Catholic Social Doctrine & Equality of Opportunity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fr_of_Jazz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fr_of_Jazz

Guest
I would argue that what seems to elude many Catholics in the equality of outcome versus equality of opportunity debate is that greater equality is the inevitable end result of the application of the actual social teaching of the Church, but it is not achieved via forced outcome equality by governmental fiat.

Yet this teaching (includes):
• the regulated but free market (CA, #13,15,34; CSDC, #347
• private ownership of property and the means of production (RN, #6,9; QA, #45; MM, #19; LE, #11, 14; CA, #24, 30; SRS, #42; CSDC, #282
• bridled, regulated capitalism (MM, #55-8; CA, #42; LE, #14
• presumption of independent individual and/or group initiative (RN, #15; QA, #79; MM, #55,57; PP, #15,18,30,33,70; LE, #5, SRS, #15,42,44; CA, #13,32; CSDC, #336,343; CV, #17,42;
• encourages entrepreneurial ability; (CA, #32;
• the legitimacy of profit (CA, #35;
• the value and role of competition (PP, #33,58,61; CA, #34,40; CSDC, #347;
• the creation of opportunity (CA, #35;
• laments cultural models and social norms that inhibit development (CV, #22;
• rejects class conflict (RN, #4, 19; CA, #12,23;
• condemns collectivism/socialism (RN, #4-5,15; QA, #46,111-120; PP, #33; MM, #34; LE, #14; CA, #12-13,41
• rejects the welfare state (CA, #48; CV, #57;
• rejects dependency relationships based on aid (CV, #47
• the importance of education (MM, #61; PP, #35; SRS, #15,44; CA, #16,35; CV, #61;
• opening markets for broader access (CV, #58;
• establishment of the rule of law and democratic structures where lacking (SRS, #44; CA, #44; CV, #41;
• sharing scientific, medical, technical, and business know-how (PP, #48; CA, #32;
• cutting back on expensive aid bureaucracies for poor countries (CV, #47,60;
• opposition to religious fundamentalism and terrorism (SRS, #24, CA, #14,29,46; CV, #29;

RN = Rerum Novarum – Pope Leo XIII, 1891
QA = Quadragesimo Anno – Pope Pius XI, 1931
MM = Mater et Magistra – Pope John XXIII, 1961
PT = Pacem in Terris – Pope John XXIII, 1963
GS = Gaudium et Spes – Vatican Council II, 1965
PP = Populorum Progressio – Pope Paul VI, 1967
LE = Laborem Exercens – Pope John Paul II, 1981
SRS = Solicitudo Rei Socialis – Pope John Paul II, 1987
CA = Centesimus Annus – Pope John Paul II, 1991
CV = Caritas in Veritate – Pope Benedict XVI, 2009
CSDC = Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church - Pontifical Council For Justice And Peace, 2004

This list is a work in progress. If you can add further citations under the existing categories or suggest new ones, that would be great.
 
Heavy reading.

I agree with you. But in practical terms, what of when people actively work to deny equality of opportunity? The Church has been teaching for 2,000 years and we’re far from the ideal. Doesn’t the government then have a role, even a responsibility, of forcing it?
 
on_the_hill said:
Heavy reading.

I agree with you. But in practical terms, what of when people actively work to deny equality of opportunity? The Church has been teaching for 2,000 years and we’re far from the ideal. Doesn’t the government then have a role, even a responsibility, of forcing it?
Click to expand...
No doubt. The government needs to ensure equality of opportunity. Antitrust laws that promote or maintain market competition by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies, or laws that encourage small businesses would be examples. I’m only taking issue with notion that government should force equality of result. E.g., income redistribution by government fiat, and quotas and preferences would be examples.
 
Agree with the quota and preferences.

As for wealth redistribution, what’s included? Would you include WIC, or food stamps, or AFDC/TANF (whatever they’re called now), or the EITC? It’s just that I see vulnerable people with immediate needs, needs that are being met only through state & federal funding.
 
on_the_hill said:
Agree with the quota and preferences.

As for wealth redistribution, what’s included? Would you include WIC, or food stamps, or AFDC/TANF (whatever they’re called now), or the EITC? It’s just that I see vulnerable people with immediate needs, needs that are being met only through state & federal funding.
Click to expand...
Usually “wealth redistribution” suggests a move toward collectivism and so a forced equality of outcome. This is what I object to as does Catholic Social Teaching. A social safety net is completely unobjectionable and necessary. However, I would keep an eye on the bureaucracy to keep it efficient and on the reciepients to get them self-reliant (completely or partially) as soon as possible to avoid a culture of dependency and entitlement developing.
 
Fr_of_Jazz said:
Usually “wealth redistribution” suggests a move toward collectivism and so a forced equality of outcome. This is what I object to as does Catholic Social Teaching. A social safety net is completely unobjectionable and necessary. However, I would keep an eye on the bureaucracy to keep it efficient and on the reciepients to get them self-reliant (completely or partially) as soon as possible to avoid a culture of dependency and entitlement developing.
Click to expand...
👍

But how to reconcile with what supposedly happened with the early Church? I can’t think of the passage off the top of my head–isn’t there a section that describes the very early “days,” after Jesus’s ascension, when the disciples/apostles pooled their resources and shared equally among themselves? The passage is kind of a wistful, “back in the good ol’ days, when everyone was happy and energized, and we all got along with each other…”
 
on_the_hill said:
👍

But how to reconcile with what supposedly happened with the early Church? I can’t think of the passage off the top of my head–isn’t there a section that describes the very early “days,” after Jesus’s ascension, when the disciples/apostles pooled their resources and shared equally among themselves? The passage is kind of a wistful, “back in the good ol’ days, when everyone was happy and energized, and we all got along with each other…”
Click to expand...
Yet I would observe that to my knowledge the CC has never taught that the description of the early Christian community in Acts is an economic policy that should be encouraged (much less forced) on societies in the temporal order. An eye-opening book to this point is . Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1978Religious Poverty and the Profit Economy in Medieval Europe. It details the theological rationale developed by the mendicant orders for the profit-based commercial economy developing in connection with renewed city life in the high Middle Ages.
 
There are a million ones for unions in Rerum Novarum and also I think Caritas in Veritate 25. There is support for universal healthcare (not socialized medicine, but universal) and social insurance. I can’t exactly remember the encyclicals, but I think JPII wrote about them in Laborum Exercens. Also having rich pay more in taxes than the poor in Populorum Progressio 47
 
Fr_of_Jazz said:
I would argue that what seems to elude many Catholics in the equality of outcome versus equality of opportunity debate is that greater equality is the inevitable end result of the application of the actual social teaching of the Church, but it is not achieved via forced outcome equality by governmental fiat.

Yet this teaching (includes):
• the regulated but free market (CA, #13,15,34; CSDC, #347
• private ownership of property and the means of production (RN, #6,9; QA, #45; MM, #19; LE, #11, 14; CA, #24, 30; SRS, #42; CSDC, #282
• bridled, regulated capitalism (MM, #55-8; CA, #42; LE, #14
• presumption of independent individual and/or group initiative (RN, #15; QA, #79; MM, #55,57; PP, #15,18,30,33,70; LE, #5, SRS, #15,42,44; CA, #13,32; CSDC, #336,343; CV, #17,42;
• encourages entrepreneurial ability; (CA, #32;
• the legitimacy of profit (CA, #35;
• the value and role of competition (PP, #33,58,61; CA, #34,40; CSDC, #347;
• the creation of opportunity (CA, #35;
• laments cultural models and social norms that inhibit development (CV, #22;
• rejects class conflict (RN, #4, 19; CA, #12,23;
• condemns collectivism/socialism (RN, #4-5,15; QA, #46,111-120; PP, #33; MM, #34; LE, #14; CA, #12-13,41
• rejects the welfare state (CA, #48; CV, #57;
• rejects dependency relationships based on aid (CV, #47
• the importance of education (MM, #61; PP, #35; SRS, #15,44; CA, #16,35; CV, #61;
• opening markets for broader access (CV, #58;
• establishment of the rule of law and democratic structures where lacking (SRS, #44; CA, #44; CV, #41;
• sharing scientific, medical, technical, and business know-how (PP, #48; CA, #32;
• cutting back on expensive aid bureaucracies for poor countries (CV, #47,60;
• opposition to religious fundamentalism and terrorism (SRS, #24, CA, #14,29,46; CV, #29;

RN = Rerum Novarum – Pope Leo XIII, 1891
QA = Quadragesimo Anno – Pope Pius XI, 1931
MM = Mater et Magistra – Pope John XXIII, 1961
PT = Pacem in Terris – Pope John XXIII, 1963
GS = Gaudium et Spes – Vatican Council II, 1965
PP = Populorum Progressio – Pope Paul VI, 1967
LE = Laborem Exercens – Pope John Paul II, 1981
SRS = Solicitudo Rei Socialis – Pope John Paul II, 1987
CA = Centesimus Annus – Pope John Paul II, 1991
CV = Caritas in Veritate – Pope Benedict XVI, 2009
CSDC = Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church - Pontifical Council For Justice And Peace, 2004

This list is a work in progress. If you can add further citations under the existing categories or suggest new ones, that would be great.
Click to expand...
This book is what we used in our parish group study of Catholic Social teachings. I believe it includes most, if not all, of the Encyclicals listed above and the font and format was much easier to read than what is found on the Vatican’s website (beige background- small print, etc).

amazon.com/Catholic-Social-Thought-Documentary-Heritage/dp/1570758913/ref=pd_sim_b_2
 
Swiss_Guy said:
There are a million ones for unions in Rerum Novarum and also I think Caritas in Veritate 25. There is support for universal healthcare (not socialized medicine, but universal) and social insurance. I can’t exactly remember the encyclicals, but I think JPII wrote about them in Laborum Exercens. Also having rich pay more in taxes than the poor in Populorum Progressio 47
Click to expand...
I would argue that none of these valid points spell forced equality of outcome by governmental fiat to produce an entitlement society. Certainly the right to organize in and of itself doesn’t. Neither does a social safety net for true needs. As for the rich, (except for Steve Jobs) evil in many people’s eyes apparently because they’re successful, PP, #47 is very carefully worded and centers around development which itself is rooted in and presumes individual initiative (#s15,18,30,33,70; see also Caritas in Veritate, #17,42).

The massive data I provided gives equal time to the core economic and political principles operative in catholic social teaching [CST] to achieve its goal of assistence to the poor (and all humanity) in the work of true development–principles often ignored by collectivist-leaning activists putting on the mantle of catholic social thought. CST’s default position is teach a man to fish, not give a man a fish; merit-based economies, not entitlement-based systems; individual initiative, not passive expectation; private ownership of the means of production, not collectivist systems.

It rejects situations like Greece where the country is broke, the people know it is broke, and they are still rioting for the free stuff they feel entitled to from the government.

Recently Pope Benedict XVI responded to the question of why excessive domestic debt is wrong: “Naturally, because we are living at the expense of future generations. In this respect it is plain that we are living in untruth. We live on the basis of appearances, and the huge debts are meanwhile treated as something that we are simply entitled to.” (Light of the World, Ignatius Press, 2010, p. 47)
 
Fr_of_Jazz said:
I would argue that none of these valid points spell forced equality of outcome by governmental fiat to produce an entitlement society. Certainly the right to organize in and of itself doesn’t. Neither does a social safety net for true needs. As for the rich, (except for Steve Jobs) evil in many people’s eyes apparently because they’re successful, PP, #47 is very carefully worded and centers around development which itself is rooted in and presumes individual initiative (#s15,18,30,33,70; see also Caritas in Veritate, #17,42).
Click to expand...
Neither would I. PP 47 does center around development of poor peoples so it only makes sense if the rich are giving up more. And a lot of this comes back to our secular society which is pro-welfare state.
The massive data I provided gives equal time to the core economic and political principles operative in catholic social teaching [CST] to achieve its goal of assistence to the poor (and all humanity) in the work of true development–principles often ignored by collectivist-leaning activists putting on the mantle of catholic social thought. CST’s default position is teach a man to fish, not give a man a fish; merit-based economies, not entitlement-based systems; individual initiative, not passive expectation; private ownership of the means of production, not collectivist systems.
Click to expand...
It rejects situations like Greece where the country is broke, the people know it is broke, and they are still rioting for the free stuff they feel entitled to from the government.
Click to expand...
Recently Pope Benedict XVI responded to the question of why excessive domestic debt is wrong: “Naturally, because we are living at the expense of future generations. In this respect it is plain that we are living in untruth. We live on the basis of appearances, and the huge debts are meanwhile treated as something that we are simply entitled to.” (Light of the World, Ignatius Press, 2010, p. 47)
Click to expand...
I was just trying to give you more points. 🤷
 
Swiss_Guy said:
Neither would I. PP 47 does center around development of poor peoples so it only makes sense if the rich are giving up more. And a lot of this comes back to our secular society which is pro-welfare state.
Click to expand...
Sounds like we’re on the same page here…on both points.

My caution in the light of the political climate today has been that the rich giving up more doesn’t necessarily or primarily mean having money and resources taken from them by the government in taxes to be given out as free entitlement stuff to the poor. In CST it primarily means time, money, and resources given by the wealthy (not necessarily through the government) to create opportunity in the form of job creation and education for existing jobs in the service of the poor presuming their initiative.

Given that context, the points you made are definitely in the picture.
I was just trying to give you more points. 🤷
Click to expand...
NP, I appreciate it. The main concern in my opening was that the merit-based, equality of opportunity side catholic social teaching (its default position, I would argue) is often ignored in favor of presenting it as a forced equality of outcome, entitlement-based doctrine.
 
Fr_of_Jazz said:
Sounds like we’re on the same page here…on both points.

My caution in the light of the political climate today has been that the rich giving up more doesn’t necessarily or primarily mean having money and resources taken from them by the government in taxes to be given out as free entitlement stuff to the poor. In CST it primarily means time, money, and resources given by the wealthy (not necessarily through the government) to create opportunity in the form of job creation and education for existing jobs in the service of the poor presuming their initiative.

Given that context, the points you made are definitely in the picture.

NP, I appreciate it. The main concern in my opening was that the merit-based, equality of opportunity side catholic social teaching (its default position, I would argue) is often ignored in favour of presenting it as a forced equality of outcome, entitlement-based doctrine.
Click to expand...
This is ultimately the ideal, but I think that you are ignoring one important thing: original sin. While it is better for the rich to give voluntarily, unfortunately many do not. I think that it is therefore licit for the government to tax income (which according to Church teaching is its right) to ensure that the poor are not made to suffer for the selfishness of those unwilling to use their excess wealth to benefit society. Certainly people have a right to private property, but there are responsibilities that go with those rights.
 
YoungIreland said:
This is ultimately the ideal, but I think that you are ignoring one important thing: original sin. While it is better for the rich to give voluntarily, unfortunately many do not. I think that it is therefore licit for the government to tax income (which according to Church teaching is its right) to ensure that the poor are not made to suffer for the selfishness of those unwilling to use their excess wealth to benefit society. Certainly people have a right to private property, but there are responsibilities that go with those rights.
Click to expand...
Right, which is why there are taxes for social programs. Ideally there is no market at all, but our world isn’t ideal.
 
YoungIreland said:
This is ultimately the ideal, but I think that you are ignoring one important thing: original sin. While it is better for the rich to give voluntarily, unfortunately many do not. I think that it is therefore licit for the government to tax income (which according to Church teaching is its right) to ensure that the poor are not made to suffer for the selfishness of those unwilling to use their excess wealth to benefit society. Certainly people have a right to private property, but there are responsibilities that go with those rights.
Click to expand...
True. I see no problem at all with just and legitimate taxes where the income is judiciously used and dependency relationships are avoided.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top