By Andrew Conradi
Special to The B.C. Cahtolic

C.S. Morrissey makes one valid point in his article (The right to water, an `essential element' - The B.C. Catholic, Jan. 24) by reminding us that private corporations can have a role to play so long as they have no negative effect on the poor and protect the public interest. Apart from that he leads the debate off track. Permit me to bring it back concisely in its original context.

The basic question is: which type or types of ownership entity can best provide potable water to communities which include many poor, most of whom live in the global south? The choices are: public, private, cooperative, or public/private partnership. Bottled water is privatized water.

Dr. Morrissey writes, "I share the concern for the poor that animates my critics." Because of this shared concern, I suspect that Catholics have more in common than what divides them over this issue. Is it not about a means to the same end?

In this debate in The B.C. Catholic one side favours public systems. It includes the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop J. Michael Miller, The Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace, and me.

For a variety of theological, social, economic, and environmental reasons we favour a public system over a private one. We recognize that sometimes there is no short-term alternative to bottled water but believe that investment priority should be in public systems. This is the clear message from CCODP's southern partners.

The other side favours private systems, as Dr. C.S. Morrissey seems to, or at least he reminds us that they can have a role.

Dr. Morrissey objects to the "imprudent aspects" of the "political agenda" of those against bottled water. He goes off on tangents and throws up a lot of flak (using words like tribal thinking, shunning and shaming, and hectoring). While this criticism may apply outside The B.C. Catholic debate, I sense nothing like that in the articles by me or Dr. Greg Kennedy, or the Development and Peace campaign, or Archbishop Miller's letter.

Now let's consider Dr. Morrissey's serious charges of "carelessness, false conclusions, selective quotations, and simple factual errors by misattributing" my sources. These affect my credibility and, much more important, by association, that of our archbishop and the Church.

Let's start with selective quotations. I am guilty as charged. It is impossible to cover all Catholic Social Teaching on water in a short article. I certainly did not do it deliberately to create a false impression. Should I have mentioned the fact that the Church is in favour of private property ownership (including of water)? Is this fact not common knowledge?

I thought it was, and when space is short the obvious gets left out and is hardly carelessness. However, being true, it is fair comment and a valid point if a reminder were necessary, but the scornful tone was unnecessary and reflects poorly on its author.

Now to the charge of misattribution. This comes in two parts, both in relation to Archbishop Martino. Prof. Morrissey writes that I attributed them to Archbishop Martino "... personally, but in fact it is a `Note prepared by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace....'"

True enough, but underneath that description in the document one finds: "Presentation by H.E. Msgr. Renato R. Martino." So accusing me of "misattribution" is academic nitpicking, and a red herring. And nowhere did I say private ownership of water was against Church teaching.

The charge sentences from Archbishop Miller's letter were falsely attributed to Archbishop Martino is incorrect. False has a connotation of deliberate deception. If Dr. Morrissey had said incorrectly attributed he would have been right. However, I am not guilty, The B.C. Catholic is. My draft had "the archbishop" which they replaced with "Archbishop Martino" by mistake. (Editor's note: we apologize.)

Dr. Morrissey can probably show us examples of successful private water systems that meet the Church's criteria of protecting the public interest and not causing negative effects on the poor, but there are just too many examples of private systems not doing that, which accounts for a movement away from private systems. One famous example of this is in Cochabamba, Bolivia.

We do not say that public systems are always perfect. The more important point is that water should be considered a common good and the local people of a watershed should decide democratically which system they prefer.

The Catholic social doctrine principles of subsidiarity and participation require that the decision should not be made solely by governments or corporations, even if the government is honest (too often they are corrupted by corporations).

The Church clearly prefers publicly owned systems, as the last two paragraphs of Archbishop Miller's letter and my quotation from the CCCB indicated.

Dr. Morrissey appeals to "right reason." Good idea! May I suggest he apply it using Cardinal Cardijn's "see, judge, act" method (the pastoral cycle)?

Andrew Conradi is a member of the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace.