You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
mpi
Guest
Again, PJPII saw it differently. Centesimus Annus is official Catholic docrine. Paragraph 48 points out the perversity of the welfare state.Becuse of the inherent greed of humanity, I don’t see a solution to providing for the least powerful of our citizenry without a welfare system
- These general observations also apply to the role of the State in the economic sector. Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principle task of the State is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labours and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. The absence of stability, together with the corruption of public officials and the spread of improper sources of growing rich and of easy profits deriving from illegal or purely speculative activities, constitutes one of the chief obstacles to development and to the economic order.
The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or are just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand. Such supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of State intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom.
In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.100
By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.
C
CWBetts
Guest
And you are ignoring every reference to human rights, which supercedes your selfish desires for profit! Providing welfare assistance, unemployment compensation, and other necessities is not what is being adressed. What is being addressed is the problems associated with government sponsored capitalism, which is the direction we are headed, thanks to the bailouts. This is NOT condemning state support of the poor. To say otherwise is taking pieces out of context…you aren’t Protestant are you?
M
mpi
Guest
That is an enlightening speech you just gave. Your shock and disgust at what you perceived to be my comments is amusing.And you are ignoring every reference to human rights, which supercedes your selfish desires for profit! Providing welfare assistance, unemployment compensation, and other necessities is not what is being adressed. What is being addressed is the problems associated with government sponsored capitalism, which is the direction we are headed, thanks to the bailouts. This is NOT condemning state support of the poor. To say otherwise is taking pieces out of context…you aren’t Protestant are you?
EVERYTHING AFTER THE NUMBER 48 IS POPE JOHN PAUL II COMMENTING IN HIS ENCYCLICAL. I did not try to trick you. I thought it was clear the 48 indicated the 48th paragraph in the document.
Your last sentance was very funny. It reminds me of the joke - Is the Pope Catholic?..
In this context, reread the paragraph and you will see the Pope is specifically rejecting the welfare state that provides basic human needs, not a rejection of government sponsored capitalism (or whatever it is that you are referring too):
Another exerpt from para 48 - check out the big HOWEVER right after the bold text.
In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State.
C
CWBetts
Guest
It seems to me he is not critcizinf welfare assistence, but the ABUSE of such systems. Everything possible must be done to assist the poor, particualrly in the forms of education and job placement. There are those that cannot work, and the state should provide for the few in that unfortuante situation. There are others that are out of work because of failing s of the economy, which under a capitalist system are inevitable, due to the boom-bust nature of the system. These people should also be assistedd by the government, because their situation is through no fault of their own. Unfortunately there are those who can work, but choose not to, and instead prefer to be a drain on the system. It is these people that something must be done about. But to sacrifice assistience to the former two on the alter of the latter is unjust.
R
RobertLGarrett
Guest
I think you are reading what you want to read in the Pope’s document. His condemnation of the welfare state is very clear.It seems to me he is not critcizinf welfare assistence, but the ABUSE of such systems. Everything possible must be done to assist the poor, particualrly in the forms of education and job placement. There are those that cannot work, and the state should provide for the few in that unfortuante situation. There are others that are out of work because of failing s of the economy, which under a capitalist system are inevitable, due to the boom-bust nature of the system. These people should also be assistedd by the government, because their situation is through no fault of their own. Unfortunately there are those who can work, but choose not to, and instead prefer to be a drain on the system. It is these people that something must be done about. But to sacrifice assistience to the former two on the alter of the latter is unjust.
Having people’s lives rely on the huge federal government in our country is not dignified. Charity is licit. Some help from the community of the lower orders is licit. Federal assistance to the individual is wrong. Even State (in this case I mean a US State) assistance should be minimized in the really large states like California. Such assistance is too far from the individual.Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.
Why do you favor bureaucracy, inefficiency and the treatment of people as numbers?
C
CWBetts
Guest
We have to rely on government assistance because individuals of means have been abject failures when it comes to the responsibility that comes with wealth. I would prefer that the state not be involved, but since Americans of means are more obsessed with expensive cars, fancy houses, and lavish vacations than the plight of theose that can barely afford to survive, it falls to the governmet to protect tis people. What needs to be done is make people realize that when chosing between heling thier fellow man or going to Europe on vactaion, helping their fellow man must take precidence, but it does not. So, now it is for you to tell me waht should be done to improve the lives of the poor. If government is not to do it, and people of means refuse to do it, then does that mean they should be left to starve. I think not. To force the waelthy to assist, you would decry as tyranny. For the government to provide assistance, you call socialism. What, then is to be done?
R
royal_archer
Guest
I can’t remember anyone on this discussion saying that we as individuals do not have a personal moral obligation to help the poor and those with other forms of need besides monetary. The primary objection is to using force to take from those that have earned their money honestly. the secondary objection is to those with the ability to earn a living who instead choose to take from others.We are commanded to take care of the poor.
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
If a man who does not work should not eat, then the people who are “old money” should not eat, for they life lives of leisure.
It is part of the government’s job to take car of the poor.
Your beliefs are called “social darwinism”. There is nothing more reprehensible.
Your views put self above others. Expalin how this is a Godly way of thinking, given that Christ spoke against amassing wealth.
No one deserves to be poor. No one deserves to be wealthy. We are all to use what God has given us to help others, not spend it on frivolity.
The leaches of our society are the ones putting themselves ahead of others. I have the right to the fruits of my own labor. We were given specific commandments including “though shall not steal”. When we were commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves, we were commanded to give with love, not give out of fear of the government or a fear of an angry mob. Love can only be give from ones self. With out recognition of self there can be no true giving of love.
As for frivolity: the world has ample resources. There are also those who pull more than their fair share. They should be allowed to reap the rewards of their extra efforts with out others constantly taking from them.
Keep in mind that we were all given gifts from God which we are to use to help others. Even the poor are given gifts and they need share those gifts just as much as the wealthiest of men.
C
CWBetts
Guest
I have had it with the unadulterated greed I am seeing on this thread. We are to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless. As long as people lack basic necessities, it is immoral for us to spend an rediculous amount of money on something as useless as an XBOX or luxury automobile. You have obviously never been in a situation where you didn’t know where your next meal was coming from, or how you were going to make rent, or else you would not be so callous and self-centered.
R
royal_archer
Guest
I have heard that line of reasoning many times for people to justify giving up. Some people will fill out a few applications then sit by the phone waiting for a job while complaining it is’nt their fault no one offered them a good enough job yet. In America we are exporting jobs to third world countries because Americans are unwilling to work.… These people should also be assistedd by the government, because their situation is through no fault of their own. …
It is about time that we as a society stop supporting this dependent behavior and help thes people gain the self respect they need to take control of their own lives.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Wake up. Outsourcing happens because people work for $1 day. Corporate greed.I have heard that line of reasoning many times for people to justify giving up. Some people will fill out a few applications then sit by the phone waiting for a job while complaining it is’nt their fault no one offered them a good enough job yet. In America we are exporting jobs to third world countries because Americans are unwilling to work.
It is about time that we as a society stop supporting this dependent behavior and help thes people gain the self respect they need to take control of their own lives.
R
royal_archer
Guest
You are making a false assertion that the rich enjoying luxuries and the rich providing for the poor are mutually exclusive. The rich spending their money on luxuries also helps those tatwould otherwise be poor. But unlike welfare it helps those that would otherwise be poor while maintaining their dignity as human beings. Welfare forces people to abandon their pride and self dignity by converting them from workers to essentially beggers.We have to rely on government assistance because individuals of means have been abject failures when it comes to the responsibility that comes with wealth. I would prefer that the state not be involved, but since Americans of means are more obsessed with expensive cars, fancy houses, and lavish vacations than the plight of theose that can barely afford to survive, it falls to the governmet to protect tis people. What needs to be done is make people realize that when chosing between heling thier fellow man or going to Europe on vactaion, helping their fellow man must take precidence, but it does not. So, now it is for you to tell me waht should be done to improve the lives of the poor. If government is not to do it, and people of means refuse to do it, then does that mean they should be left to starve. I think not. To force the waelthy to assist, you would decry as tyranny. For the government to provide assistance, you call socialism. What, then is to be done?
R
royal_archer
Guest
Actually I have been in both of those situations. I once lost a job and had no money and no credit. in order to eat I did volunteer work where they fed the workers. I also took the first job I could get. After my first son was born I was again layed off and had to take a temporary job to make ends meet. A little while later the temporary work ran out and I was again with out a job. This time I showed up for work at my former employer and just started working (with out a job) They were impressed by my dedicaition and brought me back on as a temp. After a while I had two permanent job offers from that company. Fortnately I have never had to take a penny of unemployment, much less welfare.I have had it with the unadulterated greed I am seeing on this thread. We are to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless. As long as people lack basic necessities, it is immoral for us to spend an rediculous amount of money on something as useless as an XBOX or luxury automobile. You have obviously never been in a situation where you didn’t know where your next meal was coming from, or how you were going to make rent, or else you would not be so callous and self-centered.
I have friends who are hard workers and associates who are lazy. I would much rather give my extra dollars to those who are trying ad need help than to an annonymous government agency which hands out the money to buy votes.
R
royal_archer
Guest
Do you buy items made in Mexico, China, or other low income countries? Corporations only outsource because the people in those countries are more willing to work than Americans and because Americans couldn’t care less about how good of jobs the corporation is offering to its employees.Wake up. Outsourcing happens because people work for $1 day. Corporate greed.
C
CWBetts
Guest
I am going to make some assumtions. Please correct me if I am wrong.
You are from a small town, and have never lived in a large city.
You have never spent a day working in your life.
You have never had to earn anything, as it was given to you by your parents.
You are at least upper middle class.
You are from a small town, and have never lived in a large city.
You have never spent a day working in your life.
You have never had to earn anything, as it was given to you by your parents.
You are at least upper middle class.
M
mpi
Guest
If you are asking me, then you are wrong on all counts. I don’t know what upper middle class is - I am extremely high income, extremely low net worth.I am going to make some assumtions. Please correct me if I am wrong.
You are from a small town, and have never lived in a large city.
You have never spent a day working in your life.
You have never had to earn anything, as it was given to you by your parents.
You are at least upper middle class.
Now some assumptions about you.
You have issues with the Church’s stance on birth control.
You feel that to be good stewards of God’s creation we need to watch out for overpopulation.
R
RobertLGarrett
Guest
For those interested, since we took this thread off-topic, I started a thread on the US Constitution and the role of subsidiarity in the integration of Catholic Doctrine with US society. Please join in.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=298724
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=298724
C
CWBetts
Guest
Actually I was addressing the previous poster. And i have no issues with the Church’s stance on birth control whatsoever.If you are asking me, then you are wrong on all counts. I don’t know what upper middle class is - I am extremely high income, extremely low net worth.
Now some assumptions about you.
You have issues with the Church’s stance on birth control.
You feel that to be good stewards of God’s creation we need to watch out for overpopulation.
R
royal_archer
Guest
If you were talking about me then you have not read many of my posts.I am going to make some assumtions. Please correct me if I am wrong.
You are from a small town, and have never lived in a large city.
You have never spent a day working in your life.
You have never had to earn anything, as it was given to you by your parents.
You are at least upper middle class.
I live on the outskirts of a large city and have lived in two other large cities.
I have spent several years working manual labor in union and non union shops although I am now salaried. But I still put in long hard hours. I have made all of the money I have through wages and salary except the $5-10 per year interest on my savings account.
I left home at the age of 17 and have not taken money from my parrents since I completed school.
I am in the comfortable middle of the middle class.
You seem to have issues with the rich and do not seem to understand that many of us in the working class respect succes and wish no harm on those who have achieved it. You may have heard of the golden rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” I wouldn’t want someone to takes something from me that I earned and therefore feel the same way about others.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.