Worried about the new document from Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace..

[ebia]

No soup kichens around here are called redistribution (nor would they want to be.) Charity (what we are called to do) is not the same as redistribution.

charity and state welfare are pretty much identical except one is an individual choice and one is a state (ie a collective choice, at least in a democracy). Insisting that they are chalk and cheese is turning modern western individualism into an idol.

Simplest way I can put it is that charity is done for and with and because of God, while [welfare] is a Godless system.

If that's a real distinction at all it's only because God has been driven down to an individualist level.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The pope wanting to create a world regulatory agency over monetary and financial issues is actually one of the things Pope B16 has done that I really like! I'm sure it drives Republicans crazy but then again the Catholic Church is not political and it is independent. It goes for morals irregardless of party agendas. It is pro-life and opposed to gay marriage, which bugs the Far Left to no end, and it is pro-immigrant, pro universal health care, pro financial regulation, and hates the gross corporate greed and indifference that Republicans often stand for. The fact that both far left and far right are angry at the pope is a sure sign he's doing his job!

 

[Enkil]

Gurney Halleck! How is Paul Muad'dib doing?

 

[Fantine]

charity and state welfare are pretty much identical except one is an individual choice and one is a state (ie a collective choice, at least in a democracy). Insisting that they are chalk and cheese is turning modern western individualism into an idol.

But individually, through our votes, through our letters to our elected representatives, through the advocacy we participate in on the grassroots level, to our local political activity, we determine what we want our priorities to be.

 

[AMDG]

Back from Mass.

Read up on the Jubilee in the Old Testament.

Jubilees is not in the canon of the Bible.

And there is no way any of the soup kitchens or food banks would *ever* call themselves "food redistribution centers". It would be an insult. An insult to the people who provide the food *for the love of God* and an insult to the people, who are God's children, not some cog in a Godless political machine.

 

[FullyMT]

Back from Mass.



Jubilees is not in the canon of the Bible.

And there is no way any of the soup kitchens or food banks would *ever* call themselves "food redistribution centers". It would be an insult. An insult to the people who provide the food *for the love of God* and an insult to the people, who are God's children, not some cog in a Godless political machine.

I think he meant the idea of the "Jubilee Year," in which loans are forgiven, debts cleared, and slaves made free; but I could be wrong.

 

[MKJ]

After the industrial revolution and the creation of the assembly line, few families were self-sufficient anymore.

They moved from farms to cities, and couldn't produce very much of their own fruit, vegetables, milk, cheese,and meat. They spent long hours outside the home, and didn't have the time to sew their own clothes, etc.

While I recognize that distributism might work in smaller agrarian societies, I don't think it's workable in the urban jungles most people all over the world live in.

And maybe that's why encyclicals written in the 19th century aren't that relevant to modern times--no matter how valid and enlightened they might have appeared 125 years earlier.

Distributism doesn't have to mean that everyone produced their own food on a farm, though we would expect to see family farms rather than corporate farms, and probably more people growing some of their own food.

We'd also see an emphasis on small business rather than corporations, and we'd probably also see cooperatives, which we know can work as a large business model. So one can work in a highly specialized industry that requires precision production and mass production while maintaining distributist principles.

I'm not sure why you feel that kind of business model can only work in the 19th century.

 

[Needing_Grace]

I think he meant the idea of the "Jubilee Year," in which loans are forgiven, debts cleared, and slaves made free; but I could be wrong.

That is exactly what I'm talking about. When I read that it's not in the canon, my jaw dropped. The Torah isn't in the Canon? Whaaaaaaa!?

 

[MKJ]

I guess that's why the Popes have spoken out against the redistribution part of socialism--it's not a reliance on God and it's not an active part of charity (caring for one's neighbor). It's just another power over man. "Look *I'm* handing you some cheese (so you don't have to work for food--never mind that I've taken this other guys ability to be charitable toward you, as God wants) and now you can do a "favor" for me <wink-wink>" This keeping folks dependent on *man* is known in some places as
plantation politics".

Are you serious? The social encyclicals specifically say that government redistribution of wealth may be required to achieve justice, and that systems that result in unjust distribution must be reformed.

 

[Needing_Grace]

charity and state welfare are pretty much identical except one is an individual choice and one is a state (ie a collective choice, at least in a democracy). Insisting that they are chalk and cheese is turning modern western individualism into an idol.

If that's a real distinction at all it's only because God has been driven down to an individualist level.

You know...I never thought of it that way before, but it makes perfect sense. The scriptures NO WHERE says that only charity on an individual basis counts. I don't think that it can be found in Apostolic Tradition, either.

While it IS true to that individual charity IS meritorious because individual good deeds, performed in Christ, are meritorious, it seems that God has compassion for the poor on more than just an individual level. Read through the Prophets and listen to Jesus. The Prophets spoke to the NATION of Israel and condemned them for their treatment of the poor, widow and fatherless. What would the Prophets say about America today when people belonging to "God's Own Party" cheer the death of a hypothetical man in a coma or the desire to create orphans through deportation, or the creation of widows and more fatherless through wars of choice? What would they say, I wonder.

In the Torah, God commanded that the poor be considered and that charity be left for them. Not suggests as a way to gain merit, He COMMANDS it. They were to not harvest the corners of their fields or pick up the gleanings but to leave them for the poor AND the stranger. I don't know how much would be left, but I imagine that you couldn't support a large population of poor people, which also indicates that God wanted a more even distribution of what we call wealth among the ancient Israelites. Actually, throw in the command of the Jubilee Year every 50 years where land is redistributed back to its original owners, debts are forgiven and slaves freed and we see that God wants society to do an occasional "reset" to ensure that everyone has what they need.

 

[MKJ]

American Poverty levels pre-great depression were so low that people were declaring that in the near future it would be eliminated.

At that time you had a nation with many farms and growing capitalism but one that still believed in God and greed on a corporate level had not taken root to the level it does today. The national government was limited, but had the flaw of not understanding yet the dangers of no regulation of stocks and related banking practices.

All welfare was private and church based.

So as far as modern goes...experts will agree in everything I have seen that late 1800's to 1920's America had poverty rates lower than the statistics kept since 1959. The lowest in the kept statistics is around 1970-4 which was around 11%

Here is the kicker on that. Arguably the rate per-depression post Gilded Age was lower than 11% and that was achieved by no public welfare. But 11% and that is still good was achieved by public welfare (Kennedy and Johnson) and regulation of banks. So both can work when done intelligently. The variable here that causes the problem is corporate or governmental greed.

Going further back there are monarchies that have achieved low poverty by compassionate rule and encouraging private giving combined with state generosity.

So it is a combination, but those with money (at all levels of having) must have two things..the freedom from the state to have the means to give and a morality that encourages it.

So a strong middle class with upper, middle and lower middle class levels that does not suffer from being labeled rich, incentives for those actually rich to move the wheels of job creation and a reasonable government welfare will help. But corporate greed must be controlled by moral legislation and a national moral center where the person has value.

And that is the key. Neither monopoly capitalism or large socialism value the person. But a reasonable capitalism with common sense government involvement in welfare and regulation where people have vast possession of the means of wealth in both food and goods production where workers have investment in the success of the product in proportional levels to their work done....is an effective model.

This had happened at times in transitory stages. But the success produced has caused corporate and government greed and interference to soar and destroy it.

Most notably in per-depression America and historically kind monarchies but those were followed by the wall street greed of the 20's and heirs to thrones who felt entitled to excess.

So there are modern examples.

It is a wonderfully rich discussion where common ground can be found if all come from the place of the person has dignity.

The pre-depression era might qualify, but it was very short - I would hesitate to say that it was a robust example. Monarchies is government, so I'm not sure how you are thinking that indicates private charity?

It seems like you are suggesting that capitalism in essence is private business, but I disagree. There has been private business long before there was capitalism. What is characteristic of capitalism is not private business. It is the structural commodification of labour and land, and a market where speculation can lead to financial gain - that is, we can make our money grow without doing real work - usury. As opposed to systems where neither land nor labour were able to be treated as commodities or resources in this way, because social structures made it impossible.

Yep when Capitalism becomes too few capitalists. Like Chesterton said:
"Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists."

But it is not at the heart of capitalism, it is the temptation of greed unfettered...which is not an economic issue but one that has profound economic effect.

It happens in Capitalist, Socialist, Communist, Monarchies...all sorts. There has been crushing poverty and huge successes in both. And the key is human dignity and a moral center for the people involved.

We've lost those last too in many places today.

But yes a fully formed Capitalist system gives way to monopoly capitalism and greed where the worker becomes a commodity. It is the flaw in the system. The ghost of the serpent in the machinery.

To my mind, we can't just try to insert moral values into an economic system that doesn't institutionalize those values somehow. It is like the problem of a corporation, which legally exists to embody greed. Taken to its logical conclusion, it shows us what greed really means. Some people suggest that moral individuals working in the corporation or as shareholders can prevent this problem - that is the usual claim or hope of capitalism. But I think what we see in practice is that the individuals cannot easily affect the institution in that way. And you could say the same thing about the banking system or the market.

Somehow, the moral positions, say of human beings and land being something more than resources, and value being more than GDP, have to be placed within the institutional structures.

 

[Davidnic]

I am not thinking monarchies as a private charity. Using it to illustrate that multiple systems can work as long as they value the individual, which some monarchs did when allowing people to be more vested in the means of production and letting them have the money to give privately while the monarchy took care of extreme needs.

I am suggesting that capitalism thrives when it respects private business but fails when it becomes a monopoly or corporate monster that actually destroys it. Capitalism works best in small doses respecting the individual business but fails when it becomes basically a religion like it is now for people in many ways.

I agree if dignity is not at the core of the institution it can not be an expression of that institution. The key, for me, is that capitalism works when the values of the capitalists within it, are formed by the common good and human dignity.

 

[AMDG]

While it IS true to that individual charity IS meritorious because individual good deeds, performed in Christ, are meritorious, it seems that God has compassion for the poor on more than just an individual level.

One of the problems with that is that when one persons' earned money is given to another for the purpose of that person giving it to still another (of his choice, not yours)--there's no guarantee that it will actually be given to charity. It could very well (and too often is) given to the person's friends (Cronyism) so the person can rake in even more power over the very people than need charity *not someone to lord it over them*. (An example: the people in Haiti were really suffering after the earthquake. There were lots of aid programs. Hollywood stars did lots. It all had a good intention. It was to *help* the poor suffering folks. We all "opened our pocketbooks." Just this year we found out that most of the aid *never reached the people for whom it was intended*. Some claim that it was taken up by "middlemen" and "office personnel". Some of the Hollywood people that had "spearheaded" the relief programs simple don't know where all the millions went. Bet some went to the "friends" of those who raised the aid. Or how about after the World Trade atrocity. All were in shock. There were people on every street corner in every city across the U.S. collecting money. Even the Red Cross was involved. Come to find out the Red Cross explained to the news that the money it collected *for the World Trade atrocity* wasn't really needed there, so they decided to use it for something else. Is that what the people gave the money for?)

Another problem is the fact that people in the local area know exactly what is needed, while people (maybe thousands of miles away) really have no idea. And so the intended charity is wasted (or else goes to the wrong people--people who don't need charity. And if the "Paul" who has been paid by the earnings taken from "Peter" is getting charity that he really doesn't need, do you think he's going to complain about the mistake--or even be thankful? It is more likely that he's going to deride Peter for his "stupidity" and want more as if it wasn't charity at all, just his due.

Then there's the very real idea of "plantation politics" That is keeping the person dependent so that there is a guaranteed vote. Now that hardly sounds like a loving thing to do to a person--it actually harms him.

Personal charity is meritorious because it, and it alone, guarantees that the charity will not inadvertantly harm the person, it will be exactly what's needed--not too much--it is "tailor made", it doesn't accidently go to someone who clearly doesn't need it, plus it gives the person receiving the charity a chance to voice his gratitude. (Remember that story Jesus told about the 10 lepers that were healed and yet only one return to give thanks?) Personal Charity is what God intended in the Commandment to love one's neighbor *for the love of God*. It's focus is God--not man. That's probably why the Church's key social principle is Subsidiarity.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I am curious - how far back are you looking? I can't think of a modern or even medieval society where private charity alleviated poverty adequately.

Hand outs [cash, housing, food stamps etc] cause poverty and makes a society slothful.

Charity for the truly needy is one thing and usually from the Christians the help is adequate.
Usurping working society to pay in group effort causes many to play the system.

The easiest way to do/have/want it is what our modern society has become.
We will eventually run out of other peoples money.

 

[Davidnic]

Welfare, food stamps and such are not a problem in and of themselves. It is the inefficient system of dispersal and the eventual greed that effects the government level too.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Welfare, food stamps and such are not a problem in and of themselves. It is the inefficient system of dispersal and the eventual greed that effects the government level too.

Gov uses those on welfare.
Welfare recipients use the system.

The actual need is most likely a lot less.

 

[AMDG]

Perhaps reading about this article of a past president of ours will help understanding:

Veto of the Texas Seed Bill - Grover Cleveland - Mises Daily

Turned out that private charity was *far and away* better for all concerned.

Or perhaps this quote by him is telling:
"The Government is not an almoner of gifts among the people, but an instrumentality by which the people's affairs should be conducted upon business principles, regulated by the public needs."

(An "almoner" is a church officer in charge of distributing the congregation's tithes to the needy.)

taxes are not tithes--tithes are defined as a tenth part of one's annual income, either in substance or money, contributed *voluntarily* for charitable purposes or for the support of the clergy or church.

 

[Davidnic]

Gov uses those on welfare.
Welfare recipients use the system.

The actual need is most likely a lot less.

There are people who use it who really need it. There are people who need it and can not get it because it is given to those who abuse it. And there are people who abuse it.

It is not cut and dry and any generalization is inaccurate. The system needs reform but it is better than it was 20 years ago. Still needs work and abusers need to be caught. But there is legitimate need not met by private charity because private charity can not keep up with the poverty reality. So a combination of private charity and efficient government distribution and use of existing taxes is needed.

Much like healthcare, first costs of things need to be addressed not just absorbed by an inefficient system. And many factors, including corporate greed has a bearing on costs.

 

[AMDG]

Err--welfare may be the governments' across the pond business, but it's not our federal government's business according to the Constitution. Welfare is charity and charity belongs to the churches. Our government has only about 17 specific things it's supposed to do, and welfare ain't one of them. Welfare belongs to the private citizens, to churches, and to the state governments.

 

[S.ilvio]

Medicaid is a welfare payment funded centrally by income tax. Is it paid at a State or federal level..?