Honors Thesis May 2016

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
37

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
40

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
42
John Paul II, 1991, 48-49
43

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
45
46

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

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

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
58

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.”76
The 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.

Honors Thesis May 2016

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Honors Thesis May 2016

Similar to Honors Thesis May 2016 (20)

Honors Thesis May 2016