Catholic Social Services has recommended that its 60 member bodies not participate in the Government’s new welfare-to-work program for people whose welfare payments have been cut off, saying the program is contrary Catholic social teaching.
"We think it’s an unduly harsh system and we don’t want to be confused as administrators and policemen of the program," Catholic Social Services Australia (CSSA) Director Mr Frank Quinlan told the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday.
The newspaper reports that it has obtained a confidential paper distributed to the 60 Centacare organisations, made the recommendation because "Catholic social teaching specifically calls for those who are outside the paid workforce to be guaranteed a subsistence level of income."
The new system "undermines the right to life and subsistence because a high proportion of those who have had their payments suspended for eight weeks are unable to meet basic needs," the paper said.
Other church organisations, including the Salvation Army and the St Vincent de Paul Society, have also rejected the program.
The spokesman for the St Vincent de Paul Society, Dr John Falzon, told the ABC this morning that instead of offering dignity to vulnerable people, the welfare-to-work program would actually take away hope.
Not knowing the details of the Australian program I don’t know how it really differs from the welfare reform program that happened here in the States. Though I don’t think welfare reform here exactly got a wealth of support from the bishops. There were many prophets of doom foretello of families starving because they would have to find jobs. I especially doubt the statement "those who are outside the paid workforce to be guaranteed a subsistence level of income" appears anywhere in documents related to Catholic social teaching, especially that it is the government that is to supply it. I would think that St. Paul’s statement "If any one will not work, let him not eat." might somehow be part of Catholic social teaching. This idea in Christian circles that it is the job of government only to provide for the poor is pernicious and robs us of our own responsibilities towards the poor. The saint who tore his own jacket in half to give to a poor man did not subsequently demand that there be a government coat giving program instead.
Too often the idea of a safety net is turned into an all embracing cocoon which is not to the advantage of the dignity of a person. The horror stories that were foretold here just did not happen and instead we had stories of hope. Of course there can be an immoral welfare-to-work program but there can also be immoral welfare programs that turn people into state supported drones living on government life support.
6 comments
I think the main thing is that it’s not the Government’s job to do this (taking care of the poor). It’s our job, as christians. By asking the government to do it we are handing over own personal responsibility to care for others. Of course there will be those unwilling to do so, but just as God created us with the dignity to NOT do His will, we are also bound to grant that dignity to each other. So, we, as christians should simply give extra of ourselves to comensate for the stingy ones, not strip them of their God-given freedom of will in order to ease our own conscience. It’s totally counterproductive to do so. It fosters distrust and hostility rather than comraderie and friendship which might actually convert the stingy ones to our way in the end. {Gotta love those tangent topics in Theology of The Body.}
I never believed the Church should say anything about “helping the poor” except that we as Christians should do it. I think every group in the Church would do better to just show by example how to truly LOVE a fellow human by helping them in the form of the works of mercy. I think a lot more people of any or no faith would give of their time and money if they saw that the Church humbly wanted to care for body and soul without the political, anti-government junk attatched.
I don’t know, I have mixed feelings on the subject. I know a lot of people on what we now call “temporary assistance” and I think the department is foul. They will pay people to not work. They will pay for contraception and day care, but those funds would be much better spent on things like vocational programs to help people to work.
But we cannot label everybody on welfare as “unwilling” to work. I have known single teenage mothers who are still in school who have had to be on assistance. I also know that the job market here in NYS is absolutely horrible (I would hazard a guess that things got worse here after 9/11), and finding a job at even at a convenience store is difficult task.
I also do know people who cheat the system. I know people who collect welfare under different names to get more $$. I actually know too many people like this, and the philosophy escapes me.
But I am not sure the welfare-work program is so great either. Recently there was a story here in the Albany area about a woman whose child fell from an 11-story window because she had to be at work and had no child care for her child. You see stories like this a lot. Mothers having to leave their children because they have to work to be in subsidised housing or have to go back to work. They have to have jobs where they work like 42 hours a week to bring home less than $300.
Anyway, I am not sure what the answer is, but perhaps the problem is being attacked from the wrong end. And maybe that is where the Church can step in and help. But I don’t think we can label everyone that needs help as lazy.
Pansy, who was labeling everyone that needs help as lazy?
BillyHW,
My last line was not quite the jist of my entire comment. It was not my intent to say that everyone who is for welfare reform thinks everyone who needs assistance is lazy. I guess I did not explain myself that well. It was not an attempt to correct Mr. Miller for using non-politcally correct language and I am sorry if that is all you got from my comment.
I was however responding to Mr. Miller’s quote of St. Paul:
I would think that St. Paul’s statement “If any one will not work, let him not eat.” might somehow be part of Catholic social teaching.
I shortened “will not work” as lazy. My point was there was a lot more to this issue than people who “will not work”. For example single motherhood is just too much a norm in our culture. Many single mothers are far from not willing to work, and on the contrary work very hard.
My point was not to turn people on assistance into heroes either. The entry was about the Church’s duty where this issue is concerned. And part of their duty is not simply to fight this battle from the end: to welfare or not to welfare, but in the parishes being some kind of influence in their community.
May I just remind everyone commenting that the welfare situation in Australia is not the same as the welfare situation in the US. There are many different types of assistance in Australia and they are based on the different reasons people need assistance. In Australia single mothers are given a pension that is very different to “the dole” – unemployment benefits. This is just one example. I don’t know the details of the system they are suggesting but I’m just saying not to assume that the situation is the same as it is in the US.
Comments are closed.