Excerpted from "The Framework of a Christian State" by Rev. E. Cahill, S.J., 1932.
Although the duties of the State in regard to the poor come under the virtue, not of Charity, but of Legal Justice, a few points regarding such duties may be mentioned here. As the legitimate functions of the State in social life are essentially supplementary, they have place only where private effort fails or is manifestly inadequate. Thus, it would be an act of unlawful usurpation for the State to attempt to supplant private charity, as is being attempted under the existing unchristian regime in France. The normal duties of the State in regard to the poor are:a) To eliminate, as far as possible, by wise laws and a just administration, the radical causes of excessive poverty.
b) To protect and encourage private effort on behalf of the poor.
c) To supplement the same as far as is found necessary, especially by subsidizing and assisting religious and charitable organizations.
In modern times, however, and especially in Britain, Ireland, and the United States of America, as well as in some continental countries such as France, Prussia, and Saxony, in which the principles of unchristian Liberalism specially prevail, poverty and destitution have reached dimensions far beyond the power of private charity to cope with; and direct action on the part of the state is needed. This is in accordance with the principle laid down by Leo XIII:"Whenever the general interest or any particular class suffers, or is threatened with mischief, which in no other way can be met or prevented, the public authority must step in to deal with it." (Rerum Novarum, p.155)
We are familiar with several forms of State intervention for the relief of poverty, which are more or less useful or successful. Among these are: the Old Age Pension, Outdoor Relief, Health Insurance, Public Hospitals, Asylums for the Mentally Affected, Orphanages and Industrial Schools.
It is generally admitted that the *direct* relief of poverty from State resources (as distinguished from remedial or preventative measures, and from State help for private charitable organizations) should, as a rule, be confined to cases of destitution, namely, want of the necessities of life or serious illness. Hence, the main efforts of the State should be directed to such remedial measures as would place within the reach of all a fair opportunity of realizing a becoming livelihood by their own labor, and thus eliminate preventable misery ...
As a general rule, the less the State intervenes in the actual management and administration of charitable as well as educational enterprises, the better for all parties concerned. In the case of direct State management it is well known that the administrative expenses usually absorb an excessive proportion of the resources, and the actual results obtained are mostly inadequate and unsatisfactory. Besides, under a secular administration, the poor are unfairly humiliated and embittered, and the element of religious and supernatural love, which constitutes the soul of charity, is too often wanting.
Above all, secular officials are usually unsuited to the task of healing the moral ills and miseries which so often accompany or are the result of destitution. None but the representatives of Him who was the "Father of the Poor" and the "Friend of Publicans and Sinners" can influence for good the seared and embittered heart of the wretched. Hence, in a Catholic country, where religious bodies are willing and able to undertake the management of all manner of charitable institutions, governments will be well advised to entrust to these bodies the administration of the greater part of public funds set apart for the different forms of poor relief. The public money will thus be spent to better advantage, and the work will be incomparably better done. In this way the taxpayer's burden will be lightened, and the poor at the same time better provided for.
Comments (8)
This is a non-starter. If we can agree that Liberalism is a serious part of the problem, if not all of it, then it doesn't stand to reason that this proposal could work at all because Liberals will not allow the Christian Church to carry out these tasks.
Posted by Mike T | March 27, 2010 9:44 PM
Liberals will not allow the Christian Church to carry out these tasks.
Well, that's part of the post's irony. Liberalism, being possessed of the truth, can't let the Truth slow it down.
Posted by William Luse | March 28, 2010 3:47 AM
Liberalism in the book of course is classical liberalism, the system of government promoted by so-called conservatives in the United States.
Posted by Henry Karlson | March 28, 2010 4:58 AM
It's certainly not the kind of liberalism that reigns today, a system of government promoted by a number of so-called Catholics.
Posted by William Luse | March 28, 2010 4:36 PM
The liberals presently in power will first bring Catholic and Christian providers into their ambit by giving them public money. They will then use that public money as an instrument of control to destroy the Catholic and Christian character of the institution. This pattern has been successfully followed in the area of education in Quebec, for example, and elsewhere. It has surfaced in increased government mandates on Catholic hospitals in the U.S.--for example, that they must provide "morning-after pills" to rape victims. It emerged in the Caritas Christi brouhaha last summer in Massachusetts, where the organization was, in essence, bribed by public money to provide "health insurance" for the poor with the requirement that they provide abortion services indirectly if they would not provide them directly. Public pressure eventually forced the Catholic organization to cancel its previous contract with the state. This sort of thing will happen again and again.
I'm very much in favor of Christian organizations providing services to the poor. But the whole point is that they must be permitted to be distinctively Christian. I'm sorry to say that again and again Catholic organizations, in particular, have not shown sufficient suspiciousness when it comes to becoming dependent upon public money. I had a couple of commentators last year tell me that if it were required in some fashion such that the only alternative was to shut down (e.g., as a prerequisite for receiving public money needed to keep going), Catholic hospitals would have to allow abortions in their facilities, because to shut down would be immoral and an abandonment of the poor. Thus far have we come.
Posted by Lydia | March 28, 2010 5:16 PM
I'm sure if the requirement was to let women sacrifice their babies to Moloch, you would see them singing a different tune. Style (why the baby is dying) over substance (the intention killing of a baby) at its worst.
One of the great things about being a Protestant is you can write these morons off as being of a likely reprobate mind.
Posted by Mike T | March 28, 2010 8:24 PM
What makes you think that Catholics can't do the same?
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | March 29, 2010 6:14 AM
Hey, I really love the design of your site. What design are you using?
Posted by Mitchell Geuder | April 16, 2010 3:23 AM