Social Justice And Economic Theory

[Aloysius]

There appears to be a position in existence on this phorum that a Catholic who believes in Republican economic theories should be treated the same as phishy's and such.

So let's discuss this.

I propose that both democrat economic theories and republican economic theories can be held by a faithful Catholic who holds to the True Doctrine of Social Justice. It boils down to which form of government you believe is the best way to bring about Social Justice.

so if you hold the opinion that Catholics must follow more democratic economic theories, please enlighten me. show me where Catholic Social Justice teaching says that the wealthiest people should pay a ton more to the government so the government can use that money for the poor people. tell me where the Church argues against giving money BACK to the wealthy (which they earned but payed to the government in taxes) in hopes that it will increase job production and spending in the economy. tell me where she argues that the "trickle-down effect" will not work in bringing about Social Justice. tell me where she argues against a small government system where the private sector is the driving force of the economy. tell me where she argues against the incentive of a better way of living and way of life if one works for it.

Cannot a Catholic believe such economic theories so long as they believe that is the best way to bring about Social Justice?

[Aloysius]

bump... i'm lookin from an answer specifically from Good Friday who is the one who has me concerned about my economics stance by claiming it is contrary to Church Teaching. it seems other ppl on PM agree with me, and others disagree, but only from GF so far have i got the feeling that he thinks its contrary to Church Teaching.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 30 2004, 11:05 PM'] I propose that both democrat economic theories and republican economic theories can be held by a faithful Catholic who holds to the True Doctrine of Social Justice. It boils down to which form of government you believe is the best way to bring about Social Justice. [/quote]
I'd say that you can't believe in [i]either[/i] and call yourself a Catholic. At least that is what Pope Leo XIII wrote.

[Aloysius]

you can support either... but not necessarily believe either of them could be the best possible system...

what specifically do you have in mind that Pope Leo XIII wrote?

[megamattman1]

EDIT: this post was edited

I s'pose I'd be willing to engage some since no one else will. Though I don't plan on taking sides per se. And I'll have much more to ask and leave hanging than to answer. I think so far to look at either side in plain and simple terms is to miss other points. This is all in a bit off the top of my head so bear with me.


[quote]show me where Catholic Social Justice teaching says that the wealthiest people should pay a ton more to the government so the government can use that money for the poor people. [/quote]

Doesn't Catholic social teaching make a moral imperative to ensure health care, equal education, and welfare sustain life? (social security and medicade etc I would see as going into those) To this you would say yes. You would also say that we should not give to those who do not work. But what about those who can't help it? To this you would cite the principle of subsidiarity. But what does this principle cover exactly? Is it only actual governments or does it cover private sectors? I'll assume it covers private sectors too. So what do we do when the private sector does nothing? Or since many socio economic groups live together, the poor live with the poor and can not help each other much. Well, then the principle would still hold and the poor have a moral right to dignify. But then you'd argue that if we helped, people might not reach out of their group or even in their own group to help others, the possibility does exist and perhaps in the principles name, large government can not interfere with what the lower CAN do on its own. But then there's still a moral imperative to fulfull that is not being fulfilled. Especially acknowledging our lack of action, and if we were to be saints about it, to acknowledge other's lack of action.

So we first have to say that perhaps the principle is not just what CAN be done, but what is done. Or if not that then say that the moral imperiative to help overrides the principle. (one thing I don't see much of here that I would like to see is people weighing moral principles that compete.. this is the real world we live in)

So if we assume that principle rules, then we stop here. If we assume the imperative rules we have to decide whether or not it will prevent people from doing their duties. Perhaps the princple should have been kept for that reason.

But what we'd end up with is people who need help and don't get it. This is why many catholics are mad at republican theory. Republicans often say this is the only way, to let ecnomics do it's thing. Those against that think help should be given. Often times people stop at those values.

I'd argue that help should be given with lots of stipulations. It's a sad but true fact that regulations and red tape are necessary. I think there are already a lot of regulations, that's why I wonder if democrats are trying to fix something that's not broke. CHange for the sake of change. Maybe regulations with red tape that looks at people's families to see if they can help. Some might say it's not fair, but I'd insist the moral imperative outweighs the fairness. (another aspect to look at is the fact people will always be bad apples soemwhow.. I heard that only 10% are bad apples though depending on how that stat was made though of course) But then I'm sure republicans are letting a lot or at least some people fall through the cracks. We need compromise. We need solutions. Maybe here at phatmass we can propose some solutions istead of talking about vaque ideologies.


This nex thing is off the top o my head. Maybe we should even insist that all get the health welfar education they need, and the moral imperative is for people to get them off it. That way we error on the sake of helping.



[quote]tell me where the Church argues against giving money BACK to the wealthy (which they earned but payed to the government in taxes) in hopes that it will increase job production and spending in the economy.[/quote]

It's not about giving it back unfairly. It is fair. It's about meeting the moral imperatives in the last quote. A lot of demos or whatever just bad mouth with no solutions. I have yet to see better economic theory.

[quote] tell me where she argues that the "trickle-down effect" will not work in bringing about Social Justice.[/quote]

But this is a good chance to talk about ecnomics. Now republican theory I'd think should be looked upon as good. It will help people get jobs for themselves. But they still need education to get good jobs and health etc. When you look at ecnomoics you have to consider that expanding jobs may create more quantity of jobs but less quality. (you also have to consider that yo udon't know what's gonna happen.. even if theory is spectacular economics don't happen in a void)

Trickle down does seem like it might work to a degree. At least when ecnomic times are especially bad. But in this econmomy and most, I'd say the ecnomy will take care of itself and trying to spur growth is just inflated/fake. Then the growth may be inflate and stay permenant. But there are so many other factors to consider such as resource use and what you may be neglecting with the imperatives. I just think economics will take care of itself.

There's also to consider the fact that if demos always help and spend then the reblucan theory will be ruined because politicians are playing tug of war with the growth stimulations of the ecnomoy if the stimulation theory is right. The ecnomoy will be inflated but then its life aid would be taken. Which would just mean that we shouldn't take it away. But then we're back at the moral imperative to help stuff.

[quote] tell me where she argues against a small government system where the private sector is the driving force of the economy. [/quote]

This is similar to the other ones.

[quote]tell me where she argues against the incentive of a better way of living and way of life if one works for it.[/quote]

No one argues that except extremists. I don't think we should be talking about extreme points. Maybe extreme points to get to a solution and to begin to think about stuff but not such as these. And I don't think you should be using them to discredit your opponent to vindicate your position if you want quality analysis.

Edited September 1, 2004 by megamattman1

[HartfordWhalers]

I'll have to look that up for you. I read in a Catholic periodical something about the American system being condemned by Pope Leo XIII. The author quoted specific paragraphs and was very specific. The article was a few pages long, much of which was quoting Pope Leo XIII and other Popes. I gave it away to someone to read, but she never gave it back. I will check about it for you.

[megamattman1]

the last post was EDIT ed

and a good idea begot by bush is giving money to charities. but then this often times involves not really helping people but doing social work and paper work and stuff. i know i'd never volunteer for that. it just doesn't seem like the right thing to do. but then maybe i should i dunno.

Edited September 1, 2004 by megamattman1

[Aloysius]

megamattman1, your post was really good. right now my brain is fried and i need some sleep, but it was all very interesting. i'm not an economic expert, nor am i an expert on Church Social Teaching.

anyway, yeah, anyway this should be an interesting discussion

i concur on your idea that the democrats would just be trying to fix something thats not broken