The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called for a number of questionable policy decisions in 2018. In light of the USCCB’s recent push for forced participation in labor unions, fewer travel restrictions, and higher minimum wages, many conservative and libertarian Catholics are wondering what these topics have to do with their faith and why the bishops feel the need to advocate for such questionable policies.
On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in Janus v. AFSCME that nonunion workers could not be forced to pay fees for collective bargaining. The USCCB quickly expressed its disapproval of the decision, issuing a statement that called the court’s decision “disappointing.” This statement from the USCCB puzzled many Catholics, including Bishop Thomas Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield.
Bishop Paprocki released his own video where he outlined his disagreement with the USCCB. Paprocki noted that several labor unions, including AFSCME, contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to Planned Parenthood. Given the Catholic church’s hard-line position against abortion, this should be a nonstarter. How the USCCB could advocate for policies that indirectly force Catholics like me to support abortion is beyond comprehension.
The USCCB also issued a statement criticizing the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Hawaii. The statement said, “We are disappointed in the Court’s ruling because it failed to take into account the clear and unlawful targeting of a specific religious group by the government.”
But to describe the travel restrictions levied by the Trump administration like this is questionable at best. In delivering the opinion of the court, Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that “the policy covers just 8% of the world’s Muslim population and is limited to countries that were previously designated by Congress or prior administrations as posing national security risks.” Furthermore, “since the President introduced entry restrictions in January 2017, three Muslim-majority countries — Iraq, Sudan, and Chad — have been removed from the list of covered countries.” It seems that like much of the liberal media, the bishops opposed President Trump’s travel ban not because they thoroughly understood and disagreed with the actual policy, but simply because they didn’t like Trump’s uncensored and loud-mouthed commentary on it.
As Roberts noted in delivering the opinion of the court, this is a poor way to judge the constitutionality of complex policy decisions. The bishops had no convincing reason to assert that the travel ban was unconstitutional, and if they merely disagreed with the ban on the basis of policy, they shouldn’t have directed their disappointment toward the Supreme Court, as the court’s job is to judge the constitutionality of the law regardless of whether they believe it is good policy or not.
Another blunder came in a September Labor Day statement where the USCCB cited a number of injustices they perceived in the economy. Among these grievances was the fact that minimum wage earners can’t afford two-bedroom apartments, according to a study published by the Washington Post.
First, this study sets an odd standard for poverty that attempts to make people appear poorer than they actually are, as any rational minimum wage earner would share a two-bedroom apartment with a roommate and save several thousand dollars per year in doing so. Second, while some low-wage earners benefit from minimum wage hikes, others lose their jobs entirely.
Additionally, raising the minimum wage prevents the lowest-skilled workers from entering the market, making it particularly hard for inner-city minorities with little social capital to find a business willing to hire them. Furthermore, the idea that employers should be legally obligated to pay a living wage to high school kids entering the labor market for the very first time is completely illogical, and this idea clearly illustrates why the minimum wage should not be a living wage.
The USCCB’s failure to recognize the nuance involved in these various issues is disappointing, and the bishops are isolating the many Catholics who hold different opinions. While I don’t expect the bishops to endorse all of my conservative and libertarian positions, I do expect them to acknowledge that these are issues where Catholics of goodwill can disagree, and the bishops’ collective failure to do this reveals their profound lack of understanding of these issues.
I’m perfectly fine with my bishops not being experts on every policy issue. Their job is to focus on sacred issues and lead people to God, and I’m incredibly thankful for the bishops who do great work in that arena. However, if the bishops aren’t informed on these policy issues, they need to stop confusing the Catholic laity by pretending that they are.
Ryan Everson is a student journalist from Arizona State University.
