Thursday, March 28, AD 2024 4:02pm

Set Me Free (From Ideologies) Part 3

The Catholic Church is the biggest defender and promoter of the large traditional family. This endorsement of large families is something that tests the loyalties of ideologues because the Church doesn’t conform to liberal or conservative political pressures.  The more-or-less typical liberal ideologue seems to take on the ideal of saving the global environment by way of discouraging the Church’s teachings on Life and Family issues.  The more-or-less conservative ideologue often takes on the approach to economic theory that goes something like- “you breed em’ you feed em'”. I don’t find much support for either of these hard positions in the actual teachings and guidance given us via Christ’s Church.

The Catholic Church seems to take the best of both the liberal and conservative worldviews in her official social doctrine- as evidenced by the authoritative Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Now many Catholics seem to dispute the authoritative status of the Compendium, but the introduction to the Compendium itself declares that “This document offers a complete overview of the fundamental framework of the doctrinal corpus of Catholic social teaching.” I also have it on my own local Bishop’s authority and that of Archbishop Chaput that the Compendium is “Authoritative”. At minimum then, a faithful Catholic must take in the words found in the Compendium and allow for deep conscience penetration. That’s all I would ask any genuine Catholic commentator to do as well.

Now the Compendium tells us that there are differing levels of documents which comprise the Compendium’s teachings- but I would suggest that the very fact of lower teaching documents being elevated to Compendium status is a strong indication of their current worth. I would also like to note that the following quote from paragraph #250 in the Compendium comes from the section on the Church’s teachings on “The Family, the Vital Cell of Society” chapter 5, we all know that one thing the Church knows quite well is the importance and the nature of human families. As well the quotes in this paragraph are all from papal encyclicals which already have a high place of esteem for orthodox Catholics and persons of goodwill.

Now the paragraph I am going to quote is something that would appeal in parts to liberals and conservatives. Liberals will like the strong assertion  pushing for a safeguarded “family wage”; and they may like the suggestion of “family subsidies”, and “remuneration for the domestic work done in the home by one of the parents.”  Conservatives probably will not like something that smacks of public welfare and calling domestic work “work” which might require payment from tax sources is not one I suspect most conservatives would agree with. Liberals don’t go for too much traditional family promotion- obviously they tend to liberalized views of sexuality/abortion/marriage which place them in red hot danger zones if they intend to be orthodox Catholics. If they are socialist in orientation they may object to the idea that “the right to property is closely connected with the existence of families, which protect themselves from need thanks also to savings and to the building up of family property.”.

In any case the following paragraph from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church cuts across ideological lines- and I love what it says and I would love to see more family subsidies and remuneration for mothers who are working hard at home raising up large families along with hardworking fathers. The problem I see is that the liberal community that would be open to opening up more public resources for families, would also insist on not including any judgment on the type of families being supported. And conservatives who would be more willing to put qualitative restrictions into place would probably reject the very idea of subsidies and remuneration for domestic work after labeling both as welfare- but maybe I’m wrong to assume- I only know enough about liberals and conservatives to know that I don’t want to hang either label around my neck or soul. I’m Catholic, I’m interested in helping in the building up of a civilization of Love- that’s all I try to be about. Anyway please read the actual words of our Church:

250. In order to protect this relationship between family and work, an element that must be appreciated and safeguarded is that of a family wage, a wage sufficient to maintain a family and allow it to live decently[564]. Such a wage must also allow for savings that will permit the acquisition of property as a guarantee of freedom. The right to property is closely connected with the existence of families, which protect themselves from need thanks also to savings and to the building up of family property[565]. There can be several different ways to make a family wage a concrete reality. Various forms of important social provisions help to bring it about, for example, family subsidies and other contributions for dependent family members, and also remuneration for the domestic work done in the home by one of the parents[566].

0 0 votes
Article Rating
12 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Phillip
Phillip
Thursday, May 6, AD 2010 10:28am

“The right to property is closely connected with the existence of families, which protect themselves from need thanks to savings and to the building up of property.”

Perhaps also an argument against the Estate Tax.

Phillip
Phillip
Thursday, May 6, AD 2010 1:08pm

Actually I will defer as you may be correct. But you also may be wrong on how much businesses and small farms are protected. For example:

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/taxes/small-business-owners-face-estate-tax-dilemma/19349404/

It might not be the Gates’ children only that are affected. But I will let others who have more expertise in this address.

Phillip
Phillip
Thursday, May 6, AD 2010 1:17pm

Perhaps the ammendments to the law discussed in the bill above were passed.

j. christian
j. christian
Thursday, May 6, AD 2010 1:17pm

Regarding the estate tax, I like Greg Mankiw’s thought experiment on it:

Consider the story of twin brothers – Spendthrift Sam and Frugal Frank. Each starts a dot-com after college and sells the business a few years later, accumulating a $10 million nest egg. Sam then lives the high life, enjoying expensive vacations and throwing lavish parties. Frank, meanwhile, lives more modestly. He keeps his fortune invested in the economy, where it finances capital accumulation, new technologies, and economic growth. He wants to leave most of his money to his children, grandchildren, nephews, and nieces.

Now ask yourself: Which millionaire should pay higher taxes?… What principle of social justice says that Frank should be penalized for his frugality? None that I know of.

j. christian
j. christian
Thursday, May 6, AD 2010 2:19pm

Fair enough, but the estate tax is an instructive example of why it’s difficult to make blanket policy prescriptions based on CST. Clearly, the argument against plutocracy works in favor of the tax, but Mankiw’s horizontal equity illustration goes against it. CST does not cut neatly across party/ideological lines as some would have you believe.

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Thursday, May 6, AD 2010 3:05pm

About the only safe thing that one can say about tax policy derived from CST is that taxes should not unnecessarily burden the poor. After that it is pretty much all prudential.

The example of family farms regarding the EGT is a good one. Such farms are subject to the same exemption as any other estate assets. Until this year 3.5MM and back down to 1MM I think next year. Is that exemption too low? Why? Are farms different from other businesses, aside from all too common romantic attractions? Wouldn’t most Americans love to own a $1MM farm?

The risk of plutocratic cross-generational wealth accumulation is belied by the real facts, which are that family wealth becomes less concentrated and generally diminishes over generations. Ask the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Kennedys, Dukes, etc.

This is not to say that the EGT cannot be justified, but the arguments are less stark. It is true that there is something a bit unappealing about children and grandchildren living off the hard work of their ancestors, but those ancestors may well have under taken the initiatives they did precisely because of a desire to take care of their progeny. After all they choose their heirs.

Similar problems abound with income taxes. While ability to pay is certainly a valid factor in the calculus of tax fairness, one cannot dismiss that disparities in that factor have a substantial choice component. While most everyone wants to be rich, few people are willing to undertake the combination of risk, hard work, and discipline required. It is easier to let the other guy do it and just slice off a piece.

sibyl
Thursday, May 6, AD 2010 4:55pm

I for one, as a hardworking mother at home, would most definitely like to see some sort of recognition that what we do is real work.

Socializing and nurturing children; providing their earliest (and some would say most crucial) formation as human beings and citizens; guiding and directing their habits, hygiene, and studies; teaching them the fundamental skills to cope with danger, challenge, and the unexpected; watching over their nutrition, environment, and exercise … The list of what I do goes on and on. A day-care worker doesn’t do everything I do, and what she/he does isn’t done as efficiently because the time to do it comes only in pieces.

These are important tasks. Stay-at-home parents should be able to do them without having to pay for the privilege.

Finally, families create stability in a culture, and tax laws, just like all other laws, ought to recognize that fact and adjust accordingly.

Joe Hargrave
Thursday, May 6, AD 2010 5:41pm

Sibyl,

I agree completely. In the abstract, the state should promote the traditional family structure. The larger the family, the greater should be the benefits. Special loans or grants should be given by banks for family businesses or any sort of family financial endeavor.

Ultimately, though, Christian families must come to rely on each other. So the state should not enshrine the nuclear family, which in my view can become a restrictive fifedom for domineering parents.

I hate to use that stupid line, but it is true that “it takes a village” – its just that it takes a Christian village, a Catholic village, a community and a parish rooted in traditional Christianity. It doesn’t take the socialist welfare state that Hillary Clinton was talking about.

I’m not an old man but I’ve seen enough to know that many couples struggle financially in vain. If they would loosen their grip on “their property”, their territory, “their” children (which even good people in today’s society treat more and more like possessions or pets), then many of their problems could be resolved.

This is how the Mexican community often operates; many families sharing resources. Of course the families are usually related. Its why they can be relatively poor and still out-breed blacks and Caucasians in the United States. They don’t have “more kids than they can afford” – they share burdens among themselves.

We don’t need to rely on blood relations the way a lot of ethnic communities do. We have a spiritual community; the Body of Christ. But we don’t use it. We are all afraid of one another, afraid to “impose”, afraid to “overstep”, afraid to “offend”, afraid to offer ourselves. If you aren’t completely self-sufficient, you’re a “loser.” You can turn to the anonymous state for help without being judged.

This is a problem in attitude we need to address. One day, if I have the resources, I will start my own Christian community. Nothing fancy – just encourage Christian families with the same values to live on the same street, send their kids to the same school (or possibly establish a private homeschool), maybe even jointly own a local business together, and see where it goes. It will have to be a community where people trust one another, where parents trust other parents to watch and teach their children for a day (and how much better would that be than some atheist from the teacher’s union pushing homosexual propaganda?).

Sorry to ramble on. I just believe Christians should voluntarily renounce individualism and materialism.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top