During the 2008, the silence about the poor was ominous. Of course, this probably really is a center-right country. It is popular to worry about the middle class, but not so popular to be concerned about the poor.
Many Roman Catholic bishops and clergy thundered against pro-choice Democrats, even threatening pro-choice Catholic politicians. They said nothing about fate of the poor as the nation fell into the deep pit of the Bush near-Depression.
Any of their social workers or folks working in their soup kitchens could have told them the poor were falling through the cracks of a faulty safety net. By November, fewer people were receiving cash assistance in any time in the last 40 years.
During the debate on the stimulus package, scores of Catholic Republicans in the House and Senate rose to thunder against any money being set aside to relieve the suffering of the poor or fund Medicaid for the poor, especially in states whose programs ran out of money. Some were willing to extend unemployment a little; others were not. It was not a theoretical debate at all. The GOP succeeded in stripping away billions to help the poor.
Through all this dismal debate, I wondered where were the Catholic bishops and clergy. Many of them had scooted way out on the limb for the Republicans on the abortion matter. Now the poor were really suffering, and the shepherds were silent. Yet to ranking Americans in the Vatican curia, found time to fire fierce boradsides at the Democrats on the abortion question.
Maybe the bishops did not realize that what Congress did about so called "social spending" effected the health and well being of real living and breathing people-- the poor and disproportionately children, ailing old folks and minorities. Maybe, they were not paying attention and just thought the debate was about theories that had no human consequences. There had to be a reason for stheir silence. Maybe they did not see how deep the economic crisis was. These are bright, well-educated men. There had to be a reason why the poor and unemployed and homeless were not on their radar.
The issue became very concrete this week. Five Republican governors are threatening to not use social program money from the stimulus while pledging to spend infrastructure money, which permits them award contracts, etc. You get the picture. At first glance, one might almost excuse the southerners. Their culture is still much about relegating the poor and marginalized to second class citizenship. Its hard to sell helping the non-white poor there. But in fact, this aspect of soutehrn culture has made its way across the United States.
Now, in the cause of whether the governors spend trhe social welfare m,oney, it boils down to whether available dollars will be used to help real people in deep need. Again, neither the Catholic bishops or other church leaders are uttering a peep, setting a terrible precedent in view of a deep, deep recession that could continue a decade.
At one time the church in the South could propudly point to its record of integrating its schools decades before the public schools were integrated. But in this instance, the bishops , in their silence, are forgetting that they must rise about the culture in maters of great moral import.
You wouldn’t expect Franklin Gramm, James Dobson, John Hagee, Pat Robertson, or clergy of that sort to speak up. They take the notion that the poor we will always have with us. But Roman Catholicism has always presented itself as being apart of the culture. Claiming a prophetic role, many bishops all but campaigned for Republicans, even when it was clear the abortion issue has been settled.
Taking care of the widows, prisoners, orphans, and the poor has always central to Roman Catholicism. Even Cardinal Francis Spellman, who was wrong on so much, put up with the great Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker movement because she was on target.
Now we are in a time when Catholic politicians are taking positions that will hurt the poor and unemployed now, and in the long term.
The bishops should not threaten to excommunicate anyone,. say they are barred from communion, or even mention them by name at this point. That bespeaks arrogance, a lack of pastoral concern, and just plain arrogance. But we are talking about God’s poor, and the bishops have an obligation to protect them at all costs.
The bishops and clergy have a clear obligation to be reminding the Catholic Republicans that stiffing the poor and unfortunate is not consistent with Roman Catholicism and is a very serious matter in the eyes of God. One of the Republican governors who is adamant about not using stimulus funds to help the poor is a convert and may not even understand his new religion. Just as I will not mention him by name, I think his bishop must quietly but firmly explain the core of the Gospel to him.
One northern governor, who is most probably Roman Catholic, is probably making these statements for political gain and will probably back off. Yet, by siding with those who think it a small matter to encourage emulation of the conduct of evil hearted rich men in the Gospel, someone needs to explain that it is sinful to encourage such conduct in others.
In 2008, the bishops conference ruled that it was not sinful for a Catholic voter to vote for a pro-choice candidate if that was not the only reason to vote for the person. That makes some sense, even thought the whole question today is largely theoretical. Then a monsignor working for the conference drafted an unnecessarily complex letter saying that a Catholic who voted for a pro-choice candidate was "materially" responsible for abortions that took place while that person was in office. Very poor, tortured logic—The letter was used by political extremists in clerical collars all over the country.
There is nothing theoretical about refusing to use designated stimulus funds to help the poor. To refuse to do so makes you "materially" responsible for evicting these people, depriving them of health care, and stripping away food.
Why are the bishops so silent? The New Testament is replete with examples of what Christ thought about people who warred against the poor and widows and orphans. There is not one line about whether life begins at conception.