Having trouble with social teaching

[Abu]

portarica
And the demise of the USSR was because they were spending too much on defense and not investing in their future, and now that is coming to pass here as well.

The demise in the USSR was due also to the failed Communist economic system. Of the Communist Bloc, Russia, who moved least to free markets, and whose economy continued to be based on payoffs, bribes and tribute, has been among the worst economically and culturally. ("Soviet Union,” 99 World Book Encyclopedia)

The Federal finagling and interventionist policies have caused the U.S. meltdown (Posts #37, 51).

Like so much teaching, Catholic social teaching has developed and the recognition of the worth of the free economy is confirmed by Pope John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, built on the fundamental human right to economic initiative in Sollicitudo Rei Socialis.

What is missed here is that the free enterprise system was painstakingly developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics – it is absolutely fundamental to human nature, as is the right to economic initiative that enabled the escape from dire poverty of untold millions. The light of truth cannot be hidden under a bushel. They employed logic and reasoning for the development of mankind. Chafuen incisively points out: “The Doctors offered utilitarian arguments to show that goods that are privately owned are better used than commonly owned goods. This explanation offers a budding theory of economic development: the division of goods and their ultimate possession by private individuals facilitates increased production.”

Free enterprise is not “greed driven” it is common good driven for the welfare of the greatest number and dependant on consumer satisfaction and competition, dependant on the laws of cause and effect involving God-given reason, and based on a standard social principle of Christ’s Church – subsidiarity.

There is nothing that can compare with its economic laws – it is the economic approach that has revolutionised the standard of living of millions. Individual morality determines how owners or managers or employees treat each other and the customers, which ethic may derive from a policy set by the business, and requires the morality taught by Christ’s Church.

Free enterprise doesn’t emphasise greed and self over the common good – do you know of any legitimate business that can survive without giving its customers value for money, with other similar businesses competing for the customers’’ patronage? Is the State going to do a better job of allocation of scarce resources?

Apart from some who know nothing about economics, there are those who also know nothing about those many countries steeped in graft and corruption, and often warring tribes and revolution, and which have profited little from the massive aid provided, and the great advances of great men like American Norman Borlaug who actually lived among them and showed them how to benefit from his genetically modified green revolution. Dr. Borlaug, who died September, 2009, is scarcely known in his own country. Borlaug was one of only six people to have won the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal.[3] He was also a recipient of the Padma Vibhushan, India’s second highest civilian honor.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

Again, as before, I think you need to read this a little more carefully:

In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth…Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of **subsidiarity **and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good[147], and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth.

Caritas in Veritate, 67
​

I also don’t like the verbiage “so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth” – frankly, it is a really lousy translation.

If you take a look at the Latin (which is the authoritative version), you see the expression: ut familiae Nationum notio re efficiatur (to produce a notion of a family of Nations).

If you take a look at the German (which is the version in the Holy Father’s native language), you see the expression: damit dem Konzept einer Familie der Nationen reale und konkrete Form gegeben werden kann (thereby which a concept of a real family of nations can take concrete form).

If you take a look at the Italian (which is the version in the language spoken by the majority of the Curia), you see the expression: affinché si possa dare reale concretezza al concetto di famiglia di Nazioni. (so we can give real substance to the concept of a family of nations)

So the nefarious phrase “acquire real teeth” is a really lousy translation job done by somebody who decided to throw in a little English idiom…and messed up in the process.

Having said that, though, you will note that Benedict says that this is *In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence. *It is an established fact that the peoples of the world are becoming ever more intertwined. Globalization is happening whether you or I like it or not.

You will also note that Benedict then mentions that this authority would need to be regulated by law and observe consistently the principles of **subsidiarity **and solidarity.

Not carefully the term subsidiarity.

Also note carefully the use of the phrase make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth.

The bottom line is that it does not appear that the organization envisioned by the Holy Father has any resemblance to the current United Nations Organization.

The biggest emphases in all of Caritas in Veritate (IMHO) are twofold:

1. 
   *]We, as Christians, to order our lives based upon the concept of gratuitousness – marked by “gift”
   *]Secondly, the social and economic order we try to implement should be ordered in the same fashion as the moral order which is preached.
   
   If you can actually read and meditate on the full document, those themes pop out throughout.
   
   Frankly, I cannot see how a leftist “social justice” type can not but be infuriated by this document…if they do any more than pick out buzz phrases from the document. The statement, While in the past it was possible to argue that justice had to come first and gratuitousness could follow afterwards, as a complement, today it is clear that without gratuitousness, there can be no justice in the first place (Caritas in Veritate, 38), is embedded all through the document. Think about how that phrase must utterly infuriate the leftist. It is an utter rejection of the moral validity of forced redistribution through taxes and welfare payments for the purpose of achieving “social justice.” The Holy Father constantly emphasizes the principle of subsidiarity as being a **necessary **complement to solidarity (again, a concept that has got to totally infuriate the socialists): The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa, since the former without the latter gives way to social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need (para 58). Maybe it’s that they haven’t actually read the document.

1. 
   I love your posts

 

[markbrumbaugh]

Why didn’t they just do this anyway? Why did it take this huge piece of legislation, that the Speaker of the House jokingly spoke about, “We have to pass this bill so you can find out what’s in it!” There was no need to pass this legislation in order to stop fraud. That was a LIE, and yet another excuse for a department to add to the bureaucracy. More regulation, more restriction, and more money spent to stop money being spent! Ridiculous.

The Dems are even using this in commercials to try and support Obamacare. What a crock. 2000+ pages to reduce fraud?

 

[elts1956]

Perhaps we should think and read about the earliest days of the Church, when neighbor helped neighbor. This was in small communities and seemed to work. Of course eventually, even with Christians, Greed and Power got in the way. Now it seems our Bishops think it necessary that we be forced to help our neighbor through such policies as bo care.

I somehow don’t think this form of “charitable” giving is going to gain us more jewels in our heavenly crowns.

 

[Black_Rose]

Frankly, I cannot see how a leftist “social justice” type can not but be infuriated by this document…if they do any more than pick out buzz phrases from the document. The statement, While in the past it was possible to argue that justice had to come first and gratuitousness could follow afterwards, as a complement, today it is clear that without gratuitousness, there can be no justice in the first place (Caritas in Veritate, 38), is embedded all through the document. Think about how that phrase must utterly infuriate the leftist. It is an utter rejection of the moral validity of forced redistribution through taxes and welfare payments for the purpose of achieving “social justice.” The Holy Father constantly emphasizes the principle of subsidiarity as being a **necessary **complement to solidarity (again, a concept that has got to totally infuriate the socialists): The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa, since the former without the latter gives way to social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need (para 58). Maybe it’s that they haven’t actually read the document.

I do not know what is “leftist social justice”. I want to know whether the Magisterium has explicitly (or even implicitly) condemned the European welfare states; my reading of Caritas shows it does not.

Ok… now while conservatives point out the allegedly deficiency in subsidiarity among leftists with alacrity, do conservatives not commit the oppose error: the principle of subsidiarity without solidarity which “gives way to social privatism”?

 

[portarica]

The Dems are even using this in commercials to try and support Obamacare. What a crock. 2000+ pages to reduce fraud?

That’s why the tax code , with all the loopholes( for the common man?), runs to 4 times the size of the healthcare bill.

Peace

 

[portarica]

Perhaps we should think and read about the earliest days of the Church, when neighbor helped neighbor. This was in small communities and seemed to work. Of course eventually, even with Christians, Greed and Power got in the way. Now it seems our Bishops think it necessary that we be forced to help our neighbor through such policies as bo care.

I somehow don’t think this form of “charitable” giving is going to gain us more jewels in our heavenly crowns.

We are only “forced” by persuasion to help our neighbors up until the time Jesus asks if we fed Him when He was hungry.

Peace

 

[TheRealJuliane]

That’s why the tax code , with all the loopholes( for the common man?), runs to 4 times the size of the healthcare bill.

Peace

I have news for you, those “loopholes” have been closed up now - even for corporations and those awful “rich people” that everyone seems to despise. If a citizen of the USA makes money, anywhere in the world, it’s gonna get taxed, either sooner or later, usually sooner. You can’t even hide it in a Swiss bank account any more, or offshore it. Not that I ever had the resources to do that, but the tax laws have expanded over the last 10-15 years and there are almost no loopholes for anyone. Uncle Sam has a hell of an appetite for our money!

 

[portarica]

I have news for you, those “loopholes” have been closed up now - even for corporations and those awful “rich people” that everyone seems to despise. If a citizen of the USA makes money, anywhere in the world, it’s gonna get taxed, either sooner or later, usually sooner. You can’t even hide it in a Swiss bank account any more, or offshore it. Not that I ever had the resources to do that, but the tax laws have expanded over the last 10-15 years and there are almost no loopholes for anyone. Uncle Sam has a hell of an appetite for our money!

That’s why GE made 10,000,000,000.00 in profit and paid 0 in taxes.

That’s why it is tax advantageous to close factories here and send jobs to china.

That’s why corporations made out like bandits: reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/real_tax_rates_plummet.php

Peace

 

[markbrumbaugh]

Yes, yes, yes. We read it, read it, read it.

You didn’t quote the part about how one middle class person is supposed to give part of his income to another, marginally less wealthy middle class person who really doesn’t need it, even though it raises the overall costs for both. That’s what I was talking about, and that’s fundamentally what the Obamacare law does. You didn’t quote it because it isn’t there.

I’m going to rewrite this for you, in the interest of full disclosure

You didn’t quote the part about how one middle class person is supposed vote for someone to take part of his neighbor’s honestly earned income, against his will and give it to another, marginally less wealthy middle class person who really doesn’t need it, even though it raises the overall costs for both. That’s what I was talking about, and that’s fundamentally what the Obamacare law does. You didn’t quote it because it isn’t there

 

[Alan55]

I also don’t like the verbiage “so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth” – frankly, it is a really lousy translation.

If you take a look at the Latin (which is the authoritative version), you see the expression: ut familiae Nationum notio re efficiatur (to produce a notion of a family of Nations).

If you take a look at the German (which is the version in the Holy Father’s native language), you see the expression: damit dem Konzept einer Familie der Nationen reale und konkrete Form gegeben werden kann (thereby which a concept of a real family of nations can take concrete form).

If you take a look at the Italian (which is the version in the language spoken by the majority of the Curia), you see the expression: affinché si possa dare reale concretezza al concetto di famiglia di Nazioni. (so we can give real substance to the concept of a family of nations)

So the nefarious phrase “acquire real teeth” is a really lousy translation job done by somebody who decided to throw in a little English idiom…and messed up in the process.

I’m not sure I agree with your point, but I’m pretty impressed by your ability to translate Church teaching in Latin, German, Italian, and English!

 

[Abu]

Black_Rose
I want to know whether the Magisterium has explicitly (or even implicitly) condemned the European welfare states; my reading of Caritas shows it does not.

The Magisterium has clearly indicated the objections to Welfare States.

On Pope Benedict XVI’s Caritas in Veritate Fr. Robert Sirico, president and co-founder of the Acton Institute (U.S.A.), explains…“his encyclical contains no talk of seeking a third way between markets and socialism. [Italics added]. Words like greed and capitalism make no appearance here. But if they look to this document as a means for the moral reconstruction of the world’s cultures and societies, which in turn influence economic events, they will find much to reflect upon…. The pope is pointing to a path neglected in all the talk of economic stimulus, namely a global embrace of truth-filled charity. Benedict rightly attributes the crisis itself to ‘badly managed and largely speculative financial dealing.’ But he resists the current fashion of blaming all existing world problems on the market economy. Further: ‘Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility. More, not less, trade is needed: ‘the principal form of assistance needed by developing countries is that of allowing and encouraging the gradual penetration of their products into international markets.’…
Benedict does see a role for the state here [in wealth redistribution], but much of the needed redistribution is the result of every voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange.”

True world political authority not only “would need to be regulated by law, [but also] to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity” (CIV #67). Subsidiarity “is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state” (#57).

thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/06/1388
**Fatal Attraction: Democracy and the Welfare State **by Samuel Gregg
June 18, 2010
Expansive and expensive welfare programs have brought European social democracies to the verge of catastrophe. Now the dynamics of democracy may be an impediment to economic reform.
A week, it is often said, is a long time in politics. Much, however, can change in a year. Only a short while ago some European politicians were touting the European social model’s superiority over what many continental Europeans deride as “Anglo-Saxon capitalism.” Now, however, governments across Europe are scrambling to avoid the fate of Greece. Moreover, they are doing so by contemplating—and, in some cases, implementing—the hitherto unthinkable: reducing their budget deficits by diminishing the expansive welfare states to which many Europeans have long been accustomed.

In doing so, these governments are finally acknowledging a truth initially obscured by the crisis of the euro: that for all the disarray generated by the euro’s recent tribulations, Europe’s economic woes have more systematic causes.
One cause is several decades of low economic growth. As the Czech president Václav Klaus recently observed, “average annual economic growth in the eurozone countries was 3.4 percent in the 1970s, 2.4 percent in the 1980s, 2.2 percent in the 1990s and only 1.1 percent from 2001 to 2009.” “A similar slowdown,” Klaus added, “has not occurred anywhere else in the world.”

 

[elts1956]

I actually lean to the left on religious matters (generally), although remain faithful to the Church, but I vote conservatively on fiscal matters, except for issues that truly and directly impact the poor.

We were given a copy today at Mass of the list of Calif. propositions, the supporters and opponents, the fiscal impact of voting yes/no, and a brief summary of how various statements from the Church “should” influence our voting conscience.

The voting guide said, “The Church’s guidance on these matters is an essential resource for Catholics as they determine whether their own moral judgments are consistent with the Gospel and with Catholic teaching.”

I think you’re right in your conclusion that many of the Church’s leaders’ stance on social issues concerning economics are left-leaning in that they favor the poor and marginalized, and I found their logical application regarding some proposed taxation stretching the point just a bit. On the other hand, Jesus clearly favored the poor in the Gospel, so at least the Bishops are consistent.

Regarding a change in a vote requirement to pass budget and budget-related ligislation from two-thirds to a simple majority, they quoted from Economic Justice for All, No. 123: "More specifically, it is the responsibility of all citizens, acting through their government, to assist and empower the poor, the disadvantaged, the handicapped, and the unemployed…Government may levy the taxes necessary to meet these responsibilities, and citizens have a moral obligation to pay those taxes."They did hold the conservative line, of course, on legalizing marijuana (“Decriminalized or not, cannabis remains a drug…” and quoted the Catechism, “the use of drugs inficts very grave damage on human health and life…” which is also stretching the point a bit, IMO, regarding pot. They quoted, “The [Vatican] Pontifical Council teaches that the use of cannabis is ‘incompatible with Christian morality’ because it is an intoxicant that dims reason and is potentially damaging to the integrity of one’s body and soul.” I found this ironic in light of the many, many times I’ve seen dear father or monsignor more than tipsy from alcohol and in light of the number of alcoholic priests. I’m not a pot user, but jeez…

I wonder if the good bishops of CA include taxes which wil be given to Planned Parenthood so they can continue their abortuaries? The taxes which are forcibly taken from the taxpayers who do not want to support this atrocity? You know, that Social Justice mindset of Obamacare which all the Bishops supported, but tried to verbally protest the inclusion of abortion rights? Too little, too late my friends. I would say about fifty years too late. Most Catholics have the mindset of Social Justice which, in my opinion, stems from the love in sessions of the sixties and seventies thanks to the silence of most Bishops on the teachings of the existence of a hierarchy of good and evil. I have respect only for those Bishops speaking out against abortion policies and not hiding behind their politicians.

SOCIAL JUSTICE BEGINS IN THE WOMB

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

…One has a right to the means of production and private property, but how much any one person has is certainly conditional on its effects on other members of society. If your use of property means the starvation of thousands, mass poverty and homelessness, then this is a mortal sin no different to murder. To say that people have a right to cause mass poverty, mass pollution, mass homelessness and mass joblessness, is like saying its okay to commit murder…

That is an epic use of the slippery slope. Congrats, seriously.

Maybe its a parade of horribles, but still, epic.

 

[Abu]

MindOverMatter2 (Post #2)
It seems to me that the church recognizes these great evils in the world and is stating that it needs to change.
If a minority of human civilization has a large abundance of property and the means of production to such an extent that it is a detriment to the dignity and well being of the majority or just other human beings in general, then the use of that property is immoral and ought to be illegal since it contradicts the common good and the dignity of human life. If your use of property means the starvation of thousands, mass poverty and homelessness, then this is a mortal sin no different to murder.

Where is Christ’s Church teaching this? Do you think that wealth is created by magic? What murderers are keeping others from saving, investing, working diligently and practising thrift, prudence, and temperance? Who is playing at magisterium? How is the “means of production” and validly acquired property a threat to the dignity of others and the common good?

Are you aware of the support of the Catholic Church for free enterprise, and why?

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Where is Christ’s Church teaching this? Do you think that wealth is created by magic? What murderers are keeping others from saving, investing, working diligently and practising thrift, prudence, and temperance? Who is playing at magisterium? How is the “means of production” and validly acquired property a threat to the dignity of others and the common good?

Are you aware of the support of the Catholic Church for free enterprise, and why?

If this were 1850, he’d have a point.

 

[Abu]

We come back to the morality of people needed in everything in life, working with the great development of the economic laws by the Catholic Late Scholastics. Without the great contribution of the Industrial Revolution, sparked by Catholic economic and social thought and action in the West, we would still be eking out an existence as before that development. Catholic teaching, especially social teaching outlines the morality of this interaction.

The reader might notice that the life expectancy of people in the West has taken tremendous leaps since the 1800s. Why? Because in the West the free market system has discovered ways to create wealth. Much of that created wealth goes into the paychecks of households and is spent on medical care. But where did the medical care come from? It comes from the fact that some people and the “evil” corporations take their discretionary income and save it. This money is then used to develop diagnostic medical equipment, medicines, and surgical equipment, and support medical schools which train practitioners who are able to use these great things for the health of every patient. This is apart from the huge increases in living standards from the poverty before free enterprise was developed.
[See Dr William Luckey: http://www.drwilliamluckey.com/index.cfm/Economics-Errors].

“Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Caritas et Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36).