Does the word "Social" in the name "Catholic Social Teaching" create a danger of Socialism?

[essie7777]

Against the Holy Father’s teaching essie7777 promotes a Welfare State.

This prejudice by essie7777 is continued in post #37 against the Holy Father’s clear teaching

You sound like your calling me out to a dog fight!!! Both ridiculous and unnecessary behavior, it seems you are showing your inability to answer the VALIDpoints made against your stance if your FIRST response is to impugn my character.

HOWEVER AS THE WORDS I QUOTED ARE THE WORDS OF POPE JOHN PAUL II are you accusing the Holy Father of not understanding his own words and then being prejudiced?

I simply provided the missing element of the full quotes you continuously point to … i do notice however that you have failed yet again to answer the points i made all the way back in post#33…Why are you ignoring or refusing to answer the points raised against your view? Surely it will so easy from the way you attack me, so please just feel free to do that. It’s still the same ten reference points listed back on post #33

Bl JP II’s condemnation of the Welfare State

I am not sure you are reading the encyclical correctly:

John Paul II distinguishes between a Welfare State [that] "has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person."

And the Social Assistance State which is identified as the abuse of a welfare state, "However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”."

If Pope John Paul II felt these two were the same he would not have pointed out their difference and specifically referred to them as two separate things.

CA#48: " In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State,the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."

In fact, Bl JP II closes CA #48 with a resounding condemnation of the Welfare State whose inadequacies he has earlier emphasised

There is no other way to say this than you are wrong John Paul II condemns the Social Assistance State not the welfare state, as his work demonstrates a distinction … do you not think its time you do?

CA348 ends with an affirmation that not just material response but a deeper response … only provided by those who have fraternal experience can offer.

CA #48: “By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State 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 fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.” "

**I wonder are you going to continue to personally attack me or are you finally going to offer a rebuttal to the reference points given in post#33. **

 

[carn]

No, why? Church’s social teaching = Europe without abortion and gay marriage.

In France is common that labor unions if the wage offer of the management does not look promising enough not only occupy the company’s buildings (and yes that means that the buildings do not belong to the labor union) but often take the managers as a “symbolic” hostage not allowing him to leave the building.
That is ok with Churchs social teaching?

Hint: “socialism” is a socioeconomic system currently in use in most of Europe, i.e. free enterprise with the state supporting the poor.

That is not what we currently have in Europe. Its free enterprise with the state meddling whereever and providing support to whomever whines loud enough independent upon whether there is actual injustice or poverty. The only reason it does not develop into socialism (at least in germany) is, that there is sufficient disgust for the state amssing debt and for paying taxes for people, who cannot get up from their couch. Therefore the most ridiculous whining can be polically ignored by stirring up resentments against the whiners.

That works somehow (germany’s economy is working and we have a social system) but i guess is not what from a catholic perspective is preferable, especially as it requires nearly something as hate to keep the social welfare state from expanding too much.

A “liberal” is someone like Milton Friedman who advocates that the state should not interfere with the economy at all.

Friedman never suggested that.
The only economist of some sort ever suggesting that i know of is a guy called Rothbard. Though he suggested even that disbanding the state would be beneficial.

 

[essie7777]

As a Christian, I pray for the dignity of every human being. Economic justice is one of the things that contributes greatly to people’s ability live with dignity.

I am often astounded at what people believe about Church teaching. Yes, we are against abortion, but there is so much more to Catholic teaching. The Church is not synonymous with the political right.

If you do not love the poor, if you see them as an inconvenience, I suggest you go back and re-read the Gospels. If what you get out of that is a conservative economic agenda, I suspect you aren’t paying attention.

 

[Abu]

The Reality of the Welfare State condemned

essie7777 #41
If Pope John Paul II felt these two were the same he would not have pointed out their difference and specifically referred to them as two separate things.
John Paul II condemns the Social Assistance State not the welfare state, as his work demonstrates a distinction

Incorrect. The blind prejudice continually shown here for a Welfare State will go to any lengths to try to force fit it against Bl JP II’s clear condemnation.

From Centesimus Annus #48:
“In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called ‘Welfare State’….However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the ‘Social Assistance State’.”

Any other readers who may be misled should note that “dubbed” = nicknamed. There is no distinction they are one and the same.

This is clearly understood by Bosnich below:

acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-6-number-4/principle-subsidiarity
**Religion & Liberty
Volume 6, Number 4 - July and August 1996
The Principle of Subsidiarity
by David A. Bosnich **
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.”

 

[John21652]

The free economy has been emphatically promoted by Bl JP II in CA # 42 as all can see (Post #34), not a Welfare State. Against the Holy Father’s teaching essie7777 promotes a Welfare State.

“are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the *principle of subsidiarity *must be respected:”
“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State 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. .

“…an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State.” is a crucial statement in both understanding and addressing the topic of this thread.

In Centesimus annus, Pope John Paul II refers back to an earlier encyclical called Sollicitudo rei socialis. His reference to the latter document can be found in footnote 40 of Centesimus annus. It is an important connection, because Sollicitudo rei socialis references and updates an encyclical of Pope Pul VI, titled Popularum Progressio, written in 1967. Both documents refer to the obvious social changes which occured in the 1960s and the 1980s. Both documents are to do with the requirement for economic development in countries with huge populations of underprivilidged people.

In Sollicitudo rei socialis JP II outlines the obvious tensions that existed between east and west; between liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism. This document is the classic of Papal encyclicals which deal with Catholic social teaching and it highlights the need for the continued emphasis on the need for the individual to be able to develop their talents economically and socially. He wrote that “The fact is that man was not created, so to speak, immobile and static.” Similarly, Paul VI in Populorum Progressio wrote that “Endowed with intellect and free will, each man is responsible for his self-fulfillment even as he is for his salvation”. The common message running through all these encyclicals is the dignity of man is won through him using his natural talents unimpeded by ideology and government interference.

As JP II wrote -

It should be noted that in today’s world, among other rights, the right of economic initiative is often suppressed. Yet it is a right which is important not only for the individual but also for the common good. Experience shows us that the denial of this right, or its limitation in the name of an alleged “equality” of everyone in society, diminishes, or in practice absolutely destroys the spirit of initiative, that is to say the creative subjectivity of the citizen. As a consequence, there arises, not so much a true equality as a “leveling down.” In the place of creative initiative there appears passivity, dependence and submission to the bureaucratic apparatus which, as the only “ordering” and “decision-making” body - if not also the “owner”- of the entire totality of goods and the means of production, puts everyone in a position of almost absolute dependence, which is similar to the traditional dependence of the worker-proletarian in capitalism. This provokes a sense of frustration or desperation and predisposes people to opt out of national life, impelling many to emigrate and also favoring a form of “psychological” emigration.

The danger that can arise from the “social” in 'Catholic Social Teaching is that a paternalistic attitude can prevail, ensnaring mankind within a bureacratic apparatus that causes dependency and demands submission. That is anathema to the proper development of the individual.

 

[essie7777]

ABU – in every post you have ignored repeated requests to answer VALID references from within your oft quoted #48 of Centesimus annus that do not follow your very narrow libertarian view of what the Catholic Church is supposedly advocating in respect to an economic model. Again these are listed in post #33

 

[essie7777]

“…an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State.” is a crucial statement in both understanding and addressing the topic of this thread.

John half a sentence does not fully demonstrate context … a skill both you and Abu share is some sort of “fear” of posting the full section you so often quote from …hence i put these up in their FULL AND TOTAL FORMAT in post #32 and post #33.

ALL I HAVE CONSISTENTLY ASKED FOR IS EXPLANATION AS TO THE 10 GLARING REFERENCES YOU AND ABU CONSTANTLY IGNORE AND LEAVE OUT OF YOUR QUOTES WHICH CHANGE THE EMPHASIS, CONTEXT AND MEANING … THUS DILUTING YOUR CLAIMS …FEEL FREE TO PROVIDE AN ANSWER

Ironically you are “fighting” so hard insisting on your point of view and of political economic model supposedly directed by Pope John Paul II as the model of choice you seem to have forgotten a few things:

CA#5"Now, as then, we need to repeat that there can be no genuine solution of the “social question” apart from the Gospel, and that the “new things” can find in the Gospel the context for their correct understanding and the proper moral perspective for judgment on them."

This suggests you look back to the gospels for your spiritual guidance on interpretating Catholic Teaching: Can i suggest the following:
Wage justice
Leviticus 19:13
Deuteronomy 24:14-15
Sirach 34:22
Jeremiah 22:13
James 5:4
Isaiah 58:3 (do not drive laborers)
Matthew 20:1-16 (Jesus uses wage law in parable)
Mark 6:3 (Jesus worked as a carpenter)
Mark 2:27 (Sabbath is for the benefit of the people)

Laws providing for the poor
Deuteronomy 14:28-29
Deuteronomy 26:12-13
Matthew 25:31-46 (judgment of nations)
Luke 4:16-21 (Jesus mission to the poor/outcast)
Luke 14:12-14 (reach out to the poor/vulnerable)

You ignore context, history and reality – Pope Leo XII, further defined by Pope John Paul II do however cover the “bigger picture” for you in CA#11

CA #11"If Pope Leo XIII calls upon the State to remedy the condition of the poor in accordance with justice, he does so because of his timely awareness that the State has the duty of watching over the common good and of ensuring that every sector of social life, not excluding the economic one, contributes to achieving that good, while respecting the rightful autonomy of each sector. This should not however lead us to think that Pope Leo expected the State to solve every social problem. On the contrary, he frequently insists on necessary limits to the State’s intervention and on its instrumental character, inasmuch as the individual, the family and society are prior to the State, and inasmuch as the State exists in order to protect their rights and not stifle them.

The relevance of these reflections for our own day is inescapable. It will be useful to return later to this important subject of the limits inherent in the nature of the state. For now, the points which have been emphasized (certainly not the only ones in the Encyclical) are situated in continuity with the Church’s social teaching, and in the light of a sound view of private property, work, the economic process, the reality of the State and, above all, of man himself. "

You may notice that the Church looks for a coordinated approach to social teaching that encompasses all elements of life and offers a balanced approach faithful to Catholic morals. It accepts the reality of state and the inherent role of man. They are not mutually exclusive --that seems to be your interpretation.

One final point you and Abu argue so vehemently for your “free economy” that you yourself forget that John Paul II was at least self aware and humble enough to acknowledge:

Ca#43: “The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one another.”

I wonder then why you are so insistent that you know better and can discount this so easily. Does that not suggest vanity and pride, especially when the Catholic faith brings us all together in a universal church to worship God in a humble manner following His words and His teachings? Because isn’t the Bishop of Rome infallible on moral teachings and isn’t social teaching moral teaching?

NOTE: If you disagree please just state why and explain and don’t just insult, abuse or slander me that shows weakness in your opinion. And all i have done AGAIN is ask valid questions.

 

[carn]

What about stopping this discussion for the moment until a throughful discussion in a thread “How can we address our brothers and sister in Christ in a loving and yet informative way, when they are a bunch of ****** ****** not understanding the simplest things and unable to answer the simplest questions?” is finished?

Further discussion after such a thread might be more productive.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

The charity level of this discussion appears to be deteriorating. Please self-edit for tone and content before clicking the “Submit” button. If the charity level does not improve, this thread will have to be locked. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

 

[essie7777]

What about stopping this discussion for the moment until a throughful discussion in a thread “How can we address our brothers and sister in Christ in a loving and yet informative way, when they are a bunch of ****** ****** not understanding the simplest things and unable to answer the simplest questions?” is finished?

Further discussion after such a thread might be more productive.

A very good point.

In my frustration i may come across as uncharitable, which is not my intention, at times i simply unbelievably frustrated at people who are seeming to ignore discussion points, however this is not an excuse.

If i have not answered any questions raised on my posts please point them out and i am happy to respond.

Thanks for the reminder though.

 

[Abu]

essie7777 #47
the Church……accepts the reality of state and the inherent role of man. They are not mutually exclusive – that seems to be your interpretation.

Incorrect.
Everything advanced by Abu (and John21652) has faithfully adhered to Catholic Social Teaching on the duties and limits of the State and on the need for acting on moral conscience with personal and social responsibility. (Post #36). That CST condemns the Welfare State, emphatically.

isn’t the Bishop of Rome infallible on moral teachings and isn’t social teaching moral teaching?

While Catholic Social Teaching includes moral principles, it “provides criteria for judgment; it gives guidelines for action.” [CCC #2423].

you and Abu argue so vehemently for your “free economy”

Once again, it is not “our” or anyone else’s free economy. The free economy has been emphatically affirmed by Bl JPII as one “which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector…”

Considering the Gospels (and BTW the OT doesn’t have “Gospels”), we learn that:
“We can thus affirm unambiguously that Jesus Christ ‘looks with love on upon human work’ and that the work of the merchant – the businessman or the entrepreneur – is one of the ‘different forms’ of work that is affirmed. The parable of the talents makes this clear by its reference to money, trading, risk taking and banking.”
Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Lexington Books, 2010, p 48-49].

Just as Christ’s Parable of the Talents most strikingly acknowledges Christ’s respect for the work of business, so does the Parable of the Dishonest Steward – the steward is dishonest, “but the nature of his work is not. In fact by praising his shrewdness, Christ admires his opportunism. While the steward abuses the trust his master extends to him, it must be recognised that the nature of the work that is entrusted to him is fundamentally good. The sin of the steward is his misuse of his master’s business, not the work of business itself.” [Ibid, p 47].

“Since the Church wants poverty confronted, since She wants this confrontation to be done justly and with the interest and cooperation of the workers and the poor, She has had to acknowledge, as did the socialist systems themselves, that there are certain ways that must be employed if mankind is to meet its economic problems. These ways can be known and imitated, but they must include a juridical system, profit, enterprise, knowledge, exchange, a market, voluntary organisations, a relatively independent economy, private property, and respect for work and excellence.” (Fr James V Schall, S.J., in *Does Catholicism Still Exist?, *Alba House 1994, p 184-185).

 

[essie7777]

Abu and John21652,

The forum thread is still waiting for your answers from numerous posts:

PLEASE SIMPLY DEAL WITH THE VALID QUESTIONS ASKED OF YOU

UNANSWERED NBR 1:

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/welfare-safety-net/ This entire USCCB page justifies the welfare state…

UNANSWERED TWO: I raised 10 inconsistencies within the FULL TEXT of CA#48 which you often quote that you have not responded to directly.

…It seems your conclusions are not founded on content but that they are even directly challenged by the writings in here.

UNANSWERED THREE: - you failed to explain your misplacing and misquoting to suit your position.

I’m pretty sure that quotations should be taken direct from the text and when following missed text (signified by…) that the text should be chronological.

I’m not sure you are in a position to re-order Pope John Paul II words to suit your own agenda and then quote as a continuous thought from the Papal work.

You have tacked on content from previous paragraphs on the end of #48 of Centesimus Annus. This text does not belong here.

Mis-ordering and rewriting the Pope’s words is at best unintended, at worst blatant manipulation of content. I’m sure NOONE is qualified to try and rewrite the Papal works simply to change their context and meaning and quote as if that is what was written.

UNANSWERED FOUR: A repeat as you were still ignoring the question!

Do you have no response to the points of reference i made in posts #32 and #33? You simply have ignored the content they referred to and then re-posted AGAIN WITHOUT THE CONTENT.

UNANSWERED FIVE:

You sound like your calling me out to a dog fight!!! Both ridiculous and unnecessary behavior, it seems you are showing your inability to answer the VALID points made against your stance if your FIRST response is to impugn my character.

HOWEVER AS THE WORDS I QUOTED ARE THE WORDS OF POPE JOHN PAUL II are you accusing the Holy Father of not understanding his own words and then being prejudiced?

UNANSWERED SIX - again a repeat

… i do notice however that you have failed yet again to answer the points i made all the way back in post#33…Why are you ignoring or refusing to answer the points raised against your view? Surely it will so easy from the way you attack me, so please just feel free to do that. It’s still the same ten reference points listed back on post #33

CONT ON NEXT POST AS THERE"S A LOT OF IGNORED QUESTION and COMMENTS!

 

[essie7777]

UNANSWERED SEVEN

John Paul II distinguishes between a Welfare State [that] "has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person."

And the Social Assistance State which is identified as the abuse of a welfare state, "However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”."

If Pope John Paul II felt these two were the same he would not have pointed out their difference and specifically referred to them as two separate things.

There is no other way to say this than you are wrong John Paul II condemns the Social Assistance State not the welfare state, as his work demonstrates a distinction … do you not think its time you do?

UNANSWERED EIGHT - again a repeat

**I wonder are you going to continue to personally attack me or are you finally going to offer a rebuttal to the reference points given in post#33. **

UNANSWERED NINE – repeat -yet agiain

ABU – in every post you have ignored repeated requests to answer VALID references from within your oft quoted #48 of Centesimus annus that do not follow your very narrow libertarian view of what the Catholic Church is supposedly advocating in respect to an economic model. Again these are listed in post #33

UNANSWERED TEN – repetition is getting a little boring now!

ALL I HAVE CONSISTENTLY ASKED FOR IS EXPLANATION AS TO THE 10 GLARING REFERENCES YOU AND ABU CONSTANTLY IGNORE AND LEAVE OUT OF YOUR QUOTES WHICH CHANGE THE EMPHASIS, CONTEXT AND MEANING … THUS DILUTING YOUR CLAIMS …FEEL FREE TO PROVIDE AN ANSWER

UNANSWERED ELEVEN – hint ignoring the question to evade it is is not an answer under the quote!

One final point you and Abu argue so vehemently for your “free economy” that you yourself forget that John Paul II was at least self aware and humble enough to acknowledge:

CA #43: “The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one another.”

As explained above ignoring the question Abu is simply childish.

However not answering a question directly and then as is your habit, misplacing content for a quote that changes its meaning, context and understanding is simply rude.

As you have done with the question “Because isn’t the Bishop of Rome infallible on moral teachings and isn’t social teaching moral teaching?”

Your answer evading a direct response:

While Catholic Social Teaching includes moral principles, it “provides criteria for judgment; it gives guidelines for action.” [CCC #2423].

And to add insult you misplace content again which changes the context and meaning.
The full CCC #2423 is:

CCC#2423 The Church’s social teaching proposes principles for reflection; it provides criteria for judgment; it gives guidelines for action:
Any system in which social relationships are determined entirely by economic factors is contrary to the nature of the human person and his acts.

lol - Please did you expect me to blindly accept your mid sentence quote -

interesting that the final part of that point is that the economy as the determining factor for social relationship is contrary to the nature of the human person!!! hmmmmm that seems clear doesn’t it, a free economy with wages as prescribed by you and John21652, being set my the ECONOMY are actually against Catholic teaching – thank you for providing that evidence for me!

If you have a response shall we call that –STILL TO BE ANSWERED ONE???

 

[Swiss_Guy]

The charity level of this discussion appears to be deteriorating. Please self-edit for tone and content before clicking the “Submit” button. If the charity level does not improve, this thread will have to be locked. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Everyone is a little worked up. The way I see it is essie is way too worked up about this, and Abu doesn’t seem to understand how essie could be right.

With that said, the Church does support a welfare state, and at the same time the Church doesn’t. It depends what is meant by welfare state. From what I understand, a welfare state that is social democratic (think Nordic model–Sweden) is condemned by the Church because it is way too bureaucratic. On the other hand, a welfare state that is Christian democratic (think Germany) isn’t condemned. Personally, I really like the German welfare system, because it is based on subsidiarity and is influenced by the Church.

 

[essie7777]

:Everyone is a little worked up. The way I see it is essie is way too worked up about this, and Abu doesn’t seem to understand how essie could be right.

Yes i would agree with that! I seem to be running across Abu in a lot of threads where he makes the same statements but just won’t answer the areas i have highlighted that don’t fit. I am more than happy to be convinced of his viewpoint but for ages now i have been trying to get answers, so i can make a more informed judgement for myself. gggrrrr.

I need to work on my restraint!

With that said, the Church does support a welfare state, and at the same time the Church doesn’t. It depends what is meant by welfare state. From what I understand, a welfare state that is social democratic (think Nordic model–Sweden) is condemned by the Church because it is way too bureaucratic. On the other hand, a welfare state that is Christian democratic (think Germany) isn’t condemned. Personally, I really like the German welfare system, because it is based on subsidiarity and is influenced by the Church

.
I agree, i tend to follow the line of balance. The Church speaks out against extreme constructs such as socialism & communism and advocates democracy and the role of state, but the over riding theme is this all needs to be balanced. There should be welfare provisions in line with Catholic teaching but this shouldn’t go too far and replace society’s own systems such as charities and social organisations working in this vein. As that devalues the individuals role in their societies.

I am biased, although i have lived in the US for years, I am British, and i think that system is great. There is always room for improvement and undoubtedly the UK system needs to be improved, but lets be honest its been around so long that improvements are inevitable. But as a British person i judge my country and the state by how well it treats it’s most vulnerable member. And they do a pretty good job of that, in my opinion.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Yes i would agree with that! I seem to be running across Abu in a lot of threads where he makes the same statements but just won’t answer the areas i have highlighted that don’t fit. I am more than happy to be convinced of his viewpoint but for ages now i have been trying to get answers, so i can make a more informed judgement for myself. gggrrrr.

I need to work on my restraint!

.
I agree, i tend to follow the line of balance. The Church speaks out against extreme constructs such as socialism & communism and advocates democracy and the role of state, but the over riding theme is this all needs to be balanced. There should be welfare provisions in line with Catholic teaching but this shouldn’t go too far and replace society’s own systems such as charities and social organisations working in this vein. As that devalues the individuals role in their societies.

I am biased

I’m biased towards Switzerland and Germany (if you couldn’t tell ).

 

[essie7777]

I’m biased towards Switzerland and Germany (if you couldn’t tell ).

[SIGN]Go Europe![/SIGN]

 

[FaithBuild18]

“In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State,the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person”

How in the world do you see that as an ENDORSEMENT of the welfare state? He wasn’t endorsing anything, he was simply pointing out what some countries did as an attempt to respond to needs and demands. In no way was he actually endorsing anything.

[SIGN]Go Europe![/SIGN]

I find your endorsement of any European system completely disgusting. Their sheer belief in God has been consistently dwindling according to numerous pieces of poll data. The moral state of further social affairs in that part of the world is entirely appalling. The last thing I’d ever want in this country is Europe’s gay loving, abortion loving, “tolerant,” politically correct, feminazi, sexed up culture. ESPECIALLY the sexed up culture. The day that all comes here is the day I leave. There is no fear of God, and no respect of human dignity in European socialist society. And don’t pretend that moral order and economic order are entirely separate. The only reason the Church concerns itself with economic systems is purely because of the moral implications.

If you believe America should adopt a more left economic policy with greater aid for the needy, that’s entirely fine. But how you could consider adopting a European system in order to achieve that, as I said, is downright appalling.

 

[Abu]

Swiss Guy #54
the Church does support a welfare state, and at the same time the Church doesn’t.

As the Church does not speak with a forked tongue and is clear, that cannot compute.

The Church supports the welfare of all, and the State in Catholic Social Teaching is allowed only supplementary interventions for urgent reasons re the common good, and these must be as brief as possible to avoid encroachment on economic and civil freedom (CA #48), but when this is “vastly expanded” (CA #48) to a Welfare State Bl JP II’s condemnation of the Welfare State follows.

Condemned because as Bl JPII emphasises in Centesimus Annus #48: **“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State 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.” **[My emphasis].

In fact, Bl JP II closes CA #48 with a resounding condemnation of the Welfare State whose inadequacies he has earlier emphasised “are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected.”

Bl JPII is clear: “In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.”

It doesn’t matter whether the State is called “social democratic” or “Christian democratic” but, yes what matters is that a State supports and encourages the political/economic philosophy developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics so beneficial for the whole world – that the primary role of government is to support families in solidarity, and the role of the Church in subsidiarity, for the common good, and they did emphasise that policies to attain the common good should never run against the natural order and natural human rights. [Analysed by Bernice Hamilton in *Political Thought, p 5; see Christians For Freedom, Dr Alejandro Chafuen, Ignatius, 1986, p 160].

 

[LemonAndLime]

No, why? Church’s social teaching = Europe without abortion and gay marriage.

If anyone has the problem here, it’s the Americans who interpret the words “socialism” and “liberal” different that the rest of the world. Hint: “socialism” is a socioeconomic system currently in use in most of Europe, i.e. free enterprise with the state supporting the poor. A “liberal” is someone like Milton Friedman who advocates that the state should not interfere with the economy at all.

I can use the word social without it referring to communism. Watch. I am going to a dance social at the weekend. I am a social person. Since when did the word social = communism/death/evil/bad/anti-Catholic?

Oh, hang on, I’m on CAF. Excuse me for my foolishness.