CC & Social Assistance State

[HagiaSophia]

David A. Bosnich
Principle of Subsidiarity

"One of the key principles of Catholic social thought is known as the principle of subsidiarity. This tenet holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be. This principle is a bulwark of limited government and personal freedom. It conflicts with the passion for centralization and bureaucracy characteristic of the Welfare State.

This is why Pope John Paul II took the “social assistance state” to task in his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus. The Pontiff wrote that the Welfare State was contradicting the principle of subsidiarity by intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility. This “leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.”

In spite of this clear warning, the United States Catholic Bishops remain staunch defenders of a statist approach to social problems. They have publicly criticized recent congressional efforts to reform the welfare system by decentralizing it and removing its perverse incentives. Their opposition to the Clinton Administration’s health care plan was based solely upon its inclusion of abortion funding. They had no fundamental objection to a takeover of the health care industry by the federal government. Part of the problem may rest with the reliance the Bishops have placed upon commentators such as Monsignor George Higgins…"

Why the troubling contradiction between Papal teaching and the policy recommendations of the U.S. Bishops?
acton.org/publicat/randl/article.php?id=200

 

[cynic]

Th same old right wing philosophies.

Who takes care of the old when there is no pention?

Who pays for primary and secondary schools if if tax payer funding for this doesn’t exist?

Isn’t welfare already quite restricted (time limits etc) in the U.S? What would have people do, turn up starving at The Churches door…what if they aren’t Catholic…would you like to beg for help at a Protestant Churcn? Thought not.

a no “statist approach to social problems” really means, lose your job and you might be relying on whether others feel charitable…and this in the 21st century.

Or is this just about employers getting rid of the minimum wage, bye bye to1st world working conditions and lowering their taxes…ahem gee I dunnno…

 

[jman507]

Let me take sort of an ACLU arguement to this. The more you ask the government to give you security the more the government will restrict your freedom. The more you say, I don’t want to take care of my parents or my neighbor and you give that over to the government, the more they will not only have their hands in your pocketbooks, that because it works like a blunt instrament, is rather ineffeciant. The more the government will take over disicions and restrict your authority. Which in the end is going to bit you back as a Catholic, becuase the government is more apt to be influenanced by the feeling of the time than the Church is.

It will also lead to more misunderstanding because as one lets the govenment do the work that you should be doing, you will end up not understanding the marginalized.

As you let the govenment grow bigger, and give it the power to give more security, the harder and harder will it be to change it. People who are feeling insecure are more apt to be less rational and want to protect their security. The less important govenment is the easier it is to change it and to have debate. But it can only become less important if we take more responsiability to be our brother’s keeper and not lend it to a third party. That is not to say the govenment and its programs are bad.

 

[cynic]

so your morally opposed to the pention because people should take care of their elderly parents on their own? and how does someone earning $200 a week do that, AND take care of their wife and kids?
Oh AND afford the cost of private schooling for the kids?

and the elderly who have no families, oops forgot about them

sheesh how hard right can you get? its vague theorizing with no solutions…cause there are none if you aren’t already on a high income…against the pention, all those elderly out there,

 

[mlchance]

John Paul II:

The Pontiff wrote that the Welfare State was contradicting the principle of subsidiarity by intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility. This “leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.”

cynic:

sheesh how fanaticlally blinkered hard right can you get?

John Paul II: Right-Wing Fanatic.

IOW: http://home.houston.rr.com/mchance3/rolleyes.gif

Perhaps you’d be better off returning to your crusade to save us all from impure jungle rhythms.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[jman507]

Oh bless you cynic. Always there to take one point and to steer it to an extreme.

Are you opposed to children taking care of their elderly parents or a neighbor caring for a sick neighbor? Are you oppsed to someone not going to a public school for a private school or homeschool education?

 

[jman507]

cynic:

so your morally opposed to the pention because people should take care of their elderly parents on their own? and how does someone earning $200 a week do that, AND take care of their wife and kids?
Oh AND afford the cost of private schooling for the kids?/QUOTE]

Cynic you need to get it right. It is a single mother taking care of her child, earning $200 a week. While the husband got a no-fault divorce, and she has to pay for her lawyer. Then the husband skips his child-support payment.

 

[cynic]

jman507:

Oh bless you cynic. Always there to take one point and to steer it to an extreme.

Are you opposed to children taking care of their elderly parents or a neighbor caring for a sick neighbor? Are you oppsed to someone not going to a public school for a private school or homeschool education?

not at all.

but it just ins’t possible for many working class - even middle class - people to afford the full cost of private education (and here you are telling people to be open to lots of kids) for several children, supporting their elderly parents, health insurance, all at once.

That’s why even the U.S had a higher tax level for the very wealthy, and corporate tax. It pays for things like schools. Things that most private individuals can’t be expected to shoulder themseves. The economy suffers a certain amount to for these things (but then how good for the econony is having a whole bunch of illiterate people)

 

[jman507]

That doesn’t mean that the government should take on the care of each and everyone of those areas. The govenment should come to the aid of families, but not completely take over all paternal resonsiblities.

Now when I wrote that I did not actually assume you’d think that, and in this instance I do not assume you should completely get rid of the government. If your going to ask the govenment to take over all personal responsability your going to end up with both an oppressive government and a government that cannot do everything that it is asked to do. If you get rid of all government your going to have a lot of people taken advatage of and not able to meet their responabilities. You have to be careful how you use government.

 

[cynic]

jman507:

If your going to ask the govenment to take over all personal responsability your going to end up with both an oppressive government and a government that cannot do everything that it is asked to do. .

In the U.S, it doesn’t and it hasn’t. Health care is essentially private. There are restrictions on welfare, time limits, obligations to look for work.
But his whole thing stinks of the ‘government bad’ obsession you get from libertarians, or well meaning but insular moralisers (who are ussually quite well off themselves). Who pays for pentions if not the government? Whos pays for schools if not the government? How is a reaonsable safety net for the genuinely needy/out of work provided if not by the government, Exactly? You havn’t answered any of this.

What irks me is that the people saying this stuff ussually want to pay their staff less than the minimum wage - and then they tell them to be responsible for themselves, pay for everything, with money they in theory would no longer have.

 

[jman507]

I didn’t say that the government should end all social programs. We should just use it relucatantly, and should not be left unchecked. One can say that we could drop all regualtions on business, thats good til it starts abusing the workers, or it takes a monopoly and abuses the consumer. One can say unions are good, well that is until they take all profit out of business and starts to lose money, then the owners lose money as well as workers lose jobs. One can say we can regulate business to the point we set prices, thats good til either the business has to go out of business cause of losing money or the consumer faces shortages. So what are we left with, well it seems the best idea is to not leave anyone area unchecked. Your going to have to balance it out where everyone gets what works for them.

The government can and does play a role. But the more you leave the responsiblity of taking care of people to the government, espically to the federal government your going to end up with problems. First off there will be a ton of money wasted in beauracracy. Second, there are a large amount of problems that lead to poverty, and with the federal government your going to end up with a one size fits all solution. If you need to infuse some cash the governments going to be ok for that, but its really going to take some other organization to really address problems. If you considar one problem with getting poverty is disallusion, then what makes you think just giving money is going to help the problem? Someone giving a little love and pointing to oppurtunities would be a big help.

When we make poverty more and more a government problem, we act as if the only thing we need to do is to give some more taxes and that’ll solve the problem. Sacrifice without love, or without seeing the other person, can very easily lead to hate.

Big government is every bit as bad as big business. The big problems occure when they get so big that they quit caring about if the consumer needs their services or they abuse their workers, but start caring about just getting bigger and bigger. If kept in check they can be used well, but the people have to keep from being too lazy and letting them go unchecked & becoming like cancer.