Community in Mission

 

In the Gospel of Luke Jesus makes reference to “dishonest wealth:” I tell you, make firends for yourselves by your use of dishonest wealth,  so that, when it fails, they will welcome you to eternal dwellings. (Luke 16:9). What does this expression “dishonest wealth” mean?

More literally the Greek μαμωνᾶ τῆς ἀδικίας  (mamona tes adikias) is translated, “mammon of iniquity.”  Now “mammon” is a Hebrew and Aramaic word and has a wider concept than just money. It refers to wealth in general and, even more generally, to the things of this world on which we rely. But what is meant by the expression “dishonest wealth?” Why is it called dishonest?

There seem to be various opinions and theories. None of them absolutely exclude the other but they do include some differences in emphasis:

1. It refers to wealth that we have obtained in dishonest or illegal ways. Now I personally think that this is unlikely since the Lord’s advice is to take this “dishonest wealth”  and give it others. But the usual remedy, if I have stolen from others, is to return what I stole to them. It is true the Lord’s advice follows a parable where a man stole (or embezzled) money. But the Lord is not praising his theft, but rather, his determination to be clever in worldly matters. The Lord wishes his disciples were as clever and thoughtful in spiritual matters. Hence it seems unlikely that the Lord means by “dishonest wealth” merely things we have stolen. If we steal we ought to return it to the rightful  owner, not make friends for ourselves of third parties for our own ultimate gain.

2. It refers to the fact that money and wealth tend to lead us to dishonesty, corruption and compromise. Since it tends to lead to iniquity it is called (literally) the mammon of iniquity. It is a true fact that Scripture generally has a deep distrust of money. For example:

• How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God (Luke 18:24).
• Those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. (1 Tim 6:9-10)
• Give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, ‘Who is the Lord?’ Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God. (Prov 30:8)

It’s funny that, knowing passages like these, most of us still want to be rich! But at any rate,  this interpretation sees the expression as referring more to where money and wealth lead rather than to money and wealth themselves. Of itself,  money is not evil, neither is wealth.  But they do tend to lead us into many temptations, to corruption and unrighteousness. Hence mammon is called “unrighteous” or “of iniquity.” Some also consider this manner of speaking to be a type of Jewish hyperbole since it assigns unrighteousness to all wealth,  even though it only tends to lead there.

Over all this position has merit but I personally think it is incomplete and needs to be completed by a wider sense of unrighteousness. Simply chalking something up to Jewish hyperbole (exaggeration) may miss the fact we are not simply to dismiss hyperbole in Scripture. I have often found that the Jewish hyperbole found in the Scriptures is there for a reason. The usual reason is that we are being asked to consider that the exaggeration my not be a total exaggeration after all and, that  there is more truth than exaggeration in the hyperbole. This notion is developed in the third theory.

3. It refers to the fact that this world is unjust,  and thus, all its wealth has injustice and unrighteousness intrinsically attached. We live in a world where the distribution of wealth, resources and money are very unevenly and unjustly distributed. Now world wide economies are very complicated matters and there may be any number of reasons for this. Some areas of this planet are just more fertile than others. Other areas have more oil etc. There is often a role that corrupt governments play in unjust distribution as well. It is a true fact that we are sometimes unable to effectively help the needy in certain countries because corrupt governments and individuals divert what is intended for the poor. But there is just no getting around it, this world has a very unjust and unequal distribution of wealth and resources for any number of reasons. We, in America, live at the top of the system and we cannot wholly ignore that our inexpensive goods often are so because workers in other parts of the world earn a mere pittance to manufacture or harvest our cheap goods. Much of the convenience and comforts of our lifestyle are provided by people who earn very little for what they do, often without medical benefits, pensions and the like.

Now again, economies are very complicated and we may not be able to a great deal to suddenly change all this. But we ought to at least be aware that we live very well and many others do not, and that our high standard of living is often the result of the cheap labor elsewhere. When I buy a shirt in the air-conditioned store and take it in my air-conditioned car back to my air-conditioned house with a walk-in closet, it ought to occur to me that the person who made and packed this shirt probably doesn’t live nearly as well as I do, earned very little for the work  at that I can buy the shirt for less than $20 for reasons like this.

Now I am not calling for boycotts, (they probably just hurt the poor anyway), and I am not sure exactly how we got to such inequities in this world. I know it annoys me when some people simply want to blame Americans for every ill there is. There are other factors such as international corruption, bad economic theory and the like. There’s plenty of blame to go around. But the fact is, this world is an unjust place and every bit of wealth we have is somehow tainted by that injustice.

So this final theory is not so quick to call Jesus’ expression “Jewish Hyperbole.” Rather it considers as quite real the notion that worldly inequities are so vast and and at so many levels that all the goods, comforts and conveniences of this world are tainted, are steeped in unrighteousness and inequity. None of it is clean, none of it is fully righteous. In this sense, Jesus rightly calls it “dishonest wealth.”

If that is the case, then what to do? Jesus is not unclear, for he goes on to counsel that we befriend the poor with our “unrighteous mammon,” that we be generous to others who are less fortunate. We who live so well need to remember that the monetary cost of a product may not fully express it’s true human cost. If we have been blessed (and boy have we been blessed) then we are called to bless others.

A final disclaimer – The question of poverty and or worldwide economies are complicated. I do not propose simple solutions. I am not an economist,  I am not a socialist, I am not a communist. I am simply a Christian trying to listen to what Jesus is teaching. I am trying to internalize his teaching that I ought not be so enamored of the wealth of this world. For, it is steeped in unrighteousness even if I don’t intend that unrighteousness. I think I hear the Lord saying, “Be on your guard with money and worldly wealth. It’s not as great as you think. In fact, if you don’t learn to be generous, it may well be your undoing.”  There is a powerful  scripture addressed to us who have so much. It seems to offer hope for us if we follow its plan. I would like to conclude on it:

Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment.  Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life (1 Tim 6:17-19).

You know I would value your thoughts, distinctions and additions.

About 20 years ago I toured an old coal mine in Pennsylvania near Scranton. I was amazed at the conditions and hardships the coal miners had to endure. I have often thought of them and that tour when I turn on a light or an appliance since our power plant is fueled by coal. My comfort comes at a higher cost than my bill suggests.

A recent article by John Allen provided some interesting background and commentary on the much disputed statement by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. I am not planning to comment directly on the document here since others have adequately done so. I will only say here that I share the concern of others  about any calls for a “Global Authority” to resolve matters and figure that such a body can only make matters worse. That said, Catholic Social teaching remains one of the most poorly understood bodies of teaching among Catholics.

But what makes John Allen’s article interesting is the way in which he uses the recent and rather public debate about the document to illustrate a possible sea change in the composure and worldview of the Roman Catholic Church.

We Catholics in the West, and especially here in America, tend to be very parochial and we presume that Catholics everywhere think largely as we do and share our Western priorities, moral, economic and political views. Or at least they “ought” to.

But, as John Allen points out, it is isn’t necessarily so. And, further, we in the affluent but decadent West are increasingly being outnumbered by Catholics in the Southern Hemishpere who represent a growth sector and an increasing proportion of Catholics.

I would like to present excerpts from John Allen’s article in the usual format of this blog. His remarks are in bold, black italic text. My remarks are in red plain text.

I am presenting excerpts, the full article can be read here: Southern Wave

Whatever you make of it, does the note [of the Pontifical Council] reflect important currents in Catholic social and political thought anywhere in the world. The answer is yes, and it happens to be where two-thirds of the Catholics on the planet today live: the southern hemisphere, also known as the developing world.

It’s a powerful number. Two-thirds of Catholics do not hail from the affluent West. While we have been becoming  secular, and are depopulating ourselves through abortion and contraception, the Church is growing steadily in the developing world. They are less industrialized, cosmopolitan, and formally educated. The have larger families, and often live in parts of the world where many grave economic injustices exist and where the market economies and more stable governments we have are not their experience.

There are almost 750 million Catholics scattered across Africa, Asia and Latin America, and generalizations about such a vast pool of people are always hazardous. Nonetheless, on matters of sexual morality and the “culture wars,” Catholics in the south generally strike Europeans and Americans as remarkably conservative — opposed to gay marriage, anti-abortion, devoted to the traditional family.

And indeed many conservative Catholics have often rejoiced in the outspokenness of Bishops from Africa and other places about the issues stated and compared them to Bishops of northern and affluent West, especially those of Europe who were often too discrete or even in dissent or conflict with official Church teaching.

When the conversation shifts to economic policy and geopolitics, however, Catholic opinion in the developing world often comes off in the West as strikingly progressive. To be specific, Southern bishops, priests, religious and laity often are:

• Skeptical of free-market capitalism and unregulated globalization;
• Wary about the global influence of the United States;
• Pro-United Nations and pro-global governance;
• In favor of a robust role for the state in the economy.

Now, many  Conservative Catholics will argue that this sort of thinking will keep the developing world from attaining a robust economy. I do not dispute the genius of free market Capitalism and what it has done for us economically and do not really wish to debate economic policy here.

Again, the point worth pondering is that many of our Catholic Confrers to the South simply do not share our enthusiam for Northern and Western views on this.

And the question is how we will  attain a consensus on these sorts of matters or even whether we need to?

More personally, how will we in West, especially those of us who are more economically and politically conservative, regard our brethren to the South who may have some very different outlooks than we do?

Their views, of course, emerge from a rather different experience than we have been privileged to share. We have abundant resources, and relatively stable governments. It is easier for us to assert that the free market can meet most of our needs. Perhaps it is less easy for them to say this.

Further, it may actually shock us to find that there are people in the world who do not consider our affleunce as appealing as we do. They may, in fact, look with grave concern at our decadence and the breakdown of our families, social structures, and moral vision, and wonder if afflunce has a role to play in that.

I do not have enough data to speak to this definitively but it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see how an African or Asian Bishop might not look to Europe or even America in our present decadent condition and say, “Yeah that’s what I want for my people.”

In June 2005, a group of Catholic bishops from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Sudan, Uganda, Zambia, Somalia and Djibouti declared, “We are particularly horrified by the ravages of unbridled capitalism, which has taken away and stifled local ownership of economic initiatives and is leading to a dangerous gap between the rich few and the poor majority.”

Catholic leaders in other parts of the global south hold similar views. For instance, in a 127-page report issued in 2004, the Catholic bishops of Asia declared that “neoliberal economic globalization” destroys Asian families and is the primary cause of poverty on the continent.

[John L. Allen Jr. is NCR’s senior correspondent.]

Wow! I realize that these sorts of statements from our brethren to the south and far east may strike us a “rich” considering that many of these same parts of the world look to us in the West for economic aid.

But at some point, after we finish bristling I have a few questions I would like to ask.

1. Are we wrong, in the West to be perturbed and the characterization of of our economic system? While no economic system is perfect, free market capitalism has produced a standard of living higher than any other system. And this is not only true for the wealthy. Most free market Democracies have a large and stable Middle Class. Further, there are greater varieties of products, efficiencies of market, and quality of products due to economic incentive, such as profit. We also live longer and healthier than ever before and have perhaps the greatest economic and social mobility of any other system. Hence, while no system is above critique and surely not sinless, free market capitalism has a lot of strengths and virtues.

2. But are we above reproach? Surely not. Bishops and Catholic Laity in the southern hemisphere and to the Far East have good reason to be concerned with the decadence of the West and the pernicious influence that decadence wields in their sphere. Some of that decadence comes from our affluence and what has come to be an exaggerated notion of freedom.

It is also a true fact that greed often leads to wrongful priorities that emphasize money and possessions at the expense of families, children and faith.

In recent years it has also become evident that no economy in the West, including America is in good shape. We are laden with debt and suffering from a legacy of buying things we cannot afford.

Further our wealth has also led us at times to overextend our power and involvement.

It is also a fact that free markets cannot meet all human needs. Some things, such as the care of the poor, the disabled and the elderly are just not lucrative enough to be solved by a profit driven market.

No we are not above reproach.

3. Can both sectors of the Church benefit one another? Certainly. And this is where the Vatican can possibly be of the most help in bringing insights and concerns together.

I was reacently talking with an economic conservative friend who had grave reservations about who was advising the Vatican and the U.S. Bishops, for that matter, on matters of economic policy etc.

I have little answer to these questions but it occurs to me that Economic and social Conservatives (with whom I often identitify) are long on complaints and short on solutions to the problem of influence. Influence begins when people like my friend joining together and begining to form relationships with Church leaders, such as the bishops and their staffs.

There are many valid economic approaches that fit within Catholic social principles. I would hope that those who support open market captialism or various versions of it would be in discussions at the Vatican and with world Bishops sharing ideas. I would also hope they would be open to other insights that offer healthy critique of our system which is not perfect and can afford some challenges.

4. What do we in the decaying West need to develop as a proper awareness, aside from the economic questions? I would say simply, that we are small and getting smaller. Currently we are only on third of the Church and dropping.

Most of us who are older were used to thinking of the Catholic Church as primarily a European membership and our critics often pointed this out. But that, if it ever was the case, is no longer. And we are going to have to get use to the fact that the attention of the Vatican and other Church leaders is going to increasingly be to the South and Southeast where the Church is growing.

We shall see how long trends like these continue, but for now, humility and sobriety are important. Europe and America are not the only thing on the Vatican’s radar;  a fact of which we are sometimes forgetful.

Western concerns about permitting contraception and approving of divorce, and any number of sexual sins, along with preocupations about why women can’t be priests and endless issues about Church authority, are just not the things that matter to most of the rest of the Church. And the pouting in the decaying West about why the Vatican doesn’t update Church teaching must look pretty silly to rest of the world.

We are out numbered folks. And when we do want to legitimately be part of discussions at the Vatican about economic theory, science, etc, we ought to enter those discussion with some degree of humilty, knowing that we bring important things to the table and many successes, but also remembering that the Church is bigger than just us.

Your thoughts?

This video by Fr. Barron reflects on Caritas in Veritate and he expresses some concern too about a supranational agency proposed in that letter. His remarks about that are towards the end of the video