More evidence of this is a means to prayer that the Holy Father authored when he was still the Archbishop in Argentina. It is a lovely way to pray, and it showcases Pope Francis’ sense of simplicity, his priority for family, his love for the poor and also his recognition that prayer is powerful.

Readers may already know the prayer. It has been around for a while, but several sources are saying that it was written by Cardinal Bergoglio. I should note as well that it was attributed to him well before he became Pope Francis.

So here it is: Pope Francis’ five finger prayer guide. (Go here for the Spanish)

1. The thumb is the closest finger to you. So start praying for those who are closest to you. They are the persons easiest to remember. To pray for our dear ones is a “sweet obligation.”

2. The next finger is the index. Pray for those who teach you, instruct you and heal you. They need the support and wisdom to show direction to others. Always keep them in your prayers.

3. The following finger is the tallest. It reminds us of our leaders, the governors and those who have authority. They need God’s guidance.

4. The fourth finger is the ring finger. Even that it may surprise you, it is our weakest finger. It should remind us to pray for the weakest, the sick or those plagued by problems. They need your prayers.

5. And finally we have our smallest finger, the smallest of all. Your pinkie should remind you to pray for yourself. When you are done praying for the other four groups, you will be able to see your own needs but in the proper perspective, and also you will be able to pray for your own needs in a better way.

This is a simple way to prayer that even kids can get. And it gives a whole new meaning to giving our political leaders your middle finger. (Sorry…couldn’t resist.) But it is eminently practical, and it is certainly grounded in the Catholic tradition. Indeed, what I like most about it is the end. By praying for others we can begin to see our own needs in greater perspective. It is an important lesson, one that pops up in Catholic Social Teaching quite often.

We read this in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church for instance,

“390. …The sphere of friendship, on the other hand, is that selflessness, detachment from material goods, giving freely and inner acceptance of the needs of others. Civil friendship understood in this way is the most genuine actualization of the principle of fraternity, which is inseparable from that of freedom and equality. In large part, this principle has not been put into practice in the concrete circumstances of modern political society, above all because of the influence of individualistic and collectivistic ideologies.”

The just society starts with a focus on the needs of others. Thanks Papa Francis.

Pope Francis, it seems, will pick up this teaching from Benedict and will run with it.

My Costa Rican mother was elated to discover we now have un Papa Latinamericano. So she went looking for everything she could read about the Holy Father in the Argentinean newspapers. She discovered some sermons of his which she shared with me. Truly I can say that the voice of this Holy Father is the voice of the Church.

In a sermon he gave at the Cathedral in Buenos Aires last May, Cardinal Bergoglio said:

“When there is not love, with what ease is the conscience numbed! Such a numbness of conscience indicates a stupor of the spirit and of life. We bring into our lives and, much worse, into the lives of our children and our youth, the magical and destructive solutions of drugs (both legal and illegal), of legalized gambling, of easy medication, the hollow banalities of shows and a fetishistic concern for the body. We are enclosed in a narcissistic and consumerist prison. And to our elderly, who are in this narcissism and consumerism made to be disposable things, we throw them on the dust heap of existence. Thus it is, that which lacks love founds a ‘culture of the dust heap.’ That which is of no use, throw away.”

These are tough words for the Western world, for the first world that is ever-so-concerned with its pastimes. The Cardinal-turned-Holy Father goes on to speak about our cowardice made manifest when we look away from the suffering of the poor. He points out the irony that we cannot suffer weakness in our society and yet it is exactly the acceptance of our own impotence that is the beginning of wisdom.

The Cardinal, who battled with the government of Argentina quite regularly, had some harsh words for the media as well. He said:

“This exclusion [of love], truly a social anesthesia, is reinforced, in part, by the identity politics in the media discourse which denigrates all who do not agree with the contemporary ideology and fashion….”

That sums up the attitude of the mainstream media alright. Those who do not conform are to be ridiculed.

But the Cardinal sees that the “social anesthesia” which plagues the world is also a result of the breakdown of the family. Indeed, this lack of love is a problem of families that no longer experience a kind of love that knows commitment. There is no firm and lasting love anymore. At the heart of the problem, children continue to be brought into the world disoriented by “adults who do not know how to love,” he says. This resonates with the teaching of Benedict. When love is empty of truth, it is a false love an ephemeral love.

Of course, the answer is the Cross of Jesus Christ. Of course, it is he that is Truth that is the source of love. “The real power,” says Bergoglio:

“is love, that which empowers others, that which arouses action, that which no chain is able to hold back, for even on the Cross or on the death bed one is able to love. One does not need youthful beauty, nor recognition or approval, nor money or prestige. Let love simply bloom… and it is unstoppable.”

There is much more to the sermon, which is a tour de force, but suffice it to say that I am very excited about the kind of message this Pontiff will bring to the world. Indeed, I think he will liberate the social teaching from the shackles of presumption and confusion that weigh it down. I am confident that his presentation of the teaching will free it from those on the political left who have held the teaching hostage for so long. Several people have commented, after all, on his firm opposition to abortion and gay marriage. But I am also sure that his message of hope and love will also be a message challenging the political right to dig deeper and live for more than winning the argument against big, bad government. And I am positive that his teaching will challenge all Catholics to make our faith obvious to the world.

Hold on folks, this will be a bumpy and gloriously wonderful ride.

Once Pope, the same man did not disappoint. He has been a champion for the social teaching in a way I could not have even fathomed. Indeed, he has stressed doing for the social teaching what he has done for Vatican II, namely making sure we interpret it in light of the tradition.

Let me just point out first what the good German pontiff has written. Half of Pope Benedict’s first encyclical, Deus caritas est, was on the social teaching. Themes of the social teaching are woven in and out his second encyclical, Spe salvi, with references to hope and liberation. And the entirety of his third encyclical, Caritas in veritate, was devoted to the social teaching.

His contribution to the social teaching with Caritas has already produced fruit. From the introduction of a term like “gratuitousness” and the “logic of gift” to inspiring documents like “Vocation of a Business Leader: A Reflection,” from the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace in collaboration with the John A. Ryan Institute for Catholic Social Thought, Pope Benedict has made a difference in the development of the social teaching in a very short time.

Personally, he has helped me understand how and where and why the social teaching has gone so awry over the years, at least in as I’ve experienced it in the U.S.

Pope Benedict has understood very well that humanitarianism has been conflated with Christian social teaching for far too long. Social justice programs and theologies that emphasize doing over and above (and sometimes to the exclusion of) being with Christ have produced Catholics who equate their fidelity to the faith with how many just actions they perform. Feeding the poor, or protesting injustice or expressing compassion for the marginalized, these are the signs of the Christian rather than in the fundamental question about whether or not Jesus was God. The latter question is peripheral. All that matters is what you are doing to bring about justice.

Contemporary social justice teaching is not just about being nice. It is more than that. It is firm commitment to action for the sake of the poor. But it is wrapped up in the stuff of political theology. It is married to the idea that without power, true Christian charity cannot happen, so therefore power and the influence that comes with it is the measure of fidelity.

In Pope Benedict’s writing, I believe, we find a tour de force against this brand of social teaching that insists first on praxis, on doing, on action instead of on the personal relationship with Christ. In Caritas in veritate “Charity in truth” the Holy Father teaches that charity without truth, without THE TRUTH is an empty shell to be filled up by mealy-mouthed sentiment. This can often turn in on itself and become the opposite of love. The social teaching, social justice action, says the pope, must be founded on the relationship with Christ first and foremost. It cannot be well-meaning humanitarianism or social consciousness of the type which is taught at secular universities (and even some Catholic ones too).

No, the social teaching must be about Jesus Christ, whole and entire. It must be a living out of the radical love of the cross, or it is not Catholic social teaching. When Christ is optional, and sadly I’ve seen personally how it has been made so, the work of social justice becomes an activity unhinged, a labor directed at any kind of progress for social progress, however achieved, is the goal. This is not the Gospel, however, anymore than unbridled capitalism could possibly be.

Pope Benedict also had this to say about the social teaching:

“A profound understanding of the social doctrine of the Church is of fundamental importance, in harmony with all her theological heritage and strongly rooted in affirming the transcendent dignity of man, in defending human life from conception to natural death and in religious freedom. … It is necessary to prepare lay people capable of dedicating themselves to the common good, especially in complex environments such as the world of politics.”

So, cursory understanding of the social teaching is not enough. We need to understand it “profoundly,” and this is of “fundamental importance.” In fact, it is “necessary” that the Church prepares lay people to care for the common good by means of their understanding of the social teaching. We can only hope that the Church continues with the next Holy Father to provide us with that formation, that bishops in our nation continue to teach the entirety of the social teaching, that pastors receive the formation to begin to preach about the social teaching from the pulpit but mostly that the laity seek out this formation and dedicate themselves wholly to the common good.

I will be forever thankful to the good Holy Father for his helping to form my understanding of the social teaching and for inspiring me to share that knowledge with others.

But many may not be aware of the death of another young man caught up in violence. Yesterday, this young man, also in his early twenties, was killed in Indiana. His name was Andrew Moore, and he was caught up in the violence of abortion.

Andrew Moore

You see Andrew was a part of the Crossroads initiative which invites young and old to walk across the United States as a sign of prayerful protest against abortion. At around five in the morning yesterday while walking and praying to save the lives of the innocent unborn, and though he was wearing a reflective jacket, Andrew was struck by a car, the driver of which was on his way to work and who was also a young man in his twenties.

Andrew was on this walk to protest, yes. But he was also using the solitude and the sacrifice of the walk to discern God’s will in his life. He was thinking about the priesthood.

As I’ve thought about these events, I return frequently to the notion that violence is a national pastime. We are as Americans often too casual about it and about its effects on our children. But the defect of violence in our culture is a mere sign of the deeper problem, which is an abandonment of Christ.

Including James Holmes and Andrew Moore in the same sentence may be a bit sacrilegious to some, but it is fitting to me because in these two young men, both Americans, both products of our culture, both seeking meaning, these two young men demonstrate to us that for all the talk of political machinations, what our nation requires is still – and I write this knowing that it might be taken as piously trite by some – but what our nation needs is the Kingship of Christ Jesus.

The work for the conversion of souls is a work for social justice that has no match. All the social programs, the faith-based initiatives, the self-help gurus, yes even the protests outside abortion clinics it is all less than meaningless if we do not give ourselves and our families over to the great physician Christ Jesus. Without Him, the coldly calculating violence of James Holmes and the stupefying horror that is abortion, a horror that drove young Andrew across our waves of grain, will not end.

Let us not forget that only in Him are all things possible. Only in Him can we break from the sins of violence in our own lives, the violence of deceit, the violence of calumny, the violence of torrid pornography, and all the rest. I write often here about the political ramifications of this or that policy. The work here is important. But we all know that what we need more than anything else in this nation is more young men like Andrew Moore.

Pray dear friends for Andrew and his family. Pray too for an end to abortion, which while legal in this nation of ours, will continue to make us rot from the inside out. Pray for James Holmes that God may eventually have mercy on his soul now that he will have to live with the fact of his evil deed. And pray for the kind of clarity of young Andrew Moore who wrote that he was walking across America “to serve God and help His children.” Would that we could all have such wisdom. Thank you Andrew for your witness.

Kmiec quoted Pope Benedict on page 78 of Can a Catholic Support Him?: Asking the Big Question about Barack Obama. And so we read:

“As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principle focus of her interventions in the public area is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today: the protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death; recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family, as a union between one man and one woman based on marriage… and the protection of the rights of parents to educate their children.” (Address to Members of the European People’s Party 30 March, 2006)

Kmiec should at least be credited with putting forward the toughest argument against his candidate. According to the Pope the non-negotiable issues are abortion, embryonic destructive research, euthanasia, cloning, traditional marriage, and parents’ rights in education. But in answer to this, Kmiec defends Obama.

He writes:

“Does Senator Obama contradict any part of that papal list? He is on record as wanting to ‘discourage’ abortion; he has spoken in favor of the importance of family and supports a definition of marriage that is limited to a man and a woman – its ‘natural structure.’ The Senator’s faith-based initiative is strongly aimed at assisting parents – in the best traditions of Catholic subsidiarity – with education.”

Kmiec goes on, but the above paragraph is damning enough. President Obama has done nothing to discourage abortion. Indeed, he has insisted, in a manner much bolder than even I thought possible, that abortion be made more available, that citizens pay for it, that Catholic institutions pay for health plans that now have to cover abortifacient drugs, and that any attempt to resist will be met with penalties…or fines… or taxes… I can’t keep track.

President Obama has done anything and everything he can to carry through several parts of the Freedom of Choice Act without having to pass the act itself, which Kmiec believed was not likely given the Barack Obama he knew, the Senator he had spent time with, the man he had grown to admire.

In an October 2008 interview, Kmiec was asked by an Eric McFadden whether or not Obama would try to overturn the Hyde amendment which bars federal funds from going to pay for abortions and mandate coverage for abortion on demand. To this Kmiec answered in part:

“Again, ‘mandate coverage for abortion on demand’? This has never been Senator Obama’s position.”

Yet here was are, four years later, finding ourselves dealing with a health care law with mandates that include federal funding of abortion… just as we thought… just as the bishops warned. Were those warnings paranoia? Were they Religious Faith Partisans, as Kmiec labeled them? Or were they really just people who knew that a Democratic politician from Chicago who had voted three times against saving babies born after botched abortions could do nothing else but to expand abortion?

As for marriage, well we know that the President has “evolved” on that issue. He has directed that his Justice Department refrain from enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act. He has thrown his support behind attempts to repeal it. He has said that the States should be able to decide for themselves what marriage means. He has no problem with it personally.

This ought not be a surprise though. The political base of the Democratic Party simply would not stand for it much longer. But more than that Barack Obama has always just said what he needs to say in order to get elected. He was for gay marriage in 1996 when running for Illinois State Senate. He was undecided while running for re-election in 1998. He was against it 2004. Then in 2006, after becoming a Senator from Illinois, he wrote in The Audacity of Hope that he could be wrong. What exactly did Professor Kmiec see or not see here?

Finally, in terms of parental rights, it was President Obama who ended the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program by capping it at the current students enrolled. The program is a proven help to low-income, mostly African American children in the Washington D.C. area who can get vouchers to attend private and parochial schools. The rights of parents to send their children to the best schools so that the kids can escape the grinding poverty of the District didn’t matter to President Obama in 2009 and it still doesn’t.

While an agreement to re-fund the program was reached recently, Obama’s 2013 budget requests zero funding for the program. Nothing. Sorry, parents. You gotta send your kids to the failing school down the street.

If nothing else, this demonstrates the kind of self-delusion one has to adopt in order to defend then-candidate and certainly now President Obama over and against the words of the Holy Father. Perhaps Ambassador Kmiec can be excused for having been too starry-eyed. Perhaps he was just so offended by having been refused communion – which I do think was an injustice – that his judgment was clouded… for several months afterwards.

Whatever the case, let’s pray that Kmiec, who does still on occasion attempt to defend Obama, comes to his senses and rejoins reality.

Though I don’t like being labeled that way, I don’t mind as much as I used to. You see, the word “partisan” actually has a definition, one that precludes people from using it the way most of them do. Let me explain.

According to Merriam-Webster, “partisan” refers to

“a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause or person; especially one exhibiting blind, prejudiced and unreasoning allegiance.”

The word can also refer to a soldier on a particular side in a war, but since I’m not in the habit of being seen publicly wearing fatigues and toting semi-automatic weapons whilst dangling a machete from my belt and chomping on a half-smoked cigar, I’m guessing that my critics are referring to the above definition.

So let’s be clear. Based on that definition, one’s not partisan just because they are a card-carrying member of this or that group. And it’s not just that one is taking a stand, or defending their beliefs. If it were, then arguing in favor of the right to life would be considered partisan, and…well… I suppose it is to some, which is just my point. People don’t use the word correctly.

But if just standing up for what you believed in were partisan then everyone is partisan and the word is meaningless.  Rather, according to the definition above, it’s the “blind, prejudiced and unreasoning” aspect of the thing that makes the word a suitable epithet. It’s the fact that one adheres to a group or idea with such unreasonable zeal or without even bothering to consider the opposing view that makes one partisan.

So here’s the first important point: What makes one partisan is the interior mechanism by which one stays loyal to a group or idea or person. It is not, I repeat NOT, about the effects that one’s position or statement or action might have on another group.

I’ve been called partisan for my criticism of the HHS Mandate. To what am I adhering with such blind unreasonableness? Well, there’s the rub. The critics can’t believe that it’s the faith to which I’m holding fast. It cannot possibly be the teaching of Vatican II which tells us that

“all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.”Dignitatis humanae #2

No no. My critics have to presume that my speech at our local Fortnight for Freedom Rally or my articles on the subject here at CatholicVote.org and the rest is actually motivated by a blind, unthinking prejudice against President Obama the candidate or for the Republican Party. Yes, that has to be it. It can’t be about what I actually say and write.

Now how do my critics have this prescient understanding of my inner thoughts, wants and desires? Well they figure that because the effect of my efforts could be negative for the Obama campaign …well then, ipso facto, it is partisan activity.

That some of the things I and other have said and written might have a negative effect for the White House is probably true. This is why the mainstream media didn’t report on the Fortnight. But again, that there is a negative effect doesn’t make something partisan. Please see the definition above.

Look, the struggle for civil rights was a human issue that had obvious political ramifications, but would anyone claim that the Rev. Martin Luther King was being partisan because one party was for segregation and the other was not?

This is not to compare the abuses against African-Americans to what is happening to Catholics here and now, but that’s neither here nor there. The principle to which the bishops are appealing through the Fortnight and other venues is the same one used by Rev. King and the very same one to which I appeal when criticizing the HHS Mandate. The principle is the freedom of conscience. So it doesn’t matter which party adheres to what. What matters is that we human beings have a dignity that demands our standing up for the truth.

This is no good for the critics. I’m still a partisan because my principled stand negatively affects one party over another. Indeed, this has been a common claim against the bishops and many pro-life Catholics over the years. Doug Kmiec referred to Catholic Answers as “Republican Faith Partisans” because their “non-negotiable” issues lined up with the Republican Party platform.

Now, I personally believe that Catholic Answers should have included torture in that list of non-negotiables, but calling Catholic Answers partisan ignores the possibility that those issues are IN FACT non-negotiable. Who cares how it affects a political party? It’s not our job as Catholics to prop up the Republican Party or to defend the Democratic Party. Our job is to stay true to the teaching of the Church for the sake of the common good, and if the common good demands that we defend unborn life, marriage, embryonic life, the elderly and the ill, as well as the integrity of humanity against cloning… well then… that’s what the common good demands.

What if there were a political party that were against allowing, oh… I don’t know… against allowing Jews to vote for instance, and the other party had no problem with Jewish suffrage, would it be partisan to defend the Jew’s right to self determination through the political process? Is it the defender’s fault that one political party has defined itself as being anti-Semitic? Why is one side partisan because the other side choses issues that stand diametrically opposed to the Church’s teaching?

See, I get nervous when Catholic pundits start making the argument that we should all just keep our traps shut lest something we say might look bad for one particular party.

The fact of the matter is that it is the Obama administration and the Democratic Party that has chosen these issues at this time. To say that the bishops are at fault for defending our basic human right is to blame the victim and then to accuse them of slander for daring to point out the abuse. Or it’s like this: it would be like accusing Pope John Paul II of partisanship for decrying war before and after the U.S. started to attack Iraq. It may be a lot of things, but it ain’t partisan.

Now some other of my critics say that 501(c)3’s like the Catholic Church are barred from lobbying. Decrying the HHS Mandate at an event sponsored by the Church as I did is lobbying and verboten – as the Germans would say. And to this one just has to say, “Phooey.”

The truth is that non-profits are allowed to lobby for or against particular legislative issues. The IRS says that (c)3’s are not allowed to devote “a substantial part” of their activities to lobbying, and they are not allowed to support or attack a particular candidate. But non-profits like the Church can indeed lobby through grassroots efforts for or against laws, and this is what the Church is doing now.

To claim that the Church is being partisan for lobbying is to ignore the rules of the IRS and it is limiting the Church’s free speech… and of course it is still using the word incorrectly.

Another argument I’ve heard goes something like this: well I agree with you Omar – if that’s your real name – but we critics are more worried with the practical effect of your choices here. You might be defending the faith. But the point is that you appear to be partisan, and that perception is hurting the Church and driving Catholics away.

Yes…well… here’s another truism for you: perception is NOT reality. Reality is reality. This is sacrilege in a media-driven world, I know, but I don’t care. I understand that no one wants bravado when it comes to defending a position. When more measured and accurate language will suffice, extreme rhetoric can lead people to conclude that one is partisan. It is true that we should try to be measured. But the idea that our fear for how our society thinks of us should keep us quiet about a fundamental injustice is asinine. What happened to speaking truth to power, after all?

As for the notion that I and others are driving Catholics away, I just have to ask, “Which Catholics?” About only a third of American, self-described Catholics attend Mass with weekly regularity… and that’s being optimistic. It seems there are a lot of Catholics who aren’t practicing already, that is before I even bothered to have my first cup of coffee this morning, much less started spouting partisan rhetoric… as is apparently my wont, if you believe me critics.

Interestingly, many of the same critics had no problem with the bishops lobbying for the reduction of nuclear arms. Yesterday’s bishops were being prophetic but today’s bishops are partisan. Frankly, that smacks of partisanship itself.

No, I say it is the critics that are partisan. The defining characteristic of being partisan is not that you stand up for something. It is not just being firm about a cause or a movement or faction that happens to have political ramifications. It is certainly not vying against a law you consider unjust. It’s the “blind, prejudiced and unreasoning allegiance” to something.

With that perspective in mind, notice that these critics tend to have been vocal supporters of the Obama administration, men and women who often do not agree with the Church’s teaching on contraception or even that it is the bishops’ responsibility to guard that teaching. I think it is either an unreasoning allegiance to the Democratic Party or against the Republican that has caused these critics to be blind to the strictures on religion in our culture and increasingly in the law?

I see non-Catholics, and Democrats, and people of nearly every political and religious stripe say publicly that the Obama administration is violating religious freedom. Yet there are still Catholics out there who cry “partisanship.” How so? Even William Galston thinks the HHS Mandate violates the bipartisan Religious Freedom and Restoration Act of 1993, and he used to work for the Clinton Administration. Does anyone recall the Hosanna-Tabor case which the administration lost 9-0? What can it be but partisanship that keeps these critics from seeing a pattern of attack against our religious freedom?

Sorry, but that kind of “unreasoning allegiance” to the Democratic Party or against the Republican Party is the very definition of partisanship, and it should be abandoned. I’d say the same to those who similarly defend the Republican Party over the Democratic as well, by the way… which is probably why I’m so often called a liberal, leftist nut too. At any rate, when it is these folks that call me “partisan” several times over, before I’ve even had a chance to check the box scores that day, I don’t mind so much…not anymore.

Now, if the matter were about the unassailable fact of the evil that is the New York Yankees, well then… that makes more sense, I’m waaaaay partisan there. Go Tribe.

But, it occurred to me to ask about whether those complaining cry “prudence” when really it’s just that we don’t like the obvious conclusions to which the principles point? In other words, when is prudence prudence, and when is it just an intellectual “panic room” into which we hide when we don’t have a better argument?

To begin to answer my own question, I immediately thought of Catholics who defend their voting for a pro-choice candidate. They cry “prudence” all the time when it comes to abortion. You may have heard the argument before. It tends to sound something like the following, though I’m sure readers have had different experiences or versions of it:

John Lennon stopped Yoko Ono from aborting their only child Sean.

The Catholic who wants to vote for the pro-choice candidate says that they believe as all Catholics do that abortion is a terrible thing, which is why they agree that the goal of the Catholic voter is to protect as many unborn lives as is possible.

Therefore, as that’s the goal or principle and we all agree on it, then the prudential decisions made in achieving that goal are where we ought to be able to disagree. Some Catholics say no compromise. Some Catholics say we have to engage in the art of the possible. And some Catholics say let’s forget the law and just try to make abortion a rarity.

Yes, they argue that overturning Roe is the wrong strategy to take. It’s not practicable. Who wants bands of marauding police men bashing down doors to try to get to the teenage girl who dares to have an abortion? It just won’t sell.

Soooo, they argue, let’s vote for candidate ‘X’ … or, ahem… ‘O’ because, even though they’re on record for supporting a Constitutional right to abortion, they will increase social services, which will improve the lives of the poor women who predominantly seek abortions, thus causing them to turn away from this evil in the first place. In the process, we help the poor and save lives. What’s more, overturning Roe will only send the question back to the States. How are we saving lives by doing that?

QED: we will save more lives by voting for the pro-choice guy who loves the poor than for the pro-life guy who so obviously despises everyone who doesn’t make gobs and gobs of money. It’s my prudential application of the principle. What’s wrong with that?

Yes. What IS wrong with that. Well, all of the above sounds good, but then a line from the Bishops’ document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship leaps to mind. It reads something like this:

“A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.”

This is very important, because the problem with the argument from prudence used by our friends above is that they’ve got the principle all wrong… or I should say they’ve only got part of it right. The principle or the goal of Catholic activity towards abortion is not just to vaguely save lives. The goal is making it illegal. See, the bishops teach us not just that abortion is a bad but human activity we cannot hope to contain. The bishops teach that any legal system that provides a so-called right to kill one’s own child is “fundamentally flawed.”

And I should note that this line comes just a sentence or two after the bishops say in paragraph 22 that abortion “must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned” by “individuals and society.” Society means not just the culture but also the State since legal systems are run by States.

Therefore, dear friends, it is decidedly not a matter of prudence as to whether or not we should work towards making abortion illegal. We have a moral obligation to make it illegal. Punto – as my Spanish-speaking mother would say, period, the end, case closed, basta cosí. If we can’t make it illegal tomorrow, then we work with what we have and pass laws that restrict it as much as possible.

The mental gymnastics necessary for justifying a vote for the guy who will keep it legal will always be difficult. Like the bishops I believe that there are times of grave moral consequence that allow a Catholic to vote for a pro-choice candidate. But let’s not be fooled into thinking that the reasons many site, and that I reproduce above, are just different prudential decisions in a spectrum of acceptable choices for Catholics. The goal is to save as many babies as possible, yes, but we do so by making abortion illegal and/or by restricting it through law.

Of course, this makes life for everyone difficult when one political party has defined itself as the party that will forever keep abortion legal. The days of “safe, legal and rare” are over. From now on, the Democratic Party is up front about making sure abortion will be legal, you’ll pay for it through your tax dollars, doctors will be forced to perform them or lose their jobs, and your Catholic school will have to pay for abortifacient drugs. But then the bishops are not responsible for what the Democratic Party chooses as its platform.

I should note, too, that there is no evidence that the increase of spending for social services will result in lowering abortion rates faster than passing laws that make abortion more difficult to procure. Dr. Michael New has demonstrated this over and over again, and bless him for his work.

So when is prudence prudence? Well, maybe the quick answer is that prudence is prudence only after we’ve agreed on ALL the principles first.

But if you think the mandate is just so obviously beyond the scope of the taxing power that only a knave or a fool would think otherwise, then I think you have drunk the Kool Aid.

I am certainly no lawyer and I still don’t play one on TV, but from the point of view of someone who argues a lot with people on both sides of the political aisle and as someone who thinks that the democratic process is a good thing, I find myself wanting to agree with Roberts’ decision more than not.

I have listened to John Yoo and Richard Epstein about why this is such a poor decision. They could be absolutely right that this is an unprecedented argument on the part of the Chief Justice. But that it’s unprecedented doesn’t convince me that it is totally unreasonable.

To my simple mind, addled no doubt by years of reading theology instead of law, Roberts asks whether or not Congress could have meant this to be a tax even though they didn’t want to call it a tax. In answer to that question Roberts says yes… and so do I.

I know, I know Obama insisted it wasn’t a tax and Pelosi and the rest said it wasn’t a tax. Sure, sure, I understand. But they’re politicians. They and their partisan goons had to lie through their teeth in order to get senators like my own Ben Nelson of Nebraska to vote for the damnable thing. Why are we shocked – shocked! even – that politicians would lie about a bill in order to get it passed? Are you serious, are you serious?

Scalia et al. say that the Court can’t make the bill before them say something it doesn’t say. I agree with that too. But in the end, it strikes me as a matter of legal opinion as to whether or not this bill’s language can be interpreted to mean “tax” when it says “penalty” or not. Scalia et al. say no. Roberts and his group say yes. I don’t know, but like I say, I believe it is possible that the administration knew what they were doing.

The Democratic Party knew that this was a tax. They knew it all along and they wanted to hide that fact from the beginning. As George Stephanopoulos (so glad his name is on spell-check) said to the President, the dictionary definition of “tax” shows that this is a tax. The protestations of the President are the just the mealy-mouthed jawing of a politician selling something.

So if it can be considered a tax, is it so wrong for Roberts to then say that it is not the Supreme Court’s job to determine whether a tax is a good idea or a bad idea?

I also understand the argument that this is horrible decision by Roberts because if the Congress can tax us for inactivity, then it they can tax us for anything. But to that I just have to say that I don’t know about you, but I’ve been free for some time now from the illusion that the State can’t tax us for anything. Again, I know I’m no lawyer and certainly not a Constitutional expert, but I always figured that, if they wanted to, Congress could pass a law that taxed my nose hairs. But this leads me to my final point for which you dear readers are probably grateful.

What I like about the Roberts decision is that given Congress’ power to tax, it is not up to the Supreme Court to decide for us whether it’s a good idea or not. It is not up to the Court to decide that this tax is better economic policy or poorer social policy. Whether a tax is a good idea or not ought to be part of the legislative process, a process you and I are in control of by voting for or against the nimrods who say Congress can tax my nose hairs and my inactivity. So bring it on. Let’s vote out the bums and overturn this horrible law.

On Thursday of last week, by a vote of 171-26, the bishops decided to put together a committee to draft a message on the U.S. Economy. The idea to provide guidance about the economy was that of Bishop Blaire, who is the chair of the bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development. The last time the bishops really addressed the economy was in the 58,000 word Economic Justice for All. There were later expressions of the bishops  on such matters, but they were always in reference to the 1986 document. With such a momentous decision on the part of the bishops, an important discussion was had.

Bishop Earl Boyea

Before the vote, several bishops expressed serious concern that the bishops’ message on the economy be strict about what the Church can and cannot say. The concern arises as a result of a letter sent by Bishop Blaire regarding Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget proposal for 2013. Bishop Boyea noted that many laity expressed concern about the “perceived” “partisan action against Congressman Ryan and the budget he had proposed.”Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City reiterated the perception of partisanship which stemmed from the letter.

The problematic perception comes from the fact that Bishop Blaire did not just lay out the principles of Catholic social teaching. Providing principles for discernment, criteria for judgment and directives for action is part and parcel of social teaching. The Church and her leaders have not only the right but the obligation to provide principles if we are to form our consciences correctly.

Bishop Blaire, however, chose to apply those principles to Ryan’s budget based on estimates and projections provided – one would presume – by advisors in his committee. Those estimates and projections, though, are not matters of doctrinal principle. They are fallible interpolations colored, as estimates tend to be, by prejudices and presumptions that can at times produce vastly different results between economists. So many were dismayed that Bishop Blaire could so adamantly conclude that Congressman Ryan’s budget was “unjust” and that it failed the basic moral tests.

At the USCCB meeting last week, Bishop Boyea and other bishops shared that they were concerned that this appearance of partisanship would shut down dialogue. This is how Bishop Boyea put it,

“There have been some concerns raised by lay Catholics, especially some Catholic economists, about what was perceived as a partisan action against Congressman Ryan and the budget he had proposed. We need to be articulate only in principles, and let the laity make these applications.”

He went on to say,

“I’m not sure that we have the humility yet not to stray into areas where we lack competence, and where we need to let the laity take the lead. We need to learn far more than we need to teach in this area. We need to listen more than we need to speak. We already have an excellent, fine Compendium [on the Social Doctrine of the Church].”

Archbishop Naumann expressed his concern that the bishops are being perceived as “encouraging the government to spend more money with no realistic way of how we’re going to afford to do this.”

In his defense, Bishop Blaire did note in his letter that the government needs to balance the budget. His argument was that the balancing cannot happen on the backs of the poor while military spending, for instance, is ignored. He wrote in the letter that

“A just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons; it requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs fairly.”

The difficulty, of course, is that while this may all be true in principle, the practical application of these principles by means of prudence can lead good Catholics to different conclusions. Thus the perception that Bishop Blaire’s letter was partisan and trying to convince Catholic voters that, regardless of their own prudential discernment, Ryan’s budget cannot be considered just. Where, then, does this leave prudence?

Prudence enjoys a small section in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. In paragraph 547 we learn that

“the lay faithful should act according to the dictates of prudence, the virtue that makes it possible to discern the true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means for achieving it. Thanks to this virtue, moral principles are applied correctly to particular cases.”

Note that prudence is the application of “moral principles,” and an application that is done by the laity. No one doubts that the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development should be providing our nation with moral principles. But the very essence of prudence is when those principles are applied, and the laity ought to have a role in that, especially if the laity in question are experts on the budget like Congressman Ryan.

Paragraph 548 in the Compendium teaches that

“Prudence makes it possible to make decisions that are consistent, and to make them with realism and a sense of responsibility for the consequences of one’s action.”

It is around “realism” and “responsibility” that many believe Bishop Blaire’s letter fails. For instance, while the estimates provided about the effect of Ryan’s budget may be accurate in the short term, do they ignore the possibility that a balanced budget will spur economic growth that will ease the strain on the poor in the long run?

The good bishop desires “raising adequate revenues.” Fine, but does that have to be done by raising the taxes on the wealthy when 50% of the nation’s citizens pay no income tax at all? Or can this goal be met by Ryan’s restructuring the tax code in order to spur the growth which would produce the desired revenues? Bishop Blaire asks for “eliminating unnecessary military and other spending,” but isn’t it up to the Congress and the President to determine what is “unnecessary” as they have all the information, classified and non, required to make such a prudential decision? And Bishop Blaire asks that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security be dealt with “fairly,” but who’s to determine fairness in the midst of crushing debt? Is maintaining the retirement age fair to me, when I’m paying into a system that is universally projected to be bankrupt by the time I retire?

Bishop Stephen E. Blaire

Bishop Blaire’s letter criticizes Congressman Ryan’s change in policy for the Child Tax Credit (CTC), but he does not address the documented fraud associated with the CTC. Currently, the CTC provides $1,000 of credit per child for taxpayers who provide Social Security Numbers (SSN) or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) for their child. But the ITINs provided by the IRS to persons who do not have a SSN are a lot easier to obtain than SSNs. As a result, some immigrant families have been claiming non-existent children through fake ITINs, thus exempting themselves from any tax burden.

The government knows what a huge loophole this ITIN identification can be, which is why the IRS closed it for the Earned Income Tax Credit years ago before there even was a CTC. So the Ryan budget puts the CTC on par with other regulations already in the tax code.

Now, Ryan’s budget may indeed result, as Bishop Blaire states, in excluding immigrant children, but it will also end a loophole that cost the nation $4.2 billion in 2010. It would certainly make fraud harder; and it would make sure that everyone, including undocumented workers, pay their taxes… which brings up another point.

When the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development’s argument in defense of undocumented immigrants includes the insistence that they are in fact paying taxes, it does not help to defend the current policy which has been abused by scores of undocumented immigrants in order to avoid paying those taxes.

Or take Bishop Blaire’s criticism of cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), aka food stamps. The good Bishop quotes the estimate of millions of families who will not receive SNAP, but he doesn’t mention that as unemployment has gone down since 2009 the rolls of those on SNAP have actually increased by 11.2 million, i.e. by 25%. Something is wrong with the program, especially as one considers that of the $100 billion in the proposed Farm Bill $80 billion of that is going to cover SNAP.

But the particularities of Bishop Blaire’s letter aside, the fact remains that the issues over which he condemns Ryan’s budget are all obviously prudential matters. What many Catholics have argued and some bishops have heard is that Bishop Blaire’s letter crosses the line of what the institutional Church is competent to say. Bishop Blaire and his advisors may be absolutely correct that Congressman Ryan’s budget fails the basic moral test of Catholic social teaching, but they may also be spectacularly wrong because the great graces of Holy Orders do no protect him or his advisors from error in the estimates and projections of economic budgets.

Let me be clear that I am not arguing that the Church should “shut up and pray” when it comes to economic matters or that the bishops should keep quiet when injustices occur. If the bishops really believed that Congressman Ryan wants to line the pockets of millionaires while watching little children starve to death, I can understand a bishop’s desire to act. But to believe such a thing is, by the account of many, the very definition of partisanship.

I should also say that Bishop Blaire has the unenviable job to proclaim the Gospel of Christ in the public square that many in our society – many Catholics included sadly – don’t think should be influenced by that Gospel. I believe him when he says that he seeks balance and moderation from all sides of the political machine.

Still, the point is that Bishop Blaire and all the bishops need to be more cautious when it comes to applying the principles which are their purview to concrete matters of public policy that are so obviously prudential and thus not a matter of episcopal expertise. I say “obviously prudential” knowing that even that phrase is a catalyst for sparring wits, but if the percentage of GDP dedicated to Federal assistance programs in 2013 dollars is not a matter of prudence, then nothing is.

Also, Cardinal Dolan recently said that no Americans, conservative or liberal, want their bishops telling them how to vote. And Bishop Blaire was certainly not doing that. But when such prudential matters are spoken of so forcefully, the crucially important discourse amongst Catholics about these matters is choked. That’s not good for the Church, for this nation, and especially not for the poor who need real answers from moral economists.

Hopefully the new economic pastoral that will come out of the USCCB will express the balance between principle and prudence in a way that we can all better understand and apply. All in all, the conversation in Atlanta last week gave me great confidence that the wonderfully Catholic “both/and” would be brought into the economic discussions by the bishops. No doubt everyone will consult their own experts, but the principles should stand on the firm footing of Catholic social teaching, principles which Bishop Blaire and the other bishops have done very well in expressing.

Color me old-fashioned, but I’ve thought for years that it helps to actually read documents. So what do the bishops actually say about unions?

The first mention in the document has employers responsible for many things including allowing their workers to join a union. But then the bishops note that workers have responsibilities too. They write:

“Workers also have responsibilities—to provide a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay, to treat employers and co-workers with respect, and to carry out their work in ways that contribute to the common good. Workers, employers, and unions should not only advance their own interests, but also work together to advance economic justice and the well-being of all.”

Please notice that employees and employers have a responsibility to the common good, to the “well-being of all.” This is important because the Holy Fathers like to remind us through Catholic social teaching that with rights come responsibilities. Pope Benedict put it this way in Caritas in veritate:

“Hence it is important to call for a renewed reflection on how rights presuppose duties, if they are not to become mere licence.”

The footnote after this line leads us to Blessed Pope John Paul II’s statement for the 2003 World Day of Peace. He said, recounting Blessed John XXIII’s wonderful document Pacem in terris, that

With the profound intuition that characterized him, John XXIII identified the essential conditions for peace in four precise requirements of the human spirit: truth, justice, love and freedom. Truth will build peace if every individual sincerely acknowledges not only his rights, but also his own duties towards others. Justice will build peace if in practice everyone respects the rights of others and actually fulfils his duties towards them. Love will build peace if people feel the needs of others as their own and share what they have with others, especially the values of mind and spirit which they possess. Freedom will build peace and make it thrive if, in the choice of the means to that end, people act according to reason and assume responsibility for their own actions.

Rights and duties, obligations and responsibilities go together. So when the bishops write about laborers and their responsibility towards the “well-being of all” they really mean it.

The bishops mention unions again later in FC and state that

Catholic social teaching supports the right of workers to choose whether to organize, join a union, and bargain collectively, and to exercise these rights without reprisal. It also affirms economic freedom, initiative, and the right to private property. Workers, owners, employers, and unions should work together to create decent jobs, build a more just economy, and advance the common good.

Again, with every right is a responsibility. Do the laborers of Wisconsin’s public sector have the right to bargain collectively? “Yes, they do,” says the Church.

Gov. Scott Walker

But don’t they also have the responsibility to “advance the common good”? “Yes, they do,” says the Church.

So who’s in charge of maintaining the common good, you ask? Well according to Catholic social teaching it’s the State.

Ahh, so here we get to the fundamental question. What happens when the State determines that employees, their own in this case, are failing to advance the common good? What if the State determines that the lack of accountability for workers, years of systemic underperformance as well as political corruption actually does real harm to the common good? What then?

Catholic social teaching is clear and consistent on this point. When your right gets in the way of the common good then your right may be trumped. In Rerum novarum Pope Leo XIII defended the natural right of private property against the Socialists. However, he admits that private property is not an absolute right. When the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council explained the right of religious liberty, even they provided the qualifying “within due limits.” If you fail your duty, you could lose your right.

The people of Wisconsin, despite what the good Jesuits at Marquette might have hoped, have determined that the current situation with the public sector union is hurting the common good. One way this happens is that the employer who gets the short end of any union abuse is the State itself, i.e. the body charged with maintaining that common good.

Here, then, is the moral of the story. Laborers have a right to unionize and to collectively bargain. They may not abuse that right at the expense of the common good. What union leaders in this country need to learn, as well as Catholics who defend unions, is that belonging to a union does not inoculate one from, you know, SIN. Union leaders and members are not as pure as the wind-driven snow. Unions are populated by people who are prone to the very same vices as the employers who can and have and do abuse workers. Therefore, belonging to unions does not exempt one from criticism, and being Catholic does not mean you have to blindly support unions.

My hope is that for the sake of the great tradition for unions in Catholic social teaching , Catholics like the Jesuits at Marquette can advise unions to avoid the harms to the common good that the people of Wisconsin have noticed again and again and again and again….