Pope demands 'legitimate redistribution' of wealth

[MJE]

Why is it that regardless of the debate, those that have nothing constructive to say, resort to throwing out birth control, annulments, and other pious and judgmental comments. This pope is shaking things up,** bringing compassion back into the church, opening the doors wider to our church.**

When did the church dismiss compassion?
How can the church open her doors wider when her mission is the salvation of all? Who does she exclude or marginalize?

 

[RACJ]

Why is it that regardless of the debate, those that have nothing constructive to say, resort to throwing out birth control, annulments, and other pious and judgmental comments. This pope is shaking things up, bringing compassion back into the church, opening the doors wider to our church.

Are you saying that under prior popes, compassion was lacking? I don’t buy it.

 

[stinkcat_14]

American conservatives are too influenced by John Locke and Adam Smith in my opinion. Too much Locke and Smith; not enough Aquinas and Pope Leo XIII.

In my experience, most conservatives are not influenced enough by Smith and too highly influenced on what they think Smith says.

 

[PeopleB4Things]

I can’t get the link to work (my own problem, I think) but I’d suggest reading the actual words of the Pope, found here:

press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2014/05/09/0333/00735.html

and compare it to what Pope Benedict said here, in paragraphs 38-39, about gratuitous, Zacchaeus-like behavior and also the notion of “redistribution” carried out by the State: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

Dan

Thank you for the direct link to the Vatican translation. It removes any question as to media bias and translation confusion. The Pope’s call for a more equal distribution of wealth is very clear. We can all take his message to heart as it seems well aligned with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

 

[Vouthon]

Obviously you are basing your opinion of the free market on one era.

Dear ishii,

No, I am rebutting the claims by a previous poster that “unrestrained” capitalism is morally viable and defensible. So I highlighted for him the one era in which a truly unrestrained free market capitalism held sway in a country, without any social reforms or limits to show him how dreadful it is. I am not using this extreme form of capitalism as my basis upon which to critique modern day capitalism which is (thankfully) a good deal more reformed. However it is still morally wrong at its core: the pursuit of profit and the deification of the individual.

That the Church has (and still does) condemn socialism is not in doubt (I think its the only thing on which we are likely to see eye to eye). That it condemns capitalism in equally strong terms has been demonstrated by my quotations from past encyclicals throughout this thread.

Here is one I have not yet referenced but encourage you to read:

"…with the diffusion of modern industry throughout the whole world, the “capitalist” economic regime has spread everywhere…

1. Accordingly, when directing Our special attention to the changes which the capitalist economic system has undergone since Leo’s time, We have in mind the good not only of those who dwell in regions given over to “capital” and industry, but of all mankind.

1. In the first place,** it is obvious that not only is wealth concentrated in our times but an immense power and despotic economic dictatorship is consolidated in the hands of a few**, who often are not owners but only the trustees and managing directors of invested funds which they administer according to their own arbitrary will and pleasure.

1. This dictatorship is being most forcibly exercised by those who, since they hold the money and completely control it, control credit also and rule the lending of money…

1. This concentration of power and might, the characteristic mark, as it were, of contemporary economic life, is the fruit that the unlimited freedom of struggle among competitors has of its own nature produced, and which lets only the strongest survive; and this is often the same as saying, those who fight the most violently, those who give least heed to their conscience…

1. **The ultimate consequences of the individualist spirit in economic life ** are those which you yourselves, Venerable Brethren and Beloved Children, see and deplore: Free competition has destroyed itself; economic dictatorship has supplanted the free market; unbridled ambition for power has likewise succeeded greed for gain; all economic life has become tragically hard, inexorable, and cruel. To these are to be added the grave evils that have resulted from an intermingling and shameful confusion of the functions and duties of public authority with those of the economic sphere - such as, one of the worst, the virtual degradation of the majesty of the State, which although it ought to sit on high like a queen and supreme arbitress, free from all partiality and intent upon the one common good and justice, is become a slave, surrendered and delivered to the passions and greed of men. And as to international relations, two different streams have issued from the one fountain-head: On the one hand, economic nationalism or even economic imperialism; on the other, a no less deadly and accursed internationalism of finance or international imperialism whose country is where profit is…

Just as the unity of human society cannot be founded on an opposition of classes, so also the right ordering of economic life cannot be left to a free competition of forces. For from this source, as from a poisoned spring, have originated and spread all the errors of individualist economic teaching. Destroying through forgetfulness or ignorance the social and moral character of economic life, it held that economic life must be considered and treated as altogether free from and independent of public authority, because in the market, i.e., in the free struggle of competitors, it would have a principle of self direction which governs it much more perfectly than would the intervention of any created intellect. But free competition, while justified and certainly useful provided it is kept within certain limits, clearly cannot direct economic life - a truth which the outcome of the application in practice of the tenets of this evil individualistic spirit has more than sufficiently demonstrated. Therefore, it is most necessary that economic life be again subjected to and governed by a true and effective directing principle. This function is one that the economic dictatorship which has recently displaced free competition can still less perform, since it is a headstrong power and a violent energy that, to benefit people, needs to be strongly curbed and wisely ruled. But it cannot curb and rule itself. Loftier and nobler principles - social justice and social charity - must, therefore, be sought whereby this dictatorship may be governed firmly and fully…"

***- Pope Pius XI (Quadragesimo Anno), 1931 ***

A commentary on this notes:

“…Pius XI wanted structural changes as well as moral ones…it is clear that the type of society Pius was calling for would involve a major change in any country where capitalism was currently in operation…It is a repudiation of the central principle of capitalism - its ideological foundation. At the heart of capitalist thinking is the belief that market forces should be the determining factor in the economic order…Pius was rejecting capitalism not just in its present form, but in its essential nature…”

• Option for the Poor and for the Earth: Catholic Social Teaching

 

[Vouthon]

Oh and I should add this given the heavily American demographics of CAF:

“…In Quadragesimo Anno Pope Pius XI referred to the liberal theory of uncontrolled competition as a ‘poisoned spring’ from which have originated all the errors of individualism. The French hierarchy, commenting upon the same pope’s letter on communism, stated: 'By condemning the actions of communist parties, the Church does not support the capitalist regime. It is most necessary that it be realized that in the very essence of capitalism ** that is to say, in the absolute value that it gives to property without reference to the common good or to the dignity of labor there ** is a materialism rejected by Christian teaching…”

- U.S. Bishops, Pastoral Letter (1980) 62

I am aware this is (for some reason) unpopular among many but it is what the church teaches. If we accept, as we all should, its teachings on abortion and contraception, why should we arrogate to ourselves the right to reject its teachings on capitalism?

 

[PeopleB4Things]

It is worth remembering that Pope Francis is speaking to world leaders, so obviously anything he says is going to be in the context of their respective “power” (i.e. government).

Also, he again is not speaking about any one particular country or government. Most Americans will think that he is saying that the government should tax us more so that they can give it to the “less fortunate.” Pope Francis and the popes before them have always condemned the idea of the State being the sole source of providence for people. So, one must interpret what he says in the context of what he and the Church teach and have taught for centuries.

Lastly, does anyone honestly expect the pope to defend lifestyles that possess far more than is needed while many millions of the world suffer due to a lack of the most basic necessities? Brother JR once said that the Church is always going to be on the side of the poor. While I am very far from “rich,” I at least have a job, a roof over my head, food in the fridge, a car in the driveway, money in the bank and a 401k for retirement. The sad fact is that with my minimal economic prosperity, I am living better than probably the bottom 25% of the world’s population. Why does anyone think the pope should bless them and their lifestyle when so many of the world exist in extreme poverty? I don’t feel guilty for my position but I am very grateful and feel myself to be fortunate. But I also can’t turn a blind eye to those who are less off.

I agree 100%. Governments are in a powerful position to help the poor but they are not the only mechanism. Local communities, individuals, companies and groups also play a huge role in reducing hunger and homelessness. We can do a much better job at following the words and examples of Christ and the Pope is leading us in that direction.

 

[pnewton]

The Church does not condone any one particular system of economics over another. You are mistaken if you think the day is going to come when the pontiff declares that an economic system is to be implemented and adhered to under pain of sin. Communism and socialism, your apparent favorite, have been condemned by the Church as political systems. This is never going to change regardless of the “timing.”

Socialism will only become acceptable if it is no longer socialism as historically defined. Let’s face it. Language changes. “Socialist” in particular has become an insult for people and programs which are nothing like socialism. The Church has a firm doctrine of the right to private ownership of goods. This will not change. Ever. Socialism, as defined so far in history, will never be acceptable.

Likewise, any form of laissez-faire capitalism which denies the doctrine of universal destination of goods will also be unacceptable.

None of this is what the Pope is talking about though. Everyone should read the message and ignore the press.

 

[Vouthon]

Wrong. Capitalism has done more to give people modern conveniences and a higher standard of life than any other system that has been tried. It didn’t happen overnight. And it hasn’t always been practiced by morally scrupulous people. But the things today which we take for granted - infrastructure, Automobiles, appliances, homes with central heating, modern comforts, etc. are the product of the free-market. Of course your point that profit only comes at the expense of others is completely false - and betrays a lack of understanding of economics. People don’t make profits at the expense of others. In a free-market economy with minimal regulation, the pie is not finite, but growing. ** The rising tide lifts all boats**, etc.

Compare what you have said above with what Pope Paul VI stated in his 1967 encyclical ‘Populorum Progressio’:

“…The initiatives of individuals and the fluctuations of competition will not assure the success of development…”

- Venerable Pope Paul VI, On the Development of Peoples (1967) 33.

The “rising tide” cannot by itself “lift all boats”. That is to assume a teleology that free market economics lacks in and of itself.

This is precisely the attitude that Pope Francis criticized in his apostolic exhortation:

“Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.”

 

[ishii]

Oh and I should add this given the heavily American demographics of CAF:

I am aware this is (for some reason) unpopular among many but it is what the church teaches. If we accept, as we all should, its teachings on abortion and contraception, why should we arrogate to ourselves the right to reject its teachings on capitalism?

By capitalism do you mean “free market economy” or something else? By capitalism do you mean a free market economy with no restraints whatsoever which allow bad people to exploit the weak? Child labor, etc. ? If so, don’t you really mean, “capitalism as practiced by bad people” ? Or is it your contention that the free market is evil in itself? I guess the first thing would be to define what you mean by capitalism.

Btw, 1) I am not sure a US bishops letter constitutes Catholic teaching? and 2) I am not sure that the lefty liberation theologian Donal Dorr is the most objective analyst of the Church teaching on economics.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Compare what you have said above with what Pope Paul VI stated in his 1967 encyclical ‘Populorum Progressio’:

The “rising tide” cannot by itself “lift all boats”. That is to assume a teleology that free market economics lacks in and of itself.

This is precisely the attitude that Pope Francis criticized in his apostolic exhortation:

You’re twisting words. Your quote by Pope Paul VI does not constitute a condemnation of capitalism or the free market. Furthermore, so what if Pope Francis criticized the free market. It is flawed. Its not perfect. Some people do not benefit, or get left out. But so far, it is the best system we have for providing goods and services to the most people possible. The free market does not do enough - there needs to be charity among individuals. There need to be common sense regulations of the free market. I don’t know anyone who is arguing here for unfettered capitalism with child labor, etc. You seem to be creating a straw man here.

Ishii

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I know it will probably never happen but I wish the Catholic Church would say the amount of tax that would be unacceptable–is it 50%–60%–70%–just how much?

I think that the Catholic Church advocates an economic system that is somewhere between unfettered capitalism and socialism.

It is just my opinion but I think that the state should never take more than 1/2 of a person’s wealth in taxes–I believe that above 50% that constitutes theft!

Would 50% be a good limit on taxes provided that there were no loop holes and no way to get out of paying up to that much if one were very wealthy?

I can see taxing up to 50%–i just think that anyone should always be able to keep a majority of their money. Is that radical?

 

[StopDropandBowl]

Rubbish. Liberal Capitalism is based upon the acquisition of individual profit at the expense of others. It has never in itself liberated any poor person from their situation, rather moderating influences upon it and modifications of the system (such as social welfare legislation, free and universal public education etc,) have enhanced the lives and prospects of the poor.

Unrestrained capitalism brought us the modern comforts that we still enjoy. It brought railroads, which gave millions of children access to fresh food/milk. It brought mass-produced steel/oil, which gave millions of people jobs and better, safer products. It brought us the harnessing of electric power, which illuminated millions of homes and brought humanity out of the darkness. It brought us better food standards, higher quality of life, more instant communication and thus more education and better sharing of said education. It brought us mobility, so that no man or woman would ever be tied down to one place, at the mercy of the accident of their birth.

All those programs: social welfare, universal public education, labor standards, etc… those ALL came from the benefits that capitalism gave us. Child labor laws could not exist in a pre-Industrial Revolution society. The child had to work as hard as the adult or risk starvation. After the Industrial Revolution brought untold wealth to the general populace, there was an ability for the adult to make enough money working to support an entire family. Unrestrained capitalism created the middle-class and social mobility, which has brought hundreds of millions of people out of abject poverty and given them a future that is under their own control. Unrestrained capitalism gave us modern medicine, and saved untold millions from suffering and dying due to curable or treatable illnesses.

Carnegie and Rockafeller, both were born poor. They became the richest men to have ever lived on Earth due to the upward mobility offered by unrestrained capitalism. And in their lifetimes they gave more to charity than any other two men ever have. Every modern convenience you enjoy is a direct result of the unrestrained capitalism and profit motives of the 19th century.

It was unrestrained laissez-faire capitalism of the 19th century and its abuses towards workers that led to Marxism

Marxism finds it’s seeds in the French Revolution, long before the 19th century.

It was 19th century capitalists who forced children in Victorian Britain to climb up chimneys and work like virtual slave labourers in factories.

Those same children would have largely been plowing the hard earth for their entire lives without capitalism. And their children would still be sweating under the sun, slaves to the land they must farm in order to survive. Most of them would die of dysentery, minor infections, any number of pox’s, influenza; long before they could ever grow out of childhood. The Church did not save those children from the dooms of their fathers, capitalism did.

Liberal capitalism in its most unrestrained phase in the 19th century was characterised by “Social Darwinism”, the belief that the weak poor should be trampled upon by the strong wealthy class.

Largely a myth, with no bearing in history. The vast majority of the “robber barons” were extremely charitable men, who were in many ways directly responsible for the very same legislation that you argue was needed.

Give me one good reason why the Catholic Church should accept a man-made product of the enlightenment over its timeless social doctrine?

Because with 1,500 years of rule, the Church was incapable of giving mankind even one of the myriad of benefits that capitalism gave men in less than 100. Where the Church was powerless, entrepreneurs were gifted, by God, with the ability to uplift mankind to a standard of living that would have been unimaginable just half a century before. No ancient king or emperor has ever lived so well as the average American. And this was not because of the Church. It was because of capitalism.

The Church would be wise to take notice and keep out of things where it does not excel. The Church excels at saving souls, but is useless at uplifting the material well-being of the poor. The capitalist is useless at saving souls, but excels at creating material wealth and well-being for the poor. Let each stay in their particular place as chosen by God.

 

[lerapt78]

Hello,

I agree that a Pope or “the Church” did not, has not, and is not, going to get into such particulars. I am wondering, though, where you got the quote “government should” in his remarks.

He said those in authority (think “tax collectors”) “should” be motivated by the same spirit that moved the tax collector Zacchaeus to reform his life. Other than that, I don’t see the word “should” anywhere.

Dan

(all bolding mine)

From the OP’s article,

He said a more equal form of economic progress can be had through “the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society.”

and from the Vatican link:

Future Sustainable Development Goals must therefore be formulated and carried out with generosity and courage, so that they can have a real impact on the structural causes of poverty and hunger, attain more substantial results in protecting the environment, ensure dignified and productive labor for all, and provide appropriate protection for the family, which is an essential element in sustainable human and social development.

In the case of global **political **and economic organization, much more needs to be achieved, since an important part of humanity does not share in the benefits of progress and is in fact relegated to the status of second-class citizens.

This same spirit **should **be at the beginning and end of all **political **and economic activity.

As the words “state” and “political organizations” are synonyms for government, it’s from these passages that I derived my interpretation. Though, as I was paraphrasing instead of copying a direct quote, you are quite right in suggesting that I shouldn’t have put the words “government should” in quotations. Thank you (sincerely) for bringing that error to my attention.

 

[pnewton]

Unrestrained capitalism brought us the modern comforts that we still enjoy.

Because with 1,500 years of rule, the Church was incapable of giving mankind even one of the myriad of benefits that capitalism gave men in less than 100.

I see a problem. You are saying in correlation there is causation. Everything good that has happened is because unrestrained capitalism, not scientific advancement, or the boom of natural resources in geographical isolation. It is capitalism.

If we are going to give all credit to capitalism, are we also going to give it blame for all the bad, like the rise of selfishness, Americanism, modernism? Is having more stuff a good trade off for Hell, or to quote another liberal, “What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world, but he loses his soul.”

Oh, here is a link to the fallacy that has been employed.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

 

[pnewton]

For all the times the political right has criticized the left for its Cafeteria Catholicism, I hope it is remembered that by what measure we judge others, we too will be judged, now that it is time for those on the other end of the spectrum to be taught something they do not want to hear.

 

[ishii]

Unrestrained capitalism brought us the modern comforts that we still enjoy. It brought railroads, which gave millions of children access to fresh food/milk. It brought mass-produced steel/oil, which gave millions of people jobs and better, safer products. It brought us the harnessing of electric power, which illuminated millions of homes and brought humanity out of the darkness. It brought us better food standards, higher quality of life, more instant communication and thus more education and better sharing of said education. It brought us mobility, so that no man or woman would ever be tied down to one place, at the mercy of the accident of their birth.

All those programs: social welfare, universal public education, labor standards, etc… those ALL came from the benefits that capitalism gave us. Child labor laws could not exist in a pre-Industrial Revolution society. The child had to work as hard as the adult or risk starvation. After the Industrial Revolution brought untold wealth to the general populace, there was an ability for the adult to make enough money working to support an entire family. Unrestrained capitalism created the middle-class and social mobility, which has brought hundreds of millions of people out of abject poverty and given them a future that is under their own control. Unrestrained capitalism gave us modern medicine, and saved untold millions from suffering and dying due to curable or treatable illnesses.

Carnegie and Rockafeller, both were born poor. They became the richest men to have ever lived on Earth due to the upward mobility offered by unrestrained capitalism. And in their lifetimes they gave more to charity than any other two men ever have. Every modern convenience you enjoy is a direct result of the unrestrained capitalism and profit motives of the 19th century.

Marxism finds it’s seeds in the French Revolution, long before the 19th century.

Those same children would have largely been plowing the hard earth for their entire lives without capitalism. And their children would still be sweating under the sun, slaves to the land they must farm in order to survive. Most of them would die of dysentery, minor infections, any number of pox’s, influenza; long before they could ever grow out of childhood. The Church did not save those children from the dooms of their fathers, capitalism did.

Largely a myth, with no bearing in history. The vast majority of the “robber barons” were extremely charitable men, who were in many ways directly responsible for the very same legislation that you argue was needed.

with 1,500 years of rule, the Church was incapable of giving mankind even one of the myriad of benefits that capitalism gave men in less than 100. Where the Church was powerless, entrepreneurs were gifted, by God, with the ability to uplift mankind to a standard of living that would have been unimaginable just half a century before. No ancient king or emperor has ever lived so well as the average American. And this was not because of the Church. It was because of capitalism.

The Church would be wise to take notice and keep out of things where it does not excel. The Church excels at saving souls, but is useless at uplifting the material well-being of the poor. The capitalist is useless at saving souls, but excels at creating material wealth and well-being for the poor. Let each stay in their particular place as chosen by God.

Thank you for the post, and for the clarifications. I would only say that the Church has a legitimate interest in speaking to how people conduct themselves within an economic system - including a free market one. And the extent a system falls short of justice, human rights, dignity of man, etc. the Church has an obligation to point that out. I don’t believe that the Church should ignore free market societies that don’t have laws in place to prevent the vulnerable from being exploited - such as children, etc. That said, I am the first to admit that the Church - the clergy, theologians, etc. are not necessarily experts on economics - what the best system is, or exactly how a system should work - such as how much government involvement there should be, regulation, taxation, etc. Too often liberals equate high taxation with charity. Or claim that the Church teaches that we need more taxation and redistribution of wealth. You are right that without the capitalist system, there would be much, much less money being given to charity to help the poor, for example.

Ishii

 

[Vouthon]

By capitalism do you mean “free market economy” or something else?.

Earlier on in the thread I quoted from an encyclical by Pope Pius XII:

“…And what of a regime in which capitalism is dominant? Does it offer a prospect of real welfare…? We have no need here to describe the economic and social consequences of this system. You know its characteristic signs and you yourselves labor under the burden it imposes: the excessive crowding of the population into the cities; the ever-growing and all-invading power of big business; the difficult and precarious condition of other industries, especially the crafts and even more especially agriculture; the disquieting spread of unemployment…”

***- Venerable Pius XII (QUESTA GRANDE VOSTRA ADUNATA), 1945 ***

Surely, you would not deny that he is here condemning a system that he knows by the name of “capitalism”? Intellectual honesty demands that we at least recognize that a long and venerable tradition of papal teaching has strongly condemned the effects of an economic system it labels “capitalism”.

It is not the “market” per se that the church condemns. An economic system that recognizes the positive contribution of business and permits the existence of a legitimate degree of competitive commerce, is hardly to be condemned so long as it is circumscribed within a strong framework that places the human person at its centre and does not view economics as a value-neutral science bereft of moral constraints. It is the market left to the law of unfettered competition that is a moral evil. Capitalism assumes that human beings are fundamentally self-interested and that this is beneficial to society for profit to be the main motivating force. Catholic social teaching, alternatively, holds that human beings are inherently social animals, relational beings or a ‘gift-exchanging’ species and so we are naturally disposed to work together for mutual benefit and in the pursuit of the common good. Capitalism is suffused with the enlightenment exaltation of the “individual”. Whereas Marxism deifies the state, capitalism defies the individual.

The anthropology of capitalism is therefore in error. Economic life is neither about class warfare nor is it about the unfettered competition of market forces.

The church prefers to call such a system the “market economy”. In the magisterium it has traditionally reserved the term “capitalism” for this:

“…But it is unfortunate that on these new conditions of society a system has been constructed which considers profit as the key motive for economic progress, competition as the supreme law of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right that has no limits and carries no corresponding social obligation. This unchecked liberalism leads to dictatorship rightly denounced by Pius XI as producing “the international imperialism of money”.[26] One cannot condemn such abuses too strongly by solemnly recalling once again that the economy is at the service of man…Individual initiative alone and the mere free play of competition could never assure successful development…”

***- Venerable Paul VI (Populorum progression), 1967 ***

The “social market economy” created under the Christian Democrats in post-war Germany is an example of a market economy regulated, supplemented and moderated by a strong egalitarian foundation. It has been consistently endorsed by church figures in Europe, including Cardinal Reinhard Marx:

catholicregister.org/news…wake-of-crisis

German cardinal calls for ‘social market economy’ in wake of crisis

WASHINGTON - **German Cardinal Reinhard Marx called for a “social market economy” in the wake of the fiscal crisis that has gripped much of Europe over the past year.

In a May 30 talk delivered at Georgetown University in Washington, Cardinal Marx, the archbishop of Munich and Freising, said the economy needed to move “beyond capitalism” in order to be more fair**…

“The revolution of 1989 is one of the prepositions of this crisis,” Cardinal Marx said. “The world became free from communism. As a consequence, it became free for financial capitalism.” One of the ills this form of capitalism wrought, he added, was that it “separated the virtual from the real economy,” giving people “the dream of permanent easy money” without acknowledging “the problem of debts, particularly in Europe.”…

In response to a question from the audience, Cardinal Marx said he approved of the idea of “Eurobonds,” an instrument that could help manage the debt of euro zone nations more equitably. “In the long term, it’s something like a transfer,” he said. “Subsidiarity works on many levels. But we will have transfers from rich countries to poorer countries.”

He added that rich euro zone nations cannot tell struggling ones, “Oh, you can go out,” or tell themselves that poorer nations’ crises are “not my problem. That’s not how it should work.”

Berkley Center director Thomas Banchoff noted that some in the United States interpret the Catholic social teaching principle of subsidiarity – which holds that decisions or actions should not be made on a higher level when a lower level of competence would suffice – as meaning “keep the government out of it.”

Cardinal Marx replied, “The state is not a bad thing, as Aristotle told his disciples,” nor is the state “unfriendly.” Without the state, he said, “man does not come to the fullest possible life,” adding, “You cannot navigate the common good only with the assistance of families. It is not possible.”

The cardinal traveled from Washington to Chicago, where he was to lead a May 31-June 1 symposium called “Toward a Moral Economy.”

 

[Vouthon]

To reiterate, this time from St. Pope John XXIII:

“…First, one may not take as the ultimate criteria in economic life the interests of individuals or organized groups, nor unregulated competition, nor excessive power on the part of the wealthy, nor the vain honor of the nation or its desire for domination, nor anything of this sort. Rather, it is necessary that economic undertaking be governed by justice and charity as the principal laws of social life…”

***- St. Pope John XXIII (Mater et Magistra), 1959 ***

 

[hazcompat]

Brother Vouthon,

Keep up the good work.

From the office of readings this morning.

Pope Saint Gregory the Great
…
“Beloved brothers, let us set out for these pastures where we shall keep joyful festival with so many of our fellow citizens. May the thought of their happiness urge us on! Let us stir up our hearts, rekindle our faith, and long eagerly for what heaven has in store for us. To love thus is to be already on our way. No matter what obstacles we encounter, we must not allow them to turn us aside from the joy of that heavenly feast. Anyone who is determined to reach his destination is not deterred by the roughness of the road that leads to it. Nor must we allow the charm of success to seduce us, or we shall be like a foolish traveler who is so distracted by the pleasant meadows through which he is passing that he forgets where he is going.”

Peace