WASHINGTON — An alliance of American churches, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, met with President Obama last week, urging that programs aiding the poor be exempted from any spending cuts.
The ecumenical appeal was cast as a non-partisan initiative, but some critics viewed it as a wrong-headed measure that will keep taxes high and prevent investments by small businesses that would lead to job creation.
After meeting with Obama, the group held a teleconference with members of the media emceed by John Carr, the executive director of the USCCB’s Department of Justice Peace and Human Development. He called the alliance “unprecedented,” adding, “Across a broad spectrum of religious life, a group of leaders have come together around a simple and clear moral principle, which is the need to protect the poor and vulnerable in this budget process.”
The alliance of over 60 Christian leaders and organizations — named the “Circle of Protection” — was formed in April. Its founding statement calls on U.S. leaders to “consider tax revenues, military spending and entitlements in the search for ways to share sacrifice and cut deficits.” It also states that “a fundamental task is to create jobs and spur economic growth. Decent jobs at decent wages are the best path out of poverty.”
Among its members are two Evangelical social justice groups — Sojourners and Evangelicals for Social Action.
During their meeting with Obama and several senior administration officials, the religious leaders called on the White House to help form a “circle of protection” around poverty programs likely to face cuts as Capitol Hill struggles to resolve an acrimonious budget fight.
However, conservative Christian critics argue that the group’s efforts are counter-productive, penalizing the very people they are designed to protect.
Collette Caprara, editor of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society, a spinoff of the conservative Heritage Foundation based in Washington, D.C., described the Circle of Protection as “well-intended.”
“But if programs are not achieving what was intended, you are not serving the people you are supposed to be helping by propping up such programs,” she said.
Father Robert Sirico, president of the Acton Institute, a conservative think tank based in Grand Rapids, Mich., suggested the Christian activists may not be aware “of the root causes of poverty and wealth.”
“Their statements are all about redistribution of wealth with almost nothing about wealth creation through production and labor,” he said.
Catholic members of the “Circle of Protection” include Bishop Stephen Blaire of Stockton, Calif., chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development; Sister Simone Campbell, a member of the Sisters of Social Service religious community and executive director of NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, which supported Obama’s health insurance reform bill despite the USCCB’s opposition; Patrick Carolan, executive director of the Franciscan Action Network, and the Father Thomas Cassidy, president of Conference of Major Superiors of Men and provincial superior of the Priests of the Sacred Heart.
Matthew 25
During the tele-press conference, Catholic Bishop Ricardo Ramirez of La Cruces, N.M., told reporters: “Matthew 25 doesn’t say, ‘Whatsoever you do unto the forgotten middle class, you do unto me.’ We want to speak for ‘the least of these.’”
Bishop Ramirez described the current budget debate, as it played out in New Mexico: “There seem to be some givens in the debate: for Republicans: no new taxes — given. For some Democrats, no cuts to Medicare — given; for others, no cuts to military spending — given. For the Obama administration; some additional revenues are given. Sadly, it seems while listening to the debate that protecting the poor and the vulnerable is not a given and that is why we are there.”
The ecumenical alliance released its founding statement earlier in the year, counting among its signers representatives of the St. Vincent de Paul Society, Catholic Charities USA, the Jesuits, as well as 45 development or relief organizations.
The leaders of the alliance said they had been received sympathetically by Obama, but they declined to provide specifics about his actual remarks during the White House meeting. Their message appeared to be directed at church members, whom they hoped to reach through pastors and the news media.
Left-wing Evangelical leader Jim Wallis, founder of the Sojourners, said, “Almost every pulpit in America is connected to the Circle of Protection.”
David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World, a nondenominational lobby group devoted to urging the U.S. government to give international food and development aid, added, “At least a quarter of the people in the country are at religious services every week. If we could get 10% of those folks to contact their member of Congress, there would be no risk [to poverty programs].”
According to Beckmann and other members of the alliance, the most serious threat is that foreign aid programs, especially emergency assistance, would be cut. Lives were at risk, he contended.
Asked if the needs of the poor had been presented to Congressional Catholics, such as House budget committee chairman Paul Ryan, Carr said a “significant, substantial and constructive meeting” had been held with Ryan and other GOP members of Congress — though another prominent Catholic, House Speaker John Boehner, had so far been too busy to meet.
“We’re going to make this case everywhere we can because we think it’s a measure of us as a community of faith and a measure of us as a nation whether we provide liberty and justice for all,” Carr vowed.
Several speakers at the news conference asserted their lack of self-interest, claiming that this set them apart from other participants in the budget debate. However, the USCCB, for example, reported $58 million in government funding for its aid programs in 2009, while Catholic Relief Services netted $517 million.
Terry Heinrichs, chairman of the department of Political Science at Glendon College, York University in Toronto, described the Circle of Protection as “ an obvious, Democrat-driven initiative intended to pressure Republicans to drop their insistence on cuts — especially to entitlements — and agree to raising taxes as a way to deal with the debt ceiling and budgetary issues.”
Heinrichs said Obama wanted a long-term solution, so he wouldn’t have to face negotiations later on, while the Republicans sought to raise the issue in 2012, an election year. He suggested that the president’s direct appeals to the American people were increasingly ineffective. “The more he goes to TV the lower he gets in the polls. A lot of that zing is gone that he had when he first got into office and people saw him as rising above politics. He has turned out to be as partisan as any politician has ever been.”
Wrongheaded
Other critics viewed the Circle of Protection’s emphasis on preserving programs as wrong-headed.
“Any Christian would agree that we should put the poor and vulnerable first. The question is how,” noted Father Sirico.
He argued that taxes on the middle class destroyed its ability to grow the economy and to generate surpluses that can be used to assist the poor or to create new jobs.
“Redistributing wealth is the way to keep the poor in poverty. The way to lift them out of poverty is with jobs,” said Father Sirico, who added that he did not mean government jobs, but rather jobs generated through wealth creation in the private sector.
Father Sirico proposed cutting poverty programs in half, giving the savings back to the middle class as a tax credit for any donations to charities. “You’d save a huge amount on the bureaucracy,” he said.
Collette Caprara made a similar case, extolling the work of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, a national organization founded in 1981 which encourages inner-city community and church leaders to promote personal responsibility and self sufficiency as the route out of poverty, based in Washington, D.C.
In her view, government programs, including the programs the Circle of Protection seeks to protect, hurt more than they help. “A true measure of our nation’s compassion is not the number of people who are sustained in a state of dependency but the number who are empowered to achieve self-sufficiency,” Caprara said.
Carr emphatically rebutted Father Sirico’s comments, saying, “We are for economic growth. It is one of the eight principles in our founding statement. There is literally nothing in that statement about wealth redistribution. ”
He also said it was absurd to suggest the groups involved did so out of self-interest. “I work for the Catholic bishops. Bishop Ramirez works for the people of Las Cruces,” he said. “Everyone involved wants only to protect the poor and vulnerable.”
Register correspondent Steve Weatherbe writes from Victoria, British Columbia.


Comments
Post a Comment
Father Sirico has it right. It does no good to debate how ot reistribute the fruits of a lousy economy. The solution is to get the economy roaring like it was a few years ago. If we get the economy growing at 5% or so like it should in a recession recovery then there will be plenty of revenue to help the poor without taking it away from other people. The problem is the failed economic policies of Obama’s socialst agenda and the staggering debt which he is running up may well put us into a permanent depression.
I was in Brazil recently and discovered, to my surprise, that South Central LA would pass as a middle class neighborhood there. I think it is time to admit that we have done a darn good job in taking care of the poor in this country. No one is homeless for any length of time here unless it is by choice or due to mental illness. (We have not been so successful with our mentally ill.) No one is starving here unless they are anorexic or subject to some form of abuse or extreme isolation. So what kinds of services are we cutting? Since the definition of poverty has broadened so much in the recent past we might be talking about less time allowed for unemployment. I know of more than one person who is making more on unemployment than if they got a job. Reasons for this include the bad economy and - I’m going to go politically incorrect here - illegal immigrants who work for less and drive the wages down. We have more and more families defined as poor now that did not used to be considered so that access to school breakfast, lunch, and dinner programs for their children is more common. Other food and medical programs access increases with the newer definitions of poverty. A growing multitude of programs and grants for education are available to those in the broader category of poor. There are any number of other examples that can be given. The end result is that there is a greater expectation that the government is responsible for you and less that you are responsible for you. It is my opinion that the bishops do a disservice to us all by making these overly general calls not to cut services to the poor without also making calls for people to be responsible and good stewards even if poor. We are in a one-way self-absorbed cash flow highway going at autobahn speed into bankruptcy all in the name of charity.
There are those who have an unending faith in politicians to provide for the care of people, which is the responsibility of families. Every time the power and wealth of government is increased, the family - the true provider of health, education and welfare - is thereby de-funded and diminished.
This faith in the political class prevails among some despite no evidence to support it. All the evidence suggests that increasing the power of the state beyond its Constitutional powers leads to an increasingly corrupt political class that is disproportionately enriched, along with its political supporters in the business and labor class, to the detriment of families.
Those who wish to further empower the state beyond its current excessive and un-Constitutional role are simply playing into the hands of Darkness who wish to replace the Church with the State.
God has blessed our great nation in countless ways. The coming economic implosion set into place by the political class will be devastating beyond imagination to the poorest of the poor. And when that happens, we can thank those who have consistently called for increasing the power of the state.
We as Catholics ought to be helping the poor ourselves. The government shouldn’t be doing it. Right now we need to cut spending in government, balance the budget and get back on the right track financially. It seems the Democrats always want to spend money and most of the money is spent on useless projects that do not stimulate anything but their own pocket books. Republicans say no new taxes, but they also seem to get their pet projects financed. We need a big change all the way around. Or all of the unemployed will be on welfare, too. And then the ones that are working and struggling will have to pay for the unemployed, besides the poor. We are headed for our own demise, and some people want it that way especially Obama. He has an agenda and he won’t deter from it. Notice he does not have any solution and will not accept any decent proposals. Socialism is around the corner and then we will all be had especially by our illustrious president.
Government programs keep people in “poverty” instead of lifting them out of it. I heard on the radio this morning that the poverty rate today is 2% higher than it was when the Great Society began. So foolish! And I put “poverty” in quotes… I’m sure everyone has heard the statistics on what material possessions the poor have nowadays. It seems as if the “poor” would shift their priorities a bit, they would have sufficient resources to provide their families with nourishment.
In the past 40 years there has been a decrease in the large scale Catholic
works of the early 20th century. We have allowed the state to move in
and take care of the poor. It has been a disaster.
We need a major shake up and this might be it. We are Catholic and we are American. Do not take counsel of those that generate fear. Keep the faith in our Church,our country and our constitution.
I dont see how forcing retirees to go back to work, or cutting medical care for the elderly is the answer. While its true that the vast majority of seniors receives a greater benefit than what the paid in, social security and medicare if not a legal contract was at a minimum perceived as a social one. I’m under 50, if you tell me that social security is going away for my generation, I can work more hours, likely forget about retirement, pray for the best, and a recovery is possible. For the average 80 year old, it is not… and if an elderly person has a major disease, there is no way their family, even a large family could provide care for them.
Poverty is caused by possession of the means to create wealth. That is; the means has become the end in itself.
With all due respect to Bishop Ramirez, Matt 25 also does not say that it is the government’s role to forcibly take your money and redistribute it as they see fit. When corrupt government officials decide who gets what tax money, does anyone really think that this is done the fairest and best way? When the government imposes higher taxes does this help the poor? Of course not. It hurts the poor because it’s the REAL charities who are doing all the real work and people have less money to give them.
So what I hear the commenters above saying is that they are taking a strong stance against the Bishops of the United States. Did I get that correctly?
The US Catholic Bishops need to re-read “Rerum Novarum”. The socialist welfare state hurts society and the Church. The Obama Administration is no friend of the Church. see http://www.kentuckypoliticalreview.com/?p=4060
It got very quiet on this one. Too bad. I was hoping to hear someone explain why in this instance, it is perfectly acceptable to take a strong stance against the U.S Bishops, who are the head of the Church in the United States with direct authority from Pope Benedict. Is it OK to speak out against them in matters not pertaining to Orthodoxy? I just want to be clear so that the next time I make a statement that is consistent with Church Orthodoxy and get accused of being a poor Catholic because my statement is inconsistent with political conservatives who make up a large portion of Catholic Churches I can be sure to let them know that as long as I’m not spouting unorthodox statements I am free to take whatever stance I want. Because that’s what I see happening here. How dare you people use your consciences to speak out against the Bishops. You really should fall back into line, you insubordinates.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.