The Church and the End of the Welfare State
Jul 25, 2012
George Weigel
Throughout the post-Vatican II years, the U.S. bishops’ conference has typically defended the welfare state and not infrequently urged its expansion. Everyone familiar with the situation knows that this has had far more to do with the political predilections of certain conference staff members than with the settled judgment of the American episcopate—or with a careful application of the principles of Catholic social doctrine. But things are changing.
A new generation of bishops is not quite as sure as its predecessors that “social justice” always equals “government program.” The rise of aggressive secularism within both state and federal social welfare agencies has also been a sobering experience, as bishops across the country have found that the Church’s success in foster care or work with sex-trafficked women doesn’t count in the eyes of government bureaucrats determined to impose the LGBT and abortion-on-demand agendas with the funding tools at their disposal.
Catholic default positions in favor of shoring up, even expanding, the post-World War II American social welfare state must also be re-examined because of certain undeniable realities. Catholic social doctrine is a tradition of moral realism: it takes facts seriously. And the increasing burden of the evidence is that the social welfare state as we have known it is dying—and in fact deserves to die.
It is dying, in both Europe and the United States, because it is unaffordable. Shaky economic models and a demographic winter throughout the western world have combined to drive the social welfare state as we have known it into a fiscal wall (or over a fiscal cliff; choose your image). As my colleague Yuval Levin has put it, neither Europe nor the United States can rationally or responsibly go where the long-term trends suggest we’re heading: “to debts that utterly overwhelm [our] productive capacities, governments that do almost nothing but support the elderly, and economies with no room for dynamism, for growth, or for youth.”
The social welfare state is also dying because it is grossly inefficient. The Progressive movement’s claim that government agencies run by specialists highly trained in the social sciences could be compassionate, responsive, and efficient has been falsified by reality. Social welfare bureaucracies just don’t work that way. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t good men and women doing noble work in government social welfare agencies; it means that the system itself is incapable of responding to the churnings of our times, the variety of human problems our culture creates, or the moral defects that underlie so many contemporary social pathologies.
And that, from a Catholic social doctrine point of view, is the key to understanding the demise of the post-World War II social welfare state: it has eroded the moral culture that makes free and responsible citizenship in self-governing democracies possible. Yuval Levin again: “The attempt to rescue the citizen from the burdens of responsibility has undermined the family, self-reliance and self-government”—and it has done this, not from a lack of compassion or resources, but because the social welfare state by its nature creates dependencies that erode the virtues necessary for genuine human flourishing.
Rather than expending fruitless energies defending the social welfare state as we know it—in the first few months of 2012, the bishops’ conference (as represented by its domestic policy committee) issued letters urging renewed or expanded funding for some 20 federal social welfare programs—the Catholic Church in the United States should be at the forefront of exploring the path beyond the welfare state, stressing the moral and cultural dimensions of that necessary journey.
The Church has no special expertise in the technicalities of public policy; and in any event, the Church ought never have measured “social justice” by budget line-items. What the Church knows is the truth about the human person, and that truth includes the importance of responsibility, honesty, self-reliance, and solidarity. Those just happen to be virtues essential to the free, dynamic, and compassionate societies that moral reason and Catholic social doctrine call us to build in the post-welfare state future.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
7.25.2012 | 9:44am
William says:
I have little argument with Mr. Weigel's argument, but it's highly theoretical. If the Church steps away from its support of government programs, where should it turn? What should it do IN THE CONCRETE to comply with Christ's commission to care for the least among us?
7.25.2012 | 9:56am
Charles Lee says:
This essay is a nice read-out of Republican party line theology, but I'm quite sure it does not represent the thinking of most Catholics. Indeed, we are disappointed by the tepid response of our bishops towards all manner of social justice issues, and how casually social justice issues have been displaced by a narrower--some would say political--agenda hell-bent on rescinding the advancements of Vatican II.
7.25.2012 | 10:24am
Dean from Ohio says:
I agree with most everything here, and thanks for the article. I would go further in casting doubt on the term "social justice," or for that matter any hyphenated "justice." As with the welfare state itself latching onto a formerly vigorous society and sucking it dry, the added nomenclature sucks the life out of the original word. Whenever I hear such a jerry-built phrase, I keep my eye on it and feel for my wallet.
There is also an irony here that perhaps my Catholic brothers and sisters do not see. The structure of the Roman Catholic church mirrors in many ways the welfare state. A former Catholic, now Mormon, friend of mine once articulated this by stating, "Catholicism is a religion that is done to you, not one that you do yourself." The piety and devotion of priests, bishops, pope and lay orders aside, the personal responsibility and inner energy exercised by the average Catholic parishioner seems pretty low to me. Further, the very structures of the church and its extra-biblical doctrinal system seem to be a significant part of the problem.
Of course, there likewise are many faults with my community of evangelical Protestants, but the welfare state effect--the topic of this article--does not yet seem to be one of them.
Let's pray for a move of the Holy Spirit that will strip away whatever is not connected to the True Vine.
There is also an irony here that perhaps my Catholic brothers and sisters do not see. The structure of the Roman Catholic church mirrors in many ways the welfare state. A former Catholic, now Mormon, friend of mine once articulated this by stating, "Catholicism is a religion that is done to you, not one that you do yourself." The piety and devotion of priests, bishops, pope and lay orders aside, the personal responsibility and inner energy exercised by the average Catholic parishioner seems pretty low to me. Further, the very structures of the church and its extra-biblical doctrinal system seem to be a significant part of the problem.
Of course, there likewise are many faults with my community of evangelical Protestants, but the welfare state effect--the topic of this article--does not yet seem to be one of them.
Let's pray for a move of the Holy Spirit that will strip away whatever is not connected to the True Vine.
7.25.2012 | 10:41am
Juneau Alaska says:
I stopped reading when Weigel demonstrated his talent for "urban-words of the day" like this gem: "aggressive secularism."
Last I checked, our secular US Constitution makes it impossible for public policy to driven by theology. Now it's aggressive to support the 1st Amendment?
What's next, strident rationalism? That is to say, really, really, really, REALLY, denoting that 2+2 = 4?
Last I checked, our secular US Constitution makes it impossible for public policy to driven by theology. Now it's aggressive to support the 1st Amendment?
What's next, strident rationalism? That is to say, really, really, really, REALLY, denoting that 2+2 = 4?
7.25.2012 | 10:49am
HT says:
Nicely put, Gian. Good to see a comment like that in this venue. My attention was first drawn to this point by the great philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe. You NEVER hear the current crop of Catholic marketolaters advert to this teaching, and I have never heard it explicitly articulated from a pulpit.
Ah yes, Weigel, you remind me of my favorite theme from the Sermon on the Mount: self-reliance, toil, and personal saving, along with the birds of the air and the lilies of the field.
Ah yes, Weigel, you remind me of my favorite theme from the Sermon on the Mount: self-reliance, toil, and personal saving, along with the birds of the air and the lilies of the field.
7.25.2012 | 11:04am
J. Bob says:
Gian, I think a better reference would be to read, Acts 5:4. Peter to Ananias, that the possessions were his to do as he pleased, but lying to the Holy Spirit was another matter.
And as far as the entitlement state of western Europe, one has only to look at the real mess they are in, and how it's effecting our economy. Without the due diligence, SS & Medicare are projected to go insolvent in 2036 & 2023 respectively.
And as far as the entitlement state of western Europe, one has only to look at the real mess they are in, and how it's effecting our economy. Without the due diligence, SS & Medicare are projected to go insolvent in 2036 & 2023 respectively.
7.25.2012 | 11:05am
Carl says:
Contrary to what some may consider to be conservatives' unwillingness to help the poor, we believe the question is not whether to help but, rather how best to do it. As Weigel, Levin and many others have pointed out, the current approach to welfare ultimately leads to financial and spirtitual ruin. How does it help the poor if the country goes bankrupt? Wealth is not created by merely transferring it. Rather, the poor (and all of us) are best served and the Church’s teachings more effectively implemented, by expanding the job market through a free-market, capitalist economy with some (read: minimal) governmental oversight to preclude unfair practices.
7.25.2012 | 11:08am
David says:
Somehow I doubt that facts will really matter. There seems to be a bedrock assumption that when it comes to judging public policy and social justice, intentions are what matter most. In fact, outcomes are irrelevant, with failures easily explained as coming from not doing enough.
Forget about debating welfare policy; we need to first establish that results matter, and that, as a moral principle, we are not required to do that which does not work.
Forget about debating welfare policy; we need to first establish that results matter, and that, as a moral principle, we are not required to do that which does not work.
7.25.2012 | 11:23am
Joe DeVet says:
I am in enthusiastic agreement with Weigel on the prinicples involved, and would point out the passages in John Paul II's encyclical "Centessimus Annus" criticizing what he called (as I remember) the "Social Assistance State"--for a number of the same reasons as cited in this article.
However, I am not as sanguine as Weigel about whether the Bishops of the USCCB have learned the relevant lessons. Despite all the issues of fiscal responsibility which have been hightlighted recently, the Bishops continue their calls for ever more funding of federal programs with their accustomed abandon. Note for example the shameful letter (which near as I can tell stated the official USCCB postion) criticizing the Paul Ryan budget. Ryan's proposal is certainly not draconian, and is the only responsible budget proposal circulated in Washington for a long time. Yet the Bishops oppose it in favor of more borrowing, more spending.
Or take Obamacare. The Bishops have 3 problems with it, and if those problems were corrected, would heartily endorse it. They have, in fact, promoted socialized medicine for decades. Blind guides--they don't see that even with the desired "corrections", Obamacare would harm health care overall, would bankrupt the government sooner, and would bring forth life issues which the Bishops are ill-equipped to deal with.
For the commenter asking what concrete options do we have, I say REAL charity. Not the faux charity of the federal government, whcih consists in these 3 steps: wealth is forcibly extracted from the unwilling, skimmed by the corrupt, and the remainder thrown at the ungrateful. No one's soul is saved. But the Bishops have steadfastly preferred to lobby for false charity--I think because they sense that they have squandered their moral authority with their own flocks, with the result that if they preached real charity they would be ignored.
However, I am not as sanguine as Weigel about whether the Bishops of the USCCB have learned the relevant lessons. Despite all the issues of fiscal responsibility which have been hightlighted recently, the Bishops continue their calls for ever more funding of federal programs with their accustomed abandon. Note for example the shameful letter (which near as I can tell stated the official USCCB postion) criticizing the Paul Ryan budget. Ryan's proposal is certainly not draconian, and is the only responsible budget proposal circulated in Washington for a long time. Yet the Bishops oppose it in favor of more borrowing, more spending.
Or take Obamacare. The Bishops have 3 problems with it, and if those problems were corrected, would heartily endorse it. They have, in fact, promoted socialized medicine for decades. Blind guides--they don't see that even with the desired "corrections", Obamacare would harm health care overall, would bankrupt the government sooner, and would bring forth life issues which the Bishops are ill-equipped to deal with.
For the commenter asking what concrete options do we have, I say REAL charity. Not the faux charity of the federal government, whcih consists in these 3 steps: wealth is forcibly extracted from the unwilling, skimmed by the corrupt, and the remainder thrown at the ungrateful. No one's soul is saved. But the Bishops have steadfastly preferred to lobby for false charity--I think because they sense that they have squandered their moral authority with their own flocks, with the result that if they preached real charity they would be ignored.
7.25.2012 | 11:42am
Jim says:
The attainment of "social justice" is part of, and an obligation as taught by Catholic doctrine. If we take the author's assumption that the government should have no role in "social justice" then, what is the alternative means of meeting our doctrinal responsibility? Alas, none is presented. The move to government sponsered social service programs occurred primarily because the church (read Christian Community)and family failed in fulfilling their responsibilities.
The "unaffordability" issue of government social service programs mostly stems from gutless politicians who kick the funding "can" down the road for future generations to pay; not from current expenditures.
The "unaffordability" issue of government social service programs mostly stems from gutless politicians who kick the funding "can" down the road for future generations to pay; not from current expenditures.
7.25.2012 | 11:49am
jason taylor says:
"But it would not do to dismiss welfare as unjust and akin to theft as many conservatives do. "
I don't at least. And I am a conservative. I consider it socially unhealthy, contrary to the recipient's dignity and inefficient. But unfortunately private largesse is insufficient for some cases. It would be better if that were not the case; sources closer to recipients have a better understanding of their needs then the state which when all is said and done is essentially a machine.
Another problem is that welfare like all government projects comes at the expense of degrading the dignity of middling institutions. We need those for our own self-protection and sense of identity. The government simply isn't a substitute. All that said, I consider welfare not theft. Simply to be regretted.
I consider welfare a public works project. Having large numbers of poor around drags the quality of the rest of the community down, is unaesthetic, and makes a bad showing to foreigners, not to mention encouraging discontent. That is a Scroogian sounding way of putting it("I'm sorry you have to see people suffer") but that is not arguing why the poor should be helped by somebody. That is arguing why having fewer destitute people around is unpleasant, and helping them become less destitute(or at least able to survive poverty) is of benefit to everyone. And thus state-sponsored welfare can be put in a category with roads and bridges.
As for whether it is "theft", that argument is untenable so long as minimum wage and other state-sponsored favors are tolerated. A persons labor is his own property for which he has a right to set his own price and like other types of property should be compensated when seized for a public works project of which minimum is effectively another representative. Those who suffer unemployment from minimum at least, have a right not to have their dole called theft if they would have been willing to work for a lower bid.
Furthermore, the right to tax is inherent in government; like the right to make war and enforce justice. These rights must needs be(within proper limitations) given to the government because of the nature of it's duties.
Welfare should be minimized. Like practically all government activities it is hypothetically better when unnecessary. However that said, unfortunately some welfare is necessary. It would be better if no one needed to be on the dole and it would be better if those who did could be supported by personal contacts like kin or social groups. But that is unfortunately insufficient.
I don't at least. And I am a conservative. I consider it socially unhealthy, contrary to the recipient's dignity and inefficient. But unfortunately private largesse is insufficient for some cases. It would be better if that were not the case; sources closer to recipients have a better understanding of their needs then the state which when all is said and done is essentially a machine.
Another problem is that welfare like all government projects comes at the expense of degrading the dignity of middling institutions. We need those for our own self-protection and sense of identity. The government simply isn't a substitute. All that said, I consider welfare not theft. Simply to be regretted.
I consider welfare a public works project. Having large numbers of poor around drags the quality of the rest of the community down, is unaesthetic, and makes a bad showing to foreigners, not to mention encouraging discontent. That is a Scroogian sounding way of putting it("I'm sorry you have to see people suffer") but that is not arguing why the poor should be helped by somebody. That is arguing why having fewer destitute people around is unpleasant, and helping them become less destitute(or at least able to survive poverty) is of benefit to everyone. And thus state-sponsored welfare can be put in a category with roads and bridges.
As for whether it is "theft", that argument is untenable so long as minimum wage and other state-sponsored favors are tolerated. A persons labor is his own property for which he has a right to set his own price and like other types of property should be compensated when seized for a public works project of which minimum is effectively another representative. Those who suffer unemployment from minimum at least, have a right not to have their dole called theft if they would have been willing to work for a lower bid.
Furthermore, the right to tax is inherent in government; like the right to make war and enforce justice. These rights must needs be(within proper limitations) given to the government because of the nature of it's duties.
Welfare should be minimized. Like practically all government activities it is hypothetically better when unnecessary. However that said, unfortunately some welfare is necessary. It would be better if no one needed to be on the dole and it would be better if those who did could be supported by personal contacts like kin or social groups. But that is unfortunately insufficient.
7.25.2012 | 12:43pm
Richard says:
As a lifelong Catholic and one exceedingly disturbed by the current political tenor of the bishops, I come here to read Weigel to confirm my convictions and beliefs. Some of the comments above are terrific. It is heartening that even in this conservative venue, there are reasonable people.
7.25.2012 | 12:50pm
Wills says:
The alternative is what it has always been: individual actions, the Church, religious institutions. As would be expected by the principle of subsidiarity. Example: a friend of mine shares her home with a family temporarily displaced. Another supports a college student. A physician friend treats the indigent for nothing. Of course the problem with this is that response can be spotty and it's not tax deductible but it much better meets the needs of all involved.
7.25.2012 | 12:59pm
gghd says:
Jesus Christ set a 10% flat-tax-rate in biblical-Israel; it's in the Bible. >NO one has ever had a better idea than Jesus Christ. All the Bishops in the Catholic Church have always legally avoided taxes, whenever possible, through both time & geography.
Taxes are the growth-foods of secular-governments. Historically, the people in charge of secular-governments >turn secular-governments into a large-beast that prowls the earth seeking the ruin-of-souls.
The Church has always recognized the potential evils from the beast-of-secular-governments.
Taxes are the growth-foods of secular-governments. Historically, the people in charge of secular-governments >turn secular-governments into a large-beast that prowls the earth seeking the ruin-of-souls.
The Church has always recognized the potential evils from the beast-of-secular-governments.
7.25.2012 | 1:02pm
Sam Schmitt says:
@Jim
Mr. Weigel does not say or imply that "the government should have no role in 'social justice'?" What he is arguing against is the notion that government programs EQUAL social justice.
"then, what is the alternative means of meeting our doctrinal responsibility?" Well, if the means already tried (gov't programs) don't work, or are in fact harmful, the first responsibility is to stop or cut back on these programs.
If "government sponsored social service programs occurred primarily because the church (read Christian Community) and family failed in fulfilling their responsibilities," then the solution would seem to be strengthening the Church, the Christian community and the family, not weakening these as excessive government programs have done and continue to do.
We all have the same goal here - the means are the real question. And by and large the Church does not dictate the means to be utilized, leaving this to the people and governments involved. So let's have a vigorous debate about that.
It seems clear that the means tried so far don't really work all that well. At the very least, we can discuss modifying them, as happened with welfare reform in the 1990s, instead of just throwing up our hands or repeating the same formulas which simply have not worked. If Mr. Weigel is correct, the bishops are finally seeing the light on this, even if others are not.
Mr. Weigel does not say or imply that "the government should have no role in 'social justice'?" What he is arguing against is the notion that government programs EQUAL social justice.
"then, what is the alternative means of meeting our doctrinal responsibility?" Well, if the means already tried (gov't programs) don't work, or are in fact harmful, the first responsibility is to stop or cut back on these programs.
If "government sponsored social service programs occurred primarily because the church (read Christian Community) and family failed in fulfilling their responsibilities," then the solution would seem to be strengthening the Church, the Christian community and the family, not weakening these as excessive government programs have done and continue to do.
We all have the same goal here - the means are the real question. And by and large the Church does not dictate the means to be utilized, leaving this to the people and governments involved. So let's have a vigorous debate about that.
It seems clear that the means tried so far don't really work all that well. At the very least, we can discuss modifying them, as happened with welfare reform in the 1990s, instead of just throwing up our hands or repeating the same formulas which simply have not worked. If Mr. Weigel is correct, the bishops are finally seeing the light on this, even if others are not.
7.25.2012 | 1:26pm
TradCathPhilProf says:
Gian,
You're demonstrating exactly the problem that Weigel is complaining about. Of course it's a matter of justice to give to the poor. The question is how that obligation is to be translated into policy; is it really the case that coersive taxation and redistribution is what justice requires? Consider this: it is an obligation of justice to tell the truth. Does that mean that the government should outlaw all lying and use its coercive powers of taxation and imprisonment to enforce that? Presumably not, though in some limited cases it should (e.g. perjury).
Personally, I tend to think that Weigel, Novak, et. al. do sometimes fail to embrace the full richness of the Tradition (consider their relative indifference to the glories of the liturgy). But for all that there are empirical elements of the tradition that are just wrong, and these need to be corrected. For instance, the Tradition more or less follows Aristotle's conception of justice, and Aristotle assumes that all (commercial) transactions are zero-sum. That is, he doesn't understand that some transactions can actually be mutually benefical in such a way that both parties are actually materially better off after the transaction than before. For Aristotle, such transactions would be, strictly speaking, unjust because he defines the just transaction by material equality before and after. (Incidentally, this error runs through Marx and beyond, and it's not surprising because the idea of a transaction that makes both parties richer is deeply counter-intuitive.) So a market-based analysis actually serves as a valuable corrective of this EMPIRICAL mistake. And I say all of this as conviced Aristotelian.
So the real question is not whether the poor are owed certain supports as a matter of justice, but how that support is best to be provided in a manner consistent with the dignity of the human person. Again, it is EMPRICALLY clear that the existing liberal social welfare state is not compatible with the full appreciation of that dignity, and so we need to seek out new and better ways of pursuing justice. I certainly make no claims to knowing what all of those are, but that doesn't mean we cannot recognize what has failed.
You're demonstrating exactly the problem that Weigel is complaining about. Of course it's a matter of justice to give to the poor. The question is how that obligation is to be translated into policy; is it really the case that coersive taxation and redistribution is what justice requires? Consider this: it is an obligation of justice to tell the truth. Does that mean that the government should outlaw all lying and use its coercive powers of taxation and imprisonment to enforce that? Presumably not, though in some limited cases it should (e.g. perjury).
Personally, I tend to think that Weigel, Novak, et. al. do sometimes fail to embrace the full richness of the Tradition (consider their relative indifference to the glories of the liturgy). But for all that there are empirical elements of the tradition that are just wrong, and these need to be corrected. For instance, the Tradition more or less follows Aristotle's conception of justice, and Aristotle assumes that all (commercial) transactions are zero-sum. That is, he doesn't understand that some transactions can actually be mutually benefical in such a way that both parties are actually materially better off after the transaction than before. For Aristotle, such transactions would be, strictly speaking, unjust because he defines the just transaction by material equality before and after. (Incidentally, this error runs through Marx and beyond, and it's not surprising because the idea of a transaction that makes both parties richer is deeply counter-intuitive.) So a market-based analysis actually serves as a valuable corrective of this EMPIRICAL mistake. And I say all of this as conviced Aristotelian.
So the real question is not whether the poor are owed certain supports as a matter of justice, but how that support is best to be provided in a manner consistent with the dignity of the human person. Again, it is EMPRICALLY clear that the existing liberal social welfare state is not compatible with the full appreciation of that dignity, and so we need to seek out new and better ways of pursuing justice. I certainly make no claims to knowing what all of those are, but that doesn't mean we cannot recognize what has failed.
7.25.2012 | 1:43pm
John Harmon says:
Weigel claims that "A new generation of bishops is not quite as sure as its predecessors that "social justice” always equals “government program.”" But Weigel provides zero examples in support of his claim, and one example that would seem to undercut it - this year, the USCCB is urging renewed or expanded funding for social welfare programs.
Who are some representative members of this new generation of bishops, and what are specific examples of their departure from the attitudes of their predecessors toward government welfare programs?
Who are some representative members of this new generation of bishops, and what are specific examples of their departure from the attitudes of their predecessors toward government welfare programs?
7.25.2012 | 1:44pm
inactivist says:
You cannot promote morality and justice by forcing someone to be charitable - and there's simply no denying that the state obtains its resources by force, by extracting things at gunpoint. All the evasions, all the euphemisms do nothing to change the fact that forced charity is not charity at all; rather, it is theft. The fact that it is legalized theft does nothing to change the reality of what is going on.
Some people see clearly what is being done; others wish to live in denial and see themselves as better people for having supported such behavior.
Some people see clearly what is being done; others wish to live in denial and see themselves as better people for having supported such behavior.
7.25.2012 | 1:50pm
Angel Moraleda says:
I agree with George Weigel, although I doubt American bishops are adopting his point of view. Insofar as the question about what can we do for people in need, the answer, the only valid answer, is personal: with our attention, our interest for them, our time, our money, without any government interference that always promotes corruption, inefficiency, political manipulation, etc
7.25.2012 | 2:01pm
Ray says:
I agree with virtually every point in the article, but I wish Mr. Will would have expounded on this claim:
"A new generation of bishops is not quite as sure as its predecessors that 'social justice' always equals “government program.'"
I remain optimistic, but if there is any proof that this new batch of Bishops is changing along these lines, then I'd like to hear more about it.
"A new generation of bishops is not quite as sure as its predecessors that 'social justice' always equals “government program.'"
I remain optimistic, but if there is any proof that this new batch of Bishops is changing along these lines, then I'd like to hear more about it.
7.25.2012 | 2:44pm
Dan says:
@Juneau Alaska, "the last time you checked," where exactly did you find such a specific directive in the Constitution? I just checked the 1st amendment and it's not there. Also, it's too bad you stopped reading and came to such an odd conclusion. The federal government does not have to force Catholic entities to play by these new, aggressively secular rules in order to abide by the Constitution. For years, the government was content to let the Church do as it pleased in these charitable areas. Not anymore.
7.25.2012 | 3:20pm
James Layne says:
Lost in the USCCB's defense of the welfare state is the idea of subsidiarity, which I think is often misunderstood. It's not, as Rep. Ryan would have it, the same as federalism, though it's closer to that than our current bloated federal government that is the antithesis of federalism. Subsidiarity is about natural and proper roles. It is a doctrine of justice - which says that if something can be done by a lower order power, it should be so done, and if a higher power takes this role away it commits injustice. If the family can do it, it should. If the family cannot, the community should, and if not, the state should, and if all of these are inadequate to the task, such as caring for the poor, the federal government should ASSIST these powers to accomplish THEIR proper roles.
The welfare state is centralized and top-heavy. It puts the federal government as the first line of defense against poverty, rather than in the role of assisting the various entities that are better suited to do so and who have that role more naturally as family and "neighbors" of the poor in question.
As I understand it, Catholic social teaching includes also the idea of the "universal destination of goods." All of the earth was once in common to all. This does not deny private property, but it means that when one owns far beyond need, there is actually a requirement in justice to share the excess with those who have not. St. Thomas Aquinas says that when a town is hungry, excess grain stored up by one of the wealthy in the town may be taken by the citizens WITHOUT committing theft.
The Church's doctrines fit together and should equally guide. We can't ignore one and uphold the other. So we know that in justice, income distribution in this country is way off kilter. The rich are indeed amassing more and more wealth, and the standard of living of the poor and middle class is taking a big hit. That's unjust, for the very reasons some have pointed out. But the question is what is to be done about this, and how can it be done in a way that actually helps the poor and middle class and doesn't institutionalize poverty and lack of initiative. It would be of little consolation to the middle class and poor to strike against the rich based on envy (which the Church also condemns as class warfare), in a manner that would pull down all income levels.
The welfare state is centralized and top-heavy. It puts the federal government as the first line of defense against poverty, rather than in the role of assisting the various entities that are better suited to do so and who have that role more naturally as family and "neighbors" of the poor in question.
As I understand it, Catholic social teaching includes also the idea of the "universal destination of goods." All of the earth was once in common to all. This does not deny private property, but it means that when one owns far beyond need, there is actually a requirement in justice to share the excess with those who have not. St. Thomas Aquinas says that when a town is hungry, excess grain stored up by one of the wealthy in the town may be taken by the citizens WITHOUT committing theft.
The Church's doctrines fit together and should equally guide. We can't ignore one and uphold the other. So we know that in justice, income distribution in this country is way off kilter. The rich are indeed amassing more and more wealth, and the standard of living of the poor and middle class is taking a big hit. That's unjust, for the very reasons some have pointed out. But the question is what is to be done about this, and how can it be done in a way that actually helps the poor and middle class and doesn't institutionalize poverty and lack of initiative. It would be of little consolation to the middle class and poor to strike against the rich based on envy (which the Church also condemns as class warfare), in a manner that would pull down all income levels.
7.25.2012 | 3:24pm
John H. says:
Gian, you're summary of the matter is excellent, but it also overlooks a major issue. Our government doesn't give money to the poor just so they can eat, receive medical care, and be sheltered. No, they also give money to the poor so they can buy cigarettes, obtain abortions and contraception, cell phones, college tuition, and a host of other superfluous and immoral items. That is indeed theft. It is unjust to ask us as a society to pay for cigarettes, abortion, and other non-essentials to life. Entitlement programs have never been about helping out the poor, and getting them back on their feet. Entitlements are about shifting responsibility to the government, so that the government can wield and maintain power over the majority of the population. Entitlement programs enslave the poor to the government, that's why few people ever work their way out of them. It is usually easier to stay on welfare, and it pays more, than it would be to get a job. There's a host of things welfare does, but helping the poor is not one of them. True charity for the poor would seek to help them overcome their indigence, but the government doesn't want that.
7.25.2012 | 3:37pm
John H. says:
William,
In answer to your question, the Church already does it. She has hospitals, shelters, food banks, etc. She simply needs to focus on her own modes of charity, and not pour money into the government-run entitlement (not charity) initiatives.
In answer to your question, the Church already does it. She has hospitals, shelters, food banks, etc. She simply needs to focus on her own modes of charity, and not pour money into the government-run entitlement (not charity) initiatives.
7.25.2012 | 4:06pm
Heraclitus says:
Not long ago, I would have disagreed strongly with Mr. Weigel (as I did with his stance on the Iraq War - a stance with which I still strongly disagree). But the HHS mandate was an "A-Ha!" moment for me - a falling of the scales from my eyes so to speak. I was always strongly for universal health care, but the mandate revealed to me the true nature of the beast: most of those who support the welfare state have as much concern for the poor and disadvantaged as the Roman emperors did for the poor of Rome when they gave them their "bread and circuses." The goal of our current technocrats - as it was of the Roman emperors - is not truly to help the poor, but to keep them docile and dependent. The purpose of the health-care law is not "affordable health care" but domination and control, by driving all but state-supported secular institutions out of the public sphere.
7.25.2012 | 4:26pm
Don Roberto says:
Juneau, as the Founders (good men who would have been appalled at the degree to which modern socialist nations encourage sloth) understood, our republic depends on a Christian foundation. Who is it that endowed us with unalienable rights? Ourselves? Without God, only might makes right. Aggressive secularism is that which goes beyond merely not establishing religion to the point of preventing the expression of religious belief, a state of affairs that Obama and his atheist- and pagan-libertine ilk are clearly hell bent on putting into effect. †
7.25.2012 | 4:33pm
Alan says:
Weigel is correct that "the Church has no special expertise in the technicalities of public policy," though that rarely has prevent members of the clergy from making pronouncements on policy matters. Take, for example, the Church's opposition to same-sex couples adopting. Does the Church really have the "special expertise" to determine this will be worse for those adopted than having them raised in an institutional setting?
7.25.2012 | 4:45pm
The Moz says:
Another clear, well thougt out exposition of what ails us (Western Civ.). Unless we admit, finally, that the welfare model is crumbling underneath its own contradictions we haven't got a hope. Even Obama himself in one of his books points out that 50 years of shoveling money at poor black communities hasn't improved their lot but has in fact aggravated the situation. Whatever one thinks of so-called cold hearted conservatives (I don't think they are but it took me a long time to see it.) you at least have to admit that the current welfare system isn't working. In fact the divide is growing. And it will continue to grow. Now, I am one of the so-called comfortable and I know that no matter what my access to funds will help me over the rough patches, but the poor? Oh the more so-called progressive policies we enact the worse it'll get for them. Look at the facts since the 50s. The evidence is clear even from the early 90s. Things have only gotten worse for poor people as more and more money has been flung at them.
7.25.2012 | 5:08pm
Anne says:
Government socialism would be the magnificent solution to social justice and other human goods if human nature was all good. It is an interesting theory and seems to be a constant default utopian wish. However, a look in the mirror, along with some historical background ought to be confirmation that human nature is deeply flawed. The great evil residing in each human heart multiplies infinitely when residing in coalitions of people, often anonymous, not individually accountable for their decisions and behavior, having access to vast accumulations of power and resources. We need to be very careful of the power we so easily hand over to groups of people having in aggregate the same flaws as we see in ourselves and other individuals. Power has been wielded in terrifying ways by governments throughout history. No elite dictatorship has been up to the task of transcending the human nature of the individuals within it; that is to resist the persuasive lure and ultimate seduction of money, power and sex.
Social justice, for example, is a phrase used in the politically correct jargon of the governments and other entities as something that we all presumably understand and agree upon. In fact justice is narrow in definition, specific in scope and difficult to apply. How does a government define "social justice" other than in broad, vague notions of redistributions of what, from whom to whom, under what circumstances, where and when? How does it define "healthcare", another concept which means what? Will it be measured out according to distributive or utilitarian, (arbitrary) principles? We have been informed that thousands of pages will be defined "as we go along" requiring new and massive taxes that will enter through the IRS window but may exit through windows yet to be labelled. Vague and broad will then become specific and narrow according to the elite governmental dictatorship in place. Which foxes in these henhouses will intervene and make everything right by giving back the money and power? Social pressures to conform and accept "groupthink" in defining "the good" and reflexive submission to "tolerate","include", and "accept", need to be reexamined and replaced by individul reflection about values and beliefs and realities. Hopefully catch phrases like "social justice" and "healthcare" could be replaced with words like charity, justice, and truth. History, as well as a formed conscience warns us that if we can't figure it out the government surely cannot either. Socialist governments may preside in Heaven, under God Himself, but will never work on increasingly godless planet Earth.
Social justice, for example, is a phrase used in the politically correct jargon of the governments and other entities as something that we all presumably understand and agree upon. In fact justice is narrow in definition, specific in scope and difficult to apply. How does a government define "social justice" other than in broad, vague notions of redistributions of what, from whom to whom, under what circumstances, where and when? How does it define "healthcare", another concept which means what? Will it be measured out according to distributive or utilitarian, (arbitrary) principles? We have been informed that thousands of pages will be defined "as we go along" requiring new and massive taxes that will enter through the IRS window but may exit through windows yet to be labelled. Vague and broad will then become specific and narrow according to the elite governmental dictatorship in place. Which foxes in these henhouses will intervene and make everything right by giving back the money and power? Social pressures to conform and accept "groupthink" in defining "the good" and reflexive submission to "tolerate","include", and "accept", need to be reexamined and replaced by individul reflection about values and beliefs and realities. Hopefully catch phrases like "social justice" and "healthcare" could be replaced with words like charity, justice, and truth. History, as well as a formed conscience warns us that if we can't figure it out the government surely cannot either. Socialist governments may preside in Heaven, under God Himself, but will never work on increasingly godless planet Earth.
7.25.2012 | 5:10pm
Tim Busch says:
George
This is right on. We have the benefit of history to witness what will occur to us in25 years in Europe. They have been under the control of totalitarian governments which have convince them cradle to grave care is what the human person needs. What the human person who was born with original sin needs is accountable help. We need to remove government and return to the private sector where people love their care giver and the care giver and donor secures joy from help.
We are stewards over our goods and we should use them to help others responsibly not let the government be controlling of its people thru the dole.
Tim Busch
This is right on. We have the benefit of history to witness what will occur to us in25 years in Europe. They have been under the control of totalitarian governments which have convince them cradle to grave care is what the human person needs. What the human person who was born with original sin needs is accountable help. We need to remove government and return to the private sector where people love their care giver and the care giver and donor secures joy from help.
We are stewards over our goods and we should use them to help others responsibly not let the government be controlling of its people thru the dole.
Tim Busch
7.25.2012 | 8:09pm
James Kohn says:
I dont really see how what he is writing is a bad thing here, pretty solid (at least from my point of view, and Im just a pharisee).
Instead of begging and pleading for government funding perhaps Catholics (yes you Social Justice Catholics who like to shame everyone else for not being in line with the Spirit (not the actual works) of VII) need to provide the funding necessary to accomplish all the goals that Leo put out in the latter days of the 19th century. By the way there is more than one way to skin a cat (I guess thats animal social injustice...its figurative...and cats and dogs taste good ask El Presedente). What I am getting at is we need to stop complaining when the Church asks for monetary help, and actually provide the help. And not just monetary help. Some of you think throwing money at the problem will fix it all, Wrong. You and I ask Catholics are called to be there for all the people of the world.
Our blessed Lord did say to take care of the least among us, but as Paul clarified if a man will not work, so too he will not eat. We need to get people off of the dependency that has been bolstered and motivated to pursue even create their own opportunities.
Finally Social justice in itself is not Dogmatic (please show), its an obvious teaching but how it is applied is up for grabs so long as the very purpose is not belittled for some political gain. ((Both included))
Finally @Charles...what is it that is being suppressed that was in VII, I am dying to know...
Distributism all the way (C/O ChesterBelloc)
Instead of begging and pleading for government funding perhaps Catholics (yes you Social Justice Catholics who like to shame everyone else for not being in line with the Spirit (not the actual works) of VII) need to provide the funding necessary to accomplish all the goals that Leo put out in the latter days of the 19th century. By the way there is more than one way to skin a cat (I guess thats animal social injustice...its figurative...and cats and dogs taste good ask El Presedente). What I am getting at is we need to stop complaining when the Church asks for monetary help, and actually provide the help. And not just monetary help. Some of you think throwing money at the problem will fix it all, Wrong. You and I ask Catholics are called to be there for all the people of the world.
Our blessed Lord did say to take care of the least among us, but as Paul clarified if a man will not work, so too he will not eat. We need to get people off of the dependency that has been bolstered and motivated to pursue even create their own opportunities.
Finally Social justice in itself is not Dogmatic (please show), its an obvious teaching but how it is applied is up for grabs so long as the very purpose is not belittled for some political gain. ((Both included))
Finally @Charles...what is it that is being suppressed that was in VII, I am dying to know...
Distributism all the way (C/O ChesterBelloc)
7.25.2012 | 8:27pm
William says:
Dear John H,
The Church does indeed have hospitals, shelters, food banks, and so on. Even so, to withdraw it from Government entitlement programs would, in fact, play the secularists game. A couple of years ago, Cardinal Wurel met with a member of the Washington, D.C., City Council to argue against its decision to force Catholic agencies to allow homosexual couples to adopt orphaned children in their charge. He made the point that the policy had broad implications and that it might force the Church to abandon many of its social programs rather than betray its core beliefs. The councilperson responded with words to the effect that a result of the sort was precisely what they had wanted for years, but now they had the means to carry it out. The Obama administration's attack on the Church's right to follow its own conscience in refusing to provide abortifacients in its programs reflects that attitude. To date, the Church's presence in entitlement programs has contributed to their efficiency and honesty. That would not be the case in their absence. We need only look at the corruption present in the District of Columbia's government today to see what would happen if the church stepped aside.
The Church does indeed have hospitals, shelters, food banks, and so on. Even so, to withdraw it from Government entitlement programs would, in fact, play the secularists game. A couple of years ago, Cardinal Wurel met with a member of the Washington, D.C., City Council to argue against its decision to force Catholic agencies to allow homosexual couples to adopt orphaned children in their charge. He made the point that the policy had broad implications and that it might force the Church to abandon many of its social programs rather than betray its core beliefs. The councilperson responded with words to the effect that a result of the sort was precisely what they had wanted for years, but now they had the means to carry it out. The Obama administration's attack on the Church's right to follow its own conscience in refusing to provide abortifacients in its programs reflects that attitude. To date, the Church's presence in entitlement programs has contributed to their efficiency and honesty. That would not be the case in their absence. We need only look at the corruption present in the District of Columbia's government today to see what would happen if the church stepped aside.
7.25.2012 | 9:09pm
Mm says:
Overtime the charitable efforts of the gov't become more & more about buying votes & enriching supporters. Our budget on the poor has tripled in real terms since he 80s yet we have more poor, not less. Gov't spending per poor person now approaches $65,000, when the median family income is less than $48K. Much of the money is eaten up by the bureaucracy & nonprofits (both of which have become major democratic party constituencies) which opposes any attempts at real reform. The Church is opposed not only b/c of issues such as homosexuality & abortion, but b/c it's very efficiency is a threat to the many groups that depend on providing services to the poor for their livelihood. That s also why attempts to restrict food stamps & EBT cards to essential foods is blocked- many profit by their use ( you can buy porno, guns, tattoos, and make bail in Mass. them).
7.25.2012 | 9:31pm
Bette says:
If those who are in need of social justice were the only ones on government programs, I'm sure there would be enough money to go around. The problem is that with the lack of personal contact between the government an the recipient, there is a plethora of scamming going on. Since this can never be properly addressed, all welfare has to be moved down to the lowest levels of society where we have the ability to have actual contact with those in need. On that personal level, we can find them jobs, help them get their homes and lives in order and eventually remove all need when possible. All others in need will remain receiving government help. Welfare has become big business that employes lots of welfare workers and necessitates keeping a large cliental. At the local level, there would be much volunteering by churches and individuals.
7.25.2012 | 10:10pm
rachel says:
Not too long ago, a woman came to the Catholic pregnancy care center where I work because she was in need of baby items. She was pregnant and had two other children who had recently been returned to her after they were taken into foster care. Her live-in boyfriend had been abusing them and was arrested, and she had been sent to rehab for drug abuse. Now, reunited, the mother and children were all camping out in her sister's living room while they waited for section 8 housing to become available. Her social worker referred her to us because she had no diapers for her toddler. The mother was in her twenties and had never completed high school.
I'm sure the various social workers did their best, but this exemplifies the kind of complex human and moral problems that the government is ill-equipped to address, despite enormous outlay of money (consider the cost of the investigation by social workers into the allegations of abuse; public defenders for the woman and her boyfriend; jail costs for the boyfriend; rehab for the mother; foster parent payments for the children; court proceedings to determine the reunification; ongoing visits by a social worker; food stamps; and subsidized housing). And what is there to show for it? A happy, healthy family? Not from what I saw.
As the woman was leaving after completing her DVD lesson and spending her "Baby Bucks" on diapers, she looked around the room and commented, "I was hoping you all had some laundry detergent. I haven't been able to wash any clothes for days."
Tens of thousands of dollars spent, but nothing left for laundry detergent.
I'm sure the various social workers did their best, but this exemplifies the kind of complex human and moral problems that the government is ill-equipped to address, despite enormous outlay of money (consider the cost of the investigation by social workers into the allegations of abuse; public defenders for the woman and her boyfriend; jail costs for the boyfriend; rehab for the mother; foster parent payments for the children; court proceedings to determine the reunification; ongoing visits by a social worker; food stamps; and subsidized housing). And what is there to show for it? A happy, healthy family? Not from what I saw.
As the woman was leaving after completing her DVD lesson and spending her "Baby Bucks" on diapers, she looked around the room and commented, "I was hoping you all had some laundry detergent. I haven't been able to wash any clothes for days."
Tens of thousands of dollars spent, but nothing left for laundry detergent.
7.25.2012 | 11:39pm
Steve D says:
The Catholics in the western worlds worship of the modern welfare state is exactly akin to God's chosen people wanting a king in the book of Samuel. You got what you asked for and you worship something other than God and now you are paying for it.
7.26.2012 | 12:16am
Andy S says:
When these stark and reality-based topics pop up, the same old, incorrect opposing views always pop up right behind. George Weigel never once here, nor anywhere that I have read, has argued that it is not "our" responsibility to take care of the poor. He knows it is. You know it is. The issue is who is defined by "our" in this context. 2000 years ago Rome had nothing approaching the social safety net Western governments provide today, yet Christ said to "...render unto Caesar...".
The government, especially our American government, was designed to play a limited role ordered towards a peaceful, free, and productive society. The Founders knew, as we all really know today, no government can create heaven on earth.
We, the people, need to do more for the poor, informed, and disadvantaged. We are the "our" that has the responsibilit, not the government that exists to provide us limited services in limited roles.
The government, especially our American government, was designed to play a limited role ordered towards a peaceful, free, and productive society. The Founders knew, as we all really know today, no government can create heaven on earth.
We, the people, need to do more for the poor, informed, and disadvantaged. We are the "our" that has the responsibilit, not the government that exists to provide us limited services in limited roles.
7.26.2012 | 12:16am
Juneau Alaska says:
Two replies:
Dan,
I think your question is weak. In fact, it reminds me of Jehovah Witnesses brow-beating Catholics to provide evidence for the word trinity being written in the scriptures. Of course, JWs always win that ridiculous game. To that end, I have no desire to amend my statement further for you. It’s plenty strong on its own. But I will admit that you are not alone, Dan. It’s a common question defenders of the 1st Amendment come across so I’m inclined to think it works for you and others in, perhaps, less sophisticated forums? Your final sentences of personal insight reflect, perhaps, something further in Weigels’ piece that, as I’ve already mentioned, didn’t bother finishing after the first blunder.
Don,
I belong to a few US secular organizations, some quite large, and none of the high-level, secret meetings that I’ve attended have agendas spelling out the abolition of religious expression. Quite the opposite. There are Catholic secularists, Jewish secularists, Pagan secularists, Sikh secularists, atheist secularists, Hindu secularists, well, one get’s the idea. Secularism: keeping religion out of public policy.
In fact Don, you and I likely would march together holding the same flag should the need arise to protest any attempt to impose Sharia-based Islamic blasphemy laws in the USA. It’s a good thing Don, our secular Constitution, which the rest of the world admires; well, except for the paradisiacal nations of religious theocracies like Iran, the Vatican, Saudi Arabia et al.
Thank you both for your interest in discussion.
Dan,
I think your question is weak. In fact, it reminds me of Jehovah Witnesses brow-beating Catholics to provide evidence for the word trinity being written in the scriptures. Of course, JWs always win that ridiculous game. To that end, I have no desire to amend my statement further for you. It’s plenty strong on its own. But I will admit that you are not alone, Dan. It’s a common question defenders of the 1st Amendment come across so I’m inclined to think it works for you and others in, perhaps, less sophisticated forums? Your final sentences of personal insight reflect, perhaps, something further in Weigels’ piece that, as I’ve already mentioned, didn’t bother finishing after the first blunder.
Don,
I belong to a few US secular organizations, some quite large, and none of the high-level, secret meetings that I’ve attended have agendas spelling out the abolition of religious expression. Quite the opposite. There are Catholic secularists, Jewish secularists, Pagan secularists, Sikh secularists, atheist secularists, Hindu secularists, well, one get’s the idea. Secularism: keeping religion out of public policy.
In fact Don, you and I likely would march together holding the same flag should the need arise to protest any attempt to impose Sharia-based Islamic blasphemy laws in the USA. It’s a good thing Don, our secular Constitution, which the rest of the world admires; well, except for the paradisiacal nations of religious theocracies like Iran, the Vatican, Saudi Arabia et al.
Thank you both for your interest in discussion.
7.26.2012 | 12:38am
joseph vellone says:
I note words like:honesty,responsibility,self reliance,solidarity,personal responsibility..all describing qualities we would like to see in the less advantaged.
Why can't people just save their money,even though wages have steadily gone down since l972?
We don't need government interference with our social security and medicare.
I can't quite understand where the local good neighbors and churches are going to get the money necessary to pay for ten days in intensive care.
Social security and medicare have covered hundreds of thousands since they were instituted.The financing has to be jiggled to keep them solvent after the twenties and thirties of this century.
0ur tax system is enforced by our laws,but not one well to do person has had to choose between filet mignon,cheateau briand and hamburgers in our recent history. If taxation is considered confiscatory...no one has mentioned it recently.
Somebody wants to "return to the private sector" where the caregiver and care receiver had mutual respect an love.Funny, after medicare the extreme poverty level among the elderly dipped noticeably....was that "government interference"?
The uninsured right now die earlier because despite no government interference and there exists no mutual respect and love from non existent caregivers.
Ron Paul and Paul Ryan haven't mentioned that last step...when the money doesn't exist to buy the coupons and the extra $6,000 he would charge for medicare is just not there...then what happens to our elderly?
So,what's behind all the above blather?Rich people wanting to get richer and not caring about the "truly needy"?
Why can't people just save their money,even though wages have steadily gone down since l972?
We don't need government interference with our social security and medicare.
I can't quite understand where the local good neighbors and churches are going to get the money necessary to pay for ten days in intensive care.
Social security and medicare have covered hundreds of thousands since they were instituted.The financing has to be jiggled to keep them solvent after the twenties and thirties of this century.
0ur tax system is enforced by our laws,but not one well to do person has had to choose between filet mignon,cheateau briand and hamburgers in our recent history. If taxation is considered confiscatory...no one has mentioned it recently.
Somebody wants to "return to the private sector" where the caregiver and care receiver had mutual respect an love.Funny, after medicare the extreme poverty level among the elderly dipped noticeably....was that "government interference"?
The uninsured right now die earlier because despite no government interference and there exists no mutual respect and love from non existent caregivers.
Ron Paul and Paul Ryan haven't mentioned that last step...when the money doesn't exist to buy the coupons and the extra $6,000 he would charge for medicare is just not there...then what happens to our elderly?
So,what's behind all the above blather?Rich people wanting to get richer and not caring about the "truly needy"?
7.26.2012 | 1:17am
Gian says:
TradCathPhilProf,
"he defines the just transaction by material equality before and after."
Surely it means that the just transaction benefits both parties equally;
and not that Aristotle viewed transactions as necessarily zero-sum. The zero-sum means gains for one balanced by loss for the other.
"he defines the just transaction by material equality before and after."
Surely it means that the just transaction benefits both parties equally;
and not that Aristotle viewed transactions as necessarily zero-sum. The zero-sum means gains for one balanced by loss for the other.
7.26.2012 | 1:40am
Gian says:
Market transactions are not exempt from the Commandment to Love Thy Neighbor, in this case the party you are transacting with.
Where the will to love is missing, the acts, even promoting economic efficiency, would vitiate against the common good, broadly considered.
For example, the so-called price-gouging in the face of scarcity, while promoting economic efficiency in the use of scarce resource, leads to resentment and decay of bonds of solidarity if the intent of the actor is to private profit and not the common good of promoting the best use of resource.
That is, the intent of the actor matters, and this is exactly what the market liberals do not wish to hear.
An act must aim at common good to be commendable. Thus is our quarrel with Adam Smith and his heirs who hold that a man must looks at his self-interest and the common good shall follow,
In fact self-interest, if adequately enlightened is just common good. But the economists do not consider even self-interest now
but merely satisfaction of desires. This is so since self-interest is a rational thing, obtained by rational thought while the
desires require no reason.
Where the will to love is missing, the acts, even promoting economic efficiency, would vitiate against the common good, broadly considered.
For example, the so-called price-gouging in the face of scarcity, while promoting economic efficiency in the use of scarce resource, leads to resentment and decay of bonds of solidarity if the intent of the actor is to private profit and not the common good of promoting the best use of resource.
That is, the intent of the actor matters, and this is exactly what the market liberals do not wish to hear.
An act must aim at common good to be commendable. Thus is our quarrel with Adam Smith and his heirs who hold that a man must looks at his self-interest and the common good shall follow,
In fact self-interest, if adequately enlightened is just common good. But the economists do not consider even self-interest now
but merely satisfaction of desires. This is so since self-interest is a rational thing, obtained by rational thought while the
desires require no reason.
7.26.2012 | 5:03am
Tara says:
In the words of Stephen Colbert "If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've just got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit, we just don't want to do it!"...
7.26.2012 | 9:21am
Christie says:
If I were the Devil, I would try to build a world where people cry out to Government, rather than God, to solve their problems. I would create separation between people by inserting bureaucrats in the middle --that way I would keep the needy from feeling truly cared about by God and other people. I would continue to grow government so that it became God. That is how I would hurt God most.
7.26.2012 | 10:55am
Pelon Espinosa says:
Mr. Weigel you are totally wrong. I definitely do not agree with you. In my part of the world there are many without water. They do not have water because some rich developers took advantage of the poor. There were no laws at the time but these developers did promise water to the people. These developers never provided water. Through the intervention of the Catholic Church legislation was changed so that unscrupulous developers would stop taking advantage of the poor and any new development would require water hook-ups. If the Church were not involved and is still involved these poor would still be struggling without water. Without Water. Water is so basic. Justice is changing attitude and making the government work for the poor not only for the rich that you so well defend. As Pope Benedict has stated very clearly "Charity without justice is not Charity". I live with the passage from the Gospel of Matthew 25 " For I had thirst and you gave me to drink....whatever you do or do not do for the least of my brothers and sisters you did this to me." I would truly hope that you would live with the homeless, undocumented immigrant, poor single parent, the citizens without running water in their homes to understand what it means to do justice through the faith given to us by Christ himself. What happened to being pro-life, from the wound to the tomb as Blessed John Paul ll would say. May God forgive you and the Bishops who would rather turn a blind eye to the poor. Because my +father was part of a union which the Catholic Church rightly defended my mother a widow still has some income/pension to survive.
7.26.2012 | 1:09pm
Jeff says:
When I was 13, I received my 1st payroll check. I noted that the federal government took some of my money that I had earned. One of my co-workers was only working part-time. She was in her 20's. When I asked her why she wasn't working full time, she told me that she would make too much money and loose her welfare check. Later, I came to realize that the money taken from me was given to her. How do you define theft?
7.26.2012 | 2:29pm
Jason says:
The welfare state doesn't take care of the poor. It enslaves them in poverty and seduces even more people into that status. The percentage of Americans in poverty today is greater than it has ever been since the "great society" nonsense began.
The welfare state also sucks the dignity right out of a people, as Mr. Weigel (more eloquently) put forth.
What goes over the heads of the USCCB (and most liberals) is that confiscatory taxation for the purposes of wealth redistribution (vote buying) is not the same as Catholic charity.
Not only does it destroy the poor directly and the rest of us indirectly for the sake of the ruling class (see western Europe and the US), but it lulls many into inaction with regards to real Catholic charity for the poor.
What have you done for the poor lately? If all you have done is vote for democrats and blather about social justice in comboxes, you have done nothing. That is how the welfare state attacks you spiritually, not just the poor. Your sense of genuine Catholic charity atrophies because "government" is taking care of everybody.
The welfare state also sucks the dignity right out of a people, as Mr. Weigel (more eloquently) put forth.
What goes over the heads of the USCCB (and most liberals) is that confiscatory taxation for the purposes of wealth redistribution (vote buying) is not the same as Catholic charity.
Not only does it destroy the poor directly and the rest of us indirectly for the sake of the ruling class (see western Europe and the US), but it lulls many into inaction with regards to real Catholic charity for the poor.
What have you done for the poor lately? If all you have done is vote for democrats and blather about social justice in comboxes, you have done nothing. That is how the welfare state attacks you spiritually, not just the poor. Your sense of genuine Catholic charity atrophies because "government" is taking care of everybody.
7.26.2012 | 4:00pm
Michael F says:
When will "social justice" Catholics get it through their heads: forking over tax dollars to the government does not equal charity. You cannot say I pay taxes and that takes care of it. Catholic and Christian institutions were at the forefront of charity. It was not a government that started hospitals, alms for the poor, protection for the newborn and unborn. It was the Christian church.
Who is more efficient at serving the poor and the homeless? The Department of Agriculture with the food stamp (now cute credit cards) or the Salvation Army. Who is better and more efficient at educating students? Public schools or Catholic schools. A tithe is a tithe. Render unto Caesar what is Caesars. If Caesar takes more and crushes private charity in the bargain who will be there to do the real Christian work?
And for all the conservative bashers above, it has been proven that conservatives on hole have a higher propensity to charitable giving and donating time.
Lower taxes = more $ and time to give. That is true Christian charity.
Who is more efficient at serving the poor and the homeless? The Department of Agriculture with the food stamp (now cute credit cards) or the Salvation Army. Who is better and more efficient at educating students? Public schools or Catholic schools. A tithe is a tithe. Render unto Caesar what is Caesars. If Caesar takes more and crushes private charity in the bargain who will be there to do the real Christian work?
And for all the conservative bashers above, it has been proven that conservatives on hole have a higher propensity to charitable giving and donating time.
Lower taxes = more $ and time to give. That is true Christian charity.
7.27.2012 | 2:15am
Ruth says:
The government requires info. on tobacco products to reveal their danger. There are laws regarding drunk driving. Age limit for driving a car and for drinking...and on and on. Why not support abstinence until marriage and then fidelity.
The amount of money spent for single mothers, foster homes, medical care of the dozens of sexually transmitted diseases, etc. is a large part of welfare spending. Our tax money!
Instead, schools, etc. are promoting "safe sex" (there is no such thing). Pornography encourages promiscuity, leading to pregnancy, disease, violence against women and children .......
Certainly, assistance should be there for those who truly need help, however, to ignore behavior without concern for the consequence contributes to the problem.
The amount of money spent for single mothers, foster homes, medical care of the dozens of sexually transmitted diseases, etc. is a large part of welfare spending. Our tax money!
Instead, schools, etc. are promoting "safe sex" (there is no such thing). Pornography encourages promiscuity, leading to pregnancy, disease, violence against women and children .......
Certainly, assistance should be there for those who truly need help, however, to ignore behavior without concern for the consequence contributes to the problem.
7.27.2012 | 2:57pm
Torch of Liberty says:
Charity as opposed to social justice has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth, but it can be an investment in the creation of wealth. The greatest gift that we can give to the poor is the ablility to be self reliant for themselves and their families. It's the old Asian prover about fishing for me and you feed me for today, teach me to fish and you feed me for life.
This has always been a tenant of the church but while government says that it is it's goal, it usually falls short for reasons too numerous to list here. One place to begin is in the schools that fail the poor.
This has always been a tenant of the church but while government says that it is it's goal, it usually falls short for reasons too numerous to list here. One place to begin is in the schools that fail the poor.
7.30.2012 | 5:06am
Micha Elyi says:
"St. Thomas Aquinas says that when a town is hungry, excess grain stored up by one of the wealthy in the town may be taken by the citizens WITHOUT committing theft."-James Layne (12:20pm)
I'd like to see you show exactly where Aquinas says this. I strongly suspect that what you translate as "hungry" is closer to "starving" - even closer, "suffering famine" in the original. The ethics of emergencies allows actions in extreme circumstances that would not be otherwise moral without those circumstances. And how does one apply Aquinas's reasoning to a nation in which the #1 health problem of "the poor" is obesity?
I'm still waiting for the USCCB staffers (and Gian et alia) to show us the passage in the Gospels in which Jesus instructs "If you wish to be perfect, lobby Caesar to tax your neighbor to provide bread and circuses to the poor." It's not in my copy of the Bible. Anywhere.
Is taxation theft? Well, Jesus never said that tax collectors weren't sinners when challenged on that point - did he?
And where did Jesus instruct us to render the poor unto Caesar?
Bottom line: the "social justice" gospel isn't biblical and it isn't Christian. It's an attempt to substitute sham justice for the real thing just as "gay marriage" is an attempt to force us to pretend sham marriage is real marriage.
I'd like to see you show exactly where Aquinas says this. I strongly suspect that what you translate as "hungry" is closer to "starving" - even closer, "suffering famine" in the original. The ethics of emergencies allows actions in extreme circumstances that would not be otherwise moral without those circumstances. And how does one apply Aquinas's reasoning to a nation in which the #1 health problem of "the poor" is obesity?
I'm still waiting for the USCCB staffers (and Gian et alia) to show us the passage in the Gospels in which Jesus instructs "If you wish to be perfect, lobby Caesar to tax your neighbor to provide bread and circuses to the poor." It's not in my copy of the Bible. Anywhere.
Is taxation theft? Well, Jesus never said that tax collectors weren't sinners when challenged on that point - did he?
And where did Jesus instruct us to render the poor unto Caesar?
Bottom line: the "social justice" gospel isn't biblical and it isn't Christian. It's an attempt to substitute sham justice for the real thing just as "gay marriage" is an attempt to force us to pretend sham marriage is real marriage.
8.1.2012 | 11:21am
gghd says:
It appears as though a number of comments want to put on the "glove of the government" & put their hand into another person's wallet.
I didn't learn that was 'Christian' in Church.
I didn't learn that was 'Christian' in Church.
8.4.2012 | 5:20pm
stilbelieve says:
The fruit of the USCCB is best evidenced by the election of the first pro-abortion, pro-infanticide President ever, 52,000,000 murdered human babies and counting, and now an unaffordable healthcare system forced on us strictly by the Democrat Party that will begin murdering the seniors by restricting medical care, especially to those of the wrong political party. And heaven help those poor people with sever disabilities regardless of age. That's social justice administered by the Democrat Party, which is the party the bishops saved when they equated social justice with pro-life in 1984 to “keep the pro-life movement from falling completely under the control of the right wing conservatives who were becoming its dominant sponsors.” (Cardinal Bernardin – Easing Conflicts, And Battling for the soul of American Catholicism, a biography by Eugene Kennedy 1989)
I welcome the bishops learning their lesson, but I doubt there are enough of them to stop what they have brought about. Just read the comments of the "true believers" here who are still so committed to this false doctrine - that Jesus came to get people to get governments to care for the poor.
I welcome the bishops learning their lesson, but I doubt there are enough of them to stop what they have brought about. Just read the comments of the "true believers" here who are still so committed to this false doctrine - that Jesus came to get people to get governments to care for the poor.
8.5.2012 | 11:27am
Chey says:
I doubt that many of Wegel's critics have any first-hand experience with the welfare system. As one who made it out of it, I would love to open their eyes. It is even worse now than when I was struggling with it. And I didn't get far out of it - I still live in a lower-middle-class neighborhood, but I do OWN the house, I do work to feed my family and pay the bills. I don't make a lot, but I am free. The current system fosters dependency on a huge scale - I remember how afraid I was to become free of it even having weaned myself slowly. So what motivated me do this? 1) I became a Christian, and 2) I was uncomfortable enough to want better. Because as a Christian I could not lie about my resources, I couldn't take money under the table, much less participate in illegal means of nonreportable income. I don't advocate wiping out all assistance but what's wrong with verifying need and limiting what the assistance actually does? What's wrong with some minimal educational or employment requirements? (Don't tell me those requirements exist, they're a joke as they stand now.) Some are grateful for the help we got, but many (most, from my experience) are not only NOT grateful, they are resentful they don't get more.
I could write volumes about the ethics of forcing people who aren’t even believers to adhere to Christ’s precepts about the poor - taxation is NOT charity – and how giving a person a hand up is different from giving that person handouts to stay where s/he is. But I fear my experience counts for nothing to those I think need to hear it.
I could write volumes about the ethics of forcing people who aren’t even believers to adhere to Christ’s precepts about the poor - taxation is NOT charity – and how giving a person a hand up is different from giving that person handouts to stay where s/he is. But I fear my experience counts for nothing to those I think need to hear it.
2446 St. John Chrysostom vigorously recalls this: “Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours, but theirs.” “The demands of justice must be satisfied first of all; that which is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity”
-------
The State exists to pursue Justice and the superfluities of
the rich belong to poor as a matter of justice. Now it is a matter of prudence to define
1) Who the poor are
2) What are the superfluities of the rich.
3) How best to fulfill CCC 2406.
But it would not do to dismiss welfare as unjust and akin to theft as many conservatives do.