Most Reverend Howard J. Hubbard* Bishop of Albany, N.Y.

Bishop Hubbard delivered the Chair of Social Justice address at the Founder's Convocation at St. John's University on January 29, 1998. He urges St. John's, as a Catholic University and as the Church to integrate the work of justice, charity and social advocacy in all we do. By doing so, we enhance the role of religion in our pluralistic and democratic society. Bishop Hubbard offers the perspective “that the purpose of the Separation clause is not to silence the religious voice, but to strengthen it; not to fetter religious communities but to free them to contribute to the public life of our nation.” While recognizing that the inclusion of explicitly religious moral values into the public debate is a delicate and demanding task, he argues that we are not participating in the Church's mission without such activities and, further, that without prayer, we may not be building God's reign, but rather satisfying our own human needs and ambitions.+

*Bishop Howard J. Hubbard is the Ninth Bishop of Albany. He was ordained a priest in 1963 and a Bishop 14 years later in March of 1977. He has served in many capacities in both civic and church organizations. He has held leadership positions as a chairman of the NCCB committee on Human Values, Committee on Marriage and the Family and as Chairperson of the NYS Catholic Conference Public Policy Committee. He has studied at the College of Social Sciences at Catholic University and has earned a B.A. from St. Joseph's Seminary in Dunwoodie, and an S.T.L from Gregorian University in Rome. Bishop Hubbard has been granted many honorary degrees and awards.

+Bishop Hubbard dedicated his presentation to one of St. Vincent's spiritual daughters, Serena Branson, D.C., who has served Catholic Charities in the Diocese of Albany in one capacity or another for the past quarter of a century, most notably as its director for 15 years. Her embodiment of the Vincentian charism of charity and justice has been such an inspiration for him personally and for God's people in the Diocese of Albany and the Catholic Charities Movement. He also acknowledged the Vincentian spirit captured and reflected in the lives of Father Joseph Tinley, Sister Mary Basil Roarke, Mary Rose McGeady, D.C., of Covenant House and Margaret John Kelly, D.C., who have inspired his ministry.

I am honored and privileged to participate in this Vincentian Convocation and humbled to be invited to deliver this Fourth Annual Vincentian Chair of Social Justice address, given the distinguished company this opportunity accords me with the three previous outstanding presenters of this lecture: Father Robert Maloney, C.M., Father Bryan Hehir and Dr. Mary Ann Glendon.

I commend Father Donald Harrington and the Board of Trustees for establishing the Vincentian Center for Church and Society in 1993, to strengthen the Catholic identity and Vincentian character of St. John's University. I especially commend their efforts to foster the Center's goal of facilitating greater study and discussion of Catholic social teaching and of promoting programs which have the potential for alleviating personal poverty and remedying the systemic causes of poverty within our world and society. This, I believe, is precisely the type of activity in which the Church and a Catholic university should be engaged. I have chosen the relationship between charity and justice in the Church's teaching as my topic this evening, because I am convinced that such an intimate relationship was at the heart at St. Vincent dePaul's life and ministry.

CHARITY AND JUSTICE AS INTREGAL TO CHRIST'S MISSION AND MESSAGE

It is impossible to offer an in-depth Scriptural analysis of the Church's teaching on charity and justice in one brief lecture. However, let me cite one passage taken from the Gospel of St. Luke which, I think, epitomizes the core of the Gospel message on this topic:

Jesus went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the

Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he

stood up to read. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him.

Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: “The Spirit of the

Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the

poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery

of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the

Lord's favor.” Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant

and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on

him, and he said to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your

hearing.” ¹

In this passage, Jesus is telling His hearers that He was the fulfillment of the messianic prophecy of Isaiah; that He was anointed by the Holy Spirit who empowered him to give sight to the blind, release to prisoners, liberty to captives, and Good News to the poor. This activity on Christ's part, this service toward and involvement with others, exercised under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, were not things peripheral to His mission, not something optional that could be accepted or rejected at His pleasure; these were an integral and essential part of His messianic vocation.

For example, when the disciples of John the Baptist, who was imprisoned, came to Jesus to ask if He were the Messiah or were they to expect another, Jesus' response is extremely significant: “Go and tell John all that you have seen and heard, the blind see, the lame walk, the deaf hear, lepers are cleansed, and the poor have the Good News preached to them.” ² In other words, in response to this critical question about who He is and the nature of His mission, Jesus does not appeal to His divine origin or messianic titles but to His care and concern for the poor and needy.

If, therefore, our lives today are to be an extension of Christ's life and mission, our lives must be incarnational as well, that is, characterized by a profound concern for people and their concrete human situation and rooted in a response to God's love that finds its full expression in our love for and involvement with other persons. Like Jesus, the person for others, we are called to share our time, talents, gifts, energies and resources, indeed our very selves, with others. While there are many ways in which we might do this in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament, the primary sign of such stewardship is care and concern for the poor and needy. That the Good News is proclaimed to the poor and that the needs of the orphan and widow are met have always been presented in Christian tradition and Christian spirituality as the infallible sign of the presence of God's kingdom among us.

In other words, the way we take into account the poor among us and the way in which they fit into our plan of life tell us a great deal about ourselves and our own state of spiritual health. Unless we seriously address ourselves to the needs of our suffering brothers and sisters in the world and society around us, we run the risk of losing that which we already have, namely, the right to be sons and daughters of that kingdom founded by our heavenly Father. If, therefore, we truly believe in God's kingdom and if we are seeking to advance that kingdom in our day, then the poor must rank very high in our values and in our priority system; if they do not, we are deceiving ourselves; it is not God's kingdom that we are advancing but our own.

That is why our Holy Father Pope John Paul II constantly challenges us to have “a preferential option for the poor.” ³ We must recognize that a wound in one is a hurt in each; as long as one child falls asleep hungry at night, my stomach hurts; as long as an elderly person can't afford heat or fears tomorrow, there is a chill in my bones; as long as one person is treated with lack of dignity, I am shamed. If one person is oppressed, manipulated or disregarded, we are all debased. For this is the nature of the interdependence we have with one another as members of the human family. It is a profound Biblical truth that the face of the poor is the face of the Lord. To the extent that we cut the poor out of our lives, to that same extent do we shut ourselves off from the channel of God's love and grace. On the other hand, to the extent that we reach out to our hurting brothers and sisters in the community around us, to that same extent do we prepare ourselves for union with our eternal God.

CATHOLIC SOCIAL JUSTICE PRINCIPLES

The Church's reflection on this Scriptural revelation over the centuries has given rise to certain values and principles. These values and principles must be normative for us as Christians, in no matter what social, cultural, or political situation we may find ourselves. While these values and principles have been stated in different ways in various historical contexts, I would suggest that they can be summarized as follows: 1) Every person has been created by God with a dignity that is unique, sacred and inviolable. This transcendent dignity of the human person is a profound religious truth that appears from the very first chapter of Genesis to the last line of the New Testament. The defense of human dignity has been, and continues to be, the preeminent and perennial task of the Church in its teaching and social witness. 2) From this basic dignity there flow certain rights: the right to life, and the right to adequate food, clothing, shelter, health care, education and employment opportunities for one's self and one's family. 3) There is a solidarity within the human family. The human person is essentially a social being, and human rights are rights held in community. We need to establish, therefore, social institutions and structures that facilitate the achievements of these basic human rights and which reflect the dignity of every person. And it is the role of the government and of other mediating institutions, such as the Church, to effect those social changes which will insure that the common good is promoted and that basic human rights are protected.

This belief in the transcendent dignity of the human person and of the spectrum of rights and responsibilities each person possesses, precisely because he or she is human—which is at the very heart of our Church's social teaching—is indeed most timely in light of the grave and spreading tendency to reduce the human person to the level of a thing, a pawn of economic or political interest, a commodity, a unit of production or a mere instrument for the purpose of scientific or medical progress. That is why these three values and principles must be operative in our daily efforts to advance God's kingdom in our day.

THE WORKS OF JUSTICE: ACTS OF CHARITY AND SOCIAL ADVOCACY

The pragmatic question, of course, is how do we do this? Engulfed as we are by our own personal and family problems, worn down by the demands of job responsibilities and other obligations, how do we give flesh and blood to these values and principles? How do we translate this teaching beyond the pages of Sacred Scriptures, Papal social encyclicals and Bishops' pastoral letters into our homes, neighborhoods, parishes, cities, towns and rural communities? How do we communicate such in our labor halls, PTA meetings, manufacturing associations, political caucuses, legislative bodies, international meetings and conferences? In short, how do we communicate these principles and values in places where the Good News can become more than mere theory, more than pious clichés and churchy platitudes?

Historically, there have been two ways in which we as Catholic Christians have tried to do this. First, by charity, providing direct services in such areas as soup kitchens, food pantries, orphanages, hospitals, nursing homes and shelters for the homeless. Second, by social advocacy through community organizing and legislative lobbying. It should be noted that at times there has been a tension between those involved in these two approaches. For example, some engaged in charitable work can view social justice people as crazy radicals or wide-eyed idealists. While those involved in social justice advocacy can at times look upon those rendering direct services as being paternalistic do-gooders or perpetrators of structures which foster dependency and powerlessness.

Actually, such stereotyping is a false dichotomy because there is a great need for both approaches within church and society. Indeed, Vincent dePaul recognized this need for both approaches. Father Thomas McKenna, C.M., in his excellent work, Praying with Vincent DePaul, notes:

Though not articulated in the language of the twentieth century, Vincent

in his own way acknowledges the connection between oppressive structures

in society and the straits of poor people. He often spoke about the “maxims

of the world and the maxims of the Gospel,” realizing fully that the two

were many times not compatible. Individual charity not only meant serving

poor people, but also setting up new structures of service and reforming

the social fabric to reflect more fully the values of the Gospel. Ever

practical, Vincent tried to be not only an affective evangelizer but also

an effective one. ⁴ It is not, therefore, a question of either justice or charity, but of both justice and charity. Both flow from the three values I cited a moment ago and, as Vincent dePaul recognized so well, both help make such values lived realities.

CHARITY LEADS TO ADVOCACY FOR JUSTICE

Indeed, there are many positive things to be said about charitable service rendered, especially today, given the developments that are taking place in the fields of welfare reform and managed care wherein, inevitably, people fall through the cracks. Charitable services can never replace the basic obligation to the government to provide a social system that will ensure that the God-given rights of each citizen are met. Direct services can never adequately address the structural or systemic causes of poverty. They can, however, restore that much needed personalized dimension which, too frequently, has been lost in recent years through big governmental bureaucracies or through a checkbook approach toward responding to human need. People today are fed up with bureaucracies, with specialization, with an antiseptic computerized approach to life wherein everyone is reduced to a number or a statistic, or stereotyped by one's IQ range. People want to be accepted for themselves, for their own unique history, for their own distinctive story.

Thus, I would submit that we could have perfect programs in model communities, offer well-developed educational, social and liturgical services in our parishes, provide every one with a decent home and a guaranteed annual income, and still not get at the heart of what alienates modern men and women. It is only when we begin to give testimony to what a person means and to what love means that we do something that is truly significant. In other words, while it is fine to give food to the needy, to offer clothing and furniture to the disadvantaged, to work with the developmentally disabled or handicapped, or to respond to an emergency appeal or international crisis by writing a check, what is even more essential is to reach out to the suffering persons in the community and society around us; to say to them by word, deed, gesture or facial expression: “I care about you; I am concerned about you; I believe in you; I love you and I want you to live.”

However, charity or direct service—as good, beneficial and indispensable as such is—must be complemented by advocacy, thrust and championed by the social justice teaching of the Church. For personal charity is not enough in the complex world and society in which we live today. For example, a tutorial program for inner-city youngsters can be totally inadequate if the educational system in the community is inferior. A cup of cold water can be useless if that water is polluted by industries that dump their refuse into our rivers and streams. Aid given to another can become a mockery if given in ways that debase or demean the other. Also, we must recognize that in the global village in which we live today, our actions or omissions in this country can affect the lives of millions of people the world over. For example, a 12% surtax levied in Washington can mean unemployment for tens of thousands of Korean textile workers. The covert activities of the CIA can mean physical decimation for another nation and moral destitution for our own. Billions of dollars expended in our defense budget can usurp resources desperately needed to care for the poor, both at home and abroad.

That is why we must not only develop particular programs that respond to specified human need but also address the root causes of social decay. We must be willing to involve ourselves with the messy business of social change. We must be willing to stand with the poor, powerless and defenseless in their hour of need, not merely content with applying band-aids to deep wounds, but willing to confront those persons and those institutions that oppress, manipulate or destroy others, be such governments, business communities or churches themselves.

This is precisely what our late and beloved Holy Father Pope Paul VI meant when he said, “We in the Church must shift from a policy that seeks to alleviate the results of oppression to one that seeks to eliminate the causes of oppression.” ⁵

THE CHURCH'S SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Yet it is precisely when we do this, either individually or collectively, that we are accused of mixing religion and politics. When, for example, we express our opinion on abortion, advocate for humane welfare, immigration and refugee policies, ask for a reduction in the indebtedness of Third World countries, question the policies of the International Monetary Fund or challenge the favored nation's status granted to China given its track record in the field of human rights and religious freedom, we are charged with violating the sacrosanct principle of the separation of church and state. Since this issue regarding the Church's responsibility to be an advocate for social justice is so misunderstood, both among our own Catholic people and in the wider society, I would like to reflect upon it a bit further.

While there is no single or official Catholic position on this issue, our Roman Catholic stance has been shaped largely by the Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray. Known as the “Theologian of the First Amendment,” Father Murray provided the Church with a theological understanding of its role in a democracy and offered society a philosophical grounding for religious pluralism. His fundamental thesis is that in the United States, civil discourse is structured by religious pluralism. The condition of pluralism is the coexistence, in one society, of groups holding divergent and incompatible views with regard to religious questions. The genius of American pluralism is that it provides for the religious freedom of each citizen and of every faith. However, it does not purchase tolerance at the price of expelling moral and religious values from the public life of the nation. Rather, Fr. Murray argues, the goal of our American constitutional system is to provide space for religious substance in society but not for a religious state.

In society, churches are voluntary associations free to address the public agenda of the nation. More specifically, they are voluntary associations with a disciplined capacity to analyze the moral-religious significance of public issues. If, however, the right of the church to speak in the public arena is both recognized and guaranteed, it must also be acknowledged that there are limits to the religious role in the public arena. These limits relate not only to whether religious bodies enter the public debate but also to how they advocate a public case. The central question in evaluating the role of religion in politics is not whether a particular church has the right to speak or whether it sides with the left or the right on a particular issue, but whether it allows the issue to be made public, that is, open to deliberation through rational discourse.

It is on this point, I believe, that there is often a major difference between our Catholic view of religion and politics and the posture of some other religious groups, especially those of the religious right. This is also the conclusion of one of the religious right's most sympathetic observers, Father Richard John Neuhaus. He views the new religious right's problem as follows:

It wants to enter the political arena making claims on the basis of private

truths. The integrity of politics itself requires that such a proposal be

resisted. Public decisions must be made by arguments that are public in

character. A public argument is transubjective. That is, it is not derived

from sources of revelation or disposition that are essentially private and

arbitrary...fundamentalist morality, which is derived from beliefs that

cannot be submitted to examination by public reason, is essentially a

private morality. If enough people who share that morality are mobilized,

it can score victories in the public arena. But every such victory is a setback

in the search for a public ethic.

In entering the political policy debate, then, church members must present arguments that are truly public, that is open to rational examination and debate, and assessable, understandable and, hopefully, persuasive to both co-religionists and to citizens of any background. Ultimately, it is the substance of the religious moral vision that a church brings to the public policy debate that should determine its impact in the public arena.

THE RELIGIOUS LEADER IN THE PUBLIC FORUM

This perspective on the role of religion in the public forum, and on the role of the Church to be an advocate for justice, is not purely an academic exercise for me, but one with very practical implications. As a religious leader, I am frequently called upon to address issues of public concern. Quite frankly, by temperament, it's not something I enjoy doing. Furthermore, I try to pursue this responsibility judiciously, so that I am not commentating on every dog and pony show passing through town. Also, when possible,

I seek to do this in concert with leaders of other religious communities, so that we can express those values that are common to our respective faith traditions. I realize too, that once in the arena of public policy, one can, and legitimately should, expect criticism.

In November of 1996, I participated in a press conference at the State capitol along with 15 or so other religious leaders, urging our Governor to ask for a federal waiver from denying food stamps to home relief beneficiaries. This prompted a sharp rebuke from Dan Lynch, the well-known columnist for the Albany Times Union and former editor of that distinguished journal. Let me cite my response to Dan Lynch's column which also appeared in the Times Union. This response addresses what I believe to be the right and the responsibility which the religious community and people of faith have in advocating on behalf of social justice in our pluralistic society and in the world community. Dan Lynch's column “Politics and Scripture Don't Mix” (TU 12/1), wherein he chastises me and other religious leaders for getting into the “dicey business” of dabbling in politics, raises some important issues about the role of religion in society. Since I am the only religious leader mentioned by name in the column, permit me to make some observations about his comments. I concur wholeheartedly that religious leaders should not involve themselves in partisan party politics by supporting particular candidates for public office, by endorsing specific political parties, or by suggesting for whom people should vote. Clergy are called to be pastors and moral leaders of the faith community, not politicians or political strategists.

If, however, Mr. Lynch is suggesting that religious leaders have no right or responsibility to address issues in the public debate, I disagree strongly. Clergy are teachers. In regard to public issues, they must exercise their teaching role by defining the content of moral principles and by indicating how these principles apply to specific problems. Mr. Lynch's colleagues must also disagree with him; hardly a day goes by when a reporter does not solicit comment from my office on a wide range of public policy issues. These reporters seem obliged to cite a “no comment” if we do not voice an opinion. Columnists also feel quite free to take religious leaders to task when they have not spoken out strongly enough on issues like racism, the Holocaust, or the morality of nuclear warfare. It seems we are condemned if we do and condemned if we do not.

I believe that religious leaders cannot enter the public arena by claiming moral superiority for their position simply because they represent a faith tradition or quote from the Scriptures. Indeed, in my presentation at the press conference on food stamps, I stated explicitly that “on matters of public policy, I can understand the position of those who disagree with me or the position of my church.” From the issue of welfare to questions of moral ethics, to issues of social policy, the moral dimensions of our public life are interwoven with empirical judgments where honest disagreement exists. I do not believe that this complexity should silence or paralyze religious/moral analysis and advocacy of issues. Religious leaders do, however, owe the public a careful account of how they have come to their moral conclusions. They must translate their religiously rooted positions into language, arguments and categories which can serve as a basis for civil discourse in a religiously pluralistic society.

In this spirit, the religious leaders of the Methodist, Episcopal, Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Jewish traditions held the press conference on food stamps. We offered reasons we thought a waiver from denying benefits to home relief recipients after three months, constituted good public policy. We believe with Mr. Lynch that the able-bodied should work and that the best welfare program is a job with decent wages and health benefits. We request a waiver because our analysis, based largely on input from workers in human service agencies and parish food pantries shows that, in the present economy of New York State, there simply are not the jobs available to employ all those who will be denied food stamps. If our assessment is inadequate or inaccurate, Mr. Lynch should address this deficiency, not our right to speak on public policy issues.

Furthermore, to criticize, as Mr. Lynch does, the right of religious leaders to appeal to the Scriptures or to the teaching of their faith traditions in favoring or opposing given public policy positions is like criticizing a judge for citing the constitution or legal precedents in rendering a decision of the court. One quotes from the Scriptures merely to set the context and foundation for why a religious leader takes a particular public policy position. In response to Mr. Lynch's puzzlement about “whose God we should listen to,” I am confident that people will sort out whose voices from the religious community they will listen to in the public policy debate, just as they have learned from 200+ years experience in our democracy to sort out the voices of other public figures, like Hamilton and Jefferson, Lincoln and Douglas, Gingrich and Gephardt, Ginsburg and Scalia.

Finally, I reject Mr. Lynch's assertion that religious leaders should not be involved in the public policy debate because we are representatives of tax-exempt organizations. We religious leaders, like everyone else, pay taxes on our income and the bevy of other transactions that are assessed by government. And does Mr. Lynch really believe that representatives of tax-exempt institutions should not have a voice in public policy? Does he suggest that other tax-exempt organizations — like the PTA, the labor unions, the mental health associations and the League of Women Voters — should not have the right or the responsibility to address such public policy issues as school vouchers, NAFTA, deinstitutionalization, or the methodology for selecting judges? Or is it our religious roots which Mr. Lynch finds so offensive? Are clergy of whatever denomination forbidden to comment in the public forum or to testify before legislative entities about such issues as casino gambling, physician-assisted suicide or capital punishment because their positions are influenced and shaped by their faith history and tradition?

It seems to me that the First Amendment addressed this issue clearly in its separation clause. Separation of church and state does not mean separating the church from society. Those who appeal to the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state as a means of denying to religious leaders or bodies the right to participate in the public debate fail to grasp the fundamental vision of our Founding Fathers. They established the separation clause not to silence the religious voice but to strengthen it; not to fetter religious communities but to free them to contribute to the public life of our nation.

Inclusion of explicitly religious moral values into the public debate is a delicate and demanding task. Members of religious communities bear a twofold responsibility: they must keep the moral factors central in the public argument, and set an example of how this can be done with sensitivity, rationality and courtesy. In other words, we religious leaders must demonstrate pragmatically that we can keep our deepest convictions and still maintain our civil courtesy; that we can test others' arguments but not question their motives; that we can presume good will even when we disagree strongly; that we can relate the best of religion and the best of politics in the service of each other. This my colleagues and I will strive to do. So, Dan, comment freely, disagree vehemently, but please do not tinker with the First Amendment, which guarantees our freedom and yours.

CONCLUSION: PRAYER, OUR MOTIVATION AND SUSTENANCE

I believe that the Church must strive to acquaint all who will listen with the Gospel call and the Church's social teaching to serve those in need both through works of charity and through social justice advocacy. These are the twin pillars upon which the Gospel mandate to serve the poor must rest. And what better vehicle for doing this than the Vincentian Center here at St. John's University? For the vision of that 17th century saint is strikingly contemporary. As Father Robert Maloney, CM, notes in The Way of St. Vincent dePaul:

Today we find Vincent's preferential love for the poor echoed in one

contemporary church document after another. His stress on a broad

concept of evangelization, including human promotion and liberation

from various forms of human bondage, or what Vincent calls “Serving the

poor both corporally and spiritually,” are the centerpiece of the modern

social encyclicals and numerous other Episcopal and papal writings. ⁶ Vincent's vision also supports and underscores the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights the 50th anniversary of which we will be observing this year.

Finally, the motivating, animating and sustaining influence for promoting and protecting basic human rights and providing the charity and justice which enables these rights to be achieved—as Vincent dePaul recognized so well—is, and must continue to be, prayer. I underscore this salient point because charity and justice without prayer can become very humanistic and very secularistic, geared toward making things more comfortable and palatable here and now, but failing to point to that eternal Now to which each of us is destined. Charity and justice without prayer, only create a false sense of security, rooted in the fickle and fleeting ideas, values and movements of human wisdom but failing to communicate that life-giving power and strength that can only come from trust in the Lord God and the Good News revealed in the Person of the Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

I hope, therefore, that the Vincentian Center here at St. John's will continue to keep alive the vision and guiding spirit of St. Vincent dePaul—the great religious genius and apostle of the poor, whose own radical commitment to the Gospel message and the Christian life has challenged and inspired so many over the past 400 years—so that his enriching values and ideals may be perpetuated in our day and into the new millennium for the honor and glory of God and for the hope, peace and betterment of God's people.