Catholic Church And Gov. Welfare Programs

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305345699' post='2241226']
the problem with the theory that government should not be involved in any charity is your example. had the government been the ideal way other posters on here want, then you would be dead now.
[/quote]

Not true, if we didn't have the government forcing people to give to their charities, we'd have more people giving to private charities, such as those supported by Catholics. Truth be told the Catholic Church would spend those dollars much more efficiently and would probably have extended to her particular circumstance. If we really want to get down to it, if we truly lived under a free market, jobs and money would be in abundance and so would giving. Right now, our government steals our money and gives it to whatever charity they chose, including those outside of our own country.


Right now, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and all others are draining the economy dry. What happens when all the money is gone and we have run out debt limit with China, Japan, etc. to it's maximum limit? Those programs are eventually going to get cut, if not now, then later. The best thing that they government can do is to cut them now and let the free market create opportunity.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1305323534' post='2241027']
But it is there. Private charities couldn't and wouldn't be able to help even a fraction of the people in our society who are disabled. In another era, charity was to leave all that responsibility on the family, and if the family didn't take care of you, you died. That would be a good way to get rid of the surplus population.
[/quote]

First I will say that it wasn't wrong of you to take advantage of what you had available to survive. Nobody would blame you for such but I wouldn't say that is ideal either. Sure there are a limited among of charities at the moment and a limit to what they can do but that is because of the government themselves creating this problem. If they got their hand out of cookie jar, you'd find that private organizations can manage that money much better, that more money in the pocket of private companies, means more money in the pockets of private charities.


When Peter Schiff had Johnsonville brat Morris on his show, Johnsonville brat proposed that we drug test all people going to college with loans. Peter Schiff responded with, "how about we get rid of the loan system all together" and Johnsonville brat Morris responded with, "that's crazy, students have to be able to get loans to go to college". Peter responsed with, "my father didn't, he was busing tables at a restraunt and never got loans", in which Johnsonville brat hung up the phone. It might seem radical, but if the free market was allowed to work, there would be a surplus in jobs and giving. Right now, the government is making it worse and the money is going to run out.


You might have been helped, G-d bless you, but many more are not going to be helped if the government goes bankrupt to the point that it's debt is more then it can pay. The current debt is so bad that in a few years, we're going to be paying .40 cents to every 1. dollar to China in interest alone. This is not sustainable so it's either we cut off the entitlements now and fix the situation, or we cut it off later and have a much larger mess to deal with in the long run. Either way, the entitlements are going to cease to be eventually.

[Nihil Obstat]

Government action also crowds out public alternatives. We can't know the extent of private programs, were they allowed to operate unhindered, simply because we've never seen anything approaching a free market in modern times.

[CatherineM]

You guys are dreaming if you think that private charities could or would replace government programs. In countries where private charity is the only option, people simply die in the streets. I vaguely remember that is what Mother Theresa started her ministry to do--minister to those dying in the street.

[4588686]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1305349527' post='2241250']
You guys are dreaming if you think that private charities could or would replace government programs. In countries where private charity is the only option, people simply die in the streets. I vaguely remember that is what Mother Theresa started her ministry to do--minister to those dying in the street.
[/quote]


Well. To be fair, India wasn't and isn't a free market system. particularly when Mother Theresa started. But I agree with your point.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1305349527' post='2241250']
You guys are dreaming if you think that private charities could or would replace government programs. In countries where private charity is the only option, people simply die in the streets. I vaguely remember that is what Mother Theresa started her ministry to do--minister to those dying in the street.
[/quote]
As much as I like as little gov't involvement as possible, this is one thing I really have to agree with you on. I think the [i]ideal[/i] is that we could do without gov't programs because people are giving to charities, but people don't act ideally. People are greedy and if they're not being made to give up their money, why the heck would they? Sure, some people would, and some people would give more than they do now, but I'm willing to bet that plenty of people would not even give charitable donations a second thought.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1305349527' post='2241250']
You guys are dreaming if you think that private charities could or would replace government programs. In countries where private charity is the only option, people simply die in the streets. I vaguely remember that is what Mother Theresa started her ministry to do--minister to those dying in the street.
[/quote]

If you believe that is the case, in which I do not [since India was not only not a free market but now has more millionaires of any other nation in the world], why should it be societies responsibility to deal with your personal problems? If people chose not to willingly give, that should be their right, since it is their money. Mother Theresa was not against capitalism and didn't advocate for stealing money from the wealhy, to support the needy but rather the willing giving of individuals, last I remember. She never told rich and greedy individuals like Charles Keating that he had to give her the money, or government should take it from him, but rather that he should willingly give, if he so chose to do so.

[Nihil Obstat]

Would Mother Teresa have stolen money from the wealthy, or threatened them, in order to compel them to fund her Sisters of Charity?

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1305362464' post='2241306']
Would Mother Teresa have stolen money from the wealthy, or threatened them, in order to compel them to fund her Sisters of Charity?
[/quote]

The thing is that the Church doesn't look at taxes as stealing or "threatening." When the demand for money comes from a legitimate authority (such as the Church or the State, esp. a democracy) then it is not equivalent to a gangster pointing a gun at you. The Church looks at things like healthcare, housing, food etc as basic human rights. These things can't be left up to the variances of private charity - they need to be guaranteed. When someone can't afford to go to the doctor, it's a violation of human rights. When someone doesn't have a safe place to live, it's a violation of human rights, as truly as throwing someone in the gulag for thought crime is. Food and shelter and healthcare - the poor are OWED these things. According to the Church.

There is charity and there is social justice. You have to have both. If the Church were to jettison its social justice teaching she would be turning her back on 2,000 years of effort! Mother Teresa agreed 1000% with the Church's social justice positions, including those on abortion, war, and care for the poor. She did not intend her order to be a substitute for challenging the political and economic structures that harm the poor. This is a woman who was famous for saying "It is not enough to love God."

Never in recorded history has private charity been adequate in addressing the needs of the community. Neither have efforts at social justice ever been entirely successful. That's because structural injustice persists in all societies. It's a Christian's responsibility to work for change while also caring for the poor with his own hands out of his own resources.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Maggie

[Maggyie]

Some good literature on this is John Paul II's amesome but little-read encyclical [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30121987_sollicitudo-rei-socialis_en.html"]Sollicitudo rei socialis[/url] which addresses the concept of "structures of sin."

And here's a good link explaining the difference between justice and charity: [url="http://www.nafra-sfo.org/PJ_Justice_charity.html"]http://www.nafra-sfo.org/PJ_Justice_charity.html[/url]

They quote the Popes:

Charity will never be true charity unless it takes justice into account...Let no one attempt with small gifts of charity to exempt themselves from the great duties imposed by justice -Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptori

Admittedly, no vicarious charity can substitute for justice which is due as an obligation and is wrongfully denied. Yet even supposing that everyone should finally receive all that is due him, the widest field for charity will always remain open. For justice alone can, if faithfully observed, remove the causes of social conflict but can never bring about union of hearts and minds- Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno

Edited May 14, 2011 by Maggie

[Winchester]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1305349527' post='2241250']
You guys are dreaming if you think that private charities could or would replace government programs. In countries where private charity is the only option, people simply die in the streets. I vaguely remember that is what Mother Theresa started her ministry to do--minister to those dying in the street.
[/quote]
Yes, that's the only characteristic differing between us and those nations. Obviously that's the reason.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1305362464' post='2241306']
Would Mother Teresa have stolen money from the wealthy, or threatened them, in order to compel them to fund her Sisters of Charity?
[/quote]
She also would have set up a ridiculous bureaucracy that's exploited by more people not actually in need than people who are.

[dairygirl4u2c]

**Trying to govern America as though it were an 18th century society of farmers and small communities ignores the reality of the empire we live in.
The government HAS to have its hand in everything in order for America to keep up what it has become.
In creating an empire, America has also created the inequities and injustices that conservatives want private charities (rather than the government) to address.
**Private charity will not solve systemic problems that the system creates and sustains.

yes those are quotes, from a voice of reason.. that sees reality for what it is

[Era Might]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1305373015' post='2241310']
The thing is that the Church doesn't look at taxes as stealing or "threatening." When the demand for money comes from a legitimate authority (such as the Church or the State, esp. a democracy) then it is not equivalent to a gangster pointing a gun at you. The Church looks at things like healthcare, housing, food etc as basic human rights. These things can't be left up to the variances of private charity - they need to be guaranteed. When someone can't afford to go to the doctor, it's a violation of human rights. When someone doesn't have a safe place to live, it's a violation of human rights, as truly as throwing someone in the gulag for thought crime is. Food and shelter and healthcare - the poor are OWED these things. According to the Church.
[/quote]
I agree with part of the sentiment of what you're saying, but I have to caution the way you phrase it. To say that the poor are "owed" things is just the problem in our society. For example, you say that the poor are "owed" shelter. But this is at odds with how people have always lived. "Shelter" has become a commodity, something to be given. Traditionally people were not "given" shelter, they created their own dwelling. To be "given" shelter is an act of relief, an act of charity. But in our society we are perpetual objects of "relief." When we say that shelter is "owed" to us, our freedom is gone. Dwelling is a personal act. But because we are now "owed" "shelter," we are perpetual "clients" at the mercy of those who claim the "obligation" to fill our "needs." Once you say that shelter is "owed," then society creates the institutions to fill this supposed "need," and we are no longer free to build our dwellings. "Shelter" today is no longer a personal act, creating a space where we live and move. We are like cars in garages, "sheltered" in stacks of apartments and carefully planned suburban blocks. Our ability to act in the world has been replaced by institutions that act for us. The "right to shelter," in our society, is no right at all, because we are conceived of as perpetual clients who need to be acted for. It's the same with other "rights." The "right to education" is no right at all, because we are not free to pursue education as we please...the "right to education" really means "the obligation to submit to the institutions society has set up to educate us."

I am not against government funding and support, but only if it is done in a way that fosters genuine freedom. So, while it's true that without government housing, many people today wouldn't have a place to live, that only illustrates how we have been incapacitated by our acceptance of this idea that we are "owed" things. It doesn't matter whether it is governmental institutions or private institutions (like charities) that are doing the "owing." We have lost our freedom to act in the world. We no longer dwell, we "are housed." We no longer learn, we "are educated." We no longer heal, we "receive healthcare." It's a vicious cycle.

You say that lack of healthcare and shelter is a violation of human rights, like the gulag. But in my opinion, this assertion doesn't go far enough. Hospitals have monopolized healing. Schools have monopolized learning. Charities (private and public) have monopolized charity. And this has all been done in the name of so-called "human rights." So, I agree that things like food and the right to work and the right to dwell are human rights. But in claiming to serve these rights, our society has abolished them.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Era Might

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1305349002' post='2241248']
Government action also crowds out public alternatives. We can't know the extent of private programs, were they allowed to operate unhindered, simply because we've never seen anything approaching a free market in modern times.
[/quote]


name a time and place in history when only private charity was enough to care for all of the old, injured, weak, poor, homeless. i would reallly like to know when this has ever been possible.