In the Preamble to the Constitution the Founding Fathers
listed the general purposes for which the government of the United States was founded,
namely “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
It is highly unlikely that any of those founders
would have expected the government of the United States to grow to its present size
and to assume control and responsibility over as many issues and elements of
public life as it has.
Periodically the citizens of the United States
debate whether the government has taken on responsibilities that are beyond the
promotion of the General Welfare.
During the time between the publication of this “Frame
of Government” in 1787 and its ratification by eleven states in
1788, there were public and private debates about its various proposals and the
ramifications of accepting them.
For example, Robert Yates, aka “Brutus,” an author
of anti-Federalist writings, questioned the government’s power to lay and
collect taxes…to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the
United States. (article 1, section 8).
“Brutus” asked what is implied in this authority and
where are the limits on this power. He did not question what is included in “general
welfare,” but we can safely presume that
today this expression includes a great deal more
than he would have imagined in 1787.
Many citizens see the widening of “general welfare”
to be a necessary development of the government’s responsibility. New times, they say, call for
new measures.
The founders of the Catholic Worker Movement,
Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin, often spoke of the need for a personalism which
recognizes the sacredness of every human being. No one can be discounted since all are made in
the image of God.
Although there are several descriptions and
definitions applied to the term “personalism,” for Maurin and Day it was
radical, active application of love to all people, all creation.
Maurin saw the danger for a citizenry to rely solely
upon the government to meet the needs of its people. Many Americans know first-hand
the delays, waste, and failed opportunities resulting from governmental
red-tape and mismanagement.
Without denying the need for government’s
intervention in providing assistance in some cases of poverty (destitution),
health, and child-care, Maurin was concerned that people in general, and
Christians in particular, have lost the Gospel’s mandate to feed the hungry,
give drink to the thirsty, provide shelter for the homeless.
Maurin’s philosophy on this matter appeared in one
of his so-called “Easy Essays” in an early issue
of The
Catholic Worker newspaper:
In the first centuries
of Christianity
the hungry were fed
at a personal sacrifice,
the naked were clothed
at a personal sacrifice,
the homeless were sheltered
at personal
sacrifice.
And because the poor
were fed, clothed and sheltered
at a personal sacrifice,
the pagans used to say
about the Christians
“See how they love each other.”
In our own day
the poor are no longer
fed, clothed, and sheltered
at a personal sacrifice
but at the expense
of the
taxpayers.
And because the poor
are no longer
fed, clothed and sheltered
the pagans say about the Christians
“See how they pass the buck.”
Has the Church turned over to secular authorities
one of its primary responsibilities? Without denying the value of many
Church-related organizations serving the poor, the issue can still be raised on
a personalist level to all Christians facing judgment day: “When I was hungry,
you gave me nothing to eat; when I was thirsty, you gave me nothing…”
Defending our inaction by pointing to the government
dole may be a rather flimsy excuse.
No comments:
Post a Comment