1

The 1996 Welfare Reform and Catholic Social Teaching

Catholic Politicians vs. The American Bishops Andrew Romeo

Honors Colloquium 2015-2016 First Reader: Professor Robert Kraynak

Colloquium Director: Professor Michael Hayes May 2, 2016

2

Table Of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………….......................3 Part I: Economic Justice For All: An Endorsement Of The Welfare State?............4 Part II: Moral Theology…………………………………………………………...12 Part III: How To Best Aid The Poor: A Welfare Study…………………………..33 Part IV: The U.S. Bishops And 1996 Welfare Reform…………………………...39 Part V: Were The Catholic Lawmakers Correct?....................................................52

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………...66

Appendix………………………………………………………………………….68

3

INTRODUCTION In the mid 1990s various members of Congress embarked on their mission to make one

of the most comprehensive social policy reforms in the history of the United States; they wanted

to reform welfare. This paper seeks to investigate the reform through the lens of Catholic social

teaching. Throughout this paper I will explain how the reform effort pitted the United States

Catholic Bishops against Catholic lawmakers in Congress in a heated economic policy dispute

derived from competing views relating to the application of Catholic social thought. I discuss the

Bishops’ rationale for opposing the 1996 reform bill and contrast it with the reasons it received

support from Catholics like Rick Santorum, Pete Domenici, Clay Shaw, and John Kerry.

In order to do this I first provide substantial background on the history of Catholic social

teaching as a whole. I start with the American Bishops’ landmark document on economic policy,

and what I argue to be their justification for denouncing the welfare reform bill of 1996, the

Pastoral Letter titled Economic Justice For All. I claim that Economic Justice For All’s policy

proposals advocate a welfare state and then explain how the letter is in conflict with many of the

principles put forth in the papal encyclicals that make up Catholic social thought. After providing

background on the rift between the Bishops’ Letter and the papal encyclicals I frame the welfare

reform debate as a referendum on the Bishop’s policy proposals in Economic Justice For All. I

discuss how the welfare reform bill of 1996 can been seen as compatible with a conservative

interpretation of Catholic Social Teaching, and claim that some Catholics in Congress who

supported the bill were trying to advance such an interpretation. I conclude by providing an

analysis on whether or not the 1996 welfare reform bill promoted key Catholic principles that

both Bishops and Popes hold in common. I ultimately argue that Economic Justice For All

handicapped the Bishops into condemning the economic aspects of a reform bill that actually

4

promoted the pillars of Catholic social thought quite well. Due to this observation, I claim that

Catholic lawmakers such as Santorum, Domenici, Shaw, and Kerry were justified in their

support of the economic components of the bill.

PART I: ECONOMIC JUSTICE FOR ALL: AN ENDORSEMENT OF THE WELFARE STATE? Section 1. Background In 1986 the United States Catholic Conference published an influential pastoral letter

regarding the economy titled, Economic Justice For All. The letter highlighted the biblical

support for the established principles of Catholic social teaching, and sought to apply those

principles to the current U.S. economy. In doing so the Bishops also issued detailed policy

suggestions for the U.S. government. These policy recommendations, in the eyes of the Bishops,

were ways to create an economy that better reflected Catholic values and advanced the interests

of all Americans as well. While the Bishops acknowledged that they were not economists, and

that their recommendations did not carry the same weight as their moral teachings, they

encouraged Catholics to take their suggestions seriously. 1 Many people who do take the policy

proposals of the Bishops to heart view Economic Justice For All as the Church’s endorsement of

an economic system that leans toward a welfare state. They claim that the letter was written to

condemn laissez faire economics, and to push the American people and their politicians to enact

increased government intervention in order to better the economy. They claim that Economic

Justice For All is a prime example of how the dignity of the poor and oppressed cannot be

enhanced in a system of free market capitalism.

1 Economic Justice for All: Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy: A Catholic Framework for Economic Life Washington, D.C.: U.S. Catholic Conference, 1997. Print.

5

Before examining whether or not the Bishops’ letter properly depicted Catholic social

thought, and whether or not those principles shined through in their policy initiatives, it is first

necessary to summarize the contents of the letter, and answer the question of whether or not

Economic Justice For All is indeed an endorsement of the welfare state. The Bishops begin

Economic Justice For All by articulating the major principles of Catholic social thought with

regards to the economy. The principles are as follows: (1) Every economic decision and

institution must be judged in light of whether it protects or undermines the dignity of the human

person. (2) Human dignity can be realized and protected in a community. (3) All people have

the right to participate in economic life in a society. (4) All members of society have a special

obligation to the poor and vulnerable. (5) Human rights are the minimum conditions for life in a

community. (6) Society as a whole, acting through public and private institutions, has the moral

responsibility to protect human dignity and human rights.2 As I will discuss later in this paper,

the six principles that the Bishops express do not deviate from what is written in economic

encyclicals of the Popes. There is a broad consensus in Catholic social teaching that all economic

policy should be aimed at advancing human dignity, promoting the common good, and keep in

mind the well being of the poor, but differences in the literature mainly focus on the specific

ways that those goals should be met. Some of the Popes seem to favor a more free market

approach, while others favor a more active government. Therefore, in order to see where the U.S.

Bishops fall in the economic spectrum it is more helpful to analyze their specific policy

proposals rather than the general principles behind those policies.

2 EJFA, 1986, 12-22

6

Section 2. Proposals To Combat Unemployment

The first area of the economy the Bishops choose to address from a policy perspective is

unemployment. The rationale for their employment policy proposals is the idea that the only just

economy is one in which there is full employment.3 They argue that when one is unemployed it

undermines his dignity, as it tells him he is worthless to society. 4 In addition to the impact of

unemployment on the individual, the Bishops also make the claim that unemployment hurts the

state, as it lowers the amount of tax revenue it can generate and increases the odds of crime in a

society.5 Therefore, the Bishops focus on the problem of unemployment in a way that puts much

more responsibility on the state than on the individual. The Bishops view the right to work as

unconditional, and that the government is unjust if it fails to provide work, no matter what the

individual’s situation is. The Bishops seem to believe that the government has the power to have

any individual employed no matter what. They also shift responsibility off of the individual and

on to the state when it comes to crime, making the claim that high crime rates can be attributed to

unemployment rather than individual moral failing.

The idea that the government is responsible for the employment of its people is then

echoed in the policy recommendations the Bishops put forth. The Bishops make two

recommendations for lawmakers: (1) expand job training programs and apprenticeships (2)

increase job creation programs targeted for those who are unemployed long term or have special

needs.6 Again, both of these policy initiatives stem from the idea that the reason people are

unemployed is because they are excluded from the workforce due to factors beyond their power,

and that the government is not doing as much as it should to assist them. The Bishops think that

3 EJFA, 1986, 135 4 EJFA, 1986, 141 5 EJFA, 1986, 142 6 EJFA, 1986, 159-161

7

their proposals will help deal with workers who are being pushed out of the workforce by

technology innovations and marginalized by their demographics. 7 The bishops also advocate for

an increased government presence in the economy because it can produce jobs that are “needed

by society”8 This line of argument implies that the government has a stronger ability than market

forces to make sure the economy works to pursue the common good. Therefore, with regards to

employment, the Bishops favor an economic order where the government has an unconditional

responsibility to put people to work and to make sure the economy produces goods and services

that benefit society.

Section 3. Proposals to Combat Poverty

The next area of the economy that the Bishops investigate in Economic Justice For All is

poverty. The Bishops follow the same format with poverty as they do when they look at

unemployment. They first make assessments of why there is poverty, and then put forth

proposals that they think will help remedy those causes. The first observation the Bishops make

is the striking amount of people that are impoverished; by government standards, one out of

every seven.9 They then highlight the fact that poverty hits children, women, and minority

groups harder than it does the rest of society. With regards to women, the Bishops are concerned

with the role that sexism plays in the workplace. The Bishops argue that the concept of women

not being paid adequate wages for their work is immoral, and that the government needs to

address this issue if women are to climb out of poverty.10 The Bishops also make an argument

that single mothers are most impacted by poverty, and claim that stronger measures need to be

7 EJFA, 1986, 165 8 EJFA, 1986, 165 9 EJFA, 1986, 170 10 EJFA, 1986, 179

8

taken to assist these women. What is striking about this argument is it hinges less on promoting

family values so that women do not end up in a situation where they are supporting themselves

on their own in the first place, and takes for granted the current high number of single women

raising children. With regards to poverty amongst minority rates, the Bishops are concerned with

the idea that discrimination is still occurring to such an extent that blacks are still only making

55% of what whites are making.11 The Bishops believe that the one true way to combat poverty

that occurs amongst minorities is to limit the racial discrimination they face. Therefore, as with

unemployment, the Bishops seem to be concerned with remedying the problems of the “helpless”

when it comes to poverty. The Bishops make no mention of poverty with regards to people who

are poor because of their own personal failings, and assume that most of the poverty in the U.S.

is caused by larger structural dynamics. Therefore, the Bishops make a number of policy

recommendations that try to counteract the structural issues of poverty.

The Bishops begin their policy initiatives by discussing how all members of society have

a special responsibility to the poor, and need to engage in that responsibility through both private

charity and government action.12 The Bishops cite government programs like Social Security,

Medicare, and Medicaid to display how the government can effectively assist the poor and the

vulnerable, and urge the government to enhance additional programs to take this cause further.

Before putting forth any specific proposals of how the government can better alleviate poverty,

the Bishops seek to dispel what they believe to be the false, and often negative stereotypes that

are attributed to the poor. The Bishops do not agree with the common notion that there are many

people on welfare who can work, but just choose not to. They cite the fact that only 1% of

families on the welfare rolls remain so for a full ten years, and that most people poor people have

11 EJFA, 1986, 181 12 EFJA, 1986, 189

9

the same desire to work as those that make up the rest of society.13 While this assumption, that

the number of people who use welfare long term is significantly low, will be challenged later in

this paper, the rationale behind the claim is what is important. The Bishops go to such great

lengths to denounce the idea that anyone could possibly be poor as a result of their own doing,

again keeping with the theme that the government, not individuals, must be the main solution to

the problem of poverty.

The first set of policy proposals that the Bishops make toward aiding the poor are

directed at the working poor. The main initiative that the Bishops would like to see taken is an

increase in the minimum wage. They argue that the minimum wage has not kept up with the rate

of inflation, and in order for people to be able to live with dignity it is necessary that they be paid

a living wage.14 Although the Bishops do not provide specifics on what the new minimum wage

should be, they believe the change should be a national initiative. Therefore, when one recalls the

responsibilities the Bishops believe the government has in curbing unemployment, it is clear the

Bishops have a vision for a major overhaul in the way the U.S. government works throughout the

economy. The Bishops not only want an economy where everyone is employed, but an economy

where everyone is paid a wage where they can support themselves adequately. The Bishops are

claiming that the government has the ability to make sure these two criterias are met. These ideas

continue to be in keeping with the Bishop’s main assertion, that what is most problematic about

the U.S. economy is its structure. By proposing a living wage and full employment, the Bishops

are claiming that the U.S. economy has the ability to sustain both things, but is failing to do so

only because of lack of regulation and market inefficiencies.

13 EFJA, 1986, 193 14 EJFA, 1986, 197

10

A second measure that the Bishops believe will help the working poor is a change in the

structure of the tax system. The Bishops argue that the tax system should be raising more

revenue to provide for the needs of the poor, and that that revenue should be raised in a way

where those with the most resources pay a higher percentage of taxes. In fact, the Bishops

believe that any family living in poverty should not have to pay any taxes at all.15 Thus, the

Bishops completely reject the idea of supply side economics, and that low taxes on the wealthy

can advance the interests of the poor. The Bishops feel that it would be better to have the

government take in the extra resources of the rich and distribute those resources accordingly,

rather than simply letting those resources stand to be gained via the market. This line of

argument is revealing in two different ways. The first is that the Bishops are acknowledging that

the well off should be charged with meeting the financial means of the poor. The second is that

the well off should not have a choice on how they do so. This line of argument suggests that the

Bishops believe in an economic system where certain members of society are tasked with the

well being of others, but have no input into how that well being should be achieved, as the

government is the better arbitrator.

After addressing the ways in which the working poor should be helped by the

government, the Bishops shift their focus to those who are not working and are on public

assistance programs. The Bishops call for various reforms in the current welfare system, the first

two of which seem to be at odds with each other. The first reform that the Bishops call for is to

make sure that recipients are encouraged to become self sufficient through gainful

employment.16 The Bishops argue that the current welfare system is set up in such a way that the

recipients of assistance gain more than they do when they are employed. The Bishops suggest

15 EJFA, 1986, 202 16 EJFA, 1986, 211

11

that job creation programs work with public assistance programs to make it worth it for

individuals to get back into the workforce.17 The Bishops then seem to contradict themselves

with their next proposal, which implies that the current welfare system does not adequately

address the needs of the poor. The Bishops claim that no family on public assistance should have

to live in poverty, and that an increase in cash benefits needs to be provided.18 Therefore, the

Bishops want both for public assistance to provide incentives for people who choose to work, but

also for those receiving assistance to receive an adequate amount of assistance. The Bishops

want welfare to provide both an incentive to work, and to be a safety net at the same time. With

regards to the safety net, the Bishops make no provisions to who should get to receive assistance.

They treat welfare as an entitlement that all members of society should be provided no matter

what. The Bishops do not even want to make provisions for people receiving welfare benefits in

different states. The Bishops feel that eligibility standards for welfare should be national, as to

avoid certain states providing less benefits than others.19 This approach denies the importance of

the differences in standards of living that occur across the country.

Section 4. Conclusion

To conclude, when the policy proposals that the Bishops put forth in Economic Justice

For All are examined, the argument can certainly be made that the Bishops favor a welfare state.

The major theme of all of the recommendations that the Bishops make is that the structures of

the United States economy are broken, and that those inefficient structures are the reasons why

unemployment and poverty are too high and that income inequality is too great. The Bishops

make a point of saying that the poor and unemployed are in their current situations because of

17 EJFA, 1986, 211 18 EJFA, 1986, 212 19 EJFA, 1986, 213

12

factors beyond their control rather than because of their lack of skills or ambition, and that the

government must strive to mitigate those factors. The Bishops do not see free markets as the best

way to bring about a just economy, and believe that the government is the best distributor when

it comes to the resources that the oppressed need.

Additionally, all the reforms that the Bishops advocate for demand nothing in return of

the people that they wish to help. It seems then, that the Bishops view the government as a

vehicle to provide unconditional love and support for its citizens when it comes to their

economic needs. What the Bishops say about economic issues is pretty explicit in their policy

initiatives. The difficult task is to examine whether or not the Bishops were justified in making

such recommendations. There are two ways of going about this process. The first is to look at the

history of Catholic social teaching and see if the Bishops theories align with the moral principles

the Church has held over time. The second is to see if the policies that the Bishops intended to

advance with their recommendations actually promote their principles in practice. I will start by

looking into the first question.

PART II: MORAL THEOLOGY

Section 1. Aquinas: The Common Good, Property Rights, And Aiding The Poor

In order to investigate whether or not the Bishops’ policy initiatives are in accordance

with Catholic social teaching it is necessary to go back to where most of church social teaching

originated. Many scholars view Thomas Aquinas as the father of catholic social teaching due to

his writings on law and private property. Aquinas articulates one of the Church’s major social

teachings when he defines as law as: a promulgated ordinance of reason that commands and

13

forbids, laid down by a law giver, for the common good of a community20. Thus, Aquinas asserts

that law is designed for the benefit and applies to all members of a community. Aquinas,

however, does not limit the concept of law to the laws given by God in biblical text or the laws

given by man, he also affirms that Catholicism endorses Natural Law. By Natural Law Aquinas

means the participation of human beings in God’s eternal plan for rational creatures.21 The major

purpose of natural law, according to Aquinas, is to promote good.22 He claims that three

elements make up Natural Law: the tendency toward self-preservation, procreation, and the

rational inclination to know the truth about God.23 Aquinas then uses these principles that make

up Natural Law to argue in defense of private property.

Aquinas’ argument in favor of private property stems from the idea that human beings

have been given dominion over the Earth. He claims that human beings should be entitled to

private property due to the fact that: 1) individuals are more careful in managing goods that

belong to them alone than they are with managing communal goods. 2) There is more order

when individual manage external goods. 3) Private property allows for greater conditions of

peace, as men are inclined to fight over communal goods.24 Thus, Aquinas’ natural law argument

for private property is also in keeping with his principle of the common good. From a natural law

perspective, Aquinas is arguing that human beings have the ability to divide up the resources of

the earth in the best manner they see fit because God has charged them with being stewards of

his creation. Aquinas then adds the common good component to his argument, asserting that

20 Thomas, William P. Baumgarth, and Richard J. Regan. On Law, Morality, and Politics. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1988. 10. Print. 21 Hackett, 1988, 18 22 Hackett, 1988, 43 23 Hackett, 1988, 43 24 Hackett, 1988, 135

14

private property is essential because it creates the most possible order and efficiency in an

economy.

Aquinas, however, does not believe in one’s absolute right to private property, as he feels

that in the case of necessity all things are common property, and that it is permissible for one to

steal in dire circumstances where one’s life is at stake.25 The rationale for this exception is that a

system of private property is supposed to address the common good and the needs of the poor in

the most efficient way possible, so in extreme circumstances when it does not, it is not a sin for

the poor to take what they need to survive from the rich.26 Aquinas also mandates that the rich

oblige in such a situation, claiming it is one’s duty to get rid of his “superfluous” possessions to

aid the poor. A caveat to this concept is that Aquinas feels that each individual should get to

decide what he gives to the poor. He writes, “Because many persons are in need, and the same

things cannot assist everybody, the dispensing of one’s own goods is committed to each

individual, so that each may out of them assist those in need,”27 Therefore, Aquinas realizes that

the system of private property may not be perfect, but is the most efficient one possible to

promote the common good of society. He also believes that when the system of private property

breaks down and does not meet the needs of all the people, that the wealthy have an obligation to

correct the system and provide the poor with what they need. Aquinas’ idea that members of

society have a preferential obligation to the poor is another major pillar of Catholic social

teaching.

One might ask, however, what the basis is for the rich to be obligated to help the poor.

This concept goes back to Aquinas’ natural law argument for why human beings are charged

25 Hackett, 1988, 140 26 Hackett, 1988, 140 27 Hackett, 1988, 140

15

with dividing up the earth’s resources. God gives humans the earth to share as a collective,

according to Aquinas. Thus, each human is entitled to his share of the resources that God

provides. Additionally, natural law implies that each human being is built to pursue self-

preservation. Through these concepts Aquinas is establishing basic human rights that must be

respected. Each human has the resources that will help him continue to live as a member of

God’s creation. Aquinas then, endorses a system of private property based on the principles of

the common good and natural law. This system has exceptions for the poor due to their natural

rights as human beings and the responsibilities of the wealthy who are required to live take care

of them.

The interesting element of Aquinas’ theory regarding private property is the remedy he

suggests to the system. Unlike the American Catholic Bishops, Aquinas believes that the poor

are best helped according to the personal discretion of each person. Aquinas does not advocate

the government allocating resources to the poor, he feels that the poor’s needs are best met when

each individual decides what he wants to donate. Accordingly, Aquinas may not be an absolute

champion of free markets, but he does not suggest that the fix to all market inefficiencies rests in

the hands of the government either. Aquinas is also vague about when the poor are at liberty to

take from the rich. Aquinas uses the phrase, “in cases of necessity” to describe when the poor

should be aided, but does not elaborate any further. Aquinas also never addresses the poor who

are poor because of personal failings; he only references those that are impacted by a larger

system. It is unclear if Aquinas believes that the main cause of poverty is the system or whether

an individual can be responsible for his poverty. This is an area that the Pope’s, who will be

discussed later in this paper, address in further detail. So in summation, Aquinas establishes three

major pillars of Catholic social teaching: 1) Promotion of the Common Good. 2) Respect for

16

property rights. 3) A preferential obligation to the poor. Aquinas believes that all of these

principles are best promoted via a free market system aided by personal charity. Aquinas’ ideal

economic order then, is far different from that of the US Catholic Bishops. Thus, the Bishops

could not have drawn on Aquinas for their specific welfare state driven policies and must have

gotten justification through other church leaders.

Section 2. Leo XIII “A Third Way”

A church leader that is often credited with providing influence for Economic Justice For

All is Pope Leo XIII. In the papal encyclical Rerum Novarum, Leo XIII is credited with being the

first pope to address Catholic social teaching and its relationship to capitalism. Unfortunately for

the Bishops, the initial portion of Leo XIII’s economic encyclical seems to be a critique of

internationalist government policy. Writing in the late 19th century, Leo XIII was concerned with

the socialist response to industrialization, and devoted one of the first sections Rerum Novarum

to rebuke it. Leo gives six natural law arguments against socialism: It does not make sense for a

man to give up his wages to a group because the whole point of work is to gain private property.

Denying a man his wages denies him the ability to better himself. 2) Man is different from

animals because man can “reason” (making decisions with the future in mind). Because of the

fact that man can reason, he desires things that are more than temporary. He wants things that are

permanent and stable. Therefore, man has a desire to cultivate private property and this desire is

natural. This desire supersedes the state and cannot be stifled by the state. 3) Man’s cultivation of

land, or his work, is a way for him to express his personality. It is his natural right that the state

can’t take away. 4) The fruits of a man’s labor are a result of his hard work. It is unjust, then, to

rid a man of the results of that hard work. 5) God’s first instructions to human beings were to be

17

fruitful and multiply, which implies that man’s first obligation is to his family. Therefore, the

family supersedes the state, and it is against natural law for a man to be expected to hand over

the fruits of his labor at a consequence to his family. 6) No one has any interest in exerting his

talents or his industry under socialism. While socialism might achieve equality, it would be

equality “leveled down to a condition of misery and degradation.”28

Therefore, Leo XIII builds on Aquinas’ natural law arguments for private property while

also establishing some new ones. In particular, he highlights both the dignity of work and the

importance of the family. While Aquinas’ argument for private property hinged more on the

system’s ability to promote the common good, much Leo XIII’s approach is something new. Leo

XIII sees work as a means of humans reaching their potential in accordance with God’s plan. He

feels that any state effort to take away one’s ability to reach his full potential is in direction

conflict with natural law. And with regards to the family, man’s duty is not only to procreate, but

to care for that family through providing for them. Leo XIII argues that in order for one’s

purpose in life to be respected, he must be able to engage in the economic realm in a way that

allows him to be a responsible provider. Such a situation, according to the Pope, requires

minimal government intervention. It’s the first mention in the church literature of the importance

of caring for the family through natural law, which is something echoed throughout the

encyclicals.

These natural law arguments establish a separate principle of Catholic Social Teaching,

the idea of individual human dignity must be promoted through the economic system. Leo XIII

feels that socialism is incredibly hostile to human dignity, and believed that an economic system

28 Leo, XIII. Rerum Novarum. May 15, 1891. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2015. (*All encyclical citation numbers refer to paragraphs*)

18

rooted in private property was the best way to promote dignity. He also continued Aquinas’

common good argument for the defense of private property, claiming that people have more

motivation to exert their talents in such a system. Thus, Leo XIII acknowledges the problems

that can occur when the government becomes too involved in the economy. He realizes that if

the government does too much try to create equal economic outcomes then the economy will be

one of equal misery and degradation for all. Therefore, Leo XIII holds that the inequality that is

created in the private property based economic system is a necessity for it to function as

efficiently as possible. The American Bishops who wrote Economic Justice For All would

contest this idea. As discussed earlier, the Bishops feel that the government has the power and

duty to level the economic playing field, and do not believe it hurts the creativity incentives of

others in the economic to do so. Therefore, Leo XIII affirms that socialism isn’t the answer to the

problems of industrialization, and in doing so, disqualifies himself from being a supporter of the

Bishops’ welfare state. However, Leo XIII also does not believe free market capitalism should be

entirely unregulated either, and he uses the principle of human dignity to justify ideal

regulations.

Leo XIII discusses the proper regulations for capitalism in the latter part of the encyclical

where he addresses the overall flaws of the system. He cautions that capitalism makes man too

materialistic, and reminds his readers “The true worth and the nobility of man lies in his moral

qualities, that is, his virtue”.29 He also has concerns with what can happen to the workers in a

free market system if it goes unmonitored by government. He talks about how the duty of the

government is to protect the rights of its people, and that it should have special consideration for

29 Leo XIII, 24

19

the poor and the weak in this regard.30 Leo XIII believes that the poor and the weak includes the

working class and wants the government to make sure that the dignity of the working class is not

oppressed. He pushes the government to force employers to respect the right of laborers to rest

on the Sabbath, give workers rest in accordance to how much manual labor they do in their

profession, and make sure women and children are not exploited to do work beyond their

nature.31 Man also has the natural right to work in order to ensure his survival, according to Leo

XIII, so he advocates that employers don’t exploit workers and that they pay them “just wages”

necessary to support themselves and their families32. Workers under Leo XIII’s direction are also

encouraged to utilize religious workers’ unions as a means of protecting themselves, and the

government is directed to acknowledge and protect those unions.33 Thus, Leo XIII advocates for

many governmental regulations to ensure that human dignity is not eroded via a free market

system. He acknowledges that the market should not stand go unchecked and that the state does a

have a role to play in protecting its citizens. This is a step up from Aquinas who seemed to be

more in favor of letting individuals try to make up for the problems of the free market system.

The reason Leo XIII’s emphasizes some government intervention in the market is not rooted in

fairness or equality, however, it is rooted in the idea of human dignity. Leo XIII believes that it is

equally important to protect human dignity from capitalism, as it is to protect it from socialism.

Clearly, Leo XIII asserts a Catholic social teaching that is somewhere between laissez

faire capitalism and socialism (A Third Way). Leo XIII draws on a combination Aquinas’ natural

law and his own emphasis on dignity and the family to defend private property and denounce

socialism, However, he also is sympathetic to the working class, and demands that the

30 Leo XIII, 37 31 Leo XIII, 40-43 32 Leo XIII, 45-46 33 Leo XIII, 54

20

government fulfill its duty to protect the dignity of all of its citizens by instilling regulations that

will protect workers. Leo XIII is the first pope to explore the proper balance between regulation

and capitalism, and all other popes follow his lead, either pushing further right or left of his

ideas. While the US Bishops might claim that their welfare policies are rooted in protecting

individual human dignity, Leo XIII’s firm rebuke of socialism makes it hard for the Bishops to

root their policy justifications in Rerum Novarum. While Leo XIII was a firm believer in

protecting the oppressed, many of his policies were geared toward those who were working or

trying to find work. The welfare policies of the Bishops try to defend a group much broader than

workers. Therefore, one must investigate other encyclicals if he seeks to find papal justification

for Economic Justice For All.

Section 3. John Paul II, The Triumphs of Capitalism

Even though Leo XIII provides little support for the welfare state in Rerum Novarum,

many argue that there is still papal justification for Economic Justice For All. Those who make

this argument assert that the broader principles established by Pope Leo XIII were interpreted

and built on by subsequent popes in more detail. They argue that these popes took the broader

principles that Pope Leo articulated, and fleshed them out into more coherent applications of

economic policy that the US Bishops ultimately drew from when they wrote Economic Justice

For All. This type of argument, that the popes – from Leo XIII onward – are unified in

supporting the welfare state, is a more extreme argument for the papal authority of Economic

Justice For All. For this theory to be correct, the Bishops policies would have to be rooted in the

works of all popes that followed Leo XIII. The Bishops argue that this is the case. The problem

for the Bishops is that the biggest dissenter with regards to a welfare state driven economy, John

21

Paul II, held the chair of St. Peter in 1986 – the same time when Economic Justice For All was

written. While the Bishops claim that they were deriving their economic policy ideas in

accordance with the direction of Pope John Paul II, his economic encyclical titled Centesimus

Annus, written in 1991, presents a firm rebuttal of the welfare state.

Writing in response to his experiences with communism, John Paul II published

Centesimus Annus with the objective of getting back to the teachings of Leo XIII. John Paul II,

like Leo XIII, spent a large amount of his encyclical critiquing socialism. However, the new

dynamic in John Paul II’s writings is he has historical evidence to back up his claims regarding

the problems of government run economies. He laces his arguments with references to the

horrors of the Soviet Union, he and uses its demise as proof that a system that leans toward a free

market is most in accordance with Church teaching.

That being said, the Bishops still might think that John Paul II provides principles that

could be in accordance with the welfare state. The Bishops might argue that John Paul II’s

defense of the right to work is a rationale for the government to ensure 100% employment. When

one looks at John Paul II’s rationale for one’s right to work, however, this does not seem to be

the case. The pope writes, “The obligation to earn one’s bread by the sweat of one’s brow also

presumes the right to do so. A society which this right is systematically denied, in which

economic policies do not allow workers to reach satisfactory levels of employment, cannot be

justified from an ethical point of view.”34 The Bishops would claim that John Paul II supports the

idea of the government having to intervene to fix an unjust system, and allow people to pursue

their natural right to employment. And while that is John Paul II is concerned with unjust

economic systems, he does not necessarily believe it is always the government’s responsibility to

34 John Paul, II. Centesimus Annus. 1 May 1991. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.

22

fix unemployment. He makes this point when he writes, “The state could not directly ensure the

right to work for all of its citizens unless it controlled every aspect of economic life and

restricted the freedom of individuals.”35 Thus, although John Paul II believes that people should

have the right to work, he does not believe the government should shoulder the burden of making

sure it is provided for them. He wants various groups and associations outside of the government

to take up that cause, and realizes that the government becoming too far involved in the economy

would hurt individual dignity more than it would help it. Therefore, the idea that the government

should be the sole institution to help the oppressed worker is one that John Paul II finds

dangerous.

The main reason that John Paul II would object to the state becoming too involved in the

economy is because he feels that the most important aspect of one’s dignity is his freedom to

make choices. This dignity argument is an expansion on the one that Leo XIII puts forth in

Rerum Novarum. John Paul II argues that work is a conduit through which human beings access

God’s gifts.36 He claims that work allows man to exercise his intelligence and dominate the earth

in the way God intended.37 Therefore, the Pope realizes that work is something to be valued, and

should be in accordance with one’s talents. He thinks it is the utmost importance to allow

humans to choose how they will foster and develop their gifts from God. That is why John Paul

II is so concerned with the government becoming overly involved in the employment process.

He feel that the government getting involved would disrupt the market, and allow less freedom

for people to use their talents as they see fit.

35 John Paul II, 1991, 48 36 John Paul II, 1991, 31 37 John Paul II, 1991, 31

23

Another aspect John Paul II’s take on work with regards to dignity this is that he views

work not only a valuable opportunity, but an obligation as well. In Laborem Exercens, his

encyclical on work, John Paul II quotes St. Paul’s famous line, “If anyone will not work, let him

not eat,” in order to highlight that work is a key component of morality and spirituality.38 He

fleshes this out further when he writes, “Man ought to imitate God, his Creator, in working

because Man alone has the unique characteristic of likeness to God. Man ought to imitate God

both in working and also in resting, since God himself wished to present his own creative

activity under the form of work and rest.”39 Here John Paul II emphasizes that work is a

responsibility that is special to humans. He points out that work is a means for humans to imitate

and become closer to God, which the purpose of their lives on Earth. Therefore, John Paul II

views work as essential, and might take issue with a safety net that made it possible for humans

not to have to fulfill their purpose on Earth. John Paul II then seems to see work as a two way

street. He sees it as something society should strongly encourage, but also as something that the

individual is responsible for. He views work as a right because it is an obligation necessary for

dignity, not visa versa. Therefore, it seems John Paul II would be more in favor of ridding

capitalism of its systemic failures that discourage opportunity rather than trying to rid the system

of its negative outcomes all together.

John Paul II cautions against government overstepping its boundaries from a common

good perspective as well. He refers to the Welfare State as the “Social Assistance State,” and

claims that it represents a prime misunderstanding of how the government should interact with

the economy40 He writes, “The Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an

38 John Paul, II. Laborem Exercens.14 Sept. 1981. 24. Web. 11 Apr. 2016. 39 John Paul II, 1981, 9 40 John Paul II, 1991, 48

24

inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of

thinking than by concern for serving their clients.”41 Thus, John Paul II makes an argument

against the welfare state due to its inefficiency. He claims that it not only fails to help people by

treating them as human beings, but also that it fails to provide people with the dignity to want to

help themselves. He instead believes that private charities and the church are the best actors to

aid the poor as he states, “In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by

people who are closest to them and who act in neighbors to those in need… The church has

always been present and active among the needy, offering them material assistance in ways that

neither humiliate or reduce them to mere objects of assistance.”42 Therefore, John Paul II does

not see a way in which a welfare state can perform its duties to the poor with efficiency. He

claims that the government’s lack of compassion for its citizens strips them of their dignity and

that the church and private actors can do a better job helping the poor escape their plight while

still treating them as human beings. John Paul II also thinks that neighbors having the ability to

freely choose to help each other fosters a greater sense of community. He talks about this

freedom has the ability to promote a greater culture of character.43 Therefore, a lot of John Paul

II’s ideas about the dignity of the human person and the common good conflict with the type of

welfare state that the Bishops try to promote in Economic Justice For All.

The Bishops might argue, however, that this reading of John Paul is selective and that he

has a more balanced view of the economy. They would say that although he has the above

concerns with the welfare state, that he also has some major problems with capitalism. In this

objection, the Bishops are correct. John Paul II does take issue with some of the impacts of the

41 John Paul II, 1991, 48 42 John Paul II, 1991, 48-49 43 John Paul II, 1991, 50

25

free market, but John Paul II’s concerns are more conservative, and do not really help the

Bishops cause. The biggest problem John Paul II has with capitalism is that it in such a system

“consumer attitudes and life-styles can be created which are objectively improper and often

damaging to one’s physical and spiritual health.”44 Therefore, John Paul II is concerned with the

consumer culture that capitalism has the ability to create, and how that culture deters human

beings from realizing their greater purposes in life. This concern has nothing to do with, nor can

it be addressed by the welfare state. In fact, John Paul II concludes that the biggest solution to

this problem is to provide people with greater knowledge of their responsibilities that come with

the power of choice that they gain through capitalism.45 Here it seems John Paul II recognizes

that capitalism has drawbacks, but that he’d rather have a system where people’s dignity is in

their hands than in the hands of the state. John Paul II is optimistic about a free market system

because it provides the positives of choice, private property, and human creativity that he

believes would be mitigated in a welfare state.46

Section 4. Pius XI, John XXIII: Problems With The Market

Due to the fact that John Paul II directly denounces the welfare state in Centesimus

Annus, the argument that Economic Justice For All is rooted in papal teaching becomes

problematic. The Bishops are then forced to resort to a more moderate argument for the

justification of their welfare state economy. The bishops have to say that different popes apply

the principles of Catholic social teaching in different ways. They have to argue that they are in

disagreement with some of what John Paul II argues for, but in agreement with other popes. This

44 John Paul II, 1991, 36 45 John Paul II, 1991, 36 46 John Paul II, 1991, 42

26

is often referred to as the “picking your favorite pope argument.” Such an argument would be

perfectly legitimate, as the economic policies put forth by Pope’s are prudential judgments that

do not have the same weight as their moral teachings. It would be logical for the Bishops to

assert that the economic theories put forth by John Paul II are not the best for advancing the

moral principles of the Catholic Church. In this regard, the Bishops can claim that Economic

Justice For All is derived from more liberal popes such as Pius XI and John XXIII. The Bishops

can argue that Pius XI and John XXIII had the correct interpretations of Leo XIII, and therefore,

drawing off of the leftward leaning popes to write Economic Justice For All was justified. In

order to see if this is a valid argument, it is necessary to examine the economic encyclicals of

both Pius XI and John XIII.

Pope Pius XI was the first of these popes to look back at Rerum Novarum and apply it to

the modern economy. Written in 1931, just before the FDR years, Pope Pius XI’s Quadragesimo

Anno was published in accordance with the 40th anniversary of Rerum Novarum. In this

encyclical Pius XI praises the ideas of Leo XIII, calling Rerum Novarum the Magna Carta of

Catholic social teaching, and discusses how those ideas apply to new economic developments.

He displays how the problems of capitalism have evolved since Leo XIII’s time and need to be

addressed. Overall, Pious XI advocates for a “Third Way”, but it is one that is further to the left

than Leo XIII.

While Leo XIII starts off Rerum Novarum condemning socialism. Pius XI opens the

policy portion of Quadragesimo Anno by assuring readers that the Church does not side with the

rich on economic issues. Pious writes, “There are some who calumniate the Supreme Pontiff, and

the Church herself, as if she had taken and were still taking the part of the rich against the non-

27

owning workers – certainly no accusation is more unjust than that.”47 Therefore, Pius seems to

be trying to tip the balance of Catholic social teaching back towards the left. He does not want

the private property aspect of Rerum Novarum emphasized to such an extent that the working

class is harmed. That being said, Pius XI echoes the points of Aquinas and Leo XIII about

private property and profits being acceptable. Additionally, he qualifies his support for private

property by also asserting that man has an obligation to the common good. He argues that what

one does not need to sustain his dignity is not solely his, and that he owes it to the poor.48 Here

Pious seems to depart for Leo XIII. He seems to hold a negative view of private property, and

imply that it is only around as a way of serving the common good. He thinks that private

property should be pursued only in a way where it helps meet a minimal dignity threshold. He

fails to realize that private property is intrinsically good for allowing one to reach his true

potential as a part of God’s plan. Pius is apologetic for private property rather than celebratory of

it like Leo XIII is.

Pius XI then echoes the ideas of the “Living Wage” put forth in Rerum Novarum by again

making the argument that a man needs money to support his family. In doing so, however, he

also introduces the phrase “social justice.” He writes, “Social justice demands that changes be

introduced as soon as possible whereby such a wage will be assured to every adult

workingman.”49 He furthers the point to say that a life of virtue depends on a man having a basic

amount of wealth.50 This is the first time this argument is made in the Catholic Social teaching.

Pius is suggesting that the virtue of one’s life depends on their means. This is elevating the

preferential option for the poor to a whole new level. The idea that all human beings need to

47 Pius, XI. Quadragesimo Anno. May 15, 1931. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2015. 48 Pius XI, 1931, 50 49 Pius, XI, 1931, 71 50 Pius XI, 1931, 70-75

28

have a certain amount of wealth in order to live in accordance with Christ is a claim that requires

much more to be provided for the poor than just the basic amenities. This is a passage that the

Bishops could use to justify their claim that getting the poor out of poverty requires more than

giving them the minimal assistance, and that bridging the gap in economic inequality should be a

major priority for lawmakers. Additionally, Pius discusses that while capitalism is useful within

certain limits, that it can produce an evil individual spirit among human beings.51 He argues that

the problems with capitalism have concentrated wealth at the top of society and have diminished

dignity in society and advocates moral restraint to combat this phenomenon. Therefore, in Pius’

work, the Bishops could find some justification a highly regulated economy to combat the

failures of capitalism.

The problem for the Bishops is that while they might find in Pius more of a case for

government intervention than what Aquinas or Leo XIII provide, Pius also asserts the importance

of the subsidiarity in this encyclical. Pius describes the concept writing, “The supreme authority

of the state ought, therefore, to let subordinate groups handle matters and concerns of lesser

importance, which would otherwise dissipate its efforts greatly.”52 Therefore, Pius points out that

the state should only perform functions that it and only it has the power to perform, and that it

should always delegate power to a lower unit of authority when possible. In this instance Pius

provides problems for the Bishops. The Bishops see it as the job of the United States national

government to help advance the needs of the oppressed with measures such as a national living

wage, nationally funded job training programs, nationally funded entitlement benefits, and a

national progressive tax rate. Pius would argue that because of subsidiarity these issues should be

taken up on a local level instead. So while Pope Pius might provide more justification for the

51 Pius XI, 1931, 88 52 Pius XI, 1931, 80

29

welfare state than Leo or John Paul II put forth, he still does not align directly with the Bishops

because of his staunch commitment to subsidiarity.

The best hope, then, that the Bishops have for justifying their welfare policies through

papal authority comes with John XXIII and his economic encyclical of Mater Et Magistra.

Writing in 1961, with America’s first Catholic in the White House, John XXIII pushed Leo

XIII’s third way position even further left than Pius XI. The first way John XXIII does this is by

building upon Pius’ concept of the “Just Wage”. Pope Leo XIII first advocated for a “Just Wage

so that a man could fulfill his natural duty of taking care of his family, while Pope Pius XI

expanded the concept to enable a man to live virtuously, but John XXIII goes even further. John

XXIII claims that the Just Wage is not just one that allows a man to provide for his family, but

that it is also one that promotes the common good.53 Up until this point the argument for the Just

Wage was mainly a conservative, family oriented one. John XIII expands this, demanding that

employers to take into account the overall economic system when deciding how much to pay

their workers. One of the factors John XXIII wants employers to take into account is the

repercussion one’s wages will have on overall employment.54 This idea that one’s compensation

should not be determined entirely by his work is one that the Bishops can use to argue that a

wages should not always be determined by the free market. The problem for the Bishops,

however, is that John XXIII does not indicate whether wage provisions for the common good

should be enacted by the federal government or by individual employers.

Another new element that can be found in Mater et Magistra is the idea that economic

progress must be equivalent to social progress.55 He furthers this claim when he writes, The

53 John, XXIII. Mater Et Magistra. May 15, 1961. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2015. 54 John XXIII, 1961, 70 55 John XXIII, 1961, 73

30

economic prosperity of a nation is not so much its total assets in terms of wealth and property, as

the equitable division and distribution of this wealth.”56 With this point, John XXIII argues for

distributive justice, and that the goal of an economy is not growth, but the equal distribution of

wealth. This is an argument that is incredibly important to the Bishops’ case for the welfare state.

The Bishops can point to this passage to claim that the government has the obligation to help the

poor and oppressed seek the benefits of the economy even if doing so hurts the overall growth of

the economy. The Bishops can claim that supply side economics does not serve the priorities of

the Church; as such policies do not do enough to alleviate poverty and bridge the gap between

the rich and the poor, which should be the first and foremost goal of a nation. Whether this is a

valid argument from the Bishops is something that will be taken up from an empirical

perspective later on in this paper, but the principle remains important. The Bishops can argue

that John XXIII was a proponent of making the economy equal before growing it, where as free

market advocates tend to argue the opposite should be done. Therefore, John XXIII can be said

to be in accordance with the Bishops for attacking capitalism for creating structures that fail to

reach create equality in the economy.

What is ambiguous about John XXIII’s argument in favor of social equality, however, is

whether he was referring to the equality of outcomes or the equality of opportunity. The Bishops

would argue that John XXIII was putting forth an outcome based approach to the failures of

capitalism, but when looking at some other passages of his encyclical it is possible that this

might be a misrepresentation of John’s view. The first piece of evidence that John XXIII

endorses a system of equal economic outcomes is that he denies the merits of socialism, saying it

56 John XXIII, 1961, 74

31

“restrains human liberty”57 Therefore, John XXIII recognizes that a system in which people have

predetermined economic outcomes restricts their freedom and robs them of their dignity. He

elaborates on this point further when he writes, “ Consequently, if the whole structure and

organization of an economic system is such as to compromise human dignity, to lessen a man's

sense of responsibility or rob him of opportunity for exercising personal initiative, then such a

system, We maintain, is altogether unjust—no matter how much wealth it produces, or how

justly and equitably such wealth is distributed.”58 John XXIII then does not endorse an economic

system that promotes the best possible distribution wealth. He instead endorses an economic

system that protects human dignity. This is very much in keeping with the ideas of Leo XIII. It is

a third way position. Here John XXIII is saying that both capitalism and socialism have the

tendency to treat human beings as cogs in a wheel, and that both are unacceptable in their

extreme forms.

The Bishops might argue, however, that John XXIII still endorses a system of equal

wealth distribution. They might claim that because of John XXIII’s commitment to human

dignity, he would have to endorse a welfare state system where the government is responsible for

providing aid to the poor and marginalized. While John Paul II makes it very clear that the

welfare state can harm one’s initiative, strip him of his dignity, and is not even an adequate

mechanism for alleviating poverty, John XXIII, according to the Bishops, leaves that door open.

He does not seem to provide any detailed policy initiatives that suggest whether he is more

concerned with the structural problems of poverty and inequality or whether he is concerned with

outcomes. Therefore, the Bishops may have an avenue for papal justification in a broad

interpretation of John XXIII. They can claim that John XXIII was in favor of big government

57 John XXIII, 1961, 34 58 John XXIII, 1961, 83

32

distributing wealth to its oppressed citizens in order to defend their dignity. Due to the fact that

John XXIII does not get specific enough in his encyclicals to affirm or refute this claim, the only

way the Bishops can prove this claim is through an empirical assessment of the welfare state, and

whether or not it provides for a more dignified life for its people. This type of question will be

taken up later in the paper when welfare reform is addressed.

Section 5. Conclusion

The Bishops present two arguments when trying to prove that Economic Justice For All

has papal justification. The first of these arguments is that their economic policy proposals,

which are designed to create a welfare state, are in accordance with the principles that all of the

popes put forth in their encyclicals. In one sense this is true. Like the Bishops, all the popes from

Leo XIII to John Paul II endorse the principles of a preferential option for the poor, protecting

human dignity, protecting human rights, and the promotion of the common good. However,

when you look at the details that John Paul II provides for how human dignity and the common

good are best promoted, it is clear that he does not advocate for the welfare state. Because of

John Paul’s animosity toward the welfare state, the Bishops then must push for a more moderate

argument, and claim that Economic Justice For All is justified by some of the popes who provide

a correct interpretation of Rerum Novarum (Pius XI and John XXIII). The issue with this

argument is that although Pius argues for the promotion of social justice, he also issues a new

principle of subsidiarity, making it hard for the Bishops to push for a welfare state on the

national level. The Bishops then only have one hope for papal justification, the hope that John

XXIII’s definition of promoting human dignity requires a massive distribution of wealth to those

in need regardless of whether or not there is reciprocity involved. Due to the fact that John XXIII

33

does not provide details on whether or not his dignity principle warrants this wealth distribution,

the only way to figure out what John XXIII meant is to look at empirical data. Therefore, if

economic evidence suggests that the poor see their dignity promoted from unconditional

government aid, then the Bishops can claim that their policies have some grounding in Mater et

Magistra.

PART III: HOW TO BEST AID THE POOR: A WELFARE STUDY

Section 1. The Causes of Poverty: Bane and Meade

The debate, then, that is essential to figuring out if Economic Justice For All is justified is

one that hinges on the causes of poverty. If, like the Bishops assert, poverty is caused by the

intrinsic failures of capitalism that can only be eradicated by the welfare state, then it seems that

they are right to make such proposals. They are right to try to take the steps that best help the

poor in a dignified manner. However, if alleviating poverty has to do with eradicating moral

failings, and enforcing the obligation to work, like John Paul II asserts, then it seems that the

Bishops might not have justification for their policies. For the Bishops to be justified they need

to prove that there is empirical evidence for poverty being overwhelmingly situational or

systematically caused, not individually caused.

This is the type of debate that takes place between Mary Jo Bane and Lawrence Mead.

Bane proposes that it is necessary to provide welfare state type measures to the poor because

they are being oppressed by the system. She claims that those who are poor are poor because of

factors beyond their control. One of Bane’s justifications in this regard has to do with race. Bane

highlights that in 2001 the poverty rate for non-Hispanic whites was only 7.8%, while blacks and

34

Hispanics had poverty rates of 22% and 21% respectively.59 Bane argues that such a stark

differential between the poverty rates of whites and minority groups suggests that there are racial

barriers for minorities in poverty. Another reason for poverty that Bane asserts is that not all

markets create jobs for everyone. To combat this problem Bane advocates for job creation

programs that try to create opportunities for those whose skills may not allow them to be part of

the employment sector. 60 Here Bane is arguing that high unemployment is the responsibility for

the government to mediate, as the individual does not have the power to get himself a job on his

own.

Lawrence Mead takes the alternative approach to the causes of poverty. He highlights

that many of the reasons why individuals enter and remain in poverty are due to individual moral

failings. Although Mead acknowledges that poverty is highest among racial minorities, he argues

that racial discrimination does not play a huge role in why that is the case. Instead Mead finds a

common denominator among people of all races, who also happen to be poor. Mead asserts that

while 46% of total adults work full time for a year, only 12% of poor adults does so, implying

that a real cause of poverty is a lack of work.61 Mead then is arguing that it does not matter what

race you are, if you do not work you will find yourself in poverty. Mary Jo Bane would bring up

a counterpoint here, however, and claim that the reason why those who are impoverished are not

working because they are either being discriminated against or that the market does not have

work for them. Mead’s response to this claim is that there are plenty of jobs that immigrants

come over and take, implying that the unemployed in America lack the initiative to seek job

59 Bane, Mary Jo., and Lawrence M. Mead. Lifting up the Poor: A Dialogue on Religion, Poverty, and Welfare Reform: Executive Summary. Washington, D.C.: Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 2003. 28. Print. 60 LUTP, 2003, 38 61 LUTP, 2003, 68

35

opportunities.62 Mead does acknowledge that a lot of the jobs that immigrants take are low

paying, but he does not think that is an excuse for those in poverty not to take them. Mead argues

that those have a full-time legal job have much higher odds of not being in poverty, and that even

those who take low wage jobs have a better chance at moving on to a better job than someone

who refuses to take a job at all.63

Mead also addresses Bane’s concern that the poor are often discriminated against, but he

highlights how that discrimination comes more from behavior than race. Mead highlights how

those who are the most likely to be poor are people who engage in self-defeating behavior such

as unwed pregnancy and drug addiction.64 Mead claims that those who engage these behaviors

have a right to be discriminated against in the workforce because the discrimination is a product

of their own bad choices. This type of argument brings to light the central dispute between John

Paul II and the Bishops. John Paul II, like Mead, realizes that one’s obligation to work is what

creates his right to do so. Therefore, according to John Paul II and Mead, when human beings do

not hold up their end of the work agreement, and engage in behavior that is detrimental to

society, society should not necessarily reward them for that behavior. Bane and the Bishops do

not believe that there is anything that a person can do to warrant his assistance to be withheld

from the government. Bane writes, “My moral argument asserts that the community is obligated

to provide basic levels of sustenance, health care, and education for all its members. This

obligation is based on the preciousness of every human being and on the belief that God’s plan

desires the flourishing of every person.”65 Notice that Bane adds no caveat here for, “as long as

people meet the conditions that are expected of them.” Bane and the Bishops believe that the

62 LUTP, 2003, 64 63 LUTP, 2003, 64 64 LUTP, 2003, 67 65 LUTP, 2003, 114

36

government should provide basic sustenance unconditionally because doing so is the only way to

recognize the preciousness of a human being. Mead thinks that you can recognize the

preciousness of a human being by applying principles of tough love, and not rewarding those

who engage in bad behavior. This is the basis for his theory of “paternalism.” The reason Bane

and Mead have this disagreement, however, comes from the different ways they understand the

problems of poverty. Bane believes that poverty is structural, and therefore placing blame on the

individual through policy initiatives does not make sense to her, but Mead feels that such

measures are necessary to combat the poverty that occurs with moral failings.

Section 2. The Welfare Dependency Myth: True or False

In the section above I outlined the two competing views regarding unconditional aid and

its relation to human dignity, and discussed how those views are shaped by different theories

regarding the causes of poverty. Bane’s school of thought supports unconditional aid due to the

fact that poverty is largely structural. Those who subscribe to Mead’s view of poverty realize that

there may be some structural reasons for poverty, but that the real way to address the problem is

to find ways to curtail moral failings. One conclusion that both Bane and Mead share, however,

is the idea that those who are working have a better chance of not being impoverished than those

who do not hold jobs. Therefore, if one wants to solve the poverty problem it is necessary to try

to figure out how to get the most possible people working. This is why both scholars take a huge

interest in welfare policy, as looking at those who receive welfare benefits can provide major

clues into whether or not poverty has an individual aspect to it.

The argument that those like Larry Meade make against the welfare state policies of

unconditional aid is that those policies contribute to a lack of initiative among the poor. Mead’s

37

argument is as follows: 1) Some people are poor because of lack of initiative 2) Those people

can sustain themselves without developing initiative because the government provides them with

aid that allows them to 3) Therefore, the government is aiding the moral failing that is lack of

initiative, and is actually harming its citizens. Programs of unconditional aid, according to Mead,

foster a dependency on the state that John Paul II detests. For Mead’s theory to be correct, it

would have to be proven that there are people receiving unconditional aid that are making no

effort to become independent of that aid.

Prime evidence for the phenomenon of dependency comes with a study that Mary Jo

Bane conducted alongside David Ellwood. The study examined how long people stay on welfare

for, and on the surface her findings suggest that people move off of welfare fairly easily.66 This

would imply that providing people with a safety net of aid helps them get on their feet in hard

times, and does not reinforce any moral failings. When Bane and Ellwood’s study is looked at

more closely, however, it can be found that 65% of people on the welfare rolls will be there for

at least eight years.67 The study goes even further, and provides evidence for the fact that more

than three million of the five million total people on welfare in 1993 had gained as much as

$90,000-$100,000 in welfare benefits.68 This evidence supports Mead’s argument. Bane and

Ellwood’s study displays that in some instances, welfare benefits are so great that they create a

disincentive to find work. Benefits also add further fuel to those who are already not working, as

the aid enables them to not to have to find work. It is important to note, however, that the amount

in funding for AFDC welfare benefits varied from state to state, so some states had greater

66 Haskins, Ron. Work Over Welfare: The inside Story of the 1996 Welfare Reform Law. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2006. 49. Print. 67 Haskins, 49 68 Haskins, 2006, 50

38

dependency issues than others. That being said, there was evidence to suggest that unconditional

welfare lead to government dependency.

Section 3. Impact On The American Bishops

The studies and conclusions that Bane and Ellwood made regarding welfare play a huge

role in the justification of the US Bishops’ Economic Justice For All. As argued earlier in the

paper, the papal support for the pastoral letter is complicated. John Paul II undeniably takes issue

with the welfare state, and even left leaning popes like Pius XI still frown upon the welfare state

due to its conflict with private property and subsidiarity. The main hope for the letter to be

justified rests with a broad interpretation of John XXIII’s idea of dignity. The Bishops can argue

that the welfare state polices put forth in Economic Justice For All are justified because its

policies build on protecting the human dignity. However, as just proven by Bane and Ellwood’s

research, safety net welfare policies do not always promote dignity. Bane’s research shows that

poverty is not completely structural, and that unconditionally aiding human beings through

welfare sometimes hurts them more than helps them. With this in mind, it could be argued that

the Bishops’ welfare policies are not proper interpretations of John XXIII’s dignity principle, and

as a result, their pastoral letter may not have pastoral justification. The next portion of this paper

will highlight how, despite its issues with papal justification, Economic Justice For All played a

major role in the 1996 welfare reform. I will argue that the policies put forth in Economic Justice

For All caused the Bishops to be on the wrong side of the debate.

39

PART IV: THE US BISHOPS AND 1996 WELFARE REFORM

Section 1. The Reform Bill

In the mid 1990s Republicans in the House, led by Clay Shaw sought to overhaul the

current welfare system. Their concerns with the old system (AFDC) were similar to those of

Lawrence Mead. They were worried that the current welfare system was promoting dependency.

They argued that one of the best ways to mitigate poverty is to have a welfare system that

encourages work, and provides incentives for recipients to leave welfare. Over the next couple of

years Republicans embarked on an arduous journey to pass a comprehensive welfare reform bill.

As Ron Haskins chronicled in his book, Work Over Welfare, the bill ultimately ended up doing

the following: 1) Put in place work requirements for those receiving benefits 2) Penalized states

that did not require welfare recipients to work and individuals who refused to work 3) Rewarded

states that helped parents leave welfare for work 4) Set a time limit on the duration individuals

could receive welfare.69 President Clinton signed this welfare reform bill into law in 1996.

In light of the Catholic social teachings that have been previously discussed in this paper,

one might make the argument that the leaders of the Church should have supported such

economic policies. It could be argued that the bill incorporated many of the principles that the

popes articulate in their encyclicals. The bill sought to encourage work, which is something that

popes like John Paul II view as a fundamental obligation for human beings. The fact that the

government was trying to take measures to create more incentives for people to work, rather than

enabling them to continue to sustain themselves without working is something the popes would

applaud. In the same vein, the bill created a time limit of five years for those on welfare benefits.

This time limit of five years represented the idea that the government viewed the plight of the

69 Haskins, 2006, 1

40

poor with compassion, but that they did not want to enable the poor. It could be argued that those

who constructed the bill wanted the time limit to serve as an incentive to make sure people

recognized that being on welfare was not in the best interest. It could be argued that this rationale

was in accordance with a preferential obligation to the poor. The bill also turned aid, which was

formally distributed by the federal government, into block grants to be distributed at the state

level. The concept of the national government turning over the power to aid the poor to a more

local entity could be said to please the popes from a subsidiarity perspective. Therefore, the goals

of the bill could have been argued to be in accordance with the Catholic social teaching of the

popes from Leo XIII to John Paul II.

A major issue for the bill, however, was that it did not solely target the economic aspects

of poverty. The bill also took major steps to try to curtail the amount of out of wedlock

pregnancies occurring in the U.S. As the early welfare reform bill started to take shape, members

of Congress, thanks largely to the work of social scientist Charles Murray, had an understanding

that the amount of out of wedlock pregnancies in America had skyrocketed since the 1960s.

There was empirical evidence to go along with this understanding, as the percentage of unwed

pregnancies rose from 1% in 1960 to 32% by the mid 1990s.70 Additionally, select Republican

members of Congress also understood the high correlation between poverty and unmarried

mothers. Due to these two factors, when they began constructing the welfare reform in 1993,

there was a contingent of Republicans in Congress that advocated that the bill also should try to

address illegitimate childbirths. Because of the fact that the poverty rate was so high amongst

unwed mothers, these lawmakers believed, curtailing illegitimate childbirths would bring the

70 Santorum, Rick. It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good. Wilmington, DE: ISI, 2005. Print. (130)

41

overall poverty rate down. The question for those who held this view was whether or not curbing

pregnancies out of wedlock could be done through legislation.

It was the belief of social scientists like Charles Murray that legislation could solve the

country’s illegitimacy crisis. Murray argued that the welfare programs that were expanded in the

1960ss, enables people to make behavioral mistakes such having children out of wedlock.71 He

claimed that welfare provides people with the means to make these kinds mistakes without those

people receiving any consequences for their actions.72 He argued that the unconditional aid that

welfare provides encourages and increases illegitimate pregnancies. What was Murray’ solution

then? Murray held the view that if an end to welfare would reduce illegitimacy rates in a

profound way.73 Influenced by Murray’s strong stand regarding the correlation between welfare

and illegitimacy, some Republicans in Congress believed that the only true way to reform

welfare was to also address illegitimacy. The illegitimacy issue was highly contested amongst

members of the Republican Party, as many moderates thought that the reform should strictly

focus on dependency. When the bill finally passed, it did not go as far as Murray would have

liked, but it still did contain some provisions that addressed his ideas. Conservative Republicans

like Jim Talent and Jan Meyers created a provision that would allow states to choose to withhold

additional welfare benefits for unwed mothers who had children on welfare.74 This became

known as the Murray Light provision, or the state discretionary family cap. Although the state

discretionary family cap’s status fluctuated at different times of the reform effort, it ended up

making it into the final bill.

71 Haskins, 28 72 Haskins, 28 73 Haskins, 62 74 Haskins, 62

42

The family cap option that states gained through the reform bill of 1996, however, did not

come without controversy. Many opponents of the provision argued, that cutting off welfare

benefits for unwed mothers on welfare who become pregnant, would lead to the mothers having

no other option but to have abortions. Consequently, they claimed that the Murray Light proposal

would increase abortions. The possibility that the 1996 welfare reform bill would lead to more

abortions became a huge problem for the Church. As discussed above, the economic policies of

the bill could viewed in alignment with many of the principles that the popes put forth in their

encyclicals. On the other hand, the bill had a possibility of increasing abortions, something the

church is firmly against. As a result, the Bishops could have had multiple responses to the bill.

The Bishops could have denounced the bill due to the possibility that it would increase abortions,

and not even bothered to weigh in on the economic aspects of it. Or, the Bishops could have

articulated their approval of the economic provisions in the bill but denounced support for it on

the grounds of abortion concerns. The Bishops did neither. In fact, the Bishops chose to criticize

the bill due to both economic and right to life rationales. The explanation for such behavior will

be explained in the following section.

Section 2. The Objections of the Bishops

The United States Catholic Bishops provided major resistance to the 1996 welfare

reform. Their resistance, however, did not only revolve around their concerns about the bill’s

potential impacts on abortion; they also took a hardline stance that the bill was in violation of

Catholic social teaching related to economics. The first piece of evidence of the Bishops’

disapproval for the economic policies of the welfare reform bill is a statement they issued in

March of 1995. The statement, titled “Moral Principles and Policy Priorities for Welfare

43

Reform,” served as a direct attack on the bill. While the first portion of the statement articulated

the Bishops’ concerns about the Murray Light provision and explained that they could not

support any legislation that would increase abortions, the Bishops did not stop there.75 In the

latter part of the statement the Bishops claimed that they can only support welfare reform that

“preserves a safety net for the vulnerable,” as they wrote, “Society has the responsibility to help

meet the needs of those who cannot care for themselves… we cannot support reform that

destroys structures, ends entitlements, and eliminates resources that have provided an essential

safety net for vulnerable children.”76The Bishops also took issue with the time limits that the

welfare reform bill tried to impose as they write, “Rigid rules and arbitrary timelines are no

substitute for real jobs at decent wages and the tax polices that can help keep families off of

welfare.”77

When trying to figure out why the Bishops had these objections one can come back to

Economic Justice For All and the debate on what causes poverty. The Bishops did not like the

possibility that welfare as an entitlement could end because they felt that it should be provided

unconditionally. The Bishops felt like the real causes of poverty were due to factors outside the

control of individuals and that there was not a benefit to paternalistic nature of welfare reform.

These were the same ideas articulated in Economic Justice For All. In Economic Justice For All

the Bishops denied the theory that the AFDC system fosters dependency. They stated, “Nor is it

true that the rolls of AFDC are filled with able bodied who could but will not work.78 Because of

75 Nolan, Hugh J., and Patrick W. Carey. Pastoral Letters of the United States Catholic Bishops. Washington, D.C. (1312 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington 20005): National Conference of Catholic Bishops, United States Catholic Conference, 1997. 661-666. Print 76 Nolan, 1997. 661-666 77 Nolan, 1997. 661-666 78 EJFA, 2003, 193

44

this belief they urged the American public to refrain from actions that stigmatized the poor.79

Therefore, Economic Justice For All was a document that wanted to completely disregard the

idea that people could be poor as a result of moral failings. The Bishops did not like the idea of

the government requiring certain actions from the poor because the existence of such a

requirement confirms the merit of a stigma against the poor that the Bishops denounced.

Accordingly, when Congress was taking actions to address the moral failings of the poor, the

Bishops could not support such measures, as they were incompatible with Economic Justice For

All. The specific policies that the Bishop’s pushed for ten years earlier had come back to

hamstring them in the welfare reform debate.

More evidence that Economic Justice For All was the rationale used by the Bishops

against the economic aspects of the welfare reform bill comes from a meeting that some of them

had with Clay Shaw, a Catholic Congressman, and the chief architect of the bill. This meeting,

which took place in November of 1995, was attended by Bishops John Ricard, William Skylstad,

and Joseph Sullivan.80 In this meeting, according to Ron Haskins, an aid to Shaw, the Bishops

continuously referenced Economic Justice For All when supporting their arguments against the

bill.81

Economic Justice For All was not only the basis for the US Catholic Bishops’ criticism of

the welfare reform bill, it also served as the rationale for which Catholic Charities USA, the

largest Catholic based charity organization in America, used to oppose the bill. On January 30th,

1995 Reverend Fred Kammer came before the Committee of Ways and Means Human

Resources Subcommittee to testify about the potential impacts of the bill. Kammer made similar

79 EJFA, 2003, 194 80 Haskins, 256 81 Haskins, 257

45

points to those articulated in “Moral Principles and Policy Priorities for Welfare Reform.”

Kammer railed against the Murray Light provisions of the bill, but also voiced strong concern for

the time limit provision as well.82 An interesting aspect of Kammer’s argument against time

limits was that he failed to provide any statistical data to back up his claim. He made a general

claim that Governors said there would not be enough jobs for those who needed them, but

provided no support for such an argument.83 To be fair, there was little evidence that there would

be enough jobs for those leaving welfare either. No one really knew how the reform would turn

out. Some issues regarding the employment of welfare leavers will be discussed later in this

book. The main point to Kammer’s testimony, however, is how Catholic Charities USA and the

Bishops were basing their opinions not on empirical data, but by the theories put forth in

Economic Justice For All.

Therefore, the Bishops came out fiercely against the 1996 welfare reform bill. They did

so by issuing a detailed statement that condemned the most important economic aspects of the

bill. Individuals Bishops also wrote their own letters condemning the Bill. Some of these letters,

like one by Howard J. Hubbard of Albany, were read into the Congressional Record by Senators

like Daniel Patrick Moynihan (also a Catholic) to discredit the bill.84 The Bishops then

coordinated with Catholic Charities USA, who was the largest private sector partner the

government had with regards to welfare, and got them to denounce the bill on the record at

hearings. And lastly, they met with individual Catholic congressmen like Clay Shaw in order to

dissuade them from pursuing the bill further. Again, such measures may have been justified if

82 Kammer, Fred. Testimony Before Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee On Ways And Means, January 30th, 1995 83 Krammer, 1995 84 Moynihan, Daniel Patrick. Moynihan Statement in Congressional Record, April 6th, 1995

46

the Bishops had kept their concerns abortion related, but the overall opposition to the economic

provisions of the bill was equally as powerful.

Many would argue that the unwavering opposition that the Bishops had towards the

economic provisions in the 1996 welfare reform bill was a new development. Timothy Byrnes,

writing in 1991, described how Economic Justice For All “remained in the political background”

during the 1988 presidential election, and that it was a “politically hollow” document.85 Byrnes

argued that the Bishops’ proposals for the distribution of wealth never came into the forefront of

American politics partially because the Bishops thought that opposing abortion was their number

one political duty. Byrnes argued that the Bishops were so concerned with making sure their

voice against abortion was heard, that they were reluctant to try to cross their Republican

abortion allies on the economic issues that also mattered to them. Byrnes’ thesis was that the

Bishops were put in a political bind, as they had economic policies that did not mesh with the

Republican party and abortion policies that did not mesh with the Democrats, so they ultimately

chose not to push their economic agenda in American politics in the late 1980 through the early

1990s.

I argue then, that the welfare reform debate proves Byrnes’ thesis remarkably. Up until

the welfare reform process, welfare state driven policies and right to life policies were on other

sides of the political spectrum. While Reagan Republicans fought to make their party defenders

of the right to life movement, they also felt that the best way to advance the interests of the poor

and the common good as whole was not to enact welfare state policies. The US Catholic Bishops

endured Republican economic policies because they did not want to lose their support on the

issue of abortion. When the Republicans presented their plan for welfare reform, however, the

85 Byrnes, Timothy A. Catholic Bishops in American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1991. 131,135. Print.

47

political conundrum the Bishops had been in since the Republicans had taken up the right to life

cause in the 1970s ceased. With this reform bill, the Bishops could argue, Republicans were not

only in violation of the principles and policies of Economic Justice For All, they also were also

promoting policies that could lead to increased abortion. The political spectrum drastically

shifted. The Bishops were then put in a position where they could oppose Republican economic

policies openly, as they already had to attack the reform bill due to its potential to increase

abortions. The Murray Light provision of the welfare reform bill then, neutralized the leverage

that Republicans had on the Bishops. The Bishops felt they could openly condemn the bill on all

grounds because Republicans had failed them on abortion anyway. As a result, Catholic

Republicans in Congress were faced for the first time with the task of defending their economic

ideals against a major assault from the Bishops. The main question that was created from this

phenomenon was simple – what would Catholic Republicans do? Would they stick by their

economic principles and stand up to the Bishops, or would they cave to endorse the polices that

the Bishops articulate in Economic Justice For All?

Section 3. How Catholic Lawmakers Responded

One might wonder why the enormous amount of pressure that the US Catholic Bishops

put on members of Congress did not yield any results. How did a group that asserts leadership

over a quarter of the American electorate not have more sway in the outcome of the reform bill?

A more interesting question, however, is why many Catholic lawmakers in specific did not heed

to the wishes of the Bishops. If the Bishops were really articulating the view of the Church on

welfare, then weren’t all of the Catholic politicians who championed the reform bill in violation

of their Catholic principles? When one examines the roll call voting for Catholics it does not

48

seem like the Bishops had any ability to sway Catholic politicians. In the Senate, all nine

Catholic Republicans voted for the bill.86 What is even more remarkable, however, is that three

of the twelve Democrats in the Senate voted for the bill. Some of these Senators were very

prominent Democrats, including Joe Biden and John Kerry. These Democratic Senators could

have hid behind their party and voted against the bill without ridicule, but instead they

consciously bucked the wishes of the Bishops and voted against the bill. This phenomenon was

even more abundant in the House, where eight out of sixty-eight Catholic Democrats voted for

the bill. On the other side of the aisle in the House there was overwhelming support for the bill.

In fact, 57 of the 59 Catholic Republicans supported the measure. Only two Catholic

Republicans, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Lincoln Diaz-Balart, chose not to vote for the bill that

ultimately ended up being signed into law by President Clinton.87

While it is true that these two Republicans were also Catholics, the reason they voted

against the bill was not necessarily because they were persuaded by the concerns of the Bishops.

Both of these representatives were from Florida, and had large immigrant constituencies. This

had a major impact on how the approached the bill. Diaz-Balart justified his vote by saying, "I

felt so strongly about the specific aspects of welfare reform that denied benefits to legal

immigrants, that I did not want to accept the whole package because of that item."88 The reason

that Diaz Balart, and most likely Ros-Lehtinen as well, chose not to support the bill was because

it restricted the ability of immigrants to gain access to welfare benefits, and they did not want to

lose support amongst their voters. Therefore, it is apparent that the Bishops did not have

86 See Appendix 87 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, govtrack.us 88 Moreno, Dario. Cuban's in the 1996 Presidential Election. Florida International, 29 Jan. 1998. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

49

influence over any of the Catholic Republicans in Congress, even the two that did not vote for

the bill.

Why then, was it the case that Republican Catholic lawmakers held their ground and

supported their parties’ economic policies over those of the Bishops? And why was it the case

that some Catholic Democrats reached across the aisle to help pass the bill? One could argue that

these Catholic politicians were pandering to their constituencies, or putting party politics over

their allegiance to the Catholic Church, and for some of them that might have been the case. But

when looking at some of the statements Catholic politicians about the bill, however, it is clear

that some of them of them were indeed supporting the bill due to their religious principles. These

lawmakers simply had different policy approaches to the principles of the Catholic Church. One

of these lawmakers was Rick Santorum, whose view of the bill was best summed up by a

statement he made about the bill on the Senate floor on August 1st 1996. Santorum said,

“I think we have shown that that system is truly not compassionate because when the Federal Government comes in and takes care of every aspect or every need that even a child has, then the Federal Government, in fact, becomes the replacement for the others whose responsibility it truly should be to take care of that child. We have said to the father, again, you are not necessary. We have said to mothers, you do not have to work; we will provide--some distant bureaucrat will send a check to provide for you. That is not compassion. Compassion is having a system that builds families so there is an environment there for children to flourish. Compassion is a system that supports neighborhoods and civic organizations, mediating institutions that Dan Coats talks about so often that provide the values and community support for families that they need to help take care of children… No, this bill is all about creating a community, creating a support network and environment at the level most important to that child as opposed to that bureaucrat sitting behind the bulletproof window passing out the check every month, saying to that person on the other end receiving that check that you, because of your poverty, are unable to provide for yourself and your children and you need to be dependent upon us for your life.”

Santorum played a major role in authoring the bill in the House, and as he argued above, he

genuinely believed that the bill was a way to be more compassionate toward the poor. Santorum

50

thought that the bill would help build up families and the community to better the situation of

poor people and enhance the common good.

Santorum’s position regarding the welfare reform bill was not just confined to a couple of

partisan speeches on the Senate floor. He wrote a whole book about how conservative

government leads to the betterment of the poor and society in general. In this book he adamantly

defends the compassionate nature of the 1996 reform effort writing, “Lets get this straight: the

family is the problem and the loving government is the answer? Yes, there are parents who make

mistakes, but as we have seen, government dependency is not the loving answer.”89 Therefore,

Santorum believed that the best way to care for the poor was to help them help themselves. He

recognized the problems associated with a government doing too much for its citizens. He

believed that when the government provides too much that there is incentive to get away from

family values. These types of critiques were along the same lines as the ones that John Paul II

and Leo XIII presented against the welfare state.

Another lawmaker who opposed the Bishops with fiery speeches on the Senate floor was

Pete Domenici. At times, Domenici’s criticism of the Bishops was even harsher than Santorum’s.

Just before the Senate voted on the final bill Domenici called the Bishops out by name, saying,

“I am very hopeful that these leaders, including the Catholic hierarchy of America, who I

generally talk to and seek advice from, I am hopeful that they understand there is a lot

more to welfare reform and trying to help poor people than to continue programs that

exchange money and give them benefits, for they, too, may find them more responsible

and more independent for doing for themselves. I think this has a chance of working. .”90

89 Santorum, Rick. It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good. Wilmington, DE: ISI, 2005. 133. Print. 90 Domenici, Pete. Domenici Statement in Congressional Record. August 1, 1996.

51

Thus, to Domenici, the goal of the welfare reform was in line with the goals of the Bishops, he

just believed the Bishops did not understand the complexities of the welfare problem. His

testimony showed that he willingly went against the Bishops because he thought the welfare

reform bill had a better chance of helping the poor than the policies the Bishops were advocating

for. Domenici believed that the Bishops were against the reform because they did not know how

to appropriately apply their principles to policy initiatives.

Clay Shaw was also a Catholic who was not afraid to confront the Bishops head on.

Shaw’s belief that the bill embodied Catholic principles is exemplified by his willingness to meet

with the Bishops to discuss the bill in November of 1995. During the meeting Shaw did not

argue with the bishops over whether or not welfare reform should be addressed in a way that best

advanced the interests and dignity of the poor, he instead argued with them over how that should

be done. Shaw, like Mead, argued for a “tough love” driven approach to the poor, and that the

poor could only be helped if measures were put in place that forced them to help themselves.91

Shaw could have just tried to ram the bill through Congress without the support of the Bishops,

but his effort to try to get them on board with the bill personifies how well he believed the bill

could promote Catholic teachings. He made a bona-fide attempt to show the Bishops that his

reform was in accordance with Church teaching.

Even John Kerry, a Catholic Democrat, supported the bill. His reasoning for doing so is

summed up in a statement he issued while running for president in 2003. Kerry wrote, “My vote

in favor of welfare reform in 1996 signified support for fixing a system that was broken; raising

children out of poverty; providing families a hand up the economic ladder to employment and for

91 Haskins, 256

52

providing needed medical coverage while transitioning from welfare to work, to name a few.”92

Therefore, even a Democrat was able to vote against his own party in order to vote for a bill that

he felt better advanced the interests of the poor. Thus, the refusal of Catholics in Congress to

acquiesce to the demands of the Bishops and vote against the bill was not a result of some sort

revolution against Catholic principles. Some of the Catholics that voted against the bill believed,

based on the empirical data that they had access to, that the reform had a better chance to aid the

poor than the Bishops believed. It was a classic policy dispute that could only be settled by

looking at the effects of the bill after it was enacted. The following section of this paper seeks to

do just that.

PART V: WERE THE CATHOLIC LAWMAKERS CORRECT?

The last question that should be asked with regards to the 1996 welfare reform bill is

simply - who was right? The US Catholic Bishops took an unprecedented stand against the

economic aspects of the bill based upon the ideas they put forth in Economic Justice For All,

while the Catholic Republicans, and even some Catholic Democrats in Congress ignored them.

Some of these lawmakers, especially Rick Santorum, Pete Domenici Clay Shaw, and John Kerry

did so because they believed that the bill would be able to advance the lives of the poor, an

argument related to Catholic principles. Therefore, in order to vindicate the Catholic politicians

that stood against the Bishops, it is necessary to examine the empirical impacts of the bill, and

whether or not those impacts positively advanced Catholic values articulated in the encyclicals,

92 Kerry, John. "Statement of Senator John Kerry Regarding Welfare Reform Reauthorization." Project Vote Smart. N.p., 10 Sept. 2003. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

53

such as the dignity of the human person, a preferential option for the poor, the common good,

and subsidiarity.

Section 1. Dignity

Human dignity is extremely difficult to measure. There have not been any substantial

studies empirical studies on whether or not those on welfare feel more dignified in the light of

the 1996 reforms, and even if there were, those studies could be heavily scrutinized. That being

said, there are some features that the popes identify as being essential to dignity, and one can get

a better idea of how successful the 1996 reform was by examining those features. A main

component of dignity is referenced earlier in this paper and comes from John Paul II. He writes,

“Man’s life is built up every day from work, from work it derives its specific dignity”93 Pope

John Paul II was not the only pope who believed work is essential to dignity. Other popes,

including John XXIII, also affirm this point.94 As discussed earlier, not only does John XXIII say

that work is essential to dignity, he also writes in favor of an economic system that promotes

responsibility and personal initiative.95 John XXIII’s position affirms that there is a papal belief

that dignity is inherently connected with work and the positive characteristics that make it so

valuable. Accordingly, any economic reform that increases the number of people working can be

seen as a promotion of the human dignity component of Catholic values.

When looking at the data collected after the reform, there is much to be said for the

position that the 1996 welfare reform promoted work. The main evidence for this position is

twofold. First, the number of people on the welfare rolls decreased dramatically. From 1994 to

93 John Paul II, 1981, 1 94 John XXIII, 1961, 114 95 John XXIII, 1961, 28

54

2004 the welfare caseload declined by an average of 60%, any where from 30% -90% in various

states. 96 Second, studies surveying those who have left welfare indicated that 60% of them had

jobs, while 70% of those who left welfare held a job at one point.97 Therefore, after the welfare

reform bill of 1996 was passed, those on welfare decreased dramatically, and a large amount of

those who left welfare found work. This development can be used as affirmation that the reform

served the purpose of those who authored and supported it, as it gave people the push to get off

welfare and start working. And although the 1996 reform was designed to get people off of

welfare, the push to start working was evident even those who stayed on the rolls. From 1996 to

2000 the employment rate for those on welfare rose from 11 percent to 33 percent, proving that

the penalties put in place by the reform bill motivated a great amount of people to find jobs even

if they could not get off welfare entirely.98 A final important statistic with regards to the work

component of the 1996 reform is that from 1993- 2000 the percentage of single mothers who

were employed jumped nearly 30%.99 Due to the fact that such a demographic was the main

target of TANF, it can be inferred that the reforms may have had a role in creating this statistic as

well. All this data seems to verify that welfare reform increased work and a sense of

responsibility amongst recipients. Welfare reform changed the culture of the program, and made

it so recipients knew that there were expectations for receiving aid. The work requirement,

coupled with the time limit that the reform put in place, caused recipients to realize that the

program was not a permanent solution, and helped serve as an incentive for them to be more

accountable for their economic situation and look for jobs.

96 Haskins, 2006, 334 97 Haskins, 2006, 334 98 Sawhill, Isabel V. "Isabel Sawhill." Welfare Reform and Beyond: The Future of the Safety Net. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2002. 9-29. Print. 99 Hasinks, 2006, 335

55

It would be misguided, however, to conclude that the welfare reform work requirements

and time limits were the only reasons for the statistics mentioned above. The success of the 1996

reform can also be tied heavily to the work support incentives that were reconfigured as a result

of the bill. Before the 1996 reform bill passed, many mothers were incentivized to stay on

welfare because their welfare check and subsequent benefits were greater than the amount of

resources they would be able gain from getting a job. The reasoning for this was that the AFDC

system did not allow for mothers leaving welfare to stay on Medicaid, and did fairly little to

supplement the low incomes that welfare leaving mother’s were receiving. Haskins explains that

the 1996 bill allowed those who left welfare to keep their Medicaid for themselves (for up to one

year) and for their children, and provided much greater supplemental earnings for those working

low paid jobs via an increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit. 100 These changes were also

supplemented with a $4.5 billion increase in the block grant for childcare from the period of

1997-2002.101 All of these developments encouraged mothers to leave welfare, as TANF did not

have the same downside for working that AFDC did. Therefore, the 1996 bill took a two-

pronged approach to trying to incentivize the poor to work. In one sense, it fostered a sense of

responsibility in the poor, linking welfare benefits to work through requirements and time limits.

It also encouraged work by broadening work assistance programs to create a system where

welfare recipients were better off if they got jobs. The reform’s success in increasing work

through the ideas of responsibility and personal initiative made the welfare reform a great

success in terms of promoting the Catholic value of the dignity of the human person.

There are some scholars, however, that refute the notion that the welfare reforms of 1996

lead to the increased employment of single mothers and the amount of mothers who moved from

100 Haskins, 2006, 342 101 Sawhill, 2002, 26

56

welfare to the workforce. These scholars, one of the most prominent of which is Rebecca Blank,

often bring up the fact that the economy underwent a period of sustained growth in the late

1990s, and that a lot of the positives that get attributed to welfare reform with regards to work

are really just effects of an economic boom. Blank argues that somewhere between 25-50 percent

of the welfare caseload reduction can be attributed to the economy.102 While welfare reform

advocates like Haskins admit that the economy definitely played a role in mothers leaving

welfare for work, they take issue with the reliability of Blank’s percentage distribution. Haskins’

rationale is that the welfare rolls have not always decreased during times of economic progress.

In fact, he points out that from 1953-1994 the number of people on welfare only decreased five

times, and only once (by 2% from 1977-1979), was that decrease sustained for at least two

years.103 Consequently, the idea that an economic boom automatically leads to a decline in

people on welfare seems not to have shaky support at best. Even Blank acknowledges the

difficulty of pining down exactly what percentage of those who left the rolls was created by the

economy, and that the welfare reform bill played a crucial role in the process.104 The strong

economy probably played a role in putting welfare recipients to work, but that does not mean

that the 1996 reform bill and its work support measures did not also contribute to the

phenomenon.

It seems that the 1996 reform was successful in promoting the work aspect of human

dignity, but it also addressed another area of dignity as well. Throughout their encyclicals the

popes all preach that human beings should not be reduced to being a mere products of a system

and should be respected as individuals. Leo XIII makes this point with regards to the socialism

102 Blank, Rebecca M. "Evaluating Welfare Reform in the United States." Journal of Economic Literature 40.4 (2002): 1105-166. Web. 103 Haskins, 2006, 334 104 Blank, 2002, 8

57

being a system that brings about moral degradation, while John Paul II warns of the evils of

human dignity being destroyed through consumer culture. In essence, the popes feel that human

beings should never be treated as mere pawns in some greater scheme. Many opponents of the

welfare reform bill of 1996, however, accused Republicans of doing just that. They scolded

Republicans for being cruel, and trying to pray on the well being of individuals in order to cut

costs and promote their fiscally conservative agendas. These skeptics said that the reform lacked

human compassion and only was concerned with lowering costs. This was far from the truth. In

fact, the welfare reforms that were made in 1996 were incredibly expensive. As Mead points out,

spending per welfare case rose over $2,000 from 1996-1999.105 This increase in funding was

mainly because the block grants that were given to states remained the same every year, even

when the number of people on the welfare rolls decreased. If the program were really designed to

save money, states would have received less money to spend on welfare as their case loads

decreased. Instead, states kept the same amount of money over the years with fewer clients to

serve, and consequently, they could provide more services for the working poor. Therefore, the

welfare reform bill of 1996 was not designed to manipulate the dignity of human beings to help

the country get its fiscal house in order; Instead, the reforms increased the cost of welfare

spending, proving that advocates of the bill genuinely cared about helping the poor.

Section 2. A Preferential Option For The Poor

The next question that has to be asked with regards to welfare reform is a broader one.

Did this imitative help alleviate the suffering of the poor? While the evidence above suggests

that welfare promoted the dignity of the human person through work, the next question to ask is

105 Mead, Lawrence M., and Christopher Beem. Welfare Reform and Political Theory. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2005. 20. Print.

58

whether or not such work translated into better lives for the poor. There is strong evidence to

support this as well. When the welfare reform bill was being debated, Senators like Daniel

Patrick Moynihan assumed that it would drastically harm children. In a speech on the Senate

floor he said, “The bill is reckless because it could endanger the well-being of the poorest

children in society in the name of a series of untested theories about how people may respond to

some new incentives.”106 Contrary to Moynihan’s assumption, the child poverty rate actually fell

to its lowest level since 1978. 107 Also in 2000 the poverty rate amongst black children, one of

the poorest demographics in the United States, decreased to the lowest level it has ever been.

These two statistics are great news for the pro reform bill Catholics. The whole purpose of

welfare is for poor children to not be negatively impacted by the mistakes made by their parents,

making poverty decreases for children a huge endorsement of the program. To provide more

specific insight into the conditions of the target demographic that the 1996 reform sought to

address, it is worth noting that that the poverty rate of children living in a household headed by

an unmarried female fell around 20% from 1990 to 1999.108 Due to the fact that such a

demographic is the most likely in the U.S. to be poor, such a drastic decrease is a huge

accomplishment. The demographic also correlates well to the welfare reform program because

unmarried females are main recipients of welfare. These statistics confirm that the welfare

reform bill was actually able to reach the people its most designed to help – the children.

While the results from the reform regarding children were positive, results regarding

mothers are more complex. One the surface, these numbers seem positive. Taking the EITC into

106 DeLong, Brad. "Daniel Patrick Moynihan's Speech on Welfare Reform.". University of California, 21 Feb. 1996. Web. 17 Apr. 2016. 107 Haskins, 2006, 336 108 Haskins, 2006, 336

59

account, the poverty rate for single mothers declined by 4.5 percent from 1990-1999.109

However, this number fails to address a serious concern regarding the mothers who leave welfare

and do not find work. As stated above, somewhere between 30-40% of mothers do not find work

when they leave welfare. As Ladonna Pavetti points out, a strikingly high percentage of these

mothers have what she defines as “multiple barriers to employment”. Pavetti discusses how these

barriers are made up of three categories: personal and family challenges, human capital, and

logistical. She claims that mothers who experience barriers in all three of these categories have

an extremely hard time getting employed. For example, the chances of getting hired for a mother

who is suffering from depression, lacks a high school degree, and doesn’t have access to a car

are exponentially low. 110 The 1996 welfare reform was rooted in the concept that there were

many on welfare that were able to work, but were not taking the initiative to do so. Pavetti’s

research shows that there is a category of mother’s who do not fit this description, and taking

welfare away from them is extremely problematic. Haskins also recognizes the problems that

exist for this demographic, which he refers to as “floundering families.”111 Haskins admits that

that the earnings for those at the bottom 10% of the earnings distribution for the single headed

mothers decreased after the reforms. Therefore, some of the poorest of the poor were left worse

off by the bill.

The inability of the welfare reform bill to address these “floundering families” can be

viewed in the light of the Bane and Mead debate about the causes poverty. The differences

between Bane and Mead are due in large part to their beliefs about the amount of structural

poverty. Bane claims that a significant amount of poverty is structural, while Meade argues that

109 Haskins, 2006, 336 110 Sawhill, 2002, 137 111 Haskins, 2006, 349

60

most poverty stems from moral failings. The welfare reform bill of 1996 was a representation of

an extreme articulation of Mead’s position. Yes, the bill was geared towards helping those that

needed a push to help themselves, but it did not have any provisions to help those who were

excluded from the workforce due to structural issues. In essence, proponents of the 1996 reform

did exactly what they accuse Bane of doing – reducing poverty to one cause. The bill’s advocates

were correct in their assumption that the bill would help those who needed a push to find work,

as that was true for 70% of the people who left welfare, but the architects of the bill did not

provide provisions to help the people who may want to work but cannot get hired. One could

argue that in doing so they basically denied the importance of structural poverty. The bill’s

supporters would refute this, however, claiming that a lot of what Bane and Pavetti consider to

be structural issues are actually moral failings. Mead and the supporters of the bill would argue

that barriers such as drug addiction, alcohol abuse, and the lack of prior work experience are all

created because of individual character flaws, and that the only way to help the poor in a broader

sense is to create a system that does not bail people out for irresponsible behavior. Supporters of

the 1996 reform could claim that the floundering families are a price to be paid for an overall

shift in policy that will have significant impacts on the poor in the long term.

Therefore, there is strong evidence to suggest that the 1996 welfare reform enhanced the

condition of America’s poor. The reform increased the well-being of children dramatically, and

also helped decreased the poverty rate amongst mothers in a substantial way. The reform did

have drawbacks due to its inability to address those who had “barriers” to employment, but it can

be argued that many of those barriers are moral failings that the reform will reduce over the long

term.

Section 3. The Common Good

61

Another lens through which to view the 1996 welfare reform is its relation to the

common good. Trying to measure the common good is also difficult. Just like with human

dignity, the best way to do so is to keep in mind how the common good is articulated in Catholic

social thought. One of the main elements that the Popes and the Bishops believe makes up the

common good is a sense of community. They argue that human beings need to be able to

participate in society, and that the more participation that occurs the better society becomes. As

John Paul II writes, “For an adequate formation of a culture, the involvement of the whole man is

required.”112 The Bishops push this point even further, claiming it is a right that all humans are

able to participate in society. They write, “The common good demands justice for all,” and that

“Basic justice demands the establishment of minimal level of participation in the life of the

human community of persons.”113 Thus, even though the Bishops may view societal participation

as more of a human right than the Popes do, both parties agree on its importance for the common

good. With this in mind, any measures taken to foster a greater sense of community amongst

members of society can be viewed as enhancements of the common good. With regards to the

1996 welfare reform in specific, if it can be proven that the reform helped create a more unified

society, then the reform was a success from a common good perspective.

There is evidence that the reform did just that. Part of this evidence is linked to an a

theory offered by Mary Joe Bane on how the reform, even with its economic policy flaws, still

had positive impacts on American political discourse. In 1999 Bane made the observation that

the reform might bring about more political opportunities for the government to aid the poor. She

wrote, “There seem to be some indications of a less ugly political climate around welfare and

poverty and of more openness to compassionate public and private responses to the problems of

112 John Paul, II, 1991, 51 113 EJFA, 1986, 44

62

poverty…It may be easier for most Americans to identify with and be sympathetic towards the

working poor.”114 Thus, Bane argued that prior to the reforms the poor on welfare were

stigmatized to such an extent that lawmakers did not have much public support when trying to

take other measures to help them. In demanding certain work obligations from the poor,

according to Bane, the 1996 reform helped alleviate some of the resentment the poor in America

faced from the rest of the public, and build a greater sense of community in the U.S.

Bane’s hypothesis can be confirmed when one looks at some of the research done on the

opinions the American public have about welfare. Martin Gilens did a number of extensive

studies on the public opinion regarding welfare and concluded that while Americans view

programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security with great favorability, Americans attach

an extremely negative stigma towards welfare. Gilens documents how only 14% of Americans

believe that welfare should be expanded, while 63% of Americans believe that it should be

cut.115 According to Gilens, this stigma against welfare has nothing to do with America’s

opposition for using the government to help the poor. In fact, 88% of the public supports

government funding for the poor.116 Instead, the American public is against giving the poor cash

benefits, as 73% of Americans believe that the government should address the causes of poverty

rather than distribute money directly to the poor. Gilens points out that a rationale for this

statistic is the idea that most Americans do not believe the poor are deserving of cash aid. He

supports this idea with the fact that only 31% of Americans believe that people on welfare

114 Bane, Mary Jo. “Expertise, Advocacy and Deliberation: Lessons from Welfare Reform”.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20.2 (2001): 191–197. Web.. 115 Gilens, Martin. Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1999. Print. 116 Gilens, 1999, 37

63

actually are trying to find jobs to get off of it.117 Gilens’ research is a confirmation that the public

feels the same way about welfare that the advocates of the 1996 reform did. The public feels like

a vast majority of welfare recipients are taking advantage of the system, and need to be pushed to

find work. Gilens’ findings strengthens this argument further, as 97% of Americans believe that

welfare recipients should be required to work, and that 75% support time limits on welfare.118

Americans are happy to aid the poor and the helpless, but they believe those who can help

themselves should be encouraged to do so. This means that the rationale for the 1996 reforms

had the backing of a vast majority of Americans.

The anti-welfare sentiment in the United States has a profound impact on the common

good. From Gilens’ research it can be inferred that the vast majority of welfare recipients are

viewed negatively in the eyes of the American public. Gilens’ findings paint a picture of the

clear rift between those on welfare and those who pay for it. But According to Mary Jo Bane, the

welfare reform bill of 1996 repaired that rift through its enactment of the work requirements and

time limits that the majority of the American public wanted. Larry Mead also agrees with this

conclusion. He points out that, in making these changes and demanding more from the poor, the

government and the public became more inclined to help the less fortunate. He claims that even

though a conservative president was elected after the reform, spending on the poor in the Bush

administration actually increased via measures such as increases in the minimum wage, increases

in federal funding for childcare, increases in the EITC, and increases in Medicare coverage.

Mead’s argument is that in making the poor more responsible and accountable, a pro-poor

political climate was created, and the entire country benefited.119 American politics became less

117 Gilens, 1999, 62 118 Gilens, 1999, 185 119 Mead, 2005, 185

64

of a battleground for class conflict where the rich were upset that they had to give to the

undeserving poor, and more of forum for helping those who needed help. By submitting to work

requirements, the poor gained standing in the community. By erasing the stigmas of AFDC and

uniting the American public the 1996 reform should be seen as a huge success from a common

good perspective.

Putting more people to work, not only created a more charitable political climate and

integrated society, as Mead highlights; it also had important impacts on fostering citizenship.

Mead argues that when people are excluded from the workforce they lose the ability to interact in

a community with others. They do not have the opportunity to develop traits that are essential to

workers, such as tolerance, respect, and trust.120 The Bishops who, as mentioned earlier, view the

ability to work in a community as a fundamental right for all humans also endorse this theory.

The Bishops, along with John Paul II recognize that the main way to contribute to the common

good is to participate in the workforce. Therefore, by creating incentives and demands that

pushed people to work, the welfare reform act was able to promote more virtue throughout the

country. The bill forced people who had been negatively stigmatized to become productive

members of society and enhanced their character. The bill broke down the sense of alienation

that a lot of those on welfare probably endured before the reform. This development, coupled

with the more conducive political climate towards the poor, show that the 1996 reform bill did

volumes in terms of helping the common good.

Section 4. The Abortion Question

120 Mead, 2005, 182

65

Therefore, the Catholic politicians who opposed the Bishops and supported the bill’s

economic proponents seem to be justified. Through incentivizing those on welfare to join the

workforce, the reform bill promoted the dignity of the human person. Additionally, the gains

made for poor children and single mothers illustrate how the bill advanced the interests of the

poor. The impacts of the bill then stretched to the all Americans, as it helped advance the

citizenship and virtue within the country. And all of this was done by delegating more power to

the states through flexible block grants, respecting the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. As a

result, the Bishops opposition to the economic portions of the bill do not seem legitimate. The

better argument the Bishops had against the bill was that its family cap provision would increase

abortions within the U.S. The evidence regarding this claim is complicated and will not be

addressed in detail in this paper. On one hand, there is evidence that suggests that the increase in

illegitimate births in America leveled off in the wake of the reform, which would make the

reform successful in the eyes of the Bishops. On the other hand, there is evidence that suggests

abortions increased after the bill was passed.121 It is hard to determine whether or not an increase

in abortions would have been acceptable to the Church in the light of the progress made with

regards to out wedlock pregnancies. Thus, it is difficult to say whether the illegitimacy

provisions of the bill were justified or not. What is important, however, is that the Bishops did

not have economic grounds to condemn the bill.

121 Mead, 2005, 23

66

CONCLUSION

The welfare reform debate of 1996 provided a unique opportunity for the American

Bishops. It was the first time where they could openly thrust their modern economic policy ideas

into the public eye without sacrificing their Republican right to life allies. The Bishops

capitalized on this opportunity, and opposed the economic provisions of the bill with great

persistence. Such opposition was rooted in the ideas that the Bishops developed in Economic

Justice For All ten years earlier. The welfare reform debate was a prime example of how such a

document can have real significance in the policy arena. The issue for the Bishops in this debate,

however, was that their rationales were rooted in theories that had little empirical evidence. The

Bishops believed that their welfare state vision for the economy was the right way to approach

welfare reform. They also believed that such a vision was one that papal encyclicals endorse. As

outlined in this paper, papal justification for Economic Justice For All is shaky, and there is

strong evidence for the idea that the bill promoted four of Catholicism’s main social teachings.

While it is a strange concept to accept, the Church’s economic interests seemed to be

represented best by its layman rather than its hierarchy. If the Church had its way the Bishops

would have been able to coerce the Catholics in Congress to vote against the bill. Luckily for the

Church, this did not happen. Some Catholic Democrats, and all Catholic Republicans disagreed

with the Church’s economic viewpoints, and supported the bill anyway. While some of these

Catholics were probably just voting to please their Party or constituency, leaders such as Clay

Shaw, Rick Santorum, Pete Domenici and John Kerry genuinely believed in the religious

purpose behind the bill. Because of the resolve of those brave Catholics the United States saw a

massive decrease in those on welfare, saw child poverty and overall poverty decrease, and saw

new aid provisions to the poor brought about due to the favorable political requirement TANF

67

created. While the 1996 was not perfect by any means, and had significant issues that even its

greatest supporters point out, it seemed to be worth it. It seemed to advance the Catholic

principles put forth in the encyclicals. Even though bill may be clouded by a disputed claim that

it increased abortions, from an economic perspective it seems Catholic lawmakers came on top

in their battle with the Bishops.

68

APENDIX

Catholic Roll Call Vote On H.R.3734

Senate (21) Y N D/R

Biden Jr. Delaware Catholic X

D Braun Illinois Catholic

X D

Breaux Louisiana Catholic X

D D'Amato New York Catholic X

R

Daschle South Dakota Catholic

X D DeWine Ohio Catholic X

R

Dodd Connecticut Catholic

X D Domenici New Mexico Catholic X

R

Harkin Iowa Catholic

X D Kennedy Massachusetts Catholic

X D

Kerry Massachusetts Catholic X

D Leahy Vermont Catholic

X D

Mack Florida Catholic X

R Mikulski Maryland Catholic

X D

Moynihan New York Catholic

X D Murkowski Alaska Catholic X

R

Murray Washington Catholic

X D Nickles Oklahoma Catholic X

R

Pressler South Dakota Catholic X

R Santorum Pennsylvania Catholic X

R

Smith New Hampshire Catholic X

R

SENATE SUMMARY:

Democrats For - 3 Democrats Against - 9

Republlicans For - 9 Republicans Against - 0

69

House (127) Y N D/R

Archer (R) TX-7 Catholic X

R Baker (R) CA-10 Catholic X

R

Baldacci (D) ME-2 Catholic

X D Barcia (D) MI-5 Catholic

X D

Barrett (D) WI-5 Catholic X

D Becerra (D) CA-30 Catholic

X D

Bilbray (R) CA-49 Catholic X

R Bliley (R) VA-7 Catholic X

R

Blute (R) MA-3 Catholic X

R Boehlert (R) NY-23 Catholic X

R

Boehner (R) OH-8 Catholic X

R Bonior (D) MI-10 Catholic

X D

Bono (R) CA-44 Catholic; X

R Borski (D) PA-3 Catholic

X D

Brownback (R) KS-2 Catholic X

R Bunning (R) KY-4 Catholic X

R

Callahan (R) AL-1 Catholic X

R Camp (R) MI-4 Catholic X

R

Campbell (R) CA-15 Catholic X

R Castle (R) DE-AL Catholic X

R

Chabot (R) OH-1 Catholic X

R Clay (D) MO-1 Catholic

X D

Costello (D) IL-12 Catholic

X D Cox (R) CA-47 Catholic X

R

Coyne (D) PA-14 Catholic

X D Danner (D) MO-6 Catholic X

D

de la Garza (D) TX-15 Catholic

D DeFazio (D) OR-4 Catholic

X D

DeLauro (D) CT-3 Catholic

X D Diaz-Balart (R) FL-21 Catholic

X R

Dingell (D) MI-16 Catholic

X D Dornan (R) CA-46 Catholic X

R

Doyle (D) PA-18 Catholic X

D Durbin (D) IL-20 Catholic

X D

E. Clay Shaw (R) FL-22 Catholic X

R Edward Torres (D) CA-34 Catholic

X D

English (R) PA-21 Catholic X

R Eshoo (D) CA-14 Catholic

X D

Evans (D) IL-17 Catholic

X D Foglietta (D) PA-1 Catholic

X D

70

Foley (R) FL-16 Catholic X

R Forbes (D) NY-1 Catholic

X D

Frisa (R) NY-4 Catholic X

R Ganske (R) IA-4 Catholic X

R

Gonzalez (D) TX-20 Catholic

X D Gutierrez (D) IL-4 Catholic

X D

Gutknecht (R) MN-1 Catholic X

R Hastings (R) WA-4 Catholic X

R

Hinchey (D) NY-26 Catholic

X D Holden (D) PA-6 Catholic X

D

Hyde (R) IL-6 Catholic X

R Jacobs (D) IN-10 Catholic

X D

Jones (R) NC-3 Catholic X

R Kanjorski (D) PA-11 Catholic

X D

Kaptur (D) OH-9 Catholic

X R Kasich (R) OH-12 Catholic X

R

Kennedy (D) MA-8 Catholic

X D Kennedy (D) RI-1 Catholic

X D

Kennelly (D) CT-1 Catholic

X D Kildee (D) MI-9 Catholic

X D

King (R) NY-3 Catholic X

R Kleczka (D) WI-4 Catholic X

D

Klug (R) WI-2 Catholic X

R Knollenberg (R) MI-11 Catholic X

R

LaFalce (D) NY-29 Catholic

X D LaHood (R) IL-18 Catholic X

R

Lazio (R) NY-2 Catholic X

R Lightfoot (R) IA-3 Catholic X

R

Lipinski (D) IL-3 Catholic X

D LoBiondo (R) NJ-2 Catholic X

R

Longley (R) ME-1 Catholic X

R Luther (D) MN-6 Catholic

X D

Manton (D) NY-7 Catholic

X D Markey (D) MA-7 Catholic

X D

Martinez (D) CA-31 Catholic

X D Mascara (D) PA-20 Catholic X

D

McCarthy (D) MO-5 Catholic

X D McDade (R) PA-10 Catholic X

R

McHugh (R) NY-24 Catholic X

R McInnis (R) CO-3 Catholic X

R

McKinney (D) GA-4 Catholic

X D McNulty (D) NY-21 Catholic

X D

Meehan (D) MA-5 Catholic

X D

71

Menendez (D) NJ-13 Catholic

X D Miller (D) CA-7 Catholic

X D

Moakley (D) MA-9 Catholic

X D Molinari (R) NY-13 Catholic X

R

Moran (D) VA-8 Catholic

X D Morella (R) MD-8 Catholic X

R

Murtha (D) PA-12 Catholic

X D Neal (D) MA-2 Catholic

X D

Ney (R) OH-18 Catholic X

R Oberstar (D) MN-8 Catholic

X D

Obey (D) WI-7 Catholic

X D Pallone (D) NJ-6 Catholic

X D

Pastor (D) AZ-2 Catholic

X D McHale (D) PA-15 Catholic X

D

Paxon (R) NY-27 Catholic X

R Pelosi (D) CA-8 Catholic

X D

Pombo (R) CA-11 Catholic X

R Quinn (R) NY-30 Catholic X

R

Radanovich (R) CA-19 Catholic X

R Rangel (D) NY-15 Catholic

X D

Reed (D) RI-2 Catholic

X D Richardson (D) NM-3 Catholic

X D

Roemer (D) IN-3 Catholic X

D Ros-Lehtinen (R) FL-18 Catholic

X R

Roybal-Allard (D) CA-33 Catholic

X D Royce (R) CA-39 Catholic X

R

Schaefer (R) CO-6 Catholic X

R Seastrand (R) CA-22 Catholic X

R

Serrano (D) NY-16 Catholic

X D Skeen (R) NM-2 Catholic X

R

Smith (R) NJ-4 Catholic X

R Stupak (D) MI-1 Catholic

X D

Tauzin (R) LA-3 Catholic X

R Taylor (D) MS-5 Catholic X

D

Tejeda (D) TX-28 Catholic

X D Torkildsen (R) MA-6 Catholic X

R

Traficant (D) OH-17 Catholic X

D Velazquez (D) NY-12 Catholic

X D

Vento (D) MN-4 Catholic

X D Visclosky (D) IN-1 Catholic

X D

Volkmer (D) MO-9 Catholic

X D Vucanovich (R) NV-2 Catholic X

R

Walsh (R) NY-25 Catholic X

R

72

Williams (D) MT Catholic

X D

HOUSE SUMMARY:

Democrats For - 8 Democrats Against - 60

Republicans For - 57 Republicans Against - 2

KEY:

Red - Republicans Against Bold - Democrats For

73

Works Cited

"Adherents.com." Religion of 104th U.S. Congress. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 May 2016. Bane, Mary Jo. “Expertise, Advocacy and Deliberation: Lessons from Welfare Reform.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20.2 (2001): 191–197. Web.. Bane, Mary Jo, and Lawrence M. Mead. Lifting up the Poor: A Dialogue on Religion, Poverty, and Welfare Reform: Executive Summary. Washington, D.C.: Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 2003. Print. Blank, Rebecca M. "Evaluating Welfare Reform in the United States." Journal of Economic Literature 40.4 (2002): 1105-166. Web. Byrnes, Timothy A. Catholic Bishops in American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, DeLong, Brad. "Daniel Patrick Moynihan's Speech on Welfare Reform.". University of California, 21 Feb. 1996. Web. 17 Apr. 2016. Domenici, Pete. Domenici Statement in Congressional Record. August 1, 1996. Gilens, Martin. Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1999. Print. Gutiérrez, Gustavo. A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1988. Print. Haskins, Ron. Work Over Welfare: The inside Story of the 1996 Welfare Reform Law. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2006. Print. John, XXIII. Mater Et Magistra. May 15, 1961. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2015. John Paul, II. Laborem Exercens. 14 Sept. 1981. 24. Web.11 Apr. 2016. John Paul, II. Centesimus Annus. 1 May 1991. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2015. Kammer, Fred. Testimony Before Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee On Ways And Means, January 30th, 1995 Kerry, John. "Statement of Senator John Kerry Regarding Welfare Reform Reauthorization." Project Vote Smart. N.p., 10 Sept. 2003. Web. 18 Apr. 2016. Leo, XIII. Rerum Novarum. May 15, 1891. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2015. Massaro, Thomas. Catholic Social Teaching and United States Welfare Reform. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1998. Print.

74

Mead, Lawrence M., and Christopher Beem. Welfare Reform and Political Theory. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2005. Print. Moreno, Dario. Cuban's in the 1996 Presidential Election. Florida International, 29 Jan. 1998. Web. 18 Apr. 2016. Moynihan, Daniel Patrick. Moynihan Statement in Congressional Record, April 6th, 1995 Nolan, Hugh J., and Patrick W. Carey. Pastoral Letters of the United States Catholic Bishops. Washington, D.C. (1312 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington 20005): National Conference of Catholic Bishops, United States Catholic Conference, 1997. N. pag. Print. (661-666) Novak, Michael. The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1982. Print. Pius, XI. Quadragesimo Anno. May 15, 1931. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2015. Santorum, Rick. It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good. Wilmington, DE: ISI, 2005. Print. Sawhill, Isabel V. "Isabel Sawhill." Welfare Reform and Beyond: The Future of the Safety Net. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2002. Print. Thomas, William P. Baumgarth, and Richard J. Regan. On Law, Morality, and Politics. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1988. Print.

Tenth Anniversary Edition of Economic Justice for All: Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy ; A Catholic Framework for Economic Life: A Statement of the U.S. Catholic Bishops ; A Decade after "Economic Justice for All": Continuing Principles, Changing Context, New Challenges: A Pastoral Message of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops on the Tenth Anniversary of the Economic Pastoral. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Catholic Conference, 1997. Print. The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition. London: Nelson, 1966. Print. “Welfare and Medicaid Reform Act of 1996: Roll Call Vote.” Congressional Record (July 18, 1996). Accessed 5/2/16 Woods, Thomas E. The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy. Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2005. Print.