Posted on 01/04/2009 4:56:07 AM PST by impimp1
In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called "Welfare State". This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State". Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.100
By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending...
(Excerpt) Read more at vatican.va ...
The Welfare State Rejects the Pope.
JPII restated it: free market with private property rights and a system to root out corruption.
The social justice crowd having been reading the encyclicals at all.
I need more caffiene.
We do get it! We know the state is run by people who could care less about the poor ,the poor are only good to them for them gaining power through the poor vote.
The truth is they enslave them ,keep them down,give small amounts of bread in the form of welfare etc..
Meanwhile they protect abortion ,pornography etc... And call it freedom.
That's not freedom,it's enslavement to sin!
From the encyclical..
“But freedom attains its full development only by accepting the truth. In a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation and man is exposed to the violence of passion and to manipulation, both open and hidden. The Christian upholds freedom and serves it, constantly offering to others the truth which he has known (cf. Jn 8:31-32), in accordance with the missionary nature of his vocation. While paying heed to every fragment of truth which he encounters in the life experience and in the culture of individuals and of nations, he will not fail to affirm in dialogue with others all that his faith and the correct use of reason have enabled him to understand”
And....
“Even in countries with democratic forms of government, these rights are not always fully respected. Here we are referring not only to the scandal of abortion, but also to different aspects of a crisis within democracies themselves, which seem at times to have lost the ability to make decisions aimed at the common good. Certain demands which arise within society are sometimes not examined in accordance with criteria of justice and morality, but rather on the basis of the electoral or financial power of the groups promoting them. With time, such distortions of political conduct create distrust and apathy, with a subsequent decline in the political participation and civic spirit of the general population, which feels abused and disillusioned. As a result, there is a growing inability to situate particular interests within the framework of a coherent vision of the common good. The latter is not simply the sum total of particular interests; rather it involves an assessment and integration of those interests on the basis of a balanced hierarchy of values; ultimately, it demands a correct understanding of the dignity and the rights of the person.98”
ping
If we Catholics get it, then why do we tend to prefer Democrats? I think many Catholics look at it as a balance between abortion (vote R) and social justice (vote D), not realizing that the Republicans are right on BOTH according to official Catholic doctrine (the encyclical we are discussing).
You would than realize that a Catholic does not promote a party,only truth and Church teaching
I wish you a Blessed day!
Many Catholics do not know what Catholic teaching is. I think many would follow it if they did.
Catholics can and must and should promote political parties. I have no idea what you are talking about Catholics not supporting parties. Catholics are morally obliged to vote with a Catholic conscience. It is a perverse form of moral relativism to say that Republicans do not more closely follow Catholic teaching than Democrats.
You're correct,I'm glad to see you write this.
This is why educated Catholics have to correct those who error within the Church and not be afraid to do it.
IMP-””Catholics are morally obliged to vote with a Catholic conscience.””
Of course we do,I have not said we don't vote,but we still do not promote a political party,we promote catholic teaching. If certain politicians are in line with that teaching we vote in hope they will promote it.
Truth is-neither political parties are in line with Church teaching even though conservatives are closer.
Here is one of my favorite encyclicals (you might enjoy) from Pope Leo XIII
LIBERTAS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html
Excerpt;
13. Moreover, the highest duty is to respect authority, and obediently to submit to just law; and by this the members of a community are effectually protected from the wrong-doing of evil men. Lawful power is from God, “and whosoever resisteth authority resisteth the ordinance of God’ ;(6) wherefore, obedience is greatly ennobled when subjected to an authority which is the most just and supreme of all. But where the power to command is wanting, or where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest, while obeying man, we become disobedient to God. Thus, an effectual barrier being opposed to tyranny, the authority in the State will not have all its own way, but the interests and rights of all will be safeguarded - the rights of individuals, of domestic society, and of all the members of the commonwealth; all being free to live according to law and right reason; and in this, as We have shown, true liberty really consists.
14. If when men discuss the question of liberty they were careful to grasp its true and legitimate meaning, such as reason and reasoning have just explained, they would never venture to affix such a calumny on the Church as to assert that she is the foe of individual and public liberty. But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, “I will not serve”; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves liberals.
15. What naturalists or rationalists aim at in philosophy, that the supporters of liberalism, carrying out the principles laid down by naturalism, are attempting in the domain of morality and politics. The fundamental doctrine of rationalism is the supremacy of the human reason, which, refusing due submission to the divine and eternal reason, proclaims its own independence, and constitutes itself the supreme principle and source and judge of truth. Hence, these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license. The end of all this it is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man's individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. Hence the doctrine of the supremacy of the greater number, and that all right and all duty reside in the majority. But, from what has been said, it is clear that all this is in contradiction to reason. To refuse any bond of union between man and civil society, on the one hand, and God the Creator and consequently the supreme Law-giver, on the other, is plainly repugnant to the nature, not only of man, but of all created things; for, of necessity, all effects must in some proper way be connected with their cause; and it belongs to the perfection of every nature to contain itself within that sphere and grade which the order of nature has assigned to it, namely, that the lower should be subject and obedient to the higher.
Also,here is a very good site
http://distributist.blogspot.com/
Well met, Papa.
I think I know why the Pope’s writings on the welfare state in this encyclical are not in the CCC. The CCC draft versions began in 1986, but the encyclical was published in 1989. The next CCC will likely be updated with the content from the encyclicals published since 1989. Hopefully, Catholics will see the updates in the “social justice” section. Then they will know the evils of the welfare state.
I hope I am not wrong on this. It would be saddening to know that the CCC could have reflected these writings, but Centesimus Annus did not make the cut somehow.
What is your understanding of "Catholic teaching"? Please provide some source material. Thanks!
IMHcatholicO, I have always used the life issue to choose my candidates. When they are right on life, they tend to have more of their priorities straight, and tend to have a better understanding of the social justice issues than the other candidate. I have always been a registered independent(until this year when FL made me declare a party to vote in the primary) and I have been able to sleep at night using this method.
while it may seem simplistic to many, my overriding pov is if your dead, what difference do other issuse matter? And seeing as most candidates have sold out to the libtards on at least some of the issues, you have to pick a primary issue and fight them on the ones they are in error on.
1. CCC
2. Encyclicals since CCC
3. Catholic Encyclopedia, for items too specific/narrow to be addressed in 1 or 2
There, now you are all set.
Centesimus Annus reiterated Rerum novarum,Quadragesimo Anno,Mater et Magistra,Dignitatis Humanae ,etc..all of which are supported in the Catechism.
What is your point?
Centesimus Annus applies prior teaching to current political contexts. Without this guidance a more subjective application of those other encyclicals is made by Catholics about what actually is a proper political philosophy. Due to timing I think the CCC lacks the insights of Centesimus Annus and, as a result, is not as clear as Centesimus Annus when it comes to condemning the welfare state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.