When Blessed John Paul II visited the United States in 1999, he noted that the whole world looked to America as a land of hope, where people could, with little more than determination and a strong work ethic, discover their own dreams.
However, The New York Times recently reported on studies that show it is harder to rise up the economic ladder in the United States than in other countries like Canada and Denmark. The reasons for this are, unfortunately, all too familiar.
For one thing, better-paying jobs tend to go to the more highly educated. However, getting a higher education has become an increasingly more expensive proposition, with undergrads, not to mention graduate students, increasingly saddled with tens of thousands of dollars of debt by the time they leave college to look for work.
Even if poorer students were able to afford higher education and take on that debt, they are more likely to have come from schools that have not properly prepared them. Recent documentaries like Waiting for “Superman” and The Lottery demonstrate the shockingly stark challenges that poor families face as they try to get their children into decent public elementary schools.
When it comes to high school, the competition is even more significant. Poor and middle-class families who wish to send their children to private preparatory high schools find these schools’ tuition prices skyrocketing. The average tuition for a private high school in New York City, for instance, is close to $40,000. The Big Apple’s market outpaces the rest of the country, but the trend is clear, and it’s a trend that increasingly leaves the poor hopelessly blocked from some of the best schools.
This leaves more and more families in competition for the limited number of spots at the better public schools. The days of working the extra job for the private-school education are over in parts of the country, a fact which reveals another problem.
While it is true that household income has increased significantly since the 1960s, for many, it now takes both parents working full-time jobs to reach that income level. Households may have made more over time, but individuals have not, and the breakdown of the family has only made matters worse.
Study after study has demonstrated the link between poverty and the breakdown of the family. Studies show that perhaps the single greatest antidote to poverty is a solid marriage. But with higher rates of deep family dysfunction among the poor and middle-class populations, more than at any other time in our history, one can begin to see just how difficult it can be for a student to find help doing homework or coaching for a test, much less a guiding hand through the storms of adolescence.
Not all the news is gloom and doom, of course. Relatively speaking, Americans’ lives are still phenomenally more prosperous and hopeful than the vast majority of the world, and certainly more than human history has ever known before. Immigrants continue to come to this country in droves for the chance to improve their lives. Still, the figures ought to give Catholics some serious pause.
The Church’s social teaching includes the principle of the universal destination of goods. This principle does not mean that all goods must be distributed equally in order to achieve justice. This is the error of some involved in the so-called “social justice” movement, and it is one condemned by the popes. Therefore, income gaps are not necessarily unjust.
What the principle of the universal destination of goods does mean, however, is that the poor must have access to the basic goods to which God has gifted us all. The principle requires that upward mobility is possible; that the poor can achieve the dignity rightfully theirs. More and more, however, a child born into poverty stays there.
Between a lack of good education, the breakdown of the family, high tuition costs and a lack of jobs, it is harder for the poor of our nation to succeed. This leads to the other great principle of the Church’s social teaching, solidarity.
Blessed Pope John Paul II taught in his encyclical On Social Concern that solidarity is more than just that vague feeling of concern for our neighbor. It is, rather, “a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say, to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all.”
Rugged individualism may be an American trait, but it is not Catholic. We are all responsible for all, and especially the poor.
Political considerations, as the bishops tell us, must address not just economic inequality, but the very lack of access to basic goods like education and jobs. Policies that help to keep manufacturing jobs within the U.S. would go a long way to providing poor and middle-income families the opportunities they need. Addressing the poor performance of many of our public schools, as well as continuing the already great tradition of making Catholic education more accessible, can begin to address these problems.
This is not just a matter of government economic policy. There are deep cultural problems as well. Consumerism and educational loans have bred enormous personal debt. The dearth of “social capital” has meant a lack of skills necessary for building healthy relationships and thus healthy families. The example of strong families is more important now than ever. Volunteering to mentor children and/or their parents is a concrete way towards social healing.
Pope Benedict XVI would have us remember from his encyclical Charity in Truth that we must raise our arms to God in prayer for our society. Certainly one of the early and constant petitions for this year should be the wisdom to vote well and best inform our consciences, so that we might work for the common good with the full determination of a follower of Christ.
Omar Gutierrez works for the Archdiocese of Omaha, Nebraska.
He writes about culture and faith at RegnumNovum.com.
Comments
Post a Comment
Most of this problem is government driven. Generous grants and aid to public grade schools, high schools, and colleges greatly aids union teacher salaries at the expense of pro-choice, private schools. Stop the government dole, give support to tax breaks for kids going to private schools (which generally teach and educate better) and the problem will likely evaporate.
It sounds like you should be supporting Rick Santorum who basically makes this case. ( So he has advocated a policy to keep higher wage manufacturing jobs in the US by eliminating the corporate tax on manufacturers) He also favors private school vouchers and expansion of the charter school sysem which might help some poor kids get a better education. In fact the voucher system was hugely popular in Wash DC, until Obama helped kill it. Obviously he is the only candidate who really recognizes the conncection between family breakdown and poverty and has acutally talked about it suggesting he might try to do something about it. He of course has been vigorously pro-life. Frankly he seems like the kind of Republican candidate, who a Catholic with otherwise Democrat leanings, concerned about the poor, Might be comfortable supporting. Typically such Catholics vote Democrat and tell themselves that since abortion is not the only issue, this is ok. Given the gravity of abortion it seems to me that such a Catholic might be better served by saying, ...” well given the grave evil of abortion, I am concerned about diminishing it as well, and Santorum seems to offer at least some policies that will help the poor, maybe this time I will go with him”. Such a voter might prefer someone who is more liberal on economic issues, but this will entail completely throwing the unborn under the bus. It seems to me if you look at the actual choices for Catholics, Obama, Romney,Gingrich, Paul and Santorum, Santorum is an easy choice. Think of it this way. If one would like to see their vote go to someone that is acceptable among a range of Catholic positions Santorum seems to be. In fact because of votes and postions reflecting this Catholic sensibility he has been criticized as not being sufficiently purist from a Republican and Conservative view point. ( He has some pro-Union votes, and some compassionate conservative type votes with support for Debt restructuring in the third world, AIDS treatment etc..) Again he seems like a pretty good candidate for the social justice focused folks in the Church. Some of these folks who typically feel the need to vote for the Democrats inspite of their pro-abortion policies would seem to me to be able to support a pro-life Catholic given that he has supported many of the other issues that reflect some solidarity with the poor. If you go with Obama it is more unlimited promotion of the abortion license and looks like he will be compelling the Church to pay for things it calls sinful, given the recent HHS contraception mandate. Romney may very well be less concerned about the impact of the economy on the poor, and is not as clearly pro-life. Ron Paul seems to gather some support in the Catholic Blogosphere but it is not clear to my how his Libertarian leanings can be squared with any kind of Catholic political philosophy. Gingrich has been inconsistent and erratic. So I am curious, why not support Santorum and why are do you think more Catholics are not supporting him?
@Miles: Some of it is some of it isn’t. When Americans spend $73 million on gifts for their dogs in one single year, I gotta think that some of those folks are Catholics and that some of the poverty here could be alleviated through greater generosity.
@michael: Yes, I like Santorum’s focus on manufacturing jobs. I think Catholics aren’t supporting Santorum because most Catholics unfortunately don’t think Santorum could win. When the vast majority of Catholics contracept, it is less likely that they will see the pro-life stance of Santorum as a plus like you and I might.
The Poor?
Here in San Jose, CA I see many various immigrant groups: Asia, Latin America, Europe. All seem very hard working and trying to take advantage or the amazing opportunities here still. However, I can tell you that in the libraries, after school, the number one group of kids I see quietly studying at their desks are the Asians. Many cultures prize family and hard work, but some also focus on education. And eventually, we see the economic results of choices.
You are perhaps correct in that many Catholics do not think Santorum can win. Still I do not see those in the Catholic blogosphere or with more of a prominent platform trying to alter this by suggesting him as a plausible alternative. This is interesting when non Catholics like Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard, or Charles Kruthammer have suggested he is a credible alternative to Romney. I personally think Obama is disqualified because of his support for unlimited abortion, and certainly now this assault on the Church via the HHS regulations, but for those still struggling with this one would think favorable notice from Moderates like David Brooks of the NY Times highlighting some “liberal” or pro “social justice” postions would deserve some favorable notice and make them more willing to support a non-Democrat.
Again I know the average Catholic in the pew might not be that familar with him ( I was a PA resident, while he was in office so know his record well. What is curious to me is how little notice there has been of him by Catholics with a platform. The only exception to this I know of has been Columnist Michele Malkin. This is unfortunate because I think in terms of having a candidate who sees issues via the lens of his Catholicism, Santorum is a rare opportunity. He is not perfect, ( Who is?) and depending on ones political slant you could find areas of disagreement. Still I would rest easy knowing we would be electing someone who would most of the time making policy using the principles the Church wishes to see active in the public square. I know for many Catholics being pro-life does not weigh as importantly in their political choices as it obviously should. ( abortion being a grave evil) But I think the bigger neglected selling point for Santorum is that this is not his only selling point, to a Catholic. It is more his entire approach to policy.
@Meddley, you’ve a point that I think needs to be stressed. The problem, as I try to say in the piece above, is not just public policy but also cultural. In some cultures excellence means getting straight A’s period. Our culture does not value education in the same way.
@michael, I too think it odd and unfortunate that Santorum has not had his due. I personally think him a stellar fellow, a good candidate, and potentially a good President. But even I have to admit that he lack the gravitas that I look for…which is not to say I wouldn’t vote for him… it’s just an observation.
Then again, maybe Rick Santorum has just the gravitas he needs having won MN, MO, and at least second in CO.
I come to the argument with the advantage of having seen Santorum win the Tuesday trifecta. Yes, he can win even when Romney outspends him 40 to 1. And with Obama being as unpopular as he is, it is a great chance for America to put forward a real conservative instead of a compromise candidate. I would add that ‘gravitas’ is a personal quality, and Santorum proved some of his gravitas by trying to move the debate away from personal qualities and towards the real issues that will make a difference. If you don’t think the Catholic blogosphere is supporting Santorum, find Lisa Graas at Catholic Bandita, and she and her long list of compatriots will never leave you at a loss for effusive praise for Santorum.
I disagree with Santorum when he says that Romney earned his money by hard work. At the risk of sounding like an Occupier, which I am not, it is obvious to me that he made (not earned) his money by being born into a privileged position where a relatively small elite exert grossly imbalanced control over the macroeconomy, and don’t mind skimming a tiny percentage of it to make themselves ridiculously wealthy, even though that immigrant in San Jose is working immeasurably harder for a pittance.
Call me a values voter, but when nearly a million unborn are still dying every year by ‘choice’, and the poorest of the poor in America are relatively wealthy by world standards, I don’t see where a relatively weak economy is such a big thing to be concerned about. Despite that, if you listen to what he’s saying instead of watching the way the MSM belittle him, Santorum really does have an economic plan, and it has more to do with the future of the country than do Mitt Romney’s business practices or Newt Gingrich’s many wives. I already voted for Santorum in the Florida primary, and hope to be able to do so again in November.
Omar,
My son has a PhD and has over $100,000 in student loan debt and his salary is about $60,000/year. He is an associate instructor/research asssistant at a medical school. He is in deferrment because his debt to income ratio is so high.
When I first went to college in 1976, since my father was deceased and a 20 year veteran of the Air Force, I was receiving $240/month social security and $70/month from the VA as long as I was a full time student.
The tuition at our local state college was free for state residents. They had what they called an “activity fee” of $300 a semester. So the government was paying me $300/month to go to a college that was costing me $300/semester.
There should be a balance between these two extremes.
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.