Raise taxes (Archbishop Flynn)

[HagiaSophia]

Catholic2003:

The Magisterium is the living teaching authority of the Church

Questions about the authority of National Conferences were settled by this letter from the Vatican and offer some clarifications on “groups of bishops” issuing statements:

Commentary from America-1998 on Apostolic Suos issued by the Pope:

Vatican II, acknowledging their usefulness and potential, recommended that episcopal conferences be established wherever they did not yet exist. Since the council, they have become “the preferred means” for episcopal collaboration on local levels and “a most helpful means of strengthening ecclesial communion.”

The second part of the letter returns to the teaching of the council on “collegial union among bishops.” Recalling that the whole order of bishops possesses “supreme and full power over the universal church,”** the letter argues that this power can be exercised only by the entire college either in solemn form in ecumenical councils or, less dramatically, either when the pope calls them to a collective action or accepts an action initiated by bishops throughout the world.** No other collective episcopal actions have this strict and proper collegial character. Intermediate bodies of bishops thus have a character and authority different from those of the individual bishop in his diocese and from those of the whole order of bishops. Such bodies, then, should not be thought to replace or be allowed to replace the authority of the bishop in his diocese or to be on a par with the entire college of bishops.

The real novelty of the apostolic letter appears in the sections on the teaching office. It recalls the limits of pronouncements issued by episcopal conferences, which "do not have the characteristics of a universal magisterium."They become binding on the faithful only when they are either approved unanimously or when, after being approved by a two-thirds majority, they receive the recognitio (approval) of the Apostolic See . Such binding statements can come only from the plenary assembly, not from any subordinate organ of the conference. Three norms then set out these provisions in canonical form.

 

[katherine2]

I think you misread this statement. It notes the nature of the authority of groups of bishops; it does not deny they have any authority. it also would seem to give the statement by the Minnesota bishops some greater authority because it was unanimous.

Nevertheless, no one is claiming that individual Catholics in Minnesota are bound under pain of sin to support the bishops social teachings. I think this is a weakness in the ecclesilogy of many of my conservative friends that the Church’s teachings come in only one of two catagories 1) infallible pronouncements; and 2) hot air.

I think such is a flawed vision of the Church and the teaching office.

 

[theMutant]

katherine2:

The Church and private charities that are so effective in providing charitable services get about half of their funding from the government. I am quite content with a system where the government funds and the church and private charities administer these programs.

However, this was not always the case. My point is that it is not necessary to have the government involved in order for these charities to get their funding. In fact, it is immoral to advocate for this for the reasons I elaborated in the other thread I linked to above

 

[theMutant]

katherine2:

You and I disagree as to what these popes are saying.

Well, you have not explained what you think these popes are saying. In the documents I cited, they explicitly stated that they were reaffirming the teachings of previous popes; especially Leo XIII.

katherine2:

Knowning that is a dead end discussion, my question is can you point to a particular application of that teaching in American society – such as a piece of legislation — where some bishops opposed this legislation?

theMutant:

Can you name even one social welfare initiative that expanded government’s role that has been unanimously supported by all of the bishops?

Unemployment Insurance.

I can’t think of a single instance, including unimployment insurance, where all of the U. S. bishops supported such legislation. If I am wrong, please cite the declaration that was approved by all of the bishops.

 

[theMutant]

katherine2:

I think this is a weakness in the ecclesilogy of many of my conservative friends that the Church’s teachings come in only one of two catagories 1) infallible pronouncements; and 2) hot air.

I think such is a flawed vision of the Church and the teaching office.

I think that a weakness in the ecclesiology of many of my liberal friends is that they seem to believe that the Church’s teachings come in only two categories: 1) infallible pronouncements (which many of them contradict anyway) and 2) anything goes.

My point is this, there are three categories of infallible teaching and only two of them require authoritative pronouncements. (Infallible papal declarations and those of ecumenical councils.) The third category is that of consistent authoritative teaching. In this last category, there have often been times when groups of bishops, sometimes even the majority, have held a contrary view. In these cases (where bishops disagree), we look, as we always have, to that bishop who was given his role as the key to our unity - the Pope.

In the case of the subject at hand, the popes have consistently taught the principle of subsidiarity and have even taught that this principle is unchanging and unchangeable.

 

[theMutant]

katherine2:

I think you misread this statement. It notes the nature of the authority of groups of bishops; it does not deny they have any authority. it also would seem to give the statement by the Minnesota bishops some greater authority because it was unanimous.

Actually, the authority of local councils of bishops is limited to ecclesiastical laws and, even if the bishops are unanimous, do not have effect unless approve by the pope. This is why I must accept what I consider to be abominations; like transferring Holy Days of Obligation to other days, Communion standing and received in the hand.

 

[theMutant]

Catholic2003:

It seems many posters here have a problem understanding how what happens to little green pieces of paper can have a moral dimension. But the Bible is clear on both counts that they do.

For example, in Luke 18:22, Jesus told the rich man, “There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” I honestly get the impression that a few posters here would advise the rich man to ignore Jesus, as He was not teaching on a matter of faith or morals. (And that if Jesus were to claim otherwise, that would be an irresponsible use of the term “moral”.)

This post clearly shows that you are not actually listening to what your opponents are saying or any of the references to which they have suggested. To cite you own example from Luke 18:22, the rich man turned away at this calling. What did Jesus do next? Did he turn to the crowd and say, “If he will not give his possessions to the poor, then you are free to take them from him and do so?” Can you find even one example of such a thing being taught? No, and yet, instead of following Jesus’ example, you are insisting that this is what we must do.

If the rich man refuses to be generous to the poor, then we are to pray for his repentance and try to give more generously ourselves from what we have, not from what others have. It is not an act of charity, or even of generosity, to offer the possessions of others.

It is you who is telling us to ignore the example of Jesus and instead advocate taking from those who have much but refuse to give freely. I would rather follow Jesus’ admonition to look to the beam that is in my own eye than try to deal with the mote that is in the eye of the rich man. And hiding the act of taking the rich man’s money in tax legislation in no way changes the fact that this is what you are doing.

I have not heard anyone advocating my position in this thread saying that there is no moral implication regarding the “movements of little green pieces of paper.” In fact, we have consistently stated that what we want is to be allowed to move them to those charities of our own choosing rather than to the government which moves them to programs which we do not wish to suppport. I will gladly give my dollars to Catholic charities.

 

[theMutant]

Catholic2003:

However, my mind simply boggles at the thought of someone (himself not a member of the Magisterium) claiming to know more about Catholic moral theology than the Minnesota bishops. Bp. Nienstedt holds a Doctorate in Sacred Theology, Bp. Pates holds a Licentiate (Masters) degree in Sacred Theology, and both Bp. Kinney and Bp. Schnurr hold Doctorates in Canon Law. Frankly, anyone who actually had enough expertise to correct the moral theology of these bishops would also know more than enough not to do so.

And my mind boggles that you believe that merely holding degrees means that they are acting in accordance with the moral theology they profess. I hold no degrees but I can read. Just as I do not need 5 out of 9 men in black robes to tell me that the Constitution protects abortion because I can read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers for myself, I can read the clear and consistent teaching of the popes and see where bishops, even ones with degrees, contradict those clear teachings.

I acknowledge their authority in matters of faith and morals, but that doesn’t mean that I have to agree with them in everything they say. Remember that bishops can be wrong. Well over half of the bishops were wrong in the Arian heresy.

katherine2:

I’ve already addressed the specific moral wrongs identified by the Minnesota bishops. However, I also want to point out that even if their statement had not gone into specifics, that would still not be no justification for dismissing its authority. For example, Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae did not address the specific techniques of the various methods of Natural Family Planning; nonetheless, it is still a binding teaching as to their morality.

Yes, but popes have addressed the specifics of how to apply the role of government in society. They have done so repeatedly and consistently and they have stated that their teaching on this matter is unchanging and unchangeable. Those teachings have come to be known as subsidiarity and several of those statements have already been cited. You have done nothing to show that we are incorrect in regard to what they say. You have simply said that you disagree.

Quite frankly, if I must choose between agreeing with the consistent teaching of popes expressed over the last 100 years and with a particular group of local bishops, I’ll side with the popes. I do not disagree with the bishops that allowing the situation to persist is a moral wrong. I disagree with them on their proposed solution for correcting that situation.

 

[Brad]

Catholic2003:

Thanks. The discussion there was diverging a bit from the topic of Hillary Clinton.

Just FYI, statements like this last one are what give the impression of being a Republican first and a Catholic second. It makes it sound as though you expect the bishops to parrot the Republican party platform, and when they fail to do so, then they couldn’t possibly be representing Church teaching and should be ignored.

I admit. That sentence was my own subjective opinion just as your assessment of it is your subjective opinion. However, I challenge your assessment. Although I made the subjective statment, I proceeded to use constructive criticism of the letter based on Church teaching, not based on any Republican platform. In fact, if you or anyone else were to find where I promote anything that is in opposition to Church teaching and I will rescind the promotion. My first and foremost loyalty is to Christ and His Church.

Catholic2003:

Here is but one example of a moral wrong identified in the bishops’ statement: “the needs of many of our children, our poor, our vulnerable, our elderly, our sick and our disabled brothers and sisters went unmet (please see endnote).” The endnote refers to several more detailed reports on the specific impacts.

All of the “moral wrong” statements and reports are general and somewhat subjective as to the cause of the “need neglect.” They did not provide one specific example where harm was being done to an individual as the result of the conduct of another/same individual. What they are in fact doing is promoting a policy that they believe will solve the “need neglect” problems and declaring that failure to implement their recommended policy would be potentially immoral. In fact, their recommended policy is no guarantee at all that it will eliminate the needs that they wish to alleviate. In order for something to be immoral, an act of sin by a sinner has to be indentified.

Catholic2003:

There are also identifiable moral wrongs in the arena of social justice that we as Catholics are called to oppose, which have nothing to do with the Democrat party. The Magisterium of the Church has written several documents that mandate this, not coincidentally including the Minnesota bishops’ statement presently under discussion.

When has the Magisterium ever declared it is morally wrong for an individual to oppose a tax increase as a solution to providing for the needy? If you are not referring to this particular “moral wrong” then what moral wrong are you referring to? If I was in this diocese, what actions could I take, as a result of this document, that would be morally wrong?

Catholic2003:

There are those people out there who don’t understand how what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom can have a moral dimension. It seems many posters here have a problem understanding how what happens to little green pieces of paper can have a moral dimension. But the Bible is clear on both counts that they do.

You are right. The Bible is clear on sexual immorality. You are right again. You are going to have to convince me about the “little green pieces of paper.”

Catholic2003:

For example, in Luke 18:22, Jesus told the rich man, “There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” I honestly get the impression that a few posters here would advise the rich man to ignore Jesus, as He was not teaching on a matter of faith or morals. (And that if Jesus were to claim otherwise, that would be an irresponsible use of the term “moral”.)

1. I doubt there is a poster here that would say to ignore Jesus.
2. Jesus did not say it was a sin to NOT do this. He was suggesting that the rich man had his heart set on money, not on God.
3. I agree with Jesus - we must help out the needy - that is an individual decision, just as our sexual decisions are. However, Christ did not say to sell all you have and give it to the government - He said to give it to the poor.

Catholic2003:

The first and most important thing to note about the canon law concerning this is that the laity are not called upon to make these determinations themselves. It is the job of the Pope (and by extension, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) to make these determinations.

You are correct again. Find a document from the Pope or the Congregation for the Docrine of the Faith that is the foundation for this teaching of the Bishops of Minnesota. They didn’t refer to one. Perhaps they were assuming one we all should know? Which one?

 

[Brad]

Catholic2003:

The Magisterium is the living teaching authority of the Church, and it resides in the Pope and those bishops in communion with the Pope. It is not a particular set of Church documents which the laity are free to interpret on their own, much as Protestants interpret the Bible on their own. Thus it is a contradiction in terms to say that the Minnesota bishops are not in communion with the Magisterium, as they are themselves a constituent part of that Magisterium.

This is simply not true. During the days of the Arian heresy, the majority of Bishops were teaching something that was NOT in communion with the Bishop of Rome. They were wrong. Most of the laity was right.

What if the Minnesota Bishops were to teach that condom use is not a sin but the Arkansas Bishops say this is a sin? Do we change our actions based on the state we live in? We can’t do that as we are one Church and have one God.

It is for this very reason that we have the Pope and his congregational teachings - so we know when something is right or wrong. Now, I am not saying that this letter is directly in opposition to these teachings - I’m just saying that I do not find anything that supports it.

Catholic2003:

Eastern Orthodox bishops, not being in communion with the Pope, are not a part of the Magisterium. And although it seems to be considered fashionable in this forum to disrespect the U.S. bishops by claiming they are in schism with Rome, until the CDF officially declares such a schism and/or excommunicates one or more of them, we are not free to disregard the authentic teachings of our bishops.

I have never shown disrespect for the US Bishops nor have I declared them in schism. I’m not saying the Minnesota Bishops are in schism. I am saying that this particular teaching is not required to be “adhered to with religious assent” because it fails the criteria for such a requirement.

Are you suggesting it is a sin for a Minnesota Catholic to not promote a tax increase? And, by extension, you are saying these Bishops speak for the whole Church. Is it a sin for any Catholic living today to NOT promote a tax increase? Do you think the Pope thinks this is a sin?

Catholic2003:

Many in this forum claimed to know more about economics than the Minnesota bishops, although only one poster (StJeanneDArc) put forth any credentials to justify such a claim. Much as I can understand someone doubting the economic credentials of the bishops, it is important to realize that this is not the basis of the bishops’ authority.

So, what you are suggesting is that, because the Bishops do not have authority regarding economics, that is exactly why we should follow their teaching on economics? This is exactly my point. They are teaching on things that are outside of what they are responsible for - they are responsible for the souls in their diocese, not for fiscal policy.

Catholic2003:

However, my mind simply boggles at the thought of someone (himself not a member of the Magisterium) claiming to know more about Catholic moral theology than the Minnesota bishops. Bp. Nienstedt holds a Doctorate in Sacred Theology, Bp. Pates holds a Licentiate (Masters) degree in Sacred Theology, and both Bp. Kinney and Bp. Schnurr hold Doctorates in Canon Law. Frankly, anyone who actually had enough expertise to correct the moral theology of these bishops would also know more than enough not to do so.

You just said they were teaching on economics. I agreed with you earlier and you said, no, they are teaching on morals. I still think they were teaching on economics. Now you say they have moral theological credentials. I agree with that. They should teach it. Don’t let your mind boggle. Think about the correlation between the degrees and credentials you mentioned and what they are trying to teach with this letter.

Catholic2003:

I’ve already addressed the specific moral wrongs identified by the Minnesota bishops. However, I also want to point out that even if their statement had not gone into specifics, that would still not be no justification for dismissing its authority. For example, Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae did not address the specific techniques of the various methods of Natural Family Planning; nonetheless, it is still a binding teaching as to their morality.

Again, no specific moral wrongs were identified.

Humanae Vitae was a teaching of the Bishop of Rome and it specifically condemned the use of contraception. Individuals contracept. It indicated that for an individual to do this is a sin.
NFP, while being an acceptable method to avoid sin, is not a mandate or requirement of Humanae Vitae.

 

[Brad]

HagiaSophia:

Questions about the authority of National Conferences were settled by this letter from the Vatican and offer some clarifications on “groups of bishops” issuing statements:

Commentary from America-1998 on Apostolic Suos issued by the Pope:

Vatican II, acknowledging their usefulness and potential, recommended that episcopal conferences be established wherever they did not yet exist. Since the council, they have become “the preferred means” for episcopal collaboration on local levels and “a most helpful means of strengthening ecclesial communion.”

The second part of the letter returns to the teaching of the council on “collegial union among bishops.” Recalling that the whole order of bishops possesses “supreme and full power over the universal church,”** the letter argues that this power can be exercised only by the entire college either in solemn form in ecumenical councils or, less dramatically, either when the pope calls them to a collective action or accepts an action initiated by bishops throughout the world.** No other collective episcopal actions have this strict and proper collegial character. Intermediate bodies of bishops thus have a character and authority different from those of the individual bishop in his diocese and from those of the whole order of bishops. Such bodies, then, should not be thought to replace or be allowed to replace the authority of the bishop in his diocese or to be on a par with the entire college of bishops.

The real novelty of the apostolic letter appears in the sections on the teaching office. It recalls the limits of pronouncements issued by episcopal conferences, which "do not have the characteristics of a universal magisterium."They become binding on the faithful only when they are either approved unanimously or when, after being approved by a two-thirds majority, they receive the recognitio (approval) of the Apostolic See . Such binding statements can come only from the plenary assembly, not from any subordinate organ of the conference. Three norms then set out these provisions in canonical form.

Thank you for this clarification.

 

[theMutant]

theMutant:

And my mind boggles that you believe that merely holding degrees means that they are acting in accordance with the moral theology they profess. I hold no degrees but I can read. Just as I do not need 5 out of 9 men in black robes to tell me that the Constitution protects abortion because I can read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers for myself, I can read the clear and consistent teaching of the popes and see where bishops, even ones with degrees, contradict those clear teachings.

I acknowledge their authority in matters of faith and morals, but that doesn’t mean that I have to agree with them in everything they say. Remember that bishops can be wrong. Well over half of the bishops were wrong in the Arian heresy.

I realize that what I wrote in this post could be interpreted by some as if I was declaring myself as a greater authority than the bishops. I want to emphatically state that this is not the case. There are areas where Catholics can legitimately disagree with their bishops and I believe that this is one of them. I am simply choosing to agree with some bishops (namely, popes) over others. This is not contrary to the Catholic faith.

To explain myself, I need to temporarily digress from the topic of this thread. My chief example of this is the changes to the Mass. If you were to look through the various threads in which I have participated that touch on the liturgy, you will see that I disagree with the changes that have been made to the Latin rite of Mass. However, you will also see that I have vigorously defended the licitness and validity of the current Latin rite of Mass against sedevacantists and against those in favor of groups like the SSPX. I am happy to say that I have been able to convince at least two people against joining the SSPX (something for which I give thanks to the Holy Spirit). As a Catholic, I must accept the authority of popes over the Mass (which I do). I must accept that my bishop can move Holy Days of Obligation off of their specific days to Sunday. I must accept that Communion can be received standing and in the hand. However, that does not mean that I have to agree that the changes made were necessary or good. I don’t even have to agree, for example, when John Paul II says that the changes are in accord with Vatican II because I have read the documents. Agreement on this point is not a matter of faith (as is agreement on the validity and licitness of the changes).

The topic of this thread falls into the same category. As a Catholic, I must agree about the sinful nature of situations in society and the requirement to do something to alleviate those situations. This is a matter of faith. However, I do not have to agree on proposed methods of alleviating those situations; especially when they contradict previous papal teachings.

 

[Marie]

katherine2:

No one not making much money pays 42% of their income in taxes.

Many people seem to forget we are taxed on everything.

Got a car…your taxed. Personal Property
Own a home…your taxed…personal property. City and county.
Want to eat…your taxed…sales tax, local and state.
Have a headach…your taxed for that Excedrine.
Buy a taco for lunch…your taxed.
Buy anything and your taxed.
Own a small business, want to pass it on to your heirs…good luck…your taxed.Not to mention all the other tax you have to pay.
It easily goes to 42% and beyond. You don’t have to make much to be taxed to death.

 

[Brad]

katherine2:

The Church and private charities that are so effective in providing charitable services get about half of their funding from the government. I am quite content with a system where the government funds and the church and private charities administer these programs.

I’m more content by a system where the faithful fund because they are doing what Christ asked them to do.

 

[katherine2]

theMutant:

However, this was not always the case. My point is that it is not necessary to have the government involved in order for these charities to get their funding. In fact, it is immoral to advocate for this for the reasons I elaborated in the other thread I linked to above

You advocated it was immoral because of the proven effectiveness of these charities. Yet they are effective with government assitance.

 

[katherine2]

theMutant:

Well, you have not explained what you think these popes are saying. In the documents I cited, they explicitly stated that they were reaffirming the teachings of previous popes; especially Leo XIII.

Dear friend,

Now, you know that is an abstract discussion. And you should know that for over 100 years, the general interpreation of these documents by the pastors of the Church has been contrary to your view. It would seem to be more usefull to look at actual applications to see wha the Church means by these documents.

I can’t think of a single instance, including unimployment insurance, where all of the U. S. bishops supported such legislation. If I am wrong, please cite the declaration that was approved by all of the bishops.

See National Catholic Welfare Council’s Social Action Department Records, Msgr. John A. Ryan Papers, Catholic University of America.

I’m interested in what made you think some bishops did not support Unemployment Insurance legislation.

 

[theMutant]

katherine2:

You advocated it was immoral because of the proven effectiveness of these charities. Yet they are effective with government assitance.

You are misrepresenting what I said. For clarification I will repeat.

1: It is immoral for government to assume for itself a role that is more properly and effectively handled at a more local level. This has nothing to do with how things are funded but is the principle repeatedly taught by popes and is known as subsidiarity. In regard to this point, I am refering to the government establishing itself as a charitible organization and I am not referring to taxing to support religious and other private charitites.

2: It is immoral for people to advocate taxing to fund charities because this constitutes stealing from those taxed. It removes from people their right to choose what charities they wish to support in accordance with their beliefs and consciences and, far too often, forces them to support organizations with which they are morally opposed.

 

[katherine2]

theMutant:

You are misrepresenting what I said. For clarification I will repeat.

1: It is immoral for government to assume for itself a role that is more properly and effectively handled at a more local level.

Correct. But if the higher level is more effective, then it is warrented. It is immoral for pressing social needs to left umet because of a philosophy of laizze faire.

This has nothing to do with how things are funded but is the principle repeatedly taught by popes and is known as subsidiarity.

I’m well aware of this principle. Is has been part of my thinking for well more than half a century.

In regard to this point, I am refering to the government establishing itself as a charitible organization

The church has repeated demanded the state play a role in social welfare.

It is immoral for people to advocate taxing to fund charities because this constitutes stealing from those taxed.

Some things are matters of interpertation, but I think that assertion is outside any reasonable view of Catholic Social Teaching.

It removes from people their right to choose what charities they wish to support in accordance with their beliefs and consciences and, far too often, forces them to support organizations with which they are morally opposed.

The democratic process play a large role in this. It would be hard to reference what aspect is morally objectionable with Social Security, Disability Insurance, Workers Compensation, Unemployment Insurance, Food Stamps, LIHEAP, Medicare, Federal funding of Medicaid, SSI, Section 8 and Section 202 Housing, or Pell Grants.

 

[theMutant]

katherine2:

Now, you know that is an abstract discussion. And you should know that for over 100 years, the general interpreation of these documents by the pastors of the Church has been contrary to your view. It would seem to be more usefull to look at actual applications to see wha the Church means by these documents.

No, I do know that some pastors of the Church have had a contrary interpretation of these documents than I hold.

katherine2:

See National Catholic Welfare Council’s Social Action Department Records, Msgr. John A. Ryan Papers, Catholic University of America.

I’m interested in what made you think some bishops did not support Unemployment Insurance legislation.

Well, I searched the site as well as many others and I cannot find anything to support your claim that all of the bishops supported the program. I searched several web sites that discussed Ryan’s papers for instances of “bishop,” “unanimous,” and “all.” I read through several pages that praised his work but found nothing that indicated unanimous support by the bishops.

After searching through many web sites, I finally tracked down an actual copy of the “Program of Social Reconstruction” and only found the names of four bishops on the documents and no references as to how many other bishops approved it. (osjspm.org/cst/bish1919program.htm)

Additionally, if you read the document, you will see that what he proposes as unemployment insurance was to be a temporary program what would be eliminated when a just minimum wage had been established. It also does not advocate taxing people but industry itself. To the extent that Ryan describes it, it is in agreement with Leo XIII. However, what Ryan describes is not what we have today.

1. Until this level of legal minimum wages is reached, the worker stands in need of the device of insurance. The state should make comprehensive provision for insurance against illness, invalidity, unemployment and old age. So far as possible, the insurance fund should be raised by a levy on industry, as is now done in the case of accident compensation. The industry in which a man is employed should provide with all that is necessary to meet all the needs of his entire life. Therefore, any contribution to the insurance fund from the general revenues of the state should be only slight and temporary. For the same reason no contribution should be exacted from any worker who is not getting a higher wage than is required to meet the present needs of himself and family. Those who are below that level can make such a contribution only at the expense of their present welfare. Finally, the administration of the insurance laws should be such as to interfere as little as possible with the individual freedom of the worker and his family. Any insurance scheme, or any administrative method, that tends to separate the workers into a distinct and dependent class, that offends against their domestic privacy and independence, or that threatens individual self-reliance and self-respect, should not be tolerated. The ideal to be kept in mind is a condition in which all the workers would themselves have the income and the responsibility of providing for all the needs and contingencies of life, both present and future. Hence, all forms of state insurance should be regarded as merely a lesser evil, and should be so organized and administered as to hasten the coming of the normal condition.

This web page (archives.gov/grants/annotation/march_2002/catholic_social_reform.html) demonstrates that his ideas were not universally accepted by the bishops of his time.

You should know that the documents and statements that come out of the bishops conferences are promulgated on the basis of a majority vote and not necessarily on a unanimous one. For example, the USCCB recently reapproved the practice of allowing the moving of Holy Days of Obligation to Sundays. However, there was not unanimous support for this.

If you can provide a link or, at least, a reference to something which shows that there was unanimous support for unemployment insurance, please provide it.

 

[theMutant]

katherine2:

Correct. But if the higher level is more effective, then it is warrented. It is immoral for pressing social needs to left umet because of a philosophy of laizze faire.

I do NOT advocate laizze faire. I advocate the bishops strongly admonishing their flocks to give generously to charities and warning them in the most severe terms of the sinfulness of failing to do so.

In this case, the higher level is not more effective. The government is one of the most ineffective and wasteful agencies that can be conceived.

katherine2:

The democratic process play a large role in this. It would be hard to reference what aspect is morally objectionable with Social Security, Disability Insurance, Workers Compensation, Unemployment Insurance, Food Stamps, LIHEAP, Medicare, Federal funding of Medicaid, SSI, Section 8 and Section 202 Housing, or Pell Grants.

If you would kindly read my arguments in the other two threads to which I provided links above, you will see the morally objectional aspects of all of these programs. They fall into two basic categories.

1: It is immoral for the government to violate its own laws. There is no legal (i.e., Constitutional) authority for the government to administer these programs. Therefore, it is immoral for the government to administer these programs.

2: The constant rallying cry to support these programs is to make the rich pay their fair share. As Christians, we have an absolute moral obligation to support the needy. However, there is no example in the Scriptures or in Church teaching that advocates our forcing the rich (or anyone else) to do so against their will. In Church teaching, as well as in the “Program of Social Reconstruction,” any intervention by the government in these matters is to be minimal and temporary in order to ensure individual freedom and prevent people from becoming dependent on the state. The typical cries advocating raising our taxes to support the poor are not advocating minimal or temporary measures.