J
JamesCaruso
Guest
If one’s faith is in the economy first and foremost, I would say that one should support the economy to ensure that all prosper and even the poor experience the trickle down, and hopefully more than that, the stream down, effects of a vibrant economy. I believe there is a lot of truth to this proposition, and I agree more with it more than the tax and spend philosophy of the other side. But my faith is not first and foremost in the economy, it is first and foremost in God and his Infinite bounty. I don’t advocate reckless spending and therefore presumption regarding God’s providence, nor do I advocate measures to stimulate the economy in lieu of providing direct help to the needy especially where direct help is urgently needed. If I had to choose between donating my money to help stimulate the economy or donating it to provide direct assistance to the needy, I would choose the latter every time. God honors unselfish acts of mercy. Jesus did not refrain from healing every form of sickness and disease because in might put doctors and magicians out of work and subsequently do damage to Jewish economy.
I don’t buy the argument that the car purchased must be a luxury car. Instead, buy two or three cheaper cars, and give the excess car or two to the poor. There is no valid argument to live high on the hog to stimulate the economy in lieu of providing direct assistance to the needy. I’d rather employ people on the assembly lines and in the repair shops making and repairing more cars (not the luxury ones), because it means that more people who need cars will now have them, and the greater number of cars will put more people to work that the fewer luxury cars. The wealth will stream down to the poor in the form of jobs and cars instead of mainly being captured in the luxurious living of the wealthy.
On the airline scenario, there is no moral imperative to spend money where no need exists, but solely to stimulate the economy. Should we teach our children to withhold their church contributions and use them instead to take trips to the Caribbean in order to stimulate the tourist industry? Think of all those jobs-- travel agents, ship personnel, entertainers, diesel (or whatever ships run on) sales, souvenir shops, taxicabs, etc. No, even though it would stimulate the economy, it is an absurd idea. The help that it will do for our economy or to the visited economies will not meet the specific, urgent needs of the people directly where and when they are needed, even though it may help some of the people in some of the places in an untimely manner by the effects of a general prosperity over time.
To advocate for luxury spending in lieu of using the same money to provide direct assistance to the poor is a perversion of the gospel and indicates a lack of faith in God’s providence. Does anyone imagine that God is sitting in heaven hoping that people will wise up and buy more luxury cars in order to help the poor? Or does anyone thing that Almighty God will ignore the generosity of people to the poor in His Name, and fail to fill the gap where such generosity falls short? What is Providence if it is not doing whatever we can to help each other and then depending on God to supply whatever is lacking?
Our materialistic philosophy is seek first to be able to make a living, then to climb the economic ladder, and finally when one has acquired security, home, car, money in the bank, turn to God and seek his kingdom. Jesus’ philosophy turns our philosophy on its head. Seek first the kingdom of God and all this will be added to you. St. Francis took Jesus’ philosophy seriously. In terms of the vast populations that have lived down through the ages, not many have taken it seriously, unless they were poor or disadvantaged and thereby able to see and understand God’s Providence firsthand. Most of us have so much wealth in historical terms that we are not able to experience the Providence of God. We don’t need his Providence. We have decent jobs; insurance against accidents, liability, sickness and old age; we have homes and cars; and we have plenty of things with which to entertain ourselves. Providence is something we only think of if we lose our job, become ill, or face some terrible disaster. We have built a life and consequently a society that does not depend on God. We rely on the economy and the medical profession.
I don’t buy the argument that the car purchased must be a luxury car. Instead, buy two or three cheaper cars, and give the excess car or two to the poor. There is no valid argument to live high on the hog to stimulate the economy in lieu of providing direct assistance to the needy. I’d rather employ people on the assembly lines and in the repair shops making and repairing more cars (not the luxury ones), because it means that more people who need cars will now have them, and the greater number of cars will put more people to work that the fewer luxury cars. The wealth will stream down to the poor in the form of jobs and cars instead of mainly being captured in the luxurious living of the wealthy.
On the airline scenario, there is no moral imperative to spend money where no need exists, but solely to stimulate the economy. Should we teach our children to withhold their church contributions and use them instead to take trips to the Caribbean in order to stimulate the tourist industry? Think of all those jobs-- travel agents, ship personnel, entertainers, diesel (or whatever ships run on) sales, souvenir shops, taxicabs, etc. No, even though it would stimulate the economy, it is an absurd idea. The help that it will do for our economy or to the visited economies will not meet the specific, urgent needs of the people directly where and when they are needed, even though it may help some of the people in some of the places in an untimely manner by the effects of a general prosperity over time.
To advocate for luxury spending in lieu of using the same money to provide direct assistance to the poor is a perversion of the gospel and indicates a lack of faith in God’s providence. Does anyone imagine that God is sitting in heaven hoping that people will wise up and buy more luxury cars in order to help the poor? Or does anyone thing that Almighty God will ignore the generosity of people to the poor in His Name, and fail to fill the gap where such generosity falls short? What is Providence if it is not doing whatever we can to help each other and then depending on God to supply whatever is lacking?
Our materialistic philosophy is seek first to be able to make a living, then to climb the economic ladder, and finally when one has acquired security, home, car, money in the bank, turn to God and seek his kingdom. Jesus’ philosophy turns our philosophy on its head. Seek first the kingdom of God and all this will be added to you. St. Francis took Jesus’ philosophy seriously. In terms of the vast populations that have lived down through the ages, not many have taken it seriously, unless they were poor or disadvantaged and thereby able to see and understand God’s Providence firsthand. Most of us have so much wealth in historical terms that we are not able to experience the Providence of God. We don’t need his Providence. We have decent jobs; insurance against accidents, liability, sickness and old age; we have homes and cars; and we have plenty of things with which to entertain ourselves. Providence is something we only think of if we lose our job, become ill, or face some terrible disaster. We have built a life and consequently a society that does not depend on God. We rely on the economy and the medical profession.
