Wealth and Catholic teaching

[jeromelives]

JButky:

Actually I did in my previous post with a major exception given for theoretical argument

The theory is not inherently flawed, the practical application always is by reason of the exception given.

Again, according to Church teaching it is inherently flawed. I would reccomend you take some time and read the statements and reading the Vatcian has issued on Liberation Theology as they give a pretty comprehensive explination of why.

It really all boils down the fact that the Church believes that their are certain human rights that are incompatible with and can not exist within a communist or socialist economic system. They mostly revolve around property rights and who gets to make decisions about the results of a person’s labor, but there are others.

Any system that would recognize these rights as defined by the church would by definition not be communist or socialist.

 

[jeromelives]

ahimsaman72:

Many people choose to work below their potential? That could be true in some cases.

Within socialist and communist societies nearly everyone eventually choses to work below their potential. This is why all of them, every single one, suffers from chronically high unemployment, stagnant economic growth and declining birth and population rates.

Aside from the issues of incompatibility with church teachings, the next biggest flaw in communist and socialist theory is that they incorrectly assume human beings are by their nature altrurstic when they are not. At the point where someone has promised a certain standard of living based on need most people, the overwhelming majority, cease having any incentive to work, produce, innovate and create.

Absent a profit or the possibility of improving ones own condition, people simply stop working. This also is why communism has always ended in death for so many. At the point people stop working and begin sitting around waiting for their promised standard of living, forcing them to work is the next logical step.

 

[jeromelives]

ahimsaman72:

They were denied for being overqualified. Would you hire a doctor to scrub the floors? You are actually holding THEM back by accepting them to do so. If you reject them hopefully they will go back to saving people’s lives.

Within the context of a communist or socialist society the point is moot as there will be very few doctors to concern yourself with.

Who is going to spend the years in school, endure the long hours in training, the often unpleasant working conditions and the take the responsibility when at the end they’ll receive no more than their needs dictate and be rewarded the same as the floor scrubber?

No one is and everyone will migrate to the jobs that require the least amount of effort.

Which then requires policies like those in socialist Europe and Scandinavia where children are slotted for education based on arbitrary test scores and careers and parents are cut out and bureauracrats take their place…

Now you have a system incompatible with Catholic teaching.

 

[vern_humphrey]

ahimsaman72:

See, it’s hard to converse with someone who mocks so openly.

Well, you do admit there was no doctor? And if you make up bizzare scenarios like this, I don’t really think you have a right to demand we all take them seriously, now do you?

ahimsaman72:

Provide for everyone the Biblical basis and/or Traditional basis for such a philosophy which says that people should not be content with their jobs even if it fulfills a positive role in society and they are happy with it. I believe any teacher who loves their job and makes a difference every day in the lives of our kids has definitely fulfilled what God would have them do. Who are you to say that they haven’t lived up to this utopian potential? Incredible - simply incredible philosophy.

Who are you to say that everyone should be satisfied with whatever job they can get?

 

[vern_humphrey]

jeromelives:

Within the context of a communist or socialist society the point is moot as there will be very few doctors to concern yourself with.

Who is going to spend the years in school, endure the long hours in training, the often unpleasant working conditions and the take the responsibility when at the end they’ll receive no more than their needs dictate and be rewarded the same as the floor scrubber?

No one is and everyone will migrate to the jobs that require the least amount of effort.

Which then requires policies like those in socialist Europe and Scandinavia where children are slotted for education based on arbitrary test scores and careers and parents are cut out and bureauracrats take their place…

Now you have a system incompatible with Catholic teaching.

A few years ago, I re-read Edward Bellamy’s “Looking Backward.”

For those who aren’t familiar with it, this novel was written in the late 19th Century, and is about a man who wakes up in the early 21st Century – in a Socialist Utopia.

Although it is a bubbly little book, full of enthusiasm and even has a love interest, something kept nagging me as I read it. Finally I came to the part where the “Doctor” explains how "society"deals with people who won’t work – they go to prison and are forced to do hard labor.

Then I realized – Bellamy foreshadowed Stalin’s NEP by about 40 years.

 

[ahimsaman72]

vern humphrey:

Well, you do admit there was no doctor? And if you make up bizzare scenarios like this, I don’t really think you have a right to demand we all take them seriously, now do you?

That was a hypothetical situation if you didn’t notice. Besides that I gave you a true example which is the same scenario - highly educated, brilliant mind wanting a general laborer position. Why is the first hypothetical situation bizarre? It’s up to you to take things seriously. The only reason you can resort to this kind of ridiculous statement is that you can’t prove your point otherwise - a ploy to lead the argument elsewhere.

Who are you to say that everyone should be satisfied with whatever job they can get?

Here is part of your problem. I never implied EVERYONE on planet earth should stay where they are. I actually said otherwise. It’s not my thinking you have a problem with - it’s your own misunderstanding.

And who are you to say (hypothetically) that they should NOT be satisfied with their job - (not any job they can get). I gave you the scenario of a teacher and carpenter and you proposed that they are limiting themselves and not living up to their potential - which to me is a slap in the face to hard-working teachers, emergency personnel and other civic members of the community.

You are in essence saying they are lazy members of society, is that correct?

And I see that you failed to offer Biblical and/or Traditional proof for your philosophy espoused here. Offer it if you have it - don’t keep us all in suspense.

 

[ahimsaman72]

jeromelives:

Within socialist and communist societies nearly everyone eventually choses to work below their potential. This is why all of them, every single one, suffers from chronically high unemployment, stagnant economic growth and declining birth and population rates.

Aside from the issues of incompatibility with church teachings, the next biggest flaw in communist and socialist theory is that they incorrectly assume human beings are by their nature altrurstic when they are not. At the point where someone has promised a certain standard of living based on need most people, the overwhelming majority, cease having any incentive to work, produce, innovate and create.

Absent a profit or the possibility of improving ones own condition, people simply stop working. This also is why communism has always ended in death for so many. At the point people stop working and begin sitting around waiting for their promised standard of living, forcing them to work is the next logical step.

I do not espouse socialist or communist principles - I simply don’t believe Capitalism is the utopian system folks seem to think it is.

 

[ahimsaman72]

jeromelives:

Within the context of a communist or socialist society the point is moot as there will be very few doctors to concern yourself with.

Who is going to spend the years in school, endure the long hours in training, the often unpleasant working conditions and the take the responsibility when at the end they’ll receive no more than their needs dictate and be rewarded the same as the floor scrubber?

No one is and everyone will migrate to the jobs that require the least amount of effort.

Which then requires policies like those in socialist Europe and Scandinavia where children are slotted for education based on arbitrary test scores and careers and parents are cut out and bureauracrats take their place…

Now you have a system incompatible with Catholic teaching.

Again, I’m not espousing Socialist or Communist principles. I provided examples (hypothetical and real) of situations.

 

[ahimsaman72]

vern humphrey:

Well, you do admit there was no doctor? And if you make up bizzare scenarios like this, I don’t really think you have a right to demand we all take them seriously, now do you?

So, mockery is conducive to dialogue?

 

[vern_humphrey]

ahimsaman72:

That was a hypothetical situation if you didn’t notice.

Hypothetical situations that are rediculous aren’t worth much to illustrate points in debate.

ahimsaman72:

Besides that I gave you a true example which is the same scenario - highly educated, brilliant mind wanting a general laborer position. Why is the first hypothetical situation bizarre?

You say you had a real case, but chose to make one up?

Now that’s bizzare!!

ahimsaman72:

It’s up to you to take things seriously. The only reason you can resort to this kind of ridiculous statement is that you can’t prove your point otherwise - a ploy to lead the argument elsewhere.

Given that you admit you made it up, why should you expect anyone to take it seriously?

ahimsaman72:

Here is part of your problem. I never implied EVERYONE on planet earth should stay where they are. I actually said otherwise. It’s not my thinking you have a problem with - it’s your own misunderstanding.

Yet you keep arguing as if the majority should stay where they are.

My position is the majority should strive to better their positions – and the minority be encouraged to do likewise.

ahimsaman72:

And who are you to say (hypothetically) that they should NOT be satisfied with their job - (not any job they can get). I gave you the scenario of a teacher and carpenter and you proposed that they are limiting themselves and not living up to their potential - which to me is a slap in the face to hard-working teachers, emergency personnel and other civic members of the community.

I never slapped anyone in the face. It’s not my thinking you have a problem with - it’s your own misunderstanding.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

ahimsaman72:

You are in essence saying they are lazy members of society, is that correct?

I am saying that everyone has a duty to maximize his God-given talents. I say we have a duty to educate people up to their potential, and to encourage them in their efforts to better themselves.

I also say that if those who do maximize their potential have a duty to care for others, those who do not maximize their potential have no less of a duty.

ahimsaman72:

And I see that you failed to offer Biblical and/or Traditional proof for your philosophy espoused here. Offer it if you have it - don’t keep us all in suspense.

And while I’m at it, offer Biblical and/or Traditional proof for space travel, nuclear power and organ transplants?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

The Bible is not an economic treatise.

 

[vern_humphrey]

ahimsaman72:

So, mockery is conducive to dialogue?

Often gentle humor will cause learning to occur.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[ahimsaman72]

vern humphrey:

Hypothetical situations that are rediculous aren’t worth much to illustrate points in debate.

Your opinion that it was ridiculous.

You say you had a real case, but chose to make one up?

Now that’s bizzare!!

I gave the hypothetical and then to further illustrate the point gave a real life example which you commented on.

Given that you admit you made it up, why should you expect anyone to take it seriously?

You have a personal problem with hypotheticals? Don’t you feel hypotheticals are a valid tool for understanding? How bizarre!

Yet you keep arguing as if the majority should stay where they are.

My position is the majority should strive to better their positions – and the minority be encouraged to do likewise.

No I’m not arguing that point.

My position is that it the minority should strive to better their positions (because the minority have the capabilities) and the majority encouraged to be content with their work and be happy about it without feeling shame because they didn’t meet some idealistic philosophy of yours.

I never slapped anyone in the face. It’s not my thinking you have a problem with - it’s your own misunderstanding.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

When you have the guts to tell the whole world that our local teachers, firemen, men and women tradesman are wasting their potential by providing valuable assistance to the community then you have certainly slapped them in the face. Are they or are they not in your opinion lazy members of society for staying in their position of teaching, carpentry, etc?? Just trying to finally get you to own up to this if it’s true. If that’s what you think, tell me plainly. No politics - just bare it all.

I am saying that everyone has a duty to maximize his God-given talents. I say we have a duty to educate people up to their potential, and to encourage them in their efforts to better themselves.

I also say that if those who do maximize their potential have a duty to care for others, those who do not maximize their potential have no less of a duty.

In other words teachers, firemen, policemen, carpenters, brick layers, etc are lazy wasters of their God-given talents (which are admittedly your subjective notion of what they are) and should be put on the fast track to an unfulfilling position of society because you simply view them as lazy wasters of God-given talents???

And while I’m at it, offer Biblical and/or Traditional proof for space travel, nuclear power and organ transplants?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

The Bible is not an economic treatise.

You just can’t admit you have no basis for your philosophy other than someone taught it to you and you fell for it hook, line and sinker and now push it onto the rest of us who use the Bible and/or Tradition to live our lives by?

Hahaha, the oldest one in the book - answer a question with a question and dodge rather than offer a simple and honest answer for your flawed beliefs.

 

[JButky]

jeromelives:

Then what you are describing is something other than Communism or Socialism, which by definition are centered around governments that make decisions for individuals that church teaches are reserved by god for the individual to make.

I hope you are beginning to see that I am speaking in purely theoretical terms based on elimination of the effects of original sin, which is not possible.

I am also well aware of the Curches teachings on Liberation Theology and others and my comments are completely based on an if (elimination of Man’s darkened nature) that doesn’t exist. Please reread my comments from that perspective and you will hopefully understand.

From the catechism:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a7.htm#2425

"2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended. "

The reasons for my statements are based on theory, identifying a root cause of these condemnations which are found in the Catechism. Namely, they don’t work because of the the reality of Original Sin. Theoretically…eliminate original sin and a different level of reasoning kicks in. Not possible in reality, only a theoretical exercise.

Joe B

 

[ahimsaman72]

vern humphrey:

Often gentle humor will cause learning to occur.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

More often a sincere, compassionate word with intelligence will be the catalyst for learning and mutual edification - not your subjective mockery of a person’s position.

 

[nico1089]

The ultimate goal of man is God. Any work or wealth or actions we take are steps (sub goals) to achieve the end goal. We all tend to lose sight of this in trying to achive these sub-goals and make them and end in themselves. To better ourselves really means to keep advancing to the end goal (God) and not keep persuing one of the sub goals such as wealth. The gifts and talents we have recieved are means to attain the end goal. They are not meant to be developed to their highest potential in themselves, but only as a means to the end goal. They are not meant to be self-serving.
As far as someone being “under-employed” this may seem so in the eyes of the world but God might see it differently. We can hardly judge the man by appearence, we don’t know his inner life. There is nothing wrong with encouraging someone who we think is not reaching their potential, but must realize that the potential should be seen in a spiritual light and not material.–nicolo

 

[ahimsaman72]

nico1089:

The ultimate goal of man is God. Any work or wealth or actions we take are steps (sub goals) to achieve the end goal. We all tend to lose sight of this in trying to achive these sub-goals and make them and end in themselves. To better ourselves really means to keep advancing to the end goal (God) and not keep persuing one of the sub goals such as wealth. The gifts and talents we have recieved are means to attain the end goal. They are not meant to be developed to their highest potential in themselves, but only as a means to the end goal. They are not meant to be self-serving.
As far as someone being “under-employed” this may seem so in the eyes of the world but God might see it differently. We can hardly judge the man by appearence, we don’t know his inner life. There is nothing wrong with encouraging someone who we think is not reaching their potential, but must realize that the potential should be seen in a spiritual light and not material.–nicolo

Well said. I agree.

 

[vern_humphrey]

ahimsaman72:

Your opinion that it was ridiculous.

And I don’t have a right to express my opinon?

ahimsaman72:

I gave the hypothetical and then to further illustrate the point gave a real life example which you commented on.

Since the first case was made up, perhaps that affects the believeablity of the second.

ahimsaman72:

You have a personal problem with hypotheticals? Don’t you feel hypotheticals are a valid tool for understanding? How bizarre!

You feel bizzare hypotheticals are a valid tool for understanding?

ahimsaman72:

My position is that it the minority should strive to better their positions (because the minority have the capabilities) and the majority encouraged to be content with their work and be happy about it without feeling shame because they didn’t meet some idealistic philosophy of yours.

And who was it that was “shamed” by my comments? The doctor?

ahimsaman72:

When you have the guts to tell the whole world that our local teachers, firemen, men and women tradesman are wasting their potential by providing valuable assistance to the community then you have certainly slapped them in the face.

You keep trying to make this personal.

Let’s try it like this, using your own words:

When you have the guts to tell the whole world that our local teachers, firemen, men and women tradesman must remain in their present positions for life, and must give up all aspirations for bettering themselves then you have certainly slapped them in the face.

ahimsaman72:

Are they or are they not in your opinion lazy members of society for staying in their position of teaching, carpentry, etc?? Just trying to finally get you to own up to this if it’s true. If that’s what you think, tell me plainly. No politics - just bare it all.

Every person should maximize the gifts that God gave them.

ahimsaman72:

In other words teachers, firemen, policemen, carpenters, brick layers, etc are lazy wasters of their God-given talents (which are admittedly your subjective notion of what they are) and should be put on the fast track to an unfulfilling position of society because you simply view them as lazy wasters of God-given talents???

Who made you the spokesman for teachers, firemen, policemen, carpenters, brick layers, etc? Who laid down the law that teachers, firemen, policemen, carpenters, brick layers, etc are not allowed to work their way up the ladder?

Have you told the teachers, firemen, policemen, carpenters, brick layers, etc that you have decreed that they must remain in their present positions for life, and cannot aspire to higher things?

ahimsaman72:

You just can’t admit you have no basis for your philosophy other than someone taught it to you and you fell for it hook, line and sinker and now push it onto the rest of us who use the Bible and/or Tradition to live our lives by?

Where is your biblical or traditional basis for saying people must be locked into their jobs, and have no obligation to seek to better themselves?

You just can’t admit you have no basis for your philosophy other than someone taught it to you and you fell for it hook, line and sinker and now push it onto the rest of us who use the Bible and/or Tradition to live our lives by?

ahimsaman72:

Hahaha, the oldest one in the book - answer a question with a question and dodge rather than offer a simple and honest answer for your flawed beliefs.

You keep trying to make it personal.

My answer is simple: everyone has an obligation to maximize his God-given talents. Do you deny that?

 

[vern_humphrey]

nico1089:

To better ourselves really means to keep advancing to the end goal (God) and not keep persuing one of the sub goals such as wealth. The gifts and talents we have recieved are means to attain the end goal. They are not meant to be developed to their highest potential in themselves, but only as a means to the end goal. They are not meant to be self-serving.

Which is why we have a duty to maximize the talents which God gave us.

You don’t deny that there is suffering and poverty in the world? Then those who can must help alleviate that suffering and poverty – that is, we must produce a surplus for the poor, and not consume all we produce, or more.

Yet we do have people who can work and who will not – and they consume what should rightfully go to those who cannot work.

 

[ahimsaman72]

vern humphrey:

And I don’t have a right to express my opinon?

Of course - right or wrong or indifferent.

Since the first case was made up, perhaps that affects the believeablity of the second.

Only in your mind.

You feel bizzare hypotheticals are a valid tool for understanding?

Bizarre is your subjective view.

And who was it that was “shamed” by my comments? The doctor?

You keep trying to make this personal.

No, you only take it that way.

Let’s try it like this, using your own words:

When you have the guts to tell the whole world that our local teachers, firemen, men and women tradesman must remain in their present positions for life, and must give up all aspirations for bettering themselves then you have certainly slapped them in the face.

Yes, those were my words - your point?

Every person should maximize the gifts that God gave them.

And you are the sole arbiter of what those gifts are?

Who made you the spokesman for teachers, firemen, policemen, carpenters, brick layers, etc? Who laid down the law that teachers, firemen, policemen, carpenters, brick layers, etc are not allowed to work their way up the ladder?

Have you told the teachers, firemen, policemen, carpenters, brick layers, etc that you have decreed that they must remain in their present positions for life, and cannot aspire to higher things?

When people are belittled by others I tend to come to their aid. You continue to believe that I think all people should be FORCED to stay where they are. I’ve not said this at all. I don’t believe they should be FORCED into your plan of elitism or FORCED into being stuck in their current job.

You assume that these people are unhappy and should aspire further in life? Why? Why can’t they be proud of the job they do every day and enjoy it? I get the feeling that you want people to be miserable just because it fits into your plan of elitism.

Where is your biblical or traditional basis for saying people must be locked into their jobs, and have no obligation to seek to better themselves?

Avoiding the question for the third time. And, you continue to put forth this idea of “locking” people into their jobs. Where are you getting this?

You just can’t admit you have no basis for your philosophy other than someone taught it to you and you fell for it hook, line and sinker and now push it onto the rest of us who use the Bible and/or Tradition to live our lives by?

You keep trying to make it personal.

I was using logical implication which is completely in line with your definition of what logical implication is.

My answer is simple: everyone has an obligation to maximize his God-given talents. Do you deny that?

Your answer seems to be evasive. You keep giving general statements and repeating them. Question: What are these God-given talents people are supposed to be using?

Let me give you an example - (oh my gosh - here’s a hypothetical) are you ready?

Jane is loving, kind, and loves working with children. She is intelligent and witty and feels like God has given her the ability to connect with children on an emotional level and spiritual level. And given that she is intelligent and feels like she would be serving God by using these multiple attributes in a teaching position at the local elementary school.

What is wrong with this? If she spends the rest of her life in the service of the community BECAUSE SHE WANTS TO and FEELS GOD URGING HER in this endeavor - who are you and I to say that she should naturally strive to be a principal - superintendent or anything else?

That’s my point - she may be completely whole as a person in a teaching position and affect the lives of countless children over the years of her career. And do you want to FORCE her to become a principal? Is she LAZY because she enjoys her job and benefits society?

 

[ahimsaman72]

vernhumphrey:

And, here’s a sampling of multiple Scriptural support for contentment and wealth. Can you offer any support for your philosophy.

Luke 3:14 - And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

Philippians 4:11 - Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.

1 Timothy 6:6 - But godliness with contentment is great gain.

1 Timothy 6:8 - And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.

Hebrews 13:5 - Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.