R
Reep
Guest
They will when they are put to work.
- Status
G
GLam8833
Guest
In response to one of your posts, JB Dugan,
Altruism is “selfless giving” for the “common good”, altho commendable, it is
profit-less! St. Paul says(1 Cor 13): “Although I bestow all my goods to the poor…
yet if I have not LOVE,I gain NOTHING”, so, what’s the difference between
altruism and true Christian Charity? It is GOD!
As the song “Love, Sweet love” says:
What the world needs now, is love sweet love,
not for just a few, but for everyone!
Oh, we don’t need another mountain,
there are mountains and rivers,
enough to cross, enough to climb,
'til the end of time!
Now substitute, “world” with Church, and “love” with Christian Charity
and you’ll have what I’M proposing!
Altruism is “selfless giving” for the “common good”, altho commendable, it is
profit-less! St. Paul says(1 Cor 13): “Although I bestow all my goods to the poor…
yet if I have not LOVE,I gain NOTHING”, so, what’s the difference between
altruism and true Christian Charity? It is GOD!
As the song “Love, Sweet love” says:
What the world needs now, is love sweet love,
not for just a few, but for everyone!
Oh, we don’t need another mountain,
there are mountains and rivers,
enough to cross, enough to climb,
'til the end of time!
Now substitute, “world” with Church, and “love” with Christian Charity
and you’ll have what I’M proposing!
J
JB_Dugan
Guest
That is a great song “paring” for this subject, GLam. I am in total agreement with you. 
I just don’t think you have the right idea of Altruism.
Altruism may appear to be “selfless giving” for the “common good” but in a deeper sense there is evil.
The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes.
The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: No… Altruism says: Yes.
I don’t think this is want God Expects.
It is far from wrong to help people provided they are unable help themselves, unable to deserve help, unable to give any value in return.
My problem is the altruistic “guilt trip”. Is the Church telling me: “It is selfish to pursue your own wishes, you must sacrifice them to the wishes of others” ? Altruism does.
Altruists are concerned only with those who suffer—not with those who provide relief from suffering, not even enough to care whether they are able to survive. When no actual suffering can be found, the altruists are compelled to invent or manufacture it.
All that being said…I get a real warm fuzzy feeling when I help someone. Not when I am told to…not when I am promised eternal salvation…not when I am told I am selfish if I don’t.
I just don’t think you have the right idea of Altruism.
Altruism may appear to be “selfless giving” for the “common good” but in a deeper sense there is evil.
The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes.
The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: No… Altruism says: Yes.
I don’t think this is want God Expects.
It is far from wrong to help people provided they are unable help themselves, unable to deserve help, unable to give any value in return.
My problem is the altruistic “guilt trip”. Is the Church telling me: “It is selfish to pursue your own wishes, you must sacrifice them to the wishes of others” ? Altruism does.
Altruists are concerned only with those who suffer—not with those who provide relief from suffering, not even enough to care whether they are able to survive. When no actual suffering can be found, the altruists are compelled to invent or manufacture it.
All that being said…I get a real warm fuzzy feeling when I help someone. Not when I am told to…not when I am promised eternal salvation…not when I am told I am selfish if I don’t.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
Who will pay them and doing what?
R
Reep
Guest
There is nothing that would prevent inmates from doing useful work at market wages (less room and board, of course) It has been done before. The money would pay for restitution, room and board. If an inmate was productive enough he might even build a nest egg payable upon release; he might buy himself a nicer room and better food, or maybe an earlier release date.
Just think. People talk about a criminal “paying his debt” to society, when actually he hasn’t paid a thing. How much better if he really did pay his debt (and pay it to those he has harmed).
T
Tony_the_mad
Guest
To answer the main question. No I am not bothered by the phrase social justice. I am a Catholic who believes in the importance of democracy; the principles of social justice is a natural consequence of that combination.
As I have stated in another post, libertarianism is just as Catholic as liberalism (or conservatism). The difference between the two is not how Catholic they are but in their trust in democracy. A Catholic who believes in democracy inevitably becomes a liberal (with respect to social justice at least.) While one who does not believe in democracy becomes inevitably a libertarian.
I am a liberal (on social justice issue) because I believe in both the teachings of the Catholic Church and in the importance of democracy. I believe that ‘We the people’ are the government and that a government ‘of the people’ and ‘by the people’ should be ‘for the people’ with ‘charity for all’.
If I am irritated by anything it is all the libertarian propaganda I have seen here. (Not for being anti-Catholic but for being anti-democratic.) It angers me to have people compare paying taxes to stealing. I give freely and happily the taxes that I owe to the government despite the fact that a good portion of that money is going toward things that I disagree with including things that I believe strongly are morally wrong like unjust wars or a justice system that overwhelmingly punishes the poor over the rich. I feel strongly that anyone who calls taxes ‘stealing’ is fundamentally supporting tyranny when the state is a democracy. You cannot steal from yourself; to suggest that the government is stealing is to believe that the government is the ‘other’ and therefore is anti-democratic.
I am irritated by false dichotomies as well. It is not conflicting to believe that both individuals and the state must contribute to the well being of the poor. Further, the state has a number of advantages. If someone comes to me asking for money, how am I to judge if they actually need the money? People steal from the state as well, but the state has a lot more resources at their disposal to deal with this issue. Plus if I was honest with myself, I would worry about how I judge who is more worthy. Do I have cultural or racial biases that I am unaware of? And if I was honest with myself, would I be able to say that I am not giving the money without expecting something in return, perhaps as simple as the smug feeling of superiority? Or perhaps I am demanding that they spend time listening to speeches from my church.
Most importantly, the state can get money to where it is needed. I would venture that the amount that people give individually is equivalent or larger than that given by the state. But people can only give to that which they see or experience. So individual donations do not go to where they are needed and how they are needed. We end up with situations like people sending thousands of teddy bears to Newtown or people mostly donating to their own community, which means that the poorer communities get little of that money since they don’t have anyone in their community rich enough to give anything significant.
Not that we should not also give individually. As I said it is a false dichotomy to say that we should only do one or the other. We should do both.
But if our government is going to spend so much of our money giving handouts to big agriculture, big banks, and defense contractors for the purpose of killing other people in other lands, then I will make damned sure that I vote for people who also believe in spending some of our money on the poor as well.
Sorry for the rant, but I believe that the strong libertarian views expressed in the replies to this question needs an equally strong ‘liberal’ view.
Not that I think that the libertarian point of view is anti-Catholic. But, that the view that the government is tyrannical is at its heart a self-fulfilling prophesy in a democratic nation.
As I have stated in another post, libertarianism is just as Catholic as liberalism (or conservatism). The difference between the two is not how Catholic they are but in their trust in democracy. A Catholic who believes in democracy inevitably becomes a liberal (with respect to social justice at least.) While one who does not believe in democracy becomes inevitably a libertarian.
I am a liberal (on social justice issue) because I believe in both the teachings of the Catholic Church and in the importance of democracy. I believe that ‘We the people’ are the government and that a government ‘of the people’ and ‘by the people’ should be ‘for the people’ with ‘charity for all’.
If I am irritated by anything it is all the libertarian propaganda I have seen here. (Not for being anti-Catholic but for being anti-democratic.) It angers me to have people compare paying taxes to stealing. I give freely and happily the taxes that I owe to the government despite the fact that a good portion of that money is going toward things that I disagree with including things that I believe strongly are morally wrong like unjust wars or a justice system that overwhelmingly punishes the poor over the rich. I feel strongly that anyone who calls taxes ‘stealing’ is fundamentally supporting tyranny when the state is a democracy. You cannot steal from yourself; to suggest that the government is stealing is to believe that the government is the ‘other’ and therefore is anti-democratic.
I am irritated by false dichotomies as well. It is not conflicting to believe that both individuals and the state must contribute to the well being of the poor. Further, the state has a number of advantages. If someone comes to me asking for money, how am I to judge if they actually need the money? People steal from the state as well, but the state has a lot more resources at their disposal to deal with this issue. Plus if I was honest with myself, I would worry about how I judge who is more worthy. Do I have cultural or racial biases that I am unaware of? And if I was honest with myself, would I be able to say that I am not giving the money without expecting something in return, perhaps as simple as the smug feeling of superiority? Or perhaps I am demanding that they spend time listening to speeches from my church.
Most importantly, the state can get money to where it is needed. I would venture that the amount that people give individually is equivalent or larger than that given by the state. But people can only give to that which they see or experience. So individual donations do not go to where they are needed and how they are needed. We end up with situations like people sending thousands of teddy bears to Newtown or people mostly donating to their own community, which means that the poorer communities get little of that money since they don’t have anyone in their community rich enough to give anything significant.
Not that we should not also give individually. As I said it is a false dichotomy to say that we should only do one or the other. We should do both.
But if our government is going to spend so much of our money giving handouts to big agriculture, big banks, and defense contractors for the purpose of killing other people in other lands, then I will make damned sure that I vote for people who also believe in spending some of our money on the poor as well.
Sorry for the rant, but I believe that the strong libertarian views expressed in the replies to this question needs an equally strong ‘liberal’ view.
Not that I think that the libertarian point of view is anti-Catholic. But, that the view that the government is tyrannical is at its heart a self-fulfilling prophesy in a democratic nation.
G
GLam8833
Guest
I would like to thank the previous few posters for their insightful comments,
The problem I see, is not that the Government welfare system is bad, but
that the Church has become LAZY. It is indifferent to the poor, esp. OF THE
FLOCK. One of the signs that Jesus gave to John the Baptist that he was
doing God’s work, was that the gospel was being preached TO THE POOR!
How can we make the poor understand the gospel when we do not show
them the slightest indication we are concerned about their financial well-being?
In Hebrew, the greeting is “Shalom”, it is usually translated “peace”, but it
means much more, indicating a wish for the other’s well-being, “wholeness”,
“completeness”. Do we wish THAT to those we preach the Gospel to, or
do we NOT CARE enough that the honor and fear of God is not getting
through in our proclamation of the Gospel?
The problem I see, is not that the Government welfare system is bad, but
that the Church has become LAZY. It is indifferent to the poor, esp. OF THE
FLOCK. One of the signs that Jesus gave to John the Baptist that he was
doing God’s work, was that the gospel was being preached TO THE POOR!
How can we make the poor understand the gospel when we do not show
them the slightest indication we are concerned about their financial well-being?
In Hebrew, the greeting is “Shalom”, it is usually translated “peace”, but it
means much more, indicating a wish for the other’s well-being, “wholeness”,
“completeness”. Do we wish THAT to those we preach the Gospel to, or
do we NOT CARE enough that the honor and fear of God is not getting
through in our proclamation of the Gospel?
R
Reep
Guest
Would you “give freely and happily” if the payment of taxes were not mandatory?
If the answer is “yes,” then why would you freely give even a penny–for causes you do not wholly agree with–when you have the free choice of giving the same money to causes that you totally agree with?
Surely your “happiness” does not arise from supporting things you hate. Perhaps it comes from me being forced to support the things you love?
P
powerofk
Guest
Actually, the tax code that we have encourages charitable giving. The primary reason why churches are always afraid of losing tax-exempt status is not because they would be taxed on their received donations - it’s because donations to them would no longer be tax-deductible for their donors. As such, their donors would be less likely to donate to them. The libertarian idea that people will give more money to charities if they don’t have to pay taxes to the government is overly optimistic. Sure, some people will increase their donations, but, the truth is, a large swath of people only give to charities so that they can take it off their tax bills. This is the real reason why non-profits are against eliminating taxes. Other people pay next to no income taxes at all due to poverty situations themselves, and, as such, would not be able to increase charitable giving.
What I would suggest, though, is for the government to require all non-profits to subsist only on donations and to not receive any money from the government whatsoever. Most small, local charities already do this, as do EWTN and Catholic radio. Let’s see if the NGO-sized charities could work without government subsidies.
R
Reep
Guest
Actually, they don’t get to take it off their tax bills. They only get to take it off their taxable income. The bottom line is that while deductability encourages donations, no taxpayer can save money by making a donation. At a 35% tax bracket it costs $100 to save $35 from the tax bill.
Now if I could get a tax credit . . wouldn’t that be sweet, and I wouldn’t have to give a nickel to those jackals and their war machine.
Amen to that!
A
Abu
Guest
This is yet another example of misinterpreting the Gospels (see Mt 5:3). This refers to the “poor in spirit” – lowly in their own estimation who might be financially rich or poor, who humbly turn to God.” A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, General Editor Dom Bernard Orchard, Thomas Nelson, 1953, p 861].
Catholics should strive to help the financially poor to help themselves out of poverty, and strive to help those privately, and through the Church, who cannot learn to help themselves.
See Fr James V Schall, S.J., in post #98.
T
Tony_the_mad
Guest
I give freely and happily because it is what Jesus has commanded, and because I don’t consider myself above the government. Patriotism is more than cheering on other people’s sacrifices. You cannot think of the government as forcing you to do something or stealing from you and still be a patriot. True patriotism is represented by people like the Tuskegee airmen who risked their lives for a government that actively held them down. I do not pretend to be a patriot to near their level. But if such people can make such sacrifices, without complaining, why should I throw a tantrum like a four year old child about paying taxes that I can afford. Why should I not take some pride in doing my small part for my country?
As far as what would happen if the government gave me the money it gave toward social justice programs. Either me or my wife would waste a good portion of it. Not that I don’t donate nor am I a particular greedy person. Even if I gave all of it away why would YOU trust me to do it wisely. Quite frankly, I would be overwhelmed by the responsibility of deciding what needs that money the most. I am neither a control-freak nor do I think that I am either a good enough judge of character to decide who will use that money most wisely or know enough about who actually needs the money the most nor how that money can most effectively help those people. As it is I give modestly, (too little I believe), to the Church, to Catholic Charities, and to the St. Vincent De Paul society. The Church spends most of its money on important things but most of it is not helping the poor. The St. Vincent De Paul helps out poor people in our neighborhood, which is good; they need the help too. (And even there, there are people gaming the system so to speak.) The trouble with local donations though is that the communities that most need it have the least local support. Catholic Charities is probably the best bet, but how do I know for certain.
In the end, though, what irks me the most, is that very few people complain about the government ‘stealing’ their money to kill innocent people in foreign lands nor any of the many other ways that government ‘wastes’ money. The only time that people really seem to care about the government ‘stealing’ money is when that money is going to people who actually need it.
T
Tony_the_mad
Guest
Why should we only give our private lives to the poor. Should we not also use OUR government to help as well. Government is not something separate from us; it IS us. Not only that it is a very effective tool. Humanity can accomplish much more together than separate. Church is a very important part of holding us together, but government is as well and can do things that the Church is not designed to do.
You can do as you wish, but I don’t limit my compassion to just the things I do as an individual. Compassion does not end when I becomes we.
A
Abu
Guest
Such a myopic view of any “government” as “very effective” contradicts the clarity and wisdom expressed so well by Bl John Paul II:
The reality from the acknowledged Saint John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, 1991:
“#48. The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or are just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand. Such supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of State intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom.”
From Post #86:
“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.”
Further in Centesimus Annus:
“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.” [My emphasis].
G
GLam8833
Guest
Thank you ALL for your replies,
The idea that once you paid the taxes, you are FREE from your responsibility
to GOD, is NOT scriptural, Jesus Himself said to pay taxes, but also pay God!
Where will the extra money come from… Magic! No, we all have our trigger areas
for unlimited spending whether it is for clothes or a vacation, etc so surrender that
to God and you WILL have enough to give to the poor!
Now Concerning the article by Schall, He may be a good Catholic thinker,
but in the article I “googled” at Catholic.com called 7 principles ot Catholic
Social Teaching, by Dr. C. Kaczor, ABU. I read under the sixth principle
called “The Principle of Subsidiaries” and I quote:
On the other hand, the government should not intervene to attempt to alleviate all problems. A welfare or “nanny” state, offering cradle-to-grave security and attempting to provide for all human needs, expands the state beyond its proper scope and violates the principle of subsidiarity. Pope John Paul II explained:
Malfunctions and defects in the social assistance state [or 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: 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. (Centesimus Annus 48)
Unquote,
It seems that I AM RIGHT about Socialistic Governments!
The idea that once you paid the taxes, you are FREE from your responsibility
to GOD, is NOT scriptural, Jesus Himself said to pay taxes, but also pay God!
Where will the extra money come from… Magic! No, we all have our trigger areas
for unlimited spending whether it is for clothes or a vacation, etc so surrender that
to God and you WILL have enough to give to the poor!
Now Concerning the article by Schall, He may be a good Catholic thinker,
but in the article I “googled” at Catholic.com called 7 principles ot Catholic
Social Teaching, by Dr. C. Kaczor, ABU. I read under the sixth principle
called “The Principle of Subsidiaries” and I quote:
On the other hand, the government should not intervene to attempt to alleviate all problems. A welfare or “nanny” state, offering cradle-to-grave security and attempting to provide for all human needs, expands the state beyond its proper scope and violates the principle of subsidiarity. Pope John Paul II explained:
Malfunctions and defects in the social assistance state [or 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: 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. (Centesimus Annus 48)
Unquote,
It seems that I AM RIGHT about Socialistic Governments!
J
JB_Dugan
Guest
Remember that the current resident of the White House has been trying to pass a budget that includes a tax on charity.The proposal is that only 28% of charitable donations can be deducted from your income tax.
Think of it this way: the White House proposal would raise the cost of giving to charity from 60 cents per dollar to 72 cents per dollar. That’s a 20 percent increase in what can be called the “charity tax.”
What on Earth good will that do?
When government taxes something more, of course, one gets less of it.
T
Tony_the_mad
Guest
It is quite probable that I am myopic. As Paul says we see dimly as through a glass. I do not pretend to be above that.
I see no way that either of us can help the other, though. Logic can only take you from point A to B it does not tell you where to start. You appear to me to be an individualists (which is a perfectly acceptable Catholic p.o.v.). I, on the other hand, believe that you cannot have a democracy unless people see the government as an extension of themselves. This is also a perfectly acceptable Catholic p.o.v.
I will not engage in a Papal quote war since there are Popes on both sides of this issue; more precisely they lean more toward one side or the other rather than being on a particular side. It should not be surprising that a Pope who grew up in a totalitarian state that actively persecuted the Church should lean more toward your point of view.
Further, I apologize for my rudeness. I have allowed my frustration with the political system of my country to affect how I treat people on this board. It seems to me that too many politicians that use similar language to yours have a different and harsher set of rules for the poor than for everybody else. They think that ‘tough love’ is the only way to help the poor while at the same time they give out money like it is candy to help the rich who are in trouble. They talk about opposing a ‘welfare state’ but seem to have no concern about making ourselves into a ‘warfare state’. I am telling you this not to accuse you of doing this. I don’t know your position. Rather, I am telling you this so that you can have some idea of where I am coming from even if you completely disagree.
A
Abu
Guest
GLam8833
Dr. C. Kaczor thus agrees with Fr Schall, S.J. as they assent to Bl John Paul II’s teaching in Centesimus Annus.
Dr. C. Kaczor thus agrees with Fr Schall, S.J. as they assent to Bl John Paul II’s teaching in Centesimus Annus.
J
JB_Dugan
Guest
I don’t know about Socialistic Governments…but I do think Pope Paul II was outlining a rather Utopian society. One that has completely transformed the nature of man.
In real life the “Community of a Higher Order” soon realizes that it is doing everything for the common good while the “community of the lower order” enjoys the common good while doing nothing. At this point the Community of the Higher Order asks itself: Why am I doing all the work? Why not join the community of the lower order and wallow in the common good. This is the nature of man. Soon there is no more Community of the Higher Order, only a community of the lower order…and that order is banging at the gates (of the Church or government as the case may be) because they are hungry.
- Status