The Welfare System & Catholic Social Teaching

[mitex]

Today in RCIA I learned that Catholic social teaching mandates a preferential option for the poor. Our Catechist did state that there was both a role for the Church and the state in this system. However she warned about the possibility of the state running amok (very much like it is now) and supplanting the Church.

I learned something along the lines that it needs to be as devolved as possible; it was called sub something. I wish I remembered what it’s called

For example if each state or county operated a welfare system for the poor and those who actually were in need. Then throw in the Church and it’s the perfect mix as long as this dual system was run on a local level and it doesn’t violate Church teachings such as forcing abortion, contraception, same-sex adoption on the Church.

But the Federal government really should have no role in the Welfare system.

If they must then block grant funding to the states and let them run the system…

 

[Abu]

FightingFat #4
My criticisms revolve around the fact that I have encountered situations where I have offered jobs to people who couldn’t accept them because they would lose housing benefit or something, that would drop them below the poverty line. This seems utterly ridiculous to me!

It is highly ridiculous and shows the debilitating effect of welfarism.

#7
Please don’t get me wrong, I am proud of our social welfare system, even though it seems to not help those who need it enough, and help those who know how to play it too much. I’m just trying to understand the balance between giving a man a fish and teaching how to fish, I guess.

A Welfare State is nothing to be proud of precisely because of that degrading of human nature and the other ills Bl JPII identifies.
The “balance” can be achieved by following the Church’s teaching which is often misrepresented, but put into perspective by the eminent Fr James Schall, S.J., who points out how poverty in the world is alleviated:
“Since the Church wants poverty confronted, since She wants this confrontation to be done justly and with the interest and cooperation of the workers and the poor, She has had to acknowledge, as did the socialist systems themselves, that there are certain ways that must be employed if mankind is to meet its economic problems. These ways can be known and imitated, but they must include a juridical system, profit, enterprise, knowledge, exchange, a market, voluntary organisations, a relatively independent economy, private property, and respect for work and excellence.” (Fr James V Schall, S.J., in *Does Catholicism Still Exist?, *Alba House 1994, p 184-185).

Fr Schall explains that in CA Bl JPII goes farther than before, in pointing out that “options for the poor” can now be “directed instead to the real possibilities for a poor people to overcome their own problems with the intelligent aid of those who know how to produce wealth in the first place.” (Ibid. p 178).

 

[essie7777]

Certainly Bl JPII is very clear in Centesimus Annus, 1991, #48 in condemning the Welfare State:… sniped for space
Note that the Welfare State is “dubbed the ‘Social Assistance State’. Since “dubbed” = nicknamed, there is no distinction-- they are one and the same. … sniped for space …

Your post demonstrates your (purposeful???) misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical.
As highlighted in the quote below your interpretation ignores the full context of what is written. This encyclical does not condemns a welfare state, rather it demonstrates the need for “public services”, the difference between a “welfare state” that works “by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person” and the “excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”.”

Your interpretation is unjustified by the full context.

Your suggestion that the Pope was confused and used two different phrases (welfare State and Social Assistance State) to describe the same thing is ridiculous. You are simply trying to further your political argument of free enterprise and misunderstanding Catholic Teaching.

#48 Centesimus Annus: vatican.va
"Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services.Hence the principle task of the State is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labours and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. The absence of stability, together with the corruption of public officials and the spread of improper sources of growing rich and of easy profits deriving from illegal or purely speculative activities, constitutes one of the chief obstacles to development and to the economic order.

Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the State but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society. The State could not directly ensure the right to work for all its citizens unless it controlled every aspect of economic life and restricted the free initiative of individuals. This does not mean, however, that the State has no competence in this domain, as was claimed by those who argued against any rules in the economic sphere. Rather, the State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis.

The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or are just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand. Such supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of State intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom.

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State,the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.100

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care."

 

[Abu]

Since no one here is arguing against any “rules in the economic sphere” and Bl JPII has emphatically limited the role of the State so as to avoid a Welfare State and all its evils, anyone try to pit Bl JPII against himself is being ridiculous.

Hence:
In condemning a Welfare State Bl John Paul II clarifies in *Centesimus Annus *#48, that: “Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the State but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society.”

Clearly, the State in Catholic Social Teaching is allowed only supplementary interventions for urgent reasons re the common good, and these must be as brief as possible to avoid encroachment on economic and civil freedom:
“In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or are just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand. Such supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of State intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom. (CA #48) – but when this is “vastly expanded” to a Welfare State Bl JP II’s condemnation of the Welfare State follows.

We see clearly above that the State does NOT have primary responsibility, is allowed only supplementary interventions for urgent reasons re the common good, and these must be as brief as possible to avoid encroachment on both economic and civil freedom.

Thus are subsidiarity, solidarity and the common good of the groups and associations enabled, protected and developed – the very things that a Welfare State whittles away as it pressures both economic and civil freedom.

Governments have been plagued by tendencies to intervene in morality, economics and sociology without understanding the natural law and human nature – the relativism of the age – nothing can improve much until the teaching of the Church is heeded. The fact of the vast majority of Welfare States now in trouble with huge budget deficits has shown the wisdom of Bl JPII and demonstrated how these excesses have helped them to this deplorable condition.

Myopically pursuing a fantasy here helps no one.

 

[essie7777]

A Welfare State is nothing to be proud of precisely because of that degrading of human nature and the other ills Bl JPII identifies.

I think you owe an apology to the poster --as the Catholic Social Teaching doesn’t condemn welfare states, it identifies the destructive nature of abuses within the system but NEVER says it should not exist not that it shouldn’t be something to be proud of.

Rather the opposite in fact.

You are so focused on promoting a free enterprise opinion, as evidenced with this content repeated in this and other threads, that you have chosen to ignore the entirety and fullness of all Catholic teaching.

There is more than this one encyclical that defends and advocates the role of the state in providing for its citizens through a welfare state, without taking away the rights of the individuals, as well as acknowledging the need for checks and balances to keep a welfare system in place at appropriate levels. No where does the Church or Pope John Paul II ever condemn a state providing for its citizens.

For ease i will simply use the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church … hint hint brought together and published in 2004(?) by “HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL II
MASTER OF SOCIAL DOCTRINE AND EVANGELICAL WITNESS TO JUSTICE AND PEACE”. [Link here](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...ace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#I. SOCIAL DOCTRINE AND THE PERSONALIST PRINCIPLE)

301.The Church’s social Magisterium has seen fit to list some of these rights, in the hope that they will be recognized in juridical systems: the right to a just wage; the right to rest; the right “to a working environment and to manufacturing processes which are not harmful to the workers’ physical health or to their moral integrity”; the right that one’s personality in the workplace should be safeguarded “without suffering any affront to one’s conscience or personal dignity”; the right to appropriate subsidies that are necessary for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families; [655] the right to a pension and to insurance for old age, sickness, and in case of work-related accidents; [656] the right to social security connected with maternity; [657] the right to assemble and form associations.[658] These rights are often infringed, as is confirmed by the sad fact of workers who are underpaid and without protection or adequate representation. It often happens that work conditions for men, women and children, especially in developing countries, are so inhumane that they are an offence to their dignity and compromise their health.

This list certainly seems to suggest that the Catholic Church through Pope John Paul II are firmly advocating the welfare system??

1. Authentic economic well-being is pursued also by means of suitable social policies for the redistribution of income which, taking general conditions into account, look at merit as well as at the need of each citizen.

1. Public spending is directed to the common good when certain fundamental principles are observed: the payment of taxes as part of the duty of solidarity; a reasonable and fair application of taxes;[740] precision and integrity in administering and distributing public resources.[741] In the redistribution of resources, public spending must observe the principles of solidarity, equality and making use of talents. It must also pay greater attention to families, designating an adequate amount of resources for this purpose.[742]

Again it seems that the Catholic teaching is DIRECTLY advocating public spending focused on families. Income derived from taxes to be used for solidarity and equality or do you think this is not part of the welfare state?

1. The political community pursues the common good when it seeks to create a human environment that offers citizens the possibility of truly exercising their human rights and of fulfilling completely their corresponding duties. “Experience has taught us that, unless these authorities take suitable action with regard to economic, political and cultural matters, inequalities between citizens tend to become more and more widespread, especially in the modern world, and as a result human rights are rendered totally ineffective and the fulfilment of duties is compromised”.[788]
   The full attainment of the common good requires that the political community develop a twofold and complementary action that defends and promotes human rights. “It should not happen that certain individuals or social groups derive special advantage from the fact that their rights have received preferential protection. Nor should it happen that governments in seeking to protect these rights, become obstacles to their full expression and free use”.[789]

Surely you can’t suggest that the rights outlined in #301 are not what the work is further explaining here? Is the Catholic Teaching not clear that the rights explained previously in this work are protected and ensured by the STATE… that’s welfare benefits at work!

CONT

 

[essie7777]

CONT

I have added the references here below to demonstrate to you that this work encompasses a wide range of work and also uses your often quoted Centesimus Annus encyclical -therefore further showing that you are misunderstanding the context and content of the Papal work to further a political agenda, that the work does not support.

[655] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens, 18: AAS 73 (1981), 622-625.
[656] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens, 19: AAS 73 (1981), 625-629.
[657] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens, 19: AAS 73 (1981), 625-629.
[740] Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 433-434, 438.
[741] Cf. Pius XI, Encyclical Letter Divini Redemptoris: AAS 29 (1966), 103-104.
[742] Cf. Pius XII, Radio Message for the fiftieth anniversary of Rerum Novarum, 21: AAS 33 (1941), 202; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, 49: AAS 83 (1991), 854-856; John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 45: AAS 74 (1982), 136-137.
[788] John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Pacem in Terris: AAS 55 (1963), 274.
[789] John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Pacem in Terris: AAS 55 (1963), 275.

The “balance” can be achieved by following the Church’s teaching which is often misrepresented, but put into perspective by the eminent Fr James Schall, S.J., sniped for space:

I think the authority of the Catholic Church herself and the Bishop of Rome is more than enough really. The works are clear and don’t need to further "perspective"!

 

[essie7777]

Bl JPII has emphatically limited the role of the State so as to avoid a Welfare State and all its evils, anyone try to pit Bl JPII against himself is being ridiculous.

Rebutted and explained more than once!

Your insistence of deciding that two different phrase are actually the same thing is insulting to Pope John Paul II, he is an acknowledged authority on social teachings and it is safe to assume if the two distinct and different phrases were the same thing he would not have distinguished between them so eloquently.

I do notice though you fail to respond directly to the content and context that highlights the difference … do you have no way to answer it??

…snipped for space… *Centesimus Annus *#48, that: “Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. …

I wonder you have noticed the use of the word “another” here haven’t you?? So there is a principal task of the state and you seem to have jumped over the part where Pope John Paul II points out the STATE oversees and directs human rights in the economic sector — i’m curious if this is not discussing the protections of a welfare state what is it referring to?

The principal task of the State is to offer stability to society. in the full quote you will surely have noticed the insertion of “public services” in this description – i wonder what do you think that means when it discusses guaranteeing the security???
Abu;8880487:

We see clearly above that the State does NOT have primary responsibility, is allowed only supplementary interventions for urgent reasons re the common good, and these must be as brief as possible to avoid encroachment on both economic and civil freedom.

You have completely misinterpreted this context and content …again.

The encyclical explains that the states main task is to harmonize and guide development … your emphasis on the state substituting a function is misconstruing the meaning of what is an economic or social function. A function of economy is for example the process of manufacturing. A social function would be the complete overriding of individual will and freedoms. This moves a state from developing to monopolizing. That can only be taken by a state in extreme circumstances, and rightly so.

However, a welfare state that protects human dignity, looks after those who need it, offers healthcare to everyone irrespective of material wealth, ensures full access to higher education (to promote the ambition and individual right to succeed and achieve) is open to everyone - again without money being the deciding factor, looks after people when injured or sick, and all of this is through the legal rights and supportive benefits of a Welfare State.
these are not social or economic functions of monopoly and excessive control, as this quote of the encyclical is referring to, drawing on previous points with the total document as well as the ones made in this paragraph.

You are showing your bias, and a complete lack of understanding of what a welfare state is beyond sensational headlines.

nothing can improve much until the teaching of the Church is heeded

.

I’d suggest you need to reacquaint yourself with the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. What you advocate is not supported by the Church.

The fact of the vast majority of Welfare States now in trouble with huge budget deficits has shown the wisdom of Bl JPII and demonstrated how these excesses have helped them to this deplorable condition.

Ahh, the wonderfully naive generalization expected at some point from your posts … shall i point out again the most indebted country has no WELFARE STATE to speak of!

And of course your reluctance to acknowledge that not all welfare states are on the brink of destruction and not all states with welfare have budget deficits simply demonstrates your bias and political agenda.

Myopically pursuing a fantasy here helps no one.

I completely agree you need to stop your pursuing of this fantasy you have constructed to justify free enterprise

 

[FightingFat]

I’ve done a bit more research and offer the following for consideration:

The Vatican has the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church online at vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html In particular paragraphs 184 (on the Church’s love for the poor), 187-188 (subsidiarity) and 189 (participation) may be worth a read. Yes, “one should assist one’s fellow man in his various needs and fills the human community with countless works of corporal and spiritual mercy” (184), but the principle of subsidiarity maintains that “institutional substitution must not continue any longer than is absolutely necessary, since justification for such intervention is found only in the exceptional nature of the situation” (188). The principle of subsidiarity must also be balanced with that of participation: 189. “The characteristic implication of subsidiarity is participation, which is expressed essentially in a series of activities by means of which the citizen, either as an individual or in association with others, whether directly or through representation, contributes to the cultural, economic, political and social life of the civil community to which he belongs. Participation is a duty to be fulfilled consciously by all, with responsibility and with a view to the common good” (189).

Basically, yes, it is good for the state to step in to help the poor, but not at the expense of the participation of every single individual in the common good.

What do you think?

 

[essie7777]

I’ve done a bit more research and offer the following for consideration:…snipped for space…
Basically, yes, it is good for the state to step in to help the poor, but not at the expense of the participation of every single individual in the common good.

What do you think?

I agree the Catholic Church does strongly support balance. Basically where no person’s inherent rights of dignity and individual responsibility is over taken by the state.

The danger is when interpreting the “real world” implication of the term subsidiarity. Without taking these teachings in combination with further direction from the Catholic Church on the role of state in helping to ensure that inherent social and financial rights are met, this can e used to suggest that any state intervention would be taking over and subsidizing for the individual.

This is simply not the case at for "welfare states. The Compendium itself outline what the state should be paying for; what is basic requirements according to the Church and this is laid out from paragraph #301.The Church DIRECTLY instructs on the role of state to look after people through financially subsidizing groups such as; the unemployed; the sick; the old and the pregnant. As well as using taxes for families, education and healthcare. (see post #23 and #25)

It’s the abuse of the systems the Church is against not a welfare state itself.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/bishop-named-marx-takes-neo-cons-capitalism

has a good article about the welfare state imho. (but I know it will be disregarded because it’s from the National -]Catholic/-] Reporter.)

 

[Abu]

FightingFat #28
Basically, yes, it is good for the state to step in to help the poor, but not at the expense of the participation of every single individual in the common good.

You can find the social encyclicals on line, as well as the CCC, by putting the name of the encyclical or the CCC into the google search.

Further, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, #188, emphasises that : “In light of the principle of subsidiarity, however, this institutional substitution must not continue any longer than is absolutely necessary, since justification for such intervention is found only in the exceptional nature of the situation. In any case, the common good correctly understood, the demands of which will never in any way be contrary to the defence and promotion of the primacy of the person and the way this is expressed in society, must remain the criteria for making decisions concerning the application of the principle of subsidiarity.”

Yes the State must play its true role which is

1. “Overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector” and butting out of “primary responsibility in this area” which “belongs not to the State but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society.”(CA#48. post#24).
2. Only exceptionally can the State “exercise a substitute function…for urgent reasons touching the common good” and these “must be as brief as possible…to avoid removing permanently from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of State intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom.” (CA#48, post#24).
3. That excessive intervention is the condemned Welfare State (CA#48, post#20), which has produced “a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.”

The Western world is now inundated with the debilitating monster created by governments and stuck with the deficits which have followed.

 

[essie7777]

@ ABU

Again i notice that you have chosen not to respond to the points raised in #25. Those areas of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church that directly lay out what the state should be providing and what the definition is of common good for political communities.

Are you simply unable to offer a comment/rebuttal that shakes the explicit directions given by the Catholic Teachings on these issues?

Are you unable to offer an explanation as to how this completely disagrees with your interpretation?

 

[Abu]

The effects of the Welfare State show the value of the wise condemnation by Bl JPII.
How aid to developing countries strips away dignity in the same way as the condemned Welfare State intervention excesses.

acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-21-number-4/whats-behind-povertycure
Religion & Liberty Fall, 2011
What’s behind PovertyCure?
by Kris Alan Mauren
Extract:
Floods of Western aid serve not to lift developing countries out of poverty, but only to poison their homegrown industries, to promote unrest within their borders, and ultimately, to strip away the dignity of their people. At the risk of sounding trite, the solution to Africa’s problems is Africa; its people – not neocolonialist U.N. bureaucrats – are best equipped to solve the crises of hunger and disease the continent faces.

tinyurl.com/3tlef8j
Britain tackles the welfare state
By George F. Will, Published: August , 2011
LONDON
Osborne says America’s welfare reform of 1996 “helped change the debate over here.” Perhaps, but almost 30 percent of public spending here is still for a welfare system under which an unemployed single mother with two children has more disposable income than a postal worker. There is, Osborne says, considerable resentment among people who “go to work at seven in the morning and the blinds are down next door.” Almost a fifth of British households have no wage earner, while immigrants are 13 percent of the workforce.

Europe has not only spent itself to excess with the Welfare State, but fails to reproduce. Germany tries to face the facts.
ocregister.com/opinion/people-332895-women-percent.html
**Published: Dec. 23, 2011 Updated: Dec. 26, 2011 8:25 a.m.
Mark Steyn: An upside-down family tree **
As Angela Merkel pointed out in 2009, for Germany an Obama-sized stimulus was out of the question simply because its foreign creditors know there are not enough young Germans around ever to repay it. The Continent’s economic “powerhouse” has the highest proportion of childless women in Europe: one in three fräulein have checked out of the motherhood business entirely. “Germany’s working-age population is likely to decrease 30 percent over the next few decades,” says Steffen Kröhnert of the Berlin Institute for Population Development. “Rural areas will see a massive population decline, and some villages will simply disappear.”

Bl JPII’s condemnation of the Welfare State came in 1991 in Centesimus Annus. The rot set in some 80 years ago in the U.S.A., as Alan Greenspan admits. Another example of the road to ruin.

investorsfreshnews.com/?p=2891
**Wednesday, January 04, 2012 By Alan Greenspan in the FT
The Tea Party tsunami and the welfare showdown **
Extract:
“The emerging fight over the future of the welfare state, a paradigm without serious political challenge in eight decades, is accentuating the centre’s decline. The welfare state has run up against a brick wall of economic reality and fiscal book-keeping. Congress, having enacted increases in entitlements without visible means of funding them, is on the brink of stalemate. As studies by the International Monetary Fund have demonstrated, trying to solve significant budget deficits mainly by raising taxes has tended to foster decline. Contractions have also occurred where spending was cut as well, but to a far smaller extent.

“We have created a level of entitlements that will require a greater share of real resources to fulfil than the economy seems likely to be able to supply.”

These support FightingFat’s observations that it is ridiculous based on his business experience, and guts the principle of subsidiarity – political expediency and vote catching rather than for the common good. No wonder the whole caboodle are trying desperately to shackle the monstrosity – here’s hoping they succeed.

 

[Santi2]

Good post, it is a real sticky problem isn’t it?

I had a guy apply for a job who was earning £15,000 a year. I offered him £18,000, but that would have pushed him over an income line and he would have lost his housing benefit. He needed to increase his salary from £15,000 to at least £24,000 in order to cover the shortfall. That’s quite a jump!

It is a sticky problem and it is really not difficult to understand your chap’s position based on net wage:

£241.58 @ £15000 with HB
£280.81 @ £18000 with no HB

Depending on the type of council home in my borough, the average rate is £96 to £106. Hardly anything left to live on after that has been paid, unfortunately.

I used to volunteer for a Catholic charity which was involved in training for work programmes and many of those referred to us would only take up paid positions which do not compromise their HB.

 

[essie7777]

@abu

Thread readers and myself are still waiting for your response to direct questions/comments in posts nbr #25 and #32. Shocking that you continue to ignore what you can not refute …erm maybe not??? LOL

Extremely biased political agenda media posts do nothing to support your interpretation that the Catholic Church is condemning welfare states --rather Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church has laid out exactly what the state should be paying for and how!!! (from post #25 and #32)

**What is it going to take for you to answer those questions/comments/Church teachings directly opposed to your POV??? **

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

As a disabled person on Social Security Disability Income, I’m angry to see politically biased posts/links that imply that all people on any kind of government assistance are “lazy” or “bleeding the government”. Sure, there are people who abuse the system, but fortunately, they’re in the minority. Just because something gets misused, doesn’t make it inherently wrong or morally evil.

I have neurological issues that keep me from working more than twenty hours a week. SSDI is not the gold mine some people think it is. It pays my bills, in addition to the income I get from my part-time job, but that’s all it does: there’s not much left over at the end of the month, which means I have to buy any luxury items (books, movies, etc) used. The alternative would be working more hours than my system could handle and I’d likely be out sick to the point that I’d be let go, which would leave me destitute.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

This. As a disabled person on Social Security Disability Income, I’m angry to see politically biased posts/links that imply that all people on any kind of government assistance are “lazy” or “bleeding the government”. Sure, there are people who abuse the system, but fortunately, they’re in the minority. Just because something gets misused, doesn’t make it inherently wrong or morally evil.

I have neurological issues that keep me from working more than twenty hours a week. SSDI is not the gold mine some people think it is. It pays my bills, in addition to the income I get from my part-time job, but that’s all it does: there’s not much left over at the end of the month, which means I have to buy any luxury items (books, movies, etc) used. The alternative would be working more hours than my system could handle and I’d likely be out sick to the point that I’d be let go, which would leave me destitute.

Are you criticizing the post you quoted or complimenting? (Bold mine)

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

Are you criticizing the post you quoted or complimenting? (Bold mine)

I’m complimenting it in my own curmudgeonly way. :: Laughs gently:: People slamming government aide programs and saying we don’t need them, that people just need to work more blah blah blah, just makes me angry, and while I was relieved to see someone finally saying what I wish someone had said several posts back, I was kinda letting off some steam there. If it looked like a criticism, I apologize: I’m afraid it came out the way it did because there was that head of steam behind my post.

 

[Abu]

Matrix Refugee, #35
As a disabled person on Social Security Disability Income, I’m angry to see politically biased posts/links that imply that all people on any kind of government assistance are “lazy” or “bleeding the government”.

As the Church teaches subsidiarity, solidarity and State assistance as necessary for the common good, and as this has been stated here, where is your reference and where are the ‘politically biased/links that imply that all people on any kind of government assistance are “lazy” or “bleeding the government” ’?

I don’t recall seeing any.

 

[essie7777]

…where is your reference and where are the ‘politically biased/links that imply that all people on any kind of government assistance are “lazy” or “bleeding the government” ’?

I don’t recall seeing any.

LOL — You posted them, where the political links you have are against welfare, blaming it for governmental indebtedness etc…

You hide behind the stating the Church defines the common good then when this is pointed out being WELFARE you then continuously claim the Church condemns welfare …

Still waiting for your response all the way back on #25.!!! Are you avoiding the query for some reason … mainly that the quotes PROVE YOU WRONG???