March 6, 1967
Page 5435
CHARITY AND FREE MEN
(Remarks by Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE, to the 1967 Catholic Charities Appeal of the Allentown Diocese, Allentown, Pa., March 1. 1967)
I am honored to be with you tonight to help launch the 1967 Catholic Charities Appeal. As some of you may know, this is my second trip to Allentown in a little over a month, so I am beginning to feel like a native! But I am delighted to be here.
The opening of this appeal -- with its emphasis on charity, and with its object the alleviation of human need -- is an occasion for all of us to re-appraise the role of private charity in a free society such as ours.
On the one hand, the nature of charity in Christian life remains unchanged, as an essential "obligation of every prosperous person and nation." On the other hand, changes which have taken place in society over the past few generations have altered our way of life so radically as to obscure for many of us the proper role of charity today.
In looking over the work of the Catholic social agency in this diocese -- a basic objective of this appeal -- we find it is directed toward the most pressing of human problems: Care for dependent children, the placement of children in foster homes; help for unwed mothers; counseling for distressed families and children, rehabilitation for troubled adolescents -- the age-old griefs of mankind.
In an earlier day, these problems were almost exclusively the obligation of the church. But these were simpler times when men were born and lived their lives in close-knit community with each other. They knew their neighbor and townsmen; they knew each other's needs and, through the teaching of the church, responded to those needs.
In some places in today's world, men still live in close communion with one another, but an increasing majority find themselves in large urban areas where the tempo of life almost prohibits any real communication with one another. In these areas the older concepts of charity often are lost in the impersonal rush of urban life.
Rapid population growth combined with the development of new technologies has produced the phenomena of a highly mobile population, so characteristic of today's America. Along with this, the political and economic shape of the world has created "big" government -- increasingly concerned with the needs of all of its people but impersonal in its relations with the people it serves. All of these developments have helped to obscure man's obligation to God and to his fellow man.
Modern man too often seems to believe that the distress of his fellow man is the concern of the local welfare agency. After all, he pays his taxes, and taxes support all kinds of social programs.
Sadly, many of us move back and forth across this great land along paths that almost seem designed to prevent our seeing the victims of misfortune, poverty, and neglect who live far from the edges of the Interstate Highway System and who never see the waiting rooms of our large airports. And the 20th century miracle of the housing development with its neat lawns and convenient shopping centers isolates us even further from the discomfort of seeing our more unfortunate brothers.
So we must rely on our newspapers, television or an occasional magazine article to remind us that even the best efforts of government and of welfare agencies have fallen far short of solving these age-old problems.
I know of no way to give you an accurate account of the needy in this country. In 1963, based on a survey of income, it was estimated that 35.3 million persons were living in poverty. By 1965, that number had decreased by about 2 million, while the new higher social security benefits would raise another 500,000 above the poverty line. Despite these figures, which are admittedly based on an arbitrary figure, public assistance provided by the States -- with Federal aid -- covered 2.2 million aged, 3.2 million children. 154,000 blind persons. An additional 360,000 persons were helped under assistance programs not supported by Federal grants. In other words, public assistance programs -- including State and Federal aid -- reached less than 6 million needy people of a total of more than 30 million who were living in poverty in 1965. Even if governments could find a way to double their expenditures for these purposes, there would still be a wide gap between public expenditures and need.
Throughout history, the record shows that Americans have been a compassionate people. Both the colonial New England house-raising and our modern social-service institutions attest to the deep community feelings of America.
Between these milestones in time stretches the long growth of community responsibility for helping the victims of adversity -- the impoverished, the deaf, the blind, the mentally ill -- and for reforming our public welfare institutions and prison regimes.
The personal concern of Americans for their fellow man spells out a history of inspired accomplishment. Let me remind you of just a few:
William Bradford, who in his 1792 preamble to the constitution of the "Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons" said: "It becomes us to extend our compassion to that part of mankind who are the subjects of these miseries. by the aids of humanity ... "
Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet, who founded the first free American school for the deaf in 1817 at Hartford, Connecticut, said in his opening "sermon:" "Efforts of charity, prudently and usefully directed, never fail abundantly to repay those by whom they are made. This is true not only with regard to individuals, but also to public bodies of men...."
Clara Barton, whose founding of the American Association of the Red Cross in 1881, is well known to all of us; and
Jane Addams and Ellen Gates Starr, who founded Hull House in Chicago in 1889, and set a precedent for settlement houses that continues to this day.
This humane generosity of America shines through its history. To a great extent, the individualized humanity of the early Republic has become institutionalized and adjusted to the needs of the people of our modern technological society. But I think we may be deluding ourselves if we give too much credit to the Government's role in alleviating human distress.
While this modern, affluent, and complex society of ours generally spells a better life for our people, it has exacted a terrible toll from those who are not full participants for one reason or another.
Out of this harried almost frantic society has come an upward surge in juvenile delinquency, mental and emotional illness, family breakdown and a host of other social ills. There is a crucial need for additional research work, counseling services, and treatment centers to deal with these problems that can cause heartbreak and tragedy in countless homes and communities. Americans are living longer. In 1890, life expectancy at birth was about 49 years, while today it is 70 or more. In that time, the total population has doubled but the number of persons 65 or over has increased fourfold. There are now 13 million Americans 65 or over, and by 1975 the figure will exceed 20 million. A mere glance at these startling figures should convince us of the need for more facilities to enable the elderly to enjoy their added years in good health, in productive activity, and in pleasant surroundings.
More people also mean more illness, both physical and mental. While medical science has made fantastic strides in recent years, the medical profession would be the first to emphasize the long long road it must travel to conquer man's oldest enemies. Thus, the need to expand hospitals and clinics is clear.
A new "age of leisure" is upon us. A U.S. Department of Labor study, disclosing the magnitude of changes being wrought in our way of life, reports that in the past 20 years Americans have gained an incredible 10.3 billion hours in extra free time. The study also predicts that by 1976 each of us will work 161 fewer hours annually than we do now. By the year 2000, people in major industries are expected to have 406 additional leisure hours yearly. To those of my generation who could profitably use this added leisure, these are welcome statistics. and make us wish we had been born at least a generation later. But this added leisure presents some serious prospects for overall society. We wonder, for instance, whether our youth lose something in not being able to find the part-time job that used up so much of our time when we were youngsters.
Yet, added leisure seems to be an inexorable trend, and we, as a free society, must provide additional recreational facilities to help Americans cope with this "explosion" of leisure.
While the U.S. Public Health Service spends much money on cancer, heart disease, mental health and other medical research, it should be remembered that most of the "breakthroughs" have come from non-governmental endeavors sponsored and underwritten by private charity. Consider the long history of individual contributions to the "March of Dimes" and the long and arduous research which these billions of dimes provided to wipe out polio.
Although the Government's participation in all of these areas is vitally needed, it cannot effectively supplant the individual contributions of free men. The Government can only supply money, and money alone is not enough to solve human problems. What is needed, in addition to money, is the personal involvement of people in social problems. This might be a rough definition of charity. People need to "feel" their contribution to their fellow man in both the sacrifice of effort and money and in the excusable pride of seeing their contribution produce results.
It seems to me that private charity forms an essential bond among free men -- one that constantly reminds him that whatever is offered to a needy person is offered also to our Lord. This can never be accomplished through the impersonal payroll-tax deduction, or the filing of the Internal Revenue Service form 1040.
I think that Americans appreciate the distinction I have tried to make between private charity and the tax-supported efforts of our governments. As we have prospered, we have increased our private contributions to charity. In 1954, Americans gave a total of $5.4 billion. Ten years later this figure had risen to $10.6 billion. And the National Association of Fund Raising Counsel, Inc. estimates that in 1966 American charitable contributions totaled about $13 billion. Individual giving accounts for about 77 percent of the total charity dollar; foundations, 10 percent; and corporations, 7 percent.
For the men on the Bishop's Committee of the Laity who will be talking with corporate executives in March and April, this last figure might be of interest. If the 7 percent figure I mentioned is near the mark of corporate giving to charity, it means that corporations gave something on the order of a billion dollars to charity in 1966.The Federal Government allows up to 5 percent of pre-tax net income to be deducted for charitable causes.The latest survey of current business reports that corporate profits through the third quarter of 1966 were running at an annual rate of nearly $82 billion. Five percent of that would be $4 billion, which could be deducted for charitable contributions. The Internal Revenue Service reports that corporate giving, in the period 1949-1962, rose from 0.7 percent to 1.2 percent of net profits. If I were a member of the Bishop's Committee, I would be tempted to ask corporate executives if they were rendering to Caesar even more than Caesar demanded.
For the individual who will be contacted during the 1967 appeal, giving to charity rose from less than 2 percent to nearly 2.5 percent of disposable income in this same period.
So it would appear that both corporations and individuals should be reminded that charity involves a maximum effort -- not just the allowable limits of the Internal Revenue Act. It must involve an effort which reflects his obligation as a member of the human race and a creature of God. No arrangement for man's giving short of that taught by the church will ever satisfy the need or the giver.
The fact that public and governmental institutions now provide for the needy is in itself a reflection of the teaching of the church. As individuals, we never question the need for mercy, sympathy or practical helpfulness. One needs only to mention them, and we agree. But it has not always been so.
Once, the parable of the good Samaritan was a novelty. For 20 centuries the church has been teaching it, and the church has made it a commonplace. The very fact that non-church agencies now perform some services for the needy is in itself proof positive that the promulgation of the Christian Gospel has been a success. The church has succeeded in Christianizing the world to that extent. The good works of non-church agencies are attributable to the church, and without the church's continued support of the basic idea of charity, the idea would wither.
It seems to me that we, as Catholics. within the context of this seventh annual appeal, have a mission that goes beyond the immediate goals of the appeal. That extra duty is to foster and increase the Christian concept of private charity. To me, the renewed vigor of the church, expressed by the Second Vatican Council, requires of each of us a renewed dedication to this basic precept of our religion.
In setting forth the dignity of the human person and the work which men have been destined to undertake, Vatican II had this to say to us, and we should remember it:
"God intended the earth and all that it contains for the use of every human being and people. Thus, as all men follow justice and unite in charity, created goods should abound for them on a reasonable basis. Whatever the forms of ownership may be, as adapted to the legitimate institutions of people according to diverse and changeable circumstances, attention must always be paid to the universal purpose for which created goods are meant. In using them, therefore, a man should regard his lawful possessions not merely as his own but also as common property in the sense that they should accrue to the benefit of not only himself, but of others.
"For the rest, the right to have a share of earthly goods sufficient for one's self and one's family belongs to everyone. The fathers and doctors of the church hold this view, teaching that men are obliged to come to the relief of the poor, and to do so not merely out of their superfluous goods."
This must be our guide to charity, as Catholics and as free men. We must, through our Government, continue to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. But, more importantly, we must render unto God the things that are His -- things which have to do with an involvement with our fellows. As children of God, and as free men, we cannot ask less of ourselves.