J
Jimmygill88
Guest
The best thing for the poor to do is to ‘support the middle class’. In what way exactly. As servants, or by never cruising greed? Please teach us how to put an end to the class system
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
Jimmygill88
Guest
So in essence you want a one party state but within that you are only going to allow the people that you see as middle class to make decisions. This is called Fascism, Communism or Totalitarianism and a long way from where this discussion started. You really need to ensure your understanding before mooting such bizarre notionsDefinetely.
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
This is tougher talk to stomach in America but not in other countries, where the moral imperative for these statements are more plain and keenly felt.In reading the Vatican document “The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church,” I was very surprised by 5 things . . .
Consider the unfairness of countries that look after their people and ensure, e.g., their health, education and safety at work that have to compete against countries in the free-market that deprive their citizens of these things competely. It results in deplorable working conditions that frequently become dangerous in jobs that, in the West, we would be outraged to think that people were dying doing that sort of work-- for example.
We have to compete sometimes against countries that practically reduce their citizens to slavery: of course they will have an edge; however, it is at an extreme human cost and fosters environments where the spirit is practically eliminated. Not only does this eliminate culture as such but it makes the prospects for evangelization practically impossible because people become desperately and almost necessarily materialistic.
Fair trade these days is pitched as something to do with hippies (famous for ruining everything-- people forget that the anti-war movement against Vietnam was originally Christian and Conservative); however, fair trade has an economical basis and logic to it also that actually respects and protects private property and the rights of free citizens: free people cannot compete against practical slaves, it results in free people practically themselves becoming slaves.
Competition is and can be good and healthy; however, we believe that athletes should be rewarded and also play by certain rules, otherwise the sport is ruined and, to be sure, without any rules at all there is no actual sport or healthy competition. It is often likewise for the market.
T
TEPO
Guest
The middle class doesn’t like outsourcing (trade is fine, outsourcing is not) because it causes their family members to struggle… It takes jobs from their children and takes money out of their own pockets.The best thing for the poor to do is to ‘support the middle class’. In what way exactly. As servants, or by never cruising greed? Please teach us how to put an end to the class system
By the poor supporting the middle class,it means more jobs, therefore many from the poor class would become middle class.
But there will always be some rich and some poor.
T
TEPO
Guest
The majority being ‘heard’ for once is really a far cry from “Fascism, Communism or Totalitarianism”.So in essence you want a one party state but within that you are only going to allow the people that you see as middle class to make decisions. This is called Fascism, Communism or Totalitarianism and a long way from where this discussion started. You really need to ensure your understanding before mooting such bizarre notions
BTW, everything Is always a bizarre notion in politics before it becomes popularized… Everything.
R
RobbyS
Guest
In reading the Vatican document “The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church,” I was very surprised by 5 things.
The 5 discoveries:
#1: I didn’t know about the Church’s demand that governments establish Full Employment for all able people of working age.
- Work is a good belonging to all people and must be made available to all who are capable of engaging in it. “Full employment” therefore remains a mandatory objective for every economic system oriented towards justice and the common good. A society in which the right to work is thwarted or systematically denied, and in which economic policies do not allow workers to reach satisfactory levels of employment, “cannot be justified from an ethical point of view, nor can that society attain social peace”.[625]
2: I didn’t know about the Church’s demand that governments establish a Just Wage.
b. The right to remuneration and income distribution- Remuneration is the most important means for achieving justice in work relationships.The “just wage is the legitimate fruit of work”.[660]
- In order to protect this relationship between family and work, an element that must be appreciated and safeguarded is that of a family wage, a wage sufficient to maintain a family and allow it to live decently. Such a wage must also allow for savings that will permit the acquisition of property as a guarantee of freedom. The right to property is closely connected with the existence of families, which protect themselves from need thanks also to savings and to the building up of family property[565]. There can be several different ways to make a family wage a concrete reality Various forms of important social provisions help to bring it about, for example, family subsidies and other contributions for dependent family members, and also remuneration for the domestic work done in the home by one of the parents[566].
- The rights of workers, like all other rights, are based on the nature of the human person and on his transcendent dignity. The Church’s social Magisterium has seen fit to list some of these rights, in the hope that they will be recognized in juridical systems: the right to a just wage; [651]…
b. The right to **fair **remuneration and income distribution
- …An equitable distribution of income is to be sought on the basis of criteria not merely of commutative justice but also of social justice that is, considering, beyond the objective value of the work rendered, the human dignity of the subjects who perform it. Authentic economic well-being is pursued also by means of suitable social policies for the redistribution of income which, taking general conditions into account, look at merit as well as at the need of each citizen.
- The relationship between labour and capital often shows traits of antagonism that take on new forms with the changing of social and economic contexts. In the past, the origin of the **conflict between capital and labour **was found above all “in the fact that the workers put their powers at the disposal of the entrepreneurs, and these, following the principle of maximum profit, tried to establish the lowest possible wages for the work done by the employees”.[601] In our present day, this conflict shows aspects that are new and perhaps more disquieting…
5: I didn’t know the Church’s openly talks about the need for governments to engage in planning for the whole society.
- The planning capacity of a society oriented towards the common good and looking to the future is measured also and above all on the basis of the employment prospects that it is able to offer.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
I was saying it would be nice if there was no Democratic party. i.e if there was no party that supported abortion and other things that kill embryos, gay “marriage”, burdening future generations (Republicans get blame for that too), and supporting a broken welfare system that needs restructuring.The best thing for the poor to do is to ‘support the middle class’. In what way exactly. As servants, or by never cruising greed? Please teach us how to put an end to the class system
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
No. I just don’t like political parties that support intrinsically evil actions. You really need to stop assuming you know what I am thinking. In case you really cared, I’m for a Christian Democracy and social market economy, and Christian corporatism (NOT fascist corporatism).So in essence you want a one party state but within that you are only going to allow the people that you see as middle class to make decisions. This is called Fascism, Communism or Totalitarianism and a long way from where this discussion started. You really need to ensure your understanding before mooting such bizarre notions
B
Bartolome_Casas
Guest
Nice. Good insights. Wise perspective. The popes, and most of the bishops, are not Americans, They have a broader perspective. Plus, the Holy Spirit keeps them within the bounds of God’s will in the teachings they propound.This is tougher talk to stomach in America but not in other countries, where the moral imperative for these statements are more plain and keenly felt.
Consider the unfairness of countries that look after their people and ensure, e.g., their health, education and safety at work that have to compete against countries in the free-market that deprive their citizens of these things competely. It results in deplorable working conditions that frequently become dangerous in jobs that, in the West, we would be outraged to think that people were dying doing that sort of work-- for example.
We have to compete sometimes against countries that practically reduce their citizens to slavery: of course they will have an edge; however, it is at an extreme human cost and fosters environments where the spirit is practically eliminated. Not only does this eliminate culture as such but it makes the prospects for evangelization practically impossible because people become desperately and almost necessarily materialistic.
Fair trade these days is pitched as something to do with hippies (famous for ruining everything-- people forget that the anti-war movement against Vietnam was originally Christian and Conservative); however, fair trade has an economical basis and logic to it also that actually respects and protects private property and the rights of free citizens: free people cannot compete against practical slaves, it results in free people practically themselves becoming slaves.
Competition is and can be good and healthy; however, we believe that athletes should be rewarded and also play by certain rules, otherwise the sport is ruined and, to be sure, without any rules at all there is no actual sport or healthy competition. It is often likewise for the market.
B
Bartolome_Casas
Guest
Many, many good points in the above.It seems to me that if anyone is taxed one cent over 50% then that is simply too much! I say if you add up all of their taxes–national, state, and local if they pay more than half then that is too much regardless of their income.
Over half and you’ve crossed a line in my opinion.
We are to do our best to take care of the poor because the Lord has told us so–but more important than that is to do our best to take care of their souls so they will get to heaven.
While I’m not towards the left end of the spectrum I can respect people further left than me who are most interested in people’s souls–if they are interested in their souls then I am more apt to fully support their ideas about helping them materially.
I DO think that many who say they are for the poor–and they may indeed be for the poor–many do not really care about their souls–they’re really just materialists and don’t believe in God.
Catholics aren’t either/or but BOTH/and in many situations.
Jesus said “Seek ye FIRST the kingdom of God and all these things will be added to you.”
Jesus also said “the poor you will have with you always.”
He also said “To him who has much–much will be given–but he who has little–what little he has will be taken away.”
All these sayings do not detract from the fact that we should care for the poor–but they do indicate that taking care of the poor is an OUTGROWTH of seeking for God.
There will never be a perfect economic system.
And God will give us our daily bread–does God really care so much about all of us being rich? I think not.
There will always be inequality–no station in life is a bowl of cherries.
We should seek social justice but that shouldn’t be ALL that we seek.
Our spiritual life should be balanced.
Our economics should have a safety net but not an eternal safety crutch.
tTe Bible also says “He who does not work shall not eat.”
It also says that “the laborer is worthy of his wages”.
It also tells us to look after the widows and the orphans and the aliens.
Giving everyone in the world a materialist welfare check and artificially redistributing all the world’s wealth while killing the unborn and sanctioning gay marriage does not constitute christian utopia!
What our country needs are religious political parties–they have such things in Europe.
Gay marriage and abortion are just plain wrong period! You can be for helping the poor WITHOUT being for gay marriage or abortion!
J
jwinch2
Guest
Catholic Social Teaching: It’s Time to End the Misrepresentations
crisismagazine.com/2012/catholic-social-teaching-its-time-to-end-the-misrepresentations
The first in a series on the subject of Catholic Social Teaching.
crisismagazine.com/2012/catholic-social-teaching-its-time-to-end-the-misrepresentations
The first in a series on the subject of Catholic Social Teaching.
J
jwinch2
Guest
The Magisterium and Catholic Social Teaching
crisismagazine.com/2011/the-magisterial-weight-of-catholic-social-teaching
crisismagazine.com/2011/the-magisterial-weight-of-catholic-social-teaching
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Look around the world. Places with big government, either right or left, really don’t have what we would call a Middle Class and/or freedom.
This nonsense of using government to attack the rich hurts the poor more than anything else.
Threatening the rich just means they’ll wire their money or go somewhere the long arm of American government can’t reach them.
This nonsense of using government to attack the rich hurts the poor more than anything else.
Threatening the rich just means they’ll wire their money or go somewhere the long arm of American government can’t reach them.
B
Bill_7154
Guest
Methinks that after glancing at replies to the OP that people pick and choose which doctrines are important to them and which are not, and act accordingly. That, if true, is a shame.
God Bless,
Bill
God Bless,
Bill
J
jwinch2
Guest
I’m not sure what people you are referring to, but it is probably important to remember that while we are to accept all of Cathoic social doctrine, the manner in which some things are implemented (assistance for the poor, the size and scope of government, welcoming immigrants, etc.) is open to differences of opinion. Then, there are things which are intrinsically evil and thus, are not open to differences of opinion such as abortion, euthanasia, homosexual acts/marriage, etc.Methinks that after glancing at replies to the OP that people pick and choose which doctrines are important to them and which are not, and act accordingly. That, if true, is a shame.
God Bless,
Bill
B
Bill_7154
Guest
After reading the replies, and also knowing my own mind, I’m referring to most everyone on this forum.I’m not sure what people you are referring to, but it is probably important to remember that while we are to accept all of Cathoic social doctrine, the manner in which some things are implemented (assistance for the poor, the size and scope of government, welcoming immigrants, etc.) is open to differences of opinion. Then, there are things which are intrinsically evil and thus, are not open to differences of opinion such as abortion, euthanasia, homosexual acts/marriage, etc.
I think it’s ridiculous to say that SOME doctrine is open to debate in how they are implemented (and some are not is the implication). Different people are going to say different aspects are open to interpretation as to how they are implemented, and also people’s interpretation on how they should be implemented are going to be different on the same doctrine.
I am willing to bet that at least some of the ‘open to interpretation’ arguments are people defending their own beliefs. This means they maybe didn’t start out with believing/supporting every doctrine and then LATER adjusting their beliefs, I think at least some formed their opinions first, and now defend them by making those arguments.
God Bless,
Bill
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Again, doctrine is not open to interpretation.I think it’s ridiculous to say that SOME doctrine is open to debate
Most of the Church’s moral doctrine is rather specific, and some it rather detailed.
The Church’s social doctrine, OTOH, is rather broad, involving general principles, the details of which have to be measured against those general principles.
That’s why particular secular social measures and social policies are open to interpretation, relative to how they may or may not align with Church social doctrine, in their execution, in their effect, in their consequences both intended and unintended. That includes whether those measures and policies contradict, in their purpose or effect, hard-core Catholic moral doctrine on matters such as intrinsic evils of greatest weight.
J
jwinch2
Guest
Then you should study the issue, because you are entirely wrong in your assertions.I think it’s ridiculous to say that SOME doctrine is open to debate in how they are implemented (and some are not is the implication).
The manner in which some doctrines are implemented is entirely open for debate, while others are not. This is exactly what the Church teaches, though she labels it in terms of Intrinsic Evil (areas where there is no room for debate such as: abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, homosexual acts and partnerships, religious liberty, etc.) and Prudential Judgement (areas where Catholics of good will can disagree with other Catholics of good will on issues such as: what does a preferential option for the poor entail in practice; what is the proper balance between solidarity and subsidiarity; how is teaching on the death penalty to be interpreted, etc.).
This, of course, requires Catholics to inform their consciences on the issues at hand to be sure that they coincide with the mind of the Church, but it is the truth, regardless of whether you like it or not.
Caritas in Veritate said:“Solidarity is first and foremost a sense of responsibility on the part of everyone with regard to everyone, and it cannot therefore be merely delegated to the State. …]
Unfortunately, too much confidence was placed in those institutions, as if they were able to deliver the desired objective automatically. In reality, institutions by themselves are not enough, because integral human development is primarily a vocation, and therefore it involves a free assumption of responsibility in solidarity on the part of everyone."
The idea of Solidarity is expressed authentically when persons choose to come together into larger groups to accomplish something that they could not by themselves. Compelling people to come together, praying on their fears in order to do so, is not solidarity. It is a falsehood and a mockery of what the Church teaches.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I’m thinking if poor countries like India (a largely Hindu nation, with per capita income of $1,527 in US dollars) can establish rights to food and rights to work – even if the ration rice is not at all tasty and the work is some ditch-digging job – why can’t rich nations like the U.S. (largely a Christian nation with a per capital income of $41,560) do so?In reading the Vatican document “The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church,” I was very surprised by 5 things…
Methinks it’s not due to lack of resources…
B
Bartolome_Casas
Guest
Again, doctrine is not open to interpretation.
Most of the Church’s moral doctrine is rather specific, and some it rather detailed.
The Church’s social doctrine, OTOH, is rather broad, involving general principles, the details of which have to be measured against those general principles.
SOCIAL DOCTRINES ARE MORAL DOCTRINES:
I have always heard that the Church teaches that the Church’s social doctrines are moral doctrines. Unless I am wrong, the Church’s Social Doctrine is just a matter of social morals as opposed to personal morals. The Church teaches and commands both sorts of morals.
The Church does not issue mere economic policy or mere political doctrines. What the Church teaches is Faith and Morals. That’s it. The Church’s Social Doctrine is 100% moral teachings.
The Church in its history has preached more about personal morals (personal adultery, personal lying, personal stealing, personal murder, etc.). But the Church, especially in more recent times, has preached social ethics too.
To me, a clear example of social morality is seen in the Nuremberg Trials after the defeat of Nazi Germany, many decent Nazis with impeccable personal morals were nevertheless judged guilty even though they truly were only following the orders of legitimate governmental and military superiors, regarding the killing of civilians. They personally were good Catholics. They were doing what German law commanded them to do. They didn’t lie, cheat, steal, or cheat on their wives. Yet, the courts punished them, and the Church endorsed that. The Church even beatified Blessed Franz Jagerstatter for refusing to serve in the Nazi Army (for which he was executed) on the basis of social morality.
THE MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT “PRUDENTIAL JUDGMENT”
What I see many people doing is rejecting the social moral doctrines of the Church under the pretense of “prudential judgment.”
For example, the Church states clearly that the government should establish a just family minimum wage in a nation if the non-governmental associations and corporations persistently fail to and if the lowest paid head-of-household workers are, over a long period of time, continuing to be paid too little to enable the family to survive with basic human dignity and have a large number of children as promoted by the Church.
That is a moral doctrine, a social moral doctrine. How it might be implemented, and the amount of the age, and the ways the wage might be calculated and adjusted, and to whom it might apply (no teenagers, for example), are all a matter of prudential judgment. The Church doesn’t attempt to tell anyone how to implement this moral principle.
But, many Catholics come along and endorse the Austrian School of Economics or Ayn Rand social morality principle that says that under NO circumstances is it EVER moral for the government to intervene in the economy to set wages or prices in any way. Thus, they are dissenting.
But they say (and sometimes believe) that they are not dissenting, even though they are rejecting the Catholic social moral principle that mandates that governments mandate a living wage for heads of households (with minor children) when the private players in the economy don’t pay such a living wage to such person.
They say that they are not dissenting because they agree with the general principle of helping poor workers. They say that societies and governments are free to use “prudential judgment” about how to help poor workers. So, they might say that the way to help poor workers is to lower or eliminate taxes on capital gains, on the theory that this will produce more jobs and better pay for poor workers (“tricked down” theory). So, they say that they are not dissenting. But I think they are, since they reject that actual, specific, Catholic social moral principle mandating that governments mandate a minimum Family Wage when the economy does not naturally produce it.
THE ONGOING ABORTION HOLOCAUST: IS CONSISTENT ETHIC OF LIFE THE SOLUTION?
But, to be sure, the Abortion Holocaust in the U.S. in all the formerly Christian nations of the world (Muslim countries generally have zero abortions per year) is a MUCH more GIGANTIC catastrophe than the issues of the Just Wage and Full Employment.
But I offer for consideration the view that the divorce of Catholic Pro-Life Ethics from Catholic Social Ethics has led to both of these bodies of morals from being ignored. I believe that the Evil One is is orchestrating a diabolical “divide and conquer” strategy among Catholics and others.
One group of people focuses on Catholic Pro-Life Doctrine, and preaches the Austrian School of Economics/Ayn Rand economic doctrine, and basically ignores Catholic Pro-Social Doctrine. Another group focuses on Catholic Pro-Social Doctrine, and basically ignores Catholic Pro-Life Doctrine. It is hard to see who the “good guys” really are. Each group is pro-Christian in some ways, anti-Christian in some ways. Thus, Catholics are conflicted, and divided. Thus, if we promoted these 2 bodies of moral teachings together, would we not win?
Violations of the Catholic Pro-Social Doctrine like the Just Family Wage are not as grievous as violations of the Catholic Pro-Life Doctrine. The latter violations are about a BILLION TIMES worse. Yet, after 40 years of Roe vs. Wade, don’t we need to try something different? If we robustly promote a “consistent ethics of life,” Pro-Life and Pro-Social both before and after birth, all the way to natural death, would we not win more people to our side, the side of CHRIST? Isn’t that simply a matter of being fully Catholic? Would not that path cause CHRIST become more and more the living LORD of our nation and the world?
God bless us all.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.