Genesis of social justice

[cdeterma]

regulation of the ecconomy is simply setting rules so buisness transactions are conducted in a fair manner. That has nothing to do with resource redistribution.

In fact part of the “caritas in veritate” states that to create a fraternity of man we need their active participation in the economic process, their evolution into eductated societies, and the consolidation of democratic regimes capable of ensuring freedom and peace. So I think redistribution of wealth does not further social justice. We need to teach people to fish instead of just giving them fish. I think a little subsidy a long the way wouldn’t be too bad an idea as long as we are meeting the goal of “teaching people to fish”.

Also a lot of the “feeding the world’s hungry” is about people in famine caused by natural and political disasters. Which I cannot object to.

 

[Lypher]

The government buys a lot of cars and simmilar vehicles. With that buying power it could invite competition to develop new hybrid technology and provide more fuel efficient vehicles. This could be accomplished within the constitution and with out infringing on the rights of individuals.

In fact The former president was doing this through the Army which was investing millions in the development of hybrid supper efficient vehicles but after all that money was invested, and just before production, Obama killed the program.

“The former President signed HSPD-12 which requires all personnel going on a military installation longer then 6 months to carry a common access card. This means that if someone fails that check they loose their job. Indebtedness is enough”

I predict that soon anyone with an misdemeanor will no longer be able to travel for other then business out side the country…within 20 years…doctors sooner…since they are going to be flocking to Costa Rica and Pananma to set up shop. Likely tie their ability to leave on student loan/gevernment backing arguements… in the end we will all be serfs working for Uncle…

 

[humblelurker]

Cdeterma
I’m not sure I can answer you, but I can give my simple understanding on the passage in question. Look at the paragraph in question as a whole. I don’t have the book but have it online. I believe this is the passage:

Life in many poor countries is still extremely insecure as a consequence of food shortages, and the situation could become worse: hunger still reaps enormous numbers of victims among those who, like Lazarus, are not permitted to take their place at the rich man’s table, contrary to the hopes expressed by Paul VI. Feed the hungry (cf. Mt 25: 35, 37, 42) is an ethical imperative for the universal Church, as she responds to the teachings of her Founder, the Lord Jesus, concerning solidarity and the sharing of goods. Moreover, the elimination of world hunger has also, in the global era, become a requirement for safeguarding the peace and stability of the planet. Hunger is not so much dependent on lack of material things as on shortage of social resources, the most important of which are institutional. What is missing, in other words, is a network of economic institutions capable of guaranteeing regular access to sufficient food and water for nutritional needs, and also capable of addressing the primary needs and necessities ensuing from genuine food crises, whether due to natural causes or political irresponsibility, nationally and internationally. The problem of food insecurity needs to be addressed within a long-term perspective, eliminating the structural causes that give rise to it and promoting the agricultural development of poorer countries. This can be done by investing in rural infrastructures, irrigation systems, transport, organization of markets, and in the development and dissemination of agricultural technology that can make the best use of the human, natural and socio-economic resources that are more readily available at the local level, while guaranteeing their sustainability over the long term as well. All this needs to be accomplished with the involvement of local communities in choices and decisions that affect the use of agricultural land. In this perspective, it could be useful to consider the new possibilities that are opening up through proper use of traditional as well as innovative farming techniques, always assuming that these have been judged, after sufficient testing, to be appropriate, respectful of the environment and attentive to the needs of the most deprived peoples. At the same time, the question of equitable agrarian reform in developing countries should not be ignored.

Now, I’m no expert, but let me break the Paragraph off at this point by saying this is an example of helping set up a subsidiarity system to achieve emancipation regarding agriculture instead of a perpetual dependence on a collectivistic system. Don’t forget local involvement to cure local problems. If help is needed by a larger organization so be it, but that help should have the goal of achieving people’s emancipation. This is further realized in this passage of Pope Paul VI’s Populorum Progressio which states:

Even more recently, We sought to fulfill the wishes of the Council and to demonstrate the Holy See’s concern for the developing nations. To do this, We felt it was necessary to add another pontifical commission to the Church’s central administration . The purpose of this commission is “to awaken in the People of God full awareness of their mission today. In this way they can further the progress of poorer nations and international social justice, as well as help less developed nations to contribute to their own development.”

To be continued

 

[humblelurker]

Let us continue:

The right to food, like the right to water, has an important place within the pursuit of other rights, beginning with the fundamental right to life. It is therefore necessary to cultivate a public conscience that considers food and access to water as universal rights of all human beings, without distinction or discrimination.

Notice how the article in the first paragraph leads up to the area in question, and notice what I have bolded. Further this last part is referencing the Holy Father’s Message on World Food Day, and in it he states:

This coincidence helps us to recall the importance that the right to food has for the realization of other rights, beginning above all with the fundamental right to life.

So to deny someone food that would cause their death would be a crime against someone’s right to life (and in that case people have a right to food). Lets look at Gaudium et spes :

Since there are so many people prostrate with hunger in the world, this sacred council urges all, both individuals and governments, to remember the aphorism of the Fathers, “Feed the man dying of hunger, because if you have not fed him, you have killed him,” and really to share and employ their earthly goods, according to the ability of each, especially by supporting individuals or peoples with the aid by which they may be able to help and develop themselves.

We have a duty to help people achieve their emancipation within our obligations towards our fellow human beings. Teach them how to fish, so they can take care of themselves, to be independent and free, and not to become perpetually dependant on some collectivistic system.
CCC # 1885: The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.
CCC # 1894: In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies.
We are the stewards of the earth and all that is in it, and in that capacity we have moral obligations and responsibilities towards other people. Truly I don’t know how to answer your question, but I hope this helps. Perhaps someone smarter than me could answer your question.

Have a great weekend everyone.

 

[royal_archer]

In fact part of the “caritas in veritate” states that to create a fraternity of man we need their active participation in the economic process, their evolution into eductated societies, and the consolidation of democratic regimes capable of ensuring freedom and peace. So I think redistribution of wealth does not further social justice. We need to teach people to fish instead of just giving them fish. I think a little subsidy a long the way wouldn’t be too bad an idea as long as we are meeting the goal of “teaching people to fish”.

Also a lot of the “feeding the world’s hungry” is about people in famine caused by natural and political disasters. Which I cannot object to.

you wouldn’t even have to subsidize, just allow people to withdrawl money from their 401K or Socialy Seccurity account (with out penalties) durring times of unemployment.

All those kids need good homes while Americans are payint 25-30K to adopt from overseas. allow some of those children who do not have parrents who can take care of them to be adopted by parrents who can take care of them.

 

[tafan]

cdeterma:

So I think redistribution of wealth does not further social justice

Its one thing, and normally entirely proper, to not think that it the government should not be involved in the forced redistribution of wealth. But to think that a fair distribution of wealth (which at times requires a redristribution) does not further social justice is absurd. Go read about late 19th century and early 20th century urban life. America was in a dire need of redistribution of wealth. Luckily for us, it occurred in an orderly way. Other countries were not so fortunate.

 

[royal_archer]

Its one thing, and normally entirely proper, to not think that it the government should not be involved in the forced redistribution of wealth. But to think that a fair distribution of wealth (which at times requires a redristribution) does not further social justice is absurd. Go read about late 19th century and early 20th century urban life. America was in a dire need of redistribution of wealth. Luckily for us, it occurred in an orderly way. Other countries were not so fortunate.

you are confusing hording natural resources with people wanting to keep what they make.

 

[Tom_Qualey]

*Hi, Tafan,

There really are some major mechanical problems with a “fair” distribution or re-distribution of wealth - at least in this country.*

Its one thing, and normally entirely proper, to not think that it the government should not be involved in the forced redistribution of wealth. But to think that a fair distribution of wealth (which at times requires a redristribution) does not further social justice is absurd. Go read about late 19th century and early 20th century urban life. America was in a dire need of redistribution of wealth. Luckily for us, it occurred in an orderly way. Other countries were not so fortunate.

*Basically, who determines what si “fair”? Is there a criteria that can be applied across the country - even though the cost of living varies between geographic regions?

But, just for the sake of a discussion, a “fair” certeria that was established - how would it be applied? Seriously, if it is done based on the number of people living in a housing unit (home, apartment, etc.) how are the homeless to be addressed? And, if the homeless are to be the true focus of any kind of distribution are there rewards for spending wisely (e.g., buying more nutritious food that must be prepared in a kitchen as opposed to fast food [high in fat but, does not require any preparation]? Does the person who lives under a bridge or overpass compensated fairly for not having a mortgage as opposed to others who do have a mortgage?

I have often heard the story that if (hypothetically) all the wealth in the world were taken and then redistributed amongst all of the citizens of the world - within 24-hours, 90% of the wealth would be back in the hands of those who had originally possessed it. While such a statement is impossible to verify, the crux of the issue is that those with wealth today are master a certain personal resourcesfullness that those who are poor will not or cannot master. How often do we plan to redistribute this wealth?

Let me give you an example: in a place where I worked, many of the people were paid at the level of the Federal Minimum Wage. On payday, each person was given a check based on their hourly rate and how many hours they worked in that pay period. Most of these people wanted cash rather then a check - but, the management was not set up to pay people in cash. On payday, an enterprising group of 4 men would park their car in the parking lot, open up a card table and set up a calculator, while another man opened up the trunk that had a suitcase full of cash money. (The other two men were their for ‘security’.) The employees lined up and for a 10% charge, their checks were cashed on the spot with a smile and a handshake. Now, in my view, this was nothing short of organized theft - but, it was not seen this way by the employees who used the service.

I really do not have any answers for these questions I have presented. I am, however, confident, the any efforts to redistribute wealth will have numerous problems based on the Law of Unintended Consequences. While wealth can be temporarily distributed any way you wish - there will be no real change unless you also control how people spend their ‘own’ money. And, if this too is to be controlled, well, it really isn’t their money after all is it?

God bless

Tom*

 

[markbrumbaugh]

I nearly left the church last week at confirmation class. I’m older and am taking classes to get confirmed since I have returned to the church. The issue was social justice. The class leader said that their Faith Formation Minister class put on by the diocese said that social and distributive justice is necessary to live the christian life. That class she was tought in said, “as wealth accumulates in a community it is the government’s job to equitably distribute that wealth.” This is communism! Wealth doesn’t accumulate, it is earned and created through effort and work. If the catholic church is about that then either I’ll find a new church or some changes need to be made.

I have posted liberally here and on many other websites, my opinion that the USCCB has mistakenly assigned our obligations for charity, to the US government. I think more than half of the Catholics will agree with you and me, and can point out to many statements from the Bible, the Catechism and Papal proclamations that support us. Unfortunately, the USCCB is full of bunk of this issue and for the life of me can’t understand why.

Nevertheless I struggle with remaining a Catholic when the USCCB encourages such malarky. I feel like I’m in Jeremiah Wrights church.

Take a look at some of Deal Hudson’s articles in Inside Catholic, or look at Thinking Catholic’s website. You are not alone, and you are not wrong.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

I think it is insulting to have people choose not to work, choose instead to dance and play while the rest of work for a living. Why should we be shackeled by those people when we could be helping others who are striving to do the right thing? Remember the “ant and the grasshopper” story from our childhood. Today we are often subsidizing the “grasshoppers” who have choosen to dance and play all summer instead of working. I think it is morally wrong to help those people when the money could have been better used to help those that really need it.

I made it through page 15 of “caritas in vertate”. I have a problem with one part. on page 13 towards the bottom it mentions the right to food and water with respect to the right to life. How can there be a right to food? Can you go into the woods and shout, “I’m Hungry”, and some animal will bare it’s chest for you? Obviously not. You have no right that is not automatic or fundamentally apart of you. You have a right to pursue or obtain food in a manner that doesn’t hinder the rights of another, but you cannot have a right to automatically possess it. Am I missing something?

Nope you are not missing a thing. Rights come from God. The rest comes from the individual, or society and is not a right. A Right to life does not mean you don’t have to breathe, feed yourself, practice basic hygiene. It doesn’t mean I have to do it for you. It means I cannot murder you.
A right is something from God, that no one can morally take away. There aren’t many…life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, ownership of private property, free will. It ought to be obvious that anything that must be produced by the labor of someone else, cannot be a right. We may have an moral obligation to be charitable with our property, but that doesn’t make it a “right” for the recipient. If he wants more than we want to give him through charity, then he must barter for it, make it himself, steal it, or vote for Obama.
We haven’t had a right to food and water since the Garden of Eden. And we have never had a right to health care, shelter, cars, big screen TV’s, clothing, or IPods.

 

[royal_archer]

I have posted liberally here and on many other websites, my opinion that the USCCB has mistakenly assigned our obligations for charity, to the US government. I think more than half of the Catholics will agree with you and me, and can point out to many statements from the Bible, the Catechism and Papal proclamations that support us. Unfortunately, the USCCB is full of bunk of this issue and for the life of me can’t understand why.

Nevertheless I struggle with remaining a Catholic when the USCCB encourages such malarky. I feel like I’m in Jeremiah Wrights church.

Take a look at some of Deal Hudson’s articles in Inside Catholic, or look at Thinking Catholic’s website. You are not alone, and you are not wrong.

Has the SCCB actually come out in favor of socialism or is that an interpretation of something they said. What they say will be taken out of context so I am wondering if they made generic statements of intent with out advocating any of the means to accomplish those intents. Yes, it would be great if everyone could afford health coverage and government should look for innovative ways to encourage the situation. but that in itself does not endorse the method of steal and spread. For instance, training more military doctors would get more doctors into the system at a lower cost or confining liability insurance to something less than a jackpot for the unfortunate victims or by investing in research that drives down medical costs. unfortunately some are spring loaded to the tax possition and they perceive any need as a justification to tax and therefore may have misinterpreted the USCCBs possition as supporting discriminatory taxes.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

Has the SCCB actually come out in favor of socialism or is that an interpretation of something they said. What they say will be taken out of context so I am wondering if they made generic statements of intent with out advocating any of the means to accomplish those intents. Yes, it would be great if everyone could afford health coverage and government should look for innovative ways to encourage the situation. but that in itself does not endorse the method of steal and spread. For instance, training more military doctors would get more doctors into the system at a lower cost or confining liability insurance to something less than a jackpot for the unfortunate victims or by investing in research that drives down medical costs. unfortunately some are spring loaded to the tax possition and they perceive any need as a justification to tax and therefore may have misinterpreted the USCCBs possition as supporting discriminatory taxes.

Well that is a good question, RoyalArcher. I don’t see anywhere that the USCCB has said they support socialism. For that matter, neither has our president. But I can say they definitely were in favor of “Universal Health Care” (as opposed to insurance reform) and called it a right.

My beef is that they confuse the faithful by misusing the word “Right” and that their original support for the health care bill and their current support for immigration reform are contrary to basic natural law and the fundamentals of rights to private property that made our country great. I would prefer that the USCCB focus on lessons of the bible, the catechism, the infallible messages from the holy father.

When a group supports the political aspirations of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, a self professed redistributionist, I presume that group is as supportive of socialism as are the latter. Or perhaps the group just isn’t thinking things though well enough.

I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I got gleeped up on this issue when I thought that a particular deacon had indeed taken a letter from the USCCB to congress out of context in his sermon. I tried to get clarification from the deacon, the pastor of the parish, and finally the Cardinal. I got nothing but admonishment for my immorality and no clarification with regard to how the USCCB position met with principles of subsidiarity etc.

I’ve been an avid poster on this and other sites since, as I want our church back. While I got good guidance from the pastor at my personal parish, the silence from the archdiocese was deafening.

 

[royal_archer]

Well that is a good question, RoyalArcher. I don’t see anywhere that the USCCB has said they support socialism. For that matter, neither has our president. But I can say they definitely were in favor of “Universal Health Care” (as opposed to insurance reform) and called it a right.

My beef is that they confuse the faithful by misusing the word “Right” and that their original support for the health care bill and their current support for immigration reform are contrary to basic natural law and the fundamentals of rights to private property that made our country great. I would prefer that the USCCB focus on lessons of the bible, the catechism, the infallible messages from the holy father.

When a group supports the political aspirations of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, a self professed redistributionist, I presume that group is as supportive of socialism as are the latter. Or perhaps the group just isn’t thinking things though well enough.

I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I got gleeped up on this issue when I thought that a particular deacon had indeed taken a letter from the USCCB to congress out of context in his sermon. I tried to get clarification from the deacon, the pastor of the parish, and finally the Cardinal. I got nothing but admonishment for my immorality and no clarification with regard to how the USCCB position met with principles of subsidiarity etc.

I’ve been an avid poster on this and other sites since, as I want our church back. While I got good guidance from the pastor at my personal parish, the silence from the archdiocese was deafening.

I am more attuned to some of the more intricate aspects of our world than some whom neither have the time or aptitude to understand those complexities. as a result they miss the nuiances of what I say occasionally and just don’t comprehend the full meaning of what I am saying. I therefore can understand a situation where the church is tiptoeing around an issue and the masses do not understand the nuiances. At least I hope that is what is happening.

Lets face it, if the USCCB came out and said the welfare state was immoral, many people of lower mental ability would jumpt to the conclusion that the church was against charity and they would not comprehend that the problems with welfare relate to it dehumanizing one group while promoting stealing from another group and that helping people out of your own free will is a good thing.

 

[Tom_Qualey]

*Hi, Markbrumbaugh,

While I, too, think the USCCB have move in the wrong direction specific to addressing the needs of humanity - comparing this to the hate-filled, racist-laced rantings of Jeremiah Wright is really over the top … *

I have posted liberally here and on many other websites, my opinion that the USCCB has mistakenly assigned our obligations for charity, to the US government. I think more than half of the Catholics will agree with you and me, and can point out to many statements from the Bible, the Catechism and Papal proclamations that support us. Unfortunately, the USCCB is full of bunk of this issue and for the life of me can’t understand why.

*Ultimately, Christ will judge us on our own actions and not those of our Bishops. We look to our Holy Father as the Vicar of Christ on earth, the truthful teachings of His Church for the past 2,000, the Sacraments as visible signs of Grace and the encouragement of our Blessed Mother and the Saints. Do not get hung up on the non-essentials. We are all products of our culture - as Catholics, however, our real mission is to follow Christ and pray for the human shepherds that are given to guide us to His Heavenly Sheepfold.

Do not lose heart. Continue to pray for the Bishops as you continue to pray for God’s Grace to do good throughout your life.

Tom*

Nevertheless I struggle with remaining a Catholic when the USCCB encourages such malarky. I feel like I’m in Jeremiah Wrights church.

Take a look at some of Deal Hudson’s articles in Inside Catholic, or look at Thinking Catholic’s website. You are not alone, and you are not wrong.

 

[Lypher]

Hi, Markbrumbaugh,

While I, too, think the USCCB have move in the wrong direction specific to addressing the needs of humanity - comparing this to the hate-filled, racist-laced rantings of Jeremiah Wright is really over the top …

Praying for our Bishops is the right answer I think, as Luther did the alternative and it really has not helped the Church, just caused a lot of people to become lost.

God Bless You…

 

[Tigg]

Well that is a good question, RoyalArcher. I don’t see anywhere that the USCCB has said they support socialism. For that matter, neither has our president. But I can say they definitely were in favor of “Universal Health Care” (as opposed to insurance reform) and called it a right.

My beef is that they confuse the faithful by misusing the word “Right” and that their original support for the health care bill and their current support for immigration reform are contrary to basic natural law and the fundamentals of rights to private property that made our country great. I would prefer that the USCCB focus on lessons of the bible, the catechism, the infallible messages from the holy father.

When a group supports the political aspirations of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, a self professed redistributionist, I presume that group is as supportive of socialism as are the latter. Or perhaps the group just isn’t thinking things though well enough.

I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I got gleeped up on this issue when I thought that a particular deacon had indeed taken a letter from the USCCB to congress out of context in his sermon. I tried to get clarification from the deacon, the pastor of the parish, and finally the Cardinal. I got nothing but admonishment for my immorality and no clarification with regard to how the USCCB position met with principles of subsidiarity etc.

I’ve been an avid poster on this and other sites since, as I want our church back. While I got good guidance from the pastor at my personal parish, the silence from the archdiocese was deafening.

I absolutely agree with everything you have written. It seems to me that the USCCB has departed from the message of past social encyclicals in supporting Obama’s plan for healthcare. They no longer speak of subsidiarity. And since when has the Church ever taught that it is morally good to impose obligations on man, defining it as a right for all, which would, in effect, diminish those very rights held by others? It is an absurd concept and against the principle of solidarity.

Further, given this administrations total disregard for life, I wonder why the USCCB has not issued warning statements that we should be protected from a centralized secular bureaucracy which would place itself as moral arbiter regarding all life issues.

 

[catharina]

I am more attuned to some of the more intricate aspects of our world than some whom neither have the time or aptitude to understand those complexities. …

Lets face it, if the USCCB came out and said the welfare state was immoral, many people of lower mental ability would jumpt to the conclusion that the church was against charity and they would not comprehend that the problems with welfare relate to it dehumanizing one group while promoting stealing from another group and that helping people out of your own free will is a good thing.

Can’t you trust that God was wise when he allowed some to accumuate wealth? Could it be that those who were entrusted with the wealth were given it because they would make the right choices?

Also, it is easy to live the life Jesus taught. Just do what you can with what you are given and let God do the rest.

**~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~**

“I am more attuned to some of the more intricate aspects of our world than some…”

and from the Baltimore Catechism …
74.125.155.132/search?q=cachebiCoW409GMJ:www.ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc3-37.htm+‘gain+the+whole+world+and+suffer+the+loss+of+one’s+soul’&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Q. 1399. What words should we bear always in mind?

A. We should bear always in mind these words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: “What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his own soul, or what exchange shall a man give for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and then will He render to every man according to his works.”

Q. 1400. Name some of the more essential religious truths we must know and believe.

A. Some of the more essential religious truths we must know and believe are:

That there is but one God, and He will reward the good and punish the wicked.
That in God there are three Divine Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these Divine Persons are called the Blessed Trinity.
That Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, became man and died for our redemption.
That the grace of God is necessary for our salvation.
That the human soul is immortal.

Certain financial acuity means nothing in terms of salvation
unless one believes in certain 'financial-entitlement brands of “faith.”

**~~~~~~~~~~~~~~**

…many people of lower mental ability would jumpt to the conclusion that the church was against charity …

from bible.cc/matthew/18-3.htm
and said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

**~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~**

Could it be that those who were entrusted with the wealth were given it because they would make the right choices?

bible.cc/matthew/19-24.htm
“Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

**~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~**

Ignored your earlier post:
paraphrase:
‘God was sure mighty wise to make me wealthy.’

This recent post?
paraphrase:
‘Sure am mighty glad I’m of higher mental ability.’

**~~~~~~~~~~~~**

Lord, have mercy.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

*Hi, Markbrumbaugh,

While I, too, think the USCCB have move in the wrong direction specific to addressing the needs of humanity - comparing this to the hate-filled, racist-laced rantings of Jeremiah Wright is really over the top … *

Hi Tom. You didn’t hear the sermon I heard, and I should have specified that it was only in this one church. I was told in the sermon, that if I had health insurance and others did not, I was stealing. The whole sermon was based on UNIVERSAL health care as a right and any of us that didn’t support that were immoral. Ditto Amnesty and immigration reform.

My point, admittedly too subtle, was that if one can criticize Obama for staying in Wright’s church, I would have to criticize myself for ever going back to a parish that blantantly sponsors socialism and tells us a lack of acceptance of these programs is grounds for spending eternity in hell.

 

[royal_archer]

**~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~** …

I appears you have failed to understand my post. The simple summary is we have an individual responsibility to provide charity, but it is a sin to steal to help others, even if it is done through the government. And, those who are irresponsible and squander wealth are not wealthy, the wealthy are the ones who use those resources efficiently and provide for the needs of the community in the most efficient way.

 

[catharina]

I appears you have failed to understand my post. The simple summary is we have an individual responsibility to provide charity, but it is a sin to steal to help others, even if it is done through the government. And, those who are irresponsible and squander wealth are not wealthy, the wealthy are the ones who use those resources efficiently and provide for the needs of the community in the most efficient way.

It was posts, not a post. I’ll start with one of them again:

You posted:
Can’t you trust that God was wise when he allowed some to accumuate wealth? Could it be that those who were entrusted with the wealth were given it because they would make the right choices?

My oh my.

That sounds like a revival song of the Know Nothing party.
‘Some are wealthy.
Some are poor.
I help ONLY the deserving poor.’

The attitude was adopted and used to obstruct immigration of the poor fleeing famine in Catholic Ireland. The genesis of the attitude were the Elizabethan English poor laws, set up to aid those faithful to the monarchy - that is those who “saved” their personal wealth by saluting “the new church” of Henry VIII. The goal: that they not feel too badly about the newly poor (Catholics); some they would help, most could stay poor.

Our belief in God, hope in God, love of God does not extend to supposing He arranges for your personal wealth and comfort - because you’re so terrific. “Trust in GOD” does not imply applause for the personal wealth of others. On the contrary.

To support that thinking would include its opposite: God uses poverty to punish the stupid.

Our Lord Jesus Christ gave us an example of a life lived in simplicity, in humilty,
closer to poverty than to wealth. What does that teach us? Quite a bit, one would hope.

Best example of personal wealth?
Maybe Joseph of Arimithea, using his personal wealth wisely, giving the tomb for the burial of Christ.
The Social Justice of our Faith is a Virtue.