Posted on 06/26/2011 3:24:31 PM PDT by rhema
Catholic Archbishop Nienstedt recently asserted in a letter to state officials that the state budget is a moral document and higher state spending is a moral good. At a time when society needs the Church's teaching more than ever, unfortunately in this case the Archbishop's reasoning creates more confusion than clarity and sheds more heat than light.
Many of us who share the Archbishop's faith-based heart for the poor disagree with his conclusion that more state spending is the answer. In secular terms we would call it a confusion of means versus ends. In Catholic terms it is a confusion of prudential versus moral judgments.
The heat stems from well-intentioned people implying that other well-intentioned people must support higher government spending to be morally fit before God. Policy debates devolve to accusations about moral intent, including this year that some are not willing to pay their fair share.
For policy makers, attaching a moral imperative to state spending hinders serious and sincere questions about the efficacy of state programs. In the name of compassion, we dare not ask whether this spending might in fact be creating an economic incentive for the very behaviors and circumstances we are trying to mitigate.
More broadly, a moral compunction emerges from the idea that the truly compassionate person should always be willing to pay more taxes. The result? Families and faith-based institutions, having the greatest ability to truly change people's lives, slowly shift the mission to serve each other to the state. True community and freely given person-to-person compassion are edged out, not built up. And eventually a divisive mutual resentment grows between those receiving benefits and those forced to pay for them.
As a Christian and person of faith, I fully appreciate the proper and important role of government. But I also believe that true compassion is sustainable - support that works today, tomorrow, and for future generations. And true compassion is often hard - requiring both opportunity and accountability which are the practical necessities for human dignity.
As a public official, simply raising taxes and spending falls far short of the structural reform and rebalancing our system needs right now. The state's unsustainable status quo will not adequately deliver on any needs let alone mercy to our most vulnerable - that is fiscal reality.
Also real, and misunderstood, is the impact of ever-growing taxation. Once the financial incentive to avoid taxes on the next dollar of income becomes greater than the incentive to earn it, we propagate attitudes that only serve to hurt our economy and all of us who rely on it.
All of these prudential policy judgments tell me that only when our budget is responsible and sustainable for everyone can we call our work a success.
This budget situation is certainly a challenge. But it is also ripe with opportunity-- to make positive change and create a stronger Minnesota.
So in the debate, let's avoid directly equating certain state spending levels with morality. The harm such a perspective brings to the process, and ultimately to the institutions that hold everything together, is all too real.
Keith Downey, R-Edina, is a member of the Minnesota House of Representatives.
The clergy may be well-meaning, but they know nothing about economics, with a few rare exceptions. And he’s not one of them.
agreed.
maybe well-meaning. but flat wrong.
(but, at least he’s not condoning homosexual acts,
or promoting “Chrislam” like Rick Warren and others.)
taking money from people, against their will, even if for a “good” cause, is STEALING.
last i checked, that was still one of the big 10.
and some of that money, IS going for abortions, and other things a church leader should not wish to contribute to, even indirectly.
great article btw. thanks!
The sad thing is that Archbishop Nienstedt appears to be sound on most issues. He is pro-life, he has lobbied for a bill against gay marriage. He strongly attacked the President of Notre Dame for inviting Obama:
But he is completely off the tracks on this one.
I think someone has got to educate the bishops on the basic realities of economics. Maybe explain to them that government sucking money out of everyone’s pockets, keeping 90% of it to run their bureaucracy, and then helping the poor with the other 10%, is not an efficient way to do charitable works.
The Church is not finding much money in its collection plates these days. That’s because the government is sucking it all up—and NOT spending it in the best possible way.
Tell the good bishop that the additional revenue will be spent making abortion services more easily available to the poor.
Bingo. Ever since Pope John XIII promised Russian commies that there would be no condemnation of Communism at Vatican II, the bishops have become full fledged socialists. Catholics (and I am one) need to pick up the encyclical letters of Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI condemning Communism and Socialism while upholding the inalienable right to ownership of private property. Yes, government transfer payments are theft, not charity.
I’m not even convinced it’s well meaning. At the very best, it’s sinfully wrong-headed. Social justice, and the “collective salvation” to which it leads, has no part whatsoever in the Roman or any other church purporting to easing the path to life hereafter. I, too, hope he’s as exercised about gay marriage when Minnesota’s turn for cowardice and linguini-Christianity comes round. If he’s so concerned, he might initiate a diocese-wide collection!
I know the Vatican has made several statements about abortion, but does it typically issue other specific policy positions?
Economic policy? Governmental policy? That's not in Tradition, unless Faith or morals are being violated, e.g., abortion, which is murder. It's an inversion of truth for a bishop to attribute a positive moral attribute to transfer payments. Clear thinking is not a strong suit with bishops these days. It is sad to think that the world's slide into Socialism is due to the abdication and abuse of authority by modern bishops.
To give just one example, bishops have the right and duty to teach that "abortion is murder" and that actions that justify, promote, fund, facilitate, advance, or lead to the acceptance of abortion, make one an accomplice or accessory to murder.
But in terms of policy, there is no direct authority to say, "Ending abortion must be accomplished by a Constitutional Amendment worded in thus-and-such a way," or "this must be accomplished by interpreting the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to apply exactly like so," or "the faithful must vote such-and-such a party" -- in other words, the policy specifics.
The same goes for questions about economics, foreign and military policy, protection of air water and soil resources, etc. The moral obligations are to be preached; BUT the "how to do it" (which political party, which candidate, which legislative or judicial strategy) are within the comptence of the laity, not the clergy.
And the presumptioon is always that the obligations are to be carried out at the lowest and most local level that can handle the job, e.g. the individual, the family, the parish, the charitable organization, the voluntary association, the city, the county, etc.
Start fromt the personal.
This principle is called "subsidiarity" -- a keystone of Catholic teaching --- and it's disappointing that it's so rarely mentioned, even by people like Archbishop Nienstedt, who is a smart guy and should know better.
"Where the Bishop is..." ping
WELCOME TO FREE REPUBLIC’S MINNESOTA PING LIST!
148 MEMBERS AND GROWING...!
FREEPMAIL ME IF YOU WANT ON OR OFF THIS LIST!
WELCOME TO FREE REPUBLIC’S MINNESOTA PING LIST!
148 MEMBERS AND GROWING...!
FREEPMAIL ME IF YOU WANT ON OR OFF THIS LIST!
Ephesians 4:28.
They still seem to be fixated on the idea of 'the preferential option for the poor'.
Dear Mrs D:
Does the "preferential option" leak into the policy area where you have said the Bishops have no business?
this sounds to me like politicing to me. another way of saying, if the church can’t take care of all the poor, we’ll make sure the government does via confiscating your money,whether you’re religious or not.
I thought the goal was to win souls, not elections.
A case can be made that related verses ("He casts down prices from their thrones") imply a dramatic diminution of State power.
A case can be made that related verses ("He casts down prices from their thrones") imply a dramatic diminution of State power.
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.