Charity By The Sword
December 2, 2010
James Kerian
Just before He ascended into heaven, Jesus gave his followers the Apostolic Commission to “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations.” Many Christian rulers would interpret this as a command to use the power of government to enforce the faith. Imprisonment, banishment, and execution could not compel genuine faith in God, but they could enforce acts of faith such as being baptised or attending Mass. Using the law to enforce acts of faith became known as “conversion by the sword.”
In our own time, many Christians have become increasingly attracted to what might be called “Charity by the sword.” They correctly point out that Scripture calls us to charity and then insist that Christians are bound by Scripture’s call for charity to support various forms of government redistribution. Of course, the law cannot compel genuine charity any more than it can compel genuine faith. But it can compel acts of charity.
Support for charity by the sword has been ecumenical. In 2008 the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Department of Justice, Peace and Human Development released a criticism of the federal budget stating “A budget is a moral document reflecting the priorities of the nation. . . . Scripture gives us the story of the Last Judgment (Mt. 25) and instructs us to put the needs of the poor and vulnerable first.”
Protestant authors such as Tony Campolo have advocated for charity by the sword in a more directly partisan manner. “I buy into the Democratic Party,” he wrote, “. . . because there are over 2,000 verses of Scripture that deal with responding to the needs of the poor.”
The Second Vatican Council declared in Dignitatis Humanae the objective evil of conversion by the sword. The council made it clear that neither the Apostolic Commission nor any other scriptural exhortation could be used to excuse coercion, for “the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.” The Church did not condemn conversion by the sword because it was ineffective, but because to coerce acts of faith is inherently evil.
The Church does not, of course, condemn all acts of government coercion. As Thomas Aquinas wrote, “the law is an expression of what is just,” and so it is assumed that the state properly enforces (or coerces) acts of justice, such as the repayment of stolen property. But does the government’s obligation to enforce acts of justice mean that it can legitimately enforce acts of charity?
In his encyclical Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict XVI clearly defines the difference between these two virtues: “Charity goes beyond justice, because to love is to give, to offer what is mine to the other; but it never lacks justice, which prompts us to give the other what is his.” The purpose of the government’s power, the power of the sword, is to establish justice, to ensure that the other receives what is his. It is not necessarily to establish charity.
Charity, the third theological virtue, receives very similar treatment in Sacred Scripture to the first theological virtue, faith. When Christ gives the greatest commandment, it is not to love God with the whole of your neighbor’s heart, soul, and mind. When He gives the second commandment it is not to love your neighbor with your other neighbor’s goods. The widow in the Gospel does not give away someone else’s two coins.
The Gospel of Luke exhorts us to invite the poor, crippled, and lame “when you give a banquet,” not to bring them uninvited to someone else’s banquet. Christ never proclaimed that whatsoever you make someone else do to the least of your brethren, that you do unto Him. Scripture calls us to practice the theological virtues, not to enforce them by the sword. Charity, to give what is mine to the other, is demanded by God along with faith, but both faith and charity are outside the legitimate authority of law, “an expression of what is just.”
Individual politicians can and should be motivated by charity, a phenomenon that Pope Benedict refers to as “the political path of charity.” As Aquinas wrote, “it is charity which directs the acts of all the other virtues.” This does not, however, alter the fundamental difference between acts of justice, which the government is obligated to compel, and acts of charity, which like acts of faith cannot be compelled without violating human dignity. A policy of charity by the sword is no more legitimate than conversion by the sword.
This is not to say, however, that all government redistribution is illegitimate. Justice sometimes demands redistribution due to what is commonly called “the right of necessity,” both in common law and in moral theology. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states “The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs” (§ 2242).
Genuine need legitimizes (i.e., justifies) coercive redistribution, but this remains a matter of justice, not charity. Clearly some of our government’s redistribution programs, such as those that provide food or shelter for people who would otherwise have none, are required to guarantee “the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs.”
It is equally clear that some of our other redistribution programs, such as the recently enacted program in Massachusetts to provide the poor with automobiles, do not meet this standard. This standard of justice, not charity, is the standard by which Christians must judge compelled redistribution if we are to uphold “the very dignity of the human person.”
Charity by the sword violates the dignity of the human person regardless of democratic governance. Winning an election does not give a political faction the right to enforce almsgiving any more than it gives them the right to enforce Mass attendance. Long after the rise of representative government the Second Vatican Council stated in Dignitatis Humanae “men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion.”
Conversion by the sword has come to be universally recognized among Christians as a terrible violation of human dignity. It was a gross misunderstanding of the gospel with a perverse effect on the political and evangelistic activity of many Christians.
In time, charity by the sword will similarly be recognized for the horrible mistake that it is. The day will come when the notion that the federal budget must reflect the gospel’s call to charity will seem as absurd as we now find the suggestion that baptism should be a prerequisite for American citizenship.
James Kerian is a mechanical engineer and small business owner in Grafton, North Dakota.
Comments:
12.2.2010 | 11:46am
Bangwell Putt says:
This is well-done and timely; I have only one "but". Access to an automobile can make the difference between employment and unemployment. In the right circumstances (no access to public transportation), providing one can qualify as a matter of justice.
12.2.2010 | 1:14pm
bernard wills says:
Banks and other financial institutions in the United States and elswhere are objects of obscene public largesse and this guy is offended by the thought of some sap in Massachusetts getting a beater?
12.2.2010 | 1:14pm
Brian says:
Bangwell's comment illustrates the danger introduced by that introduction of "legitimate" redistribution. Different groups will define "necessary" or "genuine" need differently. "Justice" is giving someone what is "rightfully" theirs. But even that definition is fraught with uncertainty, since some people believe that everyone has the "right" to comfort and wealth (and thus such things should be coercively provided by the government), while others believe that what one is due by the rest of society is minimal, to say the least. Because the definition of justice can cover such a wide spectrum, appealing to it as a useful set of boundaries for what constitutes "legitimate" redistribution is not likely to be as helpful as it might initially seem.
12.2.2010 | 1:24pm
Nathan says:
Bangwell is of course correct: in the modern world, transportation is a necessity and means the difference between employment and destitution. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply lacks contact with reality. Our society has structured itself such that access to transportation is a basic need for most persons. Since we have structured ourselves in this manner, it is a matter of justice that all persons have access to transportation, simply so they can care for themselves.
Beyond that, I think how the entire issue is framed is itself quite suspect. Should we call NASA "technological advancement by the sword?" We already know that the military is very often "economic interest enforcement by the sword," and nothing at all to do with justice by the sword. We have medical research by the sword too: should we do away with that? And those "tax abatements by the sword" policies that discriminate against non-business owners should be reviewed too.
Beyond that, I think how the entire issue is framed is itself quite suspect. Should we call NASA "technological advancement by the sword?" We already know that the military is very often "economic interest enforcement by the sword," and nothing at all to do with justice by the sword. We have medical research by the sword too: should we do away with that? And those "tax abatements by the sword" policies that discriminate against non-business owners should be reviewed too.
12.2.2010 | 3:41pm
senex says:
Mr. Kerian raises some good and interesting issues. It has long been held that the obligation of government is to act justly in the promotion and protection of the common good, not to be charitable, especially in redistributing other peoples’ (i.e., taxpayers’) money collected by the government. The more the government gets into the business of distributing benefits, the more individual freedom and human dignity is weakened. Government benefits are by their nature discriminatory: bureaucrats decide who will get which charitable benefits, and citizens have no real individual choice about who gets their money. The preferable and just alternative is for the government to provide incentives for private individual charitable giving without legislating how much each person is to give or to whom. This approach also supports the principle of subsidiarity.
Unfortunately, the USCCB and Popes John XXIII and Paul VI were socialist- leaning and they set the trend in the Church to promoting government responsibility to provide all sorts of benefits on a global basis. Read their social encyclicals. Kerian hit the nail on the head in suggesting (my interpretation) that the bishops are more interested in social programs than doctrinal problems that the Church faces. Social (in)justice is the new evangelistic command. It sounds to me a lot like ‘conversion by the sword’.
Unfortunately, the USCCB and Popes John XXIII and Paul VI were socialist- leaning and they set the trend in the Church to promoting government responsibility to provide all sorts of benefits on a global basis. Read their social encyclicals. Kerian hit the nail on the head in suggesting (my interpretation) that the bishops are more interested in social programs than doctrinal problems that the Church faces. Social (in)justice is the new evangelistic command. It sounds to me a lot like ‘conversion by the sword’.
12.2.2010 | 3:45pm
kristan says:
james: thanks for what you wrote. I would append that "charity by the sword" is structurally equivalent to the modus operandi of the grand inquisitor.
brian: absolutely. this is why those in favour of compulsory redistribution often begin with elaborate and contrived theories of "property," after all. it's a nice way of transforming values into definitions.
nathan: nonsense on both counts. first, access to transportation is not the same thing as private ownership of an automobile - particularly in densely populated regions like massachusetts [!] second, you're missing the context for "by the sword." the author is specifically referring to the non sequitur that views compulsory redistribution of property as the logical and moral output of "love thy neighbor." the point being that such a definition of "charity" and "love" is utterly opposed to the freely offered and sacrificial love of Christ.
brian: absolutely. this is why those in favour of compulsory redistribution often begin with elaborate and contrived theories of "property," after all. it's a nice way of transforming values into definitions.
nathan: nonsense on both counts. first, access to transportation is not the same thing as private ownership of an automobile - particularly in densely populated regions like massachusetts [!] second, you're missing the context for "by the sword." the author is specifically referring to the non sequitur that views compulsory redistribution of property as the logical and moral output of "love thy neighbor." the point being that such a definition of "charity" and "love" is utterly opposed to the freely offered and sacrificial love of Christ.
12.2.2010 | 5:05pm
Nathan says:
kristan,
I clearly said "access to transportation" and you are, at some obscure level, agreeing with me, so how is your own reply not "nonsense" as well? Whether one needs an automobile or not depends on location, and most of America doesn't look like Boston. America as a whole is abysmal when it comes to public transportation. It is simply indisputable that the overwhelming majority of the population cannot be self-sustaining, much less upwardly mobile, without access to transportation. And unfortunately many people (including personal friends of mine) suffer greatly simply to purchase and maintain a vehicle. And when they find themselves without one, they risk losing their jobs. A 4-hour round-trip bus ride just to keep a low-paying job is a terrible place to be: you should try it sometime.
And my point is not to argue the specifics of Massachusetts' automobile program, of which I know very little. Rather it is to address practical reality as it exists today. Whether the program has merits or not, my point on the necessity transportation stands. We don't live in an agrarian society where everyone grows their own food, and any political theory that assumes so will get no respect from me.
Poor people don't get much choice in where they live: they live where their money will allow. And, at least in my city, those places are often run-down, polluted, and lacking in transportation options. They also don't have a lot of choice in the jobs they can work, or where those jobs are located. And I'm befuddled that on the one hand we want people to be self-sustaining and on the other hand show no interest in just how feasible that is and what the barriers are to making it happen.
We have, today, compulsory redistribution of property that finances military expeditions that secure the financial interests of the wealthy. Is that not a problem for you? We have, today, compulsory redistribution of property that finances technology research (much of which will be used to enrich private businesses), and the same thing goes for the bailouts of the banking and automotive industries. What right do these private individuals and businesses have to profit (often tremendously) from the taxes paid by citizens? And would you support requiring them to give it back?
You rail against "elaborate and contrived theories of 'property,'" but surely you're not operating without your own theory of property. What is your theory and how is it any better?
And how do you make the association of "the freely offered and sacrificial love of Christ" when Christ commanded us to "render to Caesar?" What right did Caesar have to collect taxes from conquered nations? Is Christ opposed to himself?
I clearly said "access to transportation" and you are, at some obscure level, agreeing with me, so how is your own reply not "nonsense" as well? Whether one needs an automobile or not depends on location, and most of America doesn't look like Boston. America as a whole is abysmal when it comes to public transportation. It is simply indisputable that the overwhelming majority of the population cannot be self-sustaining, much less upwardly mobile, without access to transportation. And unfortunately many people (including personal friends of mine) suffer greatly simply to purchase and maintain a vehicle. And when they find themselves without one, they risk losing their jobs. A 4-hour round-trip bus ride just to keep a low-paying job is a terrible place to be: you should try it sometime.
And my point is not to argue the specifics of Massachusetts' automobile program, of which I know very little. Rather it is to address practical reality as it exists today. Whether the program has merits or not, my point on the necessity transportation stands. We don't live in an agrarian society where everyone grows their own food, and any political theory that assumes so will get no respect from me.
Poor people don't get much choice in where they live: they live where their money will allow. And, at least in my city, those places are often run-down, polluted, and lacking in transportation options. They also don't have a lot of choice in the jobs they can work, or where those jobs are located. And I'm befuddled that on the one hand we want people to be self-sustaining and on the other hand show no interest in just how feasible that is and what the barriers are to making it happen.
We have, today, compulsory redistribution of property that finances military expeditions that secure the financial interests of the wealthy. Is that not a problem for you? We have, today, compulsory redistribution of property that finances technology research (much of which will be used to enrich private businesses), and the same thing goes for the bailouts of the banking and automotive industries. What right do these private individuals and businesses have to profit (often tremendously) from the taxes paid by citizens? And would you support requiring them to give it back?
You rail against "elaborate and contrived theories of 'property,'" but surely you're not operating without your own theory of property. What is your theory and how is it any better?
And how do you make the association of "the freely offered and sacrificial love of Christ" when Christ commanded us to "render to Caesar?" What right did Caesar have to collect taxes from conquered nations? Is Christ opposed to himself?
12.2.2010 | 6:27pm
Steve Jones says:
Marvin Olasky put it very succinctly: "You can't be compassionate [or charitable] with other people's money".
12.2.2010 | 6:30pm
kristan says:
nathan, respectfully:
my point regarding transportation was extremely simple: you still appear to be conflating the need for transportation with the need for private ownership of a vehicle. this is a logical error as basic as equivocating the need for shelter with the ownership of a home. the abysmal state of american public transportation does not negate these facts. rather, it stands as an indictment of our collective willingness to ensure safe and affordable transportation for those that require it.
second, my theory of property is similarly simple: the resources in my care are entrusted by God for His purpose and charity.
third, conspiratorial intimations aside, you are still missing the context for "by the sword." james wasn't simply referring to redistribution; it was redistribution, *Christianly sanctioned.* the analogue then would be justifying the bank bailouts on the grounds that [insert convoluted theological mad-hattery here].
finally, "render to Caesar" refers to the respect and acknowledgment of earthly authority. it certainly does not redefine charity to be the use of that earthly authority to compel my richer neighbor to love *his* neighbor. rather, he is called by God to love his neighbor freely and passionately, just as he is called to love God freely and passionately. and so are we all.
my point regarding transportation was extremely simple: you still appear to be conflating the need for transportation with the need for private ownership of a vehicle. this is a logical error as basic as equivocating the need for shelter with the ownership of a home. the abysmal state of american public transportation does not negate these facts. rather, it stands as an indictment of our collective willingness to ensure safe and affordable transportation for those that require it.
second, my theory of property is similarly simple: the resources in my care are entrusted by God for His purpose and charity.
third, conspiratorial intimations aside, you are still missing the context for "by the sword." james wasn't simply referring to redistribution; it was redistribution, *Christianly sanctioned.* the analogue then would be justifying the bank bailouts on the grounds that [insert convoluted theological mad-hattery here].
finally, "render to Caesar" refers to the respect and acknowledgment of earthly authority. it certainly does not redefine charity to be the use of that earthly authority to compel my richer neighbor to love *his* neighbor. rather, he is called by God to love his neighbor freely and passionately, just as he is called to love God freely and passionately. and so are we all.
12.2.2010 | 6:46pm
MacGabhann says:
In truth, i.e. in Christian terms, there is no distinction between Justice and Charity. Any arrangement that would distinguish them relativizes the former, allowing those who can to choose its measure to the extent that their worldly balance of interests will allow them to impose, while at the same time letting them delusionally suppose that the latter is optional and may he played for bonus points.
Jesus came with a sword and demanded that we love.
Jesus came with a sword and demanded that we love.
12.2.2010 | 8:13pm
James Kerian says:
Thank you all for your comments.
Bangwell Putt, Brian, and Nathan: You all point out, quite accurately, that there are questions raised by the article that I was not able to fully address. What exactly is an individual due in justice as a result of his human dignity? Does this standard change depending on time and place? These are important questions that I was not able to cover in a 1,000 word post but I hoped to show the necessity of an appeal to justice in defending government coercion. What exactly appeals to justice can/cannot defend was, unfortunately, beyond the scope of this article.
Bernard Wills: You are concerned about my priorities but I think the article is very relevant to your concerns about the government support of financial institutions. Do these institutions have any right in justice to this coerced taxpayer support or is this something that is being excused on purely utilitarian grounds? Nathan raises similar points regarding whether or not other institutions that receive coerced taxpayer support have a claim in justice to this support.
Senex: I appreciate your support but having read the encyclicals of John XXIII and Paul VI it does not appear to me that the were so much “socialist-leaning” as that some of what they wrote could be easily misconstrued by socialists. There is nothing in the writings of either Pontiff that contradicts the points I made in this article.
Kristan: Your analogy of the grand inquisitor is well put. Thank you for your kind words.
Steve Jones: Well said.
MacGabhann: “Jesus came with a sword”? I’m afraid you may be conflating His second coming with His first. Obviously you do not like the distinction between justice and charity that Pope Benedict made in his encyclical, but this doesn’t seem to because you think he is wrong. It appears that you don’t want anyone to talk about the difference between justice and charity because you are afraid that if people know the difference they will not be charitable. This seems to be a rather strange theological game of make believe.
Bangwell Putt, Brian, and Nathan: You all point out, quite accurately, that there are questions raised by the article that I was not able to fully address. What exactly is an individual due in justice as a result of his human dignity? Does this standard change depending on time and place? These are important questions that I was not able to cover in a 1,000 word post but I hoped to show the necessity of an appeal to justice in defending government coercion. What exactly appeals to justice can/cannot defend was, unfortunately, beyond the scope of this article.
Bernard Wills: You are concerned about my priorities but I think the article is very relevant to your concerns about the government support of financial institutions. Do these institutions have any right in justice to this coerced taxpayer support or is this something that is being excused on purely utilitarian grounds? Nathan raises similar points regarding whether or not other institutions that receive coerced taxpayer support have a claim in justice to this support.
Senex: I appreciate your support but having read the encyclicals of John XXIII and Paul VI it does not appear to me that the were so much “socialist-leaning” as that some of what they wrote could be easily misconstrued by socialists. There is nothing in the writings of either Pontiff that contradicts the points I made in this article.
Kristan: Your analogy of the grand inquisitor is well put. Thank you for your kind words.
Steve Jones: Well said.
MacGabhann: “Jesus came with a sword”? I’m afraid you may be conflating His second coming with His first. Obviously you do not like the distinction between justice and charity that Pope Benedict made in his encyclical, but this doesn’t seem to because you think he is wrong. It appears that you don’t want anyone to talk about the difference between justice and charity because you are afraid that if people know the difference they will not be charitable. This seems to be a rather strange theological game of make believe.
12.2.2010 | 8:58pm
charles says:
Senex says: "Read their social encyclicals. Kerian hit the nail on the head in suggesting (my interpretation) that the bishops are more interested in social programs than doctrinal problems that the Church faces."
Social encyclicals are doctrinal pronouncements. To think otherwise is contrary to Catholic teaching.
Social encyclicals are doctrinal pronouncements. To think otherwise is contrary to Catholic teaching.
12.2.2010 | 10:38pm
Will Davies says:
It might contribute to consider the issue from the other direction and look at what constitutes the dignity of the individual. Creating dependence in someone certainly compromises their dignity. Taking away a persons choices when others have choices would also compromise one's dignity. An example that comes to mind of the latter case would be a social housing program that forces a person to live in a certain area when housing assistance might enable them to live where they may have established relationships, cultural supports and job possibilities.
Even forcing a person to endure very substantial bureaucracy can be an offense to dignity. John Paul II saw this as the case under communism, and as an argument for a market based economy in Centesimus Annus. There he also addresses the issue of subsidiarity, which is probably what we are really discussing here.
Even forcing a person to endure very substantial bureaucracy can be an offense to dignity. John Paul II saw this as the case under communism, and as an argument for a market based economy in Centesimus Annus. There he also addresses the issue of subsidiarity, which is probably what we are really discussing here.
12.2.2010 | 10:42pm
Alan says:
What needs to be addressed is how "one's own" is determined before one can speak of government by "the sword" taking "one's own" property. Government provides the framework for a particular type of economic system--and these systems may differ from one society to another. The idea that the rewards a specific economic system provides are "one's own" is thus more problematic than one assumes.
One may well favor a basically capitalist system because of its productivity and because of its emphasis on freedom--I certainly do-- but it is a stretch to assume that the outcomes of a market economy are simply just.
One may well favor a basically capitalist system because of its productivity and because of its emphasis on freedom--I certainly do-- but it is a stretch to assume that the outcomes of a market economy are simply just.
12.2.2010 | 10:47pm
edmond says:
"To much is given much is required" or how about the parable of the rich young man:
"Master what must I do to enter the kingdom?" In a word that says it all, "agape". However, there is still a fear of being labeled socialist in a democratic country when counting the cost of "sharing". Meanwhile, the rich get richer and the poor get
poorer.
"Master what must I do to enter the kingdom?" In a word that says it all, "agape". However, there is still a fear of being labeled socialist in a democratic country when counting the cost of "sharing". Meanwhile, the rich get richer and the poor get
poorer.
12.3.2010 | 5:46am
Henry Karlson says:
You would do well to read the whole history of Christian doctrine -- you will find Fathers, Doctors of the Church, Popes, et. al. all approve of government sponsored charity. Indeed, it was St John Chrysostom who suggested confiscation of wealth to give it to the poor. Redistribution of wealth, because wealth is often accumulated unjustly, is an issue of justice. As Pope Benedict pointed out, if we have a completely just society, that would only be the beginning, not the end, of charity. Demanding things to remain the same is really support of injustice by the corporate/wealthy sword of capitalist economics.
12.3.2010 | 12:32pm
Brian English says:
"You would do well to read the whole history of Christian doctrine -- you will find Fathers, Doctors of the Church, Popes, et. al. all approve of government sponsored charity."
How are you defining "government sponsored" charity? Perhaps you could provide some examples of government-run charities during the early history of the Church?
You cannot seriously be contending that the Church Fathers would approve of the current system where the government is exerting more and more control over how the less fortunate are cared for. And they would be scandalized that many Catholics now appear to think that charity consists solely of material sustenance.
How are you defining "government sponsored" charity? Perhaps you could provide some examples of government-run charities during the early history of the Church?
You cannot seriously be contending that the Church Fathers would approve of the current system where the government is exerting more and more control over how the less fortunate are cared for. And they would be scandalized that many Catholics now appear to think that charity consists solely of material sustenance.
12.3.2010 | 6:24pm
Charles says:
Upon further reflection on this post, I am not sure a case is made here for anything that is not obvious. Essentially, the post comes down to this: Charity by the sword is wrong, but justice by the sword is not. The piece then implies, but does not really make the case, that the bishops support charity by the sword.
How is it that the statement by the bishops (“A budget is a moral document reflecting the priorities of the nation. . . . Scripture gives us the story of the Last Judgment (Mt. 25) and instructs us to put the needs of the poor and vulnerable first.”) indicates support for charity by the sword? Moreover, isn't it the case that the budget, and indeed all matters, should reflect our moral priorities and put the needs of the least among us first?
How is it that the statement by the bishops (“A budget is a moral document reflecting the priorities of the nation. . . . Scripture gives us the story of the Last Judgment (Mt. 25) and instructs us to put the needs of the poor and vulnerable first.”) indicates support for charity by the sword? Moreover, isn't it the case that the budget, and indeed all matters, should reflect our moral priorities and put the needs of the least among us first?
12.4.2010 | 2:12am
Vincent says:
I agree with the basic point of the post: there is a need to distinguish between and define what is charity and what is justice. However, in the current political climate I think the greater danger is forgetting about the justice side of the equation, not in overdoing the charity side. Our media are filled with loud voices decrying the notion of social justice, hysterically and indiscriminately labeling any kind of economic redistribution as socialism, and insisting that care for the poor must be left to private charity alone. I think there are a lot of Catholics, not to mention others, who would be surprised that the Church (including, quite emphatically, the current pontiff) advocates the redistribution of wealth to meet the demands of justice.
12.4.2010 | 2:13am
James Kerian says:
Thank you again for all the comments.
Will Davies: Both of the issues you raise (subsidiarity and the dignity of the receiver) are pertinent to the issue but I believe there is more here to discuss than only subsidiarity. There is the question of what may be legitimately compelled (at any level).
Alan: Certainly we all agree that one can acquire wealth illegitimately. Most of us are thinking about something a little more nefarious than going to work each day, but if that wealth we earn at work really belongs in justice to someone else than certainly it should be redistributed to them.
Edmond: From the article above
The Gospel of Luke exhorts us to invite the poor, crippled, and lame “when you give a banquet,” not to bring them uninvited to someone else’s banquet. Christ never proclaimed that whatsoever you make someone else do to the least of your brethren, that you do unto Him. Scripture calls us to practice the theological virtues, not to enforce them by the sword. Charity, to give what is mine to the other, is demanded by God along with faith, but both faith and charity are outside the legitimate authority of law, “an expression of what is just.”
It should be obvious from this excerpt how the two quotes you gave relate to compelled charity.
Henry Karlson: You suspect that I have not read the entirety of Christian doctrine. While I am familiar with the writing of St John Chrysostom I must agree this is a fair accusation as there seems to always be more to read and study. I question, however, that you have read the entirety of the article above. I clearly stated my support for redistribution when it is necessary to establish justice, which is obviously what St John Chrysostom was speaking about. Everyone believes the government should enforce justice, it is forced charity that we are discussing here.
Charles: You are correct, of course, about the doctrinal nature of encyclicals. You are incorrect, I believe, about the relevance of this article. You are correct that it “comes down to this: Charity by the sword is wrong, but justice by the sword is not.” I believe if that were a universally accepted point we probably would not have so many comments above insisting that the Gospel demands charity by the sword or that there really is no difference between justice and charity. Furthermore, if this was more widely understood you would see far more Christian defenders of redistribution making arguments that appeal to justice rather than merely quoting Scripture’s numerous commands for charity.
Will Davies: Both of the issues you raise (subsidiarity and the dignity of the receiver) are pertinent to the issue but I believe there is more here to discuss than only subsidiarity. There is the question of what may be legitimately compelled (at any level).
Alan: Certainly we all agree that one can acquire wealth illegitimately. Most of us are thinking about something a little more nefarious than going to work each day, but if that wealth we earn at work really belongs in justice to someone else than certainly it should be redistributed to them.
Edmond: From the article above
The Gospel of Luke exhorts us to invite the poor, crippled, and lame “when you give a banquet,” not to bring them uninvited to someone else’s banquet. Christ never proclaimed that whatsoever you make someone else do to the least of your brethren, that you do unto Him. Scripture calls us to practice the theological virtues, not to enforce them by the sword. Charity, to give what is mine to the other, is demanded by God along with faith, but both faith and charity are outside the legitimate authority of law, “an expression of what is just.”
It should be obvious from this excerpt how the two quotes you gave relate to compelled charity.
Henry Karlson: You suspect that I have not read the entirety of Christian doctrine. While I am familiar with the writing of St John Chrysostom I must agree this is a fair accusation as there seems to always be more to read and study. I question, however, that you have read the entirety of the article above. I clearly stated my support for redistribution when it is necessary to establish justice, which is obviously what St John Chrysostom was speaking about. Everyone believes the government should enforce justice, it is forced charity that we are discussing here.
Charles: You are correct, of course, about the doctrinal nature of encyclicals. You are incorrect, I believe, about the relevance of this article. You are correct that it “comes down to this: Charity by the sword is wrong, but justice by the sword is not.” I believe if that were a universally accepted point we probably would not have so many comments above insisting that the Gospel demands charity by the sword or that there really is no difference between justice and charity. Furthermore, if this was more widely understood you would see far more Christian defenders of redistribution making arguments that appeal to justice rather than merely quoting Scripture’s numerous commands for charity.
12.4.2010 | 2:42pm
Charles says:
Mr. Kerian, I think your comments have helped clarify the questions. I think that most of the comments have not been arguing for charity by the sword (nor do I think have the bishops), but a caution about perceiving to be charity that which is justice. I think this is the crux of the matter. What is justice and what is charity? The question is important because, according to the Catechism we should not provide as charity that which is due as a matter of justice.
Pope Benedict has complicated matters by using language that fuses charity and justice more closely together than his predecessor. This is probably a god development, but nevertheless one that complicates the issue.
Pope Benedict has complicated matters by using language that fuses charity and justice more closely together than his predecessor. This is probably a god development, but nevertheless one that complicates the issue.
12.4.2010 | 6:47pm
Nathan says:
kristan,
If you want to be respectful, including reasons for your dismissiveness would be a start. I didn't say the government had to give people cars: they could just as well lease them for $5/month or $50/month or do something else like build better public transportation infrastructure. I already said my point is not to argue specifics of policy, so it's not helpful to redirect the discussion in that direction. Whatever policy decisions that are made, if they are to be just, must account for the needs of the poor to have access to transportation, which is necessary to self-sustaining existence in the post-industrialized world. What is the drastic difference in principle between public subsidy of buses and trains and public subsidy of automobiles?
I'm afraid your claims about property seem simplistic. How did you acquire the resources in your care? What if they happen to be stolen goods? What if they were acquired through someone's acts of oppression and injustice? How would you know? Can you know? Should you care? And when it happens, how should restitution be provided to those who were wronged? If we are to take scriptural injunctions to justice seriously, these questions (and many more) cannot be ignored. And they apply no less to resources gotten by birth as by employment.
"Render to Caesar" is the sanctioning of this: paying taxes under compulsion to a foreign government that has, on your notion of property rights, absolutely no right to collect them. Taxes that enriched the wealthy elite and funded exploitation, conquest, and enslavement. Taxes that funded welfare programs (such as annona). And I don't see anywhere in the New Testament where government-sponsored "welfare programs" are condemned ad intra.
If you want to be respectful, including reasons for your dismissiveness would be a start. I didn't say the government had to give people cars: they could just as well lease them for $5/month or $50/month or do something else like build better public transportation infrastructure. I already said my point is not to argue specifics of policy, so it's not helpful to redirect the discussion in that direction. Whatever policy decisions that are made, if they are to be just, must account for the needs of the poor to have access to transportation, which is necessary to self-sustaining existence in the post-industrialized world. What is the drastic difference in principle between public subsidy of buses and trains and public subsidy of automobiles?
I'm afraid your claims about property seem simplistic. How did you acquire the resources in your care? What if they happen to be stolen goods? What if they were acquired through someone's acts of oppression and injustice? How would you know? Can you know? Should you care? And when it happens, how should restitution be provided to those who were wronged? If we are to take scriptural injunctions to justice seriously, these questions (and many more) cannot be ignored. And they apply no less to resources gotten by birth as by employment.
"Render to Caesar" is the sanctioning of this: paying taxes under compulsion to a foreign government that has, on your notion of property rights, absolutely no right to collect them. Taxes that enriched the wealthy elite and funded exploitation, conquest, and enslavement. Taxes that funded welfare programs (such as annona). And I don't see anywhere in the New Testament where government-sponsored "welfare programs" are condemned ad intra.
12.5.2010 | 9:35pm
kristan says:
nathan,
first, thanks for your response. I do not have much time, and so will be brief.
I apologize for my tone - I've attempted to be brief and matter of fact, rather than dismissive. in particular, I admit that I was too harsh with respect to transportation. since the context of that discussion was massachusetts' program, I honestly interpreted your statements as a powerful argument for including transportation alongside other more basic needs that should be addressed by our society, *followed by* identifying this need with a need for a vehicle (based upon the context). it was this last claim that, had you supported it, I considered nonsense. I am glad to see that I was rash.
second, regarding property, I'll grant that I was being overly simplistic with respect to all of the various ethical and moral questions that come with property. to be fair, this is also a blog comments section.
I was speaking more to the question "to whom does what we call property belong?" to the individual, to society at large, to tribes? different worldly philosophies respond differently; if you hold that there is no such thing as individual property, you will likely hold many beliefs as a result (they logically follow from your initial definition). this would be one way of arriving at compulsory redistribution as a matter of justice, for example. alternatively, if wealth is the sole property of the individual, even basic taxation without consent is by definition theft.
but, if property in fact belongs to God and God alone - well, that changes the types of questions that we ask. for example, your question about if the goods in my care were stolen. well, what does stolen mean with this notion of property, but the taking of what God had entrusted to someone else for myself? the questions you ask are then even more good and legitimate: theft and injustice are foremost crimes against God and then against man. by putting theft and property in this context (God and the call to love Him and man), all of these questions are directly placed under obedience to Scripture and the Spirit. for example, if the goods in my care were in fact taken from someone else, what right do I have to keep them? why should I not honour what perhaps God had originally ordained?
out of curiosity, what is your definition of property?
finally, I agree with what you have said about "render to caesar" and would add that the my statement earlier is completely consistent with it. see Jesus' reply to pilate in john 19.
however, by your comments on this I still think you do not understand james' or my complaint on "charity by the sword." the complaint is *not* against government-sponsored welfare, nor a discussion on what Scripture says about how government should function. it is that such programs are not, by definition, charity and that a justification for them on the grounds that they are charitable is manifestly false. after all, charity, like love and faith, is only itself when it is freely chosen. do you not agree?
take modern america; how much money is collected through taxes and spent on social programs? including good ends like basic shelter, basic medical coverage, and more. but is our country more charitable now then it was fifty years ago as a result? are we a charitable society? will we be so when the rich "pay their share?" when the rest of the citizenry pays theirs?
absolutely not! and if we buy into the lie that it will, we cast aside the Kingdom of God for the way of the world which is the way of death. Christ will not ask us at the day of judgment and separation whether we helped others "pay their share;" He will ask if I helped to feed Him when He was hungry, clothe Him when He was naked. He will ask if I showed love to His image in the world.
for me, this is the source of my agitation on the subject.
---
again, I apologize for my harshness before and I wish you well.
first, thanks for your response. I do not have much time, and so will be brief.
I apologize for my tone - I've attempted to be brief and matter of fact, rather than dismissive. in particular, I admit that I was too harsh with respect to transportation. since the context of that discussion was massachusetts' program, I honestly interpreted your statements as a powerful argument for including transportation alongside other more basic needs that should be addressed by our society, *followed by* identifying this need with a need for a vehicle (based upon the context). it was this last claim that, had you supported it, I considered nonsense. I am glad to see that I was rash.
second, regarding property, I'll grant that I was being overly simplistic with respect to all of the various ethical and moral questions that come with property. to be fair, this is also a blog comments section.
I was speaking more to the question "to whom does what we call property belong?" to the individual, to society at large, to tribes? different worldly philosophies respond differently; if you hold that there is no such thing as individual property, you will likely hold many beliefs as a result (they logically follow from your initial definition). this would be one way of arriving at compulsory redistribution as a matter of justice, for example. alternatively, if wealth is the sole property of the individual, even basic taxation without consent is by definition theft.
but, if property in fact belongs to God and God alone - well, that changes the types of questions that we ask. for example, your question about if the goods in my care were stolen. well, what does stolen mean with this notion of property, but the taking of what God had entrusted to someone else for myself? the questions you ask are then even more good and legitimate: theft and injustice are foremost crimes against God and then against man. by putting theft and property in this context (God and the call to love Him and man), all of these questions are directly placed under obedience to Scripture and the Spirit. for example, if the goods in my care were in fact taken from someone else, what right do I have to keep them? why should I not honour what perhaps God had originally ordained?
out of curiosity, what is your definition of property?
finally, I agree with what you have said about "render to caesar" and would add that the my statement earlier is completely consistent with it. see Jesus' reply to pilate in john 19.
however, by your comments on this I still think you do not understand james' or my complaint on "charity by the sword." the complaint is *not* against government-sponsored welfare, nor a discussion on what Scripture says about how government should function. it is that such programs are not, by definition, charity and that a justification for them on the grounds that they are charitable is manifestly false. after all, charity, like love and faith, is only itself when it is freely chosen. do you not agree?
take modern america; how much money is collected through taxes and spent on social programs? including good ends like basic shelter, basic medical coverage, and more. but is our country more charitable now then it was fifty years ago as a result? are we a charitable society? will we be so when the rich "pay their share?" when the rest of the citizenry pays theirs?
absolutely not! and if we buy into the lie that it will, we cast aside the Kingdom of God for the way of the world which is the way of death. Christ will not ask us at the day of judgment and separation whether we helped others "pay their share;" He will ask if I helped to feed Him when He was hungry, clothe Him when He was naked. He will ask if I showed love to His image in the world.
for me, this is the source of my agitation on the subject.
---
again, I apologize for my harshness before and I wish you well.
12.6.2010 | 1:33am
Nathan says:
James,
The government is already actively supporting the economic interests of the wealthy. That's hardly a Christian thing to do, so I suppose I could say I'm in search of outrage at what amounts to, on the apparent assumptions at work in the article, wealth-enhancement by the sword. Since you were limited to 1000 words, I will shorten my response.
Demanding someone join a religion or society at the point of a sword is fundamentally different from expecting people already in a society or religion to contribute to communal well-being. So while the phrase "charity by the sword" might have a nice polemical ring to it, that doesn't mean the comparison is all that helpful or unequivocal. Unfortunately for the theory, it is extremely difficult even for the wealthy to opt-out of society altogether, and it is almost impossible for the poor to do so. We, more or less, "live in society by the sword," with few exceptions. So on at least one level it seems we cannot do away with compulsion at all, so I'll finish my tangent by saying that it's less a question of if and more what sort of compulsion we will have.
You asked, "[w]hat exactly is an individual due in justice as a result of his human dignity?" One way to answer that is to observe Jesus' behavior: his acceptance of and interaction with the outcasts of his day. He was scandalized for it, so he must have been at least a few class levels above the lowest of the low. That doesn't necessarily require us to work for a classless society, but when the king hangs out with beggars and lepers and sinners, we ought to be taking notice. So, to pick a random example that I've never really thought about before, my first policy item in a democratic society would be to ensure that the lowest members of society are legitimately heard and are capable of a meaningful vote. (Denying suffrage to felons thus seems to me to be unacceptable, as also the idea that you have the right to free speech but not the right to be heard.) Our very concept of human dignity is immeasurably dependent upon Christianity's influence in history, and of course Christians ought to take a Christocentric view of the issue.
You also asked, "[d]oes this standard change depending on time and place?" I would certainly answer in the affirmative. Human dignity is acted out within social structures. As those structures change, what is due also changes. (Sans some baslines such as not being murdered, etc.) So in a purely agrarian society, individuals, or at least families, are largely self-sufficient, growing their own food, building their own buildings, raising livestock, etc. What is due minimally should account for those factors, and also include the imparting of knowledge needed to act for self-preservation and self-sustenance (e.g., grow food, make clothing, survive climate extremes). In post-industrialized societies, most people have lost even the knowledge of how to grow their own food for survival purposes and masses would probably starve if forced to do so. Since the social structure has changed, and with it the means of obtaining necessities, and even the character of necessities, what is minimally due will also change. Since people come into existence within society, what is minimal must bear some relationship to that social structure.
But I must confess that even the idea of minimalism is hard to swallow. What is minimally due to a person stolen from Africa, enslaved, stripped of culture, tradition, and education (all those thousands of years of survival skills now bankrupt), and placed at the bottom of an utterly foreign society? ("40 acres and a mule" was as lamentably inept as it was callous.) What is minimally due to peoples who have lived in a land for millenia who suddenly find themselves genocidally decimated and deported? What room is there for meaningful restitution? Can minimalism lead to justice?
I suspect we too often ask the wrong questions. What are God's purposes in the world? Do we believe God can accomplish his purposes through flawed institutions that may even oppose themselves to God? It seems to me we must answer these questions and seek policies consistent with those answers, and with wisdom and experience. We can't make someone love their neighbor, or even respect them, but we can and should expect them to work to prevent their neighbor's privation.
The government is already actively supporting the economic interests of the wealthy. That's hardly a Christian thing to do, so I suppose I could say I'm in search of outrage at what amounts to, on the apparent assumptions at work in the article, wealth-enhancement by the sword. Since you were limited to 1000 words, I will shorten my response.
Demanding someone join a religion or society at the point of a sword is fundamentally different from expecting people already in a society or religion to contribute to communal well-being. So while the phrase "charity by the sword" might have a nice polemical ring to it, that doesn't mean the comparison is all that helpful or unequivocal. Unfortunately for the theory, it is extremely difficult even for the wealthy to opt-out of society altogether, and it is almost impossible for the poor to do so. We, more or less, "live in society by the sword," with few exceptions. So on at least one level it seems we cannot do away with compulsion at all, so I'll finish my tangent by saying that it's less a question of if and more what sort of compulsion we will have.
You asked, "[w]hat exactly is an individual due in justice as a result of his human dignity?" One way to answer that is to observe Jesus' behavior: his acceptance of and interaction with the outcasts of his day. He was scandalized for it, so he must have been at least a few class levels above the lowest of the low. That doesn't necessarily require us to work for a classless society, but when the king hangs out with beggars and lepers and sinners, we ought to be taking notice. So, to pick a random example that I've never really thought about before, my first policy item in a democratic society would be to ensure that the lowest members of society are legitimately heard and are capable of a meaningful vote. (Denying suffrage to felons thus seems to me to be unacceptable, as also the idea that you have the right to free speech but not the right to be heard.) Our very concept of human dignity is immeasurably dependent upon Christianity's influence in history, and of course Christians ought to take a Christocentric view of the issue.
You also asked, "[d]oes this standard change depending on time and place?" I would certainly answer in the affirmative. Human dignity is acted out within social structures. As those structures change, what is due also changes. (Sans some baslines such as not being murdered, etc.) So in a purely agrarian society, individuals, or at least families, are largely self-sufficient, growing their own food, building their own buildings, raising livestock, etc. What is due minimally should account for those factors, and also include the imparting of knowledge needed to act for self-preservation and self-sustenance (e.g., grow food, make clothing, survive climate extremes). In post-industrialized societies, most people have lost even the knowledge of how to grow their own food for survival purposes and masses would probably starve if forced to do so. Since the social structure has changed, and with it the means of obtaining necessities, and even the character of necessities, what is minimally due will also change. Since people come into existence within society, what is minimal must bear some relationship to that social structure.
But I must confess that even the idea of minimalism is hard to swallow. What is minimally due to a person stolen from Africa, enslaved, stripped of culture, tradition, and education (all those thousands of years of survival skills now bankrupt), and placed at the bottom of an utterly foreign society? ("40 acres and a mule" was as lamentably inept as it was callous.) What is minimally due to peoples who have lived in a land for millenia who suddenly find themselves genocidally decimated and deported? What room is there for meaningful restitution? Can minimalism lead to justice?
I suspect we too often ask the wrong questions. What are God's purposes in the world? Do we believe God can accomplish his purposes through flawed institutions that may even oppose themselves to God? It seems to me we must answer these questions and seek policies consistent with those answers, and with wisdom and experience. We can't make someone love their neighbor, or even respect them, but we can and should expect them to work to prevent their neighbor's privation.
12.6.2010 | 7:50pm
James Kerian says:
I apologize for the delay in responding.
Charles: I’m glad that my comments have been clarifying. You are correct that “the crux of the matter” is “What is justice and what is charity?” However, I must disagree with your suggestion that Pope Benedicts has confused the issue by fusing the two virtues. The Holy Father, on the contrary, has explicitly differentiated between them as I quoted in the article above “Charity goes beyond justice, because to love is to give, to offer what is mine to the other; but it never lacks justice, which prompts us to give the other what is his.”
Justice is giving to the other what is his while Charity is giving to the other what is yours. Scripture calls us to do both, but the government ought only to be involved in compelling the former. Unfortunately, many Christians have taken to advocating government redistribution programs simply by quoting Scriptural commands to care for the poor without putting any effort into distinguishing whether this is a command for charity or a command for justice.
There are two ways that what is being given in a government redistribution program could be justice. First of all, as Nathan and Alan have pointed out, it could be that the money the government is taking was never the rightful property of the taxpayer. The second option, according to the Catechism quote in the article above, is that it could be the rightful property of the recipient because of his inherent dignity.
My hope is that soon more Christians will begin to recognize the distinction between justice and charity and that when they advocate for compelled redistribution they will recognize the need to argue (under at least one of the two criteria above) that the redistribution they are demanding is required by justice.
Nathan: As a small business owner I can assure you that I am plenty outraged at several things that the government does to support people who buy influence within it. That, however, has almost nothing to do with the topic of this article.
You point out that “Demanding someone join a religion or society at the point of a sword is fundamentally different from expecting people already in a society or religion to contribute to communal well-being.” This is true, but it also is not related to the article. I’m not discussing whether or not people should “contribute to communal well-being” but whether or not they should be forced to practice charity, which again in the Pope’s words is “ to give what is [theirs] to the other.”
You offer intriguing arguments to the questions I mentioned, but as I said when I mentioned them those topics go beyond the scope of this article and the purpose of this space is to discuss the article above.
Regarding your comments on minimalism I cannot improve upon Kristan’s words so I will simply quote them here “I still think you do not understand james' or my complaint on "charity by the sword." the complaint is *not* against government-sponsored welfare, nor a discussion on what Scripture says about how government should function. it is that such programs are not, by definition, charity and that a justification for them on the grounds that they are charitable is manifestly false. after all, charity, like love and faith, is only itself when it is freely chosen. do you not agree?”
Charles: I’m glad that my comments have been clarifying. You are correct that “the crux of the matter” is “What is justice and what is charity?” However, I must disagree with your suggestion that Pope Benedicts has confused the issue by fusing the two virtues. The Holy Father, on the contrary, has explicitly differentiated between them as I quoted in the article above “Charity goes beyond justice, because to love is to give, to offer what is mine to the other; but it never lacks justice, which prompts us to give the other what is his.”
Justice is giving to the other what is his while Charity is giving to the other what is yours. Scripture calls us to do both, but the government ought only to be involved in compelling the former. Unfortunately, many Christians have taken to advocating government redistribution programs simply by quoting Scriptural commands to care for the poor without putting any effort into distinguishing whether this is a command for charity or a command for justice.
There are two ways that what is being given in a government redistribution program could be justice. First of all, as Nathan and Alan have pointed out, it could be that the money the government is taking was never the rightful property of the taxpayer. The second option, according to the Catechism quote in the article above, is that it could be the rightful property of the recipient because of his inherent dignity.
My hope is that soon more Christians will begin to recognize the distinction between justice and charity and that when they advocate for compelled redistribution they will recognize the need to argue (under at least one of the two criteria above) that the redistribution they are demanding is required by justice.
Nathan: As a small business owner I can assure you that I am plenty outraged at several things that the government does to support people who buy influence within it. That, however, has almost nothing to do with the topic of this article.
You point out that “Demanding someone join a religion or society at the point of a sword is fundamentally different from expecting people already in a society or religion to contribute to communal well-being.” This is true, but it also is not related to the article. I’m not discussing whether or not people should “contribute to communal well-being” but whether or not they should be forced to practice charity, which again in the Pope’s words is “ to give what is [theirs] to the other.”
You offer intriguing arguments to the questions I mentioned, but as I said when I mentioned them those topics go beyond the scope of this article and the purpose of this space is to discuss the article above.
Regarding your comments on minimalism I cannot improve upon Kristan’s words so I will simply quote them here “I still think you do not understand james' or my complaint on "charity by the sword." the complaint is *not* against government-sponsored welfare, nor a discussion on what Scripture says about how government should function. it is that such programs are not, by definition, charity and that a justification for them on the grounds that they are charitable is manifestly false. after all, charity, like love and faith, is only itself when it is freely chosen. do you not agree?”
12.7.2010 | 10:36pm
edmond says:
James, my statements did not seek to champion charity by the sword. Based on my understanding of agape, the "sword" does not fit anywhere in the giving of
unconditional love. The quotes I posted referred to e.g. much is required, portrays
an innate passion by the giver that compels himself to give. As for the rich young
man who went away very sad, it portrays a prioritization or struggle between
survival of self and service to God.
unconditional love. The quotes I posted referred to e.g. much is required, portrays
an innate passion by the giver that compels himself to give. As for the rich young
man who went away very sad, it portrays a prioritization or struggle between
survival of self and service to God.
12.8.2010 | 10:10pm
James Kerian says:
Edmond: That is wonderful to hear. I'm glad we are in agreement that these scripture verses do not condone compelling others to give.
2.7.2011 | 10:24am
Ozie Schrayter says:
I suspect we too often ask the wrong questions. What are God's purposes in the world? Do we believe God can accomplish his purposes through flawed institutions that may even oppose themselves to God? It seems to me we must answer these questions and seek policies consistent with those answers, and with wisdom and experience. We can't make someone love their neighbor, or even respect them, but we can and should expect them to work to prevent their neighbor's privation. I'm afraid your claims about property seem simplistic. How did you acquire the resources in your care? What if they happen to be stolen goods? What if they were acquired through someone's acts of oppression and injustice? How would you know? Can you know? Should you care? And when it happens, how should restitution be provided to those who were wronged? If we are to take scriptural injunctions to justice seriously, these questions (and many more) cannot be ignored. And they apply no less to resources gotten by birth as by employment.
