is pitting the rule of local law enforcement in preserving public safety against the interests of the immigration authorities to locate and detain illegal immigrants.  Most states that have sanctuary cities are claiming that their law enforcement officials cannot be forced by the Federal government.

3. Healthcare. The current struggle to repeal Obamacare involves the question of whether the U.S. government will continue to mandate coverage, or the states will have the option to seek alternative plans.  Obamacare relied on the sovereignty of the Federal government; the repeals are pushing for state sovereignty.

4. Border Wall. Donald Trump’s border wall involves the Federal government imposing construction in many border states that oppose a wall.  Here again, the common good becomes the rationale for overruling local decision-making.

5. Tribal Sovereignty. When the Wampanoag Tribe tries to establish a casino on Martha’s Vineyard, this pits the tribe as a sovereign nation vs. the power of the local community, and invokes both state and Federal power to resolve the issue.  In this case, the dispute is about sovereignty on four different levels.

6. Gay Marriage. In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized gay marriage, exercising its own authority to regulate marriage on the state level.  But when the US Supreme Court imposed its Federal authority over state laws and regulations, gay marriage became legal across the US. 

7. “Romneycare.” Obamacare’s rules for health care were remarkably similar to the rules that already existed in Massachusetts under the program supported by a Republican Governor Mitt Romney. Romneycare reflected the state’s sovereignty, Obamacare reflected the federal government’s sovereignty

The Moral of the Story

In all of these cases, the question of sovereignty has been resolved on a case-by-case basis.  It is true that some people would prefer the Federal government to always impose its will over states, while others would prefer that states always get to decide all matters for themselves without any Federal interference.  But the vast majority of Americans accept a constant balancing act between two (or more) levels of legitimate authority.

Thus life in “these United States” involves a chronic but healthy tension between the sovereignty of the nation and the sovereignty of the states.  Neither sovereignty is absolute, so a Federal System like ours requires repeated negotiation to redefine the shifting limits of each sovereignty.

And that is exactly what Europe is going through today, especially if we think of each country as something like our states. 70 years after the Treaty of Rome established the idea of a united Europe, its federal system is still being formed.

The European Union has reached a moment much like the crisis caused by the Articles of Confederation.  In other words, its governing treaties are failing to provide the right mix of sovereignty between the European Union itself and the member states. 

It seems that, if Europe is to serve both the common good and honor the principle of subsidiarity, it will need to find ways to democratize its operations and reflect comment local and national interests and preferences rather than make all decisions by some remote process that does not reflect public will.

But the failure of the Articles of Confederation did not lead to the failure of the United States; it required instead a reformed federal system. Europe faces the same challenge, and France’s commitment to meeting that challenge (rather than quitting to protect its own sovereignty) will say much about Europe’s future prospects.

 © Bernard F. Swain PhD 2017

#341: Warfare—or Justice?

As Warren Buffet makes the rounds promoting his new book, the old issues re-surface. So I am replaying this post from September 2011:

More than a year before the next presidential elections, the battle lines are already being drawn--and one phrase in the air seems likely to command increasing attention 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 the largest “swing” voting group 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 like to think 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.

But 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’s eye, the workers’ party, Catholics were often bloc Democratic voters. In 1960 JFK won 80% of the Catholic vote.

Since then, 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?

Frankly, the facts are surprisingly simple and obvious. For the last 40 years, the U.S. gap between rich and poor has steadily grown, because real wages for most have failed to match inflation, while the wealthiest Americans have enjoyed soaring dividends, salaries, and bonuses. The U.S. bishops, a dozen years into this trend, were already expressing concern in 1983:

Our economy is marked by a very uneven distribution of wealth and income. For example, it is estimated that 28% of the total net wealth is held by the richest 2% of families in the U.S. The top 10% holds 57% of the net wealth. If homes and other real estate are excluded, the concentration of ownership of financial wealth is even more glaring. In 1983, 54% of the total net financial assets were held by 2% of all families, those whose annual income is over $125,000. Eighty-six percent of these assets were held by the top 10% of all families.-- (US Bishops Economic Justice For All [EJA] #183)

By 2010, the situation was even worse, as the gap just kept growing, according to a UC Berkeley analysis:

“In the economic expansion of 2002-2007, the top 1% captured two thirds of income growth.”As others have pointed out, the average wage of Americans, adjusting for inflation, is lower than it was in the 1970s. The minimum wage, adjusting for inflation, is lower than it was in the 1950s…On the other hand, billionaires have never had it better. --http://integralcatholicsocialteachings.blogspot.com/2009/08/income-inequality-worst-since-1917.html

Is anyone who criticizes this trend engaging in “class warfare”? I suppose that is mainly a question of definitions, but let’s suppose we accept “class warfare” as the label for a debate about income distribution, income inequality, and income redistribution? In that case, two things stand out.

One, there are fighters on both sides: those defending the poor, and those defending the wealthy. Second, there seem to be two sets of rules. Those on the “poor” side are attacking the behavior and special treatment the wealthy get (Warren Buffett called it “coddling”) to urge a change in the status quo. But the “wealthy” side has been attacking the character of the poor as a way of blocking any change.

Thus one TV commentator describes this as a war of the “productive classes” attacked by the “moocher classes.” John Stossel likewise sees a conflict between the “makers” and the “takers.” Another pundit refers to welfare recipients as “parasites.” Nebraska Atty. General John Bruning compares “stupid welfare recipients” to scavenging “raccoons.” Ann Coulter argues that the U.S. welfare system creates “generations of utterly irresponsible animals.” Even warfare has rules, but so far only one side is playing fair.

So given the facts about U.S. wealth and the way people are fighting over it, what are Catholic voters to think? Once again, the answer is surprisingly straightforward. In a word: Catholic Social Doctrine has consistently opposed wide income gaps between rich and poor, and has consistently approved actions to redistribute wealth. Leo XIII first set this position in 1891, and he was seconded in 1931 by Pius XI:

Each class, then, must receive its due share, and the distribution of created goods must be brought into conformity with the demands of the common good and social justice. For every sincere observer realizes that the vast difference between the few who hold excessive wealth and the many who live in destitution constitute a grave evil in modern society-- (Quadragesimo Anno #58).

Vatican Council II (1962-1965) repeated the same basic position:

Excessive economic and social inequalities within the one human family, between individuals or between peoples, give rise to scandal, and are contrary to social justice, to equity, and to the dignity of the human person, as well as to peace within society and at the international level--(Gaudiam Et Spes #29).

This position reflects a main principle of Catholic social teaching: “The Universal Destination of Material Goods,” and this combines with another principle, the “Preferential Option for the Poor,” as the U.S. Bishops explained in 1983:

As individuals and as a nation, therefore, we are called to make a fundamental "option for the poor". The obligation to evaluate social and economic activity from the viewpoint of the poor and the powerless arises from the radical command to love one's neighbor as one's self. Those who are marginalized and whose rights are denied have privileged claims if society is to provide justice for all. This obligation is deeply rooted in Christian belief.-- (EJA #87)

These two principles establish “Catholic” economic priorities that many Catholics have never been taught:

The needs of the poor take priority over the desires of the rich; the rights of workers over the maximization of profits; the preservation of the environment over uncontrolled industrial expansion; the production to meet social needs over production for military purposes.-- (EJA #94)

This leads to a clear Catholic mandate to support changes, even government policies, that redistribute wealth:

Authentic economic well-being is pursued also by means of suitable social policies for the redistribution of income which, taking general conditions into account, look at merit as well as at the need of each citizen.--(The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church #303)

Does this mean the Catholic Church has been waging “class warfare” since 1891? I think not. Instead, I agree with the U.S. Bishops in saying:

The "option for the poor," therefore, is not an adversarial slogan that pits one group or class against another. Rather it states that the deprivation and powerlessness of the poor wounds the whole community. The extent of their suffering is a measure of how far we are from being a true community of persons. (EJA #88)

From the Catholic viewpoint, this is not class warfare; this is a fight for justice. And, as Pope Benedict XVI proclaimed in his very first encyclical, God Is Love: “The Church…cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice.”

So each of us must ask ourselves, and even each other, the next question: if the fight for justice is underway, which side are you on?

©Bernard F. Swain PhD 2011

# 83 Freedom’s Façade is Not Enough

A Selection From CrossCurrents Archives to Prepare for Election Day...

We’ve all been duped, from time to time, by Hollywood’s magic. We sit mesmerized by palaces and monuments, spaceships and ships at sea, ancient villages and frontier towns, and even places that exist only on another planet. Sometimes they’re only background pictures, or miniature models—but often they’re full-size sets, mere facades of buildings propped up from behind, beautiful balconies that beckon the hero through an elaborate doorway leading nowhere.

Falling for such facades is part of the make-believe pleasure movies give us, but real life is different. In life, we need to know if an attractive image has any inner life beyond the entryway.

Lately we’ve been hearing “freedom” ringing over our airwaves as repeatedly and rhythmically as the “Hail Mary” at a Rosary meeting. For Americans the word has the sound of sacred truth—who can be against freedom? And when “freedom” is linked to "democracy,” another sacred sound, the call to arms can be irresistible.

So maybe it’s time for some straight talk about freedom. It is an idea that was at the core of Christian faith from the very start. Its meaning and importance have evolved and expanded enormously over the course of Christian history. That history involves Christian theology, ancient and Christian and modern philosophy, varied moral theories, as well as a wide range of political philosophies emerging in recent centuries. That’s all too much to sort through here, but several key points should help get past the rhetoric to the reality:

Freedom is Not an Absolute Value. If everyone does whatever they want, they may be free—but chaos and anarchy are the result. As the old saying goes, my freedom to swing my arms ends at the tip of your nose. Total freedom may be impossible if people are to live together, so restraints are always needed. Iraq offers the perfect current example: until native police can ensure civil order, the freedom people have to commit mayhem and murder will collide with other values: the security and stability Iraq needs.

Freedom is not the Only Value. The American tradition links freedom to the Bill of Rights. But our founders aimed at more than freedom: their slogan “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” reminds us that securing the rights of all is a balancing act among several sacred values.

The French Revolution touted freedom too, which is why the Statue of Liberty stands in New York Harbor as our oldest ally’s gift to us. But the French balanced “Liberté” with “Egalité” and "Fraternité,” and for more than 200 years the world has acknowledged that all of these, not just liberty, are the “passwords to democracy.” And sometimes those passwords conflict, and then freedom must be compromised. That’s why the pro-life movement knows “freedom to choose” cannot be the only value, if life is thereby jeopardized.

Elections do not produce Freedom. People choosing their own leaders is a good thing, but freedom requires more than that. After all, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and Iraq under Saddam all had elections too. If democratic freedom lies in “the consent of the governed,” then people are free only to the extent that they have a voice in all the decisions that govern them: in public policy, in corporate decisions, in the workplace and schools and social organizations and the family and even in the Church.

Choosing which leaders to hire is only a first step toward a real voice in all these areas. Even in America, we have a long way to go before we extend freedom to all areas of our lives—and we’ve been choosing our leaders for a long time (though male landowners have been voting much longer than other males, or females, or blacks).

“Freedom” Can Isolate Us. Often our modern secular culture has redefined “freedom” as a synonym for individual autonomy. To be “free” in this sense means to be left alone, to be unrestrained, to be independent of any obligations, to be subject to no authority except my own. To be “free” means to escape all outside interference—it’s what people mean when they talk about “getting government off our backs.” Carried to the extreme, of course, a “free world” would be a world full of unencumbered individuals who submit to no outside authority and owe each other nothing. This may be “rugged individualism” in its purest form, but it is a far cry from the Christian vision of a world where the golden rule binds us all together as our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers.

Freedom is not just a right.  The rise of modern democratic politics (since England’s Glorious Revolution in 1689) has tended to reduce “Freedom” down to the idea of a human right—the right not to be oppressed. Such “freedom” is merely an external condition that can be legislated by public declarations, and constitutions, and Bills of Rights. In Christian history, this external condition has often been called “formal freedom.”

But Christians have traditionally believed in another kind of freedom, often called “real freedom.” Real freedom isn’t just an external condition or right that can be formally declared, it is a capacity we find within us. Specifically, it is the power to act for the good—not only our own good, but also the good of others.

This goes way beyond freedom from oppression to define a freedom for facing up to life’s tough choices. The very idea of “sin” depends on the recognition that we don’t always make the right choices, even though we are free to do so. Christians have generally believed, in fact, that we humans are incapable of consistently doing the right thing without the help of God. On our own, we haven’t the power, the “freedom for” the choices we should make. But God’s grace is, in Christian faith, the force in our lives that supplies the power we need to do good. That’s why St. Paul says, “For freedom Christ has set us free,” and “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”

All this means two things. First, true freedom is much more than we’re led to believe by public leaders. It’s not just something you can produce, like a rabbit from a hat, simply by holding an election or writing a constitution or winning a war. Freedom is not merely a social and political condition we humans create by public acts. It is a moral and spiritual capacity that god creates within each of us.

Second, as people of faith, we cannot sell freedom short, even if others do. Our first instincts are right—freedom is a sacred truth. But God doesn’t offer us freedom for nothing, or just so we can be independent from others. God expects us to respond to his grace, to cooperate with the power he’s given us, to use our power to do his will. If we treat freedom as mere independence or autonomy, we squander that gift and insult its divine giver.

How do we honor the giver? By seeing past the political facade of freedom to its spiritual interior. Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII taught that our mission to re-form the world according to God's plan relies on three spiritual forces: truth, justice, and love. In the early 1960s, John XXIII added a fourth spiritual force: freedom.

So, as Americans we should see freedom as the partner of “Life” and “The Pursuit of Happiness.” As democratic people, we should set Freedom alongside “Equality” and “Fraternity.” And as people of faith, we should embrace freedom as one of the forces the world needs—along with Truth, Justice, and above all Love—if we are to make our world the kind of place God wills it to become. Then we’ve found the fullness of freedom, well beyond its façade.

© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2005

#320: Catholic Solidarity, Part II

EXCERPT:
it is now more than a century that the Catholic Church has been on record supporting the notion that unionism, and the collective bargaining that goes with it, are basic rights which, in modern capitalist societies, are often the only protection workers have against corporate power.

Here is what Catholics need to know about this teaching, which has been established and developed by five different popes, as well as by the US Catholic Conference of Bishops:
1.Unions are indispensable in pursuing the common good of all.
2.Unions are rooted in the right to free association –that is, the right to unite with others to protect common interests.
3.Unions foster solidarity through participation and collaboration.
4.Unions have a duty to seek cooperative relationships with employers.

None of this teaching justifies union corruption; none of it justifies the failure of unions to seek the common good of all; none of it justifies intransigence or an unwillingness to bargain. When unions fail, like any other human organization, they must be reformed.

But challenging them to fulfill their duties cannot include revoking their rights. That is why Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, California, chairman of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, said the following in a recent public letter to the Archbishop of Milwaukee:

These are not just political conflicts or economic choices; they are moral choices with enormous human dimensions…The debates over worker representation and collective bargaining are not simply matters of ideology or power, but involve principles of justice, participation and how workers can have a voice in the workplace and economy.

No surprise then that the Archbishop of Milwaukee himself, Jerome E. Listecki, acting as president of the Wisconsin Catholic Conference released the following statement [emphasis mine]:

The Church is well aware that difficult economic times call for hard choices and financial responsibility to further the common good…But hard times do not nullify the moral obligation each of us has to respect the legitimate rights of workers. As Pope Benedict wrote in his 2009 encyclical, Caritas in Veritate: “Governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the freedom or the negotiating capacity of labor unions. Hence traditional networks of solidarity have more and more obstacles to overcome. The repeated calls issued within the Church's social doctrine…for the promotion of workers' associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honored today even more than in the past…”

Perhaps the strongest statement applicable to the current situation was made by the US Bishops in their 1986 pastoral letter “Economic Justice for All”:

The Church fully supports the right of workers to form unions or other associations to secure their rights to fair wages and working conditions…No one may deny the right to organize without attacking human dignity itself.

#290 The Missing Antidote

On most social issues, Catholics’ opinions today reflect the rest of the population. In an age when Catholicism struggles to sustain its distinct identity, we have largely failed to establish a distinctive social platform among our people. I suspect that on many issues vital to America’s social and moral well-being, the problem is not that Catholics have rejected Catholic Social Teaching (CST). The problem is, they never knew what CST was.

Did most Catholics know their bishops, their pope, and virtually all the world’s bishops opposed the invasion of Iraq – and did they know why?

Did most Catholics test George bush’s assertion that Iraq was a “just war” by using the Catholic criteria for a just war?

When Catholics hear attacks on illegal immigrants, do they know CST calls migration a human right?

When Catholics here that healthcare is “a privilege, not a right” – do they know CST says the opposite?

When a mine disaster pits management against its critics, do Catholics know that CST always favors people over profits?

When policy critics attack “redistributing wealth” as “socialism,” do Catholics know that, in the face of income inequalities, CST labels redistributing wealth “justice,” not “socialism”?

Do Catholics know CST defends the right to private property – but says owners must always use property to serve the common good?

When America cuts back its nuclear arsenal, do Catholics know CST unconditionally condemns the use of nuclear weapons?

When America renounces “first use” of its nukes, do Catholics know CST forbids even the threat of nuclear attack?

When Catholics hear about “family values” do they know CST regards the human race as a single family – so that racism, anti-Semitism, anti-Islamic and anti-immigrant attitudes all violate true family values?

Do Catholics know CST does not recognize “success” in war (whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else) as a moral justification?

Facing venomous debates about “Big” versus “Small” government, do Catholics know CST says size does not matter, but favors government that promotes the common good and a just social order?

I’m afraid that there is a yawning chasm between the vision of CST and the world view of many Catholics. Too many of them get their social values from secular society – from party politics, or media “pundits,” possibly from friends and family. If I’m right, on most social issues, millions of Catholics do not know their own faith.