Is the redistribution of wealth and resources just to alleviate poverty?

[Robert_Sock]

That’s exaggeration pure and simple.

Although I am a peacenik, I am proud that the good old USA has the the most pants-kicking military on the planet. It takes a lot of effort, and a lot of taxes, to make that happen.

I just think equally that we need a leadership that doesn’t use it so much.

Still, powerful militaries are not the universal guarantor of “rights.” Nations attacking and subsuming weaker nations doesn’t really happen that often. And tyrants can emerge from the ranks of an armed force as easily as from anyplace else.

ICXC NIKA.

Nobody is a greater threat to one’s government than its own people, America included.

LOVE!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I am finding the premise of this thread to be dangerous.

ASSUMING that the redistribution of wealth and resources could be JUSTIFIED…then it could only be done by a government or international agency.

Now suppose we passed an amendment to our Constitution that empowered our government to redistribute wealth and resources to “alleviate poverty”.

Do you see the monster…

Empowering a secular government to identify who is poor or what organizations are deserving could be catastrophic. I see a massive bloated bureaucratic “Department of Charity” being created. I envision the expansion of government abortion clinics (to help the poor) or government sterilization clinics (to help the poor)…on and on.

Can you imagine the fraud waste and abuse?

If it became a world wide issue, the United Nations would, of course, take over and demand tribute from all industrial nations to alleviate what they decide “poverty” is. The UN does not have a great success rate for its humanitarian work. More tyrants get fat than the people in need.

The only way this would work would be through a totally objective and impartial organization. The Roman Catholic Church comes to mind.

 

[Portrait]

Dearly Beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Fortunately here in Britain we have the Welfare State, which was designed as a safety net for those who, through circumstance, unemployment or sickness (mental or physical), lack the necessary competence to provide for themselves. Prior to the creation of the Welfare State multitudes were reliant upon charitable relief from the Anglican parish, which was simply unable to meet all of the demands made upon it from the poor. Sadly, the present government are implementing some jolly punitive and inequitable welfare ‘reforms’ which are causing untold misery to the sick and jobless, depriving them of the vital support they need to survive. Certainly welfare dependency should never be seen as a lifestyle choice, but the state should make provision for those who have, for one reason or another, fallen upon hard times through no deliberate fault of their own.

However, dear friends, even here there has been a hardening of attitudes towards the nation’s sick and unemployed, mostly stirred up by the ultra right-wing press and some very unpleasant commentators. Thus your sick and jobless are branded ‘skivers’ and are accused of being feckless freeloaders who are a considerable burden on ‘hard working families’, language itself which is both discriminatory and unkind in the extreme. The vast majority of the sick and jobless are deeply ashamed of having to be reliant upon Social Security benefits and are decidedly not work shy. How very sad that wealth, personal comfort and security can make some people strangely insensitive to the needs of others and even oblivious to their divers distresses, but this is what is currently taking place. As I understand it, the very same thing his happening Stateside as well and its seems that the prosperous West is becoming increasingly intolerant of those who are losers in the struggle to survive.

Many people, dear friends, appear deeply affronted and enraged that the Welfare State must be funded via taxation. This is jolly selfish and demonstrates a want of basic humanity, if I may say. There is a growing feeling that looking after the country’s sick nd jobless is exclusively the preserve of the charities and no business of the government. However, the charities, as vital as they are, can never be a substitute for the infrastructure of the country. The charities simply do not have the financial wherewithal to support all the weekly needs of all the nation’s sick and unemployed. Moreover, it would be imprudent to leave the sick and jobless to the charities to meet their vital needs,such as ‘housing benefit’ which must be paid on a regular basis if one is not to face homelessness.

The stock argument against taxation to fund the Welfare State is that the wealthy especially will be driven out of the country to avoid what they consider as punitive taxation. These are your so called tax exiles who no longer feel that the country of their birth is rewarding them sufficiently for all their hard grafting. This attitude is utterly deplorable. How can men who have financially prospered so much be so terribly mean when it comes to the equitable distribution of wealth to their poorer fellow-citizens? They should not begrudge a percentage of their taxes being re-directed to those who have fallen on hard times or who are neither able nor capable of earning their own living. It is all very well saying that this should be provided by the charities, but the charities themselves are now starved of money and are finding it exceedingly difficult to keep afloat.

The urgent need of the hour, dear friends, is for the government to educate the masses to adopt a compassionate approach to the sick and unemployed and not grumble about some of their taxes being used to alleviate their plight. We are our ‘brother’s keeper’ and we do have an obligation towards those who cannot paddle their canoe for very genuine reasons. Man in his fallen estate cannot be relied upon to always give to charitable causes and this is why state taxation is imperative if people are not to suffer want and homelessness. State taxation ensures that the chronically poor always have a safety net, which provides the costs for food, shelter and clothing on a regular basis.

As a British citizen I am tremendously proud of our Welfare State and it is a myth to suggest that it perpetuates the dependency of the poor. That may be true in a very small number of cases but, contrary to ignorant popular belief, there is no ‘burgeoning benefits culture’ where abuse is rampant. Rather, there are individuals who exploit the Social Security system, but there always have been and always will be such shameful abuse.

Let those that name the name of Christ not begrudge their taxes being redistributed to the poor and needy by central government. No society, dear friends, will attain lasting peace if its government neglects the poor and the sick in mind and body.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

In Christos

 

[Robert_Sock]

Dearly Beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Fortunately here in Britain we have the Welfare State, which was designed as a safety net for those who, through circumstance, unemployment or sickness (mental or physical), lack the necessary competence to provide for themselves. Prior to the creation of the Welfare State multitudes were reliant upon charitable relief from the Anglican parish, which was simply unable to meet all of the demands made upon it from the poor. Sadly, the present government are implementing some jolly punitive and inequitable welfare ‘reforms’ which are causing untold misery to the sick and jobless, depriving them of the vital support they need to survive. Certainly welfare dependency should never be seen as a lifestyle choice, but the state should make provision for those who have, for one reason or another, fallen upon hard times through no deliberate fault of their own.

However, dear friends, even here there has been a hardening of attitudes towards the nation’s sick and unemployed, mostly stirred up by the ultra right-wing press and some very unpleasant commentators. Thus your sick and jobless are branded ‘skivers’ and are accused of being feckless freeloaders who are a considerable burden on ‘hard working families’, language itself which is both discriminatory and unkind in the extreme. The vast majority of the sick and jobless are deeply ashamed of having to be reliant upon Social Security benefits and are decidedly not work shy. How very sad that wealth, personal comfort and security can make some people strangely insensitive to the needs of others and even oblivious to their divers distresses, but this is what is currently taking place. As I understand it, the very same thing his happening Stateside as well and its seems that the prosperous West is becoming increasingly intolerant of those who are losers in the struggle to survive.

Many people, dear friends, appear deeply affronted and enraged that the Welfare State must be funded via taxation. This is jolly selfish and demonstrates a want of basic humanity, if I may say. There is a growing feeling that looking after the country’s sick nd jobless is exclusively the preserve of the charities and no business of the government. However, the charities, as vital as they are, can never be a substitute for the infrastructure of the country. The charities simply do not have the financial wherewithal to support all the weekly needs of all the nation’s sick and unemployed. Moreover, it would be imprudent to leave the sick and jobless to the charities to meet their vital needs,such as ‘housing benefit’ which must be paid on a regular basis if one is not to face homelessness.

The stock argument against taxation to fund the Welfare State is that the wealthy especially will be driven out of the country to avoid what they consider as punitive taxation. These are your so called tax exiles who no longer feel that the country of their birth is rewarding them sufficiently for all their hard grafting. This attitude is utterly deplorable. How can men who have financially prospered so much be so terribly mean when it comes to the equitable distribution of wealth to their poorer fellow-citizens? They should not begrudge a percentage of their taxes being re-directed to those who have fallen on hard times or who are neither able nor capable of earning their own living. It is all very well saying that this should be provided by the charities, but the charities themselves are now starved of money and are finding it exceedingly difficult to keep afloat.

The urgent need of the hour, dear friends, is for the government to educate the masses to adopt a compassionate approach to the sick and unemployed and not grumble about some of their taxes being used to alleviate their plight. We are our ‘brother’s keeper’ and we do have an obligation towards those who cannot paddle their canoe for very genuine reasons. Man in his fallen estate cannot be relied upon to always give to charitable causes and this is why state taxation is imperative if people are not to suffer want and homelessness. State taxation ensures that the chronically poor always have a safety net, which provides the costs for food, shelter and clothing on a regular basis.

As a British citizen I am tremendously proud of our Welfare State and it is a myth to suggest that it perpetuates the dependency of the poor. That may be true in a very small number of cases but, contrary to ignorant popular belief, there is no ‘burgeoning benefits culture’ where abuse is rampant. Rather, there are individuals who exploit the Social Security system, but there always have been and always will be such shameful abuse.

Let those that name the name of Christ not begrudge their taxes being redistributed to the poor and needy by central government. No society, dear friends, will attain lasting peace if its government neglects the poor and the sick in mind and body.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

In Christos

God bless you!

LOVE!

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Zoltan Cobalt;The Catechism is talking about individual Catholics not government.

Good Evening Zoltan: Governments, and the ways in which they operate are a reflection of the values of a civilization and its ability to reason collectively. The catechisms, religious codes and beliefs of the people within a given culture help to form its outlook on such things as morality and values, which in turn can be seen as artifacts in the social structures we put in place, and these include government.

If a man refused to help a starving child, I would gladly hold him down while you picked his pockets. Then we could both take the kid to McDonald’s for a decent meal.

I think this might put us on the same level as the man you are shaking down.

What you don’t seem to grasp is that our government** is not authorized, empowered or established to provide charity.**

If we had a proper understanding of common good, there might not be a need for charity. However, it is provided for in the Constitution. I think the part you are looking for can be found in the preamble, wherein it says "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare.

The general welfare of the people has been construed to include social programs through the democratic process which includes elections of the legislative and executive branches of the government, where the majority of the population has seen fit to vote for candidates who share this interpretation of a decent society. It follows, that we do in fact have some social programs (however limited they may be in this country).

Our government is authorized to tax in order to provide services necessary to promote the common good. That mean rich and poor alike. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor does not benefit the rich…so that is unfair and not authorized by law. (theft)

A good many of the poor pay taxes too, and in regard to what they make, they pay dearly.

When the government uses our taxes to support a military that provides security for ALL

…that is what a government is for. It is authorized.

I would like to point out that the military is but one aspect of governmental oversight, and security can mean a good deal more than protection against aggression.

Building and maintaining roads & bridges…benefits ALL

.

Local governments provide police and fire protection…for ALL

When the government provides services or money. only to certain, individuals, groups, corporations or industries…that does not benefit ALL…and thus becomes theft.

The whole is made up of individuals, groups, corporations and industry.

True, James Madison’s opinion is not legally binding. Since he was one of the men who actually wrote the Constitution it is very scholarly to consider his writings to gain the true spirit of the document.

So was Jefferson. His opinion was that it should be totally rewritten every 20 years, otherwise it is simply imposed on the next generation. The answer to this was the ability to pass amendments.

The rich do pay normal taxes…lots of taxes.

Most of what the rich pay is in the form of capital gains, which has long been taxed at 13%, which is quite a bit less than what the poor are taxed. 13% is the rate I pay on my investments. Most wealthy people are smart enough to ensure that most of their income is through investment, even if they make several million in salary.

Sure we can close loopholes. All we have to do is re-write the U.S. Tax Code. I’m all for that.

I am open to that too.

Thanks,
Gary

 

[HappyCatholic01]

Before you were arguing about receiving what you deserve. Do not such non-competitive individuals deserve a modest amount of prosperity? It’s ultimately in God’s hands, and He uses certain individuals to actions that promote such prosperity.

LOVE!

The notion that moral people deserve earthly prosperity is something you came up with. Our reward is eternal life in Heaven, not prosperity on earth. You are trying to make a point using an assumption few others agree is correct.

 

[Robert_Sock]

The notion that moral people deserve earthly prosperity is something you came up with. Our reward is eternal life in Heaven, not prosperity on earth. You are trying to make a point using an assumption few others agree is correct.

I’m not sure I know what your point is. All I’m trying to suggest is that people of good moral character deserve a modest amount of prosperity, in contrast to living in poverty. Are you suggesting that we both give up what little we have and live in total poverty?

LOVE!

 

[HappyCatholic01]

I’m not sure I know what your point is. All I’m trying to suggest is that people of good moral character deserve a modest amount of prosperity, in contrast to living in poverty. Are you suggesting that we both give up what little we have and live in total poverty?

LOVE!

I agree all people deserve their most basic needs met. Their moral character has nothing to do with the equation. I am not sure why you tied the two. Prisoners on death row receive medical care, a bed, and sustenance. Even the dignity of a last meal of choice is afforded.

Someone’s moral character determines their place in the life to come, not this one. God never indicated otherwise. Tying someone’s character to deserving earthy prosperity is a nice notion, wholly supposed by you in this thread.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I agree all people deserve their most basic needs met. Their moral character has nothing to do with the equation. I am not sure why you tied the two. Prisoners on death row receive medical care, a bed, and sustenance. Even the dignity of a last meal of choice is afforded.

Someone’s moral character determines their place in the life to come, not this one. God never indicated otherwise. Tying someone’s character to deserving earthy prosperity is a nice notion, wholly supposed by you in this thread.

If in a position where you could ‘rescue’ a homeless person of good moral character or a homeless person with very poor morals and values, who would you choose? Remember that God judges with equity: To he who has much, more will be given, and he is has little will lose what little he has.

LOVE!

 

[HappyCatholic01]

If in a position where you could ‘rescue’ a homeless person of good moral character or a homeless person with very poor morals and values, who would you choose? Remember that God judges with equity: To he who has much, more will be given, and he is has little will lose what little he has.

LOVE!

Anecdotally what someone is more likely to do has nothing to with what someone deserves from the Lord. Cite anything in scripture or Catholic teaching that supports these earthy rewards. Jesus even said His reward was in Heaven.

If you want to envision and ideal world that doesn’t exist, why not envision one where there are no homeless, and all men are of good moral character?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Good Evening Zoltan: Governments, and the ways in which they operate are a reflection of the values of a civilization and its ability to reason collectively. The catechisms, religious codes and beliefs of the people within a given culture help to form its outlook on such things as morality and values, which in turn can be seen as artifacts in the social structures we put in place, and these include government.

Hi Gary:

That is a bit philosophical…but I don’t disagree.

Bear in mind however, that our government was established on a system of checks and balances and laws. The Constitution LIMITS the government and is very explicit is what powers are granted to it. Morals and values that are reflected in our government seem to be limited to freedom and liberty.

Bottom line…there are some things our government can do and there are somethings it cannot do.

I think this might put us on the same level as the man you are shaking down.

Only if he was a thief. There is no law against being a selfish ^$&*^#. Then again he might not be ably to afford charity at this time.

If we had a proper understanding of common good, there might not be a need for charity. However, it is provided for in the Constitution. I think the part you are looking for can be found in the preamble, wherein it says "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare.

I was referring to “General Welfare” but not in the Preamble.

The Preamble is an introductory. A statement of the principles at work in the full text. It does not confer any rights or powers not granted specifically in the Constitution.

I was referring to Article 1, Section 8.

The general welfare of the people has been construed to include social programs through the democratic process which includes elections of the legislative and executive branches of the government, where the majority of the population has seen fit to vote for candidates who share this interpretation of a decent society. It follows, that we do in fact have some social programs (however limited they may be in this country).

Article 1, Section 8.
“The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the **common defense and general welfare of the United States” **

Notice is says “the United States”. Not “the People.”

This in no way means the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.”

Politicians who share the “interpretation” of their constituents…pledge to support and defend the Constitution. Not the whim of those who elected them. That is how a Republic works. There are mechanisms in place to pass laws that meet Constitutional requirements or even amend the Constitution if necessary.

A good many of the poor pay taxes too, and in regard to what they make, they pay dearly.

True.

But the poor collect more benefits (Local, State and Federal) than others.

I would like to point out that the military is but one aspect of governmental oversight, and security can mean a good deal more than protection against aggression.

Oversite???

After reading Article 1, Section 8. I would say it is a pretty SPECIFIC requirement.

The whole is made up of individuals, groups, corporations and industry.

Again true,

But certain individuals, groups corporations and industries receive benefits from the government that are not provided to ALL on an equal basis. Think subsidies, AFDC, tax breaks, Earned Income Tax Credit.

So was Jefferson. His opinion was that it should be totally rewritten every 20 years, otherwise it is simply imposed on the next generation. The answer to this was the ability to pass amendments.

True again

The Constitution had been amended 27 times.

Zoltan

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Zoltan Cobalt;Hi Gary:

Article 1, Section 8.
“The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the **common defense and general welfare of the United States” **

Notice is says “the United States”. Not “the People.”

Good Evening Zoltan: It’s just my opinion, but I maintain that the United States is simply an abstract. The only real thing about it is the people in whose minds It exists in the first place, so any provision that doesn’t consider the welfare of the people as its primary purpose would (in my opinion at least) be pointless.

This in no way means the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.”

Of course we know that this has all been vetted by the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the government, and we are in fact being taxed for such things. And I would argue that education, roads, social and economic programs are among the greatest things tax money has ever been used for.

Politicians who share the “interpretation” of their constituents…pledge to support and defend the Constitution. Not the whim of those who elected them. That is how a Republic works. There are mechanisms in place to pass laws that meet Constitutional requirements or even amend the Constitution if necessary.

The Constitution is there to serve us, and if our whims, aspirations, ideas, hopes and plans aren’t served by the Constitution, there is no point in having it. It is not holy, sacred, or singularly necessary in and of itself.

But the poor collect more benefits (Local, State and Federal) than others.

The largest single portion of entitlement money from the budget actually goes to retirees, through Social Security, government pensions and Medicare. The poor do cost money and the poor are always problematic. They are attended by the problems that made them poor in the first place, and their poorness begets more problems still. There has never been, nor ever will be the noble poor of the Jean Valjean variety of people’s imaginations.

But certain individuals, groups corporations and industries receive benefits from the government that are not provided to ALL on an equal basis. Think subsidies, AFDC, tax breaks, Earned Income Tax Credit.

I think it has always been the case that the least among us usually rise to the top. Therefore, things will hardly ever be fair. The clever will always prevail. But prevailing in such a system as this is a questionable endeavor. I rose from abject poverty as a child to the top 2% income bracket in the country in my lifetime. What I have learned from all of this is simple: you don’t even want to play in this game. It’s an intelligence test, and if we play it all our lives and still don’t figure out what a waste of time it is, then my opinion is that we fail the test.

Thanks,
Gary

 

[catholictiger]

veen a few days since this has been discussed but I’ll go ahead and try to get this going again.

I’ve read through this thread but not in depth and something that I haven’t seen discussed which is a very important to this discussion. That is the universal destination of goods. We must remember that God has given us everything and that things are God’s not ours. While the Church does talk about private ownership of goods, that we have a right to own things for ourselves and they are not some socialist idea where everyone owns everything in common. We must remember that God gave us the goods to be used for the benefit of everyone not just ourselves or a select few. The redistribution of wealth is called for by this principle. There are those who do not have the means necessary for what is rightly due to them. There are people in every country who don’t have a place to sleep, food to eat every day, don’t have enough resources to provide for the medical demands of living, etc. The Church calls us to take care of those people, not to neglect their needs. It really doesn’t matter if it is private individuals or the government who provides these needs it must be done. I think sometimes people let politics affect their view of what the Pope says or the Church says. Many liberals read things of liberation theology or an over emphasis on welfare into what the Pope ways, while conservatives read to much into private charity and try to discredit any call for government work in redistribution. The Church calls for both entities to redistribute wealth. This is a difficult term for many American Catholics because the republicans use that phrase in such a negative term when talking about democrats, but because of the universal destination of goods, the redistribution of wealth either by the state or by private individuals is both good and called for by the Church.

Keep in mind both St Thomas Aquinas and some Church documents have said that in extreme circumstances someone may meet their own personal needs through the riches of others. What they both say is that someone may take from the riches of others to provide for themselves. I’m not sure how explain that this isn’t theft, but the explanation they use is that because of the universal destination of goods in these extreme circumstances the taking of riches of others for meeting your own personal needs isn’t theft.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

veen a few days since this has been discussed but I’ll go ahead and try to get this going again.

I’ve read through this thread but not in depth and something that I haven’t seen discussed which is a very important to this discussion. That is the universal destination of goods. We must remember that God has given us everything and that things are God’s not ours. While the Church does talk about private ownership of goods, that we have a right to own things for ourselves and they are not some socialist idea where everyone owns everything in common. We must remember that God gave us the goods to be used for the benefit of everyone not just ourselves or a select few. The redistribution of wealth is called for by this principle. There are those who do not have the means necessary for what is rightly due to them. There are people in every country who don’t have a place to sleep, food to eat every day, don’t have enough resources to provide for the medical demands of living, etc. The Church calls us to take care of those people, not to neglect their needs. It really doesn’t matter if it is private individuals or the government who provides these needs it must be done. I think sometimes people let politics affect their view of what the Pope says or the Church says. Many liberals read things of liberation theology or an over emphasis on welfare into what the Pope ways, while conservatives read to much into private charity and try to discredit any call for government work in redistribution. The Church calls for both entities to redistribute wealth. This is a difficult term for many American Catholics because the republicans use that phrase in such a negative term when talking about democrats, but because of the universal destination of goods, the redistribution of wealth either by the state or by private individuals is both good and called for by the Church.

Keep in mind both St Thomas Aquinas and some Church documents have said that in extreme circumstances someone may meet their own personal needs through the riches of others. What they both say is that someone may take from the riches of others to provide for themselves. I’m not sure how explain that this isn’t theft, but the explanation they use is that because of the universal destination of goods in these extreme circumstances the taking of riches of others for meeting your own personal needs isn’t theft.

Very good points, Catholictiger.

I would argue that governments are not established to be charitable organizations and therefore, do a poor job of truly helping the poor. Government welfare programs are ripe with fraud, waste and abuse. International aid depends on the receiving government to efficiently distribute that aid. All to often the aid stops at the government offices.

In order to redistribute wealth a government must collect wealth by force. The Church redistributes wealth collected through the voluntary benevolence of charitable people.

Since a government is not obligated to provide for the poor and the Church is…it is not wise for the Church to pass her obligation to a government that can change policies at every election.

I think the burden of the poor falls on our shoulders and our Church. (We just heard our Bishop’s Annual Appeal at Mass this morning) This is what WE are obligated to do. let us take care of the poor properly and let the government govern.

 

[Matthew_Light]

Good Evening Zoltan Cobalt:

I’m offering the idea that the first and primary problem of our civilization and our conditioning is the lack of a true and in-depth understanding of the fact that we are in fact all one family. This is not simply a metaphorical thing, and if this were properly understood, there would be no need to put anyone, regardless of their relation, above another. The sick and the poor, the holy and the unholy, the perpetrator and the victim, the person who flipped us off in traffic - these are all our family. As long as we simply act in kind with one another, we are each the least among us, or so I believe. The vine and the branch are one thing, not separate things, and we are all very much a part of one another.

Thank you,
Gary

This is so absolutely correct Gary. I am delighted to read your words here on Catholic Forums, and what Sochi has written on this as well.

I very much love the way Abdu’l-Baha puts this same truth here:

"O ye lovers of this wronged one! Cleanse ye your eyes, so that ye behold no man as different from yourselves. See ye no strangers; rather see all men as friends, for love and unity come hard when ye fix your gaze on otherness. And in this new and wondrous age, the Holy Writings say that we must be at one with every people; that we must see neither harshness nor injustice, neither malevolence, nor hostility, nor hate, but rather turn our eyes toward the heaven of ancient glory. For each of the creatures is a sign of God, and it was by the grace of the Lord and His power that each did step into the world; therefore they are not strangers, but in the family; not aliens, but friends, and to be treated as such.

Wherefore must the loved ones of God associate in affectionate fellowship with stranger and friend alike, showing forth to all the utmost loving-kindness, disregarding the degree of their capacity, never asking whether they deserve to be loved. In every instance let the friends be considerate and infinitely kind. Let them never be defeated by the malice of the people, by their aggression and their hate, no matter how intense. If others hurl their darts against you, offer them milk and honey in return; if they poison your lives, sweeten their souls; if they injure you, teach them how to be comforted; if they inflict a wound upon you, be a balm to their sores; if they sting you, hold to their lips a refreshing cup." - Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha

 

[catholictiger]

Very good points, Catholictiger.

I would argue that governments are not established to be charitable organizations and therefore, do a poor job of truly helping the poor. Government welfare programs are ripe with fraud, waste and abuse. International aid depends on the receiving government to efficiently distribute that aid. All to often the aid stops at the government offices.

In order to redistribute wealth a government must collect wealth by force. The Church redistributes wealth collected through the voluntary benevolence of charitable people.

Since a government is not obligated to provide for the poor and the Church is…it is not wise for the Church to pass her obligation to a government that can change policies at every election.

I think the burden of the poor falls on our shoulders and our Church. (We just heard our Bishop’s Annual Appeal at Mass this morning) This is what WE are obligated to do. let us take care of the poor properly and let the government govern.

I disagree with some of your points. I think you are trying to much to take the government out of assisting the poor. The State I think it would be better term to use mainly because in papal documents and vatican documents this is what they use. The main goal of the state in the mind of the Church is the promotion of the common good. Because the common good is most lacking in the poor and marginalized the state should put more effort into assisting those people. I agree that they burden to help the poor falls on the churches shoulders but that shouldn’t mean the state should just stand by and do nothing. You can’t deny the movements of our latest pontiff that talked about the role of the State in the economy and the life of the poor. I don’t think at all that this is a new movement by the Pope and before Francis all the popes where economically conservative. I personally believe that at-least since Leo XIII in general the popes following him have followed a certain type of ethical system in regards to the economy the state and people.

I’m going to do some research in the morning to try and prove my point, but I’m to tired to do it now .

 

[KathleenGee]

I find reading about the early Christians so edifying and admire their great courage.

During times of plagues, the bishops exhorted the faithful to go out on the streets to assist the dying pagans, and thus they did. Likewise, there was great love among them that effected a number of conversions as well as the esteem of them held by the surrounding non-Christian peoples.

The two main vocations of Catholics are to enter into the life of the Holy Trinity, and secondly, to live out the spiritual and corporal works of mercy dictated to us by Our Lord.

I work among the elderly and am independently sustained through my spouse, so I work for low wages. But I have always had alot of sympathy for caregivers who work so hard for those they care for, but are given no time off, no sick pay, no benefits. I have a state client and the workers are finally being given benefits, this work pool coming from state brokerage entities. What I am witnessing is social justice where the Gospel not only serves individual, but changes institutions to provide just wages and benefits to all workers.

It is in the Catholic Christian conscience to serve those in need, those who are suffering, be they individual or collective. Christ transcends politics and governments, and we don’t realize how much Christian civilization has made our Western societies more humane in caring for people in charity and justice, be it called a welfare state.

We have to affirm all the good humanity does for each other, irregardless of the motives.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Good Evening Zoltan: It’s just my opinion, but I maintain that the United States is simply an abstract. The only real thing about it is the people in whose minds It exists in the first place, so any provision that doesn’t consider the welfare of the people as its primary purpose would (in my opinion at least) be pointless.

Hi Gary:

Sounds like you are describing “Camelot” rather than the USA.

I agree. Every provision SHOULD consider the welfare of the people as its primary purpose. Regretfully many provisions exclude some of the people…that is wrong.

Of course we know that this has all been vetted by the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the government, and we are in fact being taxed for such things. And I would argue that education, roads, social and economic programs are among the greatest things tax money has ever been used for.

You can argue that…but you would be wrong.
When the U.S. Department of Education was established in 1979, American was ranked number 1 in the world at all levels of education. Today we are in 17th place.
America grew to be a world economic power on private turnpikes, corporate toll roads and bridges and canals. Now we have a crumbling interstate highway system.
Our social and economic programs like the War on Poverty has produced more poverty.

There are much better ways to manage tax money. The BEST way is to leave more tax money in the hands of those who earn it.

The Constitution is there to serve us, and if our whims, aspirations, ideas, hopes and plans aren’t served by the Constitution, there is no point in having it. It is not holy, sacred, or singularly necessary in and of itself.

“…whims, aspirations, ideas, hopes and plans” may not be right, or in the best interests of society. Remember slavery…???

The Constitution is a legal document. The “law of the land”. Law abiding people stand by it.

The largest single portion of entitlement money from the budget actually goes to retirees, through Social Security, government pensions and Medicare. The poor do cost money and the poor are always problematic. They are attended by the problems that made them poor in the first place, and their poorness begets more problems still. There has never been, nor ever will be the noble poor of the Jean Valjean variety of people’s imaginations.

“I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”― Benjamin Franklin

I think it has always been the case that the least among us usually rise to the top. Therefore, things will hardly ever be fair. The clever will always prevail. But prevailing in such a system as this is a questionable endeavor. I rose from abject poverty as a child to the top 2% income bracket in the country in my lifetime. What I have learned from all of this is simple: you don’t even want to play in this game. It’s an intelligence test, and if we play it all our lives and still don’t figure out what a waste of time it is, then my opinion is that we fail the test.

Thanks,
Gary

Interesting outlook on life, Gary.

I just don’t see you as the kind of guy who would council his children that way. You know…
“Hey, I made it to the top, but the rest of you don’t stand a chance, it’s all a waste of time…why try. You will fail the test before you even try. Just sit back an let someone else take care of you…”

 

[Robert_Sock]

Why do so many people favor the well to do, and remain rather uncaring about the poor? I find this to be odd, and I would have thought that most people would naturally stick up for the poor, given they are so powerless, and are forced to work like dogs. I pray for them.

Gal 5:13 (Douay Rheims)
For you, brethren, have been called unto liberty: only make not liberty an occasion to the flesh, but by charity of the spirit serve one another.

LOVE!

 

[Ridgerunner]

Why do so many people favor the well to do, and remain rather uncaring about the poor?

Two assumptions, but is either of them really true in the main? It has seemed to me that many, if not most, don’t care one way or another about the well to do. They are what they are. And I do think most care about the poor. Many, many people, if not most, actually donate to charitable causes.

What I think people object to more is government confiscation of property to redistribute as it sees fit. Many don’t trust the government to do either thing, and there is plenty of evidence to support that point of view.