What Label Would You Impute On These Liturgical Texts?
One of the things I love about the Eastern tradition is that our worship always includes pedagogy. Our liturgical celebration always includes a catechetical aspect to it. One can’t go through a complete year’s worth of liturgical texts without gaining a greater insight into their Christian faith, what it means, and what it requires of us. Of course, the texts often become a challenge for us about the way we live our lives. Take, for example, the following from today’s Matins. If you looked at it and used its message as a way of praxis, what kind of praxis would it be? What would you label it? “Liberal”? “Communist”? “Impractical”? “Anti-American”? “Traditional”? “Conservative”? What?
Canon
Ode 1I am like the rich man who daily took delight in the abundance of pleasures; deliver me, I pray you, O Savior, as you did Lazarus from the fire.
Even though I am clothed in sensual pleasures, O Savior, and adorned in purple, brocade and fine clothing as the rich man, do not throw me into the fire like him.
The rich man led a splendid and luxurious life in this world which passes and disappears; therefore, he was condemned to punishment, while the poor man Lazarus was refreshed with dew.
Ode 8
Once the rich man was pompously adorned, clothing himself in purple, scarlet, and fine silk; at his gate lay the poor Lazarus in his misery, longing to eat the crumbs that fell from the well-laden table; but no one gave him any. Therefore, Christ has welcomed him into his kingdom.
Lazarus was completely covered with sores and wounds as he lay before the gate of the rich man, in day of old; he longed to satisfy his hunger, but no one gave him anything to eat; in their compassion, the dogs licked his sores and wounds with their tongues. Therefore, he was invited to share in the delights of Paradise.
I have prospered in pleasures like the rich man of old, clothed in purple every day; O God of mercy, I too am condemned by the softness of my life, for I have strayed through my gratifications. Therefore, I pray you, O Lord, always deliver me from the eternal fire.
Ode 9
Grant me the poverty of Lazarus, O Christ; in your power, restrain my drives for pleasure; grant me the rich abundance of virtue, that I may praise and extol you.
Like the merciless man, I have scorned your commandments, O Lord; and now, in my misery, I lie before your gate; but in your love and compassion, raise me up from the abyss like Lazarus your friend.
We all know the parable of the Lord; let us detest the heatlessness of the rich man, that we may avoid the same punishment; and then, in the bosom of Abraham, we shall rejoice with an unending joy.
Doxastikon of the Fifth Sunday of the Great Fast
The Kingdom of heaven is not eating and drinking, but it is justice and holiness. Therefore, the rich cannot enter unless they share their treasures with the poor. For the prophet David taught us, saying: The just ones shall show mercy all day long and place their delight in the law of the Lord; they walk in the light and their steps do not falter. All this was written for our understanding, to join good deeds with fasting, and, in exchange for earthly goods, the Lord will grant the riches of heaven.
Comments are closed.
These beautiful teachings are, in fact, objectively anti-American.
Al Qaeda will be dancin’ the streets, Suppress them immediately!
Sounds like pinko commie stuff to me! Jesus was just making a suggestion of some goals if we are so inclined. Very anti-American stuff this is.
Henry,
I have had some contact with Byzantine Catholics (technically Ruthenian jurisdiction, though they are changing their name) in the Chicago area. If I can ask, what jurisdiction and rite are you a member of?
-Mike
Mike J
I’m Ruthenian (converted back in 1995 from Protestant directly to Eastern Catholic). I was chrismated at St Nicholas right outside of Chicago. Now, of course, I am in the DC area and my parish is in Beltsville. I usually go to Matins about once a month; this week the texts were preparing us for Lazarus Saturday (for us, the Great Fast ends on Friday, and we enter a festal period before Holy Week).
Can one of you big brains please define americanism for me?
Henry,
I had contact with these folks: http://www.byzantinecatholic.com in Homer Glen where I attended Divine Liturgy a couple times when I could. Beautiful church and Fr. Loya is a charismatic priest there. I still play with the notion of hopping Eastward when I view the ruins of Western liturgy. My family is moving to the Princeton area next year, do you know of any Eastern Catholic churches out that way (since you’re on the east coast)?
Regards,
Mike J.
Mike J
First, about becoming Eastern: I would tell anyone — if they want to become Eastern to “jump ship” just stay Western and visit us when you want. The reason to be Eastern is more than liturgy, but the whole spirituality; to be Eastern inside and out and not just out of flight from one’s responsibility within one’s own tradition. For the thing is, you can have Romantic ideas about one tradition; but when you become a part of it, you will see it has its problems, its infighting, etc. I know it full well.
Now, for churches, you should look here: http://www.byzcath.org/index.php?option=com_sobi2&catid=79&Itemid=109 It’s still not complete for all Eastern traditions in NJ, but it has all the Ruthenian and a few others. It should help.
David.
The way most people are using it follows this definition: An attitude or conviction which gives special importance to the nation of the United States of America.
However, it can also refer to the Americanist heresy, which tries to use many of America’s philosophical ideals (such as rugged individualism) for Catholic doctrinal and dogmatic discussion, thereby corrupting elements of Catholic tradition by use of American ideals. This, of course, has many ways it occurs, and had specific ways it was condemned in the early 20th century, but it continues to have influence, because its source comes from the American exceptionalism of the first definition.
Henry,
I understand your comments on Romantic notions and the need to understand the East more than just experience it. The infighting and some of the other issues I saw several years ago when the notion came up informed my decision to stay Latin rite. The idea to move East is little more than a passing fancy nowadays (plenty of work to be done on this side as well). I’d still like to attend Divine Liturgy from time to time though. Thanks for the link/reminder, I haven’t been on the byzcath.org forum for quite some time.
-Mike
Actually, I just remembered the real reason I can’t go East: my total inability to grow a full beard.
Mike J.
Well, that might send you to the lowest realm of hell ;) I mean, we all know, men have beards; women don’t. It’s the image of Christ which shows this — as perfect man, he has perfect beard. So of course, you, as a man, without that beard, try to make yourself out to be a woman! (joke — though the debates in 1054 sometimes were that silly).
Well it’s objectively not liberal (in the contemporary sense), nor is it communist, nor socialist because it does not call for the state to be worshipped or “re-distribute” wealth, it does not call for the peasents to rise up against the evil masters, or a ban home-schooling, all tenets of the left.
Thus it must be traditional, and orthodox.
God Bless,
Matt
I suppose I’ll have to comfort myself with singing with the rest of the castrati in the loft. Such is our lot on the West.
Maybe my son will have better luck though. Facial hair runs in my wife’s family and we’ve given him the fine name of Cyril (I have a Polish heritage, but my lack of facial hair is from my Mexican ancestry). Hopefully he’ll fair better with his manhood than I have.
“Facial hair runs in my wife’s family…”
I would be in the dog house if I made that statement publicly about my girlfiend! ; )
ah, the vagaries of the English language!
Henry,
Well, Chuck Norris has a perfect beard (with a fist underneath as well) so how does he figure into your Christological beardiness?
So, GK Chesterton and Belloc were socialists… :)
Now, Matt, normally I wouldn’t respond, but I thought I would remind you about the American way and the idea of success in America is the increase of wealth — for oneself. Success is “I’ve made it rich.” Capitalism is all about this.
Now compare that to this text. Once again, what is it telling us — to do? Seriously what is its praxis? Can this be put into effect in a capitalistic society without overriding it?
Paul
No, Chuck doesn’t have the perfect beard — it’s too short.
Henry as one Greek Catholic to another, I am a little perplexed on your presentation…
Any Evangelical Bible study attendee can see the rich Scripture references here… reducing it to how it can be descrined in terms of politics or economic philosophy almost serves to profane the text and does a disservice to the meditation and prayer of it.
Asking what the politics of this prayer is, I just don’t think does it much service.
I also question the notion that captialism in and of itself has as an end goal the accumulation of wealth. That is the difficulty of consumerism to be sure… But I come from a long line on either side of folks who earned their daily bread toiling under the capitalist system – none of them wealthy, and none of them particularly concerned with more than having some savings for their needs.
I am also left to wonder – given that capitalism has held sway since man bartered for his first widget, and the Scriptures are rife with reference to property rights (up to and including the ten commandments) – - what modern philosophy you are suggesting is appropriate.
A Simple Sinner
The texts have practical ramifications to them; they are not just sung for the sake of singing — but for teaching, for true praxis in the way we look at the world and how we act in it. It is a judges the world, it judges the political situation by that very fact. When we rob it of its political significance, when we rob it of its prophetic voice, we are just following the old Protestant notion of “faith without works.” The whole point of the Christian faith is that faith and loyalty to the Gospel is through action and not just mere belief. And this means we must constantly be challenging ourselves, and willing to learn from the prophetic utterances of the Church, and see how they serve as criticism for the political environment we are now in.
What, then, is the goal for capitalism? It is not a moral system; it is an economic system about wealth, its production, and how to get more of it. That’s its point. Just because we live in a capitalistic system – out of necessity — doesn’t make it an acceptable system; just like the early Christians who lived under Nero’s empire and lived and earned their daily living under it, does not mean they accepted its idolatry.
I am curious where you get your notions on capitalism? What material have you studied? Adam Smith? Karl Marx? GK Chesterton? Belloc? Michael Novak? John Paul II? For what I see is confusion and ignorance of the system itself. Capitalism is far more than mere free trade. And, no, to say “given that capitalism has held sway since man bartered for his first widget” is ignorance of history.
Henry as a wayward ex-Greek Catholic seminarian who struggled mightily many a morning to deal with Matins before coffee, I appreciate the schooling on your thoughts on prayer, its meaning and intent.
Lest there be further confusion, I make no contention that we as Catholics – especially Greek Catholics – have some Protestant notion of faith without works. We can take that straw man and turn it into a scare crow.
The whole point of the Christian faith is that faith and loyalty to the Gospel is through action and not just mere belief. And this means we must constantly be challenging ourselves, and willing to learn from the prophetic utterances of the Church, and see how they serve as criticism for the political environment we are now in.
This is fair enough as a singular perspective, while I am enamored with the level of intellectual rigor attempted on this blog, I can’t help but wonder if a little modesty can be applied in one’s reading. There is a chance that there is more than one reading or school of thought on a matter – again something Greek Catholics are most sensitive to – so taking an opportunity to couch an argument in terms of this being a personal take may not hurt. As it stands, I would not be entirely comfortable with this reduction as THE statement of the purpose and goal of Christianity – that could easily just be me. I think that there is more to it yet.
My objection is that at first glance the point of this entry seems to be framing this prayer in terms of classifying its politics. Doing so might seem to easily detract from a certain spirit of Byzantium that so rigourously and richly calls us to repentence and self-examination. Everything the rich man was guilty of – as any monk or nun (the folks who designed this office, no less) can tell you – is something a monk or a nun themselves can be guilty of. My reading of the parable this text is based on and then the prayers offered herein – again, sung by monks and nuns – is a daming indictment not of wealth, but of a failure to be generous and to comfort those that we have it in our power to help.
Do be careful in remember that it is the love of money that we are warned is the root of all evil. From there I am not well prepared to make the giant leap that having money even to the point of being wealthy is in and of itself problematic. Or that we are called or compelled to call for a system that precludes anyone ever become wealthy.
What, then, is the goal for capitalism? It is not a moral system; it is an economic system about wealth, its production, and how to get more of it. That’s its point. Just because we live in a capitalistic system – out of necessity — doesn’t make it an acceptable system; just like the early Christians who lived under Nero’s empire and lived and earned their daily living under it, does not mean they accepted its idolatry.
Henry this is a false dichotomy – either one must be a capitalist who is in search of success by the standard of “I’ve made it rich” which you contend “Capitalism is all about” or they must be something else? I am sorry, I contend that “I’ve made it rich” is about consumerism and materialism – which is an easy temptation to which to succumb in a free society, but those are the chances you take with a level of freedom we certainly enjoy in this system.
Conversely, not everyone laboring under this system is out to get rich, and there are plenty of othere means outside of free market capitalism for the accumulation of wealth of sorts.
The grandparents immediately come to mind as modest bread earning capitalists – especially the Greek Catholic Granny who set out her own shingle with a beauty parlor for working class women and raised two boys as a young widow alone. Certainly a capitalist, and certainly not indicted by the parable in the office quoted.
Under your definition of capitalism here, one can perhaps be entreated to see the production of wealth as a good thing for people who were instructed to go forth and multiply. Wealth and being wealthy can easily be two different things. But for those who are rearing children and looking to feed, clothe and home them (all things that are wealth) to have more of it, as there are more people, ain’t a bad thing.
Juxtaposint Nero’s pagan religion and tyranny on top of an argument for or against an economic system is odd to me. I don’t see the clear correlation, and think I need you to explain that one further.
I am ready to concede this may not be a point about which can readily agree but when you say “Just because we live in a capitalistic system – out of necessity — doesn’t make it an acceptable system” I am left to wonder if we DO “out of necessity” as you write labor under it and most all economic reality pre-Marx found all of mankind laboring under the aspiration and hope of having more wealth if they were to be healthy. Only ever having just enough or just as much is a mighty difficult way to sustain a culture. Even in pre-modern cultures, it may well be argued that the land on which folks sustained themselves in a communal hunter-gatherer fashion, even that much would have been looked at as collective wealth, and where the grass was greener, they would move. This seems to lend itself to a natural order that in fact developped rather naturally. I would be open to hearing your suggestion on what would be better intended.
It is also worth consideration that neither in the east nor the west has there been some clarion call or Church teaching against having wealth… In 2000 years, it would seem that if the obvious reading of the parable this prayer is based on is a comdemnation of wealth (which, BTW, you have far beyond the wealthy man in the era of the Gospel – the fact that you have internet access alone is a tip off!) well if that is the obvious reading, or a demand is made to preclude the freedom of the pursuit of wealth at any level, we would have seen more explicit teaching within the deposit of faith. We simply don’t.
I am curious where you get your notions on capitalism? What material have you studied? Adam Smith? Karl Marx? GK Chesterton? Belloc? Michael Novak? John Paul II? For what I see is confusion and ignorance of the system itself. Capitalism is far more than mere free trade. And, no, to say “given that capitalism has held sway since man bartered for his first widget” is ignorance of history.
Forgive, moi brat, but I am not entirely convinced by your tone that you are actually so much as curious about what in my academic background informs my understanding of capitalism, as you wish me to list off what I have read with a view of demonstrating you have read better. Must it always come down to “whipping it out and measuring” on VN? We have to trade our CVs rather than charitably make an argument for our perspectives?
If I just concede that “yours is bigger” can we get on with the business of charitably stating why we agree or disagree rather than wanting to probe into my likely obviously inferior academic formation? It wouldn’t be enough to make your case gently as to where you see I am wrong, you want me to go through my academic background, maybe we could get into chapter and verse here?
On the last sentence, that is harshly arrogant and condescending. Hard as it may be for some of a more rigourous academic stripe to not act as though they were at all times defending a thesis, is it necessary to essentially call me ignorant as you don’t agree with my assessment?
If that is how you feel, brother, I at least respect your candor, and I hope you keep going to Matins.
A Simple Sinner
Where do you get YOUR definition of capitalism from? Define capitalism. I do not think we can even begin to discuss capitalism until you show ANY sense of what it is about. And just because WE LABOR UNDER the system does not mean we FOLLOW the system. That is a quick turn around and a total ignoring of what was said.
Now, the Church’s teaching is for the relative, not absolute, good of wealth and property; it is about the fact that those who have wealth have it for the sake of others NOT for oneself. St Basil made this clear “the boot you have is the poor man’s boot.” Capitalism is about possession of and continued accumulation of wealth; any basic reading of economic theory will demonstrate this fact. In this way, the reason why I ASKED about your background on capitalism is YOU ARE CLAIMING things about it which demonstrates no study of it! To say it isn’t about the accumulation of wealth through means of capital — is to ignore what it is about! That’s why it is clear we can’t dialogue on capitalism — and why the Church says things which are against capitalism (and yes, it does, pointing out it is doing so at such times). Reading everything under a hermeneutic of modern american society and reading the past via it, without even understanding the basic background and foundations of that society – will not get dialogue. That’s the problem — people saying “I can speak up in my ignorance, and your studies make you proud when you show you know the subject I only speak in ignorance about” shows who really ARE the ones who are proud. It is the one who speaks in ignorance, not the one who offers what they know based upon their studies. I hope you didn’t tell teachers who marked your papers wrong they were filled with intellectual arrogance!
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/CAPITAL.HTM This should serve as a good foundation for discussion if you want to really engage this discussion.
I wonder that the internet blog is the best venue for the dialogue described.
As for the link to the definition supplied for Capitalism, does not one have to distinguish between capitalism and a capitalist society?
My understanding of, for instance, JP2′s critique of capitalism in Laborem Exercens is that it is the ordering of capital over labor(laborer). A business man may, for instance, live in a capitalist society, own a factory and employ a number of persons. He may then bring about policies that place preference on labor, over the continued accumulation of capital, or he may go about the other way. In the latter, the business owner exhibits capitalism, in the former, would this not necessitate some other name even while living in a capitalist society?
Regards,
Mike
Mike
Explain what you mean between capitalism (the theory) vs capitalistic society (the society which embrace the theory) and how that relates to the issue at hand. Clearly we are in a capitalistic society. And clearly, you are right, there are ways people can go about and work in the society without being capitalists — which was one of my points; just because we live in the society which is capitalistic in its foundations does not mean we are ourselves going to be supporting capitalism. But how does that relate to the question of how this praxis in the prayers relates to our society and its ideals and goals?
Given how only a portion of my response – far lengthier than I commonly offer in a combox – is about capitalism and/or its definition, it is a curious thing that the follow up on your end starts and stops there. I thought there was more to it. I will roll with it a bit, but would be bitterly disappointed if that is the mud we got stuck in.
Note right off the first sentence in your link “Capitalism is a difficult, problematic term; it applies to a diversity of phenomenon spread across disparate historical cultures with substantially variable world views.” Right there, if the thrust of my concerns or argument was about capitalism in and of itself in how it relates to this prayer and its classification, the door would be open for a rather wide definition…
For the record, I didn’t decry my own ignorance. I decried an arrogance which persisted into the next post and was willing to concede “less learnin” but not ignorance, мой друг.
So to disabuse you of the notion that I can only conclude you come to when you ever so cooly and condescendingly say “I hope you didn’t tell teachers who marked your papers wrong they were filled with intellectual arrogance!” To apply that metaphor is to suggest (a) I told you that you were wrong and (b) that you are the teacher.
I didn’t do (a) as I suggested I disagreed and gave reasons why. I am not conceding (b) either. Sorry.
When you make the somewhat presumptuous claim (in caps no less) that “In this way, the reason why I ASKED about your background on capitalism is YOU ARE CLAIMING things about it which demonstrates no study of it!” this demonstrates no small amount of condescenion in your approach and mannerism. It would take more effort perhaps to make you case “How I see it” or “From the working definition I am using…” rather than to assert what I have written so far “Demonstrates no study of it!” A little fraternal charity goes a long way on that score. You may wish to ask for clarification above and beyond wanting to know who I read to simply understand how I am using the term.
For the simplest working definition of capitalism I would go with “Capitalism refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned and operated, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy.” – straight out of wiki for ease of reference.
For some of the thinking that informed my early years – which I have moved past in some areas – you could also just as easily look at http://www.capitalism.org/ which is the 2d hit on google, just two slots above the fourth hit that you chose to reference.
That as the case may be, if I were to concede my ignorance which you have accused me of, and failed to find the right common ground for the definition of capitalism… Could we return to my objection as to the thesis you present?
Before getting too far afield into the nature of our personal preference in definitions of capitalism, we could of course harken back to the the original premise of the post and my contentions with it. Namely that:
* analyzing this prayer (straight from the Scriptures) for meaning independent of reference to the scripture may prove problematic.
* That using this scirputral prayer from the prayerlife of the monastic East as an indictment against wealth may be a stretch to begin with (especially in light of some other passages that are neutral or positive) from that stretch to an indictment of capitalism may be harder still.
* Your presupposition that we are to infer an economic worldview from this specifically with an indictment of a specific working system may be problematic from the standpoint that the suffering of Lazarus could take place under any known system between any two parties where one has something the other could use – premodern people in tribal system, a hobo with a hot fire, half a can of soup and a boxcar to bring in the one suffering from exposure and hunger, a Soviet new man who finds a fellow soul intoxicated and at risk of passing out in a snow bank. This parable simply doesn’t read as an indictment of having wealth – but as an indictment of failing in charity.
Indeed, the wealthy man would have been no less wealthy had the food he threw to the dogs went to Lazarus. Given that there WERE dogs around the estate (and these were never housedogs they were unclean) gives us an indication that they were there as there were scraps to be foraged. And remember, they were there, as these – the animals that were considered as unclean as pigs – were the sole source of succor to Lazarus in his last moments. In this very Jewish Gospel where things are as often as not said twice or doubly emphasized with contrast, the wealth of them wealthy man more than anything emphasizes that he was without any good reason to not help Lazarus – who in the end needed none of the wealth… and again these prayers serve as a meditation for monastics who were no more wealthy than a monk ever is wealthy… but were just as clearly indicted if they failed in their generosity.
To apply this to a mandate on understanding economic theory seems still to be the weakest analysis of these prayers. Trying to call them “liberal” or “conservative” or some other type of political classification, I still maintain does them a disservice.
Now in your response, really the only thing I beg is you muster to show some charity in in your offering with some working respect for me, your Greek Catholic brother rather than castigating me as ignorant or brazenly saying my assertions are ignorant (well Okay then…) could you do me the honor of respectuflly pointing out how we disagree, and then making your case or offering your thoughts from there?
ASimpleSinner
Perhaps you didn’t get the whole point of the discussion. I asked what label one would give them — because, when the point behind these prayers (which are more than what is said in Scripture), is revealed — and people are told it — often the response is “socialism” “communism” or the like. It was for this reason why I asked what people would label them — to point out that the Christian faith and its requirements transcend the economic mores of the world.
“Show some charity” that’s precious from mr “blog war.” You charge in, ridicule people, and then ask for charity. It’s being charitable to tell you what capitalism is about. You still haven’t shown understanding of it as an economic system (indeed, the page you told me to look at said it is not going to look at it as an economic system!?!!?!?! — although it is clear that its bent is individualistc, which is contrary to Christian universalism as well).
Now then, you still didn’t answer my other points — about what wealth is for, how we are supposed to use it, and the real fact of the matter is no wealth is OURS in any absolute sense. Capitalism, of course, assumes complete, unequivocal individual control of wealth. That by itself is problematic. No Christian faith can agree to that.
Henry,
Going off of definition provided by Hooker, I think the distinction comes as follows:
The society that has accepted the theory accepts that capital is given into the hands of few who make use of it to generate more wealth. The distinction with pure capitalism, however, is that the society does not mandate the use of that wealth, whereas there seems in the definition given for the theory, that the wealth is simply future-directed and should be self-perpetuating.
I would say that within a capitalist society, one has the freedom to use their own wealth not for individual gain, but at the service of others. So, within the theory’s definition, the “economic freedom” is exercised in such a way that can conform to the Gospel. In relation to the prayers of Matins, one doesn’t ignore Lazarus at the gate, but gives personal wealth for his sake. In the case of the factory owner, profit generated by the factory would not simply go into the owner’s pocket, but be used to sustain the laborers through employment and provide them their own economic freedom to sustain others.
Perhaps a better difference is a society that accepts the capitalist economic model (individuals control capital) but it’s left to individual freedom to appropriately use their wealth?
-Mike
Mike J
I would first begin by answering, as with the Church, that there are elements of capitalism, and a society which bases itsef upon capitalism, which are good and true. There is no such thing as pure error. One can find elements of the system where things are done well; and indeed, its interests in freedom (though often misguided, imo) nonetheless are aspects of which the Church commends.
But, once people start putting restrictions in capitalism, and put rules in how capitalism is to follow, it certainly is no longer pure capitalism. And I think you see that and there we agree. Yet when that happens, I would say, should we not question why these rules and restrictions are needed- – do they not show the problems inherent in the system and the state which follows it? They might be bandaids, but that just means there is more work to be done to find something better, to deal with those problems the system can’t deal with. Capitalism, because of its foundation as an enlightenment, individualistic enterprise, will always fail when it comes to morality because it will always find arguments for private liberty over justice; yet, as Belloc also points out, the end result of capitalism is its own defeat — for eventually the capital will be with one monopoly which then can form a new servile state…
And again, if one reads these texts, it talks about the person in a way with interests that capitalism is interested in — and judges it as contrary to justice. That should say something. Capitalism is rooted in individualism and the passions, alas.
capitalism is not individualism or the free market.
these alone do not make capitalism.
capitalism is the extraction of surplus value by those who own the means of production.
capitalism is, in other words, in which what you already own allows you not just to get what you want on the market. capitalism is the system by which wealth itself creates wealth.
this is what is meant by PROFIT.
there is no capitalism without the constant realization of profit.
this comes from somewhere…
it is not “created” from nothing…
where?
G Alkon
While capitalism is not individualism nor the free market, individualism is a root behind capitalistic ethics. As I have said – it is about wealth and making it; however, why? Because we want it for ourselves (hence the individualism). Moreover, the framework by which it given sufficient discussion (Adam Smith) was Enlightenment-based individualism. So my point is it is founded upon individualism, and creates a reason to accept profit at the expense of others through that.
Henry,
I agree that blind capitalism has many issues, but I wonder if this is not simply a case of expecting too much of the system. I think of it in analogy to science where some scientists expect an answer to the question of whether God exists or a definition of “design” or “purpose” when science just can’t answer such questions. It’s not that science is bad, it’s just that it’s a tool being misused. I see “capitalism” more as a tool (something a particular society and culture accepts or not) than a mindset which can be misused or not misused. But then, maybe the only reasons one can think this way is to have the Gospels which are supposed to transcend culture and provide the answers that the tools can’t.
Can there be no Christian/Christanized Capitalism?
Regards,
Mike
Perhaps you didn’t get the whole point of the discussion.
Or perhaps I didn’t take the track you were looking for on this one. I wrote no small amount of though on the nature of the prayers and the meanings behind the parable on which they are based on hoping that from a fellow Greek Catholic some thought exchange could be had on that matter. And perhaps even done so without the condescension of implying ignorance, but instead charitably offerinc counterpoints where our thinking may or in fact may not diverge.
I asked what label one would give them — because, when the point behind these prayers (which are more than what is said in Scripture), is revealed — and people are told it — often the response is “socialism” “communism” or the like. It was for this reason why I asked what people would label them — to point out that the Christian faith and its requirements transcend the economic mores of the world.
I know you asked just that. In turn I was pointing out that in fact that may not be the best approach to analyzing these prayers and was hoping for some back and forth on that based on the perspective I offered.
“Show some charity” that’s precious from mr “blog war.” You charge in, ridicule people, and then ask for charity.
So just to be clear by entering the fray I am “charging in” with offering thoughts?
I have ridiculed people where? If I have, I apologize. Are we even now that you have ridiculed me and foisted a moniker on me?
“Mr. Blog War” is a cute if somewhat rude moniker with an allusion to a combox comment I had made which was – if you are willing to go back and look a bit of a euphamism for very simply suggesting that our contributorship – who happened to take some issue with the prevailing post of the time – consider doing some point/counter-point. If that wasn’t obvious, I apologize unreservedly in this the time of our Great Lent and beg your forgiveness.
But if you are intent on understanding that reference in the most negative light, I can’t help but ask: Does my perceived lack of charity in that instance now justify your lack of charity to me and what I perceive as your failure to charitably present your disagreement without implying that I am ignorant?
It’s being charitable to tell you what capitalism is about. You still haven’t shown understanding of it as an economic system (indeed, the page you told me to look at said it is not going to look at it as an economic system!?!!?!?! — although it is clear that its bent is individualistc, which is contrary to Christian universalism as well).
We may have to agree to disagree on this one as I thought in my last post I made it clear enough that really defining capitalism – something you insist on steering this discussion towards – is something I would happily concede if we could at least charitably consider my other original objections. For all the time and effort I put into everything else I wrote which easily can stand or fall without reference to you and I coming to an agreed definition on capitalism, I am still spoken to in a condescending manner and now given what seems like less than a playful and intended ironic moniker.
Can we start over with charity to consider some of these things in a more fraternal fashion?
Mike J
Christian teaching is not capitalism and it finds capitalism to be from the same coin as Marxism, truth be told. As I pointed out, that doesn’t mean it rejects all aspects of capitalism — but the Church is always going to be critical of systems which focus on mammon. Just look at the “seven deadly sins” discussed just this weekend and how they show this point.
Henry,
I agree with you that capitalism focuses on mammon. At the same time, however, the history of Christian inculturation points toward emphasizing the good of these things and pointing to how Christ takes these elements of the good and completes them. The negatives are emphasized more than positives it seems.
Regards,
Mike J.
Mike J
While inculturation is a truth, it must not be understood as complete approval of all that is in a culture, but rather taking as you say what was good, but also taking it into its true place with Truth instead of merely using it and allowing the culture to remain unchanged from his contact with the Gospel. And if a society idolizes itself and its system, before it can be shown the good within it must first have a critical look at what is bad — for the good, in many respects, is already well known.