Replies

Read the whole thing this afternoon. I think it is a work of patristic genius. There is nothing here, PM, that The Church, at base, hasn’t been teaching for 2000 years. Read +John Chrysostomos “On Wealth and Poverty” and compare it to what +BXVI has written.

I think I found some things the church has not been teaching for 2000 years. As instructed, I will compare Chrysostomos to this encyclical.

"Wealth and Poverty" never advocates greater government involvement, nor a "social justice" model of commerce (this encyclical does). It explores the parable of Lazarus and the rich man asking how individuals should handle wealth for salvation.

I find nothing consistent between Chrysostomos advocating individuals donating to the poor(individual piety freely given), and this encyclical veering into discussing a state that forcibly takes wealth and "redistributes" it to others-- not for necessary public services but for "social justice" and "market justice".

Much in this encyclical is an ordinary and unsurprising natural growth from previous christian thought. It's not all bad. But perhaps the document veers from its core competency when they get to talking about government redistribution so much.

35. “But the social doctrine of the Church has unceasingly highlighted the importance of distributive justice and social justice for the market economy...”

Unfortunately people who talk a lot about "distributive justice" and "social justice" today look to coercive socialist government models that involve crushing levels of taxation and punitive means to enforce their own vision of piety. While Chrysostomos advocated that individuals donate to the poor, he never suggested that centurians should force merchants to give money to less successful merchants, or subsidize buyers with less money.

36.”Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution.”

Here the encyclical decries government inaction, and calls for greater government market intervention to create "justice" with "redistribution". Lost are the real world lessons that corruption, injustice and oppression often coincide with greater government involvement.

Some examples of governments that pursued justice through greater intervention in the market include Cambodia, North Korea, Stalin's USSR, etc... These are extreme examples but there are many more examples of greater government intervention leading to more suffering and a less Christian outcome. Maybe the encyclical should have tread more carefully in bemoaning government inaction in the market.

37.”Economic life undoubtedly requires contracts, in order to regulate relations of exchange between goods of equivalent value. But it also needs just laws and forms of redistribution governed by politics...”

Why does it need redistribution? Maybe they have wandered well beyond a natural extrapolation of Christian teaching, don't you think? Certainly it not anything consistent with what Chrysostomos. If the scope of what they are talking about is caring for the most needy and impoverished, they should say so, instead of broadly advocating "redistribution".

I really like the section where they say that individuals should reflect on their behavior at every level of commerce. Our actions affect lots of people. It's when the document veers from individual piety to collective that they wander afield. When the document starts explicitly advocating greater government involvement and "market justice" they are on dangerous ground. In any case I totally disagree with the suggestion that this is what the Christian church has taught for 2000 years.

relevant links to make up your own mind.

Encyclical:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

On Wealth and Poverty:
(see especially section 35-42)

http://books.google.com/books?id=r3U_Ym4G5zQC&dq=%22on+wealth+and+poverty%22&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=U6GimrbZsL&sig=RQ9UdZDu_syS_eHgunRzRb2Ex8E&hl=en&ei=MRVUSvy_EITatgPMmsmYDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

I’m a bit surprised at your response, MA. You know who +John Chrysostomos was preaching to in his Homilies, it was to the ruling elites of the Empire, the government. Homily L on Matthew is a good example:

“Do you really wish to pay homage to Christ’s body? Then do not neglect him when he is naked. At the same time that you honor him here [in Church] with hangings made of silk, do not ignore him outside when he perishes from cold and nakedness. For the One who said “This is my body”… also said “When I was hungry you gave me nothing to eat.”… For is there any point in his table being laden with golden cups while he himself is perishing from hunger? First fill him when he is hungry and then set his table with lavish ornaments. Are you making a golden cup for him at the very moment when you refuse to give him a cup of cold water? Do you decorate his table with cloths flecked with gold, while at the same time you neglect to give him what is necessary for him to cover himself? … I’m saying all this not to forbid your gifts of munificence, but to admonish you to perform those other duties at the same time, or rather before, you do these. No one was ever condemned for neglecting to be munificent: for the neglect of others hell
itself is threatened, as well as unquenchable fire....”

Here at sec. 4 he isn’t speaking to the local shoemaker, MA. It was the imperial nobility and the great merchants who decorated the churches of The City and they, MA, were the government.

Much in this encyclical is an ordinary and unsurprising natural growth from previous christian thought. It's not all bad. But perhaps the document veers from its core competency when they get to talking about government redistribution so much.

That is the most troubling part of the encyclical--the phrase "redistribution of wealth" seemed quite out of keeping with prior Church teaching and makes me suspect the hand of the translator. I'll be curious to see what the actual Latin words were.