What is your opinion on foreign aid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCIAGraduate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To those to whom much is given, much is expected…

In America where we are blessed with so much abundance, we should help those who are less fortunate. As Catholics, we have an obligation to.
 
godisgood77 said:
In America where we are blessed with so much abundance, we should help those who are less fortunate. As Catholics, we have an obligation to.
Click to expand...
The question here is whether its the place of the US Government - or whether it is more the place of Catholic Relief Services- or its Protestant counterparts- to provide charity.
 
I think this would be an aspect of solidarity (aka social charity) in the proper circumstances.

The catechism says:
1941…International solidarity is a requirement of the moral order;

2438 Various causes of a religious, political, economic, and financial nature today give "the social question a worldwide dimension."225 There must be solidarity among nations which are already politically interdependent. It is even more essential when it is a question of dismantling the “perverse mechanisms” that impede the development of the less advanced countries.226 In place of abusive if not usurious financial systems, iniquitous commercial relations among nations, and the arms race, there must be substituted a common effort to mobilize resources toward objectives of moral, cultural, and economic development, "redefining the priorities and hierarchies of values."227

2439 Rich nations have a grave moral responsibility toward those which are unable to ensure the means of their development by themselves or have been prevented from doing so by tragic historical events. It is a duty in solidarity and charity; it is also an obligation in justice if the prosperity of the rich nations has come from resources that have not been paid for fairly.

2440 Direct aid is an appropriate response to immediate, extraordinary needs caused by natural catastrophes, epidemics, and the like. But it does not suffice to repair the grave damage resulting from destitution or to provide a lasting solution to a country’s needs. It is also necessary to reform international economic and financial institutions so that they will better promote equitable relationships with less advanced countries.228 The efforts of poor countries working for growth and liberation must be supported.229 This doctrine must be applied especially in the area of agricultural labor. Peasants, especially in the Third World, form the overwhelming majority of the poor.

2441 An increased sense of God and increased self-awareness are fundamental to any full development of human society. This development multiplies material goods and puts them at the service of the person and his freedom. It reduces dire poverty and economic exploitation. It makes for growth in respect for cultural identities and openness to the transcendent.230
Click to expand...
Of course, we can’t forget the spiritual:
1948 Solidarity is an eminently Christian virtue. It practices the sharing of spiritual goods even more than material ones.
Click to expand...
As an interesting aside, Pius XII in his 1948 Christmas address and his Apostolic Constitution on migration (Exsul Familia Nazarethana), notes that is better to facilitate migration into those countries that can provide the necessities of life rather than to send aid abroad.
 
Sure it does. You said foreign aid isn’t in the Constitution so it’s unconstitutional. Neither is the right to privacy. Should we cut that off as well?

The US isn’t Sola Constitutiona.

We hold to treaties and agreements with other nations and with organizations. We also buy diplomacy, which isn’t always the worst strategy to employ.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

If I misunderstood I’ll own it. I did go up in the thread even farther, but perhaps I missed something.
 
Last edited:
I’m wondering if you know what positive grant is.

It makes no sense because there’s nothing in the Constitution the gives the government the power to invade our privacy.
 
It’s a right upheld in court that has no Constitutional protection. And it’s been used against the US Government.

Makes perfect sense.
 
I know what “positive rights” are, and how the Constitution grants them. And there’s a lot of differing thought on that from the little I know - many view the Constitution as granting negative rights over the alternative.
 
Last edited:
The Constitution doesn’t grant any rights. You need to look up positive grants I guess. The tenth amendment explains clearly why foreign aid is unconstitutional because of positive grants.
 
I looked up “positive grants” and got nothing except a patent policy in Singapore. Adding “US Constitution” gave me a lot of stuff about positive rights that I read about in political science class.

I’ve read about positive rights and the thought that it actually protects/“grants” negatives over that.

Interesting that you’re not going to explain it though. Literally, I can’t ferret out the phrase.
 
Last edited:
https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/...sue2/MacNaughton3U.Pa.J.Const.L.750(2001).pdf

Interesting discussion of negative/positive rights and the US Constitution. UPenn says a strict definition of the Constitution doing either isn’t necessarily correct.

Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Then you need to get rid of Medicare, Federal housing programs, the right to privacy (upheld in Federal courts)…as I said, we’re not Sola Constitutiona.
 
Sorry. I’ve been busy with a flooded house.

The constitution was written under positive grants which means that the only powers of government are those specifically enumerated. All other powers belong to the states, or the people.

The reason I said it didn’t make sense is because it was apple and orange. I was talking about the powers of government, or lack of powers, per the constitution. You were talking about individual rights. Protection of privacy. The constitution gives certain limited powers to government. It does not grant rights to individuals.
 
Pup7 said:
Then you need to get rid of Medicare, Federal housing programs, the right to privacy (upheld in Federal courts)…as I said, we’re not Sola Constitutiona.
Click to expand...
Medicare is not a power given to the government so yes, it is unconstitutional.

Federal housing programs is not a power given to the government so yes, it is unconstitutional.

The violation of our privacy is not a power given to the government so it would be unconstitutional for the government to violate our privacy.
 
Sorry, but the right to privacy has been upheld by the Supreme Court. The right is not secured in the Constitution.
Lemuel said:
It does not grant rights to individuals.
Click to expand...
So the Bill of Rights just isn’t, then.
 
Last edited:
The bill of rights is there to protect the rights we already had. They are there to restrict government from violating those rights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top