n Inequality and Agency
n What is inequality? It’s the unbalanced distribution ofnpower and control over wealth and innovation, government and culture, societynand neighborhoods—over our lives. That distribution is changing in our society.nWe can all feel it. At this point the conversation is focused on incomeninequality. But that’s too narrow. The economic top 20 percent has gained annear monopoly on social capital. This moral and cultural inequality is a deepernproblem, and more explosive.
n Equality is a tricky notion. Its root political meaning isnequality before the law, which means an impartial application of the legal codenwithout regard to a citizen’s wealth, nationality, religion, or socialnstanding. Its social meaning is more open-ended. Only utopians imagine thatneveryone can be the same or be treated in the same way. Instead, we usenequality to describe an inclusive social order, one in which ordinary peoplencount, have a say, and are involved in their society’s consequential activitiesnand decisions. In a hierarchical society, those at the top do most of thenshaping of affairs, not just in their own lives but in those of others as well.nSocial equality reflects a different ideal, one that empowers everyone to usentheir own agency.
n We’re talking about inequality a lot these days not just becausenpeople are losing income but because so many are losing agency. Economicnfactors matter a great deal. Unemployment, credit card debt, an inability tonpay rent, and general impoverishment narrow our options and in many cases makenus dependent. But loss of agency is about more than money. Today’s progressivenmoral project strips ordinary people of traditional moral wisdom and diminishesntheir agency.
n For most of American history, the Bible and thenJudeo-Christian ethic had currency. In addition, we shared a common patrioticnvocabulary anchored in our founding documents: “We hold these truths to benself-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by theirnCreator with certain unalienable Rights.” This shared moral and civic visionnempowered ordinary people to participate in the great conversation about how wenshould shape our common life. Martin Luther King Jr. challenged his racistnadversaries with a two-pronged weapon: the Declaration of Independence and thenteachings of Scripture, both of which the common man could engage, understand,nand respond to.
n In the past, elites did their part to sustain this civic,nmoral, and religious consensus. Predominantly liberal, the newsmen of the 1950snand 1960s nevertheless expressed their moral passion in the same classic,nhigh-minded public vocabulary King used. They operated within our encompassingncivil religion even as they took critical stances.
n The effect was to include a wide range of people in thenpublic conversation and promote an equality of moral imagination. Religion,nmorality, and civic myths: These are not the opiates of the masses, nor thenmystifications the powerful use to ensure their dominion. On the contrary, theynprovide us with an inclusive common language of duty, responsibility, andnaccountability.
n Nowadays, if you quote the Bible, you’ll be labeled anfundamentalist. If you affirm the Judeo-Christian ethic, you’re a bigot. One ofnthe very popular high school American history textbooks, Howard Zinn’sn AnPeople’s History of the United States, works hard to discredit our foundingnmyths and disenchant our civic vocabulary. Our debates are often dominated by anmulticultural mindset that drains traditional moral language of its power.nMoreover, the rules that flow from that mindset function like a secret code fornthe initiated. Tolerance is all-important—except when it comes to certain ideasnand views. We’re to include everybody—but not those who don’t include. To benpermitted to speak, one must conform to the super-subtle rules of progressives.nIt’s not homosexual, my benighted friend, it’s gay, lesbian, bisexual,ntransgendered, questioning. . . .
n The upshot is a public or civic inequality. To annunprecedented degree, our secular elites have a monopoly on culture thatncannot be challenged by ordinary people. The same people who are falling behindnin the global economy also find themselves culturally disempowered. That’s whynFox News can build a brand around populist resentment.
n The relentless critiques of traditional moral wisdom havenled to a personal loss of agency as well, one that gives rise to today’s mostnprofound inequality: marriage inequality. As David and Amber Lapp painfullyndetailed in the last issue (“Alone in the New America”), stable marriage is n desiredn by many young working-class people but seems inaccessible. Not only isngrandpa’s high-paying union job at GM a remote dream for working-class youngnpeople in Youngstown, they also can’t secure the family stability he enjoyed.nThere’s a painful loss of agency when one feels marriage out of reach,nespecially when only a generation or two ago the dominant culture empowerednpeople, making marriage seem natural, obvious, and almost automatic.
n Thus today’s compound inequality. The same top end that getsnthe money also controls the new, postmodern ways of defining morality, culture,nand public life. They have the social capital and moral agency necessary to getnand stay married in the new culture they dominate. Given this glaringninequality, it’s a painful mockery that gay marriage, which is both based onnand contributes to the progressive deconstruction of traditional moral wisdom,nis being marketed as “marriage equality.”
n Let’s talk about income inequality. It’s a real problem. Butnlet’s also talk about the moral and civic inequality that progressivism isncreating today. The signs of the times suggest that this inequality is morendecisive. The most influential forms of populism today are cultural–religious.nGlobally, fundamentalism is on the rise because it promises agency to those whonfeel themselves increasingly dominated by Western and global forces. This isnespecially true in the Muslim world. In America, Tea Party populism wants ton“take our country back.” From whom? Not billionaires, but the editors of the n NewnYork Times.
n It’s not just the populist rebels who reveal the largernreality of our age. The editors of the n New York Times intuit the deepestnbasis of their power. They are willing to pay higher taxes—or at leastnvolunteer others to pay them. But a redistribution of cultural power? Not anchance. The same goes for faculty at universities. They’ll rally round the callnfor greater economic equality, but God forbid that a social or religiousnconservative should receive an appointment. That tells us a great deal aboutnthe inequalities and equalities that matter.
n Gourmet Self-Creation
n Our New Year is arbitrary. For Jews the year begins on thenfirst day of the month of Tishrei on the Jewish lunar calendar. For the Chinesenit’s a midwinter date, also determined by a lunar calendar. Ours is based onnthe Gregorian calendar. But we can’t help but feel it a new beginning, a timento make resolutions and redirect one’s life: an almost metaphysical moment. Innthat spirit the n New York Times ran on December 30 an op-ed by JennifernFinney Boylan. She writes of our desire to go to “a place where you couldnbecome, at last, the author of your own life.”
n Author of your own life, agent of your destiny: For thosendowntrodden by poverty, sickness, and bad fortune, or in bondage to addictions,nit’s a vision we should encourage. I think of Ronnie, who used to sit on annempty five-gallon bucket at the corner of 58th and First Avenue, quietlynreciting his own rap poems while he panhandled. Tormented by mental illness andnaddictions, he wanted, desperately wanted, to be the author of his own life.nThat’s what he told me in so many words. Then he got very sick and wanted onlynto live. Then he disappeared.
n Or I think of Daron, the oil field roughneck I knew whonstarted buying motorcycles and powerboats, maxing out his credit cards, andnputting himself deeply into debt. In his usual manic tone he explained, “I knownit’s crazy, but it’s the only way I could stop that damned cocaine habit. Hee,nhee, ain’t got no money for it now.”
n Or. Or. Or.
n Or there’s Ms. Boylan, who used to be Mr. Boylan. Her storynis about finally finding “the love of my life,” a woman who helps him begin hisnlife anew—as a woman. Now they have a New Year’s tradition. Along with theirnchildren, they climb French Mountain near Belgrade, Maine. It’s their place ofnnew beginnings, their place to celebrate becoming the author of their ownnlives.
n The inequality is patent. It’s not the teaching gigs atnJohns Hopkins, vacations in Maine, or affirming partners in nontraditionalnrelationships that glares. It’s the preoccupation with the new freedoms enjoyednby the one percent. As so many people lose their agency in postindustrial,npostmodern America, we’re seeing an ever increasing enhancement of the agencynof the top end. Whether it’s life in the womb, the meaning of marriage, or whatnit means to be a man or a woman, their freedom trumps. They can redefinenwhatever stands in the way of their being authors of their own lives.
n Pius XII
n Pius XII has become the papal piñata. In his influentialn1963 play n The Deputy, Rolf Hochhuth depicted him as a cold, cautious,naloof churchman unwilling to speak out against Nazi crimes. Some have risen tondefend his reputation, documenting his efforts to save Jewish lives in Italynduring the war. Much heat has been generated, little light.
n In a new, scholarly biography, Soldier of Christ: ThenLife of Pope Pius XII, Robert A. Ventresca gives us a dispassionatenportrait. Born Eugenio Pacelli, Pius was a canon lawyer and diplomat, not anprophet or statesman. If we’re to understand his career and significance—andnthe early twentieth-century Church—we should set aside “Did he do enough?”ncounterfactuals. More illuminating (and germane) are his failures n as andiplomat. Pacelli’s great focus was on Germany, and it was there that he failednin important ways.
n His German diplomacy was shaped by two assumptions. Thenfirst, shared by many secular leaders of his time and almost universally amongnChurch officials, was that communism posed the greatest threat to the Church andnsociety. Therefore, it was natural that he also assumed—again, as did manynsecular leaders—that National Socialism, however regrettable its barbarism andnexcesses, could help fight communism.
n This assumption led to a fateful miscalculation by Franz vonnPapen, the German Catholic aristocrat and Weimar-era politician. He worked tonbring Hitler’s movement into the German government after the 1932 election thatnsaw both the extreme left and the extreme right gain seats in the Reichstag.nPapen assumed he could broker a power-sharing agreement between the CatholicnCenter party and the Nazis, creating a broad coalition on the right and therebynstymieing the left.
n But Nazism was revolutionary, not conservative;ntotalitarian, not authoritarian; committed to redemptive violence, notncoalition politics. There could be no balancing of party interests, no playingnoff right against left. Thus the tragedy as Europe careened toward war:nConservatives (Neville Chamberlain led Britain’s Conservative party) sought toncontain Hitler in accord with the ordinary rules of the game that Hitler had nonintention of playing.
n Ventresca’s scholarship shows that Pacelli and his fellownChurch diplomats saw German politics in 1932 and 1933 as did Papen. After then1932 elections, Catholic politician and Center party leader Heinrich Brüningnwanted to form a coalition government with the Social Democrats, a party on thenleft. The dangers of communism made Pacelli nervous. He undermined Brüning,nwhich had the effect of empowering Papen and his strategy, thereby clearing thenway for Hitler’s rise to power.
n Pacelli’s diplomacy was based on another, even more powerfulnassumption that further aided Hitler’s rise to power: that the most importantngoal of the Catholic Church in Germany was to achieve a concordat, thentechnical term for a legal document defining the proper relations between thenChurch and the secular state.
n In the final decades of the nineteenth and into the earlyntwentieth century, Catholicism was reorienting its political identity. Althoughnas late as 1870 the Vatican exercised temporal authority over remnants of thenPapal States, the French Revolution and Napoleonic conquests had largelyndestroyed the old fusion of sacred and secular power. Princes of the Churchnwere no longer intimate partners with secular rulers. The new republicannregimes were often antagonistic, as were bureaucratic and authoritariannmonarchies like Prussian-dominated Germany.
n Leo XIII recognized that the Church’s future rested in hernindependence as a moral and spiritual power. Pope from 1878 to 1903, henlaunched the modern encyclical tradition designed to shape public opinion andncommended St. Thomas Aquinas, giving the Church her own distinctive social andnintellectual character. In these and other ways, the Church stepped back fromnmore than a millennium of close association with state power and began tonreconstitute herself as a distinctive community in accord with her ownnprinciples and purposes. It was the era of renewed institutional integrity.
n As a talented young priest in the Curia, Pacelli worked onnthe systemization of canon law that culminated in the 1917 Code. Although thisnseems a technical sideline, it was in fact a crucial step toward securing thenChurch’s sovereignty. No longer was the Church’s internal life ordered by anpatchwork of old canon law that often combined sacred and secular authority.nNow the Church’s law was entirely her own. She and she alone has jurisdictionnover her affairs.
n Where the 1917 Code concerned the internal life of the Church,nconcordats or treaties were negotiated to regularize relations to the modernnstates of Europe. They clarified the Church’s property rights, the autonomy ofnher educational programs, the scope of clerical privilege, and more. Withoutnconcordats the internal life of the Church remained vulnerable to secularndomination and control.
n Building this system became one of the great imperatives ofnthe Vatican’s diplomatic corps, which was the most powerful department in thenVatican in those decades. While papal nuncio in Germany after World War I,nPacelli sought to negotiate a concordat with the German government, but withoutnsuccess. In 1930 he was brought back to Rome to serve as the Vatican’snsecretary of state, a position of importance second only to the pope’s. Anconcordat with Germany remained his great ambition.
n In 1933, Hitler was made chancellor of Germany (aided innpart by Pacelli’s undercutting of opposition in the Catholic Center party).nEager to consolidate his power, he recognized that the concordat was annoverriding imperative for the Vatican. So Hitler put it on the fast track.nPacelli’s response was to throw all his efforts behind it. The Vatican’sndiplomatic signals to German Catholics were crystal clear: Securing thenconcordat was to be the singular priority of the Church in Germany.
n This had decisive consequences in the Reichstag. By makingnthe concordat a priority, the Vatican was investing in Hitler’s ability to getnthe job done. Pacelli’s diplomacy said, in effect, that an empowered Hitler isngood for the Church. Thus, taking its cues from Rome, the Catholic Center Partynprovided the crucial votes to support the Enabling Act of 1933, which gavenHitler the power to rule through emergency measures without legislativenapproval. The concordat was quickly concluded, to Pacelli’s delight—and Hitlernwas on his way to dictatorial power.
n In his own career in the Vatican’s diplomatic corps,nGiovanni Montini, the future Paul VI and last of the twentieth-century diplomatnpopes, worked closely with Pius XII. He defended the reputation of his oldnboss: “History will vindicate the conduct of Pius XII when confronted with thencriminal excesses of the Nazi regime.” About the war years, Ventrusca’sneven-handed biography largely supports Montini’s claim.
n However, about Hitler’s rise to power when Pacelli was thenVatican’s secretary of state, I’m not so sure. He misjudged (as did so manynothers) the evil Hitler represented. More importantly, his vision fixed onnsecuring a concordat, he contributed to the passage of the 1933 Enabling Actnthat gave legal cover to Hitler’s ruthless drive toward totalitarian power. Innso doing, I fear, he lost sight of the proper end of the Church’s diplomacy,nwhich is to advance the truth of the Gospel, not the interests of the Church.nThis was a failure, and it’s silly to say otherwise out of a well-intentionedndesire to defend the reputation of the papal office or the integrity of thenChurch.
n Condemnation is also silly. Times have changed. We don’t seenthe Church and the world as Pacelli and his generation did. Now we put a muchngreater premium on the integrity of the Church’s public witness, which isnexactly what Leo XIII had in mind as he worked to give the Church annindependent legal, intellectual, and spiritual constitution. That shift wasndramatically evident at the Second Vatican Council and may well be culminatingnin the pontificate of Francis.
n We need to recognize that, far from standing in the way ofnthis renewed concern with the Church’s public witness, Pacelli and his generationnpaved the way. Flawed, often one-sided, and blind to other considerations, theynlargely succeeded in securing the institutional independence of the CatholicnChurch. They gave us a place to stand, which is why we can now focus on takingnstands.
n Food and Class
n Jesse Straight appreciates my analysis of elite self-regardnand the ways the upper crust is reinterpreting morality to serve itself. But henruns the Whiffletree Farm in Warrenton, Virginia, where he raises organicnfree-range pigs, cattle, and chickens. This makes him less than happy with myn“habit of, while poking fun at and exposing some of the frivolous, self-righteous,nand self-indulgent ways of the elite, flippantly citing their ‘separate cuisinenof organic, locally sourced food’ or ‘gourmet pickles,’ etc.”
n His main points:
n “One, some of us involved in well-raised, local food are notnthe wealthy liberal elite. I would know this as the rural, lots-of-kids,nconservative, Catholic-convert, farmer who does not make much money. Many ofnour customers are like ourselves: conservative, religious, of modest income whonare not foodies but are concerned about health.
n “Second, of course there are silly, self-indulgent,nself-righteous ‘foodie locavores,’ but there are silly people in any category.nWell-raised, local food encourages an ethic of health and care: health of thenland, animals, eaters, farmers, and community. In short, our work is about anlife of holiness—respecting and caring for the gifts God has given us.”
n I’m very glad to get some pushback from Farmer Straight.nWe’re in many ways quite simpatico. I’m all for the food revolution sweepingnour country. Three decades ago the craft beer movement transformed thenmarketplace—and significantly improved the quality of my life. Now craft cheesenis taking off, which is also a very good thing, as is the restoration ofn“heritage” hogs, which means pork with fat marbling that actually tastes good.nAbout tomatoes I continue to despair.
n In short, I too am a conservative, religious,nCatholic-convert foodie who would enjoy sipping craft beer and discussing St.nThomas on Straight’s front porch. When I was living in Omaha, Nebraska, Inbought a “quarter” every six months or so from a local farmer. (For thenuninitiated, a “quarter” refers to one quarter of the meat from a recentlynslaughtered cow.) He has a beautiful family, a verdant spread, and a secretnrecipe for “finishing” his cattle. Good man. Happy cattle. Marvelous meat.
n Yet I stand by my critical campaign against foodie hauteur.nAll things being equal, most people prefer better food. But onlynupper-middle-class Americans of a particular social background turn thatnpreference into a life-defining philosophy with an elaborate scholasticnvocabulary and many special doctrines. Food pride—pride in its superiority,npride in its ethical purity, pride in its health benefits—has become ansignificant mark of social class.
n And not just pride, but an exquisite, neo-Puritannpunctiliousness. I was in line at my local gourmet coffee shop (organic, ofncourse) and overheard a woman interrogate the staff about the content andnethical standing of various pastries that I know from experience are exquisite.nUnsatisfied with their answers, she sniffed and said, “Well, I’ll just havencoffee.”
n Nor do claims about health benefits have much substance.nShoppers at Whole Foods tend to be healthy because they’re well-to-do peoplenwho care about their health, not because they eat organic food. Healthy eatingnis something you can do with avocados raised in Israel, chicken from Tyson, andngenetically modified rice.
n I enjoy good food. I’m in favor of restoring a love ofncraft—may a thousand cheeses ripen! I dislike vast suburban grocery stores, andnthrill to farmers’ markets. I’m a sucker for the myth of the family farm. I’mngrateful that the foodie movement makes it possible for Straight and others tonmake a living, however modest, doing something they love. When it comes tontasteless pork, processed cheese, tomatoes hard as baseballs, and breads with characterlessncrusts, n Viva la revolución!
n But, please, let’s not confuse all this with virtue. It’snquite possible, and indeed common, for men who run highly mechanized farms toncare for their land and animals, their neighbors and communities. A concernnabout health and the desire to make meals moments of communion can motivatenthose who shop at Costco. When it comes to food, the gate is wide, not narrow.
n Conquering the World
n A most serious temptation, one that impedes our contact withnthe Lord, is defeatism.” So observed then-Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio in a talk hengave to priests, now part of a collection, n Open Mind, Faithful Heart.nI’m a magazine editor and culture warrior, not a parish priest, but I’ve oftennfelt this temptation. After decades of struggling, we’ve made very littlenprogress protecting children in the womb. Increasingly commentators say gaynmarriage has to be accepted as “inevitable.” Religious freedom is beingnthreatened. More and more people live without feeling any need to go to church.
n When I’m tired and demoralized I hear the Devil whisper:n“It’s pointless, you know. You’ve lost. Why are you wasting your time? Youncould be doing some real good if you’d focus on something else.” Sometimes hencontinues: “It’s not really capitulation, you know. You should let the secularnworld go its own way. Anyway, prayer is more powerful than action.” Or he says,n“You’ve got to maintain your viability as a public intellectual. Admit defeatnand move on. People are tired of bitter battles over religion and morality innthe public square. You’ll do more good if you’re part of the mainstream.”
n But we must be confident,nsays Pope Francis. This does not mean confidence that tomorrow will bring newsnof great battles won. “Christian victory always involves the cross.” The waynmay be difficult. But Christ has triumphed over all worldly powers, even death.nFrancis quotes from 1 John 5:4–5, a particularly powerful passage that hasnbucked me up on many occasions: “Whatever is born of God conquers the world.nAnd this is the victory that conquers the world, our faith. Who is it thatnconquers the world but the one who believesnthat Jesus is the Son of God?”
