Opinions on Catholic bishops' support for socialistic ideas

[exoflare]

Why should I take any notice of a claim that I have shown to be false?

Do you think everyone here is just going to skip the rest of the thread and take your word for it that you HAVE shown anything “false”? We can still read the older posts here, you know. The part where you cherrypicked information as an attempt at a strawman defense is still visible to us.

 

[rossum]

Do you think everyone here is just going to skip the rest of the thread and take your word for it that you HAVE shown anything “false”?

It was claimed that drug addiction rates were higher in America then Europe. That claim was false. It took me 30 seconds on Google to find the figures I wanted. Go and check them for yourself if you want to.

A logical argument based on a false premise fails.

I would hope that people here have enough respect for the truth that they can be bothered to spend 30 seconds to check that they are not spreading incorrect information.

I do not expect people to skip the rest of the thread. I expect them to discard that particular argument as failed.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I mentioned it in response to your claim that I wanted the Catholic Church to follow the political program of the Republican Party.

It certainly looks to me like that. None of the UK political parties want to replace the NHS with a US-style insurance system. It is certainly not driven from within UK politics so it must come from outside. Look back at the OP. Many of the issues mentioned there are live issues in the USA but are not so in either the UK or the rest of Europe. Healthcare was just the most obvious example. From this side of the pond it certainly look as if it is an attempt to get the Catholic Church to take a stance on US politics. That is a reasonable thing for the Catholic Church in America to do. It is not a reasonable thing for the Catholic Church in Europe to take a stance on things that are of concern to Americans and not Europeans.

rossum

 

[exoflare]

It was claimed that drug addiction rates were higher in America then Europe.

No it wasn’t. That was the strawman you chose to construct and knock down based on the fact that “drug addiction” was one thing mentioned, but the poster you responded to never made that specific claim.

 

[rossum]

No it wasn’t.

That is how I read it. While discussing the relative quality of health care systems I compared infant mortality rates in the US and France, to the detriment of the US. Here is the relevant reply I got:

Yes the USA has a higher infant mortality but it has NOTHING to do with the quality of health care in the USA, it has to do with the HUGE number of babies born to drug addicted mothers, alcohol abusive mothers, mothers with sexually transmitted diseases and so forth.

In response I posted further statistics showing that rates of illegal drug use in France the the US were essentially identical, with the US if anything very slightly lower.

That is the argument that I was refuting.

That was the strawman you chose to construct and knock down based on the fact that “drug addiction” was one thing mentioned, but the poster you responded to never made that specific claim.

When I see “babies born to drug addicted mothers” that looks to me like a mention of drug addiction. Do you disagree?

rossum

 

[Black_Rose]

I mentioned it in response to your claim that I wanted the Catholic Church to follow the political program of the Republican Party. You’re identifying the disapproval of socialistic means to help people with mere political ideology. It is about principles of natural law and prudential judgement,from which conservative ideology comes. political ideology. Does the support of government health care come from principles of natural law and prudential judgement,or from pragmatism?

I guess your remarks beg the question of what is “natural law” and why must one follow it. Why is “natural law” inherently opposed to the welfare state and why one should follow “natural law”? What gives “natural law” legitimacy?

I am going to ask again for a historical example about a putative thriving society that embraced natural law (and subsidiarity)? Do you have any historical basis for your conservative idealism? If not, what are your justifications?

Give me a history lesson. I doubt it would be of similar quality to the writings of Henry CK Liu

. Ok, tell me of a historical society that has thrived (defined by its material welfare and social stability) because of its adherence to “subsidiarity” (assign “proper responsibility of individual persons,families,parishes,monasteries and convents” [or similar religious institutions]) and the promotion of private charity instead of welfare statism.

Not if it could persuade the electorate that it is wrong for the government to be doing what neighbors,families,communities and churches should be doing. The people of the British Isles have always cherished their freedom and self-sufficiency.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

I guess your remarks beg the question of what is “natural law” and why must one follow it. Why is “natural law” inherently opposed to the welfare state and why one should follow “natural law”? What gives “natural law” legitimacy?

Most people do cherish " their freedom and self-sufficiency." I do not know why that translates into opposing an active role for the state providing for the welfare of the people.

I define natural law this way…I don’t know that I’ve actually seen a definition.

Man is entitled with freedom to pursue happiness in any way he sees fit as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of another person to do the same.

A welfare state will take away the fruits of my labor without my concurrence to help someone else who may or may not be able to provide for themselves.

Thus…A welfare state and natural law are cannot coexist.

 

[anthony022071]

I guess your remarks beg the question of what is “natural law” and why must one follow it. Why is “natural law” inherently opposed to the welfare state and why one should follow “natural law”? What gives “natural law” legitimacy?

Natural law is the rights and responsibilities of human beings,which are given by God. It has to do with God’s commandments and the way in which he ordered human beings. For example,the commandment “You shall not kill” suggests that God creates human beings as sacrosanct and that he gives them the right to live. “You shall not steal” suggests that we have the right to own and keep property. “You shall honor your father and your mother” suggests that parents have rightful authority over their children,which children are obliged to respect.

I am going to ask again for a historical example about a putative thriving society that embraced natural law (and subsidiarity)? Do you have any historical basis for your conservative idealism? If not, what are your justifications?

That’s an odd question. It’s like asking for a historical example of a thriving society that emphasized good behavior and had a sense of propriety and heirarchy in the ordering of responsibilities. The early Roman Republic,or the early Catholic Church,or the civilizations of the Middle Ages to the 19th century are examples. Natural law comes naturally to human beings,even if they do not have a clear idea of what it is,or if their sense of it is obscured by sin. It is built into us. Likewise,the sense of subsidiarity comes naturally to human beings,even if it is obscured by the interference of tyrants and heavy-handed governments.

The Catechism on Natural Law
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt3.shtml#art1

The Catechism on Subsidiarity
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt2.shtml

1883
< Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "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 co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."7

1884
God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

1885
The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order. >

Most people do cherish " their freedom and self-sufficiency." I do not know why that translates into opposing an active role for the state providing for the welfare of the people.

The more that the government provides for the welfare of the citizens,the more it gains power and influence over them. If you can understand why young people get jobs in order to move out of their parents’ houses,then you should be able to understand the connection between being supported by the government and being hemmed in by it.

 

[Anrando]

I chose not to waste my time looking at the rest of what you said.

You appear to want to damage the Catholic Church in Europe by importing inappropriate right wing American political positions. That can only damage the Catholic Church in Europe.

rossum

My, I didn’t know that YOU got to choose what was considered in this discussion. I stand humbled. You are rather arrogant aren’t you?

And exactly how do you determine my political views from a discussion of medicine? Amazing leap of logic. I studied to be a physician. I worked as a paramedic. I was immersed in the US medical system for a number of years. THAT was what I was addressing. How in your own infinite intellect you construe that to my wanting to damage the Catholic Church in Europe is baffling. I don’t recall making any political statements at all, only statement regarding socialized vs free market medicine.

I don’t even live in the USA my friend. I am not part of you imagination’s great right wing plot . I live in a country with socialized medicine. I can judge what is good and bad about both systems.

Now it is my turn to choose not to listen to anything else that you might have to say as it is clearly apparent that you are singing to yourself. You love the sound of your own voice. You have all the answers. Why lower yourself to even deal with us lower beings at all? If you are trying to convince others of the superiority of your ideas, your own self admiration shtick is getting in the way.

Your dismissal of others and your condescension renders any valid points you might make moot. I guess your style of “debate” makes you feel good, and that IS what it is all about isn’t it.

W.Unland

 

[markbrumbaugh]

Natural law is the rights and responsibilities of human beings,which are given by God. It has to do with God’s commandments and the way in which he ordered human beings. For example,the commandment “You shall not kill” suggests that God creates human beings as sacrosanct and that he gives them the right to live. “You shall not steal” suggests that we have the right to own and keep property. “You shall honor your father and your mother” suggests that parents have rightful authority over their children,which children are obliged to respect.

QUOTE]

Thank you. Well put.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

What is your opinion on the Catholic bishops’ support for typically socialistic ideas,such as universal heath care mandated and controlled by the governement,universal amnesty for illegals,extended unemployment benefits,diplomacy with terrorist states,and a world-wide governing authority or court of law?

Many Catholic bishops have long been influenced and misled by socialism,and tend to equate Catholic social justice with socialistic ideas. This nonsense has got to stop. These bishops are fostering the rise of tyrannical,over-bearing,mintrusive government.

This post is the same as asking “have you stopped beating your wife yet?” There is no good answer because you have already assumed the programs the bishops endorsed are bad.

 

[Black_Rose]

Natural law is the rights and responsibilities of human beings,which are given by God. It has to do with God’s commandments and the way in which he ordered human beings. For example,the commandment “You shall not kill” suggests that God creates human beings as sacrosanct and that he gives them the right to live. “You shall not steal” suggests that we have the right to own and keep property. “You shall honor your father and your mother” suggests that parents have rightful authority over their children,which children are obliged to respect.

You just admitted that natural law is inherently religious (and sectarian) in nature since it is derived from the Ten Commandments?
For instance, while the Confucian culture of China promotes a strong sense of filial piety, it does not automatically translate into a pro-life stance.

One has to remember that Confucianism is a conservative secular force, taking an agnostic and disinterested stance in metaphysical and theological inquiry, as it is primary concern was to maintain a feudal society based on the Zhou Dynasty (1046-256 BC). The justification for Confucianism is not divine fiat from an anthropomorphic deity or an appeal to “natural law”, but the apparent necessity to propagate the appropriate values and repressive institutions to maintain a civilized society. If people be encouraged to conducted themselves virtuously and morally – defined by exhibiting behavior of conformity, obedience, acceptance, and maintenance conducive to perpetuating social order – without assistance of the supernatural forces and revelation, then God and the related numinous phenomenon would be deemed irrelevant and of little pragmatic concern. Confucianism is inherently conservative in nature since it embraces an idealistic past where individuals of allegedly enjoyed the prosperity of living in an ordered, hierarchical society. While there is indeed some superficial similar with Confucian and “conservative” Christian values such as the respect of one’s parents, which is manifested in Confucianism as “filial piety”, it does not embrace the notion of the “sanctity of life”.
In contrast, Buddhism exhibits this value since it explicitly forbids one from killing for a living (butchering animals or manufacturing weapons). Inculcating loyalty and deference to sovereigns and one’s parents and encouraging the acceptance of one’s social position definitely has social utility since this curbs excess individualism and prevents the atrophy of social hierarchy. An anti-abortion position has no social utility.

In such a society, people are obliged to obey those who have authority because of the assumption that their status and power have been awarded to them on this basis of superior virtue. The Imperial Examinations, first established in the Sui Dynasty (581-618 AD), tested candidates on their knowledge of the Confucian Classics; its primary function was not an aptitude test, whose primary intention to quantify innate intelligence psychometrically, but to ensure that the selected candidates would be loyal (virtuous) bureaucrats to the Huangdi (emperor).

In Confucian culture, merchants were considered to be the lowest social class, since they were perceived to be of little social utility because they do not create anything of value. They were seen as middle men who merely profited without creating anything and chose their occupation because of greed. (like the negative stereotype of Jews portrayed by the Star Wars character Watto) This would be evident in Lin Zexu’s letter, written in 1839 petitioning Queen Victoria to halt the opium trade, when he accused the British merchants as barbarians who only coveted profit with no concern for the welfare of others, an appropriate caricature giving the circumstances of the letter.

 

[John21652]

Natural law is the rights and responsibilities of human beings,which are given by God. It has to do with God’s commandments and the way in which he ordered human beings. For example,the commandment “You shall not kill” suggests that God creates human beings as sacrosanct and that he gives them the right to live. “You shall not steal” suggests that we have the right to own and keep property. “You shall honor your father and your mother” suggests that parents have rightful authority over their children,which children are obliged to respect.

That’s an odd question. It’s like asking for a historical example of a thriving society that emphasized good behavior and had a sense of propriety and heirarchy in the ordering of responsibilities. The early Roman Republic,or the early Catholic Church,or the civilizations of the Middle Ages to the 19th century are examples. Natural law comes naturally to human beings,even if they do not have a clear idea of what it is,or if their sense of it is obscured by sin. It is built into us. Likewise,the sense of subsidiarity comes naturally to human beings,even if it is obscured by the interference of tyrants and heavy-handed governments.

The Natural Law and Natural Law morality is wider in scope than just the Ten Commandments. Natural Law is not tied to Theology, but can be found by reason and rational enquiry. Man’s reason can understand and arrive at the laws, physical and ethical, of the natural order. In the 16th century, Dutch Protestant jurist Hugo Grotius wrote -

What we have been saying would have a degree of validity even if we should concede that which cannot be conceded without the utmost wickedness, that there is no God.

Even in the Thomistic tradition, n the Thomistic tradition, natural law refers to ethical as well as to physical law. The instrument by which man discerns such law is his reason — not faith, or intuition, or grace, revelation, or anything else. This form of enquiry has been going on since Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics discerned certain objective universal and immutable laws which governed man and his behaviour in the natural order of things.

Famed British Jesuit Frederick C. Copleston wrote in 1955 in his book Aquinas,-

Inanimate bodies act in certain ways precisely because they are what they are, and they cannot act otherwise; they cannot perform actions which are contrary to their nature. And animals are governed by instinct. In fine, all creatures below man participate unconsciously in the eternal law, which is reflected in their natural tendencies, and they do not possess the freedom which is required in order to be able to act in a mariner incompatible with this law. It is therefore essential that he [man] should know the eternal law in so far as it concerns himself. Yet, how can he know it? He cannot read, as it were, the mind of God… [but] he can discern the fundamental tendencies and needs of his nature, and by reflecting on them he can come to a knowledge of the natural moral law…. Every man possesses … the light of reason whereby he can reflect … and promulgate to himself the natural law, which is the totality of the universal precepts or dictates of right reason concerning the good which is to be pursued and the evil which is to be shunned

Now, for the sake of brevity, we can introduce the concept of “Subsidiarity”. Federalism is a defining feature of subsidiarity, whereby power is devolved to smaller units of governance. Pope Pius XI in his 1931 encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno wrote -

“…it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and a disturbance to right order to transfer to the larger and higher collectivity functions which can be performed and provided for by lesser and subordinate bodies. Inasmuch as every social activity should, by its very nature, prove a help [subsidium] to members of the body social, it should never destroy or absorb them.”

That is a statement based, pobviously, on Natural Law, recognizing one of the defining characteristics of humanity as its need to ‘socialize’ into groups. The question is “how big is a village? Or a town, or a state?” Successive Popes have invoked the notion of subsidiarity when dealing with disasters, international affairs and intenational poverty. The problem is one of subsidiarity having a positive aspect, namely ‘help to be given’ and a negative dimension, which is restrictions on intervention. If the state institutes mandatory programs and creates instruments for organising the ‘giving’, self serving bureacracies come into existence. There is much evidence for this fact from various parts of the world. There ensues a concentration of power away from the individual and to government, or, to quote Pius XI, to the “higher collective”. If it is the case that Catholic Bishops support socialistic programs, then they are arguing against Pius XI and subjugating the Natural Law in the process. The Catholic Church embraced Natural Law morality long ago and its Bishops should be mindful of what they advocate, because they are unwittingly betraying the Church’s Natural Law foundations. The tendency towards socilaism is a tendency towards Utilitarianism and that is the antithesis of Natural Law morality.

 

[anthony022071]

This post is the same as asking “have you stopped beating your wife yet?” There is no good answer because you have already assumed the programs the bishops endorsed are bad.

The truth is that the government intervention that the bishops endorse is basically the same as what socialists have always advocated. The bishops just taking their cues from socialistic ideas and agencies and making it seem like a Catholic mandate. Government programs to provide for all the poor,needy and sick are socialistic by definition. People just didn’t look to the government to do those things prior to the 19th century utilitarians and socialists.

 

[anthony022071]

You just admitted that natural law is inherently religious (and sectarian) in nature since it is derived from the Ten Commandments?

No,natural law is inherently in human beings. The Ten Commandments spell out the laws that already existed.

 

[Black_Rose]

No,natural law is inherently in human beings. The Ten Commandments spell out the laws that already existed.

Why does Confucian culture do not embrace the supposed values of Catholicism (which are based on “Natural Law”) such as the free market and the sanctity of life?

I am going to ask again for a historical example about a putative thriving society that embraced natural law (and subsidiarity)? Do you have any historical basis for your conservative idealism? If not, what are your justifications?

That’s an odd question. It’s like asking for a historical example of a thriving society that emphasized good behavior and had a sense of propriety and heirarchy in the ordering of responsibilities.

I’ll provide one good example:

Chinese society during the time of Wu Zhao, in the early part of the Tang
dynasty (618-907), is fortunate in that its economy enjoys long periods of
continuous growth. Along with material growth, cultural development and social
mobility also accelerate.
Poverty in the form of pathological social despair is not prevalent in Tang
time.

The flowering of Tang culture has its roots in the high quality of life enjoyed
by all her citizens, regardless of their social positions and income levels, and
the high standard of the efforts of their labor, manual or intellectual,
regardless of their commercial values.

Since money is only one of the determinants of a good life rather than the all
consuming ingredient, the pleasures of life are not denied to those who do not
aspire to financial wealth, or those who are unable to achieve it because they
do not care to surrender to society’s financial rules.

The inner peace preached by Daoist and Buddhist precepts are verifiable by the
individual’s direct personal experience in the socio-economic realm of the Tang
era. The rejection of materialistic concerns does not necessarily reduce one to
abject poverty, nor earned society’s scorn.

On the contrary, hermits are respected by society and donations toward their
upkeep are considered as enlightened expressions of the donors’ own sagacious
insight rather than ostentatious acts of charity. Generally, an imbalance exist
between donors and recipients, the number wishing to give frequently exceeding
the number prepared to receive.

Whenever a seng (Buddhist monk) or a dao’shi (Daoist priest) or a wandering free
spirit should show up in a village, his presence would be celebrated by an
spontaneous outpouring of generous giving by the villagers that would resemble
an instant festival.

Even in modern time, sengs in Southeast Asian societies would still receive
daily meals by simply walking through villages, without begging, while the pious
lay population would await their habitual schedule with the finest food in the
house ready to give with eagerness, the way bird-lovers would feed their
ornithic idols.

Chinese royalty and aristocrats cultivated respectful relationships with
hermits, many of whom they offered sponsorship in their favorite retreat,
Songshan, and their generous gifts were often graciously declined by the pure
souls.

Many historians would credit this social cohesion of Tang culture, in a society
of spiritual piety, ordered hierarchy, ethnic diversity, cultural assimilation,
political cohesion, if not continuous stability, and social mobility, to the
effectiveness of Confucian emphasis on self-restraint and the calming effect of
Buddhist acceptance of fate. **They would cherish the Confucian notion of natural
hierarchy, balanced with the Buddhist view of all things being fundamentally
equal in essence, that have permitted the pursuit of perfection to flourish at
all social levels rather than being concentrated at the top.
**

The struggle between the aims of Xiao’kang (Individual Contentment) and the
vision of Da’tong (General Harmony) takes place not only during Tang time, but
also throughout Chinese history, and in many ways, the same struggle would still
continue in modern time after some 13 centuries. It takes place under the
mantle of Chinese feudal society which has modeled its social and political
structure as an extension of its basic unit: the family.
Confucian ethics imprints this codified world view in the collective
consciousness of the Chinese people. It regards the Chinese nation as one
extended family.

lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/2001-November/035090.html (where it is excerpted from)
atimes.com/atimes/China/EG24Ad01.html

Throughout Chinese history, there was a general acceptance of the feudal system among the peasants; most peasant revolts occurred not because they were motivated by a ideologies of revolution and reform, but were motivated by the abuses of the local lords. Most struggle and conflicts were between rival feudal lords among themselves and with the Huangdi. But, I provided this as an example of an idealized past, not as a recommendation for policy in the current geopolitical, technological, and economic environment.

Could you provide a more detailed summary, like Liu has done for the Tang Dynasty?

 

[anthony022071]

Why does Confucian culture do not embrace the supposed values of Catholicism (which are based on “Natural Law”) such as the free market and the sanctity of life?

The free market is not a Catholic value,it is permissible because it does not go against natural law or Church doctrine. Confucian philosophy is very limited in what aspects of life it covers. If it does not embrace the sanctity of life,that is a grave fault and it probably has to do with the lack of God and intrest in personhood in Asian philosophy and religion. People’s sense of natural law is obscured by original sin.

I’ll provide one good example:

No,I’m not a historian.

 

[anthony022071]

Why does Confucian culture do not embrace the supposed values of Catholicism (which are based on “Natural Law”) such as the free market and the sanctity of life?

The free market is not a Catholic value,it is permissible because it does not go against natural law or Church doctrine. Confucian philosophy is very limited in what aspects of life it covers. If it does not embrace the sanctity of life,that is a grave fault and it probably has to do with the lack of God and intrest in personhood in Asian philosophy and religion. People’s sense of natural law is obscured by original sin.

I’ll provide one good example:

lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/2001-November/035090.html (where it is excerpted from)
atimes.com/atimes/China/EG24Ad01.html

The author stretches the definition of poverty to include pathological social despair,which is something very different. And how would he know if pathological social despair did not exist in China back then? If it didn’t,it would have been because of the bonds of family,traditional culture and religion.

Throughout Chinese history, there was a general acceptance of the feudal system among the peasants; most peasant revolts occurred not because they were motivated by a ideologies of revolution and reform, but were motivated by the abuses of the local lords. Most struggle and conflicts were between rival feudal lords among themselves and with the Huangdi. But, I provided this as an example of an idealized past, not as a recommendation for policy in the current geopolitical, technological, and economic environment.

Could you provide a more detailed summary, like Liu has done for the Tang Dynasty?

No,I’m not a historian. Feudalism is not necessarily against natural law. It depends upon the character of the lords. Do you support socialism because of its similarity to feudalism? or feudalism because of its similarity to socialism?

 

[utah_rose]

I think its sickening. Our Bishop, Daniel DiNardo, is really pushing for amnesty for illegals. He had every priest delivery a homily, on JULY 4 for God’s sake, advocating for immigration reform (amnesty) in our diocese. How offensive was that? He has also rounded up other liberal religious leaders in Houston (a sanctuary city) to promote amnesty. Meanwhile the western hemispere’s largest abortuary was being built 2 miles from his office and he NEVER once spoke out against it for 2 years. And get this: He is head of the USCCB pro-life committee! What a sham these bishops.

Liberation Theology is alive and well my friends. These liberal bishops have all but wrecked the Church in America, now they’re going after our great Republic.

STOP GIVING THEM YOUR MONEY.

I agree with you 100%. Our bishop is big on immigration also, but not one word about the abortion issue, even when it was election time! Ours ordered a homily on the teachings of the Church’s view on “capital punishment” because a felon was due the death penalty in our state. Only thing is, capital punishment is not a fixed view by the church but varies while abortion is always wrong. Plus our pastor is also an advocate for amnesty–he claims it’s a felony, just like speeding! I don’t give to any bishop’s collection, but choose my charities wisely, and it doesn’t included the diocese either. Money talks, maybe they will “get the idea”.

 

[utah_rose]

Many of the US Bishops have embraced Liberation Theology, as another already mentioned. They have given up on God’s ability to bring about true social justice through evangalization and put their faith in structures of man. Provide food and shelter today and we’ll tell them about Jesus down the road, this is the modern thought process of the Bishops even if it means taking from others to provide this. Gone is the idea of “teach a man to fish” and “man does not live on bread alone”.

Now this is how I feel toward the ones that are well intentioned, but misguided. However, I do believe that there are those that are just simply political and enjoy the power that their office holds when they play ball with certain liberal politicians. Either way, the laity need to wield the power of the pocket book.

I think the way the Mormons handle this is ideal. They will give a member a ticket to get groceries or whatever they need in the storehouse. I think too in certain cases their bishop or ward helps with their rent. But in return, they have to donate a certain amount of hours in public service, or work at their canneries or such. If they’re disabled, they can work at one of the Church’s places such as their thrift stores. This way too the poor feel they can give back. I think this is a good idea and the Bishops could adopt this. Heaven knows our parishes can use some cleaning and yard work at times.