American Catholicism's Pact with the Devil

[Sailor_Kenshin]

It’s not at all hypocritical to take the only moral stand against Caesar’s hand in your pocket.

If you think that it ultimately ‘helps’ the poor, think again. Where does it stop? Government control of all industry, banking, churches?

Once you agree in principle, you cannot un-agree. When you get in bed with Caesar, do not be surprised to awaken with a horse’s head on your pillow.

 

[King_Lazy]

If you think that it ultimately ‘helps’ the poor, think again. Where does it stop? Government control of all industry, banking, churches?

There is nothing inherently wrong or against Catholic teaching with the Government controlling some industries, be they some banks or strategic manufacturing enterprises or infrastructure and utilities. Having a few state-owned enterprises does not a communist country make. State provision of social security entitlements is not equivalent to charity, but it does not make a country socialist. To what extent these should be provided is entirely a matter of expediency.

Once you agree in principle, you cannot un-agree. When you get in bed with Caesar, do not be surprised to awaken with a horse’s head on your pillow.

I’d say that “minimalist state with no government intervention” and “total government control” are two extreme positions and it’s not an either/or situation. It’s a matter of pragmatism and what best serves the public interest at a particular point in time. We are all aware of the spectacular failures of Stalinist states, but I am not aware of any successful minimalist states. Most successful states, as far as I am aware, operate a mixed model, and at best pay lip service to minimalism.

KSU:

Where I might disagree with you is that Islam, Communism/Socialism, etc., as practiced and as written, could ever possibly be in accord with Natural Law/Reason. As practiced, those belief systems are pacts with the Devil. Here are some papal teachings:

I see your point about Islam. I am well aware of Papal teachings on socialism and communism, and I agree with them wholeheartedly. No good can come of denying a man something as fundamental as private property.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Please define redistribution of wealth as you understand it.

Does redistribution of wealth include the government allowing tax deductions for say charity and mortgage interest–after all one pays less tax than they otherwise would–other taxpayers–without mortgages are helping others buy their houses. Is this a bad thing? Where is all the angst about this? Where are the protests?

Or is redistribution of wealth only when someone who can’t make ends meet gets some assistance to feed their children?

We all receive assistance from the government–that assistance is called tax breaks and credits. They help us do things like purchase a house, raise children–things that are considered good for society as a whole. No one rails against these much. It’s hypocritical to take a mortgage interest and property tax deduction which facilitate the purchase of your house and complain that Joe with the minimum wage job–is somehow less worthy of government assistance and is the one receiveing wealth redistribution.

As flabbergasted as I was with this post, I neglected to point out that tax ‘breaks’ for homeowners is a false dichotomy when being compared to Caesar going through your pockets to keep poor people dependent on him for life.

IT IS YOUR MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE. Caesar is grudgingly giving some of that back with ‘breaks and credits,’ the very names of which are indicative of the propaganda most people have swallowed.

The job of government is to protect us from foreign princes and to fix roads.

Money that we earned is being robbed at higher and higher rates, and they play the ‘poverty’ card as justification. Robbing even the rich does not solve the problems of the poor, and what welfare does to the human spirit is appalling.

 

[David_Castlen]

Please define redistribution of wealth as you understand it.

To redistribute is to take from one place and put in another place. To redistribute wealth is to take from wealth and place in another placce

Does redistribution of wealth include the government allowing tax deductions for say charity and mortgage interest

Again, redistribution is taking from one and placing in another. Tax deductions are reductions in ones income on paper. It is not a distribution

–after all one pays less tax than they otherwise would–other taxpayers–without mortgages are helping others buy their houses. Is this a bad thing?

Of course not. Why would one assume this is bad unless one was predisposed to accept the sin of stealing as a virtue. What is a bad thing (regarding economics) is taking ones possessions, taking ones right to do as they please without “stepping on others” and taking another’s life. Now taxes do take one’s property (possessions) and will threaten one’s life and have taken people’s lives.

Where is all the angst about this? Where are the protests?

Well, it appears (God bless you, I am reading between the lines) you seem to have a bit of angst and another place to find this “angst” is amongt the liberal media, DNC and I could go on

Or is redistribution of wealth only when someone who can’t make ends meet gets some assistance to feed their children?

Redistribution of wealth can take many forms. For instance when the government take takes and keeps 95% for administration and redistribute the rest - and very poorly at that.

We all receive assistance from the government–that assistance is called tax breaks and credits.

This is like saying, “Al Capone has assisted us by not shooting our children and letting us keep our business going” Tax break = I will not steal as much as I was going to steal from you.

They help us do things like purchase a house, raise children–things that are considered good for society as a whole. No one rails against these much.[/KQUOTE]

I do. The ACTON Institue does, The Von Mises Institue does, We beg government to let us alone and let us do as we please; let us help the poor. No one does such a poor job ans the government “helping” In fact, they hurt.

It’s hypocritical to take a mortgage interest and property tax deduction which facilitate the purchase of your house and complain that Joe with the minimum wage job–is somehow less worthy of government assistance and is the one receiveing wealth redistribution.

Strange. One is upset that someone has taken their money (the government); and this is wrong? I am truly confused.

As a society we have the right to decide what that society will look like and what government should do.

No! we do not have that right. It is a sin. We DO have that ability.

What that society can look like and what government can do is controlled (at least in theory) by our constititution–but within that frame work we have wide lattitude. We also have a duty to lobby for what we believe is best for society–and one would hope that for Catholics those beliefs are shaped by the moral teachings of the Church.

You are not using the term socialism but it sure smells like it. I would suggest we do everything we can with our government to protect its citizens without being a bully to other countries. And leave the government to that and that alone. I would suggest that that the best way to help people in our communities is to DO IT! YOU get out there and your neighbor get out there and your parish get out there. You will never never go any good when you send you money to the government to do it for you. The government programs to help others is evil. They have stolen the Church’s inheritance to be Charitable; what a blessing we have sold away.

 

[boeck249]

I have an idea lets put warning labels on the front door of all catholic institutions .
WARNING CATHOLIC VALUES PRACTICED HERE.
If you do not want to be exposed to the value of the human person, freedom of concise and the dignity of marriage
Do Not enter this Building.

 

[KSU]

Weep for our Church:

calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=b788a975-b110-40f0-94f4-707d7e537d37

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=13681

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Again, redistribution is taking from one and placing in another. Tax deductions are reductions in ones income on paper. It is not a distribution.

It seems that MarkInOregon made a good point that you have not sufficiently refuted, other than to simply deny it. Tax deductions results in taking more in taxes from all those people who do not contribute to charity and giving it to those that do. It is not just on paper. It is real dollars that you get back in your income tax refund, but only if you donate to charity. That is a subsidy. That is a kind of redistribution. If you are going to condemn any and all redistribution then you will have to condemn tax deductions for charitable donations too. If you claim that such tax deductions are not a form of redistribution then you have to show some essential way in which they differs from other kinds of redistribution.

 

[KSU]

“If you claim that such tax deductions are not a form of redistribution then you have to show some essential way in which they differs from other kinds of redistribution.”

LeafByNiggle, have you never heard of the word “voluntary”?

 

[David_Castlen]

It seems that MarkInOregon made a good point that you have not sufficiently refuted, other than to simply deny it. Tax deductions results in taking more in taxes from all those people who do not contribute to charity and giving it to those that do. It is not just on paper.

Let me understand: It appears you are of the understanding that by not taxing me, someone is going to get less money; less benefits? On the surface this appears to be true; however, the fact is that when taxes are reduced revenue to the government increases. Look up the Laffler Curve.

But let’s say you are correct, that there is an absolute relationship between increased taxes and revenue to the government. If that is so, we even have a bigger problem. When the government takes in $1 only 5 cents goes to the people needing benefits. Those benefits are often ludicrious payments; e.g., sex training, funds to educate people to be better parents etc. these are duties of our Church. These duties stolen from us are admimistered in an evil way. They teach abortion, they encourage divorce, they create an atmosphere of self defeat.

And finnally, the worse part of this crime: it is stealing. I must note that the fine Dominican priest of the Middle ages (the golden years) - the Late Scholastics - they studied this over two hundred years and concluded no one, no bishop, no priest, no king no one has a right to ones’ property, his life and his activity. Smith and Hobbs ( I believe it was Hobbs) took these ideas and reviewed the Late Scholastics’ studies and came to a different conclusion. They concluded the Free Market greed or not was the best way to distribute goods and services. It is unjust and against good untiliarian practices to force taxes on people except to protect them. It is stealing

It is real dollars that you get back in your income tax refund, but only if you donate to charity. That is a subsidy.

A subsidy is the giving of money or other benefits. A tax refund it getting ones money back that he or she has earned. A tax refund has no relationship to subsidies. Nameing a tax refund a subsidy is a twisting of meaning, creating ambiguous understanding of simple ecoonomics.

That is a kind of redistribution.

It is not. Redistribution is taking from one and giving to another. Tax refunds are the return of money taken from one.

If you are going to condemn any and all redistribution then you will have to condemn tax deductions for charitable donations too. If you claim that such tax deductions are not a form of redistribution then you have to show some essential way in which they differs from other kinds of redistribution.

They are not related in any way shape or form. Distribution takes from one that owns something. Tax deductions are nothing but a “calculated” reduction in the size of ones income resulting in a smaller tax. You can paint a pig’s lips red, but it is still a theaving pig when it takes money from someone.

 

[ryecroft]

As flabbergasted as I was with this post, I neglected to point out that tax ‘breaks’ for homeowners is a false dichotomy when being compared to Caesar going through your pockets to keep poor people dependent on him for life.

IT IS YOUR MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE. Caesar is grudgingly giving some of that back with ‘breaks and credits,’ the very names of which are indicative of the propaganda most people have swallowed.

The job of government is to protect us from foreign princes and to fix roads.

Money that we earned is being robbed at higher and higher rates, and they play the ‘poverty’ card as justification. Robbing even the rich does not solve the problems of the poor, and what welfare does to the human spirit is appalling.

Not to get off on a tangent but it still blows my mind that prior to the Great Wars, there was not and IRS - it was put in place to help pay for the war and if I remember my history correctly should have gone away at the end of it…guess they forgot…
God Bless
Rye

 

[Schism_hater]

The viewpoint of this article is grossly out of step with 2000 years of authentic Catholic teaching. Instead, it is actually heavily influenced by the viewpoint of Anglo-American Protestant, deist, and non-Christian philosophers of the 17th through 19th centuries that has infected all of American Christian thought, including, recently, even American Catholic thought. It bears the stamp of the “excessive individualism” and Social Darwinism that plagues American political thought, and which recent popes such as John Paul II spoke forcibly against.

There is absolutely no problem, scripturally and Patristically, with govenrmental benevolence and benevolent organizations. Probably the closest thing to a genuine Christian state (and no the US has never been even close), the Christian Eastern Roman Empire (more commonly known as “the Byzantine Empire”) had an extensive governmental welfare system. To deny the legitimate authority of the government to rein in the greed and rapaciousness of private interests (e.g. Wall Street) and to provide for the legitimate needs of the poor is to set oneself against scripture and the Church.

Instead of this guy, I would suggest reading St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Thomas More, Dorothy Day, Thomas Merton, CS Lewis, John Courtney Murray, John Paul II and the latest Vatican encyclical.

 

[max37]

The viewpoint of this article is grossly out of step with 2000 years of authentic Catholic teaching. Instead, it is actually heavily influenced by the viewpoint of Anglo-American Protestant, deist, and non-Christian philosophers of the 17th through 19th centuries that has infected all of American Christian thought, including, recently, even American Catholic thought. It bears the stamp of the “excessive individualism” and Social Darwinism that plagues American political thought, and which recent popes such as John Paul II spoke forcibly against.

There is absolutely no problem, scripturally and Patristically, with govenrmental benevolence and benevolent organizations. Probably the closest thing to a genuine Christian state (and no the US has never been even close), the Christian Eastern Roman Empire (more commonly known as “the Byzantine Empire”) had an extensive governmental welfare system. To deny the legitimate authority of the government to rein in the greed and rapaciousness of private interests (e.g. Wall Street) and to provide for the legitimate needs of the poor is to set oneself against scripture and the Church.

Instead of this guy, I would suggest reading St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Thomas More, Dorothy Day, Thomas Merton, CS Lewis, John Courtney Murray, John Paul II and the latest Vatican encyclical.

 

[David_Castlen]

The viewpoint of this article

What article are you referring to?

is grossly out of step with 2000 years of authentic Catholic teaching.

Well, if one accepts the notion that we should allow the government to take money from us he is grossly out of step with Catholic teaching

There is absolutely no problem, scripturally and Patristically, with govenrmental benevolence and benevolent organizations.

“Government benevolence” is like “military intelligence”, the two can not go together.

to provide for the legitimate needs of the poor is to set oneself against scripture and the Church.

Please provide the 1. scriptural versus and 2. the pronouncements - the ones that are considered infallible where they suggest that the government is to do this: That the government is to force our money from us and give it to the poor and call it Charity. Please

Instead of this guy

,

What guy?

I would suggest reading St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Thomas More, Dorothy Day, Thomas Merton, CS Lewis, John Courtney Murray, John Paul II and the latest Vatican encyclical.

I have read Chrysostom, Augustine and Lewis; I see nothing in their writing suggesting that the government should take my money forcably to give to the needy and call it charity. But Augustine wrote profusely and I could have easily had missed something. John Paul II condemned socialism; just because Merton was a holy man doesn’t mean he was grossly wrong regarding economics.

Never has the Church told us to have the government do our job.

Again, what writing are you referring to?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

“If you claim that such tax deductions are not a form of redistribution then you have to show some essential way in which they differs from other kinds of redistribution.”

LeafByNiggle, have you never heard of the word “voluntary”?

So are you claiming that the redistribution due to tax deductions for charitable giving is more voluntary than other kinds of redistribution? That depends on who gets to “volunteer” - the one from whom the money is taken or the one to whom the money is given. Sure, I can volunteer to be a receiver of these tax deductions. All I have to do is to donate to charity. Then I receive the benefit of a tax deduction. But who is paying for that tax deduction? Answer: it is all the other taxpayers, including people who did not volunteer to be part of this program. So in this example of redistribution, the one from whom the money is taken (taxpayers) do not get to choose whether to be a part of this redistribution. Only the ones who receive the benefit are allowed to choose.

Well, that is very similar to other kinds of redistribution that are not related to charitable donations. Any welfare program where the recipient “volunteers” to be a recipient by signing up is also a volunteer. So your distinction doesn’t prove that tax deductions for charitable giving are not a form of redistribution.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Let me understand: It appears you are of the understanding that by not taxing me, someone is going to get less money; less benefits?

The Laffler curve is irrelevant. Whether or not reducing taxes increases revenue is irrelevant to the question of whether a tax deduction is a subsidy. It does not matter if the government is spending the tax money wisely or throwing it away stupidly or maliciously. The only thing that is relevant is whether the taxpayer is getting a benefit in return for behaving a certain way. That is the definition of a subsidy. And having your taxes reduced is certainly a benefit.

When the government takes in $1 only 5 cents goes to the people needing benefits…

Again this may be true, but it is still irrelevant to the question at hand. A tax deduction can be a subsidy even if the government is extremely wasteful. All it takes to see if something is a subsidy is to see if people get artificially rewarded for doing it - whatever the “it” is. Giving someone a tax deduction because they agree to learn to weave baskets is still a subsidy, even if the basket weaving is totally a waste of time.

A subsidy is the giving of money or other benefits.

Not having to pay a portion of your taxes is certainly a benefit, no?

 

[David_Castlen]

Not having to pay a portion of your taxes is certainly a benefit, no?

Not being held at gun point and giving your money to someone is certainly a benefit.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Not being held at gun point and giving your money to someone is certainly a benefit.

So what is your point?

 

[David_Castlen]

So what is your point?

My point regarding “not being held at gun point and not having to pay a thief money” is analogous to the government not putting a gun to me and telling me to pay them. Here I am trying to make the point that it is not a subsidy when the thief does not bully me or the government does not take my money.

There is an effort within this blog to sell the idea that giving over your money when it is forced on you allows you to be Charitable.

Further, if I follow the argument, the argument tries injects confusion by pitting those fortunate enough not to have to give over their money via tax credts or tax deductions as recieving a subsidy. Some how, this is considered a subsidy.

Is it a subsidy if the government does not charge me a fee for breathing, or does not charge me for swiming in my own lake, or does not charge me for eating at noon?

A subsidy is money given. A tax credit or a tax deduction is not a subsidy; they are forms of tax calculations. To call them subsidies is a method of sophistry employeed by creating ambiguity, causing confusing and appealing to an audience’s potential envy.

The heart of this argument is to create the perception that if one does not pay taxes he is evil. To do this … I have to go… later

 

[LeafByNiggle]

My point regarding “not being held at gun point and not having to pay a thief money” is analogous to the government not putting a gun to me and telling me to pay them. Here I am trying to make the point that it is not a subsidy when the thief does not bully me or the government does not take my money.

I thought you were arguing against wealth redistribution. This argument you are putting forth now seems to be directed against involuntary taxation and has very little to do with redistribution. Do you find some forms of involuntary taxation to be justified? How about involuntary taxation to raise an army to protect us against foreign princes? Or to build roads? Or do you believe that the only form of taxation that is moral is one where no one is forced to pay? (Everyone just donates to the government what they want, or not.) You are obviously very upset at the way your government is collecting and spending tax money. But what I don’t know is what sort of government (if any) would not upset you.

 

[David_Castlen]

I thought you were arguing against wealth redistribution. This argument you are putting forth now seems to be directed against involuntary taxation and has very little to do with redistribution. Do you find some forms of involuntary taxation to be justified? How about involuntary taxation to raise an army to protect us against foreign princes? Or to build roads? Or do you believe that the only form of taxation that is moral is one where no one is forced to pay? (Everyone just donates to the government what they want, or not.) You are obviously very upset at the way your government is collecting and spending tax money. But what I don’t know is what sort of government (if any) would not upset you.

Well perhaps I need to not be such a Eythyphro and listen to you. Tell me, what kind of government should we have and how should it be done? What should be the purpose of a government? How should that government be funded to do whatever it is to do? Help me, I have been wrong often enough to learn to listen.