S
someguy14
Guest
We have acquired freely. Freely give. Love your fellow bro/sis and give with a pure heart.
It’s sincerly and ultimately about Love.
It’s sincerly and ultimately about Love.
- Status
S
someguy14
Guest
Matthew 6:9-13
9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come . Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Romans 8:32 KJV
He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come . Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Romans 8:32 KJV
He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
K
Kathryn_Ann
Guest
Greetings, great question!:tiphat::angel1:
Perhaps it’ a question of balance: Some people who are blessed financially give their lives to helping others through good stewardship. Such a person would never fail to help others seen to be in need. Others who make much less might be just as generous or they might be miserly. God looks upon the heart!
Kathryn Ann
:harp:
D
davidmlamb
Guest
You’re being disingenuous here Abu; the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not a book of recommendations but a book of CATHOLIC DOCTRINE:
2434 A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice.221 In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. "Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good."222 Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.
In His Light and Truth,
David
T
tracer724
Guest
The vatican has amassed excessive wealth (ex. works of art) therefore it must be OK.
D
davidmlamb
Guest
Your reponse here is a non sequitur Jim not to mention you are rejecting Catholic doctrine implying it is communism. North Korea is a Communist state but South Korea is not. We could also use Sweden and Norweigh as examples where the standard of living is much better then the United States. Other examples can be France and Germany as well as Canada where the economy is better then the states (and the currency stronger) and yet these countries provide much better public services and have higher wages because they mandate colective bargaining.
Peace,
David
N
Nate13
Guest
A person making $20,000 dollars a year in America has excessive wealth compared to some of the starving children in Africa. Would owning a dishwasher be considered excessive when you consider there are people who are starving and don’t have clean water to drink?
We should respect the rights of employees to unionize to try and make a difference because that is exactly what should happen in a capitalist system. Forcing people to join a union is wrong though because it assumes all of the employees have the same interests. A college kid who wants to work part time at Wal-mart may have different interests than someone who is working there trying to support their family. They may want Wal-mart to have all its employees work full-time and give them benefits. The college kid just wants a part-time job, is willingly to take less pay, and doesn’t need the benefits since he/she is still covered by their parents. The fact is it should be allowed to play out naturally based on the supply and demand of people who want that job, and the government should be butting in and picking winners and losers.
We should respect the rights of employees to unionize to try and make a difference because that is exactly what should happen in a capitalist system. Forcing people to join a union is wrong though because it assumes all of the employees have the same interests. A college kid who wants to work part time at Wal-mart may have different interests than someone who is working there trying to support their family. They may want Wal-mart to have all its employees work full-time and give them benefits. The college kid just wants a part-time job, is willingly to take less pay, and doesn’t need the benefits since he/she is still covered by their parents. The fact is it should be allowed to play out naturally based on the supply and demand of people who want that job, and the government should be butting in and picking winners and losers.
J
JimG
Guest
Yes I suppose we might look at a variety of different models. The Church does not require citizens to adopt any particular economic system. Although, the Church did fight very hard precisely against Communism in the twentieth century because it considers it an evil system.
My point was that nations which have used a free market model are much more prosperous than those which have adopted centralized planning. North Korea is an abject economic failure, as were the old USSR along with its satellite states. Failure of such centralized systems is unavoidable, since they try to substitute government a centralized planner’s judgment for that of individuals. That is an impossibility and leads to failure.
I fully support all teachings of the Church, including social justice teachings. If there is magisterial document that prescribes what Wal-Mart, or Google, or HP, or Krogers, or the local hardware store, is morally obligated to pay each of it’s employees, I would be surprised.
Economic policies are full of trade offs. For example, minimum wage laws raise the pay of workers who are employed, but at the same time cause more unemployment at the level of the least skilled, often denying those who most need it a chance to enter the labor force. It’s a trade off.
Higher wages help workers to support their families. Higher wages also are offset by higher prices, making it harder for workers to support their families.
A manager or CEO cannot sit down with the social encyclicals in front of him and use them as a basis for deciding on the pay scale across the company. First, the documents do not suggest particular pay scales. Second, even if they did, managers could not ignore the pay scales of other companies with similar positions, or the company’s ability to continue to sell products at prices that consumers will pay. Did Steve Jobs make too much wealth while turning around Apple? That’s an impossible question to answer, but there’s no doubt the Apple’s profits enabled the company to be an economic success and thereby hire many workers.
Is there a reason that most new medicines and new medical equipment are first developed in the United States rather than in countries that have centralized health care systems in which profits are limited by government? I think so. Placing excessive governmental controls on free markets discourages innovation.
When I read your posts I see words like living wage and mandatory collective bargaining. But I don’t know how that translates into real world policies. How high a wage? Who decides? Is a mom and pop store actually owned by mom and pop required to unionize its two employees? Is a company obligated to install a union if most of its workers vote against it?
C
Contarini
Guest
Indeed. But did the saintly medieval monarchs you mention “amass” their wealth or inherit it?
Solomon did amass wealth, along with wives and high-tech weapons (horses and chariots). This was explicitly forbidden in Deuteronomy 17:16-17. So Solomon isn’t a good example for your case, and Deut. 17:17 is an excellent example of the many Scriptural passages that support the position described in the OP.
Edwin
N
Nate13
Guest
If anything Deut 17:17 condemns big government
And it was explicitly forbidden of the King to amass those things. I think its quite a stretch to say it applies to everyone throughout all of history when this passage is very specifically talking about the king. If you can find reasoning behind why God wanted the King not to do this, then you might have somewhere to start from in trying to apply it to everyone.
C
Contarini
Guest
I am not doing that. I was responding to a poster who listed Solomon as an example of the legitimacy of wealth. I’m pointing out that this is a bad argument.If anything Deut 17:17 condemns big government
This is one of many passages that speak negatively of an attempt to accumulate wealth. And the concept of “government” as distinct from a personal ruler is really alien to the Bible and to a great extent to premodern cultures generally (though I guess the Roman SPQR is close enough–but Romans were weird in that sense and arguably the forerunners of our concept of “government”).
If you can use the condemnation of royal wealth as a condemnation of “big government,” then I can use the royal saints mentioned by mdgspencer as a justification for “big government.” Such figures typically founded hospitals and did the things that modern “conservatives”/libertarians think only individuals should do to care for the poor.
But these discussions go round and round in vain, because the Biblical and medieval contexts were so different from ours.
I am quite happy to criticize the modern invention called “government.” But individualistic libertarianism is an even more modern and even more questionable invention.
Edwin
N
Nate13
Guest
I agree. I’m not too fond of people that use the Bible to try and prove that God subscribes to a certain type of government system.
A
Abu
Guest
As social teaching is not a on a level with defined doctrine it is a grave error to portray it as such – “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” – the grave error persists. Some people learn nothing and have only themselves to blame.
Thus it is incredibly foolish to ignore the practical results following from the wise consideration of “the state of the business, and the common good." Pope Pius XI affirms this in Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, #71: “Every effort must therefore be made that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately. But if this cannot always be done under existing circumstances, social justice demands that changes be introduced as soon as possible whereby such a wage will be assured to every adult workingman.”
But further: QA72. “In determining the amount of the wage, the condition of a business and of the one carrying it on must also be taken into account; for it would be unjust to demand excessive wages which a business cannot stand without its ruin and consequent calamity to the workers.”
Thus practical real-world restrictions are recognised and allowed for.
Again Pius XI also recognises the harm that can be done in a dictate to higher wages:
74. “But another point, scarcely less important, and especially vital in our times, must not be overlooked: namely, that the opportunity to work be provided to those who are able and willing to work. This opportunity depends largely on the wage and salary rate, which can help as long as it is kept within proper limits, but which on the other hand can be an obstacle if it exceeds these limits. For everyone knows that an excessive lowering of wages, or their increase beyond due measure, causes unemployment. This evil, indeed, especially as we see it prolonged and injuring so many during the years of Our Pontificate, has plunged workers into misery and temptations, ruined the prosperity of nations, and put in jeopardy the public order, peace, and tranquillity of the whole world. Hence it is contrary to social justice when, for the sake of personal gain and without regard for the common good, wages and salaries are excessively lowered or raised; and this same social justice demands that wages and salaries be so managed, through agreement of plans and wills, in so far as can be done, as to offer to the greatest possible number the opportunity of getting work and obtaining suitable means of livelihood.”
That is precisely why 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.
[cf. *Christians For Freedom, Chafuen, Ignatius, 1986, p 120 et seq.].
Unfortunately, no alternative to such a sensible way of maximizing employment is offered in the Encyclical.
A
Abu
Guest
Facing the reality that wealth needs to be produced before can be distributed.
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.
By His parable of the Talents Jesus is not implying that anyone should seek wealth first in their lives. He is preaching and rewarding prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance, rather than attacking those who accumulate wealth legitimately, He is lambasting the slothful. In the Encyclical Letter *Sollicitudo Rei Socialis *(On Social Concerns), 1987, #42, Pope John Paul II emphasises “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.”
Christ’s teaching on wealth and property
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. 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, as did the young ruler who pursued riches as his ultimate goal.
“As is indicated in Luke (12:29-31): ‘you must not set your heart on things to eat and things to drink; nor must you worry. It is the pagans of this world who set their hearts on all these things. Your father well knows you need them. No; set your hearts on His kingdom, and these other things will be given you as well.’ 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.
R
RDWR
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
Indeed. I don’t think anyone disputes that. It’s really irrelevant to the present discussion. No one says that no wealth should be produced. The question is whether a system that encourages everyone to produce as much wealth as possible is justified by the claim that by and large more people will be better off under this system than under any other. (I’m not 100% sure that this pro-capitalist claim is true, but it looks very likely to be true.) Even the stronger (and much more dubious) claim that fewer people will live in dire poverty under such a system does not necessarily justify it.
The Christian tradition holds that focusing one’s energies on accumulating wealth has a corrupting effect on human beings. If one is self-consciously gaining wealth for the purpose of using it generously, then this corrupting effect may be mitigated or overcome–but it’s a very risky business. However, the “invisible hand” concept in which everyone seeks their own self-interest and the result is to the benefit of the whole is an amoral idea which should in no way be celebrated by Christians or used as the basis of their behavior. (It may be true, just as Darwinian natural selection may be true. But natural selection shouldn’t form the basis of our ethics either!)
I think it’s pretty clear that these economic parables are not to be taken literally as referring to actual economic behavior. By this logic, you’d have to conclude that Jesus is praising swindling one’s employer in the parable of the dishonest steward!
The fact that pro-capitalist Christians resort to such a desperate and irrational exegetical strategy shows how utterly lacking their case is in genuine Biblical support.
Right, because the multiplication of the talents isn’t referring to accumulating material wealth. St. Francis is an excellent example of someone who “multiplied his talents.” Wouldn’t you agree? And if you agree, doesn’t that make nonsense of your attempt to use this parable to defend capitalism?
Again, you confuse “accumulation” with “possession.” You mistake the nature of the argument entirely.
Never mind that the “late Scholastics” seem to have a rather different approach to economic questions (and many others) from their predecessors the medieval scholastics, as well as from the Fathers!
Edwin
N
Nate13
Guest
@Contarini
Greedy people will always be there to abuse whatever system is in place. A socialist system in my mind just puts all the power in one place for greedy people to collect to i.e the government. At least now we have the government and business which work to keep each other in check haha.
Here is something else to consider as well. Suppose I have a new idea for an aircraft that I want to test. It looks really promising and could completely change air travel. In a socialist system I only have so much money I’m allowed to have coming in, and no one except the government will have the capital to back my project though. Thus anyone with a new idea has to go to the government to receive funding for their project. That means government panels that decide what is a worthy idea and what isn’t. The current czars Obama has in office right now are probably great examples of what we could expect. Anyways you show up, you make your pitch, and you either get funding or you don’t since there is no one else to go to, at least not in this country. The best and brightest probably end up leaving the country where they have more academic freedom unless you put out propaganda like they did in Nazi Germany to make sure people are indoctrinated with undying pride in their country alone.
In a capitalist system it works much differently. Their are many many people and groups I can go to to find funding for my project. Each of these groups is able to weigh the risk and possibility for return for themselves and even if some of them reject the proposal because they have an agenda, some of them will not deny my idea just because of ideological differences which is entirely possible and very likely in a socialist system. For example if I went to the Department of Energy and asked about receiving a loan to build a nuclear power plant I would almost guarantee I would be turned down. If I ask about solar energy or wind energy though I would be welcomed in with open arms. I would prefer that this kind of ideological difference did not extend to every portion of my life, which is exactly what would end up happening if this healthcare law goes into affect.
Greedy people will always be there to abuse whatever system is in place. A socialist system in my mind just puts all the power in one place for greedy people to collect to i.e the government. At least now we have the government and business which work to keep each other in check haha.
Here is something else to consider as well. Suppose I have a new idea for an aircraft that I want to test. It looks really promising and could completely change air travel. In a socialist system I only have so much money I’m allowed to have coming in, and no one except the government will have the capital to back my project though. Thus anyone with a new idea has to go to the government to receive funding for their project. That means government panels that decide what is a worthy idea and what isn’t. The current czars Obama has in office right now are probably great examples of what we could expect. Anyways you show up, you make your pitch, and you either get funding or you don’t since there is no one else to go to, at least not in this country. The best and brightest probably end up leaving the country where they have more academic freedom unless you put out propaganda like they did in Nazi Germany to make sure people are indoctrinated with undying pride in their country alone.
In a capitalist system it works much differently. Their are many many people and groups I can go to to find funding for my project. Each of these groups is able to weigh the risk and possibility for return for themselves and even if some of them reject the proposal because they have an agenda, some of them will not deny my idea just because of ideological differences which is entirely possible and very likely in a socialist system. For example if I went to the Department of Energy and asked about receiving a loan to build a nuclear power plant I would almost guarantee I would be turned down. If I ask about solar energy or wind energy though I would be welcomed in with open arms. I would prefer that this kind of ideological difference did not extend to every portion of my life, which is exactly what would end up happening if this healthcare law goes into affect.
P
Pompy
Guest
P
Pompy
Guest
Everyone has a right to; does not mean everyone has his/her needs be given to them. It is stated in the bible that if you do not work you do not eat. Those with wealth should share, but those with wealth can only earn graces from God if they give from their own free will not that which his forced; If one is forced he has no chariable act. The old saying “you don’t want to kill the gose that lays the golden egg” It is the wealthy that provides jobs that all of us feed off of not by gift but by work.
P
passer_by
Guest
I don’t think there is a contradiction in what Pope Leo XIII said and the poster above said.
Pope Leo XIII merely says that one cannot be deliberately robbed out of their riches or disallowed from buying good. That is of course true.
The poster before you was merely pointing out that a person who just accumulates riches is indeed engaging in an immoral life style.
So while there is no blanket rule that says gathering riches is immoral (because someone might gather a lot of food to feed the poor etc), people who gather riches for their own benefit will be missing the point of an earthly life.
- Status