Bishops: The rising economic inequality of our society is mounting

[Robert_Sock]

• [44] “And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. [45] Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need.”
  -Acts 2:44-45*

This is communism; people worshiping Christ in common, with all their needs satisfied. The communism of old, like it was in the former Soviet Union, was not communism at all, but oppression and the suppression of religious liberties. When I think of communism today, I think about monks living in a monastery; each with their needs met, and not asking for any type of luxury or worldly pleasure; all worshiping God in peace and calm. (How I wish I would have joined such a religious community when I was younger and healthier!)

Do I think that communism can work today? Yes! But I think of a two-tier system; one tier that is guided by capitalistic principles, which would include the the middle and upper-classes, and the other tier where people work in common to provide their basic needs, and where ‘luxuries’ are largely absent. Such a tier of people could live in relative peace and calm. The Israeli kibbutz comes to mind here! If such a community were present here in America, I would join immediately. All I would need is a copy of The Imitation of Christ.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

. The Israeli kibbutz comes to mind here! If such a community were present here in America, I would join immediately. All I would need is a copy of The Imitation of Christ.

I think some 3rd orders might have something like that. Then there is always the retirement communities.

mayslake.com/

 

[Tigg]

I had no intention of bringing socialism into the picture, but now that you have, let be say that the Church infers that only socialism that denies God is evil; it is conceivable that socialism could incorporate religion into its structure and the Church would condone it!

Please….this has been debunked so many times on these threads, we should know it by heart.

From Pope Leo to John Paul XXIII and beyond the Church has consistently issued the warning against socialism as dangerous and the Church still teaches that coveting your neighbor’s goods and redistributing what belongs to another is sin! The natural right of man dictates that he may do as he pleases to keep, dispose and use what is rightfully his. It is delusional to think there is a hidden virtue God will somehow recognize in the coercion of the State that forcefully takes what is yours.

And about that equality thingy? Are you interested in the modern version Of Leo’s teaching on the Vat web page:

It must be first of all recognized that the condition of things inherent in human affairs must be borne with. For it is impossible to reduce civil society to one dead level. Socialists may in intent do their utmost, but all striving against nature is in vain. There naturally exist among mankind manifold differences of the most important kind; people differ in capacity, skill, health, strength; and unequal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition.

I’ll wait for my utopia until I get to heaven. And can we spell subsidiarity?

Subsidiarity is that principle by which we respect the inherent dignity and freedom of the individual by never doing for others what they can do for themselves and thus enabling individuals to have the most possible discretion in the affairs of their lives."

AB Finn and Naumann

 

[Robert_Sock]

Please….this has been debunked so many times on these threads, we should know it by heart.

From Pope Leo to John Paul XXIII and beyond the Church has consistently issued the warning against socialism as dangerous and the Church still teaches that coveting your neighbor’s goods and redistributing what belongs to another is sin! The natural right of man dictates that he may do as he pleases to keep, dispose and use what is rightfully his. It is delusional to think there is a hidden virtue God will somehow recognize in the coercion of the State that forcefully takes what is yours.

And what does the Church have to say about wealth that is acquired though greed and an abnormal need for power and prestige?

A socialistic society need not take anything from people, other than taxes, but put into place a new, fair and just, economy that promotes equality.

 

[Ridgerunner]

To me, someone else being “rich” is irrelevant. The question is “why are so many poor”?

Remember, only a few years ago, this country had a “negative unemployment rate”; that is, it had full employment plus there were a lot of illegals working at jobs that paid just as well as the jobs legal workers had. The labor participation rate was high.

In the meanwhile, the cost of living has increased dramatically. Sure, the “inflation rate” is low, but that’s only because they skew the figures with housing costs in a housing recession and leave out food and fuel; both of which have increased very significantly.

Employers, particularly small employers, just plain aren’t willing to hire or invest. I know lots of them and lots of bankers, and nobody wants to hire, borrow or invest because of the overburdening and just plain scaryness of this administration. One can play with the documents and the websites all one wants, but nobody can tell how much his health insurance is going to cost when they finally impose the full force of Obamacare on us.

Nobody can tell what his energy or transportation costs are going to be, but everybody knows this administration wants to make them more costly. Nobody can even remotely figure what interest rate costs are going to be once the Fed stops the quantitative easing, which it definitely will do eventually. Nobody knows what the next “tax the rich” move will be, and nobody knows how Obama is going to define “rich” next. This year, of course, lots of people found out how the government is taking a bigger bite out of capital gains, and they know the government wants more. The labor participation rate keeps going down. More and more jobs are part time; practically the total of new jobs have been part time for a long time.

Congress is frozen. The Repubs are an impotent minority, but the Dem majority is just as impotent because it’s now in total lockstep with an Administration that keeps coming up with ideology instead of practical solutions to anything. So no remedial steps can be taken for anything.

So nobody does anything.

There were times in the Depression when unemployment was no higher than (in reality) it is now. There were even times when it was lower. Oh yes, the GDP isn’t going down. There were times in the depression when it didn’t go down either but in fact went up. And but for welfare, does anybody doubt we would have soup lines longer than we had then? If we went back to the welfare policies of the 1930s, we would have longer soup lines than we ever had then. And nobody has figured out (or admitted it, perhaps) that transfer payments mandated by government ALWAYS come out of labor’s share of national income, and have since they first started calculating it in 1929.

Personally, I think we can talk about “poverty” in this country all we want, but nothing is going to happen to alleviate it in a long time, because the structure of things just simply won’t allow for it, and neither will the ideology.

 

[ncashion]

Just a fair and just economic system that allows the eradication of extreme poverty. Maybe I’m out of line here, but what would you call someone with billions and billions dollars of cash?

Robert, it appears in your comments here as well as in your other thread that you assume that all people that have money do not already do much for society. I concede that I am sure some of them don’t, but I am also sure that some of us that don’t have billions of dollars don’t give either. Christ did not say to the poor woman that her meager offering was nothing and that only the “filthy rich” should give, but he told her that her offering was even greater than theirs since it was such a big sacrafice for her. Again, God did not intend for us to eradicate poverty, poverty is a consequence of sin. I think you are too stuck on the “filthy rich” rather than being focused on Robert and what he is doing for the poor. Your Heavenly Father watches silently in heaven. It should not be up to human beings to decide what is done with peoples’ wealth even if they misuse it. Human beings are natrually sinful and how can we even fathom that we would be able to “equally distribute” wealth for the poor; especially in a society where we see social equality as providing abortions and contraceptives to young adults. God bless.

 

[ncashion]

And what does the Church have to say about wealth that is acquired though greed and an abnormal need for power and prestige?

A socialistic society need not take anything from people, other than taxes, but put into place a new, fair and just, economy that promotes equality.

I do not make billions of dollars, but the government sees fit to take 24% of my paycheck. Is that just? What are they spending the money on? Abortion? Contraception? Politicians plane flights? Is that just to you? However, I am not calling for the taking of wealth to be given back to me, but the opportunity to give on my own for my God and fellow man. The ironic part is in the current political climate that we have, the more I work, the more they take. I work one full day a week just so I can pay taxes…however I do not look to the national or world governments to fix it as they are the problems.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Again, God did not intend for us to eradicate poverty, poverty is a consequence of sin.

Are you inferring that those living in poverty are sinners? And are you inferring that there’s nothing we can do to eradicate extreme poverty?

 

[ncashion]

Are you inferring that those living in poverty are sinners? And are you inferring that there’s nothing we can do to eradicate extreme poverty?

They may be living in sin, but that is for God to determine. However, you seem to be presuming that I am saying their poverty is a direct consequence of their sin, which is possible, but again only God knows that. I do know however that poverty, illness, and all evil is a direct consequence of Sin. By sin I mean the original sin that was caused by Adam and Eve. If there was not original sin then we would be in paradise and never have been separated from God. If there was no original sin then we would not die even, as death is a consequence of sin as well. Is it possible to completely eradicate poverty? No it is not per Christ’s words, but that does not mean we do not try, for every human life is valuable. I need to ask the question though…how do you think we can eradicate it? Even if we brought up everyone’s living standards there will always be people that are on a lower living standard than others thus we will consider them poor and the poverty line used to determine it will also change. Who do we help first? Those without water or those without food? Those without shelter? How can we even begin to determine this if the money gets lost in the political system?

 

[Robert_Sock]

They may be living in sin, but that is for God to determine. However, you seem to be presuming that I am saying their poverty is a direct consequence of their sin, which is possible, but again only God knows that. I do know however that poverty, illness, and all evil is a direct consequence of Sin. By sin I mean the original sin that was caused by Adam and Eve. If there was not original sin then we would be in paradise and never have been separated from God. If there was no original sin then we would not die even, as death is a consequence of sin as well. Is it possible to completely eradicate poverty? No it is not per Christ’s words, but that does not mean we do not try, for every human life is valuable. I need to ask the question though…how do you think we can eradicate it? Even if we brought up everyone’s living standards there will always be people that are on a lower living standard than others thus we will consider them poor and the poverty line used to determine it will also change. Who do we help first? Those without water or those without food? Those without shelter? How can we even begin to determine this if the money gets lost in the political system?

I think that saying that those living in extreme poverty may be living in sin is to blame the victim. It also does nothing to to promote efforts to eliminate poverty, but maintains the status quo–people feel justified to turn a blind eye.

Extreme poverty can be eliminate with an international effort and planning. Economic systems can be restructured to end the huge inequality between the rich and those in extreme poverty. Urban renewal projects need to get funded, and new jobs created. Mandatory HS education of all children needs to be put into practice. Etc, etc.

The big reward would be a super-strong economy when everybody is contributing to society! New high-tech products could be manufactured, and the standard of living would increase for everyone. Self help and upper education could be just a computer away.

 

[Robert_Sock]

The gross inequality: The wealth of the top 400 richest is greater than that of the bottom 150 million!

 

[Lancer]

I had no intention of bringing socialism into the picture, but now that you have, let be say that the Church** infers that only socialism that denies God **is evil; it is conceivable that socialism could incorporate religion into its structure and the Church would condone it!

Not so…The Church clearly condemns socialism…but it does affirm that charity by the wealthy is an imperative. Inequality is not the problem…a deficiency of Charity is!

Pax Christi

COMPENDIUM
OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE
OF THE CHURCH

b. From Rerum Novarum to our own day

89…

Rerum Novarum lists errors that give rise to social ills,** excludes socialism as a remedy** and expounds with precision and in contemporary terms “the Catholic doctrine on work, the right to property, the principle of collaboration instead of class struggle as the fundamental means for social change, the rights of the weak, the dignity of the poor and the obligations of the rich, the perfecting of justice through charity, on the right to form professional associations”[144]

Pax Christi

 

[Parresia]

I honestly do not believe this will ever change without the majority of the country, and indeed the world, being evangelized and converting to the Church. I do not believe that there will be true peace and true justice in the world until our Blessed Lord returns to reign. However, short of that, the best we are going to be able to do is when all are attempting to live a good Christian life. True peace, and true justice comes from Christ. It cannot be legislated, or created through some social program.

When all are converted and are sincere in their vocations as Christian men and women, we will see these things improve.

The two primary reasons for the existence of the Church are to worship God and to make saints. Focusing our efforts in the Church towards: 1) giving God due and proper worship; 2) the evangelization of all; and, 3) teaching the Faith with great clarity and fidelity, will yield far better results than any governmental social program that the USCCB might support.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Not so…The Church clearly condemns socialism…but it does affirm that charity by the wealthy is an imperative. Inequality is not the problem…a deficiency of Charity is!

Pax Christi

The quote simply says that socialism is not the remedy, but it does not say that socialism is to be condemned.

Where is the Church on greed, and the abnormal desire for power and prestige?

So the Catholic Bishops are in error in saying that the rise in inequality is problematic?

 

[Rence]

Fancy trying to deny the reality of the inequality in talents and in endeavour which are so obvious, and which are characteristic of people! Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

People are never going to all get paid the same wages. For starters, there are variances in interests, education and experience. A cashier in a grocery store, barista at coffee shop, the sales clerk at a clothing or specialty store is going to get paid significantly less than someone with a four-year college degree or someone skilled in a particular trade. A clerk manning the cashier at the gas station will always make less than a mechanic, a mailroom clerk is always going to get less pay than a degreed accountant or business manager. A nurse is going to get a lot less than a doctor. The person weed eating the fenceline of a ranch will always get paid less than the workers who cut, rake, roll and bale hay. There will be a variance in pay from career field to career field reflecting the cost of the education and knowledge required to work in that job, and the clomplexity of the job itself. Then we get to experience. Someone working in a partictular job for five years will be getting more money that someone just starting that job. That’s not likely to change.

That idea has been expressed ludicrously by Sock as “people refusing to work would be guaranteed a roof over their heads, free food and a computer for self-help classes, but would be denied ‘luxuries.’ ”

Yeah, I saw that comment in that other thread about guaranteeing a roof over the heads of those who refuse to work…good luck with that one

 

[Abu]

Robert Sock #21
[44] “And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. [45] Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need.”
-Acts 2:44-45
This is communism; people worshiping Christ in common, with all their needs satisfied.
Do I think that communism can work today? Yes! But I think of a two-tier system; one tier that is guided by capitalistic principles, which would include the the middle and upper-classes, and the other tier where people work in common to provide their basic needs, and where ‘luxuries’ are largely absent. Such a tier of people could live in relative peace and calm.

Once again there is this confusion and failure to understand reality – never-ending.

In Acts 2:44-47, the faithful lived together and owned everything in common – foolishly called “primitive communism”. These so-called “Apostolics” were condemned by St Thomas and the Late Scholastics, who quote St Augustine. Why?
In his Summa, II-II, Q. 66, art. 2, resp., St Thomas quotes St Augustine: “Augustine says: ‘The people styled apostolic are those who arrogantly claimed this title for themselves because they refused to admit married folk or property owners to their fellowship, arguing from the model of the many monks and clerics in the Catholic Church (De Haeresibus 40).’ But such people are heretics because they cut themselves off from the Church by alleging that those who, unlike themselves, marry and own property have no hope of salvation.”

The reality of Acts 4:34-35 highlights the befuddlement over such “primitive communism”.
A Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953, explains:
(This) shows “that property was sold, from time to time, by the owners of it, according as the Church’s need dictated. The sharing of goods was always voluntary. The story of Ananias and Saphira, cf. 5:4, makes it clear that they were not bound to sell, and that after they had, the price was still theirs. When Barnabas gave all his property, such exceptional generosity was chronicled. There are examples of houses held privately in Jerusalem, 12:12; 21:16. St James, in his Epistle, reveals the existence of rich and poor there. The community of goods does not seem to have been very successful, 6:1, and other churches had continually to send alms, voluntarily, ‘each man according to his ability’, to Jerusalem, 11:29.” [My underlining].

Further, this pre-occupation with “classes” and “tiers” shows the failure to understand the God-given talents which sincere people exercise in free-enterprise to benefit the whole community – which is why “….the world has lately been making extraordinary progress in lifting people out of extreme poverty. Between 1990 and 2010, their number fell by half as a share of the total population in developing countries, from 43% to 21%—a reduction of almost 1 billion people.”
tinyurl.com/ldjt6go

From Caritas in Veritate we see the core of the Pope Emeritus Benedict’s meaning to spread wealth: it is through training, entrepreneurship, work and supplying, at competitive prices through trade, what others need in other countries.

What a shame that Robert Sock seems to learn nothing from all that the Gospels and the Church really teach.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Further, this pre-occupation with “classes” and “tiers” shows the failure to understand the God-given talents which sincere people exercise in free-enterprise to benefit the whole community – which is why “….the world has lately been making extraordinary progress in lifting people out of extreme poverty. [highlight mine]

What are these God-given talents? The ability to compete? Greed and the abnormal desire for power and prestige?

Are you saying that those living poverty, especially in third-world countries, have no God-given talents that they would be willing to use to promote society? What they are lacking is opportunity, education and decent-paying jobs.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The gross inequality: The wealth of the top 400 richest is greater than that of the bottom 150 million!

So what? At one time, the moveable wealth of John D. Rockefeller alone was greater than that of all other Americans combined. But during the same period, the wealth of all Americans increased.

Decreasing the wealth of some does not increase the wealth of others. If the income going to capital is impaired, the income going to labor moves down with it. The ratio is almost unalterable, but the percentage of total national income going to labor reaches its highest at full employment, even though it isn’t all that much of a change. The reason for that is that full employment of labor ensures the full employment of capital.

So, impairment of wealth is not helpful to labor, but is actually harmful to it. The things that most affect how labor is doing are a) full employment, and b) how much the government takes in transfer payments.

The percentage of national income going to labor and to “non-labor” is a single entity, being about 66 2/3% of all national income. That has not varied significantly since the government started keeping track. The more that gets transferred to “non-labor” the less is received by active labor. Some of that can’t be helped; the effect of an aging work force, for instance. But a great deal of it can be helped.

Employment is the real key, not the wealth of those who are the wealthiest. The latter is entirely irrelevant to the well-being of those who work, EXCEPT insofar as attempts to confiscate it lead to reduction in employed capital. Remember, the percentage never changes to speak of.

Now, it must be acknowledged that a great deal of capital in this country is not productively employed or rather, it is not put to its most productive use. But presently, the most productive uses are being discouraged by government, so a lot of money is “sitting on the sidelines”. But that’s not the only unproductive capital. If businessman “A” has 10 machines and enough workers to fully employ only 8 of them, with the other two being used only part of the time, then his fear of government imposed penalties on hiring, like Obamacare, will discourage A from hiring two more people. So, capital in the form of the machines is being underutilized. More people go on the dole in one way or another, and the income of active labor goes down.

 

[ishii]

So what are you doing about it?

 

[ishii]

I had no intention of bringing socialism into the picture, but now that you have, let be say that the Church infers that only socialism that denies God is evil; it is conceivable that socialism could incorporate religion into its structure and the Church would condone it!

Hello Robert -

Here is a useful quote for you from Pope Pius XI: "No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true socialist."

Now, I’m not sure if you’re advocating that we all get together, hold hands and sing kumbaya and throw our money in a common pot. That may work in some smaller religious groups, but it wouldn’t work in our larger society. You can’t force people to be equal. I think what the Church has always taught is that we are required to be charitable and give to the poor. I would be very wary (given the history of the 20th Century) about trying to form a government with the goal of “eradicating poverty.” If you set such a lofty goal, what’s to prevent the government from trampling on the rights of a few inconvenient people? (inconvenient to the stated goal of the government). That is what happened during the 20th century - millions killed deliberately in an attempt to perfect mankind. It doesn’t work.

I would recommend reading up on the topic of economics and the global poverty issues. For economics I would start with Thomas Sowell. For global poverty issues I would read, “Eat the Rich” by PJ O’Rourke. (seriously).

Ishii