Adam Smith, call home

By Diogenes (articles ) | Jul 16, 2007

To eliminate poverty, the learned archbishop says, we need.. integration between the mechanisms that produce wealth and the mechanisms for the distribution of its benefits...

We have one. It's called the marketplace. And you'd like to replace it with....?

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 14 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - Jul. 30, 2007 7:31 AM ET USA

    The Church should be concerned with the salvation of souls, not the redistribution of wealth! Even so, we Catholics and our charities take care of the poor all over the world better than any government can dream of doing. Governments impose mere political agendas. The Church offers Jesus. The bishops have forgotten the principle of subsidiarity, no, wrong, they are ignoring it and subverting it!

  • Posted by: - Jul. 21, 2007 2:33 PM ET USA

    Show me somewhere in the world where free markets, respected property rights, rights for labor to organize, a transparent political process, low taxes, crime, and corruption are NOT eradicating poverty. This works. Taxing the middle class at 60%, confiscating foreign investment and unconditional debt forgiveness, etc. does not work. Tomasi seems to be reducing people to economic units, which is precisely the error condemned by Pope John Paul II.

  • Posted by: - Jul. 19, 2007 1:26 PM ET USA

    but if you read the link, then it may be logical to it the eradication of poverty that we seek, or the salvation of souls? The eradication of poverty is not biblical nor dogmatic, is it? Although this sounds harsh, it is intended to call to attention the necessary attitude of the impoverished. I can see eradicating hunger problems, etc, but poverty? God bless. Aaron Magnan

  • Posted by: - Jul. 18, 2007 10:52 PM ET USA

    Really? The invisible hand of the marketplace? How did that work out during the Hoover administration? As my high school social studies teacher liked to remark, the market has an invisible hand, but it also has an invisible foot! At what point in American history have we wanted the invisible hand for our own people? "Buy American" in the 20th century was the successor to Henry Clay's American System in the 19th. Why, then, should we stop trying to make a more just system for all people?

  • Posted by: - Jul. 18, 2007 7:15 AM ET USA

    Again, why aspirants should go to regular (Catholic or secular) university and then hold a "regular job" for a few years before going on to theological training - to try their vocations and to understand how the REAL world works.

  • Posted by: - Jul. 17, 2007 4:52 PM ET USA

    Sometimes you guys amaze me. The intrnl' market is skewed against the poor. The IMF & World Bank demand that impoverished countries lower trade barriers as a condition attached to their loans. When these countries are unable to pay, further concessions favorable to developed economies (ie. the lenders) are demanded. We, being rich, are complicit in this exploitation. This isn't Marxian analysis, it's of St. Francis, Belloc & Christ. Time to wake from our bourgeois stupor.

  • Posted by: - Jul. 17, 2007 3:55 PM ET USA

    Chestertonian distributism, elements of which currently operate just fine within the free market system. Bunk? Talk to the Amish.

  • Posted by: - Jul. 17, 2007 12:01 PM ET USA

    I suppose the good bishop thinks communisn is the answer to solving the distribution of wealth. Maybe increased taxation would be his next choice. How about placing financially successful people in slavery for the poor. Maybe getting the poor to work harder is an inhuman way to deal with the problem. Personally, I like the way Jesus looked at the issue. The poor will always be with us. Accept the fact. Help when you can, Bishop. Sell excess diocese propert and give it to the poor!

  • Posted by: - Jul. 17, 2007 10:17 AM ET USA

    Whenever we call for generosity of others or a redistribution of wealth we call into question our own practices. So, Your Eminence Learned Archbishop, let's start with you...when will you be letting the gypsies move into your palatial Cardinal's apartments? An authentic leader would show us how the mechanisms at home should be mobilized first, and how the beams should be redistributed before the specks...

  • Posted by: - Jul. 16, 2007 8:46 PM ET USA

    In other words, "from each according to his ability to each according to his need." Sound familiar?

  • Posted by: - Jul. 16, 2007 4:47 PM ET USA

    Our diocese had a tuition program for our Catholic schools. Most of the money went for tuition at one grade school in a stringently poor urban area. 80% of the families at this school who received the tuition assistance were not Catholic. What a great opportunity to evangelize and assist those less fortunate at the same time. Needless to say, there was no instruction set up to help these families inquire about the faith (let alone become Catholic). Money was taken from those who needed it.

  • Posted by: - Jul. 16, 2007 3:11 PM ET USA

    What is "truly integral human development?" Is it in any way connected with growth in holiness and the salvation of souls? Is this just another way of saying "becoming Christ-like" or something else? Someone please enlighten me.

  • Posted by: - Jul. 16, 2007 3:04 PM ET USA


  • Posted by: - Jul. 16, 2007 2:40 PM ET USA

    "eradication of poverty is a moral engagement." Excellency, please define what exactly constitutes poverty, and at exactly what level is it a moral engagement? At what level does "eradiction" remain simply empty rhetoric that makes one feel good about oneself? There is a vast difference between poverty in the US, e.g., where the poor own cars, plasma tvs, cell phones, and costly clothes, and that of people eating out of garbage dumps. Choose your words with more care, Excellency. Please!