Why do some Catholics believe social doctrine is optional?

[MarcusAndreas]

So many Catholics I know seem to think that certain social doctrine is irrelevant. That's why they sing praises of Humanae vitae, but pretend Populorum progressio doesn't exist, and come up with the most backwards excuses to twist the meaning of Rerum novarum. Why are so many Catholics otherwise totally faithful but social teaching is suddenly a free-for-all?

[Cristiano]

I think that you start your thread with a logical fallacy called begging the question. I also think that if you were to present your ideas in a different manner you would have a fast participation. You might have some valid points given the inconsistency of human beings.

[jay29]

I see why some do and some don't. Jesus never went through the government and it taxation by force. Government "charity" is not charity. Jesus always gave from the heart. USCCBs is learning a very hard lesson in being too close to democrats (HHS mandate).

We can all fulfill the demands Jesus gave in the Sheep and Goats parable without the government.

[Elisabeth51]

Originally Posted by jay29

I see why some do and some don't. Jesus never went through the government and it taxation by force. Government "charity" is not charity. Jesus always gave from the heart. USCCBs is learning a very hard lesson in being too close to democrats (HHS mandate).

We can all fulfill the demands Jesus gave in the Sheep and Goats parable without the government.

I agree...the people came together and helped those in need, it was not government hand outs. There was a time in the US when the government did not give handouts---even in democrat backed programs during the Depression, you had to work to earn the money to help your family. We should help those in need, but I'd rather do it on my own and/or through the church than have the gov't hand my money to people. That is how it was done for centuries, people just helped one another, they went to the church or to their neighbour for help, not the government.

[Seeker1961]

The way I see it, Catholics who are fans of both political parties pick and choose what teachings of the Church they are going to quote from and what ones they are going to ignore.

It's the problem we have when we start to put our politics higher than or equal to our devotion to our faith.

[boclucky14]

Originally Posted by Elisabeth51

I agree...the people came together and helped those in need, it was not government hand outs. There was a time in the US when the government did not give handouts---even in democrat backed programs during the Depression, you had to work to earn the money to help your family. We should help those in need, but I'd rather do it on my own and/or through the church than have the gov't hand my money to people. That is how it was done for centuries, people just helped one another, they went to the church or to their neighbour for help, not the government.

Agreed. Until, what, Woodrow Wilson, the Federal Government funded it's bills (without going into too much debt, and if it did, paid it off rather a lot) primarily through the saling of public lands (out in Louisiana Purchase territory) and through tariffs.The government even sometimes supplied subsidaries to industry with just those incomes (and sometimes, the government lowered tariffs and subsidaries).

Imagine - the only tax you'd pay to the Feds is when you buy something from China. Imagine what you could then turn around and do with that money. You could give it to charities or neighbors in need.

Say if you took Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which was up to about $1.5 trillion in the 2011 fiscal year, and didn't tax it, and instead people donated it to charities. Imagine what the various charities could do with $1.5 trillion dollars between trying to provide healthcare, help the poor, help the elder, etc.

Is it against Catholic Social Doctrine to believe that myself giving to charities instead of unnecessary taxes to the Feds (who is really only responsible for Federal Courts and National Defense, along with a few other functions. And even National Defense budget needs to be cut) would be more charitable? Not to mention, giving to the poor out of love is much different than saying the government should take care of it?

[Elizabeth502]

I agree with Post #2.

I do not think that Catholics believe social doctrine to be "optional." I think the difference between that and moral theology is that the latter is more precisely defined, and social doctrine is based on broader principles, many approaches to which can be valid, as long as the effort toward justice is the sincere & diligent focus. Catholics and non-Catholics, Christians and non-Christians have decidely different opinions & interpretations on reaching the same goals.

Also, social justice involves more mega-forces (and is thus more complex) than does moral theology. More factors and entities are operative; it's more dynamic. (Today's effort can be eviscerated or derailed by a factor such as a micro or macro economy, or demographics, or new political forces. Etc.)

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by Elisabeth51

I agree...the people came together and helped those in need, it was not government hand outs. There was a time in the US when the government did not give handouts---even in democrat backed programs during the Depression, you had to work to earn the money to help your family. We should help those in need, but I'd rather do it on my own and/or through the church than have the gov't hand my money to people. That is how it was done for centuries, people just helped one another, they went to the church or to their neighbour for help, not the government.

Before the Protestant Revolt, the "social safety net" was provided by people dedicated to the care of those in need: monks and nuns. This saftey net was stolen by the rules of the nations which turned Protestant, so it is no wonder that it is the government which is now looked to for help.

There are times when private charity is not enough. Of course, this will happen more often in societies which do not follow Church teaching, both in matters of social justice (economics) and sexual morality (demographic problems), but at any time there can by overwhelming problems.

It is not a question of either/or, but instead how thibgs can by worked out in the best way. I don't think the current system is all that great, but simply dropping it for nothing but private charity, even gradually, without a plan in place for emergencies doesn't seem like the best way to go either.

[Seeker1961]

Originally Posted by jay29

I see why some do and some don't. Jesus never went through the government and it taxation by force. Government "charity" is not charity. Jesus always gave from the heart. USCCBs is learning a very hard lesson in being too close to democrats (HHS mandate).

We can all fulfill the demands Jesus gave in the Sheep and Goats parable without the government.

But the fact is, we're not even making a dent in the demands. If people really want the government to go away there has to be some sense that poor people won't starve and die of disease while the Christians are getting their act together. When the average, non-Catholic voter starts to see that large numbers of people-and we're talking REALLY large numbers-of poor people are being helped to not be poor anymore without government involvement, then they'll believe that government isn't necessary.

The Bishop's aren't really helping their cause here by insisting that the only way organizations such as Catholic Charities can exist is by accepting government funding. The right answer to HHS is "fine, Mr President. You want to make a requirement that agencies that receive government funds go against their religious principles you have a right to do that. Since we feel our religious principles are more important, we therefore are returning our government funding-thanks but no thanks. Our people, who believe as we do, will make up the difference and our good works will go on without you.". That's courageous, that's bold and that's what people in and out of the Church need to see.

[EviPolevhia]

Originally Posted by Elisabeth51

There was a time in the US when the government did not give handouts---even in democrat backed programs during the Depression, you had to work to earn the money to help your family. We should help those in need, but I'd rather do it on my own and/or through the church than have the gov't hand my money to people.

I'm not sure if I should laugh or not when I read this.

When I was homeless living out of my car, in a very Democratic state and in a Democratic county no less, I for a period of time was very intimately acquainted with federal programs. Federal 'hand out's aren't hand outs like you're describing. I had to prove I was employed to qualify for financial assistance. Later on when I no longer even had my job I was temporarily on unemployment but continuing to lack a job, that went away. If you didn't work, you didn't get money. In a Democratic state that has been blue since longer then I've been alive.

However there -is- a place where people can go and get assistance without proving they have jobs. I can name four places in my county I could go to for food or financial assistance this week if I absolutely had to. Guess what, they are Religious in origin, not Governmental.

Maybe things are different in your state, but in mine, it's the opposite of the way you said.

And a further note. Because the Religious groups would give to anyone, working or not, their ability to provide aid to the community was stretched to the breaking point. They had to turn away those in need more often then not. But the Government, who required that you had a job, was not only able to help me get back on my feet but another friend of mine who had been in a similar situation. I love Religious charities. There are alot who do very good work. But in this day and age unless something massive changes, they cannot cover the existing need as well as the Government can.

[boclucky14]

Originally Posted by EviPolevhia

I'm not sure if I should laugh or not when I read this.

When I was homeless living out of my car, in a very Democratic state and in a Democratic county no less, I for a period of time was very intimately acquainted with federal programs. Federal 'hand out's aren't hand outs like you're describing. I had to prove I was employed to qualify for financial assistance. Later on when I no longer even had my job I was temporarily on unemployment but continuing to lack a job, that went away. If you didn't work, you didn't get money. In a Democratic state that has been blue since longer then I've been alive.

However there -is- a place where people can go and get assistance without proving they have jobs. I can name four places in my county I could go to for food or financial assistance this week if I absolutely had to. Guess what, they are Religious in origin, not Governmental.

Maybe things are different in your state, but in mine, it's the opposite of the way you said.

And a further note. Because the Religious groups would give to anyone, working or not, their ability to provide aid to the community was stretched to the breaking point. They had to turn away those in need more often then not. But the Government, who required that you had a job, was not only able to help me get back on my feet but another friend of mine who had been in a similar situation. I love Religious charities. There are alot who do very good work. But in this day and age unless something massive changes, they cannot cover the existing need as well as the Government can.

On the flip side, I have an aunt that dropped out of high school and hasn't really worked the most of her life. She is covered under social security as Disabled, even though she is just as able to half of America. She could easily go out and get a job, but she's been getting Social Security for her whole life, so I guess why try?

[Phaedra777]

Originally Posted by MarcusAndreas

So many Catholics I know seem to think that. If social doctrine does not line up with the GOP platform, it is irrelevant. That's why they sing praises of Humanae vitae, but pretend Populorum progressio doesn't exist, and come up with the most backwards excuses to twist the meaning of Rerum novarum. Why are so many Catholics otherwise totally faithful but social teaching is suddenly a free-for-all?

The OP uses the term doctrine. Are these encyclicals in fact, doctrine? If they are not, then obviously, no one has to agree.

[Seeker1961]

Originally Posted by Phaedra777

The OP uses the term doctrine. Are these encyclicals in fact, doctrine? If they are not, then obviously, no one has to agree.

What is doctrine and what isn't seems to change with personal opinions as well. If the encyclical agrees with a person's already established opinion-it's doctrine.

[Phaedra777]

Originally Posted by Seeker1961

What is doctrine and what isn't seems to change with personal opinions as well. If the encyclical agrees with a person's already established opinion-it's doctrine.

I hear ya! Too bad folks don't know that dogma and doctrine cannot be changed, by their very definition and that infallibility only applies only to faith and morals. Social justice is a whole different category.

[TEPO]

Originally Posted by EviPolevhia

I'm not sure if I should laugh or not when I read this.

When I was homeless living out of my car, in a very Democratic state and in a Democratic county no less, I for a period of time was very intimately acquainted with federal programs. Federal 'hand out's aren't hand outs like you're describing. I had to prove I was employed to qualify for financial assistance. Later on when I no longer even had my job I was temporarily on unemployment but continuing to lack a job, that went away. If you didn't work, you didn't get money. In a Democratic state that has been blue since longer then I've been alive.

However there -is- a place where people can go and get assistance without proving they have jobs. I can name four places in my county I could go to for food or financial assistance this week if I absolutely had to. Guess what, they are Religious in origin, not Governmental.

Maybe things are different in your state, but in mine, it's the opposite of the way you said.

And a further note. Because the Religious groups would give to anyone, working or not, their ability to provide aid to the community was stretched to the breaking point. They had to turn away those in need more often then not. But the Government, who required that you had a job, was not only able to help me get back on my feet but another friend of mine who had been in a similar situation. I love Religious charities. There are alot who do very good work. But in this day and age unless something massive changes, they cannot cover the existing need as well as the Government can.

Oh yes, I lived out of my car for a year, and the Catholic Church provided me with food and even gas for my car once. Other Christian Churches did much for me as well, as did the soup kitchens.

The way I see it, people need to be giving more to the Church and less to the Gov, because Church donations are used for what they say they're for -no slush funds.