Social Gospel

[Annie39]

Does anyone know if there is a thread on this forum regarding Catholics who believe that taxes should be high to serve the poor? I have a different opinion and I’m interested in understanding the other side. I believe that if we have lower taxes we can each do the corporal works of mercy (feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty etc). The government seems to take our taxes and give them to the likes of Solyndra, planned parenthood and other causes to numerous to name. If there isn’t a discussion on the forum right now o feel free to tell me why you believe the way you do. I’d like to understand it. I am asking this question due to the comments on Cardinal Dolan’s latest blog post.

Thank you,
Annie

PS
I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I’m independent.

 

[Victor2211]

Annie, I agree with you. Charity canot be compelled by the government. It must be kindled within ourselves and expressed voluntarily to be truly authentic. Besides, the federal government doesn’t have the best track record for demonstrating a responsible use of our tax dollars.

 

[Annie39]

Annie, I agree with you. Charity canot be compelled by the government. It must be kindled within ourselves and expressed voluntarily to be truly authentic. Besides, the federal government doesn’t have the best track record for demonstrating a responsible use of our tax dollars.

Thanks I hope orhers with differing opinions will weigh in

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I just think that private charity has never been enough and the problem of poverty requires a comprehensive coordinated systemic approach. In line with subsidiarity such a large enterprise would be the state. But in reality even the state has not been as effective as desired. And since Jesus said, “The poor you will always have with you” we need to prioritize our resources knowing some needs will inevitable go unmet. The most vulnerable need more than whatever private charity may or may not provide. But how best to tend to the least of our people, what is the most effective way, what per cent of the budget should go to what programs? What tax method is best? I do not know.

 

[Annie39]

I just think that private charity has never been enough and the problem of poverty requires a comprehensive coordinated systemic approach. In line with subsidiarity such a large enterprise would be the state. But in reality even the state has not been as effective as desired. And since Jesus said, “The poor you will always have with you” we need to prioritize our resources knowing some needs will inevitable go unmet. The most vulnerable need more than whatever private charity may or may not provide. But how best to tend to the least of our people, what is the most effective way, what per cent of the budget should go to what programs? What tax method is best? I do not know.

Well, the response to my first post is very discouraging. Don’t get me wrong. I’m grateful for Catholics like those who responded but I really hoped that someone with differing opinions would errr opine. I know that there are many, many Catholics who believe that the government should dip further into our pockets to take more money for the government’s pet projects. Some or most of which is diametrically opposed Catholic teaching. I know that some of the most pro-family people I have ever met, the Mexicans will vote in large numbers for a very anti-family politician. Somehow many Catholics have bought the garbage that the people on the left side of the aisle are the friends of the poor while the people on the right side of the aisle want to starve people or something like that and I wish that some of those Catholics would post here and tell me why I’m wrong. Also, how do they, in conscience vote for pro-death candidates?

Annie

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Does anyone know if there is a thread on this forum regarding Catholics who believe that taxes should be high to serve the poor? I have a different opinion and I’m interested in understanding the other side. I believe that if we have lower taxes we can each do the corporal works of mercy (feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty etc). The government seems to take our taxes and give them to the likes of Solyndra, planned parenthood and other causes to numerous to name. If there isn’t a discussion on the forum right now o feel free to tell me why you believe the way you do. I’d like to understand it. I am asking this question due to the comments on Cardinal Dolan’s latest blog post.

Thank you,
Annie

PS
I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I’m independent.

What comments have got you stirred?

What, in your opinion, should taxes pay for?

in 2011

21.5% went to Pensions
23.82% Healthcare
3.16% Education
13.12% Welfare
24.38% Defense
1.56% Protection
.8% General government
6.38% Interest
2.67% Other

Where would you make your cuts?

 

[Annie39]

What comments have got you stirred?

What, in your opinion, should taxes pay for?

in 2011

21.5% went to Pensions
23.82% Healthcare
3.16% Education
13.12% Welfare
24.38% Defense
1.56% Protection
.8% General government
6.38% Interest
2.67% Other

Where would you make your cuts?

Thank you for your replies Michael. I ask your pardon because I did not read your first response carefully enough. That will teach me to try to carry on (what for me is) an important conversation while traveling. At any rate the comments that got me stirred where those posted on Cardinal Dolan’s blog. I don’t know where you got those percentages but I’ll accept them for now. Please give me a bit of time to reply in more detail. Just to begin with, I think that the education budget should be zeroed out, parents, not the state are responsible for the eduction of children. You might be interested in a book PUBLIC SCHOOLS PUBLIC MENACE by Joel Turtel. At any rate this is also Catholic doctrine.

Why would we need welfare if family took care of family? Yes, I know they don’t, but the Church should be about teaching truth and should stay the heck out of politics. It has been my experience that those leaders of the Church get it wrong most of the time.

Defense is what the federal government is all about but we as Catholics must think of “just war”. When I get the time to go into a little more detail I’ll probably ask what you mean by “general government”

Even roads and other infrastructure should be done on a more local level while coordinating with other states.

There is much more but I’m traveling again in a few hours. I would recommend some of GK Chesterton’s works if you are interested

Thank you again,
Annie

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Just to begin with, I think that the education budget should be zeroed out, parents, not the state are responsible for the eduction of children. You might be interested in a book PUBLIC SCHOOLS PUBLIC MENACE by Joel Turtel. At any rate this is also Catholic doctrine.

But then the more affluent families will give thier chirldren the better education and opportunities while the families of the poor stay in the cycle of poverty. How do you see that as “Catholic doctrine”?

Why would we need welfare if family took care of family? Yes, I know they don’t, but the Church should be about teaching truth and should stay the heck out of politics. It has been my experience that those leaders of the Church get it wrong most of the time.

You answer your own question, “Yes, I know they don’t.”

If you think the Church should stay out of politics and gets it wrong most of the time why do you mention “Catholic doctrine” as though it supports the idea “public schools as a public menace”. Are you saying the Church ought not venture into social teaching which cannot help but be political? Or are you saying the bishops ought not promote preferential option for the poor and just focus on right to life as if there is no connection?

You know that Roe v Wade was back in 1973. Since then we have had 5 “pro-life” presidents in office for 24 years. That does not include Jimmy Carter. I don’t recall what he was. Abortion is a very important issue but this history has shown that an office holder can do almost nothing to change established law. Even a supreme court justice will honor Stare decisis, the legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedent established by prior decisions. Making that one issue as the litmus is misguided since there are so many other issues and policies that office holders have much greater, if not total, influence over. That being said, I admit that many of those policies can involve “availibility” of abortion services. That becomes less so at the local level.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

PS
I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I’m independent.

I think we all need to be Independents.
Judge each candidate individually.
By all means balance the budget.
Do not engage in preemptive war.
Protect and provide for the most vulnerable including the unborn, children, disabled and elderly.

Shun party talking points.

 

[Annie39]

Michael,
I have a bit more time to deal with this issue. I’m resting while catching up on all that traveling and sightseeing.

I re-read the point that I made about the parents responsible for their children’s education being Catholic Doctrine. I worded that badly and it does seem to say that I think his book is Catholic doctrine. I do not. It is, however Catholic doctrine that the parents are primary educators of their children. CCC 2223, 2229
In response to my post regarding family caring for family you wrote “You answer your own question, “Yes, I know they don’t.” ‘
So, I ask if maybe there should be preaching from the pulpit that we have an obligation to take care of our own, or do you suppose Church leaders should be on the side of those who want to dip into our pockets in the name of the poor so that Solyndra, or the teachers union or maybe SEIU or planned parenthood etc. can become richer and more powerful?

Suppose the Vatican opened its borders to let all the Italian poor into its tiny country and taxed all those living there 50 per cent of their income to care for these poor Italians. Of course this will not be enough so maybe the Pope should demand X amount of donation from every Catholic under pain of mortal sin?

You mentioned that you don’t think that private donations have been enough. As I see it that is between those individuals and God. If I came to you asking for help for my special needs granddaughter and I didn’t think that you gave enough, would it be okay with you if I compel greater giving at the point of a gun? You write “In line with subsidiarity such a large enterprise would be the state” I’m having difficulty understanding how in line with subidiarity that the STATE should take care of the poor. In my bible Jesus is giving instructions to individuals “feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty” etc. As I see if, if the government takes too much money to give to its pet projects, then I’m left with less funds that I can use for my Christian duty.

Annie

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Michael,
I have a bit more time to deal with this issue. I’m resting while catching up on all that traveling and sightseeing.

What are you seeing?

So, I ask if maybe there should be preaching from the pulpit that we have an obligation to take care of our own, or do you suppose Church leaders should be on the side of those who want to dip into our pockets in the name of the poor so that Solyndra, or the teachers union or maybe SEIU or planned parenthood etc. can become richer and more powerful?

People listening to preaching from the pulpit are probably not the ones who need to hear it. I don’t think the bishops are in favor of the government dipping into our pockets to “enrich” Solyndra, or the teachers union or maybe SEIU or planned parenthood etc. But they do think the government has some responsibility for poor. Do you think they are wrong? There is a difference between our secular emphasis on individualism & equality and the Biblical & RCC emphasis on community & preferential option for the poor. Do you think the Church is wrong to try to force those concepts on the secular state?

Suppose the Vatican opened its borders to let all the Italian poor into its tiny country and taxed all those living there 50 per cent of their income to care for these poor Italians. Of course this will not be enough so maybe the Pope should demand X amount of donation from every Catholic under pain of mortal sin?

If the Pope did that what would you think? I don’t think he would ever do that.

You mentioned that you don’t think that private donations have been enough. As I see it that is between those individuals and God.

What I mean is that in spite of private donations all people still do not have enough of the essentials, food, housing, & healthcare.

If I came to you asking for help for my special needs granddaughter and I didn’t think that you gave enough, would it be okay with you if I compel greater giving at the point of a gun?

Is that what our government is doing?

You write “In line with subsidiarity such a large enterprise would be the state” I’m having difficulty understanding how in line with subidiarity that the STATE should take care of the poor. In my bible Jesus is giving instructions to individuals “feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty” etc. As I see if, if the government takes too much money to give to its pet projects, then I’m left with less funds that I can use for my Christian duty.

Annie

“The principle of subsidiarity reminds us that larger institutions in society should not overwhelm or interfere with smaller or local institutions, yet larger institutions have essential responsibilities when the more local institutions cannot adequately protect human dignity, meet human needs, and advance the common good”

usccb.org/about/domestic-social-development/resources/upload/poverty-common-good-CST.pdf

 

[Annie39]

What are you seeing?

People listening to preaching from the pulpit are probably not the ones who need to hear it. I don’t think the bishops are in favor of the government dipping into our pockets to “enrich” Solyndra, or the teachers union or maybe SEIU or planned parenthood etc. But they do think the government has some responsibility for poor. Do you think they are wrong? There is a difference between our secular emphasis on individualism & equality and the Biblical & RCC emphasis on community & preferential option for the poor. Do you think the Church is wrong to try to force those concepts on the secular state?

If the Pope did that what would you think? I don’t think he would ever do that.

What I mean is that in spite of private donations all people still do not have enough of the essentials, food, housing, & healthcare.

Is that what our government is doing?

“The principle of subsidiarity reminds us that larger institutions in society should not overwhelm or interfere with smaller or local institutions, yet larger institutions have essential responsibilities when the more local institutions cannot adequately protect human dignity, meet human needs, and advance the common good”

usccb.org/about/domestic-social-development/resources/upload/poverty-common-good-CST.pdf

Hi Michael,
We live in Southern California and have been traveling to visit family in Washington State and have toured places in and around Seattle. We also have been traveling to various California Missions our last one was San Luis Rey on the way home from Washington. Our trip yesterday was only a few hrs away. We visited the Ronald Reagan Library with other family members.

I plan to try to do some research soon in order to better respond to what you have written. But I think that I’ll just start with: You wrote “The principle of subsidiarity reminds us that larger institutions in society should not overwhelm or interfere with smaller or local institutions, yet larger institutions have essential responsibilities when the more local institutions cannot adequately protect human dignity, meet human needs, and advance the common good”

How is it decided when more local institutions cannot adequately protect human dignity etc. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that when local Catholics cannot adequately care for the poor that the Vatican should take over? What are you calling human dignity? Do you think that if the Bishops of The United States cannot adequately preach to their people that one should not vote for pro-abortion candidates that the Pope should interfere and do that himself? I would think that being killed in the womb would be considered pretty undignified. There aren’t many specifics in the pdf. I wonder if you would be more specific.

Annie

Another thing. If you stopped paying taxes and the long arm of the law came calling but you resisted arrest, do you think that they would not use a gun to talk you into complying?

 

[JIB]

Just throwing my .02 in…

A free market system would result in more wealth for society, so the poor would essentially disappear in a meaningful way. Some people would always have more wealth than others, but that’s not a problem in my eyes. If people don’t have the basic necessities that’s a problem. The issue we have today is our mostly fascist/socialist system and the fact the poverty is defined in relative terms. You can’t eliminate poverty if poverty is defined in relative terms.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Just throwing my .02 in…

A free market system would result in more wealth for society, so the poor would essentially disappear in a meaningful way.

Not without qualification

a. Role of the free market

1. The free market is an institution of social importance because of its capacity to guarantee effective results in the production of goods and services. Historically, it has shown itself able to initiate and sustain economic development over long periods. There are good reasons to hold that, in many circumstances, “the free market is the most efficient instrument for utilizing resources and effectively responding to needs”.[726] The Church’s social doctrine appreciates the secure advantages that the mechanisms of the free market offer, making it possible as they do to utilize resources better and facilitating the exchange of products. These mechanisms “above all … give central place to the person’s desires and preferences, which, in a contract, meet the desires and preferences of another person”.[727]

A truly competitive market is an effective instrument for attaining important objectives of justice: moderating the excessive profits of individual businesses, responding to consumers’ demands, bringing about a more efficient use and conservation of resources, rewarding entrepreneurship and innovation, making information available so that it is really possible to compare and purchase products in an atmosphere of healthy competition.

1. The free market cannot be judged apart from the ends that it seeks to accomplish and from the values that it transmits on a societal level. Indeed, the market cannot find in itself the principles for its legitimization; it belongs to the consciences of individuals and to public responsibility to establish a just relationship between means and ends.[728] The individual profit of an economic enterprise, although legitimate, must never become the sole objective. Together with this objective there is another, equally fundamental but of a higher order: social usefulness, which must be brought about not in contrast to but in keeping with the logic of the market. When the free market carries out the important functions mentioned above it becomes a service to the common good and to integral human development. The inversion of the relationship between means and ends, however, can make it degenerate into an inhuman and alienating institution, with uncontrollable repercussions.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#Role of the free market

And have a look at this:

Vatican joins calls for crackdown on financial markets

guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/24/vatican-calls-crackdown-financial-market

 

[yukonbrad]

A free market system would result in more wealth for society, so the poor would essentially disappear in a meaningful way. Some people would always have more wealth than others, but that’s not a problem in my eyes. If people don’t have the basic necessities that’s a problem. The issue we have today is our mostly fascist/socialist system and the fact the poverty is defined in relative terms. You can’t eliminate poverty if poverty is defined in relative terms.

While I agree a free market system will help reduce poverty it will not eliminate it. There are people who are poor not due to economic reasons (eg disabled and on a fixed income). In addition many who are on the street and homeless are there not because of a lack of work but due to addiction and mental health issues. Such matters can’t possibly dealt with on a private charity level alone.

Just a question “fascist/socialist” you do know the two are diametrically opposed sysrems (right and left).

 

[JIB]

A free market system would result in more wealth for society, so the poor would essentially disappear in a meaningful way. Some people would always have more wealth than others, but that’s not a problem in my eyes. If people don’t have the basic necessities that’s a problem. The issue we have today is our mostly fascist/socialist system and the fact the poverty is defined in relative terms. You can’t eliminate poverty if poverty is defined in relative terms.

While I agree a free market system will help reduce poverty it will not eliminate it. There are people who are poor not due to economic reasons (eg disabled and on a fixed income). In addition many who are on the street and homeless are there not because of a lack of work but due to addiction and mental health issues. Such matters can’t possibly dealt with on a private charity level alone.

Just a question “fascist/socialist” you do know the two are diametrically opposed sysrems (right and left).

Actually fascism and socialism are not diametrically opposed systems. The US has both aspects in our economy and most people support both in one form or another.

I would disagree that private charity alone cannot deal with poverty. That’s a question that falls outside of theological arguments though. Homelessness due to addiction and mental health issues is small potatoes in the big picture - there is plenty of money to take care of those things. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

I always worry when I see pronouncements about the economy. These are things the Church has no monopoly on in terms of expertise. Most writings I’ve seen in our local Catholic paper that was frighteningly ignorant of the causes of the US recession. I can’t in good conscience go along with their prescriptions when I know they’ll only make things worse.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Actually fascism and socialism are not diametrically opposed systems. The US has both aspects in our economy and most people support both in one form or another.

Most people support both fascism and socialism in one form or another?
Can you say more about how most people support fascism?

 

[Annie39]

I’m still trying to understand where people are coming from, two posters wrote that “Such matters can’t possibly dealt with on a private charity level alone.”
On what do you base your opinion and how should this be remedied?

Annie

 

[JIB]

Most people support both fascism and socialism in one form or another?
Can you say more about how most people support fascism?

I’m speaking of economically.

When someone complains about outsourcing they’re endorsing fascist policies. The auto bailouts were fascist. The idea of privatizing profits and socializing losses is fascist.

 

[DENNYINMI]

The Federal government was never put into place to solve our economic problems. When we begin to understand the difference between humanitarian aid and charitable acts…we’ll have our act together.

There should be little to no evangilization of the Gospel…without first living the Gospel.

Food, clothing and shelter are the obligations of those that can, to do!

We need to stop looking for the government to fix our woes…woe to us!!!