A Unified Vision of Reality

September 6, 2020 (1,359 words)

So the other day I’m watching a short little video from Cross Catholic Outreach that landed in my in-box. It features a man identified in a caption as Cardinal Alvaro Ramazzini of Guatemala, a guy who looks to be about my age.

He is riffing on the reasons why we in the First World should contribute to the less fortunate in far-away countries, and how we should think about those contributions. He calmly runs through a series of references to bolster his case – starting with the well-known adage that it is better to give than to receive.

Diving a little deeper, he points out the dynamics of the Christian spirit should always be to forget myself and to think of others. But he is careful to note when I do this, it must not be to take advantage of others, or to be liked by them, but rather to truly seek the good and well-being of those others.

The interesting thing, according to this Ramazzini person, is that when I live in this dynamic of forgetting myself, because I want to live the love of God by loving others – since, after all, I can’t see God, but I can see my neighbor – the result is one of the fruits of the Holy Spirit in our life: a deep joy that comes from knowing I am on the path that God wants for all humanity.

Here is more from this short little YouTube video with an old guy by the name of Ramazzini:

Many of the tragedies and the sadness and the anguish – all that is pain on the Earth – is simply the result of the lack of love between us. The greatest commandment is to love God above all things (i.e. money, power, and pleasure – the usual suspects), and to love our neighbor as ourselves. If we live according to this “golden rule” we realize that we can be happy, even if we are poor.

Not for nothing, folks, but Jesus said, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, and blessed are the (actual) poor for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.” Having before us the practice of the Beatitudes should remain a source of joy because when I practice them, I am saying I love God and I love my neighbor.

Love must always be directed to those who need it most. And those who need it most, in the words of Pope Francis and the Bishops that were in Aparaecida (State of Sao Paulo, Brazil), are the disposables – the ones we do not even know exist. Towards them should our actions of love be directed.

When we live in that way we will find a very special joy in our hearts.

I think one of the very serious consequences of being economically or materially rich is exactly what happened in the Gospel of St. Luke in the parable of the rich man and the poor man. The rich man ate at a banquet every day, dressed splendidly, was always at parties. He hadn’t noticed there was a poor sick man at his door, with wounds over his entire body. The Gospel of St. Luke says the poor man’s state was so bad that dogs would approach to lick his wounds.

The rich man didn’t even give this unfortunate the crumbs that fell from the table. In a way this helps explain how you cannot serve God and money at the same time. If you turn money into your God, then you will forget the true God, and you will forget your neighbor.

That is why I believe that wealth can be an obstacle. When Jesus talks about the way to reach eternal life, he mentions that it is a very narrow path. Unfortunately when people forget the transcendence of life – because life ends here but starts over there – they become indifferent and become selfish.

I consider finding that sense of truly forgetting about myself, in order to share what I have with others who have less, can give anyone an incredible feeling of personal fulfillment. But it’s not just a matter of saying it, for anyone can say it. What I truly want is for you to experience it. This is meant for you who are watching and listening to me, to make this an experience in your life.

You will also realize that we are all pilgrims in this land and that what we really need is to prepare ourselves for our definitive encounter with God.

When this happens, everything will become relative. Money will be relative. Fame will be relative. Power will be relative. Everything will be relative, because you realize, as Saint Augustine says, that God made us for Him, and our hearts will be restless until we rest in Him.

That is why my exhortation is to remember it is always better to give than to receive. And I realize that in many cases this is approached from the point of view of charity. If I want to do works of mercy I typically give alms, I give a contribution, I provide support. And all that is wonderful.

For the word of God teaches that those who give alms are definitely fulfilling one of Jesus’ mandates. But there is also another way of understanding things, and that is from the point of justice.

I believe that Christians should not just think they are called to share what they have only because there are others who are poorer. They should also do it as a duty of justice: to be able to help others who haven’t had the same opportunities or the same resources as you may have had in your life.

That passage from the Old Testament when manna fell from heaven has always been very significant to me. It was food for all the Israelites that were in the desert. When the manna stopped falling, nobody needed more and nobody had left-overs. I believe that is the ideal.

The ideal will always be to understand that although I may have a lot, God will hold me accountable for the way I lived my life. I should start now to find a sense of personal fulfillment by sharing what I have.

I urge the people who support the projects of Cross Catholic Outreach to be generous, knowing that one day, when you present yourself before God, He is not going to ask you how much money you made, how much money you were able to accumulate, how many bank accounts you had.

He will ask you, did you feed the hungry? Did you give water to the thirsty? Did you visit the sick and in prison? Did you support and take care of the migrant? Those will be the words of the final judgement.

We must understand life from the perspective of eternity. We are pilgrims here on Earth, and we are walking in this journey. There will come a moment when we see God, face to face, and we will see our lives as they were.

Okay, sure, these are things we’ve all heard before. In fact, these sentiments can be said to form the basis of many a (boring) Sunday homily, can they not?

But Ramazzini’s easy command of the material, the quiet enthusiasm with which he presents it, and the intimate, conversational nature of the video itself all combine to have me on the edge of my seat. There are goosebumps on my arms and tears beginning to form in my eyes.

It’s true I may need a translator to understand what Cardinal Alvaro Ramazzini of Guatemala is telling us in his little YouTube video. But the concepts that animate his mind, and the minds of millions of other non-English-speaking people around the world, are ones that have resonated with me since I first reached the age of reason as a little boy.

There are many things I find myself grateful to my dear, departed parents for, but introducing me at a young age to these universal truths and this unified vision of reality is right at the top of the list.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr
September 6, 2020

The Philadelphia Statement

September 5, 2020 (710 words)

There’s been a lot going on lately, so you may have missed the big, August 11 signing of the Philadelphia Statement. Named in recognition of the pivotal role that city played in the founding of the United States, it was endorsed by over forty academics, scholars, religious leaders, and legal experts, who we are told represent a broad spectrum of beliefs.

Affirming the necessity of free speech and civil discourse, while denouncing cancel culture, hate-speech labeling, and other forms of ideological blacklisting, this effort calls on all Americans “to preserve our freedom to disagree openly, while maintaining the possibility of a shared future alongside those with whom we disagree.”

In other words, the Philadelphia Statement is just another articulation of the Enlightenment pipe dream enshrined in our Constitution: a peculiarly modern version of “freedom” that allows everyone to pursue their own idea of “happiness.”

This ephemeral objective is to be accomplished by dialing down a sense of personal accountability to the larger society, and doing away with any objective sense of right and wrong. All while magically preserving civility and order.

Note the familiar, reassuring boiler-plate language being employed in the Philadelphia Statement to cloak what is at its core a truly radical concept in social organization:

“Free speech marked by truly open discourse and debate is essential to a diverse and thriving society,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel and Senior Vice President of Communications, Jeremy Tedesco.

“Free speech helps us learn to think critically and defend our own ideas while also cultivating tolerance and respect for those with whom we disagree. But the rise in blacklisting and demonizing of those who hold opposing views is steadily eroding the willingness of Americans to express their sincere beliefs and breeds contempt for those with different views.

“That’s why a diverse group of leaders have drafted and signed the Philadelphia Statement. We’re committed to a better way forward that respects the timeless principles of freedom enshrined in the Constitution, and we invite our fellow Americans to join the growing movement to protect civil discourse and free speech.”

In addition to calling out “cancel culture,” the statement also identifies campus speech policing and corporate “hate speech” policies as symptoms of what if refers to as a crisis in free expression.

Well, that’s certainly one way of looking at it: A crisis in free expression, with “our fellow Americans” becoming increasingly unwilling to share their sincere beliefs.

I am inclined to view the problem a bit differently, though. I would say the lack of tolerance and respect for others the Philadelphia Statement admirably tries to spotlight is the direct result of too much free expression.

So to my mind the Philadelphia Statement once again demonstrates the right’s muddled understanding of the cultural forces at work this summer with, say, the Black Lives Matter movement.

As the statement explains:

“If we desire unity rather than division; if we want a political life that is productive and inspiring; if we aspire to be a society that is pluralistic and free; one in which we can forge our own paths and live according to our own consciences, then we must renounce ideological blacklisting and recommit ourselves to steadfastly defending freedom of speech and passionately promoting robust civil discourse.”

But isn’t all this is in the eye of the beholder? For instance, don’t this summer’s liberal activists see themselves as “forging their own paths and living according to their own consciences”?

Whether the academics and scholars and religious leaders and legal experts behind this well-intentioned pronouncement like it or not, there are many people in this country for whom the phrase “civil discourse” is simply code for “preserving the established order.”

It all boils down to this: There is a fundamental contradiction built into the Philadelphia Statement that its earnest signers do not see. It’s the same contradiction, by the way, that is enshrined in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Promoting pluralism as society’s highest ideal will naturally lead to division, and make unity all but impossible.

Look, I hate to be a grouch. But as any philosopher worth his or her salt will tell you, without a unified vision of reality, no agreement is possible, and society plunges into the darkness of chaos and violence.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr
September 5, 2020

Once More unto the Breach

September 4, 2020 (754 words)

Here we go again. With another presidential election looming partisans of all stripes are once more treating us to raw, visceral appeals designed to by-pass logic and reason.

There are the social conservatives, who loudly condemn Democrats as morally reprehensible for supporting reproductive choice and marriage equality. The conservatives are convinced such stances are a betrayal of our country’s Christian roots. They refuse to recognize these trends for what they truly are: an inevitable evolution of the Enlightenment version of “freedom” and “liberty” and “the pursuit of happiness” that inspired our most famous Founders.

These same religiously-motivated citizens continue to insist there is no issue before the voters that takes precedent over defending human life from inception to natural death. Even though abortion is still an elective procedure rather than a political mandate, and is in any event still not on the ballot.

Failing to consider abortion in its full economic context – how privileged women choose abortion as an expression of their “economic freedom,” how under-privileged woman are constrained by “economic injustice” into opting for abortion – is the fatal flaw in the pro-life movement as presently constituted.

The last part of “from inception to natural death” started as a reference to the euthanasia movement, as well as being a reference to the “death squads” we used to hear so much about, which we were told would casually discard the weak if left unchecked.

But an entirely different end-of-life problem has emerged, quite apart from the euthanasia movement, or the worry over so-called death squads.

What constitutes “natural death” is getting harder to decipher, as advances in treatment of so many previously terminal conditions blur the line beyond recognition. Our medical pros are only too happy to employ their entire bag of sophisticated procedures, pulling out all the stops in an attempt to keep our elderly loved ones around long after they should have been allowed to shuffle off this mortal coil to meet their maker.

Fiscal conservatives, meanwhile, are ramping up their objections to the dreaded “welfare state” policy proscriptions of their political foes, those wayward souls who are known to promote some really wacky ideas.

Such as healthcare being a basic human right that should not be left exposed to the vagaries of the for-profit marketplace. As any self-respecting conservative will tell you, only an irresponsible liberal or a wild-eyed socialist could support such an un-American position.

Any version of “Medicare for All” would throw a wrench into our best-in-class healthcare system, and violate the sacred principle of “choosing our own doctors.” Not to mention eliminating the thriving competition fiscal conservatives assure us now exists between the various privately-owned (i.e. corporate–owned) health insurance companies.

All this claptrap cuts both ways, of course. Liberals are just as inane in much of what they have to say about the competition.

Heaven knows there is plenty to criticize about the way President Trump has conducted himself in office, and the way his administration has chosen to conduct the nation’s business. But too much of the criticism we are hearing is unfortunately on the same sophomoric level as the commander-in-chief’s typical tweet.

The erstwhile Kamala Harris, for instance, at the beginning of her first public speech as Joe Biden’s running mate, was given to say: “The president’s mismanagement of the pandemic has plunged us into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.”

This is the sort of broad characterization that should make even Trump’s harshest critics blush. Does anyone really think there was a single undisputed “right way” to handle a once-every-hundred-years catastrophe of worldwide proportions? Does anyone really think this pandemic was NOT going to cripple important segments of the economy?

At the Democratic National Convention, featured speaker Michelle Obama was in her best get-out-the-vote mode when she intoned: “…if you think it can’t get any worse, it can… and it will.” She was described in the aftermath of this appearance as “the most effective communicator in the Democratic Party today.”

These days being an effective communicator means getting people to act on their feelings, without subjecting those feelings to any rational analysis.

It’s too bad, really. The majority of Ms. Obama’s address, and Ms. Harris’ first speech as the VP nominee, was well-written and well-delivered. I don’t mind pointed political jabs, since after all they come with the territory. I just wish the partisans of all stripes would appeal to a slightly higher order of thinking than what one is prone to find in the average high school football cheering section.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr
September 4, 2020

We All Must Be Accountable

September 3, 2020 (534 words)

There is certainly a lot that both the average white citizen and the white power structure has to answer for when it comes to the thorny state of race relations in this country. The playbook for the change that needs to happen is close at hand. It can be found by referencing the dormant Christian ethos whites have been misled into believing does not apply to everyday economic life.

America needs to extend this summer’s collective examination of conscience beyond a mass mea culpa, and turn it into something tangible. Revising the basic rules of economic engagement to be less predatory, and more equitable in the distribution of profit, would be the surest path to social justice.

Figuring out how to reconcile the Christian ethos with everyday economic life may not prove to be all that difficult for the average white citizen. But getting the white power structure to even consider giving up “economic freedom” in favor of “love thy neighbor as thyself” will be a tough sell.

Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter activists will eventually have to move past the raw, visceral airing-of-grievances stage.

A prime example of which is the recent letter from Brown University’s senior administration that Glenn C. Loury, the 71 year-old tenured economics professor at Brown, considers to be a “manifesto” that is “obviously the product of a committee”.

It reads, in part:

“The sadness comes from knowing that this is not a mere moment for our country. This is historical, lasting, and persistent. Structures of power, deep-rooted histories of oppression, as well as prejudice, outright bigotry and hate, directly and personally affect the lives of millions of people in this nation every minute and every hour. Black people continue to live in fear for themselves, their children, and their communities, at times in fear of the very systems and structures that are supposed to be in place to ensure safety and justice.”

Professor Loury has said this letter “asserted controversial and arguable positions as though they are axiomatic certainties.” He thinks it “often elided pertinent difference between the many instances cited,” and “reads in part like a loyalty oath.”

I guess the ultimate question for the activists is exactly as Loury has framed it: Does racial domination and “white supremacy” define our national existence even now, a century and a half after the end of slavery?

For my part, I think activists should by all means continue making their case in a clear and forceful manner, while somehow managing to ward off a collective mindset that makes the transgressions inflicted upon blacks the sole focus, the sole pre-occupation. This is admittedly an ongoing challenge, since the transgressions are real and indelible.

The enemy in all this, it seems to me, is conjuring the belief that a minority – any minority – is powerless to affect its own advancement in society. Taken to an extreme, such a pre-occupation could result in a segment of the black population sitting back and not even trying, while it waits for white America to remedy every slight, to right every wrong.

No man or woman, regardless of ethnicity or skin color or station in life, ever gets that degree of justice in this world.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr
September 3, 2020

The Looting of America

August 31, 2020 (643 words)

Another irony is that the financial institutions whose CEOs are now taking a kneel in solidarity with Black Lives Matter, and pledging $500 million over four years to combat these issues in the communities they serve, are the very ones that have become ever-more predatory in their day-to-day operations.

These practices undermine the middle-class existence of whites and blacks alike, and prevent the black underclass from ever gaining a foothold in middle-class America.

As many have noted, an ideological coup has transformed American society over the last fifty or sixty years, by fundamentally altering the rules of the market. The fortunes of the financial economy – and its agents like private equity firms – have dramatically improved, at the expense of the real economy experienced by the rest of us.

This coup was launched on the belief only unfettered markets can ensure social justice and enhance personal freedom, since only the profit motive can dispassionately pick winners and losers based on their contribution to the economy.

Its iron logic holds the private sector can do everything better than government.

The heralded magic of the market has indeed lived up to its promise of turning everything into gold – if you are a wealthy investor. This windfall occurred via widespread deregulation which created a winner-take-all, debt-fueled market. And just as importantly, a growing cultural acceptance of purely profit-driven corporate managers.

As Professor Mehrsa Baradaran explains in the short essay, “The Neoliberal Looting of America:”

“Private equity firms use money provided by institutional investors like pension funds and university endowments to take over and restructure companies or industries. Private equity touches practically every sector, from housing to health care to retail. In pursuit of maximum returns, such firms have squeezed businesses for every last drop of profit, cutting jobs, pensions, and salaries where possible.

“The debt-laden buy-outs privatize gains when they work, and socialize losses when they don’t, driving previously healthy firms to bankruptcy and leaving many others permanently hobbled. The list of private equity’s victims have grown even longer in the past year, adding J. Crew, Toys ‘R’ Us, Hertz, and more.

“In the last decade, private equity management has led to approximately 1.3 million job losses due to retail bankruptcies and liquidations. Beyond the companies directly controlled by private equity, the threat of being the next take-over target has most likely led other companies to pre-emptively cut wages and jobs to avoid being the weakest prey.

“Amid the outbreak of street protests in June, a satirical headline in The Onion put it best: ‘Protestors Criticized for Looting Businesses Without Forming Private Equity Firm First.’ Yet the private equity take-over is not technically looting because it has been made perfectly legal, and even encouraged, by policymakers.”

Professor Baradaran closes her essay as follows:

“We can start fixing the big flaws propagated over the last half century by taxing the largest fortunes, breaking up large banks, and imposing market rules that prohibit the predatory behaviors of private equity firms.

“Public markets can take over the places that private markets have failed to adequately serve. Federal or state agencies can provide essential services like banking, health care, internet access, transportation, and housing at cost through a public option. Historically, road maintenance, mail delivery, police, and other services are not left to the market, but provided directly by the government. Private markets can still compete, but basic services are guaranteed to everyone.

“And we can move beyond the myths of neoliberalism that have led us here. We can have competitive and prosperous markets, but our focus should be on ensuring human dignity, thriving families, and healthy communities. When those are in conflict, we should choose flourishing communities over profit.”

(Mehrsha Baradan is a professor of law at the University of California, Irvine, and the author of “The Color of Money: Black Banks and the Racial Wealth Gap.”)

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr
August 31, 2020

A Hue and Cry across the Land

August 27, 2020 (542 words)

It seems every organization in America, from acting troupes to tech firms, has felt compelled to issue a statement in recent weeks condemning racism and supporting diversity and inclusion. The consensus being expressed is so compelling one wonders how the problem could have ever developed in the first place, let alone become so ingrained. The impassioned declarations of artistic directors, university presidents, and some of corporate America’s leading CEOs, are bracing and cathartic. It’s why some are calling this a “transformative social justice moment.” But talk is cheap. The only way to make a dent in the under-representation thing is for leaders who are now publically prostrating themselves to actually hire more minorities. The thought of a hiring or admission quota is anathema to many whites, but we’ve tried letting nature take its course and that hasn’t worked. Despite years of reassuring lip service about improving diversity from the likes of Silicon Valley and Wall Street, the percentage of blacks in executive roles still doesn’t even hit 5%, when it should be three times that number. To complain that someone is not up-to-snuff and only got their position by being a “minority hire” pre-supposes every white male executive, every white employee, is a stellar top performer. There is a lot of dead wood in many large organizations, so why should we get overly worked up if some of that dead wood turns out to be from minority stock. The cream usually rises to the top. And if the cream is prevented from rising, if it is given only token responsibility, or if it is boxed out via office politics, that cream will move on, and possibility start their own enterprise, as so many white entrepreneurs have done in the past. But we’ve got to get a representative number of blacks into the system, and give them a chance to acclimate themselves and bring their skills to bear. As for how the problem ever developed in the first place, that’s easy. It’s our commitment to “personal freedom”. It’s the way we have enshrined “self-interest” as the best possible operating principle for society. This may not have the bite of other’s cultural analysis, and it may strike you as overly simplistic. But what we are grappling with now on the thorny subject of race relations is nothing less than the unintended consequences of our founding creed of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The uniquely American concept of human flourishing through an “absence of obstacles” was contingent on everyone starting out from more or less the same place. Since most blacks initially arrived here in chains, never did they even remotely occupy the same place as whites in American society. The spirit of secular modernism, embodied by our every-man-for-himself system of commerce, has compromised the religious orientation white Americans have historically claimed for themselves. This lapsed orientation should have mitigated the all-too-human tendency toward prejudice and bigotry that has produced the social and economic inequities now being scrutinized. Once again we confront the fact that Christianity is incompatible with capitalism. At least with the version of capitalism we have been practicing for the last couple of centuries. The irony is well-meaning and well-off white Christians are among the last people to recognize this.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr
August 27, 2020