At the end of the main evening news on Channel 4 (in the UK) there is usually a short (1 – 1½ min) 4thought.tv spot in which someone talks briefly on the week’s chosen theme. Recently the themes have been somewhat religious and a fortnight ago (Thu 5 Jan 11) Rabbi Josh Levy was addressing the question “Is it right to ask God to make us rich?”.
If we have wealth, how do we employ it in the world? The real religious question is what do we do with our money? Do we do stuff for the benefit of mankind, or are we selfish? … In the Jewish liturgy we have one prayer which asks to be made wealthy. It is a prayer for the new moon at the beginning of each month, and we ask for a life of wealth and of honour … We are recognising that a desire for wealth and honour is … legitimate … The real issues in Judaism are not “Do we have money or don’t we have money?” but “Do we behave well in acquiring money?” and then “If we have wealth, how do we employ it in the world?”
Whether Catholic doctrine agrees with the first half of this – that a desire for wealth and honour is legitimate and something one can properly included in petitionary prayer – is perhaps not immediately obvious.
The gospels are full of Jesus’ sayings about the drawbacks of wealth. Two of the best-known are:
Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” And the disciples were perplexed at these words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to to through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mk 10:23-25)
and
Then someone came to him and said, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” And he said to him “… If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” … The young man said to him, “I have kept all these; what do I still lack?” Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this word, he went away grieving, for he had many possessions. (Mt 19:16-22)
It was not long before the papacy was pursuing worldly power and unsurprisingly it was not always enthusiastic about people decrying riches. John XXII had a protracted argument with the Franciscan order, many members of which passionately advocated strict poverty, including some considered to be a break-away group, the Fraticelli. In “Gloriam Ecclesiam” 23 Jan 1318 he wrote:
Thus, the first error which breaks forth from their dark workshop invents two churches, the one carnal, packed with riches, overflowing with riches [others, luxuries], stained with crimes which they declare the Roman prefect and other inferior prelates dominate; the other spiritual, cleansed by frugality, beautiful in virtue, bound by poverty, in which they only and their companions are held, and which they, because of the merit of their spiritual life, if any faith should be applied to lies, rule.
He was also at pains to claim that Jesus himself was misunderstood on poverty. He had possessions too. Cum inter nonnullos, 13 Nov 1323:
Since among some learned men it often happens that doubt is again raised as to whether should be branded as heretical to affirm persistently that our Redeemer and Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles did not possess anything either in particular or even in common, even though there are different and adverse opinions on that question, we, in a desire to put an end to this controversy, declare on the advice of our brethren by this perpetual edict that a persistent assertion of this kind shall henceforth be branded as erroneous and heretical, since it expressly contradicts Sacred Scripture, which in many passages asserts that they did have some possessions …
I mention these passages because they have found their way into Denzinger, but a sounder basis for the Catholic position is Aquinas’ Summa:
Two things are competent to man in respect of exterior things. One is the power to procure and dispense them, and in this regard it is lawful for man to possess property. Moreover this is necessary to human life for three reasons. First because every man is more careful to procure what is for himself alone than that which is common to many or to all: since each one would shirk the labor and leave to another that which concerns the community, as happens where there is a great number of servants. Secondly, because human affairs are conducted in more orderly fashion if each man is charged with taking care of some particular thing himself, whereas there would be confusion if everyone had to look after any one thing indeterminately. Thirdly, because a more peaceful state is ensured to man if each one is contented with his own. Hence it is to be observed that quarrels arise more frequently where there is no division of the things possessed.
The second thing that is competent to man with regard to external things is their use. On this respect man ought to possess external things, not as his own, but as common, so that, to wit, he is ready to communicate them to others in their need. Hence the Apostle says (1 Timothy 6:17-18): “Charge the rich of this world . . . to give easily, to communicate to others,” etc.
[2nd Part of 2nd Part, Question 66, Article 2]
This is fairly close to Josh Levy’s position, at least in its conclusions. The basis is somewhat different. Levy went on to observe:
When we are thinking about charity we use [a Hebrew word] … which means justice. It is a very different idea to the Christian concept of caritas, of charity, of grace. Our obligation to others doesn’t come out of some altruistic feeling, it comes out of our sense of obligation, that we have to make sure that the world becomes a place of … justice.
A Catholic might not be too happy to have the love of God (= caritas) described as “some altruistic feeling”, which sounds suspiciously like “some vague altruistic feeling”. But all that is somewhat by-the-by.
Hearing this broadcast made me reflect that political attitudes to talents tend to be different to political attitudes to riches.
The banking crisis and the apparent reaction of most bankers to it (carry on the bonus culture as before and resist any attempt to prevent bankers imposing such huge costs on ordinary taxpayers again), rightly infuriates most people in the UK. It has not exactly brought socialism back into favour, but it has made many disenchanted with the extreme form of laissez-faire capitalism promoted by Tony Blair and New Labour. It has now become much more acceptable to demand that markets be regulated and the excesses of free-market capitalism prevented. The implications of this are causing the Tories some difficulties, although this has not been as apparent as it might, given Labour’s embarrassment at being the ones who caused it all by courting the rich, insisting on “light touch” regulation, and increasing public expenditure too freely and too wastefully so that despite a prolonged boom we found ourselves in a weak position to deal with the fall-out.
But the situation seems rather different with talents – people’s natural gifts. The political parties here still seem to take it for granted that it is everyone’s natural right to be able to get the full benefits of their talents. Indeed, the political debate is all about how we can improve schools, and improve access to good schools, so that those talents can be honed for the benefit of their possessors. This is a far cry from the traditional Church of England concept of a “vocation” – the idea that God has in mind for each of us a unique and valuable role in society, a special way in which we can help our fellow man (the priesthood being just one such possibility).
Yet talents, taken in a broad sense, lie at the root of the difficulties over riches. It is precisely some people’s special ability to trade the financial markets profitably, or offer highly valuable advice to major corporations, that leads to the huge bonuses.
The fact is that everything can be used for good or ill. Any talent, any expertise or specialist knowledge can be used selfishly or unselfishly. Society can, and must, do something to outlaw the worst abuses, but there are limits as to how far it can usefully pry into people’s motives or the fine detail of their actions. Societies work better when people feel some sort of obligation to behave well towards their fellow citizens.
Post a Comment