"People living in poverty have first claim on government's resources" - Do you agree?

[MillTownCath]

Today I was listening in on a conference call with a global poverty program run by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

One of the first things I heard was

“People living in poverty have first claim on society’s and government’s resources”

I want to see how many of you agree, and if you disagree please state why. (I hope everyone here is at least knowledgable on Catholic Social teaching.)

Thanks!

actioncenter.crs.org/site/Survey?ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&SURVEY_ID=6081

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Of course I agree. Simply as human beings we would of course start off with an equal claim, but those who are in fact in the most need will have a greater and more urgent moral claim on the nation’s (and the world’s) resources.

 

[ManOnFire]

What if the poverty results from free will hedonistic choices by able-bodied individuals? Should the rest of society be turned into financial slaves to pay for those free will choices? Where’s the motivation to change behavior? What if growing numbers of people free willingly choose hedonism, knowing the taxpayer will be forced to pay for the results, until the country defaults? Then what?

Why not redistribute responsibility? Why not redistribute ambition? Why not redistribute the ability to avoid temptation? Or at least tell citizens to stop patronizing organizations that tempt the weak into more dependency and poverty? Or at least put up some bulletin boards which call for it?

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

We’re not called to differentiate between the “deserving” and the “undeserving” poor. Our Christian calling is see Christ in them and act accordingly.

Of course the poor come first.

 

[sedonaman]

We’re not called to differentiate between the “deserving” and the “undeserving” poor. Our Christian calling is see Christ in them and act accordingly.

The trick here is to determine who is genuinely in need. I have worked for my parish’s assistance for the poor for eight years. Our budget is very limited; it is not infinite, so we can’t satisfy everyone’s genuine needs, much less, simple desires. Obviously, some differentiating has to be employed, even if it is first come, first served until we run out.

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

The trick here is to determine who is genuinely in need. I have worked for my parish’s assistance for the poor for eight years. Our budget is very limited; it is not infinite, so we can’t satisfy everyone’s genuine needs, much less, simple desires. Obviously, some differentiating has to be employed, even if it is first come, first served until we run out.

I wasn’t referring to not being able to help everyone because of limited resources. Of course no one program can meet all needs for all people.

What I meant was that we shouldn’t get into the mindset of denying assistance to those we’ve determined unworthy of our help because we’ve concluded they’re engaging in sinful/immoral behavior.

A concrete example of the point I’m trying to make is my grandmother’s sister, who volunteered at her parish’s food pantry back in the 70s. She’d tell us that she’d refuse food boxes to hippies, interracial couples, the unemployed, drinkers, and those she suspected didn’t go to Mass every Sunday. All of these people, and more, failed her personal means test for food because she thought them lazy or immoral. (Yes, her cup of Christian kindness didn’t exactly overflow, even with people she did like.) Anyway, her behavior isn’t what we’re called to do.

Luna

 

[lerapt78]

What if the poverty results from free will hedonistic choices by able-bodied individuals? Should the rest of society be turned into financial slaves to pay for those free will choices? Where’s the motivation to change behavior? What if growing numbers of people free willingly choose hedonism, knowing the taxpayer will be forced to pay for the results, until the country defaults? Then what?

Why not redistribute responsibility? Why not redistribute ambition? Why not redistribute the ability to avoid temptation? Or at least tell citizens to stop patronizing organizations that tempt the weak into more dependency and poverty? Or at least put up some bulletin boards which call for it?

Hi Milltown ,
I hope that my reply is appropriate, being that I wasn’t sure if you meant something specific by “Catholic Social Teaching”. Were you referring to a *specific *mandate? My response is in reply to my understanding of basic Christian charity.

I agree with ManofFire. We have almost always had programs to help those who are in need, and this is both good and necessary. However, we’ve also more recently had such a strong societal exoneration of personal responsibility that what was once an empathetic desire to help those victimized by misfortune has morphed into a system of irresponsible enablement in which the government can simply determine at will (without the (name removed by moderator)ut of the citizens) who is “needy” and redistribute others’ resources accordingly. As I see it, the problem is not so much with acknowledging that some people may temporarily need help, but rather that financial aid is given recklessly without considering if those “needy” actually merit assistance or not. This refusal to distinguish between a need born of unpredictable events and a “need” born of poor choice (for fear of sounding judgmental) has made many people who would otherwise be inclined toward altruism very wary and cynical of how our money is now being appropriated .

I could not hear the entire conference call because the page attached to your link required that I register first and I did not want to do that. So, whether or not I agree with their entire address would depend on whether or not they quantify whom they consider to be needy. As it stands, I do not agree wholeheartedly with that first sentence; if they followed it by clarifying that we are not responsible for giving aid to anyone who exhibits patterns of behavior that will place them in poverty, then I would agree. My stance is not denying assistance to certain people only because I judge them simply to be immoral, but because their very patterns of immoral behavior are what directly *contribute *to their poverty and should not be rewarded by way of government checks.

 

[FaithBuild18]

I wasn’t referring to not being able to help everyone because of limited resources. Of course no one program can meet all needs for all people.

What I meant was that we shouldn’t get into the mindset of denying assistance to those we’ve determined unworthy of our help because we’ve concluded they’re engaging in sinful/immoral behavior.

A concrete example of the point I’m trying to make is my grandmother’s sister, who volunteered at her parish’s food pantry back in the 70s. She’d tell us that she’d refuse food boxes to hippies, interracial couples, the unemployed, drinkers, and those she suspected didn’t go to Mass every Sunday. All of these people, and more, failed her personal means test for food because she thought them lazy or immoral. (Yes, her cup of Christian kindness didn’t exactly overflow, even with people she did like.) Anyway, her behavior isn’t what we’re called to do.

Luna

I absolutely agree that we should help the poor despite their reasons for being poor. But it is also loving and merciful to employ and evangelize some sort of corrective measure towards those who are poor for the wrong reasons.

For the question posed in the topic, I don’t have much of an opinion. I guess I could see it that way, that the poor have first claim on government resources. But I hold a very large stipulation, that the government should not have very many resources to begin with. The government should only have resources for those things which they are responsible for providing; mainly protection of its citizens as pointed out by the United State Constitution. It is the responsibility of the citizen to care for the lesser of us. Should people living in poverty be top priority for those of us who actually do manage resources? Absolutely.

EDIT: I kind of don’t like the way the question was phrased. Though I agree with the meaning behind it, I feel that phrasing it as “first claim” incites a mentality of entitlement. The poor should be deserving of these things from the perspective of the wealthy. But from the perspective of the poor I feel it would be dangerous for them to feel they have an inherent right to resources. I fear it would a difficult sentiment to put aside for that individual if we accomplish our goal, and successfully raise that person out of poverty to a position of wealth. Imagine an individual who thinks he/she has an inherent claim to a resource, and then they still feel that way when they acquire wealth and power. It is a recipe for greed and social imperialism.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I certainly do not agree.

The first duty of a nation is to protect its citizens. It’s better to be poor than to be maimed or killed. Being poor is remediable. Being dead is not.

However, I will agree that caring for those who cannot help themselves is a moral imperative in any society. The question is, however, which level of society is best to meet such needs and of what kinds of needs. For some, the answer seems obvious; the federal government. I do not agree with that in toto, and certainly the popes have not.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Today I was listening in on a conference call with a global poverty program run by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

One of the first things I heard was

“People living in poverty have first claim on society’s and government’s resources”

I want to see how many of you agree, and if you disagree please state why. (I hope everyone here is at least knowledgable on Catholic Social teaching.)

Thanks!

actioncenter.crs.org/site/Survey?ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&SURVEY_ID=6081

Why would I disagree?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Today I was listening in on a conference call with a global poverty program run by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

One of the first things I heard was

“People living in poverty have first claim on society’s and government’s resources”

I want to see how many of you agree, and if you disagree please state why. (I hope everyone here is at least knowledgable on Catholic Social teaching.)

Thanks!

actioncenter.crs.org/site/Survey?ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&SURVEY_ID=6081

No. I cannot agree with that statement. The government’s charter should be to provide protection both inside and outside the country’s borders. It is the Church’s job to help the poor and needy. For every dollar taken from taxpayers without their consent, that’s a dollar that doesn’t go into the collection basket or go toward programs run through the Church. People now believe that they do not NEED to contribute to charity since the government takes care of all problems. This is WRONG.

Unfortunately, “Catholic social teaching” has become overly entwined with the Democrat party. This is also wrong. The Church should stand apart from politics and should critique BOTH political parties as necessary.

 

[sedonaman]

… The question is, however, which level of society is best to meet such needs and of what kinds of needs.

According to the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, the lowest possible, otherwise a “great evil” results.

For some, the answer seems obvious; the federal government. I do not agree with that in toto, and certainly the popes have not.

The federal government has no business counting dogs in Oxnard.

 

[MillTownCath]

Unfortunately, “Catholic social teaching” has become overly entwined with the Democrat party. This is also wrong. The Church should stand apart from politics and should critique BOTH political parties as necessary.

Catholic social teaching appears to be ‘entwined’ with the Democratic party only because so many Republican Catholics are starting to adopt the anti-Christian teachings of Ayn Rand.

Generally speaking, if fiscal libertarianism is your cup of tea, fine, but please understand it is not Catholic. One trip to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops website will tell you that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Catholic social teaching appears to be ‘entwined’ with the Democratic party only because so many Republican Catholics are starting to adopt the anti-Christian teachings of Ayn Rand.

As inaccurate as inaccurate gets.

Many is the Catholic who is influenced by portions of the thought of Aristotle without adopting his paganism. Many is the Catholic who admires Washington without adopting his Masonry. Many is the Catholic who admires Martin Luther King without adopting his religion or his personal moral failings.

Ayn Rand, whose atheism and social Darwinian notions I, and many other Catholics despise, still had one good idea; that righteous “redistributionists” are often simply despots who are as ruinous to working people as they are to the producers upon whom they, themselves, depend for their bread and the luxuries which they seem never to deny to themselves. She came by that idea honestly, having felt it in her native Russia on her own hide.

But does that mean that the “Republican Catholics” some are so eager to lump together in contempt, buy into her atheism or her harsh social Darwinism? No, it doesn’t, any more than admiring Martin Luther King’s ideas of racial equality means one buys into adultery.

In that one way, she is not inconsistent with the social teachings of the Church; the Popes having condemned socialism themselves. Are we supposed to toss Pope Leo XIII on the same ash heap as Rand? Or are we allowed to think, to see the obvious flaws in a phony redistributionism, and to remain Catholics?

And, no, I’m not a Republican. Never have been.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Unfortunately, “Catholic social teaching” has become overly entwined with the Democrat party. This is also wrong. The Church should stand apart from politics and should critique BOTH political parties as necessary.

You put “Catholic social teaching” in quotation marks, so i’m not sure whether I disagree with you or not. I do not think Catholic social teaching is in any way identical with the practices of the current Democrat Party. It is, in fact, and for the moment, closer to those of the Repubs. (Well, I except Democrat Joe Manchion, who actually seems to have both a brain and a conscience.)

The Social Encyclicals of the Popes make it very clear that the almost totally middle class welfare and centralization espoused by the current administration is as wrong as wrong gets. Would the social teachings of the Church ever support taxpayer funding of abortion? Would they ever support forcing Church institutions to pay for abortifacients? Would they ever support giving tax credits to middle and upper class people to buy new cars; the cost to be borne by working people?

I dont think so.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Catholic social teaching appears to be ‘entwined’ with the Democratic party only because so many Republican Catholics are starting to adopt the anti-Christian teachings of Ayn Rand.

Generally speaking, if fiscal libertarianism is your cup of tea, fine, but please understand it is not Catholic. One trip to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops website will tell you that.

I reject your entire post. I do not accept Ayn Rand, and only the Libertarians who have invaded the GOP promote her philosophy, and try to disguise it as Republican.

Our identity is not as Democrats or Republicans. Or, it should not be. My identity is Catholic first, American second. That means the 5 non-negotiables go with me into the voting booth. I cannot, as a Catholic, vote for the Democrat party as long as the platform includes access to birth control, abortion, euthanasia, and fetal stem cell research. Even if any individual Democrat politician states that he or she is pro-life, the voting record tells the story. The politician would get no support from the DNC if he opposed the platform.

 

[St_Francis]

I totally disagree.

I agree with the poster above who said that there are certain tasks which belong to the government which the government must to *first. *

Secondly, I believe that the role of the government in charity should be limited.

Third, I believe a lot of people would do more to help themselves if it were not for government restrictions when they are receiving aid (and a lot of other problems, like the huge gap a once-needy person who is now working needs to leap once off government aid altogether–most notably wrt health insurance.)

And fourth: if we got rid of a lot of laws restricting what people can do then a lot of people would stop being in need of government or charitable assistance. (As an example, Texas recently started allowing people to sell food made in their home kitchens (up to $50,000 annual sales) as long as it is so labeled. Now a person can start a *small *business and grow it, instead of having to *start *a large business. Think of it! A person who had a few elderly neighbors could be paid to provide meals by the relatives, so the state would not have to provide food, and the cook could get off welfare!)

I do not want anyone to think because of these comments that I do not think that people do not need help; just that the current situation in the US is not really helping.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Today I was listening in on a conference call with a global poverty program run by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

One of the first things I heard was

“People living in poverty have first claim on society’s and government’s resources”

I want to see how many of you agree, and if you disagree please state why. (I hope everyone here is at least knowledgable on Catholic Social teaching.)

Thanks!

actioncenter.crs.org/site/Survey?ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&SURVEY_ID=6081

Yes I agree. Poverty is one the biggest problems today. Followed by war, and greed.

ATB

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Catholic social teaching appears to be ‘entwined’ with the Democratic party only because so many Republican Catholics are starting to adopt the anti-Christian teachings of Ayn Rand.

Generally speaking, if fiscal libertarianism is your cup of tea, fine, but please understand it is not Catholic. One trip to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops website will tell you that.

Like many here. I have a hard time swallowing the Democratic party. (as it exist today) But, you are spot on about the Republicans. They have driven my entire family away.

ATB

 

[ManOnFire]

Catholic social teaching appears to be ‘entwined’ with the Democratic party only because so many Republican Catholics are starting to adopt the anti-Christian teachings of Ayn Rand.

And this is the only possible reaction to out-of-control free will liberal anti-Christian behaviors, promoted by the liberal society, profitted BY the liberal society, which turns more individuals into dependents, who, both genuinely need money from taxpayers, and those who have been fooled into believing they need taxpayer aid, such as the belief that the public should pay for someone else’s birth control. It’s cause and effect. For you to turn a blind eye to the other half of the story is closed-minded and ignorant. People have free will, and you’re ignoring that.

If we had a line on the 1040 tax returns which asked for a voluntary percentage contribution from the taxpayer to pay to fight poverty, and the results were reported, you would see how many people won’t participate since it forces people to actually sacrifice their own financial responsibility in a program with so much waste, where too many people are free willingly indulging in the same behaviors which keep them impoverished. We should never expect this problem to get resolved. Let’s be honest and quit kidding ourselves: the dems are merely cultivating more voters. It’s more fun to pretend to fix the problem, while giving away OTHER people’s money, while feeling like a hero, while ignoring that conditions are worsening.