Why As Catholics We Ought To Reject Capitialism

Why As Catholics We Ought To Reject Capitialism
I think this statement illustrates a view that is very uncatholic not directly or indirectly. There is nothing wrong with someone supporting capitalism. Of course their ar particular abuses in any system that no catholic can support. But currently the capitalist system currently in use is the most just system currently in use. It beats the current use of communisam hands down.

SolomonVII said:

Okay then....

I tried to warn you what was going to happen, but it seems like you know better.


And now it is happening..

Click to expand...

OH, that has happened long before this thread.

Jim

Personally, I love the idea of not working and living off the efforts of someone else. It's not that I'm lazy, it's just that I enjoy doing a lot of things that don't involve earning a living. I think people that work shouldn't mind having money extracted from them to give to those that don't work.

As Christians we need to reinterpret the words, "he who will not work, should not eat". That was uttered in a former time and no longer reflects what is important now. I mean, we have way more filthy rich people then they had in biblical times. And people with money are intrinsically evil anyway. If they were decent, they would voluntarily give it all away. Instead, they use their money for their own lifestyle and enjoyment. That's wrong. People are not entitled to the fruits of their labor.

I dont like the idea of working either.
If everyone quit working - we could all party all day long.
Let the rich pay our way, i say.

WarriorAngel said:

I dont like the idea of working either.
If everyone quit working - we could all party all day long.
Let the rich pay our way, i say.

Click to expand...

Sista!

JimR-OCDS said:

OH, that has happened long before this thread.

Jim

Click to expand...

For good reason.

When people use the term "socialism", are they referring to countries like Denmark ?

Thekla said:

When people use the term "socialism", are they referring to countries like Denmark ?

Click to expand...

Economy of Denmark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

JimR-OCDS said:

Actually what Scripture speaks about concerning the Early Christians, was pure communism.


Jim

Click to expand...

that is ridiculous. Christianity is at odd ends with communism.

The Catholic Church's social teaching in a way supports certain areas of capitalism. However more a capitalism centered around non-centralized workers and unions rather than a central government

Rerum Novarum does not speak against capitalism either as it talks about the very importance of the right and privacy to property.. It originally was created to talk about exploitation of workers and the unfair treatment of the working class, not as a hammer to capitalism itself.It speaks against corrupt and unrestricted capitalism. It also about talks about the authority of the magistarium related to the common worker and the fair treatment of workers and fair wages(living wage).


The Catholic Church condemns socialism and communism. Capitalism it does not however, only in its pure sense it does, hence the OP is wrong and misleading..

TheOtherHockeyMom said:

Looking at the statement "he who will not work, should not eat", it sounds good in principle, but I do wonder...
If this "he" has children, should they also not eat?
If this "he" is handicapped, physically or mentally, should he not eat?
If this "he" cannot find appropriate work, (i.e. a classically trained professional musician in their 60's looking at the only available job loading freight at the docks..) should they not eat?
Does this also apply to "she's"...how do women fit in? if they are single?, married? have kids?
Is there an age limit?

Click to expand...

I think the opperative words are "will not". Those that can't aren't obligated. And yes, regardless of training and experience, if you're offered a job you should take it. All moral work honors the Lord.

But like I said, I'd rather live off someone else's efforts. Why should I work if I don't want to?

Veritas said:

I think the opperative words are "will not". Those that can't aren't obligated. And yes, regardless of training and experience, if you're offered a job you should take it. All moral work honors the Lord.

But like I said, I'd rather live off someone else's efforts. Why should I work if I don't want to?

Click to expand...

We are not to desire to avoid working [because its easier] but that we should not be lazy and take off others. LAZY [sloth] is the idea behind that.

Wanting [envying] others their compensation for working is against the Ten Commandments too.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods.

Therefore, we shouldnt be crying out that the rich dont deserve their goods and that they need to spread their wealth around...for those who can work but refuse.

And umma tell ya, thats about 80% of all welfare / government hand out [agencies] recipients.
IF i count the number of ppl i know - proportionate to their ability to work, in context of what they say - yea...at least 80%.

The ones i have talked to - and know - say - 'If i can, why not?'

That text was specific to its time, in that it was aimed at Christians who had ceased to work in anticipation of the Parousia's being imminent.

Dom Helder Camara, late Archbishop of Recife, Brazil, indicated the nature of capitalism succinctly: "To examine capitalism is to indict it."

It was the same Archbishop who once remarked: "When I give to the poor, they called me a saint, but when I ask why they have no food, they call me a Communist."

Capitalism is, in fact, open-ended, systematised greed, and in recent times has been rendered more demonic by its being founded on the tenet that the only morality a corporation must observe is to make a profit. In short, the bottom-line is God. Thank you for that precious insight, Milton Friedman.

WarriorAngel said:

We are not to desire to avoid working [because its easier] but that we should not be lazy and take off others. LAZY [sloth] is the idea behind that.

Wanting [envying] others their compensation for working is against the Ten Commandments too.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods.

Therefore, we shouldnt be crying out that the rich dont deserve their goods and that they need to spread their wealth around...for those who can work but refuse.

And umma tell ya, thats about 80% of all welfare / government hand out [agencies] recipients.
IF i count the number of ppl i know - proportionate to their ability to work, in context of what they say - yea...at least 80%.

The ones i have talked to - and know - say - 'If i can, why not?'

Click to expand...

true, but the Church looks down on pompous wealth and greediness, or the attitude of "its all mine". I cannot help but think of the Rich man and Lazarus. I think there is also a balance between the issues of things like charity, tithing, shelters, food shelfs, which involves the distribution of wealth.

Lots of those lazy people also involve the wealthy, they sit in comfortable homes with their pompous parties and are able to rely on their money to spend so other people will do the hard work for them.

If someone is very wealthy it would be against christian charity to hoard all that money for oneself and not help the poor with it..It was the main problem of the man who wanted to follow Jesus but did not because he did not want to give away his wealth, of which the words of the Rich man and the eye of the needle came from..

It don't think that the young man who was unwilling to give up all his money to follow Jesus was necessarily greedy. He came off as being an ernest young man who just could not muster enough will to trust God enough to give it all away and follow Jesus.

He was really a slave to his wealth. He did not own his wealth, but his wealth owned him.

The rich man and Lazarus is about the total indifference to the plight of someone who was actually a personal acquaintance. I am not sure if it was even greed that motivated the guy. He just didn't really care about a guy who he knew by name, and who he had to step over every day to go about his business.

Another question...how do you convince those who will not work to starve? Seriously, another reason for a social safety net, even for those who choose not to work, is the protection of all society...say a person doesn't want to work even though there are good jobs available. The also don't want to starve to death so what are their options? Seems that the only thing left is crime.


I also really have a problem with basically forcing people into manual labor because they cannot find work in their area. Do you really think it is right to take someone who is brilliant with computers but never worked outside a day in their lives, who is laid off at 50, and put them to work digging ditches? Do we, as a society, care about people's mental and physical health, job satisfaction, and the like...or should it be a straight equation...work at whatever job is available or die.

The notion of "he who would not work, should not eat" to me seems unworkable as a system to run a modern society. How many people on these boards come here for prayers and support because they have lost jobs they have spent years training for...or can't find employment in a field that they have just invested a lot studying for? Should our response to them be...get whatever job is available, even if it is a miserable job that would ruin their chance to ever be employed in their chosen field, or should it be to keep looking for work in their chosen career?

SolomonVII said:

It don't think that the young man who was unwilling to give up all his money to follow Jesus was necessarily greedy. He came off as being an ernest young man who just could not muster enough will to trust God enough to give it all away and follow Jesus.

He was really a slave to his wealth. He did not own his wealth, but his wealth owned him.

The rich man and Lazarus is about the total indifference to the plight of someone who was actually a personal acquaintance. I am not sure if it was even greed that motivated the guy. He just didn't really care about a guy who he knew by name, and who he had to step over every day to go about his business.

Click to expand...

Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. - Luke 12:33

all wealth should be treated as a gift. Shall we hoard money for ourselves where moth and rust collect? that moth and rust will show all the more in judgment day. It is christian duty to help the poor by all means. Through the poor is where we see Christ's true face within charity. Rich pomp is sickening to the ultimate degree because of its utter indifference to the poor. The Church is against unrestricted capitalism. Capitalism is wrong when it turns into utter greed and corruption and hurts the poor. Just as when usury becomes unregulated causes enormous amount of people to become victimized and hurt. The current recession was mostly due to unregulated interest and usury. How can the Rich man get through the eye of the needle?

For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, - Matthew 25:35

TheOtherHockeyMom said:

Another question...how do you convince those who will not work to starve? Seriously, another reason for a social safety net, even for those who choose not to work, is the protection of all society...say a person doesn't want to work even though there are good jobs available. The also don't want to starve to death so what are their options? Seems that the only thing left is crime.


I also really have a problem with basically forcing people into manual labor because they cannot find work in their area. Do you really think it is right to take someone who is brilliant with computers but never worked outside a day in their lives, who is laid off at 50, and put them to work digging ditches? Do we, as a society, care about people's mental and physical health, job satisfaction, and the like...or should it be a straight equation...work at whatever job is available or die.

The notion of "he who would not work, should not eat" to me seems unworkable as a system to run a modern society. How many people on these boards come here for prayers and support because they have lost jobs they have spent years training for...or can't find employment in a field that they have just invested a lot studying for? Should our response to them be...get whatever job is available, even if it is a miserable job that would ruin their chance to ever be employed in their chosen field, or should it be to keep looking for work in their chosen career?

Click to expand...

Most of it is entirely dependent on things like timing, luck, economy, and demographics. I have worked miserable jobs but I gut through it because I knew it was for the better. I believe there is also merit within a hard laborious job. I have much more respect for the hard blue collar worker than the sheltered white collar worker who gets by on his parent funded college education.

I also think. And I will get lambasted for this. The idea of women working, has taken up a large amount of jobs that other hard working fathers need. There are simply too many women in the workforce when they themselves don't really need the job and would be fine at home supported by their husbands. And yet they still work because of the "independent woman" ideal. There were allot of women I knew in my older workplace who worked simply because they wanted a second job and to be independent, yet they did not need to money and their husbands were self sufficient. These "bored housewives" have really hampered people who really need jobs because they are taking up space in a job they don't really need.

There are plenty of people who don't work who are fed. Mostly by homeless shelters and food shelfs. I always think there must be a priority system. People who are injured, mentally ill, veterans, suicidal, etc, should be helped by the community..

There has been a loss of full-time jobs, and job replacement has taken the form of low-wage part-time employment; the middle class is eroding.
Income disparity in the US is now aprox. the same as Brazil.

I wonder why it is always the poor who are accused of "not working"; it takes a great deal more effort, work, to keep a family healthy and well nourished on a tight budget than a larger budget. It requires longer work hours (several part-time jobs per household) to get by on low wages. Which tends to mean that children will be untended.

During the Great Depression, pundits claimed unemployment was the result of laziness - or that folks wanted a free ride on unemployment (actually, social security for former wage earners but not farmers), a sort of govt. 'paid vacation'. We now know that that is untrue.

I don't think any economic or political system is inherently "godly".

And I do think that it is important that ECFs like Basil the Great did not 'believe' in private property. They taught that what we had was God's, and was to be shared. To paraphrase St. Basil the Great: if your neighbor is in need of a coat, if your neighbor then steals a coat to supply his need when you had an extra coat and did not give it him, you are also guilty of the theft.

St. Tikhon of Zadonsk taught that shirking your work and receiving wages was a form of theft. So also was not paying a fair wage to one's employees.

We have come through a period where tax dollars are being used to cover the debts that resulted from massive fraud and slippery dealings in the financial sector. Our economy has been tattered by this; in this case it is the wealthy whose ethical laziness has become the burden of all - and this disaster extends beyond our borders.

Govts do need to be funded, and taxes allow for this funding to happen.
And, even if we moderate the position of St. Basil, St. Gregory, St. John the Chrysostom and others, it can still be found that the govt., using tax dollars, can regulate all sorts of theft at every level for the public good.

Last year, my daughter made a speech - quoting Isaiah 5:8, "Woe to them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the middle of the earth!", she noted that industrial pollution makes one's neighbor's land unusable. As an example, she described the plight of the Mohawk of Akwesasne; their land was so polluted by their neighbors (incl. Alcoa), that the fish were toxic to eat, the livestock died, and the farmed produce could not be eaten.

"The rich take what belongs to everyone, and claim that they have the right to own it, to monopolize it". St Basil the Great

Greed is a problem for rich and poor. Tax is a means to fund the keeping of order, and can be used for the common good. Of course, it depends on how it is used; whether it is used to encourage and protect greed, or to protect those who are the victims of greed.