, Ignatius 1986, p46, (with a new edition, since) by Dr Alejandro Chafuen.Hardly.
Acts 2:44-47, where the faithful lived together and owned everything in common. 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.”
[See *Christians For Freedom
These comments draw out the perceptions which Pope Benedict XVI is communicating, I think:Fr of Jazz
And this coupled with (b) the use of the word “redistribution” with respect to wealth at least 7 times #s 32, 36, 37, 39, 42 (3 times), 49].
Should one expect the gift of more and more free stuff from the government?
Good except the last sentence. But as long as he’s not throwing the failed socialist states among them a bone or floating a trial socialist balloon, I’m happy.These comments draw out the perceptions which Pope Benedict XVI is communicating, I think:
Fr Sirico:
“Several commentators have worried about his frequent calls for wealth redistribution. Benedict does see a role for the state here, but much of the needed redistribution is the result of every voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange. To understand such passages fully and accurately, we do well to put our political biases on the shelf.
First sentence, good.“This encyclical is a theological version of his predecessor’s more philosophical effort to anchor the free economy’s ethical foundation. Much of it stands squarely with a long tradition of writings of a certain “classical liberal” tradition, one centered on the moral foundation of economics, from St. Thomas Aquinas and his disciples, . . ., and even the secular F.A. Hayek in the 20th century. It also clearly resonates with some European Christian democratic thought.”
This paragraph is huge.Fr De Celles:
“….the Pope writes specifically of the need for the “redistribution of wealth,” which many say is anathema to capitalism. Unfortunately, his use of the term is often ambiguous, but in no way suggests a massive effort by government to take from the rich, by taxes or other means, to give to the poor. In fact, he seems to argue against that kind of radical redistribution when he later proposes the need for an “effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state” [CV 57]. The only time he is clear on what he means by “wealth redistribution” is when he uses it to mean increasing the share of wealth of the poor by normal market economic activity such as, better jobs, increased profits, etc. [CV 42]. No capitalist I know would object to that, or even to the normal redistribution of wealth that comes through reasonable taxation…… This seems consistent with what he said just six months prior to releasing CV: ‘the illusion that a policy of mere redistribution of existing wealth can definitively resolve the problem must be set aside. …Wealth creation therefore becomes an inescapable duty… if the fight against material poverty is to be effective in the long term.’ Message of the World Day of Peace, January 1, 2009.”
Hmmm, seems to leave open the possibility that a country could vote in a socialist economy.Donald Devine:
. . . . For Benedict, redistribution comes from politics, yes, but through prior rules adopted by people “who freely choose” them in the spirit of the unconditional gift. What spirit could be freer or more in accord with Hayek’s logic, including when he used religious orders and local communities as examples of communal actions freely undertaken and not at all inconsistent with the market? Benedict explains that a loving gift is not mere “sentimentality” that is “detached from ethical living” by political or economic ideologies where “social action ends up serving private interests and the logic of power.” True charity is rather based on loving concrete actions guided by the truth that must be in the spirit of a gift.
I don’t see anything to “resolve.” It seems that most of your issues revolve around trying to make Catholic teaching more compatible with unfettered capitalism–which it is not. Frankly, my solution is that Catholics should stop wishing (and sometimes demanding) that the Church’s teaching on social justice be made to conform with currently popular American poltical and economic theories.Thanks for your addition to the conversation.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have mentioned Weigel in the title–it seems to pull everyone’s attention from the real issues and down the road of branding and name calling.
I’d be grateful if you would address yourself instead to the issues I spelled out in the post above and the one below to “fone bone 2011” (post #6). They are real ones, as far as I can see for those of us who are faithful to the magisterium, until they are resolved. Maybe you can help. What is your solution?
On the contrary, my issues are in trying to see the continuity of CiV with the tradition of catholic social teaching up to JPII. He taught bridled capitalism, the right of private ownership of the means of production, the right and presumption of individual initiative, the centrality of wealth creation, we should create opportunity for the poor not just throw free stuff at them, condemned collectivism as inhuman as does the CCC, etc., etc.I don’t see anything to “resolve.” It seems that most of your issues revolve around trying to make Catholic teaching more compatible with unfettered capitalism–which it is not. Frankly, my solution is that Catholics should stop wishing (and sometimes demanding) that the Church’s teaching on social justice be made to conform with currently popular American poltical and economic theories.
Okay. That’s not what Weigel’s response was, though - the response that my first link argues against and my second link satirizes.Thanks for information and discussion.
My problem is I have no idea–in these few cases–just what one is expected to assent to.
I see no reason not to view that as a false dichotomy born from pigeonholing Catholic social teaching into a conservative American economic ideology.So what is one supposed to assent to? the traditional Catholic social teaching on private property and ownership of the means of production, market economy, emphasis on economic initiative, and bridled capitalism, OR now, apparently, collectivist income and wealth redistribution?
I’m surprised that the fallacy that there is “unfettered capitalism” still exists.TMC
It seems that most of your issues revolve around trying to make Catholic teaching more compatible with unfettered capitalism–which it is not. Frankly, my solution is that Catholics should stop wishing (and sometimes demanding) that the Church’s teaching on social justice be made to conform with currently popular American poltical and economic theories.
Thanks again and I couldn’t agree more. Of course we can reform society to be more in accord with nature, but that involves a far different set of assumptions then social engineering.I’m surprised that the fallacy that there is “unfettered capitalism” still exists.
The Church’s social teaching is more than “social justice”, and free enterprise is the revered development of the Catholic Late Scholastics, supported by Blessed John Paul II in Centesimus Annus and Pope Benedict XVI, and unrelated to mere theory of any kind. The economic laws discovered by the Late Scholastics are based on cause and effect.
Do We Need Social Justice Or Social Engineering?
This question is answered by Fr Torraco of EWTN on Nov-24-2003 to a Question:
What is “Social Justice”? When was this concept introduced in Catholic moral doctrine?
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on Nov-24-2003:
'The term “social justice” was introduced into Catholic teaching in the 19th century. On the one hand, it is intended, at least in part, to avoid the error of reducing what Aristotle calls “general justice” (devotion to the common good of one’s country) to LEGAL justice. On the other hand, consciously or not, the term “social justice” aptly reflects the political philosophy of the modern philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, according to whom justice is fundamentally a matter of achieving the proper institutions and external settings that would effectively mold human beings into model citizens. In other words, for Rousseau, justice is not rooted in nature as it is for Aristotle and for the Church’s teaching. It is something that has to be attained by “social engineering.”
‘Unfortunately, in the minds of many if not most, consciously or not, the term “social justice” is viewed more in a Rousseaunian than an Aristotelian way. From the vantage point of both Aristotle and the Church’s teaching, the phrase “social justice” is redundant because justice is already social: it is the social virtue par excellence.’
I think that last is basically a fair statement, assuming Weigel’s capitalism diverges from that of Catholic social teaching.Okay. That’s not what Weigel’s response was, though - the response that my first link argues against and my second link satirizes.
I see no reason not to view that as a false dichotomy born from pigeonholing Catholic social teaching into a conservative American economic ideology.
The author of the article I linked to above states in said article that the whole of Caritas in Veritate came as no surprise to him in light of the Holy Father’s other writings, so it honestly seems to me that the only people who saw discontinuity were those with an entrenched interest in defending a neo-liberal economic theory.
Perhaps the correct response for us Americans is to accept that not every economic issue can be couched in our nation’s political terminology, and to realize and accept that “collectivist income and wealth redistribution” is not the only alternative to the kind of capitalism that conservative Americans like Weigel are used to defending.
Basically my concerns can be summed up in one word “continuity.” Responses dealing directly and point by point with these concerns have allayed my jitters. Up to and including JPII the church’s economic teaching falls squarely on the side of bridled, regulated capitalism. The context for CiV in Benedict’s thought as evidenced from other writings of his (e.g., Message for the World Day of Peace 2009) makes it clear he also affirms this tradition and seeks to build on it and suffuse it with a spirit of charity. Basically, the few problems I had with CiV are resolved.I’m not sure how close Weigel is to the mark here. I’m not even sure his objection is doctrinal or stylistic.
Take this for instance: “(b) the use of the word “redistribution” with respect to wealth at least 7 times #s 32, 36, 37, 39, 42 (3 times), 49]. We all know that “redistribution” is code for collectivist/socialist policies and ideologies.”
But does it to a Pope who is not an American and may or may not consider American political “code words” mandatory on him?
After all, the Popes from Leo XIII on have favored the widest possible ownership of productive assets by individuals and families. But none (including Pope Benedict) has ever suggested that such ownership should be achieved through confiscation and donation. Rather, their thoughts (as i understood them) are more concerned with a reasonable degree of ease of acquisition.
For example, farm land (and I know the encyclicals don’t always mean farm land) around here is very expensive relative to what it can produce. Why is that? Well, there are several reasons; some of which have to do with government(s) and some of which don’t. One big one recently is the government’s corn subsidy. In order to cash in on that (or crop insurance, whichever pays first) people raised a lot of corn this year on land where it should never have been planted. This whole area, in fact, is not really good for corn. And yet, people planted it in order to cash in. Turns out it turned dry so the crop insurance program is on the hook in a very big way. Because of all that, land prices went up a good deal even in the face of the recession
Then, strange to tell, the government decided to subsidize the planting and growing of that gigantic grass 'miscantheus giganticus" in a number of counties here, believing it coudl produce even more ethanol per acre than corn. Sure as the world, people will plant it next year, and with subidies will produce a whole lot of it, and either collect money for the grass or insurance if it fails.
And the natural, and best uses for land around here are grazing and forestry.
But because of government programs, the price is well above what grazing and forestry could justify.
Also, government spending is so crazy and Fed accommodation so generous that interest rates encourage the “carry trade”, thus punching securities prices above what they probably should be.
If I want to start a machine shop, I can probably deduct the cost of all my equipment and materials in fairly short order. But if i buy land to farm, I can’t deduct the cost of land at all. Another distorting thing.
And, frankly, if some of the ups and downs of the recent market aren’t engineered by short sellers, I’m a monkey’s uncle. But who will hold them to account? Nobody.
And if I was wealthy and started a private foundation for the purpose of persuading women not to have children at all because of “global warming”, the government would bless my efforts with a tax deduction and an exemption for the gain on my investments in the foundation. So my foundation is in the market buying assets that feed an ideology rather than a family, and I’m bidding the price up.
There are lots of things like that in this economy, and not just with land. I think it’s that kind of thing the Popes mean; things that stand in the way of acquisition of productive assets, or that artificially trash those efforts people make in acquiring them.
It may be noted as well that excessive consumerism also retards the acquisition by families of productive assets, and the Popes discourage that and the corporate manipulation and government policies that encourage it. Consumerism itself, often pushed by governments and corporations also discourages “distribution of wealth” by absorbing it.
So do excessive transfer payments.
I’ll admit I have considerable admiration for Weigel. But I think he’s off the mark with this one the way he expresses himself, and in any event I think Weigel mostly just wishes the Pope hadn’t used the word.
But one more thing. It’s one thing to think of “distribution” in an American context, but another in the context of, say, Zimbabwe, where Mugabe’s cronies force others off the land and appropriate it. Pope Benedict is not only addressing Americans with his Encyclical.
Exactly.I’m not sure how close Weigel is to the mark here. I’m not even sure his objection is doctrinal or stylistic.
Take this for instance: “(b) the use of the word “redistribution” with respect to wealth at least 7 times #s 32, 36, 37, 39, 42 (3 times), 49]. We all know that “redistribution” is code for collectivist/socialist policies and ideologies.”
But does it to a Pope who is not an American and may or may not consider American political “code words” mandatory on him?
After all, the Popes from Leo XIII on have favored the widest possible ownership of productive assets by individuals and families. But none (including Pope Benedict) has ever suggested that such ownership should be achieved through confiscation and donation. Rather, their thoughts (as i understood them) are more concerned with a reasonable degree of ease of acquisition.
More great points. I too really like some of Weigel’s writings… but on Caritas in Veritate he just got paranoid.I’ll admit I have considerable admiration for Weigel. But I think he’s off the mark with this one the way he expresses himself, and in any event I think Weigel mostly just wishes the Pope hadn’t used the word.
But one more thing. It’s one thing to think of “distribution” in an American context, but another in the context of, say, Zimbabwe, where Mugabe’s cronies force others off the land and appropriate it. Pope Benedict is not only addressing Americans with his Encyclical.
If you go to the vatican website and plug the word “redistribution” into the search function, you will see that the Church has been talking about redistribution for many years. This is not a new concept slipped past the Pope by conspiratorial lefties. It has been a part of the Church’s teaching since…, well forever.I’m not sure how close Weigel is to the mark here. I’m not even sure his objection is doctrinal or stylistic.
Take this for instance: “(b) the use of the word “redistribution” with respect to wealth at least 7 times #s 32, 36, 37, 39, 42 (3 times), 49]. We all know that “redistribution” is code for collectivist/socialist policies and ideologies.”
But does it to a Pope who is not an American and may or may not consider American political “code words” mandatory on him?
After all, the Popes from Leo XIII on have favored the widest possible ownership of productive assets by individuals and families. But none (including Pope Benedict) has ever suggested that such ownership should be achieved through confiscation and donation. Rather, their thoughts (as i understood them) are more concerned with a reasonable degree of ease of acquisition.
For example, farm land (and I know the encyclicals don’t always mean farm land) around here is very expensive relative to what it can produce. Why is that? Well, there are several reasons; some of which have to do with government(s) and some of which don’t. One big one recently is the government’s corn subsidy. In order to cash in on that (or crop insurance, whichever pays first) people raised a lot of corn this year on land where it should never have been planted. This whole area, in fact, is not really good for corn. And yet, people planted it in order to cash in. Turns out it turned dry so the crop insurance program is on the hook in a very big way. Because of all that, land prices went up a good deal even in the face of the recession
Then, strange to tell, the government decided to subsidize the planting and growing of that gigantic grass 'miscantheus giganticus" in a number of counties here, believing it coudl produce even more ethanol per acre than corn. Sure as the world, people will plant it next year, and with subidies will produce a whole lot of it, and either collect money for the grass or insurance if it fails.
And the natural, and best uses for land around here are grazing and forestry.
But because of government programs, the price is well above what grazing and forestry could justify.
Also, government spending is so crazy and Fed accommodation so generous that interest rates encourage the “carry trade”, thus punching securities prices above what they probably should be.
If I want to start a machine shop, I can probably deduct the cost of all my equipment and materials in fairly short order. But if i buy land to farm, I can’t deduct the cost of land at all. Another distorting thing.
And, frankly, if some of the ups and downs of the recent market aren’t engineered by short sellers, I’m a monkey’s uncle. But who will hold them to account? Nobody.
And if I was wealthy and started a private foundation for the purpose of persuading women not to have children at all because of “global warming”, the government would bless my efforts with a tax deduction and an exemption for the gain on my investments in the foundation. So my foundation is in the market buying assets that feed an ideology rather than a family, and I’m bidding the price up.
There are lots of things like that in this economy, and not just with land. I think it’s that kind of thing the Popes mean; things that stand in the way of acquisition of productive assets, or that artificially trash those efforts people make in acquiring them.
It may be noted as well that excessive consumerism also retards the acquisition by families of productive assets, and the Popes discourage that and the corporate manipulation and government policies that encourage it. Consumerism itself, often pushed by governments and corporations also discourages “distribution of wealth” by absorbing it.
So do excessive transfer payments.
I’ll admit I have considerable admiration for Weigel. But I think he’s off the mark with this one the way he expresses himself, and in any event I think Weigel mostly just wishes the Pope hadn’t used the word.
But one more thing. It’s one thing to think of “distribution” in an American context, but another in the context of, say, Zimbabwe, where Mugabe’s cronies force others off the land and appropriate it. Pope Benedict is not only addressing Americans with his Encyclical.
What are your substantive reasons for agreeing with Weigel over the Pope?Has anyone else read George Weigel’s review–scathing at times–of Caritas in Veritate? I think he is totally on the money!
article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NTdkYjU3MDE2YTdhZTE4NWIyN2FkY2U5YTFkM2ZiMmE=
Bottom line: the encyclical is good in many parts but caters to the lefties way too often. It uses the word “redistribution” with respect to wealth at least 7 times #s 32, 36, 37, 39, 42 (3 times), 49]. :banghead:
Would that Pope Leo XIII’s advice had been heeded sooner:TMC
If you go to the vatican website and plug the word “redistribution” into the search function, you will see that the Church has been talking about redistribution for many years. This is not a new concept slipped past the Pope by conspiratorial lefties. It has been a part of the Church’s teaching since…, well forever.
Let me add, rumors of the use of “redistribution” are greatly exaggerated. I did check. The word “redistribution” is not in any social encyclical of JPII, Paul VI, John XXIII, Quadragesimo Anno, nor Rerum Novarum.” It does show up in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, but (not surprisingly) is never footnoted, except in one place where the footnote covers inequities not “redistribution.” The Compendium is by—you guessed it—the Pontifical Council for Peace and Justice.If you go to the vatican website and plug the word “redistribution” into the search function, you will see that the Church has been talking about redistribution for many years. This is not a new concept slipped past the Pope by conspiratorial lefties. It has been a part of the Church’s teaching since…, well forever.
Check again. From John Paul II’s Redemptor Hominis:Let me add, rumors of the use of “redistribution” are greatly exaggerated. I did check. The word “redistribution” is not in any social encyclical of JPII, Paul VI, John XXIII, Quadragesimo Anno, nor Rerum Novarum.” It does show up in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, but (not surprisingly) is never footnoted, except in one place where the footnote covers inequities not “redistribution.” The Compendium is by—you guessed it—the Pontifical Council for Peace and Justice.
It is something that John Paul spoke about often, including in a speech he gave to the World Conference on Agriculture in 1979:Such a task is not an impossible one. The principle of solidarity, in a wide sense, must inspire the effective search for appropriate in stitutions and mechanisms, whether in the sector of trade, where the laws of healthy competition must be allowed to lead the way, or on the level of a wider and more immediate redistribution of riches and of control over them, in order that the economically developing peoples may be able not only to satisfy their essential needs but also to advance gradually and effectively.
While Paul VI did not use the precise word “redistribution,” he did advocate for it in Populorum Progessio:However, it has to be borne in mind that to overcome imbalances and the strident inequalities in living conditions between the agricultural sector and the other sectors of the economy, or between the social groups within a given country, the public authorities must have a well-planned policy, one that is committed to the redistribution of income to the advantage of the very poor.
It took me five minutes on the Vatican website to find these examples. I am sure there are many more, as the principle dates back to the very beginning of our faith. The suggestion by some that our current Pope has been duped by conspiratorial lefties to insert novel and un-Christian language into an encyclical is both ridiculous and insulting. This is what the Church teaches and has always taught.If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.
You’ll notice I said “social encyclicals”–which are what formally teach the church’s social doctrine. What I said stands. I would also point out that “redistribution” is not used in Gaudium et spes nor in CCE “Guidelines for the Study of and Teaching of the Church’s Social Doctrine in the Formation of Priests.”Check again. From John Paul II’s Redemptor Hominis:
It is something that John Paul spoke about often, including in a speech he gave to the World Conference on Agriculture in 1979:
While Paul VI did not use the precise word “redistribution,” he did advocate for it in Populorum Progessio:
It took me five minutes on the Vatican website to find these examples. I am sure there are many more, as the principle dates back to the very beginning of our faith. The suggestion by some that our current Pope has been duped by conspiratorial lefties to insert novel and un-Christian language into an encyclical is both ridiculous and insulting. This is what the Church teaches and has always taught.
Opps! Also–If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.