Given the state of the economy and the mood of the nation, a letter of hope during economic dark times seemed like a good idea when the U.S. bishops voted by a wide margin to draft a message on work and the economy during their June meeting in Atlanta. But after the draft of that resulting document was discussed by the bishops during their fall meeting in Baltimore yesterday, it became quickly clear that the statement was unexpectedly in trouble. Today the document, titled "The Hope of the Gospel in Difficult Economic Times," was shot down, failing to achieve the two-thirds needed for passage. The vote was 134, yes, 84 no, with nine abstentions.
Written by a drafting committee headed by Archbishop Allen H. Vigneron of Detroit, under some guidelines laid out by the bishops at their June meeting in Atlanta, the document had been challenged by Spokane's Blaise Cupich and retired Retired Archbishop and one-time conference president Joseph A. Fiorenza of Galveston-Houston. According to the USCCB twitter feed from the meeting yesterday, Archbishop Fiorenza quickly criticized the document following its introduction by Archbishop Vigneron. "Why don't we address the growing gulf between the haves and the have nots?" he asked.
Archbishop Fiorenza said, "I have very serious questions about this," adding he had only received the draft for review three days earlier. "I am very disappointed, and I fear that this draft, if not changed in a major way," will harm the U.S. bishops' record on Catholic social teaching. He observed that the subtitle is about work: "A pastoral message on work, poverty and the economy," yet he said the document includes just one short reference on the right of workers to unionize.
"One sentence," he added. "It's almost like it was an afterthought. But when you look at the compendium of the social teachings of the church, there are three long paragraphs on the right to organize, the right to collective bargaining, and the right to strike." He asked why "Hope of the Gospel" includes no reference, "not even a footnote," about the U.S. bishops' 1986 pastoral letter on the economy, "Economic Justice for All," which he noted was the product of several years of work.
Retired Auxiliary Bishop Peter A. Rosazza of Hartford, Conn., asked whether the drafting committee had consulted with an economist, which he said was one of the recommendations of the bishops in June.
They had not, Archbishop Vigneron told him. According to Vigneron, the document relied on encyclicals from popes JPII and Benedict XVI.
Retired Bishop Joseph M. Sullivan of Brooklyn, N.Y., said the document "doesn't address in any way the major shift in the American economy." He also said it ought to reference the 1986 document "to show the continuity of what we said then."
After a day of review, the statement took more hits during floor debate today from a number of other bishops who complained that it did not properly connect to past Catholic social teaching, particularly the aforementioned pastoral "Economic Justice," was not suitably critical of the forces that brought the country to its economic knees in 2008 and had nothing too little to say about the role of unions.
Bishop Rosazza complained that the document has "no sting, no bite" and doesn't address cuts to government programs that help the poor. Albany's Bishop Howard Hubbard said the statement did not adequately address causes of economic collapse, the role of government, the decline of labor and Catholic social teaching. The document doesn't offer comfort or hope to anyone, complained Bishop Cupich, it speaks of market forces but not deregulation and immoral behavior that created the financial crisis.
Galveston's Cadinal Daniel DiNardo defended the statement, arguing Archbishop Vigneron did what he was asked; the problem may be that bishops' expectations for the statement were unreasonably high.
Having failed to pass in the conference, the document was effectively D.O.A. but elements within it may appear in future statements.
Have moderates in the conference finally decided to push back against the conference's conservative drift? Hard to say, (especially when your "insight" is based on a twitter feed!) but as many of the objectors here appear to be retired, non-voting members, there does not appear to be too much cause for celebration among Catholic progressives.
This election shows me that they likely have. Oremos.
Actually the people of the nation's 'expectations for the statement' and for the bishops were unreasonably high. The bishops have been uncomfortably silent for a good decade now, even before the first election of Barak Obama, as the nation's houses were being pulled out from under the very feet of the people of the land, and jobs were being lost in the millions, the bishops remained silent.
Maybe if the bishops had to work for a living at least part time doing something else, like washing dishes, driving buses, building cars, waiting on tables, they'd have a sense of what the People of God must endure, and how the gospel is to be interpreted and held to, and beyond that, those very documents written in times of similar distress. Could it be that a full third of our bishops don't know the documents of the Catholic Church, the history of those documents or the burdens of the People of God?
Blessed Dorothy Day if you can convert some hearts, now's the time. Oremos!
How long, O Lord ... how long?
And why???
But it's not surprising to learn about this. In my parish & diocese labor and economic issues get about 5 seconds of pulpit time, a few lines in the diocese newspaper, and no resources. It's all about stem cells, reproduction, and who should be allowed to marry.
The middle class and the upper middle class have suffered greatly also. It would be better put if only Mr. Nunez suggested that the bishops try to find a job, to cover their mortgage, to keep their health insurance, to fund their retirement and to keep the job - then they'd have a sense of what the People of God must endure.
The idea that only those on the bottom rung - if they are on that rung at all - suffer economic hardship is long past. Now, it is every man for himself.
The theatre of the absurd - the "Occupy Wall Street" movement - had no effect, from its inception it had no effect because the forces it was trying to influence are so isolated from the rest of the world, that they could ignore it. And, whoever they are, did.
The American Catholic Church always seems to come up a day late and a dollar short. Grand responses to issues that most Americans have already decided upon. The American Catholic Church has been out-witted, out-done and ultimately is ignored.
All of us will have the next four years to watch as the Church is humiliated into accepting positions it wouldn't accept but now has to - in order to survive.
The Church is in a desparate situation. We're all in a desparate situation. I trust in the Holy Spirit, especially now if the best response is "Galveston's Cadinal Daniel DiNardo defended the statement, arguing Archbishop Vigneron did what he was asked..."
The right of workers to unionize themselves is one thing. The right of labor activists to unionize workers against their will is something completely different. The right of workers to have the government require employers to recognize unions or force them to agree to arbitration is a third issue.
It is clear that Catholic teaching insists on the first of these. It is not so clear that it insists on the others.
1. "The right of labor activists to unionize workers against their will is something completely different." I'm not certain what you mean by this. Are you referring to the "agency" or "closed" shop? That comes only after a democratic election in which a majority of those voting choose a union much as they would a candidate for public office (the Wagner Act considers unions quasi-public organizations).
2 "The right of workers to have the government require employers to recognize unions or force them to agree to arbitration is a third issue." Ditto for this. Are you arguing that workers should be able to vote on union recoginition and, if they do vote in favor, that employers should be allowed to just ignore the outcome? That seems undemocratic. It certainly flies in the face of labor law since the Wagner Act and heaps of Church social teachings.It would take us back to the nineteenth century.
Actually some labor folks might agree with your comments : there are many rank-and-file labor activists who argue that U.S. labor law in inherently weak, that it favors employers, and that new forms of organzing (e.g., living wage, wildcat strikes, community boycotts and zoning prohibitions to shady employers) is the way to go.
at: http://vincentians.com/blog/thirty-second-sunday-in-ordinary-time-jose-antonio-pagola/.
And what is the Church's interest here? To make the world safe for a certain faction of "progressive Catholics" and their particular social and politcal ideas and goals. They would of couse love to have their solutions were given unique ligitimacy in the debate on the economy but hat would be again a huge technical, political and moral mistake.
The Church needs to avoid making economic and moral pronouncements on the economy beyond its expertise. What going on in the economy and it smany deteriating conditions most economist have a hard time keeping up with. Just this moring I heard one left-leaning economist sayig don't worry about sociial secuirity. I changed the channel and another happened to warn we now must barrow 140 billion a year to make all social security payments.
Neither the Church nor most of society fully understand the economic and financial crisis the nation is in. The crdit rating agencies are once again threatening to lower the nations credit on the national debt which will at some point rasie the cost of fiancing our 16 trillion dollar national debt.. Labor leader Trumpka said yesteday at the meeting with the President that we should forget the dept and keep making payments without budget cuts. The credit agnecies are telling us you better worry about cuts or your crdit rating wil be lowered and may be anyway. Powerful politcal and economic forces are at work here. Better for the Church not to willy-nilly involve itself in this intense politcal and economic contest which prevents a timely resolution of our economic and politcal differences.
And of sourse we do not want at all to be like the countires of the Euro zone who with too high a debt to Gross Nation Product are badly suffering politcally and economically for the last two years. Greece, Spain , Portugal, Ireland and Italy are all suffering from too much national debt and are now unable or have great difficulty in getting more debt to finance their antional budgets. The fact is a permanent workabke solution to these countries problems is unkown. The Church should not offer solutions to complex economic problems of nations when it has no expertise to give such advice.
Thank you Catholic Bishops.
While regional episcaptes such as the USCCB require a 2/3rds majority vote on important statements, no such majority voting is permitted on issues confronting the Synod of Bishops who often address world-wide problems confronting the Church.
As for the right of workers to unionize and to make their voices heard and meaningful to management, no such mechanism is available for the laity in the Catholic Church. The Church is indeed not a democracy, but that does not mean that the voices of the laity should not have an avenue so that their opinions, problems and concerns can be fully understood and accounted for in the Church's deliberations on complex issues that impact us all. Some say each bishop is the people's representative in such matters. However, in all my 35 years of Church attendance, no one has ever asked me or any of my Catholic Church-going friends for an opinion. There are some responsible theologians who do survey the laity, like the late Dean Hoge of the CUA, but it is a mystery how and if such data is ever used by the bishops, individually or collectively.