How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic?

[LeafByNiggle]

CCC 2409: Even if it does not contradict the provisions of civil law, any form of unjustly taking and keeping the property of others is against the seventh commandment

This is about the individuals. If you want to see what the Catechism has to say about the rights and duties of governments, you are in the wrong section. The correct section for that would be 2234-2237.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

This is about the individuals.

you are in the wrong section

I was quoting from this section because it talks about the destination of goods and that is what the conversation was about earlier in the thread and this was the section of the Catechism that was being discussed.

The correct section for that would be 2234-2237.

You are correct that this section talks about government responsibility and just below it, it also talks about the right and duty of citizens and pretty much says what was being discussed above.

2236 The exercise of authority is meant to give outward expression to a just hierarchy of values in order to facilitate the exercise of freedom and responsibility by all. Those in authority should practice distributive justice wisely, taking account of the needs and contribution of each, with a view to harmony and peace. They should take care that the regulations and measures they adopt are not a source of temptation by setting personal interest against that of the community.

2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts: “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God.” Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.

 

[pnewton]

I keep hearing about the universal destination of goods. But what does it mean?

We can give answers here, but ultimately we are all responsible to learn and understand the Church’s social doctrine. The doctrine is not specific, and it does not deny the right to ownership.

there is truth and there is facts. If the church told priest to preach the church position on private property, you can forget about middle class and above Catholics.

Francis would have what he wanted, a poor church for poor people

To clarify, the Church needs to be poor because hoarding wealth is contrary to Her mission. Second, the Church is “for the poor” because Scripture clearly teaches the poor have a special place in the heart of God. That does not exclude ministry to others. Reaching out to the poor is but one, a major one, mission of the Church.

 

[JimG]

Does the Church teach that it is wrong for companies to provide retirement plans to employees? Or 401-K plans or stock ownership plans? Does the Church provide retirement plans for its priests and employees? Is it wrong for individuals to save for their own retirement, or to save at all? These things might be considered forms of ‘hoarding’ since they in effect forego current income, instead saving up excess for the future. Would it be more moral to spend all current income and give the excess to the poor and rely on relatives, family, or government to care for us in our old age?

 

[Rau]

Roe v. Wade, a decision of the US Supreme Court, says the exact opposite. It grounds the right to get an abortion in privacy rights.

That a Court was needed to arrive at that conclusion is why I take it to be not truly a right but a man-made edict.

They do not address the issue of privacy for the most part, simply assuming that government regulation is always permissible everywhere, so abortion is an instance of murder without any distinguishing characteristics.

How bizarre that it’s about privacy only till some point in time - birth? Month X? Prior to bump showing?

 

[pnewton]

Does the Church teach that it is wrong for companies to provide retirement plans to employees?

You have a lot of odd questions. Of course not.

These things might be considered forms of ‘hoarding’

You are the only one I know who might.

The Catholic teaching on social justice, specifically economics, is pretty much dead on what Jesus taught, and what the prophets preached. It seems pretty clear to reflect the mind of God. . This is why Jesus taught that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.

Understanding the type of questions you ask, to truly understand, must start at the beginning, with Jesus, what he taught, then how this is reflected in our interactions with all other people. Working backwards from “what about retirement” doesn’t work.

 

[phil3]

Yes, the government needs to be involved, but how is it involved? The government’s role is to create an environment so the economy will flourish and people will have access to good-paying jobs so they can afford health care, they can afford food, they can afford a higher standard of living.

But to say the government has the right to take goods from one group to give to another is not for the common good. It in fact hurts the common good. It creates a class of people that become dependant on the government removing self-responsibility from the individual.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Yes, agree. It would also cause temptation to anger from those who are being unjustly taken from.

 

[Rau]

people will have access to good-paying jobs

The reality is too many jobs are not good paying. That’s a problem for the employee, and a problem for the economy as a whole as lack of income means lack of demand.

But to say the government has the right to take goods from one group to give to another is not for the common good.

Appropriate taxes, appropriate laws may do something about income distribution that benefits individuals and the common good.

 

[phil3]

Appropriate taxes, appropriate laws may do something about income distribution that benefits individuals and the common good.

What is appropriate? is 1%, 10%, 50%, 100%? You can not define what is appropriate. Nor does anyone advocating for government intervention big government taxation.

This is the problem with taking from someone to give to someone else, it is never ever enough. Government can always demand more and more and more. its hunger is never satisfied. If it could tax 100% and get away with it, it would do so.

 

[TMC]

While this is true it is best to make sure first you have a clear understanding of that teaching and in all charity, not just go by one person’s understanding of said Catholic teaching. It is misunderstandings that cause fear and division.

Yes, I agree, which is why I have done so.

 

[TMC]

I’m not talking about individual consent. I am talking about unjust laws, again such as in socialism with the attempt to make everything equal, diminishing the rights to private property. In other words taking someone’s cell phone because their household has two and another household has one.

You keep throwing out socialism as a bug-a-boo. I am talking about Catholic social doctrine, not socialism. You realize that Catholic social doctrine long predates socialism?

 

[TMC]

The catechism needs to be shorter.

Sorry, but this is hard to respond to charitably. Why is it that even the most elementary subject in school requires many books to learn, and years of mystery to master, but people think that the most important subject of all should be able to be rendered on the back of a napkin.

The Catechism is not really very long, and not excessively complicated. I think the issue that many Catholics have with it is that they don’t like what it says.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But to say the government has the right to take goods from one group to give to another is not for the common good.

What if the first group is city residents and the second group is the owners of a baseball team looking for a place to build a stadium. Is it in the common good to give that second group a tax break that other businesses do not get?

It creates a class of people that become dependant on the government removing self-responsibility from the individual.

Are the owners of that baseball team now dependent on the tax breaks they got to locate their stadium in that city?

 

[phil3]

You are talking about big government policies that allow for taking money from someone to give to someone else. And your are saying the church requires that all catholic support these policies

 

[phil3]

Sorry, but this is hard to respond to charitably

You havent been very charitable up till now so why start?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What is appropriate? is 1%, 10%, 50%, 100%? You can not define what is appropriate.

Determining that is the job of the legitimate authority acting in the common good.

This is the problem with taking from someone to give to someone else, it is never ever enough.

Is that true in giving tax breaks to sports teams? Is it never enough?

 

[phil3]

Are the owners of that baseball team now dependent on the tax breaks they got to locate their stadium in that city?

Yes, I am 100% against those type of tax breaks. those stadium provide nothing but money to the owners.

Let those sports owner build their own stadiums and see how long they stay in business.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

That is because there is so much more to Catholic social teaching than the destination of goods. It is part of it absolutely, just not all. There is so much more you haven’t mentioned. Government must act justly. The common good isnt always about taking from one and giving to others. The common good is also about peace and harmony and the worker bring worth his wages. In other words being paid fairly for the job he does and having the incentive to work.

There is just so much more you haven’t mentioned.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Are the owners of that baseball team now dependent on the tax breaks they got to locate their stadium in that city?

Yes, I am 100% against those type of tax breaks. those stadium provide nothing but money to the owners.

Let those sports owner build their own stadiums and see how long they stay in business.

Yet they do happen. Big time. But whenever people start talking about the government redistributing wealth, they never seem to talk about that instance of wealth redistribution. But in view of the existence of such redistribution, giving benefits to the the people at the bottom end of the economic scale can be seen as just breaking even.