Mirror of Justice

A blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory.
Affiliated with the Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School.

Tuesday, April 3, 2007

Pretty accurate report (by an undergraduate Yale Daily News reporter) on my talk last Thursday (3/29) at Yale Law School.

Analogies can shed light on abortion debate

Peter Johnston , Tilting at Windmills, Tuesday, April 3, 2007

No one is pro-death. No one is anti-choice. Yet both sides of the abortion debate consider the other side absurd. Why?

The pro-choicer considers pregnancy the construction of a human person. Compare pregnancy, for a moment, to the construction of a car in a factory. The relevant question in the comparison is this: At what point in the construction process does the object under construction become a car? Some may say that it is when the object receives an engine. In the analogy to pregnancy, this parallels quickening. Others might say that the object becomes a car when it has an engine, axles and wheels, and the capacity to move. In the analogy to pregnancy, this parallels viability. And some may hold out and claim that the object isn’t really a car until it rolls out of the factory, paralleling birth.

But all who consider the question are certain that at the very beginning stages of construction, when only a few scraps of metal and a few bolts are in place, the object under construction is not a car. Similarly, if pregnancy is the construction of a human person, then at the early stages of pregnancy the embryo is clearly not a human person. The consequence for abortion policy: People disagree when a fetus becomes a person, but all agree that an embryo is not, so abortion is justified early in pregnancy and debatable only later on. From this point of view, pro-lifers seem irrational, for they try to legislate upon the absurd idea that an embryo is a person. And because the pro-life position is often expressed in religious terms, pro-lifers seem to consider an irrational religious dogma the basis for public policy.

The pro-lifer does not consider pregnancy the construction of a human person. Rather, he considers it the development of a human person. Compare pregnancy, for a moment, to the development of a Polaroid photograph. The camera clicks, setting off a chain reaction of chemicals on photographic paper. In the analogy to pregnancy, this parallels conception. If someone were to wipe the chemicals away, saying that the image was only a potential photograph, he would seem crazy; he cut short the development of a uniquely existing photograph with an essential nature. In the analogy to pregnancy, this parallels abortion.

At what point in the process does the developing image become a photograph? The image of the photograph is not immediately apparent, but is revealed and develops over time. All agree, then, that the undeveloped photograph is very dissimilar from the developed photograph. Nevertheless, the undeveloped photograph is still a photograph. Similarly, if pregnancy is the development of a human person, an embryo, though at an early stage of development, is still a human person. The consequence for abortion policy: After conception, abortion is unjustified because it cuts short the natural development of a human person. From this point of view, pro-choicers seem irrational in asserting that an embryo is not a human person and dangerous in allowing its destruction. And because the pro-choice position seems so destructive, pro-lifers make abortion a litmus test and invoke divine aid to combat such evil.

The central difference between the pro-choice and pro-life position, as first stated by Valparaiso law professor Richard Stith, is the subtle dichotomy between pregnancy as construction and pregnancy as development. Pro-choicers continue to assert the inviolability of choice, and pro-lifers continue to assert the inviolability of life, but that discussion is largely meaningless, for nobody rejects choice or life in itself. The question that should dominate debate is whether pregnancy is a process of construction or a process of development. If pro-choicers can convince pro-lifers that pregnancy is the construction of a human person, pro-lifers should accommodate themselves to existing abortion policy. On the other hand, if pro-lifers can convince pro-choicers that pregnancy is the development of a human person, pro-choicers should abandon abortion rights.

Pro-choicers are often uninterested in debate because they feel that they cannot appeal to reason, that the pro-life argument is essentially religious and irrational. Pro-lifers are often uninterested in debate because they feel that the justification for abortion clouds rationality itself. But the exposition above reveals that neither side of the abortion debate is irrational. Instead, pro-choicers and pro-lifers begin with different presuppositions from which their respective conclusions follow.

While both sides are rational, only one side can be right. If pregnancy is the construction of a human person, our society is infringing upon the reproductive freedom of women by stigmatizing early-term abortion and threatening more restrictive legislation. If pregnancy is the development of a human person, our society is legally allowing the killing of innocent human persons. In either case, society is messing up. It is now the duty of intellectuals on both sides to open their minds and address the issue afresh.

Peter Johnston is a sophomore in Saybrook College.

Subsidiarity Within the Church

Thanks to Rick for posting Fr. Williams' interesting op-ed linking the U.S. Bishops' condemnation of Daniel Maguire's teaching with a reinvigorated subsidiarity.  I occasionally encounter resistance from students on subsidiarity that runs along the lines of -- "why should we respect the Church's insistence on a principle that it ignores in its own operation?"  Part of the answer, as Patrick would emphasize, arises from a proper understanding of what a body's given responsibility is, and some responsibilities are given to Rome.  (Of course, the debate over whether a responsibility has been given by God or grabbed by humans is not always easy to resolve.  Who gets to decide which gifts have been given to which body?)  Still, I thought about subsidiarity while reading Sacramentum Caritatis.  For example, Pope Benedict instructs us that the exchange of peace should be restricted "to one's immediate neighbours."  Perhaps the pope is prudently charged with instruction on all things related to the Eucharist, but it strikes me as a relatively minor example of practices that breed the over-centralization charge.

Should the Church Welcome Child Molesters?

Over at the wonderful Get Religion blog, Mollie Ziegler comments on recent news coverage of churches' struggles over what to do with child molesters in their congregations.  Here's the opening:

It seems to me that the only crime for which there is no forgiveness in our society is child molestation. It is certainly horrible to assault a helpless child, and I’m glad that the practice is shunned. . . . But when I consider the shunning from the perspective of the child molester, I wonder how they’re able to even try to get better. Their picture, name and address are publicly available for all people to investigate. They have limitations on where they can live. They live in a society that tends to think improvement in this area is impossible, or only possible through castration and complete abstention from all contact with children.

Congregations do not turn a blind eye to child molesters in their midst, given the obvious safety concerns.  One of the churches profiled is the United Church of Christ, which prides itself on inclusiveness.  In this case, though, "the sex molesters are not only considered sinful by some congregants — but perpetually and possibly irretrievably so."

Monday, April 2, 2007

Law and Chastity

In the most recent issue of America, Notre Dame Law professor Robert E. Rodes, Jr. urges those concerned with moral standards in public life to focus on the erosion of respect for chastity as a normative virtue.  Here is a snapshot:

[The] erosion of respect for chastity is not peculiar to the law, nor is the law its principal cause. But of all the social forces affecting the perception of chastity, the law is the only one over which society has significant control. The power of the law as a force of moral persuasion should be exercised toward restoring chastity as a broadly accepted moral standard. The current erosion of respect for chastity has led to a wholesale trivialization of sex in our society. And where sex is trivialized, the human person is trivialized as well.

Read the whole thing here (must be a subscriber).

Professor Rodes does not advocate punishing illicit sex, but rather asserts that the law "can and should encourage those who opt for chastity and offer guidance to those who confront its challenges." 

This seems like a good forum in which to offer suggestions for how the law might do so.

All (Church) Politics Is Local?

Any thoughts from MOJ's subsidiarity gurus on this piece, "All Church Politics Is Local," by Fr. Thomas Williams?  Commenting on a recent statement by the U.S. Bishops Committee on Doctrine to the effect that two pamphlets published by Professor Daniel Maguire of Marquette University “do not present authentic Catholic teaching," Fr. Williams writes:

So why is the declaration by the bishops’ committee significant? More than simply restating traditional Catholic teaching in rebuke of a minor dissident, it represents a reanimation of the Catholic principle of subsidiarity as applied to Church governance. By offering a local solution to a local problem, the statement takes a step toward restoring a healthy balance between local and central authority.

For years, Church officials from across the political spectrum have lamented a creeping centralization within the Catholic Church. The Roman Curia has been accused of being overly interventionist and power-hungry, dipping into local problems that could be better handled at a lower level. At the same time, Curial officials have insisted that they don’t want to have to rein in every maverick theologian and doctrinal dissident, and only do so when the local church authorities either ask them to intervene or simply fail to do their job.

As Cardinal Walter Kasper wrote in the April 23, 2001 issue of Jesuit-run America magazine, over-centralization in the Catholic Church cannot be blamed exclusively on the Roman Curia. The local churches themselves promote centralization, he wrote, “whenever they abdicate their responsibility and turn to Rome for a decision — a ruse to evade their duty and find cover behind a superior order.”

forthcoming encyclopedia of Catholic social thought

I mentioned this project before, but I wanted to alert people to a forthcoming Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought. Here. I am one of 4 co-editors of this volume. My co-editors are Michael Coulter, Steve Krason, and Joe Varacalli. We have been working on this for over 5 years and we just received the page-proofs; publication is due this summer.

The encyclopedia is large (it should be about 1200 pages) and includes approximately 850 entries from over 300 contributors. Most of the contributors are members of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists and/or the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars. Father Araujo SJ is one of the contributors along with my Ave Maria colleagues Jane Adolphe, Howard Bromberg, Joe Falvey, Bruce Frohnen, Patrick Quirk, Steve Safranek, and Jim Sonne. Other contributors include Cardinal Pell, Archbishop Michael Miller, Mary Ann Glendon, Father Canavan SJ, Bill May, Mark Latkovic, David Gregory, Father Joe Koterski SJ, and many, many others. I hope that people will take a close look at the volume.

Richard M. 

Sobering

John Allen asks, "why hasn't Catholicism had a more positive effect" in Latin America?

Catholicism has enjoyed a spiritual monopoly in the region for more than 500 years, and today almost half the 1.1 billion Catholics alive are Latin Americans. Moreover, Latin Americans take religion seriously; surveys show that belief in God, spirits and demons, the afterlife, and final judgment is near-universal.

The sobering reality, however, is that these facts could actually support an "emperor has no clothes" accusation against the church. Latin America has been Catholic for five centuries, yet too often its societies are corrupt, violent, and underdeveloped. If Catholicism has had half a millennium to shape culture and this is the best it can do, one might be tempted to ask, is it really something to celebrate?

I'm reminded of the scene, in Godfather III, when Michael is meeting with the future Pope John Paul I:

CARDINAL LAMBERTO

Look at this stone. It has been lying in the water for a very long time, but the water has not penetrated it.

<He breaks the stone.>

CARDINAL LAMBERTO

Look. Perfectly dry. The same thing has happened to men in Europe. For centuries they have been surrounded by Christianity, but Christ has not penetrated. Christ doesn't breathe within them.

What To Tell Zach

Michael P. asks, with respect to Zach O'Connor, who is described in the New York Times as having "[come] out about being gay" in the seventh grade, "what would *you* do if Zach O'Connor were *your* son?  Tell him that he should be celibate for the rest of his life?"  I'm going to dodge that question.  Here's mine:  What should we think about a cultural context in which 7th graders are expected to declare sexual orientations and embrace sexual identities, and in which (according to the Times, anyway) the model of good parenting is to encourage kids to do so even earlier?  I guess I'm too busy making sure my kids aren't Carolina fans.

Sunday, April 1, 2007

Catholic, Gay, and Married?

Just for the record, my wife and I have two children.  Daniel is almost eighteen; Gabriel, almost sixteen.  Neither of them is gay--though one of Gabe's best friends is gay.

Now, what would *you* do if  Zach O'Connor were *your* son?  Tell him that he should be celibate for the rest of his life?  Who is Zach O'Connor?  Read on:

New York Times
April 1, 2007

Accepting Gay Identity, and Gaining Strength

By MICHAEL WINERIP

MADISON, Conn.

ONE month before Zach O’Connor, a seventh grader at Brown Middle School here, came out about being gay, he was in such turmoil that he stood up in homeroom and, in a voice everyone could hear, asked a girl out on a date. It was Valentine’s Day 2003, and Zach was 13.

“I was doing this to survive,” he says. “This is what other guys were doing, getting girlfriends. I should get one, too.”

He feared his parents knew the truth about him. He knew that his father had typed in a Google search starting with “g,” and several other recent “g” searches had popped up, including “gay.”

“They asked me, ‘Do you know what being gay is?’ ” he recalls. “They tried to explain there’s nothing wrong with it. I put my hands over my ears. I yelled: ‘I don’t want to hear it! I’m not, I’m not gay!’ ”

Cindy and Dan O’Connor were very worried about Zach. Though bright, he was doing poorly at school. At home, he would pick fights, slam doors, explode for no reason. They wondered how their two children could be so different; Matt, a year and a half younger, was easygoing and happy. Zach was miserable.

The O’Connors had hunches. Mr. O’Connor is a director of business development for American Express, Ms. O’Connor a senior vice president of a bank, and they have had gay colleagues, gay bosses, classmates who came out after college. From the time Zach was little, they knew he was not a run-of-the-mill boy. His friends were girls or timid boys.

“Zach had no interest in throwing a football,” Mr. O’Connor says. But their real worry was his anger, his unhappiness, his low self-esteem. “He’d say: ‘I’m not smart. I’m not like other kids,’ ” says Ms. O’Connor. The middle-school psychologist started seeing him daily.

The misery Zach caused was minor compared with the misery he felt. He says he knew he was different by kindergarten, but he had no name for it, so he would stay to himself. He tried sports, but, he says, “It didn’t work out well.” He couldn’t remember the rules. In fifth grade, when boys at recess were talking about girls they had crushes on, Zach did not have someone to name.

By sixth grade, he knew what “gay” meant, but didn’t associate it with himself. That year, he says: “I had a crush on one particular eighth-grade boy, a very straight jock. I knew whatever I was feeling I shouldn’t talk about it.” He considered himself a broken version of a human being. “I did think about suicide,” he says.

Then, for reasons he can’t wholly explain beyond pure desperation, a month after his Valentine “date” — “We never actually went out, just walked around school together” — in the midst of math class, he told a female friend. By day’s end it was all over school. The psychologist called him in. “I burst into tears,” he recalls. “I said, ‘Yes, it’s true.’ Every piece of depression came pouring out. It was such a mess.”

That night, when his mother got home from work, she stuck her head in his room to say hi. “I said, ‘Ma, I need to talk to you about something, I’m gay.’ She said, ‘O.K., anything else?’ ‘No, but I just told you I’m gay.’ ‘O.K., that’s fine, we still love you.’ I said, ‘That’s it?’ I was preparing for this really dramatic moment.”

Ms. O’Connor recalls, “He said, ‘Mom, aren’t you going to freak out?’ I said: ‘It’s up to you to decide who to love. I have your father, and you have to figure out what’s best for you.’ He said, ‘Don’t tell Dad.’ ”

“Of course I told him,”  Ms. O’Connor says.

“With all our faults,”   Mr. O’Connor says, “we’re in this together.”

Having a son come out so young was a lot of work for the parents. They found him a therapist who is gay 20 miles away in New Haven. The therapist helped them find a gay youth group, OutSpoken, a 50-minute drive away in Norwalk.

Dan Woog, a writer and longtime soccer coach at Staples High in Westport, helped found OutSpoken in 1993. He says for the first 10 years, the typical member was 17 to 22 years old. “They’d come in saying: ‘I’m gay. My life is over,’ ” Mr. Woog says. “One literally hyperventilated walking through the door.”

But in recent years, he says, the kids are 14 to 17 and more confident. “They say: ‘Hi, I’m gay. How do I meet people?’ ” 

For the first 10 years, Mr. Woog never saw a parent; meetings were from 4 to 6 p.m. Sunday, so members could get out of the house without arousing suspicion. Now, he says, parents often bring the child to the first meeting.

He believes teenagers are coming out sooner because the Internet makes them feel less isolated and they’re seeing positive role models in the media. Indeed, Zach says he spent his first therapy session talking about the gay characters on the TV show “Will and Grace” as a way to test the therapist’s attitudes before talking about himself.

Still, seventh grade was not easy. “We heard kids across the street yelling ‘homo’ as he waited for the school bus,” Mr. O’Connor says. Zach says classmates tossed pencils at him and constantly mocked him. “One kid followed me class to class calling me ‘faggot,’ ” he says. “After a month I turned and punched him in the face. He got quiet and walked away. I said, ‘You got beat up by a faggot.’ ”

The O’Connors say middle-school officials were terrific, and by eighth grade the tide turned. Zach was let out 15 minutes early and walked across the football field to Daniel Hand High School to attend the gay-straight club. Knowing who he was, he could envision a future and felt a sense of purpose. His grades went up. He had friends. For an assignment about heroes, a girl in his class wrote about him, and Zach used her paper to come out to his Aunt Kathy.

He still wasn’t athletic, but to the family’s surprise, coming out let out a beautiful voice. He won the middle school’s top vocal award.

His father took him to a gay-lesbian conference at Central Connecticut State in New Britain, and Zach was thrilled to see so many gay people in one place. His therapist took him to a Gay Bingo Night at St. Paul’s Church on the Green in Norwalk that raises money for AIDS   care.  Zach became a regular and within a few months was named Miss Congeniality.

“They crowned me with a tiara and sash, and I walked around the room waving,” he recalls. “I was still this shy 14-year-old in braces. I hadn’t reached my socialness yet, and everyone was cheering.

“I was the future. Most of the men were middle-aged or older, and to see this 14-year-old out, they loved it. They were so happy.”

Now, as a 17-year-old 11th grader, Zach has passed through phases that many gay men of previous generations didn’t get to until their 20s, 30s, even 40s. “Eighth grade was kind of his militant time,” Mr. O’Connor says.

“Everything was a rainbow,” says Ms. O’Connor.

These days, Zach is so busy, he rarely has time for the gay-straight club. He’s in several singing and drama groups and is taking an SAT prep course.

“I’ve been out so long, I don’t really need the club as a resource,” he says. “I’m not going to say I’m popular, but I’m friendly with nearly everybody. Sophomore year, my social life skyrocketed.”

In music groups he made male friends for the first time. “They weren’t afraid of me,” he says. “They like me.”

His brother, Matt, says sometimes kids come up to him and ask what it’s like to have a gay brother. “I say it’s normal to me, I don’t think of it anymore.”

As for his  parents, they’re   happy that Zach’s happy.

“Coming out was the best thing for him,” Ms. O’Connor says. “We ask him, ‘Why didn’t you come out in fifth grade?’ ”
________________________________________________________________________________________

Again, what would you do if Zach O'Connor were your son--tell him that he should be celibate for the rest of his life?

Read on:

National Catholic Reporter
March 23, 2007

Gay, Catholic and parents of three

By CHUCK COLBERT

Boston

The challenges of raising three children in the Maguire-Newman home are much the same as those faced in suburban America across the country. The Catholic household, two parents with three school-age children, springs to life at 7 a.m. on most days. While one parent makes breakfast and packs lunches, the other makes beds and monitors homework assignments.

"My observation is that children are a lot more receptive to work and instruction in the first 90 minutes before they have enough energy to be resistant," says Gregory Maguire, a celebrated author of children's literature. He is best known for the widely popular novel Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West, a bestseller written for adults that has been adapted into a Tony Award-winning hit musical.

Maguire is quick to explain, "It's not because we want them to be superstars" nor do they have "serious learning problems." Rather, he said, it's a matter of "keeping up in a highly functioning school system in which we find ourselves."

All three children -- two boys and a girl, ages 5, 6 and 9 -- were adopted from countries in Latin America and Southeast Asia. They are by Maguire's account "noisy, smart and obedient within a range," having settled comfortably into an all-American way of life, with interests varying from ballet and piano to soccer and computer games. They are well-liked by their friends, Maguire said, adding, "We have yet to hear or face in nine years living in Concord any resistance to us as a gay couple with a family."

Maguire and his partner, artist Andy Newman, are not only a gay couple raising children, but they are legally married under a new law in Massachusetts, the only state with equal marriage rights for lesbians and gay men.

Maguire was scheduled speak about his story as a gay parent and a sacramental church at New Ways Ministry's Sixth National Symposium on Catholicism and Homosexuality March 16-18 in Minneapolis. New Ways Ministry describes itself as "a gay-positive ministry of advocacy and justice for lesbian and gay Catholics."

The Maguire and Newman clan is part of a changing landscape of contemporary American family life. More than 8,500 same-sex couples have married in Massachusetts since May 2004, including many with children. Nationwide, estimates of lesbian and gay parents range from 2 million to 8 million.

But a political battle to roll back civil-marriage rights for gays looms. Massachusetts state lawmakers have voted to send a proposed constitutional same-sex marriage ban to voters. If the legislature approves the measure again, this year or next, voters would have the final say in November 2008.

The local church has been an active player, with the Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley and other local bishops lobbying lawmakers to restore a traditional definition of marriage.

Maguire and Newman are doing their part to prevent that from happening. Last year they testified at legislative hearings against the ban. This year they will host a fundraiser for MassE quality.org, a statewide organization dedicated to protecting same-sex marriage. The couple has joined thousands of others across the state who have signed an online statement for Roman Catholics supporting the civil marriage rights of same-sex couples.

Despite pronouncements from Rome and Boston, Maguire, a cradle Catholic, remains devout. Newman is a convert. Together, they are instilling in their children the basics of Catholicism. All three have been christened. The oldest has received first Communion. The family begins every meal by saying grace. The children know the Our Father, Hail Mary and the rosary. A cross hangs by the front door. "We are a Catholic family," Maguire said. "We go to church on a regular basis, are respected in our parish, and are healthy contributors financially and morally."

In an interview with NCR, Maguire extended an invitation for Pope Benedict XVI to share a meal and meet the family. He would like the pope to see "we're teaching by example how we must take care of each other, love each other," he said. "That is the heart of the Christian message."

Locally, many gay Catholics, as well as supportive clergy, hope for dialogue. A group of more than 700 interfaith clergy, the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry, has asked for a meeting to discuss a civil marriage with O'Malley. The clergy wish to explain more fully a key distinction between civil and religious marriage and how a gay-marriage ban will discriminate against the religious liberties of gay people. But so far the chancery has not responded to the request.

"The hope is that the conversation occurs among the people in the pews," Maguire said. "If we can't get the message to the clergy that discrimination will not be tolerated, the people will go around" the leadership, and the "clergy will play catch-up."

A recent poll from Decision Research shows that a majority of Catholics in Massachusetts -- 53 percent -- favor same-sex civil marriage.

Raised in an orphanage by priests and nuns, as well as by a Catholic family, Maguire attended parochial schools in upstate New York. "The fact that I grew up as a Catholic, part of my system of thinking -- the grammar of how I frame the moral questions is Catholic grammar," Maguire said. "I have the great blessing and good fortune of finding myself during formative years in a very progressive church that was always eager to ask the next question rather than provide the next answer." And Maguire explained, "A parent's first obligation is to speak to his children with the most authentic language he has. For me, that is Catholicism."

His "intellectual and spiritual training" to "question, but not necessarily conclude," he considers a "birthright" and "inheritance."

"So I don't feel as much of a disjuncture as many people do," he said, "because when I sit in the pew and hear a letter from a bishop, or an injunction even from the pope about gay parents doing damage to children, I just say: Well, he has not asked the right question -- hasn't asked Andy and me, 'Why are you making so many sacrifices to take care of these orphans?' "

At New Ways Ministry's national symposium, Maguire plans to tell his story, leading a focused discussion on gay parenting in a sacramental church. "It means far less to them [his children] that they have two dads than two parents who are there when they go off to school and when they return," he said.

The tangible benefits and social status of marriage -- its legal, public and moral commitments -- also helps, Maguire explained. "We are able to say to our children honorably that we are married." Among all the differences they embody, "being brown-skinned, adopted and from foreign countries, at least they don't have to deal with that difference. Their parents are as married as any others."

Nonetheless, remaining in the church, Maguire acknowledges, is a struggle. "I run the great risk of being misunderstood or dismissed," he said. A declaration from the Vatican in 2003 that gay parents do "violence" by raising children caused us "grave distress," Maguire added.

But he explained, to "leave the church over what it's saying, I would have to pluck out my eyes because I don't like what I am seeing." For Maguire, that action would be tantamount to spiritual suicide, he said. "I would far rather be brave and sit in the pew" and "with a fair amount of respect, be the Rosa Parks of the situation. I am not moving. I didn't move before, and I'm not moving now. I am going to be buried from this church."

Saturday, March 31, 2007

Income Inequality, Revisited

I've been on the road for the better part of the last three weeks.  I don't think anyone at MOJ has yet blogged on this:

New York Times

March 29, 2007

Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows

Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.

The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.

While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.

The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

Prof. Emmanuel Saez, the University of California,  Berkeley, economist who analyzed the Internal Revenue Service data with Prof. Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, said such growing disparities were significant in terms of social and political stability.

“If the economy is growing but only a few are enjoying the benefits, it goes to our sense of fairness,” Professor Saez said. “It can have important political consequences.”

[To read the whole article, click here.]