No one is allowed to amass excessive wealth?

[Abu]

Contarini #95
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.
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.

Hardly, in fact, it is that “the entrepreneur can (and should) work for the development and maintenance of the common good…is a consistent feature of the Fathers of the Church, of St Thomas Aquinas and other Scholastic Theologians.

“We can thus say that **Catholic tradition **views entrepreneurial work as alert to information; discovers new possibilities in the market place; engages then factors of production in a large enterprise; looks for profit as a compensation for the risks undertaken in engaging the factors of production; is characterized by the creation and sustaining of relationships; and intends to develop and maintain the common good.”
Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Perry, Lexington Books, 2010, p 81-82].

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!

[Jesus is not implying that anyone should seek wealth first in their lives.]

Right, because the multiplication of the talents [Mt 25: 14-30] 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?

Hardly, in fact Christ’s parable of the Talents most strikingly acknowledges Jesus Christ’s respect for the work of business.

See post #68: “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].

Post #33: “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.’ ”

So,

1. “There is the emphasis on the ‘talent’, which is a measure of value.
2. “The trading activity of the two stewards is important. Christ praises them for the energy, alertness, and perseverance they demonstrate in making a truly significant profit (they have doubled the original sum). There is a reference to accountability which is crucial to any business.
3. “Then the nuanced criticism of fear: ‘I was afraid, and I went off and hid your talent in the ground.’ This fear leads the lazy steward to avoid the risks and obstacles that are a key part of entrepreneurial work.
4. “There is the clear reference to the financial system. The lazy steward at least could have placed the ‘money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest.’ ”

“We can this affirm unambiguously that Jesus Christ ‘looks with love on upon human work’ and that the work of the merchant – the businessman or the entrepreneur – is one of the ‘different forms’ of work that is affirmed. The parable of the talents makes this clear by its reference to money, trading, risk taking and banking.”
[Fr Percy, op. cit. p 48-49].

 

[Contarini]

Hardly, in fact, it is that “the entrepreneur can (and should) work for the development and maintenance of the common good…is a consistent feature of the Fathers of the Church, of St Thomas Aquinas and other Scholastic Theologians.

Indeed. No one is disputing that.

“We can thus say that **Catholic tradition **views entrepreneurial work as alert to information . . .

What evidence does Fr. Perry provide for these sweeping claims about the Catholic tradition as a whole?

I am afraid that I do not find one book written by one Catholic priest to be an adequate representation of the Catholic tradition.

Hardly, in fact Christ’s parable of the Talents most strikingly acknowledges Jesus Christ’s respect for the work of business.

And yet the parable of the dishonest steward doesn’t acknowledge His respect for the work of swindling your employer? How so?

See post #68: “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].

Again, this is not in dispute. I repeat my earlier challenge: Was St. Francis of Assisi multiplying his “talents” or not when he repudiated the life of a merchant and gave up all his possessions? If he was, then your interpretation fails. If he wasn’t, then you stand at odds with your own tradition.

No one is disputing that working in “business” may be one way of using one’s gifts for the common good. But in that case, the person’s goal is not going to be to accumulate wealth. And the Catholic tradition as a whole seems to indicate that while this way of living is legitimate, it is not the most perfect way–St. Francis’ way, while not for everyone, is intrinsically superior. This was one of the major points of difference between Protestants and Catholics in the Reformation–is a life of asceticism and renunciation superior to a life “in the world” or not? It is odd to find apparently conservative Catholics siding with the Reformers against their own tradition:shrug:

We may be speaking at cross purposes, if you think that I am suggesting that a profession centered on selling things is somehow incompatible with Christian virtue. That is not what I am saying at all.

So,

1. “There is the emphasis on the ‘talent’, which is a measure of value.

But clearly not, on what Aquinas would call the “literal” level (i.e., the meaning primarily intended by Christ), a measure of economic value. Economic language is being used as a metaphor for spiritual value. Thus, again, St. Francis is a wonderful example of someone who multiplied his “talents” precisely by giving up the life of a merchant. Of course someone else might “multiply their talents” by living that life–but Francis isn’t an exception to the rule. On the contrary, he’s one of the people next to Jesus Himself who most perfectly embodies the rule.

1. “The trading activity of the two stewards is important. Christ praises them for the energy, alertness, and perseverance they demonstrate in making a truly significant profit (they have doubled the original sum). There is a reference to accountability which is crucial to any business.

Indeed. Again, I ask you: is or is not St. Francis an excellent example of this “energy, alertness, and perseverance”? If he is, then clearly the parable is not talking about economic activity per se.

1. “Then the nuanced criticism of fear: ‘I was afraid, and I went off and hid your talent in the ground.’ This fear leads the lazy steward to avoid the risks and obstacles that are a key part of entrepreneurial work.

I think that it is a travesty of the parable to make this an injunction to capitalist risk-taking (which is often little more than a particularly destructive form of gambling), rather than an injunction to have faith in God’s goodness. The fear of the steward is a fear that the master is not just.

Again, I’m not disputing that a person might exemplify the values of this parable by taking a risk to start a business with the goal of providing for the common good and glorifying God. I am simply saying that the meaning of the parable does not, in itself, have anything to do with economics.

1. “There is the clear reference to the financial system. The lazy steward at least could have placed the ‘money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest.’ ”

Again, what part of “parables are metaphors” do you not understand?

“We can this affirm unambiguously that Jesus Christ ‘looks with love on upon human work’ and that the work of the merchant – the businessman or the entrepreneur – is one of the ‘different forms’ of work that is affirmed. The parable of the talents makes this clear by its reference to money, trading, risk taking and banking.”
[Fr Percy, op. cit. p 48-49].

This is simply a garbled and illogical conclusion. The parable tells us nothing about how Jesus regards the work of the merchant. Again, I refer you to the parable of the dishonest steward, which certainly tells us nothing about how Jesus regards dishonesty, but is a metaphor, and a metaphor probably chosen for its striking incongruity with the underlying message.

Edwin

 

[Nate13]

This is ridiculous. Talents could represent a person’s time, talents, or money. Stewardship. So yes St. Francis was multiplying his talents, and so is the business down the street from you. In my mind the parable of the talents is condemning those who just sit on their money and hoard it away for themselves. When you invest your money your allowing others to make money using your money. If your hoarding it, then your the only one who gains from it.

Again, what part of “parables are metaphors” do you not understand?

What part of multiple meanings behind one scripture passage do you not understand? Their are three levels to scripture: the body, the spirit, and the soul. By your reasoning we should ignore the obvious meaning of the parable of the Good Samaritan to feed and clothe people people that we find in need of help on the highway. We are supposed to love our neighbor but not like that since its a parable and the obvious meaning can’t be right. Are there deeper meanings to it? Of course, but that doesn’t make the obvious straight up meaning wrong.

 

[Contarini]

This is ridiculous. Talents could represent a person’s time, talents, or money. Stewardship. So yes St. Francis was multiplying his talents, and so is the business down the street from you.

But this doesn’t make any sense. If the business owner down the street is not using his or her gifts to glorify God and serve the common good and advance the Kingdom, then you can’t say that such a person is “multiplying talents” in the same way St. Francis did. The two meanings are antithetical in that case. A godly business owner who does everything for the glory of God and the good of the neighbor *is *doing the same thing as St. Francis (if in a way that has traditionally been considered less perfect), but the economic activity is entirely incidental. The making of profit is in and of itself utterly irrelevant to the point of the parable.

In my mind the parable of the talents is condemning those who just sit on their money and hoard it away for themselves. When you invest your money your allowing others to make money using your money. If your hoarding it, then your the only one who gains from it.

But “making money” is not in itself a goal, nor is helping other people make money. Providing for one’s own needs and those of others is the goal. Investing money is not, in and of itself, any less “hoarding” (in the sense of the parable) than just sitting on it.

What part of multiple meanings behind one scripture passage do you not understand? Their are three levels to scripture: the body, the spirit, and the soul.

That’s Origen’s reading. The more common traditional formulation is a fourfold interpretation. But either way, I’m well aware of this concept and accept it.

But according to the traditional fourfold method, the “literal” meaning of a parable is not the “story” sense but the basic teaching being conveyed.

By your reasoning we should ignore the obvious meaning of the parable of the Good Samaritan to feed and clothe people people that we find in need of help on the highway. We are supposed to love our neighbor but not like that since its a parable and the obvious meaning can’t be right. Are there deeper meanings to it? Of course, but that doesn’t make the obvious straight up meaning wrong.

The literal sense of the parable of the Good Samaritan is that we should help the needy. The allegorical sense would have to do with Jesus saving the human race, which had been robbed and left for dead by the devil; the tropological/moral sense would have to do with Jesus saving us as individuals (I can’t think of an anagogical sense right off the top of my head).

The literal sense of the Parable of the Talents is that we should use our gifts and responsibilities to promote God’s kingdom rather than for our own selfish purposes. I won’t try to give allegorical readings, since the allegorical interpretation here isn’t quite as established or well known as in the case of the Good Samaritan. But the point is that the literal meaning has to do with spiritual goods. There is no basis whatever in sound exegesis for arguing that the literal meaning supports capitalism, any more than the literal meaning of the Parable of the Good Samaritan is that the government ought to do a better job of keeping the road between Jerusalem and Jericho free from robbers!

And still, no one has explained how the proposed “literal” reading of the Parable of the Talents can be made consistent with a rejection of such a reading in the case of the Parable of the Dishonest Steward in Luke.

Edwin

 

[Nate13]

The literal sense of the Parable of the Talents is that we should use our gifts and responsibilities to promote God’s kingdom rather than for our own selfish purposes.

But according to you the business man should restrain those talents in order not to make so much money Steve Jobs should have held back after his first great invention after he made enough money to take care of himself and his family. We wouldn’t him expanding his business and creating more jobs for people. I think you could in effect fix the “problem” you have with big business by setting a cap on salaries so no one could make more than x amount of dollars. The only problem with that and those good intentions to cut off the greedy people, is that you are also unintentionally putting a stop to all those people with good hearts who make a lot of money. Trust me, I feel your pain in seeing the greed that consumes some of these people but I feel your solutions are no better.

If I am one day making 150k or 200k I’m not going to be ashamed of it. Rather I will offer thanks to God for handing me the responsibility to manage that money and do what I can to use it to best serve him. I think you are underestimating how many holy people are out there who are in control of large sums of money using it to do good. When you cut off the greedy people you also are going to cut them down.

 

[JimG]

But according to you the business man should restrain those talents in order not to make so much money Steve Jobs should have held back after his first great invention after he made enough money to take care of himself and his family. We wouldn’t him expanding his business and creating more jobs for people. I think you could in effect fix the “problem” you have with big business by setting a cap on salaries so no one could make more than x amount of dollars. The only problem with that and those good intentions to cut off the greedy people, is that you are also unintentionally putting a stop to all those people with good hearts who make a lot of money. Trust me, I feel your pain in seeing the greed that consumes some of these people but I feel your solutions are no better.

If I am one day making 150k or 200k I’m not going to be ashamed of it. Rather I will offer thanks to God for handing me the responsibility to manage that money and do what I can to use it to best serve him. I think you are underestimating how many holy people are out there who are in control of large sums of money using it to do good. When you cut off the greedy people you also are going to cut them down.

I think greed will always be with us whether we have big corporations or small business or just mom and pop stores.

But in a growing economy, access to capital is necessary for growth.

For example, Henry Ford or Alexander Graham Bell might begin with an invention in a garage. The Wright Brothers began with one small demonstration airplane. If all of them had been limited in size, we would not have Ford Motor Co. or AT&T, or Southwest Airlines. At some point, every inventor with a good idea must have access to capital if the business is to fully succeed. That’s the real function of the capital markets.

And as much as one might hate Wall Street, the capital markets do a better job of allocating capital than does the government, because investors in the capital markets risk their own money, not the taxpayers.

Of course, some corporations manage to get government guarantees, thereby shifting the risk from investors to taxpayers, but that’s just wrong. That’s the whole idea behind government guaranteed and insured home loans. Nobody can lose except the taxpayers. The solution is not to ban corporations or capital markets, but to let investors, not taxpayers, keep the risk.

 

[Abu]

Contarini #101
And yet the parable of the dishonest steward doesn’t acknowledge His respect for the work of swindling your employer? How so?

Just as Christ’s parable of the Talents most strikingly acknowledges Christ’s respect for the work of business, so does the parable of the Dishonest Steward – the steward is dishonest, “but the nature of his work is not. In fact by praising his shrewdness, Christ admires his opportunism. While the steward abuses the trust his master extends to him, it must be recognised that the nature of the work that is entrusted to him is fundamentally good. The sin of the steward is his misuse of his master’s business, not the work of business itself.” Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Perry, Lexington Books, 2010, p 47].

I do not find one book written by one Catholic priest to be an adequate representation of the Catholic tradition.

Quite irrelevant – the facts elucidated show the reality of Christ’s teaching which is the Catholic tradition.

the Catholic tradition as a whole seems to indicate that while this way of living is legitimate, it is not the most perfect way–St. Francis’ way, while not for everyone, is intrinsically superior.

The Catholic tradition upholds both – as it does marriage and celibacy, recognizing celibacy for the sake of the kingdom to be superior, as is taking vows of, and practicing, poverty while aiding the sick and poor.

I think that it is a travesty of the parable to make this an injunction to capitalist risk-taking (which is often little more than a particularly destructive form of gambling)

Such a feeling completely distorts free enterprise and the nature of the entrepreneur, since no new, or any business, is free from the risk of commerce and to describe it as “destructive gambling” is absurd and inviting ridicule.

What evidence does Fr. Perry provide for these sweeping claims about the Catholic tradition as a whole?

Catholic tradition is affirmed as we have seen through Scripture and Tradition; also Private Initiative in the Social Teaching of Leo XIII through Paul VI; Work and Enterprise in the Second Vatican Council, and from Human Work to Entrepreneurship: the Revolution of Centesimus Annus. Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Perry, Lexington Books, 2010].

As the eminent Fr James Schall, S.J., points out this is how poverty in the world is alleviated:
“Since the Church wants poverty confronted, since She wants this confrontation to be done justly and with the interest and cooperation of the workers and the poor, She has had to acknowledge, as did the socialist systems themselves, that there are certain ways that must be employed if mankind is to meet its economic problems. These ways can be known and imitated, but they must include a juridical system, profit, enterprise, knowledge, exchange, a market, voluntary organisations, a relatively independent economy, private property, and respect for work and excellence.” (Fr James V Schall, S.J., in *Does Catholicism Still Exist?, *Alba House 1994, p 184-185).

 

[Contarini]

But according to you the business man should restrain those talents in order not to make so much money

Balderdash. I said absolutely nothing of the sort. No one should “restrain” their talents.
What I’m saying is that a person should direct their talents toward God’s glory and the common good and not be “restrained” by the laws of the market

Steve Jobs should have held back after his first great invention after he made enough money to take care of himself and his family. We wouldn’t him expanding his business and creating more jobs for people. I think you could in effect fix the “problem” you have with big business by setting a cap on salaries so no one could make more than x amount of dollars. The only problem with that and those good intentions to cut off the greedy people, is that you are also unintentionally putting a stop to all those people with good hearts who make a lot of money. Trust me, I feel your pain in seeing the greed that consumes some of these people but I feel your solutions are no better.

But actually, they aren’t “my” solutions but the solutions that you presumptuously put in my mouth!

Let’s discuss a real issue–taxation. That doesn’t prevent people making money–it just takes a hefty chunk of their money to fund social programs. Now there are legitimate objections to such an approach in terms of government corruption and inefficiency and the arguably unhelpful nature of programs that simply give the poor handouts (though many of the programs proposed by the “left” do not do this). But from the perspective of a rich person, such taxation is not theft but a way of contributing their wealth to the common good. Unlike the voluntary philanthropy favored by the “right,” this approach prevents the greedy from selfishly “amassing wealth.” But unlike the simplistic solution you made up and ascribed to me, it doesn’t frustrate the desire of virtuous rich people to make money for the sake of the common good.

So–purely from the point of view of the rich person, leaving aside the question of whether the government spends this money well or badly–what is wrong with such an approach in your view?

[If I am one day making 150k or 200k I’m not going to be ashamed of it.

Nor should you be–depending, of course, on how you are making your money!

But to get there you will have to make a lot of choices. And quite possibly, making virtuous choices (not just talking here about blatant questions of honesty or other clear-cut moral issues, but about things like choosing to spend time volunteering or with your family, or choosing not to lay off employees even though you could make more money with fewer, or choosing not to move across the country and break ties with your local community, or a host of other things) may make it much less likely that you will get there.

Edwin
[/quote]

 

[Contarini]

Just as Christ’s parable of the Talents most strikingly acknowledges Christ’s respect for the work of business, so does the parable of the Dishonest Steward – the steward is dishonest, “but the nature of his work is not. In fact by praising his shrewdness, Christ admires his opportunism. While the steward abuses the trust his master extends to him, it must be recognised that the nature of the work that is entrusted to him is fundamentally good. The sin of the steward is his misuse of his master’s business, not the work of business itself.” Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Perry, Lexington Books, 2010, p 47].

This is an absurd misinterpretation of the story. The “shrewdness” being praised is the shrewdness he shows in swindling his master. There is no other aspect of his activity that is praised. We are shown nothing whatever of his regular business as a steward–he may have been hopelessly lazy and inefficient for all we are told. Fr. Perry is reading into the story what his ideology tells him he needs to find there.

The Catholic tradition upholds both – as it does marriage and celibacy, recognizing celibacy for the sake of the kingdom to be superior, as is taking vows of, and practicing, poverty while aiding the sick and poor.

Precisely. Therefore, the Parable of the Talents, which applies at least as much to those who live in poverty as to Christian entrepreneurs, has nothing to say about Jesus’ attitude to entrepreneurial activity in itself. I’ll put it in a syllogism to make the point clearer:

1. If the multiplication of talents refers to entrepreneurial activity per se, then those who choose not to make money would be condemned.
2. But in fact the Catholic tradition regards people who choose holy poverty as prime examples of those who multiply talents;
3. Therefore, the multiplication of talents does not, in itself, have anything to do with actual economic activity.

Such a feeling completely distorts free enterprise and the nature of the entrepreneur, since no new, or any business, is free from the risk of commerce and to describe it as “destructive gambling” is absurd and inviting ridicule.

It all depends on the kind of risk we are talking about.

Catholic tradition is affirmed as we have seen through Scripture and Tradition

We haven’t seen anything of the sort. Your appeal to Scripture amounts to blatant eisegesis that cannot be sustained logically.

also Private Initiative in the Social Teaching of Leo XIII through Paul VI; Work and Enterprise in the Second Vatican Council, and from Human Work to Entrepreneurship: the Revolution of Centesimus Annus. Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Perry, Lexington Books, 2010].

In other words, certain modern Popes have sought to reach some limited accommodation with capitalism. Pope Benedict seems to be moving away from this trajectory in Deus Caritas Est, as was recognized and lamented by George Weigel.

I think that you and other pro-capitalist Catholics tend to exaggerate how favorable even Leo XIII and JPII were to capitalism, but certainly they are relatively more so than most other representatives of the Tradition.

Edwin

 

[Nate13]

Let’s discuss a real issue–taxation. That doesn’t prevent people making money–it just takes a hefty chunk of their money to fund social programs. Now there are legitimate objections to such an approach in terms of government corruption and inefficiency and the arguably unhelpful nature of programs that simply give the poor handouts (though many of the programs proposed by the “left” do not do this). But from the perspective of a rich person, such taxation is not theft but a way of contributing their wealth to the common good. Unlike the voluntary philanthropy favored by the “right,” this approach prevents the greedy from selfishly “amassing wealth.” But unlike the simplistic solution you made up and ascribed to me, it doesn’t frustrate the desire of virtuous rich people to make money for the sake of the common good.

I have no problem with taxation and programs that actually will help people. I believe we differ in our opinion of how to best help those people though. It should be noted as well that there is a point where you are over taxing people and you actually end up bringing in less revenue then you otherwise would at a lower rate because of how much you have slowed growth. Higher taxes will have long term consequences and will discourage companies from creating jobs in America as opposed to other countries. You also have to think about what it does to a person psychologically when they are given money and told you have a right to it. You aren’t really motivating them to go find a job anymore now are you?

Here is my problem with all the people out there who refuse to cut social security. You created a program that wasn’t self sufficient to begin with and you incurred a debt. The whole program was based on the idea that 3 or 4 people were being born for every 2 people that were alive. The contraceptive mentality (pushed by the policies of the Democratic party) dropped that fertility rate to around 1.8-2 people for every 2 people alive that it is today. Now please tell me why I should have to pay for the screw ups of the generation before me, assuming of course that is even possible which it isn’t? No amount of taxation could cover the yearly deficit we are currently operating under. I’m willingly to pay a little more taxes if Democrats are willingly to admit they screwed up and will allow for reforms to make these programs self-sufficient at a cost that we can afford. I truly don’t believe you can raise taxes much higher though before you start to actually end up reducing the amount of tax revenue you bring in. I think Reagan’s presidency is a testament to that fact.

 

[Abu]

To: Just as Christ’s parable of the Talents most strikingly acknowledges Christ’s respect for the work of business, so does the parable of the Dishonest Steward – the steward is dishonest, “but the nature of his work is not. In fact by praising his shrewdness, Christ admires his opportunism. While the steward abuses the trust his master extends to him, it must be recognised that the nature of the work that is entrusted to him is fundamentally good. The sin of the steward is his misuse of his master’s business, not the work of business itself.” Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Lexington Books, 2010, p 47].

Contarini #108 replies:
This is an absurd misinterpretation of the story. The “shrewdness” being praised is the shrewdness he shows in swindling his master. There is no other aspect of his activity that is praised…. Your appeal to Scripture amounts to blatant eisegesis that cannot be sustained logically.

With the inability to appreciate Christ’s respect for the work of business and such myopia, no wonder the elucidation of Fr Percy is ridiculed (my apology for typing “Perry” previously).

However, St Jerome understands Christ’s intent:
“Why, even shopkeepers who are particularly frugal, and slaves who are not wasteful, and the care-takers who made our childhood a burden to us and even thieves when they are particularly clever, we speak of as diligent; and so the conduct of the unjust steward in the Gospel is spoken of as wise.” [St Jerome, Jerome’s apology for himself against the book of Rufinus, Book 1, 24, in: Schaff, *Theodoret, Jerome, 495].

As we have seen (post #68, Dom Bernard Orchard), “If the import of the parable is that Christians should have the ‘shrewdness to recognise and seize the opportunity that exists’ in the person of Christ, then clearly the work and work and remedial action of the steward is foundational to the functioning of the parable. [Joseph a Fitzmyer, *The Gospel According to Luke: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, The Anchor Bible, Doubleday, 1985, 1098]. The steward, his work and his remedial action – his shrewdness and opportune behaviour – is clearly most fitting to highlight the way the believer should act in relation to Christ.” [Fr Percy, op. cit., p 48].

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.

certain modern Popes have sought to reach some limited accommodation with capitalism. Pope Benedict seems to be moving away from this trajectory in Deus Caritas Est

How condescending! There is no question of a “limited accommodation with capitalism” – Communism and Socialism have been condemned outright because they are political systems that deny basic human rights.

By contrast, free enterprise based on the principles of cause and effect, where in the market wealth is produced and wealth is exchanged, has the undoubted affirmation of Bl John Paul II, and Benedict XVI where, in a democracy, it functions within a rule of law.

Now see the affirmation of free enterprise as Bl John Paul II teaches in Centesimus Annus, 1991:
CA 42. ‘Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?
‘The answer is obviously complex. If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.
‘CA 43. The Church has no models to present;’ [My emphasis].

Pope Benedict XVI felt it necessary to teach that “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Caritas et Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36).

 

[LittleDavid]

So your going to save their soul by forcing them to give up their money haha? Could this get anymore ridiculous?

I don’t think what he said was ridiculous…he quoted correctly right out of scripture what Jesus said. It really makes me think how rich is too rich? (the odds of a camel going through the eye of a needle aren’t good!)

 

[Abu]

LittleDavid
It really makes me think how rich is too rich? (the odds of a camel going through the eye of a needle aren’t good!)

That is hardly a useful thought based on the Christ’s words in Mk 10:23-27. For, “with God all things are possible” (27).

As we’ve seen the inordinate attachment to riches is what is condemned, and the production, possession and wise use of riches which must include helping others, is lauded by Christ.

 

[Abu]

MtnDwellar, #42
You are correct; the OP referred to Caritas in Veritate.

But notice that Pope Benedict stipulates that true world political authority not only “would need to be regulated by law, [but also] to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity” (67). Subsidiarity “is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state” (57). “Any form” of the “all-encompassing welfare state” must include a single, global or World State.

“Benedict XVI operates from Natural Law and not Neo-Kantian assumptions; for him, Natural Law and the World Community do not mean there must be a World State. The world authority or “governance” he describes refers mainly to the Natural Law and the need to bring various international organizations more fully into compliance with it. National politics have increasingly grown remote from the Natural Law. Therefore, we do need “a reform of the United Nations Organization . . . so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth” (67). But “the family of nations” exists within a global society, which as it moves towards societas perfecta, increasingly approximates the Natural Law. Once it has perfectly reflected the Natural Law, then obedience to the world authority will flow naturally, not by force, from the moral conscience of each member of this global society.

“Thus, a careful reading of *Caritas in Veritate *demonstrates that Benedict is not calling for a World State to fulfill functions that must come ultimately from the human heart. Q.E.D.”

See:
*The Catholic Thing Friday, 11 September 2009
*Does the Catholic Church Favor World Government? *(with apologies to Aquinas)
By Kevin M. Doak *
Question I: Does Benedict XVI advocate world government in Caritas in Veritate?
tinyurl.com/64v4a7y

 

[sw85]

I wanted get some thoughts on a statement that I came across while researching the topic of Catholic social justice:

“People have a right to economic initiative and private property, but these rights have limits. No one is allowed to amass excessive wealth when others lack the basic necessities of life.

I find that quote quite disturbing since I cannot find any corroborating teaching in the Catechism 2419 -2436 or 2443 – 2449 or in POPULORUM PROGRESSIO that the Catholic Charities Office of Social Justice in St. Paul, Minnesota cites as a justification.

I’d love the have someone tell me what I am missing here.

Have a Blessed Day!

I think it would be more appropriate to say that one does not have a RIGHT to amass wealth when others are lacking basic needs.

Indeed, under natural law, no one has a RIGHT to anything more than they need to survive and discharge to their duties to their family, to the community, and to God.

The fact of not having a right to something is not necessarily sufficient to say that there is an injunction against it, nor does it justify actions that may in themselves violate other rights. Thus it MAY be the case that while there is no right to excessive wealth, seizing and redistributing that wealth cannot be accomplished without violating other natural law rights which are nonnegotiable, and thus it cannot be done.

I’m not convinced, for one, but there you go.

 

[passer_by]

I think it would be more appropriate to say that one does not have a RIGHT to amass wealth when others are lacking basic needs.

Indeed, under natural law, no one has a RIGHT to anything more than they need to survive and discharge to their duties to their family, to the community, and to God.

The fact of not having a right to something is not necessarily sufficient to say that there is an injunction against it, nor does it justify actions that may in themselves violate other rights. Thus it MAY be the case that while there is no right to excessive wealth, seizing and redistributing that wealth cannot be accomplished without violating other natural law rights which are nonnegotiable, and thus it cannot be done.

I’m not convinced, for one, but there you go.

Yes, I think redistribution has to be something that comes from the heart. Otherwise it will fail anyway.

 

[babylonsfalling]

I wanted get some thoughts on a statement that I came across while researching the topic of Catholic social justice:

“People have a right to economic initiative and private property, but these rights have limits. No one is allowed to amass excessive wealth when others lack the basic necessities of life.

I find that quote quite disturbing since I cannot find any corroborating teaching in the Catechism 2419 -2436 or 2443 – 2449 or in POPULORUM PROGRESSIO that the Catholic Charities Office of Social Justice in St. Paul, Minnesota cites as a justification.

I’d love the have someone tell me what I am missing here.

Have a Blessed Day!

The problem comes with giving someone the power to decide for others what is excessive wealth and what is not.

In America we all live in excessive wealth compared to much of the world. But most Americans don’t think so when applied to themselves, and in turn Americans making 15.00 can point to another American making 25.00 and insist that the other American DOES have excessive wealth, and on and on and on.

 

[cmforte]

Another poster brought this up a few pages back, and I just wanted to address it real quick:

No one is forced to work at Wal-Mart. If you don’t like the pay and benefits it offers (or doesn’t offer), then don’t work there.

This is called freedom.

Conversely, no one is forced to shop at Wal-Mart. If you don’t like how it treats its workers, then don’t shop there.

This is called freedom.

If I started a business, I would say, “here is the pay and benefits (if any) I am offering.” If the job applicant doesn’t like it, and if there is a negotiation (but that shouldn’t be mandated by law) and he/she is till unsatisfied, then he/she can go apply for a job some place else.

This is called freedom.

I am against forcing workers to join a union. This clearly contradicts the concept of freedom.

-Chris

 

[MrJaundicedEye]

Let’s discuss a real issue–taxation. That doesn’t prevent people making money–it just takes a hefty chunk of their money to fund social programs.

Although this is only tangential, I object to your above statement. I find it naive in the extreme. Tax money taken by any human regime, anywhere, anytime, will always be used primarily to further the interests of the regime. When my money is taken by a right-wing regime, it is not used for the good, it is used to shore up the existing financial structure. When my money is taken by a left-wing regime, it is not used for the good, it is used to tear down the existing financial structure. A lifetime of paying taxes and observing how my government spends my money has not escaped my notice.