Pope demands 'legitimate redistribution' of wealth

[Vouthon]

What makes you think that?

The longstanding and immutable Social Teaching of the Church which condemns both socialism and liberal capitalism - thereby displeasing the socialists and capitalists among us Yep, “Lefties” and “Righties” have something to gripe against the church because she doesn’t side fully with either of them.

“…Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty…”

- St. Pope John XXIII (Encyclical Mater et Magistra, May 15, 1961, n. 34)

Venerable Pope Paul VI gave a succinct overview of how Catholics should respond to Socialism in his Apostolic Letter, “Octogesima adveniens” of 1971. His key emphasis is that it cannot be viewed as a monolith but also that Catholics need discernment:

**Attraction of socialist currents **

31.** 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.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_letters/documents/hf_p-vi_apl_19710514_octogesima-adveniens_en.html

Note that immediately after this section on socialism Pope Paul has two sections entitled, “Marxism” and the “Liberal Ideology” in which he makes it clear that a Catholic cannot be a Communist or a Capitalist. His view of “socialism” is cautious but nuanced in comparison, based upon the fact that has become such a generalized term.

He explains above that what many people term as “socialism” is in fact not “socialism” at all in its pure sense as meaning a system in which the state owns the means of production and there is no private property, but rather ‘social welfare’ programs within capitalist systems or even Christian values of solidarity and preferential concern for the poor.

Therefore the Pope explains that not everything that calls itself “socialist” is to be condemned by the church or avoided by Catholics.

The same holds for “capitalism” which is often used imprecisely to describe what is merely a “market economy”.

A little earlier on in the Apostolic Letter he notes:

**Ideologies and human liberty **

1. Therefore the Christian who wishes to live his faith in a political activity which he thinks of as service **cannot without contradicting himself adhere to ideological systems which radically or substantially go against his faith ** and his concept of man. He cannot adhere to the Marxist ideology, to its atheistic materialism, to its dialectic of violence and to the way it absorbs individual freedom in the collectivity, at the same time denying all transcendence to man and his personal and collective history; **nor can be adhere to the liberal ideology ** which believes it exalts individual freedom by with drawing it from every limitation, by stimulating it through exclusive seeking of interest and power, and by considering social solidarities as more or less automatic consequences of individual initiatives, not as an aim and a major criterion of the value of the social organization…

So nothing is entirely condemned except “Marxism” and “liberal capitalism” (in its worse form being Libertarianism), two extremes: one idolizing the state, the other idolizing the individual.

Anything in the middle would appear to be acceptable. Recall that in Germany the traditional Catholic party was the “Centre Party”:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_Party_(Germany

It is therefore acceptable for a Catholic to be moderately left or right of centre on economic issues. Anything more however and it is too close to “Marxism” on the one end and “liberal capitalism” on the other.

Socialism and Capitalism, like Fascism and Communism, are evil twins - so different, yet so alike when it comes down to it, both being materialist ideologies.

 

[tskrobacz]

Translated - The Pope has asked the people that are responsible for more poverty than anyone else to take money from innovators and producers at the point of a gun and the threat of violence and give it to those who did not earn it.

I am appalled.

Is your position is that the Pope is leading the flock astray and that the promise from Jesus that the Gates of Hell will not overcome it is untrue? We can’t have it both ways…either we patiently consider the bigger truths of the Pope’s words or decide that the Church is wrong and take on our own shoulders the discernment of right and wrong (sounds a little like eating the apple in the garden of eden).

 

[ishii]

Take what you have, sell it and give it to the poor. Then come follow me. Is Francis saying something that hasn’t already been said by the Lord? He is a follower of Christ and not of some political or economic ideology. I would expect him to say nothing less.

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

Ishii

 

[Vouthon]

He specifically referred to the UN as very important to deal with issues such as “the root causes of hunger.” Now, regardless of whether you like or dislike the UN, it seems that calling on an organization such as the UN to deal with an issue such as poverty, would be the antithesis of what it means to handle problems by the lowest or least centralized competent authority.

Ishii, did you not read Pope Benedict XVI’s 2009 encyclical “Caritas in Veritate”?

He answers your very question:

“…In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect[146] and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago…”

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

As did St. Pope John XXIII in his 1963 encyclical Pacem in Terris:

1. Today the universal common good presents us with problems which are world-wide in their dimensions; problems, therefore, which cannot be solved except by a public authority with power, organization and means co-extensive with these problems, and with a world-wide sphere of activity. Consequently the moral order itself demands the establishment of some such general form of public authority.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem_en.html

And Pope Francis last year in his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium:

1. Economy, as the very word indicates, should be the art of achieving a fitting management of our common home, which is the world as a whole. Each meaningful economic decision made in one part of the world has repercussions everywhere else; consequently, no government can act without regard for shared responsibility. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find local solutions for enormous global problems which overwhelm local politics with difficulties to resolve. If we really want to achieve a healthy world economy, what is needed at this juncture of history is a more efficient way of interacting which, with due regard for the sovereignty of each nation, ensures the economic well-being of all countries, not just of a few

w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html#_ftn173

 

[stinkcat_14]

He specifically referred to the UN as very important to deal with issues such as “the root causes of hunger.”

I don’t see this as a lack of subsidiarity at all. There are some issues associated with development that are likely only solved through international cooperation. For example, in one country I recently visited there was foreign investment to build a railroad, the railroad was part generosity on the other country’s part and part a hope to develop more trade by getting more agricultural output to port. If the railroad was left to the country itself it would likely never be built.

Now, regardless of whether you like or dislike the UN, it seems that calling on an organization such as the UN to deal with an issue such as poverty, would be the antithesis of what it means to handle problems by the lowest or least centralized competent authority.

There are some things that the UN could do better than more local entities.

Furthermore, when he says that governments should redistribute wealth to the poor, is he talking about city governments? I would be willing to bet he is referring to large, centralized federal governments. Again, that does not seem to be in tune with the principle of subsidiarity.

Ishii

He does not specify which level of government. And he really didn’t say anything earth shattering because government activity by its necessity is redistributive. There is no such thing as non-redistributive government spending, because if there is no redistribution there is no need for the government. After all, our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are nothing but redistribution from future generations to our generations. It is certainly an illegitimate form of redistribution. So if the government would restrict itself to legitimate redistribution that would be an improvement.

 

[J_Peterson]

You’re missing the point. It isn’t a matter of a government getting involved by providing relief to those who need it “when the economy sucks” and then getting out of the way when the economy improves. It is a matter of a gradual, steady encroachment by the government in all aspect of our lives - by excessive taxation, regulation, and unjust mandates. Leftism, which is the ideology behind all this, cannot abide by a vibrant, powerful Catholic Church. This is because you can’t believe in an all powerful state and at the time believe in an all powerful God. For the left, the state takes the place of God. So they are naturally at odds. Government aid and welfare are part of the leftist belief that the government can take care of us all, and that the citizens exist for the state. Such a belief has no room for Christianity.

Ishii

Is the Church opposed to monarchism? Some monarchs even claimed to have a divine right to rule so the line between God and State disappeared and they become one. It seems that an all powerful state and belief in God are not opposed to each other.

 

[TEPO]

It might also be worth understanding the Vaticans role in the UN.

If the UN is an intergovernmental panel where national leaders share peacekeeping ideas, then we can also see why the Vatican sees equal access to resources as an important factor in maintaining civil harmony. Look at Egypt and even Ukraine -unhappy people cause war, so the Vatican plays that card as well as her Traditional social teachings, which are the fundamental building blocks of any workable God fearing society.

It’s just as important for the Vatican to oversee the UN as it would be to oversee all the individual governments that make up the UN.

…but none of this should lead any Catholic to believe in the UN. The Church doesn’t advertise UN support at all and the absence of the UN would not harm Catholicism. The UN is a forum, not a government.

 

[TEPO]

Is the Church opposed to monarchism? Some monarchs even claimed to have a divine right to rule so the line between God and State disappeared and they become one. It seems that an all powerful state and belief in God are not opposed to each other.

According to the current traditional laws of the Church, clergy may not be politicians at this time, so I would say that right now -yes, the Church and an all powerful state are in opposition. Subsidiarity is now Tradition… So it’s been stamped so long as politics last.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

At what tax rate does ‘legitimate redistribution of wealth’ become morally indefensible theft by government?

 

[pnewton]

At what tax rate does ‘legitimate redistribution of wealth’ become morally indefensible theft by government?

It might be immoral, very immoral or unwise, but I do not think it could ever said to be theft. That is a different sin. If we keep changing terms as a way of begging the question, then discussion is simply not possible.

As to what point it becomes sinful, I would say that the point at which it deprives individuals of any practical right to ownership of property.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I guess the next question would be “how much property”? If a person made 10 billion dollars could he morally be taxed 9 billion dollars because he would still own property if he paid the 9 billion dollars?

 

[stinkcat_14]

At what tax rate does ‘legitimate redistribution of wealth’ become morally indefensible theft by government?

The Church has never defined such a tax rate.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I know the Church has never defined such a tax rate–I guess what I am asking is has the Catholic Church ever taught that at some level that taxing of the population to redistribute wealth can go so high as to be morally wrong?

If there is no limit to taxation–I have a problem with that.

Does the Catholic Church have a problem with the government ever taking too much tax?

If not then government will take more and more until the individual is robbed of their integrity. I don’t know if you call that socialist or communist or what you call it–I do know that at some point taxation can set to a point that involves sinful territory.

Sometimes I’ve wondered if maybe the reason the Catholic Church doesn’t address this is because many western European countries tax at rates above 50% and maybe the Church is afraid on stepping on those country’s toes?

For that matter the US has had tax rates above 50% in the past.

I just say that if there is no notion of a tax rate that would be morally wrong then all you wind up with is a mess where redistribution of wealth is not to help the poor but a way to stay in power by treating human beings as if all that matters is that they have a certain amount of material goods. That is wrong.

I don’t know at what level it takes place but I think that at some level it does take place.

Has the Catholic Church ever addressed such a problem as unrestricted taxation?

 

[EIF5A]

Is it taxation or what the government does with the money?

Taxes don’t disappear. You get something in return (in theory).

Army for national defense, regulatory agencies, health services, scientific research, public education, etc.

Is it taxation that’s bothersome or people/programs perceived to be undeserving who/that receive public benefit?

Suppose the government used taxes only for public works deemed charitable, beneficial, and acceptable by the Church. Would you accept a tax rate of, say, 50%?

 

[ishii]

The longstanding and immutable Social Teaching of the Church which condemns both socialism and liberal capitalism - thereby displeasing the socialists and capitalists among us Yep, “Lefties” and “Righties” have something to gripe against the church because she doesn’t side fully with either of them.

Venerable Pope Paul VI gave a succinct overview of how Catholics should respond to Socialism in his Apostolic Letter, “Octogesima adveniens” of 1971. His key emphasis is that it cannot be viewed as a monolith but also that Catholics need discernment:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_letters/documents/hf_p-vi_apl_19710514_octogesima-adveniens_en.html

Note that immediately after this section on socialism Pope Paul has two sections entitled, “Marxism” and the “Liberal Ideology” in which he makes it clear that a Catholic cannot be a Communist or a Capitalist. His view of “socialism” is cautious but nuanced in comparison, based upon the fact that has become such a generalized term.

He explains above that what many people term as “socialism” is in fact not “socialism” at all in its pure sense as meaning a system in which the state owns the means of production and there is no private property, but rather ‘social welfare’ programs within capitalist systems or even Christian values of solidarity and preferential concern for the poor.

Therefore the Pope explains that not everything that calls itself “socialist” is to be condemned by the church or avoided by Catholics.

The same holds for “capitalism” which is often used imprecisely to describe what is merely a “market economy”.

A little earlier on in the Apostolic Letter he notes:

So nothing is entirely condemned except “Marxism” and “liberal capitalism” (in its worse form being Libertarianism), two extremes: one idolizing the state, the other idolizing the individual.

Anything in the middle would appear to be acceptable. Recall that in Germany the traditional Catholic party was the “Centre Party”:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_Party_(Germany

It is therefore acceptable for a Catholic to be moderately left or right of centre on economic issues. Anything more however and it is too close to “Marxism” on the one end and “liberal capitalism” on the other.

Socialism and Capitalism, like Fascism and Communism, are evil twins - so different, yet so alike when it comes down to it, both being materialist ideologies.

Notice how Pope Paul VI says we can neither adhere to Marxist ideology nor “liberal ideology…” Notice that he does not say, “capitalism” yet you insert that into your comments as if the Pope used the word, which he didn’t. There can certainly be enlightened capitalists - who take into account the humanity of people and consider their rights and needs. Those might be called, “good capitalists.” I work for one. A true socialist, however, will never be a good Christian. (cf Pope Pius XI). Socialism has been condemned. Capitalism has not. Only capitalism which is practiced in such a way that denies the rights and dignity of people, common good, etc. The problem with capitalism is capitalists. The problem with socialism is socialism.

Ishii

 

[migueltojose]

Notice how Pope Paul VI says we can neither adhere to Marxist ideology nor “liberal ideology…” Notice that he does not say, “capitalism” yet you insert that into your comments as if the Pope used the word, which he didn’t. There can certainly be enlightened capitalists - who take into account the humanity of people and consider their rights and needs. Those might be called, “good capitalists.” I work for one. A true socialist, however, will never be a good Christian. (cf Pope Pius XI). Socialism has been condemned. Capitalism has not. Only capitalism which is practiced in such a way that denies the rights and dignity of people, common good, etc. The problem with capitalism is capitalists. The problem with socialism is socialism.

Ishii

Always enjoy your responses. Thanks.

 

[Vouthon]

Notice how Pope Paul VI says we can neither adhere to Marxist ideology nor “liberal ideology…” Notice that he does not say, “capitalism” yet you insert that into your comments as if the Pope used the word, which he didn’t. There can certainly be enlightened capitalists - who take into account the humanity of people and consider their rights and needs. Those might be called, “good capitalists.” I work for one. A true socialist, however, will never be a good Christian. (cf Pope Pius XI). Socialism has been condemned. Capitalism has not. Only capitalism which is practiced in such a way that denies the rights and dignity of people, common good, etc. The problem with capitalism is capitalists. The problem with socialism is socialism.

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:

“…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

"…For as we know **the tension between East and West ** is not in itself an opposition between two different levels of development but rather between two concepts of the development of individuals and peoples both concepts being imperfect and in need of radical correction. This opposition is transferred to the developing countries themselves, and thus helps to widen the gap already existing on the economic level between North and South and which results from the distance between the two worlds: the more developed one and the less developed one.

This is one of the reasons why the Church’s social doctrine adopts a critical attitude towards both liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism. For from the point of view of development the question naturally arises: in what way and to what extent are these two systems capable of changes and updatings such as to favor or promote a true and integral development of individuals and peoples in modern society? In fact, these changes and updatings are urgent and essential for the cause of a development common to all

Each of the two blocs harbors in its own way a tendency towards imperialism…"

***- St. Pope John Paul II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (1987) ***

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]

Is it taxation or what the government does with the money?

Taxes don’t disappear. You get something in return (in theory).

Army for national defense, regulatory agencies, health services, scientific research, public education, etc.

Is it taxation that’s bothersome or people/programs perceived to be undeserving who/that receive public benefit?

Suppose the government used taxes only for public works deemed charitable, beneficial, and acceptable by the Church. Would you accept a tax rate of, say, 50%?

A very astute post

The problem is not the taxation, for it is biblically sanctioned as a divine precept that Christians must pay their taxes, but rather how those taxes are used by public authorities.

Venerable Pope Paul VI actually said in his 1967 encyclical:

"…Government officials, it is your concern to mobilize your peoples to form a more effective world solidarity, and above all to make them accept the necessary taxes on their luxuries and their wasteful expenditures, in order to bring about development and to save the peace…

The struggle against destitution, though urgent and necessary, is not enough. It is a question, rather, of building a world where every man, no matter what his race, religion or nationality, can live a fully human life, freed from servitude imposed on him by other men or by natural forces over which he has not sufficient control; a world where freedom is not an empty word and where the poor man Lazarus can sit down at the same table with the rich man. This demands great generosity, much sacrifice and unceasing effort on the part of the rich man.

**Let each one examine his conscience, a conscience that conveys a new message for our times. Is he prepared to support out of his own pocket works and undertakings organized in favor of the most destitute?

Is he ready to pay higher taxes so that the public authorities can intensify their efforts in favor of development?** Is he ready to pay a higher price for imported goods so that the producer may be more justly rewarded? Or to leave his country, if necessary and if he is young, in order to assist in this development of the young nations?.."

***- Ven. Pope Paul VI (Populorum Progressio), 1967 (#84) ***

If the taxed money is going towards the relieving of destitute people, peace and other worthy causes, then a higher tax rate is seen as a social good.

 

[Vouthon]

I know the Church has never defined such a tax rate–I guess what I am asking is has the Catholic Church ever taught that at some level that taxing of the population to redistribute wealth can go so high as to be morally wrong?

I’m not sure that it has, to be honest. Tax rates are not something that the church would be able to define in any exact or technical sense. It is a matter for every individual state to determine itself and this would vary depending on the circumstances. However the principles of Catholic Social Teaching do define in general terms what should characterize the tax system and as Catholic laity we have to translate these principles into specific contexts in our own countries.

What the Church has stated, in no uncertain terms, is that given the preferential option for the poor, the most important thing is for the tax system to be continually re-evaluated in terms of its impact on the most vulnerable in society:

“…The tax system should be continually evaluated in terms of its impact on the poor…First, the tax system should raise adequate revenues to pay for the public needs of society, especially to meet the basic needs of the poor. Secondly, the tax system should be structured according to the principle of progressivity, so that those with relatively greater financial resources pay a higher rate of taxation. The inclusion of such a principle in tax policies is an important means of reducing the severe inequalities of income and wealth in the nation. … Thirdly, families below the official poverty line should not be required to pay income taxes. Such families are, by definition, without sufficient resources to purchase the basic necessities of life. They should not be forced to bear the additional burden of paying income taxes…More specifically,** it is the responsibility of all citizens, acting through their government, to assist and empower the poor, the disadvantaged, the handicapped, and the unemployed**…Government may levy the taxes necessary to meet these responsibilities, and citizens have a moral obligation to pay those taxes…”

- Economic Justice for All (#123), pastoral letter promulgated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1986

When the Church argues that it stands above all with the vulnerable - the unborn in the womb, the poor, the oppressed, disabled etc. - it really means this.

 

[ishii]

A very astute post

The problem is not the taxation, for it is biblically sanctioned as a divine precept that Christians must pay their taxes, but rather how those taxes are used by public authorities.

Venerable Pope Paul VI actually said in his 1967 encyclical:

If the taxed money is going towards the relieving of destitute people, peace and other worthy causes, then a higher tax rate is seen as a social good.

Not astute at all. The problem is not just what they do with the tax money but how much is taxed. Indeed we get something in return for taxes: such as lower economic growth and classes of people dependent on aid. More poor people, not fewer. So yes, taxes can provide important services, but there are limits to what good can be accomplished by taxation. In fact, higher tax rates are often detrimental to the economy, society, etc

Ishii