Shea’s complexity of thought is really on display here today!  Now, instead of lying for Jesus we have stealing for Jesus. Awesome job Mr. Shea!

@Marc: Did you not read the article? “Basically, Thomas is saying that theft is a sin, but that taking stuff is not always theft.” If you want to disagree with that, then fine; but your beef is with the Angelic Doctor, not Mr. Shea.

The “Rights” language is complex. I think the Catholic theologians and philosophers distinguish between many kinds of rights. But the gilb usage confounds them and simplifies them to legal rights enforced by the State and Courts.

“Everybody has a right to food, water, shelter, love, work, medical care and other such necessities which are fundamental to human life and dignity”

A right to love?. And who shall enforce that right?
A right to medical care?. Who shall enforce that right?

In the list of rights, “love, work, and medical care” stand out. You can squat in a foreclosed house in the winter, or take food and water to live. You can’t take knee surgery, or take another’s work (is it okay to cross a picket line if you really need the job?), and you can’t take love from someone who has more than he needs. These might be better explained as obligations: the doctor’s to treat the indigent, the businessman not to lay off merely for marginally higher profits, the Christian’s to love his neighbor.

Gian, about enforcing rights: I followed some of the links included by Mark in his article, and fount myself reading a few paragraphs of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. I would suggest you do the same thing, there is no need to waste time looking for it, the links bring you right there, in the Vatican site. It makes for very interesting reading.
And as I read I came across the following sentence, from the beginning of paragraph 188: “Various circumstances may make it advisable that the State step in to supply certain functions.” That paragraph might supply your answer: As we live in a democracy, the action of voting in a government constitutes a delegation by us the members of the population, to a group of people of our choosing, some of those functions that are difficult for each one of us individually, or even in small groups or communities, to do on our own, such as enforcing those rights. Of course, as Christians and as Catholics, we also need to each do our part according to our means. For example, a billionaire might be called to create opportunities for work, not only for people in developing countries who might be satisfied with crap wages, but for his or her own countrymen and women who need work with living wages, irrespective of whether or not those jobs are going to bring the absolute maximum of profit. Or, that billionaire might be expected to pay to the government a certain amount of taxes, to be used for example for programs that will give people opportunities to work… Some people see taxation as the use of force to take from people the money they have earned and that is their own, in order to give it to other people who have not earned it and are not entitled to it. But maybe those other people are in fact entitled to that money… While some of those who are being taxed maybe are being paid excessively high amounts of money that have little relationship with the value of their own work… (Personally I just cannot see how the work of any person can be seen as being so useful and important to justify wages of one or even several millions of dollars.)

One more note after reading Marcel’s comment, which appeared while I was writing mine: About medical care, every developed country in the world, except the US, has found a way to provide a reasonable amount of medical care to its citizens through some sort of government intervention. While many loud voices in the US keep claiming that many of those countries are just “socialist” or “nanny states”, or other such labels, close to 50 million US citizens do not have access to adequate insurance that will protect them. With budget deficits, many claim that Medicare should be subjected to deep cuts. I would suggest that Catholics would at least take the time to check the Compendium before expressing any more such conservative opinions on the matter.

Marthe Lépine, my point is medical care is mostly unrelated to a need “so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand,” and that medical care is better understood as an obligation than a right. Where it is related, as someone showing up at the emergency room with no way to pay, there is an obligation to provide care that’s generally recognized, if not always lived up to. Where it isn’t manifest and urgent, these words of Thomas don’t tell us what to do.

I’m struck most by the comment, from Mark Shea, that—regarding the revolutionary Catholic Social Teaching that we are responsible for one another—“I have very little idea what to do about it.” I have long shared that reaction: How does one address the problems of world hunger and other “big” dilemmas of Christian responsibility? The question froze me into inactivity.

I am working on an answer that is helpful to me: To change the world, start with yourself! The 2004 Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine explained that personal transformation must precede social action: “Men and women who are made ‘new’ by the love of God are able to change the rules and the quality of relationships, transforming even social structures.” (Par. 4). The Compendium states that the first step in “[r]emoving injustices” and thereby “promot[ing] human freedom and dignity” is “to appeal to the spiritual and moral capacities of the individual and to the permanent need for inner conversion, if one is to achieve the economic and social changes that will truly be at the service” of the human person (¶ 137). Personal conversion is a key part of the Church’s social doctrine because “a soul that lowers itself through sin drags down with it …, in some way, the entire world” and because “every soul that rises above itself also raises the world” (¶ 117, n. 226). Our social teaching thus gives us a novel way of explaining our belief in the communion of saints (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia 16).

The truth of the teaching is marred by the agenda-driven execution of the teaching as Mark stated and that is what we struggle with as a nation now. Labelling liberal and conservative doesn’t help.  There is one truth and we aren’t there yet.

Marcel, have you just read the words of St-Thomas as quoted by Mark, or Mark’s entire article? Mark is not saying “the material blessings God gives are intended to be given to all human beings who need them, not just to some. Everybody has a right to food, water, shelter, love, work, medical care and other such necessities which are fundamental to human life and dignity” as examples of “manifest as urgent needs” pointed to by St-Thomas, but as an explanation of the “universal destination of goods”. Therefore, the right to medical care, as a particular example, has to be met equally for everybody, and in most industrialized countries except the US, is generally seen as one for which it is “advisable that the State step in to supply”. From my point of observation up North, it seems that, in the US, “Libertarian” principles are considered more important than the right to medical care of some 50 million US citizens…

“Everybody has a right to food, water, shelter, love, work, medical care and other such necessities which are fundamental to human life and dignity”
—
I think when we read Catholic Social teaching, we need to be careful to distinguish between the sort of rights that our Constitution is designed to protect (which are essentially rights to freedom of action and choice… i.e., the government cannot make me do this, or stop me from doing that), and rights which simply what is due to every human on the basis of their being made in the divine image.  The latter rights are (in my opinion) also obligations to those who have the ability to provide them to those in need. 
—
No one can force us to love someone else, but we will have to answer to God one day if we refuse to love someone who needs our love.

Well, I rate more highly the Christian’s obligation to give, than the government’s right to take. “...each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need.” And to Christians generally, the words of Saint Thomas are likely to be more compelling than Catholic social teaching, which non-Catholics may too-hastily dismiss. Federally run single-payer may be a good idea, or it may not. Either way, I don’t think we meet our obligation to charity by having the government tax and redistribute. That seems too much like “Are there no workhouses?”

It’s amazing that people immediately assumes I am proposing the State as the all-encompassing solution to everything.  It says a lot about our intensely politicized culture that anybody would assume that the right of human persons to love is something Caesar is somehow supposed to supply.

“A right to medical care?.”

According to the Catechism, yes.

2211 The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially:
- the freedom to establish a family, have children, and bring them up in keeping with the family’s own moral and religious convictions;

- the protection of the stability of the marriage bond and the institution of the family;

- the freedom to profess one’s faith, to hand it on, and raise one’s children in it, with the necessary means and institutions;

- the right to private property, to free enterprise, to obtain work and housing, and the right to emigrate;

- in keeping with the country’s institutions, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits;

- the protection of security and health, especially with respect to dangers like drugs, pornography, alcoholism, etc.;

- the freedom to form associations with other families and so to have representation before civil authority.

Mark’s article reminds me what I learned when I was little.  It is a mystery to me how stupid I have become since I was taught to “share” and “Jared, you can only play with one toy at a time, why don’t you let your brother use…”

Marcel, the right to medical care is not part of our “obligation to charity”. It is a fundamental right of every human being, and according to the Cathechism, it is an obligation of the political community. In order to meet this obligation, and it’s other obligations, the political community has a right to collect taxes, no matter what your Constitution says. I do not think that any Constitution, no matter how it is worded, supersedes natural law on that matter. And, as a Canadian, I have never understood how Catholics in the US can be so adamantly opposed to giving this right to their countrymen and women. And unfortunately, as is the case for many other issues, our common enemy, Satan, has found the way to block, and has favored ways to rationalize away, that particular human right, with the issue of abortion…

Mark, I suspect the French Revolution would have gone very differently had St. Thomas been around to judge!

Mark, haven’t you figured out by now with your combox regulars and most other Register readers/followers, that if you’re not directly in-synch or even to the right of Inspector Javert, they’re going to suspect you’re not only a flaming follower of Barack Obama, and all the other lefties of both French and American history (that’s covering a lot of kilometers n’ miles in between), but you’re also one of “this president’s” most ardent campaign fund raisers and ward heelers rolled into one.
  You might as well join up because you could stand on a zillion Catechisms and Bibles, not to mention a trillion Canon law books and take an oath to shame even the most shameless of all shameless oaths, the “Dear Grover, I pwomise never to waise taxes” oath signed by Grover’s “adult” knaves n’ followers ... and they won’t believe that anybody cutting Jean Valjean any slack whatsoever is either truly Catholic or even gasp, truly American. Ohhhhh, you’d better watch out then, brother, if Ranger Rick gets elected.
  You’ll be tossed in one of the job-creators’ favorite scams, Rick’s privatized penal industry. It’s stockholder owned so you can count on getting one violation report after another to keep yer “stay” a little longer. Down there in Perry-Land, Capitalism Rules and that means all pennies, nickels, quarters and the folks countin’ ‘em have to be accounted fer and “held account’bull.” You’ll never git out alive. Not that anything will happen to you there. Nah, that’d bring on bad publicity and that always results in a drop in profits due to Wall St.‘s “uncertainty,” but everything will git back to “normal” and before you know it, you’ll die a quiet death and given a numbered tombstone.
  Hell, Ranger Rick’s boys will have pulled off what Frenchies couldn’t, even with Inspector Javert hot on yer tail!
  The quality of mercy in this day n’ age ain’t strained, fella, it’s just torn to shreds, stomped along with scorpions n’ spiders under some Texas’pol’tician’s “boot o’ justice” and a nice literary saying of past years. Heck, even Texas’ and the rest of the nation’s kids won’t even remember it by the time REAL MEN like Perry or either of the Pauls and Mutt git done with slicin’ in dicin’ what’s left of mercy, any concept of a, fair economic system (“Fair, where’s THAT in the ConstiTU-SHUN?” ROFL!)in the Disunited States of Nullifiers n’ Gravity Deniers!
  Y’all do some serious prayin’ folks. And I mean SERIOUS. There’s a new “Party of Death,” and it ain’t the Democrats!

With respect to the right of medical care, I would be interested in seeing where that moral right stops.  As an example, take a look at a heart problem.  CPR and/or clot buster drugs might be a given, but how does one rate surgery? A stent? Valve replacement? Pacemaker? Transplant? Artificial?  Where does one let the natural processes take over?  Is a knee replacement equivalent to water (i.e., necessary) or is it more of a luxury?

There are standards to determine what is done-and therefore the limits to care.  Right now the limit to care in the US is the ability to have care reimbursed.  The only real death panel is the market that receives sacramental adoration.

Steven:

No need to be partisan.  The Dems are as practiced at choosing death as the GOP. In addition to their zeal for abortion, they have given themselves wholeheartedly in silencing all criticism of our God King as he launches more wars of choice and anoints himself with the power to murder anybody he chooses without evidence, arrest, trial, judge, jury, or verdict, merely because he has decided they are enemies of the state.  The joke that was the “Anti-War Left” disappeared once Bush was not in charge of the war machine. That’s why I tend not to vote for either party.  The Duopoly serves the culture of death and get us to support it by telling us we have to choose which form of death support we favor.

This is why freedom is so precarious, isn’t it? On one side there are complaints of the government overspending and not being able to afford taking care of everyone and on the other it’s an argument that it’s okay to kill or sterilize those who are “less than”. If the free would simply care for the less fortunate these would not be things the state has any say about. That’s the place I want to live. Sadly, it never exists, or at least, not for very long.

Shea’s complexity of thought is really on display here today!  Now, instead of lying for Jesus we have stealing for Jesus.

St. Thomas on the question of Whether Every Lie is a Sin.
On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 7:14): “Be not willing to make any manner of lie.”

I answer that, An action that is naturally evil in respect of its genus can by no means be good and lawful, since in order for an action to be good it must be right in every respect: because good results from a complete cause, while evil results from any single defect, as Dionysius asserts (Div. Nom. iv). Now a lie is evil in respect of its genus, since it is an action bearing on undue matter. For as words are naturally signs of intellectual acts, it is unnatural and undue for anyone to signify by words something that is not in his mind. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 7) that “lying is in itself evil and to be shunned, while truthfulness is good and worthy of praise.” Therefore every lie is a sin, as also Augustine declares (Contra Mend. i).

One can withhold information, evade and maintain a judicious silence to allow someone to mislead themselves.  One cannot directly lie. Neither can one steal.  But taking things which are properly common in situations of real need is not stealing, as is Thomas’ (not my) point.

Marthe:
You do indeed have a right to health care and anyone who says otherwise is acting contrary to Catholic teaching.  However, that does not necessarily mean that the State must provide all or even most of that care.  You have a right to food but that does not mean that the government is supposed to run the grocery stores.  There is a legitimate range of opinion on how healthcare and other goods are to be distributed. 

As for the constitution, we are supposed to follow just laws.  The tenth amendment is a just law even though it limits what the federal government can do in regards to things like health care.  Please do not tell us that we Americans are being unChristian simply for wanting to restore and maintain Constitutional rule of law.

It is unclear that the Constitution, if it prevents justice in terms of health care, is thusly just.  The Constitution is NOT doctrine or catechism, with no magisterial presumptions.  It can be modified.  One should not genuflect in front of the constitution and permit barriers to justice as a consequence.

@Dan - In reality, the Constitution doesn’t have much to do with this discussion and is certainly not a “barrier to justice”.  It is simply a means of organizing a government and stating what that government can and cannot do.  Our Lord did not say “set up an organization, make everybody contribute a specific amount, and from that that feed the hungry”.  He said “Feed the hungry” and “YOU give them something to eat yourselves”.  Even if a government decided to totally eliminate all aid to the poor, it would not change in the slightest the order the Lord gave us.  It only would change how we decide to go about fulfilling that order.

About health care: The teaching of the Church states that it is the DUTY of the political community to ensure that everyone’s rights gets met. And it does appear, from the experience in all other industrialized countries, that it seemed more efficient to delegate that function to the government. Yes, a range of opinions is allowed, but if the discussions take so long that millions (about 50 million in the US) of people go without having this basic need met for decades, while the rest of the industrialized world has indeed found a way to deal with it in some way or the other, just talking about it is not meeting the basic need. And yes, nobody is supposed to get turned down from emergency rooms, but in many cases, if those people had the means to deal with their illness, or to take preventive measures such as yearly medical examinations, before coming to the emergency room with a serious problem, their illnesses may not have become serious in the first place, therefore their basic need was not met. Leaving this entirely to private insurance companies is definitely not an efficient way to meet the need. In fact, what we call “Health Insurance” in Canada is not strictly an insurance as defined by “for profit” insurance companies, since nobody is turned down for any previous condition and nobody gets cut from receiving further care by that “insurance” system if their care is deemed too costly or not cost-effective. And as I said before, the system is not perfect, but it does serve reasonably well a large majority of people.

And Keri: Even if a government decided to stop any and all help to the poor, and to provide no health care because the Constitution does not specifically spell out that it is a government responsibility, it would in no way change the teaching of the Church that it is the DUTY of the political community to deal with those matters. As Catholics, we have a responsibility to see that our government functions in accordance with the teaching of our Church, and to my understanding that does not mean that we can simply refer to our man-made Constitution to justify ignoring such human rights as are spelled out in the teaching of the Church as summarized in the Compendium. Of course, Jesus did not specifically say to set up organizations to feed the hungry or take care of the sick. But the Magisterium has established criteria on the way to meet those needs, and those include some DUTIES for political communities, e.g. governments. The very least that Catholics should do would be not to oppose the government measures that aim to fulfill those duties in the name of their constitution. And more specifically in the name of their own interpretation of the “common good”, words that do appear in the Constitution. Debate is allowed, but the needs have to be met while debate takes place.

More of Sheas communistic apologetics, yawn. To heck with the 10 Commandments, “we” have a RIGHT to whatever “we” “need”. Never mind that someone else might have more or something “we” “need” because they worked harder, saved, made smarter choices. Tough noogies for them! We need it and they got it. Suckers! Why didn’t Lenin think of this? The Bolsheviks needn’t have persecuted Catholics! Shoot, they could have simply quoted Aquinas. I’ll stick to the teaching of the economists of the School of Salamanca. The sword of the state redistributing wealth in order to end poverty (the poor who Christ taught will always be with us) is simply state worship and utopianism. I’ll put my faith in the Lord, not the state.

Marthe, does the Compendium explain that healthcare is so expensive BECAUSE the state has made it so through Medicare, Medicaid, the prescription drug program, etc?? The state has CAUSED healthcare to be unaffordable, has created the problem and now assorted statists call to the state to “fix” it? Any Catholic “social teaching” that ignores the laws of economics with enslaving wealth redistribution schemes is misleading the flock.

Marthe, it’s rather inefficient to have the US govt run health-care.  We’re too large a country to do it. I would prefer local authorities -based on laws established by Congress, to ensure a common set of practice and principals-ensure access to health care for all, but entrust private hosptials and charities to do the work.  I run the risk of a fallacious argument here, but some in the Obama camp point out their wishes to have death panels. That’s why Obamacare is so frightening to some. I agree with what it wants, but not the methods to provide health care.

Cha: Please go be a troll somewhere else.

Marthe Lepine:  Have you seen the movie “Sick and Sicker” on Canadian healthcare?  If yes, would like your opinion. 
Et al:  In a perfect world, the U.S. would have a flat tax and stop marginalizing segments of society.  No one should be penalized for working hard and being successful, but we all should be willing to pay our “fair” share to help the less fortunate (although originally taxes were suppose to be for financing wars and to be temporary). While we need to take care of the least among us where in all of this does the principle of subsidiarity fit in?  The dignity of humans has to be preserved and there is a delicate balance between helping and killing self-worth.  I am a believer in hand-ups NOT hand outs.  “Free” is never free and many times the cost is exhorbidant.  We may have the “right” to something, but with that right comes responsibility.

Cha:

St. Thomas the Communist. Right.

Mark,
    I can appreciate that Jean Valjean shouldn’t go to prison for 20 years for stealing a loaf of bread, but the church’s teachings on social justice are muddled enough by those who feel it supports communism and other state control of the economy and private property. To say someone has a right to steal from another person is just a slippery slope to all sorts of abuse especially when we know full well that many who steal do so because of drug addictions. There is no legitimate need to feed a sinful behavior. And what if the person who steals, steals from the same person each time? Is that still justice? And doesn’t the church also advocate subsidiarity? Maybe the poor man could have asked before stealing and getting the government involved.

To say someone has a right to steal from another person is just a slippery slope to all sorts of abuse especially when we know full well that many who steal do so because of drug addictions.

Which would be a really good point, had I said that.  But I didn’t I said that St. Thomas points out that it is not stealing to take what is common through stress of need.  It is also a slippery slope (and one *much* more likely for people to slide down in the conservative and quasi-libertarian Catholic blogosphere, for people to regard all appeals to the common good as “communist” like our friend Cha.  St. Thomas has plenty else to say about the sin of theft, never fear. But the point I mention in this column, blaspheming as it does against the libertarian ethos, tends to get neglected by Cafeteria Catholics of the Right, just as private property rights tend to get neglected by the Liberation Theologians of the Left.  The cafeteria is wide open on both sides of the aisle.

Conservatism has to answer some questions about government:  does it represent the people?  Is law and its actions truly pedagogical?  Such is the argument for government involvement in marriage definitions.  If so, why is there resistance to the padagogic demands of social entitlements?

Can a nuclear nation truly have a small government? 

Conservatism has to answer the questions about circumstances:  have we truly earned what we have?  Are we responsible for our successes, and what is God’s due in our successes?  As such, to what degree are the poor the face of Christ and due the share of our successes?

The role of government and the role of personal accomplishment and success are at the core of most conservative stumbling around the manner of social justice.  Conservatives find solace in the government when it comes to military activity and can’t support it enough, but then claim governmental incompetence (an incompetence purported to be worse than private enterprise, an unproven allegation) in the suport of the elderly or the poor. 

My opinion:  if one concedes to the military state we have, one should ensure population stability.  Just saying.  That’s rationale and support of the poor and keeping one’s elderly safe and secure (a generally conservative voting bloc) and keeping the numbers of the poor low (a group from which societal instability springs) with child beggars limited in number should be the rationale goal.  Just saying.  This isn’t even Christian in its determination.

Rights flow from the dignity of personhood. 

There are billions spent on “health care” in the U.S. which is contrary and offensive to human dignity. 

Beyond that, there are billions more spent on “health care” that is rooted in sinful pride, not need or dignity.

Cha: In my country, the state has been involved with health care for well over 50 years now, and the costs are nowhere near where they are in the US. IF my memory is correct, per capita expenditures for health services are much higher in the US, while millions of US citizens do not have much or sufficient access to those services. Maybe your State Is less efficient than ours?
Jeff: Many who steal do so for drug addictions, you say? It depends. Many of those who stole millions from benefiting from the recent financial crisis could not possibly consume that much drugs, or they would already have been dead for a long time now! In other words: If you are rich, you gain from clever financial dealings that have little to do with honest work and more to do with stealing. If you are poor, you are simply a thief.

Forrest Cavalier: According to my religion, rights flow from the value and love granted to human beings by their Creator, our all-loving God.

Mark ... Appreciate the reminder. I wasn’t trying to be partisan. Kinda hard when you’re “unenrolled” in either party. I’ll agree that the Dems got the jump on the “party of death” reputation, but I couldn’t help capitalizing on some recent ... er, ah, should I say, unusual “crowd responses” that took place during the past two GOP “debates.”
  Compared to a rousing Register those weren’t even close to what anybody could honestly call a debate.
  Chances are, the bunch watching those actors posing as politicians, would’ve had no difficulty in eliciting all sorts of “hoorahs” and other yelps of applause when they learned that Valjean got 20 for stealing a loaf of bread.
  In fairness to the (“live,” i.e., in-present human, not virtual), audiences watching those packaged “debates”... they would’ve been just as eagerly yelping for tough sentences passed on to Valjean and future Valjeans. It’s the way things are nowadays. Oh, sure, the churches are packed, especially in the Megachurched Bible Belt states, but let’s not ignore the trend towards demanding more “accountability” than a forgiving spirit.
  And aside from initial satire of Rick Perry’s use of privatized penal industries (sorta explains his “job miracle”) ... there’s nothing funny in the way that fast-growing industry is taking over what should be a public function only. What’s next, privatized courts, including criminal courts? Don’t laugh folks; who ever thought privatized pens would be on the horizon, much less built thirty or forty years ago? That’s when I was working in the Federal District Court system, as a correctional counselor for MA, and as a state prob/parole ofcr in FL.
  There are reasons why we have the government run our judicial systems; and if I have to explain why in this or any combox, even any discussion of mercy, forgiveness, St. Thomas, Valjean, Javert and other lessons Victor Hugo has long taught us won’t amount to a pile of cold and greasy “Freedom Fries.”
  All parties and all nations have blood on their hands for the roles they’ve played in the killing machine that’s existed ever since The Fall. You were right to point that out, Mark. I just hope all of us never forget that justice should’ve be yet another item left for the privateers to take over under the clever guise of “privatization.” After all, there’s only one step left to take from leaving things in the hands of privateers: It’s handing the scales of Lady Justice over to the buccaneers, and I don’t mean our ever convenient “ambulance chasin’” attorneys. Let’s not forget Javert. Let’s not forget what happens when mercy’s tossed out with yesterday’s paper with the local Police Blotter “funny pages”.
  Oh hell, here’s a hint for those who might need one, (not you Mark), there’ll be no use for Old Glory or your local state flags in court folks, not when a Jolly Roger will do just fine n’ dandy.

Mr Shea recognizes that to square collectivist wealth redistribution with God’s Commandment he must come up with Church authorities that he believes justify overriding laws like “Thou shalt not steal”. That Commandment does not refer only to the rich, it does not exempt Caesar, it is not qualified with an asterisk and an “except if you are hungry”. It is also the reason why it is so difficult for the rich to get into heaven. They are expected to share with the poor, give alms, etc. Where is the opportunity for sainthood in “giving” at gunpoint? Who gets to decide what is a “fair share”? The best that can be done in these situations is to live in small communities with like minded folks, commies living with other commies voluntarily sharing all their wealth and enjoying endless rights that all that sharing will provide and those who want liberty living among others like themselves, willing to trust the Lord and follow His Laws. There is no need for endless bickering on how “we” “all” have to live. Those of you who like the state and its force can revel in it and those of us who prefer to not live by the sword living as we wish. Pretty simple, actually.

Marthe:
Your state could be efficiently feeding you prime rib every night of the week and if they are doing it by wealth redistribution it is based on theft and slavery. Ends do not justify means, even when done “efficiently”; I understand Mussolini was efficient. If your state is creating their own wealth and paying for your wondrous health care system then they will be the first in history to do so. If you expect me to defend the U.S. government system of theft and slavery you are barking up the wrong tree.

Cha:I am not expecting you do do anything… But Jesus is! I was only sharing with you what another way of thinking is doing for other populations. You are certainly free to think otherwise. For the rest, we shall see when we arrive at judgment day.
And as far as another comment of yours: “commies living with other commies voluntarily sharing all their wealth”... Did you ever read Acts, Chapter 2, verses 44 and 45? You just described the way of life of the very first Christians! And how about Acts, chapter 5, verses 1 to 5?

Cha: I am not going to insult your intelligence by copying those verses for you. I am sure that you have already read those and realized their meaning…

And again, Cha: Have you ever thought that we all (including you) are the hands and the feet of Jesus helping the poor? What if divine Providence expected to provide for the needy by using your hands and your money? As far as I know, it rarely happens that Jesus himself appears at the door of a poor family to bring a box of food!

Oh come on Mark, Valjean didn’t just steal a loaf of bread, he also broke a window pane!  He clearly deserved 19 years on the chain gang for that!

Joking aside, the tricky part about declaring “health care” to be a human right, is that there is such a range of health care that almost no one could afford the billionaire’s care.  If no one could afford that level of care, how can we determine what one has “a right” to?  Somewhere there must be a prudential judgement of what care we are able to provide.  Charity care might well be less expansive than what you might be able to purchase for yourself.  The recipient of charity care still ought to be grateful for the care, and it is a good thing for an almsgiver to provide that care.  Similarly, you do have a right to food, but charity food might well be rice and beans (for which you should be grateful) not the steak and caviar that you feel entitled to (shame on you!).

Chris, that is NOT the point. The Compendium clearly says that the political community has the DUTY to provide the necessities of life to all the citizens. It is not about charity, it is about justice, about being able to find work that will bring a living wage that would allow a person to purchase their own food and that of his/her family. It is not a matter of almsgiving and expecting people to be grateful to be allowed to eat rice and beans. And as to health care, of course it is different, a reasonable level of care must be accessible to all without distinction of income (or social class as defined by income). It is demeaning (goes against human dignity) for people to always be expected to be grateful because the care they receive is the product of private charity; that is NOT what the right to care means. Go and read the Compendium. Of course, if the political community (the State as meaning the government of a country) fails to meet this DUTY, Catholics would be required to make up for this lack, but only as a temporary measure until the system is fixed. Mark has already quoted the relevant paragraph in one of the comment boxes. When it is said that the political community has the DUTY to provide for people’s basic needs, it certainly does not mean almsgiving, it means a just order of things such as work so that people would provide for themselves (which is the most basic level of subsidiarity, by the way). The DUTY of the State would also include seeing that health care is not subject to the WHIMS of the market to the extent that proper health care becomes only available to those who can fully pay for it.

Marthe
Of course Christ expects us to care for the poor! He expects us to CHOOSE to do so or NOT do so and will judge us accordingly. There is no choice in voting to have your neighbor who has more looted to care for the poor. The difference is FORCE, living by the sword.

Marthe
No one held a gun to the head of those first Christians and forced them to share or give their “fair share”. It was voluntary.

Mark, thanks for bringing up this particular argument.  Circumstances are qualifiers in our moral judgments of situations all the time, and we tend to forget that when we are faced with the necessity of judgeing the behavior of others.  I used this argument in a response last Wednesday to the Catholic News Service article on the Alabama Immigration bill, which basically renders all ministry to those immigrants who are here illegaly—even sacramental ministry and the rendering of such basic forms of human assistance as food, shelter, and medical care—as crimes punishable by incarceration.  This, of course, is utterly ridiculous!  To criminialize the Church for fulfiling her Christ-given mandate to serve the poor in his name, as if the preferential option for the poor should exclude those who are here illegally.  The point that I made was that many of the immigrants who have come here, if not most, have done so out of desperation in order to feed and care for their families, who are either with them or remain in their countries of origin.  Their desperation should be considered a mitigating factor in any discussion of the “sins” of illegal immigrants who have “violated” our borders.  Instead, our societal judgement of the undocumented among us seems harsh and uncharitable, and not at all what one would expect from disciples of Jesus Christ toward those who are poor and down-trodden.  The entire issue of immigration should be viewed by Christians through the prisms of the Church’s teaching on the preferential option for the poor and the universal destination of all goods, which you reference in your article above.  When viewed this way, the undocumented among us are not “illegal immigrants” but rather, like the sons of Jacob who came before Joseph in Egypt, they are our brothers and sisters who have come before us in time of need.

Cha: Are you Catholic? You seem to go by “Scripture alone” and to refuse to hear the teaching of the Church through the Magisterium…

I don’t think we in the comboxes are doing a good job of answering Mark’s question: what we are to do about it?  I think those who argue that the ideal society with perfect justice will always do X and never do Y and therefore we are not obliged are the farthest from the kingdom.

God’s grace is perfect and we will lack nothing we need in this life to attain heaven if we cooperate.  God’s justice and mercy are perfect too, but we won’t see that in this life.  And that is something that Cha (and others) miss: we need to make allowances for imperfection in this life.

In the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, we learn that the act of not giving alms affected the rich man’s eternal reward, not Lazarus’.  God expected the rich man to live a little less perfectly in his selfish ideal of justice.

Cha:

Are you Catholic?  You sound like a sola scriptura Protestant.

It seems to me that the debate has devolved to two extremes, Cha on the one side and Marthe on the other.  Cha is ignoring the Social Teaching of the Church which mandates some redistribution of goods, while Marthe too tightly restricts the legitimate range of opinion.

Cha:
Taxation is not a sin.  The scholastics of Salamanca are not infallible, but the Pope is. 

Marthe:
A government solution can be valid but it is not the only way.  Government regulations that prohibit the crossing of state lines to buy health insurance and that discourage healthcare outside the insurance system are partially to blame for the cost of care in the U.S.  Archbishop Raymond Burke has said that he prefers a free market in health care over a state run system.  Surely you don’t think that he is a bad Catholic for holding this position?  Economic liberty is not the highest good, but it is a good, and ideally the government can ensure that the basic rights of citizens are met while simultaneously allowing for as much freedom of choice in the economic sphere as is morally permissible.  You and I disagree on the amount of liberty that needs to be sacrificed for the greater good, but we agree that the greater good is more important than liberty.  Your support of government run health care does not make you a godless communist and my opposition to it does not make me a Randian sociopath.

Mr. Shea,
Can I ask, would you consider Hurricane Katrina a good case study? No one, not even the Libertarian pundits on the radio seemed to think that stealing food, diapers and bottled water was a problem during the aftermath, but everyone seemed disgusted by those helping themselves to electronics and liquor. What do you think, a good example of stress of need? And also perhaps that taking something that may be ruined anyway doesn’t make it NOT stealing.

“in keeping with the country’s institutions, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits”

What does “in keeping with the country’s institutions” mean?

Marcel: It is my understanding that those “institutions” are not just governmentmental but include businesses, charities, and other groups.  If private institutions do not provide that care, it is the duty of the state to intervene to some degree.  The same holds true for things like food and shelter.  It is certainly possible that my interpretation is wrong.  If the Pope infallibly declared that universal healthcare must be provided by the state, I would submit to his judgement.

As for the question of stealing, I don’t see why there is such a controversy.  Showing mercy to a starving thief is not a slippery slope to Socialism, its a work of charity.  Besides, theft of necessity is probably fairly rare in this country anyway so the question seems academic.

@Pat B.: You nicely summarized Victor Hugo’s whole purpose in writing Les Miserables.
  It’s a shame and sad commentary on our times when we can’t take a simple example of one man’s tragic circumstances due to his willingness to break the law against stealing bread (or anything) in order to prevent another human from starving or suffering malnutrition ... without ascribing some form of ideological motive to that initial act of wrongdoing, albeit a wrongdoing committed out of compassion for another’s plight. (If memory serves me correctly, it was Valjean’s sister’s child. But it could’ve been any mother’s child. Let’s not forget the conditions of early 19th century life in France.)
  Without wanting to sound like a broken record here, far too many people today seem more fixated on making sure we’re all “held accountable.” Just look at the situation the Church is facing in Alabama over that ridiculously written immigration law. (Shouldn’t immigration be a Federal matter to begin with? Ditto concerns for any other state dabbling in jurisdictions it has no business dabbling in.) What a coincidence that such a law, written in a predominately Protestant state, (whose practioners are not bound by any canon laws) is eagerly trying to put the screws to all the churches when in fact, state bureaucrats in the governor’s and AG’s respective offices, if not others as well, know full well that while in giving the appearance that Alabama expects all her residents and their respective religious bodies will obey the law ... the state knows full well that the Catholic Church will be the one religious body that can be counted on to say “No.”
  So, the question remains for Alabama, or any other state pulling this, or any other legislative or administrative act designed to clearly challenge Catholic teachings and more specifically, our internally binding Canon Laws on immigration or even adoption laws as they pertain to same sex couples (i.e. Boston’s Archdiocesan Catholic Charities case 2005(?) ... are these laws reflective of a broad social policy goal designed to improve the quality of life for all Alabamians ... or mere smoke screens to isolate one particularly pesky religious body that’s not known for bending with the winds of the day.
  Sometimes the real intent of any broad-sweeping laws may never be fully known until we see who’s prosecuting them and to how much zeal they’re putting into the enforcement of these laws.
  In the name of ensuring everybody’s “held accountable,” including Churches, are our politicians more interested in becoming the next Javerts? And how inconvenient would it be for them to play the role of Valjean? Moreover, why in the name of “pursuing justice” and “demanding accountability,” aren’t our government officials equally zealous in putting on their best Javert-faces when it comes to ferreting out the scoundrels at work in the halls of Halliburton, Blackwater, Koch Industries, et al.?
  We could use another Victor Hugo.

Marcel:

I means that grace builds on nature and Rome wasn’t built in a day.  Organic transition from within, not violent and crazy revolution by fanatics bent on creating Utopia, is the Catholic approach.

Why of COURSE I can’t be Catholic, I don’t believe that Christ intended us to cowardly collectively loot the rich for the poor rather than to choose to help them individually, surely I must be Protestant…that motheaten Shea “rebuttal”. And since Mr Shea and a few other collectivists have decided that to be Catholic is to be collectivist and statist, that is that. Ever heard of subsidiarity? The School of Salamanca? It matters not that Mr Shea can quote Doctors of the Church who opine that those who have “more” should be forced to give to those who have less (wasn’t it St Paul you were quoting to justify this a while back? But THAT wouldn’t be Sola Scriptura, oh no). Facts are facts. States cannot create wealth, they can only take it using guns and that is theft. The fact that the Lord lets us be ruled by tyrants because a majority have fallen into state worship is not some kind of proof that the state is divinely ordained. Men are born free and other men enslave them in various ways. Claiming it is “for the poor” or to create a “distributionist” utopia does not make it righteous…no matter how many Church fathers you quote. You are playing at God, trying to force people to do “good” and patting yourself on the back as “unselfish” as you advocate it. When the “Catholic Social teaching” that advocates this theft and tyranny “for the common good” is declared dogma of the Church THEN I will leave the Church because it will no longer BE the Church as Truth will no longer be integral to her.  Until then those of us who understand what theft is, what tyranny is, what state worship is will shake our heads as you attempt to redefine them as “Catholic” or claim that these things are OK…when done “for the poor” or for the “common good”. God made people with different gifts and abilities for His Plan. You think your plan is better: no inequality, no poverty, no greed, no evil free markets, no scary liberty, no rich. Just utopia administered by politicians. Again ends do not justify means.

Cha:

Deep cleansing breaths.  You are putting a great many words in my mouth in your hysteria. You are also, by the way, bearing false witness against me. If you cannot stick to the point of the post—which is what St. Thomas said, not your fantasies about my alleged enthusiasm for communism—then I will ask to have you removed so that people who do want to discuss St. Thomas can do so.  This is your sole warning.

I have read somewhere a long time ago that Jesus’ teaching, as well as the Church expression of Jesus’ teaching through the Pope and the Magisteria to whom Jesus has promised the support of the Holy Spirit, can make many people feel very uncomfortable - as evidenced by Cha’s reply here. OK, I think a goal has been attained, the rest is up to prayer, grace and the work of the Holy Spirit.
For my part, I was just trying to explain how our system works, and that it is not such a scarecrow. It is not perfect, and some people have been suffering, and some people are never satisfied anyway, but there are still many positive results. In my experience, in my personal life as well as in my professional life, it is usually much easier and productive to do - or write - something and then work at improving it, rather than discuss at infinitum in order to arrive at perfectiion. There will never ever be a perfect system! Most industrialized countries in the world have found some kind of solution to the matter of access to health care, some, such as my country, for more than half a century, and people in what used to be the richest country in the world are still debating the perfect way to do it. In the meantime people get sick, go bankrupt trying to get better, and die. I do not think that I can be faulted for just trying to point out that there might be “something wrong with this picture”.

Marthe: Obviously, you should not be faulted for love of the poor and sick.  Reasonable people understand that no system is perfect and every one has its advantages and disadvantages.  I am sure that the Canadian system is much better than some Americans make it out to be, and the American system, though certainly flawed, is probably not as bad as some Canadians imagine.

God Bless

Cha: If Hugo’s “Les Miserables”  is unable to move you to a more reasonable middle ground, how about Charles Dickens’ “Tale of Two Cities”? We’re starting to look more and more like France (at least attitudinally-speaking) in this nation when the issues of poverty, affluence, economics, social safety nets, and the like, come up for discussion.
  I have one question for everybody ... how “out of hand” does it have to get before erstwhile people of means finally begin to “get it” and stop hiding behind abstract economic theories and see the damn misery before their very eyes for what it is?
  There is class warfare going on and it’s been going on ever since the early 80s with the rise of Reaganomics, the Yuppies’ materialistic attitudes, the trashing of labor unions and the acceptance of the inevitability of gross inequality as a “normal” condition of daily life.
  If there is a form of economic revolutionary activity that has all the trappings of a violent revolution, we had all better get on our knees and pray it turns out like the (very) relatively bloodless Shays Rebellion ... the only successful poor peoples’ revolution in our nation’s history. Out of it came our Constitution and a more stable nation. But to listen to the sniffin’ snobbish put-downs of the wealthy today and put-downs of the President’s call for higher taxes on the very people who stand to gain the very most from the improvement of our roads, airports, rail system, bridges, etc., all I can say is, for their sake they’d better wake up lest their uncalled-for sheer class arrogance blind them to the rising ire of a rapidly shrinking middle class and poor class that have had it with the fiscal floggings they’ve received at the hands of an increasingly indifferent class of new “economic royalists” that have risen from the same muck of the past crowd that ruined this nation’s economy in the late 20’s and early 30’s.
  If anybody wants a poster child for this kind of inexcusable way of thinking, he or she only needs to look at that buffoon of a Louisiana Congressman who’s whining that after taxes, his business expenses, etc., he and his family are struggling to get by on $400K, which by the way, is the same salary paid to the President before taxes are taken out.
  FDR’s quip about the shameful fact that fattened wallets belonging to some people tend to growl louder than the empty bellies of the neediest is even more approbos in this day and age.
  Tax ‘em till their economic blood is white for all I care. Tax all the millionaires, especially the loudest whining millionaires!
  I digress a little from President Obama, who said it wasn’t “class warfare,” but “mathematics.” It’s morality plus mathematics, a combination which seems lost on our wealthiest parasites who seem to have only two words left in their political vocabularies to fall back on: “Class warfare.”

Bwah ha!  Way to go Cha.  Mark often drops a ‘you’re off topic…so shut up!’ when he gets a bit in over his head.  Although he means well, how can you expect somebody “who tends not to vote for either party” be asked to parse the subtleties of St. Thomas.

If I sound uncharitable I beg your forgiveness.

Mark Shea,

While I appreciate you commenting with us common people about your blog and rubbing elbows, isn’t accusing someone of being a “Protestant” (omg)a bit harsh? 

“this is your sole (soul?) warning”. Too harsh!

I’m out.

Rover.

P.S. I do truely appreciate you coming joinging the dialog but as instructional rather than as an authoriarian would have been appreciated.

Rover:

I wasn’t accusing. I was asking.  He sounds and reasons like a sola scriptura Protestant, citing proof texts and screaming “communist” when somebody points out something in the Tradition that makes him feel a bit uncomfortable.  My sole warning has to do with the fact that I don’t owe people a forum so that they can lie that I am a communist.  If you dislike that, tough.  I dislike it when people lie about me.

Mark Shea a Communist? ROFL! Calling Mark a Red is as accurate as Paul Ryan and Rick Perry calling Social Security a Ponzi Scheme. Time for people to hit the books again. B O O K S, things people have to crrrracckkk open and take the time to read without distractions. (Okay, having a mug of coffee on a coffee table is your only exception, guys.)
  G’night, g’morning, g’whatever!

This is getting long, but there are important points here.  To answer Marthe Lépine on Tuesday, Sep 20, 2011 1:38 AM (EDT)

>> The Compendium clearly says that the political community has the DUTY to provide the necessities of life to all the citizens.

I don’t have the compendium, but can you point me to the Catechism?  I find:  1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism ... 1889 ... Charity is the greatest social commandment.  It respects others and their rights…  1910 ... It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society .... [“promote”, not “provide”]

>> It is demeaning (goes against human dignity) for people to always be expected to be grateful because the care they receive is the product of private charity; that is NOT what the right to care means. Go and read the Compendium.

Gratitude is demeaning?  Where in the Compendium should I read that?

>> Of course, if the political community (the State as meaning the government of a country) fails to meet this DUTY, Catholics would be required to make up for this lack, but only as a temporary measure until the system is fixed.

You have it backward.  God gives the duty to us Christians.  We have done well (a large fraction of hospitals in this country were founded by orders;  I think something like 20% of all AIDS care is run by Catholics; and so on), but we can do better.  The state is stepping in because the need is great, but also because “A government with the policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul.”  “If only we just taxed those “millionaires and billionaires”, we’d be able to give free health care to you, so vote for me!”

Chris:
Mark gave the relevant paragraph of the Catechism in an earlier comment/reply in this same combox:
“A right to medical care?.” I an copying it below, starting at No. 2211, preceded with 2 lines that he wrote; note the word “duty”, in the first line and then “to ensure especially” in the second line.

“A right to medical care?”
According to the Catechism, yes.

2211 The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially:
- the freedom to establish a family, have children, and bring them up in keeping with the family’s own moral and religious convictions;

- the protection of the stability of the marriage bond and the institution of the family;

- the freedom to profess one’s faith, to hand it on, and raise one’s children in it, with the necessary means and institutions;

- the right to private property, to free enterprise, to obtain work and housing, and the right to emigrate;

- in keeping with the country’s institutions, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits;

- the protection of security and health, especially with respect to dangers like drugs, pornography, alcoholism, etc.;

- the freedom to form associations with other families and so to have representation before civil authority.”

Then you can take the time to read Chapter four of the Compendium (which is also Church teaching) : Principles of the Church’s Social Doctrine.To find the Compendium just follow one of the links provided by Mark in the main article.

And to “charity” - in the sense of “love” as expressed in Caritas in Veritate, cannot be confused with private charity requiring gratitude. Out of love, a person helping another person should not require gratitude on the part of the other person, the giving should be done without expecting anything in return. If you look down on the poor and expect them to look up to you in gratitude you have done something that they are entitled to have as a matter of justice, it may be private charity, but it is not really loving your neighbour. In my opinion it is more of the nature of feeding your own ego…

Oops… a typo! Towards the end, after the word “gratitude”, there should be a comma,followed by “when”

Marthe,
certainly where despots rule all and the people have no power these things are the duty of the rulers, just as they were the duty of the antebellum slave owners, who frequently did not fulfill them (especially the education part) because it did not serve their interests. And you are happy to be ruled and live by the actions that states do. We lose our humanity, our “image of God-ness” to the degree that we abdicate it to rulers and other humans. That means that the less freedom we have, the less control we have over our actions the less God-like we are. Others relieving us of choices to do or not do simply makes us less human, less what God designed us for. You think that that is such a dandy arrangement you want to forced on all…and are trying to use the Church to promote it. At the risk of being banned as a diseased Protestant, even the Holy family fled to Egpyt to escape Herods edict. But they didn’t have the Compendium.

You are free to think as you wish, and to belong to any church you wish - but I did not write the Catechism, nor the Compendium, and they are the teaching of the Church I freely chose to belong to, which has been delegated by Christ to lead His people through a hierarchy that Christ started by giving Peter the keys.

Cha:

Are you seriously suggesting that the Church’s social teaching supports tyranny?  Bru-ther.!

Mr Shea, I’m SURE you wouldn’t be putting words in my mouth.
Marthe,
The teaching of the Church certainly requires rulers to be fair where rulers exist. It doesn’t require we be ruled by tyrants…even ones who claim they are just tyrannizing us because they CARE so darn much about us.

And thanks for your kind permission to belong to my Church.

Marthe—you are reading into the Catechism what you wish it said.  2211 “The political community has a duty ... to ensure especially ... in keeping with the country’s institutions, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits”

“Ensuring ... the right” does not mean “provide”.

I did not say that I wouldn’t provide charity unless the recipient was grateful.  However, it is not demeaning for someone to be grateful (as you said “It is demeaning (goes against human dignity) for people to always be expected to be grateful”).  I give charity, because Jesus asked me to, because I’m helping Jesus himself.  However, if it was giving them something that they were entitled to, that would be “payment”, not “charity.” When I “give” something, that’s a gift.  When I “pay” something, that’s because I owe it.

Chris: Exactly - if you give something that the recipient is entitled to, it is not charity, it is justice. According to the Church teaching, people are entitled to the necessities of life. If you are not prepared to accept a social order where people are able to get the necessities of life, it does not mean that if you are personally giving such a necessary thing, they are not entitled to it. Of course,each and every one of us cannot fully support all the people who are prevented from obtaining the necessities of life for reasons such as under-employment, unemployment, illness, etc., therefore it makes sense to collectively delegate such things to some social authority such as the government.

Marthe, how does a society that cannot provide all those entitlements individually provide them collectively? If there is not enough indvidual wealth where do you think states acquire it? What of those who simply learn that there is no point to exerting oneself to produce surplus needed to provide charity because it is simply peeled off by “social authority”? All collectives fall prey to human nature, it is why collectivists MUST use aggression to force their “social authority”. Currently in the US, 40% of the population pays taxes and 60% receive. Eventually, the payors will die off/realize they need not work to receive the increasing list of entitlements and the “entitled” will have no one to provide for all their entitled “justice”. What then, labor camps? How does the individual provide Christ mandated charity to those in need when the state steals his surplus?

One of the more amusing “concepts” to come down the pipe of bad ideas is this “fair tax,” which would eliminate the IRS and replace income taxes, etc. with an across the board 21 pct sales tax. Indeed, it would “discourage unnecessary consumption” and force people to live better within their means, as this idea’s chief legislative Frankenstein, Rep.Rob Woodall of Lawrenceville, Georgia contends.
  (It’s almost as amusing as watching this oily-smooth talking Sunbelt pol try to explain away any procedural faux pauss he’s committed while managing Floor Debates on x, y or z bill’s he’a assigned to manage by his party’s “leadership.” To hear Woodall explain away his mistakes and occasional foot-stepping (when he’s not stepping into his own mouth) ... he’s just a “rookie congressman.” Well, it so happens that this “rookie” is as green to Capitol Hill as his pet piece of tax legislation is genuinely “fair.”  Woodall, was a longtime top aide to his former boss, GA Congressman John Linder who retired last year.
  This is a congressman who earns $174 “big ones” (to borrow from Tony Soprano) telling his fellow colleagues on both side of the aisle how important it is to “save taxpayers’ dollars” and practice fiscal discipline, opposes Obamacare and for Americans to rely less on the government, yet that never stopped him from enrolling in Congress’ ever so sweet health care package. When challenged by a constituent to explain this contradiction of sorts (LOL, putting it mildly), this phoney came right out and said he took it because “it’s free.”
  “Free”? And a 21 pct sales tax that would kill the free market, especially small businesses faster than another Wall Street meltdown, is a “fair” form of taxation?
  He must be imbibing the same kind of tea that’s been causing Mitt Romney (who’s demolishing his California seaside manse to build a 12,000 square foot crib) to say he’s “middle class,” “unemployed,” and “corporations are people.”
  We do live in strange times when a majority party that’s running the House of Representatives (reputation) deeper into a Sunbelt-sized sinkhole of their own creation no thanks to their willingness to castigate the poor as freeloaders and deadbeat burdens that must be taken off their (predominately wealthy white check-writers, followers and voters backs)all the while refusing to move in the slightest direction of paying their fair share of the burdens of paying for even the basic maintenance costs of the greatest nation on earth’s national (and for that matter, especially in states like Florida and Texas) state governments.
  Looks like they want something for nothing. Looks like the same kind of rap they routinely put on the poor, mostly non-white poor, non-English-speaking poor, not only within our borders, but across the world as they look down their noses at those poor and forever troubled “Third World dumps,” and sneeringly chide our President for not proclaiming our exceptionalism loud enough to suit their purposes.
  Jean Valjean is more than merely “acquitted.” He stand VINDICATED in the most triumphalist application of the term vindication we can muster when we look at the ingrates, tax dodgers, congressional welfare queens, and other expensive loads daring to call themselves “fiscal conservatives.”
  Towards the end of Hugo’s great novel, Valjean was willing to risk every thing he had to save the life of another human being and prevent further injustice. Compared to the Mitt Romneys and Rob Woodalls of today’s truly miserable political situation, the fictional Valjean is much richer than the “we’re middle class like you” phony low-brows like Romney, Woodall and their ilk will ever be.

@Mark Shea
“A right to medical care?.”
“According to the Catechism, yes.”

Do you really believe that?  If so, lets look at some other things and “rights” mentioned in 2211;

“2211 The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially:
- the freedom to establish a family, have children, and bring them up in keeping with the family’s own moral and religious convictions;”

So a radical Islamist can bring his children up with terrorist “morals and religious convictions?

“- the protection of the stability of the marriage bond and the institution of the family;”

So homosexual marriages are to be protected and made stabile?

“- the freedom to profess one’s faith, to hand it on, and raise one’s children in it, with the necessary means and institutions;”

So jihad is OK?

“- the right to private property, to free enterprise, to obtain work and housing, and the right to emigrate;”

So my own money is my “private property” to do with as I wish?  Also see Math 20;15.

So spies, criminals and terrorist have a right to “emigrate?”

“- in keeping with the country’s institutions, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits;”

What is meant by “in keeping with the country’s institutions?”

@Marthe Lepine

“According to the Church teaching, people are entitled to the necessities of life.”

Then why is the Church not doing more to fulfill her teaching?

To stilbelieve: There is another recent post on Mark’s own “Catholic and Enjoying It” that explains that Jesus, and His delegated Church with her teaching Magisterium, are teaching the basic principles but are not micromanagers or political activists. They leave to lay people the responsibility (and the free will) to devise the ways to apply those principles. The basic mission of the Church is to save souls, and one way to do this is to teach how people are expected to meet the demands of the Gospel, not to do herself the work needed to organize society in order to meet those demands.

Stillbelieve:

So do you always put the most ridiculous and strained interpretation on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or do you just do it for the special purpose of trying to make it look ridiculous when it threaten’s your political ideology?  The Catechism says what it says.  You can either deal with it or continue playing absurd games in an effort to to say the Church supports terrorists.

Sheesh!

What it all comes down to is how Valjean learned the lesson of forgiveness given by the vicar whose candle sticks he stole at the beginning of the book; in sharp contrast to the stern, unbending and ever harshly unyielding bitter attitude and motivating force that pushed Javert to his bitter end, even after he’d just finally caught his prey, Valjean.
  Everytime, EVERY DAMN TIME, I hear or read the word “accountability” or this favorite of today’s very uninimaginative political crowd, “We have to hold people accountable,” the image of Javert pops up.
  Wonder why.
  Man can only bring man to the formality of justice. He cannot muster the full power of what it takes to become more merciful without God’s help. Likewise, it’s not man’s job to “hold people accountable,” we need only to bring them to the legal, fair and formal proceedings any civilized society requires to ensure justice for all.
  It’s best that we leave the “accountability” stuff for the Ultimate Judge.