Genesis of social justice

[Tom_Qualey]

*Hi, Tafan,

These are all excellent ideas. Where I am having a problem is on the practical day-to-day activities. Let me give you an example

I live in Spring, Texas and in today’s paper there was an article involving a public hearing and request for tax credits concerning the building of a low income housing project for a mixed aged (elderly, middle-age and young people with children) population involving almost 100 unitis on 11 acres of land. At this public hearing, that I did not attend, our elected representative voiced serious opposition to the project claiming that if built we would see: 1-decrease in property values, 2- increase in crime rates, 3- increased demand on infrastructure specific to traffic in the area. If there was anyone in favor of the project (besides the developers who expect to make a profit) I did not read about it. While I can not mentally see Jesus talking about decreasing property values I can see Him helping the poor - but, not necessarily in this manner (e.g., with all of the foreclosed houses in our area, I would think the banks holding these deeds would want to do something to stop taking a loss - and, in the process, maybe help these people along. The snag is, when I read the criticism about the project - I was in total agreement. *

Well, a couple of thoughts come to mind. First of all, I never said anything about restricting our individual help to the poor to instances when we are involved on a man-to-man basis. There are lots of private charities that solve that problem for us. But make no mistake about it, we can lobby and participate in politics towards social programs that are just, as we should, but it does nothing to fulfill our moral obligation of charity towards the poor. That is an individual respobsibility. Collectivizing the responsibility through the state may make us feel better, but it does not address Jesus’s commands.

*The idea about social justice to me is first of all respecting the individual dignithy of all, and then making sure that each person has what is owed to them. We quickly move from justice to charity when we find individuals who are unable to provide for themselves. I really do run into another snag when it comes to those who are unwilling to provide for themselves, or their families. I do not have an answer here - many of these seeming abel-bodied and healthy individuals have physical problems that are not obvious yet prevent them from working - and then there are the mental illness issues that hinder many from regular gainful employment. I really do not have an answer to this. *

Secondly, I don’t think think charity towards the poor, in the form of “feeding me when I was hungry” is really related to the distribution of wealth, which is the issue this thread was originally directed towards. You can say what you want about government safety-net programs, eg foodstamps, but you cannot say they have done anything with regards to more equitable distribution of wealth.

*I think you have hit the nail on the head when it comes to my problem here. How do we practically define a,"…more equitable distribution of wealth"? Honest. How do we move from a theoritical Utopia to a day-to-day life in an urban setting? Does giving $1 or more to a begger on the street moving in the direction you have in mind? Donating larger sums of money to groups that specialize in aiding the poor? If I am working hard and taking care of my needs and the needs of my family - and then lose my pension (like many did with Enron) do I need to plan again for my retirement and eliminate thoughts of an “…equitable distribution…” because of my experience with in inequitable fraud.
See my original post on this topic. Governement does have a role to play in equitable distribution of wealth. Government has a role to play with a social safety net. But don’t confuse the two or you will be forever disappointed with the results.

*Actually, our government has done a good job of at least developing a safety net (there were not many groups that could help large numbers of people prior to FDR and the various social programs he initiated. Could they do a better job? Of course - will they do a better job? Probably not. So, more will fall on private individuals and groups to pick up what government has dropped. What I need is some focus - both for my religious convictions in this area, but also for my wallet that is needed to provide support for others and for ourselves in retirement.

God bless

Tom *

 

[portarica]

*Hi, Tafan,

These are all excellent ideas. Where I am having a problem is on the practical day-to-day activities. Let me give you an example

I live in Spring, Texas and in today’s paper there was an article involving a public hearing and request for tax credits concerning the building of a low income housing project for a mixed aged (elderly, middle-age and young people with children) population involving almost 100 unitis on 11 acres of land. At this public hearing, that I did not attend, our elected representative voiced serious opposition to the project claiming that if built we would see: 1-decrease in property values, 2- increase in crime rates, 3- increased demand on infrastructure specific to traffic in the area. If there was anyone in favor of the project (besides the developers who expect to make a profit) I did not read about it. While I can not mentally see Jesus talking about decreasing property values I can see Him helping the poor - but, not necessarily in this manner (e.g., with all of the foreclosed houses in our area, I would think the banks holding these deeds would want to do something to stop taking a loss - and, in the process, maybe help these people along. The snag is, when I read the criticism about the project - I was in total agreement. *

Reducing property values usually means more people of a lesser economic strata living in an area.

So do we keep Jesus in the guise of the least out to keep property values up?

But I do agree with a point that you seem to make. This whole thing about the balancing act between personal expectations, the regard for others, following Jesus’ teachings, keeping our families happy, our pets content , our kids safe, our retirement secure and paying taxes and being governed fairly and redistribution of wealth etc.etc. is so complicated and difficult.

Good luck, I hope you can do a better job with it all than I am doing

Peace

 

[Tigg]

As suggested I am reading Caritas in veritate. I am only to page nine of 50. There are a couple of themes to it that I want to share. The solidarity and brotherhood are essential to effective charity. ** It strikes me that brotherhood should be a two way street. Just as I feel my “brother” is in pain and part with some wealth to cure him, He should as my brother make an attempt to get well. ** If his problem is an inablility to provide for himself, then releaving his hunger is not a cure. He needs to make an attempt to become a productive member of society.

**Now we’re getting it! **

To expound on my previous post, I will share a true story of a friend who’s husband was divorcing her. He left town without providing any means of support for her or her 12 year old son. Shortly after, she was laid off from her job. She had no choice but to seek welfare and help from whomever was willing to offer it. A year later, when she got back on her feet, she was finally able to come to grips with the most devastating part of her experience which was the loss of self esteem and the sense of shame at not being able to provide for herself and her son. It was demeaning to her sense of independence and self-worth to have no choice but to accept charity. She lost her FREEDOM during that time of trial.

Now I know at the other end of the spectrum we find those who are more than willing to be cared for, but does Scripture not say, “if you will not work, you will not eat?” Each person has that obligation to contribute what they can and those who would embrace a mentality of entitlement, do I believe, lack the brotherhood of which you speak about in your post.

 

[humblelurker]

*Hi, Tafan,

These are all excellent ideas. Where I am having a problem is on the practical day-to-day activities. Let me give you an example

I live in Spring, Texas and in today’s paper there was an article involving a public hearing and request for tax credits concerning the building of a low income housing project for a mixed aged (elderly, middle-age and young people with children) population involving almost 100 unitis on 11 acres of land. At this public hearing, that I did not attend, our elected representative voiced serious opposition to the project claiming that if built we would see: 1-decrease in property values, 2- increase in crime rates, 3- increased demand on infrastructure specific to traffic in the area. If there was anyone in favor of the project (besides the developers who expect to make a profit) I did not read about it. While I can not mentally see Jesus talking about decreasing property values I can see Him helping the poor - but, not necessarily in this manner (e.g., with all of the foreclosed houses in our area, I would think the banks holding these deeds would want to do something to stop taking a loss - and, in the process, maybe help these people along. The snag is, when I read the criticism about the project - I was in total agreement. *

Tom,
I know you are not addressing me, but it is interesting you should mention this. In our community many of the churches have banned together and created a home ownership program. In this program people who need homes are selected, from the churches, to take classes to help them budget, finance, save, etc…, to teach them skills to help them help themselves in getting a house. They MUST attend the classes, and then when it is all over the churches help with part of the down payment on the house. The new homeowners must pick things up from there. I don’t know the particulars of this program, but I know it is going on. Perhaps the churches in your area could look at the problems and see if a practical solution could be made to help others. Bring charity back to the churches so to speak. Just a simple suggestion. Just FYI.

 

[Tom_Qualey]

*Hi, Humblelurker,

This sounds like a really great idea. Do you know the name of the program, or, can you give me the name of a church that is participating or a link to this program so I could find out more informaiton?

Thanks and God bless

Tom*

Tom,
I know you are not addressing me, but it is interesting you should mention this. In our community many of the churches have banned together and created a home ownership program. In this program people who need homes are selected, from the churches, to take classes to help them budget, finance, save, etc…, to teach them skills to help them help themselves in getting a house. They MUST attend the classes, and then when it is all over the churches help with part of the down payment on the house. The new homeowners must pick things up from there. I don’t know the particulars of this program, but I know it is going on. Perhaps the churches in your area could look at the problems and see if a practical solution could be made to help others. Bring charity back to the churches so to speak. Just a simple suggestion. Just FYI.

 

[humblelurker]

*Hi, Humblelurker,

This sounds like a really great idea. Do you know the name of the program, or, can you give me the name of a church that is participating or a link to this program so I could find out more informaiton?

Thanks and God bless

Tom*

Here is the link:

wyfhop.org/

I believe this is it. I hope it inspires ideas. The program was started by a very motivated Catholic. I’m sure he had to get through a lot to get it started.

God Bless.

 

[humblelurker]

Tom,
As soon as you told me your story, the home ownership program just popped in my head.
I hope it is an answer you can use.
Grace and peace to you always.
humblelurker

 

[Tom_Qualey]

*Thanks! I will look into it.

Tom*

Here is the link:

wyfhop.org/

I believe this is it. I hope it inspires ideas. The program was started by a very motivated Catholic. I’m sure he had to get through a lot to get it started.

God Bless.

 

[royal_archer]

People here are getting more than they originally had without much additional effort. Did I say bad? It is of course essential. The fact remains that the only work involved is making a sound investment decision.

The examples of golden parachutes? Obscene bonuses? They pay themselves and average Joe shareholders don’t have much say in the matter.

I thought you were against average shareholders because they were making money off their investments.

 

[royal_archer]

As suggested I am reading Caritas in veritate. I am only to page nine of 50. There are a couple of themes to it that I want to share. The solidarity and brotherhood are essential to effective charity. It strikes me that brotherhood should be a two way street. Just as I feel my “brother” is in pain and part with some wealth to cure him, He should as my brother make an attempt to get well. If his problem is an inablility to provide for himself, then releaving his hunger is not a cure. He needs to make an attempt to become a productive member of society.

Secondly Charity must be tied to Truth (which is suggested by the title). Meaning that without charity being tied to the Trancendent (God), the goodness of it wanes and man’s development is stunted. That tells me that governmental welfare will never work to keep people out of poverty. Nor does it provide the cure.

Yes, welfare only fosters perpetual dependency.

Where as we follow the theme repeated throughout the bible and started started in Genesis 3 we will see that individual effort is necesary and desired by God.

 

[royal_archer]

*Hi, Tafan,

These are all excellent ideas. Where I am having a problem is on the practical day-to-day activities. Let me give you an example

I live in Spring, Texas and in today’s paper there was an article involving a public hearing and request for tax credits concerning the building of a low income housing project for a mixed aged (elderly, middle-age and young people with children) population involving almost 100 unitis on 11 acres of land. At this public hearing, that I did not attend, our elected representative voiced serious opposition to the project claiming that if built we would see: 1-decrease in property values, 2- increase in crime rates, 3- increased demand on infrastructure specific to traffic in the area. If there was anyone in favor of the project (besides the developers who expect to make a profit) I did not read about it. While I can not mentally see Jesus talking about decreasing property values I can see Him helping the poor - but, not necessarily in this manner (e.g., with all of the foreclosed houses in our area, I would think the banks holding these deeds would want to do something to stop taking a loss - and, in the process, maybe help these people along. The snag is, when I read the criticism about the project - I was in total agreement. *

Welfare robs people of their self respect. When they loose that, then some of the internal pride motivations that would make them good neighbors also go away. If they have no problem with taking from others in terms of indirect theft through welfare, it is not much of a jump to going to direct theft. Then when you have “community organizers” comming in and telling them they are worthless and the only chance they have for a normal life is to vote for a specific party or telling them that there is some conspiracy among the rich to keep them down.

While I would like to see more affordable housing built, there are some underlying problems that have to be addressed before low cost housing will be acceptable to people in their neighborhoods.

 

[royal_archer]

**Now we’re getting it! **

To expound on my previous post, I will share a true story of a friend who’s husband was divorcing her. He left town without providing any means of support for her or her 12 year old son. Shortly after, she was laid off from her job. She had no choice but to seek welfare and help from whomever was willing to offer it. A year later, when she got back on her feet, she was finally able to come to grips with the most devastating part of her experience which was the loss of self esteem and the sense of shame at not being able to provide for herself and her son. It was demeaning to her sense of independence and self-worth to have no choice but to accept charity. She lost her FREEDOM during that time of trial.

Now I know at the other end of the spectrum we find those who are more than willing to be cared for, but does Scripture not say, “if you will not work, you will not eat?” Each person has that obligation to contribute what they can and those who would embrace a mentality of entitlement, do I believe, lack the brotherhood of which you speak about in your post.

There does need to be a safety net but it needs to be used for emergencies and not as a hamock. In cases like this people should be expected to pay back the money they recieved over time and get their respect back. Most decent people would rather get a convienient loan than a hand out.

 

[royal_archer]

Tom,
I know you are not addressing me, but it is interesting you should mention this. In our community many of the churches have banned together and created a home ownership program. In this program people who need homes are selected, from the churches, to take classes to help them budget, finance, save, etc…, to teach them skills to help them help themselves in getting a house. They MUST attend the classes, and then when it is all over the churches help with part of the down payment on the house. The new homeowners must pick things up from there. I don’t know the particulars of this program, but I know it is going on. Perhaps the churches in your area could look at the problems and see if a practical solution could be made to help others. Bring charity back to the churches so to speak. Just a simple suggestion. Just FYI.

That sounds like a much better approach.

 

[GhostOfReason]

There does need to be a safety net but it needs to be used for emergencies and not as a hamock. In cases like this people should be expected to pay back the money they recieved over time and get their respect back. Most decent people would rather get a convienient loan than a hand out.

There is no law against paying extra taxes to reimburse the government.

 

[Lypher]

Please correct her or report her.
You’re a baptized Catholic so you can easily correct her, if you will.

It is not the “job” of govt.
It’s the job of Christians to insure that the poor get a break.
That means we can influence our govts in many ways.

She might have been trying to convey this (from the Catechism):

ARTICLE 3 - **SOCIAL JUSTICE **
1928 Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority.

I. **RESPECT FOR THE HUMAN PERSON **
1929 Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him: What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt.[35]

1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.[36] If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. **It is the Church’s role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims. **

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4BX99PGSkgsJ:www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/commune.html+catholic+catechism+social+justice&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Welcome back to the Faith.

CCC 2423 Any System in which social relationships are determined entirely by economic factors is contrary to the nature of the human person and his acts.

CCC 2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modern times with “communism” or “socialism”. She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely be centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is be be commended.

CCC 2426-2430 Are all good and pertinent.

CCC 2431 The responsibility of the state. …

I could find nowhere in the teaching that distribution of wealth is spelled out, however the above 2425 alludes to the governments responsibility to regulate the economy to ensure those needs that cannot be met by the market place are taken care of… I don’t see how this could be done without some form of taxation, which is in effect redistribution of wealth…??

God Bless You, … Pray for me please…

 

[Lypher]

I would be careful about the specific of hearsay arguments. I have made very sound, catholic statements on distribution of wealth and have been interpretted the same way. Fair distribution of wealth is a perfectly Catholic concept, I would refer you to Chestertons’s “What’s Wrong with the World” or Leo XIII’s “Rerum Novarum” . Communism is not the equitable distribution of wealth by the government, it is the ownership of all wealth by the government. While I whole heartedly agree with you that we do NOT want the government to directly redistribute the wealth under most scenarios, there are exceptions. There have been very sensible land reform in European history and elsewhere that did this successfully and were inline with Catholic social justice thinking. The breakup of some big ranches in parts of the US west in favor of small farmers during the late 19th century would be another example.
But in general, it is the function of the state to administer and regulate an economic system such that wealth is not overlly concentrated, “Every man should be allowed to own three acres and a cow”. Do not fall into the trap that of thinking that “distribution of wealth” is sometype of evil concept. It is a matter of the means, not the ends. In late 19th century in parts of American and most or Europe wealth was horribly concentrated to the detriment of society. America solved this problem in sensible way, in general Europe did not (excepting some, but not all, land reform movements).

There is a reason why Belloc, in the early 20th century, said that communism and capitalism were two sides of the same coin. In one system you have the state owning and controlling everything, in the other you have an oligarchy of a few capitalists, owning and controlling everything.

The statement that social and distributive justice is necessary for a Christian life does not seem unreasonable to me at all. The part about the government redistributing it is dangerous, but that could be hearsay and/or misinterpretation.

"You prosecute the man or woman Who steals the goose from off the common, But leave the larger felon loose Who steals the common from the goose. " Chesterton at his best.

I think the other very similar coin is when the State owns a large enough chunk of the majority of industries outright and through regulations or threats dictates to the remaining wealth holders production priorites…such as Green Technologies, Pricing Structures, etc… I believe the world had a beautiful model of this system after the Warmacht Republic. National Socialism … And no… it does not have to include hatred the political model can be different, but the interactions with industry would be the same and the Middle Class still goes away and becomes nothing more then a commodity.

God Bless You… Pray for us please…

 

[royal_archer]

CCC 2423 Any System in which social relationships are determined entirely by economic factors is contrary to the nature of the human person and his acts.

CCC 2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modern times with “communism” or “socialism”. She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely be centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is be be commended.

CCC 2426-2430 Are all good and pertinent.

CCC 2431 The responsibility of the state. …

I could find nowhere in the teaching that distribution of wealth is spelled out, however the above 2425 alludes to the governments responsibility to regulate the economy to ensure those needs that cannot be met by the market place are taken care of… I don’t see how this could be done without some form of taxation, which is in effect redistribution of wealth…??

God Bless You, … Pray for me please…

regulation of the ecconomy is simply setting rules so buisness transactions are conducted in a fair manner. That has nothing to do with resource redistribution.

 

[royal_archer]

I think the other very similar coin is when the State owns a large enough chunk of the majority of industries outright and through regulations or threats dictates to the remaining wealth holders production priorites…such as Green Technologies, Pricing Structures, etc… I believe the world had a beautiful model of this system after the Warmacht Republic. National Socialism … And no… it does not have to include hatred the political model can be different, but the interactions with industry would be the same and the Middle Class still goes away and becomes nothing more then a commodity.

God Bless You… Pray for us please…

The government buys a lot of cars and simmilar vehicles. With that buying power it could invite competition to develop new hybrid technology and provide more fuel efficient vehicles. This could be accomplished within the constitution and with out infringing on the rights of individuals.

In fact The former president was doing this through the Army which was investing millions in the development of hybrid supper efficient vehicles but after all that money was invested, and just before production, Obama killed the program.

 

[cdeterma]

I guess they aren’t "least " enough to meet Jesus’ criteria or perhaps do you think they are “too” least ?

Peace

I think it is insulting to have people choose not to work, choose instead to dance and play while the rest of work for a living. Why should we be shackeled by those people when we could be helping others who are striving to do the right thing? Remember the “ant and the grasshopper” story from our childhood. Today we are often subsidizing the “grasshoppers” who have choosen to dance and play all summer instead of working. I think it is morally wrong to help those people when the money could have been better used to help those that really need it.

I made it through page 15 of “caritas in vertate”. I have a problem with one part. on page 13 towards the bottom it mentions the right to food and water with respect to the right to life. How can there be a right to food? Can you go into the woods and shout, “I’m Hungry”, and some animal will bare it’s chest for you? Obviously not. You have no right that is not automatic or fundamentally apart of you. You have a right to pursue or obtain food in a manner that doesn’t hinder the rights of another, but you cannot have a right to automatically possess it. Am I missing something?

 

[royal_archer]

I think it is insulting to have people choose not to work, choose instead to dance and play while the rest of work for a living. Why should we be shackeled by those people when we could be helping others who are striving to do the right thing? Remember the “ant and the grasshopper” story from our childhood. Today we are often subsidizing the “grasshoppers” who have choosen to dance and play all summer instead of working. I think it is morally wrong to help those people when the money could have been better used to help those that really need it.

I made it through page 15 of “caritas in vertate”. I have a problem with one part. on page 13 towards the bottom it mentions the right to food and water with respect to the right to life. How can there be a right to food? Can you go into the woods and shout, “I’m Hungry”, and some animal will bare it’s chest for you? Obviously not. You have no right that is not automatic or fundamentally apart of you. You have a right to pursue or obtain food in a manner that doesn’t hinder the rights of another, but you cannot have a right to automatically possess it. Am I missing something?

some believe a right is something that can not be taken from you, others believe it is something that has to be provided to you. Of course those who believe it is something that must be provided to you seem to overlook that some things are not infinately available. but are instead made by others. Their belief sets up a conflict of rights which is essentially a lack of order. when you consider that rights are things that can not be taken away, it eliviates the conflict of rights and is compatible with order. as such it is supported by natural law.