Per Christum

Food prices have been rising quickly as of late, the fastest rise in prices in 17 years. There are a variety of reasons why: increase in biofuel use, greater demand from developing countries, weather issues that have hurt crop yields, high energy prices, the weak dollar, speculators and hedge funds buying into the futures markets, and so forth. Whatever the reasons, the increases in food and energy costs are squeezing a lot of Americans financially, but worse, causing people to starve in developing countries, where folks have less disposable income. People are starting to even hoard food. I think we are finally starting to realize that we can’t have our cakes and eat them too. If a lot of people all over the world want a lot of something (food, energy, etc), then the price is going to rise. It is basic economics!

I have wondered what we can do about this. One thing I can personally do is cut back on the food I eat, and buy food items that haven’t risen recently (for example, potatoes). We can also make sure we increase our giving to groups providing aid to the poor. Does anybody have any ideas?

From the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:

Men and women who are made “new” by the love of God are able to change the rules and the quality of relationships, transforming even social structures. They are people capable of bringing peace where there is conflict, of building and nurturing fraternal relationships where there is hatred, of seeking justice where there prevails the exploitation of man by man. Only love is capable of radically transforming the relationships that men maintain among themselves. This is the perspective that allows every person of good will to perceive the broad horizons of justice and human development in truth and goodness.

I think this insight is fascinating, and important to understanding why the Catholic Church teaches that we are to work to make people’s lives better. I guess I like this, because it shows that Catholic Social Teaching is not rooted in liberal guilt, political correctness, or any particular political ideology. We are not being asked to embrace the “social gospel” movement or turn into social workers with a few Christian words thrown in. Unfortunately, many of us have encountered the terms “social justice” and “social teaching” in settings in which Christ was often absent from the picture, or if present, he was watered-down to be a hippy social revolutionary who was crucified merely because he challenged the status-quo too many times. In other words, in many settings, social justice is not tied our transformation in Christ.

However, Catholic Social Teaching is rooted in transformation; It results from Christians having been made new, fundamentally changed by Christ and His love. Catholic Social Teaching (and subsequent action based on the Teaching) is a loving response from those who know true Love, Jesus Christ. In other words, Christ transforms us, and then we respond by acting like Christ, continuing to be formed in his image through His grace.

Being Friday, a day of penance, and also the first day of a class I am taking on Catholic Social Teaching, I thought of an old country song I like, that has been covered many times by folks including Porter Wagoner, Gram Parsons, Johnny Cash, and even Bob Dylan. The song was written by J. H. “Red” Hayes and Jack Rhodes. Its simple, but powerful lyrics, remind me that money doesn’t buy happiness, and that fortune comes and goes, but being satisfied with what I have leads to happiness in all economic situations. I think with all the bad economic news coming out right now (corn, oil, wheat, and rice commodities are rising rapidly, while we seem to be in a recession, among other things), this song reminds us that happiness is not necessarily dependent on wealth, or lack of it. In fact, our Lord, in the Sermon on the Plain, said those who are poor are more blessed than those who are rich!

Of course, this song is a simplistic look at the issue, because some don’t even have basic needs being met right now, and I am not suggesting that someone who can’t feed his family should be satisfied with that. However, I am speaking to those of us who have a little more, those who, compared to most of the world, are doing all right, and sometimes are unable to recognize the good things we have!

—–

How many times have
You heard someone say
If I had his money
I could do things my way

But little they know
That it’s so hard to find
One rich man in ten
With a satisfied mind

Once I was livin
In fortune and fame
Everything that I dreamed of
To get a start in life’s game

Then suddenly it happened
I lost every dime
But I’m richer by far
With a satisfied mind

Money can’t buy back
Your youth when you’re old
Or a friend when you’re lonely
Or a love that’s grown cold

The wealthiest person
Is a pauper at times
Compared to the man
With a satisfied mind

When my life has ended
And my time has run out
My friends and my loved ones
I’ll leave there’s no doubt

But one thing’s for certain
When it comes my time
I’ll leave this old world
With a satisfied mind

Whenever I see some of Obama’s ads on TV, I can’t help but agree with many of his points. I can really understand why hard-working Americans who are in the midst of economic troubles would find his message irresistible. Nonetheless, at a recent speech in Nelsonville, Ohio, near my alma mater, Ohio University, Obama suggested that the Sermon on the Mount justifies same-sex unions (not marriage necessarily though). Obama claims that the Sermon on the Mount guides his views far more than an obscure passage in Romans that condemns homosexual practice.

Obama reminds me of many progressive Christians I encountered over the years who pit Jesus against Paul, as if Jesus was a free-love type of guy who was really into social justice stuff, but who didn’t care much about sexuality. Then Paul came around, oppressed women, invented a bunch of rules, was mean to gays, etc, until that is, modern academics recovered the real Jesus (who just happens to be a Jesus that would fit with the trends of the age quite nicely). This is probably an exaggeration of what Obama believes. However, what I have described here rather crudely is based on a common belief that many in mainline Protestant churches espouse. This, while popular in many academic and mainline circles, is not Catholic, nor classically Christian. The Catholic Church does not pit Jesus against Paul, since Jesus is the Word of God that inspired St. Paul. Additionally, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops opposes same-sex unions, whether called “marriage” or not.

The Sermon on the Mount has a lot of revolutionary teaching in it, as Jesus tells us (in the Beatitudes) that we are blessed (Gr. makarios, blessed or fortunate) if we are meek, peacemakers, merciful, and poor in spirit. Jesus Teaching here turns the world’s definition of being fortunate upside-down, and challenges all of us to be more holy, to be perfect, as God is perfect. The Sermon also contains the command to do to others as we would have others do to us, and warns us about judging, lest we be judged ourselves. On the surface, read in the context of a modern society in which minding one’s business is a guiding moral principle, it is easy to conclude that not judging others, or treating others with respect, is the same as simply “butting out” of other people’s business. The problem is that the Sermon on the Mount, read in context, is not calling us to radically lower standards, but radically higher ones. In fact Jesus mentions sexuality in his sermon, and calls us to a much higher standard than previously expected:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell (Matthew 5:27-30, RSV)

The beauty of Catholic Teaching is that it steers a middle path between the extremes of fundamentalism and progressivism on the issue of homosexuality, pleasing the extremes of neither side. The Catholic Church does not consider a gay orientation sinful (although it is disordered in some fashion), however, homosexual sexual acts are sinful. Of course, the Catholic Church also upholds high standards of sexual purity for heterosexuals as well, so I don’t get off easy either. Also, one major point of Catholic Social Teaching is the dignity of all humans, which includes those with same-sex attraction. So, we still must recognize that gays and lesbians, like all people, are deserving of basic respect and dignity, something Christians sometimes forget.

I give Obama points for referencing the Sermon on the Mount. Would that every world leader and potential world leader would look to the Sermon on the Mount for guidance. The world would do well with more peace, more mercy, more kindness, more chastity, more justice, and more holiness.

In my mailbox at school today, I found a print-out of an article written by The Catholic Knight.

The Catholic Knight lists three essential “deal breaker” points of Catholic Social Teaching, issues that are so important, if a candidate opposes them, that candidate is unworthy of the Catholic vote. Pope Benedict highlighted these three issues in a speech he gave to Italian politicians in 2006.

These are (from the pope’s speech):

- “protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception to natural death” (pro-life)

- “recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family — as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage — and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its de-stabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role” (pro-family)

- and “the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.” (pro-school choice)

The Catholic Knight then lists how major candidates rate on these issues. According to the Knight’s analysis, only one candidate satisfies all three: Mike Huckabee! I have to admit, I am a bit surprised. According to the Catholic Knight’s analysis, Obama and Hillary are both 0 for 3, but McCain is only 1 of 3, although he is closer to the ideal than either Obama or Hillary.

I was surprised to see school choice listed up there with being pro-life and pro-family.

I am not trying to start an all-out political war here, but simply presenting all of this for discussion and edification. Please let’s keep any comments/discussion civil and charitable.

I have been aware of the dynamic of energy costs since 2002, when I became upset at rising gas prices (at the “expensive” price of $1.50), and curious as to what drives oil and gasoline prices. Since that time I faithfully follow the oil and gasoline futures markets, and check the internet every Wednesday at 10:30 AM EST to see what the U.S. energy stockpiles look like.

It seems to me that high energy prices are really hurting people financially, especially the poor, who are less likely to be able to absorb the costs. When explaining the costs of energy on the economy I usually tell this story from college. In 1998, when I was a junior at Ohio University, my dad would give my brother and me gas money after we returned to college from a visit home. He would usually give us thirty dollars and tell us to go out to eat on the rest. With gas at 99 cents a gallon, this left about 15 dollars to eat on (since our Cavalier’s tank held about 15 gallons). In ten years, the cost of a gallon of gas has gone to about $3.00 a gallon, and is likely going to rise in the spring. Now, thirty dollars wouldn’t even cover a fill-up, let alone provide money left over for discretionary spending. You can see how spending this much on a commodity in which most of the money made goes to corrupt leaders and big business hurts local economies. I no longer have the extra 15 dollars to spend at local businesses, and neither do my fellow millions of driving Americans. So, basically while real wages are not really increasing, energy costs are, and with Americans spending more and more on energy, this means less is being spent on other goods (or perhaps more is being spent using credit cards, which is not a long term solution).

Of course we Westerners are a spoiled bunch, materialistic, and some critics think that we deserve high energy prices for our high usage, and quite frankly, I have to agree. I am basically a free-market kind of guy, and basic supply and demand tells us that when demand is increased and supply becomes increasingly harder to obtain, prices will rise. And the more Americans complain about it, without doing anything about it (for some, “the American way”), prices are going to continue to rise. Notice I am not blaming our president, not blaming oil companies, or even OPEC, because I believe that blaming each of the entities for our current crisis is inaccurate and fails to look at one issue that is in our control: consumption, although certainly American energy policy, corporate America, and OPEC play large roles. If we all conserved like crazy there would still be supply and demand issues (as well as geopolitical issues), but a dramatic week-upon-week increase in oil, gas, and distillate stockpiles in the U.S. would likely force futures speculators to sell, and buy short positions.

I am not just preaching here. I have seriously tried to conserve for my part. My car gets 32 MPG on the highway, and I try to carpool if I am able, but since I live about 1/2 mile from my work, I am speaking of carpooling the grocery, etc. I drive like I have some sense, accelerate slowly, coast into stops as much as possible, turn off my car during long waits at drive-through lines, make sure my tires are inflated properly, among other things. See this report from Edmunds.com for dramatic ways to save gas simply by altering driving habits. Around the house, I always unplug items when not in use (like the TV, which is on a power strip), keep the heat at 63-65, among other rather “Spartan” measures, at least by U.S. Standards. Now, I have to admit I may have a selfish motivation rather than an altruistic one: saving money for myself and my family. However, I also know that I am saving energy for consumption by others, which in turn, would likely result in lower energy prices for others, if we all chipped in.

Now, you may be asking, how is this related to Catholicism? One major component of Catholic Social Teaching is “the common good.” The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church defines “common good” as “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfilment more fully and more easily” (346). I think conservation of energy prices would benefit the common good, locally, nationally, and even globally, allowing people to reach their fulfillment more easily. The Catholic Bishops of England and Wales say as much, although their reasoning is focused more on the environmental impact of using too much energy: “Our environmental “common goods” are not only available for careful use and enjoyment today, but are held in trust for the use and enjoyment of future generations…In recent years one of the prime duties of public authorities has become the careful conservation of this environmental dimension of the “common good.”

However, Americans (and most Westerners) live in an interesting situation. We have so much compared to the rest of the world, and in a way, if we had “satisfied minds,” we could easily sacrifice certain things in our lives and afford the current prices of energy, energy we need to work and live. Sadly, in this country, when we speak of being unable to afford basic needs, this can sometimes mean “after buying two cell phones, subscribing to cable, and eating out three nights a week, there is no money left over to pay for health care.” A gentleman I work with who is on public assistance was lamenting the high cost of cable and cigarettes. I told him I couldn’t afford cable since I was getting ready to start a family. I think he was a bit surprised that someone in 2008 would dare not consider cable an essential. My basic point, I guess, is that in this country many expect to have their cakes and eat it too. Nonetheless, I think conserving energy would benefit the common good in so many ways: less pollution, less wear-and-tear on roads, less energy costs for all of us, but especially the poor, less exploitation of the poor overseas, less support of oppressive and totalitarian regimes throughout the world, and less chance that our oil addiction is funding our enemies who plan our downfall. Of course, some would say that high prices themselves benefit the common good, as they may cause us to conserve more, explore alternatives, develop more efficient vehicles, and so forth, so this is a complex issue. Nonetheless, I can’t see how conservation of limited resources is ever bad. So, without getting into global warming or environmentalism or any other “hot button” issue at this time, I think that taking basic steps to save energy, even going as far as to (gasp) sacrifice, would benefit the common good, especially the truly poor among us. I am not an economist, and I am aware that there are other views on these issues, so please contribute to this discussion in the comments!