This is a complicated issue but I’ll say two things:This is something I constantly hear from right leaning Catholics - that the Church demands that issues like gay rights and abortion be incorporated into a Catholic’s political stance, but that issues like social justice and poverty are “private” issues that Catholics are not supposed to incorporate into their politics. The problem with that is it is simply wrong. It is exactly like those Catholics that say they privately disapprove of abortion but support it as a legal matter. The Church does not relegate social justice, including care for the poor, to the private sector.
It is not only a responsibility of government and can be handled by societies of a lower order if they can get the job done.The Church teaches that care for the poor is a public issue and the responsibility of government (as well as of individuals).
Maybe we agree, I can’t quite tell. The Church teaches that it is BOTH, not one or the other. Subsidiarity has been co-opted by the far right to waive as a magic wand exempting them from the Church’s teachings on the poor and oppressed. Nothing in subsidiarity says that government does not have a role - quite the opposite. Just as there is both a personal and public role in things like euthansia and abortion, there is BOTH a personal and a public role in care for the poor and the oppressed. You can’t just pick one or the other.The Church absolutely does teach that charity can be a matter of the private sector under the principle of subsidiarity. It’s not an either/or choice between the private or public sector. Societies of a higher order can intervene where the common good demands it. In addition let us remember Pope John Paul II’s warnings about the welfare state and how such charity is best handled at a lower, more personal level.
This is not what the Church teaches.It is not only a responsibility of government and can be handled by societies of a lower order if they can get the job done.
Maybe we agree, I can’t quite tell. The Church teaches that it is BOTH, not one or the other. Subsidiarity has been co-opted by the far right to waive as a magic wand exempting them from the Church’s teachings on the poor and oppressed. Nothing in subsidiarity says that government does not have a role - quite the opposite. Just as there is both a personal and public role in things like euthansia and abortion, there is BOTH a personal and a public role in care for the poor and the oppressed. You can’t just pick one or the other.
And here we disagree. To say subsidiarity has been ‘co-opted’ ignores that the left has abandoned the concept entirely and instantly wants statist solutions to what are local and personal problems. John Paul II in Centesimus annus warned about the social assistance or welfare state and its inherent bureaucratization of problems. It has its role but according to subsidiarity the state should withdraw as soon as possible.This is not what the Church teaches.
Couldn’t disagree more. I would rather refer to the Church’s teachings, such as Populorum Progressio.And here we disagree. To say subsidiarity has been ‘co-opted’ ignores that the left has abandoned the concept entirely and instantly wants statist solutions to what are local and personal problems. John Paul II in Centesimus annus warned about the social assistance or welfare state and its inherent bureaucratization of problems. It has its role but according to subsidiarity the state should withdraw as soon as possible.
An interesting read relating to this issue is From Mutual Aid to Welfare State by David Beito.
Which is one document in a series of documents relating to Catholic social teaching. If you wish to freeze Catholic social teaching and pit St Paul VI against St John Paul II, that’s your choice. I prefer to integrate Catholic social teaching in a cohesive whole as the Compendium does.Couldn’t disagree more. I would rather refer to the Church’s teachings, such as Populorum Progressio.
So again in all charity, my intent was that neither wealth nor poverty are reasons for abortion but i did delete my original post to you since it seems you misunderstood, though I am standing by my statement that neither poverty or wealth are reasons for abortion.I believe that you did
Yes, that is just one document, but the Church has not abandoned the principle that public institutions, including governments, have a necessary role in alleviating poverty and social inequality. The drumbeat from the American right that care for the poor is merely a matter of personal charity is directly contrary to the Church’s teaching.Which is one document in a series of documents relating to Catholic social teaching. If you wish to freeze Catholic social teaching and pit St Paul VI against St John Paul II, that’s your choice. I prefer to integrate Catholic social teaching in a cohesive whole as the Compendium does.
I recognize the difficulty of getting this particular genie back in the bottle, but the law is a teacher, and right now the law is teaching that abortion is a viable option.That is one way, but not the only way. Another way is to convince women to chose life willingly.
I’m pretty sure that no one (significant) has suggested this approach.Threatening to throw them in jail is not the only way to do that, are arguable not even the best way.
Given that the Democrat party has made acceptance of abortion a litmus test for (leadership) in the party, there is a limit to how much more progress can be made with the hearts and minds approach. If, however, Roe et al are overturned the issue would return to the states, and that would be a very different battle. Depending on who is elected this November there is a very real possibility of taking that very significant step.However if enough women are convinced to chose life willingly, it will be much easier to make it illegal and force the last remaining holdouts to comply. But when the number of holdouts is a large as it is now, some work on hearts and minds needs to happen first, or else it will be something like the alcohol prohibition era.
And nowhere did I say it was merely a matter of private charity. I said that if private charity can handle an issue the state has no role. Again, Beito is illustrative of this issue.The drumbeat from the American right that care for the poor is merely a matter of personal charity is directly contrary to the Church’s teaching.