Power and Self-Interest: Maintaining the Clarity of Catholic Church Teaching Yet Being Involved in the Messiness of Social-Political Change

Last year I took part in a formation/training day sponsored by Strangers No Longer, a non-profit immigrant support and advocacy organization based in Southeast Michigan but now starting to expand more state-wide.  The focus of the day was how to become a more effective, state-wide, “power” group that could then better influence public policies and laws.  Strangers No Longer’s core constituency comes from parish-based Circles of Support and other Catholic-sponsored communities such as Catholic religious orders and Catholic high schools.  It maintains a mutually supportive relationship with local dioceses, and its core philosophy for action is based on Catholic Social Teaching (or Doctrine, as the recent popes have reminded us, to emphasize the authoritative nature of that teaching).  Therefore, although not an official arm of the Catholic Church and ecumenical in nature, an organization like Strangers No Longer is intimately intertwined with the Catholic Church.  In fact, given the complexities of public advocacy in a highly pluralistic society and the inevitable compromises that are made in order to get changes made in our laws and policies, groups like Strangers No Longer are essential, as I will argue below.

The dignity of every person and the common good of each community are the two complementary and foundational principles that guide the Catholic Church in its official teaching on all matters of moral theology, ranging from the defense of innocent life in the womb to a commitment to counter the devastating effects of climate change to advocating for the care of immigrants to opposing the unjust use of military power.  These two key principles lead the Church to advocate for a “preferential option” for those who are poor, vulnerable, or live at the margins of society.  Among other things, this means that there is a universal obligation or claim attached to all material and social goods, even if they are privately owned or controlled, in order to ensure that all have sufficient access to those that are necessary for a dignified human life.  Moreover, this teaching reminds us that the common good and human dignity demand a type of subsidiarity that allows for people to participate effectively in decisions that have consequences for their access to the basic social-economic-cultural-political goods required to support a dignified human life.  All of this, while practicing a commitment to solidarity with those who think, act, and live differently than us, so that the common bond of community remains stronger than any division or ideology.

The challenge that immediately arises, however, is that there is no social, cultural, economic or political ability to effect changes that would allow for that preferential option, subsidiarity and solidarity, without building diverse coalitions, who can pool their human and other resources to help create the necessary social and political will to make changes to unjust structures that currently favor the interests of those in power.  Without such coalitions, the core principles of human dignity and the common good remain purely theoretical and the call for such principles to be embodied in our society can sound prophetic but falls flat.  In community-organizing circles that means a willingness to embrace power as a positive force for good rather than seeing it as a negative reality to be dismissed or a dangerous reality to be avoided.  In addition, the first step toward harnessing that power, such groups learn, is to find areas of self-interest that would allow a sufficiently large, usually quite diverse, group of people to embrace the specific changes sought, even if those same people might disagree vigorously on other issues.

Coming from a Catholic perspective, however, these ideas of diverse coalitions centered on power and self-interest run up against two significant obstacles.  First, they seem to run counter to the gospel call to “deny one’s self and take up the cross” and other New Testament language about “emptying oneself,” “trusting in Christ’s power and boasting in our own weakness,” and so forth.  In other words, is the focus on power and the desire to exercise sufficient power to shape laws and policies always only part of our sinful, fallen condition or can it be an instrument of God’s Spirit at work in the world?  Secondly, within diverse coalitions there will be many who hold positions antithetical to other core Catholic teachings, such as our unshakeable defense of all human life from the moment of conception to its natural end.  Can we really sign on to such coalitions, knowing full well that many of our coalition partners will publicly advocate for other policies that run contrary to the gospel?  And if we do, we live in a world where there exists an ever-vigilant cadre of bloggers and social media influencers, who look for any opportunity to accuse fellow Catholics of being heretics, betrayers, un-orthodox and so on.  Such vitriol can make some Catholic leaders pause and ask if it is worth so much media attention to be part of such coalitions for change.

For example, in the Archdiocese of Detroit we used to strongly support the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, which uses its money to seed community-improving initiatives.  Such initiatives were Catholic-sponsored in some way but not necessarily only Catholic.  When there was a question years back about how one such initiative in another city was used to help a community group whose leaders also advocated for policies not supported by the Church, a handful of Catholic dioceses withdrew support for this collection, using that rather tenuous criticism as their reason.  Thankfully most diocese did not withdraw support.  But our archdiocese did, and then we pivoted and started our own collection for Catholic Charities of Southeastern Michigan, with all initiatives and monies strictly used for Catholic-based initiatives under the control of the archdiocese.  This is the challenge.  When we cannot see our way through these obstacles or believe we have to protect ourselves from any connection to others who do not share our fully Catholic view, the only viable alternative seems to be to forge a specific and identifiable “Catholic voice” in the public forum.  But this, in turn, can often be quickly marginalized as “based on religious principles not all agree on” or “sectarian,” even though our core Catholic social teaching is grounded in universal moral principles, applicable to all people and all communities. In turn, such marginalization often makes us, though a huge Church in terms of numbers, quite ineffective in the public forum. What might be a better way to approach such issues?

Let’s begin with the second objection, the one about working hand in hand with people and groups who do not accept core Catholic teaching in one area or another (usually this has to do with legal access to abortion services, recognition of gay marriage, full support of LGBTQ+ policies, or legalized euthanasia under some circumstances).  Take last year’s brouhaha with the Archdiocese of Chicago and Cardinal Cupich, who were prepared to publicly recognize and honor the work of Senator Durbin from Illinois for his efforts to protect the human rights of immigrants and the need for just treatment of all immigrants, no matter their documented status.  When another bishop in Illinois found out about the recognition, he, and a few others, publicly condemned the event, pointing out that Senator Durbin consistently supported legal access to abortion.  How could we honor someone, even if doing good in one area, who is so publicly against that core Catholic teaching on defense of innocent human life? The end result was the Senator’s removing himself for consideration of that honor, so as not to cause problems for the Archdiocese of Chicago.

Interestingly, when Pope Leo was asked about that situation, while not taking a definitive stand on whether it was acceptable to award the Senator that honor or not, he said: "Someone who says, 'I'm against abortion but I'm in favor of the death penalty,' is not really pro-life. Someone who says, 'I'm against abortion, but I'm in favor of the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States,' I don't know if that's pro-life. They're very complex issues...I don't know if anyone has all the truth on them, but I ask that first and foremost there be greater respect for one another, and that we search together, first as human beings, and in that case as American citizens and citizens of the state of Illinois, as well as Catholics, to say that we need to be close to all of these ethical issues. And to find the way forward as a Church. The Church teaching on each one of those issues is very clear."  The Pope’s response lays out well the framework within which decisions like this take place.  On complex issues dealing with how to respond to them in practice in the socio-political realm, no one has all the truth on them.  This means that the Church needs to be in dialogue with (and even in alliance with?) people who do not necessarily support Catholic teaching on a given issue but who can help protect human dignity and the common good.  Yet, the Church’s teaching is very clear on certain issues, and so that teaching needs to be forthrightly made part of the public discussion and never shied away from or watered down for the sake of public relations.  The way to move forward is by respecting one another and searching for the truth together.  Respectful disagreement and dialogue actually are instruments of the Spirit of God at work, helping to show a pathway forward, even if it is just by incremental steps.

There is no one rule to fit every situation, when competing goods come into play in such situations.   Is it always the highest good never to honor someone who supports legal access to abortion, no matter how diligent they are in support other aspects of Catholic teaching?  That’s not clear.  Is it prudent to avoid such foreseeable dilemmas?  Perhaps.  This is where non-official, though Catholic Church-connected groups like Strangers No Longer (or similar community-based groups) can play a role.  Because they do not speak officially for the Church but are publicly identified as advocating for the insights of Catholic Social Teaching to shape social-political policies and decisions, such groups can act analogous to NGOs (non-governmental organizations) for the Church.  Think of them as NEOs (non-ecclesiastical organizations).  NGOs have mission statements that identify their commitments and are given a voice at the public table (whether at the United Nations, lobbying Congress, promoting public awareness ads and media clips, and so on) to lobby for policies and laws.  But they do not have power to vote, make laws, pass official binding policies, or speak officially for any nation.  So, analogously, NEOs.  Through their mission statements they are publicly connected to key social-economic-political causes and can be identifiable as Catholic-based or Catholic-teaching friendly on a certain issue.  But they do not speak authoritatively for Catholic teaching on any given matter.  This allows them to enter into coalitions with a broad range of other people and groups, many of whom might hold views antithetical to the Church’s moral teaching in other areas.

Therefore, as to the second objection about being in a coalition with groups that hold antithetical views to the Catholic Church on certain issues, the way forward would be to connect the proper non-ecclesiastical community organizations to such coalitions.  It would be important to monitor their work, to make sure they do not focus on issues that are contrary to Catholic teaching, but do not condemn them for being in such coalitions.  They should be seen as a huge asset to the Church in both maintaining its integrity with regard to key moral teachings and being public actors in the social realm.  And, when the inevitable backlash from a select group of self-proclaimed “orthodoxy monitors” occurs, such groups need to be supported and not condemned by Catholic leadership.  Go back to the example of honoring Senator Durbin.  It would be my thought that the diocese or parish would not be the best entity to offer such an award (though I do not think it would be scandalous, as some bishops suggested).  There is a prudence in maintaining some distance between the official avenues of the Church and such political figures.  But if such an award is coming from a non-official, though Church-supported organization or movement, then it should be encouraged, because of their ability to highlight one specific aspect of Catholic Social Teaching, without implying that the person supports the Church in everything and without labelling the sponsoring group as scandalous or unorthodox and the like.

This brings us to the first objection, which, for me, is more theological than practical:  What is the proper theological understanding of power, of self-interest and selflessness?  All generally agree on the negative connotation—be it a moral or socio-political label—attached to the idea of “selfishness,” but after that it gets murky.  The word “selfless” is a dirty word to community organizing.  It means not accepting the responsibility of power that is in front of you and therefore failing the very people for whom you supposedly want to be selfless.  For Catholic spirituality, on the other hand, “selfless” gets connected to gospel language such as “denying oneself for the sake of the kingdom.”  Far from being a negative word, in Catholic spirituality “selfless” is seen as a virtue.  In turn, “self-interest” can too easily resonate as analogous to “selfishness” in terms of Catholic spirituality, even though community-organizing types are using it as the word for the mediating virtue (in the Aristotelian understanding of true virtue) between “selfishness” and “selflessness.”  And, finally, ”power.”  In community-organizing circles, “power” is a necessary tool for change.  One should not shy away from seeking it, but seek it and embrace it to effect change.  In Scripture it is used in both a positive and negative way.  When “power” describes an action of God’s Spirit at work in the world (“You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you” Acts 1:8), it is to be sought after.  But “power” as something to be wielded by humans in pursuit of their own ends is a negative, laughably arrogant goal (“Christ crucified, the power and wisdom of God, stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles”, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25).

How might we bridge the divide in how such language gets used?  Personally, I would like to see those trained in community organizing to be more thoughtful and careful about the language of both “power” and “self-interest”.  Rather than talking about building coalitions of power, I would like them to talk about building coalitions of change, pointing out how power has been used to marginalize various concerns and people, and emphasizing that we need coalitions of sufficient strength to counter such misuse of power.  If the end goal is described as power against power, even though it is describing how our social-political system works, such descriptions will leave behind many thoughtful people, who do not want to be identified with one power group versus another.  But we do need clear voices of sufficient strength that show where the gaps are in the current system and we do need coalitions that consolidate that voice on specific issues, even if some of the partners of such coalitions would not be allies on other issues.  

As to “self-interest”? Even though it is understandable why community organizers have groups and individuals focus on “self-interest”—that is how one can bridge the divide among them to focus on a limited end goal that all can agree on—I would prefer adding the word “shared” to the term—“shared self-interest”—in order to make clear that the goal is not “mine” or “ours” alone, but is one that unites a broad coalition of actors.  This idea of “shared self-interest” better resonates with the gospel call to “love one’s neighbor as oneself.”  From this gospel point of view, we are talking about caring for others, especially those most in need, as we would want to be cared for. We all know people who so focus on the needs of others that they fail in the task of loving their own selves.  To properly love our neighbor as oneself takes a healthy and mature person. Someone who believes they are to be loved.  Who takes the time and energy to keep themselves healthy physically, emotionally, relationally, and spirituality so that they can be of service to others.  We want all others to have that same, healthy sense of self and the resources to protect and live that self-reality.  Moreover, by adding the descriptor “shared”, “self-interest” is protected from being misunderstood as selfishness or self-centeredness.

In the end, the Church’s Catholic Social Teaching (Doctrine) directs us toward the common good, where the most vulnerable and marginal among us have sufficient access to the economic, health, educational, cultural and political goods necessary to maintain a dignified human life.   As a Church we can opt out of the “messiness” of socio-political coalitions for change, due to fear that we are working with others who hold many ideas contrary to Catholic teaching or anxiety over being seen as advocating a use of power to change the system.  In fact, we seem to be at a point in the Church’s history, especially in the United States, where a great number of Catholics would prefer such a Church, as though its mission to “save souls” floats above and is only tenuously connected to the mission of social change and the welfare of all people.  But such a focus on keeping the Church “pure” misses the point.  Jesus came and scandalized the leaders by eating with tax collectors, prostitutes and others who were publicly-known sinners.  To show that the reign of God is as much for them as for anyone.  Yes, the Church should never shy away from presenting its moral teaching clearly and publicly.  Nor should it be afraid to point out its deep differences, if they exist, with other religious communities and institutions on issues of grave moral concern.  But for effective socio-economic-political change toward the common good, we need to find ways to be in partnership with others, not be a Catholic island unto ourselves.  And for that, we need the Church’s leadership to see and support Catholic-inspired groups (Non-Ecclesiastical Organizations as I have called them) such as Strangers no Longer (and numerous other such groups) who bring the Church’s shared self-interest on specific issues of concern into the heart of coalitions for change.