Assuming there is anything that seriously reflects the authors actual beliefs in this odd piece, it is yet another one that I simply cannot understand.

So that's my first question - is this a joke? Tounge-in-cheek? A bit of levity to lighten our day? If so, ha ha, very funny.

If not, I can only say I'm embarrassed that someone calling themselves a Christian could write such a thing.

"So is it really such a sin to try to regain a piece of Eden, if only as a time-share we use off-season and deduct as a business expense? That's really all Greed amounts to."

A piece of Eden? I could only imagine how people would be reacting to this piece if abortion were tossed onto the pile of things necessary to reach Eden. But we never contemplate the full spectrum of consequences of our worship of self-interest and its hideous big brother, greed. We think we can shamelessly promote one disgusting vice in the name of "liberty" and expect certain others to never emerge or take hold.

How many women have sacrificed their children to Moloch, to Mammon, to the demon that is adulated in this piece? Because they wanted to go back to school. Because they wanted to finish school. Because they wanted to advance in their careers. Because the father of their child threatened them with abandonment or worse. All in pursuit of Mr. Zmirak's materialist Eden. This is the foundation of the culture of death with which we are now burdened.

Finally:

"the social doctrine of the Church reminds us that the goods of the earth were created by God to be used wisely by all. They must be shared equitably, in accordance with justice and charity. This is essentially a question of preventing the injustice of hoarding resources: greediness, be it individual or collective, is contrary to the order of creation." Compendium, par. 481

" The free market cannot be judged apart from the ends that it seeks to accomplish and from the values that it transmits on a societal level. Indeed, the market cannot find in itself the principles for its legitimization; it belongs to the consciences of individuals and to public responsibility to establish a just relationship between means and ends.[728] The individual profit of an economic enterprise, although legitimate, must never become the sole objective. Together with this objective there is another, equally fundamental but of a higher order: social usefulness, which must be brought about not in contrast to but in keeping with the logic of the market. When the free market carries out the important functions mentioned above it becomes a service to the common good and to integral human development. The inversion of the relationship between means and ends, however, can make it degenerate into an inhuman and alienating institution, with uncontrollable repercussions."
Compendium, par. 348

"The relationship between labour and capital also finds expression when workers participate in ownership, management and profits. This is an all-too-often overlooked requirement and it should be given greater consideration. “On the basis of his work each person is fully entitled to consider himself a part-owner of the great workbench where he is working with everyone else."
Compendium 248

It is NOT envy when the poor reach out for more. They are, according to our Church, entitled to to consider themselves part-owners in our economy. It IS greed when a man has more than he needs in order to live comfortably, because that excess wealth serves only to confer power over others. There can be no justice, no political equality and hence no democracy, no social peace, no clean air or truly sunny skies - in short, no Eden, ever - as long as greed is celebrated instead of torn up root and branch in every community which Christians call home. Call me a communist if you like. I'd wear that label with pride before I'd sanctify the inhuman system under which we currently live.

I am very pleased to see Zmirak has the detachment and humility to write about sensitive topics with both good humor and detachment. Such qualities are lacking in almost all Catholic writing nowadays, the age of Chesterton, Belloc, and Waugh is far behind us. But every now and then their spirit shines through, and such is the case in today's cover story. I recall a line from Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose" about "making the truth laugh." Zmirak has done precisely that.

Assumption! *Groan*

Brilliant piece, Mr. Zmirak.



Yes, it's a joke. This is the (I think) 4th installment of Mr. Zmirak's on the Seven Deadly Sins. He's using this series to illustrate that Catholics do not, indeed, invest in their faith just because "life is easier that way," as some suggest. He's illustrating the things we Catholics have to give up, making it not so easy at all.

So yes, it's tongue-in-cheek. And hilarious.

Hi Joe (good name!)

I think you missed his point here. His "piece of Eden" paragraph, like most of the article, is coming from the perspective of our fallen human nature -- the part of us that can't say no. That's why that same paragraph ends with: "We yearn for a life without limits, for a second jar of Gerber mini-Franks, just one more ride on the Tilt-a-Whirl. We're reaching out for the Fruit of the Tree of Life, and keep burning our hands on the Flaming Sword."

Zmirak is not praising greed, he is exposing it through humor. He is not saying what you think he's saying.

Oh boy, there sure is enough greed to go around. To your comment,



I know, I know, tongue in cheek. But seriously, I think the question is, what is the minimum safety net that we as a society want to have for our citizens? Some would say none, that we weren't all given the same gifts, so nor should we receive the same. I would beg to differ. Example, I don't want to live in a country where people die because they can't get health care treatment.

We have a myth of scarcity in this country when it comes to some things, and not others.

I don't have time for a long back-and-forth discussion but I will say that I partly agree with your first sentence: "It is NOT envy when the poor reach out for more." I agree in the sense that the Church has always taught about the universal destination of earthly goods where the poor have a just claim on the goods of the earth.

However, I disagree with you in the way that political parties and movements (especially from the left) exploit this truth and turn this claim in justice into a class warfare, forced wealth redistribution solution. The poor's claim in justice to the universal destination of earthly goods leads to a demand in justice and charity on the rich to provide for them. The charitable nature of this demand precludes or severely limits governmental solutions to the problem since the government by its very nature is coercive through tax policy and bureaucratically removed from actually impacting charitably the lives of the poor. The principle of subsidiarity, as you know, favors the level of society closest to the poor themselves -- Church, neighborhood, non-profit, local branch of government as opposed to federal or state branches of government. Thus, I favor ways of helping the poor that encourage the not poor to voluntarily give of their surplus to them motivated by charity, not the heavy hand of the coercive government, especially at its higher levels (federal and state).

One further thought. I work for the federal government, and I know firsthand that there are things we should do constitutionally that make sense (provide for the defense, maintain roads, provide postal services, etc) and there are things we do that do not make sense either constitutionally or prudently. Civil servants like me don't provide proper care for the poor as well as private charities, religious orders, and individuals do.

Ok, now back to work on your behalf! Break time is over.

Nothing like religion, sarcasm, and the occasional pun to brighten up your day! Thanks for a great article! It's better written than I realized on first go-around.

Joe H, yes it's a joke! But nonetheless your response was great because the article kind of plants a seed in your mind (hey yeah, greed doesn't seem like such an evil thing, so why is it so deadly?) and you provided some of those reasons. I think greed on the societal level is a major culprit in abortion. Everyone feels entitled to unlimited "freedom" to everything, because they shouldn't have to give anything up, because then they couldn't have everything they ever wanted (greed).

Good stuff all around. I love this series.

I thought it was a joke, but, you never know. When you've met enough people who really do believe these things...

Whatever the workings of greed and envy, one cannot point to the past election as an example. The fact is that what moved the electorate, more than greed for what they did not have, or envy of what others had, was fear of losing what they did have.

Also, unfortunately our economy is based in envy and greed - how else are you going to get people to spend money on things they do not need? Notice that when people become frugal and are content to live with less, that is called "low consumer confidence". Be it desire to own something because it is a shiny trinket that takes their fancy, or because the saw their neighbor with it, and they do not want to be without it too, the fact is that our economy would stop to a standstill if those sins were not there.

Another observation about envy - it tends to work most within the same socio-economic stratus. People may envy Donald Trump, but he is a distant figure who lives in a different world, so their envy is kind of abstract, and they are quite willing to let him his own way if he does not bother the. But their neighbor, that is a different story. They know him or her, had had clashes and disagreements in the past, and know enough of his or her failings - so they take umbrage to what they ting is undeserved good fortune. (In Amadeus, Saliere does not envy the nobles nor the rich, but the fellow musician Mozart).

Adriana, I agree that fear of losing what people currently have was the driving force behind many people's votes (for either candidate). But does that really fall outside the realm of greed? I know some people truly thought they would not be able to provide food, clothing, shelter, and basic healthcare for their families if the opposing candidate were elected. But I honestly don't think that was the majority of Americans. More, I think, were worried that they might not be able to afford a brand-new car, might have to work their way through college instead of relying more on invested savings, might have to have a "staycation" instead of going away this year, might not be able to buy the kids that whatever-this-year's-Wii-will-be for Christmas. Wanting to be out of poverty is not greed. But wanting to be upper-middle-class, even wanting to stay upper-middle-class if you already are, is not too far from greed, envy, pride, or some subtle cocktail of the three.

And of course I'm guilty of it. :-/

Dear Chrissy:

I agree that refusing to give up what is superfluous is greed, but still there are differences.

We are more emotionally invested in what is ours than what we hope to make our own. Giving up something we are accustomed to having feels too much like a personal attack, and so we fight it more violently.

This attitude has a lot to do wiht the resistance to taxes, even though, in my experience as a business owner (failed), high taxes is not why the businesses of my acquainte go under. The real expense, the one that really ate their profits was rent
(the reason Avon can offer so many products cheapear is because it has no rent to pay anywhere). Also, relating to the expression "spread the wealth", we learned - when due to the Government shut down tousands of federal employees lost their pay - that if our customers do not have money, we have no sales, and thus no profit.

From a numbers crunching point of view, the tax burden is a lot more bearable than the rent burden (and utilities), and also rent is collected whether you made more or not (how many of those I knew tapped into their IRAs that month to make rent...) whether taxes are only collected if you make money.

But people get a lot more incensed about taxes because they see that money as "theirs" while they do not consider the rent money the same way.

So, we might wonder how much our attitude about taxes comes from what is bascially an irrational, atavistic impulse, a form of ingrained greed.

good message John, really liked the Gerber mini-franks line...
which reminds me, how come no SPAM sandwiches at the soup kitchen?

"But wanting to be upper-middle-class, even wanting to stay upper-middle-class if you already are, is not too far from greed, envy, pride, or some subtle cocktail of the three."

Not so. As long as one is charitable, there is no sin or vice in maintaining one's station in life.


In paragraph 22 of his most famous encyclical, Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo teaches that the prosperous are indeed obliged by charity (not justice) to share with the needy. “True, no one is commanded to distribute to others that which is required for his own needs and those of his household; nor even to give away what is reasonably required to keep up becomingly his condition in life, ‘for no one ought to live other than becomingly.’ But, when what necessity demands has been supplied, and one’s standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over.” In other words, prosperous people, social classes, or countries are not obliged to abolish inequality. Wealthy Catholics need not give away so much that they become middle- or working-class, and prosperous nations need not transfer their “surplus” GNP to the developing world. Indeed, secular economists such as Milton Friedman have demonstrated the perverse effects of careless foreign aid—which frequently devastates local business, and retards the economic development of countries.