And yet another attack by Caesar…

…on yet another work of mercy: feeding the hungry.

The more spheres of life Caesar bans the Church (that would be you and me, not some parachurch organization or Catholic apostolate) from freely exercising the mercy of God, the more he guarantees that society will overheat from friction and burn to the ground. One of the many side benefits of the presence of the Church on planet earth is the countless small acts of social lubrication it provides by its members doing out of love what government organizations do with much less efficiency for pay.

The question is therefore not “Will the Church survive the growing hostility of the United States?” but “Will the United States survive its increasingly suicidal hostility to the Church?”

The works of mercy are our principal road to heaven as disciples, according to the parable of the sheep and the goats. It is not merely for the good of the least of these, but for the good of his saints that God ordains them. Caesar should beware of the fact that nemesis always follows hubris.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” – Anatole France

  • Paladin

    Until M gets his act together:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-homeless-feeding-bans-20120611,0,1038192.story

    They’re also passing more vagrancy laws, first introduced during the Reformation, once attacked by Chesterton.

  • Paladin
  • Amy

    I can understand and support some basic guidelines to ensure safety and sanitation (for larger operations, not random drivers giving someone something from their grocery sack). Groups feeding people should ensure that food safety protocols are followed to avoid contamination or spoilage. They should also make a real effort to limit any resulting trash and littering. And, they should avoid creating difficulties in the placement of their distribution (If their truck stops twice a day in a park frequented by families and that results in that park becoming a de-facto homeless community, I think the city can say “you need to go somewhere else so those families can still use the park”).

    However, those guidelines and legitimate regulations should not become so cumbersome or onerous to keep people from actually feeding those who need it.

  • The Deuce

    This is part of the blind faith some people have, in direct opposition to all evidence and reason, in the government’s magical ability to do anything more effectively than individual citizens. Hence, state-worshipers will advocate having the state take over the care of the elderly, the care of the poor, the administration of health care, and everything else, even knowing full well that doing so will squeeze out the private citizens that already perform those services out of charity, because they believe that the state is somehow free of original sin and all the human limitations that private citizens have, and so will be able to do it better. It never occurs to them that the state is made up of human beings, just like the human beings that engage in private charity, only minus the charitableness.

    • Ted Seeber

      Which is why I’d like to replace all welfare with the Nun’s Loophole- and tell everybody wanting a tax decrease to emulate St. Katherine Drexel.

      • beccolina

        What is the Nun’s Loophole?

        • Paladin

          St. Katherine Drexel’s “charitable ways so impressed Congress in the 1920s that she successfully lobbied for an amendment to the federal tax code that would allow an organization that gave at least 90 percent of its income to charity an exemption from income taxes. In 1923 alone, she had trust income of $217,426.98 and was forced to pay $74,390.32 in taxes, a 34-percent bite. The law became known as “The Philadelphia Nun Loophole.””

          • Ted Seeber

            Thank you Paladin- I hadn’t gotten back to this yesterday.

            The end of the story, unfortunately, is that the nun’s loophole, in the 1950s, was lowered to 75%, and began to be exploited by large corporations to avoid taxes. Today it’s still at 75%, but the reporting is extremely onerous.

  • Observer

    What about banning the feeding of homeless birds and fowls in parks? On another note, Dr. Scott Han’s mom would be in violation of the law. As I recall from a story he told, his mom would pass out care baskets with food to homeless people on the road when travelling.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X