The quotes at the end of all my ranting come from Pacem in Terris Pope John XXIII's 1963 encyclical. Most of the "social Justice" claims that come from groups inside and outside the Church are based on this work. I suggest reading it to understand how the Church views this issue without having it filtered through the lens of special interest (like me).
It is vital to understand the Church's teaching on subsidiarity; the idea that all things are best addressed at the lowest possible level. I believe that the current "social justice" movement in the Church badly mis-states the intention of John XXIII in this encyclical by consistently rejecting subsidiarity. These religious and lay proponents of "social justice" look to the government for solutions, not the individual. They have also corrupted the teachings on human rights found in this encyclical to their own ends. As an example, this from the Immaculate Heart of Mary Social Justice Committee:
Because human rights are relational, they can come into conflict. One person's right to work could interfere with another's right to a healthy environment. One person's right to private property could clash with another's right to food or shelter. Three (3) principles of Catholic social teaching should govern public decisions in such situations.
1. The needs of the poor take priority over the wants of the rich
2. The freedom of the dominated takes priority over the liberty of the powerful
3. The participation of marginalized groups takes priority over the preservation of a political order which excludes them.
(Read Centesimus Annus for a clarification of true Church teachings on these issues)
Compare this to the quote below from Pacem in Terris:
"...One of the principal duties of any government, moreover, is the suitable and adequate superintendence and co-ordination of men's respective rights in society. This must be done in such a way 1) that the exercise of their rights by certain citizens does not obstruct other citizens in the exercise of theirs; 2) that the individual, standing upon his own rights, does not impede others in the performance of their duties; 3) that the rights of all be effectively safeguarded, and completely restored if they have been violated."
While todays proponents of "social justice" are more than happy to have the rights of one group elevated over another the Church teaches that this should not and cannot happen.
Pacem in Terris, by stating that man has a right to healthcare, food housing etc., can be used to support the Communist/Progressive social agenda, but only if one omits the teaching of subsidiarity, a hard and fast doctrine of the Church. The duty to provide the services that are necessary to these rights fall on the individual, through an act of free will and cannot be forced upon us by the state. If the state is allowed to force these obligations on us it will have become a Socialist state.
"...His words deserve to be re-read attentively: "To remedy these wrongs (the unjust distribution of wealth and the poverty of the workers), the Socialists encourage the poor man's envy of the rich and strive to do away with private property, contending that individual possessions should become the common property of all...; but their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that, were they carried into effect, the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are moreover emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community".39 The evils caused by the setting up of this type of socialism as a State system — what would later be called "Real Socialism" — could not be better expressed."
Centesimus Annus
I have stated many times in regards to the proposed health care takeover that we don't have a right to health care and I stand by that statement. The "right" to health care that is being proposed by our government tramples on the rights of others and true rights (see Pacem in Terris) cannot do that. I believe that Centesimus Annus also supports my belief along with Pacem in Terris .
Our rights to health care, food, shelter, etc. are rights in that we cannot be refused something necessary to support our right to life. In other words, if I am in danger of death and you have the means to save me you are obligated to do so. This is manifestly true in that refusing to supply life saving care is tantamount to murder and thus a mortal sin. The same thing can be said of housing, food, etc.
That being said, can I demand that another surrender his right to his labor or his property to give a third party shelter? Well, I suppose I can demand it; hell, I can yell as loud as I want. He still is under no obligation to me to supply anything to another. His obligation is to the one seeking shelter and no one else.
For the state to force anyone to fulfill an obligation for which they have no responsibility is Socialism and Socialism has been condemned by the Church in no uncertain terms.
The only responsibility that the state has regarding our rights is to see that they are not infringed. It cannot do this by trampling some to protect others. Are we obligated, through our association with the state to provide, through the state, some limited health care to those that have absolutely no way of acquiring it? Yes, because we would be obligated as individuals. However, this obligation is limited to extreme circumstances and to protecting life.
We do not possess an unlimited right to state sponsored health care, regardless of what the Democrats, the USCCB or the unions believe. To say we do is a lie. The Church has never taught this and never will. It conflicts with natural law and true human rights.
Read both Pacem in Terris and Centesimus Annus. Truth cannot contradict truth (you'll have to go here for that one)and these encyclicals work hand in hand to support the truth.
From Pacem in Terris:
"...But first We must speak of man's rights. Man has the right to live. He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services. In consequence, he has the right to be looked after in the event of illhealth; disability stemming from his work; widowhood; old age; enforced unemployment; or whenever through no fault of his own he is deprived of the means of livelihood."
"...As a further consequence of man's nature, he has the right to the private ownership of property, including that of productive goods. This, as We have said elsewhere, is "a right which constitutes so efficacious a means of asserting one's personality and exercising responsibility in every field, and an element of solidity and security for family life, and of greater peace and prosperity in the State."
"...Nature imposes work upon man as a duty, and man has the corresponding natural right to demand that the work he does shall provide him with the means of livelihood for himself and his children. Such is nature's categorical imperative for the preservation of man."
"...The natural rights of which We have so far been speaking are inextricably bound up with as many duties, all applying to one and the same person. These rights and duties derive their origin, their sustenance, and their indestructibility from the natural law, which in conferring the one imposes the other.
Thus, for example, the right to live involves the duty to preserve one's life; the right to a decent standard of living, the duty to live in a becoming fashion; the right to be free to seek out the truth, the duty to devote oneself to an ever deeper and wider search for it."
"...Since men are social by nature, they must live together and consult each other's interests. That men should recognize and perform their respective rights and duties is imperative to a well ordered society. But the result will be that each individual will make his whole-hearted contribution to the creation of a civic order in which rights and duties are ever more diligently and more effectively observed."
"...Man's personal dignity requires besides that he enjoy freedom and be able to make up his own mind when he acts. In his association with his fellows, therefore, there is every reason why his recognition of rights, observance of duties, and many-sided collaboration with other men, should be primarily a matter of his own personal decision. Each man should act on his own initiative, conviction, and sense of responsibility, not under the constant pressure of external coercion or enticement. There is nothing human about a society that is welded together by force. Far from encouraging, as it should, the attainment of man's progress and perfection, it is merely an obstacle to his freedom."
"...Hence, before a society can be considered well-ordered, creative, and consonant with human dignity, it must be based on truth. St. Paul expressed this as follows: "Putting away lying, speak ye the truth every man with his neighbor, for we are members one of another."(25) And so will it be, if each man acknowledges sincerely his own rights and his own duties toward others."
"...Hence, a regime which governs solely or mainly by means of threats and intimidation or promises of reward, provides men with no effective incentive to work for the common good. And even if it did, it would certainly be offensive to the dignity of free and rational human beings. Authority is before all else a moral force. For this reason the appeal of rulers should be to the individual conscience, to the duty which every man has of voluntarily contributing to the common good. But since all men are equal in natural dignity, no man has the capacity to force internal compliance on another. Only God can do that, for He alone scrutinizes and judges the secret counsels of the heart."
"...We must add, therefore, that it is in the nature of the common good that every single citizen has the right to share in it—although in different ways, depending on his tasks, merits and circumstances. Hence every civil authority must strive to promote the common good in the interest of all, without favoring any individual citizen or category of citizen. As Pope Leo XIII insisted: "The civil power must not be subservient to the advantage of any one individual, or of some few persons; inasmuch as it was established for the common good of all."
Nevertheless, considerations of justice and equity can at times demand that those in power pay more attention to the weaker members of society, since these are at a disadvantage when it comes to defending their own rights and asserting their legitimate interests."
"...One of the principal duties of any government, moreover, is the suitable and adequate superintendence and co-ordination of men's respective rights in society. This must be done in such a way 1) that the exercise of their rights by certain citizens does not obstruct other citizens in the exercise of theirs; 2) that the individual, standing upon his own rights, does not impede others in the performance of their duties; 3) that the rights of all be effectively safeguarded, and completely restored if they have been violated."
Posts
Amen!
ReplyDelete