Steven Jonas, MD
The Planetary Movement, December 29, 2013

Pope Francis has been taking some pretty remarkable positions, for a Pope at any rate, during his first year in office.   Indeed, in the context of the Roman Catholic Church they could be considered radical.

For example, he has opened the door to gay Catholics, he has acknowledged that there is a sort of “gay lobby” within the Vatican itself, he has said that atheists might well be welcomed into heaven.  He has also been engaging in some fairly substantive house-cleaning and reorganizing, like bouncing more than one reactionary Cardinal from places of influence on policy making and politics within the Church hierarchy.  Finally, and most remarkably, he has ripped into contemporary capitalism, to the extent that Rush Limbaugh (not a Catholic) felt it necessary to engage him in an extensive bout of red-baiting.  Funnily enough, several recent Popes, even including Benedict XVI (no radical, for sure) have criticized modern capitalism, but this Pope has done it in a context of possibly making changes in Vatican policy, as, for example, towards Liberation Theology.   So what is going on here?  Is this just a Cardinal who happened to get elected Pope striking out on his own?  I don’t think so.

It must be assumed (although we have no way of knowing) that votes are not taken blindly in the College of Cardinals. We must assume that Cardinals do not vote for their candidate for the next Pope simply because they like him personally, or he comes from a Hemisphere that has never had a Pope before, or speaks Spanish as his first language. The Pope is one of the most powerful political figures in the world. Therefore it is only logical that those voting know of the several candidates’ politics (and of course their economics as well). If these suppositions are correct, that could very well mean that this Pope was chosen by a majority of the College to bring real reform to the Church (which happens to have undergone real reform a number of times in its history). If that is true, that would mean that Pope Francis has a powerful bloc within the Church behind him and will continue to push forward with his reform agenda.

Indeed, in order to deal with changing realities over time, the Church has changed policies numerous occasions over its long history, from the time of the Council of Nicaea in 325, which following the conversion to Christianity of the Roman Emperor Constantine, a) brought the Church fully out into the open, beyond persecution, and b) made it a political partner with the Roman Empire.  Over time came, for example: St. Augustine, who among other things codified the doctrine that the “Jews killed Christ,” so that anti-Semitism became a driving force for the Church and Church policy over so many centuries; St. Thomas Aquinas who, of course with colleagues, introduced an element of rationality into church doctrine; the Crusades, which made the Church into a major military power for a time; the focus on the use of torture on so-called heretics for centuries, starting well before the Reformation, which “anti-heretical” process then led to Church-sponsored massive civil wars in Europe for 150 years.

For many centuries the Church was a major geographic/political power in Europe, through the Holy Roman Empire, which came to an end only during the Napoleonic Wars.  It continued to be a major political player in Italy, down to the time of Unification in 1860, which deprived the Church of virtually all of the Italian landscape that it had once controlled.  In the 20th century, the Church openly sided with fascism, from Mussolini through Hitler and Franco to the Dirty War in Argentina (of which, unfortunately, this Pope knows much from the inside, some of it admirable, some of it not so — which experiences could, incidentally have played a very important part in the development of his thinking).

So indeed, the Church has played many political, military, and economic roles over time, to be sure almost invariably on the side of the varying ruling classes.  But, capitalism is reeling towards its predicted self-destruction, possibly taking our species and many others with it.  At the same time an increasing number of people, including numbers of Catholics, are seeing the Church as becoming increasingly irrelevant in terms of these challenges.   Following, then, its two-millennia tradition of changing for self-preservation, could the Church make a turn to the Left?  Could it side with some form of anti-capitalist-as-it-has-come-to-be social democracy in the future? Who knows? Remember, Francis is not the only recent Pope to criticize the system.

But what about religio-social policy?  Could any significant changes be coming there as well?  Let’s take abortion, the prime example in the social policy arena.  The modern position of the Church on abortion was established by Pope Pius IX in 1869. He reversed the long-time Church position, established from the time of St. Augustine and reinforced by St. Thomas Aquinas, that abortion was OK up to the time of “quickening” (16-20 weeks). It was Pius IX who also established the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

Since abortion-rights is the number one social issue on which so many people oppose the Roman Catholic Church while they might approve of it on so many others, it will be fascinating to watch what the Pope might do on this one.

If his support among the Cardinals is strong enough, he might actually make a totally remarkable move here, striking down the arbitrary position on abortion established by Pius IX by taking advantage of the other arbitrary position (Papal infallibility) established by the same Pope. For example, without going back to the pre-Pius IX doctrine, he could say something like: “For Catholics, life begins at the moment of conception; for Catholics it is sacred, and thus for Catholics it may not be interrupted in utero at any time.  However, it is not incumbent upon the Mother Church to attempt to legally enforce our doctrine on non-Catholics.  Thus from this time forward, the Church is to cease to attempt to enforce our position on others through the use of either the criminal or the civil law.”  A similar formulation could be developed to deal with the issue of gay marriage.  Oh boy, the reactionary Catholic leadership, especially in the United States would go absolutely nuts.  But just imagine how so many non-Catholics would react.

Some authorities for whom I have a great deal of respect have said that the Pope’s social and economic initiatives could simply be an attempt to take the heat off the child molestation scandals, the alleged gay-prostitutes-in-the-Vatican scandal, the Vatican bank financial/possible corruption scandal, and the other who-knows-what that occurred, especially under Benedict XVI. But would Francis really need to go to attacking the essence of capitalism, which is making profit to the exclusion of everything else, in order to do that? I do not want to jump the gun with a definite prediction. I am just talking about “possibles” in the historical context of an institution that has made many major changes in doctrine and organization over time since the Council of Nicaea in 325. The Catholic Church is the longest-lasting religious and political institution in the Western World.  It has not achieved this state-of-grace by standing still.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Steven Jonas, a physician by profession, and professor of preventive medicine, is a senior editor with The Greanville Post and columnist with several other leading political blogs, including Buzzflash/Truthout. One of the most astute political observers writing today, he has authored many books and countless essays on many topics, from politics to culture and history.  His latest book, a revision of his classic, The 15% Solution, How The Republican Right Took Control of the US-1981/2022, was reissued in late 2013 by Punto Press Publishing. 

http://www.planetarymovement.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=834&Itemid=58

Sheffield unemployed men are forced to strip to lessen the effects of working class poverty in the comedy The Full Monty.

By Tom Pearse, wsws.org

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion 2013 report offers the latest figures on poverty across the UK, revealing a growing social crisis.

Figures for 2011/12 show 13 million people are in poverty, with the study warning that this situation will get worse. What the report calls the “calm surface” of current poverty statistics is hiding “a sharp shift downwards.” Noting that pay is still falling relative to prices, and that the real value of benefits will fall further next year, the report warns of the danger that “this downward shift is becoming a downward spiral.”

The foundation defines poverty by net household income, adjusted for size (larger households need more money to reach a given standard of living than smaller ones) and after housing costs have been deducted. People are counted as being in poverty if their household income is below 60 percent of the median income for all UK households. In 2011/12 this poverty threshold for a single adult was £128 a week. For a couple with two children it was £357.

The study makes bleak reading. The authors point to the “discipline and demonization” that are exacted as the price of state financial support for those out of work. They note that the real value of state support, already low, is continuing to fall.

The report identifies the increased pressure on the most vulnerable caused by cuts in housing and council tax benefits. The report is written with the aspiration of a workable welfare system, but even within their limited perspective the authors are clear about the impact of the cuts. Cuts in the welfare system mean people are going hungry. The authors identify this as the reason for the growth in use of food banks.

The numbers using food banks are horrific enough, with more than 350,000 people having used them in 2012/13, even before the deepest cuts have been made. Almost half of the referrals to food banks, however, arise directly from problems with the benefit system that should be assisting the most vulnerable. At a parliamentary debate this month Conservative Party MPs laughed and jeered as the plight of those reduced to using food banks was described.

The Rowntree report examines how poverty has affected income, noting that incomes at all levels have fallen in the last two years. It identifies the group most affected as “working-age adults without dependent children.” Some 20 percent of this group now lives in poverty. This is its highest level in 30 years, with the report noting that the percentage has risen “quite steadily” in that period. The falling income level of working age adults has clearly had an impact on overall poverty, while food prices have risen faster than the rate of inflation over the last decade and utility bills have risen even more quickly.

Rising prices of consumer goods are just one of the causes of the rise in poverty. Between 2002 and 2012, the consumer price index (CPI) rose by 29 percent. That means that on average consumer items cost just under one-third more in 2012 than they did in 2002.

The largest price rises have come on utility bills, transport and rent. Over that decade, the cost of electricity, gas and other fuels rose by 140 percent. Domestic water charges rose by 69 percent. The cost of personal transport (excluding the purchase cost of vehicles) rose by 71 percent, while the cost of public transport rose by 87 percent. Over the last decade public transport has become more expensive relative to private transport.

The report does not address rent rises, which are now rising at twice the annual rate of earnings and reaping record dividends of 10.5 percent per annum for landlords. Average rent rose 12 percent from £121.50 per week to £136 per week between 2010 and 2012.

The report’s most striking statistics are its findings on work. “For the first time on record,” the authors note, “the majority of people in poverty are in working families.” Two-thirds of adults in these families are in work. Of the 13 million people in poverty in the UK in 2011/12, around 6.7 million were in a family where someone worked. The remaining 6.3 million were in work-less working-age families or families where the adults were retired. This is the first time when a majority of those in poverty have been in work.

The report points to escalating youth unemployment and an increase in low-paid work. Unemployment for young adults rose by 7 percent between 2007 and 2012. During that time the number of unemployed 18-25 year-olds increased by 290,000.

The proportion of low-paid jobs increased in 2012, with 39 percent done by people under 30. In 2012, around 27 percent of female employees and 15 percent of male employees were paid below the nominal “living wage” of £7.45 an hour. This increase in low-paid work for women was the first since figures were first documented in 2001.

The poverty figures reveal the fraudulent character of the “living wage” campaign. Two-fifths of adults in working families and in poverty were in families where the earner was paid more than the “living wage”. On average, between 2008/09 and 2010/11, 1.2 million adults were paid below the living wage in the bottom 20 percent of the household income distribution, roughly equivalent to the poverty line. As the report notes, poverty is not just created by low pay, but is complicated by factors such as benefits paid to those in work and housing costs. The report also pointed to a fall in real wages almost every month for over three years.

Its examination of social security and welfare reform also highlighted continued changes in benefits. In February 2013, some 5.2 million people in the UK were claiming an out-of-work benefit. This is around 50,000 fewer than the previous year, but 400,000 more than five years earlier.

The benefit cut which had the greatest impact was the change to Council Tax Support in April 2013. Most of those affected were already living in poverty. In the financial year 2013/14, an estimated 2.6 million families (8 percent of families in the UK) saw their benefit entitlement cut as the result of three welfare reforms. They lost on average £16.90 a week. Two million families saw only a reduction to their Council Tax Support, the largest group affected by only one benefit loss. Of the 660,000 families hit by the so-called “bedroom tax,” two-thirds have also had their Council Tax Support cut.

The report offers a stark evaluation of government policies on welfare reform. “The problems that this government and the last [Labour] see themselves as addressing through their welfare reforms—a soaring benefit bill, worklessness, poverty—are serious indeed. But their roots do not lie in the people caught up in them. Instead they lie elsewhere, in the behaviour of both financial and non-financial corporations, in the laxity of regulators, in an unwillingness to contemplate a low-cost, good-quality alternative to private rented homes, in confused thinking that treats valid answers to questions about individuals (why this person is unemployed rather than that) as if they were valid answers for social ones too (why there is unemployment at all).”

It ends with the warning that “If poverty is really to be ‘tackled’… it is the shortcomings of powerful institutions and ideas that must be the object of relentless attention, not the poor themselves.”

What cannot be said is that this means putting an end to government of, by and for the super-rich and fighting for socialism.