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

Your point?

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)

And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. (Acts 2:44-45 RSV)

Compare:

See above especially Acts 2:44-45.

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.

Not a communist, perhaps communal utopian

The experiment of the primitive Jerusalem Church holding all property in common was (as all such experiments tend to be) an abject failure. It was precisely the communal experiment (probably initiated because of imminent eschatological expectations) that Paul had, throughout his ministry, to take up a collection to support "the poor" of the Jerusalem Church.

Notice that Paul did not transfer the requirement that the baptized turn over all their property to the Ekklesia in any of the Churches he founded, but rather looked to the well-to-do to act as patrons and benefactors of his Churches, without which they would have ceased to function. Paul did not demand that his rich converts give their money to the Church (other than the tithe, which had deep Scriptural roots), but allowed them to do so voluntarily. Within the Hellenistic culture in which he moved, the sense of noblesse oblige was very strong: the wealthy were expected to spend their wealth on civic projects, charity and entertainments.

The pagans did so as a means of exalting themselves ("The rulers of this world lord it over you, and call themselves benefactors"); Christians were encouraged to do so to exalt Christ ("But it shall not be so with you. He who would make himself the ruler of all must first become the servant of all"). Thus, the competitive aspect of Hellenistic culture was harnessed to the Gospel, creating a "competitive humility" in which status accrued to those who did the most to place themselves in the service of all.

That's anachronistic, as there were no monastics in the first century Church. It has come to be applied in that manner, but that's not what it meant originally. See my previous post: the Jerusalem Church organized itself on a communitarian basis, holding all property in common--but that experiment failed, and none of the Apostles extended it beyond the Jerusalem Church for that reason. Human nature is immutable, which is why all communal experiments break down. The only rule that seems to work well is also from the Bible: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat" (II Thessalonians 3:10).

ajk:

I don't believe the first quote was meant to instruct a man with a family who is morally bound to provide for them. In addition, your next two quotes directly challenge the welfare state wherein we have generations of people on the dole who have not worked but have learned to work the system. I have worked with many such families in the course of my professional career.

We get the ideas of income and wealth redistribution mixed. They are two different things. Income is current; wealth is the accumulation over a long period of time. It is one thing to say that incomes should be more equitable when you have executives making hundreds of times what the average worker is making. It is not the same to say that if one family lives a frugal lifestyle and leaves an inheritance to succeeding generations that this should be taken from the heirs and distributed to everyone in the society.

In practical terms, it seems to me that is what is being called for. All of the wealth of the United States is in the hands of the people. Such wealth is in the form of many instruments. But let's say, for practical purposes, that we take some of this wealth--in the form of retirement instruments--and send it to the Third World for wealth redistribution. In other words, tomorrow, let's send all the public and private pension funds, the 401-K plans and the IRAs held by people in the United States to the IMF for redistribution. Then everyone can have the same level of benefits under Social Security that the poorest of our citizens have for retirement. That would be wealth redistribution. While we're at it, let's take everyone's savings and investments to add to the pot save for a total of $1000 per person. That, too, would be wealth redistribution. The communists did that in Russia and the wealth of that nation was squandered in a social experiment in building a utopia that collapsed under its own weight.

Not all wealth accumulation comes from exploiting others. Some of it comes from hard work, frugal living, and saving for the future and the benefit of one's family. To say that it should be taken away for others who live for today and who cares about tomorrow is unjust and immoral IMHO.

Bob

Bob,

I generally avoid one-on-one forum exchanges preferring to address my comments to the forum at large. Since you address me directly, however, and since having read my post, your post, my post, your post ...., I still don't see why you address me directly and solely with your comments, I ask for some further explanation. From my perspective, I responded to a question with what I considered several relevant quotes from scripture, without my making any other comment except to suggest a comparison, i.e. this post (note the actual question asked). That being so, could you please explain why and how your remarks pertain directly to me? I've provided the redacted items from your post in particular. Thank you.

ajk

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.

Bob

A just government would not infringe on the God-given rights of it's people. A Christian government would take that to another level and recognize those God-given rights in all people and act accordingly. When such a government rightly functions, it would take care of the least of not only it's own citizens, but also all citizens of the world as good stewards of God's gifts. Call it mandated redistribution at that point - 1, 2 and 3 must come to fruition before 4 can be discussed.

Consider the significance of the Twenty-fifth Chapter of Leviticus. It seems to me that we're all on welfare, and await a just distribution of God's gifts. A blessed Nativity to all!

I don't see anything in the Gospel that makes it the responsibility of government to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless and heal the sick. All of those are, to use a term, "individual mandates" that cannot be habitually delegated.

It's no coincidence that charitable activity is lowest in those countries that have the most extensive social welfare states--nor that charitable giving in this country is similarly lowest (both absolutely and per capita) in those states which have the most extensive welfare benefits. When the state is deputed to perform acts of mercy, most people consider their personal obligation to be fulfilled along with the filing of their tax returns.

Thanks, that's still a bit vague to me which is ok but then I have to surmise more than I'd prefer.

Justice - Righteousness. There's excessive wealth and excessive poverty existing side-by-side. Consider also the much-admired 19th c "philanthropist" who earned his wealth and the title by sucking the life out of the common folks in his employ and their families. We know the true Philanthrpos from the Liturgy.

"mandated"? Pope Benedict seems to presume a "redistribution" and that it should work better. Here's the relevant part of the message, the theme of which is "EDUCATING YOUNG PEOPLE IN JUSTICE AND PEACE":[emphasis added]
MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI
[vatican.va]FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE
WORLD DAY OF PEACE
1 JANUARY 2012

That's why scripture should be read "canonically," i.e., the entire canon not just isolated verses, and by the canon (measuring rod) which is the mind of the Church. The diversity in the scripture that I quoted took that understanding for granted with the result that it should not be said that one passage "contradicts other passages."

I asked for references from Christ or the Fathers because I was curious if anybody knew of precedent for instruction on how governments should order their financial policies.

It seems that the attributions in this thread are wise council to the faithful, but I'm not sure if that translates to national or international governmental bodies.

In short, I don't remember Jesus bringing any of this up except to remind people that they still owed taxes to the government even if He was their King - which I don't think applies.

I am always very wary when the Church gives policy suggestions to secular governments. It can get so messy.

You won't find anything in the Fathers on the responsibility of "government" for two reasons. First, there was nothing quite like the modern concept of "government" back then. The apparatus of the modern state is very much dependent on modern communications and technology. Second, what government they did have tended to take the form of personal rule. You had the Emperor. You had his provincial governors. You had city magistrates. And you had bishops, fulfilling a lot of the roles we now assign to government officials.

When someone like Chrysostoms castigates the Emperor and the ruling class for living in luxury while neglecting the poor, he's not calling for taxation of the rich, or the creation of government programs--the very notion is not just anachronistic, it's ludicrous. When he tells them to do more for the poor, he's addressing them as persons, because their persons encompass the offices they hold. Their wealth is largely the wealth of the state. When something needs to be done, aside from the basic requirement of paying the army (which accounted for something like 75% of state revenues), individuals did it out of their own pockets, with the Emperor setting the example. So, a homily by Chrysostom that calls for feeding the poor or clothing the naked is not advocacy for some sort of welfare state--it's an instruction to the rich to do more personally for those in need.