What the Church teaches about (big) government

The Catholic Church endorses no specific political or economic system -- thus bishops and Catholic thinkers are drawing on Catholic social teaching to support sometimes conflicting solutions to find affordable health care for Americans without health insurance, who number 46.3 million according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
There's little debate in the Church that some sort of health care reform is necessary. Catholic social teaching, from papal encyclicals to U.S. bishops' conference pronouncements, increasingly in recent decades has described health care as a "right," and the U.S. bishops' conference has pressured Congress to take action on improving health care access.

The most notable Catholic opposition, starting with the bishops' conference, to current draft reform bills has been over the bills' failure to exclude federal funding for abortion.

Ping for later.

Show me just one Catholic bishop who will speak up against coveting your neighbors’ goods. That is why Catholics ignored the Bishops on abortion. They know abortion is wrong but overlooked the Dems on that point because those same politicians pandered to their covetousness. Same for protestants and evangelical pastors, leaders and activists. American politics and government at all levels is driven by government-mediated coveting. Until the Church takes a stand against this we can expect to sink deeper and deeper into socialism and, oh yeah, abortion.
FReeper all the best, November 5, 2008.

A hundred years ago the nuns at St. Mary’s hospital in Duluth went out and sold health insurance to miners and loggers for a dollar a year. That was a fresh and innovative idea at the time. They actually did something and helped solve problems. Who know what other wonderful ideas would have emerged if government-sclerosis hadn’t set in and stifled ALL innovation.

Nice article. Pity more of the bishops aren’t in line with authentic social doctrine...including subsidiarity.

Thou shalt not covet. Thou shalt not steal.

Most Catholics do not know these are commands--not suggestions. This is why Obama got 54% of the Catholic vote.

This is a nice idea but who funded the hospital? If it was funded solely by donations, this is a great idea but if everyone else was forced to pay far higher rates, then this was just another form of stealing.

This was a hundred years ago. They probably didn’t lose money on that plan. I wasn’t advocating what they did then for now. I was pointing out the free people will come up with innovative solutions to their problems that the expert central planners could never dream of.

I am in full agreement. I know of an older doctor that maintains an office. I think maybe he does not do hospital patients but he’ll do in-office surgeries, etc. He does not charge anything—it’s pay whatever you want. He doesn’t take insurance.

"I was pointing out the free people will come up with innovative solutions to their problems that the expert central planners could never dream of."

Yeah, like this fine gentleman:

Clinics use innovative model to treat uninsured people - Patients act as benefactors ...

You know, that term “subsidiarity” is appearing with increasing frequency in articles or comments made by Catholics with conservative political leanings, often attributing to the concept a meaning which is rather at odds with the teachings of the Popes, for example, Quadragesimo Anno which finally framed the proper context within which the term should be used, which is a sort of soft socialism. Its worth reading if one wants to understand the “authentic social doctrine” of The Church:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno_en.html

Our government has become one big attempt to usurp God and His Church. They say turn to us and we will meet all your needs and solve all your problems. Give us the power and we will create heaven on earth. That is very much at the heart of what has been going on. It is a futile assault on the Almighty. All it does is pull people away from looking to God.

Charity? Perhaps the doctors who worked with these sisters donated their time for this hospital (or did it for vastly reduced rates).

As I recall, the “insurance” scheme used by the Knights of Columbus, when originally founded, was that if a brother died, each brother in the council would pony up a dollar or two to support the widow and children. Plus take care of them afterwards (help around the house, help with purchases, etc). In the mid 19th Century, 100-200 bucks could really make a difference...

Now the Knights run one of the biggest insurance companies in the country. The benefits payout is a lot larger...but I wonder what it would be if they still did what they did in the beginning.

Maybe if we Christians had been more charitable we wouldn’t be plagued by this nanny state today. It is a curse we’ve brought down on our own heads.

Maybe if we Christians had been more charitable we wouldn’t be plagued by this nanny state today.

I, frankly, think we bought the bill of goods that was sold to us: that we could hire somebody else to care of our personal responsibility to care for our brother. And in doing so, we (as a whole) bought into the envy that the "gubmit" could force proper behavior on those evil rich (who shouldn't have that kind of money, anyway /s)

But the truth is that you can't force honor upon the dishonorable. If you try, they will figure out a way to cheat.

But I think the norm was that most of us were charitable then (more charitable than now).

You know, that term “subsidiarity” is appearing with increasing frequency in articles or comments made by Catholics with conservative political leanings, often attributing to the concept a meaning which is rather at odds with the teachings of the Popes, for example, Quadragesimo Anno which finally framed the proper context within which the term should be used, which is a sort of soft socialism. Its worth reading if one wants to understand the “authentic social doctrine” of The Church:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno_en.html

Caritas in veritate ping

So is the Pope above criticism? Is he infallible?
The short answer is "he's almost never infallible."
The longer answer is "he's only infallible when speaking ex cathedra and when speaking of doctrine specifically [government, politics and economics don't qualify as doctrine]. Only the Magisterium, when viewed as a whole over time, is held to be 100% infallible."
The detailed answer is that 99.9% of all papal statements aren't made ex cathedra. The possibility (and opportunity) always exists that the Pope will speak in error doctrinally, if he's not speaking ex cathedra - and there have only been a handful of ex cathedra statements made in the entire history of the Catholic Church (remembering that infallible teachings must by definition be on dogma and doctrine). Thus, the possibility that any pope will speak in error regarding political and economic issues is [statistically speaking] a rock solid 100%, according to the doctrine of papal infallibility. There's no reason to say that Pope Benedict XVI can't be advocating socialism, and I think the recent is pretty clear that even if he's not outright promoting it, he's certainly in support of it. I'm afraid that all too many Catholics push their admiration of the Pope into idol worship, believing that the Pope speaks impeccably in all matters. As one FReeper explained it to me years ago, "papal impeccability is not a Catholic dogma."
But in the end, the final answer to the question of "So is the Pope above criticism? Is he infallible?" is "Shut up and kiss the ring." No one is permitted to question the Vicar of Christ's guidance. If he says that
- food and the access to water are a universal right of all humans,
- abandoning mechanisms of wealth redistribution will hinder the achievement of lasting development
- technologically advanced societies can and must lower their domestic energy consumption
- labor unions should expand their influence over those outside their membership, and beyond national boundaries,
- a reform of the United Nations Organization is necessary, likewise a reform of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the "family of nations" can acquire real teeth.
as he did in his recent encyclical Caritas in veritate, you'll be expected to step aside and let the centralists and socialists take over. Your eternal salvation is in jeopardy if you don't go along with whatever he says, whenever he says it.

I call it outsourcing our Christian duty.

hire somebody else to care of our personal responsibility to care for our brother.

“Our government has become one big attempt to usurp God and His Church. They say turn to us and we will meet all your needs and solve all your problems. Give us the power and we will create heaven on earth. That is very much at the heart of what has been going on. It is a futile assault on the Almighty. All it does is pull people away from looking to God.””

Marxian Opiates Redefined
Marx - the icon of choice when deceiving people into abandoning true freedom for addictive slavery.

Socialism, whether you call it communism, liberalism or whatever, is the opiate dependent ideology.

Alcoholism was a major health and social problem in the Soviet Union and remains a problem in the Russian Federation. Efforts by the communist government to combat alcoholism were largely unsuccessful. Alcoholism had a serious impact on the Soviet economy that could not be overlooked. But communism had a serious impact on the human spirit, and that was deliberately overlooked.

While socialist countries recognize the damaging effects of alcoholism, they do much to suppress its use and nothing to address the cause. Hereditary factors influencing alcohol abuse are insufficient to explain the widespread abuse, and when alcohol becomes difficult to obtain because of state regulations, other escapist drugs take its place. Socialists simply refuse to accept that the societies they have created drive people to flight, even if by drug induced fantasy.

I’m not suggesting capitalist societies are free of drug abuse. Escaping the realities of life by artificial means will always have a public following. There is however a stark difference between capitalist and socialist reality and what the individual can do to change that reality or choose to escape. Despite the hallucinatory ranting of liberals about the “evils of capitalism” and oppression, we have considerably more choices than those living in the truly oppressed “socialist paradises” of Cuba, China, Zimbabwe or Vietnam. Escapism remains a choice under capitalism, but one less likely to be exercised where liberty and morality reside.

My “capitalist masters” are not dictating where I work, where I live, what school I attend, what I eat, what healthcare I obtain, what news programs I watch or what beliefs I hold. In every case, I am the deciding and limiting factor. Socialist masters would make all those choices for me. Instead of choosing what I think is best for me I would be expected to accept their decisions because they allegedly know what is best for society. It is slavery and cannot overwhelm the human desire for liberty, hence escape by whatever means possible becomes the alternative liberty.

American liberals haven’t quite convinced the American public to abandon the capitalist system for rule by an oligarchy of socialist elites. To advance their cause, liberals employ opiates. The attack on capitalism using opiates to diminish free will and abandon moral responsibility.

Capitalism without morality is no better than socialism. Liberal attacks on religion serve two purposes. The first is to bring about amoral capitalism that will be rejected and self-destruct, as it should. The second purpose is to remove any obstacle to the absolutist rule of the socialist elite by eliminating the idea that a higher moral authority might exist. The elite will determine what is right or wrong, good or bad and we will obediently follow since there is no higher moral authority.

The welfare state is an opiate. The recipients receive their fixes in exchange for political support. It may not be paradise, but it sure beats working, saving and having to struggle for a living, at least for those whose greatest aspiration is to not miss their favorite television talk-show host or win the lottery.

The most powerful opiate on the liberal menu is sex. It is highly addictive and produces exactly the stupor needed to sedate the public. It costs nothing, is readily available, and to a large extent can be made consequent free. Sex sells and that message has never been lost on liberal politicians. Under the guise of “sexual freedom”, “reproductive rights” and the “right to privacy”, the gullible are buying it wholesale.

The destruction of the family is of little concern to socialists. The states opportunity to shape young minds is enhanced by dysfunctional families. The socialist elite are addicted to control and families are just a nuisance competing for obedience. Loyalty to the socialist state must be paramount and not impeded by a misguided sense of family.

Drugs, sex, a welfare check and other government “gifts” are a means to an end. Why bow to a God that would deprive you of these carnal pleasures and a life of ease when you can elect a politician that guarantees them? Why struggle with concepts of right and wrong when the government can do that for you? Why burden yourself with responsibilities the government will gladly assume? Why not just swallow the liberal opiates and accept life in a stupor? -RoyMasters

AM, the danger is not in a misunderstanding of the social doctrine of The Church or even in a “”Shut up and kiss the ring.” midset; the danger is in measuring the theological orthodoxy of Church doctrine (social or otherwise), or indeed the orthodoxy of the teachings of a pope, by one’s own political philosophy, especially political philosophies born in the West more of the Reformation and the Enlightenment than the Scholasticism of the Latin Church or the Eastern Christian Patristic concept of a Christian Oecumene presided over by a God Ordained Emperor. Sadly this has become common in the West and not only among the Latins.

The Church, AM, whether in the East or the West, is not wedded to any particular political philosophy. Engaging in mental gymnastics in an attempt to shoehorn Christian theology into modern Western political systems is precisely the sort of nonsense which lead the Episcopalians to conclude that God loves sodomy and blesses abortion as a sort of sacrament.

BTW, AM, while Popes and hierqarchs can and certainly do err, even preach heresy ex cathedra and otherwise in the opinion of Orthodoxy (Roman Catholic belief to the contrary notwithstanding), The Church has never been overcome by those errors or heresies and never will be...but that’s got nothing to do with politics or political systems, at least not since 1453.