I think it would be prudent to distinguish Catholic and Calvinist
doctrine from
history and certain instances of
practise. I'm already seeing the tired clichés about Vatican wealth. It is so unoriginal.
We obviously cannot generalize with individuals. Some right-wing libertarian Catholics in America would likely view wealth and property with positivity, whereas a Presbyterian minister living in a deprived neighbourhood in Ghana might have a negative view of wealth. And vice versa.
Outwith the individual level however we can consider the official teachings of these two denominations.
Since I am no authority on Calvinism, I will neglect to comment on its understanding of wealth. I do come from a traditionally Calvinist country but I still don't feel knowledgeable enough to judge.
As far as Catholicism is concerned, we might consider the views of the Church Fathers and St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa which reflect the mood among the early and medieval theologians. This general perception has endured to this day because Catholicism is a faith rooted in the patristics and past theologians while responding to contemporary needs.
St. Thomas taught that "happiness does not lie in wealth". This has been a teaching of the Church since the days of the Fathers.
From the Summa:
Summa Theologica - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Whether man's happiness consists in wealth?
I answer that, It is impossible for man's happiness to consist in wealth. For wealth is twofold, as the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 3), viz. natural and artificial. Natural wealth is that which serves man as a remedy for his natural wants: such as food, drink, clothing, cars, dwellings, and such like, while artificial wealth is that which is not a direct help to nature, as money, but is invented by the art of man, for the convenience of exchange, and as a measure of things salable.
Now it is evident that man's happiness cannot consist in natural wealth. For wealth of this kind is sought for the sake of something else, viz. as a support of human nature: consequently it cannot be man's last end, rather is it ordained to man as to its end. Wherefore in the order of nature, all such things are below man, and made for him, according to Ps. 8:8: "Thou hast subjected all things under his feet."
And as to artificial wealth, it is not sought save for the sake of natural wealth; since man would not seek it except because, by its means, he procures for himself the necessaries of life. Consequently much less can it be considered in the light of the last end. Therefore it is impossible for happiness, which is the last end of man, to consist in wealth.
Beginning from this principle, the Catholic Church has deduced other principles - some that would shock many modern conservatives.
It is considered to be a mortal sin for a person to hoard more money than they need to survive and live comfortably.
The Catholic Church teaches, and this is a really important patristic idea, that what the rich have in excess belongs by right and necessity not to them but to the poor. Obviously, "excess wealth" is not absolutely defined. The teaching is meant to inform the rich person's conscience, however if he does have anything beyond what he needs to live and care for his future then it is sinful.
This idea was taught by the Fathers:
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.”
St. John Chrysostom (Hom. in Lazaro 2,5, cited in CCC 2446): “Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours, but theirs.”
St. Gregory the Great (Regula Pastoralis 3,21, cited in CCC 2446): “When we attend to the needs of those in want, we give them what is theirs, not ours. More than performing works of mercy, we are paying a debt of justice.”
The Decretals (Dist. XLVII, cited in ST II-II, q.66, a.3, obj 2): “It is no less a crime to take from him that has, than to refuse to succor the needy when you can and are well off.”
St. Ambrose (cited in ST II-II, q.66, a.6): “It is the hungry man’s bread that you withhold, the naked man’s cloak that you store away, the money that you bury in the earth is the price of the poor man’s ransom and freedom.”
St. Gregory the Great: “For if everyone receiving what is sufficient for his own necessity would leave what remains to the needy, there would be no rich or poor.”
St. Basil: “Are not thou then a robber, for counting as thine own what thou hast receivest to distribute? It is the bread of the famished which thou receivest, the garment of the naked which thou hoardest in they chest, the shoe of the barefooted which rots in they possessions, the money of the pennyless which thou hast buried in the earth. Wherefore then dost thou injure so many to whom thou mightiest be a benefactor.”
St. Bede: “He then who wishes to be rich toward God, will not lay up treasures for himself, but distribute his possessions to the poor.”
St. Thomas Aquinas taught in his Summa Theologica that if a man has grave 'need' then he can take from the abundance of the rich without committing sin. Property rights and commercial profit are not therefore and have never been according to Catholic social teaching absolute rights. The enjoyment of them is limited by the urgent need of one's fellow human beings and to exercise them in excess is to sin anyway.
It evident from the Church's Sacred Tradition that the right to private ownership is subordinate to the universal destination of all goods. That is one cannot claim a right to private property by depriving others of the basic material necessities for living. Every person has the right to the material necessities of life and when deprived of these, while another has them in excess, a grave social and moral evil exists.
Read the Summa here:
SUMMA THEOLOGICA: Theft and robbery (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 66)
...it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another’s property by taking it either openly or secretly; nor is this, properly speaking, theft and robbery...It is not theft, properly speaking, to take secretly and use another’s property in a case of extreme need; because that which he takes for the support of his life becomes his own property by reason of that need...In a case of a like need, a man may also take secretly another’s property in order to succor his neighbour in need
This has been consistently confirmed by the Magisterium.
Pope Paul VI made the point quite clear in his 1967 encyclical "Populorum Progressio":
Vatican
…each man has therefore the right to find in the world what is necessary for himself. The recent Council [Vatican II] 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.” All other rights whatsoever, including those of property and of free commerce, are to be subordinated to this principle.
