Catholic Social Teaching

[Iacobus]

[b][u]1. Dignity of the Human Person.[/u][/b]

Belief in the inherent dignity of the human person is the foundation of all Catholic social teaching. Human life is sacred, and the dignity of the human person is the starting point for a moral vision for society.

[b][u]2. Common Good and Community.[/u][/b]

The human person is both sacred and social. We realize our dignity and rights in relationship with others, in community. Human beings grow and achieve fulfillment in community. Human dignity can only be realized and protected in the context of relationships with the wider society.

[b][u]3. Option for the Poor.[/u][/b]

The moral test of a society is how it treats it most vulnerable members. The poor have the most urgent moral claim on the conscience of the nation. We are called to look at public policies, such as budgets and the like, in terms of how they affect the poor. The "option for the poor" is not an adversarial slogan that pits one group or class against another. Rather it states that the deprivation and powerlessness of the poor wounds the whole community.

[b][u]4. Rights and Responsibilties.[/u][/b]

Human dignity can be protected and a healthy community can be achieved if and only if human rights are protected and responsibilites are met. Every person have a fundamental right to life and a right to those things required for human decency- starting with, but by no means limited to, food, shelter, clothing, employment, education, health care.

[b][u]5. The Role of Goverment and Subsidiarity.[/u][/b]

The state has a positive moral function. It is an instrument to promote human dignity, to protect human rights and build the common good. All people have a right and a responsibilty to participate in political institutuions so that government can achieve its proper goals. The principle of subsidiarity holds that the functions of government should be performed at the lowest level possible, as long as they can be performed adequately.

[b][u]6. Economic Justice.[/u][/b]

The economy must serve the people, not the other way around. All workers have a right to productive work, to decent and fair wages and safe working conditions. They also have a fundamental right to organize and join labour unions. People have a right to economic initiative and private property, but these rights are limited. No one is allowed to amass excessive wealth when others lack the basic necessities of life.

[b][u]7. Stewardship of God's Creation.[/u][/b]

The goods of Earth are gifts from God and tehy are intended by God for the benefit of everyone. There is a "social mortgage" that guides our uses of the world's goods. We have a responsibility to care for these goods as stewards and trustees, not as mere consumers and users. How we treat the enviroment is a measure of our stewardship, thus a sign of respect for our Creator.

[b][u]8. Promotion of Peace and Disarmament.[/u][/b]

Catholic teaching promotes peace as a postive, action-oriented concept. In the words of Pope John Paul II, "Peace is not just the absence of war. It involoves mutal respect and confidence between peoples and nations. It involves collaboration and binding agreements." There is a cloase relationship in Catholic teaching between peace and justice. Peace is the fruit of justice and is dependent upon the right order among human beings.

[b][u]9. Participation.[/u][/b]

All people have a right to participate in the economic, political and cultural life of society. It is a fundamental demand of justice and a requirement for human dignity that all people be assured a minimum level of participation in the community. It is wrong for a person or a group to be excluded unfairly or to be unable to participate in society.

[b][u]10. Global Solidarity and Development.[/u][/b]

We are one human family. Our responsibilites to each other cross national, racial, economical and ideological differences. We are called to work globally for justice. Authentic development must be fill human development. It must respect and promote personal, social, economic and political rights, including the rights of nations and of peoples.

[i]C.F.[/i]

[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html"]Rerum Novarum (On the Condition of Labour and Capital)[/url]

[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html"]Gaudium Et Spes (The Church in the Modern World)[/url]

[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html"]Evangelium Vitae[/url]

Economic Justice for All- USCCB, 1986 (not found on USCCB website)

[url="http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/placeatthetable/cstquotes.htm"]U.S. Catholic Bishops - Social Development & World Peace[/url]

[Guest Aluigi]

why is this in the debate table? perhaps you were looking for the apologetics board?

[Iacobus]

Maybe, I put it here because I figured someone would object to it, or something in it, and wanted to keep A.B. debate free. If nobody objects, by all means, move it.

[Guest Aluigi]

well Cath vs. Cath debate is forbidden anyway, and no Catholic would object...

maybe if we have some marxist on here they might object to private property.. but I'm not seein anything.

although, my impressions the first time I read Rerum Novarum was that private property is actually part of the dignity of the human person, seeing as it said that it is one of the main things that separates us from the beasts. saying it is 'limited' is not incorrect, but I take it from a completely different dirrection: private property is not limited, it is expanded to everyone. everyone should be able to own private property, thus if someone is hoarding and not letting others own, that's where they're wrong. taking it from the angle of "limiting" private property is a bit negative and lends itself more (though obviously I wouldn't say it does, just that the angle the wording approaches it from) towards a socialistic idea. In reality, these are two different angles of saying basically the same idea- that people shouldnt hoard the wealth.

oh, and property tax is absolutely always and everywhere immoral, deprives the homeonwner of true ownership of his home because he's technically leasing it from the government. ::that means support Penssylvania Republicans attempting to abolish property tax in PA, oh and support those "fairtax" guys who want the national sales tax to replace property tax::

anyway, perhaps this can spark a discussion worthy of the table? the base post in itself definitely wouldnt

[Socrates]

I don't think Catholics will much disagree on these principles themselves. There is much disagreement, however, on the best way to acheive these goals.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Feb 15 2005, 08:13 PM'] maybe if we have some marxist on here they might object to private property.. but I'm not seein anything.

although, my impressions the first time I read Rerum Novarum was that private property is actually part of the dignity of the human person, seeing as it said that it is one of the main things that separates us from the beasts. saying it is 'limited' is not incorrect, but I take it from a completely different dirrection: private property is not limited, it is expanded to everyone. everyone should be able to own private property, thus if someone is hoarding and not letting others own, that's where they're wrong. taking it from the angle of "limiting" private property is a bit negative and lends itself more (though obviously I wouldn't say it does, just that the angle the wording approaches it from) towards a socialistic idea. In reality, these are two different angles of saying basically the same idea- that people shouldnt hoard the wealth.

oh, and property tax is absolutely always and everywhere immoral, deprives the homeonwner of true ownership of his home because he's technically leasing it from the government. ::that means support Penssylvania Republicans attempting to abolish property tax in PA, oh and support those "fairtax" guys who want the national sales tax to replace property tax:: [/quote]
I think you were right about the property thing, the hoarding deal. That is my take on it at least.

About the tax thing, I don't get why people are really anti tax money. I mean, right now, most states are in a huge budget shortfail (as well as the Federal Gov't). Is the disagreement over if they should be taxed to pay for that or what should be taxed?

[Guest Aluigi]

like Hillaire Belloc says, if you have to pay property tax you don't really own your own property, you're leasing it from the government

the big revolutionary plan startin to be proposed by lawmakers is to hike up sales tax to cover it while getting rid of income tax and property tax, giving people more control over their private property. sales tax gives the government what it needs, it's not applicable to those on food stamps (so those in really bad shape really don't even pay much tax at all if any) but it's more and more based on how much a person chooses to buy. now, immensely high sales taxes won't be much of a big deal considering the money saved in property tax and income tax. it all rebalances out into a more fair system with the same beneficial, maybe even more beneficial, results.

it's the conservatives in this country finally reachin the curve to the furthest economic right where G.K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc reside (at least on this one issue). very exciting to me .

[BurkeFan]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Feb 15 2005, 09:53 PM'] it's the conservatives in this country finally reachin the curve to the furthest economic right where G.K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc reside (at least on this one issue). very exciting to me . [/quote]
Wasn't Chesterton a (re?)distributivist?

[Guest Aluigi]

what a loaded question adding the "re" in there.. distributism is off the edge to the right in my opinion in the grand scheme of left/right. very much anti-socialism. in the modern american political system... who the heck knows the terms are so confuzzled.

the term "distributism" confuses some, but it is far from redistributing wealth. no class warfare here, in fact it upholds classes just rebuilding the bridge Old Christendom had of closeness and Christian brotherhood between the classes.

it's all about private property to the extreme, though. don't knock Chestertonian/Bellocian economics, they're the best ones out there in light of Catholic Teaching.

[Matt Black]

Interesting. Since governments help create and protect the conditions which foster the creation of private property, do they not have the right to tax that property?

Yours in Christ

Matt

Edited February 16, 2005 by Matt Black

[Guest Aluigi]

Only if they don't want it to be [b]private[/b] property.

I really wanna read Hillaire Belloc's "The Restoration of Property" because I agree with him, people don't truly own things anymore. It should tax based on production (preferably the local government too, not federal) and I think sales/income fall into that. It's more fair and still works out as well.

[God Conquers]

I probably wouldn't say distributism is to the right. I take it as being in the exact center. Everyone should have property instead of some or all.

Al, you should also read "The Crisis of Civilization" it is very very good and places everything in historical context.

[Matt Black]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Feb 16 2005, 08:56 AM'] Only if they don't want it to be [b]private[/b] property.

[/quote]
I'm not sure that that follows - well, no more than the government collecting part of my income in tax means that it is my paymaster or sales tax on goods means that the gvt part-owns those goods...

Yours in Christ

Matt

Edited February 16, 2005 by Matt Black

[God Conquers]

Which is fine because you didn't produce them. If however, as a result of the property which you fully ow, you were to produce some product, that product would belong fully to you, and the right to sell it would be yours, but the government could tax someone for buying it.

[Matt Black]

And my income?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[God Conquers]

I should think that the state would have a right to tax some of your income, seeing as how you live under the protection of the governement and ostensibly benefit from police, roads, railways, fire fighters and garbage collectors. Unless that's all private....

[Matt Black]

So what's the difference with property?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 15 2005, 09:19 PM'] I don't think Catholics will much disagree on these principles themselves. There is much disagreement, however, on the best way to acheive these goals. [/quote]
Bingo.

[Guest Aluigi]

Because everyone has the right to own their own home and that which they use to produce their income (own their own business). That part ought to be private so that an individual can live. Producing, selling, and buying are all public actions and thus the government has the right to use such things for the necessity of the government of the public.

GC, it is only placed in the middle when made to conform to the modern notion of left and right. But if you look at the modern middle where you are placing it, there is nothing related to it there, it is out of place. In the overall scheme of left and right that transcends our present modern times and sees it as a whole, distributism is certainly the more right and more conservative notion. That's only when you break free of thinking modern notion of left and right, because modern right is attached to big business and private property for some. Technically, when you go even further right, it ultimately supports small businesses (you can see that somewhat with a bit of republican rhetoric about small business and a "society of ownership" from this year how they see that as the backbone of our economy). It's way further right than any "right" now.

I've been readin a bunch of Belloc and Chesterton stuff recently.

Anyway, didn't mean to hijack.. but yeah maybe I did since the first post in itself would draw no real debate.

[BullnaChinaShop]

[quote name='Matt Black' date='Feb 16 2005, 12:18 PM'] So what's the difference with property?

Yours in Christ

Matt [/quote]
One if employed continually aquires income which is taxed as it is acquired, but one only buys a given piece of property once and yet pays a yearly property tax on it.