"Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them"?

[sayak83]

I'm sorry to say that, umm, we do believe in the a priori claim thingy. Allow me to explain!



Populorum Progressio - Papal Encyclicals

If the world is made to furnish each individual with the means of livelihood and the instruments for his growth and progress, each man has therefore the right to find in the world what is necessary for himself. The recent Council reminded us of this: “God intended the earth and all that it contains for the use of every human being and people. Thus, as all men follow justice and unite in charity, created goods should abound for them on a reasonable basis”[20] All other rights whatsoever, including those of property and of free commerce, are to be subordinated to this principle. They should not hinder but on the contrary favor its application. It is a grave and urgent social duty to redirect them to their primary finality.

23. “If someone who has the riches of this world sees his brother in need and closes his heart to him, how does the love of God abide in him?.”[21] It is well known how strong were the words used by the Fathers of the Church to describe the proper attitude of persons who possess anything towards persons in need. To quote Saint Ambrose: “You are not making a gift of your possessions to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his. For what has been given in common for the use of all, you have arrogated to yourself. The world is given to all, and not only to the rich”.[22] That is, private property does not constitute for anyone an absolute and unconditioned right. No one is justified in keeping for his exclusive use what he does not need, when others lack necessities. In a word, “according to the traditional doctrine as found in the Fathers of the Church and the great theologians, the right to property must never be exercised to the detriment of the common good”. If there should arise a conflict “between acquired private rights and primary community exigencies”, it is the responsibility of public authorities “to look for a solution, with the active participation of individuals and social groups”.[23]

24. If certain landed estates impede the , general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation. While giving a clear statement on this,[24] the Council recalled no less clearly that the available revenue is not to be used in accordance with mere whim, and that no place must be given to selfish speculation. Consequently it is unacceptable that citizens with abundant incomes from the resources and activity of their country should transfer a considerable part of this income abroad purely for their own advantage, with out care for the manifest wrong they inflict on their country by doing this.[25]​

Right to food, clothing, shelter and healthcare adequate to maintenance of life of any person that is the member of a society or state is, I believe, a fundamental right. So, if a citizen is unable to procure them in amounts capable of sustaining his/her life, then he or she is within her rights to take it by force from others. This is why I support rights to universal housing, food, health care, universal minimal wage and universal basic education for all.

However, there are caveats.
1) One can still be quite poor while having such basic coverage. You may be living in a dump, your food may be bland and your school overcrowded and your Healthcare quite basic. But you cannot steal from Bill Gates or rob a bank because you are barely getting by while "they" are living in palaces. Once you do have enough to get by, the proper course for further reform is both self-effort and participation in protests, marches or other reform movements to air your grievances in a lawful manner.

2) If you are in desperate straits not because of absence of sufficient state or charity services, but because of other reasons (mental problems, addiction etc.) then also you can't steal and rob and get away with it. If one is unable to take the responsibility of living an independent life, at some point he must be imprisoned or institutionalized till the time he/she regains the capability.

3) Not all countries are rich enough to guarantee the universal services. Richer countries should then chip in, as well as international charities. But even then there may be deprivation. Food, water, clothes brook no delay. But others may take time, economic investment, social development. Thus a state may be considered responsible if it does what it can, while also investigating in better future for the next generation. This may require incentives to capital investment, infrastructure building etc. that may not provide immediate basic needs to the poor, but is expected to do so in future. In these cases however, the govt. is answerable with a definite plan and targets, and show that it is meeting them. As long as this holds, disobedience of the law cannot be considered legitimate.

Thought?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

St. John Chrysostom (Hom. in Lazaro 2,5, cited in CCC 2446)

Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs

St. Ambose (De Nabuthe, c.12, n.53, cited in Populorum Progressio of Paul VI):

You are not making a gift of your possessions to poor persons. You are handing over to them what is theirs. For what has been given in common for the use of all, you have arrogated to yourself. The world is given to all, and not only to the rich.

​

Agree or disagree (with these early church fathers of the fourth century AD)?

I agree with them dear Vouthon, they were wise men.

"O CHILDREN OF DUST! Tell the rich of the midnight sighing of the poor, lest heedlessness lead them into the path of destruction, and deprive them of the Tree of Wealth. To give and to be generous are attributes of Mine; well is it with him that adorneth himself with My virtues.' The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

sounds like communism to me

what might be withheld would be the opportunity to particapte
find everyone something to do...... a job

All have to look after the poor, but at the same time all that can work must work;

"They who are possessed of riches, however, must have the utmost regard for the poor, for great is the honor destined by God for those poor who are steadfast in patience. By My life! There is no honor, except what God may please to bestow, that can compare to this honor. Great is the blessedness awaiting the poor that endure patiently and conceal their sufferings, and well is it with the rich who bestow their riches on the needy and prefer them before themselves." – Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, p. 229.

Regards Tony

 

[Shadow Wolf]

sounds like communism to me

In a nutshell, a religious-based from of communism is what Jesus taught.

 

[Quintessence]

Another comparison to slavery by a socialist.

This is ridiculing the actual savagery that slavery was.

Go ahead and quit your job. See if your "enslavers" care? Most likely, they'll just wish you luck of your new endeavors.

Huh? I'm not sure what you're on about here, aside from an apparently pointless and misdirected rant.

 

[Revoltingest]

Agree, from a Buddhist position

This potentially makes you & like minded folk very dangerous. Why?
Theft often inspires violent resistance & response from the one aggrieved.
If there is no difference between mere ownership, & the forcible taking
thereof, such a belief would encourage much violence.k
But are such claims of belief sincere, or merely poetically provocative?

 

[Thief]

In a nutshell, a religious-based from of communism is what Jesus taught.

not sure about that.....but....

He did seem to have strong mindset about the rich

easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle
than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven

 

[suncowiam]

Huh? I'm not sure what you're on about here, aside from an apparently pointless and misdirected rant.

You, making a mockery of slavery with comparing the lives of Americans or citizens under capitalism to slavery.

Citizens under capitalism have a much higher quality of life compared to other nations. It's all about perception. Yes, there's still inequality but no where near the inequality of actual slaves.

Talk about a pointless rant?

Did you expect people not to criticize your comment? You've grown isolated in your ways. You're free to critize but obviously criticism will come in return.

Now, I made it a point to criticize your comment because of the gross comparison to slavery which I find the same level to Nazis or hitler. Its a strawman. If you can't accept it then maybe you shouldn't comment any more. But of course, you're going to deflect and obsfucate when you can't defend your ideals.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

not sure about that.....but....

Teaching communal living the way he did, it's basically communism before communism was an idea.

 

[Vouthon]

Right to food, clothing, shelter and healthcare adequate to maintenance of life of any person that is the member of a society or state is, I believe, a fundamental right. So, if a citizen is unable to procure them in amounts capable of sustaining his/her life, then he or she is within her rights to take it by force from others. This is why I support rights to universal housing, food, health care, universal minimal wage and universal basic education for all.

I agree entirely.

However, there are caveats.
1) One can still be quite poor while having such basic coverage. You may be living in a dump, your food may be bland and your school overcrowded and your Healthcare quite basic. But you cannot steal from Bill Gates or rob a bank because you are barely getting by while "they" are living in palaces. Once you do have enough to get by, the proper course for further reform is both self-effort and participation in protests, marches or other reform movements to air your grievances in a lawful manner.

Agreed again. The canonists of my church refer to "extreme necessity", which concerns lacking enough to live on.

Beyond those in extreme penury, the main recourse is to be had through legal means such as foreign government aid, charitable donations, trade union activism, collective bargaining and political representation leading to re-distributive taxation etc.

2) If you are in desperate straits not because of absence of sufficient state or charity services, but because of other reasons (mental problems, addiction etc.) then also you can't steal and rob and get away with it. If one is unable to take the responsibility of living an independent life, at some point he must be imprisoned or institutionalized till the time he/she regains the capability.

Yep, agreed.

3) Not all countries are rich enough to guarantee the universal services. Richer countries should then chip in, as well as international charities. But even then there may be deprivation. Food, water, clothes brook no delay. But others may take time, economic investment, social development. Thus a state may be considered responsible if it does what it can, while also investigating in better future for the next generation. This may require incentives to capital investment, infrastructure building etc. that may not provide immediate basic needs to the poor, but is expected to do so in future. In these cases however, the govt. is answerable with a definite plan and targets, and show that it is meeting them. As long as this holds, disobedience of the law cannot be considered legitimate.

Thought?
[/QUOTE]

Again, I agree (we're on a roll I think!).

In his 1967 encyclical Populorum Progressio, Pope Paul VI urged the Catholic world to support foreign aid transfers, higher taxation, fair trading arrangements for developing countries and state-led development programs, which he expressly notes require careful planning:

"...Government officials, it is your concern to mobilize your peoples to form a more effective world solidarity, and above all to make them accept the necessary taxes on their luxuries and their wasteful expenditures, in order to bring about development and to save the peace...

The struggle against destitution, though urgent and necessary, is not enough. It is a question, rather, of building a world where every man, no matter what his race, religion or nationality, can live a fully human life, freed from servitude imposed on him by other men or by natural forces over which he has not sufficient control...

48. The duty of promoting human solidarity also falls upon the shoulders of nations: "It is a very important duty of the advanced nations to help the developing nations . . ." (53) This conciliar teaching must be implemented. While it is proper that a nation be the first to enjoy the God-given fruits of its own labor, no nation may dare to hoard its riches for its own use alone. Each and every nation must produce more and better goods and products, so that all its citizens may live truly human lives and so that it may contribute to the common development of the human race.

Considering the mounting indigence of less developed countries, it is only fitting that a prosperous nation set aside some of the goods it has produced in order to alleviate their needs; and that it train educators, engineers, technicians and scholars who will contribute their knowledge and their skill to these less fortunate countries.


Superfluous Wealth

49. We must repeat that the superfluous goods of wealthier nations ought to be placed at the disposal of poorer nations. The rule, by virtue of which in times past those nearest us were to be helped in time of need, applies today to all the needy throughout the world. And the prospering peoples will be the first to benefit from this. Continuing avarice on their part will arouse the judgment of God and the wrath of the poor, with consequences no one can foresee. If prosperous nations continue to be jealous of their own advantage alone, they will jeopardize their highest values, sacrificing the pursuit of excellence to the acquisition of possessions. We might well apply to them the parable of the rich man. His fields yielded an abundant harvest and he did not know where to store it: "But God said to him, 'Fool, this very night your soul will be demanded from you . . .' " (54)


Concerted Planning

50. If these efforts are to be successful, they cannot be disparate and disorganized; nor should they vie with one another for the sake of power or prestige. The times call for coordinated planning of projects and programs, which are much more effective than occasional efforts promoted by individual goodwill.

As We said above, studies must be made, goals must be defined, methods and means must be chosen, and the work of select men must be coordinated; only then will present needs be met and future demands anticipated. Moreover, such planned programs do more than promote economic and social progress. They give force and meaning to the work undertaken, put due order into human life, and thus enhance man's dignity and his capabilities.

52. It is certainly all right to maintain bilateral and multilateral agreements. Through such agreements, ties of dependence and feelings of jealousy—holdovers from the era of colonialism —give way to friendly relationships of true solidarity that are based on juridical and political equality. But such agreements would be free of all suspicion if they were integrated into an overall policy of worldwide collaboration. The member nations, who benefit from these agreements, would have less reason for fear or mistrust. They would not have to worry that financial or technical assistance was being used as a cover for some new form of colonialism that would threaten their civil liberty, exert economic pressure on them, or create a new power group with controlling influence.

Let each one examine his conscience, a conscience that conveys a new message for our times. Is he prepared to support out of his own pocket works and undertakings organized in favor of the most destitute?

Is he ready to pay higher taxes so that the public authorities can intensify their efforts in favor of development? Is he ready to pay a higher price for imported goods so that the producer may be more justly rewarded?..."

- Blessed Paul VI (Populorum progression), 1967 (#84)​

 

[Quintessence]

You, making a mockery of slavery with comparing the lives of Americans or citizens under capitalism to slavery.

Citizens under capitalism have a much higher quality of life compared to other nations. It's all about perception. Yes, there's still inequality but no where near the inequality of actual slaves.

Talk about a pointless rant?

Did you expect people not to criticize your comment? You've grown isolated in your ways. You're free to critize but obviously criticism will come in return.

Now, I made it a point to criticize your comment because of the gross comparison to slavery which I find the same level to Nazis or hitler. Its a strawman. If you can't accept it then maybe you shouldn't comment any more. But of course, you're going to deflect and obsfucate when you can't defend your ideals.

Care to ask for clarification of my point instead of making a bunch of misguided assumptions? Nah, of course not - it's simpler to make a strawperson of what I said and attack it, right? Didn't you say once you weren't going to troll me?

 

[Thief]

Teaching communal living the way he did, it's basically communism before communism was an idea.

I think the Jews already had the scheme in play
each participant to his own abilities

still.....the rich play off of the skilled labor
and the poor play off of anyone passing by

ever wonder how much a 'pan handler' makes per day?

 

[suncowiam]

Care to ask for clarification of my point instead of making a bunch of misguided assumptions? Nah, of course not - it's simpler to make a strawperson of what I said and attack it, right? Didn't you say once you weren't going to troll me?

Your point was to compare capitalism to slavery?

What else could you have meant? Here we go again with the deflection and obfuscation.

Ok. Let me ask you what you meant when you compared capitalism to slavery?

 

[Vouthon]

Teaching communal living the way he did, it's basically communism before communism was an idea.

Well, Jesus did practise the effective abolition of private ownership.

I mean, he plainly stated (and many Christians, probably most, overlook this one):

Luke 14:33 NLT: So you cannot become my disciple without giving up everything you own.
​

And the earliest Christian community, according to the New Testament, literally did do this:

The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. (Acts 4: 32-35)

And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. (Acts 2.44-45; RSV)

​

It is because of this that later church doctrine stipulated the teaching set out in the OP: in time of extreme need, all things are common property such that if the indignant take what they need from the superfluous wealth of the rich, it isn't considered theft under natural law but rather a case of the rich having stolen what belongs rightfully to the poor.

Uneasily, this was balanced out by a strong belief in private property as a right but crucially not an absolute right, with the caveat that because it arises from positive law it is subordinate, ultimately, to the universal destination of goods.

It was for this reason that Nietzche accused Christianity of creating a "tyranny of the least and the dumbest" because of its foundational belief in radical equality of status. The crux of Nietzsche's argument against democratic socialism (as well as feminism and anarchism) is that it is merely a continuation of Christianity, or as he put it elsewhere:

Friedrich Nietzsche / The Inevitabilty of Democracy -- 1886

Indeed, with the help of a religion which indulged and flattered the most sublime herd-animal desires, we have reached the point where we find even in political and social institutions an ever more visible expression of this morality: the democratic movement is the heir of the Christian movement. ​

 

[sayak83]

I agree entirely.



Agreed again. The canonists of my church refer to "extreme necessity", which concerns lacking enough to live on.

Beyond those in extreme penury, the main recourse is to be had through legal means such as foreign government aid, charitable donations, trade union activism, collective bargaining and political representation leading to re-distributive taxation etc.




Yep, agreed.




Thought?


Again, I agree (we're on a roll I think!).

In his 1967 encyclical Populorum Progressio, Pope Paul VI urged the Catholic world to support foreign aid transfers, higher taxation, fair trading arrangements for developing countries and state-led development programs, which he expressly notes require careful planning:

"...Government officials, it is your concern to mobilize your peoples to form a more effective world solidarity, and above all to make them accept the necessary taxes on their luxuries and their wasteful expenditures, in order to bring about development and to save the peace...

The struggle against destitution, though urgent and necessary, is not enough. It is a question, rather, of building a world where every man, no matter what his race, religion or nationality, can live a fully human life, freed from servitude imposed on him by other men or by natural forces over which he has not sufficient control...

48. The duty of promoting human solidarity also falls upon the shoulders of nations: "It is a very important duty of the advanced nations to help the developing nations . . ." (53) This conciliar teaching must be implemented. While it is proper that a nation be the first to enjoy the God-given fruits of its own labor, no nation may dare to hoard its riches for its own use alone. Each and every nation must produce more and better goods and products, so that all its citizens may live truly human lives and so that it may contribute to the common development of the human race.

Considering the mounting indigence of less developed countries, it is only fitting that a prosperous nation set aside some of the goods it has produced in order to alleviate their needs; and that it train educators, engineers, technicians and scholars who will contribute their knowledge and their skill to these less fortunate countries.


Superfluous Wealth

49. We must repeat that the superfluous goods of wealthier nations ought to be placed at the disposal of poorer nations. The rule, by virtue of which in times past those nearest us were to be helped in time of need, applies today to all the needy throughout the world. And the prospering peoples will be the first to benefit from this. Continuing avarice on their part will arouse the judgment of God and the wrath of the poor, with consequences no one can foresee. If prosperous nations continue to be jealous of their own advantage alone, they will jeopardize their highest values, sacrificing the pursuit of excellence to the acquisition of possessions. We might well apply to them the parable of the rich man. His fields yielded an abundant harvest and he did not know where to store it: "But God said to him, 'Fool, this very night your soul will be demanded from you . . .' " (54)


Concerted Planning

50. If these efforts are to be successful, they cannot be disparate and disorganized; nor should they vie with one another for the sake of power or prestige. The times call for coordinated planning of projects and programs, which are much more effective than occasional efforts promoted by individual goodwill.

As We said above, studies must be made, goals must be defined, methods and means must be chosen, and the work of select men must be coordinated; only then will present needs be met and future demands anticipated. Moreover, such planned programs do more than promote economic and social progress. They give force and meaning to the work undertaken, put due order into human life, and thus enhance man's dignity and his capabilities.

52. It is certainly all right to maintain bilateral and multilateral agreements. Through such agreements, ties of dependence and feelings of jealousy—holdovers from the era of colonialism —give way to friendly relationships of true solidarity that are based on juridical and political equality. But such agreements would be free of all suspicion if they were integrated into an overall policy of worldwide collaboration. The member nations, who benefit from these agreements, would have less reason for fear or mistrust. They would not have to worry that financial or technical assistance was being used as a cover for some new form of colonialism that would threaten their civil liberty, exert economic pressure on them, or create a new power group with controlling influence.

Let each one examine his conscience, a conscience that conveys a new message for our times. Is he prepared to support out of his own pocket works and undertakings organized in favor of the most destitute?

Is he ready to pay higher taxes so that the public authorities can intensify their efforts in favor of development? Is he ready to pay a higher price for imported goods so that the producer may be more justly rewarded?..."

- Blessed Paul VI (Populorum progression), 1967 (#84)​

Cool. We are agreed on the principles. I won't comment on specific policies. They are country and situation specific.

 

[sayak83]

Well, Jesus did practise the effective abolition of private ownership.

I mean, he plainly stated (and many Christians, probably most, overlook this one):

Luke 14:33 NLT: So you cannot become my disciple without giving up everything you own.
​

And the earliest Christian community, according to the New Testament, literally did do this:

The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. (Acts 4: 32-35)

And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. (Acts 2.44-45; RSV)

​

It is because of this that later church doctrine stipulated the teaching set out in the OP: in time of extreme need, all things are common property such that if the indignant take what they need from the superfluous wealth of the rich, it isn't considered theft under natural law but rather a case of the rich having stolen what belongs rightfully to the poor.

Uneasily, this was balanced out by a strong belief in private property as a right but crucially not an absolute right, with the caveat that because it arises from positive law it is subordinate, ultimately, to the universal destination of goods.

It was for this reason that Nietzche accused Christianity of creating a "tyranny of the least and the dumbest" because of its foundational belief in radical equality of status. The crux of Nietzsche's argument against democratic socialism (as well as feminism and anarchism) is that it is merely a continuation of Christianity, or as he put it elsewhere:

Friedrich Nietzsche / The Inevitabilty of Democracy -- 1886

Indeed, with the help of a religion which indulged and flattered the most sublime herd-animal desires, we have reached the point where we find even in political and social institutions an ever more visible expression of this morality: the democratic movement is the heir of the Christian movement. ​

Strong belief in private property does not come from Jesus though.

 

[Vouthon]

Strong belief in private property does not come from Jesus though.

Indeed not, this was justified mainly using Old Testament scriptural texts and sacred tradition. The words of Jesus offer little-to-no solace for private possession of....well, anything really.

Which was why the Church took such a strident line on need rendering all property common, as God originally intended with the goods of the earth before human legislated appropriations.

I think they took the most pragmatic approach while incorporating all they could of the original idealism, justifying the flexibility with "concessions to human weakness".

Monks, though, go the full hog and completely give up private property.

 

[Quintessence]

Your point was to compare capitalism to slavery?

Sure, but not the weird directions you're going with it. I thought it was pretty clear from that admittedly brief post that it's not some sort of 1-to-1 correspondence. The appropriate response would have been to ask "in what ways do you see capitalistic economic systems as analogous to slavery?" and perhaps also "in what ways do you see them as different?" (because there's that too).

In what ways is it analogous? The end-goal of capitalism is all about profit. If something isn't profitable, you don't do it. Without regulation - either by law or by social norms - all sorts of ethnically questionable behaviors are justified in the name of profit. Sometimes, the results of that look analogous to slavery. As an example, in the past there were basically no worker protections for folks: no limits to working hours, no overtime pay, dangerous working conditions, child labor, no minimum wages, no benefits, etc. In many respects, it was human slavery in all but name. It was certainly abusive, at any rate. No surprise, folks rebelled, formed things like labor unions, and laws were passed to curb the worst impacts of unregulated capitalism. Things like minimum wage laws, the 40 hour work week, and so on. Unfortunately, this made operating costs more expensive and some companies reacted by moving operations overseas. Why deal with expensive regulations and labor laws domestically when you can outsource to places that still allow exploitation and pittance wages?

The struggles of industrialization and capitalism are really important lessons from history to remember. Many of the protections that were fought for are taken for granted now; we forget that lassies faire capitalism was downright awful for abusing humans as resources. There are other important lessons from history about the importance of regulating capitalism, but I think that human labor laws are most relevant to the OP's topic. When I read the OP, @Vouthon, minimum wage laws came to mind. The profit-driven fixation of capitalism is bad enough, but it's worse when those profits are not shared equitably. Profits get funneled up to the management, not given to the poor (aka, the workers who do most of the actual work). The inequality here is the worst it's been in decades in my country, and it makes these words from the Bible very timely.

 

[Vouthon]

@Quintessence I think you provide in the above a very eloquent overview of the pitfalls of the profit motive.

What a lot of folks forget is that the 19th century was the era of real, unadulterated capitalism before the advent of social welfare legislation, trade unions and regulation to mitigate it's worst excesses while retaining the essential benefits of a market economy.

And it wasn't exactly pretty, to put it mildly. The best capitalist model is the Nordic one and also the German social market economy. Probably the most nightmarish variation out there today is that trumpeted by libertarians and Repubs in the USA (hah, trumpeted get it?) influenced by Ayn Rand.

As Pope Paul VI explained in his 1967 encyclical Populorum Progressio:

Certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society.

These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations

This unbridled capitalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the "international imperialism of money."(26)

Such improper manipulations of economic forces can never be condemned enough; let it be said once again that economics is supposed to be in the service of man. (27)

[This] type of capitalism, as it is commonly called, has given rise to hardships, unjust practices, and fratricidal conflicts that persist to this day...

Individual initiative alone and the mere free play of competition could never assure successful development.

One must avoid the risk of increasing still more the wealth of the rich and the dominion of the strong, whilst leaving the poor in their misery and adding to the servitude of the oppressed.

​

Note how Pope Paul refers to the "servitude of the oppressed" poor under such an economic system, which I believe is essentially what you were saying with regards to the slavery analogy.

 

[james bond]

I interpreted wealth to mean personal wealth. I think God meant for us to gather wealth in terms of invention, creating a business that is profitable or using one's talents, skills and knowledge to make a living and being successful or just by luck, such as winning the lottery or being the one to buy a business or land in the right location. He wanted for us to be healthy, wealthy and wise. Where the danger is that of greed and that money changes everything. It changes our perception of ourselves and the perception of those around us. I think this is why God wanted us to sell all our possessions and give it to the poor and help the poor. He wanted us to be humble. Just giving money directly to the person in the streets holding a sign may not always be wise. Sure, some have a desperate need that needs to be met right away, but it could be they use it as a crutch for their addictions and bad habits and not try to better their situation. Giving to the poor also gets us involved in getting involved in interacting with the poor such as helping out in the food kitchens or going on relief missions. It could mean not just feeding and nourishing, but clothing and helping improve their health and lives. This may involve helping with their addictions and bad habits, too. Jesus taught us the rewards are in and of itself.