From Saint James 5:
Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you! Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have heaped up treasure in the last days. Indeed the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived on the earth in pleasure and luxury; you have fattened your hearts as in a day of slaughter.
I would like to point out that this is a New Testament Scripture which contains a New Testament prophecy. Now let’s look at some very current news stories:
Making full use of its April 1 filing date, Transocean’s (RIG) proxy statement deemed 2010 the “best year in safety performance in our company’s history,” by certain statistical measures. In a small oversight, those stats ignored the 11 deaths caused last April when the company’s Deepwater Horizon drillship exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. Nine of those killed worked for Transocean. …
[T]he top five executives – CEO Steven Newman, finance chief Ricardo Rosa, top lawyer Eric Brown, and executive vice presidents Arnaud Bobillier and Ihab Toma – together earned $19.6 million in compensation in 2010. …
Despite the fact that 2010 was a debacle that will be forever remembered as the year the Deepwater Horizon blew up, Transocean moved last year to pay Rosa, Brown, Bobillier and Toma some $2.8 million in stock-based “special retention awards.”
Here is another story of CEO compensation:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — For CEO Alan Mulally was paid more than $26.5 million dollars in 2010, according to documents filed Friday with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Mulally’s pay package included a $1.4 million base salary, and a cash bonus worth more than $9 million, as well as a raft of stock incentives.
Now let’s look at worker-related news stories:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Prices may be rising at the grocery store and gas pump, but don’t look to your paycheck for any relief.
Average wages and hours were both flat last month, according to Friday’s government jobs report.
While the rest of the March jobs report was encouraging, showing the nation added 216,000 jobs during the month, stagnant wages are not a good sign for consumer purchasing power.
“Workers may not be losing their jobs, but they can’t get a raise,” said Peter Morici, University of Maryland economist and professor. …
Overall, average hourly earnings have gained only one cent, or 0.04% since January.
And for many jobs, wages actually fell in the last two months. The manufacturing sector, which accounts for roughly 9% of the American workforce, saw wages fall 0.8% since the beginning of the year.
Why is it that I am so opposed to the Tea Party as it is currently politically constituted? The Scripture at the beginning and the news stories above will give you but one idea of several of the issues that I have against the Tea Party. But, it is the above issue that has definitely pushed me to the conclusion that Christians who are in the Tea Party are often supporting fully non-Biblical, non-Traditional, stances which would fall under the condemnations of Saint James and of Catholic (and Orthodox) doctrine.
Please note that I would not have the Biblical problem should the Tea Party have insisted that the wages of all need to be lowered or controlled so as to not overheat the economy. But, that has not been their stance. Notice that the Tea Party in power has promptly gone after workers, particularly union workers, not simply with the demand that they take wage cuts, but with the intent to make unions either illegal or so gutted that they are no longer unions. Moreover, their stance is not simply for government workers, but for all workers. Thus, the Tea Party in power has shown their complete willingness to withhold “the wages of the laborers.” In contrast, any suggestion that upper management compensation needs to be equally lowered or controlled has been met by horrified cries that we must not muzzle the ox, that government does not have the right to intrude into businesses. At the same time, at least one Tea Party governor has hired an aide at higher wages than the position normally merits, on the grounds that it is hard to find qualified private people who are willing to come into government for the “low wages” which government pays them.
Meanwhile, current news stories are pointing out over and over how upper management compensation is increasing while worker compensation is either stagnant or falling. Indeed the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. This is a situation fully parallel to that which brought about Saint James’ condemnation. The Tea Party has moved away from its original claim to be a group of people which simply wants to balance the budget into being a group of people with little to no concern for the worker (let alone the poor, the widow, and the orphan) while the rich receive preferential treatment. The Tea Party tries to hide this under the argument that they simply wish to balance the budget, but the news stories point out that the preferential option for the rich is clear and obvious. This is strongly condemned by Saint James in the same chapter from which my beginning quote came.
I am not in favor of the mantra of all too many of liberation theologians. I do not believe that God has a “preferential option for the poor” in the way in which they word it. They made their mistakes back in the early 1970’s through the very early 1990’s, and really skewed too much thinking in that time. But, there was an encyclical published by about-to-be-Blessed John Paul II called Centesimus Annus. Let’s take a look at a few quotes:
First, John Paul II reaffirms Leo XIII’s stance on trade unions:
In close connection with the right to private property, Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical also affirms other rights as inalienable and proper to the human person. Prominent among these, because of the space which the Pope devotes to it and the importance which he attaches to it, is the “natural human right” to form private associations. This means above all the right to establish professional associations of employers and workers, or of workers alone. Here we find the reason for the Church’s defence and approval of the establishment of what are commonly called trade unions: certainly not because of ideological prejudices or in order to surrender to a class mentality, but because the right of association is a natural right of the human being, which therefore precedes his or her incorporation into political society. Indeed, the formation of unions “cannot … be prohibited by the State”, because “the State is bound to protect natural rights, not to destroy them; and if it forbids its citizens to form associations, it contradicts the very principle of its own existence”
Further reading will show that he also approved of the right of negotiating for better wages and conditions, up to and including strikes. Commenting some more on Leo XIII’s writings, John Paul II continues by speaking on wages:
The Pope immediately adds another right which the worker has as a person. This is the right to a “just wage”, which cannot be left to the “free consent of the parties, so that the employer, having paid what was agreed upon, has done his part and seemingly is not called upon to do anything beyond”. It was said at the time that the State does not have the power to intervene in the terms of these contracts, except to ensure the fulfilment of what had been explicitly agreed upon. This concept of relations between employers and employees, purely pragmatic and inspired by a thorough-going individualism, is severely censured in the Encyclical as contrary to the twofold nature of work as a personal and necessary reality. For if work as something personal belongs to the sphere of the individual’s free use of his own abilities and energy, as something necessary it is governed by the grave obligation of every individual to ensure “the preservation of life”. “It necessarily follows”, the Pope concludes, “that every individual has a natural right to procure what is required to live; and the poor can procure that in no other way than by what they can earn through their work”.
A workman’s wages should be sufficient to enable him to support himself, his wife and his children. “If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accepts harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice”.
Would that these words, written at a time when what has been called “unbridled capitalism” was pressing forward, should not have to be repeated today with the same severity.
And, yet, the world that John Paul II saw coming in the 1990’s, and hoped to avoid has come about anyway. The Tea Party and its supporters essentially propose a system of “unbridled capitalism,” a system which was condemned by both Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum and by John Paul II in Centisimus Annus. And, so, today I am repeating their words “with the same severity,” as the words they used and the words used by Saint James in his epistle.
Finally, for those who are Protestant, the Scriptures speak to you and call you back. If you are Roman Catholic (or Orthodox) then the Scriptures and Holy Tradition call you back, for in his encyclical, John Paul II made it clear that what had gone before under Leo XIII is to be considered part of Holy Tradition, speaking to today’s world. It is time for the Tea Party to listen to Scripture and to Holy Tradition, and to avoid attaching the word Christian to their current proposals concerning workers and “unbridled capitalism.”
Ernest, I am sorry, but this sounds more like jealousy than social justice.
Talk to James the Just and, by extension, to Christ Himself, J.D.
It is hard to speak of “jealousy” or whatever when so many people are literally one major illness away from bankruptcy or one paycheck away from homelessness while a very few others,(folks WAY above YOUR pay grade, BTW: nobody wants to take your golf privileges away) receive so much of the income and control so much of the wealth.
Here’s what I’m talking about: the combined net worth of the bottom 50% of the U.S population = c. 1.5 trillion USD. The combined net worth of the Forbes 400 = c. 1.37 trillion USD. Did you get that? The combined net worth of FOUR HUNDRED individual persons, folks who get dressed one leg at a time just like you and me, is almost equal to that of approximately 150 MILLION other people!
Unjust, unsustainable, and therefore, extremely scary! (Somewhere in the distance background, I hear the whisper of the word, “Judgment!”)
I’m neither jealous or envious. I have no desire to be wealthy. I do, however, tremble when I consider what the historic results have been of such ever increasing economic inequality, both in terms of human suffering and social and political upheaval (which itself, of course, greatly contributes to the former). The worldwide Great Depression. Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union. Cuba. These are not pretty scenarios, not at all.
OTOH, there is postwar Germany…
Thank you for your posts about the Tea Party.
What you said about a Tea Party governor hiring a worker for higher pay than the position merits reminds me of how Gov. Walker here in Wisconsin hired a man in his mid-20s and no college degree and two drunk driving tickets for a $81K per year position. He has received a 26% raise after just two months on the job, even though the state is supposedly broke. But this man’s father is a high profile lobbyist and donor, so that matters more than the state’s finances, I guess.
In fairness I should also say I was disappointed when Obama hired the GE chairman as his top economic advisor.
Indeed. Mr. Obama is by no means above criticism in this or any other regard.
However, that said, the criticisms being leveled at him from the Tea Party folks and their allies are not helpful and, in many cases, they are simply not true. IMHO, even though the right is always restless when a Democrat is in the White House (JFK, LBJ, Jimmy Carter perhaps not so much, but certainly Bill Clinton), the criticisms aimed at Mr. Obama are unprecedented in both their level of venom and the lack of veracity.
Hmmmm….. I wonder what makes him different from Bill Clinton or JFK or LBJ?
This works for me. And I happened to be in James 5 myself this morning. Funny how that keeps coming up.
Father thank you for your post.
Just a point of clarification who, specifically, has proposed legislation to outlaw labor unions? Here in Wisconsin legislation has been passed to limit collective bargaining for some local and state employees–but I’m not aware of anyone suggesting that unions be outlawed.
The passage you quote from Pope John Paul II is interesting, let me please offer a few thoughts . Yes, we have a right to form associations and so labor unions. But such associates are only morally licit when they are free associates and while can’t–and shouldn’t–be prohibited by the State neither should t(or anyone else) require that workers join a union as a condition of employment. This is why in many states legislation has been proposed to make union dues voluntary and union representation contingent upon a majority vote by secret ballot of all the workers the union wishes to represent. This is in contrast to the current practice in many states that makes dues mandatory and representation contingent on simply check box on a publicly distributed and collected card. Having been brow beaten by union reps in the past, I welcome the new legislation.
You are correct there is certainly in America a wide range of salaries both between and within industries. Whether or not this is evidence of injustice is however not clear. As a practical matter, I am not aware of any biblical or patristic teaching that suggests the just ratio of pay between say a CEO and a line work in an assembly plant. Further your analysis fails to present any evidence as to the cause of the salary differential save your assertion of injustice. Assuming that the distribution of wages is unjust, how precisely is this to be corrected?
Immediately prior to the passage about Pope John Paul quotes (“through necessity or fear of a worse evil”) Leo XII in Rerum Novarum writes “Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages.” While he doesn’t preclude a role for the State, John Paul II in Centesimus Annus is concerned that the modern welfare state “leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.” So any economic justice must take into account not only the freedom of both employer and worker but also the moral necessity to limit the intrusion of the State into the private sphere of labor relations which are natural and “precedes” our “incorporation into political society.”
By all means, let us have a living wage by which a husband can support his wife and children. But as Leo writes “before deciding whether wages are fair, many things have to be considered; but wealthy owners and all masters of labor should be mindful of this – that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one’s profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine.” This seems to be to your concern here but Leo has other concerns that I don’t think you address.
For example, the worker is to “fully and faithfully to perform the work which has been freely and equitably agreed upon; never to injure the property, nor to outrage the person, of an employer; never to resort to violence in defending their own cause, nor to engage in riot or disorder; and to have nothing to do with men of evil principles, who work upon the people with artful promises of great results, and excite foolish hopes which usually end in useless regrets and grievous loss.” Here in Wisconsin at least, this principle has been violated by teachers who did not report for work.
As a practical matter (and Leo spells this out in the passage above) for a just wage scheme to be sustainable not only must the employer offer a just wage, the worker must merit that wage both morally and by being able to offer labor of sufficient value to justify his salary. In other words, to be worth a salary of $X/year, I need to be able to produce value of at least marginally more than that for my employer.
Additionally Leo writes while “that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner” economic justice requires as well that the worker distinguish, both in theory and in practice, between needs and wants. Your analysis here does address this–is there somewhere else on your blog where you do?
I’m not judging anyone, but I would argue that with the possible exception of the poorest Americans (and possibly not even them), the vast majority of workers in America have a life of material comfort and social security far in excess of what Leo XIII had in mind when he wrote Rerum Novarum. Does this mean we can’t do better? No. It does however mean we need to bring a more critical theological, economic and political analysis to the problems you’ve outlined here. If we are willing to demand that employers not be greedy, how we expect anything less of workers?
Loking at the matter more broadly both Leo John Paul II argue that a just wage also requires a just society society. His concern is that employer and worker live in “Mutual agreement” and “in the beauty of good order” that the Gospel brings and without which we have only “perpetual conflict … confusion and savage barbarity.” This is not Utopian dream, nor does it deny the possiblity of justice in non-Christian societies but it is a prophetic reminder that the just we seek is the fruit of the Gospel. Again, as Leo writes “in preventing … strife …, and in uprooting it, the efficacy of Christian institutions is marvellous and manifold.” He continues “there is no intermediary more powerful than religion (whereof the Church is the interpreter and guardian) in drawing the rich and the working class together, by reminding each of its duties to the other, and especially of the obligations of justice”
A just wage is not possible except in a just society and there is no just society unless it is Christian. While non-Christian society can approximate a just social order, in the final analysis, as Leo argues, economic or social “justice demands that, in dealing with the working man, religion and the good of his soul must be kept in mind. Hence, the employer is bound to see that the worker has time for his religious duties; that he be not exposed to corrupting influences and dangerous occasions; and that he be not led away to neglect his home and family, or to squander his earnings.” A living wage brings with it a concrete moral obligation then to worship the Most Holy Trinity. It is only in and through Christ that justice is possible.
Finally, don’t mistake me please. I am not defending the crony capitalism that has gutted the American economy. I agree with G.K. Chesterton, “Big Business and State Socialism are very much alike, especially Big Business.” At the same time, profit and commerce are not evil. Nor is it evil be wealthy. If these were, there could be no such thing as a just wage since profit making and wage in excess of susbsistance (however we were to define it) would be a sin.
Unfortunately, we have created for ourselves a situation in which–from both the political left and the right–people exploit the coercive power of government not simply for their own profit but for the harm of their neighbor. Unions have historically been a good thing for workers. They however have also in some instances been a source of economic harm. For example, union demands have contributed to the slowly death of both the US auto and steel industries. Minimum wage laws have raised the cost of hiring unskilled labor so high as to exclude many new workers (for example, high school students) from the job market.
Anyway, thank you for your post.
In Christ,
+FrG
Yes, yes, yes. Father.
If we just get government out of everything and go back to the objective (social darwinistic) “invisible hand” of the free market, everything will be just fine.
But why did government get involved in the first place?
Well, there was this economic implosion called the Great Depression, which was only the last and largest of many such events over the course of American economic history up until that time. In fact, it seems that between 1840 and 1954, the U.S. economy was in recession or depression fully 40% of the time. Now, of course, prior to the New Deal, government involvement in the economy was minimal
Why does unregulated capitalism continually boom-and-bust? Because free-market, unregulated capitalism is simply not sustainable. Like a poker game, it’s logic requires that sooner or later, more and more chips end up in fewer and fewer hands.
This is what has been happening over the past thirty years in this country. leading to an unsustainable economic situation which, if it continues, can only lead to another implosion, one that this time, given the far greater scale involved, can only make the Great Depression look like a time of idyllic prosperity.
Please, please, please: do not buy into the kind of ideas you express above, Father. There is another way, and it is manifested in places like Germany. The United States MUST go down THAT path, or we will find ourselves in a situation that looks a great deal like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.
Father,
Forgive me please, but where did I advocate getting the “government out of everything,” social darwinism or suggest that the we simply needed to trust the “‘invisible hand’ of the free market”? What I wrote was a response to what I see as the gaps in Fr Ernesto’s reading of Catholic Social Teaching. Did I misunderstand or misrepresent CST? If so, please tell me where.
Your history of the boom and bust cycle in the American economy is accurate but I’m not sure about your assertion that “prior to the New Deal, government involvement in the economy was minimal.” What is the standard comparison that you are using?
As I said in my original comment, I’m willing to admit that there is an inequality of wealth–and I would add that government does, and in America historically this has always been the case, have a role in commerce. We have always had laws protecting private property, to enforce contracts and regulate interstate commerce. What I originally asked for , and what neither you nor Fr Ernesto have provided, is the standard for the equitable distribution of wealth. In other words, how much should each person have (in absolute or relative terms) and how should we accomplish this in a way that respects the moral standards outlined by both Pope Leo XIII and Pope John Paul II.
Your own argument would seem to support those who favor a more restrained governmental approach to economic regulation. In any case, I’m not sure we have ever had unregulated capitalism in the US. We certainly haven’t had it, as your post shows, since the FDR and the New Deal. In any event, I’ didn’t argue in my comment laissez faire capitalism. Rather I pointed out that CTS places moral limits placed on both employers and workers. Moral limits that neither you nor Fr Ernesto reference in defense of your own economic reflects,
Regarding the recent “unsustainable economic situation” in America–I don’t know any free economist who would argue otherwise. However it isn’t clear to me that there is anyway to avoid the boom-and-bust cycle that concerns you in your own comment. There is a cycle of ebb-and-flow in the spiritual life; we experience periods of purgation and consolation. I’m not sure that, in the economic sphere, we should not expect there to be boom-and-bust cycle. Can you point me toward any economic systems that do not experience such a cycle? I don’t know of any.
Finally, and forgive me, I don’t understand your final paragraph. Which of my ideas expressed either in my earlier comment or here will lead the US to “a situation that looks a great deal like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union”?
In Christ,
+FrG
First, Father, where and what are the “moral limits” relevant at this juncture in terms of workers? For thirty years, American workers have been working harder and harder for longer and longer only to receive less and less. The cartoon that Fr. Ernesto has posted today documents the most serious problem we face in this country today: the precise lack of any limitation, moral or otherwise, on the incomes and accumulated wealth of those at the very top of the socioeconomic food chain.
Thus, the thrust of your arguments seems to be that the solution is to be found in getting government out of everything and turning it all back over to unrestrained capitalism. This, however, has already been demonstrated not to work. Research it yourself: government intervention in the economy on large scale only began with the New Deal.
Questions of justice or anything else aside, this huge economic equality gap is simply not sustainable and leads, inevitably, to economic implosion, as it did in 1929 and again, on a much smaller scale, in 2007. The only reason that we are not now in a Great Depression was because of the infusion of all that cash from both the Federal Reserve and the Federal Government. The reason that the economy is still sluggish is because not enough of that money made it to the bottom, in that demand drives the economy, and the economy is still structured to convey most income to the very top.
Again, where’s the “moral limit” in that? It is really possible to EARN all that money, whether by labor or by investment? I don’t think so. I think that there is a natural, moral limit on how much one can EARN per unit of time worked or for dollar invested.
Anything beyond that number, whatever it is, is merely a matter of hitting the lottery, winning the big one, and, it can be assumed, is the result of someone else being shortchanged on what they in fact DID earn with their very hard work. It is here, I think that James 5 is extremely applicable.
Also, you seem to conflate “normal” business cycles with boom-and-bust. Business cycles are one thing. Boom-and-busts are another matter altogether. The last great bust was in 1929. Massive government intervention, in the form of the Neal Deal and WWII, got the U.S. out of that. With the continuation of the New Deal, the G.I. Bill, investments in infrastructure like the building of the Interstate system, plus a private sector that was much more highly unionized than now, the economy chugged along pretty smoothly until the mid-seventies when Jimmy Carter and then, Ronald Reagan, started to dismantle the New Deal and the progressive tax structure that had helped to support it. Since 1980, while American productivity increased steadily until 2007, American incomes stagnated or declined for the bottom 90%. Therefore, in order to maintain a reasonable standard of living, Americans, both husband and wife, have had to resort to working multiple jobs and to continually re-finance the ever-rising equity on their homes. The home, in effect, became an ATM, and it was this bubble that kept the economy afloat, in lieu of government taxing, borrowing,and spending. That is, until that housing bubble burst.
Once again, I point to post-war Germany as an economic model that the U.S. needs to learn from. For Labor Day 2010, I wrote a review of a book called “Were You Born on the Wrong Continent?” The review is linked below. I invite you to read the review and then, to purchase and read the book.
http://vagantepriest.blogspot.com/2010/09/labor-day-2010-op-ed-piece-and-book.html
Regarding CST, your argument seems to be that basically, the market is sufficient to determine the just wage; However, in stating that “Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages” (Paragraph 2434 of the RC Catechism), this idea is rejected.
Regarding unions, and as a separate issue from CST: as it stands now, Federal law prohibits requiring anyone to join a union a condition of employment. What can be required is that if a worker is covered by a collective bargaining contract, he or she must pay a certain amount to help offset the cost of that contract. This amount can be the same as union dues or less. Sounds pretty fair to me.
Not sure if this will show up above or below it, but this is a P.S. to my reply, Father Jensen (using your surname to avoid confusion), that contains the link to the book review.
I failed to address the question of why I invoked the spectres of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
I did so because both came into existence in the wake of social, political, and especially economic chaos. Masses of homeless, starving, sick people will do some pretty nasty things and support some pretty nasty people in coming to power, especially when immediately faced with other people who are doing just fine, thank you very much.
Here in the United States, during the Great Depression, there could well have been a Fascist coup d’tat or a Bolshevik revolution. The New Deal and the nascent CIO/industrial union movement was instrumental in forestalling these catastrophes.
What do you think of Austrian economic school proposals that what has been happening has been destroying the currency? I’m not sure if I subscribe to Austrian economic theory but it seems to come up in debates about the problems in the U.S. economy and job market. I’ve seen at least one advocate of the school point out that the problem with the infusions of money by the federal government into the system is that it favors a top down approach and continues inflation because the banks and money managers who first receive the money don’t put it anywhere but their own games. What may be designed to flow out to actual businesses gets stuck in the distribution side such as banks and upper management.
As to whether or not boom and bust cycles were worse prior to the Depression, which may be pertinent to this discussion, there seems to be some debate. Austrian economist fans seem to believe that any state-based bank tends to create worse boom and bust cycles than private banking systems. What I’m not sure I’m convinced by is the advocacy of returning to something like the gold standard or metal based currency. A friend of mine from South Africa was listening to older guys promote the gold standard as a way to right the economy and he pointed out that Americans (and he’s a happy resident here in America) don’t realize that America didn’t become the great power that we know of until AFTER it dropped the gold standard, got involved in World War 2, and opened up credit for entrepreneurs and businesses in the 1940s and 1950s. He’d seen theories of America failing due to conspiracies by the Federal Reserve get promoted by otherwise sane Christians before and wanted to remind people that it doesn’t add up.
My lack of interest in most Tea Party rhetoric is that beyond not being sure I agree with their solutions their fans tend to have a cartoon version of both history and economics in which they imagine that the greatness we imagine America should still have now existed “100 years ago” when that greatness was a non-entity. I’m also noticing a propensity to frame the entire social welfare network as a government enforced Ponzi scheme. It continues to disappoint me that guys in their 20s tend to frame the social welfare network in terms of government debasement of currency and ripping off workers. The alternative that the Church is supposed to do stuff just means that supposedly private Christians and business will take up what the government is not supposed to do. Ironically it has been my conservative Christian friends who have been surprised to find out I’m ineligible for unemployment because I was laid off by a 501(c)3. It has been some conservative associates I know who get upset that their unemployment benefits weren’t renewed having railed about the evils of the welfare state. Now I consider myself conservative but I don’t think abolishing the social welfare net is going to happen. On the other hand, I’m put off by rhetoric declaring that what’s destroying America’s economy is that all sorts of illegal immigrants are sapping the social welfare programs that are meant for real Americans. Depending on whether or not you talk to American Indians who have this sense of humor most of the “real” Americans now were illegal immigrants to them.
Wages withheld by an employer is unjust.
Me keeping the money I made and not giving it to some bum who is going to buy marijuana with it and sit on his butt all day, then rob people at night and rape…..its not unjust for me to keep my money, especially from such a miserable thing as that.
Indeed, you ‘Orthodox’ accept the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, or of Joshua ben Sira, (or Ecclesiasticus) as Scripture, do you not? Does not the son of Sirach say in his book “Help the righteous but do not help the wicked” and again “Give alms to the righteous, but from the wicked withold your bread, for you will receive double the punishment for what assistance you give him, for the wicked are reserved for the day of judgement.”
He indeed says that. And it is true.
What American politicians mean by economic justice is NOT that the employers be made to pay a fair wage.
No, what the American politicians mean by economic ‘justice’ is that my money should be stolen by the government and given to the crack-head. Those politicians will burn in hell.
Since the 1800’s in England, one of the self-deceptions that the culture has used is that of the “deserving poor.” That is, people used to say that we should help no one but the “deserving poor.” However, the way in which the deserving poor is defined is in such a way that almost no one qualifies! On top of that, stories are circulated, whose sole purpose is to make it seem as though the majority of poor are either drug abusers or lazy scammers. This gives one the self-righteous justification to complain about any social program that either Church or State may wish to begin and give one the excuse not to give or to vote for such a program.
Did Jesus the son of Sirach live in England in the 1800s or did he live a century or two BC?
Sirach Chapter 12:1-7
1 When thou wilt do good know to whom thou doest it; so shalt thou be thanked for thy benefits.
2 Do good to the godly man, and thou shalt find a recompence; and if not from him, yet from the most High.
3 There can no good come to him that is always occupied in evil, nor to him that giveth no alms.
4 Give to the godly man, and help not a sinner.
5 Do well unto him that is lowly, but give not to the ungodly: hold back thy bread, and give it not unto him, lest he overmaster thee thereby: for [else] thou shalt receive twice as much evil for all the good thou shalt have done unto him.
6 For the most High hateth sinners, and will repay vengeance unto the ungodly, and keepeth them against the mighty day of their punishment.
7 Give unto the good, and help not the sinner.
You are just full of liberal hogwash. You worship not the Lord, but Karl Marx. You are priest of communism, not of God.
Hmm, two things. One, I must assume that you think that the Apostle James is wrong when he says what he says. And, two, frankly, I have never read anyone use the verse from Ecclesiasticus in the way in which you use it. Rather, the consistent witness of both Scripture and the Early Church Fathers is that the widow and the orphan must be cared for and that the laborer is worthy of is full wages. And, Sirach agrees with that. I noticed that you quoted one phrase and quite cleverly avoided the thrust of the book.
CHAPTER 4.
4:1 Son, defraud not the poor of alms, and turn not away thy eyes from the poor.
4:2 Despise not the hungry soul: and provoke not the Boor in his want.
4:3 Afflict not the heart of the needy, and defer not to give to him that is in distress.
4:4 Reject not the petition of the afflicted: and turn not away thy face from the needy.
4:5 Turn not away thy eyes from the poor for fear of anger: and leave not to them that ask of thee to curse thee behind thy back.
4:6 For the prayer of him that curseth thee in the bitterness of his soul, shall be heard, for he that made him will hear him.
4:7 Make thyself affable to the congregation of the poor, and humble thy soul to the ancient, and bow thy head to a great man.
4:8 Bow down thy ear cheerfully to the poor, and pay what thou owest, and answer him peaceable words with mildness.
4:9 Deliver him that suffereth wrong out of the hand of the proud: and be not fainthearted in thy soul.
4:10 In judging be merciful to the fatherless as a father, and as a husband to their mother.
4:11 And thou shalt be as the obedient son of the most High, and he will have mercy on thee more than a mother.
Even if you were to not give money to those whom you consider to be evil, there are many who can use your help, lest, as Sirach says above, you fail to find forgiveness from God.
1. As I said, wages being held back from workers by their employers should not be allowed. Employers should be required to pay their employees a decent wage. That’s what James is talking about. James is not saying that the government should take individuals money away and give it to crack-heads.
2. Yes, ben Sira says not to just look at the poor and have no pity on him in chapter 4. But he also says in chapter 12 to know who you are helping, to make sure to help the righteousness and not the wicked. Even in chapter 12, he says (as I already quoted above, 12:3) “There can no good come to him that is always occupied in evil, nor to him that giveth no alms.” So he is not arguing for not giving alms. But he is also not arguing for a government forcing alms out of you and giving them to people who you don’t know. His main theme is (12:1) “When thou wilt do good know to whom thou doest it.” (12:5) “Do well unto him that is lowly, but give not to the ungodly: hold back thy bread, and give it not unto him… for thou shalt receive twice as much evil for all the good thou shalt have done unto him.”
If we give alms to the crack-heads, we simply fund the buying of more crack. If we give alms to the Islamic terrorists, we fund more terrorism. A government extorting alms out of us and giving it to only God knows who, is not the way to go. We need to make sure we are not giving money to people who are going to turn around and use it to destroy our society, which drug addicts and terrorists will do. We have a responsibility to know to whom we are giving these alms. And when the government imposes itself in this business and starts doling out money to every crack-head and Muslim terrorist and Muslim country (remember, the U.S. sends billions in foreign aid to Egypt, to Palestine, and to other troublemaking Muslim states who use it to buy rockets to shoot at Israel), then the government has set its face against God, and any ‘priest’ who supports their position is a traitor to the Lord.
As to widows, I recall that Paul has a passage (1 Tim 5) where he forbids giving money to widows he considers unworthy. He gives a statement that she has to be “Well reported of for good works” and “if she have washed the saints feet” and so on, otherwise exclude her from the number. I’m not even arguing for anything that strict. Just make sure you aren’t giving money to people who are going to use it on booze, cigarettes, drugs, or terrorist activities. It is my right to decide who to give my money to, as well as my duty. The government needs to but out, unless the government will consent to only give money to those who meet my criteria. Otherwise, get your gritty hands off my money.
Keep in mind, Jesus the son of Sirach is a Jew, not a Christian. His idea of ‘righteous’ does not mean someone who believes in Jesus, who formulates the doctrine of the Trinity exactly right, and so on. Using his own Jewish interpretation of the word righteous, then, I am not saying “give alms only to Christians who understand the Trinity exactly right.” To me it just means don’t give to people who are going to waste their money on substance abuse or malicious activities. Whether you want to admit it or not, this is exactly what the U.S. government is guilty of, both in domestic aide and in foreign aide. They constantly waste the money that could be used to help the truly needy, by giving it to crack-heads and terrorist countries.
@rey I think we are getting closer to being of one mind. We agree on workers’ wages, so let’s leave wages out of the discussion.
The State of Florida, from which I just moved less than a year ago, just enacted statutes to require mandatory random drug testing of people who receive its benefits. I think you will find that since Ronald Reagan, more and more means tests are applied to those who come for aid. More than that, increasingly since him, there have been requirements for workfare, etc. The problem is that there is no such thing as a perfect program, regardless of how small it is. One can always find stories of mismanagement and fraud. The question is whether the program is so structured as to lessen or minimize those possibilities.
But, more than that, the reason for a broader involvement is that a small area may not be able to meet its needs. Back in 1989-1990, I lived in an area of rust-belt Pennsylvania while doing some studies. There were areas of “righteous” blue-collar workers who had been decimated by the closing of many of the factories in that area. Frankly, it was cheaper for businesses to close an aging plant and build a new one than to tear that plant apart and rebuild it. There were job re-training efforts underway, etc. Remember that there had been a couple of generations of families that had worked at those plants, some since the late 1800s. But, those efforts could not be financed by the local communities or even the local churches. The money had to come from the broader state population, from areas that had not been hit like the rust-belt areas. Technically those people were on welfare, which made them grit their teeth, but they were certainly “righteous.”
But, let me also point out that there were Old Testament rules that did not require means tests. For instance, the requirement that a farmer not harvest the edges of his fields or harvest more than once, so that the poor, and even animals, be able to come and get sustenance, certainly meant that even completely sinful people were able to receive some bounty from those who worked. Mind you, they would have to do some work to get it, but they could subsist on that. It is an Old Testament example of God causing his rain to fall on the just and the unjust. We need to be cautious in our formulations that we not so limit our financial grace toward others that we are in danger of trying to make our rain fall only on the just.
Finally, be careful how you define government. After all, we elect the representatives who vote on the programs that take our taxes. Ultimately, if we have not voted out people who are wasting our money, then it is not only “their” fault is it? One can only get so far with bumper stickers that say, “Don’t blame me, I did not vote for [fill in the blank].” We are every bit as responsible for the deficit as anyone in Washington. Every time a disaster strikes, or there is even a bad year, one hears the cries that the government must help coming out of every throat. Even the supposedly self-sufficient farmers of this country can sob mightily when it comes time for their subsidies to be re-approved. Every time there is a tragic event, one can hear the cries for new government regulations to prevent that from happening again. And, it is not just “liberals;” it is everyone. You see, WE are the responsible individuals for our deficit. And, we will quickly refuse to vote for any representative who says that we need to be fiscally responsible and that aid cannot be given or a subsidy cannot be renewed.
Frankly, I fully agree with regard to some of the countries we finance. It is one thing to give food aid. It is another thing to give weapons aid.
“For instance, the requirement that a farmer not harvest the edges of his fields…meant that even completely sinful people were able to receive some bounty from those who worked.”
Yet, in the OT, so many sins were punished by death that its unlikely there were too many miscreants around to begin with.
“Ultimately, if we have not voted out people who are wasting our money, then it is not only ‘their’ fault is it?”
Yes it is their fault. We have an unfair system where we vote for people rather than policies, and the people we vote in who claim they will enact a certain policy, never do. Some, like George Bush, do a 180. We have no real representation. Its all a farce. We don’t have congressmen and a President. We have an aristocracy and a king. And as far as voting people out of congress….these dinosaurs keep winning the same seat for upwards of 50 years. The system is rigged, and since they have access to a never-ending money supply that they control, they can make sure no 3rd party candidate can challenge them. We have no say whatsoever.