Does the State have a duty to lift the two-child benefit cap to promote human flourishing?      

Unless you have been living as an anchorite for the last year or so, you cannot have missed the pressure on the government to lift the two-child benefit cap: that is, put simply, the rule that couples on universal credit get no supplements to their income beyond the first two children.

The pressure to lift the cap has not only come from left-wing parliamentarians and Labour grandees such as Gordon Brown. Three weeks ago the Anglican Archbishop of York weighed in, saying the present policy added to the “reality of child poverty”.

And, of course, for well over a year the Catholic bishops’ conference in England and Wales has campaigned officially against the limit on the basis that by its nature it devalues children rather than seeing them as a blessing and is therefore immoral.

The proposal to abolish the cap will obviously attract many. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Catholics, who within the confines of natural law have as much right as anyone else to take part in deliberations on the way secular authority is exercised, voting for it.

But a further issue arises. Is the State actually bound to lift the cap as part of its religious duty to promote human flourishing and sound morality, as is suggested by the hierarchy and others? That is a more difficult question, and the answer more uncertain.

To begin with, of course it is true that sound doctrine requires the State to save the poor and disadvantaged from what would otherwise be the stark effects of unbridled individualistic capitalism: Rerum Novarum is as true today as it was in 1891.

True also that, as the Catechism has it, civil authority must “consider it a grave duty to acknowledge the true nature of marriage and the family" and “protect and foster them”.

But to draw from this a peremptory religious necessity for a state subsidy of a given amount for each child of the less well-off, without any right for the secular authorities to set any restriction as to the number receiving it – or for that matter any consideration of whether it is necessarily promoting a proper doctrine of marriage and the family, since it would apply equally to the children of casual unions – is a remarkably long leap of reasoning.

Many would say that it is also doubtful as a matter of either secular or spiritual logic. Again, no-one will argue with the bishops’ conference when it points out that, far from children being a burden on society, we must value every new life as sacred and a blessing. Indeed so: we all know that any child, from the moment of possible conception onwards, is a being of infinite spiritual worth in the eyes of God.

But here too we must be careful how far we reason from this. As soon as we derive from it the inference that the State must avoid any taxation or social security measure which might prompt families to make difficult decisions about having new pregnancies, the ground immediately becomes dodgier.

Children may not be a burden on society: but they are also a very sacred responsibility on parents. While of course anyone thinking of starting or supplementing a family must recognise uncertainty and have faith and hope that God will provide, they must always remember their equally fundamental obligation, as far as they can properly, to nurture and promote any child that results from it.

To eschew any consideration of whether they will be able properly to fulfil this charge is a grave error: the suggestion that the State should actually encourage them to do this is, to say the least, open to some little doubt.

And this is before we get to the obvious point. The cost of removing the two-child cap runs into billions; and unlike the grace of God, the resources of the State and its taxpayers are not unlimited.

There are many other calls on government money, which not only demand the support of decent people but chime neatly with Church doctrine: education, looking after the old and the sick, and preserving the environment to encourage human flourishing are a few, not to mention giving tax relief to Catholic charities.

Since we are here dealing with secular monies, including those of non-Catholics, there is a strong argument that this is an area where the State should be given a large margin of discernment on where to draw the line, subject only to its duties to preserve the common good and to observe natural law.

By all means, readers, vote if you wish to lift the two-child cap. But in doing so, remember that you are probably not simply giving God his due but simply deciding how far to render to Caesar what you think is his.

This is a secular political decision, and you have every right in conscience to vote for or against removing the cap according to your own political inclinations.

Photo: Children in Powis St as their mother tries to usher them into their home in Toxteth, Liverpool, England, 21 March 2006. (Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images.)

‍