Private Charity Versus Government Welfare
Rev. C. J. McCloskey IIILess than three years has passed since the publication of PopeBenedict XVI’s third encyclical, Charity in Truth. As some readersmay remember, the encyclical caused quite a stir both in secular
and religious circles — as have many of the past papal encyclicals
dealing with economic questions, going back to Pope Leo XIII’s
groundbreaking 1891 exposition of social justice, Rerum Novarum.
and religious circles — as have many of the past papal encyclicals
dealing with economic questions, going back to Pope Leo XIII’s
groundbreaking 1891 exposition of social justice, Rerum Novarum.
It appears that the redaction and publication of the current
encyclical was speeded up to address the ongoing global economic
crisis — and that it does. This article, however, will instead take a
brief look at the proper roles of private charity and government
welfare in pursuing the integral development of persons, families,
and countries.
encyclical was speeded up to address the ongoing global economic
crisis — and that it does. This article, however, will instead take a
brief look at the proper roles of private charity and government
welfare in pursuing the integral development of persons, families,
and countries.
Encyclicals are magisterial. That is, they are meant to be studied,
prayed over, and applied to the subject at hand. However, in
questions of social justice, while the Holy Father and the bishops
in communion with him may teach with authority, ultimately it is the
laity’s role to apply the teaching to the concrete circumstances of
particular countries, economies, and societies. It is at this level that
there can be legitimate and perhaps diverging opinions on the ways
to apply the teachings in particular cases. Rarely will there be any
perfect solution.
prayed over, and applied to the subject at hand. However, in
questions of social justice, while the Holy Father and the bishops
in communion with him may teach with authority, ultimately it is the
laity’s role to apply the teaching to the concrete circumstances of
particular countries, economies, and societies. It is at this level that
there can be legitimate and perhaps diverging opinions on the ways
to apply the teachings in particular cases. Rarely will there be any
perfect solution.
In Charity in Truth, Pope Benedict cites Pope Paul VI, who
had an articulated vision of development. He understood the
term to indicate the goal of rescuing peoples, first and fore-
most, from hunger,deprivation, endemic diseases, and
illiteracy. It meant their evolution into educated societies
marked by solidarity; from a political point of view, it meant
the consolidation of democratic regimes capable of ensuring
freedom and peace.
term to indicate the goal of rescuing peoples, first and fore-
most, from hunger,deprivation, endemic diseases, and
illiteracy. It meant their evolution into educated societies
marked by solidarity; from a political point of view, it meant
the consolidation of democratic regimes capable of ensuring
freedom and peace.
However, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict both emphasize the
principle of solidarity, which can be defined as “a sense of or
responsibility on the part of every one with regard to everyone.”
Benedict is clear that this cannot be delegated to the state alone. It
seems, given his insistence on the virtue of caritas – love — that
one cannot see the State as the principal caretaker of welfare or
so-called “social justice.” Benedict insists again and again on what
he terms “gratuitousness,” which is a reference to the long-time
heart of Joseph Ratzinger’s theology: the emphasis on the sincere
gift of self. We could also translate this as the “self-gift,” and find
in this formulation a second meaning, since through it a person
finds his true self in charity. Private charity is preferable because
it is a means of growing in grace for the donor. Clearly this cannot
be the case of the Leviathan government, which has no moral
subject.
principle of solidarity, which can be defined as “a sense of or
responsibility on the part of every one with regard to everyone.”
Benedict is clear that this cannot be delegated to the state alone. It
seems, given his insistence on the virtue of caritas – love — that
one cannot see the State as the principal caretaker of welfare or
so-called “social justice.” Benedict insists again and again on what
he terms “gratuitousness,” which is a reference to the long-time
heart of Joseph Ratzinger’s theology: the emphasis on the sincere
gift of self. We could also translate this as the “self-gift,” and find
in this formulation a second meaning, since through it a person
finds his true self in charity. Private charity is preferable because
it is a means of growing in grace for the donor. Clearly this cannot
be the case of the Leviathan government, which has no moral
subject.
Pope Benedict maintains that Market plus State is simply not
enough; such a reduction of social relationships is corrosive of
society.
enough; such a reduction of social relationships is corrosive of
society.
To continue reading click here: crisismagazine
