Give credit to Eric Gorski of the Associated Press. While some reporters don’t get that Catholic prelates are supposed to be able to influence the lives of those in the pews, including their votes at the ballot box, Gorski understands that they can and do.
Consider this passage from his latest story, about the McCain and Obama campaigns’ outreach to Catholic voters:
One unknown in the race: the voice of U.S. Catholic bishops. Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput has said Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden, a Catholic supporter of abortion rights, should refrain from receiving Communion.
And several U.S. bishops have rebuked Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for misstating Catholic teaching on when life begins.
Former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Jim Nicholson, appearing at the same forum as Brownback this week, said more bishops need to speak out about core Catholic issues.
“And we need to help them,” Nicholson said. “We need to give them cover, give them solidarity, because it can get very lonely for them.”
But it’s still rare for bishops to directly criticize politicians. Instead, Catholic dioceses nationwide have begun to distribute “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” an issue-based road map for Catholic voters.
No scholar I know of has quantified, or validated even, the political influence of Catholic leaders speaking out about issues. But I do know that at least some local Democratic Party leaders have complained about it (here and here). And you know what they say about politicians: while they might be dumb, at least they can count (votes).
Yet even a reporter as skillful and knowledgeable as Gorski committed the most elementary sin of journalistic omission: he failed to define the term Catholic social teaching and to give examples of same. Take this passage:
Neither presidential candidate lines up precisely with the breadth of Catholic teaching, but Catholic organizers for McCain and Obama are making the case that their man comes closest.
Or take this passage, about Sen. Sam Brownback’s defense of McCain:
But Brownback also challenged the notion that Democrats are more in line with Catholic social justice concerns, suggesting that McCain’s opposition to torture and support of comprehensive immigration reform provide an opening.
“I am not conceding the social ground,” said Brownback, a former presidential candidate. “We are a pro-life and whole-life party.”
Or take this passage, about the Obama campaign’s claim for the Catholic vote:
Last week in Denver, the Obama campaign argued that his policies on the economy, environment and poverty fit the Catholic pursuit of the common good.
At some point in the story, Gorski should have defined these terms — Catholic social teaching, Catholic social justice concerns, the common good.
To be sure, the terms are not easily defined, as they are made up of several principles or themes. (Can you say “the right to life,” “option for the poor,” “subsidiarity,” and “the rights of workers”?) And it is hard to know which documents to cite from, such as the Catechism or “Faithful Citizenship,” which Gorski cites. But defining the terms and quoting from a document would have gotten religion, for it would have given readers an objective measure of Catholic social thought.
Imagine a story about McCain and Mitt Romney battling over whether either candidate was a true Republican. In that case, the reporter would have informed readers if he or she had quoted from the party’s latest platform and laid out its general principles. Now I am not advocating that the reporter assert which candidate was closer to the party’s principles; outside experts or academics are more likely to reach those conclusions. But at least readers would be broadly informed about Catholic social thought.
And in the next two months, we can expect to hear a lot from both campaigns as they claim that their candidate’s positions are closer to those of church teaching.
 | Posted at 8:11 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (16) |
September 5, 2008, at 8:21 pm
I’m glad Sen. Brownback (my choice for President) pointed out a couple of items on the Catholic Social Teaching “scorecard” for which Sen. McCain never seems to get any credit: his opposition to torture and his support for comprehensive immigration reform. He staked out those positions at great political risk to himself, and I think it’s somewhat regretful that a Prof. Kmiec, for instance, talks about these issues as if Sen. McCain were no different than those on the pro-torture and anti-immigration side of the ledger.
Good for whole-life/pro-life Sen. Brownback (my choice for Sen. McCain’s first Supreme Court nomination should he be elected).
September 5, 2008, at 9:21 pm
The issue the media complies with Dem Party wishes (knowing the Truth could bury Obama) is its burying of Obama’s three year fight against there being an Ill. Born Alive Act-which in effect makes him an accomplice in infanticide no matter his lying excuses (uncovered by pro-life groups and the NY Post) while he was immorally calling them liars. He also is a strong opponent of laws to protect infants in partial-birth abortions.
In Catholic social and moral teaching there is a hierarchy of importance. Most important of all is the protection of innocent human life —of which infants (whether in the womb or just born) are the prime example of innocent human life.
Even Nat Hentoff (a non-Catholic, but pro-life) has observed in The Village Voice that Obama’s record on the issues of partial-birth abortion and protecting the lives of newborns is cold-blooded and chilling.
For most sincere Catholics and Christians there can be no other issue once a candidate is willing to see infants
executed while they are being born -or after. Just as in Germany in the 1930’s and 1940’s there should have been no other issue for people with a human conscience than protecting the lives of those groups of people Hitler wanted to exterminate—like Jews and the retarded.
Yet child murder seems of no real interest to the MSM (in fact, mostly supports it) just as the morally corrupted German media was of great help to Hitler.
And part of this is the fault of Roe v. Wade. For if, before this decision was made, a candidate defender of infanticide were put forward the media would have put him in the “nutcase” category or the marginal category like Barr, Paul, or Nader.
No wonder all much of the liberal media wants to talk about is the job Bush (who will soon be gone) has done the last 8 years and not spotlight the sparse record of a candidate who could be the incoming president. With so few things in Obama’s legislative resume for accomplishments one would thing the one issue he became strongly identified with in Ill. would be of great interest. But the same media outlets that can’t be bothered with really investigating the man who wants to be president will be renting planes to fly hordes of reporters to Alaska to “vet” the pro-life woman Sarah Palin with what will probably be all negative spin.
September 5, 2008, at 10:29 pm
Mark, I agree with you on this issue. I would suspect even many Catholics don’t know the full range of what’s meant by Catholic social teaching. This might exist, but if not, it would be useful for the Catholic church to have a web site that covers all of what is meant by that phrase and to comment on how the candidates line up. Many other groups do that kind of thing so I think the Catholic church should also.
September 5, 2008, at 10:52 pm
Jay and Deacon John,
What did you think of my argument that the reporter should have defined Catholic social teaching?
I am afraid that your comments were largely about the presidential candidates and cultural conservatism. Neither is directly relevant to my post. So please focus solely on the journalism, not the politics. Just imagine if supporters of Bob Barr or Ralph Nader start chiming in about their candidates and issues.
Jerry,
Thanks for your support.
September 5, 2008, at 10:58 pm
“And it is hard to know which documents to cite from, such as the Catechism or “Faithful Citizenship,†which Gorski cites. But defining the terms and quoting from a document would have gotten religion, for it would have given readers an objective measure of Catholic social thought.”
In this context, I suppose the foundational document would be the 1891 encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, “Rerum Novarum”, which energised the discussion about and consideration of Catholic social teaching in the modern age:
“http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html
Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor
That the spirit of revolutionary change, which has long been disturbing the nations of the world, should have passed beyond the sphere of politics and made its influence felt in the cognate sphere of practical economics is not surprising. The elements of the conflict now raging are unmistakable, in the vast expansion of industrial pursuits and the marvellous discoveries of science; in the changed relations between masters and workmen; in the enormous fortunes of some few individuals, and the utter poverty of the masses; the increased self reliance and closer mutual combination of the working classes; as also, finally, in the prevailing moral degeneracy. The momentous gravity of the state of things now obtaining fills every mind with painful apprehension; wise men are discussing it; practical men are proposing schemes; popular meetings, legislatures, and rulers of nations are all busied with it - actually there is no question which has taken deeper hold on the public mind.
2. Therefore, venerable brethren, as on former occasions when it seemed opportune to refute false teaching, We have addressed you in the interests of the Church and of the common weal, and have issued letters bearing on political power, human liberty, the Christian constitution of the State, and like matters, so have We thought it expedient now to speak on the condition of the working classes.(1) It is a subject on which We have already touched more than once, incidentally. But in the present letter, the responsibility of the apostolic office urges Us to treat the question of set purpose and in detail, in order that no misapprehension may exist as to the principles which truth and justice dictate for its settlement. The discussion is not easy, nor is it void of danger. It is no easy matter to define the relative rights and mutual duties of the rich and of the poor, of capital and of labor. And the danger lies in this, that crafty agitators are intent on making use of these differences of opinion to pervert men’s judgments and to stir up the people to revolt.
3. In any case we clearly see, and on this there is general agreement, that some opportune remedy must be found quickly for the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class: for the ancient workingmen’s guilds were abolished in the last century, and no other protective organization took their place. Public institutions and the laws set aside the ancient religion. Hence, by degrees it has come to pass that working men have been surrendered, isolated and helpless, to the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition. The mischief has been increased by rapacious usury, which, although more than once condemned by the Church, is nevertheless, under a different guise, but with like injustice, still practiced by covetous and grasping men. To this must be added that the hiring of labor and the conduct of trade are concentrated in the hands of comparatively few; so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself.”
Kind of hard to boil it all down to a bullet-point list though, I imagine
September 5, 2008, at 11:06 pm
Though I suppose this might work as a distillation of one of the main points:
“20. Of these duties, the following bind the proletarian and the worker: fully and faithfully to perform the work which has been freely and equitably agreed upon; never to injure the property, nor to outrage the person, of an employer; never to resort to violence in defending their own cause, nor to engage in riot or disorder; and to have nothing to do with men of evil principles, who work upon the people with artful promises of great results, and excite foolish hopes which usually end in useless regrets and grievous loss. The following duties bind the wealthy owner and the employer: not to look upon their work people as their bondsmen, but to respect in every man his dignity as a person ennobled by Christian character. They are reminded that, according to natural reason and Christian philosophy, working for gain is creditable, not shameful, to a man, since it enables him to earn an honorable livelihood; but to misuse men as though they were things in the pursuit of gain, or to value them solely for their physical powers - that is truly shameful and inhuman. Again justice demands that, in dealing with the working man, religion and the good of his soul must be kept in mind. Hence, the employer is bound to see that the worker has time for his religious duties; that he be not exposed to corrupting influences and dangerous occasions; and that he be not led away to neglect his home and family, or to squander his earnings. Furthermore, the employer must never tax his work people beyond their strength, or employ them in work unsuited to their sex and age. His great and principal duty is to give every one what is just. Doubtless, before deciding whether wages axe fair, many things have to be considered; but wealthy owners and all masters of labor should be mindful of this - that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one’s profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine. To defraud any one of wages that are his due is a great crime which cries to the avenging anger of Heaven. “Behold, the hire of the laborers… which by fraud has been kept back by you, crieth; and the cry of them hath entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.” Lastly, the rich must religiously refrain from cutting down the workmen’s earnings, whether by force, by fraud, or by usurious dealing; and with all the greater reason because the laboring man is, as a rule, weak and unprotected, and because his slender means should in proportion to their scantiness be accounted sacred. Were these precepts carefully obeyed and followed out, would they not be sufficient of themselves to keep under all strife and all its causes?
…22. Therefore, those whom fortune favors are warned that riches do not bring freedom from sorrow and are of no avail for eternal happiness, but rather are obstacles; that the rich should tremble at the threatenings of Jesus Christ - threatenings so unwonted in the mouth of our Lord - and that a most strict account must be given to the Supreme Judge for all we possess. The chief and most excellent rule for the right use of money is one the heathen philosophers hinted at, but which the Church has traced out clearly, and has not only made known to men’s minds, but has impressed upon their lives. It rests on the principle that it is one thing to have a right to the possession of money and another to have a right to use money as one wills. Private ownership, as we have seen, is the natural right of man, and to exercise that right, especially as members of society, is not only lawful, but absolutely necessary. “It is lawful,” says St. Thomas Aquinas, “for a man to hold private property; and it is also necessary for the carrying on of human existence.”” But if the question be asked: How must one’s possessions be used? - the Church replies without hesitation in the words of the same holy Doctor: “Man should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need. Whence the Apostle with, ‘Command the rich of this world… to offer with no stint, to apportion largely.’” True, no one is commanded to distribute to others that which is required for his own needs and those of his household; nor even to give away what is reasonably required to keep up becomingly his condition in life, “for no one ought to live other than becomingly.” But, when what necessity demands has been supplied, and one’s standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. “Of that which remaineth, give alms.” It is a duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity - a duty not enforced by human law. But the laws and judgments of men must yield place to the laws and judgments of Christ the true God, who in many ways urges on His followers the practice of almsgiving - ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive”; and who will count a kindness done or refused to the poor as done or refused to Himself - “As long as you did it to one of My least brethren you did it to Me.” To sum up, then, what has been said: Whoever has received from the divine bounty a large share of temporal blessings, whether they be external and material, or gifts of the mind, has received them for the purpose of using them for the perfecting of his own nature, and, at the same time, that he may employ them, as the steward of God’s providence, for the benefit of others. “He that hath a talent,” said St. Gregory the Great, “let him see that he hide it not; he that hath abundance, let him quicken himself to mercy and generosity; he that hath art and skill, let him do his best to share the use and the utility hereof with his neighbor.”
23. As for those who possess not the gifts of fortune, they are taught by the Church that in God’s sight poverty is no disgrace, and that there is nothing to be ashamed of in earning their bread by labor. This is enforced by what we see in Christ Himself, who, “whereas He was rich, for our sakes became poor”; and who, being the Son of God, and God Himself, chose to seem and to be considered the son of a carpenter - nay, did not disdain to spend a great part of His life as a carpenter Himself. “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?”
September 5, 2008, at 11:11 pm
Mark—I agree with you that a reporter SHOULD give some sort of definition (brief by necessity) for a topic some might not understand. And I think a site that explained Catholic social teaching AND why protecting innocent human life trumps any other issue would be a good idea. I say the two should be combined because it seems that so many liberal Catholics in politics have used the social teachings of the Church as an excuse and conscience salve to throw babies -unborn, and even born now—under the bus.
September 6, 2008, at 12:27 am
There are lots of websites on the subject. I googled catholic social teaching and found plenty from most every point of view.
Here is a nice access to plenty of basic texts from the US bishop’s conference website.
This is the main page to that section.
September 6, 2008, at 8:17 am
Well one bishop seems to have worked out who the anointed one is.
September 6, 2008, at 8:56 am
But he willing to justify himself, said to Jesus: And who is my neighbour? And Jesus answering, said: A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, who also stripped him, and having wounded him went away, leaving him half dead … read: the unborn, the poor, the oppressed, the sick, the old, the prisoners, the refugees, marginalized people … love them because you love God.
There you go, Catholic Social Teaching.
September 6, 2008, at 11:04 am
Yes, it would have been nice if the reporter gave an example of the issues Catholic social teaching embraces (principles alone would not have sufficed.) However, I think we need to give the reporter credit for even mentioning that (1) Catholic social teaching exists and (2)neither candidate’s positions embrace the fullness of the teaching. Most stories about the “Catholic vote” do not that.
September 6, 2008, at 11:55 am
saint, considering that some Republicans think that George Bush and now John McCain or perhaps Palin are the annointed ones, your reference to an Obama supporter political site seems like politics as usual to me. This separate of church and state stuff is non-trivial.
September 6, 2008, at 12:12 pm
1.) Bp. Gene Robinson is Episcopalian, not a Catholic.
2.) Separation of church and state does not preclude religious leaders from making endorsements. The Constitution, in the first amendment, precludes a state church AND guarantees the free exercise of religion. Bp. Robinson is exercising that right.
September 6, 2008, at 12:24 pm
As Roberto Duran once said, no mas. Saint and Liturgical Robot, you need to make those comments at other sites, not this one. All other replies off topic will be deleted.
September 8, 2008, at 5:41 pm
I’m surprised no one has mentioned this document from the Vatican, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church. This comes directly from the Holy See and not from the USCCB (which, unfortunately, doesn’t always get things right, witness the document “Always Our Children.”) The entire document is lengthy, but it sets out all the principles and the basis for those principles. Yes, it would be time consuming to read through, but a good religion reporter, if he or she really wants to know his or her subject, will have to go to the best source, and this is it.
Of course, it’s not going to provide a sound byte for the media. But that’s what the journalist is supposed to do, not the Vatican’s document.
September 9, 2008, at 9:58 pm
Having just finished teaching a course to Catholic deacon candidates on Catholic Social Teaching, I consider the 2008 version of the U. S. Catholic Bishops’ FAITHFUL CITIZENSHIP document (FORMING CONSCIENCES FOR FAITHFUL CITIZENSHIP: A CALL TO POLITICAL RESPONSIBILITY) the best reasonably brief but comprehensive statement of Catholic Social Teaching, which forms part of the Church’s moral teaching. Supplementing the revised version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which treats Catholic Social Teaching mainly under the headings of the Catholic version of the 5th and 7th Commandments (re: not killing and not stealing), is the Vatican’s COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. The Church’s Social Teaching is constantly developing and growing. No source yet treats adequately the poverty gap in various countries and between countries in today’s world, environmental issues, and women’s issues. Watch for coming Vatican documents, including a papal encyclical, with regard to the first two of these three issues. Also, Liberation Theology gives a perspective on social issues that is different from general Catholic teaching: The latter tends to call us to be more “for” the poor and those suffering from injustice. The former tends to call us to be “with” the poor and treats poverty and justice issues “from the perspective of” the poor and those suffering from injustice.