You find nothing disappointing about the Pope of Rome supporting the Marxian concept of "Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!" "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? My family spent 70+ years in the workers paradise that espoused these views. Many of those years in Kolyma and Magadan. For the leader of the world's Roman Catholics to espouse this concept is unbelievable to those who have suffered under the hell of Communism.

Distributism (also known as distributionism, distributivism) is a third-way economic philosophy formulated by such Catholic thinkers as G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc to apply the principles of Catholic social teaching articulated by the Catholic Church, especially in Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum[1] and more expansively explained by Pope Pius XI's encyclical Quadragesimo Anno[2]

As a young man, Schumacher was a dedicated atheist, but his later rejection of materialist, capitalist, agnostic modernity was paralleled by a growing fascination with religion.[7][8] His interest in Buddhism has been noted. However, from the late 1950s on, Catholicism heavily influenced his thought. He noted the similarities between his own economic views and the teaching of papal encyclicals on socio-economic issues, from Leo XIII's "Rerum Novarum" to Pope John XXIII's "Mater et Magistra", as well as with the distributism supported by the Catholic thinkers G. K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc and Vincent McNabb. Philosophically, he absorbed much of Thomism, which provided an objective system in contrast to what he saw as the self-centered subjectivism and relativism of modern philosophy and society.[9] He also was greatly interested in the tradition of Christian mysticism, reading deeply such writers as St. Teresa of Avila and Thomas Merton. These were all interests that he shared with his friend, the Catholic writer Christopher Derrick. In 1971, he converted to Catholicism.

Did Christ or the Fathers have much to say about economics?

That is a serious question.

You find nothing disappointing about the Pope of Rome supporting the Marxian concept of "Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!" "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?

Acts 2:44-45 refers to monastics. Unless you are inferring that Christ was a Communist? Methinks someone lends too much credence to "liberation" theology.

Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." (Mat 19:21 RSV)

For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: If any one will not work, let him not eat. (2Th 3:10 RSV)

For we hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work in quietness and to earn their own living. (2Th 3:11-12 RSV)

I'm hoping someone can tell me how the redistribution of wealth and/or income is mandated by one's baptismal commitment, let alone how that would extend to the general call of His Holiness for a mandated redistribution of either by government(s)

ajk:

I was responding to your points in prticular as well as how they relate to the general topic.

I'm hoping someone can tell me how the redistribution of wealth and/or income is mandated by one's baptismal commitment,

...let alone how that would extend to the general call of His Holiness for a mandated redistribution of either by government(s).

I understand how your first quote from Christ is important for one to consider in one's pilgrimage. But taken literally, it also contradicts other passages where He says we cannot duck our familial responsibilities by saying we are dedicating something to God that could or should be dedicated to caring for family.

"In order to be true peacemakers, we must educate ourselves in compassion, solidarity, working together, fraternity, in being active within the community and concerned to raise awareness about national and international issues and the importance of seeking adequate mechanisms for the redistribution of wealth, the promotion of growth, cooperation for development and conflict resolution."

It seems impossible that anybody on this thread equating the pope's remarks with communism or socialism has actually read them. The only part that comes close is about leaders offering "concrete" assistance to parents in the education of their children. The rest of it is aimed at educators, families, and young people.

It would seem incumbent on decent christian folk to know what they're commenting on, even when it isn't the pope.

Mechanisms to redistribute wealth include: tax policies, social security systems, balanced and fair trading rules, protections for the rights of laborers, and a host of other things that are perfectly compatible with modern market capitalism.

Anyone who is blind to the inequities in the current systems and fails to see a need for some type of reform in the wealth distribution systems is either not honest with themselves or completely ignorant of the present economic reality in the world and in this country.

For the sake of decency, then, this is the full quote

More than ever, we need a Jubilee Year.

Oh, that will work well. Assuming that, like the ancient Hebrews, we have a purely agrarian-pastoralist economy and debt servitude. Otherwise, it's just a catastrophe in the making.

Translation is definitely a factor, and choosing "redistribution of wealth" is a very unfortunate choice, as it clearly resonates in a negative way to many many people.

Either it's exactly what was meant or distracts from the "real" message, but clearly isn't effective either way. The international headlines and threads such as this are pretty clear on that point.

If hours and hours of reading and study are required to make the true meaning compehensible, a book might have been a more effective medium than a press release.

Do you not see one coming?

The message of the Gospel is not ineffective because some can't comprehend it or because "it clearly resonates in a negative way to many many people."

why do I have so many Canadians clamoring, nay, begging to be treated by my colleagues and I?

". Moreover, if you take Adam Smith as the expositor of the ideal of capitalism, what you find in Wealth of Nations is very different from the caricature of amoral capitalism put forward by social democrats of various sorts.

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty or justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.
Book I, Chapter X, Part II, pg.152

So we can't properly understand it without extra unnamed reading, and you can't explain it on your own.

What is the point in releasing such a speech that will be misunderstood and inaccessable to most?

“For God, who has not given wisdom to other animals, he has made them more safe from attack in danger by natural defenses. But because He made man naked and defenseless, that He might rather furnish him with wisdom, He gave him, besides other things, this feeling of kindness; so that man should protect, love, and cherish man, and both receive and afford assistance against all dangers. Therefore kindness (humanitas) is the greatest bond of human society; and he who has broken this is to be deemed impious.” – Lactantius

Our common humanity stems from our common ancestry, for Lactanius insists that God created a single human being from whom all the rest are descended. Since we are all kindred being from whom all the rest are descended. Since we are all kindred, we owe each other aid in times of distress or difficulty. To stand aside and do nothing is to descend to the level of beasts, which are incapable of kindness (humanitas).

In speaking of Cyprian:


“I used to regard it as a difficult matter, and especially as difficult in respect to my character at that time, that a man should be capable of being born again…When does he learn thrift who has been used to liberal banquet and sumptuous feasts? And he who has been glittering in gold and purple, and has been celebrated for his costly attire, when does he reduce himself to ordinary and simple clothing ?” – Cyprian

One cannot be excused from almsgiving on the grounds that one has children for whose patrimony and inheritance one is responsible. To do so is to forsake one’s real responsibility for one’s children and therefore to betray them: “You are unfair and traitorous father, unless you…preserve them in religion and true piety. You who are careful rather for their earthy than for their heavenly state, rather to commend your children to the devil than to Christ, are sinning twice, both in not providing for your children the aid of God their Father, and in teaching your children to love their property more than Christ.”

In speaking of Tertullian


Christians must be ready at all times to suffer the loss of all possessions. After all, what they have is not truly theirs, and therefore to wish to posses it absolutely is to covet.

“Let us stand ready to endure every violence, having nothing which we may fear to leave behind. It is these things which are the bonds which retard our hope. Let us cast away earthy ornaments if we desire the heavenly.” – Tertullian

That Tertullian found it necessary to write such words is ample proof that the church contained some who lived–or at least were tempted to live–in sort of luxury that he deplored. As he stressed in the Apology, giving was voluntary. In such a situation, many would be tempted to retain for themselves as much as possible. In a sense, this was their right. But Tertullian was not content with that response, so he made three points to help lead rich Christians to greater largesse: (1) nothing that one has is one’s own, and therefore to be overly attached to it is just as sinful as desiring what belongs to another; (2) the Lord has shown a preference for the poor, and Christians ought to do likewise; (3) excessive ease and comfort weaken the believers for the many trials they may have to face, particularly the trial of martyrdom.

In speaking of Origen


To own things is to be indebted to Caesar–or, in some of the passages, to “the prince of the world”–and therefore the closer one is to being free of material possessions the less hold Caeser has on one.

In speaking of Clement of Alexandria


Furthermore, Clement is aware that the habits of a lifetime cannot be easily changed, and that is the rich are left to determine for themselves what is their just share in giving and the proper use of their wealth, they will tend to be too lenient. Therefore he concludes his treatise advising those amond the rich who really want to take seriously the work of their salvation to find someone to help them see the proper use of their wealth.

All would agree that it would be silly to make a pickax out of silver or a sickle out of gold; and yet, when it comes to household goods, many do not show the same wisdom as they do when making agricultural tools. A table knife does not cut better because it has an ivory handle, and a lamp does not give more light because it comes from the goldsmith’s shop rather than the potter’s. Yet the folly of luxury is such that some even have gold chamberpots, as if they could not set aside their price even when they relieve themselves.

Again, this does not mean that things in themselves are evil. But there is a measure for the possession of things, and that measure is their use. The theme of the use of things appears repeatedly in the writings of Clement, precisely when dealing with the manner in which one should deal with material goods. In the passage quoted above about the senselessness of gold and silver utensils should be “use, not expense.” The bowl from which the Lord ate was a common one. He told his disciples to recline on the grass, not on an ivory bed. he washed their feet in an earthen vessel, for he certainly did not bring a gold one down from heaven. In short “He made use, not extravagance His aim.” There is no need to condemn the Creator for having made these things. But we must remember that, from the point of view of usefulness, that which is without ostentation is best. The measure of proper use is necessity. Just as the size of the foot determines the size of the shoe, so should the needs of the body determine what one possesses. “All that we posses is give to us for use, and use for sufficiency.” Anything that goes beyond this is superfluous and is therefore a burden.

Note here that riches, in order to be overcome, have to be despised. It is not simply a matter of not allowing oneself to be ruled by them and then continuing along one’s merry way. Clement did believe that the rich could be saved, but only by using their riches in a certain way. This is why he suggested that rich Christians find wise mentors who could guide them both in managing their riches and in educating their souls. To manage wealth wisely, one must give it up knowing that one is thus purchasing life eternal.

According to Clement, the commonality of goods–or at least of their use–is not a strange notion taught by some philosophical schools or fanatical groups. It is part of the original order of creation. Clement’s argument is that whatever we own we possess only for use; that any use beyond the necessary is superfluous and a burden to the Christian life; that the only way in which we can truly possess what we do not need is by giving it away; and that therefore the best management of private property is to make it available for common use. God created humanity for sharing and began this process by sharing the divine logos. Is is our sharing in this logos that makes us human. Therefore, not to share is inhuman and goes against the very koinonia that is the basis of our creation (ouk anthropinon, oude, koinonikon)

In speaking of Irenaues


Thus Christians are to be ready to share their goods, first with the poor, but also with any who would take them away by force. In the latter case, Christians should “not grieve as those who are unwilling to be defrauded, but may rejoice as those who have given willingly.”

A little quote that hints at the answer to all the hand wringing over what the pope might have meant:

"Our error has been to assume that the choice is between their new order based on socialism, and our old order based on individualism. It is not. There is still another order of which the modern mind never thinks, because it has had no contact with genuine Christianity in over two hundred years, and that is the Christian order." - Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen.

A nice economic theory which founders on the rocks and shoals of economic reality.

Distributism works best only where human nature is other than it is. That makes it just one more utopian scheme. I abhor utopian schemes because they always end in misery and death.

Distributism works best only where human nature is other than it is. That makes it just one more utopian scheme. I abhor utopian schemes because they always end in misery and death.

The "American Dream" is very much out of line with the Christian Ideal.

Define your terms--in both cases.

Currently, that sadly seems true. Perhaps it was not always so ...

What is the American Dream?

James Truslow Adams, in his book The Epic of America, which was written in 1931, stated that the American dream is "that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position." (p.214-215)

The authors of the United States’ Declaration of Independence held certain truths to be self-evident: that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Might this sentiment be considered the foundation of the American Dream?

We must remember America was founded by people who believed wealth=God's favor

Unfortunately, the American dream is not necessarily "in line" with orthodox christianity...Pope Benedict is more in line with orthodox christian thought...

Redistribution of wealth is Christian when it is done voluntarily via the Church - not when it is done under compulsion of a secular State.