I am a distrubutist and i am proud of it - Catholic Distrubutism makes me proud of being Catholic!

[Abu]

He that hath ears to hear let him hear. (Mt 11:15). This could well apply to some here who are unable to interpret, or misrepresent, Sacred Scripture and therefore put false labels on Jesus.

Take Acts 4:34-35 that has resulted in befuddlement here.
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, !2:12; 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.” [Bold and italics in the original].

Greed, deceit and cheating have no place in any human activity. Individual morality determines how owners or managers or employees treat each other and the customers, which ethic may derive from a policy set by the business, and requires the morality taught by Christ’s Church.

The creation of wealth through free enterprise which has had such a huge effect in raising the living standards of millions upon millions, is the vocation of the true entrepreneur, a vocation made possible by the discovery of economic laws by the Catholic Late Scholastics and endorsed by the Church Herself.

 

[Robert_Sock]

If you advocate compelling the rich to give of their wealth, that is something that Christ never did, and thus I would refuse to participate.

Again, Christ had harsh words for the rich in that he demanded they sell what they have and give to the poor if they wished to walk with him and be saved.

 

[Brendan]

Again, Christ had harsh words for the rich in that he demanded they sell what they have and give to the poor if they wished to walk with him and be saved.

How much money did Christ end up taking from the rich young man to give to the poor?

None, He told them what they needed to do to be saved, and then let them make that decision.

Why not follow in the footsteps of Christ and do the same?

 

[Abu]

Robert Sock
Christ had harsh words for the rich in that he demanded they sell what they have and give to the poor if they wished to walk with him and be saved.

False. This is a persistent error with this poster. Some never seem to learn.
Facing Reality
The errors here are several. Christ did not “demand”. Christ did not stipulate that salvation depends on selling everything and giving to the poor.

In his outstanding work Christians For Freedom, Ignatius 1986, p 43-47, (with a new edition, since), Dr Alejandro Chafuen has examined carefully the teaching of Christ and wealth. Citing the case of the rich young man in Luke 18:18-25, Dr Chafuen remarks that many authors think that Jesus was condemning the possession of riches, but “the Late Scholastics indicated that this was not the correct interpretation.” (P 44). And *A Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture *explains of this passage: “Riches in themselves are neither are neither good nor bad; it is undue attachment to riches leading to their abuse that keeps men out of the Kingdom.” (p 961).

Dr Chafuen notes that “many people close to Jesus were quite wealthy for their times. Joseph seems to have had his own business and perhaps a donkey; Peter owned a fishing boat, and Matthew was a tax collector. Jesus praised the rich man Zaccheus. It was the wealthy Joseph of Arimathea who kept faith even when the Apostles were beset by doubt (Mt 27:57). Jesus does not condemn the possession of riches but, rather disordered attachment to them.” Notice also that Jesus did not ask His Apostles to renounce their property.

 

[Robert_Sock]

False. This is a persistent error with this poster. Some never seem to learn.
Facing Reality
The errors here are several. Christ did not “demand”. Christ did not stipulate that salvation depends on selling everything and giving to the poor.

In his outstanding work Christians For Freedom, Ignatius 1986, p 43-47, (with a new edition, since), Dr Alejandro Chafuen has examined carefully the teaching of Christ and wealth. Citing the case of the rich young man in Luke 18:18-25, Dr Chafuen remarks that many authors think that Jesus was condemning the possession of riches, but “the Late Scholastics indicated that this was not the correct interpretation.” (P 44). And *A Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture *explains of this passage: “Riches in themselves are neither are neither good nor bad; it is undue attachment to riches leading to their abuse that keeps men out of the Kingdom.” (p 961).

Dr Chafuen notes that “many people close to Jesus were quite wealthy for their times. Joseph seems to have had his own business and perhaps a donkey; Peter owned a fishing boat, and Matthew was a tax collector. Jesus praised the rich man Zaccheus. It was the wealthy Joseph of Arimathea who kept faith even when the Apostles were beset by doubt (Mt 27:57). Jesus does not condemn the possession of riches but, rather disordered attachment to them.” Notice also that Jesus did not ask His Apostles to renounce their property.

You speak about never learning, well here is the passage again, where Jesus tells the rich man to sell all that he has then come follow him! In other words, if you wish to follow Christ, one must sell everything and give it to the poor. What could be more straight-forward in this passage. All the apostles left all they had to follow Christ. This was a requirement in following Christ!

*[21] Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me. [22] And when the young man had heard this word, he went away sad: for he had great possessions. [23] Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. [24] And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. [25] And when they had heard this, the disciples wondered very much, saying: Who then can be saved?

[26] And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible. [27] Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have? [28] And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
–Matthew 19:21-28*

 

[Brendan]

You speak about never learning, well here is the passage again, where Jesus tells the rich man to sell all that he has then come follow him! In other words, if you wish to follow Christ, one must sell everything and give it to the poor. What could be more straight-forward in this passage. All the apostles left all they had to follow Christ. This was a requirement in following Christ!

*[21] Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me. [22] And when the young man had heard this word, he went away sad: for he had great possessions. [23] Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. [24] And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. [25] And when they had heard this, the disciples wondered very much, saying: Who then can be saved?

[26] And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible. [27] Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have? [28] And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
–Matthew 19:21-28*

So how much, exactly, did Christ take from the rich man? I presume that since Christ is Wisdom incarnate, then it would be a wise thing for our government to take the exact same amount.

Don’t you agree?

 

[Robert_Sock]

So how much, exactly, did Christ take from the rich man? I presume that since Christ is Wisdom incarnate, then it would be a wise thing for our government to take the exact same amount.

Don’t you agree?

Christ required the rich man to give to the poor. Likewise, the government can formulate programs where money is given to the poor. The government need not take a cent for themselves. Moreover, the government need not take anything from the rich, but simply create programs where the poor are taken care of (e.g. by raising taxes).

 

[Lettyd]

I don’t really post too often, more of a lurker! …but mind over matters first post intrigued me, and I promptly skipped to the last page when I saw how many posts there were…lol…

…as you do sometimes? Well, I do!

Jesus and the rich man are often used against the Catholic faith and Rome to criticise the faith…‘Ohh all the wealth etc. etc. blah blah blah…’ Sell it off, feed the world, be a Christian etc. etc…Crapiola!

I believe that Jesus was a very clever guy, he wanted us to use our ‘reason’ and our savy and our goodwill, but to keep the faith and always keep our eye on the ball and helping others - no room for making excuses if the opportunity for charity presents itself to us, no room for making a monumentous decision to jeopardise the opportunity to provide for others, ‘in the future’… - to me, is the message of the rich man, combined with the talents passage. If you can help somebody than do it…but be real ye know!

Will an earthly political system ever reflect this in a ‘perfect’ way - hmm, I don’t think so - but I think we can certainly try, while understanding we must live and let live too…and others think differently, and be aware of that, we have to get along, and always, know the faith most importantly and ‘keep the faith’! Ask the questions and find solace and conviction in eachother.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Really, full-on capitalism sits quite awkwardly with Christianity, I often think… and yes, the Ananias situation really is an early Christian commune!

Something no-one is looking at here, is that this model is also perpetuated by the Church within itself - our clergy do not really own their homes etc., our nuns and monks own nothing - everything is communal…

But modern marxist/communism is something entirely more specific and totalitarian (and it is a shame that the slightest hint of common good is thereafter embedded with scientistic atheism as a result in the mind of the modern American… really, is public health service ever a bad idea?!?)

Personally, I’m sometimes embarrassed by my own materialism, and I’m not exactly rich…

 

[Abu]

Robert Sock
Jesus tells the rich man to sell all that he has then come follow him! In other words, if you wish to follow Christ, one must sell everything and give it to the poor. What could be more straight-forward in this passage. All the apostles left all they had to follow Christ. This was a requirement in following Christ!

Wow! What naïveté. Have the faithful followers of Christ missed something here? Which commandment of Christ’s Church makes this mandatory? The rich young man was not at all condemned by Our Lord. Readers already know that Peter owned a fishing boat, and Matthew was a tax collector. Even after His Resurrection, Jesus enabled Peter to have a huge catch of fish after Peter had caught nothing all night. It was after this, that He made Peter a fisher of men.

Fr John A Hardon, S.J., in The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 384, affirms that “having INVITED him to ‘ go sell everything you own , and give the money to the poor,’ and then ‘come follow Me,’ Jesus made a commentary on the man’s declining the invitation……Christ does not say that the rich cannot be saved but it will not be easy. The saying is all the more surprising after He had made the distinction between the moral precept ‘keep the commandments’ and the counsel of poverty ‘if you wish to be perfect’. Evidently He is speaking not of impossibility but of difficulty. Nor does He condemn the rich young man….”

Instead of misleading the gullible, face reality. People make their own trouble.
Likewise, the government can formulate programs where money is given to the poor. The government need not take a cent for themselves. Moreover, the government need not take anything from the rich, but simply create programs where the poor are taken care of (e.g. by raising taxes).
These airy fairy ideas are neatly exposed by the Church. The Welfare State is condemned.
From Centesimus Annus, 48, John Paul II, 1991:
“Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State [Welfare State] are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”

Mystic Banana
the Ananias situation really is an early Christian commune!

Face the reality of Acts 4:34-35 that has resulted in befuddlement here.
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, !2:12; 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.” [Bold and italics in the original].

The blind cannot lead the blind.

 

[Rocinante]

Personally, I’m sometimes embarrassed by my own materialism, and I’m not exactly rich…

i know exactly what you mean. the desire to rationalize one’s materialism and greed runs deep as we can see from many contributions to this thread.

much of the confusion as to the demands that the message of jesus makes on us stems from confusion between jesus himself and supply-side jesus. it’s an all too common error.

the diambiguation note on uncyclopedia makes the distinction clear:

"Supply-side Jesus is often confused with Jesus, Cheesus Chrust, and/or Jesus H Christ, also known as your Personal Pan Jesus. Supply-side Jesus was born around 4 BC to a poor family of beggars and hobos. At the young age of 6, he invented the theory of supply-side economics. He opened up his own lemonade stand and became a millionaire by age 7. His theory was that the richer people make him, the more well off everybody else will be. So he went out and preached to the unwashed masses. His powers included the ability to walk on money and turn wine into less wine.

Those who follow the teachings of Supply-side Jesus often become immensely rich, because they convince others to give them money so that everyone else will be better off. Often times Suppy-side Jesus is confused with Regular Jesus thusly corrupting thousands of Christians in America.

Supply-Side Jesus’ chief service to humanity was that he was rather explicit about some things that had remained somewhat unclear or ambiguous in Regular Jesus’ teaching. For example, prior to his crucifixion, Regular Jesus had told people to give money away to the poor. A lot of them were quick to conclude that tax-sponsored Social Security by the Government was a good thing. Supply-Side Jesus explained to these people a very simple thing: the original idea had been for all charity to be voluntary!

He stated: “Yes, you should give money to the poor, but you should always fight to the death to keep your freedom NOT to give any money to the poor! Never, ever let the Government take that freedom away from you! You should always protect your basic human right to be a greedy, niggardly, selfish rich bastard… Just in case, you know. Not that you will ever use that right. Of course not. Not that you actually happen to be a greedy, niggardly, selfish, rich bastard - no way. Nor am I, for that matter. As we all know. I’m not racist, that’s a perfectly legitimate word. How dare you impugn my character!”

After some thought he added: “Never forget one thing - Christianity is about free will! That means you should be given the opportunity to choose between good and bad, otherwise you can’t show you’re really good. Same thing with killing people - Regular Jesus told you not to kill people. But that doesn’t mean you should let the Government take away your freedom to kill people if you want to! You know, theoretically. You should have a completely free choice between killing people and not killing people, with no risk of penalties. You aren’t good if you’re just forced not to kill people. And this, dear friends, is why we need automatic weapons: to test our free will.”

“You know what I just thought,” he went on, “It would be even better if the Government kindly put a gun in your hand and ordered you to kill people or risk the death penalty. Then you would have the opportunity to show you’re ten times as good by not killing anyone. After all, there is nothing special in not killing people if you have no particular reason to kill them! So this is the kind of Government that we should vote for. But I guess this is utopia.”

“So never let the Government impose high taxes on you under the pretext of helping the poor! Never feed the bureaucracy!”

At this point, a particularly unwashed piece of unwashed mass asked:

“But Regular Jesus wasn’t quite against taxes. He actually told us that we should pay them. You know, Matthew 22:21, “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” and all that.”

Supply-Side Jesus seemed to be glad at the question:

"Sure, Reg wasn’t against taxes in principle, but don’t forget the historical context! Of course he would have never approved of taxes if he had thought the Roman Government would use them for anything like Social Security! Fortunately, there was no such risk at the time. What his statement really meant at the time was “Give your money to the Roman Empire so the Emperor can live in outrageous luxury while the people starves, and while the rest of the money is spent on expansionist wars and massacring and enslaving foreign nations, including our own!” Now that was OK, of course.

“In fact, I remember once when Tiberius, after building another enormous palace for himself, killing another hundred Roman patricians and raping another one of his sisters, decided to do something else for a change and gave some money to the starving lepers of Jerusalem as charity. OMG, you should have seen how angry Jesus was! He just yelled: How dare you use the hard-working taxpayers’ money like this, you dirty Commie!”

“Fortunately,” Supply-Side Jesus concluded, “now we can freely elect our own Government and tell it what to do, so it’s up to our own choice and free will to forbid bastards like Tiberius to do anything like that again, and by Jesus we will!” "

 

[MindOverMatter2]

i know exactly what you mean. the desire to rationalize one’s materialism and greed runs deep as we can see from many contributions to this thread.

I don’t agree with everything you say or think, but I certainly agree with this:thumbsup:. Its quite sad that it takes somebody outside of the faith to see it.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Face the reality of Acts 4:34-35 that has resulted in befuddlement here.
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, !2:12; 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.” [Bold and italics in the original].

The blind cannot lead the blind.

And the blind leap to presumption - I wasn’t saying that the Ananais situation meant we all should be communists, but the voluntary sharing of goods, here, is a voluntary establishment of a communal arrangement for all, and that this is considered a ideal situation - again, as exemplified by our clergy. Ananais is not killed over a single transaction, but for keeping personal property from the commune.

“easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle”… and no, I’m not saying we should must neccesarily give up our worldly possessions to be true Christians, but obviously, frugality, charity helps, and greed and selfishness certainly don’t…

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I don’t agree with everything you say or think, but I certainly agree with this:thumbsup:. Its quite sad that it takes somebody outside of the faith to see it.

Nice one, Rocinante! Although obviously Jesus wouldn’t *swear *:ehh:

naff example for taxes, however… the taxation was for the Roman Empire, which compares quite poorly with doing nice things like making sure one of the wealthiest countries (the modern Roman Empire?) in the world doesn’t just drive people to die in the street because it’s more comfortable people are too tight fisted to agree to healthcare being a public service.

Don’t you pay taxes to pay for wars in the US? Assuming you do, do those who oppose public health oppose paying taxes to fund wars? Ones healing people with your money, ones killing people with your money. Which would Jesus prefer, eh?

Well, MindOverMatter, we both see it! Maybe we can explain it to the rest of them…

 

[Abu]

Having agreed that anyone may voluntarily live like religious orders and priests, without owning goods personally, we see that Dr Alejandro Chafuen has examined carefully the teaching of Christ and wealth. Citing the case of the rich young man in Luke 18:18-25, Dr Chafuen remarks that many authors think that Jesus was condemning the possession of riches, but “the Late Scholastics indicated that this was not the correct interpretation. Citing Luke 14:26, where Jesus says, ‘If any man come to Me without hating his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, yes and his own life too, he cannot be My disciple,’ the Scholastics pointed out that this passage does not enjoin Christians to hate their fathers. Such doctrine would contradict the Fourth Commandment. Thomist and Scholastic interpretations of this passage is that the entrance to the kingdom of Heaven is denied to anyone who values things more than God. In Matthew’s Gospel (10:37), the same passage reads: ‘Anyone who prefers father or mother to Me is not worthy of Me. Anyone who prefers son or daughter to Me is not worthy of Me.’ " It would be a violation of the natural order to value a created thing above its creator, to pursue riches as the ultimate goal.

Everything outside of faith and morals is meant to be learned and developed by non-Magisterial Catholics (and others) in the world of living and acting using reason, without exercising "religious authority”. Popes have warned explicitly against thinking that they have unique insights into specific matters of economic policy.

“If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…[M]en must realise in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…[T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.” [Pope Leo XIII. Quoted in *The Church And The Market, Dr Thomas E. Woods, Lexington Books, 2005, p 4].

Greed, deceit and cheating have no place in any human activity. Individual morality determines how owners, managers and employees treat each other and the customers, which requires the morality taught by Christ’s Church.

The creation of wealth through free enterprise which has had such a huge effect in raising the living standards of millions upon millions, is the vocation of the true entrepreneur, a vocation made possible by the discovery of the economic laws by the Catholic Late Scholastics and has resulted in the free enterprise endorsed by the Church Herself.

 

[Rocinante]

Having agreed that anyone may voluntarily live like religious orders and priests, without owning goods personally, we see that Dr Alejandro Chafuen has examined carefully the teaching of Christ and wealth. Citing the case of the rich young man in Luke 18:18-25, Dr Chafuen remarks that many authors think that Jesus was condemning the possession of riches, but “the Late Scholastics indicated…

Abu, how do you reconcile the christian doctrine that everyone ought to give to the poor with your insistence that we should all fight to the death for our right *not *to give to the poor?

presumably you think it okay for the government to enforce moral behavior when it comes to certain aspects of life? what aspects of mortality should the government enforce and which aspects should the government stay out of? why is giving to the poor not one of those things that the government should enforce?

 

[Abu]

Rocinante
how do you reconcile the christian doctrine that everyone ought to give to the poor with your insistence that we should all fight to the death for our right not to give to the poor?

The reconciling is done by Christ and His Church. Through Her Sacred Scriptures She shows us that we have been created with free-will, which is why, with all their wonderful gifts, Adam and Eve could freely, on temptation, disobey God – they and we are left with a fallen human nature; but still have free-will. No one “fights to the death”, but will strenuously speak up for their right to freely make their own decisions.

Another aspect of free-will is the teaching that the freedom of the individual is the freedom so forcefully declared in the Encyclical Letter *Sollicitudo Rei Socialis *(On Social Concerns), 1987, #42, by Pope John Paul II: “Likewise, in this concern for the poor, one must not overlook that special form of poverty which consists in being deprived of fundamental human rights, in particular the right to religious freedom and also the right to freedom of economic initiative.”
Catholics believe in faith, hope and charity, but the greatest of these is charity (St Paul, 1Cor 13:13).

what aspects of mortality [morality] should the government enforce and which aspects should the government stay out of? why is giving to the poor not one of those things that the government should enforce?

Public morality is governed by the common good – to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person which includes acting according to a sound norm of conscience. Government must respect the principle of subsidiarity: "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”

All persons are obliged to develop the cardinal virtues, prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance in whatever situation they find themselves. Moral failures are not caused by the system; immorality resides in the human heart.
The primary role of government is to support families, in solidarity and the role of the Church, and that’s why we need laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and worse crimes. That’s why we have the Catholic Church to guide us – She who invented charity in the West. Providing a family allowance based on family size for families with mothers who stay at home to care for the children enables more jobs breadwinners, counters birth dearth, and can strengthen families. The government should levy taxes on business and individuals for legitimate furtherance of the common good being wary of the deleterious effects on employment and families of excessive taxation.

No wealth can be created until it is produced – that’s why the Catholic Late Scholastic system of free enterprise works so well to enable everyone to produce some wealth and to do with it as they choose through free-will. The economic laws they discovered are based on the principles of human action – of cause and effect involving God-given reason.

 

[Rocinante]

The reconciling is done by Christ and His Church. Through Her Sacred Scriptures She shows us that we have been created with free-will, which is why, with all their wonderful gifts, Adam and Eve could freely, on temptation, disobey God – they and we are left with a fallen human nature; but still have free-will.

do police take away your free will to decide whether or not you want to kill someone? if not then free will is not the issue.

we have laws that coerce people to act morally who otherwise would not. it seems to me that catholics, who are called to charity by jesus and would give charitably anyway, would support laws that force non-catholics to act as charitably as catholics are just as catholics support laws to force others to abide by catholics ethics with regard to other matters such as abortion.

Pope John Paul II: “Likewise, in this concern for the poor, one must not overlook that special form of poverty which consists in being deprived of fundamental human rights, in particular the right to religious freedom and also the right to freedom of economic initiative.”
Catholics believe in faith, hope and charity, but the greatest of these is charity (St Paul, 1Cor 13:13).

i agree with jpII here, but i see nothing about social programs to provide health care for the poor as stomping on any economic right. do you think that we have a natural right to not be charitable?

 

[JDaniel]

No wealth can be created until it is produced – that’s why the Catholic Late Scholastic system of free enterprise works so well to enable everyone to produce some wealth and to do with it as they choose through free-will. The economic laws they discovered are based on the principles of human action – of cause and effect involving God-given reason.

Abu:

Excellent post. Especially this last paragraph. I have highlighted the most important words. What I’m sure you mean is, that until commodities, aka goods, are produced, no wealth is created. Unfortunately, today, due to the dearth of stock brokerage firms, investment banks, and investment companies, there is an entire investment industry of people who have been able to make money by simply moving money. They believe that wealth is created only by the movement of money.

While that has been true to some extent, during certain economic times, it cannot be relied upon to sustain real wealth creation. Production is all that a society can count on to always create and/or sustain wealth and income. People herein have a loathing for banks, but, for all the wrong reasons. The real reason they should loath banks is that banks are part of that industry that do not actively produce goods or services. They earn their operating revenue principally by the movement of money, beginning with the earning of interest. When that is done, regular people are left out in the cold.

Again, excellent post.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

do police take away your free will to decide whether or not you want to kill someone? if not then free will is not the issue.

we have laws that coerce people to act morally who otherwise would not. it seems to me that catholics, who are called to charity by jesus and would give charitably anyway, would support laws that force non-catholics to act as charitably as catholics are just as catholics support laws to force others to abide by catholics ethics with regard to other matters such as abortion.

i agree with jpII here, but i see nothing about social programs to provide health care for the poor as stomping on any economic right. do you think that we have a natural right to not be charitable?

Rocinante:

What you might not know, but, must always remember, is that the noun, “charity,” means “love,” in the Catholic scheme of things. Charitable giving is an emergence from our love of God and neighbor. If it is done at gun-point, it is not, per se, “charity.” God, and Christ, want us to be charitable, on our own volition. Unfortunately, some people are not. But, government educed charity only exacerbates uncharitableness. So, it’s not the answer.

It is interesting that somehow people survived, ate pretty good, lived decently, and for the most part, got along just as well, if not better, before the 1930’s and the big government that saddled us with taxation to excess.

God bless,
jd