Public provision as charity heresy?

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’m sure everyone is aware of the Obamcare mandate and the bishops’ rejection of it. Much has been written on the subject and many old wounds have been reopened by it.

One of these is the public provision vs charity debate and one author went so far as to call the belief that provision (from the public purse) is morally equivalent to charity a heresy.

That’s a pretty strong word for Catholics. Is it appropriate? Is charitable public provision the liberation theology of the 21st century?

I would submit that the bishops, nuns, and priests now screaming bloody murder have gotten what they asked for. The weapon that Barack Obama has directed at the Church was fashioned to a considerable degree by Catholic churchmen. They welcomed Obamacare. They encouraged Senators and Congressmen who professed to be Catholics to vote for it.

I do not mean to say that I would prefer that the bishops, nuns, and priests sit down and shut up. Barack Obama has once again done the friends of liberty a favor by forcing the friends of the administrative entitlements state to contemplate what they have wrought. Whether those brought up on the heresy that public provision is akin to charity will prove capable of thinking through what they have done remains unclear. But there is now a chance that this will take place, and there was a time – long ago, to be sure, but for an institution with the longevity possessed by the Catholic Church long ago was just yesterday – when the Church played an honorable role in hemming in the authority of magistrates and in promoting not only its own liberty as an institution but that of others similarly intent on managing their own affairs as individuals and as members of subpolitical communities.

ricochet.com/main-feed/American-Catholicism-s-Pact-With-the-Devil

 

[Abu]

Since a heresy is the obstinate denial of a truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith (Canon Law #750.1), no it is not a heresy.

But the Welfare State is condemned by Bl JPII in Centesimus Annus, to be replaced by State help only when absolutely, necessary respecting the natural human associations embodying solidarity and subsidiarity.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It would depend, then, on the teaching of charity. The author makes this claim:

In the process, the leaders of the American Catholic Church fell prey to a conceit that had long before ensnared a great many mainstream Protestants in the United States – the notion that public provision is somehow akin to charity – and so they fostered state paternalism and undermined what they professed to teach: that charity is an individual responsibility and that it is appropriate that the laity join together under the leadership of the Church to alleviate the suffering of the poor. In its place, they helped establish the Machiavellian principle that underpins modern liberalism – the notion that it is our Christian duty to confiscate other people’s money and redistribute it.

So, first, is the bolded part an accurate description of Church teaching on charity and, if so, is it something “believed with divine and Catholic faith”?

I (and not the author) made the comparison to liberation theology, which was declared to be a heresy by none other than our current pope. His criticism centered around it’s redefinition of terms by a marxist interpretation of them. It is an interesting parallel.

 

[Khalid]

It is not equivalent to charity. It is justice. And they - charity and public provision - are equally necessary. There are, in any situation, a great many people with next-to-none human connections (myself included, even counting the “connections” of the internet), or connections to people in situations equally bad, or with no connections whatsoever.

 

[Abu]

Bubba Switzler #3
So, first, is the bolded part an accurate description of Church teaching on charity and, if so, is it something “believed with divine and Catholic faith”?

As per post #2, no, as belief with divine and Catholic faith applies only to dogmas (infallible). There is no parallel with Liberation Theology which dissented from theology and faith.

Further the teaching is in *Centesimus Annus *#48 tinyurl.com/5m32e
“In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called ‘Welfare State’….However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the ‘Social Assistance State’.”

The Church supports the welfare of all, and the State in Catholic Social Teaching is allowed only supplementary interventions for urgent reasons re the common good, and these must be as brief as possible to avoid encroachment on economic and civil freedom (CA #48), but when this is “vastly expanded” (CA #48) to a Welfare State Bl JP II’s condemnation of the Welfare State follows.

Condemned because as Bl JPII emphasises in Centesimus Annus #48: “By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.” [My emphasis].

In fact, Bl JP II closes CA #48 with a resounding condemnation of the Welfare State whose inadequacies he has earlier emphasised “are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected.”

Bl JPII is clear: “In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.”