Pope demands 'legitimate redistribution' of wealth

[hazcompat]

When Good Intentions Go Wrong: A Call to Action for Physicians

Charles P. Vega, MD
May 06, 2014
Poverty and Health

Poverty affects more than 1 in 5 children and adolescents in the United States, and certain communities suffer much higher rates of chronic poverty. Poverty during childhood is associated with higher rates of chronic illness, including mental health disorders, during adulthood. Is it possible that a voucher system for public housing specifically designed to move families to more affluent communities can reverse this trend? A large national study[1] provides some surprising answers, and it also represents an exciting opportunity for physicians to question and confront social determinants of health.

America has been brought to its knees by the “great recession.” According to data from the US Census Bureau, 13.7% of adults between the ages of 18 and 64 years lived in poverty in 2012, a 20% increase since 2007.[2] Black adults experienced substantially higher rates of poverty (23.9%), as did Hispanic adults (21.6%).

The data for children and adolescents are even more concerning. The poverty rate among all individuals younger than 18 years in 2012 was 21.8%.[2] The respective rates among black and Hispanic youth were 37.9% and 33.8%.

Poverty leads to many social ills, but it also promotes physical illness. These health effects may not be obvious until decades later. In a cohort study of 5000 adults in California, low socioeconomic status in childhood was broadly associated with a higher risk for type 2 diabetes during adulthood in unadjusted analyses.[3] However, adjustment for multiple other risk factors rendered the positive result among men nonsignificant. These fully adjusted analyses also demonstrated that the hazard ratio for diabetes remained 1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.4) among women with a history of low socioeconomic status during childhood.

The association between childhood deprivation and glucose metabolism can have real clinical consequences. A study from England found a linear association between childhood socioeconomic status and the risk for coronary heart disease among women specifically.[4] Childhood nutrition, the adoption of adult-lifestyle cardiovascular risk factors, and insulin resistance appeared to promote the relationship between childhood poverty and coronary heart disease.

Lower socioeconomic status during childhood is not a health risk factor only for women. A study of 5645 men in Scotland found that men raised in low-income families were more likely to have manual occupations and live in low-income communities.[5] They experienced higher risks for mortality from cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and stomach cancer compared with men raised in higher-income families. However, low socioeconomic status during childhood failed to influence the risk for accidental or violent death.

Mental health among children and adolescents is also dependent on socioeconomic status. Poverty is associated with higher risks for depression and antisocial behavior, and these problems can persist into early adulthood and promote substance misuse.[6,7] Moreover, improvement in a family’s economic status has been associated with better mental health.[6]

medscape.com/viewarticle/824417?nlid=56991_439&src=wnl_edit_medp_publ&uac=35942FZ&spon=42

Peace

 

[Tsuwano]

Notice the Lord didn’t say, “tax everyone else, give it to the poor.” Big difference.

Ishii

No, but he did call us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and to take care of the widows and orphans. The Pope didn’t sat anything about taxation as far as I know. He called for a just redistribution of the world’s resources. Notice the word “just.” I don’t want to be taxed to death, either, but neither do I think the poor are to be ignored, either by us as individuals or by us as a community. Anyway, my point is that the Pope hasn’t called for anything new. He has simply reiterated the Gospel.

 

[ishii]

No, but he did call us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and to take care of the widows and orphans. The Pope didn’t sat anything about taxation as far as I know. He called for a just redistribution of the world’s resources. Notice the word “just.” I don’t want to be taxed to death, either, but neither do I think the poor are to be ignored, either by us as individuals or by us as a community. Anyway, my point is that the Pope hasn’t called for anything new. He has simply reiterated the Gospel.

Jesus called for a just redistribution of the world’s resources? I must have missed that biblical passage. Perhaps you could provide the citation? The gospel calls for us to use huge, bureaucratic, monolithic organizations with no real track record of success to alleviate poverty? (I’m speaking of the UN). Do provide the citation for that in the bible.

Ishii

 

[stinkcat_14]

Jesus called for a just redistribution of the world’s resources? I must have missed that biblical passage. Perhaps you could provide the citation? The gospel calls for us to use huge, bureaucratic, monolithic organizations with no real track record of success to alleviate poverty? (I’m speaking of the UN). Do provide the citation for that in the bible.

Ishii

Jesus never called for redistributional programs. Nor did he ever preach against them. So there is not much in scripture that can be used either way. The Church also has not taught against redistributional programs either. One can argue whether they are prudent in solving the problem, but there certainly is nothing immoral about them.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

In the parable of the talents Jesus said that the one talent that was buried in the ground should be given to the one who had 5 talents–not the one who had two.

Jesus also said “to him who has much much will be given but to him who has little even that little will be taken away”.

The Israelites in the Old Testament were supposed to tithe which is 10%.

I think the limit of taxation should be one penny less than 50%–that way everyone gets a majority of their money. If that is not enough for the poor–then what is lacking should come from voluntary charitable giving.

I think that great taxation isn’t efficient.

What is more efficient is paying workers more.

We will never have everything perfect on Earth before Jesus comes again–that notion is one that the devil likes to spin–but we should always try to help the poor.

I’m glad the Pope is speaking out about a more just distribution of wealth–I think that can be done without socialism.

Would the perfect economic system be halfway between pure socialism and pure capitalism or would it be more like distributism?

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Suggesting the worst and most violent people (Politicians and bureaucrats) among us do potentially more damage than they have done is not well thought out.

A lot of us think “the worst and most violent people” better describes the greedy and rapacious CEOs and plutocrats.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

In the parable of the talents Jesus said that the one talent that was buried in the ground should be given to the one who had 5 talents–not the one who had two.

Jesus also said “to him who has much much will be given but to him who has little even that little will be taken away”.

These verses clearly deal with spiritual gifts, and have absolutely nothing to do with Christ’s view of redistribution of wealth.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

They are so believed by some around CAF. This devotion to a free-market system and rugged individualism seems to me as quite extreme among some American Catholics.

More than extreme: unscriptural, and against all Catholic and Orthodox tradition.

 

[Tsuwano]

Jesus called for a just redistribution of the world’s resources? I must have missed that biblical passage. Perhaps you could provide the citation? The gospel calls for us to use huge, bureaucratic, monolithic organizations with no real track record of success to alleviate poverty? (I’m speaking of the UN). Do provide the citation for that in the bible.

Ishii

In my post I didn’t state that Jesus called for a just redistribution of the world’s resources, I stated that that Pope has called for this. I stated that the Pope is merely reiterating scripture in that scripture calls for justice and mercy to guide human relationships. In this sense, the Pope’s call for a just redistribution of the world’s resources is a call for justice. The rest of your post is merely you waving your ideology around.

 

[Tsuwano]

Jesus never called for redistributional programs. Nor did he ever preach against them. So there is not much in scripture that can be used either way. The Church also has not taught against redistributional programs either. One can argue whether they are prudent in solving the problem, but there certainly is nothing immoral about them.

This is true. What Jesus did say, according to scripture, is that the rich young man should sell what he had and give it to the poor and come follow him. Perhaps this isn’t a call for the redistribution of property and wealth, but it is a reminder that property and wealth can obstruct our desire to follow Jesus.

 

[ishii]

Dear Ishii,

I have referenced frequent quotations from official papal documents that have condemned “capitalism” and you surely are aware of this, yet for some reason have consistently ignored commenting on them directly.

The cognate used by the popes when speaking of “Marxist” is “Liberal”, the cognate of “Socialist” is “Capitalist”. The Marxist ideology of “big government”, collectivism and undermining of private property underlines the economic worldview of “Socialism”, the Liberal ideology of private initiative, individualism, the deification of private property to the detriment of the common good and “small government” underlines the worldview of “Capitalism”.

You have therefore created a straw man argument and have still not replied to me on one of my references, in which Pope Pius XII explicitly condemns a regime in which “capitalism is dominant”.

Not once yet have you ever referenced a church teaching. My basis is in doctrine, yours is in your own understanding of economics. In terms of CAF, which do you think is the preferred approach?

Now I will do this one, last and final time.

Explain to me your understanding of these quotations:

Note that if I were using your prior logic in relation to the above quote, one might say: “Look the pope condemns capitalism explicitly but doesn’t use the word “socialist”, only referring to ‘Marxist collectivism’…”

Do these quotes present a positive view of “capitalism”? Does John Paul II not directly equate “liberal capitalism” and “Marxist collectivism” as twin evils?

Where are your phantom “good capitalists” in this equation?

There are good capitalists and good socialists. When Rush Limbaugh accused Pope Francis of being a Marxist he said, “the Marxist ideology is wrong but I am not offended because I have known many good people who are Socialists”.

The fact that you know a “good capitalist” does not make his ideology correct.

Vouthon -

If the Catholic church condemned capitalism, then what was Pope Pius saying here:

“Capitalism itself is not to be condemned. And surely it is not vicious of its very nature, but it has been vitiated.”

(hey - I can quote Popes too). Capitalism is not to be condemned. But perhaps ** bad ** capitalism (or bad capitalists) are to be condemned?

Just some food for thought for you. I think at the heart of the disagreement between us is perhaps semantics. Voltaire said, “if you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” So it might be useful to define capitalism. If by capitalism you mean, greed, materialism and exploitation of workers, then of course the Church condemns capitalism. If by capitalism you mean innovation, hard work, entrepenuership, economic progress, opportunity, private property, etc. then the Church supports capitalism. Perhaps how we define capitalism reflects our own ideologies and underlying beliefs/biases. For example, if one is a “social democrat” type who believes the more govt. the better but stops short (supposedly) of outright socialism (in their view) then of course they will rail “the Church condemns socialism!”

Perhaps we should defer to St. John Paul 2 who was asked shortly after the fall of communism, if capitalism should be the model and goal:

“*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.” But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.” *

The answer is complex indeed. Much more complex than you make it out to be. (unlike the church’s condemnation of socialism, which is pretty simple). Sounds like he’s saying, good capitalism is good, bad capitalism is bad. In any case, he certainly does not condemn capitalism.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

They are so believed by some around CAF. This devotion to a free-market system and rugged individualism seems to me as quite extreme among some American Catholics.

Odd when one considers that the ideas some are so married to are Protestant in origin.

I would rather be closer to a supposed “protestant” free-market individualism than a leftist, secular collectivist position. Atheist in origin.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

A lot of us think “the worst and most violent people” better describes the greedy and rapacious CEOs and plutocrats.

You may “think” anything. The historical reality is that the worst and most violent people in modern history are secular leftists.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

In my post I didn’t state that Jesus called for a just redistribution of the world’s resources, I stated that that Pope has called for this. I stated that the Pope is merely reiterating scripture in that scripture calls for justice and mercy to guide human relationships. In this sense, the Pope’s call for a just redistribution of the world’s resources is a call for justice. The rest of your post is merely you waving your ideology around.

Oh, we all wave around an ideology, Tsuwano. Some act like they are “above the fray” but they have ideologies just like everyone else.

The call for redistribution of resources is an opinion that the bible is telling us to use monolithic govt. institutions to decide who gets what. It is not strictly biblical. It is adding one’s own concept of how to further the goal of the biblical call for justice and mercy. Some might say that means the UN should decide who gets what. Others might say - in the name of justice and mercy - that the UN is the last organization that should be deciding anything.

This is true. What Jesus did say, according to scripture, is that the rich young man should sell what he had and give it to the poor and come follow him. Perhaps this isn’t a call for the redistribution of property and wealth, but it is a reminder that property and wealth can obstruct our desire to follow Jesus.

Exactly.

Ishii

 

[Vouthon]

Vouthon -

If the Catholic church condemned capitalism, then what was Pope Pius saying here:

“Capitalism itself is not to be condemned. And surely it is not vicious of its very nature, but it has been vitiated.”

Dear Ishii,

I am not quite sure where you derived this quotation from, however I must assume a second hand source rather than from the encyclical directly, because this is what Pope Pius XI actually said in Quadregisimo Anno:

Leo XIII’s whole endeavor was to adjust this economic regime to the standards of true order; whence it follows that the system itself is not to be condemned. And surely it is not vicious of its very nature; but it violates right order whenever capital so employs the working or wage-earning classes as to divert business and economic activity entirely to its own arbitrary will and advantage, without any regard to the human dignity of the workers, the social character of economic life, social justice, and the common good.

(QA, p. 49)

Having conducted a quick google search of the internet, I found this tampered quotation of yours quoted on numerous pro-capitalist Catholic websites, one entitled “Pope as the Defender of Capitalism”.

The “system” mentioned is what the church terms the “market economy”. Obviously people are entitled to own property and trade. This is not, however, what the church understands by “capitalism” as I have been repeatedly explaining to you.

Oh Ishii, you never fail to amaze me

(hey - I can quote Popes too).

Although apparently not accurately if you need to add in the word “capitalism” where it is not even mentioned. Ironic considering how earlier on you upbraided me for insinuating that the pope was referring to capitalism when he wasn’t.

The answer is complex indeed. Much more complex than you make it out to be. (unlike the church’s condemnation of socialism, which is pretty simple). Sounds like he’s saying, good capitalism is good, bad capitalism is bad. In any case, he certainly does not condemn capitalism.

As my quotation from Pope Paul VI has already made clear in relation to socialism, it is not so “simple” on that end either. He explained in my long aforementioned quote how “socialism” can be used to vaguely refer to “justice, equality and rights for the poor” which obviously does not conflict with the Church’s teachings.

Here it is again:

**Attraction of socialist currents **

1. Some Christians are today attracted by socialist currents and their various developments. They try to recognize therein a certain number of aspirations which they carry within themselves in the name of their faith. They feel that they are part of that historical current and wish to play a part within it. Now this historical current takes on, under the same name, different forms according to different continents and cultures, even if it drew its inspiration, and still does in many cases, from ideologies incompatible with faith. Careful judgment is called for. Too often Christians attracted by socialism tend to idealize it in terms which, apart from anything else, are very general: a will for justice, solidarity and equality. They refuse to recognize the limitations of the historical socialist movements, which remain conditioned by the ideologies from which they originated. Distinctions must be made to guide concrete choices between the various levels of expression of socialism: a generous aspiration and a seeking for a more just society, historical movements with a political organization and aim, and an ideology which claims to give a complete and self-sufficient picture of man. Nevertheless, these distinctions must not lead one to consider such levels as completely separate and independent. The concrete link which, according to circumstances, exists between them must be clearly marked out. This insight will enable Christians to see the degree of commitment possible along these lines, while safeguarding the values, especially those of liberty, responsibility and openness to the spiritual, which guarantee the integral development of man.

Historical evolution of Marxism

1. Other Christians even ask whether an historical development of Marxism might not authorize certain concrete rapprochements…

vatican.va/holy_father/pa…eniens_en.html

A Socialist looks at what the Pope says above and thinks, like you do in relation to capitalism, “Oh Socialism as I understand and practice it must be ok then”. Not so!

Here is an example from the period:

Manuel Velasquez. “Questions of Special Urgency”: The Church in the Modern World Two Decades After Vatican II. Judith A. Dwyer, S.S.J., ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1986, p. 190. “Paul VI declared that Catholicism and socialism were not opposed! Distinguishing between socialism that is based on a worldview that denies God and socialism that remains open to the reality of God, the encyclical acknowledged the possibility of a Christian socialism (no. 31). More radically, the encyclical also distinguished various kinds of Marxism: Marxism as a materialist philosophy of history, Marxism as a political regime, and Marxism as a kind of social analysis. This last kind of Marxism, although fraught with risk, is nevertheless not condemned as antithetical to Christianity (nos. 32-42).”

Yet as we know, this is not “socialism” properly defined and nor is simple free trade and property-owning tantamount to “capitalism”.

Both of them in their strictly defined, proper sense are condemned by the church. Still you have not commented on those two earlier quotations of mine but avoided them entirely.

 

[hazcompat]

FINANCING THE WAGE-EARNER’S FAMILY A SURVEY OF THE FACTS BEARING ON INCOME AND EXPENDITURES IN THE FAMILIES OF AMERICAN WAGE-EARNERS
BY
SCOTT NEARING, Ph. D.
Author of " Wages in the United States, “The Super Race,” etc.
NEW YORK
B. W. HUEBSCH
1913

A standard of living is a very abstract and general concept, covering all of the elements of income and expenditure for a large class of persons, yet beneath every workingman’s bed and beside his workbench lurks a phantom—the fear of misery, want, hardship, poverty, and starvation. At the moment when he assumes family responsibilities, that phantom takes shape, never to vanish until elevation to a higher income sphere, or death comes to his relief.
The individual workingman, in his own home, and at his own work must finance his family —must provide for them the wherewithal to purchase the necessaries, and if possible, a few of the comforts of life ; must set aside enough for the emergencies, which in the form of birth or death, sickness, accident or unemployment may confront him at any time; must provide for them against all of the uncertainties and vicissitudes of life; must, to the best of his ability, erect around them a bulwark of income which the phantom cannot scale.
This workingman—this individual member of the human race—must battle successfully with hardship and misfortune or else he must witness the sufferings of those dearest to him.
Copyright, 1913, By B. W. HUEBSCH

Peace

 

[hazcompat]

On October 17, 1906, Adam Rogalas, a Russian laborer employed at $1.60 a day by the Iron City Grain Elevator Company of Pittsburgh, was sent with two other men to do some work in an adjoining building, used by the company for storage. On the floor above them grain was stored in bags. The supports of the floor gave way and it fell. One of the workmen escaped, another was injured, Rogalas was killed. At the inquest a building inspector testified that the floor supports were obviously inadequate. Rogalas had a wife, and four children, aged ten, six, five, and two; but he had no savings. According to Mrs. Rogalas, the claim agent of the company offered to settle with her for $400, which she refused. She put her case in the hands of a lawyer, and suit was entered for $20,000. Mrs. Rogalas got some washing to do; the city poor relief gave her $6.00 worth of groceries a month; she begged at the door of her Catholic church on Sundays; her sister, with a family of six, did what little she could; an occasional $10 was advanced by her lawyer. She was seen in severe winter weather, with shoes so old that her feet were exposed. Six months after the accident another child was born; it was the end of the year before the suit came to trial. The court instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. The woman had lost her case.

Peace

 

[EIF5A]

On October 17, 1906, Adam Rogalas, a Russian laborer employed at $1.60 a day by the Iron City Grain Elevator Company of Pittsburgh, was sent with two other men to do some work in an adjoining building, used by the company for storage. On the floor above them grain was stored in bags. The supports of the floor gave way and it fell. One of the workmen escaped, another was injured, Rogalas was killed. At the inquest a building inspector testified that the floor supports were obviously inadequate. Rogalas had a wife, and four children, aged ten, six, five, and two; but he had no savings. According to Mrs. Rogalas, the claim agent of the company offered to settle with her for $400, which she refused. She put her case in the hands of a lawyer, and suit was entered for $20,000. Mrs. Rogalas got some washing to do; the city poor relief gave her $6.00 worth of groceries a month; she begged at the door of her Catholic church on Sundays; her sister, with a family of six, did what little she could; an occasional $10 was advanced by her lawyer. She was seen in severe winter weather, with shoes so old that her feet were exposed. Six months after the accident another child was born; it was the end of the year before the suit came to trial. The court instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. The woman had lost her case.

Peace

What exactly is the purpose of this story?

 

[TEPO]

What exactly is the purpose of this story?

We don’t want to risk losing what little we do have by giving away our surplus. Those who have surplus want to keep it so our wives and children don’t have to suffer if we die.

If I die tomorrow, who will take care of my family? Nobody. That’s why I need ALL my money.

 

[hazcompat]

Pope Francis

EVANGELII GAUDIUM

…“As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems,”.

… “I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of the poor.”

Peace