The Welfare System & Catholic Social Teaching

[John21652]

Excellent point, the encyclical always refered to in this thread is constantly cited in the Compendium–however never stating that a welfare system is condemended … hence the question.

Your “rant” is just distraction.

The question posed hasn’t been answered … either answer it or admit your POV has nothing to say on those issues raised because it has no standing. It’s really not anymore complicated than that.

Your monolgue of insults against me are pointless – i have simply asked for a response to the content of post #25,26 and 45 - quotes from the Compendium, refusual suggests an inability to form an appropriate response that supports your POV, not any misunderstanding, lack of interpretative skill on my part AS YOU HAVEN"T ANSWERED so logically i have nothing to misinterpret.

Please prove me wrong, answer the question then,

answer the content of the Compendium which DIRECTLY opposes what your POV is simple attempting to hide from Church Doctrine that doesn’t support you.

The further realization that what was the case 50, 100, 200 … 2000 years ago in terms of secular realities, is not the reality we necessarily find ourselves in today is necessary to be understood. What DOES hold true is the morality of each decision which is immutable. You fail to understand that, and thus, fail to understand how to read each portion of historical truth in the context of moral objective truth.

Have fun being the smartest person in the world…

I have deliberately stayed out of this thread, but your continued harassment and haranguing of Abu is over the top. You’ve done it on other threads and two have been closed down by the Moderator because of the uncharitbaleness that you bring into the debate. I see she has already issued a warning on this thread as well.

You are very quick to feign insult when your points of view are challenged. You harp on about the insults of others, all the while throwing them around like confetti yourself.

Try these on for size -

Have fun being the smartest person in the world. (above)
Your “rant” is just distraction.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/smilies/frown.gif (above)
I’d rather talk with an Atheist (above)
You have no idea what you’re talking about clearly. (from post #59
Ahhh Abu i thank you for your petty nature (from post #47 )

And, a sign of preciousness if ever I saw one, is this exchange in post #74 between you and johnbhorton -

johnbhorton - I think it would benefit you to read the entire encyclical line-by-line in context before further argumentation on your part;
essie7777 - Just because i don’t agree with you and have asked for clarity on your POV, don’t insult me --it only reflects back on you twice!

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

The point is, Abu has faithfully, once again, presented the Catholic Church’s attitude to the welfare state. He, as recognised by others, has quoted faithfully and I, like others, think his interpretations are true and correct.

You, on the other hand, keep throwing up the Catholic Compendium of the Church on Social Doctrine. I also think as johnbhorton does, that you need to re-read that etire document in its entirety and then try to avoid what it is you accuse Abu of, which is taking what suits you out of context.

A compendium, by definition, is a summary work which gives balance to the single works upon which it is based. The compendium does not take precedence over a Papal Encyclical. It simply demonstrates how the various encyclicals can be harmonized.

In the compendium, JP II specifically allows to be reiterated what he has said in his personla encyclicals. He would not be the intellectual we knew him as if the compendium contradicted him in any way. Surely you can see and understand that simjple fact? For you to fall back onto the compendium as some form of contradiction of what Abu is posting is illogical and contradictory.

The compendium shows the development of doctrine on the Church’s social welfare policy. I note you constantly quote from the compendium’s introduction. That is doing nothing more than to quote from a far reaching and very general statement of a basic position. Go further into the document and we find things are just as Abu has been telling us. The Church decries the role of the state in being a general provider of basic human services at the expense of human endeavour. It promotes a free market based on the “logic of contracts” and “exchange of equivalents”; that is, it requires a moral base. The compendium specifically decries, at 351,the possibility that a state’s role can degenerate into a “Welfare State” and points out that, -

the State’s intervention in the economic environment must be neither invasive nor absent, but commensurate with society’s real needs. “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”

Note that last line - "… in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function."

Now go back and compare that to what Abu has been quoting from JP II’s encyclicals.

There is no contradiction.

 

[jonbhorton]

Try these on for size -

Have fun being the smartest person in the world.

John21652-

I’m not sure if you’re aware, but Essie7777 did not write the above items which are in bold, I did. So, if you have issue with them in the context of all of this, it’s with me.

The Smartest person in the world line was due to the fact that despite simple information, “we” are apparently the dumb ones (as per snarky comments from E7777 throughout the thread).

I would rather talk with Atheists most times. At least they put forth interesting arguments, albeit outside of the scope of the tangible which they claim not to believe in. Go figure.

Just wanted to clear that up as Essie didn’t say the things in bold, and, whether your opinion on them is negative, I won’t let someone own my own failures, if indeed they were. I’m sure I could find 2 people and 3 opinions on them though.

Regards,
Jon

 

[David_Castlen]

The thou shalt not steal part could technically be used to show how we shouldn’t pay taxes if you interpret it that way.

And I’ll pray for the Marlins if you pray for the Brewers.

Amen ! We shouldn’t pay taxes; except to protect our country, even then; our constitution does not allow for an income tax. If I had the courage, I would not pay my taxes in protest over the thousands of baby killing our country promotes.

I will request the Diocese of Detroit to join in pray for the Brewers.

 

[John21652]

John21652-

I’m not sure if you’re aware, but Essie7777 did not write the above items which are in bold, I did. So, if you have issue with them in the context of all of this, it’s with me.

The Smartest person in the world line was due to the fact that despite simple information, “we” are apparently the dumb ones (as per snarky comments from E7777 throughout the thread).

I would rather talk with Atheists most times. At least they put forth interesting arguments, albeit outside of the scope of the tangible which they claim not to believe in. Go figure.

Just wanted to clear that up as Essie didn’t say the things in bold, and, whether your opinion on them is negative, I won’t let someone own my own failures, if indeed they were. I’m sure I could find 2 people and 3 opinions on them though.

Regards,
Jon

Well, aren’t you a good and honest gentleman!!

I don’t have issue with your remarks. I think you did well to stay as civil as you did.

If I wrongly attributed quotes to essy, I’ll be the first to apologise. However, my point still stands, which is that he will dish it out himself, then feign great hurt and insult at the mere hint of criticism. He has hounded Abu on three threads now. Enough is enough, I say.

 

[essie7777]

I don’t have issue with your remarks.

so if i said them you have issue but as “your compadre” said them they’re fully acceptable. Hmmm interesting.

However, my point still stands, which is that he will dish it out himself, then feign great hurt and insult at the mere hint of criticism.

I have no problem with VALID criticism i have big issues with being insulted, rediculed and used as “your merry men’s” beating bush because i dared to disagree, point out an rather glaring inconsistancy in your POV from the compendium and ask for a comment on this.

This is a discussion forum … at any point please discuss the topic instead of distracting by continous attacks against me, each and every post shys away from directly responding to the points raised in post #25,26 and #45, but all of them have in common an attack against my intelligence, ability to read, ability to understand, my lack of pretty much anything the posters can think of – hardly appropriate is it.

He has hounded Abu on three threads now. Enough is enough, I say.

Hounding is asking reasonable questions which no matter how you wrap it NO ONE has bothered to respond to?

And as a FYI, there have been numerous posts that disagre with Abu’s POV and all of their content and questions are ignored and the responses are the same … the same quotes from the CA, the same third party commentary, the fact that most time this content doesn’t answer the points raised to him is just ignored.

If Abu is advocating a complete intrinsic condemnation of welfare states, explain how the Compendium then explicitedly lays out how a state is obligated to provide welfare to certain defined groups of people? That is all i have asked for, continously!

 

[essie7777]

You’ve done it on other threads and two have been closed down by the Moderator because of the uncharitbaleness that you bring into the debate. I see she has already issued a warning on this thread as well.

Not to me, no infractions for my posts so your presumption is incorrect, it’s not my posts which have raised issues on content!!!

You are very quick to feign insult when your points of view are challenged.

Actually i get insulted when asking a question turns into a free for all of insults direct and overt against me … my views haven’t been challenged or asked for i might add, i have ASKED A QUESTION which no one seems ready to answer.

 

[Abu]

John21652 #79
The compendium does not take precedence over a Papal Encyclical. It simply demonstrates how the various encyclicals can be harmonized.

Exactly, a fact upon which shallow prejudices get impaled.

The compendium specifically decries, at 351, the possibility that a state’s role can degenerate into a “Welfare State” and points out that, -
Quote:
the State’s intervention in the economic environment must be neither invasive nor absent, but commensurate with society’s real needs. “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”

Note that last line - “… in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function.”

Again facts which those with their own axe to grind are unable to even see much less accept.

Another confirmation of the errors of some Catholics – the errors on the Welfare State are always the same:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9533
**The Principle of Subsidiarity and the “Welfare State”
by Don Fier **
Extracts:
“An abundance of government social programs has long been believed by many American Catholics to be an integral element of Catholic social teaching. Fundamental to this social philosophy, which is often referred to as the Welfare State or the Social Assistance State, is that the burden of responsibility for securing many of the basic social welfare obligations incumbent upon any society falls upon the state or government. In an important 1991 encyclical on social doctrine entitled Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II directed sharp criticism at the Welfare State, particularly at many governmental excesses and abuses that developed alongside it. He noted that the Welfare State produced many negative outcomes as the result of ‘an inadequate understanding of tasks proper to the state.’1 Key among these harmful effects was a reduced sense of social solidarity—an undermining of the societal responsibility which citizens should have for one another. Pope John Paul II demonstrates that the failings of the Social Assistance State are the result of the disrespect of a key moral tenet of Catholic social doctrine, namely, the principle of subsidiarity.
Endnotes
1 Centesimus Annus, §48.

I guess “I” trouble plays a big part.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I think that this is pretty unbiased when taking into consideration all the Church’s teaching: the-american-catholic.com/2009/03/23/catholic-social-teaching-and-the-welfare-state/

Of course, I think there is a better system than distributism.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

General Reminder:

The charity level of this discussion appears to be deteriorating. Please self-edit for tone and content before clicking the “Submit” button. If the charity level does not improve, this thread will have to be locked. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

I like lurking on this thread. I don’t want people causing it to be shut down.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Paragraph 21 seems to explain it a little. ourladyswarriors.org/teach/rerunova.htm

 

[Swiss_Guy]

1. Rights must be religiously respected wherever they exist, and it is the duty of the public authority to prevent and to punish injury, and to protect every one in the possession of his own. Still, when there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to especial consideration. The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and **must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. **And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government.

1. There is another and deeper consideration which must not be lost sight of. As regards the State, the interests of all, whether high or low, are equal. The members of the working classes are citizens by nature and by the same right as the rich; they are real parts, living the life which makes up, through the family, the body of the commonwealth; and it need hardly be said that they are in every city very largely in the majority. It would be irrational to neglect one portion of the citizens and favor another, and** therefore the public administration must duly and solicitously provide for the welfare and the comfort of the working classes; otherwise, that law of justice will be violated which ordains that each man shall have his due.** To cite the wise words of St. Thomas Aquinas: “As the part and the whole are in a certain sense identical, so that which belongs to the whole in a sense belongs to the part.”(27) Among the many and grave duties of rulers who would do their best for the people, the first and chief is to act with strict justice - with that justice which is called distributive - toward each and every class alike.

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

Explanations? These seem to favor a state helping the poor and providing (some) welfare.

 

[jonbhorton]

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

Explanations? These seem to favor a state helping the poor and providing (some) welfare.

Swiss Guy,

No one is arguing what you wrote. However, You quote 37 and then 33, whereas 37 builds on 33, particularly in light of having been built upon 32:

1. By the State we here understand, not the particular form of government prevailing in this or that nation, but the State as rightly apprehended; that is to say, any government conformable in its institutions to right reason and natural law, and to those dictates of the divine wisdom which we have expounded in the encyclical On the Christian Constitution of the State.(26) The foremost duty, therefore, of the rulers of the State should be to make sure that the laws and institutions, the general character and administration of the commonwealth, shall be such as of themselves to realize public well-being and private prosperity. This is the proper scope of wise statesmanship and is the work of the rulers. Now a State chiefly prospers and thrives through moral rule, well-regulated family life, respect for religion and justice, the moderation and fair imposing of public taxes, the progress of the arts and of trade, the abundant yield of the land-through everything, in fact, which makes the citizens better and happier. Hereby, then, it lies in the power of a ruler to benefit every class in the State, and amongst the rest to promote to the utmost the interests of the poor; and this in virtue of his office, and without being open to suspicion of undue interference - since it is the province of the commonwealth to serve the common good. And the more that is done for the benefit of the working classes by the general laws of the country, the less need will there be to seek for special means to relieve them.

What 32 builds on is the opening paragraphs and all preceding it, which do not lend credence to the State jumping in where the State has no business, and merely should address what is a failing of all below the State. This is brought into more modern understanding, though the tenet is the same, in CA.

Be careful not to mix and match. Encyclicals and all Church teaching are not puzzle pieces to merely move around as one pleases, they have an order. They form a chain with which to attach ourselves to the Rock, and to remain attached to Christ in the symbolism of that act.

To argue against this is to argue against Christ. To argue against Christ in this context is to make Christ a Socialist.

Given that the systems in which we find the Welfare State, in all its permutations, are all modernly Socialist, and Socialism is condemned, we must seek to understand this from the Church. In relation to the entire chain of events which attach us to Christ via the Rock, which ultimately led the Church from its inception, and ultimately leads back to Christ, we cannot arrive at what is inherently a Socialist mindset, but the mindset of Christ.

No one is arguing the feeding of the poor, or taking care of each other, particularly in the cause of Christ! The State has no obligation to consider the cause of Christ, and loses its direction without consideration of that which it is not bound due to being secular in nature.

Now, the State is comprised of individuals, and these, if Christian, and particularly Catholic, can influence the State in the cause of Christ.

What the State must never do, however, is take this and run with it outside of the guidance of the Church which codified such principles to begin with. Socialism and all socialistic systems cannot do this as they ultimate hurt the individual and the human dignity to not be subject to the State for that which is a spiritual directive. A spiritual directive which addresses the physical so that the spiritual is maintained.

In short, the Welfare State, in all its permutations and flavors, is ultimately dangerous to the person and through that, fails.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Swiss Guy,

No one is arguing what you wrote. However, You quote 37 and then 33, whereas 37 builds on 33, particularly in light of having been built upon 32:

What 32 builds on is the opening paragraphs and all preceding it, which do not lend credence to the State jumping in where the State has no business, and merely should address what is a failing of all below the State. This is brought into more modern understanding, though the tenet is the same, in CA.

Be careful not to mix and match. Encyclicals and all Church teaching are not puzzle pieces to merely move around as one pleases, they have an order. They form a chain with which to attach ourselves to the Rock, and to remain attached to Christ in the symbolism of that act.

To argue against this is to argue against Christ. To argue against Christ in this context is to make Christ a Socialist.

G**iven that the systems in which we find the Welfare State, in all its permutations, are all modernly Socialist, and Socialism is condemned, we must seek to understand this from the Church. **In relation to the entire chain of events which attach us to Christ via the Rock, which ultimately led the Church from its inception, and ultimately leads back to Christ, we cannot arrive at what is inherently a Socialist mindset, but the mindset of Christ.

No one is arguing the feeding of the poor, or taking care of each other, particularly in the cause of Christ! The State has no obligation to consider the cause of Christ, and loses its direction without consideration of that which it is not bound due to being secular in nature.

Now, the State is comprised of individuals, and these, if Christian, and particularly Catholic, can influence the State in the cause of Christ.

What the State must never do, however, is take this and run with it outside of the guidance of the Church which codified such principles to begin with. Socialism and all socialistic systems cannot do this as they ultimate hurt the individual and the human dignity to not be subject to the State for that which is a spiritual directive. A spiritual directive which addresses the physical so that the spiritual is maintained.

In short, the Welfare State, in all its permutations and flavors, is ultimately dangerous to the person and through that, fails.

Thanks for responding.

I like your explanation. But how would you view a Christian Democratic welfare state?

 

[Abu]

Swiss Guy #86
Of course, I think there is a better system than distributism

Correct, but anyone is free to do that if they wish and some do in the U.S.A.

89. Quote from Rerum Novarum:​

Rights must be religiously respected wherever they exist, and it is the duty of the public authority to prevent and to punish injury, and to protect every one in the possession of his own. Still, when there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to especial consideration

.
Yes.
Note that *Rerum Novarum *was written in 1891 following the Industrial Revolution and “the misery and wretchedness” in Pope Leo’s #3 are due to several causes:
Fr Anthony G Percy places the Encyclical in perspective.
At that time in history the “misery and wretchedness….of the very poor” (Rerum Novarum, #3) was due to a number of critical factors noted by Fr Percy, as analysed by Habiger.
“Matthew Habiger equates misery and wretchedness to social dislocation resulting from the Protestant Revolt; personal licence through the so-called Enlightenment and French Revolution; the developing Industrial Revolution moving masses to the cities; the development of mechanical transport and the rise of nationalism and imperialism. [Habiger, *Papal Teaching on Private Property: 1891-1981, Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990, p 4]. [See Fr Percy, *Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, p 92].

Fr Percy states that Leo XIII has acknowledged that “Private property is intimately related to private initiative. In order to preserve the right to private property, one must respect the right to private initiative – one is not possible without the other.” (Ibid., p 98).

Jonbhorton #90
In short, the Welfare State, in all its permutations and flavors, is ultimately dangerous to the person and through that, fails.

Correct, I agree.

 

[jonbhorton]

Thanks for responding.

I like your explanation. But how would you view a Christian Democratic welfare state?

It would help me to answer effectively if I knew what you even mean by such a label.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

It would help me to answer effectively if I knew what you even mean by such a label.

pitt.edu/~heinisch/concept.html#corporatist

concept.journals.villanova.edu/article/download/331/294

These are both two good sites for explaining a Christian Democratic welfare state imho.

 

[jonbhorton]

pitt.edu/~heinisch/concept.html#corporatist

concept.journals.villanova.edu/article/download/331/294

These are both two good sites for explaining a Christian Democratic welfare state imho.

I’ve read #1, and I’m still trudging through #2; on page 8 right now.

I’ll give my thoughts in regard to #2 first, since it offers a more comprehensive picture of what a “Christian Democratic welfare state” means. I assume it to be the particular view you are asking about as well.

Initial thoughts on #2:
The style of the writing is very hard to get through, and the concept muddy from the first paragraph. The basic plan of Christian Democracy is not laid out, and the definition of social-capitalism as intended for this paper is never clearly given. Worse, Forbes, a definitive financial voice, gives an entirely different version of social-capitalism in this article (LINK). That particular article, with its analysis of trends in recent experience lead me to conclude a few problems with the idea of applying social-capitalism in the West at this juncture:

1. The entire application is based on Catholic moral and social teaching being implemented in the population. Said population already rejects these teachings outright. How is this to be instituted and what would ensure the fidelity of the population to the system? It proposes a Democracy after all, and that’s majority rules. That always equals the stampede on actual human dignity, morality, and justice. RED FLAG
2. The emotion-based thought process that leads to Christians, even Catholics, somehow not seeing how the slow introduction of portions of Socialism eventually leads to Socialism is rife throughout the paper. At one point, the paper outright admits that a situation it is referencing is an actual policy effect derived from Marxism. RED FLAG.
3. The market, as evidenced by Forbes’ article, is already moving in this direction of acting in response to the people by allowing them to develop what they eventually will buy. In other words, the companies are getting free labor for a large amount of wasted product, and profiting on that which sticks by then selling the product of the people’s labor back to them. Um, sounds exactly like Socialism to me. It’s just repackaged and has lipstick all over it. In this case, it’s bacon, and while DOA, it’s still lipstick on a pig. That this actually decentralizes and disallows a particular influence in terms of social ideology, is, again, dangerous. The collective opinion, in the West, is the last thing we need. Immediate response to feigned needs results in half-cocked responses. Remember, at its end-game, Democracy is majority rules. As such, if enacted, it would quickly become Not-Christian Democracy welfare state. This would be a combination of continued Christian blindness to the reality of Socialism in their midst, and the fact that the seed of morality needed to grow this tree is either dead or without water in the present population at large. Current social policy in regard to religious consideration of moral issues is decidedly negative in the Catholic opinion. The exact thing this paper excludes, or the author just doesn’t think to consider, is the fact of the moral compass of the majority. If the author seeks to somehow affect a minority opinion on the majority population and still have a leg to stand on, well, that undercuts its entire premise and goal. RED FLAG

The definition of social-capitalism is vaguely given on page 4, but then never really explains how it is employable in the first place. It seeks to install “Christian Democracy” as a force of change, based entirely on Catholic understanding. In that, I assume its intended application to be global, as opposed to merely the West; yet, it only really focuses on the West for examples and never demonstrates cultural impact or implementation elsewhere. This is particularly troublesome for the idea, as the West is a poor test subject at the present juncture, as expounded on above.
contd.

 

[jonbhorton]

contd.
The other issue I see with the idea as expressed in the paper is it does two things in the area of undercutting the power of the Christian force, particularly Catholicism:

1. It encourages ideological-sectarianism as a means to affect solidarity at large, referred to as the pillarization of society. With the very real introduction of mohammedanism into the Judeo-Christian milieu, at least at a societal level, this idea is presently untenable. It assumes that the individual pillars wouldn’t try to topple into each other to bring about, well, the downside of democracy - a power play in which everyone is a loser but the one standing after the melee. If this happened, only one of two things could result with mohammedanism in the mix- the victory of outright Socialism, or mohammedanism calling some friends in from the desert and just outright installing a North American caliphate. RED FLAG
2. It encourages opposite theological beliefs at both an individual and state level as a means to do, what, exactly? It references the decline in Dutch pillarization and tries to correlate it with the decline in Christian Democracy, or the decline of Christian Democracy as the effect which brought about depillarization. It fails to recognize the social implication of Socialist policy in this regard. Immature models based on Socialism indeed result in a sort of hands-off personalism which results in a “don’t hurt anyone’s feelings!!!” mentality. Of course, this results in everyone’s feelings getting more hurt. Eventually, throughout all this process, the subtle murder of morality and Judeo-Christian ethics occurs. This leads to an even graver situation than the one the paper is trying to answer. The situation this paper addresses is caused by the exact application of its offered system as of this reading. For the solution it offers spawned the situation we now face. It even lauds the Christian funding of secular (read: marxist) public schools as a means to keep from “offense”. Well golly gee, what a concept. Willing Christian funding of being told God isn’t real, evolution is a total and utter fact as given and, of course, that’s why God is not real; it’s OK to contracept, because sex feels good, and if that’s your deal, you just suit up! Of course we can pay for an abortion for you since you’re poor. Why not? Oh, that’s what your parents say, and that’s their right, but little impressionable child, let me tell you what my Uncle Karl would have me tell you. RED FLAG

Like most of Satan’s little suggestions in the ears of good-meaning folk, the conclusions and means to reach them, while certainly admirable in themselves, have become ouroboring. Round and round, constantly eating itself, vomiting itself, and eating itself again expecting a different taste that when it went down or came up the first time.

That it misuses the encyclicals of Popes to achieve this end, in comparing implemented Marxist-Socialist policies as peers of proof, has me wondering if perhaps people really are that stupid, or if they are just blind. Historically, the US operated on the basic principles the paper is espousing sans-Socialist policy. The introduction of Socialist policy, and Catholic (and the Christian population at large) acceptance of it at the time and since, bears scrutiny on the present situation in light of this paper as well. All things considered, it sounds like a fun hobby to have, but it would only work in the fantasyland it has a chance of being tried in as presented.

I’ll finish the last 6 pages and explain my position on those as well. The kicker is, unless the content does a complete recantation of previously espoused information, or explains the problem of implementation and other factors I laid out, I suspect I will have read 14 pages of someone’s very special and precious idea that will never see the light of day in effect.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Uh, sorry for bringing this thread back up, but I just wanted to apologize for supporting a welfare state. Yesterday it just kind of clicked that a welfare state doesn’t work. Sorry.

 

[Abu]

Welcome to the club, Swiss Guy.

Don Fier faces the reality of Catholic Social Teaching. Misrepresenting that teaching, as some do, helps no one. A Welfare State with knobs on like “Democratic” looses nothing – it is condemned for blasting subsidiarity and so economic and civil freedom (Bl JPII in CA #48).

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9533
**The Principle of Subsidiarity and the “Welfare State”
by Don Fier (2010?) **
Extracts
“In the view of Pope John Paul II, it was disrespect for the principle of subsidiarity that led to the excesses and abuses that he criticized in the contemporary Welfare State.

“As described by Pope Benedict XVI, when the government begins absorbing everything into itself within the auspices of a Social Assistance State in disrespect of the principle of subsidiarity, it ultimately becomes ‘a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing…every person needs: namely, loving personal concern.’21

“It is precisely in work in the realm of ‘social assistance’ where governmental intervention has disrespected the principle of subsidiarity in the Welfare State.

“In conclusion, Pope John Paul II’s criticism of the Welfare State in *Centesimus Annus *is a most fitting and proper application of a fundamental and central aspect of Catholic social doctrine, the principle of subsidiarity. However admirable the intention may be, the government cannot serve as a substitute for genuine and loving personal concern, the very thing most necessary to those in need. As history shows, the formation of excess social agencies and regulatory bodies, which constitutes an incorrect understanding of the tasks proper to the state, leads to a loss of human initiative, economic stagnation, and disrespect for the dignity of the human person. Intervention by the government should be ‘neither invasive nor absent, but commensurate with society’s real needs.’27 As stated by Pope Benedict XVI: ‘We do not need a state which regulates and controls everything, but a state which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need.’28 Truly, as the Holy Father taught in Caritas in Veritate, ‘subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing Welfare State.’29" ■

**Endnotes **
21 Deus Caritas est, §28.
27 Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, §351.
28 Deus Caritas est, §28.
29 Caritas in Veritate, §57.