www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Pope Benedict Calls For Wealth Redistribution

I don't recall Christ saying it was the responsibility of the state to look after the poor. That mandate is given to us as individuals. Moreover, Christ had many wealthy friends--Mary, Martha and Lazarus among them--and He did not ask them to discard their wealth. He did so to the rich young man, but note that He did not compel or command--Christ says "If you would be perfect. . . " and does not command. Wealth is only an evil when it becomes an idol or an obstacle to perfection. In the meanwhile, neither the Church nor anyone else can compel someone to give all or some of his wealth to another person. There is an older part of the Bible that says both, "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not covet they neighbor's goods".

The primitive Church in Jerusalem, in expectation of the immanent Parousia, resolved to give up their private property and hold all goods in common. This, as one might have expected, was a colossal failure, so that by the time Paul is evangelizing in Antioch and Asia, the Church in Jerusalem has not just fallen into poverty, but is literally starving. Hence Paul, who had no problem with very rich patrons, takes up a collection for the poor who are in Jerusalem; i.e., for the Mother Church which, in its zeal to turn its back on the world, finds itself on the verge of extinction in this world.

Paul runs his Churches on a different principle, expressed in 2 Thess 3:10:

"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."

The Church has respected private property and the value of labor, and has never endorsed the use of government coercion to redistribute wealth. When we are presented before the dread tribunal seat of Christ, we aren't going to be asked whether we voted for extended unemployment benefits, or for more food stamps, or for higher taxes on the rich. We'll be asked what we did--personally--to help the hungry, the homeless, the sick and the suffering. And "I paid my taxes" will not do it. It's surprising to hear people effectively following the line of Ebenezer Scrooge, who, when asked about the poor, says "Are there no prisons? Are the workhouses no longer in operation? My taxes are used to support those institutions for the benefit of the poor".

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.

Which is also called Distributism.

The Distributist Review [distributistreview.com]

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

I understand that you are convinced that you know what you are talking about. I'm not. In this case, quite devoid of any specifics except your conclusion, I'm not sure quite where you're wrong, except your conclusion.

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.

That simply isn't so. There have been periods of time in our history when it was our widespread economic reality, and it is still true that among some cultures widely dispersed through our society now, ownership is the norm over employment. Fostering the idea that ownership of your own enterprise is better than working for a wage isn't a utopian scheme.

Also, everything works best where human nature is other than it is. This measure will have us abandoning the Church, marriage, parenthood, and gum chewing.

Check out this interesting and successful company.

http://www.rootcapital.org/about_team.php

It is not a "utopian scheme" Try telling that to those men who are owners in the [b]Mondragon Cooperative in Spain.[/b] [yesmagazine.org]

Capitalism, on the other hand, is a pipe dream for the greedy. The attraction of Capitalism is the lure of becoming fabulously wealthy and having all the toys and free time to spend on yourself that you desire. Why, you can even run for president of this wretched little country if you have enough money.

Somehow, I fail to find such desires to be in line with the warnings that our Lord gave us regarding riches and the lust for riches. The "American Dream" is very much out of line with the Christian Ideal.

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

Define your terms--in both cases.

Rush Limbaugh did a nice job one day of defining "The American Dream". I can't remember verbatim, but the gist of what he said was that it was the ability to make money and become the best you can become.

In other words, monks and nuns are not living the American Dream here in the USA and are an oddity. Haven't you ever wondered why vocations are so down in this country? It's because the dream is not for a life of self-sacrificial love, but rather "He who dies with the most toys wins!"

The Holy Fools of our faith would be looked down upon. So would the stylites and others who eschewed the pursuit of money for the pursuit of God.

Stuart, it's terribly clear to anyone who is looking for it. I keep wondering why you refuse to see it? The American Dream is at odds with much of what our Lord taught in the Scriptures.

How do you think St. Paul's admonition "Having therefore food and raiment, let us therewith be content?" would play on Limbaugh's program? How do you think that St. Athanasius' statement that those who keep more than they need for basic necessities of life do so by stealing from the poor? Or the statement that the goods of life are given to mankind to be shared equally?

And what of men like the Unmercenary Physicians, Sts. Cosmos and Damian and their going about to treat their fellow men for free?

Oh no, we can't have that sort of medicine in America, can we. People wouldn't be able to make $10 million a year salaries governing health care systems if such a system of mercy actually took place in this country.

And you ask for a definition?

Since you like to invent your own definitions, it's not possible to debate the matter rationally with you. I do wonder why all of these refugees from the sixties are suddenly popping out of the woodwork.