According to a June 8, 2001 Zenit News story: “Poland's bishops say that ‘unbridled capitalism’ after the fall of the Berlin Wall has widened the gap between rich and poor in their country.” In lamenting the increasing gap between the rich and the poor, these bishops were echoing an unfortunate philosophical notion: gaps between the rich and poor are inherently bad.
The objections to economic “gaps,” while certainly well-intentioned, may miss their mark, for this reason: Gaps in wealth are most likely to occur in capitalist countries in which there is so much wealth present. Therefore, a critique of economic gaps, per se, generally amounts to a critique of free enterprise.
It is an economic reality that those countries that practice free enterprise generally have the least amount of poverty — real poverty. The dictionary defines poverty as the “lack of the means of providing material needs or comforts.” In other words, the economic inability to provide food and shelter for one’s family would constitute poverty. However, in modern America, poverty has come to mean something entirely different.
According to the Census Bureau, there were almost 35 million people living in poverty in the United States in 2002. However, the Heritage Foundation has just released a report: “Understanding Poverty in America,” which details some interesting facts about the “poor” in America:
• Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
• Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
• Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
• The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
• Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
• Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
• Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
• Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Since little true poverty exists in capitalist countries, poverty has come to be a relative thing, rather than a reference to actual subhuman conditions. But properly defined, poverty is not relative. The fact that a poor person may not own an XBOX and I do own one may represent a gap, but it most assuredly does not represent poverty.
Some even admit that, while the levels of wealth are generally increasing for both rich and poor alike, they lament the fact that the gaps between the classes are ever-widening.
But as Catholics, we must ask ourselves, are economic gaps immoral? The honest Catholic answer would be in the negative.
Primarily, as St. Thomas explains, we should recognize that “gaps,” or gradations in things, occur naturally in God’s creation, and it is clear that God ordained it this way. In a metaphysical sense, the angels are greater than man. From the standpoint of beauty, roses are more beautiful than dandelions. The lack of gradation should strike us as more unusual than the presence of gradation.
As economics is concerned, the Catholic answer is to attempt to alleviate the suffering of those in poverty, not to eliminate gaps. Historically, most of the political attempts to do away with gaps resulted in the worst forms of poverty. The Soviet Union was founded on a philosophical system that promised equality, and in a certain sense, it succeeded. Under Soviet communism, there wasn’t much of a gap. In fact, there wasn’t much of anything. Toilet paper was a “capitalist” luxury — as was heat. The only thing that abounded was poverty. Everybody had a lot of that.
It is a virtue to have compassion on the poor and attempt to alleviate their suffering. However, to encourage people to believe that economic gaps in wealth are inherently evil is to tempt them to envy. Interestingly, while some are quick to condemn the upward gap between the very wealthy and themselves, few will condemn the downward gap that exists between themselves and the very poor.
Further, if no gaps existed, then who would give to the poor? If all had the same amount of money, certain virtues would be difficult to practice.
From the perspective of charity, the rich and the poor need each other. The poor need the rich so they may attain the material things they need and practice the virtue of humility; and the rich need the poor so they may exercise the virtues of charity and munificence. Through his begging, St. Francis was not only personally exercising the virtue of humility, he was providing the wealthy an opportunity to practice the virtue of charity. If no such gaps existed, these virtues would be difficult to exercise. As St. Thomas teaches in the Summa, exterior things such as money are to be used as instruments in man’s search for virtue.
Instead of condemning a system that has brought unprecedented standards of living for all economic classes, we should we should recognize the good that the system of free enterprise has done. As Catholics, we must not view these economics “gaps” as immoral. Additionally, we should view the differences between the rich and the poor as opportunities for virtue, regardless of which category in which we fall.
John Clark is the CEO of Paladin Financial Group.
Paladin specializes in helping Catholics invest their money in a pro-life way. He may be reached at jclark@investprolife.com.
Securities offered through LaSalle St. Securities, Member NASD, SIPC
(This article is a paid product of Paladin Financial Group.)
