Is it Christian to impress shame and humiliation on the poor people by ceasing state help (another socialism vs capitalism discussion)?

[arvo]

There have been several discussions about socialism vs capitalism already in CAF. Such discussions mention, that socialism (state help, welfare programs) detaches humans from one another, that social programs discourage seeing ones neighbors and poor people as distinct persons, that social programs are against subsidiarity, that social programs discourages the sense of gratitude etc. etc.

But state and municipality social programs have one great distinction - their prevent poor people to feel shame and humiliation.

It is quite a distinction - if someone is born as a child to the poor parents then it is very hard to go to Church or private charity institutions and feel shame and humiliation for oneself and for ones parents (even if such shame is unjustified for someone who is born in poor family or who is failed in his or her life despite being a good man and doing according to the rational rules) and then receive some help that can be or can not be sufficient. There is this talk about seeing the person in poor people.

But it may be the case that poor people just don’t like to go out and being seen at all, because they are poor, because thay have no sufficient dress and means.

Why Christians who are so focused on subsidiarity and person-to-person contacts are so keen to require poor people to go out, be ashamed, humiliated and to demonstrate their need for help and to demonstrated their gratitude. Why is so?

Why the charity cannot happen behind the closed door, without the direct person-to-person contact, without involving shame and humiliation?

State social programs, some kind of socialism and redistribution is exactly such anonymous system that prevent the shame to happen, or at least - it mitigates. Maybe state social programs are more Christian because their prevent the burden of shame and humiliation, because they function according to the Evangelical principle ''one hand don’t know what other hand has done so good"?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m baffled by your setting this up as “socialism vs. capitalism”, when the USA, a capitalist society, has tons of social welfare programs.
You do not need socialism in order to implement necessary state programs for the poor.

 

[Funvod]

Aren’t most economies a type of altered capitalism anyway? I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on this site advocating for straight socialism or straight capitalism.
I think?
Maybe I should duck out of this thread now while I can.

 

[adamhovey1988]

You do not need socialism in order to implement necessary state programs for the poor.

Thank you! I believe I made this very point earlier!

 

[arvo]

I explained the reason of my discussion already:

Such discussions mention, that socialism (state help, welfare programs) detaches humans from one another, that social programs discourage seeing ones neighbors and poor people as distinct persons, that social programs are against subsidiarity, that social programs discourages the sense of gratitude etc. etc.

It is true, that almost all systems are mixture of social and capitalism elements, but there are so much people who advocated the reduction of state help and so much advocated for private-based charity help with the above mentioned arguments.

And I just wanted to ask how their arguments stand in front of possibility that the consequences of their arguments can cause shame and humiliation? And that their arguments can go against “one hand should not know what other do” principle?

 

[adamhovey1988]

That’s like China; I keep hearing people refer to it as being a communist country by capitalists, and a capitalist country by communists. It’s not really either (although, it is still largely guided by communist principles). The correct phrase is “social market economy”.

 

[Funvod]

I have a friend who lives in China and I don’t think I’ve heard her refer to the government as communist, although we don’t talk politics that much haha.
I’m not much of an expert on these things, so if I’m wrong about how I see economies someone correct me lol.

 

[ZemD]

I don’t think the state social welfare programs do anything else to hide “shame and humiliation”… you will have an EBT card to buy food, a Medicaid card for insurance, you may possibly live in subsidized housing or have part of your rent paid with a voucher from the state.

In order to get these benefits most of the time you have to go to the county social services office in person.

I don’t know what previous discussion you’re referring to in your post. I personally am not in favor of the vast, far and wide, provide everything, social safety net programs because they can be inefficient and wasteful. The county workers make a decent salary, have exceptional benefits, and exceptional retirement. All that takes away from tax dollars going to help those who need it. If non-profits and churches want to cloth the naked and feed the hungry, why not let them provide some of those services instead?

 

[Bill_B_NY]

And I just wanted to ask how their arguments stand in front of possibility that the consequences of their arguments can cause shame and humiliation? And that their arguments can go against “one hand should not know what other do” principle?

There are many other ways to deal with this problem of shame and humiliation than by changing the entire economic structure of the country or through a false egalitarianism. Jesus said “the poor you will always have with you” - and “blessed are the poor in spirit”.
We have a responsibility to relieve the needs of the poor. But no Catholic should demean the poor or make them feel ashamed. That would be a sin. No Catholic poor person should feel humiliated. God is the judge. We do not act to please human beings, but to please Him.
We have plenty of examples of poor - who are the greatest in heaven now.
I think of St. Bernadette who lived in an abandoned jail. So poor she had to go out to find sticks to burn in the fire each day.

 

[Convert3]

It’s never right to impress shame or humiliation on someone. Regarding help from the state or charity, the intent is to get the family or individual to a point where they can support themselves. Job skills training should be part of any program.

 

[Annie]

Such discussions mention, that socialism (state help, welfare programs) detaches humans from one another, that social programs discourage seeing ones neighbors and poor people as distinct persons, that social programs are against subsidiarity, that social programs discourages the sense of gratitude etc. etc.

Socialism is not social welfare programs or state aid. Socialism is a comprehensive situation in which the government owns or strictly controls the means of production.

That being said, providing welfare through the government does, I believe, cause people to forget about the poor, to feel that they have given enough through their taxes, and in the US, current federal involvement does at least at times violate subsidiarity.

When there are government programs for many aspects of being poor, it is easy for the non-food to think that the problems poor people face are all taken care of, and there is no need for personal charity to those around us.

And not so many people then actually go out and meet poor people or get personally involved with them.

At the same time, the poor feel “entitled” (in the US we call them entitlement programs) or at least that the aid is personalized to the point that gratitude is in no way encouraged.

Which does not mean that I advocate dismantling the programs we have, just that I think these problems exist.

 

[VonDerTann]

No one should deliberately make anyone else feel ashamed.

That said, there’s also no right NOT to be ashamed.

It used to be that food stamps were sent in the form of coupons clearly identified as being what they are. Many were embarrassed to use them.
More recently, politicians decided that we had to be more sensitive so the government started sending pre-loaded debit cards indistinguishable from credit cards.

I know a guy whose family was on food stamps when he was young. He’s a multimillionaire now. He credits the shame of food stamps for inspiring him to become successful.

And as Ronald Reagan said, the best social program is a job.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Regarding help from the state or charity, the intent is to get the family or individual to a point where they can support themselves.

Not necessarily. Many recipients who are elderly or chronically ill/ disabled are simply not going to be able to support themselves.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

First of all, you make the assumption that certain feelings are a result of poverty, and that it’s the Christian’s duty to make the state make these feelings “go away”.

No.

We are commanded to feedd the hungry, clothe the naked, etc because their bodies need food and clothes. Not because they might “feel bad”.

Second, we aren’t commanded to provide for the poor in any particular way. The details are left to us.
One country can support them through tax moneys.
Another country can support them through the efforts of private citizens.
Most countries do a bit of both.

 

[Peeps]

There is such a thing as “toxic charity,” and yes, this kind of charity shames people and we should strive not to be involved with these charities.

But there are many private charities that give dignity and pride to the poor and help them to identify talents and skills that they have that might help them to rise out of poverty.

An example of this is Habitat for Humanity, where people build houses for those who are living in sub-standard or no housing. The recipients of the new house help build the house–by help, I mean that they are involved with every step of the process, and actually pound nails, lay shingles and floors, hang drywall, paint, landscape, etc. alongside of the volunteers. Pres. Carter has been involved with that charity for decades–it’s a wonderful organization.

 

[Peeps]

I think that one of the problems in the United States today is that many poor (not all) people are poor because of bad choices, and some of these choices are shameful, and the people who make them SHOULD be ashamed, and hopefully, that shame will drive them to seek help to reverse the consequences of their bad decision(s) and get back on their feet again.

E.g., when a person makes a decision to use drugs (including alcohol) and becomes addicted. Or gamble. Or work for the Mob (yes, sometimes you don’t have a choice).

And some people spend too much money, way beyond their means, and it catches up with them.

Yes, I think these people should feel some shame for their bad decisions. I know when I make a bad decision, I feel pretty bad about it.

I want to be careful here–around half of the poor in the U.S. are children, and these children are not responsible for their state of poverty and should not feel shame.

Also, there are people who were born into poverty and truly have little or no resources or help to better their lives, and have been poor for several generations, with no memory of a time when their family had enough money, food, and housing to meet their needs. They have nothing to be ashamed of.

The type of charity that would help poor people are charities that help them to recognize the resources that they have and use these resources to climb out of poverty. For those who are poor because of addictions, we need to get them into rehab so that they can overcome their addictions—this is very hard, and often people who are not addicted have no comprehension or sympathy for those who are struggling with an addiction.

But while people are getting help to help themselves out of poverty, they need to eat! And they need shelther, appropriate clothing (weather, etc.), school, transportation, medical care, etc. We can’t just say, “There’s a school, go there and earn a diploma so you can get a job!” A kid won’t go to school and do well if they are hungry, or if they only have one outfit, or if they have no transportation. We simply have to provide these necessities, with love!–until people have acquired enough resources to begin to be independent of charity.

 

[TheLittleLady]

This is not a socialism v capitalism question.

It is an astute observation and I have been on various sides in my job.

I could write a book, but, it boils down to the fact that charitable orgs have a limited budget. We simply cannot write a check to everyone who asks. There needs to be some discussion.

That discussion can be done in a coarse manner, making the person who is asking be humiliated and less than. It can also be done in a respectful and kind manner.

When I explain that we need to do some work, and part of that is working with other agencies so we can maybe find a better more permanent fix, when I am upfront about my monthly budget (sir, if we pay your 1300 dollar electric bill that will exhaust our budget for this month and half of next month, so, I need to find some other groups to work together here), this discussion is far more respectful.

Don’t get me started on how some people speak online and in real life about these things, stating that poor people just don’t try hard enough.

 

[TheLittleLady]

non-profits and churches want to cloth the naked and feed the hungry, why not let them provide some of those services instead?

We do. Our budgets are limited to the amount that people drop in the poor box. Your local church is unlikely to be able to subsidize rent, more likely to help with a hundred bucks toward a water bill.

 

[Convert3]

Not necessarily. Many recipients who are elderly or chronically ill/ disabled are simply not going to be able to support themselves.

Of course there will always be people who will always need help because of their circumstances. My comment wasn’t directed at them and I’d always support help form them.

 

[ZemD]

Of course.

I meant that if churches were given the amount of revenue states bring in with taxes, they would use more of it to actually provided needed goods and services, and have less administrative waste.