Jack mentions below that President Biden and his wife began the day of his inauguration by attending mass. As I commented under Jack's post, I think that is wonderful. America Magazine reports that, making the gesture even more blessed, the president-elect invited his running mate and her husband, and Congressional leaders from both parties, and all attended.
The celebrant was Rev. Kevin O'Brien, SJ, the president of Santa Clara University. The Pray Tell blog has reprinted the text of Fr. O'Brien's homily, which was brief, tightly written and well-suited to the occasion. I am going to make a comment about it.
I will preface the comment with two qualifiers:
- I don't write this to criticize the homily. As I say, it seems just fine - undoubtedly, more than just fine. What does one preach to a bipartisan gathering of some of the most powerful persons in the world? For the preacher, it's an occasion fraught with perils. Fr. O'Brien's effort is better than anything I would have come up with.
- This comment is meant to be a simple observation. It touches on topics in which I am not expert. I would love to hear an expert's thoughts on it
Here is the portion of the homily upon which I'd like to comment:
The Gospel reading comes from St. Luke (chap. 4, verses 14-21), which is like Jesus’ inaugural address. At the beginning of his ministry, Jesus goes home to Nazareth, visits the synagogue, and reaches deep within his Jewish tradition to tell his neighbors what his public life is about. Invoking the prophet Isaiah, which we heard in the first reading (chap. 58, verses 6- 11), he promises to care for the poor, free the oppressed, and relieve people of their burdens.
I am sure that today’s inaugural address will be a bit longer than Jesus’ brief reading from the Jewish scriptures! But knowing the Bidens, I am confident that the substance of today’s inaugural address will echo Jesus’ message because your public service is animated by the same conviction to help and protect people and to advance justice and reconciliation, especially for those who are too often looked over and left behind, the people whose voices you raised in the campaign and throughout your public life.
This is your noble commission. This is the divine summons for all of us, no matter our faith background or walk of life.
We don't know with certainty what specific situations Fr. O'Brien had in mind in highlighting the Bidens' "commission" to "care for the poor, free the oppressed, and relieve people of their burdens." What comes to my mind are certain policies of the previous administration which seemed antithetical to this commission (and which Biden, as president, to his credit already has taken action to address, less than a day into his presidency): the turning away of immigrants and asylum seekers, and the separation of children from their families at the southern border. There could be any number of other policies and issues which Fr. O'Brien also was thinking of, some of which may reach back to pre-Trump times.
We might place Fr. O'Brien's preaching here, with its emphasis on caring for the poor and the oppressed, under the subset of Catholic social teaching known as the Preferential Option for the Poor.
What interests me about this "commission" is that the tradition of Catholic social teaching regarding the duties of civil governing authorities, as reflected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, seems to focus on a different (albeit related) great theme: the Common Good. Here is the section of the Catechism I have in mind. I've taken the following editorial liberties: I've eliminated the footnote references, to make it easier to read (but they can easily be read in the Catechism); and I've bolded the references to "common good" or similar phrases in this passage to help illustrate the thread of this theme running through this section.
PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST
SECTION ONE
MAN'S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT
CHAPTER TWO
THE HUMAN COMMUNITY
ARTICLE 2
PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL LIFE
I. AUTHORITY
1897 "Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all."
By "authority" one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience from them.
1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it. The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.
1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
1900 The duty of obedience requires all to give due honor to authority and to treat those who are charged to exercise it with respect, and, insofar as it is deserved, with gratitude and good-will.
Pope St. Clement of Rome provides the Church's most ancient prayer for political authorities: "Grant to them, Lord, health, peace, concord, and stability, so that they may exercise without offense the sovereignty that you have given them. Master, heavenly King of the ages, you give glory, honor, and power over the things of earth to the sons of men. Direct, Lord, their counsel, following what is pleasing and acceptable in your sight, so that by exercising with devotion and in peace and gentleness the power that you have given to them, they may find favor with you."
1901 If authority belongs to the order established by God, "the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens."
The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable, provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them. Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed.
1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a "moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility":
A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.
1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."
1904 "It is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. This is the principle of the 'rule of law,' in which the law is sovereign and not the arbitrary will of men."
So my observation, for what it's worth, is that whereas Fr. O'Brien urged our governing authorities to focus on the Preferential Option for the Poor, the Catechism seems to urge our authorities to orient their rule around the Common Good. Let me hasten to add: I don't think those two themes are in conflict! (Or shouldn't be, if they are attended to appropriately.) I suspect we all agree that the federal government has a role to play in bringing about the Preferential Option for the Poor, and we must be alert that the government isn't neglecting or distorting its role.
But at the same time, I think it's fair to ask: to what extent does the Common Good animate either party during our contemporary times? Does either party seek to govern from a foundation of bringing about the Common Good? To my way of thinking, signs that the Common Good is being well-attended-to would be if we see, in our common life, the flourishing of such virtues as unity, solidarity and subsidiarity. And my personal view is that none of these are flourishing as well as they might.
Since I am expressing my opinion, I would add that there are other symptoms of our common life which strike me as signs that the Common Good needs more attention. Some of those symptoms would include unending partisan warfare; identity politics (a reality which characterizes both parties at present); and a libertarian attitude of 'Let others fend for themselves'.
There were many calls on Inauguration Day for national unity. President Biden has said and done many things during and after the election which suggest he'd like to turn down the heat of partisan division, and have us function in a more unified, bipartisan manner. I believe his preferences and his instincts run in this direction, and they seem to be Common Good instincts. He has been around long enough to have experienced an era when there was more bipartisan cooperation than there is now.
In my view, it would be fitting that we pray that the Biden presidency be marked by a renewed focus on the Common Good.
The Catechism is basically a conservative document undertaken during the JP2 era. A major force in its making was Cardinal Law. He was famous for giving away copies of it. This is portrayed in the film Spotlight about the sexual abuse scandal when he gives a copy to the new editor of the Boston Globe.
ReplyDeleteA description I once read said that the Catechism was an attempt to reformulate the Code of Canon Law into a teaching document.
A more charitable analysis puts the Catechism into the philosophical model of Church teaching mostly based around Saint Thomas which attempts to dialogue with non-Catholics and non-Christians on the basis of reason rather than revelation. A lot of efforts of the Popes to develop Catholic Social Teaching followed that strategy. For example John XXIII addressed Pacem in Terris to all humanity and argued mainly from reason rather than from revelation.
Vatican II changed the whole strategy from a more philosophic legalistic framework to a more scriptural based rhetorical framework that attempted to dialogue with humanity without imposing upon others a philosophical legalistic framework. JP2 was more a philosopher than a theologian. So you can see why he liked the Catechism project. The preferential option for the poor was a Latin American development based upon scripture applied to contemporary social realities. JP2 saw it as too Marxist. Francis is definitely in the post Vatican II mode of scriptural based inspiration formulated to meet contemporary problems.
One analysis stated that the advantage of the philosophical approach is that you can get more specific. However that often ends up being a disadvantage since you end up with all sorts of specific teachings, e.g. contraception that are not widely accepted even by Catholics. And also things like just war theory and capital punishment that might have been reasonable in the middle ages but not in today’s realities. Finally now not only most non-Catholics but also most Catholics are far more familiar with scripture than with Catholic philosophical thinking. We end up with a lot of Catholic conservatives stuck in prior centuries trying to drag us backwards into their philosophical thinking.
As for the Common Good, I think it’s a great ideal. That is what Commonweal is supposed to be about. However I think we have to reinvent it for our modern global, virtual, climate changing environment. Many Democrats and Republicans would not agree on what constitutes the Common Good, or even if it is desirable. You cannot arrive at an updated modern Common Good without a thorough critique of contemporary Capitalism. JP2, Benedict, and Francis all agree on that. Are any American Catholics willing to meet the challenges of this endeavor. This is a fine project for Commonweal or this blog, but hardly promising for the Biden administration.
The free market has been a good deal less corrosive in the United States than it has in the developing world. Francis challenges Americans by calling out how profit-seeking firms can exploit the developing world, damaging local environments and ecosystems and causing indigenous populations to suffer. For free-market-oriented conservatives in particular, this critique is difficult to process (and may be new to them).
DeleteI also think Francis has supplemented the traditional Common Good focus of governance with Preferential Option for the Poor considerations. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that his fellow Jesuit Fr. O'Brien had Francis's development of social teaching at the top of his mind in crafting his homily.
I think that civil leaders need to keep both sets of principles in mind. Governing from the Common Good while neglecting the Preferential Option for the Poor can lead to neglect of those most in need; governing from the Preferential Option for the Poor while neglecting the Common Good can lead to government neglecting some of its core duties (such as defending the country from foreign invaders).
"A renewed focus for the common good" would certainly be a welcome change from the last four years!
ReplyDeleteI really liked the prayer of St. Clement for civil authorities which was quoted in the catechism.
I suppose the Common Good issue par excellence for government (federal, state and local) at this particular moment is our management of the pandemic. It's a good prism for thinking about the virtues mentioned in the post: unity, solidarity, subsidiarity.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to assign us a grade, it wouldn't be an F, but it wouldn't be
an A, either. There are some cracks in the edifice of unity: a lack of unanimity on the wearing of masks; and a lack of agreement in some sectors of society as to how much we should curtail our normal social intercourse. There are restaurant and bar owners in this area who actively resist the government-imposed capacity restrictions. And around here, and perhaps elsewhere, there is a good deal of dispute regarding whether or not schools should be in session. The Chicago Public Schools are scheduled to resume in-person classrooms next week, and apparently many teachers are threatening some blue-flu-style resistance. To be sure, disagreements will occur in civil society, and the presence of disagreement doesn't always signify a lack of unity. But my overall sense is that not everyone has pulled together as well as we may.
As for solidarity: I sense that there is a good deal of agreement on the prioritizing of those receiving the vaccine: around here, that is health care workers and nursing home residents first, followed by senior citizens and essential workers (I'm not entirely sure what the priorities are after that). I've heard one or two people grumble about seniors "who have already lived their lives" being at the front of the queue, but I don't think that attitude is widespread.
I think we're actually doing better on subsidiarity. Getting the vaccine pushed out requires the cooperation of federal, state and local authorities, as well as private enterprises and individuals. There are problems to be addressed, but I am sensing that we are not seeing the same blaming and finger-pointing which prevailed last year when the virus was starting to spread, and governors were blaming Trump and Trump was blaming the governors.
About the in-person classes in schools, the Omaha public schools are also scheduled to open full-time soon. There is some pushback from the teachers' union, saying "Fine. But put teachers on the expedited category for vaccination." I think they have a valid point, they are certainly vulnerable to exposure. Children are among the most likely to be asymptomatic spreaders of Covid.
DeleteIn my town they have been doing in-person classes since fall. It has worked out okay because there are fewer people to begin with, but they have had to shut down and go online for periods because someone tested positive.
Speaking to the "common good", if you haven't seen this <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/21/obama-bush-clinton-video-inauguration/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2dsR-dAk78RMxsSJKtJcQoHdTx4Mx1ueQD868IFVm7uQ0MxG_XYn9cObs>short video< of past presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama offering their support to the new administration, it is worth watching.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I messed up forming that link. I think you can still copy and paste it. My "delete" button is gone or I would try and fix it.
DeleteJust to confirm: I tried pasting in the link, and it worked. Thanks, Katherine.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/21/obama-bush-clinton-video-inauguration/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2dsR-dAk78RMxsSJKtJcQoHdTx4Mx1ueQD868IFVm7uQ0MxG_XYn9cObs
Related to Jim’s discussion of common good and RC social justice teachings.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.loyno.edu/jsri/sites/loyno.edu.jsri/files/CST_&_Common_Good_Fall12jsq.pdf
Anne, many thanks for that little primer on the Common Good.
Delete“When a pope greets a president, it can - probably should - be understood as one head of state greeting another. Of course, a pope is much more than a head of state, but as a head of state, he is constrained by the norms of diplomatic courtesy.”
ReplyDeleteThe Pope has a unique ministry not only in the Church but in the World. That ministry in the World began long before the Vatican City State emerged. The papal diplomatic service is centuries old. Look at the role that Francis has played in the Environment not only through teaching but also on the diplomatic front. In the Paris accords many third world countries were very influenced by the Pope, In fact his encyclical played a great political role rather than just being an internal teaching document.
Trump obviously was completely uncooperative with the Vatican on the political issues that are on its table, e.g. the environment and migration. Biden offers a great opportunity for the Vatican to cooperate with the US in these areas.
The stupidity of Gomez to think that he could try in his own name as the head of the bishops’ conference to define the relationship of the Church to the Biden administration without collaborating with either the Vatican or with all his fellow bishops is unbelievable. Quite frankly he, like Chaput and Vigano, is suffering from the desire to be a cardinal. And since they have been rebuffed by Rome and have less support among the bishops because of Francis appointees, they have all been reduced to getting media attention. As media figures they will inevitably end up contributing to the division in America and the American Church. They have failed to heed Francis call for unity, the reason why he had them all go to Mundelein for a retreat. Instead the disunion of the American bishops is just increasing and becoming increasing visible.
“Count me as not among those rushing to embrace the president as a shining paragon of Catholicism.” But the issue is not whether Biden, Pelosi, the Catholic Supreme Court Justices are all shining paragons of Catholicism. As Francis says, including himself “We are all sinners.” That especially needs to be clear in the case of these bishops who are pursuing their own selfish political agendas. Rather they should be in your words contributing to the Common Good by moving toward unity in Church and State rather than disunity and division.
It seems to me unfair to critique Biden for not using the Common Good as an explicit model, even when he is doing a good job of promoting the Common Good in his speeches and actions, and then fail to see how terribly the right wing bishops are failing to promote the Common Good in our Church and Country.
This comment was mistakenly posted here but cannot be deleted. It has now been added to the correct post
Delete