Is the church's message of charity contributing to socialism?

[ManOnFire]

Since people have free will, what moral responsibility do we have to someone who free willingly chose risky behaviors a second time (everyone should get a pass for the first mistake)? Is coerced charity really charity at all?

With an increasing number of dependents and rising anti-abortion sentiment, it seems we are merely delaying the inevitable bankruptcy of the nation and takeover by a totalitarian socialist who will force the churches underground to practice with fidelity. Since much of the public would rather not live by the church’s rules, should the church continue to promote charity to pay for bad free will choices which could eventually hurt the church and force it underground? Would less charity be more likely to result in better choices, more freedom for those forced to pay, and a stronger, freer nation? Would the Church in the US rather be forced underground, or vote for a Libertarian???

 

[1ke]

Since people have free will, what moral responsibility do we have to someone who free willingly chose risky behaviors a second time (everyone should get a pass for the first mistake)?

Our responsibility is to forgive 70 x 7

Is coerced charity really charity at all?

I think you will have to define “coerced charity” since I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

With an increasing number of dependents and rising anti-abortion sentiment, it seems we are merely delaying the inevitable bankruptcy of the nation and takeover by a totalitarian socialist who will force the churches underground to practice with fidelity.

I must say that I am not following the logic of the cause and effect you propose above. Please outline it more clearly. As it stands, it is nonsensical.

Since much of the public would rather not live by the church’s rules, should the church continue to promote charity to pay for bad free will choices which could eventually hurt the church and force it underground? Would less charity be more likely to result in better choices, more freedom for those forced to pay, and a stronger, freer nation? Would the Church in the US rather be forced underground, or vote for a Libertarian???

You really aren’t making any sense at all.

 

[The_Holy_War_11]

I don’t understand you my good man. Your point isn’t very clear

 

[carn]

I think you will have to define “coerced charity” since I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

He probably means part of taxes as taxes are coerced and to some extent the revenues are supposed to be used for charity.

 

[ManOnFire]

He probably means part of taxes as taxes are coerced and to some extent the revenues are supposed to be used for charity.

Yes, and I’m saying that we need to discern those who need financial aid due to no fault of their own hard luck vs. those who free willingly choose risky behavior. It’s a form of slavery to force innocent taxpayers to pay for the rises in healthcare costs due to rises in sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies that result from the free will choices of others. Where’s the motivation to change behavior if they keep getting bailed out? Everyone should be allowed at least one mistake, but for those who keep making the same choices, we need to have some other consequences, like “pay for it yourself” libertarianism, because the present system is not working, and it’s going to eventually bankrupt the nation into totalitarianism, where churches and religion are restricted. If people want to choose risky behaviors, then fine, but pay for it yourself. As Margaret Thatcher said, “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later, you run out of other people’s money.”

It’s ironic that the church’s desire to help, without withholding charity for bad free will behaviors, might be it’s downfall. Liberals complain that it’s judgmental, but they have no problem levying financial judgments against innocent people who work hard to choose wiser.

 

[1ke]

It’s ironic that the church’s desire to help, without withholding charity for bad free will behaviors, might be it’s downfall.

It is not “ironic”. It is the central message of the Gospel.

You are out of sync with Church teaching.

 

[ignatius777]

Since people have free will, what moral responsibility do we have to someone who free willingly chose risky behaviors a second time (everyone should get a pass for the first mistake)? Is coerced charity really charity at all?

With an increasing number of dependents and rising anti-abortion sentiment, it seems we are merely delaying the inevitable bankruptcy of the nation and takeover by a totalitarian socialist who will force the churches underground to practice with fidelity. Since much of the public would rather not live by the church’s rules, should the church continue to promote charity to pay for bad free will choices which could eventually hurt the church and force it underground? Would less charity be more likely to result in better choices, more freedom for those forced to pay, and a stronger, freer nation? Would the Church in the US rather be forced underground, or vote for a Libertarian???

We have a moral obligation to help people in need. It is not for us to decide if they are morally suitable to receive our help. When you begin to determine if they are worthy of help then you have entered into an entirely different realm not them. Charity is as much about who is giving as who is receiving.

 

[carn]

We have a moral obligation to help people in need. It is not for us to decide if they are morally suitable to receive our help. When you begin to determine if they are worthy of help then you have entered into an entirely different realm not them. Charity is as much about who is giving as who is receiving.

I think he is talking about help that actually hurts in the long run and leads to more bad behavior and in turn more demand for help.

For example the moment you support people unable to work due to mental illness, the number of diagnosed mental illnesses increases. To some part this can be from people involuntarily or deliberatly faking being ill to get the money. Depending upon the number of genuine ill vs fakers it could be charity that is harmful.

 

[DeMontfort2]

I think he is talking about help that actually hurts in the long run and leads to more bad behavior and in turn more demand for help.

you’re right. the social welfare state is unsustainable. i think the churches of all faiths (voluntary assistance given by private citizens of their own free will) are better suited to help the needy than the government.

someone taking your money at the point of a sword to give to the needy is not charity. charity must be given freely in order for it to actually be called charity. the government, by definition, cannot engage in charity.

 

[ManOnFire]

It is not “ironic”. It is the central message of the Gospel.

You are out of sync with Church teaching.

Church teaching assumes honesty. As difficult as it was for humans to merely survive a hundred years ago, the early church could not have imagined today’s levels of willful intentional misconduct as deserving of charity.

 

[ManOnFire]

We have a moral obligation to help people in need. It is not for us to decide if they are morally suitable to receive our help. When you begin to determine if they are worthy of help then you have entered into an entirely different realm not them. Charity is as much about who is giving as who is receiving.

Charity and need are relative. Once the able-bodied willful opportunists see you as the “sucker” who will bail them out, you might think you are being charitable, but the reality is you are being conned. Not only are you not offering charity to an able body, you are promoting more willful deception by rewarding it. Once the receivers outnumber the givers, rebellion will ensue, since their con has been profitable for so long, they will think they are entitled to see it continue, since it was so lucrative for them. You can see it coming. Just look at greece.

 

[Robertanthony]

Church teaching assumes honesty. As difficult as it was for humans to merely survive a hundred years ago, the early church could not have imagined today’s levels of willful intentional misconduct as deserving of charity.

Charity and need are relative. Once the able-bodied willful opportunists see you as the “sucker” who will bail them out, you might think you are being charitable, but the reality is you are being conned. Not only are you not offering charity to an able body, you are promoting more willful deception by rewarding it. Once the receivers outnumber the givers, rebellion will ensue, since their con has been profitable for so long, they will think they are entitled to see it continue, since it was so lucrative for them. You can see it coming. Just look at greece.

2 Thessalonians 3:10

 

[ignatius777]

Charity and need are relative. Once the able-bodied willful opportunists see you as the “sucker” who will bail them out, you might think you are being charitable, but the reality is you are being conned. Not only are you not offering charity to an able body, you are promoting more willful deception by rewarding it. Once the receivers outnumber the givers, rebellion will ensue, since their con has been profitable for so long, they will think they are entitled to see it continue, since it was so lucrative for them. You can see it coming. Just look at greece.

Being “conned” doesnt change our chrisian repsonsibility.

 

[ignatius777]

I think he is talking about help that actually hurts in the long run and leads to more bad behavior and in turn more demand for help.

For example the moment you support people unable to work due to mental illness, the number of diagnosed mental illnesses increases. To some part this can be from people involuntarily or deliberatly faking being ill to get the money. Depending upon the number of genuine ill vs fakers it could be charity that is harmful.

As I said when we decide who is morally worthy of help and who isnt then we enter an entirely different realm.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Jesus said “I come not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance,” and also, “The whole have no need of a physician.”

That would address how our attitude should be to those making “bad free will choices.” And Catholic charity, coming from loving our neighbors as ourselves, would have us feel other’s distress as if it were our own. Mercy kisses judgement, in this case, and leads us all to Heaven who look for ways to work towards it on earth.
**
Peace,
Kathryn Ann**:heaven:

 

[fakename]

As I said when we decide who is morally worthy of help and who isnt then we enter an entirely different realm.

Well we must judge wisely about the allocation of charitable funds:

Discretion in almsgiving is counseled in the Apostolic Constitutions: “Alms must not be given to the malicious, the intemperate, or the lazy; lest a premium should be set on vice” (Const. Apost., ii, 1-63; iii, 4-6).

-Catholic Encyclopedia

 

[carn]

As I said when we decide who is morally worthy of help and who isnt then we enter an entirely different realm.

Why should someone deliberately lying to get your help be worthy of help?
(Assuming the lie is not justified by life and death situation or whatever)

 

[underacloud]

I’m not entirely sure what the OP is referring to, but I’ll make a few comments regarding welfare. Welfare is societies safety net for anyone who falls on tough times. Without which increased crime is inevitable, not to mention the idignity and inhumanity of the conditions of societies poor.

While ever there is welfare, there will be welfare cheats. How do we deal with this?

Firstly, we don’t want to make welfare so difficult to obtain, in order to discourage cheating, that genuine people in need are penalised. We don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Secondly, the cost of policing welfare cheating reaches a point where it is appropriate to allow a functional level of cheating; that is, a point at which the cost of policing outweighs the benefits of it. This may be frustrating, but is pragmatic and neccessary.

I’m all in favour of welfare systems that amount to a “hand up” rather than a “hand out”. But I’m not in favour of over-policing any system to the point where people in need are excluded, even if it’s their own fault, repeatedly.

 

[carn]

Why should someone deliberately lying to get your help be worthy of help?
(Assuming the lie is not justified by life and death situation or whatever)

Writing about it without realising i had exactly that problem yesterday.

Someone ringed at my door, poorly dressed women, barly able to speak the local language, with a piece of handwirtten paper saying something about her being hungry or so.

Problem is, i knew it was a lie, because first i life in germany and the only reason to be hungry is because the authorities are not aware about your existance. considering she was from Bulgaria or so, she had no reason not to go to the authorities, because Bulgaria is EU member, so she is free to b in Germany.

Second problem, in german cities there are often organized beggar rings, where people deliberately dress poorly to get money and then give large part of that money over to the organizers, who do this simply to earn money.

Therefore my conclusion was that its just a scam and i said no and closed the door.

Did i do something immoraly?

And the society as a whole faces the same problem, with the added caveat that the politicians do not spend their own money.

@underacloud
Did you ever hear about a welfare state in which people in genuine need are penalised in any inappropiate way?

 

[underacloud]

@underacloud
Did you ever hear about a welfare state in which people in genuine need are penalised in any inappropiate way?

That’s a short question with a long and complicated answer. And I’m not sure of the point; even if there was none, my logic is not affected.

I live in Australia and I tend to think we get the welfare balance about right most of the time. There is really no need for anyone here to be living on the streets. Some people do (and I have met many of them) but it’s often due to mental illness and susbatnce abuse that they do so. But the mentally ill should not slip through the cracks, and our welfare system needs to do a better job in this regard.

I would regard the poroportion of homeless people in such a developed country as USA to be unacceptable, notwitstanding that mental illness and substance abuse are no doubt enourmous factors there too. (I’m sorry in advance if this offends any Amerians on this board). I also feel that the healthcare system in USA is lagging behind most of the developed world, but I do understand the current problems with Obamacare and contraception/abortion.

So even in countries with well developed welfare systems, the processes could be better.