Outside the Box
by Matt Kaufman on 07/14/2009 at 8:09 AM
Interesting piece here by columnist Ross Douthat. He picks up on a papal encyclical released last week ("slightly overshadowed," he notes, "by a celebrity funeral of some sort") that he thinks deserves attention from Catholics and Protestants alike.
Called Caritas in Veritate ("Charity in Truth"), it covers a range of social issues from a standpoint that -- like many papal messages over a period of many years -- doesn't fit the standard left-right categories.
"'Caritas in Veritate' promotes a vision of economic solidarity rooted in moral conservatism," says Douthat. "It links the dignity of labor to the sanctity of marriage. It praises the redistribution of wealth while emphasizing the importance of decentralized governance. It connects the despoiling of the environment to the mass destruction of human embryos."
Douthat welcomes the message for its sheer provocativeness. It reminds all of us "that our present political alignments are not the only ones imaginable," he writes. "For liberals and conservatives alike, 'Caritas in Veritate' is an invitation to think anew about their alliances and litmus tests."
I welcome it too. I've got some differences with "Caritas." (Redistribution of wealth -- dicey stuff, that.) But it's serious moral argument, all of it, and it deserves serious consideration. Familiar labels -- liberal, conservative -- have their uses, but they can't capture the scope of it. Christians should have a bigger picture.
Any reactions, either to the (short) column or the (long) document? Let's hear 'em.
1. pass the ammunition said the following at 11:42 AM on Jul 14:
Why is distribution of wealth so dicey? Things are only considered "fair" (i.e. capitalism) when the outcomes favor the more priviledged.
2. Charlene Greene said the following at 1:14 PM on Jul 14:
What ever happened to Christians just being "true" Christians? Wasn't there a time when being a Christian meant following to whole Bible and making every decision through that view? If we are what we say we are and we believe what we say we believe, our decisions would be much different. I sometimes think we are not worthy to be called by HIS Holy name, CHRISTians.
3. IMO said the following at 1:22 PM on Jul 14:
#1
"Why is distribution of wealth so dicey?"
On what level? On a personal level, I can definitely give more to others.
On a governmental level, what country has done this and been successful? I honestly can't think of any, but maybe my knowledge of history of poor.
4. Jerome Colburn said the following at 7:16 PM on Jul 14:
"Redistribution of wealth" in CIV doesn't necessarily mean what we instinctively think it means. It can, and preferably should, take place through voluntary transactions, including market transactions -- employment, investment.
5. Mike said the following at 7:24 PM on Jul 14:
pass the ammunition (#1) wrote:
Why is distribution of wealth so dicey? Things are only considered "fair" (i.e. capitalism) when the outcomes favor the more priviledged.
"To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability." - Matthew 25:15
Is that "fair"?
Seems the Father rewards ability with higher monetary blessing...and responsibility. That sounds a lot like capitalism to me.
6. John the Aggie said the following at 7:49 PM on Jul 14:
Pass the ammunition, I think you were just trying to get a response and hope that you weren't serious.
Capitalism may be a poor system but it is the most fair we have come up with yet. It does reward the "privileged" if by that you mean the hard working along with those naturally blessed with intelligence and leadership. Perhaps it is not fair for some to be born with more mental capacity, but that's the way it is. Would it make more sense for the less capable to control more of society's resources than is proportionate to their ability?
I have family that lives under the poverty line through some tough circumstances, so don't think I'm a poor-basher. But income is correlated with success, and the reverse statement would be that poverty is linked with laziness and lack of life-momentum. Not 100% of the time... but quite often.
"You don't work... you don't eat." I may be paraphrasing, but that there is scripture...
7. BDB said the following at 9:31 PM on Jul 14:
The argument is not that capitalism is "fair." The argument is that the system is superior because it rewards those who work and innovate, and penalizes those that refuse to work. When everyone is motivated to work, the net result is that the whole society is wealthier.
Consider the right to trial by jury: the only countries that have it are wealthy countries. Those are the only countries where people can afford to take a few weeks off of work to sit in a trial.
I would never, ever want to live under one of those regimes where the government controls everything and my freedom was subject to the whim of the government employee who wants a bribe.
8. DP said the following at 8:31 AM on Jul 15:
" 42They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."
How Capitalistic does that sound? I really wonder what would happen if we actually tried to be 'Biblical' when it comes to this passage...
(not saying we should just give everything away to strangers, but how many suffering Christians do you know? and if you don't know any, why not?)
9. Jo said the following at 9:58 AM on Jul 15:
Here's the problem as I see it:
In an ideal, early church type scenario, we would all voluntarily contribute to helping the poor and disabled in our own communities, we would support those who couldn't support themselves and we would do so with glad and joyful hearts because we would be sharing 'everything in common and giving to each as he has need' (paraphrased from Acts 2).
So yes, I agree that in such an ideal scenario, the government should not have to do any of that for us.
BUT, how many of you actually honestly think that individuals in the society really would give selflessly, enough to do all that? Even if we limit it to the church, how many of you think that we could raise enough to meet the needs of all those who need help in our society? (Of course, the church in America is a lot bigger/richer than the church in the UK, so perhaps you can imagine that happening better than I can).
The question is, IF you agree with me that the above is extremely unlikely, what's the alternative, without some kind of tax system?
I sympathise with the view that the government wastes a lot and doesn't necessarily use our money in the best ways, and of course the system itself can always be improve. However, while I confess I'm not an expert in ecomonics, it seems to me that the government has to take a role in this, because if it doesn't, poverty will rise like crazy. Can anyone think of a better plan that's actually workable?
10. Ian said the following at 10:01 AM on Jul 15:
So. Ya'll are doing a real bang-up job of thinking outside the box by applying the usual, ideological forumlae. Irony much?
11. Mike said the following at 4:33 PM on Jul 15:
Jo (#9) wrote:
However, while I confess I'm not an expert in ecomonics, it seems to me that the government has to take a role in this, because if it doesn't, poverty will rise like crazy.
Unfortunately, while this notion meets the modern politically correct view, it doesn't match history.
For about a century and a half, America went from a relative do-nothing backwater to the wealthiest country in the world without any form of government intervention whatsoever.
When Lyndon Johnson declared "war on poverty" in the 1960s, we had a lower percentage of the population in poverty than we have now. And yet, we have poured billions into that rathole.
Fundamentally, any system that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul - but not on his input. That's why government solutions do not work, have never worked, and will never work: They do not rely on voluntary charity, but on coerced taxation. They violate Scripture:
"For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: 'If a man will not work, he shall not eat.'" - II Thessalonians 3:10
"Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." - II Corinthians 9:7
Government welfare programs violate both these principles. They give to those who do not work, and they compel resources away from those who do.
And, for those who say, "But what about the poor?":
"You will always have the poor among you..." - John 12:8
Poverty will never be solved in this world. It can be ameliorated, and we should certainly give to those who cannot take care of themselves, but it will NEVER go away this side of Heaven. And it will certainly not go away if you reward people for not being productive.
The solution for need is production, not redistribution. In order to have wealth, it must first be created - by innovation, work, and skill. It's not just some static quantity lying around on the ground waiting for some beneficent Caesar to come along and divvy up among the deserving.
When you punish people for producing (by taxing them), and reward them for being "needy" (with welfare programs), you will get less production and more need. What's worse, you encourage sloth - because it's easy to be "needy", but difficult to be productive. When you remove the consequences of not being productive - i.e. not eating - you'll find out very quickly that people will follow the behavioral model you've created.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher
I realize that taking care of the poor tugs at everyone's heartstrings. It does mine as well. But the best thing we can do for the poor is to kick them out of poverty. (To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin.) Give a man a fish? Or teach a man to fish?
Finally, government is not a compassionate animal. Its modus operandi - its reason for existence - is brute force. It's there to exert force to make people behave. And compassion and brute force are polar opposites. You can't hold a gun to someone's head and say, "Feel compassion!" It's fundamentally impossible.
Compassion is the job of the church - to whatever level of adequacy possible.
12. pass the ammunition said the following at 10:54 PM on Jul 15:
"Seems the Father rewards ability with higher monetary blessing...and responsibility. That sounds a lot like capitalism to me."
"It does reward the "privileged" if by that you mean the hard working along with those naturally blessed with intelligence and leadership. Perhaps it is not fair for some to be born with more mental capacity, but that's the way it is."
Yes, I completely agree with all of the above. If only those poor Africans had greater mental capacity God would reward their hard work with riches.
I get it now...instead of praying for a cure for AIDS I should have been asking God to get those lazy HIV-ridden bums in Malawi to get of their cans.
Don't you love how people equate financial success with morality? Wow...my first comment was meant to be incendiary but I'm still shocked at the sentiment and beliefs conveyed through people's responses. This is actually sad :(
13. LouiseinPA said the following at 7:32 PM on Jul 16:
I agree with ian (#10). It seems that what the Pope is saying is not that the answer is necessarily unbridled capitalism or socialism but something entirely different. What we need is a system to cares for all of God's children, uses natural resources responsibly, yet respects individual freedom.
The question is how can we promote such values? I am not sure what the answer is but I think we have to move beyond the past models which have clearly failed.
14. Texas Craig said the following at 10:49 PM on Jul 16:
I completely agree that capitalism is the best system we have. Communism (and socialism, to some degree), takes away many natural incentives for people to produce. Given the natural state of man's heart--i.e., fallen and selfish--the result of demotivation is a system that will not ultimately be sustainable.
On the other hand, we Christians too often use that general truth above as a shield to hide our own selfishness and sinfulness. We talk about how our giving should be voluntary, but then we barely give 10% (if that), even though so many of our brothers and sisters throughout the world have legitimate needs.
As Francis Chan has said, "we care more about our standard of living than about some people just living." Seriously, this conversation generally saddens me because I think this is one of the areas where the church has really fallen down. We are so selfish with our money, but we like to say that "it's all God's" while we gleely spend it on ourselves and our new flat panel TV.
So, yes, capitalism is good. But, Christians having hearts that truly care for the needs of others as much as their own reflects an even higher good. And, to all of those who are upset about having their money taken away by the government to help the poor, here is my response: Start giving away generously to the needs of others and you will not have to pay much in taxes, because our tax laws give a break for charitable donations.
15. Mike said the following at 5:37 AM on Jul 17:
pass the ammunition (#12):
How "moral" is it for the despots who rule those AIDS-ridden African countries to divert the billions in American aid away from their people into their militaries and own pockets?
How "moral" is it for the government of Sudan to arm and fund the Muslim militias who maim, rape, and kill, while simultaneously disarming anyone who stands in their way?
How "moral" is it for the government of Zimbabwe to forcibly take land away from one owner and give it to another, based solely on the race of each person - resulting in a dustbowl and inflation in the 1000% range?
Former UN Secretary General Koffi Annan once referred to subsaharan Africa as "a cocktail of disasters". The reason it is that way is precisely because its leaders - for the most part, committed Marxists - run their countries in blatant violation of Scriptural and capitalist principles. Throwing money at it in an attempt to be "compassionate" has clearly not solved the problem; it's only exacerbated it. Besides allowing the governments of those regions to hold the people under their thumbs, it creates a culture of permanent dependency - which is no fit state for a human being.
Please...spare us the snide remarks. It is plainly immoral, in ANY context, to use the brute force of government to steal from one person to give to another. Have you forgotten that little commandment, "Thou shalt not steal"?