Who's job is it?:The Main Difference Between the Right and the Left: The Role and Scope of Government in Society

[Bluegoat]

I think you make a number of good points, but I must quickly disagree with you about radio stations–in the US, the price of the license for an AM statiin is $35,000, making it impossible to start small.

However, your bringing up the various levels of government is important, as is your discussion of the large corporations. It seems like we have huge corporations, huge unions, and huge government.

What we actually need is a good dose of subsidiarity and mediating organizations. To me, the government is supposed to protect us from things like bigbox stores grabbing land, but it doesn’t. Unions are supposed to protect the workers, not force a closure of the employer.

But at the same time, society does have a responsibility to the least among us. To me, the government needs to encourage and support that happening, but at times assure that it happens, at the most local level possible. I don’t think the federal government should be involved in education, which should be under the control of the parents and local community, but I do see that the more overarching levels could be helpful in coordinating aide from one community to another.

It’s all a balancing act, and we are terribly out of balance.

I guess small with regard to a radio station is relative - there’s no doubt it requires a substantial investment, but not necessarily by a corporate entity. Almost all our media is controlled by a few corporations in Canada, because independent owners have been swallowed up by them. But under different business circumstances I can easily imagine many different individual owners, or cooperatives.

I agree - the idea is to find the lowest level at which a function of society can effectively be weilded. What that is will depend, and a lot of times it may be shared. We see that with our health system, where almost every level of government has a role, as well as local community groups and private individuals.

The difficulty is that some people don’t understand that subsidiarity does not imply individualism. Which is why we get people not understanding the social encyclicals, thinking they are supporting communism! Individualism is an evil as much as communism is, and the political life is the formal aspect of the human community - and humans are creatures of community.

You are right that we see this movement to big organizations of every kind. What we don’t see a lot of is movement to make sure that everyone has a real stake in these organizations, or structures which push and keep governance and power at the lowest levels.

I think that part of the problem is not just the will to power by some people, but a real willingness to opt out by others, and become passive. That has to be protected against as well as those who want to accrue power, but we don’t do that well.

 

[Carlan]

Of course, I agree that, when possible, we should share our “surplus” “resources” with the less fortunate, no matter where they live in the world. All I am saying is that we should leave that up primarily to NGOs, private charity groups, private corporate charitable wings, and private individuals and families. If government is to have a role in this at all it should be limited and not mandatory or considered an obligation.

I agree with The Church’s core principle, in those with much helping those with less, no christian, “Right-wing” or otherwise, would disgaree there.

Originally Posted by cmforte
Of course, I agree that, when possible, we should share our “surplus” “resources” with the less fortunate, no matter where they live in the world. All I am saying is that we should leave that up primarily to NGOs, private charity groups, private corporate charitable wings, and private individuals and families. If government is to have a role in this at all it should be limited and not mandatory or considered an obligation.

I agree with The Church’s core principle, in those with much helping those with less, no christian, “Right-wing” or otherwise, would disgaree there.

-Chris
Also posted by Chris…
I also shouldn’t be forced, through taxes, to support a program, service, or country I disagree with. That is also why I believe that government should not be in the business of helping the less fortunate (on a large scale): what I do with my “surplus resources” should be up to me.

Who is responsible for alleviating poverty in the world , Governments or peoples personal charity?
In my opinion it is about balance.
If every person would give an equal % personally to prevent poverty there would not be need for government help.
Unfortunately personal selfishness prevails in this and as a whole we would fail miserably.
So in the concern for social justice ,I believe, Government must take up the slack for this common good.
I do say ,however, concern must also be targeted solely toward true poverty and not siphoned to to other areas.
Peace,Carlan

 

[jwinch2]

We as Christians and free people, absolutely have an obligation on a PERSONAL level to help the poor and needy. However, this is something that we should be doing out of our own free will, not by government mandate. Jesus said to give them your cloak. What he did not say was to let Cesar take it, sell it, use most of the money to create and support a giant inefficient government bureaucracy and then decide who to give the leftovers to.

In addition, when we allow the government to control things like this, we end up with our money going to things which we do not agree with from a moral standpoint such as abortion, contraception, etc.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

This discussion illustrates a huge part of the problem.

There is no DEMOCRACY in any country on this earth. NONE, and there never has been one in modern times.

Some of you really need to go back to school and learn what kind of government you actually have. And, what the role of Government actually is.

Canada does not have anything even remotely like a Democracy. It has a representative Parliamentary form of Government, and it is NOT by any stretch of the imagination the responsibility of that government to see to it that everyone has a comfortable living. It is not even the responsibility of the government to make certain that everyone has adequate food, shelter, etc. (By the way, I AM a Canadian citizen from birth, I am a dual citizen of Canada and the USA from birth. ALL of my fathers family lives in Canada, and has since before the American Revolution).

The role of government should be to make certain that everyone has a shot at success.

But whether or not a person succeeds is up to them, and NOT to the society that they live in.

I am a classic example of a person lifting themselves “up by their bootstraps”. I grew up in an extremely poor (before the days of food stamps, etc.) family. At times, the only thing I had to eat was dry dog food (nutritious, but it tastes horrible).

I was abused in just about any way that a human being CAN be abused. I went into the Army at the age of 16, to escape from that life. I spent 10 years on active duty, and when I got out, I discovered that I needed at least a Master’s Degree to do in civilian life what I had been doing in the Army for years.

So, I used my Vietnam GI Bill (which paid me less than $200 a month), worked very, very hard and completed my BA in 3 years. I then went into a dual Masters Degree program (each a 60 units program, but about half of the credits applied both ways) and completed those degrees in another 2 academic years.

Several years later, I earned my Doctorate in Rehabilitation Counseling. I CHOSE to work with developmentally Disabled teens and adults, as well as Brian Damaged adults, which meant I earned significantly less than i could have. But that was my CHOICE.

In no other country could a person, at the age of 26, without even a High School Diploma, go out and earn a complete education and make a success of themselves like they can in the USA.

So, instead of blaming government, blame yourself if your life has not worked out.

As it says in the Declaration of Independence, you are entitled to the PURSUIT of Happiness, not a guarantee that you will be happy.

 

[davidmlamb]

Thanks for your concern, I’ll make sure I run to confession. But I disagree with you. This is all wrong. The government is not our nanny or big brother. And it certainly isn’t so the world.

I think that confession would be good for you but the problem is you have to actually recognize your error, reject it., and turn away from it. Your sin is that you think you are smarter than the Church. You do not have the gift of infallibility and neither are you being guided unto all truth by the Holy Spirit.

This is the ideology behind the European Social Model, not the American one. “Right-wing” conservatives, as you call us, still do believe in helping the less fortunate, just as The Church does, we just don’t believe that that is the government’s job.

The Church disagrees with you. The Church teaches us that God instituted governments among men to uphold the common good and that it is the duty of government to intervene with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups to resolve such conflicts. Right wing conservatism does not uphold the common good but instead believes that a leissez faire economic system will meet all the social needs of a society. Yet here is what the Pope’s have had to say about such an economic system:

*…However, certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society. These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations.

This unbridled liberalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the “international imperialism of money.”(26)Such improper manipulations of economic forces can never be condemned enough*; let it be said once again that economics is supposed to be in the service of man.

But if it is true that a type of capitalism, as it is commonly called, has given rise to hardships, unjust practices, and fratricidal conflicts that persist to this day, it would be a mistake to attribute these evils to the rise of industrialization itself, for they really derive from the pernicious economic concepts that grew up along with it. --Popular Progresso, Pope Paul VI, 1967

Notice Chris that the Church calls right wing conservatism “unbridled liberalism” and “a Tyranny which can never be condemned enough.” So when you imply the Church is a liar and you are here to correct her “lies” you are in fact bowing your knee to the devil and doing his work. Catholics need to be aware of such wolves among us and not be deceived by them but rather, when any given set of teachings is in direct conflict with the Church than such contrary teachings ought to be rejected.

I only disagree with The Church on the type of social model it advocates, on its view on the role and scope of government, I don’t disagree with its reason for or desired end result of that advocacy.

Chris, this is equivalent to a pro choice Catholic’s argument that they disagree with the Church’s position on government protecting the unborn from the moment of conception in favor of a woman’s personal choice relevant to whether or not she wants to procure an abortion, while at the same time you agree with the church’s position that abortion is evil. Both sets of reasoning asserts that the Church is wrong and their reasoning is right. Both sets of reasoning’s are equivalently perverted.

Peace,
David

 

[Texas_Roofer]

… The government’s, especially the federal government’s, sole job is to create and regulate the money supply,…

? are you aware there was no such money when this government was founded?

to provide us with a national defense against enemies foreign and domestic, to be a guardian of our freedom and liberties,

okay

even from assault by that very same government,

how does that work?

all in order to allow us the opportunity to pursue happiness and comfort,

Maybe god covered this part before the government was created?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Thanks for your concern, I’ll make sure I run to confession. But I disagree with you. This is all wrong. The government is not our nanny or big brother. And it certainly isn’t so the world. This is the ideaology behind the*** European ***Social Model, not the American one. “Right-wing” conservatives, as you call us, still do believe in helping the less fortunate, just as The Church does, we just don’t believe that that is the government’s job. I only disagree with The Church on the type of social model it advocates, on its view on the role and scope of government, I don’t disagree with its reason for or desired end result of that advocacy.

-Chris

We can learn a lot from Europeans.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I think that confession would be good for you but the problem is you have to actually recognize your error, reject it., and turn away from it. Your sin is that you think you are smarter than the Church. You do not have the gift of infallibility and neither are you being guided unto all truth by the Holy Spirit.

The Church disagrees with you. The Church teaches us that God instituted governments among men to uphold the common good and that it is the duty of government to intervene with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups to resolve such conflicts. Right wing conservatism does not uphold the common good but instead believes that a leissez faire economic system will meet all the social needs of a society. Yet here is what the Pope’s have had to say about such an economic system:

*…However, certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society. These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations.

This unbridled liberalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the “international imperialism of money.”(26)Such improper manipulations of economic forces can never be condemned enough*; let it be said once again that economics is supposed to be in the service of man.

But if it is true that a type of capitalism, as it is commonly called, has given rise to hardships, unjust practices, and fratricidal conflicts that persist to this day, it would be a mistake to attribute these evils to the rise of industrialization itself, for they really derive from the pernicious economic concepts that grew up along with it. --Popular Progresso, Pope Paul VI, 1967

Notice Chris that the Church calls right wing conservatism “unbridled liberalism” and “a Tyranny which can never be condemned enough.” So when you imply the Church is a liar and you are here to correct her “lies” you are in fact bowing your knee to the devil and doing his work. Catholics need to be aware of such wolves among us and not be deceived by them but rather, when any given set of teachings is in direct conflict with the Church than such contrary teachings ought to be rejected.

Chris, this is equivalent to a pro choice Catholic’s argument that they disagree with the Church’s position on government protecting the unborn from the moment of conception in favor of a woman’s personal choice relevant to whether or not she wants to procure an abortion, while at the same time you agree with the church’s position that abortion is evil. Both sets of reasoning asserts that the Church is wrong and their reasoning is right. Both sets of reasoning’s are equivalently perverted.

Peace,
David

Great post.

 

[Abu]

davidmlamb
I think that confession would be good for you but the problem is you have to actually recognize your error, reject it., and turn away from it. Your sin is that you think you are smarter than the Church. You do not have the gift of infallibility and neither are you being guided unto all truth by the Holy Spirit.

The confusion and misrepresentation here is horrendous. Infallibility is not, and never has been, a part of the how of social teaching. The arrogance is excusable because of the ignorance.

This will help to unravel the confusion above.
robertsirico.com/
**Tuesday, May 31, 2011, by Fr. Robert Sirico
Not Whether to Help the Poor, But How **
Extracts:
'Let us take the recent occasions of public discourse by Catholics on these matters occasioned by an open letter issued by a group of Catholic professors, which argues that the budget proposed by House Republicans violates Catholic social teaching, and in which they come close to calling the Speaker of the House a heretic.

'There is evidence in this letter, and in some of the commentary surrounding it, of a failure to grasp the necessary distinctions in Catholic moral theology (of which, as the popes have noted, the social teaching is a branch). I pointed out in my original critique of the open letter that the Catholic professors’ statement neglected the important distinction between “non-negotiable dogmas and doctrines” and the “prudential and debatable give and take when it comes to applying the principles of Catholic social teaching.” Then I cited the Compendium of the Social Doctrine: “The Church’s Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions” (571). The use of the phrase “contingent questions” in the Compendium is quite deliberate. It means that it is simply inaccurate to say that Catholics who debate how to address poverty dissent from the Church’s teaching in the same way as someone who does not support the Church’s insistence on legal protection for the unborn. [My emphasis].

'This is not because “justice issues” are less important than “life issues,” but because they are fundamentally different — a difference rooted in two millennia of Catholic moral reflection. Abortion involves the direct and intentional destruction of an innocent human life. It is never permissible intentionally to choose evil. Laws that permit abortion are inherently unjust, and Catholics are obligated to work toward legal prohibition of abortion.

'When it comes to doing good, however, which is what addressing poverty entails, the Church does not stipulate exactly how such good is to be done. Helping the poor requires a different sort of moral analysis — not because I (or the Church’s teaching) am “dualist,” as some critics suggest, nor because assisting the poor is “less important” than protecting the unborn, but because the two issues possess different characteristics and therefore require different sorts of moral analysis.

‘A Catholic may not disregard the Church’s teaching to assist the poor and vulnerable; to do so would be to neglect the words and example of Christ Himself. It would be, in effect, to deny the Faith. But on the question of how best to fulfill that obligation, Catholics will indeed disagree, and the Church does not teach that it must be otherwise. The same kind of latitude is not permitted when it comes to legal protection of the unborn. I do not believe that this is “my view” of the matter; it is the mind of the Church, to which I hope my own mind is conformed.’ [My emphasis].
This was published in Crisis Magazine on May 31, 2011.

 

[Abu]

Popes have warned explicitly against thinking that they have unique insights into specific matters of economic policy.
“If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…[M]en must realise in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…[T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.” [Pope Leo XIII. Quoted in *The Church And The Market, Dr Thomas E. Woods, Lexington Books, 2005, p 4].

Pius XI wrote of “matters of technique for which [the Church] is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office.” Quadragesimo Anno, 41]….“economics and moral science employs each its own principles in its own sphere.” [QA, 42]. The Pope went on to deny that “the economic and moral orders are so distinct from and alien to each other that the former depends in no way on the latter.” [QA, 42]. Woods states: “As A.M.C. Waterman points out, this concession by Pius XI ‘throws doubt on the authoritative character of that very substantial part of Catholic (or at least papal) social teaching which consists not of theological and ethical pronouncements, but of empirical judgments about the economy.’ ” [Woods, p 5].

“It goes without saying that part of the responsibility of Pastors is to give careful consideration to current events in order to discern the new requirements of evangelization. However, such an analysis is not meant to pass definitive judgments since this does not fall per se within the Magisterium’s specific domain.” [John Paul II, *Centesimus Annus, 3. Italics added].

Further, John Paul II adds: “The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one other. For such a task the Church offers Her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal orientation a teaching which, as already mentioned, recognizes the positive value of the market and of enterprise, but which at the same time points out that these need to be oriented towards the common good.….” [CA, 43. Italics in original].

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Abu, from my perspective, it seems that davidmlamb was talking about how a completely free market is not supported by the Church. He wasn’t talking about how to address poverty, which is what the statements you posted were about.

 

[Abu]

Swiss Guy
Abu, from my perspective, it seems that davidmlamb was talking about how a completely free market is not supported by the Church. He wasn’t talking about how to address poverty, which is what the statements you posted were about.

There is not and never has been a *completely *free market. And of course the free market is supported clearly by Bl John Paul II in Centesimus Annus.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

There is not and never has been a *completely *free market. And of course the free market is supported clearly by Bl John Paul II in Centesimus Annus.

True. But some markets come pretty darn close imo. Here is someone else’s quote

But if it is true that a type of capitalism, as it is commonly called, has given rise to hardships, unjust practices, and fratricidal conflicts that persist to this day, it would be a mistake to attribute these evils to the rise of industrialization itself, for they really derive from the pernicious economic concepts that grew up along with it. --Popular Progresso, Pope Paul VI, 1967

 

[Chochy]

As an example, I’d give our national broadcaster in Canada, the CBC. I have heard a number of neoliberal/conservatives suggest that the government should not be in the business of owning a broadcaster, as it is unfair competition and just isn’t part of its role. If citizens want to say things they can get into the media themselves. This ignores however that our media is almost entirely controlled by a few huge and powerful corporate interests, and that they can easily overwhelm a small player or individual, or shut down any individual dissenting voice. So far we have no evidence that we can have a real, stable “voice of the people” broadcaster apart from government funding.

.

Long live the CBC!

 

[Abu]

There have been multitudinous theories on economics, but free enterprise was developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics from cause and effect.

Free enterprise began in the ninth century with the monks as Rodney Stark affirms, and the understanding and development of the natural laws by the Late Scholastics followed.
There is a solid basis of economic Catholic thought from the fourteenth century. In the fifteenth century the Late Scholastics who were Thomists (followers of St Thomas) “writing and teaching at the University of Salamanca in Spain, sought to explain the full range of human action and social; organization.” They “observed the existence of economic law, inexorable forces of cause and effect that operate very much as other natural laws. Over the course of several generations, they discovered and explained the laws of supply and demand, the cause of inflation, the operation of foreign exchange rates, and the subjective nature of economic value…” For these reasons Joseph Schumpeter applauded them as the first real economists. (Thomas E Woods Jr, The Church And The Market, Lexington Books, 2005, p 8).

It is people who lie, cheat, swindle and cause uncompetitive actions, and Pope Benedict XVI felt it necessary to teach that “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Caritas et Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36).

 

[Swiss_Guy]

There have been multitudinous theories on economics, but free enterprise was developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics from cause and effect.

Free enterprise began in the ninth century with the monks as Rodney Stark affirms, and the understanding and development of the natural laws by the Late Scholastics followed.
There is a solid basis of economic Catholic thought from the fourteenth century. In the fifteenth century the Late Scholastics who were Thomists (followers of St Thomas) “writing and teaching at the University of Salamanca in Spain, sought to explain the full range of human action and social; organization.” They “observed the existence of economic law, inexorable forces of cause and effect that operate very much as other natural laws. Over the course of several generations, they discovered and explained the laws of supply and demand, the cause of inflation, the operation of foreign exchange rates, and the subjective nature of economic value…” For these reasons Joseph Schumpeter applauded them as the first real economists. (Thomas E Woods Jr, The Church And The Market, Lexington Books, 2005, p 8).

It is people who lie, cheat, swindle and cause uncompetitive actions, and Pope Benedict XVI felt it necessary to teach that “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Caritas et Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36).

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Essentially, I’m supporting the social market economy used by West Germany back when it existed, and encouraged/used by (parties in and the countries themselves) Germany and Switzerland

 

[cmforte]

The confusion and misrepresentation here is horrendous. Infallibility is not, and never has been, a part of the how of social teaching. The arrogance is excusable because of the ignorance.

This will help to unravel the confusion above.
robertsirico.com/
**Tuesday, May 31, 2011, by Fr. Robert Sirico
Not Whether to Help the Poor, But How **
Extracts:
'Let us take the recent occasions of public discourse by Catholics on these matters occasioned by an open letter issued by a group of Catholic professors, which argues that the budget proposed by House Republicans violates Catholic social teaching, and in which they come close to calling the Speaker of the House a heretic.

'There is evidence in this letter, and in some of the commentary surrounding it, of a failure to grasp the necessary distinctions in Catholic moral theology (of which, as the popes have noted, the social teaching is a branch). I pointed out in my original critique of the open letter that the Catholic professors’ statement neglected the important distinction between “non-negotiable dogmas and doctrines” and the “prudential and debatable give and take when it comes to applying the principles of Catholic social teaching.” Then I cited the Compendium of the Social Doctrine: “The Church’s Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions” (571). The use of the phrase “contingent questions” in the Compendium is quite deliberate. It means that it is simply inaccurate to say that Catholics who debate how to address poverty dissent from the Church’s teaching in the same way as someone who does not support the Church’s insistence on legal protection for the unborn. [My emphasis].

'This is not because “justice issues” are less important than “life issues,” but because they are fundamentally different — a difference rooted in two millennia of Catholic moral reflection. Abortion involves the direct and intentional destruction of an innocent human life. It is never permissible intentionally to choose evil. Laws that permit abortion are inherently unjust, and Catholics are obligated to work toward legal prohibition of abortion.

'When it comes to doing good, however, which is what addressing poverty entails, the Church does not stipulate exactly how such good is to be done. Helping the poor requires a different sort of moral analysis — not because I (or the Church’s teaching) am “dualist,” as some critics suggest, nor because assisting the poor is “less important” than protecting the unborn, but because the two issues possess different characteristics and therefore require different sorts of moral analysis.

‘A Catholic may not disregard the Church’s teaching to assist the poor and vulnerable; to do so would be to neglect the words and example of Christ Himself. It would be, in effect, to deny the Faith. But on the question of how best to fulfill that obligation, Catholics will indeed disagree, and the Church does not teach that it must be otherwise. The same kind of latitude is not permitted when it comes to legal protection of the unborn. I do not believe that this is “my view” of the matter; it is the mind of the Church, to which I hope my own mind is conformed.’ [My emphasis].
This was published in Crisis Magazine on May 31, 2011.

Great post!!

I wasn’t trying to be “smarter than the Church” on this subject. My words just came out wrong. (But wasn’t I endowed with the Holy Spirit at baptism???) I can get very defensive at times. BUT NO ONE, EXCEPT A PRIEST, BISHOP, OR THE HOLY FATHER can question the state of my soul. I find that to be a very self-righteous presumption. I don’t like that coming from fundies who think I am going to Hell because I am Catholic and want to “save” me, and I certainly will not take that from any lay Catholic. (That is directed to davidmlamb).

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

There is no contradiction, the previous references to the CCC were simply misinterpreted to fit a prejudice as is evident:

1882 Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged “on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs.” This “socialization” also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.

**1883 **Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “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 co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.” [Refer CA 48]

1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

2431 The responsibility of the state. “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 principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. . . . Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society.”
[Refer CA 48]

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

The more I read Church teachings, the more I find that the Church teaches us to err neither on the side of deficiency nor the side of excess. (Think: cowardice:courage:foolhardiness). The virtues balance each other oit.

In Rerum Novarum. Pope Leo XIII advocates that people work together not as adversaries but as members of a team (ok, I paraphrased that!). The teachings of the Church reflect a time when everyone was Catholic, when there was lots of subsidiarity, and when lots of different oeganizations existed to fill the various roles in society, most of which the government fills or wants to fill.

Every person should be moved to help the poor. When it takes 1/3 to 1/2 of our work to fill the government quotas, however, we assume the government is helping the poor, but in reality, the poor receive only 27 cents for every dollar we put in: the other 77 cents goes to adminstative costs. I think that we would not give to a charity with this poor a record.

Thinking that the government is helping to poor, we do nothing further to help the poor. We pay to educate, house, and feed them; we pay for their medical treatment. Our obligation seems discharged.

In medieval times, there were those who helped the poor directly, nuns and monks who had dedicated themselves to this. And there were those who supposed the mknasteries and convents and helped the poor in other ways: caring for people very near them, hiring them when they could.

(This system was in place until the Protestant Revolt, when the princes and other rulers stole the Church properties and got rid of the monks and nuns.)

Similarly, guilds brought together workers and employers in a way that helped them and which mediated with other insitutions. People involved in the business worked together to make standards, the employees had support with grievances, and each small business had support in dealing with other institutions.

-Chris