> a correct understanding of Catholic doctrine allows for change over time

> dogma : a fixed, especially religious, belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts

looks like Francis is wrong, and not a Catholic nor a pope

Could perhaps a charitable interpretation of the song be that there are some people on welfare who could work but choose not to (sloth) and choose to eat excessively when they could choose otherwise (gluttony), and that the musician is complaining about these specific people, and not people who may simply be overweight due to poisoning or unemployed due to bad luck?

yes, feeding those in need is the clear teaching; no, this is not necessarily through welfare and taxation

Again, this isn’t Jesus being “pro-taxes” but for prudence: He was saying if people are going to force you to pay taxes, well what are you going to do? If you don’t pay that makes you a criminal, so just to pay it to avoid trouble

Ok, and what we’re saying is in none of those passages is Jesus saying to force people to hand over money using the government so that people can collect it in welfare; the difference between a nonprofit or giving someone who is homeless on the street $20, versus a government agency fining someone and forcing them to be taxed for whatever purpose the government may see fit

However, that is not to say Christians may not advocate for such a view (for government welfare), I would simply state it is not the “Christian position” that Jesus is positively requiring something like government welfare to exist

superfluous wealth (beyond one’s needs) is morally the possession of the poor, in the theological tradition (although not one that is much talked about?) - hence you might advocate for wealthy people to give charitably under pain of present or future punishment by God (unless they feel they should retain such funds for some reason - some may need less than others, and some wealth is capital, like if a person owns a boat they can’t break up the boat to feed people)

Care for the poor is a positive virtue, but welfare is simply forcing taxpayers to pay, and allows people to indiscriminately collect; it’s not particularly moral or immoral, it’s kind of amoral in a way (when abused, immoral?)

Thank you for this conversation, I think it is an important one to continue (I may be out for a bit, I could try to further elaborate on different passages if requested. Whether government or corporations or individuals are in charge of doing certain things, I do agree we should care for the poor for sure and would enjoy seeing more discussion of how to meet the needs of those in most need when possible)