Natural Law in Jeans and Sun Glasses:
A Social Justice Reflection and Update on Current Issues before the
Missouri Legislature
Carla Mae Streeter, OP
Aquinas Institute of Theology
St. Louis
The natural law tradition is far from archaic. To the astute
observer it is like a basso continuo
playing behind the clash of the headlines. Subtle and contextual, it continues
to bring order out of contemporary chaos, despite the efforts of those who would
declare it obsolete. Where is the evidence for this?
Joseph W. Koterski, S.J., philosophy professor of Fordham
University, has some valuable insights to share with us. He reminds us that
Aristotle’s approach to nature was
very empirical, and when the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas built his
synthesis on this approach, he offered human culture a solid foundation that can
ground our rational discourse even to this day. What is this foundation and how
might we use it?
We might describe this foundation as four pillars of
reasonable natural law analysis:
1. Identify the specific
differences typical to each natural kind, and treat all in that kind equally.
2. Note that not only structural properties but typical activities provide evidence for
a claim that a given natural kind exists.
3. Although we cannot directly see a nature or a power, we
can infer from the actual structure and observed activities that a power sufficient to produce those
effects exists.
4. Thus, a nature
refers to a type of being that possesses a given set of powers capable of producing the observed structures and activities.
This rational framework can be used in any reasonable
discussion. Its cogency can be most practical in the tensions we face today.
I will write from my own lens. Specifically, the social justice
tradition as presented in the literature of the Catholic tradition has two
arms: that of direct service to
relieve the suffering of those unjustly treated, and advocacy for the systemic social
change needed to correct policies and systems that cause the suffering. No one
faults the first. The second needs wisdom, knowledge, compassion, and above
all, discretion. Many of us prefer the safety of the direct service. But some
astute Christians and others know the gospel calls us to advocacy, the action
that confronts what has become the paralyzing effects of systemic social sin.
To look the other way regarding advocacy is to hedge on being authentically
Christian.
We look for leaders who tell it like it is. We know them
when we see or hear them. They comfort the afflicted and afflict the
comfortable. In the Catholic community we are privileged to have two ecclesial
leaders who indeed call us to direct service, but also call us to more. In his
recent Apostolic Exhortation, The Joy of
the Gospel (Evangelii Gaudium), 205, Pope Francis says, “I beg the Lord to
grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society,
the people, the lives of the poor!” On April 4, 2014, Robert Carlson,
Archbishop of St. Louis, at the Catholic Charities Legislative Breakfast at the
Crowne Plaza Hotel in Clayton, made clear the Catholic commitment to advocacy.
He said: “We must be about the common good. We must be committed to care for
God’s poor. We have a call to advocate with courage, consistency and civility.
Advocacy is an important tool.” Our advocacy must help to create a culture of
compassion for all, particularly the marginalized. Can we hear the natural law
playing clearly in the background of this specific local situation?
The social justice heritage of the worldwide Catholic
community is one of its best kept secrets, unfortunately not even understood by
some devout and deeply committed
Catholics. Drawn from the words of Jesus in the gospels and the practice
of the early Christian community, ten principles have long guided both the
direct service and advocacy of the Church’s social justice mission throughout
history. What is new is the clarity with which this historic time has called
for the clear articulation of these principles. For the astute observer, the
natural law tradition comes through loud and clear in these principles. Reading
them with the four pillars identified above makes this challenging.
1. The Principle of Human Dignity: All are worthy of respect, even the
most offensive, regardless of race, sex, age, national origin, sexual
orientation, religion, employment or economic status, health, intelligence or
any other differentiating characteristic. (All humans, in whatever difference,
are of the same kind.)
2. The Principle of
Respect for all Human Life: From womb to tomb and in between, all life is
sacred, including the unborn and death row inmates. (All of the same kind must
be treated equally; they possess the same powers to manifest like actual
structure and observable activities.)
3. The Principle of
Association: We are all social beings and therefore social institutions
must foster growth, protect dignity and the common good of all people with no
exceptions, economic, political, or legal. (Again, all of the same kind are to
be treated equally.)
4. The Principle of
Participation: All people have a right and duty to participate in society,
and no one has a right to shut out people from participating in those social
institutions that are necessary for human fulfillment; this includes refugees,
immigrants, labor unions, etc. (These human powers for human fulfillment
through human activity belong to all regardless of class.)
5. The Principle of
Preferential Protection for Poor and Vulnerable People: The needs of people
who are poor, marginalized, and rendered invisible must come first, making a
distinction between what is fair and
what is just. (Those compromised in
this human functioning need to be aided to exercise the human freedom that
enhances human power to realize the full structure and activity of its kind.)
6. The Principle of
Solidarity: To care for others is not an option; it is a responsibility.
(Toward this human enhancement.)
7. The Principle of
Stewardship: Creation is a reflection of the goodness of God, therefore
land, water, fire, air are thresholds into the beauty and lavishness of God,
and we are accountable for our use and care of them. (We are never free to
irresponsibly destroy; we are free to become all we can be.)
8. The Principle of
Subsidiarity: Problems are to be resolved and issues are to be addressed at
the level at which they happen, thus limiting oppressive and overreaching
governments. (Power is to be held in check by a healthy competition directed at
increasing levels of cooperation, not oppression.)
9. The Principle of
Human Equality: Diversity and differences are gifts to be recognized and
embraced, not opposed and oppressed. (Respect of differences that enhance all
within humankind.)
10. The Principle of
the Common Good: The social condition that allows all people to reach their
human potential and realize their human dignity. (The enhancement of all within
humankind.)
While muted in these social justice principles, the natural
law shines through them like the light coming through a stained glass window.
What might this look like wearing jeans and sunglasses?
As citizens of the state of Missouri and members of a faith
tradition that holds social justice in the highest regard, these principles
offer a context for clarifications as the state of Missouri wrestles with the
bills before its legislature that aim to destroy collective bargaining, break
unions, and deny Medicaid expansion to its most vulnerable citizens. The St.
Louis Faith and Labor Alliance monthly breakfasts, where faith leaders and
labor union representatives meet to discuss legislation that will impact
workers and their families and citizens of Missouri, keep local issues before
our consideration. But let it be clear: local issues have national and
international impact.
Power is not bad. It derives from one of two sources: the
organization of people, or the organization of moneyed corporations. Unbridled
and disrespectful of the competition that fosters cooperation, power can
corrupt. Thus for moneyed corporations to seize power over our legislative
process, the organization of people (the original mission of labor unions) must
be destroyed or at least weakened. When this weakening or destruction is effective,
a nation can find itself enmeshed in a subtle form of fascism.
In our day moneyed corporations have banded together in an
organization called ALEC (The American Legislative Exchange Council) with the
goal of influencing legislatures to favor their interests. To succeed in this
goal, ALEC must weaken collective bargaining and the influence of unions, for
these are the means of organizing people.
ALEC is active in Right to Work and Paycheck Protection legislation in several
states. Using positive sounding language, ALEC urges voters to support measures
that weaken or destroy the protections that unions offer workers and their
families.
A more correct title for the Workers’ Rights legislation is “Workers’
Rights to Work for Nothing.” This legislation allows workers to be exempt from
paying union dues. Unions, however, will cover these workers in crisis although
they have offered no support. The goal is to drain the unions financially by
allowing workers to refrain from supporting them.
The more correct title for Paycheck Protection legislation
is “Paycheck Deception.” The bills demand detailed clerical work on the part of
unions to record the intentions of workers as to the use of their dues for
causes they support. The reality is that workers already indicate this on their forms, thus causing the unions to
duplicate this accountability through additional clerical work. The goal again
is to financially burden and thus weaken the unions.
Recently Archbishop Robert Carlson, chair of Interfaith Partnership of
Greater Metropolitan St. Louis, and vice chair Rev. C. Jessel Strong of the
African Methodist Episcopal Church, issued a statement to the press denouncing
this deceptive legislation in the Missouri state legislature, and exposing its
union-opposing intent. In support of this stand, St. Louis clergy have added their signatures
to a letter denouncing specific legislation reflecting ALEC influence currently
before our law-makers.
Is this just a local issue? Does it have nothing to do with
the natural law tradition? Or is this a concrete incident on the local level of
exactly how the natural law tradition impacts social justice discernment in our
day? I propose that the natural law
tradition can offer a sound compass in the social justice decisions made in our
nation in this day and time, and that this tradition is solid ground for a
reasonable voice when the dignity of human beings is at stake.
Carla Mae Streeter, OP
Aquinas Institute of Theology
References
Koterski, S.J. Joseph. Natural
Low and Human Nature. DVD Parts 1 and 2. Chantilly, VA: The Teaching
Company, 2002. (Contact data on line.)
Chapell, SND de N, Patricia. We Grow Together. (A Summary of Catholic Social Teaching) Workshop,
St. Louis, Missouri, April 12, 2014. Pax Christi USA: The National Catholic
Peace Movement, Washington, D.C., www.paxchristiusa.org.
