Why do some Catholics believe social doctrine is optional?

[Hamlet123]

I think that in order to have a well-run country that takes care of its most vulnerable and supports a robust private sector, we have to acknowledge that we need both the public and private sectors.

How do you come to that conclusion? There is no time in history where a government did a better job of helping people that the Free Market or the Catholic Church. In fact, government giving creates envy and is stealing, as Centismus Annus says. Siocialim is a sin

The more government has regulated the more businesses have slowed down or failed. Regulation hurts the poor, confused the markets and stimies inventiveness. The auto industry would have many more companies producing cars and employing people if it weren’t for regulations. The Act of 1944 was stealing and in the long run it DID NOT help. The GI bill created many colleges that put out cheap diplomas. The GI bill created housing problems.

The idea that taxes and government are bad and that socialism is the way to go, does not measure up to Catholic Social Teaching. CST has always taught that there is a place for the government to step in and collect taxes to pay for programs to help the poor

Catholic Social teaching does not say to force people to be charitable!

and at the same time CST has always taught that the state should not be over intrusive in regulating the free market.

A safe measure of how the country is doing could be seen in how the poor are doing. If the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer (as is the case in our country right now) that is an indication that taxes are too low and there is not enough entitlement programs.

If the rich get richer (I pray) then the poor loose their status and become either somewhat less poor, middle class and many many of these poor became rich as a result of the rich getting richer

On the other hand if the rich are staying the same or not growing in wealth, then there is a problem with too much tax or entitlement. The balance should be that the rich are growing in wealth and the poor are being lifted out of poverty. Again, we need both the public and private sectors. They balance each other.

We need the public sector for one thing: safety - period. The public sector has done more to create an immoral society than any other factor. Leave the people alone. Give freedom a chance. Read Fr. Sicrico’s new book “Defending the Free Market”

[/QUOTE]

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There is no time in history where a government did a better job of helping people that the Free Market or the Catholic Church.

Think of what unregulated capitalism was like in the 19th and early 20th century. You had deplorable child labor, unsafe products and no protection of civil rights. It was government that stopped child labor, made education mandatory, made cars safer, and enforced civil rights. I would say that government today, despite it’s flaws, is doing a better job helping people than the Free Market did without much government at all. Now I know you can list a whole bunch of silly or counterproductive regulations, so don’t bother unless you can show how they are more significant than the benefits I just listed.

The more government has regulated the more businesses have slowed down or failed.

On the contrary business has never been better overall than it has been in the last two decades…

The auto industry would have many more companies producing cars and employing people if it weren’t for regulations.

And the cars would not be as safe and many more would be dying in auto accidents.

The Act of 1944 was stealing and in the long run it DID NOT help. The GI bill created many colleges that put out cheap diplomas. The GI bill created housing problems.

This is certainly a minority opinion. Any support for this wild assertion?

Catholic Social teaching does not say to force people to be charitable!

The actions referred to are not charity. They are justice.

We need the public sector for one thing: safety - period.

Do civil rights fall under your understanding of “safety”? Or do you think that is an area that our government show stay out of?

 

[Ender]

I was set off by a posting talking about objectives of attracting business to the US and away from other countries…the absurdity of that being that what may be advantageous and prosperous for the US will come at a price to whichever country, potentially a more faithfully Catholic one, those attracted or repatriated businesses come from.

The problem with this discussion is that the generic outline of Catholic social teaching immediately warps into support for some particular solution that a person favors. If the US in modifying its financial system attracted companies from other countries to come here would that be an immoral action? The US would benefit but surely some other country would lose that same benefit - is this fair? To be clear: the Church would not normally condemn such an action. I realize that these debates almost always become pseudo-moral challenges but it is a mistake to see them that way. What some see as an abandonment of Catholic social teaching is nothing more than a difference of opinion about what approach to this or that social problem will work.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The problem with this discussion is that the generic outline of Catholic social teaching immediately warps into support for some particular solution that a person favors. If the US in modifying its financial system attracted companies from other countries to come here would that be an immoral action? The US would benefit but surely some other country would lose that same benefit - is this fair? To be clear: the Church would not normally condemn such an action. I realize that these debates almost always become pseudo-moral challenges but it is a mistake to see them that way. What some see as an abandonment of Catholic social teaching is nothing more than a difference of opinion about what approach to this or that social problem will work.

Ender

That assumes the two (or more) sides of such an argument really are motivated by a desire to live out Catholic social teaching and differ only with regard to the means. And to be charitable we must assume that is the case. However I think the unstated suspicion in the back of peoples’ minds is that the “other side” is actually motivated by some selfish desire to do something besides social justice. The right suspects that the left is just out to punish the rich for being rich and bring them down to the level of the poor. The left suspects that the right is just out to lock in their advantageous dominance in the existing system. I am not saying that either of these suspicions is justified - only that they may explain why people say what they say when arguing about these issues. If everyone gave everyone else the benefit of the doubt and assumed their motives were pure then perhaps we would not see so much polarization in these discussions.

 

[Ender]

That assumes the two (or more) sides of such an argument really are motivated by a desire to live out Catholic social teaching and differ only with regard to the means.

Valid observation.

And to be charitable we must assume that is the case.

Yes, this is true as well.

If everyone gave everyone else the benefit of the doubt and assumed their motives were pure then perhaps we would not see so much polarization in these discussions.

Exactly so. If we did this then the debates would be about the expected effects of the various proposals rather than an assumption about the morals of the person suggesting them.

Ender

 

[Hamlet123]

Think of what unregulated capitalism was like in the 19th and early 20th century. You had deplorable child labor, unsafe products and no protection of civil rights. It was government that stopped child labor, made education mandatory, made cars safer, and enforced civil rights. I would say that government today, despite it’s flaws, is doing a better job helping people than the Free Market did without much government at all. Now I know you can list a whole bunch of silly or counterproductive regulations, so don’t bother unless you can show how they are more significant than the benefits I just listed.

This next to the propoganda Queen Elizabeth successfully employeed against Catholics is the biggest lie layed before the public. “You had a deplorable child labor…” When the families came in from the hell holes of the country-side they were greated by what some would call hell. But in fact it was so very much better than how and where they were living. Over a very short period of time their life expectancies increased measurably. Because of Industry they (for the first time) had extra time on their hands. Better health, extra time and more time for their Faith. The cities and the work enviroment was heaven compared to what they left. It is a shame that child labor was stopped; because of it families had less money. The families worked their children much more on the hell hole farms than when they got to the cities.

“Unsafte products” most of the stories you read about on this subject are down right lies.
“mandatory eduction” was an excellent way to run (over time) down the Faith out of their lives or to bastardize it. And no government should be forced to tell others how to raise a family. Let Our Mother Church do that.

“No protection of Civil Rights” There has always been a court system. Protection of Civil rights as a topic is a slippery slope. There is no better protection of so called “civil rights” now than it was in the past. May I suggest reading Thomas Sowell’s study on the effects of the Civil Right laws of the 60s. Prior to the Civil Rights Acts the fastest growing group financially was the black community, the lowest divorce rate was the black community, the fastest growing educational advancement was the black community and the most safe place to be was in a black community. Take note, most of these communities had as its center their church.

There have been NO benefits from a regulated society EXCEPT those that live off of it; e.g., government employees, people that sell to the government and especially those poor elected officials that go in making $60,000 a year with a Net Worth of $450,000 and leave making over $4,000,000 and a Net Worth of $34,000,000.

This quote I got from Abu.
Pope Benedct affirmation of the Free Market, " Society does not have to protect itself from teh market, as if the development of the latter (the free market) were ipso facto to entail the dath of authentically human relations… Therfore it is not the instrument (The Market - Free Market) that must be called to account, BUT INDIVIDUALS, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsiblity (Caritas et Veritate, Benedict XVI 2009.

And as Centisimus Annus in an effort to clarify Rerum Novum, socialism is a sin because it is stealing and creates envy.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

When the families came in from the hell holes of the country-side they were greated by what some would call hell. But in fact it was so very much better than how and where they were living.

That is not the question. (Farms vs. industrial city life.) The question is whether child labor laws have benefited the people, and your observation does not address that question at all. A more valid comparison would be to point to a place today where there are no child labor laws and be able to say that life there is better than life in countries that do have child labor laws. So which two countries would you like to use to support your contention?

Because of Industry they (for the first time) had extra time on their hands. Better health, extra time and more time for their Faith.

That is highly doubtful. History has shown that faith flourishes the most in times of hardship. Prosperity and leisure has traditionally led to an increase in immorality.

“Unsafte products” most of the stories you read about on this subject are down right lies.

Can you show why I should believe you and not the conventional wisdom? Exceptional claims require exceptional proof.

And no government should be forced to tell others how to raise a family. Let Our Mother Church do that.

And what about people who don’t give a hoot what Mother Church says? Should we let those people abuse their kids any way they like?

“No protection of Civil Rights” There has always been a court system.

But we follow your advice and restrict government to only providing national defense then there would be no civil rights laws and therefore the court system could not enforce these non-existent laws.

There is no better protection of so called “civil rights” now than it was in the past.

??? Huh ???

Prior to the Civil Rights Acts the fastest growing group financially was the black community…

The primary purpose of civil rights laws is to ensure justice, not to make a group grow financially.

And as Centisimus Annus in an effort to clarify Rerum Novum, socialism is a sin because it is stealing and creates envy.

Do you think a government that says blacks need not give up their seat on the bus to a white passenger are necessarily socialist? There is much good that government can do without being socialism.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

How do you come to that conclusion? There is no time in history where a government did a better job of helping people that the Free Market or the Catholic Church. In fact, government giving creates envy and is stealing, as Centismus Annus says. Siocialim is a sin.

Can you support your idea that the G.I. Bill is the cause of the housing problems? That sounds like it is coming more from an emotional than any credible or objectively supportable academic argument. We have some of the best schools, public and private, in the world. We also have some bad ones too. But that is more about the free market. People with good grades get to go to good schools. People with no so good grades go to not so good school. The price of education in the last 10 years is another topic.
Regulation protects the poor. Go and talk with AT&T or T-Mobile if you don’t think there is a thing called greed in the public sector.

Catholic Social teaching does not say to force people to be charitable!

Catholic social teaching says over and over that the government has the right and obligation to collect taxes. That is not forcing anything. It’s what is discussed in #4. PARTICIPATION as one of the foundations of social morality. Collecting and the correct use of taxes is a good and holy thing and truly Catholic.

If the rich get richer (I pray) then the poor loose their status and become either somewhat less poor, middle class and many many of these poor became rich as a result of the rich getting richer

I also want the rich to do well. But I don’t want the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor. There is such a thing as oppression and injustice. That is why we have social morality (CST or Social Ethics). Pope Leo XIII wrote Rerum novarum because it was becoming clear the private sector was oppressing the poor. This is what is discussed in #1 THE PRINCIPLE OF THE COMMON GOOD and #2 THE UNIVERSAL DESTINATION OF GOODS in the Compendium. The Compendium also addresses your idea that if the rich get richer the poor do better, often called the “Trickledown Effect.” There were many things that President Regan did that were good…like raising taxes, but his trickledown idea was not his best.

We need the public sector for one thing: safety - period. The public sector has done more to create an immoral society than any other factor. Leave the people alone. Give freedom a chance. Read Fr. Sicrico’s new book “Defending the Free Market”

Read the document called “Economic Justice for All” by the bishops of the United States. Also read, as I have said the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church by the Pope. I’ll take the Pope and the U.S. bishops over Fr. Sicrico any day. ;0)

 

[ljpgoodwin]

How do you come to that conclusion? There is no time in history where a government did a better job of helping people that the Free Market or the Catholic Church. In fact, government giving creates envy and is stealing, as Centismus Annus says. Siocialim is a sin.