Does charity = more government? (re: Archbishop Flynn)

[CatholicCorno]

I love my Archbishop, but…

startribune.com/stories/1519/5381489.html

I offer this article in a most sincere inquiry. I know Archbishop Flynn’s heart is in the right place. And I know Minneapolis is a liberal place to have to shepherd.

I am open to the points he makes about health insurance (MN has a pretty good state sponsored program.) But the whole “let’s raise taxes on families to pay for day care” thing saddens me.

Do we run the risk of true charity becoming extinct? If everyone assumes the government will provide (instead of God, or instead of God through someone’s charity), then are we robbing ourselves of the opportunity to practice charity and to preach charity?

I would have loved to read a large column by Archbishop Flynn compelling Catholics, Protestants, and non-Christians, all as INDIVIDUALS, to pony up and commit serious sums of money to state and local charitable organizations. Or perhaps a column condemning the horrors of the abortion holocaust. Or the incompatibility of the gay lifestyle with God’s revelation. (Rainbow sashers get to receive Communion here.)

I trying to watch my words here, as I want to be charitable. (Please correct me if I have been disrespectful.) Should people write the Archbishop? Are there bigger battles to fight elsewhere? Your thoughts are sincerely requested.

Thanks, folks!

 

[geezerbob]

This subject was discussed at great length a few months back. I’ll try to find the thread and link it a little later in the day. My personal opinion is that forced “charity”, i.e. taxes, is not charity at all.

 

[Philip_P]

First off, let’s keep in mind that this is his opinion. As a bishop, and as a Minnesota resident involved in the affairs of his state, his opinion certainly commands a great deal of respect, but ultimately it is an opinion and could very well be wrong. Of course, the flip side holds, it could very well be right.

I am not a MN resident, so I don’t know the details of the state’s budget, economy, and social situation. However, from this article, what the archbishop seems to be arguing is that severe cuts to services have already been made, and at this point it is unfair to make further cuts to services to meet the budget gap. One way to address this would be to target other programs for cuts rather than those services that have already taken strong hits. The archbishop, however, is arguing that at this point the only way to meet the budget, and to maintain services, is to raise revenues.

So really this is a philosophical point rather than a fiscal one. Presumably everyone buys into the idea that fiscal responsibility requires addressing the budget shortfall (i.e. can’t borrow into perpetuity). In other words, what do we expect out of our government? For instance, pretty much everyone agrees that there should be a police force. If it was a question of having no police or paying taxes, most people would agree it is better to pay taxes and have a police force than to pay lower taxes but have no police. Does this apply to social services? What if the question is not taxes versus police, but rather taxes versus child care?

Further, supposing we do agree that social services should be a priority as much as police protection. Your point that we don’t want to discourage charity or encourage an entitlement mentality are well taken. Then we must ask further questions. For instance, what is the nature of the childcare programs to be funded? If it is a state-run service, fears of cost and resource inefficiency may be well founded. But what if increased funding for child care means more state grants to certified, private childcare programs, allowing them to charge less? Such public-private partnerships are generally preferable, as they avoid turning programs into simple entitlements (they provide cheap service, but not free), avoid discouraging charity (private donations are still needed to supplement state aid), and slow the growth of state bureaucracy. Of course, not living in MN, I don’t know if the proposed child care programs fit these criteria.

 

[aimee]

geezerbob:

This subject was discussed at great length a few months back. I’ll try to find the thread and link it a little later in the day. My personal opinion is that forced “charity”, i.e. taxes, is not charity at all.

Good post GB…I agree…

I care about charity and some of the other ‘programs’ but I prefer they not be government.