Why both parties are turning away from Catholic policies

Before flinging rocks at the Church over its support for social justice, it would be helpful to understand how the Church defines this term — which is completely at odds with how Democrats view the term.

From the Church’s standpoint, social justice involves a government which does not prefer one class of people over another — a government which treats all equally. Second, it requires that a government treat these individuals in accordance with “natural law” — which is the Church’s way of saying “God’s laws”.

The term “social justice” also involves individual actions which fall outside government.

So, obviously, the question arises — what is the meaning of “natural law”? It is rooted in the Ten Commandments and in the Great Commandment. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness. You shall honor your father and your mother. You shall not covet your neighbors’ goods. You shall treat your neighbor as you treat yourself.

Implicit in these are a respect for private property, a need to give alms to the poor…

It’s in the latter that the Democrats fail to understand the Church’s teaching. Almsgiving is a private endeavor, as Scripture points out — you are not to let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so to speak. When government gets involved, everyone knows what you are doing — and when government treats taxpayers unequally, it does this counter to the idea of social justice — treating all equally.

Now, providing services by the Government to the poor does not countermand the Church’s idea of social justice — but if one taxpayer votes to use another taxpayer’s funds for this activity, out of proportion to the ones the former applies, then the former has committed theft. In fact, given that almsgiving is to be private and personal, it would be preferred that the Government not be involved at all.

The means of performing social justice must conform to the idea of social justice.

Catholic social justice includes the idea of subsidiarity — that a person cannot relegate to their government that which they ought to do themselves.

Perhaps that’s where the Church’s ideas are considered abominable by liberals — because it runs counter to everything they believe about the need for the Government to do it all.

Now, the Church certainly does not believe in unrestrained capitalism, and certainly does not believe in communism in any way or form — as Rerum Novarum attests. But Rerum Novarum militates for a solution involving the worker and the employer, and expressly sanctions the use of the state as a mediary:

It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man’s little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels. Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.

An example of how the Democrats have failed to heed this idea can be found in something as simple as the idea of estate taxes. It seems fair to Democrats to tax the wealth of a dead person as it is transferred to his or her heirs. But take, for example, the family farm. It is not divisible, and therefore a tax demands that it be sold and a portion of the proceeds given to the Government and the remaining portion divided between the heirs. This simple tax has led to the demise of the family farm — those farms had to be sold to pay estate taxes, and they are now owned by large corporations who will never die.

Now, you can fix that problem by requiring that corporations die — but then you have moved this problem to yet another set of people. The corporation is a natural defence against confiscatory taxes of this nature, but why should anyone have to form a corporation to defend themselves against taxes? Such a requirement indicates that there was something unfair in the original construction of the taxes.

unclesmrgol on February 17, 2013 at 12:24 PM

The bottom line is that the Church supports “social justice” however it’s put into action, and therefore favors the Democrats because (dontcha know?) they are the party of the poor and downtrodden.

If you claim to be a Christian, you MUST support “social justice”. Not the Democrat version. The Christian version. It’s not how it’s put into action — it’s what it means.

And, as long as we are on the topic of claims, no matter what the Democrats claim with respect to being the party of the poor and downtrodden, they overwhelmingly do not do what they do out of any empathy for such, but merely to buy votes — as there are many of the poor and downtrodden who will sell their votes for a few pence from the Treasury and some false promises.

If you read Rerum Novatum, you can tick off the places where the Democrats meet the need, and you can tick off the places where the Republicans meet the need, and there is is — a Republican win. Not that the Democrats don’t score a few points here and there….

unclesmrgol on February 17, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Very true, but instead Romney and the Republican party decided to pick an Objectivist hill to die on, and blow their political capital on “no tax cuts for the rich”.

Foolish.

You’ve inverted the position, but the wording is definitely Democratic. The real Republican position was “No tax increases on anyone. Cut spending. This will grow America.”

Without spending too much time dissecting this, the Democratic position was “Increase taxes on the rich. Increase spending. This will grow America.”

As for absolutism — both messages are at some level absolute — all that makes the Democratic message not seem so absolute was the word “rich” — whose definition was defined by the concept of the “Democrat millionaire” — a family earning $250,000 or more. Still, the Democrats had announced their number, and it was certainly absolute.

Obviously, our economy is sick, the poor are suffering, and what should the solution be?

Somehow, the latter Democrat message of government redistributionism — inherently at odds with the Church’s message of social justice rooted in private act, won the day. Millions of people earning less than $250,000 voted to increase taxes on people earning more than $250,000, while voting to keep their own taxes as-is. The root fallacy of the Democratic position is that by voting to increase taxes on someone other than himself, a voter acts in favor of social justice. The truth is that when a voter votes to increase taxes on someone other than himself, he is stealing and, by that, acting against social justice.

unclesmrgol on February 17, 2013 at 6:58 PM