In my opinion, the self-assured arrogance of many of these
Jesuits has brought forth new forms of “theology”; the kinds of theology we saw
foment various revolutions in Latin America[1]. The
Jesuits are in my opinion sophists of the first degree, capable of turning a
phrase to benefit whatever argument they desire to hold forth.
Thus when we saw the first Jesuit Pope it was no surprise
that this may be a bumpy ride, in fact it would make our own current president
appear reactionary. Before commenting on the recent note by the current Bishop
of Rome let me establish some basic facts.
Catholicism was initially, and had remained for many
of the early centuries, a religion based upon the individual. The individual was judged
based on what the individual did, not what the group did. Thus the whole
concept of Distributed Justice, and here it is worth reading John Ryan, a
Catholic Priest in the 19th Century, or as we now seems to call it
Social Justice, was a reconstruction of post Constantinian Roman Justice.
Namely it was the obligations of a group, and especially a group controlled by the local
bishop.
The best example would be to examine Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, who controlled his throng, and their money, through what he knew as the basic principles of Roman law. Gregory I, the Bishop of Rome in the early 7th Century, was before becoming bishop basically the “Mayor” and “Proprietor” of the Roman properties, handed over to the Church, including the very City of Rome. The Church used the denigration of individual wealth as a means of control, a tactic consistent with classic Roman precepts. Furthermore, the post-Constantinian Church used these principles to centralize the “redistribution” into the hands of the local bishops. This allowed the bishop to take the wealth of the few and “redistribute” it in whatever manner they saw fit. It in effect eliminated individual responsibility.
The best example would be to examine Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, who controlled his throng, and their money, through what he knew as the basic principles of Roman law. Gregory I, the Bishop of Rome in the early 7th Century, was before becoming bishop basically the “Mayor” and “Proprietor” of the Roman properties, handed over to the Church, including the very City of Rome. The Church used the denigration of individual wealth as a means of control, a tactic consistent with classic Roman precepts. Furthermore, the post-Constantinian Church used these principles to centralize the “redistribution” into the hands of the local bishops. This allowed the bishop to take the wealth of the few and “redistribute” it in whatever manner they saw fit. It in effect eliminated individual responsibility.
Christianity was
primarily seen in the early Church as duties ascribed to individuals and
between individuals. What a person did or did not do was the basis for their
redemption. Sacraments were not group exercises, but they were a relationship
of the individual with God.The Ten Commandments were individual commandments. The Beatitudes were individual dicta, not what the group should do but what the individual should do. Salvation is not attained via the group, but by singular individual actions. Thus the view that groups, read that Governments, have duties to redistribute wealth, is fundamentally against the principals first ordained.
Charity is not the taking of funds from those who have and
then get redistributing the wealth by third parties. Charity is the giving by an individual
to others who are in need, and moreover, the helping of those individuals to
help themselves and thus in turn to help others. True Charity is helping others
succeed as we ourselves may have been fortunate enough to do so. It is an
individual and personal obligation. Charity is a bilateral obligation. The giver assist the impoverished, yet the impoverished has a duty to make good, nor just make do, with the gift transferred, thus creating another link in the human chain.
The distortion of this into some third party collective was a Roman artifact, and was not part of the origins of Christianity. Peter Brown has examined and analyzed these transitions from individual to group in Christianity as Christianity was Romanized[2].
The distortion of this into some third party collective was a Roman artifact, and was not part of the origins of Christianity. Peter Brown has examined and analyzed these transitions from individual to group in Christianity as Christianity was Romanized[2].
Let us consider one other quote[3] by
Woodrow Wilson in 1912 before moving on to the Bishop:
We have come upon a very different age from any that
preceded us. We have come upon an age when we do not do business in the way i n
which we used to do business, when we do not carry on any of the operations of
manufacture, sale, transportation, or communication as men used to carry them
on. There is a sense in which in our day the individual has been submerged. In
most parts of the country men work, not for themselves, not as partners in the
old way in which they used to work, but generally as employees,-in a higher or
lower grade, of great corporations .
There was a time when corporations played a very minor
part in our business affairs, but now they play the chief part, and most men
are the servants of the corporations . . . .
Yesterday, and ever since history began, men were related
to one another as individuals . . . .
To-day, the everyday relationships of men are largely
with great impersonal concerns, with organizations, not with other individual
men. Now this is nothing short of a new social age, a new era of human relationships,
a new stage-setting for the drama of life.
Now here Wilson is praising the individual and denigrating
the corporation. Wilson is almost Jeffersonian in his seeking the old ways and
seeing in the new some end point of a fatal state controlled by corporations. Yet it was Wilson who did the most to encumber the individual. Income Tax, the Draft, the War, the oppression of women, again he jailed my grandmother who sought a vote, and Wilson's other Progressive programs of institutionalization and rejection of fundamental individualism.
In reality this period opened up opportunity for all. The Carnegies, Rockefellers, and others, albeit controlling mass wealth for the time, themselves came from little and each in turn demonstrated that it could be done and that in doing so each gave back many fold. Every time I look across from the entrance of Sloan Kettering to Rockefeller I see that long line of giving, individual giving. These people came from nothing. They were not from aristocratic families as was the case in Europe. They demonstrated the ability of the individual to prosper. They were examples for entrepreneurs for decades to come.
In reality this period opened up opportunity for all. The Carnegies, Rockefellers, and others, albeit controlling mass wealth for the time, themselves came from little and each in turn demonstrated that it could be done and that in doing so each gave back many fold. Every time I look across from the entrance of Sloan Kettering to Rockefeller I see that long line of giving, individual giving. These people came from nothing. They were not from aristocratic families as was the case in Europe. They demonstrated the ability of the individual to prosper. They were examples for entrepreneurs for decades to come.
The last half of the twentieth century was also a time of
individual success and in turn individual giving. The Cornell Weill hospital is
the benefactor of not just the named man but of many others, the NYU Langone is
also the same donation of an individual. The research conducted in the centers
with names on them, and those who were anonymous, are a true sign of that
individualism of the entrepreneur. Wilson used the corporations as a means to
seek political support and failed to understand the full temporal and social
benefits. The U.S., unlike Britain where an aristocracy and Class Society
exists, has no class. Anyone may have the chance at the gold ring, and those
who get it all too often return it in kind, several fold.
Now let us examine but one paragraph in this recent letter
from the current Bishop of Rome. In EVANGELII GAUDIUM the Bishop of Rome states[4]:
54. In this context, some people continue to defend
trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free
market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and
inclusiveness in the world.
This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the
facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding
economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic
system.
Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a
lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish
ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being
aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of
the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as
though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own.
The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if
the market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives
stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.
First, as many have already recognized the pejorative of “trickle
down” is just that, a wonderful proof of the sophist at work. Only those
opposed to free markets and capitalism would use the term. Thus, unlike the
many Sophists battled by Socrates, such as in Gorgias and Protagoras, this
Sophist comes, from the beginning of his argument, to establish his bona fides.
As Mankiw writes on this as well[5]:
First, throughout history, free-market capitalism has
been a great driver of economic growth, and as my colleague Ben Friedman has
written, economic growth has been a great driver of a more moral society.
Second, "trickle-down" is not a theory but a
pejorative used by those on the left to describe a viewpoint they oppose. It is equivalent to those on the right
referring to the "soak-the-rich" theories of the left. It is sad to see the pope using a pejorative,
rather than encouraging an open-minded discussion of opposing perspectives.
Mankiw is quite observant of the facts. Mankiw understand
market capitalism, has examined it in detail, and he has personally
participated in the process. Indeed Mankiw is correct in saying that the use of
the term is a pejorative, meant as such or not, it reflects a mindset.
But let us examine this paragraph from the current bishop.
1. His criticism of “trickle down” is not based upon any
fact or metric but upon some concept, not defined, of justice. This is the
classic redistributionist's Distributive Justice model having evolved from the
19th century.
2. There is no assumption about the goodness of those wielding
power. There is in Christian dogma the burden placed upon the individual, not
the Government, to recognize and need and help remedy it. That means teaching
someone how to earn a living, not just feeding them, by being an example for
those who need guidance, not just once but for a life time, by seeing a need
for money, if that is the case, and helping provide it and the other
non-monetary needs as may be required. If one has and denies and denigrates
those who are less advantaged, or worse oppresses them, then that is an individual
sin. There is no real community sin; it is only an agglomeration of individual
errors. Here the Bishop errs.
3. We do not see the cries of the sick, dying and oppressed?
The Beatitudes were individual directives, they said we are to visit the sick,
help them. If a person is ill, without support, then it is our individual responsibility
to “nurse” them, to go out of our way to visit them and bring them from the
brink. It is not, from a Christian perspective, for us to be taxed and then the
Government hands out money in our stead. Again the Bishop errs.
4. Finally what drives humankind in many cases is the
movement forward of civilization, of humanity. Those who work in cancer therapy
may have some ego involvement, may be compensated, but in many of not almost
all cases they are individual commitments to make mankind better. When one
walks down York Avenue in New York one sees what many wealth have contributed
to help others, not only short term help caring for the sick, but in
establishing long term efforts to relieve the disease that plague mankind. In
fact the statement the Bishop makes, “we are thrilled if the market offers
us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack
of opportunity seem a mere spectacle”, reflects a total lack of knowledge
what a few wealth individuals have done for millions. Even more so, there are
thousands more who have financially given, individually and of their total free
will, to that which those with a great deal more have set a foundation for. The
Bishop not only errs, but he seems to either be deliberately ignorant of this
process or totally denies individual duties as the sole path of rectification.
Individualism is not a concept of individual isolationism.
It is a principle of individual responsibility and duty, of the belief that all
individuals are equal, have equal opportunities, and that given that
opportunity that they can achieve whatever they can perforce of their individual
efforts. There is no requirement for redistribution; there is in fact a denial
of any Distributive Justice, if each individual has unfettered opportunity and
balance.
One must attempt to deconstruct what the Bishop is saying,
since he now is saying it for the world, not for those in Argentina.
Perhaps we need to have a Columbanus, an Irish monk who argued continuously with Gregory I over issue after issue. The Irish never had the hand of Rome controlling them and thus did not have the fear of Rome. They feared God but not man. Perhaps another such dialog is timely.
Perhaps we need to have a Columbanus, an Irish monk who argued continuously with Gregory I over issue after issue. The Irish never had the hand of Rome controlling them and thus did not have the fear of Rome. They feared God but not man. Perhaps another such dialog is timely.
[1]
See G. Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation, Orbis (Maryknoll, NY) 1988. This is
one of the classic works which John Paul II was so concerned about regarding
Liberation Theology, fundamentally a philosophy of Distributed Justice amongst the
indigents in South America.
[2] See
Peter Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the
Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD, Princeton University Press,
2012.
[3]
See Diner, S., A Very Different Age, Americans of the Progressive Era, Hill and
Wang (New York) 1998. The Preface.
Posts
