Raise taxes (Archbishop Flynn)

[JakeW]

money funds bureaucracy, it doesn’t necessarily help the poor.

I advocate a safety net. I think a safety net (with strings attached)serves “the common good”. Dependancy on the state, conversly, is not the answer.

I don’t think taxation is the answer.

God is.

Traditional families, with children cared for both their biological mother and biological father, who look to God for their moral compass…who look out for one another charitably in their church communities or neighborhoods…that’s what will destroy the welfare state, and the “need” for higher taxes.

 

[Catholic2003]

vern humphrey:

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.

I’m afraid you’ve missed the entire point of my post. My apologies; let me try again.

Several posters have argued that the statement of the Minnesota bishops falls outside the valid scope of magisterial teachings. I am using paragraph 2032 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to demonstrate that this is not so. This paragraph defines the scope of Church teachings very broadly, so as to include “any human affair”.

I am not claiming that taxation is the same as helping the poor; thus I cannot be confusing the two. I am not claiming that there is only one way to help the poor. I am not making any economic claims whatsoever. What I am doing is examining the clauses of CCC 2032 one by one, showing how the Minnesota bishops’ statement falls within its definition. As to the clause on the social order, I think that issues of taxation certainly fall within the scope of the “social order”. And even if you disagree, please note that that clause was inclusive, not restrictive, in scope.
vern humphrey:

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?

This line of argument is not relevant to the issue at hand, any more than the priest abuse scandal is relevant to the validity of the Church’s teachings on artificial birth control and sexual morality.

 

[ISABUS]

coeyannie:

The Archbishop of St. Paul/Mpls., has joined with other Bishops in declaring that our taxes should be raised. I am trying not to blow the top of my head off. If any of your Bishops are involved in this, how do you feel.

God Bless all of us.

I need a url to validate your statement.

The Vatican does not prohibit individuals freedom of expression, which is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals enjoy. It is fundamental to the existence of democracy and the respect of human dignity.

Thank you.

 

[Catholic2003]

Jeremy:

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.

I’ve addressed the “binding teaching derives from expertise” fallacy in my post #40.

Jeremy:

You cannot deny that it sometimes happens that outlawing something is not the best way to stop it.

I do not deny this. I claim that this possibility does not negate the binding nature of the bishop’s teaching, either in the criminalization of abortion or the level of taxation.

Jeremy:

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.

You appear to be using the term “opinion” interchangeably with a teaching which has an economic, sociological, or other similar component. However, these are two separate and orthogonal concepts. An bishop’s opinion is a peronal viewpoint which he does not choose to make binding on the faithful.

Jeremy:

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.

You give several good reasons, but miss the best one, which is the bishops’ Christ-given authority in these matters.

(I will address the rest of your post tomorrow.)

 

[HagiaSophia]

ISABUS:

I need a url to validate your statement.

The Vatican does not prohibit individuals freedom of expression, which is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals enjoy. It is fundamental to the existence of democracy and the respect of human dignity.

Thank you.

workdayminnesota.org/view_article.php?id=4c5ab0058c93d3cb63e41b5d772e7641

 

[Norwich]

MT 19:16-22

MT 22:18-21

 

[shockerfan]

amarischuk:

As Catholic Canadian, we have a much higher taxation level than the Americans and we somehow manage.

In fact, most of the world has hire taxs than the US. Perhaps Americans are undertaxed concidering their foreign policy, not to mention their rather poor domestic policy.

Adam

Yes, Canadians get along by having the United States act as their national defense.

Yes, most of the world has higher taxes, and the United States has lower taxes. But guess what, our capitalistic society is the most creative on the planet. Where do the vast majority of new medicines come from? Where do the vast majority of new inventions come from? What country is the most generous not only in terms of money, but also standing up for the worlds oppressed? The US is not a perfect country but its better than anywhere else, including the patch of ice you live on.

Lower taxes enables people to make money, which drives creativity and competition. This drives jobs.

Higher taxes stifle creativity and competition. What is the unemployment rate in all of the wonderful countries that have higher taxes???

By the way, in your wonderful country, parts of the Bible are considered hate speech.

 

[mlchance]

Jeremy:

An Archbishop saying we should increase taxes is no more violation of church/state separation than an Archbishop saying we should legally define marriage as man/woman

Quite right.

But there is this one crucial difference: Marriage is a matter of both faith and morals, and thus falls safely within the Church’s sphere. Rates of taxation, however, are certainly not faith issues, are extremely difficult to define as moral issues except in extreme cases, and the Church’s opinion on these matters is certainly worthy of attention, but does not command obedience.

This simple observation very nicely exposes the foolishness of this statement:

Catholic2003:

You give several good reasons, but miss the best one, which is the bishops’ Christ-given authority in these matters.

Bishops have no Christ-given authority to proclaim acceptable rates of taxation.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[shockerfan]

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?

We have a duty to help the poor. We do not have a duty to help the poor by wasting money in a govermental bureaucratic money pit. Government is by far the least efficient way to help the poor.

The bishops should call for higher tithing, not higher taxes.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Catholic2003:

I’m afraid you’ve missed the entire point of my post. My apologies; let me try again.

Several posters have argued that the statement of the Minnesota bishops falls outside the valid scope of magisterial teachings. I am using paragraph 2032 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to demonstrate that this is not so. This paragraph defines the scope of Church teachings very broadly, so as to include “any human affair”…

That’s like saying, "The Pope is infallible – so let him predict the weather.

Catholic2003:

I am not claiming that taxation is the same as helping the poor; thus I cannot be confusing the two. I am not claiming that there is only one way to help the poor. I am not making any economic claims whatsoever. What I am doing is examining the clauses of CCC 2032 one by one, showing how the Minnesota bishops’ statement falls within its definition. As to the clause on the social order, I think that issues of taxation certainly fall within the scope of the “social order”. And even if you disagree, please note that that clause was inclusive, not restrictive, in scope…

So it would be okay for the bishops to simply take over the country and run it – because that’s your argument reduced to the absurd.

Catholic2003:

This line of argument is not relevant to the issue at hand, any more than the priest abuse scandal is relevant to the validity of the Church’s teachings on artificial birth control and sexual morality.

The argment that bishops balance THEIR diocese budgets “on the backs of the poor” by closing churches and schools is highly relevant to this discussion.

The real issue here is moral pragmatism – if we are morally impelled to do something, we are morally impelled to adopt a course of action which is likely to lead to success. The bishops have shown by their own actions that their selected course leads to failure.

 

[thestickman]

The fallacious arguments trying to tie tax increases to the war in Iraq are pitiful at best.

After spending more than 10 trillion dollars on the war on poverty while the percentage of people supposedly living below the poverty line I have to wonder why one would want thier taxes raised so more of their own money can be spent ineffectively. Catholic charities are known for being much more efficent in how they turn dollars into real aide than the US government ever will be.

Just my 2 cents

 

[Catholic2003]

Jeremy:

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.

I just want to point out that if this were true (that the Church’s teaching on the moral necessity of criminalizing abortion is not binding on the faithful), then John Kerry would have jumped on this loophole in a second, and there would be no valid rationale to deny communion to pro-choice politicians.

Jeremy:

We need to deeply respect and seriously consider the opinions of the bishops in each case.

This is true, and is very close to what Cardinal Ratzinger said about the faithful taking into consideration the Pope’s personal opinion that the Iraqi war was unjust. However, note that the Pope’s viewpoint on the Iraqi war was an opinion because the Pope deliberately decided not declare a binding teaching on the matter, not because the Pope lacks the requisite military expertise or information. Bishop Botean was not so reticent, and his teaching is therefore binding on his flock.

Jeremy:

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.

It doesn’t make any sense to claim that the scope defined by CCC 2032 refers to the bishops’ personal opinions and not their binding teaching. Are you suggesting that the bishops are prohibited from holding personal opinions unless “required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls”?

As to the “strictly” in “strictly moral issues”, see below. Note that CCC 2032 uses no such restrictive adjective.

Jeremy:

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.

Moral questions are questions pertaining to what is right and what is wrong. Pure or abstract moral questions have no other components. Prudential or concrete moral questions involve additional components involving real-world considerations, for example, matters of economics or other social sciences. The bishops’ authority extends to both types of moral questions, as the language of CCC 2032 clearly states.

Jeremy:

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 don’t see any moral component to this example, so I don’t see your point. If a bishop were to inform a Catholic laywer that it would be immoral to force a priest to testify about matters revealed in the confessional, then this would be a binding teaching on a matter of morals, regardless of the legal details of the applicable civil statutes on privileged communications.

 

[Catholic2003]

mlchance:

Bishops have no Christ-given authority to proclaim acceptable rates of taxation.

They have a Christ-given authority to proclaim whether aspects of the social order, including rates of taxation, are moral or immoral, provided that morality is required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls.

This authority has nothing to do with the bishops’ expertise in any particular area, just as Congress’ authority to enact legislation (along with the President’s signature) has nothing to do with their expertise in any particular area. In fact, in 1893, the Supreme Court ruled (in Nix v. Hedden) that a tax on vegetables included tomatos, because Congress wasn’t smart enough to know that, scientifically speaking, the tomato is actually a fruit.

 

[Catholic2003]

vern humphrey:

That’s like saying, "The Pope is infallible – so let him predict the weather.

No, it’s nothing like that at all.

I’m taking the teaching of the Church, as found in the Catechism, on the proper scope of magisterial teaching, and applying it to the Minnesota bishops’ statement. Even if you disagree with the bishops’ economics, in order to reject their statement you have to claim that they are so incompetent as to not even understand the proper scope of their magisterial teaching authority.

For some reason, Christ gave individual bishop’s broad teaching authority, but He did not give those individual bishops the charism of infallibility. And I’m not going to second-guess God as to why.
vern humphrey:

So it would be okay for the bishops to simply take over the country and run it – because that’s your argument reduced to the absurd.

My argument is that the Church teaches that the magisterium, the living teaching authority of the Church, resides in the bishops in communion with the Pope.

Many people see a conflict between their personal experience and the teaching of the Church, and come to the conclusion that the Church’s teaching is absurd. Homosexuals who have known all their lives that they are attracted to members of the same sex think that it is absurd that God would create them with such attraction if He did not intend them to act on that attraction.

When several bishops taught that it was immoral to vote for pro-choice political candidates, many Catholics thought it absurd that the Church would tell citizens how to vote. Some even suggested, along the lines of your above reasoning to the absurd, that the bishops should just be allowed to cast the votes for all the Catholics in their diocese. By your logic, the Church has no business teaching Catholics about the moral aspects of voting for candidates who hold particular views.
vern humphrey:

The argment that bishops balance THEIR diocese budgets “on the backs of the poor” by closing churches and schools is highly relevant to this discussion.

The real issue here is moral pragmatism – if we are morally impelled to do something, we are morally impelled to adopt a course of action which is likely to lead to success. The bishops have shown by their own actions that their selected course leads to failure.

Pragmatists argue that the requirement of priestly celebacy has led to the abuse scandal, by not allowing priests a normal sexual outlet. By your logic, the Church should now be required to drop the celebacy requirement. I don’t agree. Perhaps you could cite the applicable Catechism section on moral pragmatism, so I can see if I am applying this principle correctly.

 

[Lorarose]

Any statements our leaders make in this area should be based on TRUTH should they not?
Some her assume the Bishops must have sought out expert counsel in this area (from economists) in order to arrive at their position.
Can this be shown to be true?
Have the bishops, indeed, sought out counsel from established economists?
Because if they did - it seems they must be ignoring much of the knowledge and wisdom economists have to offer.

Someone please steer me towards a reputable economist who would support the notion, with facts, that raising everyone’s taxes will help the poor?

Anyone here who has taken even basic highschool level economics know that the best situation to help everyone - including the poor- is to have a healthy and growing economy.

Now please - someone show me - with facts- how raising everyone’s taxes will bring about a healthy and thriving economy.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Catholic2003:

No, it’s nothing like that at all.

I’m taking the teaching of the Church, as found in the Catechism, on the proper scope of magisterial teaching, and applying it to the Minnesota bishops’ statement. Even if you disagree with the bishops’ economics, in order to reject their statement you have to claim that they are so incompetent as to not even understand the proper scope of their magisterial teaching authority…

I’d say, “nonsense” but that would be unchristian.

To help the poor is a Catholic duty. But taxation is so far removed from helping the poor as to make any connection between taxation and Catholic duties (and teachings) extremely tenuous.

Catholic2003:

For some reason, Christ gave individual bishop’s broad teaching authority, but He did not give those individual bishops the charism of infallibility. And I’m not going to second-guess God as to why.

Nor am I. But he did not give them the authority to set tax rates.

Catholic2003:

My argument is that the Church teaches that the magisterium, the living teaching authority of the Church, resides in the bishops in communion with the Pope.

Many people see a conflict between their personal experience and the teaching of the Church, and come to the conclusion that the Church’s teaching is absurd. Homosexuals who have known all their lives that they are attracted to members of the same sex think that it is absurd that God would create them with such attraction if He did not intend them to act on that attraction…

Gee, and you objected to my analogy of the Pope predicting the weather!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Catholic2003:

When several bishops taught that it was immoral to vote for pro-choice political candidates, many Catholics thought it absurd that the Church would tell citizens how to vote. Some even suggested, along the lines of your above reasoning to the absurd, that the bishops should just be allowed to cast the votes for all the Catholics in their diocese. By your logic, the Church has no business teaching Catholics about the moral aspects of voting for candidates who hold particular views.

There is a big difference between voting for a politician who has advanced laws to promote abortion (and against laws to restrict abortion) on the one hand, and to assume that bishops can set tax rates.

Catholic2003:

Pragmatists argue that the requirement of priestly celebacy has led to the abuse scandal, by not allowing priests a normal sexual outlet. By your logic, the Church should now be required to drop the celebacy requirement. I don’t agree. Perhaps you could cite the applicable Catechism section on moral pragmatism, so I can see if I am applying this principle correctly.

Wow! And you objected to my analogy of the Pope predicting the weather!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Catholic2003]

Lorarose:

Now please - someone show me - with facts- how raising everyone’s taxes will bring about a healthy and thriving economy.

You are confusing morality with economics here. You are also confusing right and wrong actions with particular economic results.

Perhaps an analogy will help. It was an immoral act to vote for John Kerry because of his pro-choice stance, even though five million unborn babies were killed under President Bush’s first term, and even though it seems very likely that five million more unborn babies will be killed under President Bush’s second term. That is, actually saving unborn lives doesn’t matter in determining the morality of a particular voting choice. So why should actually achieving particular economic results matter in determining the morality of a particular tax structure and budget outlay?

Could it be that magisterial teachings that go against the Republican platform are held to a much higher standard here on Catholic Answers forums than magisterial teachings that support the Republican platform?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Catholic2003:

You are confusing morality with economics here. You are also confusing right and wrong actions with particular economic results.

Perhaps an analogy will help. It was an immoral act to vote for John Kerry because of his pro-choice stance, even though five million unborn babies were killed under President Bush’s first term, and even though it seems very likely that five million more unborn babies will be killed under President Bush’s second term. That is, actually saving unborn lives doesn’t matter in determining the morality of a particular voting choice. So why should actually achieving particular economic results matter in determining the morality of a particular tax structure and budget outlay?

Could it be that magisterial teachings that go against the Republican platform are held to a much higher standard here on Catholic Answers forums than magisterial teachings that support the Republican platform?

No, it’s because abortion is wrong, in and of itself.

You cannot say that of taxes, however. There is no moral value attached to any particular tax level.

The bishops assume a link between high taxes and helping the poor, but no such link exists. In fact, with the linkage between low taxes and increased economic activity (and thus more jobs) it is pretty clear that raising taxes is not the best way to help the poor. It is, in the long run, counterproductive.

 

[Lorarose]

I am not confused.
Moral judgements should be based on truth.

The study of economics helps us understand the TRUTH of economic realities.

It does no good to offer a moral judgement based on faulty economic principals.
In fact -it could be dangerous to the very people we are claiming to help - the poor.

 

[Catholic2003]

vern humphrey:

No, it’s because abortion is wrong, in and of itself.

However, Archbishop Burke’s teaching stated that it was immoral to vote for any politician who opposed the criminalization of abortion, even those politicians who acknowledged that abortion was a moral wrong and should be stopped by other means.

If someone only follows the magisterium when it agrees with their preconceived political views, then they are a cafeteria Catholic.

Minnesota citizens who oppose the efforts to keep open the needed state programs for the poor, even if it means higher state taxes, should refrain from receiving communion until they go to confession and obtain absolution.

Minnesota state legistators who vote to close those state programs for the poor should be denied communion until they publically repent for their actions.

It is ludicrous to act as though the Church’s teachings on social justice are somehow optional or less binding than the Church’s teachings on abortion.