Watching the remarkable movie The Irishman wakened many memories of growing up in the 1950s in a family of union men and labor organizers. In 1957 at the age of 10 I went to Washington DC with my father and sat in on the McClellan Hearings which targeted mob influence in the unions. Bobby Kennedy, famously, was waging war against Hoffa and others. I didn't know what was going on but I did shake hands with John F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey and I saw Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater and a political who's-who of the 1950-60s. I vividly recall that the assembly erupted into laughter and my father explained: Walter Reuther was loquaciously answering a question when Goldwater said: "I must interrupt since I have forgotten the question you are answering." I was familiar with the three most prominent labor leaders of the time and now see that they represent distinct movements in labor: Jimmy Hoffa, Walter Reuther and George Meany. Let's contrast the three and the labor movement post-Sexual-Revolution.
Jimmy Hoffa, of course, represents the mob influence which was infamously powerful close to our home in New Jersey. Think Johnny Friendly (Lee J. Cobb) in On the Waterfront and of course his priest antagonist (Karl Malden) based upon the real waterfront priest John Corridan S.J. The book Waterfront Priest was a staple in our home and given to my father for his work as a union leader with the Labor Institute in Jersey City.
UAW's Walter Reuther represented the strongest possible contrast to the unionism of Teamster Jimmy Hoffa. He was a brilliant, courageous, flawlessly moral idealist of the left. In his youth he flirted with communism, working for two years in a factory in 1930s Stalinist Russia. Later he became anti-communist and purged the unions of that influence. He was an early and fervent supporter of the Civil Rights (he and my own father were at the "I Have a Dream" speech; my Dad was impressed, but less idealistic than Reuther, he left the march to see a movie with a colleague) and Farm Worker movements. Reuther represents the union movement as idealistic, fierce in pursuit of social justice, largely secular, and left-wing. Think Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. I don't recall my Dad speaking of him with any obvious approval or displeasure, but he seemed to respect him as well as other secular (many Jewish) colleagues who cooperated happily with Catholics like my father in that era.
Leader of the AFL-CIO George Meany, by contrast, was a meat-and-potato, Catholic unionist more in keeping with our family's values. His unionism focused on the concerns (wage, health benefits, safety, etc.) of the working man and was: anti-communist, pro-capitalism, pro-America, and fiercely if inarticulately, pro-family and pro-life. It was less idealistic, more limited and practical in its focus. It was carried from one success to another in that explosive American economy of 1950-65. It was basically the same down-to-earth unionism I faced in the Teamster union in my own career in UPS management from 1985-2003. Like our UPS founder Jim Casey, I always appreciated the relationship with the union, notwithstanding the tension and conflict. For instance, as dispatcher of drivers, I found that my best friend was the shop steward who would mediate the inevitable disputes with drivers who thought they were wronged.
Post-1970, the labor movement, with the entire US left, underwent a substantial change as it embraced the cultural liberalism of the sexual revolution: abortion, radical feminism as deconstruction of masculinity/femininity, the explicit break with traditions of moral and religious authority, and the sundering of sexuality from fruitfulness and family. The legacy of Hoffa diminished (for the most part), that of Reuther continued with energy, but the quiet Catholic values of George Meany were cast aside as rubbish.
Catholic labor leaders like my father and uncles survived the Depression, faced down the company goons on the picket lines, defeated the communists for control of the unions, beat the Nazi and Japanese empires, contained and overcame the communism of the USSR, built the strongest economy in human history, maintained the post-war Pax Americana, and developed a dazzling Church network of schools, hospitals, parishes and religious orders. Their only failing: unprepared for the Sexual Revolution, they feebly surrendered the entire liberal order to the sexual libertines.
The unions have been, of course, battered by titanic, globalizing economic changes over the last 50 years, but a particular concern for many Catholics has been the alliance of the teacher's unions with the DNC in defense of the monopoly of tax funding for public schools in defiance of the rights of parents and communities of faith. The responsibility for education rests primarily with families and their communities of faith and the hostility of the Left to their rights is a grave matter of social justice.
An additional problem with the alliance of unions with the Democrats is that municipalities in places like NJ have granted extremely generous contracts, in exchange for political support, to unions for police, firemen and teachers. This has bankrupted local governments. This fiscal issue is of little concern to me personally as it is: first of all, only about money; and, more importantly, the work of teacher and policeman and fireman is so valuable that it serves us to reward them and attract the best talent.
In an industrial society, the union is something sacred to us as Catholics. Formerly, unions were vulnerable to the mob and the communists; today they are in bed with the libertines. It is a sadness!
Tuesday, December 24, 2019
Friday, December 13, 2019
Is it a Sin to Vote in the USA 2020 Elections?
Clearly: it is a sin to vote either for a Democrat or Donald Trump in 2020! I have no doubt!
Direct participation in a grave evil is sinful. A vote for the DNC is cooperation in the genocide of the innocent, the little ones, the unborn. Any Catholic who does not see this clearly, directly, intuitively without deliberation suffers a grave disorder in moral judgment. A vote for Trump, I will argue, presents a scandal to our young and is evil in a more complicated manner.
To be clear: I do not allege that such voters are subjectively culpable of sin in the sense of intention, deliberation and consent of the will. Rather, they are objectively supporting structural evil as they suffer a mysterious blindness of moral vision, an ignorance that may be itself be in some degree invincible, which is to say unavoidable and therefore not culpable. So I see it as a grave sin, but not necessarily a personal mortal sin since such requires, in addition to grave matter, both deliberation and free consent of the will. The 50 % of Catholic voters who will pull the lever for a Democrat are not envisioning the wrenching from pain, the spurting of blood as millions of innocents continue to be slaughtered on the altars of the Sexual Revolution. On the contrary, they swell with righteousness as they condemn the despicable Trump and protect the globe, welcome immigrants, move towards health care for all, decrease gun violence and so forth. An equivalent self-righteousness operates on the Trump voter as he protects innocent life, religious liberty and the family. Both sides are right about what they oppose; but wrong in what they support. It is like Germany in the 1930s: choose between Hitler and Stalin!
My case against Trump is based on his personal character, not his policy or politics. In my own moral/political calculus, his defense of life, faith and family far outweigh the multiple failings of his policy positions which are largely impulsive, incoherent, unpromising and sometimes reckless. But his personal behavior, his absolute disregard for truth and contempt for people, make him for me a moral pariah.
Every person in a position of power, authority or status is a moral exemplar. Such is viewed by others and, by an inevitable if often unconscious mimesis, exerts influence by attraction or repulsion. Every leader...executive, principal, coach, crossing guard, politician...embodies and personalizes (always imperfectly) the values of the community. This influence is mega-multiplied for the President of the most powerful country in the world and for an out-sized personality like The Donald. Therefore, every candidate for such a position must be evaluated for two things: technical expertise in accomplishing the given task, and personal integrity (but not perfection) in morals fundamental to the specific group.
Regarding competence, Trump is pathetic; regarding character he is catastrophic. He is not a full blown sociopath (I see glimmers of empathy and conscience) but his narcissism, easily the worst in the world, has a vicious thrust that has destroyed his capacity for truth and respect.
A liar is one who knows the truth and intentionally tells a falsehood. Trump is not a liar; he is not even a compulsive liar. He seems to lack an awareness that there even is a reality, a truth, an objectivity beyond his own needs and desires. This is a moral depravity of enormous proportions. If he lived near me I would forbid my children to talk with him or even be near him. He is one with whom you cannot speak because he recognizes no objective reality beyond his own immediate desires and emotions. It is this horrific condition that underlies his contempt for all professions: the intelligence agencies, the media, and the military.
Rivaling that moral depravity is the contempt he holds for those who offend him. Shamelessly, he disrespects women, immigrants, political opponents and many of the very people he hired.
Almost half the electorate is caught up in Trump-Derangement-Syndrome in that they have become psychologically unhinged by their hatred of him. I do not completely blame them. I have a mild case myself but am fortunate that my disgust for him is balanced, and even outweighed, by my aversion to the DNC. Lately, I have been trying to practice a degree of detachment from politics to maintain my own inner serenity and openness to the workings of grace in my own life.
If I were a bishop, I would have to consider withholding the Blessed Sacrament from all communicants on the Sunday after election day as a gesture of moral correction. I doubt that canon law would allow it. But consider: if a critical mass of Catholics (even 20 or 30%) boycotted these electoral choices, both parties would be scrambling to see what they could change to recoup the vote. The left would suddenly care about innocent life and the right about already-born life.
Our politics and our culture has sunk to a dark, putrid place. Increasingly I agree with the Benedict Option of Rod Dreher: we need to (with nuance, discretion and prudence) largely disconnect from a culture of death and despair and cling to our families and our Church and all the riches that flow into and our of them.
Direct participation in a grave evil is sinful. A vote for the DNC is cooperation in the genocide of the innocent, the little ones, the unborn. Any Catholic who does not see this clearly, directly, intuitively without deliberation suffers a grave disorder in moral judgment. A vote for Trump, I will argue, presents a scandal to our young and is evil in a more complicated manner.
To be clear: I do not allege that such voters are subjectively culpable of sin in the sense of intention, deliberation and consent of the will. Rather, they are objectively supporting structural evil as they suffer a mysterious blindness of moral vision, an ignorance that may be itself be in some degree invincible, which is to say unavoidable and therefore not culpable. So I see it as a grave sin, but not necessarily a personal mortal sin since such requires, in addition to grave matter, both deliberation and free consent of the will. The 50 % of Catholic voters who will pull the lever for a Democrat are not envisioning the wrenching from pain, the spurting of blood as millions of innocents continue to be slaughtered on the altars of the Sexual Revolution. On the contrary, they swell with righteousness as they condemn the despicable Trump and protect the globe, welcome immigrants, move towards health care for all, decrease gun violence and so forth. An equivalent self-righteousness operates on the Trump voter as he protects innocent life, religious liberty and the family. Both sides are right about what they oppose; but wrong in what they support. It is like Germany in the 1930s: choose between Hitler and Stalin!
My case against Trump is based on his personal character, not his policy or politics. In my own moral/political calculus, his defense of life, faith and family far outweigh the multiple failings of his policy positions which are largely impulsive, incoherent, unpromising and sometimes reckless. But his personal behavior, his absolute disregard for truth and contempt for people, make him for me a moral pariah.
Every person in a position of power, authority or status is a moral exemplar. Such is viewed by others and, by an inevitable if often unconscious mimesis, exerts influence by attraction or repulsion. Every leader...executive, principal, coach, crossing guard, politician...embodies and personalizes (always imperfectly) the values of the community. This influence is mega-multiplied for the President of the most powerful country in the world and for an out-sized personality like The Donald. Therefore, every candidate for such a position must be evaluated for two things: technical expertise in accomplishing the given task, and personal integrity (but not perfection) in morals fundamental to the specific group.
Regarding competence, Trump is pathetic; regarding character he is catastrophic. He is not a full blown sociopath (I see glimmers of empathy and conscience) but his narcissism, easily the worst in the world, has a vicious thrust that has destroyed his capacity for truth and respect.
A liar is one who knows the truth and intentionally tells a falsehood. Trump is not a liar; he is not even a compulsive liar. He seems to lack an awareness that there even is a reality, a truth, an objectivity beyond his own needs and desires. This is a moral depravity of enormous proportions. If he lived near me I would forbid my children to talk with him or even be near him. He is one with whom you cannot speak because he recognizes no objective reality beyond his own immediate desires and emotions. It is this horrific condition that underlies his contempt for all professions: the intelligence agencies, the media, and the military.
Rivaling that moral depravity is the contempt he holds for those who offend him. Shamelessly, he disrespects women, immigrants, political opponents and many of the very people he hired.
Almost half the electorate is caught up in Trump-Derangement-Syndrome in that they have become psychologically unhinged by their hatred of him. I do not completely blame them. I have a mild case myself but am fortunate that my disgust for him is balanced, and even outweighed, by my aversion to the DNC. Lately, I have been trying to practice a degree of detachment from politics to maintain my own inner serenity and openness to the workings of grace in my own life.
If I were a bishop, I would have to consider withholding the Blessed Sacrament from all communicants on the Sunday after election day as a gesture of moral correction. I doubt that canon law would allow it. But consider: if a critical mass of Catholics (even 20 or 30%) boycotted these electoral choices, both parties would be scrambling to see what they could change to recoup the vote. The left would suddenly care about innocent life and the right about already-born life.
Our politics and our culture has sunk to a dark, putrid place. Increasingly I agree with the Benedict Option of Rod Dreher: we need to (with nuance, discretion and prudence) largely disconnect from a culture of death and despair and cling to our families and our Church and all the riches that flow into and our of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)