Catholic/Christian source on economics - is it socialism or capitalism

[Al_Masetti]

Dignus est operarius cibo suo

In English: The worker is worthy of his food. (Matt. 10:10)

You might be surprised here by the word cibo, “food,” since the more famous version of this verse is the example provided by Luke 10, which is also repeated in I Timothy 5, dignus est operarius mercede sua, “the worker is worthy of his reward” (or “his wages”).King James renders this as “the laborer is worthy of his hire” (Luke) or “The laborer is worthy of his reward” (I Timothy).

Read more here, particularly on the differences in Latin/Greek/English translations.

vulgateverses.blogspot.com/2008/05/dignus-est-operarius-cibo-suo.html

The point, however, is that people are to be paid, one way or another, for their work. Whether they get a salary [salt], or a commission, or share or some other tangible reward. Whether the work is thinking, taking action, filling a position, saving & investing, or hard manual labor.

And when coupled with “thou shalt not covet a neighbor’s goods” and “thou shalt not steal”…

These three biblical quotes make a pretty good case for people being entitled to a free market based system of economics.

 

[Al_Masetti]

In this parable, Jesus speaks in terms of the common financial and economic practices of the day, which are not so different from today, 2000 years later. Things that people could easily understand:

Matt 25:27 … you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

Matthew 25

The Parable of the Talents

14"Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15To one he gave five talents[a] of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey.

16The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.

19"After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.’

21"His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

22"The man with the two talents also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.’

23"His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

24"Then the man who had received the one talent came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’

26"His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28" ‘Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

 

[Al_Masetti]

In my opinion, this quote from Matt 25 is about faith and how those who have faith will get more … and more will be expected from them … and that we are not to sit all day idling or hiding, but to go forth and apply that faith and spread it.

But the metaphor Jesus used was a positive one … He used the ideas of investing and saving on a personal and individual basis, of managing money and resources … as a way of giving His message … of getting His point across.

Jesus did in other places say or suggest that people who devoted all of their energy to making money and who kept everything for themselves would be punished and not rewarded.

But he did use favorably the idea of individual and personal money management.

And in Matt 25, Jesus also used the idea that one wealthy man with a large enterprise (equivalent to a modern corporation) employed a large number of more junior men to whom he delegated the authority to invest his money. He gave them responsibility and expected results.

Jesus also used that same model when he brought on a large group of key “employees” (The Twelve Apostles) and a much larger number of disciples … who then went out and spread Christianity throughout the world. Baptizing them in the name f the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

In this parable, Jesus speaks in terms of the common financial and economic practices of the day, which are not so different from today, 2000 years later. Things that people could easily understand:

Matt 25:27 … you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

Matthew 25

The Parable of the Talents

14"Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15To one he gave five talents[a] of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey.

16The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.

19"After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.’

21"His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

22"The man with the two talents also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.’

23"His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

24"Then the man who had received the one talent came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’

26"His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28" ‘Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

 

[Contarini]

Dignus est operarius cibo suo

In English: The worker is worthy of his food. (Matt. 10:10)

You might be surprised here by the word cibo, “food,” since the more famous version of this verse is the example provided by Luke 10, which is also repeated in I Timothy 5, dignus est operarius mercede sua, “the worker is worthy of his reward” (or “his wages”).King James renders this as “the laborer is worthy of his hire” (Luke) or “The laborer is worthy of his reward” (I Timothy).

Read more here, particularly on the differences in Latin/Greek/English translations.

vulgateverses.blogspot.com/2008/05/dignus-est-operarius-cibo-suo.html

The point, however, is that people are to be paid, one way or another, for their work. Whether they get a salary [salt], or a commission, or share or some other tangible reward. Whether the work is thinking, taking action, filling a position, saving & investing, or hard manual labor.

And when coupled with “thou shalt not covet a neighbor’s goods” and “thou shalt not steal”…

These three biblical quotes make a pretty good case for people being entitled to a free market based system of economics.

Hardly. If you really want to argue from Jesus’ parables, then the parable of the workers in the vineyard would indicate that people who work for only an hour should be paid as much as people who work all day.

And you still haven’t addressed Jesus’ use of an unjust judge and a dishonest steward in His parables.

Lots of systems of economics involve paying workers in some way. In fact, I can’t think of one that doesn’t.

“Do not covet” could quite easily be argued to be a devastating criticism of capitalism.

And as for “thou shalt not steal”–you do know, don’t you, that Aquinas says that private property is not an absolute right and that food in particular belongs to the person who desperately needs it?

The notion that “thou shalt not steal” precludes the government putting any limits on the personal acquisition of wealth is a modern one, and should find no acceptance among people who put any stock whatever in Christian tradition.

Edwin

 

[Al_Masetti]

Hardly. If you really want to argue from Jesus’ parables, then the parable of the workers in the vineyard would indicate that people who work for only an hour should be paid as much as people who work all day.

And you still haven’t addressed Jesus’ use of an unjust judge and a dishonest steward in His parables.

Lots of systems of economics involve paying workers in some way. In fact, I can’t think of one that doesn’t.

“Do not covet” could quite easily be argued to be a devastating criticism of capitalism.

And as for “thou shalt not steal”–you do know, don’t you, that Aquinas says that private property is not an absolute right and that food in particular belongs to the person who desperately needs it?

The notion that “thou shalt not steal” precludes the government putting any limits on the personal acquisition of wealth is a modern one, and should find no acceptance among people who put any stock whatever in Christian tradition.

Edwin

The problem with “government putting any limits on the personal acquisition of wealth” is that the idea is arbitrary, Pure subjectivity.

The idea of capitalism is that individuals can band together to provide a service or a product that other individuals can purchase or not purchase in a free market. They have no power to force anyone to purchase or not purchase. There is no coveting involved; no envy.

amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Capitalism-Guides/dp/1596985046

And employer has the right to pay his employees more than an hour’s pay for a day’s work, if he so chooses. However, the employer does not have a DUTY to overpay his employees.

The parable is that in Heaven, we all get a share of God’s infinite bounty … it would be as if we struggle here on Earth … and in Heaven we each receive $100 Billion.

The steward was paid by his employer on a commission basis. He ingratiated himself with his employer’s debtors by cutting his commission, since he would not be around to collect it anyway. The steward showed initiative.

I love St. Thomas Aquinas. However, if private property and food were to be seized on a regular basis, then the society would collapse … there would be no private assets to be used to provide goods and services and there would be no incentive for anyone to grow food. It would be like the Ukrainian starvation … all over again.

What does the unjust judge have to do with this discussion?

 

[mlchance]

Hardly. If you really want to argue from Jesus’ parables, then the parable of the workers in the vineyard would indicate that people who work for only an hour should be paid as much as people who work all day.

More importantly perhaps is the fact that all Jesus’ parables are about the kingdom of Heaven. They are not about farming or economics, et cetera.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Al_Masetti]

More importantly perhaps is the fact that all Jesus’ parables are about the kingdom of Heaven. They are not about farming or economics, et cetera.

– Mark L. Chance.

Absolutely right. The parables are about the kingdom of Heaven. And how the “culture” of Heaven is so different from our “culture” here on Earth.

However, one interesting sidelight of the parables is that they describe the farming and economics practices of the time period … the parables are expressed in familiar terms that the people of the region could easily understand.

So, we can gather some insights into how much money people earned and what kinds of jobs they had and what they ate … all the prevailing cultural “nuances” that provide us some enlightenment about why Jesus used the specific “metaphors” that he used in telling His stories and teaching His lessons.

The parables become a kind of cultural archeology or cultural anthropology of that time in that place between the eastern shore of the Mediterranean and all the way over to Baghdad (if you include the Old Testament) and up into Turkey, Greece, and Italy if you include the Epistles.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Absolutely right. The parables are about the kingdom of Heaven. And how the “culture” of Heaven is so different from our “culture” here on Earth.

However, one interesting sidelight of the parables is that they describe the farming and economics practices of the time period … the parables are expressed in familiar terms that the people of the region could easily understand.

So, we can gather some insights into how much money people earned and what kinds of jobs they had and what they ate … all the prevailing cultural “nuances” that provide us some enlightenment about why Jesus used the specific “metaphors” that he used in telling His stories and teaching His lessons.

The parables become a kind of cultural archeology or cultural anthropology of that time in that place between the eastern shore of the Mediterranean and all the way over to Baghdad (if you include the Old Testament) and up into Turkey, Greece, and Italy if you include the Epistles.

Note also that this cultural archeology shows that Jesus favored people working for a living, that buying and selling were not intrinsically wrong, that putting money out at interest was not wrong (the Parable of the Talents) and that tax collectors were sinners roughly equal to prostitutes.

 

[Contarini]

The problem with “government putting any limits on the personal acquisition of wealth” is that the idea is arbitrary, Pure subjectivity.

Nonsense. There are all sorts of criteria that one can use to determine what sorts of limits might be legitimate and how they might be implemented.

The idea of capitalism is that individuals can band together to provide a service or a product that other individuals can purchase or not purchase in a free market. They have no power to force anyone to purchase or not purchase. There is no coveting involved; no envy.

I agree that one can function in a free market without coveting–and that’s why I do support the free market, properly understood and reasonably regulated. However, it’s certainly true that capitalism has a dynamic that encourages envy, because the entire system is built on competition. So one powerful impulse driving economic progress is the desire to have more than someone else, or to attract customers away from someone else, or to prevent someone else from stealing your customers.

The steward was paid by his employer on a commission basis. He ingratiated himself with his employer’s debtors by cutting his commission, since he would not be around to collect it anyway. The steward showed initiative.

You don’t know this to be true. You are speculating. As, for that matter, was John Howard Yoder when he suggested that the steward was reducing the debt to the amount the debtors actually owed, eliminating the amount he had dishonestly added for his own profit. (Actually you’re saying much the same thing, except that you see it as legitimate “commission” and Yoder sees it as exploitation.) You and/or Yoder may be right, but it seems to me that the most straightforward interpretation is that Jesus was making a specific point through the parable and was not holding up the steward for general admiration!

I love St. Thomas Aquinas. However, if private property and food were to be seized on a regular basis, then the society would collapse

And, of course, neither Aquinas nor I have suggested any such thing. It really would be helpful if you would avoid attacking straw men!

Also, I’m handicapped by not knowing exactly what you see as violations of the commandment against theft. For instance, some extreme proponents of capitalism think that “progressive” or “redistributive” taxation (i.e., taxing the rich in order to fund programs to help the poor or encourage small businesses) is theft. I’m not interested in arguing whether such an approach is practically helpful. Perhaps it isn’t. What I am willing to defend is that it is not theft. If the government decides that such measures promote the common good, they have the right to enact them and are not acting unjustly by doing so. Do you disagree?

What does the unjust judge have to do with this discussion?

He’s exhibit A for the argument that Jesus was clearly not using parables to model proper social or economic behavior.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Note also that this cultural archeology shows that Jesus favored people working for a living, that buying and selling were not intrinsically wrong, that putting money out at interest was not wrong (the Parable of the Talents) and that tax collectors were sinners roughly equal to prostitutes.

Except for the tax collector business, which occurs outside the parables as well (!), I think this is simply untenable. Never mind that Yoder and others have other ways of reading the parables. I simply can’t see that you can argue from the parables as to what behavior Jesus thought was good or bad. You’d have to conclude that He thought it was OK to torture insolvent debtors, for instance (at least as long as they were guilty of refusing to forgive other people’s debts). You simply can’t make this work consistently. He’s clearly using metaphors from economic and political structures of which He may or may not approve.

Edwin

 

[vern_humphrey]

Nonsense. There are all sorts of criteria that one can use to determine what sorts of limits might be legitimate and how they might be implemented.

Kind of like the criteria we can use to determine the unborn child is not a “person?”

The point is, the criteria are arbitrarily determined.

 

[Contarini]

Kind of like the criteria we can use to determine the unborn child is not a “person?”

No. Not like that at all. That’s a completely irrelevant example thrown in to try to smear me. The question of whether the unborn child is a person or not is a philosophical one–it is a question of eternal truth and not a pragmatic decision made for the common good at a particular time and place. Since we both agree that the unborn child is a person, we both agree that pragmatic considerations can never override this unchanging moral truth.

My point is that taxation is not a question where there is an absolute moral truth. Taxation is a legitimate tool of government. The principle of subsidiarity indicates that the federal government should keep taxes as low as possible. But how low that is, and what kind of taxes promote the common good–that is a question for politicians and economists to debate.

The point is, the criteria are arbitrarily determined.

No, the point is that they are pragmatically determined based on what the common good appears to be at a particular time and place.

Perhaps I don’t understand what you and Al mean by “arbitrary.”

Edwin

 

[vern_humphrey]

No. Not like that at all. That’s a completely irrelevant example thrown in to try to smear me. a

No, it’s highly relevant – it illustrates how we pick a desired outcome, and then develop “criteria” to justify it.

No one has “smeared” you. We have simply pointed out that the idea that we can subjectivly develop “criteria,” and then use those “criteria” as if we were dealing with objectivity is false.

The question of whether the unborn child is a person or not is a philosophical one–it is a question of eternal truth and not a pragmatic decision made for the common good at a particular time and place. Since we both agree that the unborn child is a person, we both agree that pragmatic considerations can never override this unchanging moral truth.

Bingo!

My point is that taxation is not a question where there is an absolute moral truth.

Bingo again!

Taxation is a legitimate tool of government. The principle of subsidiarity indicates that the federal government should keep taxes as low as possible. But how low that is, and what kind of taxes promote the common good–that is a question for politicians and economists to debate.

And when we start inflating taxes we just adopt more “criteria” to justify it.

No, the point is that they are pragmatically determined based on what the common good appears to be at a particular time and place.

By the people in power, who often look to their own benefit, not to the benefit of the people.

Perhaps I don’t understand what you and Al mean by “arbitrary.”

Edwin

We mean using subjective “criteria” to make a pretense of objectivity.

 

[Contarini]

N

We mean using subjective “criteria” to make a pretense of objectivity.

I don’t think anyone is pretending objectivity.

This is simply a red herring.

There is a very wide spectrum between “objectivity” (i.e., conformity to natural law) and arbitrary “subjectivity.” The fact that there is no one just taxation policy does not mean that governments simply play “eeny-meeny-miney-mo” (or however you spell it!) or pick the policy that happens to feel good on a given day.

There is a lot of room for the use of practical reason to discern what is and is not conducive to the common good. And there is lots of room for honest, principled, intelligent disagreement about whether a given policy is or is not conducive to the common good!

Edwin

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t think anyone is pretending objectivity.

This is simply a red herring.

There is a very wide spectrum between “objectivity” (i.e., conformity to natural law) and arbitrary “subjectivity.” The fact that there is no one just taxation policy does not mean that governments simply play “eeny-meeny-miney-mo” (or however you spell it!) or pick the policy that happens to feel good on a given day.

There is a lot of room for the use of practical reason to discern what is and is not conducive to the common good. And there is lots of room for honest, principled, intelligent disagreement about whether a given policy is or is not conducive to the common good!

Edwin

So explain how we deterimine what is “in the common good” without all the pork-barrel waste we presently have.

Explain how when programs go wrong – for example, locking people in poverty instead of getting them out – those programs are allowed to go on for generation after generation.

(Hint: Read the 10th Amendment.)

 

[Contarini]

So explain how we deterimine what is “in the common good” without all the pork-barrel waste we presently have.

Explain how when programs go wrong – for example, locking people in poverty instead of getting them out – those programs are allowed to go on for generation after generation.

I’m not disputing that governments do silly things. What I am disputing is your claim that the question of taxation is purely arbitrary. I’m not defending how governments act. I’m saying that there is no single principle that could be adopted to prevent governments from goofing up.

Edwin

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m not disputing that governments do silly things. What I am disputing is your claim that the question of taxation is purely arbitrary. I’m not defending how governments act. I’m saying that there is no single principle that could be adopted to prevent governments from goofing up.

Edwin

We could go a long way if we enforced the Constitution – especially the 10th Amendment.

 

[Al_Masetti]

2 Thessalonians 3:10

10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”

Seems like free market economics to me.

Hardly socialism.

Nothing in there about being passive aggressive and demanding free government cheese.

Yep, don’t work, don’t eat. I think that says it all.

Notice that it doesn’t say that those who CAN NOT work should not eat. No, we should have compassion on and help out those people. But if someone can work, yet WILL NOT work, then he’s left to the consequences of his actions (or inactions in this case).

Here are a couple other verses on this same line of thinking:

Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth. Proverbs 10:4

How long will you lie there, you sluggard? When will you get up from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest – and poverty will come on you like a bandit and scarcity like an armed man. Proverbs 6:9-11

So get out there and work! Or find a way to survive without eating.

 

[goofyjim]

Note also that this cultural archeology shows that Jesus favored people working for a living, that buying and selling were not intrinsically wrong, that putting money out at interest was not wrong (the Parable of the Talents) and that tax collectors were sinners roughly equal to prostitutes.

And when addressing the Pharisees, he said tax collectors and prostitutes are getting into the kingdom before you. So let’s be careful about our judgements. Nobody can say they have Jesus all figured out.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And when addressing the Pharisees, he said tax collectors and prostitutes are getting into the kingdom before you. So let’s be careful about our judgements. Nobody can say they have Jesus all figured out.

He said tax collectors and prostitutes are getting into the kingdom before me?