On November 11, 1968 the National Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a pastoral letter, "Human Life in our Day."(1) The pastoral consisted of two main parts: The Christian Family and The Family of Nations. Of pertinence to labor-management relations was a sub-section entitled, "New Tensions, New Needs." With the challenge to Christians to seek initiatives to supplement government actions, the hierarchy referred to the Christians' painful awareness "that in our own country many families are victims of poverty, disease, and inadequate living standards." Mention was made of an instability of family life, due to moral factors and a social indifference and neglect related to racist attitudes and the consequences of poverty. A major disruption was attributed to requirements of mothers "to separate themselves from their young children for the sake of added income."
Several approaches to the disruption of familial life were mentioned. Some are moral, but are aggravated by "the indifference or neglect of society and the consequences of poverty and racist attitudes." A variety of such aggravations were cited. As support for a family allowance system, similar to those in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and several nations in Europe and Latin America, the letter stated,
Wages in our country are usually based upon the work done, plus productivity. Little or no consideration is given to the family situation of the individual, his marital status or the number of children in his home. It should not normally be necessary for a father of a family to "moonlight," seeking employment from more than one source to support his wife and children. Single men and married men with families receive the same rates of pay for the same work. . . . [One] sector of the population bears a disproportionate share of the financial burden, which means the future nation, except for income tax benefits, which may . . . be canceled out by consumer taxes.
In November 1968, National Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement on farm labor.(2) Noting the benefits to farm workers through the Migrant Health Act, the bishops drew attention also to frequent divisions and conflicts, surrounding "the workers' dramatic struggle to improve their lot." References were made to thirty years of debating "the farm problem" by others, as workers were burdened,
. . . by low wage scales, mounting health problems, inadequate educational opportunities, substandard housing and lack of year-round employment . . . often forced to live a life devoid of security, dignity and reasonable comfort.
However, since 1965, many field workers had attempted to take their destiny in their own hands--a very healthy development. Not only were they aware of economic, educational and social inequities but also of exclusion from almost every piece of social legislation, as well.
The California conflict over inclusion in the National Labor Relations Act wasthe labor side of a national issue. California growers' pressure from water shortage, mounting costs, foreign competition, and many other problems mirrored the national plight of farmers. Small growers were urged to join associations for mutual protection of their interests--"their natural right and even their duty at this moment of our history." Although both federal and state governments did much during the twentieth century to assist farmers and growers in their difficulties, the same cannot be said for "the men working in the fields."Recalling that Catholic bishops in several states had addressed a need for federal mechanisms for peaceful settlement of grower-farmworkers disputes, the NCCB urged the 91st Congress to enact legislation,
By way of conclusion, the U.S. Bishops' statement quoted the Pastoral Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, "The Church in the Modern World." One section reaffirmed the traditional church teaching about workers' right to organize and bargain collectively, and under certain conditions to resort to the strike.
During its annual meeting, November 17-20, 1975 the National Conference of Catholic Bishops passed unanimously a resolution, praising those responsible for a 1975 California Agricultural Labor Relations Act.(3) NCCB noted the law was the first enacted in any jurisdiction, federal or state, guaranteeing farmworkers the right to determine, by secret ballot elections, which union, if any, they wish to represent them. As a good law, CALRA "might well serve as a model" for other jurisdictions concerned with labor-management relations in the agricultural industry.
The legislation was not perfect. However, it did provide enforceable procedures to settle differences in an orderly manner. For such an accomplishment, congratulations were expressed to California's Governor Jerry Brown, Jr. and State Legislature. Compliments were also given to grower organizations, the United Farm Workers Union, the Western Conference of Teamsters, technical advisors, consultants, and any others who helped to draft and promote the legislation.
However, the NCCB called upon all parties to cooperate in implementing the spirit as well as the letter of the law. Also, the NCCB pledged to support any necessary changes in the statute or its administration. The NCCB concluded with a reaffirmation of its commitment to achieve peace and justice in the agricultural industry, "not only in California but throughout the nation."
During the 1980 Synod of bishops the NCCB submitted the intervention paper on "Changing Roles of Women and Men."(4) Main points of the paper were: Overview of World Situation, Influence and Signs of Change, Criteria for Discernment, Prophetic and Pastoral Implications.
Comments on the world situation were as follows. Despite 2,000 years of Christianity, every culture retains traditions which impose restrictions and roles on men and women. Patriarchal societies keep women subservient to men, which forces men into becoming dominant and competitive. Matriarchal societies thwart male development.
The influences of change mentioned: the spread of technology, growth of cities, penetration of mass media and pressure of consumerism. Thus, men and women could do the same kind of work, cultural patterns disintegrated, anonymity intensified, new sex roles and behavioral models emerged, living costs forced both females and males to work outside the home. Also, people throughout the world have become increasingly sensitive to the dignity of each person, regardless of sex, creed and race, "recognizing the person's innate right to respect and freedom from unjust oppression."
The NCCB paper highlighted the signs of change in U.S. society, as a result of changed self-concept, circumstances, attitudes, values and sex roles. Examples of such changes quite pertinent to labor-management relations would include,
. . . men and women are developing new skills and confidences in a variety of roles that were once the exclusive domain of the other sex. Now both men and women can be doctors and nurses, politicians and scientists, workers and managers.
. . . a growing demand, mostly initiated by women, [for] . . . more equitable sharing of duties of family life and recognition . . . of the importance of equal opportunity for meaningful work outside the home.
. . . stronger [women's] . . . refusal to accept low pay, low status, poor working conditions, and blocked access to executive-level jobs.
. . . [women resenting expectations] they share in the financial support of the family while carrying alone the full burden of child care. . . .
Work place and schedule are being altered: flexible hours in the work place; part-time work with benefits; parental leave with pay so fathers and mothers can leave work temporarily to care for their infants; flexible work arrangements so parents can work at home, etc.
In light of changes altering marriage and family life, social consciousness legal systems and other major institutions of society, the prophetic and pastoral role of the 1980 Synod of Bishops demanded discernment. What developments were to be supported and encouraged? Where was the church to lead or motivate only? In what areas must the church denounce the evils of injustice and oppression?
Criteria for discernment were needed for answers to such questions. Several norms were offered. Genesis 1:27 revealed in the creation narratives the equality of man and woman. For, God created males and females in his own image. Acts of the Apostles mentions men and women as the apostles' collaborators in building the new Christian communities. Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes n. 8 refers to the "new social relationships between men and women." The same decree stated, "Since women now engage in almost all spheres of activity . . . incumbent upon all is to acknowledge and favor proper and necessary participation of women cultural life." The decree spoke of married life and love as "an intimate partnership." Since Vatican II many papal statements have clearly asserted the equality of men and women. Pacem in Terris of John XXIII and Populorum Progressio of Paul VI specifically mentioned the evolution of roles. John Paul II frequently defended an absolute equality between the sexes as ontological and theological. In a general audience on November 14, 1979, John Paul II reflected on the unity of masculinity and femininity as imaging the communion of divine persons. Today no reputable theologian, said NCCB, "would deny that equality of man and woman is constituted by God and confirmed by Christian teaching."
Because of such discernment criteria, NCCB stated some prophetic and pastoral implications. Rather than being inevitable, tensions engendered by these changes should be valued as opportunities for Christians to mature. As sharers in Christ's prophetic mission to free people in truth and love, NCCB would use every opportunity to make three proclamations.
First, "Co-equality, interdependence, and complementarity of men and women in marriage and the institutions of society are the will of God." Major tasks in government, medicine, education, religion, child rearing, etc. can be achieved best by men and women "in co-equal and complementary cooperation and partnership." Indeed, John Paul II asked women to transpose the exercise of their qualities from the private sphere to the public one and men to allow the nurturing side of their personality to enrich family life and child care.
Second, "Those changes in sex roles which reflect gospel values and church teaching are legitimate and respond to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." Church and society will be enriched by the proper appreciation and use, of God's gifts as more parents critically evaluate the meaning of personal qualities as opposed to any "sex-determined" functions. Thus, parents must discover certain qualities traditionally deemed "feminine" or "masculine" can be reappraised and adopted by both men and women on behalf of the family. Also, children will develop broader and deeper ranges of emotional and mental reactions to functions they may have to perform later in their lives.
Third, "The importance of work in Christian life must be understood adequately and women should be given free access to meaningful work and equal pay." Hence, work has to be more than earning a living. Private and public life will be linked, if work is viewed also as,
. . . a means for persons to develop their own creative capacities and skills and take part in the process of building up a more just society, as a link whereby they can experience and develop solidarity with others and opportunity for broader dialogue and self-fulfillment.
In addition to the three prophetic proclamations, NCCB pledged themselves to several pastoral measures.
A. Counteracting oppressive evils of depersonalizing situations, consumerism, exploitation and dominance by either sex.
B. Encouraging local ministries to assist families in shaping new, more Christian patterns of work and family life, so that both the family and society at large can benefit from the partnership of men and women.
C. Urging educational institutions to study and correct as needed any structures or attitudes which tend to stifle or ignore the rightful and complete development of boys and girls as total persons.
D. Supporting movements that strengthen love and interpersonal communications in families and by sharing the experiences and concerns of other families.
E. Promoting in our own pastoral exhortations or actions whatever reduces stereotyping of roles and functions of the sex.
During its November 10-13, 1980 meeting the NCCB issued a pastoral letter on Marxist Communism.(5) It commenced with a Preamble, followed by three sections: Two World Views, Ends and Means, and Practical Conclusions.
The Preamble pointed out that, even though Marxism did not appear to have the urgency and interest in the U.S. it had elsewhere, Marxism "challenges us intellectually, morally and politically." Although horrendous violations of human rights and territorial invasions were perpetrated in the name of communism, the NCCB was not blind to such crimes, as an NCCB document on May 4, 1977 indicated. The 1980 document dealt with
. . . the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism as they generally affect the Christian view of life and respect for human rights in our time. It deliberately avoids discussing political, economic and military actions taken by Marxist regimes in various parts of the globe, however important we consider these actions to be.
Also, this pastoral, like recent encyclicals, was presented, not as a polemical or political tract, but a Christian reflection on the Marxist world view. As one of "many voices of our times" referred to in Gaudium et Spes, Marxist Communism now appears open to dialogue with religious people and to a modus vivendi with religious and secular leaders, as developed in Pacem in Terris and Redemptor Hominis.
Although in the U.S. Marxism is evident mainly in scholarly journals and Communism attracts little interests, NCCB desired to convey pastoral reflection and to re-examine the sources and recent developments of Marxism in the light of Christian tradition. Aware of many variations in Marxist theory and practice, NCCB quoted Paul VI's Octagesima Adveniens about an illusion and danger in forgetting "the intimate link which binds [these variants] together." For NCCB, Marxism is less a coherent theory and philosophy than an action system and social movement. Thus,
The political and revolutionary activity of the working class toward social-economic emancipation determines both practical value and theoretical truth. The theoretical principles of the movement are based on historical practice. . . . [The movement] emerges from economic conditions of industrial capitalism . . . [which] in the course of development creates structures necessary to legitimate and support its practical activity. . . .
Leninist Marxism, especially . . . where it has gained control over the state, has developed a set of principles, that, far from following actual practice, . . . dictates it in all areas of social and cultural life, according to the interpretation of a single authoritative body--the communist party. . . . [Since] those principles have been abstracted from. Marx's and Engels' writings, these writings, despite their different perspective, remain the principal basis for discussion of the compatibility of Christian and Marxist world views.
Two World Views embraced three topics. One topic was "Marxist and Christian Humanism." Although Marxism and Christianity claim to be rooted in respect for the dignity of human persons, two radically different conceptions of humanism are operative. For Christians the person is a living image of God or manifestation of the divine presence in the world. The divine character and transcendent relationship of human persons "constitutes the content and principal effect of God's revelation in Christ." Such a dimension is absent from Marxist humanism.
Yet, some well-meaning Christians question Marx's overt and unambiguous atheism. Some would say Marx rejected only idols or spurious symbols of transcendence. The religious dimension itself was not at stake in his polemics with traditional faiths. The pastoral deemed such views grossly oversimplified.
Indeed, Marx would not condone belligerent atheism or suppression of religious belief which prevailed in most communist countries. Rather than attacking religion itself which would be ineffective and wrong, the revolutionary should focus on the social situation that religion expresses and attempts to justify. Alienation is mythologized, not constituted, by religion. Emancipation of persons goes beyond abolishing religion. Required is attack on the social-economic conditions that drive people to religion.
Furthermore, some Marxists indicate that religion constitutes an expression of human misery and an implicit protest against it. The right questions are asked. The wrong answers are offered. However, in Marx's view the religious way of questioning weaken the oppressed's resistance to their present condition. For, hope in a future of otherworldly happiness is proffered. Hence, religion only retards the advent of the communist society. Religion is a symptom of social disease and whatever truth the symptom contains will disappear with the disease.
Nevertheless, Marx also had a distaste for speculative atheism, which misinterpreted the origins of the believer's illusion. Atheist philosophers never seriously answered why people deceive themselves religiously. If there were 3 response, said Marx, "the critique of heaven would have been transformed into a critique of earth." Full reappropriation of what people have alienated from themselves cannot be achieved by mere annulment of God, but only by annulment of social structures that produce a need for God. Thus, he continued,
Atheism, being supersession (overcoming) of God, is the advent of theoretical humanism and communism as supersession of private property is the vindication of real human life as man's possession and thus the advent of practical humanism.
Later, Marx would refer to religion as ideology. He defined as "an ideal expression of the ruling material relations." Such would have no meaning or development of its own, but merely reflects material conditions of production. For Marx, every ideology is characterized by: dependence upon more elementary forms of consciousness directing economic production and its social structures; illusory consciousness of independence distinguishing itself from a true or scientific consciousness which Marx's own social critique claimed to be.
Critique of religion, for Marx, was part of critique of illusory consciousness in general, of particular dogmas or beliefs. Marx later in life viewed religion first and foremost as "consciousness of transcendence." So, rationalist atheism and religion became detached from their real social basis, overlooked practical origins of the idea of God, and mistook for independently logical conclusions what primarily reflected social conditions. Any mode of consciousness not recognizing its rootedness in and determination by a particular form of production, for Marx, lacks any basis for truth. The believer, claiming to go beyond this social basis and reaching for transcendence, attempts to grope beyond the range of intelligibility, which does not extend beyond the human practice. For Marx, the human race, with unpredictable and ever greater achievements, constantly makes and remakes itself.
However, Marx's followers, like Engels and Plekhanov went even further. For them, religion was "bad science" and had to be refuted, rather than be allowed to wither away. Rather than support Marx's insistence on a primacy of concrete social and political action, these and other followers of Marx elevated materialism and atheism to the status of independent speculative. What Marx had considered a spontaneous side effect of social conditions, Lenin regarded as poisons, deliberately dispensed for sinister sociaL purposes by bourgeois classes. Indeed, Marx himself placed as an epitaph above his doctoral dissertation the defiant words placed in the mouth of Prometheus, in Aeschylus' tragedy, "I hate all the gods. . . ."
The Christian vision, on the other hand, has enfleshed the relationship to the transcendent into its very concept of the person. Hence, Christian humanism is vertically open. Thus,
As a relation to God as well as to himself, man shapes his own destiny in dependence on God, to whom he owes his origin as well as his entire creative activity.
The second topic under Two World Views was "Alienation and Sinfulness." As early as 1844, Marx defined "alienation" as a social condition derived from a particular mode of production which separates the workers from the fruit of their work and their own vital activity expressed in the production mode. Industrial labor debases, rather than humanizes, the person. A person's cultural and social horizon is not expanded but remanded to the kind of primitive struggles for survival that excludes genuine human relations between persons. Such alienation is institutionalized and continued in an unconditional right to acquire and possess private property. Later, Marx denounced division of labor controlled by productivity, regardless of ill effects for the producer. In Das Capital, Marx referred to a civilization, in which commodities have become ends instead of means, by the religious term "fetichism."
Rediscovery of Marx's early writing ushered "alienation" into the mainstream of social thought. Nearly every critique of culture has incorporated "alienation" in some way or other. All must admit the inhumanity of a system aiming exclusively at production of as much exchange value as possible, with no regard for the ultimate effect of its products on consumers and the natural environment. Yet, all radical social critiques must admit no structural revolution can cure entirely a disease endemic to human nature.
Most religions always have interpreted the fundamental estrangement of persons from their humanity as alienation from God. Such was said in John Paul II's Redemptor Hominis, Paul VI's Populorum Progressio, John XXIII's Mater et Magistra, Pius XI's Ouadragesimo Anno, and Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum. Indeed, the earliest meaning of alienation was religious. Marxists were correct to scold Christians, for a serious lack of social commitment in recent centuries. Yet, such indolence is not supported by principles of faith. To acquaint oneself with authentic Christian attitudes, critics should look beyond mediocrity of the ordinary persons and examine the heroic devotion of others.
Saints Francis Cabrini, Elizabeth Seton, Vincent de Paul, Peter Claver, John Bosco, and some heroic women and men in our own day are social reformers as well as spiritual leaders.
However pessimistic many contemporaries' outlook on present world conditions may be, most people's view of human nature appear s amazingly optimistic. Despite many modern disasters, many people still cling to a native belief in technical and scientific progress and overall improvement of the human condition. Teachings of the church "transcend such passing moods of the time." For example, Paul VI's Ecclesiam Suam insisted the Gospel does not yield to any illusions about the natural goodness of the person nor to despairing resignation to the incurable corruption of human nature. There has been repeated reminders of living in an imperfect state from which only God's grace can redeem us. A more realistic view of human nature and the world, however, can never be a mandate for inertia. Eloquent witnesses for real and practical concern for the downtrodden are: the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount, Christ's own poverty and love of the poor, as well as twenty centuries of the history of men and women, whose lives were dedicated to assistance to the destitute, care of the sick, and education of children, "without allowing themselves as much as the joy of a personal home." Even now dedicated Christians are daily risking their lives in some areas of the globe on behalf of their brothers and sisters. Yet, without a transcendent perspective brought to such labors, "social experiments all too easily turn into power structures which, unconcerned about the individual, generate more human misery than they relieve.
A third topic under Two World Views, "Marxist Eschatology and Christian Hope," offers the world's poor and humble more than critique of the present. Marxists are stirred to sacrifice their lives in anticipation of the well-being of later generations. Indeed, some have described Marxism as "unavowed missionism or secularized eschatology." One may thus explain Marxism's uncommon appeal, distinguishing it from all the other recent political movements. Today, Marxists like Ernst Bloch and Robert Garaudy insist only bold eschatological visions of Judaism and Christianity are sufficiently detached from contemporary bonds to form and shape aspirations of their own revolutionary ideals.
Yet, the Bishops insisted "precisely as a spiritual phenomenon Marxism, for all its clear affinities, stands at the opposite side of Christianity." Christian transcendence assumes an order totally beyond the human endeavour. In Marxism, "the ideal future contains more than man can conceive today, but not more than he will achieve tomorrow." In Christianity, "the promised future descends as a gift from God's mercy." Atheistic socialism, more than a Christian heresy, is insidiously transformed to an earthly spirituality, a worldly kingdom of social harmony, a final stage of eighteenth century secularization, and a substitution of an absolute God with adequate social structures. In the thought of Friedrich Gogarten and Hannah Arendt, Marxist secularized vision attempts to comprehend in its totality what Christian vision leaves open to transcendence. Yet,
. . . the Marxist constantly reminds Christians that our transcendent perspective by no means dispenses of a wholehearted commitment to the building of the City of Man. . . . Our hope in another life must not be allowed to seduce believers into neglecting our task in the present one.
Section Two, Ends and Means, covered mostly means with a slightly apparent reference to ends,
While the basic views of Christianity and Marxism on the concept of the person, nature of the present and expectation of the future fundamentally disagree, they nevertheless retain a sufficient common basis for fruitful comparison.
Although reference to ends may be slight, the bases are not. Indeed, the Bishops' discussion of means revealed several basic differences, sometimes called principles.
The first traditional Marxist means for goal attainment, the necessity of polarization between classes in achievement of a more equitable social system, seems irreconcilable with Christian practice. Not only is an assumption that revolution, even violent revolution, at odds with Christianity, but also is the assumption that one class is a natural enemy of any other class, as Leo XIII stated in Rerum Novarum (15). Church teachings do not deny an all too real existence of class antagonisms which flow from "blatantly unequal distribution" of material goods and "a tenacious, often violent defense by possessing classes of their privileged position." Earlier statements of Paul VI and John Paul II and accepted Catholic morality always have taught "expropriation is justified," whenever persons or groups are deprived of basic necessities. Referring to rights and limits for redressing wrongs of the oppressed, stated by John Paul II's homilies in Mexico and Brazil, the bishops said,
No one who has followed the recent social movement in Latin America can claim in good faith that the church merely serves as an instrument for support of the established social-economic system.
The second traditional Marxist means for goal attainment, absence of unconditional moral restrictions, also seems irreconcilable with Christian practice. Marx espoused a social-economic concept of history which admits no moral norms extrinsic to social practice. Definitions of good and evil by absolutes are deemed "ideological" reflections of a particular social state which a ruling class posits in self-protection. As Pius XI's Divini Redemptoris (10) asserted that in Communism the human personality is a mere cogwheel. "There is recognition of any individual rights in relation to the collectivity; no natural right is accorded to a human personality." The only moral attitude for the Marxists is active cooperation in facilitation of history's socio-economic laws. Immoral is what slows down development, delays the working class fulfillment of the historical mission of abolishing a classless society. No evils--violent expropriation, incarceration, execution--are intrinsic.
Admitting the moral courage of many Marxists, the bishops insist the real issue is not who is more moral, but "choices in matters of life and death cannot be left to any individual's interpretation of history's direction, even less to a wisdom of a political party." Even if political crimes could be dismissed as past errors, nothing in the system prevents such them from occurring again. Nor will apprehension be allayed due to past violent policy being less effective than a present more moderate one. Quite forcefully the bishops stated the absolute priority of effective social action over theory may be Marxism's most questionable principle.
Revolutionary praxis recognizes no pre-existing standards . . . ulterior judgment. No natural bonds restricts one's appropriating activity; no inherent structure calls for a specific mode of behavior; no natural law derives from the nature of person and the world rules of right action. . . . Instead of answering fundamental questions of ends and means, reason is reduced to a purely instrumental and technical role.
Section Three, Practical Conclusions, returned to practical issues confronting Christians in their relation to Marxism: the possibility of cooperation, the extent of resistance. One, even though Christian beliefs and Marx's theory are clearly incompatible and modern Marxists have not modified seriously their position, it should not discourage the educated Christian from seriously studying a theory stemming from and impacting our religious heritage. Paul VI's Ecclesian Suam (104) and Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes (19,20) declared atheism the most serious question of our time. Rather than denouncing atheism, Christians must attempt to understand how it was able to convince so many contemporaries and thus must confront their own deep-seated secularism.
Two, although Marxism's essentially practical orientation forces it to adapt its doctrine constantly to historical developments, Christians should not conclude that future change in praxis precludes an open humanism and genuine respect for other dimensions of human existence. John XXIII's Pacem in Terris (54) and Paul VI's Ecclesiam Suam (109) entertained this possibility. Developments in Eurocommunism since the 1970's gave hope that professions of democratic openness would materialize, even though Eastern Europe had not followed suit.
Three, collaborations with communist governments and parties were practical necessities in some areas of universal human concern. Pacem in Terris (137,112) and Populorum Progressio (44) made references to such areas as world peace and global poverty. Engagement in practical and humanitarian dialogue prompted the bishops to offer two practical guidelines. First, judgments of social and political situations elsewhere in the world should not identify essential principles of "the Christian doctrine of society" with one's own socioeconomic structures or theories of liberalism. Hence, the U.S. bishops reminded Catholics popes and European hierarchies issued severe judgment on unrestricted economic liberalism. Second, U.S. Catholics must match their generosity to the poor of the world, with sensitivity to deeper requirements of justice that touch the political and economic structures by which the United States relate to the developing world and with awareness of the rightful indignation of poorer nations at U.S. obsessive consumerism. With references to Pius XI's Divini Redemptoris (38) and Paul VI's Ecclesiam Suam (57) the U.S. bishops concluded their pastoral.
. . . sober and responsible lifestyle would be more effective than anti-communist propaganda in dissuading the uncommitted from joining the Marxist camp.