Pastoral Letters and the Realities of Life

An evangelical can find much of value in recent Catholic pronouncements, but …

This time it is a 120-page draft of a “Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the Economy” (Nov. 1984). The document aims to set forth a Catholic approach to poverty. In October 1982, the bishops had issued a revised statement on nuclear armament. Both pronouncements received wide public attention and general acclaim from the mass media and the liberal establishment. Not surprisingly, they also drew sharp fire from some evangelicals and fundamentalists as well as from many conservative Roman Catholics and the New Right generally.

Of the draft on nuclear armament, for example, Roman Catholic Michael Novak writes, “I cannot be certain that my own vision of reality is correct. Yet if it is, then this draft statement moves the world very close to war. That is not its motive, clearly. But it may well be its effect.” And on the most recent statement by the bishops, dealing with issues related to the U.S. economy and poverty, a Roman Catholic lay commission has just published what many consider a “Catholic alternative” to the position taken by the bishops (Toward the Future: Catholic Social Thought and the U.S. Economy).

Should They Speak Out?

Not a few have decried the bishops’ endeavor as “a politicization of Christian faith,” like that of many publications of the World Council of Churches. Others see in it a contemporary recurrence of traditional Roman Catholic disregard for the doctrine of separation of church and state.

Neither of these accusations hits the mark. Certainly Roman Catholic bishops have every right to address such issues as nuclear armament and poverty. Americans crave answers to such desperate problems. It is, in fact, their duty as bishops to provide moral instruction and guidance for the faithful in their own communion. And we are confident that loyal Roman Catholics who sincerely acknowledge their authority in faith and morals will take what the bishops have to say with great seriousness.

Moveover, the bishops surely have every right to offer the general populace whatever moral wisdom they believe they have. They are, after all, citizens as well as bishops, and their office does not disenfranchise them as members of the commonwealth. Certainly Catholic bishops have every bit as much right to provide guidance as the World Council of Churches has to speak for liberal Christianity, or, for that matter, as the Reverend Jerry Falwell has to speak for fundamentalism.

Of course, the bishops run the danger of politicizing and thus compromising their spiritual message and universal ministry. Yet in presenting their case, the bishops neatly distinguish between, on one hand, what is “first and foremost”—“belief in Jesus Christ” or the call of Christ, “Follow Me”—and, on the other hand, the “inescapable implication” of their gospel—a commitment to economic justice. In this way the bishops safeguard the integrity of their faith so no one is liable to misunderstand it or draw from their statements that social action is the whole message of the church or even its primary concern. There are Catholics of whom that is not true. Much of so-called liberation theology is really not Christian in spite of its strong commitment to social ethics. It is really preaching quite another gospel—a gospel whose fulfillment is to be found in this life as freedom from want and oppression. How to be free of poverty and oppression is, indeed, good news; but it is not the gospel.

Still, we believe the bishops have not fallen into the heresy of a gospel of social action. Rather, they have taken the quite legitimate role of spiritual and ethical guidance.

Pitfalls

The bishops, however, may not be able so neatly to avoid two other dangers flowing from a politicization of the church’s message. On this matter, the Reverend Jerry Falwell could have taught them a thing or two. In spite of his valiant endeavors to keep separate his role as fundamentalist pastor and his quite different role, as he conceives it, as head of the political organization Moral Majority, he has not really been able to keep them distinct in the public eye. Whenever a pastor or denominational leader speaks, others assume—more often than not quite wrongly—that he speaks as the mouthpiece of the body he represents. This is especially true of Roman Catholic bishops, who by canon law of the church are official interpreters of theology and ethics for the faithful. This can become exceedingly embarrassing for the future when the church commits itself to positions that later experience and deeper insight render unacceptable. Even short memories can recall how past pronouncements on birth control shook the confidence of the Roman church in its spiritual and moral leadership.

Further, the bishops have pronounced in matters concerning which most Americans not only strongly disagree but also feel very deeply. Just because of this, the bishops jeopardize their ability to function as trusted pastors and guides of those in their communion who vigorously disagree with them. Yet they must speak.

On Target

The bishops have said much that desperately needs to be said today. Every Christian should be a peacemaker. Not only should he stand for peace in this world, but he should be willing to work for it. Indeed, he must be willing to sacrifice for it. And the awful threat of nuclear warfare with its unimaginable grief and terrifying devastation surely must stir any rational person to action. Christians—and every morally serious person—should be opposed to the use of nuclear weapons, chemical warfare, and poisonous gases. They should, in fact, strive for the reduction of arms with the clear goal (however unrealizable they may know it to be short of the eschaton) of the elimination of warfare from our entire planet. How else can followers of the Prince of Peace place themselves if they are true to their Lord? And something quite similar could be said about poverty. In our materialistic culture, the poor and suppressed cry to heaven unheard and unheeded by their fellow human beings—and unheard and unheeded, all too often, by Christians living in plenty on the God-given resources of our planet.

But the Scripture is unequivocally clear. True religion before God is not tested simply by pious language and orthodox doctrine. It is marked by visiting the fatherless and the widows in their want. The true sign of the church of Jesus Christ is an active concern for all in need.

These things the bishops are saying, and they ought to be said. It is to the everlasting shame of evangelicals and fundamentalists that they are not voicing these truths with equal or greater clarity and commitment.

But Whatever Happened To Sin?

Nevertheless, we believe that in both the recent statements the Catholic bishops have shot too quickly from the hip—and in both cases have missed the target. No doubt subcommittees studied many aspects of the problems of nuclear disarmament and poverty, yet their strength may have been more sociological than theological. Really nothing is wrong with the bishops’ recent pronouncements that a stiff dose of Augustine, or Reformed theology, would not cure. At root, the good bishops have forgotten the doctrine of original sin, the inherent bent toward evil that plagues our race. As a result, in both areas of pronouncement they have advocated superficial solutions that do not reckon with the complicated realities of the situation. Michael Novak has accurately assessed their statement on nuclear weapons: “The ultimate logic of the bishops’ second draft is unilateral disarmament.” In their analysis, the bishops are banking on the sweet reasonableness of the Soviets not to take advantage of the West’s inferiority in conventional armaments, and not to engage in nuclear blackmail if the West unilaterally renounces the use of any nuclear weapons—tactical or strategic. Neither the Bible nor human history gives us much ground for trusting in the sweet reasonableness of any nation or state—and who would argue that Soviet Russia is an exception?

The case is similar with respect to the U.S. economy and the poor. The bishops’ solution is: less materialism, less luxury spending, less selfishness, and especially larger and better government handouts. The goal is the redistribution of “income and wealth in our society, and even more … on the world scale.” They label it “Economic Democracy.”

Most morally responsible persons would readily agree with the bishops in their approach to materialism, luxury spending, selfishness, and the moral necessity to “guarantee the minimum conditions of human dignity in the economic sphere for every person.”

But many of us are far less sure that large additional handouts by the government constitute the proper solution. Already the government is laying out in welfare programs almost twice as much money as would be needed (if given directly in cash) to raise every man, woman, and child in the U.S. above the poverty level. What is needed is a way of helping the poor and needy that will not drive them into permanent dependence. Alas, the bishops do not help us much on this crucial point.

The bishops need to go back to the drawing boards and do their homework—based on the realities of the human situation.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.