The Welfare System & Catholic Social Teaching

[Matilda_Bennett]

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.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

While I don’t disagree with you, you left out the archbishop’s quote about, "a welfare state that works: insurance for the unemployed, benefits for those laid off, support for those with odd jobs, public health care.”

I believe unless there is some disability holding someone back from working, a person on welfare should have to work if they want welfare. But I don’t think a welfare state is condemned, but a social assistance state that is very bureaucratic, like Sweden or any Scandinavian country. Those governments are so intrusive that there is practically no need for the Church or private groups to do anything, which is the problem. I don’t think the problem is having any government action, but too much government action like in Scandinavia.

I agree with you.

I know several people who have worked in Urban and Suburban/Rural settings and the differences are mind boggling. Many of the programs that are there to help the able bodied poor don’t really help because there is no accountability to get these people off such programs.

 

[jonbhorton]

I’m pretty sure if you have read this thread even you can see that i have only continuously asked a question as to why Abu is ignoring Catholic Social Doctrine in his political rampage for free enterprise.

That’s hardly being guilty of not critically thinking, as unlike yourself or Abu all i want is an explanation for how thw TOTALITY of Catholic Teaching does not support his POV, rather than relying on one often misquoted part of sentences and third party interpretations which are not from the very respected authoritativeness of the Catholic Church itself.

And here we see the standard basic misunderstanding of Europe and the UK especially. You insult people who have lived under Socialism when you make sweeping statements about Europe being the cesspool of socialism. You have no idea what you’re talking about clearly.

And FYI attacking my education is a little pathetic; The fact i refuse to be led blindly like a sheep without asking questions demonstrates not socialist tendency but educated thought processes!

Ahh congratulations you have nailed the situation exactly, a good contingency post to better understand Abu’s position would be him SIMPLY ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS POSED!

That would save his constantly being critized for not doing so, as has been stated more than once to him, how can his POV be examined and “understood” when Abu ignores ALL Catholic Teachings that disagree with his POV and FAILS to answer the reasonable questions???

Essie, you quote out of context, make spears, and stab at the same documents you misquote. Further, you do not recognize that which is being said and thus fail to engage in actually debating the issue at hand. You do, in fact, try to win by volume of information- information almost always taken out of context of itself, and place into the discussion out of context.

You simply are not capable or willing to understand what is being said. You approach the documents trying to prove your view instead of allowing the documents to help you form a view to defend. No one is decrying helping the poor. All that is being said is the manner in which you think they should be helped is decidedly not in communion with Catholic doctrine.

What Abu is basically saying is that helping others is not bad as per Catholic documents, it’s great and expected actually. That the methodology of the Welfare State, including that which falls into this concept intermittently via failure of the system’s intent, and proper application, are not within Catholic understanding or acceptance is the issue.

You insist on applying secular reasons to what is a Catholic discussion. In that, coupled with your methods of rhetoric, you just fail constantly.

It is because of this consistent refusal to understand that which is being said, that I cannot discuss the issue further with you in another thread, nor do I feel it would be beneficial to Abu’s time given that he is putting in heavy research which can only serve others’ questions.

Your mind is made up, in direct contradiction to Catholic teaching.

 

[essie7777]

Essie, you quote out of context, make spears, and stab at the same documents you misquote.

Actually i don’t and i have never misquoted --i put the FULL quote rather than half sentences as that would be out of context … that however is not my trait.

Further, you do not recognize that which is being said and thus fail to engage in actually debating the issue at hand. You do, in fact, try to win by volume of information- information almost always taken out of context of itself, and place into the discussion out of context.

An interesting assessment but easily shown to be false. Asking questions for CLARITY is hardly trying “to win by volume”,

You simply are not capable or willing to understand what is being said. You approach the documents trying to prove your view instead of allowing the documents to help you form a view to defend. No one is decrying helping the poor. All that is being said is the manner in which you think they should be helped is decidedly not in communion with Catholic doctrine.

Wow – suggesting i don’t understand Church Doctrine when that is exactly what i have posted and asked Abu to explain and clarify??? That doesn’t make sense.

Abu has been asked to explain his POVin light of the Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine which unequivocally states what and how a government should do in respect to welfare provisions, Abu however, states that government shouldn’t do anything as that equates to a Welfare State and the Church condemns it???

Hmmm someone didn’t read the thread correctly…

What Abu is basically saying is that helping others is not bad as per Catholic documents, it’s great and expected actually. That the methodology of the Welfare State, including that which falls into this concept intermittently via failure of the system’s intent, and proper application, are not within Catholic understanding or acceptance is the issue.

Abu himself proclaims very loudly and very often that the Catholic Church categorically condemns a welfare state and the governmental/state role in its delivery, myself and others, have pointed out that even in the encyclical he quotes there is a distinction between a successful welfare state and a abused excessive form of a welfare state – it is this the Church condemns, rightly so.

However Abu refuses to comment on the TOTALITY of Catholic Teaching which includes the Church stating how governments should be helping in the welfare state.

What you have expressed here that the failure of a welfare state, based on abuses and excesses is actually what all the posters, myself included, read from the encyclical. Abu’s position is not this at all, you seem to be agreeing against Abu’s oft stated POV??.

You insist on applying secular reasons to what is a Catholic discussion. In that, coupled with your methods of rhetoric, you just fail constantly.

not sure how citing the Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine is secular…

It is because of this consistent refusal to understand that which is being said, that I cannot discuss the issue further with you in another thread, nor do I feel it would be beneficial to Abu’s time given that he is putting in heavy research which can only serve others’ questions.

Actually, i fully understand what is being said, whether i agree or not is what is up for discussion.

Your reference to the other thread is interesting as in that as you have here you equate democracy as non existent, socialism and communism as true democracy or forms of democracy, so unfortunately your perception of understanding equating to agreeing with you is of course not going to happen. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=613429

But thank you for answering .

Your mind is made up, in direct contradiction to Catholic teaching.

I disagree and am confident that the balanced approach from the Church, condemning abuse and excess is absolutely the right way to go. Protecting every person’s right to live within a minimal standard, of home,health, food and money is central to our beliefs. So agreeing with how the Church suggests this is delivered through not only individuals, communities as well as the nation’s government is hardly against Catholic Teaching.

 

[David_Castlen]

Can anyone help me with a better understanding of the relationship between welfare & what the Church teaches?

Bear in mind I’m from the UK. There’s a big debate going on over here at the moment about benefits

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16675314

news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16154476

I have a feeling that the principle of subsidiarity is relevant, also the prevalent idea in the UK is the welfare is good & looks after people. However we end up with families who have been on benefits now for two or three generations. Is it fair to say that the Church teaches that everyone needs to do the best they can to support themselves and live off their own means. However if they can’t, society intervenes and makes sure that they can live and they don’t starve.

Can anyone explain this to me with reference to the relevant social encyclicals?

Can we demonstrate that welfare is self perpetuating?

In my opinion, we Catholics have sold our heritage to the government. We have allowed the government to be the provider of Charity. And in doing that we have creatda socialist society that leaders to envy and caused thievery by satute. The more a government gives the poorer its people are and the more morals degrade. Read Thomas Woods, Bastiat’s The Law, and look at what is going on here in the US.

It is the Catholic Churchs job to provide Charity, not the governements job to force it on us.

 

[Abu]

ComputerGeek25 #61
Many of the programs that are there to help the able bodied poor don’t really help because there is no accountability to get these people off such programs.

Exactly; and that’s precisely why the “the Archbishop’s…a welfare state that works” is an oxymoron which he could easily have known if he had listened to Bl JPII’s condemnation in Centesimus Annus (CA) which is indisputable and of course has not been shown to be otherwise.

By acting on CA instead in his polemic he would have advised instead the obligations and restraints mandated in CA #48, by BL JPII.

Instead of a lax bishop, giving poor advice to his flock, he would have heeded Pope Benedict XVI also:
‘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.’ Deus Caritas est, #28]

Additionally the Holy Father taught in Caritas in Veritate, #57, “subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing Welfare State.”

The practical meltdown of the Welfare States and ongoing attempts to change the one or two not yet in meltdown speaks volumes for the wisdom of the Church on human nature.

 

[David_Castlen]

I don’t have a good answer. I wonder about this as well. Here in the States, we hear a lot about subsidiarity from conservative Catholics, especially around election time. “Just as it is wrong to take away from individuals what they can accomplish by their own ability and effort and entrust it to community, so it is an injury and at the same time a serious evil and a disturbance of right order to assign to a larger community what can be performed succesfully by smaller and lower communities.” (Quadragesimo Ano, 79). This sounds like a government forceably usurping power from the people. But what if individuals come together in a democracy and vote to put in place such safety nets as welfare, medicare and unemployment insurance? Or if they elect leaders knowing that they will enact and sustain such safety nets? Is this still a “serious evil and disturbance of right order”?

Christofirst,
If I understand you correctly, you are asking if it is OK to provide services to a group as long as the (other) group doing the providing approves of it. I suggest not. Unless, the group approving it has an absolute (100%) approval rate - which is not possible.

I do suggest that the Catholic church has a mandate to provide for the poor, educate all and help those in need. The Church has allowed the government to steal this obligation, blessing from us. As a result this new system (socialism) has created envy, stole from people and established an immmoral society.

 

[David_Castlen]

I don’t know. I’m looking for a good solid answer as well. Because from the way I interpret the Encyclicals, the government shouldn’t provide welfare (directly), but only groups that aren’t government run. This is why I like the corporatist welfare model (I think that’s the German model). But Medicare in the U.S is run directly by the government, so that would technically be incompatible with my understanding of the Church on welfare. But the USCCB has consistently supported social security and those government welfare programs, and since the bishops probably understand the Church teaching on welfare better than I do, I would like to understand how you can support those programs that are government run yet seem to be against Encyclical teaching. Help would be appreciated.

We, Catholics, are to provide welfare and I (you) are to contribute. The government’s job is to protect us. Period. When the governement gets into reliogen it does a poor job; charity is reliogen. The best thing that can happen to the poor is to let the government get out of trying to help them. Socialism, as the church says, creates envy, steals from people, and establishes an immoral society.

 

[David_Castlen]

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.

Matix,

God bless you. I know how very painful it is to be unable to provide for oneself: first the fear of not having the basics and the humility of having to have someone else assist. I will pray for you.
We who believe that it is the job of the Chruch to provide what you need and not to force others to give to you have in no way an opinion that you are lazy or bleeding the government. We believe you are being cheated because the government takes from others forcefully and then gives you only a very very very small amount of what they take. They require certain things from you in order to help you. We believe that the Catholic Church should be doing the giving. When money goes to the government for assistance only people like you get 5% of it at the most. Most of it goes to employees of the government You deserve the help you are getting. You deserve it from the Catholic Chuch and not from an organization that is stealing.

God bless you Matrix, We WILL pray for you.

 

[JPRBB]

Can anyone help me with a better understanding of the relationship between welfare & what the Church teaches?

Bear in mind I’m from the UK. There’s a big debate going on over here at the moment about benefits

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16675314

news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16154476

I have a feeling that the principle of subsidiarity is relevant, also the prevalent idea in the UK is the welfare is good & looks after people. However we end up with families who have been on benefits now for two or three generations. Is it fair to say that the Church teaches that everyone needs to do the best they can to support themselves and live off their own means. However if they can’t, society intervenes and makes sure that they can live and they don’t starve.

Can anyone explain this to me with reference to the relevant social encyclicals?

Can we demonstrate that welfare is self perpetuating?

Hi there, May god bless you!
The best answer there could be is there michaeljournal.org/whatsnew.htm
Please pray for me
Jean-Pierre
Québec, Canada

 

[Abu]

It is instructive to note the destructive campaign being waged in the U.S.A. against the Church through an insurance mandate forcing employers to offer coverage for contraceptives and sterilization, dictating that contraception and abortion MUST be provided although they serve based on need, not creed. That necessary subsidiarity which Bl JPII mandated, and the freedom for enterprise, is being viciously eroded as more and more opposing American bishops confirm.

The wisdom of Bl JPII is shown by David Beito who found that the fraternal organizations of the late 19th and early 20th centuries which provided the services now associated with a Welfare State, had provided the individual attention and concern which Bl JPII taught would elude every bureaucracy. From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State, 1890 -1967, Chapel Hill; Univ. of Nth Craolina Press, 2000].

Charlotta Stern reviewed Beito’s study, for the *American Journal of Sociology *106, 2001, and agreed that the Welfare State had crowded out mutual aid.

 

[essie7777]

Abu, David Castlen, JPRBB, TBH honest anyone brave enough to answer!

Whilst you all have posted that Catholic and Doctrine condemns the Welfare State not one of you have put together a response to the articles from the Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine which directly state what and how government should be responsible for welfare. See post #25 and #45

Does no one have any answers???

 

[David_Castlen]

Abu, David Castlen, JPRBB, TBH honest anyone brave enough to answer!

Whilst you all have posted that Catholic and Doctrine condemns the Welfare State not one of you have put together a response to the articles from the Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine which directly state what and how government should be responsible for welfare. See post #25 and #45

Does no one have any answers???

See Abu’s post #24, along with his other well thought-out responses. See the ten commandments: thou shalt not steal. Read the sermaon on the mount Mt 5, 6, and 7 Especially Chapter 7. Pray for me. Pray for the Marlins.

I have found no writings of any Pope that has directed governments to be in the business of providing Charity; albeit, there are implications that charity from the government for very short periods may be required. However, this implication does not establish what is the time period or how to determine when.

Lastly, the moderator of this sight is a bit testy regarding our expressing judgement of others thought process. Consequently, she is inclined to shut it down when we pronounce what we consider others’ lack of skills or morals. I enjoy this coversation so very much, especially Abu’s responses. So if we can eliminate the “you ares…” “You can not …” then this conversation will continue to unfold marvelous words of wisdom and wit. I know I am as much at fault as others. But please, this is the best conversation I have read and I would hate to have Abu gone again. Thank you all:thumbsup:

 

[essie7777]

See Abu’s post #24, along with his other well thought-out responses. See the ten commandments: thou shalt not steal. Read the sermaon on the mount Mt 5, 6, and 7 Especially Chapter 7. Pray for me. Pray for the Marlins.

Your response completely ignores the question. Abu’s post #24 is yet again the same half sentance from one encyclical.

My question was how does the POV, (condemnation of a welfare state completely) has validity when the Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine seems to directly and implicitedly disagree with it?

Surely as this POV is so vehmently portrayed this should be an easy answer … the relevent questions was origninally asked in post#25, 26 then again in #45 and the conversation is now at #73(this one) and still those commentators with this POV have failed consistantly to respond to a valid and direct question.

I have found no writings of any Pope that has directed governments to be in the business of providing Charity; albeit, there are implications that charity from the government for very short periods may be required. However, this implication does not establish what is the time period or how to determine when.

Are you suggesting the Compendium is not written based on the Papal works, with the authority of the Vatican possibly understanding intent and context better than us lay people.

In post #26 i included which Papal works are cited as the basis for the specific paragrapghs i highlighted and asked upon.

Find them here again below:

[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.

It would seem that those few examples from the Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine are from the Pope’s words.

This is why i am asking for your position to be clarified and explained in light of the TOTAL Church Teachings, rather than half sentances, and singular concepts that are taken without full consideration for the balanced and widespread explanation the Church offers on this topic.

Using a small quote from the full Church teachings is comparable to taking one verse from the bible and extrapolating that this explain the whole message and spirituality of the bible.

Lastly, the moderator of this sight is a bit testy snipped for space I know I am as much at fault as others

I’m sure ALL would do well following this advice, including myself.

But please, this is the best conversation I have read and I would hate to have Abu gone again. Thank you all:thumbsup:

Its hardly a productive conversation when parties ignore reasonable valid questions and attack this as being “uneducated” and representative of a posters inability to “understand anything”???

Surely somewhere in the 48 posts since i posed these questions, the hardline “welfare is intrinsically condemned” posters would have the strength of conviction to reply with an explanation?

 

[jonbhorton]

**(1)Your response completely ignores the question. Abu’s post #24 is yet again the same half sentance from one encyclical.

(2)My question was how does the POV, (condemnation of a welfare state completely) has validity when the Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine seems** to directly and implicitedly disagree with it?

I’ll answer this one paragraph.

1. Abu is quoting the “half sentance”(sic) in context. Don’t believe it? Read the entire encyclical here and use your big girl (boy?) brain:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html

Abu’s contextual use is totally in line, in contrast to your misunderstanding due to not reading in context and applying that context to other things which may seem to disagree.

1. Notice the underlined word: seems. Seems is not equal to “is”. To understand the real truth of what seems to be fallacy, you have to read in context to determine what is, instead of what seems to be. You refuse to do that. This is why you don’t understand what Abu is saying. Abu is telling you what the Church teaches, and you’re telling Abu what you wish to teach the Church from its own documents.

I think it would benefit you to read the entire encyclical line-by-line in context before further argumentation on your part; otherwise, you’re going to be the laughingstock of this Fisher-Price Courtroom, Counsel.

 

[essie7777]

1. Abu is quoting the “half sentance”(sic) in context. Don’t believe it? Read the entire encyclical here and use your big girl (boy?) brain: … rest snipped for space and irrelevance as you IGNORED the question

Resorting to insulting sarcasm whilst NOT answering the question – stunningly appropriate -not!

Abu is telling you what the Church teaches, and you’re telling Abu what you wish to teach the Church from its own documents.

Strangely i take my Teachings from the Church not Abu.

As you ignored the question, am i to presume that your suggesting Church documents (Doctrine) is not valid to include on a debate on Catholic Social Teaching if it doesn’t follow your lay person’s POV???WOW :eek
Are now telling me that the Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine is some how not true or relevant??

I have only quoted the Compendium and asked for an explanation as to why it is directly against the POV so often quoted from in the welfare intrinsically condemned group?

I am a little suprised as a Catholic you feel it is okay to “ignore” the collected Compendium of 2000 years of Teachings … I’d also suggest that you consider the following…

Throughout the course of her history, and particularly in the last hundred years, the Church has never failed, in the words of Pope Leo XIII, to speak “the words that are hers” with regard to questions concerning life in society.** Continuing to expound and update** the rich patrimony of Catholic social doctrine, Pope John Paul II has for his part published** three great Encyclicals — Laborem Exercens, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis and Centesimus Annus — that represent fundamental stages of Catholic thought in this area. For their part, numerous Bishops in every part of the world have contributed in recent times to a deeper understanding of the Church’s social doctrine. Numerous scholars on every continent have done the same.**

1. It was therefore hoped that a compendium of all this material should be compiled, systematically presenting the foundations of Catholic social doctrine. It is commendable that the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace has taken up this task, devoting intense efforts to this initiative in recent years.

I am pleased that the volume “Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church” has been published, sharing with you the joy of offering it to the faithful and to all people of good will, as food for human and spiritual growth, for individuals and communities alike.

1. The Holy Father, while hoping that the present document will help humanity in its active quest for the common good, invokes God’s blessings on those who will take the time to reflect on the teachings of this publication.

Taken from the introduction to COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH – that rather significant document which just as a point of reference was published 13 years after CA and published with Pope John Paul II blessing for its content and context --also by its own aim, “expounded and updated” the Catholic Social Doctrine using the Papal works as their basis.

With no personal offense to Abu, as a Catholic i trust the authority, wisdom and credentials of the Catholic Church first then the Vatican scholars, Bishops and others who worked on this document before a faceless name on a DB. So strangely i don’t need Abu to “teach” me anything, least of all his opinion. … the Catholic Church has been communicating its thoughts very well for a couple of millennial.

I am not telling the Church what it should stand for, simply asking you and others with your POV to explain how your very political idealogical explanation of welfare being condemned is directly contradicted in the Compendium. I cant make it any plainer!

I think it would benefit you to read the entire encyclical line-by-line in context before further argumentation on your part;

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!

I could ask whether before you answer do you need to read the Compendium first??? Here’s the link. Rude isn;t it, and i was polite not insulting in my tone

otherwise, you’re going to be the laughingstock of this Fisher-Price Courtroom, Counsel.

Your posts are unbelievably rude – as seems to be your style, you insult me rather than answering the question.

**Not sure whether i would be a laughing stock or not – depends doesn’t it? Since when does asking a question make me a person of ridicule??? **

Seems you forgotten the rules of charitableness with this comment – although that does seem a trend in your comments.

Those that disagree with you are attacked, ridiculed and outright insulted. Hardly appropriate behavior of any adult.

Though following your analogy, i’d suggest though Sir, you would be in jail for contempt of this Fischer Price Court so would not know one way or the other. Contempt by failing to honor the principles of the “Fisher Price Court” and engage appropriately in the debate.

Hint dodging the question doesn’t make it go away!

 

[mitex]

It is instructive to note the destructive campaign being waged in the U.S.A. against the Church through an insurance mandate forcing employers to offer coverage for contraceptives and sterilization, dictating that contraception and abortion MUST be provided although they serve based on need, not creed. That necessary subsidiarity which Bl JPII mandated, and the freedom for enterprise, is being viciously eroded as more and more opposing American bishops confirm.

The wisdom of Bl JPII is shown by David Beito who found that the fraternal organizations of the late 19th and early 20th centuries which provided the services now associated with a Welfare State, had provided the individual attention and concern which Bl JPII taught would elude every bureaucracy. From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State, 1890 -1967, Chapel Hill; Univ. of Nth Craolina Press, 2000].

Charlotta Stern reviewed Beito’s study, for the *American Journal of Sociology *106, 2001, and agreed that the Welfare State had crowded out mutual aid.

Abu USCCB supports social security and basic social services for those in need.

Please see the Papal Encylicals Pacem in Terris, Novo Millennio Ineuntem, and Rerum Novarum which are the primary documents the Bishops are using to support their views.

I will agree with you that the Federal government has no business being in the welfare business and that programs should be block granted to the states and heavily reformed.

But the Encylical your quoting isn’t the be all to end all

Remember preferential option for the poor? The idea for welfare is emegency and temporary assistance… Not to take from others and steal.

 

[jonbhorton]

You’re incorrigible in your incessant ignorance to that which is actually said. You look for an enemy where there is none. Abu consistently tried to explain things using nothing but texts which are easily read, and apparently not, and you have disrespected him a ton in this entire process. You want to get on me about phrases like “big-boy brain”, well, if you had or used one, it wouldn’t offend you. Do you think I’ve become “offended” by you? Hardly. Why? Because I don’t offend easily in terms of the modern concept of it. The only offense you’ve committed against anyone or anything is to Abu, and to the Church and its documents which he has presented to you.

A compendium of 2k years is, unless a syllabus of errors is done, totally in line with the Encyclical which specifically addresses the situation we now find ourselves in.

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’m done even addressing you outside of the post in the other thread, and then I’ll be done addressing you forever. I’d rather talk with an Atheist, at least they generally understand things like context. Here’s an example:

youtube.com/watch?v=GBxj-uhKx4I

shakes the dust

 

[essie7777]

A compendium of 2k years is, unless a syllabus of errors is done, totally in line with the Encyclical which specifically addresses the situation we now find ourselves in.

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’m done even addressing you outside of the post in the other thread, and then I’ll be done addressing you forever. I’d rather talk with an Atheist, at least they generally understand things like context. Here’s an example:

youtube.com/watch?v=GBxj-uhKx4I

shakes the dust

 

[Swiss_Guy]

See Abu’s post #24, along with his other well thought-out responses. See the ten commandments: thou shalt not steal. Read the sermaon on the mount Mt 5, 6, and 7 Especially Chapter 7. Pray for me. Pray for the Marlins.

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.