Raise taxes (Archbishop Flynn)

  • Thread starter Thread starter coeyannie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Catholic2003:
Now, the Minnesota bishops certainly could be wrong on this issue. However, I don’t think it is my job to be second-guessing them. And if I did start second-guessing bishops, then where would it end?
Click to expand...
Second guessing bishops on things outside of Faith and Morals is fine.

I agree that we have a duty to society and the poor, I just disagree that higher taxes is the way to fix it.

I also think it is bad form for a non-profit organization to call for a raise in taxes when they pay no taxes.

If I lived in Minnesota I would write my bishop and my parish and inform them that I now consider my taxes as part of my tithe and if my taxes go up then the portion of my tithe to the church will go down exactly the same amount.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
Second guessing bishops on things outside of Faith and Morals is fine.
Click to expand...
When did our duty to the poor get reclassified as something other than a matter of morals? Did all social justice concerns get reclassified as well?
 
40.png
ByzCath:
I also think it is bad form for a non-profit organization to call for a raise in taxes when they pay no taxes.
Click to expand...
There are those who think it is bad form for a magisterium consisting entirely of men to make moral judgments that artificial birth control is wrong when it is only the women who get pregnant. (Not to mention the whole women priest issue.)

“What is right and what is wrong?” is a more important question than “what is good form and what is bad form?”.
 
If a bishop says “Help the poor”, that is a statement of faith and morals. If a bishop says “The best way to help the poor is to raise taxes”, that is not an issue of faith and morals, that is the bishop’s economic analysis on the best way to achieve the end “help the poor”.

In other words, economics is a temporal matter, but the overall goals of economic policy are matters of faith and morals.
 
Time and time again I say:

Immorality causes social injustice. Social injustice only causes immorality when we pastor to temporal bodies instead of immortal souls.

And as well:

Ok lets think with logic.

Who employes others?

Who depends on being employed by others?

How likely will those whom do the employing take the hit them selves?

Who will they pass it off too?

Who buys lower quality good produced by lower paid people?

Would the goods cost more?

Would the employees be paid less?

Would those whom now make less and have to pay more for good and services need more assistance?

Where would they get this assistance?

If more people are requiring more assistance, do you raise taxes again?

Do you repeat this same cycle?

When do you stop?

Will there come a point when people are so taxed that they refuse to give anything to charities because the government is taking so much?

And if so what happens to faith based charities reliant on private donations?

Are we raising taxes again, while making less money and paying more for goods and services, and the only assistance available is funded by the government but we need to use the assistance because we can’t afford to live because we are raising taxes again, while making less money and paying more for goods and services, and the only assistance available is funded by the government but we need to use the assistance because we can’t afford to live because we are raising taxes again, while making less money and paying more for goods and services, and the only assistance available is funded by the government but we need to use the assistance because we can’t afford to live because we are raising taxes again, while making less money and paying more for goods and services, and the only assistance available is funded by the government but we need to use the assistance because we can’t afford to live because we are raising taxes again, while making less money and paying more for goods and services, and the only assistance available is funded by the government but we need to use the assistance because we can’t afford to live because…?
 
Raising taxes will have the oposite effect the Bishops desire. I’m curious as to what other outspoken positions these Bishops have taken…
 
40.png
Jeremy:
If a bishop says “Help the poor”, that is a statement of faith and morals. If a bishop says “The best way to help the poor is to raise taxes”, that is not an issue of faith and morals, that is the bishop’s economic analysis on the best way to achieve the end “help the poor”.
Click to expand...
I’m going to test your logic by applying it to another issue:

If a bishop says “Abortion is wrong and must be stopped”, then that is a matter of faith and morals. But if a bishop says “the best way to stop abortion is to make it illegal”, that is not an issue of faith and morals, that is the bishop’s legislative analysis on the best way to achieve the end of stopping abortion. So someone who disagrees with the bishop on the criminalization of abortion, e.g. John Kerry, is still a faithful Catholic. And certainly there is no problem in voting for political candidates who want to stop abortion though means other than criminalizing it. (Wasn’t that a Democrat campaign slogan, “make abortion safe, legal, and rare”?)

This sounds like nonsense to me. But I don’t see any difference between this nonsense and your argument with respect to economics. Thus I conclude that your argument is incorrect.
40.png
Jeremy:
In other words, economics is a temporal matter, but the overall goals of economic policy are matters of faith and morals.
Click to expand...
The Minnesota bishops are saying that closing down state programs that help the poor in order to keep taxes low is wrong (i.e., immoral), and that raising taxes in order to keep these programs open is right (i.e., a moral good). This teaching is clearly in line with CCC 2032:
  • announce moral principles – e.g., “help the poor”
  • including those pertaining to the social order – such as taxes
  • and to make judgments on any human affairs – the poor are human beings, as are the taxpayers
  • to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person – having enough food to survive is certainly a fundamental right
I don’t know enough about economics to know if the bishops are right or wrong. But I do know enough about the magisterium to know that this teaching is just as valid as the one that says that it is immoral to vote for pro-choice political candidates.
 
Do any of these bishops have degrees in economics?

Do they have a full understanding of how higher taxes drive businesses to cut jobs?

Don’t the bishops want the average Joe to have MORE work? Not less?
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
When did our duty to the poor get reclassified as something other than a matter of morals? Did all social justice concerns get reclassified as well?
Click to expand...
It didn’t but the way that this duty is done is not a matter of morals. Raising taxes is not a matter of morals. I can and do give to charitable organizations that help the poor. If my taxes go up then I will have less money to give to those groups.

Do you actually believe that the government is a better way to help the poor?
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
The Minnesota bishops are saying that closing down state programs that help the poor in order to keep taxes low is wrong (i.e., immoral), and that raising taxes in order to keep these programs open is right (i.e., a moral good). This teaching is clearly in line with CCC 2032:
  • announce moral principles – e.g., “help the poor”
  • including those pertaining to the social order – such as taxes
Click to expand...
You mistake*** taxes*** for “helping the poor.”

It is helping the poor that pertains to the social order, not taxes. There are many ways to help the poor – one of the best is to get jobs for them. High taxes result in less jobs.

Another way to help the poor is to educate the children. How many NEW Catholic schools have been opened recently under these bishop’s reign?
 
Can anyone post the actual text/wording of the Bishop’s pronouncement? I think that could clear up many of these points of contention.

Scott
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
If a bishop says “Abortion is wrong and must be stopped”, then that is a matter of faith and morals. But if a bishop says “the best way to stop abortion is to make it illegal”, that is not an issue of faith and morals, that is the bishop’s legislative analysis on the best way to achieve the end of stopping abortion. So someone who disagrees with the bishop on the criminalization of abortion, e.g. John Kerry, is still a faithful Catholic. And certainly there is no problem in voting for political candidates who want to stop abortion though means other than criminalizing it. (Wasn’t that a Democrat campaign slogan, “make abortion safe, legal, and rare”?)
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking, if a bishop says “The best way to stop abortion is to outlaw abortion completely”, then yes, the bishop is making a claim in the field of sociology which he is not specially trained in, and hence his claim is not binding on his parishioners as it would be in a strictly faith-and-morals sense.

You cannot deny that it sometimes happens that outlawing something is not the best way to stop it. An example would be the growth of the outlawed Church in the early days. It is also true that there are other ways the law can discourage or stop something other than outlawing it. An example here would be the so-called sin tax on items like cigarettes and alcohol.

If I could show you, through some kind of university study, that imposing a $10,000 tax on each abortion which could not be covered by insurance would reduce the number of abortions in this country more than simply outlawing abortion altogether would, then you must agree that the tax approach would be better than the outlawing approach. In this case it would be appropriate to disregard the bishop’s opinion in sociological matters, while at the same time holding to his teaching in moral matters.

Now in this case, is there any reason why we should take the bishop’s opinion seriously, even though it is not (strictly speaking) binding? Yes, absolutely. One reason is that it is a given that we strongly agree with the bishop’s end goals – meaning he has our best interests at heart and we trust him because of it. Also, we trust that he has done the research and talked with the people who do know about sociology etc and that he is interpreting and repeating their opinions for us. A third reason is that unity is a good thing especially in a democracy – we all need to vote the same way, even if it may not necessarily be the absolutely best way, so that at least something will get done.
I don’t know enough about economics to know if the bishops are right or wrong. But I do know enough about the magisterium to know that this teaching is just as valid as the one that says that it is immoral to vote for pro-choice political candidates.
Click to expand...
We need to deeply respect and seriously consider the opinions of the bishops in each case. The part of the CCC you quote allows for and requires the Magisterium to make judgments on such things as it sees fit. However the sort of judgments the CCC is talking about here are not binding on the consciences of the faithful if they are not strictly moral issues. I refer you to CCC 2039

“…As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions.”

Moral questions are questions like “Is abortion justified in any circumstances?” On these matters the bishops are authoritative. However technical questions involving law or sociology, as in “What is the best way to achieve a certain end?” are not moral questions, except to rule out evil ways to achieve a certain end. In non-moral issues we are bound to follow their wishes “as far as possible” but we are not obliged to do something which we firmly believe will cause more bad things than good, given our level of education and knowledge about a situation. For example if a bishop fancied himself an amateur lawyer and tried to advise a real lawyer on matters of law, the lawyer is bound to hear him out, but is not required to lay out his case in exactly the manner the bishop said he should.
 
I’m having a real problem with the bishops’ statement. If “charity” is forced through taxation, is it still charity? I don’t think so. If a man sells all that the has and gives it to the poor but does not have charity… Higher taxes, even when used for social programs, does not relieve us, as Christians, of our duty to help those less fortunate. They just make it harder for us to do what Christ called us to do.
 
So, we must all clap our hands and dance around the tax tree because when our taxes are raised, the money is going to help the poor! WRONG. The Minneapolis School district lost somewhere in the neighborhood of a million dollars some years ago (maybe 3 years ago). They were not held accountable, it was swept under the carpet. No one in the Church insisted that they account for where the money was or is, it was gone. The Star Tribune buried the story. It all disappeared. That is what happens to our tax money. It is used for God knows what. I don’t understand why the Archbishop doesn’t use his bully pulpit to absolutely put the facts out and tell the people he needs more than the $6,000,000 he received last year. If he needs $1,000,000,000, tell the people. I am sure they will rise to the occasion. If, however, the money gets lost in the process, why should we contribute. That is how I feel about taxes. We have no idea where our money is going, the more they get, the more they spend.

It is amazing that some of you people will equate murder, (abortion), to helping the poor. If that isn’t apples and oranges, I don’t know what is.

I realize this whole subject was hashed out in another forum, so let’s just drop it. I am going to write the Archbishop and inform him that I think he is dead wrong. I hope others will do the same. If you agree with him, great, let him know. Again, let’s get the liturgical abuse mess cleaned up first, and then worry about what our legislators are doing.

Praise God and Peace be with you. 👍
 
Here’s what the Catechism says about taxes:

2436 It is unjust not to pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority.

*Unemployment *almost always wounds its victim’s dignity and threatens the equilibrium of his life. Besides the harm done to him personally, it entails many risks for his family.223

The first paragraph indicates you shouldn’t fail to pay – but it doesn’t say taxes must be raised.

The second paragraph indicates that jobs are the critical key to helping the poor. Since we all know that lower taxes stimulate employment, and higher taxes cause sluggish economic performance, it follows that taxes should be as low as possible.

Now does anyone know of a paragraph in the Catechism that says it is a sin to squander the public money?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon11.gif
 
I pay property taxes up the ying yang for school bonds. I don’t even have children. :whistle: My property tax went up $400 dollars in the last year. Am I a happy camper? NO! Do I love kids? Yep! Why? Because children are “our” future. They need the very best, and I’m willing to sacrafice a manicure for the sake of their education. 😉

p.s.Good to see you back in true form Vern! A “Happy New Year” to you and yours. 🙂

Mary ~
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
Have you considered that since the bishops are authentic teachers of the faith, who speak in the name of Christ, we should accept their evaluation of the state budget situation and the need to raise taxes? In my opinion, anyone who rejects their teaching here is just as much a cafeteria Catholic as those who reject the teachings on artificial birth control or voting for pro-choice political candidates.
Click to expand...
Catholic2003:

I recall something about “… the things that are Caesar’s …”. If these bishops had taught about the need for charity and spoken in favor on increased “alms” then they (and you) would be on solid grounds. Speaking on taxes (excepting those which are confiscatory) is not “teaching the faith.” Further, the bishops are supposed to follow the teachings of the Holy See and the Catechism. Where might we find the teachings on “the need to increase taxes?”

Francesco
 
40.png
ByzCath:
It didn’t but the way that this duty is done is not a matter of morals. Raising taxes is not a matter of morals.
Click to expand...
Simply put, morality is about what is right and what is wrong. Suppose that a country had a tax system that placed all the tax burden on the bottom 20% (in income or net worth) of its citizens, while the middle 60% got a free ride, and the top 20% recieved a net payout from the government. Further suppose that death due to malnutrition was a daily occurrence in that bottom 20%. Do you seriously expect me to believe that the Church could not officially declare this situation to be gravely immoral, with a force of teaching sufficient to bind the consciences of the faithful?

However, the difference between that hypothetical country and the situation in Minnesota is only a matter of degree; it is not fundamentally different in nature. There could very well be Ph.D. economists (in the top 20%, of course) who argue that the Church knows nothing about economics, and that changing the tax structure to tax the top 20% would only make things worse for the bottom 20%.

I don’t think that many of the posters here understand why the magisterium of the bishops is binding on the faithful. Some seem to think that it is a matter of expertise, and that the supposed lack of economic expertise on the part of the bishops invalidates any of their statements that have an economic component. First of all, I’m sure the bishops do not lack access to economic advice from Ph.D.‘s and experts in that area. Second of all, it is not expertise that gives the bishops their authority; Lumen Gentium clearly states that the teaching authority of the bishops comes from Christ himself. I’m sure there are theologians and other philosophers who are much more expert in matters of morals than any given bishop; does that mean that they can ignore those bishop’s moral teachings, just as you advocate that we should ignore the Minnesota bishop’s teachings conserning the morality of alternative taxation structures? Of course not; thus, it is clear that the bishops’ teaching authority does not derive from their expertise in a particular area.
40.png
ByzCath:
Do you actually believe that the government is a better way to help the poor?
Click to expand...
I’m a computer scientist, not a public policy expert. But I am a Catholic, so I know that if the bishops teach that government involvement is a moral good in a certain situation, then it is my job to support their teaching and not second-guess it based on my preferred political party’s platform.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top