US Bishops' Conference Largely Disappointed by Debt Ceiling Agreement

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jesus commanded a lot more than what government programs provide. How about, “But from now on, avoid this sin.” (Jn.8:11); and “If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15) ?

These things are always missing from government programs and that is why they are destined to fail. Private programs like Alcoholics Anonymous, Habitat for Humanity, our local homeless shelter, Vincent Village, and Catholic schools which are faithful to Church teaching all yeild better results at less cost and do not involve involuntary taking from third parties. They also are different because they demand accountability from the people being helped, act on a local level, and do not treat the participants as mere numbers.
Yep. And, the latter part that I bolded is exactly why the Social Doctrine of the Church says the State shouldn’t “supplant” the “initiative, freedom and responsibility” of "smaller essential cells of society.
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:
  1. The necessity of defending and promoting the original expressions of social life is emphasized by the Church in the Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, in which the principle of subsidiarity is indicated as a most important principle of “social philosophy”. “Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also** it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. **For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them”[399].
On the basis of this principle, all societies of a superior order must adopt attitudes of help (“subsidium”) — therefore of support, promotion, development — with respect to lower-order societies. In this way, intermediate social entities can properly perform the functions that fall to them without being required to hand them over unjustly to other social entities of a higher level, by which they would end up being absorbed and substituted, in the end seeing themselves denied their dignity and essential place.

Subsidiarity, understood in the positive sense as economic, institutional or juridical assistance offered to lesser social entities, entails a corresponding series of negative implications that require the State to refrain from anything that would de facto restrict the existential space of the smaller essential cells of society. Their initiative, freedom and responsibility must not be supplanted.


  1. As an instrument of the State, public administration at any level — national, regional, community — is oriented towards the service of citizens: “Being at the service of its citizens, the State is the steward of the people’s resources, which it must administer with a view to the common good”.[844] Excessive bureaucratization is contrary to this vision and arises when “institutions become complex in their organization and pretend to manage every area at hand. In the end they lose their effectiveness as a result of an impersonal functionalism, an overgrown bureaucracy, unjust private interests and an all-too-easy and generalized disengagement from a sense of duty”.
  2. The political community is responsible for regulating its relations with civil society according to the principle of subsidiarity.[855] It is essential that the growth of democratic life begin within the fabric of society. The activities of civil society — **above all **volunteer organizations and cooperative endeavours in the private-social sector, all of which are succinctly known as the “third sector”, to distinquish from the State and the market — represent the most appropriate ways to develop the social dimension of the person, who finds in these activities the necessary space to express himself fully. The progressive expansion of social initiatives beyond the State- controlled sphere creates new areas for the active presence and direct action of citizens, integrating the functions of the State. This important phenomenon has often come about largely through informal means and has given rise to new and positive ways of exercising personal rights, which have brought about a qualitative enrichment of democratic life.
 
But the clergy of the Church, starting with the Pope, addresses issues like the poor with heads of governments…
 
But the clergy of the Church, starting with the Pope, addresses issues like the poor with heads of governments…
Well, the Holy Father (John Paul II) requested the Compendium be compiled, and it is a collection of Papal Encyclicals, so are you suggesting the Pope and his predecessor disagree with the Compendium? Or, do you think their addresses to the heads of governments have an expectation that they will act according to the Church teaching presented in the Compendium? I’m inclined to believe the latter.
 
Well, the Holy Father (John Paul II) requested the Compendium be compiled, and it is a collection of Papal Encyclicals, so are you suggesting the Pope and his predecessor disagree with the Compendium? Or, do you think their addresses to the heads of governments have an expectation that they will act according to the Church teaching presented in the Compendium? I’m inclined to believe the latter.
I’m thinking they must not see compliance as a contradiction, especially when they call on governments to prioritize things like universal healthcare. It seems it would be a world address if they saw a contradiction and thought it could be accomplished through smaller, local, governments.
 
I’m thinking they must not see compliance as a contradiction, especially when they call on governments to prioritize things like universal healthcare. It seems it would be a world address if they saw a contradiction and thought** it could be accomplished through smaller, local, governments**.
There is no contradiction. A call on nations to have universal healthcare does not preclude the solution from being accomplished by smaller, local governments. A nation is made up of smaller, local governments. You are just assuming that they want a national health plan, even though they don’t call for it. You know what happens when you assume. 😛
 
There is no contradiction. A call on nations to have universal healthcare does not preclude the solution from being accomplished by smaller, local governments. A nation is made up of smaller, local governments. You are just assuming that they want a national health plan, even though they don’t call for it. You know what happens when you assume. 😛
Even to think that they call on nations to have a solution accomplished by smaller, local, governments is an assumption. So I see no harm in assuming they speak specifically to heads of state, or representatives, to find a solution either nationally, or even through small, local, governments.
 
Even to think that they call on nations to have a solution accomplished by smaller, local, governments is an assumption. So I see no harm in assuming they speak specifically to heads of state, or representatives, to find a solution either nationally, or even through small, local, governments.
It’s not an assumption, since the teaching of the Church requires subsidiarity. If the call is in line with the teaching of the Church, and I certainly hope it would be (!), then subsidiarity is a given. Therefore, it is only logical that the Pope and Bishops expect a small, local, government or non-government solution. To assume otherwise assumes that the Pope/Bishops are calling for something contrary to Church teaching. Why woud you assume that???
 
But the clergy of the Church, starting with the Pope, addresses issues like the poor with heads of governments…
First of all, the poor are not issues, they are people.

How people become poor or stay poor varies a lot around the world. In Africa a lot of people are poor because their governments are stealing from them, or allowing local militias to steal, rape, burn villages, and abduct into slavery. I would expect the Pope to ask heads of government to behave more justly.

In Communist countries many people are poor because the governments have seized the means of production and prevent private initiative. People are denied their basic freedoms of speech, assembly, religion, and the right to seek redress. I would expect the Pope to ask heads of governments to behave more justly. Blessed John Paul II certainly did.

In the United States the poor do better than the middle class of many countries if you look at calories consumed, entertainment options, educational opportunities, and space devoted to their housing. It is certainly true that many poor people have chosen not to avail themselves of those opportunities due to personal failings. What do you expect our federal government to do for people who choose behaviors that keep them from reaching their potential? How effective can they be when their programs treat only the symptoms and not the causes of the problem?
 
It’s not an assumption, since the teaching of the Church requires subsidiarity. If the call is in line with the teaching of the Church, and I certainly hope it would be (!), then subsidiarity is a given. Therefore, it is only logical that the Pope and Bishops expect a small, local, government or non-government solution. To assume otherwise assumes that the Pope/Bishops are calling for something contrary to Church teaching. Why woud you assume that???
But that specification was not made when they addressed the heads of states, leaving us to wonder if they see how it might work together, sort of like using whatever means necessary for the goal of a quality of life for all. I’m sure if thinking they might work together was an error for laypersons, the head of our Church would have made such a clarification to avoid any confusion, or contradiction to Church teachings, on a layperson’s thinking. Also, they have knowledge of our laws, and social programs provided through government. Why else would a disappointment of a debt ceiling agreement even be a topic of discussion at a bishops conference?
 
But that specification was not made when they addressed the heads of states, leaving us to wonder if they see how it might work together, sort of like using whatever means necessary for the goal of a quality of life for all. I’m sure if thinking they might work together was an error for laypersons, the head of our Church would have made such a clarification to avoid any confusion, or contradiction to Church teachings, on a layperson’s thinking. Also, they have knowledge of our laws, and social programs provided through government. Why else would a disappointment of a debt ceiling agreement even be a topic of discussion at a bishops conference?
Um…they didn’t actually get together in a conference to discuss the debt ceiling agreement. I don’t think you understand what the bishop’s conference is. I’m sorry if this hurts your feelings again…
 
Catholics who want the government to do their charity work just don’t want to get their hands dirty. It’s much easier, I guess, to step over a homeless man and mutter “Why doesn’t he take advantage of a social program” than it is to stop.🤷
Do you really believe that Catholics who are speaking out for the preservation of social programs are the same ones stepping over a homeless man?

Of course it is only anecdotal - but the people who I know who are the strongest supporters of ensuring that there be a preservation of the safety net are the same ones working at soup kitchens, and supporting groups like Catholic Charities, working in their parish food pantries, etc. It seems that their direct contact with those who have needs causes them to be the ones speaking the loudest on behalf of the poor.

In my experience (again of course only anecdotal) people who generalize the poor with the ones abusing the system, have the least opportunity to observe directly the needs, or know people who have needs. This distance - arms length and more - may make it easier to use such offensive terms as have been part of this thread when talking about people who are actually generational needs - because some people truly are disadvantaged - lack of opportunity, education, resources - and sure programs have not always succeeded - but IMHO that is no reason not to continue to strive to see people as individuals - help as individuals and with policies.
 
Do you really believe that Catholics who are speaking out for the preservation of social programs are the same ones stepping over a homeless man?

Of course it is only anecdotal - but the people who I know who are the strongest supporters of ensuring that there be a preservation of the safety net are the same ones working at soup kitchens, and supporting groups like Catholic Charities, working in their parish food pantries, etc. It seems that their direct contact with those who have needs causes them to be the ones speaking the loudest on behalf of the poor.

In my experience (again of course only anecdotal) people who generalize the poor with the ones abusing the system, have the least opportunity to observe directly the needs, or know people who have needs. This distance - arms length and more - may make it easier to use such offensive terms as have been part of this thread when talking about people who are actually generational needs - because some people truly are disadvantaged - lack of opportunity, education, resources - and sure programs have not always succeeded - but IMHO that is no reason not to continue to strive to see people as individuals - help as individuals and with policies.
Nice! Demonize those who disagree with you. I will have to share this with those I work with in my charitable organizations. They will enjoy a good chuckle. 👍
 
Um…they didn’t actually get together in a conference to discuss the debt ceiling agreement. I don’t think you understand what the bishop’s conference is. I’m sorry if this hurts your feelings again…
Whatever a bishops conference is, it is a place of discussion and the topic of the debt ceiling agreement was discussed as ‘largely disappointed’. I realize they have many things to discuss, but the agreement came about during their conference and it was discussed.
 
Interesting thing is, if you provide for someone using someone else’s resources, you can take the “you” out of those verses because what you took didn’t belong to you so you did not provide it.
Would you hold this to be true for all government spending - I don’t want my money going to death penalty - so - can I just wash my hands and say that is someone else’s money?
 
Whatever a bishops conference is, it is a place of discussion and the topic of the debt ceiling agreement was discussed as ‘largely disappointed’. I realize they have many things to discuss, but the agreement came about during their conference.
Uh huh…who was at the conference? Can you list the attending bishops?
 
Another factor leading to the decline was the introduction of the “pill”, which came about about the same time as the great Society was introduced. Pope Paul VI 's encyclical * Humane Vitae* was prescient in its predictions of the problems that would occur as a result of a contraception society
So all that “came out about at the same time” as the “Great Society” is to be attributed to it?
 
Would you hold this to be true for all government spending - I don’t want my money going to death penalty - so - can I just wash my hands and say that is someone else’s money?
I don’t want my money going for weapons of mass destruction, I did not want my money to go for a war in Iraq, which reminds me of those discussions. Then it was conservatives that reminded me of the ‘poor people of Iraq’ under that cruel dictator’s rule.

You make a good point.
 
And it’s blind following of “feed the poor” no matter what the cost, either moral or monetary that has caused us to be in the situation we are in today.

Some of the posters here don’t seem to grasp that we are called to use moral means to help the poor. Violating at least 3 of the commandments in the process does not constitute “helping the poor”
Can you please clarify what 3 commandments are violated to help the poor per this discussion.
 
Uh huh…who was at the conference? Can you list the attending bishops?
I wanted to clarify the bolded section in my quote you posted. The debt ceiling agreement came about and was communicated among bishops.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top