The Working Catholic: Farm Workers by Bill Droel

 

            Time is catching up with the founders of the United Farm Workers Union (www.ufw.org). Cesar Chavez (1927-1993) has been dead for 27 years. Rev. Jim Drake (1938-2001) died young. Larry Itliong (1913-1977), who started the famous Delano Grape Strike and National Boycott of September 1965, is gone. Marion Moses (1936-2020), who founded the UFW health care system, died last month. Dolores Huerta is now 90 and Rev. Chris Hartmire is in his late 80s. So too is LeRoy Chatfield.

Chatfield was the administrative assistant to Chavez during the ten crucial years of the UFW. He gives us two recent gifts: The definitive Farm Worker Documentation Project (www.libraries.ucsd.edu/farmworkermovement/archives) and a memoir, To Serve the People: My Life Organizing with Cesar Chavez and the Poor (University of New Mexico [2019]; $27.95).

Chatfield did everything. He walked the first picket line, tended to Chavez during his 25-day fast, was part of the march to Sacramento, managed the operation when Chavez was on the road a month at a time, raised money and spoke at colleges, organized a major legislative labor campaign in California, represented the UFW at the funeral of Robert Kennedy (1925-1968)--all of this after Chavez took on the 31-year old Chatfield to develop farm worker cooperatives, which he also did. Chatfield was on the scene prior to the Delano Grape Strike and played a key role in it. His chapter about it is the best in To Serve the People.

Prior to these defining ten years, Chatfield was for 16 years a member of Christian Brothers of De La Salle (www.delasalle.org). Peter Maurin (1877-1949), a founder of Catholic Worker Movement (www.catholicworker.org), once belonged to the same order, Chatfield reminds us. All through the book he refers to his connections with the Catholic Worker.

He served as a teacher and administrator at Christian Brothers’ schools in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Bakersfield. His social formation occurred as a Christian Brother—sometimes by way of the community, sometimes in spite of it. For example, a Christian Brother recruited Chatfield, then aspiring to the order as high school student, for a cell of a specialized Catholic Action. He was intrigued by social doctrine, though he didn’t understand much of it. However, he memorized and experimented with the Catholic Action method. “I tell you that nothing in my life since age 14 has served me better or landed me in more hot water than those damn principles of observe, judge, act,” he writes.

Just as often Chatfield’s social formation came through his own involvements with student groups and Catholic organizations, including a Catholic Worker house in Oakland and a relationship with Ammon Hennacy (1893-1970). The tale of how he found Chavez indirectly includes the Catholic Worker. At age 29 Chatfield (then known as Bro. Gilbert, FSC) went to Boston to participate at the annual convention of National Catholic Social Action Conference. NCSAC was founded by former Catholic Workers John Cort (1913-2006) and Ed Marciniak (1917-2004). At the Boston conference Chatfield heard “that a man by the name of Cesar Chavez was organizing farm workers in Delano, California.” That was enough for Chatfield.

 In this memoir Chatfield expresses affection for all the people and groups he met. There is no bitterness. He left the Christian Brothers only because he wanted full-time involvement with farm workers and presumably the order was unprepared to assign him to that mission. He likewise left the UFW with abiding affection.

“For nearly ten years, Cesar was my best friend,” says Chatfield. They talked over family matters, their faith, sports, politics and lots more. This autobiography is not in any way a tell-all. But in details here-and-there it gives a glimpse into the tragic flaw of the heroic Chavez. A full picture comes through in the sympathetic biography, The Crusades of Cesar Chavez by Mirian Pawel (Bloomsbury, 2014).

Chatfield came to Chavez out of general desire to help farm workers. Chavez left his job with Community Service Organization out of the same general desire. Chatfield calls this “Cesar’s vision.” There was no clarity, however, about the precise purpose of Chavez’ movement. It was part union focused on gaining collective bargaining status, part social service agency, public relations lobby on behalf of farm workers, and a retreat-style spiritual community.  Chavez was the only one who controlled the game plan. Thus there was arbitrariness about his leadership. It was a vision; something that Chavez did not or could not share in bullet point memo.

As the months went by Chatfield got the message that he would be a fall guy for a defeat during a legislative campaign. There was no showdown; Chatfield simply knew it was time to go. Plus he and his wife Bonnie, whom he met in the movement, had four daughters; a fifth was born subsequently. 

The second part of the book is equally interesting. Again, the Catholic Worker is part of the story. By 1974 Chatfield was a manager in Jerry Brown’s gubernatorial campaign and went on to serve in the administration, including as director of California Conservation Corps. He then spent five years in real estate development and two more years back in school. Meanwhile, Catholic Workers Dan Delany (1935-2015) and Chris Delany were busy founding a comprehensive house for the unemployed and homeless, Loaves and Fishes (www.sacloaves.org). They hired Chatfield to be its first director.  His chapters on these 13 years contain interesting reflections on addiction and on possessions plus a list of tips for managers of non-profits.

Upon retirement Chatfield, wouldn’t you know, returned as a Loaves and Fishes volunteer, developing cottages for the homeless. During retirement Chatfield also returned to producing a journal for high school authors, (www.syndicjournal.us). On Chatfield’s own website, (www.leroychatfield.us), many of his Easy Essays are posted.

Jorge Mariscal put this autobiography together. Its references are up to the minute, but sections of the book are reconstructed from interviews in 1976, from notes in 2002, from several segments written in 2004 and from Chatfield’s diary entries in 1961, 1968-1969 and 1993. There’s a little repetition, but it is not distracting.

Social change movements and their leaders are diminished when they become part of our celebrity culture. True social change requires many energetic and reflective people, most of whom never appear in the news. Chatfield’s account and others like it are an important contribution to understanding how change occurs. Today’s activists are wise to learn from the past; from its positives and negatives.

Droel edits a print newsletter on faith and work, INITIATIVES (PO Box 291102, Chicago, IL 60629).

 

NON-VIOLENT PROTESTS IN 'TAYKANEE,' WISCONSiN

                                    

Seven days a week, in the late afternoon, protestors position themselves at a four corner ‘Taykanee’ intersection and demonstrate against the systematic racism that has plagued the U.S. since its founding.  Some of the protestors kneel for nine minutes in memory of George Floyd.  Others stand.  The four corners are a reminder of the Native American sense of the diversity and unity of the races, White, Black, Red, and Yellow, and their search for the righteous. ‘Taykanee’ is just east of Wauwatosa, and about 30 miles north of Kenosha, Wisconsin towns in the national spotlight for allegations of violence in the protests against systematic racism.                                                          

Non-violence was the tactic and faith belief of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. as he led the quest for civil rights in the 60’s.  For King, violence was a distraction from the issue of racism.  “This is the evil one seeks to dramatize; anything else distracts from that point and interferes with the confrontation of the primary evil.”  (King, p.64)

King’s disciple, Rev. Jesse Jackson, preached to a large group of African American young men in Chicago after King was martyred in 1968. Rev. Jackson spoke to the crowd about a sniper shooting of a white fireman in Cleveland. He linked the practical with a basic rule of faith. “It was wrong!” he said.  “They have more guns than we do; if we resort to violence, we become like them; and the Bible says ‘thou shalt not kill.’ “

Some of the ‘Taykanee’ protesters don’t have vivid memories of Jesse Jackson and Martin Luther King, but they do know the position of   Milwaukee-born Colin Kaepernick.  All the protestors take on a prophetic role insisting that Black lives matter.

King, Martin Luther, Jr., Where Do We Go From Here:  chaos or Community?, Harper & Row, New York, 1967.

A Public Letter to Supreme Court Nominee Amy Barrett by Matthew Fox

 

Dear Ms. Barrett, With the nomination of a new supreme court judge, some are being accused of “anti-catholicism” for posing questions about your religious beliefs.*  I however, think questions like the following are important and I am sure that you are open to discussing them with the American public whose job it is to serve. 1) Since you are a practicing Catholic, have you studied Pope Francis' encyclical on the environment ("Laudato Si")?  What are your positions on environmental justice?  On climate change?  Are you as passionate about them as you are about opposing abortion?  Are you aware that climate change is currently killing more people (who are fully people) than are abortions killing fetuses?  It has killed 200,000 people in the US alone and has maimed tens of thousands more and migrations to come will displace and kill millions more. 2) Have you studied Pope Francis' statements on the "idolatry of money" that dominates so much of our economic system?  Where do you stand on that subject and on unbridled Wall Street power?  And on tax breaks for the very rich vs. for the poor and middle class?  (Revelations on President Trump's non-taxes being very relevant to the question.)   3) Where do you stand on the long-standing teaching of the right for unions to organize that are embedded in papal documents dating all the way back to Pope Leo XIII in the nineteenth century?   4) As for abortion, surely you know the distinction in Catholic philosophy between what makes good law and what makes good morality.  They are not always the same.  Since women are going to have abortions (and not all American women are Catholic, by the way), isn't it preferable to make abortion as safe as possible than to make abortion go underground?   And, as a woman, do you believe it is preferable to turn decision-making about your sacred body over to zealous male law-makers?  Why would you think that? Are you aware that saint and doctor of the church, Thomas Aquinas did not believe the fetus was human until very late in its development?  That only then did the fetus receive a “human soul” (it was first a vegetative soul and then an animal soul according to Aquinas.)  And NOTHING in contemporary science has bothered to disprove this teaching (since contemporary science rarely even uses the word “soul”). 5) Where do you stand on birth control?  Doesn't it seem that the swelling of the human population has much to do with rendering other species extinct, who lose their habitats because of human expansion?  Is it wrong to render God’s creation extinct?  Are you aware that the Dalai Lama, on being asked about birth control, said this.  Traditionally, we have always been conservative about birth control, but look around and see how rising human populations are killing other species so we must change our position on birth control given today’s situation. Do you consider human population explosion a serious problem?  6) How can you, calling yourself a serious Christian (or just a fellow human being), seriously want to end health care for many millions of Americans?  How will you look yourself in the mirror or dare to go to church?   7) Does your version of Christianity support separating children from parents and locking them up in cages?   (See Matthew 25.)  And hiring a white supremacist as an adviser to the president with an office inside the White House? 8) Former US attorney Barb McQuade has informed Americans that in 2016 you argued against filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election time, specifically when it meant shifting the ideology of the justice bring replaced.  (In this case, Justice Ruth Ginsburg).  “When the court is seen as a political tool, it loses its legitimacy to announce the laws of the land.”  Do you still believe this?   Do you consider hypocrisy of numerous Republican senators who said something similar in 2016 and have reversed themselves in 2020 to be a solid ground for “announcing the laws of the land?”  What about your nomination on a rushed schedule?  Wouldn’t it be better for the court and its legitimacy to await the judgement of the next president?  If you believe your position as stated four years ago above, does accepting this nomination not mark you as a hypocrite also?  How do you balance that with Jesus’ teachings against hypocrisy? 9) Saint Thomas Aquinas, doctor of the church, says that “a mistake about creation results in a mistake about God.”  This is why he spent his whole life bringing the best scientist of his day (Aristotle) into the understanding of the Christian faith.  The church made huge mistakes condemning science in the time of Copernicus and Galileo and we were promised, 500 years later by Pope John Paul II, that it wouldn’t happen again.  And yet it has happened clearly in the discussion of gays and lesbians and their rights.   Over 50 years ago, scientists spoke up to inform us that any given human population will have and 8-11% gay population.  Being gay is perfectly natural for gay people, though it is a sexual minority.  Why, then, would any thoughtful Catholic deny gay and lesbians and transgender people their rights as human beings?  (Including the right to marry, at least civilly?)  Surely you do not want to succumb to old religious tropes that mistake God for a bad understanding of creation, do you? 10)  Our constitution promises a separation of church and state.  Since 80% of the American population is not Catholic but something else—Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, indigenous, atheist and more—you would not foist your particular religious beliefs on to all these others, would you?   11)  Your religion is a bit odd.  It is not Catholicism as such or Catholicism as the Pope practices it, for example, it is a mélange of Protestant and Catholics in a small charismatic community.  Speaking anecdotally, in my interactions with charismatics over the years, I have hardly ever met one who considered the struggle for justice for the poor and oppressed as part of their religious consciousness.  In fact, it was precisely the charismatic groups in South America who were financed to oppose and replace base communities and liberation theologies, while buttressing right wing political fanatics.   My question is this: What does the canonization of Saint Oscar Romero mean to you and your community?  How does his struggle on behalf of the poor resonate with your version of Christianity?   12)  Does the ecumenism which you practice in your small charismatic sect extend to other religions and will you respect them and their values in all your court decisions?  Rights of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Native Americans, Atheists, and others? Does your ecumenism also extend to members of the Roman Catholic Church who do not share your ideology including presidential candidate Joe Biden?  House minority leader Nancy Pelosi?  Supreme court judge Sonia Sotomayor?  And many other public figures?  Will you come to their defense when certain noisy media pundits accuse Democrats of being “anti-Catholic”? 13) Do the recent revelations of how we ordinary and modest citizens pay far more taxes than millionaire presidents and also how vast international corporations pay no taxes and how the 2017 tax “reform” let many billionaires reduce their taxes affect your religious sensibilities about justice for the poor?   And does a promise that ours is a government “of the people, by the people and for the people?” correspond to the kind of economic system that is currently running our country?  How do you put into practice Pope Francis’ warnings about Wall Street and the idolatry of money?   Thank you for your attention to these questions. Sincerely, Rev. Dr. Matthew Fox *washingtonpost.com {You can read this article online at: https://www.tikkun.org/a-public-letter-to-supreme-court-nominee-amy-barrett} Matthew Fox is a spiritual theologian, and author of 38 books on spirituality and culture.  He was a Dominican priest for 34 years in the Roman Catholic church and is now an Episcopal priest.  His latest books are The Tao of Thomas Aquinas: Fierce Wisdom for Hard Times; and Julian of Norwich: Wisdom in a Time of Pandemic—and Beyond. He is a frequent contributor to Tikkun magazine. Click below to share this article on the platform of your choice! We need your support to bring the kind of analyses and information Tikkun provides. Click here to make a tax-deductible contribution. Contact Us Tikkun & the Network of Spiritual Progressives 2342 Shattuck Ave #1200 Berkeley, California 94704 (510) 644-1200 magazine@tikkun.org Unsubscribe

The Working Catholic: Social Doctrine by Bill Droel

Catholic social doctrine comes to us in a series of principles derived from Scripture, from science/reason (including social science) and indispensably from 2,000 years of Christian experience in all manner of social, political and cultural settings. There is no official list of these principles, though several pamphlets and statements provide a starting lineup—usually including innate dignity of each person, solidarity, subsidiarity, dignity of work, common good, social justice and option for the poor. These principles are not optional; a Catholic is expected to prudently apply them within her or his own milieu.

Any one principle can be pulled out for close examination and specific use. It is important to remember, however, that the principles are complementary. For example, the principle of subsidiarity says that decisions are best made as close as possible to those affected by the decision, but subsidiarity cannot be pulled too far away from other principles. Neo-conservatives wrongly use it to say “the government that governs least governs best.” Subsidiarity has to be paired with other principles that affirm government, like solidarity, distributive justice and more.

Each principle builds on the God-given dignity of each person. No employer nor any company procedure nor any policy measure can give a person dignity. Likewise, nothing can take a person’s dignity away. Dignity can be and often is disrespected--sometimes by others, other times by the person. But dignity resides with God.

The principle of dignity of work comes from a proper reading of Genesis: Work is not the punishment for sin. It also comes from a natural law (science/reason) understanding that people are fulfilled through work: Homo Faber. Plus it is this principle that embodies the principle of participation in workplaces.

The dignity of work principle has several corollaries. Among them: The right of employees to vote yes or no on a union without the maternal or paternal interference of their employer. A just strike and the prohibition on Catholics to cross a just picket line are also corollaries.

Not every workplace has to have a union, Catholicism says. Some places can fulfill the principle of participation with a bona fide benefits committee or safety committee and other decision-making entities. However, a healthy, holy society must allow for unions (or guilds). The union movement as a countervailing force is a moral necessity. Catholicism counts on unions (and plenty of other groups) to advance justice and peace throughout society.

The Catholic principle on unions must not drift too far from the other principles like the common good. This turns out to be good sociology. That’s not surprising because Catholic doctrine came in part from a reflection on social science.

Sociology says that people join and participate in voluntary associations to meet two needs: the need to belong and the need to make a difference. Some organizations are mostly about belonging. Others are primarily about making a difference. A sound union does both. It attends to a member’s grievance, it sponsors social events for members and their families and it services existing contracts. Simultaneously union members make a difference as their organization aligns with social improvement organizations, donates material and time to charity efforts, co-sponsors a conference or assists other workers, including those overseas.

All unions, indeed all voluntary groups must aim at the common good, says Catholicism. The common good is the total of desirable things or conditions that no one can singularly obtain. Common goods like clean water or fresh air or the removal of a menacing virus can only be obtained collectively. A just and peaceful neighborhood is a common good. Thus for example, a law enforcement union does not only bargain for the economic and safety interests of its members, it also does its part, along with other groups, to obtain neighborhood peace and justice.

Bill Droel is editor of INITIATIVES (PO Box 291102, Chicago, IL 60629), a newsletter on faith and work.