The inauguration of the 46th President of the United States and the second Catholic to be elected to that position has also highlighted tension within the US Catholic Church between liberal and conservative bishops on how to advance a consistent ethic of life emphasis to shape political policy.
The road of the culture wars
A recent editorial in the National Catholic Reporter expressed the opinion that it is time for the Vatican to investigate the US bishops' conference. It is time for Pope Francis to order an apostolic visitation to investigate what has gone wrong with an organization that began during World War I as a model of cooperation and national audacity and is now a symbol of division and national embarrassment.
On Jan. 20, when the nation inaugurated Joseph Biden as the 46th president, the same Archbishop Jose Gomez issued a 1,250-word statement. After dispensing with congratulatory remarks, it promised there will be areas of "strong opposition" from the bishops toward the Biden administration. It then identified at least six issues of disagreement, expounding on them at length. If the intention was to somehow shame the country's second Catholic president for his political positions, it is perhaps a consolation that the shaming didn't quite hit the intended target. Instead, thanks to an unprecedented public rebuke by Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich, Gomez was outed as bypassing normal conference procedures and not having given other prelates time to review his message to Biden. "Ill-considered," Cupich called Gomez's statement. A fit summary for the entire misbegotten operation of the U.S. bishops' conference.1
The Tyler Clementi Foundation has published a statement from some Catholic Bishops in the United States on protecting LGBT Youth. They place the statement in accord with the Gospels, that show Jesus Christ taught love, mercy and welcome for all people, especially for those who felt persecuted or marginalized in any way. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that LGBT people are to be treated with “respect, compassion and sensitivity.”
All people of goodwill should help, support, and defend LGBT youth; who attempt suicide at much higher rates than their straight counterparts; who are often homeless because of families who reject them; who are rejected, bullied and harassed; and who are the target of violent acts at alarming rates. The Catholic Church values the God-given dignity of all human life and we take this opportunity to say to our LGBT friends, especially young people, that we stand with you and oppose any form of violence, bullying or harassment directed at you. Most of all, know that God created you, God loves you and God is on your side.2
Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of the Catholic LGBTQ advocacy organization DignityUSA, was pleased that a group of Catholic bishops were willing to sign the statement. "Given that this statement asks for nothing more than human dignity, I would hope that more bishops would add their names," she said... In order to fully support LGBTQ youth, she said, church leaders must attend to the youth's "need not to hear themselves preached about in negative terms, need to not be excluded from Catholic education programs, [and the] need for parents to feel that they can love and support their kids just as they are." The other statement, released Jan. 22 by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, expresses "concerns" with President Joe Biden's decision to extend existing federal protections against sex discrimination to include LGBTQ people.3
Fran Ferder, a Franciscan sister and a clinical psychologist, and Fr. John Heagle, chair of the Gospel Nonviolence Working Group for AUSCP (the Association of United States Catholic Priests), offer a psychological analysis, in the National Catholic Reporter of the president and his supporters who conned Catholics to the extent that nearly 57% of white Catholics voted for Trump in this last election.
The Second Vatican Council ended more than 50 years ago, but the institutional church in the U.S. has failed to create a communication network to implement its vision and practice. Instead, the bishops have, by the failure of initiative and imagination, allowed EWTN to become the voice of Catholicism. The worldwide reach of EWTN evolved from pre-Vatican II traditional piety to advocating for right-wing partisan politics. EWTN anchor Raymond Arroyo is a frequent guest on Laura Ingram's Fox News program. Is this really how the church intends to evangelize our culture?… Despite their polite rhetoric, the U.S. bishops, as a group, have not affirmed the prophetic vision and pastoral practice of Francis. If anything, they have passively resisted it and, at times, actively rejected it. This, in turn, has given encouragement for right-wing Catholic movements to become more vocal in their opposition to Francis. Timothy Busch, the Napa Institute, the Knights of Columbus, William Barr, Steve Bannon and the Federalist Society now lead the lay resistance to Francis and the opposition to finishing the work of Vatican II.4
In the National Catholic Reporter, Michael Sean Winters offers the opinion that on abortion, both Biden and the pro-life movement lack moral consistency. His view is that principles of all kinds, including those drawn from our religious beliefs, must be applied to concrete political and legal circumstances with prudence. We all choose some elements from our patrimony and not others. It is complicated, and different issues require greater or lesser degrees of morally acceptable policy alternatives.
The leaders of the movement do not see this because they are too busy walking to the bank. As my colleague Tom Roberts recently noted: Tens of millions of dollars, in some cases hundreds of millions, annually pour into organizations, extreme left and extreme right, intent on maintaining their pro-abortion and pro-life positions without compromise. What exists is the equivalent of a far-flung and deeply funded industry — the lobbying organizations themselves and the attendant universe of lobbyists for hire, consultants, advertising specialists, pollsters and digital specialists that make up the infrastructure for the endless war. Something in the culture will need to change before attitudes change, and attitudes need to change before the politics will change. I have no idea what that cultural change will be. As I noted in June, I used to think American society would rediscover its need for solidarity if we faced a horrible and indiscriminate threat, "something like a pandemic." Well, here we are… There needs to be some consistency about the invocation of religious sources. It is fine to have a liberal political expression of Catholic faith as it is fine to have a conservative political expression, but surely the presence of the faith element should cause a person to occasionally challenge their party, and it seems they only challenge their church...I tremble for our country when I think of how God and history will judge us for getting the abortion issue so wrong, for failing to craft and support a feminism that cherishes each and every human life. I tremble, too, when I contemplate the backlash that awaits on the morrow of the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe or Casey.5
Rebecca Bratten Weiss, writing in the National Catholic Reporter, advocates that Pro-life and pro-choice Catholics should work together with President Biden to reduce abortion demand. Catholics who uphold magisterial teachings on morality ought to find common cause with pro-choice advocates because of our many shared goals of eliminating poverty, fighting structural racism, working for peace and protecting the environment.
the policies promoted by the Democratic Party are demonstrated to work to reduce abortion — as 48 years of culture war and misguided legislation from the right have not. And it is a mistake for pro-life Catholics to treat pro-choice concerns about personal privacy and bodily autonomy as irrelevant. Yes, we want a culture in which women choose life. Do we want one in which they are coerced into doing so? What kind of moral landscape would that be? I think Biden should articulate a consistent life ethic acknowledging the seriousness of the church's teaching on abortion — which he personally accepts — while also acknowledging the concerns of pro-choice leaders, such as Vice President Kamala Harris, who are motivated by genuine moral seriousness as well. He should pursue policies that are demonstrated, historically and globally, to reduce abortion, and call upon citizens to support these policies that will safeguard both the sanctity of life and the dignity of human choice. Rather than threatening women with punishment or placing them in impossible positions, we need to work collectively for a truly just society in which women are not driven to abortion because of fear, poverty or abuse.6
The Catholic News Agency reports that Denver Archbishop Aquila challenges 'pro-choice' Catholics to test their conscience. The archbishop further added that some consciences are erroneous or even dead to the truth. He said, when one believes to be following their conscience, they should put it to the test and question whether it is consistent with Church teachings.
“Our consciences must be formed according to the Gospel and according to the teachings of the Church. We must listen to that, and then our works will become good, and they will bring light,” he said. The archbishop said Catholics should preach the Gospel of Life with clarity, mercy, and love but they should not be apathetic to or supportive of the evils of abortion. He encouraged Catholics to show kindness to abortion advocates, especially women who have terminated a pregnancy, and to pray for a greater conversion to life. “Let us first pray for the conversion of our country and for the conversion especially of Catholics who take a so-called pro-choice position,” he said.7
Today, the stakeholder concept is ready for a comeback, albeit in an updated, more comprehensive form. We are facing a whole set of social, economic, and health crises, and the best response to these challenges, would be for all actors in society to consider more than their narrow and short-term self interest. So what could stakeholder capitalism look like today, and how does it differ from the stakeholder management my father’s generation intuitively implemented in the 1960s and 1970s?1
Social Contract in the 70's
Terence Corcoran asks if the long battle against turning shareholder corporations into tools of 'public purpose' is now lost? In the words of Klaus Schwab, the 82-year-old German economist who founded the World Economic Forum in 1973, the existing corporate enterprise model, the shareholder version that has dominated much of the world’s economic progress over the past century, needs to be replaced. Over the week of Jan. 25, the Davos Dialogues will aim to seize the COVID moment to remake the world economy. “It is essential for leaders from all walks of life to work together virtually for a more inclusive, cohesive and sustainable future as soon as possible in 2021.” The stakeholder movement does not deny the success of the shareholder model, often described as part of the triumph of neoliberalism.
Canada’s top government-based pension plans, from the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan — the country’s largest shareholders — are now backing the stakeholder movement. They want to know “how companies identify and address issues such as diversity and inclusion, human capital, and climate change” along with “social inequity, systemic racism and environmental threats.”2
Stephan Richter, Director of the Global Ideas Center, a global network of authors and analysts, and Editor-in-Chief of The Globalist, and Uwe Bott, Chief Economist of The Globalist Research Center and Senior Editor at The Globalist, suggest that Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum are running away from their past by suddenly disavowing neo-liberalism. Schwab notes that “For the past 30 to 50 years, the neo-liberalist ideology has increasingly prevailed in large parts of the world. This approach centers on the notion that the market knows best, that the ‘business of business is business,’ and that the government should refrain from setting clear rules for the functioning of markets. Those dogmatic beliefs have proved wrong. But fortunately, we are not destined to follow them.”
It also means tackling global mega corporations, especially those based in the United States. Beginning with their often-grotesque tax shenanigans, they are the real free riders in a troubled world. Their systematic effort to avoid paying their fair share — and thereby to contribute to preserving democracy and fairness in our societies — can no longer be tolerated. Holding these mega corporations to account firmly — even breaking them up — is in their own collective self-interest. For unless this happens, the essence of what these companies ultimately depend on the most — i.e., a consensus in favor of continued global integration — will vanish. It is already brittle enough.3
The term “Resource Based Economy” was first coined by Jacque Fresco, the founder of The Venus Project. Fresco believed that a Resource Based Economy could support the scientific integration of automating technologies (AI and robotics) and engineering systems in providing the highest possible living standards.4
The COVID crisis has shone a light on the deficiencies in the present economic and monetary systems to address a worldwide existential threat. Oskar Gonzalez has produced a Video on the transition to a resource-based economy.
A Balance is Needed
The just distribution of wealth, the challenge of inequality, and the need for worldwide coordinated action in a crisis point to the need to reconsider the effectiveness of neo-liberal capitalism and the current monetary system to best support the common good.
A couple of opinion pieces recently have suggested that the political environment after the Trump administration ends may continue to sustain policies that were increasingly part of the last four years.
Legitimate protest
Akin Olla, a Nigerian-American political strategist and organizer, who works as a trainer for Momentum Community and is the host of This is The Revolution Podcast, writing in the Guardian, foresees a new age of political repression. Republicans have long called for the increased repression of activists and Democrats have caught the tune and returned to their post-9/11 calls for heightening the “war on terror”.
Republicans have long called for the increased repression of activists, but the chorus has reached a crescendo in the age of Black Lives Matter and climate protests. In the last five years, 116 bills to increase penalties for protests including highway shutdowns and occupations have been introduced in state legislatures. Twenty-three of those bills became law in 15 states. Following the killing of George Floyd and the subsequent uprisings, we’ve seen another flow of proposals. For example, Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida would like to make merely participating in a protest that leads to property damage or road blockage a felony, while granting protections to people who hit those same protesters with their cars. Following the storming of the Capitol, DeSantis, a Trump ally, has expanded these proposals with more provisions and harsher consequences. The only thing preventing the passage of many of these laws thus far has been opposition from Democrats. But now the Democrats have caught the tune and returned to their post-9/11 calls for heightening the “war on terror”. Joe Biden has already made it clear that he intends to answer these calls. He has named the rioters “domestic terrorists” and “insurrectionists”, both terms used to designate those whose civil liberties the state is openly allowed to violate. He has declared he will make it a priority to pass a new law against domestic terrorism and has named the possibility of creating a new White House post to combat ideologically inspired violent extremists.1
Ironically, Canadians were also involved the last time anyone occupied the capital of the United States, when British soldiers burned the White House and other buildings to the ground in 1814 after the Americans destroyed Port Dover in Upper Canada. But while Canadians like to brag about that historical footnote, few should be celebrating Ted Cruz’s role in the revolutionary cosplay that left five Americans dead and millions utterly humiliated. And although it might be tempting to think that Cruz’s willingness to trade in far-right fantasies is a uniquely American phenomenon, conservatives here in Canada do it almost every day. Not all of them, of course. In a recent piece for The Line, conservative strategist and former Harper staffer Ken Boessenkool noted that “American politics is sick. That sickness has many causes, with acceptance of bad character being near the top. If we don’t recognize that, and do something about it, it could infect us as well.” But with all due respect to Mr. Boessenkool, the movement and party that he’s spent the better part of his adult life in already has a full-blown case of Trumpism. The real question that people like him need to answer is whether it’s terminal or not.2
The tension between the far right and the far left in politics seems to be creating policy responses that will cause legitimate peaceful demonstrations to be under greater surveillance by government and police agencies.
The challenges facing human society in the next few decades will require a great deal of creativity be exercised by those who work to remove pandemic threats, provide security for basic needs of food and shelter, mitigate effects of the climate crisis, and reduce the systemic racism and tribal conflict in our organizations.
The power of curiosity to contribute not only to high achievement, but also to a fulfilling existence, cannot be emphasized enough. Curiosity can be defined as “the recognition, pursuit, and intense desire to explore, novel, challenging, and uncertain events.” In recent years, curiosity has been linked to happiness, creativity, satisfying intimate relationships, increased personal growth after traumatic experiences, and increased meaning in life. In the school context, conceptualized as a “character strength,” curiosity has also received heightened research attention. Having a “hungry mind” has been shown to be a core determinant of academic achievement, rivaling the prediction power of IQ.1
Harold Jarche suggests that curiosity is a connection that needs more emphasis in our education system.
Why do students often ask — will this be on the test? It’s because they have figured out the game called education. They are told what to study, what is important, and for how long. Each school year they play the game anew. Why are some — a significant percentage — employees not motivated to work? They too have figured out the game. Venkatesh Rao, in The Gervais Principle describes this large base of most companies — the losers.2
Kuhn's central claim is that a careful study of the history of science reveals that development in any scientific field happens via a series of phases. The first he christened "normal science" – business as usual, if you like. In this phase, a community of researchers who share a common intellectual framework – called a paradigm or a "disciplinary matrix" – engage in solving puzzles thrown up by discrepancies (anomalies) between what the paradigm predicts and what is revealed by observation or experiment. Most of the time, the anomalies are resolved either by incremental changes to the paradigm or by uncovering observational or experimental error. As philosopher Ian Hacking puts it in his terrific preface to the new edition of Structure: "Normal science does not aim at novelty but at clearing up the status quo. It tends to discover what it expects to discover." The trouble is that over longer periods unresolved anomalies accumulate and eventually get to the point where some scientists begin to question the paradigm itself. At this point, the discipline enters a period of crisis characterised by, in Kuhn's words, "a proliferation of compelling articulations, the willingness to try anything, the expression of explicit discontent, the recourse to philosophy and to debate over fundamentals". In the end, the crisis is resolved by a revolutionary change in world-view in which the now-deficient paradigm is replaced by a newer one. This is the paradigm shift of modern parlance and after it has happened the scientific field returns to normal science, based on the new framework. And so it goes on.3
Fr. Richard Rohr, OFM, cites Thomas Kuhn’s book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that popularized the term “paradigm shift.” The shift in thinking which might have felt threatening at one time now appears as the only way forward and as a real lifeline. Brian McLaren, a former English teacher, uses the language of a “framing story” to describe the same phenomenon Kuhn observed.
Brian says a framing story “gives people direction, values, vision, and inspiration by providing a framework for their lives. It tells them who they are, where they come from, where they are, what’s going on, where things are going, and what they should do.” [2] While we all have stories that answer those questions on a personal level, a “framing story” dictates the general beliefs of a culture, nation, religion, and even humanity as a whole.4
Developing curiosity as a pathway to creative learning is a necessary strategy to transition to the paradigm change in which the existential threats of the near future will be addressed.
