Page 38


. . VII.4 ,.521—-, il*. OPEN MONDAYSATIIIDAY 10-6 AND OPEN MNDA1* 10-4 WATSON & COMPANY BOOKS Weakland: Marginalization is the negative aspect of participation. Participation is the positive aspect, that people can become a part of society and take their place in society. Marginalization means that people have no chance, no opportunity, so they are marginalized. We feel it is our task to take people from marginalization into participation that’s what the whole poverty thing is about. There is a group of marginalized [people] that worries me very much. If you were to ask me who are the poor today, I would have to say they are the mentally unstable. They are incapable of holding jobs. We have just taken them and dumped them on our streets from our mental institutions. Wisconsin was one of those liberal states who emptied all its mental institutions, just dumped them on the streets. These people form almost half of our soup kitchen lines in Milwaukee. They are exploited in every way. And it is sad to see what is happening they are exploited sexually, they are exploited money-wise, they just kind of roam the streets. And what we can do about that group is not so much economics as psychology. Subsidiarity Observer: Subsidiarity? Weakland: “Subsidiarity” is a term that was introduced into the Catholic tradition about eighty or ninety years ago, and what the term means in Latin is “help.” The way it is interpreted is this: it means that government has its role, and it is Pius XI who said that certain things cannot be delegated, they belong to the highest authorities. Beyond that, whatever can be done at a lower level should be done at a lower level. So it’s really a way of diffusing centralization. Conservative Republicans should be happy with our concept of subsidiarity because it says when a thing can be done at a lower level, it should not be done at a higher level. But it also says that the higher level should help the lower level fulfill its roles. The government should help the private sector fulfill its roles. So it’s not a question of being disinterested, but rather a question of helping. Subsidiarity has been interpreted sometimes as meaning “small is beautiful.” There is a bit of truth in that, but not a whole lot. Because that interpretation ignores the first sentence of the definition, which is that there are certain things that belong at the highest level and cannot be delegated. That sentence was enlarged a lot by John XXIII because he cited “global interdependency” and said the role of government participation in it cannot be delegated, which means that the sense that government has to be goVernment cannot be lost. I think that’s [subsidiarity] a good, wise thing in social policies because government is the worst deliverer of social policies. Governments get so bound up in bureaucracy and waste so much money in bureaucracy and are not in touch with where the problem is; so there, I am thoroughly convinced that it is done best at the lowest level. And maybe even there, better by the private sector than the public sector. I’m not against the idea that maybe even the private sector should take over our prisons. I think there is something to be said for farming a lot of that out. It’s not that the government loses its interest it’s still responsible but sometimes the private sector can do things better. I get as mad as everyone else about government regulations. They are on our backs to do more for the poor, so we open up our churches and schools for shelters. And then they come in and say, “But you have to build four more jakes, and put in showers, and have the beds five “You don’t save your soul by jumping over the world or out of the world .. . but by working through this world.” feet above the ground,” or whatever. And they just keep augmenting their rules and regulations. I get as mad at that as anyone else does. Politics Observer: My final question is, given the sense of urgency that pervades the pastoral letter, why did your committee withhold it until after the election? Weakland: That’s a question we get all the time. When we saw the timetables that were shaping up for the peace pastoral, we realized that that final document would be approved in ’83, and that ours would be in ’84. We had to ask ourselves the question, do we want this document coming out in the summer during the presidential campaign? That was the big question. At that time we had no idea that this campaign was going to be so full of state and church problems and the abortion issue. So in our meeting in November, we sat down and decided that we would hold it under wraps until the presidential campaign was over. We had several reasons. One is very pragmatic. We thought the document was too complicated, too long, and that nobody would read it. It would get all tied up in the press and rightly so; there was just no way of handling it. We felt it would be compared to either party platform and we would go up or down with the platform, and we didn’t want to get involved in that. And we followed the advice of several people who came to talk to us at hearings, saying, “Don’t write a document for 1984, but try to write a document for the year 2000.” And the problem with our economics and the problem with our political setup is that we think in terms of every two and four years. And so we decided that although the problems are urgent, they are going to be around for a long, long time; we’re going to be around for a long, long time; we’re not up for re-election in ’86 and ’88, so let’s just do this slowly over a long period of time. We knew that our document was going to be discussed for a year in the public forum, so there are a lot of things that we would say in 1984 that would not be true in ’85. So we tried to be a little timeless about it, but maybe we didn’t succeed in the right combination because it’s tough. So those are the reasons, and I feel in hindsight that we made the right decision because I think we would have lost the document had it come out in August. Note: Copies of the pastoral letter on “Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy” can be obtained at a cost of 25 cents each by writing the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, P.O. Box 2018, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201. The current document will be revised in November. BED & BREAKFAST CORPUS CHRISTI Take a break from the sameness of motel accommodations. Over 20 listings, many within walking distance of the water. Friendly, hospitable hosts, Breakfasts continental to Texas-size. Rates from $20. Sand Dollar Hospitality, 3605 Mendenhall, Corcomplete personal and business Insurance ALICE ANDERSON AGENCY 808-A East 46th P.O. Box 4666, Austin 78765 THE TEXAS OBSERVER 25