Pope defines real social development, drawing on Paul VI [CNA]

[mpi]

Originally Posted by Tsuwano

You are changing the subject of our conversation. I do not know the details of the plan you are refering to and have no position on it as yet, except to say that this present encyclical doesn't mention it.

The Catholic church is opposed to the welfare state, which has been condemned since JPII's encyclical 20 years ago. Reading these two encyclicals it is clear that the Holy See is talking about Western European countries. To figure out what the Pope is condemning one only has to look at the types of government programs that Western Europe has that other nations do not - Universal Health Care provided by the government is one example.

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by tm30

I'm not saying he's pro-globlalization, either. He's essentially saying, "this is the reality and we need to deal with it."



I don't see where I said that the Pope did any such thing, either. But the money quote certainly begs for some clarification:



How was I not careful with my interpretation of this section?



You're repeating exactly what I said.

I'm not sure why you are so defensive in your response...I was basically agreeing with you. Sorry...I won't let it happen again.

[Tigg]

Originally Posted by Appleby

Jesus Himself made charity a personal, private choice, in that he warns that when we face Judgment, we will be INDIVIDUALLY judged by what we did PERSONALLY for the least of these.

Jesus never demanded that our neighbours be forced to feed us, nor that we should be forced to feed our neighbours...He understood that we were created with free will, and that charity is a private, personal decision that each of us makes individually.

I think it's important to also clairfy that our personal obligation as Christians means we do our best to make certain our brother is decently fed and clothed (the basics) but does not mean we must equally distribute all of our material wealth.

[Tsuwano]

Originally Posted by mpi

The Catholic church is opposed to the welfare state, which has been condemned since JPII's encyclical 20 years ago. Reading these two encyclicals it is clear that the Holy See is talking about Western European countries. To figure out what the Pope is condemning one only has to look at the types of government programs that Western Europe has that other nations do not - Universal Health Care provided by the government is one example.

Since you mentioned Pope John Paul II's Centisimus Annus in a previous post, and published in 1995, fifty years after the end of the Second World War, I presume this is the "encyclical" of 20 years ago that you are refering to. If not, then please direct me to the encyclical you are talking about so that I may read it. In any case, Centisimus Annus does not condemn "welfare states" as such, but is rather a reflection on World War II and our failure to learn the lessons of that war in its aftermath. He does mention the totalitarian states of Eastern Europe and condemns the "cult of nation" that he saw as present in those governments. The Church has rightly condemned totalitarian states of all political ideologies, but again this does not imply a condemnation of certain welfare practices or programs that are presently useful in many modern nations, unless those programs should dehumanize the individual and make him an adjunct of the state and its policy. Again, the recent encyclical condemns the "all - encompassing welfare state" and not individual welfare policies that various states may have in place. You generalize when you imply that the Pope is condemning the modern states of Europe because of various welfare programs they may utilize or because some have instituted universal health care. This is not the case, though it is true the Pope warns us against the potential of welfare programs to subject the human person to the dictates of the state if the state should lose sight of the love of God, which gives rise to the dignity of each and every person.

[tobinatorstark]

Wonderful reading. I also recommend Populorum Progressio since Pope Benedict refers to that document several times

[soflochristmas]

Originally Posted by Stylite

One has to read all the prior sections to see what he means by "subsidiarity" and how it relates to government and liberty.

Subsidiarity is also defined in the Catechism (1883-1885). It is the idea, anathema to liberalism and Democrats in the United States, that government closest to the people is best, that "collectivism" is wrong, that there are limits on state intervention and the preference for the "family perogative" in governing family life.

We will hear quotes from this encyclical, taken out of context, ad naseum from the dissenters in and out of the Church...that's what they do. But those of us who are loyal to ALL Church teaching, believe in the Magesterium and are orthodox Catholics, must know the document front and back so that we can prevent the abuse of this "Church" document to degrade the very Church that published it.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by Appleby

My gospel does not include the verses where Jesus says, *Your neighour was hungry so I told him he was entitled to take your wallet.*

It also does not include the part where Jesus walks down the street with a bullhorn exhorting us to force the Government to rob our neighbours and feed His sheep.

My Bible says that WE are to feed His sheep. We personally. Not that we are to rob our neighbours and feed His sheep with extorted cash.

I am very glad my Bible has left out the Gangster Gospel you seem to have in yours.

I don't see the dividing line between public and private acts that you do. Is it required that we be Christian in our private lives, but OK to be non-Christian when making public decisions? The Bible says that you shall not kill, not that governments shouldn't kill, so is it OK for us to vote for a government that is murderous?

Paul tells us that governments are supposed to reflect God's will. He even says that this is why we pay taxes:

Romans 13:1-7
1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.
2 Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,
4 for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.
5 Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience.
6 This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
7 Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

I am curious where you get your idea that it is lawless or "Gangsta" for democratic people to authorize their government to tax its people and use those funds for the common good. I have never heard that idea connected to Catholic theology or to American political theory.

[Tsuwano]

(Edited)

When someone claims that a document condemns universal health care when, in fact, it doesn't even mention universal health care, then, yes, I want to hear the exact words of condemnation. My response was to a person who evidently believes that all forms of welfare are condemned by the Church. My response is that this is not the case. The Church rightly condemns all political systems that strip away an individual's humanity and subjects the individual to the interests of the state rather than seeking to serve the interests of the human person, but this does not imply a blanket condemnation of all welfare programs in all states. I agree that reason should be used when reading Church documents, which is precisely why I oppose a reading of the document that is terribly unreasonable and highly reflective of political ideology. When the Church condemns something, it usually does not infer. It makes plain and simple what is being condemned and why.

[Michael Francis]

Several posts have been deleted and I am reminding everyone that discussion/debates in this forum will be held to the same high standards as the rest of CAF and especially the Apologetics forum.

All of that can be found at this link. Please make yourselves familiar with it and insure that all posts comply.

1. Threads that depart from topic will be closed.
2. Uncharitable posts will earn penalty citations.
3. Insults will earn penalty citations.

CAF does not require that everyone agree, but we do require that when members disagree, that they do so with respect, courtesy, and charity.

Please remember that and post accordingly.
Very sincerely,

[soflochristmas]

Caritas in Veritate: Why Truth Matters
by Samuel Gregg D.Phil.

Relativists beware. Whether you like it or not, truth matters – even in the economy. That’s the core message of Pope Benedict XVI’s new social encyclical Caritas in Veritate.
http://www.acton.org/commentary/534_...th_matters.php

[mpi]

Originally Posted by Tsuwano

(Edited)

When someone claims that a document condemns universal health care when, in fact, it doesn't even mention universal health care, then, yes, I want to hear the exact words of condemnation. My response was to a person who evidently believes that all forms of welfare are condemned by the Church. My response is that this is not the case. The Church rightly condemns all political systems that strip away an individual's humanity and subjects the individual to the interests of the state rather than seeking to serve the interests of the human person, but this does not imply a blanket condemnation of all welfare programs in all states. I agree that reason should be used when reading Church documents, which is precisely why I oppose a reading of the document that is terribly unreasonable and highly reflective of political ideology. When the Church condemns something, it usually does not infer. It makes plain and simple what is being condemned and why.

http://www.osjspm.org/majordoc_cente...cial_text.aspx


Exerpt from para 48:

"In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of state, the so-called "Welfare State." This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State." Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.[100]"

There is a pattern of Vatican condemnation of the welfare state that started with Centesimus Annus (20 years ago - not a post WWII wrap up). This is a pattern. This is not me taking a few words out of context.

Catholic teaching, to me, is more in favor of national governments getting involved in foreign aid than welfare programs. Welfare programs need to be at a more local level if they are to be anywhere near acceptable to Catholicism. This way the beast doesn't grow to big.

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by Appleby

The parts I have read so far are terrifying. There is no single human being or group of human beings that I would trust in any way to run the entire world -- I have not seen any evidence that human beings can even run a small town without corruption and criminality quickly overwhelming them. Lord of the Flies, the Obama Thugocracy, the City of Toronto and the current strike by all unionized city workers that is filling our city with garbage, rats and screaming Mommies who are having nervous breakdowns because they dont want the rats and flies and vermin OR the pesticides that would eradicate them, and the Union pickets are making sure they have the vermin and the Ministry of Health is making sure they have the pesticides. Imagine this scenario spread to the whole world. No thank you!

Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

His Holiness should not meddle in things which he clearly does not understand and economics on a worldwide stage is clearly one of those things he should leave alone.

That is my opinion.

Maybe you're not understanding His Holiness.

Br. JR, OSF

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by tm30

I'm up to Chapter 4, and what stands out to me (so far) is that Benedict believes that globalization is basically a fait accompli. If this is the case, from what I gather, his concern is that without some quasi-redistrbution of the tremendous increase of wealth in developed nations, undeveloped nations will be left further and further behind. i.e, developed nations - in order to reap greater profits - have elected to globalize their economies. By electing to do so, and due to the natural consequence of its indirect (sometimes direct), further-marginialization of impoverished societies, developed nations/economies have a moral obligation to direct assistance to poor economies from their increased wealth. We in the U.S. have a moral obligation to aid impoverished countries from our treasures of prosperity.

One of the problems I've noticed among reactions to this encyclical, is the natural tendency to think this is directed only at OUR country, only at the United States. We give tremendous aid to other nations, but what do emerging economic powers like China and India do for their own poor and for the poor in other nations? This is as much (if not more) directed towards them, so, people need to put down the pitchforks and reconsider that as much as we need to search our souls for our participation in helping the poor, other nations have a lot more soul-searching to do. The Pope is speaking to a globl audience, not just America.

As Americans we tend to view things from a very parrochial point of view. We often project that everything the Church teaches is targeting us or that everything that we believe must be held sacred by the Church, including the American system of doing things.

This is where this "pitch fork mentality" comes from. The document is a moral thesis for the universal Church. The United States has to accept whatever applies to us. If we don't like it, we'll have to get over it and obey anyway.

What I see in the document regarding the redistribution of prosperity that certainly applies to us is the use of natural resources. We do use a disproportionate amount of natural resources and we always say that we have to find new resources for such things as fuel. But we never get it off the ground. That is oen area that should speak to our conscience and to the consciences of those who have the power to do something about it in this country.

We also have an unfair tax system that we need to fix. The experts who should be looking for ways to do so, only make more tax laws that are as useful as the one they just bumped. Such an unfair system will cause an unfair distribution of wealth and economic possibilities even among our own people. That's immoral. That's where the Holy Father's message is very applicable to us.

Our penal system is probably one of the most expensive in the world. But does it work? Most experts agree that it does not. So it raises the question of inappropriate distribution of wealth again. Why put so much money into something that is not working? Isn't it better to work on the system? We may even save some money to allocate for the poor at home and abroad.

Like these, there are many examples of immoral distribution of wealth and immoral use in our country. It's not just about giving money to poorer countries. It's about using money wisely so that we can give opportunities to more people, both at home and abroad. That's where charity in truth come into play in speaking of social morality.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

[Tsuwano]

Originally Posted by mpi

http://www.osjspm.org/majordoc_cente...cial_text.aspx


Exerpt from para 48:

"In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of state, the so-called "Welfare State." This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State." Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.[100]"

There is a pattern of Vatican condemnation of the welfare state that started with Centesimus Annus (20 years ago - not a post WWII wrap up). This is a pattern. This is not me taking a few words out of context.

Catholic teaching, to me, is more in favor of national governments getting involved in foreign aid than welfare programs. Welfare programs need to be at a more local level if they are to be anywhere near acceptable to Catholicism. This way the beast doesn't grow to big.

Thank you for directing me to the proper document of Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II's encyclical letter on the hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum. I have it in my posession and will read it thoroughly. Still, in reading the section of the document which you quoted in your post, I continue to note some discrepencies between your interpretation of the document and what the document actually says. As you note, the Church has long been wary of a state which would usurp the rights and duties of differing sectors of society and of individuals to itself, and this would include, as Pope Benedict has stated, the "all - encompassing welfare state." I share this wariness. At the same time, I note that Pope John Paul's document, and especially in the part which you quoted, speaks about the "execesses and abuses" of the "Social Assistance State" which attracts critique, and does not condemn the concept of social welfare as such. In the same way, he talks about the "Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State" but does not offer a blanket condemnation of all welfare programs. Indeed, in the paragraph previous to the one you quoted, the Pontiff writes "The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or are just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand." The Pope goes on to say that such intervention should be "as brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of state intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom."
I am not a defender of the "welfare state," as you may think, but neither do I believe that all welfare programs are deserving of immediate and complete censure from society or the Church, and furthermore, I do not believe the Church offers such censure. The Church has always acknowledged that the State does have a role to play in insuring the welfare of society, but does warn against the State taking too much power to itself. Again, I note that Pope John Paul's document doesn't mention universal health care any more than Pope Benedict's does. If you believe that the Church does condemn any and all welfare programs without distinction or discrimination, then I believe you are mistaken and that you are, indeed, misreading the social documents of the Church.

[mpi]

Originally Posted by Tsuwano

Thank you for directing me to the proper document of Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II's encyclical letter on the hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum. I have it in my posession and will read it thoroughly. Still, in reading the section of the document which you quoted in your post, I continue to note some discrepencies between your interpretation of the document and what the document actually says. As you note, the Church has long been wary of a state which would usurp the rights and duties of differing sectors of society and of individuals to itself, and this would include, as Pope Benedict has stated, the "all - encompassing welfare state." I share this wariness. At the same time, I note that Pope John Paul's document, and especially in the part which you quoted, speaks about the "execesses and abuses" of the "Social Assistance State" which attracts critique, and does not condemn the concept of social welfare as such. In the same way, he talks about the "Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State" but does not offer a blanket condemnation of all welfare programs. Indeed, in the paragraph previous to the one you quoted, the Pontiff writes "The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or are just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand." The Pope goes on to say that such intervention should be "as brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of state intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom."
I am not a defender of the "welfare state," as you may think, but neither do I believe that all welfare programs are deserving of immediate and complete censure from society or the Church, and furthermore, I do not believe the Church offers such censure. The Church has always acknowledged that the State does have a role to play in insuring the welfare of society, but does warn against the State taking too much power to itself. Again, I note that Pope John Paul's document doesn't mention universal health care any more than Pope Benedict's does. If you believe that the Church does condemn any and all welfare programs without distinction or discrimination, then I believe you are mistaken and that you are, indeed, misreading the social documents of the Church.

How is this then? - These programs are condemned when they come from the national government (i.e. the "state") as the principle of subsidiarity is subverted. For example, education does not need to be national; it could come from county governments. Same with healthcare. National jurisdiction would be the military, immigration, etc.


By the way, the section you quote refers to the state being involved in economic development (i.e. industry subsidization) - there is a clear distinction between this and welfare programs for people. Indeed, it seems Catholic teaching is more receptive to national governments getting involved with things like industry support than with welfare programs.