Problems with Subsidiarity and Private Charity?

[RCIAGraduate]

How would you respond to the argument that reliance on private charity and subsidiarity is insufficient due to the fact that some people will end up falling through the cracks?
Basically, it won’t be able to serve everyone in need and someone may lose out.

Is there perhaps a middle way to scale up charities and community-based, locally run social services such as Faith-Based Initiatives or the Social Services Block Grant?

What do you think?

Thank you and take care.

 

[ialsop]

How would you respond to the argument that reliance on private charity and subsidiarity is insufficient due to the fact that some people will end up falling through the cracks?
Basically, it won’t be able to serve everyone in need and someone may lose out.

Is there perhaps a middle way to scale up charities and community-based, locally run social services such as Faith-Based Initiatives or the Social Services Block Grant?

What do you think?

Thank you and take care.

Hello!
Essentially, we must realize that no model for society will ever perfect society, and if we chase that wisp of perfection, we will trip over ourselves.

Perfection is not possible on this side of Heaven. Some people thing they have “disproved” somebody’s idea when they find an example of how it might fail. No, that doesn’t disprove it, because subsidiarity does NOT claim to be perfect. It claims to be a means to an end(bringing God into economics).

Sorry if that didn’t really make sense I’m not the most competent in explaining these things.

Isaac

 

[RCIAGraduate]

Sorry if that didn’t really make sense I’m not the most competent in explaining these things.

Isaac

No, Issac, I think I get what you’re trying to say.

Hello!
Essentially, we must realize that no model for society will ever perfect society, and if we chase that wisp of perfection, we will trip over ourselves.

This is probably something that people must understand, no system is perfect especially since they’re humanly run and created. Personally, I fall into this mistake by thinking only if we spent “X” amount (i.e. $10 Billion) on a program; things would be fine and dandy.

Besides, at end of the day, we’re not really meant for earth but for heaven. If anything, earth is not an end of itself but a means to heaven which one reason why we have a responsibility for upholding the common neighbor, most specifically loving our neighbors and our brothers and sisters who are specially poor and vulnerable (which can involve a range of avenues such as private charity to even creating just(albeit imperfect) systems.

No, that doesn’t disprove it, because subsidiarity does NOT claim to be perfect. It claims to be a means to an end(bringing God into economics).

And one of the points of economics is the inevitability of trade-offs and opportunity costs. For example, even if you do something inherently good and wonderful like studying hard or serving at a food pantry, you still miss out when you don’t use the time to spend quality time with family or being a hospice volunteer.

 

[St_Francis]

How would you respond to the argument that reliance on private charity and subsidiarity is insufficient due to the fact that some people will end up falling through the cracks?
Basically, it won’t be able to serve everyone in need and someone may lose out.

Is there perhaps a middle way to scale up charities and community-based, locally run social services such as Faith-Based Initiatives or the Social Services Block Grant?

What do you think?

Thank you and take care.

Even with state and federal governments doing the welfare people fall through the cracks, and there are systemic difficulties rising up out of poverty as well. Also, local charities are more flexible, which sometimes means fewer people fall through the cracks.

 

[ialsop]

No, Issac, I think I get what you’re trying to say.

This is probably something that people must understand, no system is perfect especially since they’re humanly run and created. Personally, I fall into this mistake by thinking only if we spent “X” amount (i.e. $10 Billion) on a program; things would be fine and dandy.

Besides, at end of the day, we’re not really meant for earth but for heaven. If anything, earth is not an end of itself but a means to heaven which one reason why we have a responsibility for upholding the common neighbor, most specifically loving our neighbors and our brothers and sisters who are specially poor and vulnerable (which can involve a range of avenues such as private charity to even creating just(albeit imperfect) systems.

And one of the points of economics is the inevitability of trade-offs and opportunity costs. For example, even if you do something inherently good and wonderful like studying hard or serving at a food pantry, you still miss out when you don’t use the time to spend quality time with family or being a hospice volunteer.

Absolutely!

Great response. Agree 100%

 

[Theo520]

How would you respond to the argument that reliance on private charity and subsidiarity is insufficient due to the fact that some people will end up falling through the cracks?
Basically, it won’t be able to serve everyone in need and someone may lose out.

Is there perhaps a middle way to scale up charities and community-based, locally run social services such as Faith-Based Initiatives or the Social Services Block Grant?

What do you think?

Thank you and take care.

We’ve spent $22 trillion fighting The War on Poverty – three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. I think we’ve demonstrated that spending more money doesn’t fix anything.

What is your end goal?

 

[estesbob]

How would you respond to the argument that reliance on private charity and subsidiarity is insufficient due to the fact that some people will end up falling through the cracks?
Basically, it won’t be able to serve everyone in need and someone may lose out.

Is there perhaps a middle way to scale up charities and community-based, locally run social services such as Faith-Based Initiatives or the Social Services Block Grant?

What do you think?

Thank you and take care.

These arguments don’t occur in a vacuum. They’re almost always advanced in a political discussion where those who support larger government programs declare that a candidate opposed to increasing these program and/or people who vote for him do not care about the poor and needy . Very few people do not see the need for government programs to help the poor . The question is the nature of these programs , how they’re implemented and how they are managed . There are valid political differences as the best way to do this and our church neither endorses nor opposes the approaches suggested by either of the major political parties in this country . The danger is that many people seem to believe that they can fulfill their personal responsibility to help poor and needy by voting for someone who promises to increase social spending and raise taxes to pay for it

 

[Genesis315]

How would you respond to the argument that reliance on private charity and subsidiarity is insufficient due to the fact that some people will end up falling through the cracks?
Basically, it won’t be able to serve everyone in need and someone may lose out.

Is there perhaps a middle way to scale up charities and community-based, locally run social services such as Faith-Based Initiatives or the Social Services Block Grant?

What do you think?

Thank you and take care.

People can fall through the cracks because a distant bureaucracy is less directly engaged with their well-being than those closer who can offer a more personal support. But, on the other hand, sadly, more local efforts can be insufficient.

In that sense, both can be needed–and the principle of subsidiarity accounts for this. It doesn’t rule out a community of a higher order having a purpose. It’s purpose, however, should not be to usurp the functions of communities of lower orders, but to support them and coordinate them where necessary.