PhilTeach Blog

One of the themes of Catholic Social Teachings is the recognition of the dignity of work and the defense of the rights of workers.  These two components of the teaching are grounded in the belief that we are all made in God’s image and likeness, and as such are invited to participate in developing and supporting life.  Labor from this perspective is not seen as a punishment, but as an opportunity to be co-creators with God.  Due to this, all social and economic structures are to be respectful of, support and not impede individuals from exercising their ability to work, to contribute to the common good, and to enjoy the fruits of their labor.  The United States Catholic Conference of Bishops summarize this teaching: “The economy must serve people, not the other way around. Work is more than a way to make a living; it is a form of continuing participation in God’s creation. If the dignity of work is to be protected, then the basic rights of workers must be respected–the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to the organization and joining of unions, to private property, and to economic initiative.” Keeping with the spirit of the teaching, Roger Cardinal Mahony, along with members representing various facets of the labor community, will be celebrating Labor Day with a liturgy at the Cathedral of Our Lady of Angels in downtown Los Angeles (555 West Temple Street).  In addition to celebrating our calling to be co-creators, the liturgy will provide an opportunity for the cardinal to call upon all members of our community to seek solutions to the problems faced by workers.  These include workers’ struggles to obtain fair wages, the undermining of proper working conditions due to profit-driven incentives, and the ever-increasing obstacles faced by working families to obtain and maintain health care.  

LABOR DAY MASS will take place on MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2009 at 10 A.M.

Please post your comments on Examiner.com  by following the link below. 

A Catholic Celebration of Work: Labor Day 2009

Posted using ShareThis

Recently two events occurred; Christians around the world celebrated the Feast of Epiphany, and President Bush revealed his plan to escalate the US military presence in Iraq. What do these have in common? In both cases you see a nations leader hiding his real agenda behind words of goodness.

The image of three magi following the Star of Christmas is one which adorns many seasonal card. The story of the Wiseman of the East being guided by the star that announced the birth of a new king, the child Jesus is remembered by Christians on the yearly feast of Epiphany (manifestation). The story however states that the wise men did not exactly get their facts correct. Instead of going to the place where the infant Jesus was, they instead visited the palace of Herald the Great, the king of Judea. King Herald, who jealously held to his power even to the point of killing his own children, welcomed the mysterious foreigners. After hearing their story, and consulting with his advisors, he sent them off with the words, “When you find the child, come back and tell me where he is so that I too may worship him”. However, worship was far from his heart. Instead he sought the child in order to kill him and thus maintain his power. Luckily, the wise men did not comply with his request.

Many Americans heard President Bush’s speak in which he stated that he would increase the number of U.S. forces in Iraq. He used language and imagery that Americans would have no difficulty identifying as their own. Some of these included that Americans do not run from a fight, and that victory and not defeat is the goal of any struggle. That national leaders, more specifically Iraqi leaders, ought to govern in a manner that generates dialogue and peace among its citizens. That Liberty is something that all Americans treasure and have a responsibility to promote and defend. That the oil riches of Iraq should be use for the reconstruction and development of a democratic and just society in Iraq. That America should not abandon those who struggle for liberty. And that terrorist must not be permitted to attack U.S. citizens as they did in 2001. Just as the Wise men did not disagree with Heralds words about adoring the newborn king, so Americans do not disagree over the President’s sentiments. However, though all these the sentimental words ring true to Americans, do they actually reflect the heart of our administration and of those who govern it? Are we in Iraq and refuse to leave Iraq for these reasons, or is there another?

The Presidential Office of the Unites States is a noble office, and those elected to it, must govern wisely while constantly seeking the common good of all. This must be done in a spirit of honesty and respect for all Americans and toward people whose lives are affected by American policy. Lets face it, we do not want to entrust the most power office in the nation, and most economically and militarily influential office in the world to someone who is neither respectful nor honest with us.

So why are we still there? Did we not already complete the mission? Sadam Hussein, and his cohorts have been defeated, and are dead. A constitution has been written. Free elections have taken place and the people of Iraq have a new government. Though an expected civil war has developed, the American people did not send their children and resources to militarily build a nation, but instead to assist a people in the elimination of a tyrant, (one we conveniently no longer liked), and to, using the revenue from their natural resources, assist them in the rebuilding the life of its people. We did not go to Iraq to create a puppet state in a region that also happens to be one of the world’s top three sources of oil. Or, did we?

After reading a recent article in the British Independent press, which reports how oil corporations have been politically active in Iraq, one cannot help ask who is to primarily benefit from the establishment of the government. According to the article, oil corporations, under the careful support of the US government have been taking advantage of the growing pains of the new Iraqi government. These corporations have been pushing for Iraqi legislation, which may be soon passed giving them unprecedented control over the oil in the region. What is even most surprising is that the majority of the legislators are not even aware of such efforts, while US officials are, and have approved such measures. One cannot help but wonder whose interest is being sought by the elimination of Hussein and the orchestrated formulation of the new government. Is it really the people of Iraq, or the oil industry?

In the last few years the Republican lead Congress has consistently refusal to have oversight hearings on how US dollars are being spent by private industries involved in the providing of weapons and services to our soldiers. No substantial oversight has been given to how money, allocated to rebuilding programs in Iraq, is actually being used. Or of how much of the revenue of the sales of Iraqi oil has been reserved or used for the rebuilding of Iraq. So the question arises, “ Who is benefiting from the military action in Iraq, and who would continue to benefit?” One thing is clear; two mayor groups have already benefited, and have a great deal to gain by an increase of military presence in the region, the international oil corporations, and the weapons and war industry.

A few months ago my family and I were struggling with the continued increase of gasoline prices. The increase took a great chunk out of our monthly budget. The increases noticeably began when we invaded Iraq. The hikes were reasonably expected but we were informed that it would be temporary event. I recall many of our political leaders saying that as soon as we got control of the gas production in Iraq, prices would eventually come down. They did not.

Then Hurricane Katrina made havoc of our offshore Gulf production, and prices went up again. Even after production resumed, prices continued to rise. This wave was then followed by the sectional closing of the Alaskan pipeline. And you guessed it, prices continued their upward pattern.

All through these price increases, many individuals wondered why the White House or Congress had not done anything about the situation. The best response we could get was that nothing could be done–the increases were due to unforeseen events. In addition, the administration did not control the market forces. Due to the public demand, Congress called the leaders of the major oil companies to Capitol Hill. Each leader gave their own account on how the increases were a natural phenomenon of the petroleum market, and how the increases were outside of their control. No one, we were told could do anything about it. That is, until now.

As we approach the November elections, I find it peculiar that gasoline prices have been steadily going down, and may continue doing so even into Election Day. President Bush, and members of the Republican-led Congress, made this recent phenomenon a campaign slogan. They tell us that due to their leadership, gas prices are dropping.

There are two unusual points about this claim. First is the reality that gasoline prices rapidly increased while both the White House and the Congress were under Republican control. Do they really think that we suffer from short-term memory problems? The reductions now only closely bring us back to where we used to be before, and thus do not indicate any genuine improvement for the American consumer.

The second point is that either they had an influence on the increases, or they did not have such an influence. They can’t have it both ways. These same leaders, when earlier approached to do something, held that nothing could be done. If they could do nothing then, how can they now claim that prices are lowering due to their leadership?

If they did have an influence, then they were not completely forward with the American people, and quietly sat by while American families suffered. Prices for food, goods and travel increased steadily. Many families and businesses had to adjust to the increases, all while the petroleum companies saw the greatest profits in their history. Such profits permitted some CEOs to have very comfortable salaries and unimaginable retirement benefits.

So which is it? Did our leaders have an influence or did they not? If they did, why was it not used when the American public requested it? Why is it that prices are going down now before an election, and not then? Is it possible that the American citizen is presently being placated by the present price of gas? Are we being tempted to forget how much American families have suffered in the last few years? Are we being lured to believe that everything is fine under the control of one political party, specifically the Republican Party?

I cannot help but remember the story about Queen Marie Antoinette. The story goes that while the citizens of Paris were begging for bread outside the gates of the royal palace, she was asked by one of her attendants what to do about the hungry crowd. She responded, “Let them eat cake.” Instead of cake, is the American citizen now being placated with gasoline? Are we, by getting a reduction in gas prices now supposed to forget what has occurred in recent years in Washington? I, for my part am not placated.