April 16, 2012

Paul Ryan invokes the Catholic "principle of subsidiarity" in support of small-government politics.

NPR reports, noting something Ryan said on the Christian Broadcasting Network:
"Through our civic organizations, through our churches, through our charities — through all of our different groups where we interact with people as a community — that's how we advance the common good," Ryan said.
NPR gets a counterpoint from a polisci prof at Catholic University:
But Stephen Schneck... says he thinks Ryan is "completely missing the boat and not understanding the real heart, the real core, of Catholic social teaching."

Schneck says Catholicism sees everyone as part of a mystical body, serving one another. True, the New Testament does not specifically speak to the government's role. "But charities and individuals and churches can't do it all," Schneck says. "When charities are already stretched to their limit, Catholic social teaching expects the state to step up and to fill that gap."
I'm no expert on Catholic doctrine, but it seems to me that the key difference is whether you want individuals and relatively small associations of individuals to experience the inward motivations and choices to be charitable in giving and ministering to others, or whether you want a rational, overarching system that determines what everyone must give and what everyone ought to receive. In the second view, you care more about meeting all the needs, and you don't depend on the various individuals deciding to be good. In the first view, the needs create opportunities and tests for everyone to notice and to care enough to do something, to give. If you set up a governmental structure to deal with those needs, then everyone can move on and assume needs are being met, the experts will tweak the structure and get the taxing and spending something reasonably close to right.

So, now can you figure out how Jesus wants you to vote?

217 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 217 of 217
Ralph L said...

You were the one complaining of profits.

If ERs didn't have to treat everyone by law, wouldn't even the Young and the Reckless get some kind of insurance? But Obamacare deliberately prices them out of the market by requiring total coverage of kitchen sinks. In the 90's, my ins premium was less than my cable bill.

Anonymous said...

Ralph,

My comment about profit was again in regards to Christians and their behavior in relation to the teachings of Christ. If you’re interested in becoming wealthy then go ahead and drop the Christian label. Again, look to the founder of the religion and his actions for the model.

The healthcare law’s bronze plan isn’t exactly robust coverage. It would require policyholders to spend thousands of dollars of their own money before insurance kicks in. That’s how catastrophic coverage works now. That means anyone - particularly younger, healthy people - can satisfy the health care law’s insurance requirement without paying full freight for comprehensive coverage they may not need.

Anonymous said...

Bravo 36fsfiend! Outstanding!

Erik Robert Nelson said...

36fsfiend's mistake is thinking that the verse he mentions is meant as a guide to every Christian, when in context it clearly is not. Christ was calling him out, saying that any disciple must be willing to give up the things loved best and put God first. In this case, the man was wealthy and loved money best. The other things he'd given up to follow God mattered little to him, and required no real sacrifice. The passage has nothing to do with money. It has everything to do with making the greatest sacrifice. It is a complete distortion to think that this particular command is one Christ would have offered to anyone. If there was a woman instead, dressed to the nines, Christ would have asked her to wear rags. It would not mean all Christians would then be required to wear rags. Not difficult.

Scott M said...

The passage has nothing to do with money.

Or camels, for that matter.

leslyn said...

@fiend:

No, you're not stalking, wrong word. You're not just chatting either.

I think there's an agenda there somewhere, or a complaint, that you're dancing around with endless questions.

leslyn said...

@Trashhauler:

Fiend has never been near the Union. See how fast he backed off when you tried to I'D him? You even gave him a topic to talk about and he didn't bite.

This guy is hiding in more ways than one.

leslyn said...

Oh Allies, don't get sucked in. Read the thread, or this will Gabon for another 200 comments.

But if you want to get sucked unzipped that's ok too.

leslyn said...

Bad autospeller. Sucked"in" not "unzipped"!

I think I should switch to another term. Like "hijacked"

Scott M said...

But if you want to get sucked unzipped that's ok too.

Spellchecker? No! Leave it as is!

Getting sucked unzipped would be both difficult for the sucker and extremely painful for the suckee. I love the imagery and the possibilities for abstract description "getting sucked unzipped" has.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Leslyn, I read the entire thread. I'm entitled to my own opinion, not all liberals are cookie cutter images of one another. Fiend is pointing out the rank hypocrisy of some who consider themselves Christian.

But hypocrisy is a human condition and we are all guilty of it in various matters..

Don't want to be spellchecked by Scott.

Penny said...

Sources say 36fsfiend was spotted interviewing atheists on their death beds.

Penny said...

Hypocrisy Hunters are a special breed. Their work is never done.

Anonymous said...

Erik Robert Nelson,

Why do you say the verses I mention are not meant to be guides for all Christians? Why would Christ teach something if He did not expect all His followers to adhere to those teachings?

Here’s another passage regarding concerns for material wealth in general:

“Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?

“And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you - you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”

Looks like Christ is calling just about everyone out in this case, yes?

Anonymous said...

leslyn said...

“I think there's an agenda there somewhere, or a complaint, that you're dancing around with endless questions.”

As I stated earlier, I don’t believe many Christians truly follow the example of Christ. So why do we give these politicians who claim they are following the example Christ’s life so much credence in terms of crafting legislation for the nation which in my opinion is not a Christian nation but rather a nation of many religions, of which Christianity happens to be the majority? I’m a firm advocate for the separation of church and state. There’s my “agenda”.

As far as Trashhauler’s comment about the Union, I honestly have no idea what he is referring to. Can you explain?

Jose_K said...

That principle is enshrined on the Mattstricht treaty

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 217 of 217   Newer› Newest»