Social Insurance and the Church

Nicer than your average insurance office.

I'm a bit late on this, but here is a fascinating post by Frances Woolley:

The Catholic church is one of the world's oldest insurance companies. [...] Religion as social insurance, Christian style, works as follows: individuals tithe, or give 10 percent of their income, to the church. In exchange, the church provides alms for the poor, that is, a minimal guarantee against destitution.

[...] being independent of the established church meant cutting oneself off from the (sometimes expensive and inefficient) social insurance services it provided. Hence these religions preached responsibility, both for oneself and for others in need. Some of the most iconic British brands, such as Clarks and Cadburys, as well as international companies such as Bethleham Steel, were founded by non-conforming Quakers. To generalize from the savings behaviour of these groups to society in general would be dangerous.[...]

In Europe, Canada, and to a lesser extent the US, government-provided social insurance has replaced that provided by religion. 

It's a great post, well worth reading the whole thing. It got me thinking, anyway. Taking it as given that the Church should be caring for the poor, but hasn't been for some time now, is it wrong for the state to try to fill this gap? Does one God ordained institution have the right to fulfill the duties of another when that other is unable or unwilling to do so? I'm thinking specifically about care of widows and orphans, in which the Church is specifically called to perform the duties normally left to the head of the family.  Anyway, interesting thoughts.