In the context on the three pillars of society - we understand that each pillar has a role to play - which I believe is directly related to the Social Justice mission of the Catholic Church.The Church is also purposefully ambiguous as to proper political ideologies, because they can certainly be wrong, so I do not see how adopting the view of Republicans would be beneficial.
Remember, the best social program is a job. I do not believe Jesus preached free-loading.
ThankyouThis article from Catholic Exchange sheds a lot of light.
Am I wrong then?In the context on the three pillars of society - we understand that each pillar has a role to play - which I believe is directly related to the Social Justice mission of the Catholic Church.
A) The Individual / Family
As individuals we are called to do the work of God and thus provide for our selves; families; communities; church and so forth…
Our Catholic Church even understands and teaches the three vocations of man…
B) The Community / Church
- married life 2) single life 3) religious life
Within our very own communities we have many jobs available - that allow us to produce fruits for our own families and this cooperating with others as well
In regards to the Health Care debate - it seems that we as indviduals/ families should first take that responsibility even if it is a lesser paying job so that we may have better benefits - thus it is within the community that these benefits should come from and if we can’t afford it turn to the Church…
C) Government
I believe that government is the pillar to make sure that laws are obeyed and our constitutional rights both state and federal are protected
Yet every time we allow government to intervene in our lives we lose that freedom that was ours
I am not sure what you mean by the 3 pillars of society and what they have to do with helping the poor, but I am thinking that you might possibly be thinking of the principle of subsidiarity, which holds that things should be handled at the most local level possible. So, a family’s financial decisions should be made by the family, but road maintenance needs to be handled by a higher level, the town/county or state.In regards to Social Justice - would the Catholic Church be better off in understanding the Republican view of the three pillars of society vs the Democratic View that its Governments role to provide for the poor per say?
The Three Pillars of Society are
- Individual / Family
- Community / Church
- Government
The first thing the Church should do is return to the basic tenents and teachings of the Church which they have avoided doing for the past fifty or sixty years while getting mired in the ‘Social Justice’ issues. It is only through the basic teachings they should be proclaiming that Social Justice will evolve.In regards to Social Justice - would the Catholic Church be better off in understanding the Republican view of the three pillars of society vs the Democratic View that its Governments role to provide for the poor per say?
The Three Pillars of Society are
- Individual / Family
- Community / Church
- Government
And if things were being handled there would be no need for government, either state or federal getting involved. The problem arises when local folks either don’t rise or can’t rise to meet the problem in an equitable fashion. One only need look at the differences in educational opportunities from locale to locale or state to state. Some places do a good job, while others fail miserably in preparing their young citizens for the future. Thus things get bumped up to the next level.I am not sure what you mean by the 3 pillars of society and what they have to do with helping the poor, but I am thinking that you might possibly be thinking of the principle of subsidiarity, which holds that things should be handled at the most local level possible. So, a family’s financial decisions should be made by the family, but road maintenance needs to be handled by a higher level, the town/county or state.
And that is the Catholic way of seeing how things should be handled.
This is probably the best example of what I said in my post, and the worst example for you to use to make your case. I work in D.C. They spend more money per student than any other city in the nation, and the public school system here is an absolute nightmare. Money is not the issue. I was born and raised in Oklahoma City, where per student spending is less than half of what D.C. is, and the results are much better. It’s the priorities of the officials who job it is to decide how that money is spent and how to raise more money when necessary. Most of those people are not to be trusted. Looking at education, it is laughable to say that government should fill the void where charity cannot. Every time the government tries, they create another class of permanently, or at least long-term, dependent people.… One only need look at the differences in educational opportunities from locale to locale or state to state. Some places do a good job, while others fail miserably in preparing their young citizens for the future. Thus things get bumped up to the next level…
Well, this is a really bad example for me, as I believe that education ought to be handled in a much different way, but it will do.And if things were being handled there would be no need for government, either state or federal getting involved. The problem arises when local folks either don’t rise or can’t rise to meet the problem in an equitable fashion. One only need look at the differences in educational opportunities from locale to locale or state to state. Some places do a good job, while others fail miserably in preparing their young citizens for the future. Thus things get bumped up to the next level.
There are inequities all over. We could even provide each US citisen with sterling health care, but there were still be the inequity of health care from nation to nation. By going up the scale as you suggest, within a couple of generations we will have single-payer world health insurance.Looking at health care it is very obvious that some are much better off than others. It begets a society of haves and have nots. It is not being handled equitably on either a local or even on some state levels so the feds step in and we wonder why, particularly if we as individuals are among the haves. Its a “I have mine, its up to you how you get yours, but don’t look to me for help” world.
I agree that the political philosophy of many Americans leaves out the issue of those who are *unable *to care for themselves. We cannot create a conservative utopia in which each person cares for himself any more than we can create a liberal utopia in which each individual has a wonderful life as a result of government action.Many of us do not like or want to be “our brothers keeper.”
Actually, the feds are stepping in to “fix” a problem of their own making. From The History of Health Insurance in the United States (emphases mine):Looking at health care it is very obvious that some are much better off than others. It begets a society of haves and have nots. It is not being handled equitably on either a local or even on some state levels so the feds step in and we wonder why, particularly if we as individuals are among the haves. Its a “I have mine, its up to you how you get yours, but don’t look to me for help” world.
Anyone who’s old enough to remember when doctors routinely made house calls is also old enough to remember that house calls (and office visits) used to be very affordable. When ‘insurance’ was introduced doctors and hospitals took some time to figure out that whether they charged $5 for an office visit, or $50, insurance would pay it, so health care cost began a dramatic leap. No one should have to wonder why, 50-60 years later, health care costs have grown to the point where there are haves and have nots and the feds think they have to step in to fix a problem they ultimately caused in the first place.…Employee benefit plans proliferated in the 1940’s and 1950’s. Strong unions bargained for better benefit packages, including tax-free, employer-sponsored health insurance. Wartime (1939-1945) wage freezes imposed by the government actually accelerated the spread of group health care. Unable by law to attract workers by paying more, employers instead improved their benefit packages, adding health care. Government programs to cover health care costs began to expand during the 1950s and 1960s. Disability benefits were included in social security coverage for the first time in 1954. When the government created Medicare and Medicaid programs in 1965, private sources still paid 75 percent of all of the health care costs. By 1995, individuals and companies only paid for about half of the health care with the government responsible for the other half.…