No one is allowed to amass excessive wealth?

[davidmlamb]

If simply unionizing could restore prosperity, we would have a solution to poverty everywhere. Just force all third world countries to have unions for every job and to pay a minimum wage of $25/hr. Problem solved! Every nation suddenly becomes prosperous.

And we can restore propserty to some economically hard hit areas of our own country. Your town has a 25% unemployment rate? No problem. Just require unionization and require a minimum wage of $25/hr. The town is now prosperous. Or is it?

And in contrast using your own reasoning we can just implement the right wing conservative model in third world countries where everyone can get off their lazy butts and get jobs and they will have economic prosperity.

David

 

[davidmlamb]

I really appreciate all of the replies to my original post. There are certainly some learned folks here with a wide variety of strong opinions. However, I should have anticipated that this would turn into a class envy/union vs. non-union debate. For that, I am heartily sorry. Passions are strong given the state of our economy.

Being the person who started this thread, I’d like to steer it back to real theology and not political opinion. While one cannot know what is in a person’s heart, some of these posts seem to have a touch of envy and covetousness that runs contrary to our teachings.

I’ve read through all of the posts but, in my view, the question still has not been answered: Where EXACTLY does the Bible or the Magisterium, ex-cathedrally, teach “No one is allowed to amass excessive wealth”?

.

I am the only one here Greg who has offered Catholic answers on these questions but I noticed you have negated my answers by implying that true Catholic teachings must be supported by an ex cathedra statement. If that were true then the resurection, the virgin birth and virtually everything recited in our creeds would not be true Catholic teaching. This would also include the moral teachings on abortion.

It is clear to me that you do not understand why an ex-cathedra statement is pronounced. There have only been about 6 in Church history and they are used when a certin doctrine always taught by the Church, or taught by the Church since conditions arose requiring a moral teaching be defined come into dispute and threaten the unity of the Church. It may be required that some day a defined dogma for social economics may need to be spoken ex cathedra but that day has not yet come. Until then the apostolic writings and encyclicals of the Pope serve this purpose. They represent more then just opinions but represent the wisdom of God spoken through the earthly shepard of the Church, the Pope in union with the Bishops. The answer to your question has already been answered by the Church, You just need to accept it as the WORD OF GOD.

In the Light of His Truth,
David

 

[davidmlamb]

… Until then the apostolic writings and encyclicals of the Pope serve this purpose. They represent more then just opinions but represent the wisdom of God spoken through the earthly shepard of the Church, the Pope in union with the Bishops…

I would like to offer an amendment to the above statement. Church Councils also serve as a remedy for defining Church teachings. I believe the Social Doctrines of the Church for just and living wages, and economic social teachings were also reinforced by Vatican II.

Peace,
David

 

[Nate13]

EXCELLENT POST!! People forget that there was a time in America that if you had a job you were represented by a union. People did make careers out of working at grocery stores and retired with a decent pension. I know because I have a few in my family and know several more who have retired well in Sun City, AZ. One in particular started out a bagger and belonged to a union. He eventually went through a meat cutter apprenticeship program and retired from the same company after 38 years of service. My great aunt is a retired Target worker. In 1978 she was making 17 dollars an hour working in the women’s department for Target. She is retired now and receives a modest pension plus social security. In 1978 Target employees who worked as cashiers made more then Wal-Mart cashiers do today after 5 years of service. Why can’t a person make a living working in retail? The fact is they can and they should. If you are Catholic you should agree that a living wage is the lagitamte fruits of work.

David

Yes but this fails to see that the skills that were valuable in 1978 are no longer valued as much in today’s society. You can find any number of people willingly to step into a job like that and be able to perform it up to standards with little to no training and probably even without a high school degree. Do you not see how your analogy falls flat here? A lot has changed in 30+ years. I’m sure at one point in human history the ability to make a fire was an incredibly valuable skill, but time and technology has made it so that skill is no longer valued as much in a person and other skills have taken its place. A high school degree used to be an above average accomplishment for a person in society. Now it stands for barely making by.

 

[davidmlamb]

Yes but this fails to see that the skills that were valuable in 1978 are no longer valued as much in today’s society. You can find any number of people willingly to step into a job like that and be able to perform it up to standards with little to no training and probably even without a high school degree. Do you not see how your analogy falls flat here? .

It doesn’t fall flat at all! The job in retail in 1978 vs today needs no more or less training then it does today. If there were no more need for a department store then you might have a point. There is no justification for not allowing collective bargaining in this industry. Once again this is a Catholic moral teaching; that a just and living wage is the legitmate fruits of work and to withhold such a wage is a grave offense that cries out to heaven for justice. The only thing that has changed is that Catholics have decided which church moral teachings they will accept and reject. You cannot serve both God and mammon.

In the Light of Truth,

David

 

[Abu]

Davidmlamb
Once again this is a Catholic moral teaching; that a just and living wage is the legitmate fruits of work and to withhold such a wage is a grave offense that cries out to heaven for justice. The only thing that has changed is that Catholics have decided which church moral teachings they will accept and reject. You cannot serve both God and mammon.

Such a statement cannot obligate as if it is a doctrine – it is a recommendation which has application under many different economic circumstances which determine the wage…

On wage fixing
Here, Fr Brian Harrison’s, O.S., *Religious Liberty And Contraception *is helpful (John XXXIII Fellowship Co-op (Australia), 1988, p 22-23), concerning “the practical order: human rights and duties."

“But for a certain norm of action to be a matter of doctrine, it would clearly have to be proposed as a universally binding norm – one which is of certain validity always and everywhere. Thus, we could not elevate to the status of doctrine a norm which is proposed provisionally, and as a subject to possible future correction after future consideration; nor one which is a particular ad hoc decision applying to given circumstances which might turn out to be transitory; nor, finally, one which is a concrete directive designed to give practical force to a doctrine which is in itself too broad or general to have much effect without such further application or specification. (An obvious example of such a doctrine would be the teaching – both natural and revealed – that a labourer deserves a just wage.)”

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”.

Free enterprise economic development started in the great Catholic monastic estates of the ninth century, and a solid basis of economic Catholic thought developed from the fourteenth century. In the fifteenth century the Late Scholastics who were Thomists (followers of St Thomas) “writing and teaching at the University of Salamanca in Spain, sought to explain the full range of human action and social; organization.” They “observed the existence of economic law, inexorable forces of cause and effect that operate very much as other natural laws. Over the course of several generations, they discovered and explained the laws of supply and demand, the cause of inflation, the operation of foreign exchange rates, and the subjective nature of economic value…” For these reasons Joseph Schumpeter applauded them as the first real economists. (Thomas E Woods Jr, The Church And The Market, Lexington Books, 2005, p 8).

On wage fixing the Catholic Late Scholastics favoured leaving wage determination to the ‘common estimation’ of the market, since any other method is inherently arbitrary and leads to endless complications. The attempts ad nauseam to equate Catholic Social Teaching with defined doctrine harms the whole range of such teaching.

 

[JimG]

And in contrast using your own reasoning we can just implement the right wing conservative model in third world countries where everyone can get off their lazy butts and get jobs and they will have economic prosperity.

David

Um, yes, I suppose we might use North and South Korea as a yardstick to measure the success of free markets as compared to government controlled economies. Taiwan might be another good example. Which has worked out better for its people?

 

[Abu]

FLGreg, #57
I’ve read through all of the posts but, in my view, the question still has not been answered: Where EXACTLY does the Bible or the Magisterium, ex-cathedrally, teach “No one is allowed to amass excessive wealth”?

See post #33.
Good point. Christ and His Church do not teach anything concerning the question of acquiring “excessive wealth”, but they do teach on how one should make use of, or assist others, when they acquire riches. The very term “excessive” is dependant on the feeling, prejudice, of the user.

On the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, a preoccupation with wealth obscures the real sins – pride and selfishness are the culprits. St Augustine effectively says “It was not Lazarus’ poverty that saved him, but his humility. Nor was it wealth that kept the rich man from bliss, but his pride and selfishness (Sermon 24,3).

Mt 19:16-21 refers finally to the rich young man becoming an Apostle, “come follow Me”. Nowhere does Christ require mankind to give up all their possessions either to be good followers or to be able to enter heaven. If all were poor, how could anyone be helped?

In the parable of the talents, Jesus lauds the servant who has multiplied talents – “For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Mt 25: 14-30). Christ certainly praised the wise use of the fundamental right of economic initiative and prudence in this parable.

The parable of the Talents “primarily teaches that God’s gifts, of nature and especially of grace, are held in stewardship and must not be allowed to lie idle. They are to be used to further His kingdom. It emerges, secondarily, that the standard of God’s judgment is relative to the opportunities offered: ‘the greater the gifts, the greater the account demanded’ (Gregory the Great).” A Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture, ed. Dom Bernard Orchard, Thomas Nelson, 1953].

 

[Abu]

Davidmlamb, #62
I am the only one here Greg who has offered Catholic answers on these questions but I noticed you have negated my answers by implying that true Catholic teachings must be supported by an ex cathedra statement. If that were true then the resurection, the virgin birth and virtually everything recited in our creeds would not be true Catholic teaching. This would also include the moral teachings on abortion.
It is clear to me that you do not understand why an ex-cathedra statement is pronounced. There have only been about 6 in Church history…

Readers here must beware of this poster, unfortunately, who means well but is unfortunately still confused.

Every defined papal teaching on faith or morals is ex cathedra and infallible as Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I has infallibly dogmatically defined:
The Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus Humanae Vitae (Encyclical against contraception) and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Apostolic Epistle on male only priesthood) contain infallible doctrinal definitions, to remove all doubt.

The social teaching is not part of defined doctrine.

It may be required that some day a defined dogma for social economics may need to be spoken ex cathedra but that day has not yet come. Until then the apostolic writings and encyclicals of the Pope serve this purpose. They represent more then just opinions but represent the wisdom of God spoken through the earthly shepard of the Church, the Pope in union with the Bishops. The answer to your question has already been answered by the Church, You just need to accept it as the WORD OF GOD.

Dangerously confused and in error on papal “social economics”, as the “Word of God”.

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].

Pius XI wrote of “matters of technique for which [the Church] is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office.” Quadragesimo Anno, 41]….“economics and moral science employs each its own principles in its own sphere.” [QA, 42]. The Pope went on to deny that “the economic and moral orders are so distinct from and alien to each other that the former depends in no way on the latter.” [QA, 42]. Woods states: “As A.M.C. Waterman points out, this concession by Pius XI ‘throws doubt on the authoritative character of that very substantial part of Catholic (or at least papal) social teaching which consists not of theological and ethical pronouncements, but of empirical judgments about the economy.’ ” [Woods, p 5].

“It goes without saying that part of the responsibility of Pastors is to give careful consideration to current events in order to discern the new requirements of evangelization. However, such an analysis is not meant to pass definitive judgments since this does not fall per se within the Magisterium’s specific domain.” [John Paul II, *Centesimus Annus, 3. Italics added].

Further, John Paul II adds: “The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one other. For such a task the Church offers Her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal orientation a teaching which, as already mentioned, recognizes the positive value of the market and of enterprise, but which at the same time points out that these need to be oriented towards the common good.….” [CA, 43. Italics in original].

The huge difference is that rather than the “Word of God”, “The Church’s social teaching proposes principles for reflection; it provides criteria for judgment; it gives guidelines for action:…” [CCC 2423]. Never will anyone find that the social teaching is equated with the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God.

 

[Nate13]

It doesn’t fall flat at all! The job in retail in 1978 vs today needs no more or less training then it does today. If there were no more need for a department store then you might have a point. There is no justification for not allowing collective bargaining in this industry. Once again this is a Catholic moral teaching; that a just and living wage is the legitmate fruits of work and to withhold such a wage is a grave offense that cries out to heaven for justice. The only thing that has changed is that Catholics have decided which church moral teachings they will accept and reject. You cannot serve both God and mammon.

In the Light of Truth,

David

Would anyone go to college anymore if you could make $30,000 a year working as a sales person or cashier at Wal-mart as starting pay? That is what $17 an hour would mean. Most non-engineering/science degrees have starting salaries below $40,000 today. I’m not sure the opportunity cost of a 4-year college degree would outweigh the $120,000 that person could have made if they had skipped the degree and just started working at Wal-mart. It comes back to what I was saying though. Having a sales person on the floor at Wal-mart is less important today to them than it would have been in 1978. A cashier’s job can also now be replaced with a machine and most of the time they don’t even have to count back change anymore. If employers had to chose between paying all of their cashiers twice as much or putting in machines that would cost them the same they are paying their cashiers now, what do you think they would choose?

 

[someguy14]

Isaiah 58:7

Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?

 

[FLGreg]

Your argument here negates the fact that the time in America when a grocery store job provided a living wage has nothing to do with what God tells us through the Church constitutes economic righteousness. Europe, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all have mandatory union wages for most jobs and all of them enjoy living wages, better benefits, greater economic freedom and lower unemployment with a lower GDP then we have. So your argument is bogus.

We enjoyed those economic prosperous years because corporate and business America practiced Catholic teachings on social justice and for no other reason. When we abandoned those principles for greed and selfishness our system began to unravel. Return to that system and stop offering up excuses to practices unrighteousness and the economy will turn around and we will return to the days where every American truly enjoyed freedom.

IN THE LIGHT OF HIS TRUTH,

David

Your Font was too “in your face” so I reduced it.

Interesting. I’d like to learn how much a person that moves products across a bar code reader for eight hours per day should be making. Please enlighten us.

 

[FLGreg]

My paternal grandfather, not my multimillionaire maternal grandfather, was a grocer during WWII. He traded in his neighborhood and was also very well respected.

I don’t know where you live but America has NEVER practiced Catholic teachings. The United States has been against Catholicism from its very inception and the persecution continues to this day.

I ask that you read Penal laws in the English colonies in America to get a better understanding of what Catholics faced in the New World. Out of the 56 singers of the Declaration of Independence only one was Catholic, Charles Carroll of Maryland. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, where the US Constitution was ratified, only two Catholics signed - Daniel Carroll of Maryland Catholic and Thomas Fitzsimons of Pennsylvania.

Religious Affiliation of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America

 

[FLGreg]

I am the only one here Greg who has offered Catholic answers on these questions but I noticed you have negated my answers by implying that true Catholic teachings must be supported by an ex cathedra statement. If that were true then the resurection, the virgin birth and virtually everything recited in our creeds would not be true Catholic teaching. This would also include the moral teachings on abortion.

I’m sorry David, but I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Could you please reiterate your opinion as to why the statement: "No one is allowed to amass excessive wealth when others lack the basic necessities of life” is a true Catholic teaching.

 

[mdgspencer]

I don’t see anything in Catholic teaching saying it is immoral for someone to be rich. In fact some extraordinarily rich people were King Solomon in the Old Testament, Saint Louis, King of France, and Queen Elizabeth, Queen of Hungry. They were saints, not sinners. It would be wrong though for a rich person not to help the poor. I think particularly about the Old Testament injunctions to help the poor. But I recall Saint Elizabeth’s efforts to help the poor.
In fact the wording of this statement is what can be called a loaded statement. It states that “excessive” wealth is wrong. But I don’t see anything in Catholic teaching about wealth being intrinsically immoral, any particular degree of wealth. It is what someone does with his wealth that is the issue–whether it is simply to serve the person’s pleasure or used as God-given wealth making it possible to help others.
But this doesn’t have anything to do with wealth in particular. We can all use our money to serve our own pleasure or see it as a way to serve others, in one way or another. This focus on wealth seems misleading.

 

[FLGreg]

My paternal grandfather, not my multimillionaire maternal grandfather, was a grocer during WWII. He traded in his neighborhood and was also very well respected.

I don’t know where you live but America has NEVER practiced Catholic teachings. The United States has been against Catholicism from its very inception and the persecution continues to this day.

I ask that you read Penal laws in the English colonies in America to get a better understanding of what Catholics faced in the New World. Out of the 56 singers of the Declaration of Independence only one was Catholic, Charles Carroll of Maryland. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, where the US Constitution was ratified, only two Catholics signed - Daniel Carroll of Maryland Catholic and Thomas Fitzsimons of Pennsylvania.

Religious Affiliation of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America

The editing rules prevent me from adding that Daniel Carroll was the cousin of Charles, who signed the Declaration of Independence, and he was the older brother of Archbishop John Carroll.

 

[someguy14]

Proverbs 22:2 KJV
The rich and poor meet together : the LORD is the maker of them all.

Proverbs 22:16 KJV
He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want.

Proverbs 28:11 KJV
The rich man is wise in his own conceit; but the poor that hath understanding searcheth him out.

Proverbs 30:8
Remove far from me vanity and lies : give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me:

 

[FLGreg]

Proverbs 22:2 KJV
The rich and poor meet together : the LORD is the maker of them all.

Proverbs 22:16 KJV
He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want.

Proverbs 28:11 KJV
The rich man is wise in his own conceit; but the poor that hath understanding searcheth him out.

Proverbs 30:8
Remove far from me vanity and lies : give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me:

Those quotes refer to stealing money from the poor. Does the quote: “No one is allowed to amass excessive wealth when others lack the basic necessities of life” have anything to do with what you proposing?

What if someone makes their excessive wealth honestly? What if a person comes up with a really good idea that no one has come up with before? They have a good product that people want and are willing to pay for it. Should we penalize them for that awesome idea?

 

[morila]

Well, it’s getting close to Christmas time again. Each year it seems like Christmas sneaks up faster than it did the year before. Although the saying is usually true that “Christmas is the most wonderful time of the year”, for many of us it is also the most costly.
As we all know, this can be an extremely stressful time. If you are one of those scraping by each month just to pay your bills, the added pressure to earn extra money for Christmas can be a little much to handle.
Making extra money is something a lot of us are worried about this time of year. With a combination of the economy, and job instability… you may be among the many searching for ways to make money this holiday season.
www.personalsecuritystore.net

 

[someguy14]

Those quotes refer to stealing money from the poor. Does the quote: “No one is allowed to amass excessive wealth when others lack the basic necessities of life” have anything to do with what you proposing?

Yes sir. All those aquiring mass wealth while people are poor are stealing. All the Love that God has given, is because He loves all of us bro. We should all be allowed to enjoy the blessings God has given us.
May God bless,