Would Jesus Support the Nanny State?

[MarkInOregon]

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.

Nor did Jesus affirm the possession of riches. He did, however, say " “You are lacking in one thing. Go, sell what you have, and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” At that statement his face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions. Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” The disciples were amazed at his words.
So Jesus again said to them in reply, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” Mk 10:21 - 25

This is hardly a ringing endorsement of wealth. Nor is it a comment on the role of government. There are other passages dealing with riches that one could cite, that also are not ringing endorsements of wealth. Mk 6:19-21 comes to mind: “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and decay destroy, and theives break in and steal. But store up treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor decay destroys, nor thieves break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be.”

I think there is a difference between earning a lot of money, putting your money to work in productive businesses and simply accumulating a lot of wealth–this may be rather nuanced. It is what we do with what we earn that mattters. It doesn’t necessarily suggest they become like an apostle but it might suggest they not accumulate a lot of wealth but instead use earnings/wealth and in so doing accumulate treasure in heavern. If I earn a lot of money–I don’t necessarily have to accumulate a lot of wealth–there are other ways I could use my earnings.

I also question whether you are properly reading the parable of the talents–it is most definitely not about acquiring riches.

For the life of me–I don’t understand all the handwringing over providing a social safety net and demonizing the concept by calling that a nanny state (I would argue they are vastly different). Would it be better and more effecient if we, as individuals and communities, did it ourselves? I am sure it would, but we don’t–the proof is in the pudding as they say. If we did it–there would be no call for the government to do it. You can complain about abuse and cheats–but you’ll find just as much abuse and as many cheats in the business community–yet I don’t hear anyone calling for the abolution of that.

The last time I checked my money did not belong to me but to God. And the coins I am issued have government images and inscriptions–so I guess I should be rendering it to whom it belongs.

Peace,
Mark

 

[jonbhorton]

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”.

Because once it is reiterated that the use of the word is erroneous, despite the public opinion otherwise, often opining based on said misunderstanding, the discussion can move forward properly.

The democratic principles evident in the US do not negate that it is not a democracy and thus- the altogether false opinion of anything built on that misunderstanding must be automatically thrown out from the argument. Democratic principles, when misunderstood, can lead to a true democracy or some variant thereof. We live in a Constitutional Republic and any discussion related to the topic of the US role in said discussion must follow from that foundational principle. Otherwise, it’s like 3rd graders discussing quantum physics- pointless and uninformed.

 

[Abu]

MarkInOregon #34
I think there is a difference between earning a lot of money, putting your money to work in productive businesses and simply accumulating a lot of wealth–this may be rather nuanced. It is what we do with what we earn that mattters.

It is not merely nuanced – this is what really matters – what we do with wealth.

I also question whether you are properly reading the parable of the talents–it is most definitely not about acquiring riches

As was stated in post #26: it “most strikingly acknowledges Christ’s respect for the work of business.”
And this is how:
In the parable of the talents, Jesus lauds the servant who has multiplied talents – “For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Mt 25: 14-30). Christ certainly praised the wise use of the fundamental right of economic initiative and prudence in this parable.

1. “There is the emphasis on the ‘talent’, which is a measure of value.
2. “The trading activity of the two stewards is important. Christ praises them for the energy, alertness, and perseverance they demonstrate in making a truly significant profit (they have doubled the original sum). There is a reference to accountability which is crucial to any business.
3. “Then the nuanced criticism of fear: ‘I was afraid, and I went off and hid your talent in the ground.’ This fear leads the lazy steward to avoid the risks and obstacles that are a key part of entrepreneurial work.
4. “There is the clear reference to the financial system. The lazy steward at least could have placed the ‘money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest.’ ”

“We can this affirm unambiguously that Jesus Christ ‘looks with love on upon human work’ and that the work of the merchant – the businessman or the entrepreneur – is one of the ‘different forms’ of work that is affirmed. The parable of the talents makes this clear by its reference to money, trading, risk taking and banking.”
Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Lexington Books, 2010, p 48-49].

Free enterprise and entrepreneurship have been lauded first by Christ in the Parables of the Dishonest Steward and The Talents, and by the Fathers of the Church, and by Popes in Centesimus Annus and Caritas in Veritate.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

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.

The problem is, that would amount to begging, and not many people are comfortable doing that, plus, a lot of people look down on those who’ve been reduced to that state. Consider how many threads end up being created on this forum, asking whether or not it’s sinful to give money to a beggar, in case they might be using the money for illegal drugs!

Also, speaking as someone who’s on government aid, due to her own disabilities, that’s pretty much telling me or someone like me that I should be asking my friends and family for money, when I don’t have a lot of friends – much less ones with money to spare – and my core family had to pretty much avoid the extended family due to personal conflicts and verbal abuse. In the real world, it just would not work.

 

[jonbhorton]

For most of what you’ve written: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=637613

The last time I checked my money did not belong to me but to God. And the coins I am issued have government images and inscriptions–so I guess I should be rendering it to whom it belongs.

Contradiction much?

#1- you have fiat currency notes and coins which are not governmental, but entirely private in their source: the Federal Reserve which is not a government bank, nor is it a true Federal institution as it is private. Caesar’s image was on Caesar’s coins. In my coin jar, and from my monopoly money wallet, I count many more images of dead men than 1, and nothing currently memorializing living presidents.

#2- if the money is totally belonging to a private entity, and yet you maintain it belongs to God, does not God triumph in ownership?

Please see content outside quote box.

A small section from Ann Barnhardt which explains the concept very well:

Poor in spirit and poor in fact: This is a person who does have have any great wealth, but is also content and still maintains a spirit of generosity and gratitude. This condition is exemplified by the parable of the Widow’s mite in Mark 12: 41-44. The poor widow gave the smallest tithe, but it was greater than the tithes of the rich because, “she of her want cast in all she had, even her whole living.” The widow was detached even from what little she had, even though on a percentage basis it far, far exceeded what the rich tithed. The widow was both poor in fact, and poor in spirit.

Rich in spirit and poor in fact: This is the person who lives beyond their means and is preoccupied with the APPEARANCE of wealth. (Cough, cough. Ring any bells? Ahem.) This is the person who leverages himself out the gazoo so that he can have the 4000 square foot house and the luxury car . . . even though he only makes $65k per year. This would also be the welfare denizen who scoffs at honest work and lives off of the government, but has a 55” LCD TV and PlayStation, and has multi-thousand dollar hair extensions and intricately manicured fingernails. No. Way. Girl. I did NOT just go there. Oh yes I did.

Rich in spirit, rich in fact: This is the rich person who is very much attached to their wealth, and places the preservation of their wealth as their top priority. And as so many of you picked up on in the Peter Schiff interview below, this is Mr. Schiff’s failing. If you scroll down and fast-forward the video to the 15:43 mark, here is the exchange that utterly exemplifies this condition: (redacted due to not being necessary in light of other sources)

Poor in spirit, rich in fact: Very simply, this is a person who is at any level of financial comfort above “poor” who is willing to push their wealth “all-in” if that is what is required to follow Christ fully. I’ll not bore you with any examples. You get it.

 

[pnewton]

Because once it is reiterated that the use of the word is erroneous, …, it’s like 3rd graders discussing quantum physics- pointless and uninformed.

Then why don’t you guys that want to discuss this start a thread on that and stop de-railing this one. I won’t go any further with this line. Even 3rd graders can follow rules.

 

[pnewton]

In the parable of the talents, Jesus lauds the servant who has multiplied talents – “For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Mt 25: 14-30). Christ certainly praised the wise use of the fundamental right of economic initiative and prudence in this parable.

I think you have a example of Jesus actually supporting riches as not evil in and of themselves. It is, in the example of Ann Barhardt (above post) poor in spirit, rich in fact, or money without the love of money. Definitely trading is seen as acceptable. However, it is not really an endorsement of free enterprise. We must remember that the talent of wealth are but a symbol of all that God has given us. The Master in the parable is not a banker, but God. I think we know that just because an element is used in a parable, this does not mean it is an endorsement. Otherwise, lying and cheating would be endorsed (the dishonest steward) and dog salivia would be an ointment for sores (Lazarus and the rich man).

 

[Della]

The problem is, that would amount to begging, and not many people are comfortable doing that, plus, a lot of people look down on those who’ve been reduced to that state. Consider how many threads end up being created on this forum, asking whether or not it’s sinful to give money to a beggar, in case they might be using the money for illegal drugs!

Also, speaking as someone who’s on government aid, due to her own disabilities, that’s pretty much telling me or someone like me that I should be asking my friends and family for money, when I don’t have a lot of friends – much less ones with money to spare – and my core family had to pretty much avoid the extended family due to personal conflicts and verbal abuse. In the real world, it just would not work.

In cases where the adult is in possession of his/her faculties, of course the assistance ought to go directly to that person. Only in cases in which an adult is not able to make financial decisions should the money go to the family to care for him/her. And if the family is not able/unwilling/unreliable/non-existent, the courts should appoint someone to act on his/her behalf. Such situations are not insurmountable if we would only use our common sense, yes?

 

[Abu]

pnewton
I think we know that just because an element is used in a parable, this does not mean it is an endorsement. Otherwise, lying and cheating would be endorsed (the dishonest steward)

Naturally, but this bucks the fact that in the Parable of the Talents “we can this affirm unambiguously that Jesus Christ ‘looks with love on upon human work’ and that the work of the merchant – the businessman or the entrepreneur – is one of the ‘different forms’ of work that is affirmed. The parable of the talents makes this clear by its reference to money, trading, risk taking and banking.”
Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Lexington Books, 2010, p 48-49]

So of course lying and cheating are NOT endorsed, only prejudice would see that:
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].

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Since this is kind of on topic now, who were the money-changers in the Temple that Jesus said were thieves? I mean, what did they do that made them thieves?

 

[pnewton]

“we can this affirm unambiguously that Jesus Christ ‘looks with love on upon human work’ and that the work of the merchant – the businessman or the entrepreneur – is one of the ‘different forms’ of work that is affirmed. The parable of the talents makes this clear by its reference to money, trading, risk taking and banking.”
Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Lexington Books, 2010, p 48-49]

I understand what Fr. Percy is saying. I do not think I agree with going as far though to say that this indicates what Jesus would do. Rather, he is using principles from the parables to argue for a moral entrepreneurship. I really do not agree with this though. I really think that these parables are about the way to build the Kingdom of God, not business. In fact, I think this author is doing the same thing I said in my first post of using the teachings of Jesus to support a point we already intend to show. Note that the book is not an exposition of the parables, but a book on entrepreneurship.

I would like to interject though that I am a big believer in free market economics, though this really isn’t the issue here.

 

[pnewton]

Since this is kind of on topic now, who were the money-changers in the Temple that Jesus said were thieves? I mean, what did they do that made them thieves?

Not to be too picky, but Jesus actually didn’t call them theives. He said they had made the Temple a Den of Thieves. It seems the emphasis is more on the inappropriate location than their actual actions.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Not to be too picky, but Jesus actually didn’t call them theives. He said they had made the Temple a Den of Thieves. It seems the emphasis is more on the inappropriate location than their actual actions.

k. thanks.

 

[Abu]

Pnewton #43
I understand what Fr. Percy is saying. I do not think I agree with going as far though to say that this indicates what Jesus would do. Rather, he is using principles from the parables to argue for a moral entrepreneurship. I really do not agree with this though.

As the parables convey religious messages, using examples of good works or bad, these must be understandable by, and clear to, the hearers.

In Mt 13:44-46, as Jesus tells it:
“The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up, then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys the field.

“Again the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it.”

As Fr Percy explains; “The force of the parable hinges on two things. The goodness of the work of merchants in and of itself is the first of these. Christ affirms the work of merchants. Why would He have used the example if He did not? Second, the parable depends on the recognition of this goodness by those who hear the parable. His audience must have had some knowledge of what constituted the work of a merchant and have had an experience of the goodness of this work. Without these two realities, the truth of the parable remains ineffectual. Those hearing the parable would not be able to move from what is sublated to what sublates – from matter to spirit.”

 

[lynnvinc]

Yes, of course, Jesus would support a sharing and caring state, esp if it is a democracy, since it is government by the people. In a democracy a selfish government (like ours in the U.S.) reflects the will of a selfish people…the goats who are bound for hell. While a generous governmnet reflects a generous people…the sheep who are bound for heaven.

 

[David_Castlen]

I’ve really struggled with the correct Catholic opinion on government welfare. This is probably the best argument I’ve heard against it, from a Chrisitan point of view. Basically, he contends, the welfare state requires a government to be so massive so as to infringe on our human sovereignty and our ability to fully express our free will as God intended:

youtube.com/watch?v=NI1NHv077bs&context=C380c2f8ADOEgsToPDskJ9t1QSbc_ja07W6o9hgtzg

We should never turn our obligations over to someone else; worse yet, we should never turn our obligations over to a state that promotes death, it is our obligation to be the “welfare state” - we, the Catholic Church. Socialism is a sin

 

[Swiss_Guy]

We should never turn our obligations over to someone else; worse yet, we should never turn our obligations over to a state that promotes death, it is our obligation to be the “welfare state” - we, the Catholic Church. Socialism is a sin

It is the Church’s job to provide the majority of the welfare, not the state’s.

 

[jsps999]

After reading all the posts in this Nanny State forum thread as of Feb.15, 2012 it becomes clear that the basics are being overlooked**:**

1. “Contributions”, and “Charitable”, and “Investments” are VOLUNTARY.
   Whereas, Taxation IS NOT the same as VOLUNTARILY Contributing, Charitable, Investing.
   
   If you CHOOSE to not Contribute, nor be Charitable, nor Invest - for ANY reasons whatsoever (such as sudden financial hardship, health costs, financially greatly helping your family, etc., and yes even with being financially greedy) - then, what will happen to you?
   NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, as far as any Government ENFORCEMENT actions are concerned.
2. However, if you choose TO NOT pay your taxes, then the Government WILL take action, via threat of Enforcement by confiscating your property, your savings, and imposing prison sentencing via the government courts systems.

Therefore, Government taxation can defined as Theft by Coercion**;** TAXATION IS NOT VOLUNTARY.

One of the Ten Commandments is about Theft, and that is basically what Government taxation is.

Clearly then, Contributing goods and money, being Charitable, and Investing are voluntary**;** taxation IS NOT.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

After reading all the posts in this Nanny State forum thread as of Feb.15, 2012 it becomes clear that the basics are being overlooked**:**

1. “Contributions”, and “Charitable”, and “Investments” are VOLUNTARY.
   Whereas, Taxation IS NOT the same as VOLUNTARILY Contributing, Charitable, Investing.
   
   If you CHOOSE to not Contribute, nor be Charitable, nor Invest - for ANY reasons whatsoever (such as sudden financial hardship, health costs, financially greatly helping your family, etc., and yes even with being financially greedy) - then, what will happen to you?
   NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, as far as any Government ENFORCEMENT actions are concerned.
2. However, if you choose TO NOT pay your taxes, then the Government WILL take action, via threat of Enforcement by confiscating your property, your savings, and imposing prison sentencing via the government courts systems.

Therefore, Government taxation can defined as Theft by Coercion**;** TAXATION IS NOT VOLUNTARY.

One of the Ten Commandments is about Theft, and that is basically what Government taxation is.

Clearly then, Contributing goods and money, being Charitable, and Investing are voluntary**;** taxation IS NOT.

But in the US we have representative government. The laws represent the will of the people. Therefore, a law which collects a tax to be used for charity is enacted through the free will of the people.

 

[JimG]

Jesus said nothing about the nanny state, nothing about democracy, nothing about forms of government. When he was asked whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, he avoided the question. They wanted a yes or a no. He gave them neither. Neither did he say what belonged to Caesar.

He didn’t even say anything about the Roman subjugation of the Jews. Nor did he recommend a course of political action to them.

In the last judgment parable in Matthew’s gospel he separates the sheep from the goats based on what they did or failed to do–individually!–for their neighbor. He didn’t judge based on whether they paid taxes for social programs, but on whether they assisted individuals in need when and where they met them. His was an individual mandate, not a social mandate. And most assuredly not an HHS mandate.