THE TABLET
THE INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC WEEKLY Founded in 1840
CUTS MUST NOT BE PUNITIVE U
nder the Statute of Labourers of 1351, those who refused to work – “giving themselves up to idleness and sins” –were to be rounded up. The Government has been accused of planning something similar
today for the long-term unemployed including those who refuse to work but prefer to remain supported by the state on wel- fare – the modern equivalent, perhaps, of medieval alms. In this case the penalty would not be having to stand in the stocks, but being made to do unpaid work for the benefit of the com- munity. If they refused even that, they would lose all entitlement to unemployment benefit for three months. Unfortunately for the scheme’s public perception, being forced to do unpaid work is a penalty commonly imposed by the crim- inal courts. It is easy to see why some have complained – albeit with a degree of exaggeration – that the Government is pro- posing to criminalise the unemployed. Or, as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, put it during a radio inter- view, driving vulnerable people into a “downward spiral of uncertainty, even despair”. As the 1351 example shows, the poor are always with us. Poor
Law reformers wrestled for centuries to find a way to relieve poverty, decently but without making life too comfortable. So far, no politician has found a system that combines the twin aims of decent mininum income and a work incentive: wel- fare systems do produce dependency.
But this is by no means the only reason that people are unem- ployed. The 2008 credit crunch and the recession which followed drove unemployment up sharply, and Government spending cuts are expected to add at least another million to the work-
less total. Forcing them to work for nothing will only add insult to injury when there are no real jobs. The Government seems convinced that squeezing the pub-
lic sector will automatically stimulate the private sector, so new jobs will appear. But even if access to credit becomes far eas- ier, the rate of growth needed to mop up the unemployed would be much larger than anything seen before. Forcing unemployed people into unpaid work would be degrading. There are several moral principles that must apply to any welfare reform and one of them is respect for human dignity, with a “preferential option” for the most vulnerable. Two other criteria are the protection of family life, a factor particularly relevant to changes in housing benefit, and the advancement of solidarity, which means not stirring up resent- ment in one section of society against another but encouraging mutual support. These three principles –human dignity, defence of families and solidarity – are at the heart of Catholic Social Teaching, which is why they will no doubt guide the think- ing of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales when they meet next week. Some expressed their concerns to The Tablet this week about the impact of the government benefit cuts and welfare reforms on the poorest in their dioceses. Overall, the Government’s welfare proposals seem well- intentioned and prudent. The idea of a universal benefit, in place of the complex array of credits, allowances and entitlements, is a good one. But one small hole can sink a battleship. Adopting a punitive approach in one area could turn opinion against the entire package. In 1381, the Statute of Labourers was a major factor in the Peasants’ Revolt.
A FRIENDLY HALFWAY HOUSE T
he outline of the new ordinariate for former Anglicans within the Roman Catholic Church became clearer in Britain this week, with the announcement that five Anglican bishops are seeking to join it, along with an anticipated 50 priests and 500 laity. These totals may grow once the new structure is in place, including arrangements to finance it. These are on the agenda of the forthcoming meet- ing of the English and Welsh bishops, who will have in mind Pope Benedict’s encouragement to be “generous”. For some, the practical side of the transition will be easier than for others. An Anglican clergyman could not hope to raise a family on the income he would receive if ordained into the Roman Catholic priesthood in the ordinary way, and the congregations some may bring with them are also liable to be too small to be finan- cially viable. Compared with the Catholic Church in England and Wales, the Church of England is a wealthy institution. Previous inflows of Anglican priests and lay people into the Catholic Church have gone surprisingly smoothly. They have been warmly welcomed and assimilated without fuss, and have become virtually indistinguishable from typical members of the thoroughly diverse community they have joined. In fact, a surprisingly high number of present-day British Catholics were originally raised as something else: neither converts nor immigrants are at all uncommon. And though the reason for previous influxes of Anglicans into the ranks of Catholicism are the same as this time – a sense that the Church of England has betrayed its orthodox heritage, largely but not solely over
2 | THE TABLET | 13 November 2010
the issue of women priests and bishops – it is not clear that they are, in Catholic terms, particularly backward-looking and conservative. Indeed, with a married clergy and a long trad - ition of lay participation in church government, many of the ideas they bring with them as part of their “Anglican heritage” point to the future rather than the past. This is where most Catholics, if they are honest, will admit to some misgivings about the ordinariate arrangement – and some puzzlement as to why it was thought necessary. The pres- ence of these former Anglicans has a considerable potential for good in its effects on the wider Church, but only if they are allowed to have some influence and are allowed in turn to be influenced. There is nothing in the Anglican heritage they carry with them that English Catholics need fear or reject. So why cannot it be seen as the precious gift they bear, as they enter their new home? If the ordinariate becomes a sect, an Anglican ghetto surrounded by a cultural moat, or even worse, a sort of ecclesiastical refugee camp, that will not happen. It even implies a kind of rejection of the wider Catholic culture. Behind all these misgivings lies an obvious question - why could they not just become Catholics in the normal way, like thou- sands have done before? The explanation may be that, pastorally and psychologically, the normal way seemed too big a step to be taken in one jump. Hence it makes most sense to see the ordinariate as a transitional institution, a halfway house from which people will move on. It is not the end of the road, just a friendly resting place on a journey yet to be completed.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40