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

[Borealis]

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

And many, many more are not. Eliminate them from the poverty numbers, and charity will take care of the rest, as will family. Or do you think that people are unwilling to take care of their own?

For that matter, there are many organizations which do provide employment to those with mental or physical disabilities. Penn Jillette’s charity on the last season of Celebrity Apprentice, Opportunity Village, does exactly that, as do dozens of other charities.

 

[Robert_Sock]

And many, many more are not. Eliminate them from the poverty numbers, and charity will take care of the rest, as will family. Or do you think that people are unwilling to take care of their own?

For that matter, there are many organizations which do provide employment to those with mental or physical disabilities. Penn Jillette’s charity on the last season of Celebrity Apprentice, Opportunity Village, does exactly that, as do dozens of other charities.

Then why are there so many homeless with mental disabilities? I do not have the exact figures, but it is a known fact in the field of psychology. Obviously, they are not receiving the help they need. The elderly is another group that often lives in poverty and is in need of government subsidies. It sounds like you’re trying to rationalize the problem away, but it exists, and is very real. The same goes for poverty worldwide. How can anybody, especially Catholics, live happily knowing that such conditions exists?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Extreme poverty in the world is a crime against humanity. People are being severely oppressed. Apathy and greed abounds. Governments must step up and stop these atrocities.

 

[Borealis]

Extreme poverty in the world is a crime against humanity. People are being severely oppressed. Apathy and greed abounds. Governments must step up and stop these atrocities.

How can you expect governments to step up and stop these atrocities, when those same governments are the ones causing and carrying out these atrocities? Remember what Christ said: you will always have the poor with you. Even Christ said poverty cannot be eliminated. That’s part of our fallen nature. Until you stop looking to the cause of the problem for the solution, nothing will ever change, at least not for the better.

If you still don’t agree, then answer this: name one government that is not oppressing its citizens and causing them greater poverty through their policies.

 

[Borealis]

Then why are there so many homeless with mental disabilities? I do not have the exact figures, but it is a known fact in the field of psychology. Obviously, they are not receiving the help they need. The elderly is another group that often lives in poverty and is in need of government subsidies. It sounds like you’re trying to rationalize the problem away, but it exists, and is very real. The same goes for poverty worldwide. How can anybody, especially Catholics, live happily knowing that such conditions exists?

Because this world is fallen, and God told us that we would suffer. I live happily because I am following his commands to the best of my ability. Do I fall and fail? Of course I do, every single day. Some days are worse than others. But He will forgive me if I ask for it, and I will continue to do the best I can to live up to what He wants of me.

As long as people think that government is the solution to the problem of poverty and ignore the fact that government policies create far more poverty than they solve, then people will continue to allow the elderly to suffer. As long as society, encouraged by government, treats age as a disease instead of worthy of respect, nothing will change.

Government in the United States took active action against poverty on two distinct occasions: 1933 and 1965. In both cases, the problem actually got worse. What does that tell you?

 

[Robert_Sock]

How can you expect governments to step up and stop these atrocities, when those same governments are the ones causing and carrying out these atrocities? Remember what Christ said: you will always have the poor with you. Even Christ said poverty cannot be eliminated. That’s part of our fallen nature. Until you stop looking to the cause of the problem for the solution, nothing will ever change, at least not for the better.

If you still don’t agree, then answer this: name one government that is not oppressing its citizens and causing them greater poverty through their policies.

Christ said that there will always be the poor among us, but He never said we should condone extreme poverty; big difference!.

The American government for one, in their being passive and apathetic towards extreme poverty.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Because this world is fallen, and God told us that we would suffer. I live happily because I am following his commands to the best of my ability. Do I fall and fail? Of course I do, every single day. Some days are worse than others. But He will forgive me if I ask for it, and I will continue to do the best I can to live up to what He wants of me.

As long as people think that government is the solution to the problem of poverty and ignore the fact that government policies create far more poverty than they solve, then people will continue to allow the elderly to suffer. As long as society, encouraged by government, treats age as a disease instead of worthy of respect, nothing will change.

Government in the United States took active action against poverty on two distinct occasions: 1933 and 1965. In both cases, the problem actually got worse. What does that tell you?

What would American society look like today if we did not have SS, Medicare and Medicaid? You think these programs caused poverty? Again, people like trying to rationalize the problem away instead of taking direct action; people do this all the time so they may feel free from guilt.

 

[MarcyK]

I just finished reading a book by Al Kresta that you might find enlightening. “Dangers to the Faith” and one of the topics in the book that I found interesting was about using Government to have better living. To rely on Govt to solve the problems in the country one has to be VERY careful because quickly the govt becomes the “savior,” and it is very unforgiving. People then think the government will solve all our problems and stop relying on God. Charity is one thing, and governments can help, but it is dangerous to give government too much power.

 

[mackbrislawn]

How should government implement humanitarian values within very greedy societies if not through subsidies?

I personally believe that when charity is lacking, we must look to government to provide those subsidies. Should we, as Catholics, just let the poverty to continue and look the other way?

The trouble with looking to government is that we are using government to force our values/religion upon others. We wouldn’t like it if others used government to force their values and religion upon us, so why should they like it when we do it to them?

Also, Christ wants charity to be our job as Christians, as the Church. Christ said, Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. He makes a clear distinction between Caesar’s job (punishing criminals and keeping order) and the Church’s. When we give to charity we are giving to God. We do not want Caesar to take over our job; we don’t want Caesar to take over the job of the Church. When that happens, Caesar become the Church. Caesar increases, and the Church and God decrease. A very bad thing.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I never said that the government needs to cater to anyone in particular, but to cater to the basic needs of groups of individuals, such as the homeless and the elderly.

I like this idea! It means that I don’t have to worry about needs of people, because the government will do it for me! I don’t have to care for my parents, I don’t have to save for my old age, because someone else will do it for me! What a system! I can be as greedy now as I want.

I just hope the system doesn’t collapse before then.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I like this idea! It means that I don’t have to worry about needs of people, because the government will do it for me! I don’t have to care for my parents, I don’t have to save for my old age, because someone else will do it for me! What a system! I can be as greedy now as I want.

I just hope the system doesn’t collapse before then.

Reread what I wrote. You’re twisting things. I’m not talking about personal obligations at all! The thread has to do with societies obligations in dealing with world poverty. Surely, society needs to cater to the dire needs of those living in extreme poverty.

 

[Robert_Sock]

The trouble with looking to government is that we are using government to force our values/religion upon others. We wouldn’t like it if others used government to force their values and religion upon us, so why should they like it when we do it to them?

Also, Christ wants charity to be our job as Christians, as the Church. Christ said, Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. He makes a clear distinction between Caesar’s job (punishing criminals and keeping order) and the Church’s. When we give to charity we are giving to God. We do not want Caesar to take over our job; we don’t want Caesar to take over the job of the Church. When that happens, Caesar become the Church. Caesar increases, and the Church and God decrease. A very bad thing.

And when the Church and individuals fail to eliminate extreme poverty? What then? I say that the government needs to step in.

 

[epan]

Reread what I wrote. You’re twisting things. I’m not talking about personal obligations at all! The thread has to do with societies obligations in dealing with world poverty. Surely, society needs to cater to the dire needs of those living in extreme poverty.

If you are referring to worldwide poverty, then I think you need to clarify what you mean when you use the word, “society”. Clearly, you don’t just mean the US and Europe, but what do you mean by “society”?

 

[mackbrislawn]

Reread what I wrote. You’re twisting things. I’m not talking about personal obligations at all! The thread has to do with societies obligations in dealing with world poverty. Surely, society needs to cater to the dire needs of those living in extreme poverty.

I’m talking about the consequences. If “society,” whatever that is, takes care of poor me, m poor parents, and other poor, that means I don’t have to do that myself. That is, I have no responsibilities. I can be greedy and spend everything I earn on myself in the short term.

Society is simply a lot of individuals, and if these individuals lose responsibility then society will be incapable of even helping itself.

No, I don’t agree that society in the abstract, abstract and amorphous, has any responsibilities at all. Now, you seem to be equating “society” with government, but they aren’t the same thing.

However, various individuals and groups, sub-societies, who share a common value system, let’s say a concern about poverty, certainly may act together to alleviate their concern.

You believe government should act to relieve “extreme” poverty. The question now arises, why government, as opposed to other institutions? Well, the only answer I can come up with is that government has the sword at its disposal. It can use force, including lethal force, to get its way. That is an awesome power. But how the sword can be used to combat poverty I don’t know. Government itself does not produce wealth, and it is sufficient wealth that the poor lack. So how can government help?

One would think that eliminating poverty would be done by increasing production and increasing wealth. That is, by creating conditions conducive to the poor being able to earn more would reduce their poverty.

You say I am twisting things. No, I am pointing out ultimate consequences, far range consequences that you may not have considered.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Reread what I wrote. You’re twisting things. I’m not talking about personal obligations at all! The thread has to do with societies obligations in dealing with world poverty. Surely, society needs to cater to the dire needs of those living in extreme poverty.

(Underlining mine.)

But you mentioned Matthew 25, about the last judgment when Christ judges each of us, as individuals, about what personal obligations we failed to live up to. If you are not talking about our own individual personal obligations as Christians, why did you quote Matthew 25?

 

[mackbrislawn]

And when the Church and individuals fail to eliminate extreme poverty? What then? I say that the government needs to step in.

You quoted Matthew 25 apparently as a Catholic Christian justification for attempting to eliminate poverty, and since this is also a Catholic forum, concern for the Church and its future should be part of the discussion. And you didn’t address that part, the dangers to God, the Church, and society itself if too much reliance is put upon government. Scripture says, “Put not your trust in princes.” As government increases, God and Church decrease.

The other part un-addressed is the moral part. Is it moral to force one’s own values upon others? You seem to want to use government as an instrumentality to enforce your own value system, which seems to come from Matthew 25.

 

[Robert_Sock]

You quoted Matthew 25 apparently as a Catholic Christian justification for attempting to eliminate poverty, and since this is also a Catholic forum, concern for the Church and its future should be part of the discussion. And you didn’t address that part, the dangers to God, the Church, and society itself if too much reliance is put upon government. Scripture says, “Put not your trust in princes.” As government increases, God and Church decrease.

The other part un-addressed is the moral part. Is it moral to force one’s own values upon others? You seem to want to use government as an instrumentality to enforce your own value system, which seems to come from Matthew 25.

Nowhere did I mean to convey that individuals do not have a moral obligation to help the poor, and to help one’s family, they do. The same is true for Catholics. My post was merely to point out the purpose of this particular thread being societies duties, which includes individuals and Catholics as a whole.

 

[Robert_Sock]

If you are referring to worldwide poverty, then I think you need to clarify what you mean when you use the word, “society”. Clearly, you don’t just mean the US and Europe, but what do you mean by “society”?

What I meant by ‘society’ is a larger group of people that includes its overall culture, government(s) and economic system(s). Western society, for example.

 

[jmcrae]

(Underlining mine.)

But you mentioned Matthew 25, about the last judgment when Christ judges each of us, as individuals, about what personal obligations we failed to live up to. If you are not talking about our own individual personal obligations as Christians, why did you quote Matthew 25?

That is the Judgement of the Nations. Individuals are members of nations, but it is national policies that are being judged in that passage.

 

[Reep]

I personally believe that when charity is lacking, we must look to government to provide those subsidies. Should we, as Catholics, just let the poverty to continue and look the other way?

Government does not possess anything to give to the needy. Everything it has–or ever will have–was stolen under threat of violence. The Christian’s duty is to see that charity is not lacking, but if it is, we do not compound one evil by committing another.

“Go to the government; be warmed and filled,” is not compassion, it is a cowardly cop-out. I’d like to see more Dorothy Day and less Franklin Roosevelt.