What is the Societies' responsibility in dealing with world poverty?

[Trader]

In 1994 I was homeless for five weeks. The direct cause was the government. An armed sheriff’s deputy showed up at my door to inform me that the woman now known as my evil ex-wife had filed for divorce and signed a sworn document that she was afraid of me because I had threatened her. The charge was a deliberate act of perjury, which is a felony crime in Indiana, but rarely prosecuted. Since I was self-employed working out of the home paid for in full with money I had earned and saved before marriage, I still owned the home, but was suddenly unemployed and homeless as the victim of a serious crime.

I have posted this before, but more than a year ago. It was written in response to what the USCCB Campaign for Human Development left out of its annual letter.

If you really want to reduce poverty in the US:

1. Teach people to respect the person and property of others. Crime is major cause of poverty.
2. Teach people to keep their word and do it from an early age. The #1 factor in your credit score is about how you keep your word on financial matters, and the lifetime difference between good credit and bad credit is about $200,000.
3. Teach people to get their priorities straight. In 1982 the federal government allowed individuals to save $2000 per year for retirement tax deferred in an IRA. Many of my friends chose to spend $2000 per year on cigarettes and beer. I chose to save that $2000 each year for 20 years and now have more than $500,000 in that IRA.
4. Most important, teach people to respect marriage. The disrespect for marriage is the #1 cause of poverty in the US. A family headed by a single woman is five times as likely to live in poverty as a family headed by a married couple, and those official government figures do not even include that single parent families have higher expenses for health care, child care, and legal aid.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Do something about it yourself, whether it be large or small. If enough people were to do this, the government’s role would be superfluous.

But the point in my original post has to do with the breakdown of charity in a very greedy world in which we live, In such a case, it’s my contention that it’s the government’s responsibility to institute humanitarian values within a given society. It has to do with the government upholding morals.

 

[jmcrae]

But many of the homeless are unable to work due to mental or physical handicaps.

True, that’s a very good point, and we do need to provide for them on a permanent basis, for sure.

One way would be to provide each community with appropriate housing and medical support for the aged and mentally ill within that community, so that they didn’t have to travel far from home to be cared for. This would allow family members to check in on them frequently, and reduce many of the costs involved in the care of dependent adults.

 

[Jozefo]

I keep coming back to the original question: what is society’s responsibility in dealing with world poverty? This presupposes a one world society, or to put another way, mankind.

Love thy neighbor. That’s all there is to it. Bringing government into it is inappropriate, in my opinion, unless that government is of God, and he has only one kingdom, and we know the law (our obligation) concerning this.

Anyway, my two cents.

 

[Borealis]

But the point in my original post has to do with the breakdown of charity in a very greedy world in which we live, In such a case, it’s my contention that it’s the government’s responsibility to institute humanitarian values within a given society. It has to do with the government upholding morals.

The government has given everyone ample reason to doubt that they are interested in upholding morals. At every level of government there is rampant corruption, not just in the United States, but here in Canada, across Europe, and let’s not even mention China or Africa.

I suggest you start reading the biographies of some of the richest men in history, such as Henry Ford, Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates, etc. These men, and many others like them, were fabulously wealthy, all due to their own diligence in their endeavors and determination to succeed. And yet, they donated millions of dollars to charity, most of them back in the days when earning $10,000 a year made you rich. The same thing continues today, at least among the religious (and conservative) wealthy. And yet these people are constantly attacked as greedy, selfish, and oppressive. Why? Is it jealousy? Or simply an unwillingness to look at the real causes of poverty for political purposes?

Your contention that government is the guardian of moral responsibility is simply untenable based on the reviewable evidence. Besides, first you have to define what these ‘humanitarian’ values actually are. And I’m willing to bet that if you ask a hundred people, you’ll get a hundred different lists.

Stick to the Catholic Church’s teachings, and you can’t go wrong. Follow the government, and you’ll end up wandering around, confused and lost, because the direction government goes in has nothing to do with positive morality and everything to do with a bloating, self-absorbed bureaucracy that treats people as numbers and statistics.

Which is more charitable: to hand out the fish, or teach the people to fish? After you answer that, ask yourself which method the government has chosen.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Which is more charitable: to hand out the fish, or teach the people to fish? After you answer that, ask yourself which method the government has chosen.

Again, many in poverty cannot work due to mental or physical aliments, or because they are elderly.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Again, many in poverty cannot work due to mental or physical aliments, or because they are elderly.

Absolutely true. And for those people, society must provide decently. But what “society” are we talking about? Family? Neighborhood? City? County? State? Federal? UN?.

The Social Encyclicals teach that the most proximate segment is the proper provider for those who truly cannot help themselves. In my area, it’s a combination that varies. Some is provided by family, and I see a fair amount of that. Some is provided by “neighbors”, usually in the form of community-based charitable organizations, one of which (here anyway) is the Knights of Columbus. Some is provided by the county, usually in the form of medical monitoring and some level of care. For the developmentally disabled, it’s mostly the state plus local organizations, some county-wide, some private, with a little (very little) from the feds. It works fairly well despite ever-decreasing federal support. But for the private organizations, they wouldn’t even eat sufficiently.

For the elderly, it’s a combination, but with much more from the federal government in the form of Medicare and Social Security. The same is true of those on Social SEcurity Disability. Those on totally inadequate SSI, it’s mainly the state.

As resort is made to larger and larger entities, one finds that there is less and less flexibility, less and less decision-making power, more and more middlemen.

For the transients, both sane and insane, it’s largely church organizations.

Again, though, one must ask whether more proximate resources are hampered, not helped, by the feds, who deprive people of most of the money they could donate and pay an awful lot of middlemen in the process.

I totally reject the proposition that we should get our “morals” from the government. Not only is that in total conflict with the Social Encyclicals and, really, Christianity itself, but when, as now, the government itself is profoundly immoral?

I say no. A thousand times no.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Absolutely true. And for those people, society must provide decently. But what “society” are we talking about? Family? Neighborhood? City? County? State? Federal? UN?.

The Social Encyclicals teach that the most proximate segment is the proper provider for those who truly cannot help themselves. In my area, it’s a combination that varies. Some is provided by family, and I see a fair amount of that. Some is provided by “neighbors”, usually in the form of community-based charitable organizations, one of which (here anyway) is the Knights of Columbus. Some is provided by the county, usually in the form of medical monitoring and some level of care. For the developmentally disabled, it’s mostly the state plus local organizations, some county-wide, some private, with a little (very little) from the feds. It works fairly well despite ever-decreasing federal support. But for the private organizations, they wouldn’t even eat sufficiently.

For the elderly, it’s a combination, but with much more from the federal government in the form of Medicare and Social Security. The same is true of those on Social SEcurity Disability. Those on totally inadequate SSI, it’s mainly the state.

As resort is made to larger and larger entities, one finds that there is less and less flexibility, less and less decision-making power, more and more middlemen.

For the transients, both sane and insane, it’s largely church organizations.

Again, though, one must ask whether more proximate resources are hampered, not helped, by the feds, who deprive people of most of the money they could donate and pay an awful lot of middlemen in the process.

I totally reject the proposition that we should get our “morals” from the government. Not only is that in total conflict with the Social Encyclicals and, really, Christianity itself, but when, as now, the government itself is profoundly immoral?

I say no. A thousand times no.

I’m not talking about our getting our morals from government, but that government has a moral responsibly to care for the needy when charity breaks down.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m not talking about our getting our morals from government, but that government has a moral responsibly to care for the needy when charity breaks down.

Governments do not have morals, consciences or thoughts. They have policies. People have a moral responsibility to care for the needy. We have been given moral guidelines about that by the Popes. Government, and certainly this one, pays no attention to that.

It is one of the failings of our time that we defer to the government to “do our morals for us” and allow it to so impoverish us that we can’t be of much aid to anyone despite what we might be entirely willing to do.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Governments do not have morals, consciences or thoughts. They have policies. People have a moral responsibility to care for the needy. We have been given moral guidelines about that by the Popes. Government, and certainly this one, pays no attention to that.

It is one of the failings of our time that we defer to the government to “do our morals for us” and allow it to so impoverish us that we can’t be of much aid to anyone despite what we might be entirely willing to do.

Don’t some policies reflect underlying morals and values? For example, doesn’t SS involve morals or values on behalf of government, or was it created in a vacuum? Surely the people comprising government have morals and values.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Don’t some policies reflect underlying morals and values? For example, doesn’t SS involve morals or values on behalf of government, or was it created in a vacuum? Surely the people comprising government have morals and values.

Certainly people in government have morals and values. But that does not mean any particular person’s morals and values are reflected in public policy, and certainly not the morals and values of the populace at large.

The SS, like the NKVD, like many politicians today, executed “policies”, not morals, of the state. The state is not a thinking being, but a reflection of the thoughts of those in power to the extent they can carry them out.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Certainly people in government have morals and values. But that does not mean any particular person’s morals and values are reflected in public policy, and certainly not the morals and values of the populace at large.

The SS, like the NKVD, like many politicians today, executed “policies”, not morals, of the state. The state is not a thinking being, but a reflection of the thoughts of those in power to the extent they can carry them out.

Well then, I maintain that those in power exert their morals and virtues to enact laws that protect those living in severe poverty. If those in power were able to to condemn the the sever oppression and death of the Jews during WWII, why not have those in power today exert their virtues and help those suffering from severe poverty?

 

[Jozefo]

Well then, I maintain that those in power exert their morals and virtues to enact laws that protect those living in severe poverty. If those in power were able to to condemn the the sever oppression and death of the Jews during WWII, why not have those in power today exert their virtues and help those suffering from severe poverty?

I think you’re right about those in power exerting their own morality in society. And like Adam’s presumed authority in the Garden - when he ate from the tree - the State’s moral authority comes from a source other than from the Almighty. It’s not supposed to work that way, but the only reason why there are States in the world is because people are in a constant state of rebellion against God.

 

[Brendan]

I think you’re right about those in power exerting their own morality in society. And like Adam’s presumed authority in the Garden - when he ate from the tree - the State’s moral authority comes from a source other than from the Almighty. It’s not supposed to work that way, but the only reason why there are States in the world is because people are in a constant state of rebellion against God.

Technically speaking, the authority to govern DOES come from God ( Romans 13). But what has been lacking in secular governments is that, under such authority, they are to promote that which is good, and punish that which is evil.

The identification of what is good and evil is the responsibility of the Church. The State has no authority to determine what is good and what is evil apart from the Church and the Natural Moral Law. And there are very, very few secular governments that look to Natural Law as the foundation of the authority to govern.

 

[Jozefo]

Technically speaking, the authority to govern DOES come from God ( Romans 13). But what has been lacking in secular governments is that, under such authority, they are to promote that which is good, and punish that which is evil.

The identification of what is good and evil is the responsibility of the Church. The State has no authority to determine what is good and what is evil apart from the Church and the Natural Moral Law. And there are very, very few secular governments that look to Natural Law as the foundation of the authority to govern.

On God’s authority over States:

Matthew 4: 8 Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, 9 And said to him: All these will I give thee, if falling down thou wilt adore me. 10 Then Jesus saith to him: Begone, Satan: for it is written, The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve. 11 Then the devil left him; and behold angels came and ministered to him. 12 A

See how Satan presumed authority over all the kingdoms of the world? God allows it, but does not authorize it.

 

[Trader]

On God’s authority over States:

See how Satan presumed authority over all the kingdoms of the world? God allows it, but does not authorize it.

That is one possible interpretation of the story. Another is that Satan, whom Jesus called the father of lies* did not have that authority and simply lied again. As Jesus told Pilate, “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above.” John 19:11

*John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

 

[Jozefo]

That is one possible interpretation of the story. Another is that Satan, whom Jesus called the father of lies* did not have that authority and simply lied again. As Jesus told Pilate, “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above.” John 19:11

*John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

I think we’re saying the same thing. What matters is where people put their trust. Satan presumed authority, and hoped to beguile Christ into submission. People who trust in States are believing the lie. Their first obligation is to worship God, not the State.

Edit – Also, Pilate’s authority did come from above: his superiors in Rome.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well then, I maintain that those in power exert their morals and virtues to enact laws that protect those living in severe poverty. If those in power were able to to condemn the the sever oppression and death of the Jews during WWII, why not have those in power today exert their virtues and help those suffering from severe poverty?

Those presently in power in the U.S. are not moral people, that’s why. And their treatment of those truly unable to help themselves thoughout these nearly five years, being negligent at best, oppressive at worst, demonstrates it as regards the poor. They have demonstrated it in other ways as well. They have “policies”, not “morals”.

But it would be wrong to say that no person in power has demonstrated an objectively moral approach to the poor. Certainly, one could say that those having “power” on the family, neighborhood, church, city, charitable organizatio and state levels certainly have. The more proximate the “power”, the more likely one is to see morality in execution.

 

[Trader]

I think we’re saying the same thing. What matters is where people put their trust. Satan presumed authority, and hoped to beguile Christ into submission. People who trust in States are believing the lie. Their first obligation is to worship God, not the State.

Edit – Also, Pilate’s authority did come from above: his superiors in Rome.

Yes, I do think we are in basic agreement. Also consider Psalm 146:3 “Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save.” There are several similar passages in the Bible. Just like children, we need to be reminded of that more than once.

Certainly Pilate would have understood Jesus in that way, but the Roman emperors also claimed authority from the gods, or claimed to be gods themselves. Even Christian kings claimed to rule by divine right, just like pagan rulers. The founders of our republic were of different faiths, but universally invoked natural law for the right to form a government. Only recently have politicians sought to remove God and religion from the public square, and the result is less justice, less charity, and the potential destruction of society itself.

 

[Jozefo]

Yes, I do think we are in basic agreement. Also consider Psalm 146:3 “Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save.” There are several similar passages in the Bible. Just like children, we need to be reminded of that more than once.

Certainly Pilate would have understood Jesus in that way, but the Roman emperors also claimed authority from the gods, or claimed to be gods themselves. Even Christian kings claimed to rule by divine right, just like pagan rulers. The founders of our republic were of different faiths, but universally invoked natural law for the right to form a government. Only recently have politicians sought to remove God and religion from the public square, and the result is less justice, less charity, and the potential destruction of society itself.

I like to remember Genesis 1:26, where God gave dominion to man over everything in the earth except other men. After the Fall, mankind’s dominion became even more imited, when he was doomed to live by the sweat of his face, and to one day return to the dust from whence he came.

Yet the bonds of Christian charity demand we help those who cannot help themselves. It is my strong belief that appealing to State power for acquiring the resources necessary for giving aid to the poor and homeless, is the very same mistake that Adam and Eve made in the Garden. It is appealing to presumed authority, and believing the lie.