Would Jesus Support the Nanny State?

[Abu]

Jesus was misrepresented by Bernward in #6:

1. The requirement for eternal life is keeping the Commandments + love of neighbour
2. The **selling everything for the poor + following Jesus is a counsel of perfection **– such as an Apostle

Jesus did NOT condemn the rich young man nor did He condemn the possession of riches. It is the misuse of riches which is condemned – that is the key to understanding our freedom and our “right to freedom of economic initiative.” (Bl John Paul II). That is why Bl JPII condemns the Welfare State and emphatically supports the free market in a society of wise laws.

By using just this passage in a thread on Would Jesus support the Nanny State?, strongly suggests that all with riches should give everything away and become like an Apostle – the problem being that wealth can be distributed only after it is created, and how many are wealthy? It bucks the great need for free enterprise and people faithful to Christ which He teaches in the Parables of the Talents and the Dishonest Steward.

 

[couponfit]

Jesus was misrepresented by Bernward in #6:

1. The requirement for eternal life is keeping the Commandments + love of neighbour
2. The **selling everything for the poor + following Jesus is a counsel of perfection **– such as an Apostle

Jesus did NOT condemn the rich young man nor did He condemn the possession of riches. It is the misuse of riches which is condemned – that is the key to understanding our freedom and our “right to freedom of economic initiative.” (Bl John Paul II). That is why Bl JPII condemns the Welfare State and emphatically supports the free market in a society of wise laws.

By using just this passage in a thread on Would Jesus support the Nanny State?, strongly suggests that all with riches should give everything away and become like an Apostle – the problem being that wealth can be distributed only after it is created, and how many are wealthy? It bucks the great need for free enterprise and people faithful to Christ which He teaches in the Parables of the Talents and the Dishonest Steward.

Interesting that you bring up good stewardship, since Taxation is about stewardship.

In fairness I don’t know of any successful 1st world free market countries that do not have more socialist programs than the United States. There clearly needs to be balance. But nations with full communal laws regarding assets and those with few laws tend to persecute Christians. Examples include Communist states, and Muslim states.

Further, while free market is important, the crisis affecting our free markets brought on by greed and corruption are a problem. The vatican announced this statement: zenit.org/article-33718?l=english through the pontifical council through justice and peace.

The Church promulgates the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church which outlines the church’s views on many issues that the governments oversee’s. 355, 739-742 all discuss taxation. In 741 it specially discusses the need to “redistribute” wealth to attend to the needs of families. The Vatican does support free market in 350 but cautions that economic free can oppress man when freedom of the person is lost. 166 discusses the need for food, housing, work, education and access to culture, transportation, basic health care, the freedom of communication and expression, and the protection of religious freedom provided through government and free market. And 166 adds that every nation has a required duty towards world wide cooperation for the common good of the whole of humanity. 167 goes on to emphasize the need for common good and each persons required obligation to fulfill according to their possibility and discusses how the rich are simply getting richer and this has created a need to be effectively called back to and brought into conformity with the norms of the common good.

But the big thing here that we can’t overlook in talking about social programs, which are welcomed by the Vatican, and talking about cooperating, and paying taxes, and redistributing those taxes: The church’s focus is on worship and personal salvation. The quote from Bernward #6 express the need to focus on our salvation and to let the worries of wealth go. When capitalists or liberals lose site of the individual’s need for salvation, and see’s them not as a child of God then the church will likely stand against this. We see the Holy See stand up against greed in the free market urging for global authority, and we see it stand up against libertarian theology when mixed with Marxism.

Balance and caution is the tone the Catholic Church preaches and teaches. We must strengthen spiritual growth over and favor real acts of charity and brotherly love.

 

[Abu]

Couponfit #22
Further, while free market is important, the crisis affecting our free markets brought on by greed and corruption are a problem.

The crisis in so many Western economies is not mainly of greed and corruption in free markets, though that is in everything in fallen world, it is due to the destructive finagling by governments going back many decades, including the Welfare State intrusions.

Free enterprise has been emphatically supported by Bl JPII, *Centesimus Annus *#48:
‘If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.’

Since here capitalism = free economy, and reaffirmed by Bl John Paul II is the ‘fundamental human “right to freedom of economic initiative.” ’ (*Sollicitudo Rei Socialis *(On Human Concerns), Encyclical, 1987, #42), and initiative = enterprise, it is clear what the pope means.

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).

While helpful in many respects, the *Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church *is by a Pontifical Council and has its problems. The more recent Encyclicals are best for clarity.

 

[pnewton]

By using just this passage in a thread on Would Jesus support the Nanny State?, strongly suggests that all with riches should give everything away and become like an Apostle – the problem being that wealth can be distributed only after it is created, and how many are wealthy?

I didn’t get that at all. I took the passage as a needed interject, considering the rather loaded title of this thread. Jesus would support a “nanny state”. He also supporte a totalitarian dictatorship in his day. He would also support a communist state, a socialist state, a capitalist democracy, etc. He would support all, within the limits that one must first render to God the things that are God’s. He said repeatedly, His kingdom was not of this world.

Any attempt to paint Jesus as a socialist liberator (as in liberation theology) or as a capitalist, as per the use of the word “nanny” is absurd.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

I didn’t get that at all. I took the passage as a needed interject, considering the rather loaded title of this thread. Jesus would support a “nanny state”. He also supporte a totalitarian dictatorship in his day. He would also support a communist state, a socialist state, a capitalist democracy, etc. He would support all, within the limits that one must first render to God the things that are God’s. He said repeatedly, His kingdom was not of this world.

Any attempt to paint Jesus as a socialist liberator (as in liberation theology) or as a capitalist, as per the use of the word “nanny” is absurd.

 

[Della]

what about caring for our disabled members of American society?
want unmedicated psychotic schizophrenics walking the streets homeless,
or how about quadriplegics or vets with head trauma, the chronically diseased etc…

my conscience would bother me if i wouldn’t help them.
If my care for them comes through my taxes, so be it, IMO.

I believe (not sure) that our care for them right now has them at poverty level.

And why are they at the poverty level? Because the government has forced out the Catholic institutions that used to care for them, that’s why. When I was a girl in the 50’s the hospitals weren’t run just as businesses, but as houses of healing, and a good many were religious in origin. The first hospital established in the USA was founded by a congregation of religious sisters. And the laws have made it nearly impossible to institutionalize mentally ill people because they can’t be unless they give their consent, as if they were capable of making that decision, and getting custody of an adult is just about impossible, as well. Unless they murder someone they are just allowed to roam the streets, hungry and homeless. And it’s our government that has made sure of that. Nanny states simply don’t work because they can’t provide proper care nor is it the business of governments to do so. It should be aiding people who have mentally/physically disabled in their families instead of taking over, as they’ve done. I could rant on and on, but it won’t change current laws, especially when people think all they have to do is pay taxes and everything will be solved. It just doesn’t work that way.

 

[endoentropism]

It’s worth remembering that there is no free market, and the North American marketplace is kept artificially inexpensive by exporting the negative externalities of our economy to foreign countries.

If your iPod was built by employees with rights comparable to America’s, and factored in to the price was the economic cost of the pollution generated by its production, nobody but the wealthy could buy them. Instead, our doodads and gadgets are built by exploited workers in countries with little/no environmental regulation, and when that lowly worker is on his death bed from lung cancer - or forced to retire at the age of 30 because of crippling arthritis in their hands - we’ll be chatting away on our iPhone 39 (which we’ll toss in the garbage after a year so we can upgrade to the iPhone 47). Thank goodness countries like China have little/no regulation! I couldn’t afford my trendy consumer electronics otherwise.

It’s all well and good to talk about free markets but they are as commonplace as unicorns.

 

[jwinch2]

I think the question of this post is a mirror that reflects only our own opinion. As Jesus never addressed this particular part of politics, I would say that any answer we give begs the question. So, my own opinion is that we remember his own political system that he lived in. To my knowledge he only commented on it once, when he said, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar.” In a democracy, this has little impact, other than our basic civic responsibility, since we (in theory) form the society. The form that it should take? That is the mirror.

Good point. However, the Church does address it through her teaching on the principle of subsidiarity. It is explicitely addressed in the Catechism as well as the Compedium for the Social Doctrine of the Church. Multiple popes have taught on it to include blessed JP2.

catholicculture.org/culture/what_you_need_to_know/index.cfm?id=84
“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.” Centesimus Annus, 48, John Paul II, 1991*

Pope Benedict seems to support a more personal approach to things as well. Here we see it in terms of the free market.

“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)

Peace!

 

[jwinch2]

One does not have to support it more, he only has to support it. We must look to the outcome of his actions.

One does not have to support it less, he only has to support it. We must look to the outcome of his actions.

The only allowable abortion under direction 45 and 47 is an indirect abortion, of which neither candidate abides by. The only allowable stand on Marriage is that marriage should be between man and woman, for which neither candidate agrees.

Justification theory is saying, well Romney does it less than Obama, so therefore one evil is less than another and therefore justified.

Both Romney and Obama represent the worst our country has to offer. Romney inveted healthcare debacle and the Obama campaign literally copied it. Mass. already requires abortions since the inception of Romney care much like it’s now being required by the US govt. And under Romney the courts and state shifted to a same sex marriage. Romney is now magically pro life and against gay marriage, but not after literally putting both into affect and backing both as Governor into law. Mass. has led the nation and our population into the breach of hell, and is the epitome of the Nanny state. Romney is the leader and creator of the Nanny State, and Obama copied his model.

Fair points, but only to a point. First, there are stark differences between the health care laws passed in Massachusetts and Obama-care, the main one being that Romney’s plan relies for more on the private sector rather than government to provide coverage. Secondly, when Romney came into office his state was massively in debt, when he left he was balanced in terms of budget by the reports I have seen. So, where Obama care is going to balloon national debt significantly, Romney care did not balloon the state in terms of debt.

The other thing I would suggest is that Romney is straight out saying that he is pro-life and anti-abortion today. Thus, I think it is a bit more fair to compare his current policies with Obama’s current policies. To do otherwise suggests that people cannot evolve and change. Speaking personally, a five years ago, I had zero problem with abortion. Three years ago, I thought it was OK in cases of rape and incest or when the life of the mother was at stake. Today, my beliefs are completely in line with Church teaching on issues of life. I think it is only fair to realize that people can change as they grow older. It certainly happened to me.

Peace of Christ.

 

[Della]

It’s worth remembering that there is no free market, and the North American marketplace is kept artificially inexpensive by exporting the negative externalities of our economy to foreign countries.

If your iPod was built by employees with rights comparable to America’s, and factored in to the price was the economic cost of the pollution generated by its production, nobody but the wealthy could buy them. Instead, our doodads and gadgets are built by exploited workers in countries with little/no environmental regulation, and when that lowly worker is on his death bed from lung cancer - or forced to retire at the age of 30 because of crippling arthritis in their hands - we’ll be chatting away on our iPhone 39 (which we’ll toss in the garbage after a year so we can upgrade to the iPhone 47). Thank goodness countries like China have little/no regulation! I couldn’t afford my trendy consumer electronics otherwise.

It’s all well and good to talk about free markets but they are as commonplace as unicorns.

In all fairness, most countries that provide “cheap” labor do not have the high cost of living we do here in America. Also, they are thankful for any work they can get because some money is better than no money in their circumstances. This is not to say we should consciously support those companies that exploit people who are kept in virtual slavery, but we don’t have to feel guilty for having to pay over $2 for a loaf of bread and nearly $4 for a gallon of gas aganist countries in which these items go for pennies, either because bread is not the staple food and donkeys are the main mode of transportation. As long as people have food, shelter, medical care, and a reasonable amount of security, it doesn’t matter how much they earn but how well they are able to live on what they earn.

 

[John7]

And why are they at the poverty level? Because the government has forced out the Catholic institutions that used to care for them, that’s why. When I was a girl in the 50’s the hospitals weren’t run just as businesses, but as houses of healing, and a good many were religious in origin. The first hospital established in the USA was founded by a congregation of religious sisters. And the laws have made it nearly impossible to institutionalize mentally ill people because they can’t be unless they give their consent, as if they were capable of making that decision, and getting custody of an adult is just about impossible, as well. Unless they murder someone they are just allowed to roam the streets, hungry and homeless. And it’s our government that has made sure of that. Nanny states simply don’t work because they can’t provide proper care nor is it the business of governments to do so. It should be aiding people who have mentally/physically disabled in their families instead of taking over, as they’ve done. I could rant on and on, but it won’t change current laws, especially when people think all they have to do is pay taxes and everything will be solved. It just doesn’t work that way.

so your not in favor of using taxes to pay for social security for the disabled?

 

[Della]

so your not in favor of using taxes to pay for social security for the disabled?

Where did I say that? Indeed, I am in favor of it, but I would be in favor of that money being given to the families instead of to government approved institutions, which in the present political climate means leaving out religious institutions unless they are willing to deny their consciences. As it stands now people have to impoverish themselves in order to get any assistance for their disabled/elderly/mentally ill That’s not right nor should it be necessary. Helping people is one thing, taking over their lives and making them bow to government interference is quite another.

 

[Abu]

Pnewton #24
considering the rather loaded title of this thread. Jesus would support a “nanny state”.

That is NOT the title, which is NOT a statement but a question: “Would Jesus Support the Nanny State?” In other words the Welfare State. A good question but a confused reply.
…

He would also support a communist state, a socialist state…Any attempt to paint Jesus as a socialist liberator (as in liberation theology) or as a capitalist, as per the use of the word “nanny” is absurd.

Strange confusion here as well – an uncalled for assertion, as His Church has condemned both communism and socialism.

But since His Church emphatically supports the free market within a wise rule of law, what evidence is there of the attitude of Jesus?

Dr Chafuen in Christians For Freedom, Ignatius 1986, p 45, notes that “many people close to Jesus were quite wealthy for their times. Joseph seems to have had his own business and perhaps a donkey; Peter owned a fishing boat, and Matthew was a tax collector. Jesus praised the rich man Zaccheus. It was the wealthy Joseph of Arimathea who kept faith even when the Apostles were beset by doubt (Mt 27:57). Jesus does not condemn the possession of riches but, rather disordered attachment to them.” Notice also that Jesus did not ask His Apostles to renounce their property.

Just as Christ’s parable of the Talents most strikingly acknowledges Christ’s respect for the work of business, so does the parable of the Dishonest Steward – the steward is dishonest, “but the nature of his work is not. In fact by praising his shrewdness, Christ admires his opportunism. While the steward abuses the trust his master extends to him, it must be recognised that the nature of the work that is entrusted to him is fundamentally good. The sin of the steward is his misuse of his master’s business, not the work of business itself.” Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Lexington Books, 2010, p 47].

 

[rdscheirer]

The only public welfare that should be distributed should be given by private citizens to support the poorest of the poor through their churches. This would put a “behavior” standard on it instead of giving our tax money to the criminal class.

There have been 4 murders in the Augusta Ga area in the last two days.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Oops, I don’t think I answered the question. Jesus wouldn’t support a Nanny State (an all-encompassing welfare state), because it results in inefficient public services and reliance on the government. However, the Church does support efficient public services (CCC 2431). So some government and/or public activity is encouraged, but too much is not approved by the Catholic Church or Jesus.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I think the question of this post is a mirror that reflects only our own opinion. As Jesus never addressed this particular part of politics, I would say that any answer we give begs the question. So, my own opinion is that we remember his own political system that he lived in. To my knowledge he only commented on it once, when he said, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar.” In a democracy, this has little impact, other than our basic civic responsibility, since we (in theory) form the society. The form that it should take? That is the mirror.

We don’t have a democracy, we have a representative republic with democratic features.

 

[pnewton]

We don’t have a democracy, we have a representative republic with democratic features.

This is irrrelevant to my point. Jesus lived in dictatorship. If you prefer, this oligarchy with a democratic facade, then even then Jesus would have supported the contributing to the government in whatever way does not contradict the divine law.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

This is irrrelevant to my point. Jesus lived in dictatorship. If you prefer, this oligarchy with a democratic facade, then even then Jesus would have supported the contributing to the government in whatever way does not contradict the divine law.

It is always relevant to correct misconceptions about our country and its foundation. Many people who have never read the founding documents tend to call our republic a democracy, and they need to understand the difference. Whether you believe that we are now an “oligarchy with a democratic facade,” is irrelevant. The nation was founded as a representative federal republic with democratic features. We are neither an oligarchy nor a democracy.

 

[pnewton]

That is NOT the title, which is NOT a statement but a question: “Would Jesus Support the Nanny State?” In other words the Welfare State. A good question but a confused reply.
…Strange confusion here as well – an uncalled for assertion, as His Church has condemned both communism and socialism.

Don’t you think the Church would also condemn the rule of the Caesar’s? Yet Jesus said that support for that was due to Caesar, though limited by that which was due God. Which government do you think was most sinful, Rome or the Soviet Union? The question is not what would the Church say about any given system. Your answer addresses a different question than I address. I answered the question literally.

The words “welfare” and “nanny” may refer to the same things, but the words are definitely different, as different as abortion and early termination. “Nanny” conveys the opinion of the one asking the question.

But since His Church emphatically supports the free market within a wise rule of law, what evidence is there of the attitude of Jesus?

See, I would not say the word “emphatic” here. That too is rhetoric. The Church allows for a free market, but then also allows that for many systems, including a Catholic monarchy. In fact, most everything from limited socialism to limited capitalism is acceptable. The Catholic Church definitely allows for the use of tax dollars to help the poor and needy. Because of the right to ownership of property, communism is not acceptable.

Dr Chafuen in Christians For Freedom, Ignatius 1986, p 45,…The sin of the steward is his misuse of his master’s business, not the work of business itself.” Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Lexington Books, 2010, p 47].Each of these are excellent examples of what I mean as a mirror or our own ideas. The read into the passage that which is wanted instead of extracting out from them the meaning. I think the examples are obvious. If I need, I will explain the limitations of each and why they do not address the question of this thread.

 

[pnewton]

It is always relevant to correct misconceptions about our country and its foundation.

I said, in case you are not reading my posts, it is irrelevant to my** point**. You know the topic of the** thread**. The discussion** at hand.** This country is frequently called a democracy as a matter of brevity, as opposed to a thesis on the Constitution and the differences therein. I have never met anyone else that has needed to launch into a discussion on the differences based merely on the use of the word “democracy”.