Pope demands 'legitimate redistribution' of wealth

[dans0622]

I see no mention of precisely *how *“legitimate redistribution” can or should be achieved. Yes, he says that “government should. . . .” But exactly *how *“should they” correct injustices? The words of Pope Francis in the article (and the supporting link that Dans0622) are quite vague, are they not? This is what people would like to know, I think, and why there is much confusion and debate on both sides. …

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

 

[_Abyssinia]

Excerpt of David Freddoso’s opinion on AP article / Pope Francis’ comments:

AP’s write-up of the Pope’s speech this morning contains many paraphrases and few quotations. That should already make you suspicious, given the media’s propensity to mischaracterize just about anything any pope says. And if you were suspicious this morning when you saw the news coverage, you were right.

The AP headline: “POPE DEMANDS ‘LEGITIMATE REDISTRIBUTION’ OF WEALTH. The lede:

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis called Friday for governments to redistribute wealth to the poor in a new spirit of generosity to help curb the “economy of exclusion” that is taking hold today.

Sorry, but you can’t read his short speech and come away with that. Yes, Pope Francis discussed “equitable development” and a spirit of generosity, and he even mentioned — near the end, almost as an afterthought — that the state should continue to play a role in this. But there’s no “demand” for broader “legitimate redistribution” by government. Here is the one line, right near the end of his speech, in which Francis used that phrase:

A contribution to this equitable development will also be made both by international activity aimed at the integral human development of all the world’s peoples and by the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society.

First of all, note the word “also.” Why is that word there? Because if you read the speech, you’ll see that Francis spent the first 90 percent of his speech without mentioning “the State” or “government.” He said that the needs of the world’s poor should awaken everyone’s conscience and lead us to work to make sure all of humanity shares in human progress. He cited one particular story in the Gospel about a wealthy man (Zacchaeus) who after meeting Jesus “put everything, freely yet immediately and indisputably, at the service of others.”

Perhaps in anticipation of the shoddy coverage he ended up getting, he even downplayed the role of “economic and social systems and theories” and, as popes usually tend to do, avoided getting into specifics about political solutions.

When Francis said “legitimate redistribution” right near the end, he was clearly condoning some kind of role for governments in assisting the poor. Perhaps he even believes in a more robust role than he lets on here. But he didn’t offer anything on that topic here. To be sure, a demand for a more robust government role would not necessarily be inconsistent with anything he said, but it’s also not what he said. In fact, the use of the word “legitimate” here appears to play the opposite role that the AP’s headline implies — namely, the Pope is implying that not all government redistribution is “legitimate,” and that there might be unspecified limits to what it is just for the state to do. (Which is, in fact, part of the message of the earlier papal documents he cites immediately before that line.)

Don’t take my word for it. Read the speech yourself, and then go back and look at the AP headline and lede. People of good will can certainly disagree on the issue of how robust government’s role should be in “redistribution,” but people of good will cannot read that speech and mistake it for call for more government redistribution.

conservativeintel.com/2014/05/09/breaking-pope-francis-is-not-an-anarcho-capitalist

 

[Avila123]

Good for Pope Francis (and all his predecessors) reminding people with power of their responsibilities. God-willing one day we will live in a world where wealth is no longer built on human misery but upon honesty and treating everyone with respect and dignity.

I don’t understand why people start jumping up and down at the thought of governments and multinationals facing the consequences when they do wrong. If I drop litter, I get fined, if I hurt someone deliberately, swindle them, damage their property orsteal, I face a prison sentence. But this does not seem to apply to some multinationals, leaders and governments who seem to only repent of being found out and facing the prospect of less profits or not being re-elected. They may get a fine in court but the decision makers can literally get away with murder because their victims live in poor areas and have no voice.

Why is it wrong to suggest that wealth can be obtained without causing harm and suffering, or to spend it lovingly with consideration e.g. on products from companies that treats its workers and surrounding communities with dignity. Its time to end a world where:

a. Little children are forced into begging, work or prostitution because both working parents do not earn enough to put food on the table.
b. People are literally worked to death or thrown on the streets when they can no longer work.
c. Water supplies are depleted and deliberately polluted in the pursuit of profit.
d. Noxious waste is dumped near poor communities rather than dispose of it safely.
e. The comfortable do not consider the poor, sick, disabled and elderly as precious children of God and worth caring about.

I am with Pope Francis 100%.

 

[GraceSofia]

Is there a version in Latin, as that would be the official version? Otherwise we’re just living in Babel.

He was speaking in Spanish, and there are English and Italian translations. Why do you think it needs to be in Latin?

So I am wondering if the Pope is thinking about redistributing some of the Vatican’s wealth, which is quite large. Now the Church is not responsible for poverty, but as a Jesuit I know he is very uncomfortable being surrounded by so much wealth on a daily bases. In fact, working with the Jesuits, I know anything other than the most modest living quarter would make him uncomfortable.

I would think if he is speaking so strongly on this issue he would be thinking that the Vatican should chip in, maybe selling some of its art. Not that it will actually happen.

The Holy See does chip in, in the sense of giving charitable aid around the world. The Catholic Church is the biggest charitable organisaiton in the world.

Hello,

That’s silly. The US government, by comparison, loses more money in the governmental couch cushion than the Vatican possesses. Besides that, most of what “the Vatican” possesses was given to it by people, for a particular purpose. One cannot simply do whatever one wants with such donations, even if he’s the Pope.

Dan

Yes. Harvard has a bigger budget than the Vatican. Why don’t we sell the Louvre or the Smithsonian? Sigh.

 

[Robyn_p]

I would think if he is speaking so strongly on this issue he would be thinking that the Vatican should chip in, maybe selling some of its art. Not that it will actually happen.

Selling the art wouldn’t do anything for the poor. All it would do is make the rich richer.

The Catholic Church does more for the poor than any other institution. All that wealth and art don’t belong to anyone, it’s for the churches, for God’s glory. Selling that would accomplish nothing except deprive people, yes even poor people, of beautiful sacred places to worship. I fail to see how that’s better.

 

[Colorad007]

What is the criticism for? This is basic Catholic social teaching which recognizes the place of the state to properly and legitimately distribute resources in service of the common good. Conservatism in America has a uniquely individualistic tone that has a lot to do with our Calvinist roots. But we are Catholics and so we have a more communitarian and family-centered social and political ethos. Don’t be scandalized by it. I am a conservative activist and a GOP state Senate district chairman. But I can recognize that American libertarianism is a heartless, decadent, and morally degrading political philosophy that does little to replace the culture of death with a culture that values the intrinsic worth of every human person.

 

[jc4751]

Not long ago, the Pope also said that artisans and entrepreneurs would be the ones to lead Italy out of its economic grind, which hardly sounds like Marxism Lite to me. The problem I have with blanket statements on social and political issues is that people these days tend to want to take them and use them to promote one side or the other to extremes or suggest that they represent the totality of a person’s thinking or substance on an issue. Most of us could probably realistically tell the difference between some of the insider games and cronyism on one hand, and good companies on the other. Whether or not the law makes a distinction becomes the fault of legislators and judges, not an indictment of a system. Unfortunately, we are too lazy and uncomfortable with digging down to the truth, that we assume everything is on one side of that gray area or the other.

Personally, I’m not bothered by Pope Francis on the issue. It bugs me significantly less when he says it than when secular rulers – who are also promoting abortion, secularization, war, and political repression – do so. I also have faith that the Holy Spirit inspired the Cardinals to elect him, and believe that he is the right man for the church at the right time, just as the previous two Popes have been.

 

[catholictiger]

I don’t really trust the AP to post a good catholic perspective of what the Pope said.

they take two words out of context to make the pope look liberal. The Pope is mainly continuing the core catholic principles of fundamental option for the poor solidarity and subsidiarity. NOTHING he is saying changes anything.

 

[Colorad007]

What is the criticism for? This is basic Catholic social teaching which recognizes the place of the state to properly and legitimately distribute resources in service of the common good. Conservatism in America has a uniquely individualistic tone that has a lot to do with our Calvinist roots. But we are Catholics and so we have a more communitarian and family-centered social and political ethos. Don’t be scandalized by it. I am a conservative activist and a GOP state Senate district chairman. But I can recognize that American libertarianism is a heartless, decadent, and morally deflating political philosophy that does little to replace the culture of death with a culture that values the intrinsic worth of every human person.

 

[jc4751]

What is the criticism for? This is basic Catholic social teaching which recognizes the place of the state to properly and legitimately distribute resources in service of the common good. Conservatism in America has a uniquely individualistic tone that has a lot to do with our Calvinist roots. But we are Catholics and so we have a more communitarian and family-centered social and political ethos. Don’t be scandalized by it. I am a conservative activist and a GOP state Senate district chairman. But I can recognize that American libertarianism is a heartless, decadent, and morally deflating political philosophy that does little to replace the culture of death with a culture that values the intrinsic worth of every human person.

No offense, but that characterization of libertarian thought is appalling. It’s no different than someone suggesting that conservatism in American is a political viewpoint that embraces colonial conquest and naked militarism in the name of “security.”

 

[Colorad007]

No offense, but that characterization of libertarian thought is appalling. It’s no different than someone suggesting that conservatism in American is a political viewpoint that embraces colonial conquest and naked militarism in the name of “security.”

Not really. Libertarianism supposes an almost fideistic trust in the marketplace. It is one thing to favor market economies, but it is another to argue that the state has no proper jurisdiction over setting the normative boundaries in which the market may operate. Libertarianism prefers the marketplace to set its own boundaries, as though it were a self-moralizing force. That is absurd. I suspect that libertarians and I agree on many specific environmental regulations as well as a host of other policues. But I oppose them because they don’t work, not because of a fundamental belief that the government has no legitimate place in the fair function of the marketplace.

 

[johnlal]

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_REL_VATICAN_UN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-05-09-06-31-28

Pope JP II called Liberation Theology a heresy. Now, Pope Francis is getting dangerously close to endorsing this position. This is the first time I am truly troubled by what Pope Francis has said.

I don’t know how many conservative Popes we’ve had during my life. Can’t we have just one liberal Pope? Just one?

 

[jc4751]

Not really. Libertarianism supposes an almost fideistic trust in the marketplace. It is one thing to favor market economies, but it is another to argue that the state has no proper jurisdiction over setting the normative boundaries in which the market may operate. Libertarianism prefers the marketplace to set its own boundaries, as though it were a self-moralizing force. That is absurd. I suspect that libertarians and I agree on many specific environmental regulations as well as a host of other policues. But I oppose them because they don’t work, not because of a fundamental belief that the government has no legitimate place in the fair function of the marketplace.

There are some problems here. I think I’d point out that market forces regulate all behavior, whatever the legalities involved. If something is illegal, then the price simply goes up. This is clear with any careful study…whether or not it should be legal is another matter, but supply and demand still functions. Most libertarians would probably argue that attempting to control the market just results in distortions of already-existing forces of supply and demand, much like throwing a rock in a stream would just alter the direction of the water, not shut it off completely. The drug war is a classic example and I’d point out that it’s an abject failure and should be dealt with as a social, not criminal, problem.

I would agree that there are some who place “faith” in the market. This is as silly as suggesting that market forces don’t really drive human activity (an argument some on the left make when they scream about “everything being for sale!”).

As I see it, the crux of libertarian thought is that since people are fallible, it’s sketchy to have people put in charge of other people to limit the fallibility of people. Or, if you prefer, asserting a moral right of governance simply because one asserts a moral right of governance. This really doesn’t seem too different from Burkean conservativsm, from what I understand.

Edit:
I’d also point out that there are many libertarian positions as there are libertarians.

 

[jc4751]

I don’t know how many conservative Popes we’ve had during my life. Can’t we have just one liberal Pope? Just one?

The Pope is no more what people want him to be than the Gospel is what people want it to be.

 

[Vouthon]

Did not St. Thomas Aquinas teach in his Summa Theologica that if a man has grave ‘need’ then he can take from the abundance of another without committing sin? Property rights and commercial profit are not therefore and have never been according to Catholic social teaching absolute. The enjoyment of them is limited by the urgent need of one’s fellow human beings.

Read the Summa here:

newadvent.org/summa/3066.htm#article3

…it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another’s property by taking it either openly or secretly; nor is this, properly speaking, theft and robbery…It is not theft, properly speaking, to take secretly and use another’s property in a case of extreme need; because that which he takes for the support of his life becomes his own property by reason of that need…In a case of a like need, a man may also take secretly another’s property in order to succor his neighbour in need

This has been consistently confirmed by popes:

Paul VI made the point quite clear in his 1967 encyclical “Populorum Progressio”:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_26031967_populorum_en.html

…each man has therefore the right to find in the world what is necessary for himself. The recent Council [Vatican II] reminded us of this: “God intended the earth and all that it contains for the use of every human being and people. Thus, as all men follow justice and unite in charity, created goods should abound for them on a reasonable basis.” All other rights whatsoever, including those of property and of free commerce, are to be subordinated to this principle.

I believe this is what the Pope is referring to: states have an obligation to ensure that the economy is not being dominated by laissez-faire impulses that lose sight of human dignity and prey upon the weak.

The last will be first and the first will be last. Wealth is vanity and our world is enslaved to it - and to the detriment of other people.

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.

 

[Vouthon]

I don’t know how many conservative Popes we’ve had during my life. Can’t we have just one liberal Pope? Just one?

There are no such things as ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ popes. These are artificial, secular delineations that have no meaning within Catholic theology. Truth is truth.

 

[Vouthon]

What is the criticism for? This is basic Catholic social teaching which recognizes the place of the state to properly and legitimately distribute resources in service of the common good. Conservatism in America has a uniquely individualistic tone that has a lot to do with our Calvinist roots. But we are Catholics and so we have a more communitarian and family-centered social and political ethos. Don’t be scandalized by it. I am a conservative activist and a GOP state Senate district chairman. But I can recognize that American libertarianism is a heartless, decadent, and morally degrading political philosophy that does little to replace the culture of death with a culture that values the intrinsic worth of every human person.

Excellent post. You’ve got it one

I just want to add that in the last UK general election in 2010 I voted for the Tories (British Conservatives) so I am hardly a Commie either. I am merely disturbed by the non-Catholic orientation of American libertarianism.

This ideology has continually been condemned as heretical by the Church for example in Pope Paul VI’s 1967 encyclical that I referenced in my last post.

Section 33# of the encyclical:

33 Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. Organized programs are necessary for “directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating” (35) the work of individuals and intermediary organizations

In other words, Venerable Pope Paul VI is stating quite clearly that a free market, competition and self-interested private enterprise is not sufficient to ensure integral human development.

Earlier on in the encyclical he explicitly attacks the ideology of liberal/libertarian capitalism:

Unbridled Liberalism

1. However, certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society. **These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations **

This unbridled liberalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the "international imperialism of money."(26)

Such improper manipulations of economic forces can never be condemned enough; let it be said once again that economics is supposed to be in the service of man. (27)

[This] type of capitalism, as it is commonly called, has given rise to hardships, unjust practices, and fratricidal conflicts that persist to this day…

This is reinforced later on in the encyclical, :

Market prices that are freely agreed upon can turn out to be most unfair. It must be avowed openly that, in this case, the fundamental tenet of liberalism (as it is called), as the norm for market dealings, is open to serious question…

It furthermore criticized those who held that private property rights were “absolute” and supported land reform:

1. “He who has the goods of this world and sees his brother in need and closes his heart to him, how does the love of God abide in him?” (21) Everyone knows that the Fathers of the Church laid down the duty of the rich toward the poor in no uncertain terms. As St. Ambrose put it: “You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich.” (22) These words indicate that the right to private property is not absolute and unconditional.

No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life. In short, "as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good." When “private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another,” it is for the public authorities “to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups.”

1. If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.

Vatican II affirms this emphatically. (24) At the same time it clearly teaches that income thus derived is not for man’s capricious use, and that the exclusive pursuit of personal gain is prohibited. Consequently, it is not permissible for citizens who have garnered sizeable income from the resources and activities of their own nation to deposit a large portion of their income in foreign countries for the sake of their own private gain alone, taking no account of their country’s interests; in doing this, they clearly wrong their country

 

[Veridical16]

Good on Pope Francis.

The fact that he continues to criticize the current economic situation and aspects to global capitalism, and the concentration of wealth being an injustice, should make Catholics reconsider their ideologies that exalt Economic Liberalism and give it too much priority over the moral sphere of the world.

It takes effort to help the poor, the poor are not alleviated by passive interactions between two people operating on SELF-interest (Rugged Individualism).

Nor is the Invisible Hand, reasonable. Self - interest + Self Interest is not equivalent to resolving the common good.

Also it is absurd to ignore the fact that you cannot have an abusive centralized state, without big money, from the negative consequences of capitalism. The founding fathers distrusted corporations.

This idea that* “government is the cause of all poverty /”* is reductive. Big Government works with Big Business.

Of course we will see conservative writers/journalists try to spin away what Pope Francis says, and neoconservative publications try to force an Ideological Right Wing Square Pegs into sound Catholic Principles.
but the pattern of Pope Francis is providential.

The principles of Catholics that aligned with the old Democrat party of the early 20th century are being brought back to light, pointing to St. Joseph the worker.

Pope Francis is effectively shining light on this ideological economic deception that goes counter to Catholic principles. The idea that the impoverished are an afterthought whom benefit from an impersonal market system.

 

[Veridical16]

I don’t know how many conservative Popes we’ve had during my life. Can’t we have just one liberal Pope? Just one?

If one can’t call Jesus a liberal or a conservative or even attribute any political motivation to him, then we shouldn’t place the Holy Father into being part of this or that camp.

Truth is truth, and transcends any notion of man-made ideologies. We can’t pigeonhole the Pope.

If someone perceives the Pope to be conservative or liberal and at odds with where they are politically – in respect to his legitimacy as teacher, it is probably the onlooker who needs to reevaluate where he or she has convicted themselves to certain ideologies that he should not be adhering so tightly in the first place.

Pope Francis was correct in reproaching Catholics who have been reducing the Faith to an Ideology.

en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/10/17/pope_francis_at_mass_calls_for_greater_openness_/in2-738150

In ideologies there is not Jesus: in his tenderness, his love, his meekness

“The faith passes, so to speak, through a distiller and becomes ideology. And ideology does not beckon [people]. In ideologies there is not Jesus: in his tenderness, his love, his meekness. And ideologies are rigid, always. Of every sign: rigid. And when a Christian becomes a disciple of the ideology, he has lost the faith: he is no longer a disciple of Jesus,** he is a disciple of this attitude of thought**… For this reason Jesus said to them: ‘You have taken away the key of knowledge.’ The knowledge of Jesus is transformed into an ideological and also moralistic knowledge, because these close the door with many requirements.”

 

[ProVobis]

He was speaking in Spanish, and there are English and Italian translations.

Yes, but how do know they are accurate and to the point? As a CA priest has noted, translations are more art than science. Nothing infallible about them.

I don’t really trust the AP to post a good catholic perspective of what the Pope said.

they take two words out of context to make the pope look liberal. The Pope is mainly continuing the core catholic principles of fundamental option for the poor solidarity and subsidiarity. NOTHING he is saying changes anything.

I will have to agree with you on that.