Bishop criticizes USCCB committee’s reaction to Ryan budget

[ljpgoodwin]

Mostly? Poor choices, as estesbob mentions.

I don’t see why you are concerned about people “ignoring the causes of poverty.” We don’t, and no one is recommending we should. “Doing things as a nation” does not have to mean large, federal bureaucracy.

So it sounds like you are saying that the poor are poor because they make bad choices? Addiction, unplanned babies, divorce and so on. I agree. These are all very common reasons for poverty. One thing I wonder about though is if some adults make these mistakes does that mean that we should not try to find ways to help their children? I suspect that if we don’t find ways to help their children learn how to make better choices than did their parent(s) won’t it just make things harder for all of us in the long run? Kids who don’t get help when they are young I think are more likely to be involved in drugs and violence and we all feel the effects of drugs and violence. So, I think in the long run we might be better off helping these kids. One thing is for sure; we can’t just ignore them and wash our hands of them and walk away from them saying “well their parents are at fault so we don’t have to do anything.” We have to fight for them just like we do for unborn children. The way I look at it, a young person, just like an unborn person is someone I am obligated to help because my baptism says so. At every baptism the priest asks the God parents and the people in the pews “are you prepared to help raise this child should something happen to the parents?” Well it seems that in a lot of these cases, something has happened to the parents. They are drug addicted, or did not make good decisions or are mentally or physically ill. It really does not matter what is wrong with the parents, as an adult, I have to step up and help as much as I can. It’s not easy being a Christian.
We have all heard about, faith, hope, and charity and how important these virtues are. I think in this case we could say that hope is very important because I know that for me, when I feel that there is no hope I make bad decisions.
So how do we give these kids hope?

 

[TEPO]

So it sounds like you are saying that the poor are poor because they make bad choices? Addiction, unplanned babies, divorce and so on. I agree. These are all very common reasons for poverty. One thing I wonder about though is if some adults make these mistakes does that mean that we should not try to find ways to help their children? I suspect that if we don’t find ways to help their children learn how to make better choices than did their parent(s) won’t it just make things harder for all of us in the long run? Kids who don’t get help when they are young I think are more likely to be involved in drugs and violence and we all feel the effects of drugs and violence. So, I think in the long run we might be better off helping these kids. One thing is for sure; we can’t just ignore them and wash our hands of them and walk away from them saying “well their parents are at fault so we don’t have to do anything.” We have to fight for them just like we do for unborn children. The way I look at it, a young person, just like an unborn person is someone I am obligated to help because my baptism says so. At every baptism the priest asks the God parents and the people in the pews “are you prepared to help raise this child should something happen to the parents?” Well it seems that in a lot of these cases, something has happened to the parents. They are drug addicted, or did not make good decisions or are mentally or physically ill. It really does not matter what is wrong with the parents, as an adult, I have to step up and help as much as I can. It’s not easy being a Christian.
We have all heard about, faith, hope, and charity and how important these virtues are. I think in this case we could say that hope is very important because I know that for me, when I feel that there is no hope I make bad decisions.
So how do we give these kids hope?

I would be willing to bet that the root causes of poverty are sin and ignorance.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

B. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY

a. Autonomy and independence

1. …The Second Vatican Council solemnly reaffirmed that, “in their proper spheres, the political community and the Church are mutually independent and self-governing”.[867] The Church is organized in ways that are suitable to meet the spiritual needs of the faithful, while the different political communities give rise to relationships and institutions that are at the service of everything that is part of the temporal common good. The autonomy and independence of these two realities is particularly evident with regards to their ends.

…For her part, the Church has no particular area of competence concerning the structures of the political community: “The Church respects the legitimate autonomy of the democratic order and is not entitled to express preferences for this or that institutional or constitutional solution”,[868] nor does it belong to her to enter into questions of the merit of political programmes, except as concerns their religious or moral implications. vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#

The last two words, “moral implications”, would include issues such as laws forcing the Church to “marry” gay couples upon request, etc. By no stretch of the imagination can those words authorize a bishop to declare Congressman Ryan’s budget immoral.

It is simply an exercise of lack of knowledge to argue otherwise.

Yes, I agree, the government has no right to ask the church to perform any kind of action that goes against Church teaching. But here we are talking about economic issues and not gay marriage. So, I agree with you on this point.
I would offer the following entries from the Compendium to help give context to point you are making from your entry of the Compendium.

The universal destination of goods and the preferential option for the poor

1. The principle of the universal destination of goods requires that the poor, the marginalized and in all cases those whose living conditions interfere with their proper growth should be the focus of particular concern. To this end, the preferential option for the poor should be reaffirmed in all its force[384]. “This is an option, or a special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity, to which the whole tradition of the Church bears witness. It affects the life of each Christian inasmuch as he or she seeks to imitate the life of Christ, but it applies equally to our social responsibilities and hence to our manner of living, and to the logical decisions to be made concerning the ownership and use of goods. Today, furthermore, given the worldwide dimension which the social question has assumed, this love of preference for the poor, and the decisions which it inspires in us, cannot but embrace the immense multitudes of the hungry, the needy, the homeless, those without health care and, above all, those without hope of a better future”[385].
2. Human misery is a clear sign of man’s natural condition of frailty and of his need for salvation[386]. Christ the Saviour showed compassion in this regard, identifying himself with the “least” among men (cf. Mt 25:40,45). “It is by what they have done for the poor that Jesus Christ will recognize his chosen ones. When ‘the poor have the good news preached to them’ (Mt 11:5), it is a sign of Christ’s presence”[387].

Jesus says: “You always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me” (Mt 26:11; cf. Mk 14:7; Jn 12:8). He makes this statement not to contrast the attention due to him with service of the poor. Christian realism, while appreciating on the one hand the praiseworthy efforts being made to defeat poverty, is cautious on the other hand regarding ideological positions and Messianistic beliefs that sustain the illusion that it is possible to eliminate the problem of poverty completely from this world. This will happen only upon Christ’s return, when he will be with us once more, for ever. In the meantime, the poor remain entrusted to us and it is this responsibility upon which we shall be judged at the end of time (cf. Mt 25:31-46): “Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren”[388].

1. The Church’s love for the poor is inspired by the Gospel of the Beatitudes, by the poverty of Jesus and by his attention to the poor. This love concerns material poverty and also the numerous forms of cultural and religious poverty[389]. The Church, “since her origin and in spite of the failing of many of her members, has not ceased to work for their relief, defence and liberation through numerous works of charity which remain indispensable always and everywhere”[390]. Prompted by the Gospel injunction, “You have received without paying, give without pay” (Mt 10:8), the Church teaches that one should assist one’s fellow man in his various needs and fills the human community with countless works of corporal and spiritual mercy. “Among all these, giving alms to the poor is one of the chief witnesses to fraternal charity: it is also a work of justice pleasing to God”[391], even if the practice of charity is not limited to alms-giving but implies addressing the social and political dimensions of the problem of poverty. In her teaching the Church constantly returns to this relationship between charity and justice: “When we attend to the needs of those in want, we give them what is theirs, not ours. More than performing works of mercy, we are paying a debt of justice”[392]. The Council Fathers strongly recommended that this duty be fulfilled correctly, remembering that “what is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity”[393]. Love for the poor is certainly “incompatible with immoderate love of riches or their selfish use” [394] (cf. Jas 5:1-6).

 

[jwinch2]

So how do we give these kids hope?

Why not follow a combination of the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity and provide assistance at the local level if it has to be governmental or by giving tax breaks for those who donate to charities who are helping exactly those same people? Who says this has to be done by a massive boated federal program that creates more bureaucracy than it does assistance? Why do we need to allow a huge government to take our tax dollars and use them to subsidize abortion and other intrinsic evils? Don’t I have a personal obligation to see Christ in others and help them myself rather than pawning it off on someone else? Do I really need to keep letting the government get larger and larger until all personal liberty is gone? Do we need to keep feeding the monster until it becomes so large that it is unsustainable? That is where we are now. How good of a job do most federal programs do at helping those they were intended to help? Every single study on helping the poor I have seen seems to suggest that private charities and local programs do a far better job. Do we need to drive the entire economy off of a cliff in the name of social justice? Really? Because that is where we are headed.

The reality is that very very few people in the United States are truly lacking in the basic necessities of food, water, shelter, education, or medical care. There are great resources in almost any city, county, or town which can provide food for the hungry. No one is denied public education all the way through the high school level regardless of their income or social status. In many states such as Louisiana, kids can go to college for free based upon revenue created from the oil industry. As noted above, only about 50% of Americans are currently paying anything in terms of federal income taxes. We have a welfare system. We have Medicaid and Medicare. In reality, we already have a preferential option for the poor. Can anyone honestly say that throwing more money at the problems we have is going to fix anything? How has that worked so far?

The truth is that having more programs is not going to change the culture of dependency and lack of personal accountability that you noted above as major contributing factors for poverty. Having schools and teachers does not matter if kids drop out. Having medical care and education does not matter if people do not use it and refuse to take preventative care of themselves. At some point, our personal decisions have to be the thing we look at.

Now can someone please tell me something that we are NOT doing currently, and have not been doing for some time that Catholic teaching calls us to do in terms of helping the poor?

 

[ljpgoodwin]

Why not follow a combination of the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity and provide assistance at the local level if it has to be governmental or by giving tax breaks for those who donate to charities who are helping exactly those same people? Who says this has to be done by a massive boated federal program that creates more bureaucracy than it does assistance? Why do we need to allow a huge government to take our tax dollars and use them to subsidize abortion and other intrinsic evils? Don’t I have a personal obligation to see Christ in others and help them myself rather than pawning it off on someone else? Do I really need to keep letting the government get larger and larger until all personal liberty is gone? Do we need to keep feeding the monster until it becomes so large that it is unsustainable? That is where we are now. How good of a job do most federal programs do at helping those they were intended to help? Every single study on helping the poor I have seen seems to suggest that private charities and local programs do a far better job. Do we need to drive the entire economy off of a cliff in the name of social justice? Really? Because that is where we are headed.

The reality is that very very few people in the United States are truly lacking in the basic necessities of food, water, shelter, education, or medical care. There are great resources in almost any city, county, or town which can provide food for the hungry. No one is denied public education all the way through the high school level regardless of their income or social status. In many states such as Louisiana, kids can go to college for free based upon revenue created from the oil industry. As noted above, only about 50% of Americans are currently paying anything in terms of federal income taxes. We have a welfare system. We have Medicaid and Medicare. In reality, we already have a preferential option for the poor. Can anyone honestly say that throwing more money at the problems we have is going to fix anything? How has that worked so far?

The truth is that having more programs is not going to change the culture of dependency and lack of personal accountability that you noted above as major contributing factors for poverty. Having schools and teachers does not matter if kids drop out. Having medical care and education does not matter if people do not use it and refuse to take preventative care of themselves. At some point, our personal decisions have to be the thing we look at.

Now can someone please tell me something that we are NOT doing currently, and have not been doing for some time that Catholic teaching calls us to do in terms of helping the poor?

Yes, I agree. That is a good part of a comprehensive plan. But it is what is called a “negative” approach. Not “negative” in terms of “bad” or deficient; rather, it’s “negative” in that it is a kind of action that says we won’t do something if you do something. The Church calls for both a negative and positive response to address this problem. A positive response would be something like the following. We will raise the funds we need to put into place a private or non-profit agency that helps prevent teen pregnancy or we will help you find ways to pay for a college education.
The Compendium says that the government or state has the right and obligation to step in and take positive action if the private sector is unable or unwilling to make sure that citizens have with they need to thrive and become contributing members of the community. The Compendium says, as has been pointed out in this thread, there needs to be a cooperative relationship between the public and private sectors and one should not be too intrusive in the other that reasonable progress should hindered. Reasonable is an important word.

 

[KSU]

"So how do we give these kids hope? "

Elect local, state and federal governments that will allow our children to escape the current, captive public education system where rights are exaggerated and hope is placed in the government; a “new” philosophy of education where religious principles of responsibility are not taboo, and children learn that capable people are personally responsible and answerable for their actions, and lack of actions. They would learn that social safety nets are just that, and must never again become distribution of wealth schemes for political purposes; schemes that appeal to the lower appetites, become addictive to generations and destroy hope.

 

[jwinch2]

Yes, I agree. That is a good part of a comprehensive plan. But it is what is called a “negative” approach. Not “negative” in terms of “bad” or deficient; rather, it’s “negative” in that it is a kind of action that says we won’t do something if you do something. The Church calls for both a negative and positive response to address this problem. A positive response would be something like the following. We will raise the funds we need to put into place a private or non-profit agency that helps prevent teen pregnancy or we will help you find ways to pay for a college education.
The Compendium says that the government or state has the right and obligation to step in and take positive action if the private sector is unable or unwilling to make sure that citizens have with they need to thrive and become contributing members of the community. The Compendium says, as has been pointed out in this thread, there needs to be a cooperative relationship between the public and private sectors and one should not be too intrusive in the other that reasonable progress should hindered. Reasonable is an important word.

Yes or no. Is there enough assistance coming from the public sector at this time, or do we need more?

 

[rlg94086]

I would offer the following entries from the Compendium to help give context to point you are making from your entry of the Compendium.

The universal destination of goods and the preferential option for the poor

BUT…the understanding of the universal destination of goods and the preferential option for the poor, need to be understood in reference to the rest of the Compendium…including the role of the State, market and intermediate bodies (bolding mine):

353. It is necessary for the market and the State to act in concert, one with the other, and to complement each other mutually. In fact, the free market can have a beneficial influence on the general public only when the State is organized in such a manner that it defines and gives direction to economic development, promoting the observation of fair and transparent rules,
and making direct interventions — only for the length of time strictly necessary [737] — when the market is not able to obtain the desired efficiency and when it is a question of putting the principle of redistribution into effect. There exist certain sectors in which the market, making use of the mechanisms at its disposal, is not able to guarantee an equitable distribution of the goods and services that are essential for the human growth of citizens. In such cases the complementarities of State and market are needed more than ever.

**354. **The State can encourage citizens and businesses to promote the common good by enacting an economic policy that fosters the participation of all citizens in the activities of production. Respect of the principle of subsidiarity must prompt public authorities to seek conditions that encourage the development of individual capacities of initiative, autonomy and personal responsibility in citizens, avoiding any interference which would unduly condition business forces.

With a view to the common good, it is necessary to pursue always and with untiring determination the goal of a proper equilibrium between private freedom and public action, understood both as direct intervention in economic matters and as activity supportive of economic development. In any case, public intervention must be carried out with equity, rationality and effectiveness, and without replacing the action of individuals, which would be contrary to their right to the free exercise of economic initiative. In such cases, the State becomes detrimental to society: a direct intervention that is too extensive ends up depriving citizens of responsibility and creates excessive growth in public agencies guided more by bureaucratic logic than by the goal of satisfying the needs of the person.[738]

**355. **Tax revenues and public spending take on crucial economic importance for every civil and political community. The goal to be sought is public financing that is itself capable of becoming an instrument of development and solidarity. Just, efficient and effective public financing will have very positive effects on the economy, because it will encourage employment growth and sustain business and non-profit activities and help to increase the credibility of the State as the guarantor of systems of social insurance and protection that are designed above all to protect the weakest members of society.
Public spending is directed to the common good when certain fundamental principles are observed: the payment of taxes [739] as part of the duty of solidarity; a reasonable and fair application of taxes;[740] precision and integrity in administering and distributing public resources.[741] In the redistribution of resources, public spending must observe the principles of solidarity, equality and making use of talents. It must also pay greater attention to families, designating an adequate amount of resources for this purpose.[742]

c. Role of intermediate bodies
**356. **The social-economic system must be marked by the twofold presence of public and private activity, including private non-profit activity. In this way sundry decision-making and activity-planning centres come to take shape. The use of certain categories of goods, collective goods and goods meant for common utilization, cannot be dependent on mechanisms of the market,[743] nor does their use fall under the exclusive competence of the State. The State’s task relative to these goods is that of making use of all social and economic initiatives promoted by intermediate bodies that produce public effects. Civil society, organized into its intermediate groups, is capable of contributing to the attainment of the common good by placing itself in a relationship of collaboration and effective complementarities with respect to the State and the market. It thus encourages the development of a fitting economic democracy. In this context, State intervention should be characterized by a genuine solidarity, which as such must never be separated from subsidiarity.

**357. **Private non-profit organizations have their own specific role to play in the economic sphere. These organizations are marked by the fearless attempt to unite efficiency in production with solidarity. In general, they are built on agreements of association and manifest a common way of thinking in the members who choose to join. The State is called to respect the nature of these organizations and to make proper use of their various features, putting into practice the fundamental principle of subsidiarity, which requires that the dignity and autonomous responsibility of the “subsidiary” subject be respected and promoted.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

The reality is that very very few people in the United States are truly lacking in the basic necessities of food, water, shelter, education, or medical care. There are great resources in almost any city, county, or town which can provide food for the hungry. No one is denied public education all the way through the high school level regardless of their income or social status. In many states such as Louisiana, kids can go to college for free based upon revenue created from the oil industry. As noted above, only about 50% of Americans are currently paying anything in terms of federal income taxes. We have a welfare system. We have Medicaid and Medicare. In reality, we already have a preferential option for the poor. Can anyone honestly say that throwing more money at the problems we have is going to fix anything? How has that worked so far?

You might be right. There may be a very few people who are truly impoverished in this country. But it does seem that the numbers are growing. And just because the numbers are low, it does not mean that we ignore them and their children. As baptized Catholics I think we should be looking for ways to help them not looking for ways to not help them.

The truth is that having more programs is not going to change the culture of dependency and lack of personal accountability that you noted above as major contributing factors for poverty. Having schools and teachers does not matter if kids drop out. Having medical care and education does not matter if people do not use it and refuse to take preventative care of themselves. At some point, our personal decisions have to be the thing we look at.

You might be right again…programs might not change the folks that feel entitled. But it might help their kids. We cannot walk away for the kids. That would be so sad if we did that. What would that say about us as a nation if we just remained indifferent to the children? Also Catholic social teaching is not only concerned with people who are chronically poor, but it is also concerned with people who are poor because of lack of education so they have to work two very low paying jobs and it may not be enough for them to save for their children’s education or their health care or retirement. I point to the G.I. Bill from 1944 which really helped people buy a home, get an education and plan for their future and the future of their kids.

Now can someone please tell me something that we are NOT doing currently, and have not been doing for some time that Catholic teaching calls us to do in terms of helping the poor?

Again, I point to the G.I. Bill as an example of how we use to help people.

 

[jwinch2]

Again, I point to the G.I. Bill as an example of how we use to help people.

And again I ask, what are we not doing as a part of Catholic social teaching that we should be doing to help the poor? The last time I checked, we still have the GI Bill. The last time I checked, a child can go from K through 12 for free if they need it and in most cases, to college also. So again I ask, what are we not doing? Why should we do more at the governmental level than we are currently?

 

[ljpgoodwin]

BUT…
353. It is necessary for the market and the State to act in concert, one with the other, and to complement each other mutually. In fact, the free market can have a beneficial influence on the general public only when the State is organized in such a manner that it defines and gives direction to economic development, promoting the observation of fair and transparent rules,
and making direct interventions — only for the length of time strictly necessary
**354. **The State can encourage citizens and businesses to promote the common good by enacting an economic policy that fosters the participation of all citizens in the activities of production. Respect of the principle of subsidiarity must prompt public authorities to seek conditions that encourage the development of individual capacities of initiative, autonomy and personal responsibility in citizens, avoiding any interference which would unduly condition business forces.

With a view to the common good, it is necessary to pursue always and with untiring determination the goal of a proper equilibrium between private freedom and public action, understood both as direct intervention in economic matters and as activity supportive of economic development. In any case, public intervention must be carried out with equity, rationality and effectiveness, and without replacing the action of individuals, which would be contrary to their right to the free exercise of economic initiative. In such cases, the State becomes detrimental to society: a direct intervention that is too extensive ends up depriving citizens of responsibility and creates excessive growth in public agencies guided more by bureaucratic logic than by the goal of satisfying the needs of the person.[738]

All of this is good stuff. That’s why I love the Compendium. I think it is worth noting that the five principles that are described in chapter four are, according to the Compendium, the lens through which we look at the rest of the social teaching.
The Compendium is very good at finding the balance in the tensions that we are dealing with in our discussion here. But we have to look at the teaching through the five foundational principles. We can’t highlight one without considering the other. The Compendium in #556 and #581 talks about the nature of sacrifice for the sake of others in the context of the common good.
Also in the first chapters of the Compendium we find a discussion about human dignity and not putting things before people or individual wealth before charity and the like. The Compendium seems to make it clear that if the private sector is unable or unwilling to provide citizens what they need to grow and save for the future, the State has the right and moral obligation to step in and make reasonable laws that correct the imbalance in the social and political arena. The government is an institution that citizens need to cooperate with. This is the meaning of the 4th principle, “Participation.” According to CST the State or government and the private sector are good and necessary things when they are in balance. They both have a role to play in maintaining an equitable economic system. The private sector has to be subjected to government intervention at a **reasonable **level. That resoable level is met when the owners of the means of production and financial institutions are making a reasonable amount of money and the poor are being lifted out of poverty from one generation to the next and the middle class is growing.
There is something for us to learn about this balance in that the under resourced (poor) in this country are growing in number and in the depth of their poverty, the middle class is shrinking and the wealth in the country is becoming more and more condensed to fewer and fewer people who are becoming unreasonable wealthy on the backs of the poor. This is the kinds of conditions in which Catholic social teaching found its birth. We are recreating the conditions that we had when Rerum novarum was first written in 1893 by Pope Leo XII.
This is why the USCCB is opposing the Ryan budget. http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201597.htm

 

[ljpgoodwin]

And again I ask, what are we not doing as a part of Catholic social teaching that we should be doing to help the poor? The last time I checked, we still have the GI Bill. The last time I checked, a child can go from K through 12 for free if they need it and in most cases, to college also. So again I ask, what are we not doing? Why should we do more at the governmental level than we are currently?

The G.I. Bill is greatly reduced than it was in the 50’s. Yup, a kid can go to school. But college is up to about $50,000 for a BA.

The amount of public service was cut during the Regan era. Some of what he did was good and some of what he did in this area was not so good.

This is a much different country than it was in the 1960’s as far as social services go. I am not looking for something like we see in Greece. But I think poor folks, poor families, the sick and vets could use a lot more help than they are getting at the moment.

For me, when I have an interaction with a poor young person today, my first thought is how can I help this kid stay away from bad things and help them get into college without having to go into $50,000 of student loan debt.

It’s not ease to give these people hope and the help they need. That’s a given. I do think we can do a better job at being a nation that takes care of the most at risk. A good social safety net can go a long way. It sure as heck feels a lot better when I can help a kid then when I have to say, no sorry, there is no hope for you.

 

[jwinch2]

The G.I. Bill is greatly reduced than it was in the 50’s. Yup, a kid can go to school. But college is up to about $50,000 for a BA.

The only thing you cannot get today that you got in the original GI bill is a year’s worth of unemployment insurance. Soldiers that enlist today can earn well enough to pay for their degree and then some. My GI bill paid for my undergraduate degree at a state school and a year of my master’s degree. When I got married, my wife and I were able to secure a low rate and no money down loan via the VA loan program, just like it was in the 1950’s for the GI Bill.

This is a much different country than it was in the 1960’s as far as social services go.

Yes it is. We are paying massively greater amounts of money for less and less return on social programs. Money is not the issue. Throwing money at the problem has been tried for decades. It hasn’t worked. In addition, in the 1960’s we had far less people not paying taxes and far less people relying on those social programs. Why? Because the previous generation was far more self-sufficient and more responsible.

I am not looking for something like we see in Greece. But I think poor folks, poor families, the sick and vets could use a lot more help than they are getting at the moment.

Get specific. What are we not doing as a country to help people that we should be doing? Then, relate that to Catholic Social Doctrine.

For me, when I have an interaction with a poor young person today, my first thought is how can I help this kid stay away from bad things and help them get into college without having to go into $50,000 of student loan debt.

They can. Tell them to join the Army, like I did. Tell them to work their butts off in high school and so they can qualify scholarships and grants. Heck many states, Louisiana, Texas, etc. will pay for the entire undergraduate education through programs like TOPS and the Pelican Promise. Millions of dollars of scholarship money goes unused every year because no one applies for it or those who apply to not meet the academic criteria.

It’s not ease to give these people hope and the help they need. That’s a given. I do think we can do a better job at being a nation that takes care of the most at risk. A good social safety net can go a long way. It sure as heck feels a lot better when I can help a kid then when I have to say, no sorry, there is no hope for you.

Again I ask. What is it that we need to be doing that we are currently not doing as a country? What social program are we not providing? What tax break or incentive are we not giving? Please be specific.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

Jim

Up untill 2007 it was possible for kids in foster care to get college tuition paid. That program is now gone.

 

[rlg94086]

The Compendium seems to make it clear that if the private sector is unable or unwilling to provide citizens what they need to grow and save for the future, the State has the right and moral obligation to step in and make reasonable laws that correct the imbalance in the social and political arena.

“**only for the length of time strictly necessary.” **

Does that mean ongoing and forever? Nope. Does that mean at the federal level under our Constitution? Nope. “State” does not have to mean federal. It can be municipal, county, state or federal, and the principle of subsidiarity is always to be considered.

I believe that those who say the Ryan budget is contrary to Church teaching are wrong. They are welcome to their prudential opinion on the matter, but I heartily disagree with them. I am considering the whole of Church teaching on the matter and coming to a conclusion based on that teaching. It doesn’t matter if they are a bishop, priest, nun or fellow layperson because that is how prudential judgement works.

 

[jwinch2]

Jim

Up untill 2007 it was possible for kids in foster care to get college tuition paid. That program is now gone.

Not sure who you are talking to, but I would ask you to detail the program to which you are referring.

Many states have such programs and so do scores of private agencies. In addition, the universities themselves often have scholarship and grant programs for special populations such as foster children. A quick check of the universities that I went to and have worked at shows that 3 of the 6 have a state level program for foster children. In addition, the 3 states who did not have a state level program do have multiple universities within the state who provide tuition remission directly for foster children. Furthermore, almost all states have Independent Living Assistance, which in addition to being used for rent or food can cover college tuition.

Finally, foster children can apply for the same scholarships and grants which are available to other children. Nothing is preventing them from doing this.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

Sorry, I see your name is Jason.

It’s great that you are content with the level of social service here in the States. I’m happy that you were able to serve in the military, thanks for that. I am happy that you were able to work hard and get an education. This all great.
It sounds like you and I might have a different tolerance threshold for some things. That’s great! However, I think I will continue advocating for the same things that the USCCB and Catholic Charities USA are advocating for.
I tend to like the fact that the USCCB is committed to fighting for the poor and using a bible as a foundation for their continued advocacy. I like that the USCCB is also using Catholic social teaching as a foundation for their continued advocacy.
When I encounter people who are fighting as hard as the USCCB are it helps me to know that what Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount still can drive people to act out of compassion and charity 2000 years later. This is for me a real testimony to the workings of the Holy Spirit.
As for my ability to connect specific socio-economic issues directly to Catholic social teaching, I will defer to what I have written in the preceding day on this issue. The issue I have been discussing in this thread is the USCCB and its lack of support for the Ryan budget. That is why this thread is called “Bishop criticizes USCCB committee’s reaction to Ryan budget.”
You clearly are someone who is filled with compassion for your brothers and sisters in this country; otherwise you would not have selflessly joined the military. Thanks for your service.

My name is Lawrence

 

[jwinch2]

Lawrence,

I would politely request that you go back and answer some of the direct questions you have been asked. You were asked repeatedly what aspects of Mr. Ryan’s budget you disagreed with and which did not meet Catholic social teaching. I asked you what programs we need that we currently do not have and you provided two, the GI bill and funding for foster children to go to college. I then provided information which believe shows that we do have those things already. Are there thousands of foster kids every year who do not get to go to college because of money? If so, please show some sort of evidence. Or, is it the fact that less than half of foster children graduate high school and man of those who do have low grades and low scores on standardized tests which prevent them from attending college? If the former, then perhaps I am wrong and we need to be doing more. If the latter, then we are talking about an entirely different issue and one that probably does not deal with issues of money so much as other things.

I would again ask you to please highlight what things are not doing as a country that we should be doing morally to help the poor. In addition, I would ask you to please state which aspects of Mr. Ryan’s budget you believe to violate Catholic social doctrine. Please be specific.

 

[anthony022071]

I really don’t think it is a bad thing to be Calvinist/Protestant. In the same way, I would have no problem with Obama being a Muslim or a Mormon. I am not a fan of Communism and its tradition of repressing the Church, but I do understand what communism is trying to accomplish economically. Communism really was trying to create a kind of economic system where everyone was treated equally. That is not such a bad thing. The problem is that it doesn’t work and it is easy for the leaders to become corrupted and power hungry…which is exactly what happened. The motivations of the Ryan budget are good and holy. I really do believe that. What I am saying is that the way the Ryan budget goes about creating a budget is very different than what we see in Catholic social teaching.
So when I say that the Ryan budget comes from a Calvinist/Protestant perspective, I don’t mean it in any negative or pejorative sense. There is nothing wrong with being a Presbyterian…it’s just different than being Catholic. Obviously, I believe that the Roman Catholic Church has something unifically distinctive to offer the world that no other religious institution can come close to. But, we are not talking about salvation here, we are talking about economics.
I think I was very clear in saying what the USCCB is looking for, which includes maintaining many entitlement programs that I listed. I also said that the Ryan budget would cut funding of these programs or cut the programs all together. Whether I am from the right or left is not the point. My point is/was to highlight the differences between the Ryan budget and what the bishops are striving for which is based on Catholic social teaching. My hope is that we as Catholic Christians can come together on these issues as a cohesive voice for economic justice based on our Catholic tradition.

You accept the validity of entitlement programs uncritically. They may not be necessary or successful or honest. And even if they are needed by particular persons who have become dependent upon them,they should not be needed at all,considering that it is the responsibility of families and neighbors and churches to help the poor and needy. The budget should be planned with respect to the amount of money that is available and with respect for the people’s right to keep as much of their money as is reasonable. should not be planned with the intention of raising taxes to cover whatever things the government wants to spend on.

I guess another way of describing the difference between the Ryan budget and what the bishops are looking for is that the Ryan budget puts a lot of emphasis on personal responsibility while Catholic social teaching puts a lot of emphasis on the community pooling its resources in an effort to help the most vulnerable. These are two different models of governance. Traditionally or historically the Protestant model which is heavily influenced by Calvinism is interested in personal morality and responsibility while traditionally Catholicism comes out of a more “communitarian” model.

Catholicism stresses personal morality and responsibility also. The communitarian model of monasteries stresses these things.

The first two principles of Catholic social teaching, the common good and the universal destination of goods, are what really distinguishes Catholics from many other Christians in terms of economics. The common good is understood to be the lens through which we understand the remaining four principles of Catholic social teaching. All I am trying to do is point out this difference. It is an important difference and one worthy of much conversation. These five principles are a very difficult teaching for many holy Catholics.

So, my issues with the Ryan budget are the same as most of the bishops. I don’t like his plans to cut taxes and entitlement programs. The bishops seem to be saying, and I agree that the cuts in the Ryan budget are not in keeping with the first principle of Catholic social teaching, which is the common good. That is my basic issue with Mr. Ryan’s budget. The "why I don’t like it is because I like the idea of us coming together as a country to help each other out. I think the G.I Bill was good for this country because it was an example of how we can work together as a nation. I like the idea of raising taxes to pay for our deficit and entitelment programs. I ask you, is what I am saying such a bad thing? Can you at least see that my motivations are good?

What is bad about it is that you are too eager to have the government divest people of a large proportion of their property and you wrongly trust the government to help people in their personal needs,which is not the responsibility of government but of families and neighbors. This is not good intentions. This invites government tyranny,disrespects people’s right to keep their property,and weakens people’s sense of responsibility for themselves and others.

So now that I have again answered your questions, I would like to hear your thoughts on the principles of the common good and the universal destination of goods as described in chapter four of the Compendium.

The common good does not mean that the government distributes goods to all. And the universal destination of goods does not entail government distribution either. The common good is a very general idea that can means that conditions in society should be fitting for human dignity and that the natural law is observed. Freedom and security of private property are part of the common good. The universal destination of goods does not demand that everything must be held in common and it does not override the right to private property. It simply means that God created earthly goods for all,not just for those who own them,and that we are not permitted to withhold from others the goods they need.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

I’ll do my best to answer you question directly Jason

As I said in an earlier post, I object to the stated fact that the Ryan budget wants to cut $5 trillion from the federal budget. But I will repeat it again.
However, here are a few more points:

1.    Non-defense discretionary: Brings spending back to pre-2008 levels and freezes it there for five years

2.   Repeals the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

3.   Medicaid: Converts federal share of Medicaid spending into a block grant that’s indexed for inflation and population growth. To offer some context, health-care costs often increase at twice the rate of inflation or more.

4.   Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Better known as food stamps, SNAP gets the Medicaid treatment: block grants indexed for inflation and population growth.

5.   Pell Grants: Cut back to 2008 Bush era levels, wiping out recent increases.

6.   Health-care reform: Repeals the Affordable Care Act.

7.   Medicare: Privatizes Medicare. Future beneficiaries will choose from a menu of private options. They won’t have the choice of the standard Medicare plan. Wealthier beneficiaries will get a small voucher and poorer beneficiaries will get a larger voucher. Vouchers grow at GDP+1%, whether or not Medicare does the same.

8.   Tax reform: “Reform the tax code by consolidating the current six brackets and cutting the top individual rate from 35 percent to 25 percent.”

9.   Tax revenue: Prevents the Bush tax cuts from expiring in 2013. So the revenue-neutral tax reform locks in today’s rates, which is to say it makes the Bush cuts permanent.

Here is a link to a PDF version of the budget so that you can see that I am not making these things up.
http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperityfy2012.pdf
There is one reason I don’t like these things and that is because they all have a bias against the poor. When poor people become poorer it tends to put stress on communities as they try to look for things that they need. So this is budget is an affront to the first principle, “the common good” found in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church in chapter 4.
These are also some of the same objections that the USCCB and Catholic Charities have made. I think I have provided you with enough examples to answer the “repeated” question.
As important as these things are…and I am convinced that these kinds of policy things are very important, what is really at the base of my objections is my commitment to try to grow in the image of Christ. You have said that you joined the armed forces. I suspect that means that you were over in the Middle East. If so, how did it make you feel when you saw people and families and kids torn apart by war? I suspect that it was difficult to see this kind of pain and suffering.
I lived for a time in South East Asia and saw young babies nude on the streets and 12 year olds selling themselves so they could eat. I have seen some of these same things, granted not in the same numbers, here in the States. I can only imagine that you joined the armed services because you would like to do your part to make sure that these kinds of living conditions are done away with. At least I hope so.
Part of my religious/spiritual practice is to try to imagine being in a place like a war torn country or some other place where people are suffering and try to imagine what Jesus would do if he were there. This is not some dumb spiritual practice that I made up. I comes from 16th and 17th century France and Spain. It is a practice taught by the Jesuits and a group of priest and sisters founded by St. John Eudes. The sisters are called Our Lady of Charity and the priests are called The Congregation of Jesus and Mary. The spirituality is centered on the Cross, suffering, the Resurrection and compassion. It’s not some fluffy, tree hugging, pie in the sky, unrelated to reality spirituality. You get right down into the lives of the people you meet and it always changes you. The early Greek Christians call it kenosis, which is the word used to describe the process of emptying of oneself to make room for learning to be more Christ like. This is one of the reasons I found myself in South East Asia in order to give myself a very real experience of this kind of spirituality. There are two books written that have endured for over 400 years that have been teaching people about this spirituality for as many years. The first is called “Introduction to the Devout Life” by St. Francis de Sales and the “Kingdom of Jesus” by St. John Eudes.
I understand that you are primarily a soldier, and that is an honorable calling. I will always defer to your experience in things of war and combat. But perhaps you can see that we are coming from two very different ways of looking at the world. I think we need both. We need people like you who pick up arms to protect the innocent. But we also need people like me who are able to see how injustice is at work in our world. I know the ravages of war and racism and the toll they take on the people who are victims of these things. Most of the little kids on the streets that I saw will be dead by the time they are 18…lucky to be granted and early death, considering their living conditions.