Bishops on poverty: case closed?

Last October 17, the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, the Social Affairs Commission of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops released a pastoral letter entitled The Struggle Against Poverty: A Sign Of Hope For Our World. The letter was signed by six bishops: Francois Thibodeau (Edmundston, NB), Bertrand Blanchet (Rimouski, PQ), Nicola De Angelis (Auxiliary, Toronto), Marcel Gervais (Ottawa), Pierre Morissette (Baie-Comeau, PQ), and Alfred Sutton (Keewatin-Le Pas).

Content

The authors begin by identifying the poor in global and Canadian terms. They measure global poverty in "absolute" terms, "absolute poverty" being a lack of basic necessities like food, clothing, and shelter. They measure poverty within Canada in "relative" terms, "relative poverty" being the situation of those whose income is significantly below the average.

(It appears the authors used Statistics Canada's Low-Income Cutoff, or LICO, in identifying the "relatively poor" in Canada. According to that measure, a person is poor if he spends 56.2% of his income on basic necessities.)

Next they identify some of the groups most deeply affected by poverty: single mothers and their children, aboriginals, and refugees. This is done by reference to a variety of indicators, in a way which highlights the particular problems of each group. Here they refer to the "one-in-five" Canadian child-poverty statistic as "a damning indictment of the present socio-economic order," and compare government inaction on the issue to "child abuse."

They proceed to outline a Scriptural view of the problem of poverty. The Exodus of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, they say, is the foundation of the Old Testament concern to eradicate poverty and injustice, as a sign of God's liberating presence in the world. The prophets, they argue, saw failure in this area as akin to idolatry. In the New Testament, God's special love for the poor is proclaimed in the life and ministry of Jesus, and in the sharing of earthly goods in the apostolic Church.

Next, the authors offer a model for Christians to reflect and act on the problem of poverty (a model which they have apparently used themselves). The steps recommended are similar to the "see-judge-act" model embraced by the social justice movement: attempt to understand poverty by sharing in the experience of the poor; develop a method of identifying the "structural" causes of poverty, and find solutions to the problem, in the light of the Gospel; and take action in solidarity with others.

Finally, the letter proposes concrete action. Looking at global poverty, it recommends that wealthy countries increase foreign aid spending; that the debts of poor countries be reduced or cancelled; that "international speculative investment" be taxed; and that military spending be curtailed.

Looking at poverty in Canada, the authors recommend that "corporate tax loopholes" be closed; that interest rates be lowered; that "dignified jobs" be created; that "social programmes" be preserved; and that "gender injustice" be addressed.

Reception of the letter

The response to the letter was mixed. The secular media were receptive, but tended to focus on "sound bites," such as the accusation of government child abuse. (Ottawa Citizen religion columnist Bob Harvey, among others, noted that the Church in Canada has something of a "credibility" problem in levelling such charges.)

The Christian media were, for the most part, warmly receptive. The Catholic New Times, for example, gave the letter extensive, positive coverage, while noting concerns in the social-justice movement about whether there would be any official follow-up on the letter's recommendations. Western Report, however, referred to it as "another socialist manifesto from the Catholic bishops."

(It should be noted that the negative reviews in both secular and Christian media were generally sincere and principled, and not based on the simplistic view that "the Church should stay out of politics.")

Analysis

In the introduction of The Struggle Against Poverty, the authors refer to the promises which a bishop makes at his ordination. According to an ancient and venerable tradition, one of those promises is "to show kindness and compassion in the name of the Lord to the poor and to strangers and to all who are in need."

There should be no doubt that bishops today take these words very seriously. The Church's special love for the poor unites the college of bishops perhaps more than any other pastoral concern of modern times. The bishops of Canada, for their part, have shown consistently that they are deeply committed to the social teaching of the Church, and to serving God's poor.

It is in light of this that their letter on poverty should be received. Its urgent tone reminds us that the Church's social teaching is an integral part of our faith. Many of its concrete proposals, moreover, remind us of our grave duty to apply that teaching in the here and now.

The letter should not be received uncritically, however. Using the "see-judge-act" model referred to above, several problems come to light.

1. See

The authors fail to acknowledge that their definition of poverty in Canada is debatable; that public debt is also a serious moral problem; and that family breakdown is a significant cause of poverty.

(a) As noted above, the authors consistently speak of poverty in Canada in "relative" terms. While this understanding is common, it is not necessarily correct. A good case can be made that the common understanding leads to a serious overestimation of the problem of poverty in Canada--it is, after all, based on a constantly shifting standard, involving debatable judgments about what is an acceptable distribution of wealth. The authors should have acknowledged that there is a legitimate diversity of opinion on how poverty in Canada should be measured.

(b) The authors also fail to acknowledge that, however grave the problem of poverty in Canada, debt is also a serious moral issue. They seem to imply that anyone concerned about the debt is heartless; but a public debt the size of Canada's is grossly immoral--aside from the possibility that it will ultimately cause more poverty than budget cuts ever could.

(c) The authors allude to the fact that the family is the foundation of society, and that this is central to the social teaching of the Church. They also seem to recognize the reality that where families are weak, poverty increases, and that single mothers and their children make up a significant portion of those who are poor. (Indeed, they refer to the problem of poverty in single-parent families four times.)

They fail, however, to say anything about some of the most common causes of family breakdown--adultery, fornication, unchastity and divorce--not to mention the anti-life, anti-family mentality prevalent in Canada today. Instead, they restrict themselves to criticizing government cuts to social programmes, arguing that such measures pose a direct threat to families.

While this may be true, one can also argue that dependency on "social programmes" can itself harm families. Moreover, whatever the authors might think, to a certain extent the morality of budget cuts is an open question. [see 3(a) below]

It seems, however, that they have not considered such possibilities. They insist that "poverty must remain the top priority on the social policy agenda"--yet to the extent that poverty is caused by family breakdown, this is surely to treat the symptom rather than the disease.

2. Judge

The authors' assumptions about the causes of poverty, and the theological principles they use in finding solutions, seem to be influenced by ideological prejudices.

(a) They say, for example, that "the current catastrophic state of the world eloquently shows what happens when neoliberal economic policies impoverish women and men." This sweeping moral judgment is rather difficult to defend, however. The economic system to which the authors seem to be referring has done more to create and redistribute wealth than any other system in history. However limited it may be, it is not deserving of condemnation.

It seems the authors think of contemporary conservative economics as if it were no different from 19th-century laissez-faire economics. While nothing of the kind operates in Canada today, one could argue that something like it does exist on an international level. Careful distinctions should have been made, then, between the free market as it operates within developed countries, and the free market as it operates internationally.

(b) Some of the authors' theological arguments are dubious, and perhaps more akin to secular assumptions than Church teaching. For example, at the heart of the letter, the section on the Scriptural view of poverty, the bishops of Quebec are quoted approvingly as follows: "The Kingdom of God appears, first and foremost, as hope for those women and men who are socially marginalized [my emphasis]." This statement, however, is simply not true. The Kingdom of God is first and foremost hope for sinners, that in spite of sin and death, a share in God's eternal life is still available to each person and to all mankind. Anything else which may be said about it flows from this truth.

3. Act

Finally, some of the authors' proposals for concrete action are debatable, and may be accepted or rejected by Catholics in good conscience. Moreover, their proposals often fall in areas where the laity have special competence, to which the hierarchy should defer.

(a) For example, whether one favours lowering interest rates, raising them, or leaving them where they are, one cannot insist that this position is dictated by the principles of Catholic social teaching. Similarly, the justice of "affirmative action" policies, which the authors list as a "commitment" of the Church, is an entirely open question.

It may be that the authors have neglected to distinguish between binding principles and debatable applications. This is apparent, for example, in their opposition to reductions in public spending on social programmes. All people of good will--and especially all Christians--must agree that everyone has a right to certain social services. Those same people, however, may legitimately disagree on how that right should be exercised.

They may disagree, for example, on whether everyone has an unqualified right to all of the services presently offered by the government. Moreover, they may also disagree on whether it is necessary that those services be provided by the government in the first place. They may rightly ask whether other bodies in society are better suited to provide certain services, according to the principle of subsidiarity.

(b) The answers to such questions are not black and white, as it were. Many socio-economic problems call for prudential judgments, with a certain deference shown to those with special competence. Within the Church, that generally means that the laity should lead the way, since the transformation of the temporal order is their particular vocation.

Acting on this understanding, it may well be that the Church will not arrive at one "official" solution to a given socio-economic problem. This does not mean, however, that the Church's witness will be compromised in such a matter. On the contrary, it means that she will respond more effectively, with due subtlety and prudence, drawing on the wisdom of all her members.

Bishops, of course, have an indispensible role to play in the church's proclamation of the Good News, in temporal no less than in spiritual matters. In The Struggle Against Poverty, the bishops of Canada have given us a much-needed reminder of the Church's special love for the poor, and of how that love demands action in solidarity. Three things, however, would have made the letter more effective: greater appreciation of the variety of moral issues involved in certain socio-economic problems; greater openness to the potential of free markets to create and redistribute wealth; and greater respect for the role of the laity in applying the principles of Catholic social teaching.