Yesterday, Paul Ryan recanted his adoration of the Rand in favor of a love of St. Thomas Aquinas. Now anyone will tell you that, as an atheist, I don’t hold with a lot of what religion has to say or what it’s done, especially Christianity.
But I do appreciate a good dose of hypocrisy from those who profess that they do. Like Paul Ryan! And, unbeknownst to Mr. Ryan, apparently, Old St. Thomas Aquinas had some really nice things to say about the poor (kind of the way Jesus wasn’t all about making money).
I’m not sure Ryan actually, you know, read St. Thomas Aquinas. Seriously.
Things which are of human right cannot derogate from natural right or Divine right. Now according to the natural order established by Divine Providence, inferior things are ordained for the purpose of succoring man’s needs by their means. Wherefore the division and appropriation of things which are based on human law, do not preclude the fact that man’s needs have to be remedied by means of these very things. Hence whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor. For this reason Ambrose [Loc. cit., 2, Objection 3] says, and his words are embodied in the Decretals(Dist. xlvii, can. Sicut ii): “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.” (Question 66, Article 7.)
St. Thomas wants you to pay higher taxes and succor the poor, Mr. Ryan. How do you read it?
You have it half-right. Aquinas supposes that one man’s wealth exists to help those who are deprived of it. In that sense, you are right. However, Aquinas does not suppose that government is the medium of insuring that wealth is redistributed to the poor. Knowing what I know about Aquinas, he is likely to say that the Church has a role in the redistribution – and not necessarily a mandatory role either.
Ok…
Really? I’d think that Aquinas would welcome any mechanism which would facilitate the relief of the poor.
How so? Chapter and verse please!
The following paragraph (which I didn’t include) seems to indicate the St. Thomas Aquinas is OK with taking without permission to succor the poor.
Since taxes are, in general, referred to by conservatives as confiscatory and/or theft, it seem to me that Aquinas would be OK with that in the interest of the general welfare.
You may be seeing what you want to see. The analogy that many use of a poor and hungry person wondering onto a farmer’s land to eat some his produce would probably closer to what Aquinas had in mind.
Aquinas said that a person is the steward of his own belongings. He did not qualify WHO – other than the person in direct need – was authorized to succor a person’s holdings. Government is not described by Aquinas as the entity in dire need.
Right back at’cha!
In another section, Aquinas talks about alms and the obligation to pay alms. He calls them a “precept.”
This means that one can be compelled by authority to pay alms, they are not strictly voluntary. Sounds a lot like taxes. Aquinas writes
He also argues that princes may use violence if necessary to enforce these extractions if they are for common good
It seems to me that Aquinas was a big believer in the redistribution of wealth…
Again, you are urgently trying to make Aquinas into a liberal, which if you understood his theology, he would know he was quite conservative.
A precept is a doctrine, a rule of action. You chose the definition of precept that best fit your predisposition to tax. Aquinas was saying that almsgiving – redistributing to the poor – was a matter of doctrine, was a matter of scriptural teaching. He proves this point by quoting the gospel of Luke. A precept is a teaching, at least in this context.
Also, princes were to use whatever means to take what was due for the “safeguarding” of the common good. In today’s political environment, this could mean pretty much anything without more context. I could interpret it as protecting life and property; and you could interpret it as the redistribution of wealth. Sorry, no smoking gun.
No, I simply took the definition from Wikipedia… But perhaps you’d prefer the definition from The Code of Canon Law:
A precept is much more than a “teaching.” It’s a rule… A commandment if you will. Almsgiving is a commandment, not a teaching. Aquinas is saying that almsgiving is required to be virtuous and a prince may command it in the context of ensuring the common good.
Why do you consider “safeguarding the common good” any more vague than any other part? Is it because to acknowledge that paying alms (or taxes) in the service of the common good is a duty?
I thought I was clear that a precept is a rule of action when I said it was a rule of action. When the scripture (teaching) says to give to the poor, then it’s a commandment or precept – it makes no difference. Where we part is over who gets to compel the wealthy to give alms. You say it’s the government; I say it’s a matter of scriptural obedience via the guidance of a spiritual leader. Nowhere, in scripture or in Aquinas, have you shown where government should be the mechanism of compelling the wealthy to give to the poor.
You also make presuppositions about the meaning of alms that stretch it beyond the dictionary definition. Taxes are imposed on citizens for more than just helping the poor. Therefore, a tax is not equivalent to paying alms. Second, in the bible, a tithe was a tax. Giving alms was not a tithe, but was rather an additional obligation to the tithe. You presume these are interchangeable terms. They are not.
Let me try a different tack. I think we can agree that neither of us live in 13th century Europe. We’re not bound by Canon Law (at least not involuntarily) and we don’t really know what it was like to live under the church and the state at that time. So understanding Aquinas now requires us to to some sociocultural translation. To get at what he meant means putting an effort into mapping his ancient words to modern ideas.
So, in order for Aquinas’s words to any make sense to us, to derive value from them for our world, we must put them in the context of a 21st century secular society. We must attempt to glean intent from his words. When I read the passages I’ve cited here, I attempt to understand what Aquinas meant by “alms” in the context of today and how it would apply to us now.
Can we start with that? Or am I wasting my breath? 🙂
Phil,
What you state is a common impediment in scriptural exegesis. I would ordinarily say it was fortunate that Aquinas quoted scripture, which in ordinary cases would aid our understanding; but he quoted one of the more unclear passages in scripture. I would give you my interpretation, but then I would be speculating as much as you, which wouldn’t help us out.
Bottom line, alms is not a tax. The good Lord instructed us to pay alms to the poor, which most reasonable people – understanding the times – would take to mean directly giving to a needy person. Having government mandate a general tax does not fit that description.
Also, a tax is used for a multiplicity of things including wasteful spending, which scripture condemns – not the tax, but the wasteful spending. A tax in the OT was a tithe – 10% of all you produced; this could include your wages, food, or cattle. A tithe was mandated by government, alms were not.
In conclusion, Paul Ryan is a strong and intelligent Catholic. My bet is that if he wants to be compared to Aquinas, be probably understands Aquinas’ theology, epistemology, and general philosophy of the world.
That, my friend, is an interpretation. To claim the mantle of “reasonable people” is to speak to a personal interpretation. I disagree that that is what “reasonable people” would assume. Reasonable people would assume that, in our civil society, based on the words of the constitution which states we should “promote the general welfare” indicates that, in our society, we use the government and not religion to care for the poor an indigent. And as Aquinas points out, the “prince” may compel the collection of taxes. In our society, those taxes are used, among other things, in the way alms were used in the 13th century.
So let me ask you this. How do you (or Paul Ryan) care to respond to this?
This kind of eliminates modern banking…
Again, if you were familiar with the bible, you would know that alms is not the same at taxation. Although scripture instructs individuals to give alms, it leaves the final decision to the individual. The tithe, however, was enforced by government. This clarification deconstructs your argument.
Again, that is your interpretation, nothing more… No QED possible. Sorry.
What Aquinas actually writes is
And, as we know according to Church Canon Law, a precept is a command.
While alms may not be the same as a tithe, they are both taxes.
Whether a precept is suggestive or required is not relevant if a government entity is not mentioned. You assume a government must do the collecting if a precept is a command. The NT scripture makes all sorts of moral commands and requires requires no authority – save God Himself at the day of judgment – to exact penalties if such commands are not met. Not all commands require a government entity to follow up on the obedience of commands.
Also, a tax is collected. By whom are alms collected in the NT?
Aaron, you make the single biggest mistaken assumption about atheists, knowledge of the bible. Trust me, most atheists know far more about the bible than the craziest adherents you can find. Trust me, you don’t want to use a bible against an atheist. You will lose. Every time.
Rich, that’s quite the broad brush you’re using there. Don’t think because Phil is an atheist that I automatically thought he didn’t understand the bible. I’ve debated a lot of atheists that were knowledgeable of the bible. In fact, him being an atheist had little to do with my comment. I thought he didn’t understand the parts of the bible that spoke of alms giving, not the bible in general.
Also, I will take you up on that bet that atheists are far more biblically knowledgeable than the craziest adherents – which I presume you mean fundamentalists. I’ve seen enough debates online to know that isn’t the case. Some atheists are very knowledgeable about the bible, but that is not the rule of thumb. I think in general that atheists tend to be more educated, but that’s not the same as being knowledgeable of the bible.
The priests at Georgetown instructed Paul Ryan to consult the COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH compiled by Pope John Paul II. In it, we find this interesting passage:
Yeah, you lost this.
How about opposed to telling OTHERS what to do you go out and feed the poor…. You hypocrite.
Aquinas says “… all almsgiving must be a matter of precept.” Seems clear to me he was referring to any means possible.
@Phil: Only if you’re using an oxygen tank.
It’s late.
Phil’s redirect to a 21st century context is appropriate. Not wasting breath. After all, it is Paul Ryan’s contextualization at issue when he insisted, “If somebody is going to try to to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas…”
The reason that the Church is so troubling to liberals like you and many within her consort is that they appear, especially in Rome and bishopric seats, not to have follow these precepts of St. Thomas Acquinas and other Church theologians. They have the Republican malady in that they seem to think that by extolling these virtues in others they are following them. IMHO.
Please don’t presume to tell me what I find “troubling” about the Church. You really don’t know… So don’t.
My thanks to Phil and Aaron for illuminating the issues of alms giving relative to taxes and the redistribution of wealth.
How I wish Edward Feser would come here and school lil atheist on his dunderheaded fumblings with aquinas.