In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called "Welfare State". This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State". Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.
By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.
Related Link: Centesimus annus ~ Vatican
That is really good to read. I was at a "Meet the candidates" meeting on Monday, and we were asked how we would protect the vulnurable (in a strong Labour area). Only myself and the Act candidate even mentioned private charity (as far as I can remember), everyone else was just thinking about state assistance.
ReplyDeleteCharity is far more efficient than the State, and needs to be promoted. The Family Party favours delivering welfare services through churches, charities and community groups as this is likely to be more efficient than the state just handing out cash.
http://www.familyparty.org.nz/policy/welfare
Mr Dennis
Interesting Lucyna, but the JP2 quotes are too vague! I understand (I think) the principle of subsidiarity, but some real examples would be useful, otherwise we could easily misinterpret JP2 in the way Mr Dennis has - thinking charity represents 'local community' better than 'big nanny state'.
ReplyDeleteWas JP2 really suggesting that care of the aged, sick, etc should be handled by charity? Or that all people require more than just state fiscal/medical/etc aid? (but that such fiscal/medical/etc aid is also vital, and often a precursor for building the human relationship that will truly help the person needing help).
Just thinking out loud...
Squaredrive, to understand what JPII is saying, it's important to remember that he (and other Popes) never actually tell us how to order society as such, but more point out errors to watch out for and the direction to go in.
ReplyDeleteSo, he wasn't suggesting how to take care of the age, sick, etc, just how the focus has moved from helping to just handing out money without caring for the actual person - which is better done by individuals than by the state.
Of course, I could also be misinterpreting him, but, what I get from the two paragraphs I've posted is that JPII recognised the Welfare State had gone out of control and taken over areas where it had no right to take over, and through doing doing so has allowed individuals to shirk their personal duty to people less fortunate.
We pay our taxes thinking we've done our bit because the gov't hands out money to those in need, but that money instead generates dependency and doesn't really help many of those who receive it.
And as soon as people start talking about reforming welfare, we get many church groups jumping up and down saying, what about the poor! So here, JPII is talking directly to those groups. It's not evil to reform welfare if welfare doesn't help those it's supposed to help.
The principle of subsidiarity in NZ has been well and truly stompted on with the govt determining how we discipline our children (as an example).
I'm sorry, this comment is really inadequate with the points you've raised. So I hope what I have managed to say in some way answers a little of it.
In a party politcal broadcast, sj dennis said Charity is far more efficient than the State, and needs to be promoted.
ReplyDeleteIt is precisely because of the inadequacies of charity that the state had to step in to help those in need.
Troglodytes (sj dennis?) may prefer Dickensian times, but civil society has progressed from there.
In a party politcal broadcast, sj dennis said Charity is far more efficient than the State, and needs to be promoted.
ReplyDeleteIt is precisely because of the inadequacies of charity that the state had to step in to help those in need.
Troglodytes (sj dennis?) may prefer Dickensian times, but civil society has progressed from there.
And in turn, it is precisely the inadequacies of state run welfare that we need to look again at how we deliver charity.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be unaware of the role real charity currently plays in this country. You think the state delivers everything?
Troglodytes (sj dennis?) may prefer Dickensian times, but civil society has progressed from there.
ReplyDeleteThat's hardly a civil response Fugley.
Thanks all - so we seem to agree the welfare state is deficient in caring, but charity is deficient in providing universal coverage at an adequate level.
ReplyDeleteIn fact the welfare state often provides universal coverage, but at an inadequate level (thinking of NZ state refusal to fund family members who caregive for disabled/severely ill family members).
And I think the reason church groups & others jump up & down about welfare reform Lucyna, is because such reform (in NZ) almost always revolves around cutting support - surely the Christian response is to lobby for adequate support?
Tariana Turia's comments on the dole deserved more careful consideration I thought - on first glance she is pushing 'work for the dole', but her insistence that a minimum wage or better be paid for such work takes it beyond this. This could be a valuable tool in a recession (while keeping the dole for those looking for other work), though I understand make-work schemes require stringent monitoring to ensure the work is productive.
So where does that leave us on the balance between state & charitable provision? It seems the state is required to get universal provision of physical & financial needs, but charity may find its role in the psychological, spiritual, personal support roles?
Thanks ZenTiger. Favouring the delivery of welfare services through community groups does not mean abandoning state welfare, rather redirecting some of that money through groups that are more likely to use it efficiently and actually benefit the poor. No-one is suggesting ditching the welfare system, just tweaking it to make it more effective.
ReplyDeleteEven our ambulance system runs on private charity. It is private charities who ultimately care for the truly destitute - the City Mission for example. This is because charities are flexible enough to actually identify needs and provide good solutions, rather than just handing out cash. This is why we need to promote charity.