In early 1965, Archbishop Robert Lucey of San Antonio addressed the National Conference on Poverty in the Southwest, in Tuscon, Arizona.(37) While urging labor leaders to show the value and necessity of labor unions to the vast number of unorganized workers, Lucey discussed why so few workers in the southwest were union members.
The atmosphere is . . . not favorable to labor unions. The atmosphere has been created by strongly organized employers and manufacturers, by powerful corporations and vested interests and in Texas by a legislature that has made the growth of labor unions as difficult as possible.
The motivation for such opposition Lucey found in a demand that workers accept longer hours of work and less pay. He found such opposition at odds with a healthy economy. For, "if the masses of the people who are consumers cannot buy the products of field and factory, can we have prosperity?"
Employers, however, were not the only cause. Consumers, public officials and some workers must share some of the blame as well. Many people who see poverty are repelled by the sordid, shabby and disease of human misery. Rather than seeing it as a challenge, they prefer to forget it. Many public officials of good will know they should provide decent programs of public assistance, but feel overwhelmed and cannot bring themselves to raise tax rates to support better food, clothing, housing and medical cares. While one can point to alcohol, narcotics, laziness and irresponsibility among the poor, Lucey admonished his listeners,
. . . in their defense we might say that many of them were born into an environment where success was practically impossible.
Quoting from Rerum Novarum, about workers being "defenseless and alone" due to "the inhumanity of employers and the unbridled greed of competitors," Lucey noted that lack of organization in unions maintained that condition.
Lucey then discussed Public Law No. 78, the federal "Bracero Law," which had "passed on to its well deserved oblivion." Without P.L. No. 78, "powerful growers' associations" tried to use the Immigration and Naturalization Service law, which in 1923 Congress used to stop the importation of foreign industrial workers.
While the State of Washington legislature had recently forbade recruitment and hiring of braceros for agricultural work and was able to hire plenty of citizen workers from Texas and California, Texas corporate farmers continued the practice, saying U.S. agricultural workers would not do stoop work. Lucey cited a recent study from the University of California at Los Angeles, which revealed that almost 50 percent of unemployed workers in the Los Angeles area would take farm jobs under decent pay and respectable conditions. Lucey also cited Secretary Wirtz who claimed that the recruitment drive of federal and state employment officials,
. . . had proven that it is possible to find in U.S. workers to do the job if adequate wages and working conditions are provided.
On January 1, 1965 the Michigan Catholic Conference board of directors effected a program for strict enforcement of non-discrimination clauses in building contracts, thereby emphasizing cooperation with the Michigan Civil Rights Commission.(38) The procedures made it possible for any person who claimed discrimination in employment--for reasons of race, religion, color or national origin--by contractors or sub-contractors on a building project to complain to the Catholic institution involved, the Bishop's Committee on Human Relations, or the Michigan Civil Rights Commission. If the complaint were filed with the diocesan Bishop's Committee, the complainant and contractor would be interviewed, in order to make a determination of the allegation. If the committee could not resolve the complaint, it would be turned over to the civil rights commission. If the committee found merit in the complaint, but could reach no agreement with the contractor, the committee could recommend no future contracts be awarded the contractor or cancellation of the existing contract.
The Michigan Catholic Conference Chair, Archbishop John Dearden of Detroit, did not see the procedures as the "final answer to discrimination in employment." The conference explored more positive and effective approaches.
These procedures will help the Church to guarantee to the working man dignity, justice, and freedom from discrimination which the Laws of God demand are due to all who labor for their daily.
In late 1966, Archbishop Lucey of San Antonio wrote to all the priests and members of religious communities in the archdiocese, which advocated union-scale wages for all employees.(39) The focus of the letter was primarily on injustices in the construction of sites owned and operated by religious communities.
It would be a tragedy if a Catholic building were constructed dishonorably on the blood and sweat of honest workmen. . . . It is feared that Religious . . . engage in building projects without providing laborers with safeguards.
The fact that Religious have a vow of poverty gives them no right to pay starvation wages. God judges Religious more sternly in these matters because their crimes against humanity are also a disgrace to the Church.
Acknowledging that some institutions were pressed for money and some parishes were poor, Lucey asked, "but if a person dedicated and consecrated to religion gets three meals a day should a working man with a wife and children get less?"
While diocesan priests were obligated by the chancery office to construction contracts, with specific wages to be paid to every worker in several crafts and trades, Lucey did not deem such guarantees as complete protection to workers who do not belong to a union.
In the construction business a contractor given to sharp practice is not unknown. . . . If a contractor tries to defraud a union worker of part of his wages, the secretary of the Center Labor Council reports the crime immediately.
But the non-union man, "defenseless and alone," must permit himself to be defrauded and keep his mouth shut or complain and be fired. The chancery office prefers to do business with union contractors because of their intelligence, sense of humor and proven integrity.
Noting that "social injustice is an offense against God and a crime against man," Lucey raised a rhetorical question about wages in all Catholic institutions in the San Antonio archdiocese--hospitals, homes for the aged, children's agencies. He also raised the question about just wages for janitors, housekeepers, sextons, bus drivers, gardeners and choir directors.
Father Charles Herzig, Lucey's secretary, made some notes about the scope of the policy. First, all parishes, staffed by diocesan or religious priests, and all archdiocesan institutions were to utilize union labor in construction projects. Second, in areas of the archdiocese where union labor was not available, construction contracts involving parish projects require that the union scale be paid to workers. Third, the policy refers to sub-contractors as well as contractors. Fourth, religious communities operating private schools, colleges, hospitals, clinics or similar institutions were not covered by the policy.
In late 1966, Bishop Thomas Drury of Corpus Christi endorsed the efforts by farm workers in Rio Grande City to organize a union.(40) The endorsement was contained in a statement of the diocesan Catholic Association for Social Action (CASA), on behalf of the members of the National Farm Workers Association, who had been on strike for higher wages since the first of June. In addition to the statement, CASA, with the bishop's blessing, had been providing the union workers with food and funds.
Again in late 1966, Bishop Humberto Medeiros of Brownsville spoke-out on behalf of striking Hispanic farm workers in the Lower Rio Grande Valley.(41) In a standing-room only crowd in the San Juan shrine, the bishop labeled the wages in the valley unjust and the direct cause of substandard housing, malnutrition, and disease. Such he described as the rule, not the exception, among the workers and their families throughout the valley. He received a standing ovation when he added that those receiving less than the federal minimum wage of $1.25 per hour were not receiving what they needed to live decent human lives according to the American standard of living.
During the talk Medeiros clarified the role bishops and priests in such disputes,
. . . to preach the justice and charity of the Gospel and urge both sides to listen to the voice of reason and faith and adjust their differences in a friendly way for the good of all.
We can act as mediators, as conciliators; we can meet as I have met with labor union leaders representing labor and with growers representing management and bring to them the light of the Gospel, in the hope that they will meet and bargain for what is just for all and not only for one side.
During the question-and-answer period which followed his talk, Medeiros indicated that mediation efforts depended on an invitation from both sides. Protesting that it was not fair to expect bishops and priests to be experts in all matters concerning affairs of the world, Medeiros stressed the role of the laity,
. . . see to it that what they learn from bishops and priests is put into practice in the world in which we all live. They have the competence, the ability, and should have the zeal and the will to do it.
At the Labor Day Mass in 1966, Bishop John Wright of Pittsburgh set forth premises for a co-ordinated effort to address community-wide social justice obligations throughout the State of Pennsylvania.(42) Obligations were delineated for several sectors of society. However, of specific concern here were Wright's recommendations pertaining to relations between organized religion and organized labor, as well as their relations to the organized political community, especially "in securing effective guarantees of equal rights and equal opportunities to all persons (specifically at the moment American Negroes in our community)."
Wright called upon the next Governor to give top priority to calling and implementing a state-wide Governor's Conference on Civil Rights, Equal Opportunities and Social Justice--modelled on the 1966 Spring White House Conference on Civil Rights. Its composition would include leadership from all sectors of society and its goals should be a continuing critical appraisal of Pennsylvania's existing fair employment, fair housing, equal education opportunities and civil rights legislation in light of potential as well as present need and the best idealism of the State. Wright also urged the study and adoption of the positive aspects of Project Equality.
In early 1967, Archbishop James Davis of Santa Fe voiced his support for a minimum wage bill under consideration in the New Mexico State Legislature.(43) The legislation called for a rise in the minimum wage to $1.60 by 1971 for service workers from $1.00, $1.60 for non-service workers by 1969 from $1.25, $1.30 by 1969 from $1.00 for agricultural workers. The Archbishop's Council "found the great weight of evidence falling strongly on the side that says our minimum wage standards must be raised." Davis had taken a similar stands several years earlier while serving in Puerto Rico. He did so, despite temporary disadvantages to some, the minimum standard "guarantees all our citizens their right to a full human place in our society."
The preacher at the Labor Day Mass in St. Patrick's Cathedral in 1967 was Bishop Edward Swanstrom, of the Catholic Relief Services.(44) He challenged both business and labor to take the lead on the non-governmental level in solving the unemployment problem and in eliminating discrimination. He called them "co-equal partners in the private sector of our economy." Success would be hailed by the nation's gratitude, but failure would be labeled as "a form of treason." Swanstrom maintained that hard core unemployment was one of the principal causes of the summer time riots in a host of cities across the nation.
The recent organization of a national coalition of business, civil rights, religious and union leaders was hailed as a measure of hope. Yet, warned that no coalition will be any stronger than its weakest link. Thus, all members should deem involvement in the war on poverty, unemployment and racial injustice, as Paul VI did in his encyclical, On the Development of Peoples--a serious moral obligation and solemn commitment which has no escape clause and from which there can be no exemptions or dispensation.
At a Los Angeles 1967 Labor Day Breakfast, Stockton Bishop, Hugh Donohoe, urged growers and farm workers to organize for their mutual benefit.(45) Donohoe, along with Cesar Chavez, received an award. Donohoe's plea was directed to growers, whom he viewed as "fighting on two fronts, against an economy that deprives you of a just share of the national product and against your own workers." He urged growers to view the farm problem "in the light of human needs and human rights."
He stressed that growers and workers, through the agency of their separate organizations, can have legitimate claims heard by the various branches of government. He saw not utopia, only a system in which they would deal with one another other rather than "as master and slave." Finally, to the growers Donohoe stressed, "Organize yourselves more strongly than at present but give to your workers that right to organize."
Bishop Vincent Harris of Beaumont in late 1967 sent a letter to all the priests and religious in the Beaumont diocese.(46) Proud that the church inherited the teachings of Leo XIII and Pius XI, Harris pointed to the scandal that church workers' wages "leave much to be desired." Although not covered by law for another four years, Harris ordered that lay employees in every parochial and diocesan institution--whether covered by law or not, whether satisfied with less or not--be paid "at least $1.60 for a 40-hour week and $2.40 an hour for time over 40-hours in any given week."
Viewed as a matter of human dignity and social justice, $256 a month for a 40-hour week meant little to people who had to pay at least $30 per week for groceries. Hardship for any institution with these increases were to be presented to him. Harris continued, "I will do my best to figure out ways to save money in other areas. I will not make any exceptions to the minimum wage of $1.60 per hour." Admitting that such diocesan regulations were long overdue, Harris ended, "I am sure, too--to our shame--that all of you know of church employees working for starvation wages. May God forgive us...bless us as we turn over a new leaf."
In late 1969, Bishop Hugh Donohoe of Stockton wrote to defend the right of Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers to organize.(47) Donohoe began by noticing that many thought that the church should not involve itself in the farm labor unions, especially since it "seemingly promises only bitterness and antagonism." He referred to Leo XIII's defense of the inalienable right of anyone to organize for any good reason. Even though it is not recognized as a "keystone of Catholic social teaching," Donohoe insisted,
It envisions men as having the freedom to work out their own destiny in terms of their own ability and what they can contribute to society. The right to organize is as proper for the farm owners as...for the farm laborers.
Donohoe insisted the issue was not Cesar Chavez, but the organizing, the movement. Recalling that Chavez learned from many people and was still learning, Donohoe thought it was ridiculous to put Chavez down as "an impossible man to deal with." Quoting from Vatican II's, The Church in the Modern World, Donohoe reiterated the right to found labor unions which truly represent the workers and to contribute to the proper arrangement of economic life, as well as the right to do so without risk of reprisal. From these and other sources of church teaching on economic life, Donohoe drew some particular conclusions.
First, those who seek to promote the organization of farmers are not to be deemed "outside agitators." Yet, if any independent spirit among farmers makes them difficult to organize, such reluctance does not give them the right to deny it to others. Farm organizers are not "outside agitators" either and their organizations should be protected by law. Where necessary, criteria and procedures should be established to determine the legitimacy of a particular organization's efforts.
Second, Donohoe and Fresno bishop Timothy Manning were opposed to a November 1968 U.S. bishops' statement on farm labor being used to uphold the legitimacy of a grape boycott by Chavez followers. The two proposed "a positive program"--inclusion of farm workers under the National Labor Relations Act, more effectively under minimum wage laws and under the National Unemployment Insurance program. Although Donohoe had already lost much growers' economic support (their attitudes was that the church had sold out to the workers) and the bishops never did condemn the boycott as unlawful or immoral, they wanted to be bridge-builders and not allow farmers to say, "You are against us like the rest of them [the bishops]."
Third, Donohoe indicated reluctance to have "this weak union" under the restrictions of the Taft-Hartley and Bandrum Griffin amendments to the National Labor Relations Act. If stronger industrial unions had no restrictions for a twelve year period (1935-1947), so should the United Farm Workers Union, in Donohoe's opinion. Support for Chavez proposals at the following NCCB meeting. Indeed, Donohoe insisted that the right to exist as a union and to organize is meaningless, if a union has no means to implement such a right.
Fourth, Donohoe took exception to the proposed farm law of Senator George Murphy. "It is not labor legislation; it is consumer legislation." The proposal protected consumer first, owners second and farmworkers last. Workers would be allowed to organize only after strikes were outlawed at harvest time. The proposal would grant workers a concession but not a right to organize.
Donohoe would prefer no law at all. Rather, he preferred that the negotiations between owners and workers be concluded at the level of the participants. Contracts freely entered into by the two groups were to be sought rather than "having to beg "our father" in Washington writing laws about how we are to live in all respects."
At the conclusion of the 1972 Labor Day Mass in Sacred Heart Church in Washington, D.C., the archbishop, Patrick Cardinal O'Boyle, commented on the farm labor problem.(48) He began his remarks by reference to the USCC 1972 Labor Day Statement. Referring to a quotation from Paul VI about the church's teaching and sympathy for the dignity of workers, O'Boyle made reference to his own experience in the hard coal mining region around Scranton, Pennsylvania. Despite inhumanly long working hours, dangerous and unsanitary conditions, and barely subsistence level wages, there was little federal or state legislation protecting workers. Their unions, led by dedicated and integral men, were seldom a match for "the entrenched power of corporate wealth." Worn out in their 40's and 50's, workers and their families were left to fend for themselves and younger workers were quickly recruited to take their place.
While conditions in the coal regions improve markedly and much still remained to be remedied, one group of workers never allowed to enter into the mainstream were the 2.5 million farm workers. At long last, said O'Boyle, they also are beginning "to come into their own," after years of pitiful wages and working conditions and inadequate housing,
In the face of almost unsurmountable obstacles, they have established their own union--the United Farm Workers Union--led by one of the most dedicated union leaders in the history of the United States, Cesar Chavez, a man who is fully committed, as a matter of religious conscience, to the philosophy of labor-management cooperation.
O'Boyle urged participants in the Labor Day liturgy, as well as the general public, to support the nationwide boycott in the desperate effort of the UFW to achieve its goal of collective bargaining. Referring to the farmworkers union as "the salt of the earth," O'Boyle asked God's blessings on them and all able to assist them in any way.
In late June 1976, Archbishop John Quinn of Oklahoma City issued a pastoral letter on the family farm.(49) Beginning with expressions of gratitude to farmers "who have worked so long and hard this past year to make this harvest a reality," Quinn admitted many take "too much for granted the responsible, persevering work of farmers and their families." Also expressing sympathy for farmers who has "particularly difficult times this year." Quinn noted two important events that made his letter timely and appropriate.
The first was an International Eucharistic Congress, to be held in Philadelphia. Every eucharist also celebrated the noble fruit of farmers' labor, "the golden wheat, the crimson fruit of the vine." The second was the Bicentennial of the United States, also to be celebrated in Philadelphia. So indispensable a role was played by farmers that Quinn resorted to quoting words of Daniel Webster,
Man may be civilized, in some degree, without great progress in manufactures and little commerce with his distant neighbors. But without the cultivation of the earth, he is, in all countries, a savage...When tillage begins, other arts follow. The farmers, therefore, are the founders of human civilization.
In these contexts, Quinn addressed several aspects of the contemporary situation of farming--family, land, economic justice and food.
With regard to farming and family, Quinn referred to Mater et Magistra for support of his contention that "to be a farmer is both a blessing and a weighty responsibility." In that document, John XXIII spoke of farming as a most noble work, undertaken in the temple of creation, providing nourishing foodstuffs for humanity and furnishing an increasing supply of raw materials for industry. Quinn also viewed farming as a fertile ground for human and Christian development of persons.
Direct contact with nature, the less frantic and more regular rhythm of life, the ability to see the life-giving results of one's own labor, the discipline required by daily tasks, the less hampered opportunities for good family relationships, the early understanding of responsibility by young people--all these and more are potential benefits of family farm living.
The significant decrease in the number of farms in Oklahoma and the United States was mentioned by Quinn as an introduction to the causes facing the family farming as a system of productin. Among some of the reasons mentioned were: lack of sufficient capital rescources for the average family farmer, often low and unstable prices for farm products and a tendency to think that bigger is necessarily better as advanced technology makes possible huge farming operations. Even though Oklahoma had a law prohibiting publicly owned corporations from engaging in most kinds of farming, thoughout the United States such corporations posed a danger to the continuance of family farming. Citing the New York Times editorial of December 27, 1971 and the stance of the U.S. Catholic Bishops that family owned and operated farming is "more efficient than corporate family, provides more care of the land, and produces a better social environment in rural American."
Quinn then presented a number of possibilities to preserve the family farm. Suggested were changes in the inheritance taxes to make it easier to pass farms from one generation of a family to the next, as well as the adoption of a speculator's or unearned increment tax. To discourage tax loss for families adoption of the Saskatchewan, Canada, land banking system was suggested. Such would allow young farmers an opportunity to start farming with governmental assistance when necessary. Also suggested was an education program which would stress on the general public the advantages of family farming to society, rather than coporate land ownership or excessively extensive private ownership. Church pastoral resources were pledged to "rural Oklahoma," by the bishop's own commitment and his call to all in church ministry to place high value on the task. Said Quinn,
Our farming people and their rural neighbors deserve the best the church can give in parish life and worship, in religious education, in family enrichment and in support for the causes of social justice.
With regard to the land and farming, Quinn asked for appreciation of God's gift, the precious and irreplaceable treasure--"agricultural land." Conceding private ownership as a natural human right and private property as indispensable to a free society, Quinn insisted on it being a relative right, a sacred trust and a stewardship under God.
No person has a right to use land in a greedy, haphazard or frivolous way--seeking only private profit or the gain of the moment without thought of others or the future.
That Oklahoma had lost over 75 percent of its topsoil due to erosion during the span of one century was characterized by Quinn as "ominous and gives us pause to consider more seriously the merits of conservation and the proper use of the land," insisting on the responsibility of farmers to keep abreast of developments in agriculture, Quinn acknowledged that more Oklahoma farmers have been receptive to the knowledge and use of proper terracing, fertilizers and soil differences.
He hailed the assistance of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference, Oklahoma State University and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Yet, he called on the State land grant colleges "to place the major effort of their valuable research in areas that will encourage family-style farmin g. Quinn also bemoaned the trend of converting land to non-agricultural uses and championed good land policies "so that industrial, housing and transportation developments will not wantonly expropriate farm lands through buying power."
With regard to economic justice and farming, Quinn urged farmers and others to view farming as a generous service to humanity--the provision of food and other life-supporting materials. Nevertheless, this vision should not be used to deny family farmers economic justice in any way. In order to insure a just return for farm products, the old continuous technological development which make equipment ever more sophisticated and expensive, the continued risk of low yield crops or total failure and high interest rates for loans.
Oklahoma farmers were urged to join and be active in cooperatives and other organizations based on morally sound principles of justice. Quinn's hope was "that farmers will have the wisdom and goodness to seek justice for all in our society and not just for themselves". Thus, Quinn thought it would be a shame, if a barrier of misunderstand and unwarranted fear developed between the farmworkers of the West coast and the family farmers of Oklahoma.
There is vast difference between the California situation, where there is a concentration of corporate farming, and Oklahoma, where as yet there is little corporate farming...[The] California farmworker is pleading a valid case. He wants justice for himself and his family just as Oklahoma farmers want justice for themselves and their families.
Quinn also urged greater understanding and cooperation between farmers and city people. City folk tend to be apathetic toward farmers, while farmers receive only a small fraction of food costs in urban supermarkets. A smart beginning would be discussion of more equitable food distribution for the benefit of all concerned.
With regard to farming and food, Quinn conceded that a farmer's long labor is essential as a co-creator with God. However, as a gift of God so uniquely linked to the continuance of human life, food "cannot morally be used as a weapon by individuals or nations." Not only would it be barbaric, it would be an insult to the gift-giver, God. Furthermore, food should not be "a commodity to be viewed only in terms of dollars and cents...to be used to extract the last penny from the human family without concern for their condition."
Not only farmers but our whole society needs to accept the principle that all human beings have the right to eat.
All people, everywhere, have a corresponding responsibility to work, according to their ability, for their daily bread. [Also,] society has a responsibility to provide decent work for those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to work.
Quinn advocated legislative support such rights responsibilities and opportunities.
Unlike others, Quinn did not deem the right to eat as a "hollow slogan." He judged that for the short and long term there was enough food to eat. Yet, there is the problem of helping developing countries to feed themselves, not of production but of distribution. Quinn thought national and international economic structures should be modified, since they are unable to provide adequate distribution and economic justice.
It stands to reason that the more food production and distribution come under the control of a small number of large impersonal corporations which naturally tend to focus on profits rather than justice and human needs, the more injustice and consequent social unrest there will be.
He cited the honest and efficient distribution of food by the Catholic Relief Services and other Catholic, Protestant and Jewish relief organizations as "one part of the answer to the distribution problem."
Confident that Oklahoma farmers would do their part to alleviate world hunger, Quinn offered a few suggestions. Even though most of the grain produced in Oklahoma was exported to other parts of the world, every segment of "our prosperous country" had the obligation to life the economic burden. Political representatives and government officials
...must see that the food is used to feed the hungry who need it, not primarily to swell profits of corporations or to comfort the already comfortable privileged class in the developing nations.
Oklahomans were urged to support the international system of national grain reserves which was proposed at the World Food Conference in Rome in 1975.
On August 26, 1977 Bishop James Rausch of Phoenix, Chair of the U.S. Bishops' Ad Hoc Committee on Farm Labor, addressed the United Farm Workers convention in Fresno.(50) To those who would assert that the church must be strictly neutral and never take sides in promoting social justice. Rausch responded,
If by this they mean to say that the church must never pit one group of people against another and must hold to objective standards of social morality that apply to all people and to all occasions without distinction, I wholeheartedly agree. On the other hand, it is essential to keep in mind that whenever the fundamental rights of any particular group and, more especially, when the rights of the poor and the underprivileged are violated or ignored, the church, at any cost, must come to their defense, even at the risk of being falsely accused of taking sides in a prejudiced manner.
Thus, the church's recent and strong support for the farm workers right to organize into a union of their own choice. For Rausch, such a right was so fundamental to Catholic social teaching that church leaders were bound in conscience "to stand side by side, through thick and thin" with anyone denied this right "with impunity in an atmosphere of freedom." Rausch then referred to the history of denial of this right to farm workers, the pessimism of many that UFW would ever succeed in unionizing farm workers and the success of Cesar Chavez in creating the UFW--"one of the most significant social movements in the entire history of the United States."
With their limited base in California, Rausch challenged the UFW "to reach out as soon as possible to organize the great mass of unorganized farm workers in other states." Despite the fears that a national farmworkers' union would be disastrous for U.S. agriculture, Rausch was confident a democratic UFW had the potential to create a blessing for the nation. He was especially confident, if UFW's development were able to prompt small farmers to establish organizations of their own "in a joint effort to resolve their common economic problems". Like Cesar Chavez, Rausch thought a joint effort would enable both groups to compete more effectively "in the presently disorganized and somewhat chaotic agricultural marketplace." By pooling labor needs into a master contract, "organizations of small farmers would also be able to cut costs and make their operations more efficient."
Chavez and Rausch were not suggesting farm workers should close their eyes to the injustice of recalcitrant anti-union growers or cancel the continuing struggle against injustice. Yet, they were saying that, after dust of the battle had settled, both sides should recall that neither are saints or sinners, all good or all bad. They both were fallible people, deserving of equal respect by reason of their dignity and worth as human beings. Farm workers were also asked to remember, as they dealt from strength they should cooperate with enlightened growers "in a joint effort to develop a more efficient and rational system of labor-management relations for the benefit of all concerned." Rausch realized that such would come to be on a national scale only after farm workers were organized nationally.
Rausch also challenged the UFW to treat Teamsters as "fellow trade unionists," despite past differences, and to play an active role in the AFL-CIO. In addition to warning them that they could not "go it alone," Rausch insisted that the UFW had "something to teach and something to learn," as well as an obligation to attend to the larger economic and political issues that "only a united labor movement can effectively deal with."
Also, Rausch listed some contributions of UFW and Chavez to merit "a permanent place of honor is the annals of American labor history". First, they taught the importance of personal sacrifice and suffering in the struggle for justice. Second, they taught the value of patience, in building a democratic union after the members articulated their hopes. Indeed, Rausch thought the Catholic church could learn much from the UFW example. "In this respect as we try to develop new methods of co-responsibility designed to help us carry out our religious mission more effectively." Third, UFW and Chavez taught the philosophy and practice of non-violence, to a world that had taken violence as inevitable.
Finally, Rausch noted that UFW still faced internal problems, which it alone could solve. Congratulating UFW for its demonstrated skills in running strikes, boycotts and pilgrimages, Rausch challenged UFW to psychological and organizational gears. They were asked to develop "the rather unglamorous administrative skills so essential to the daily operation of an established union".
During the 1980 Synod of Bishops in Rome, Archbishop Robert Sanchez of Santa Fe, New Mexico, submitted a written intervention.(51) He began by mentioning scriptural reference to migrants and the obligation "to show kindness and to offer help to the transient because within the body of Christians there is no stranger." He then outlined the causes of current migration: economics, war, politics, persecution, health and education.
[Some] are more devasting than others. Nevertheless, all force individuals and entire families to uproot themselves and go in search of those goals and dreams lacking in their lives.
Then, Sanchez listed the migrants needs: language communication, acculturation, job security, health services, social services, adequate education, housing, religious integration and worship. Migrants also create concerns for the receiving community: legal status of the immigrant, language and cultural differences, tensions created, redirected health services, additional taxes and job security. Sanchez believed the greatest objection to the migrant, whether in the religious or secular community, is that the immigrant is different in language, looks, culture etc. Too often in the new parish, immigrants are expected to "change and accommodate." Often, they seek to satisfy their legitimate needs outside the church. Sanchez claimed that migrants in the United States "have stated over and over again that their greatest need is for a parish that is open, warm, personal and loving."
Shifting to the world migrant scene, Sanchez offered some recommendations for the church to respond to migrants needs, according to the tradition that Christ is "incarnate in every country and in all cultures." First, the Holy See might promulgate a document on displaced persons. Second, there must be continued dialogue between the church and sending and receiving countries. Third, lay, religious and priests should be trained in language and culture to accompany migrant families. Fourth, local churches must encourage governments to relax migrant legislation, to permit the exercise of the human right to seek a decent life for migrants and their loved ones. Fifth, local churches should promote programs of information about and for migrants. Sixth, continual efforts should be made to eliminate all form of racism. All should be instructed that culture is a component of human dignity and any attempt at deculturalization is an attempt at dehumanization. "Cultural diversity is a beautiful reflection of God's infinity." Seventh, social services offices should continue providing for the immediate needs of displaced persons, as testimonies of compassion, sacrifice and love. Eighth, whenever possible a diocesan official should be appointed to coordinate all wok on behalf of migrant families. Ninth, in parishes where large numbers of migrant families are located, small basic church communities (comunidades eclesiales de base) should be established. Tenth, bishops should make special provisions for ministry to the armed forces and university students.