http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-21-number-2/debt-finance-catholics

Acton Institute
PUBLICATIONS » Religion & Liberty » Volume 21, Number 2
Debt, Finance, and Catholics
by Samuel Gregg

*** begin quote ***

Today, one looks in vain for Catholic thinkers studying our debt and deficit problems from standpoints equally wellinformed by economics and sound Catholic moral reflection. We don’t, for instance, hear many Catholic voices speaking publically about the moral virtues essential for the management of finances such as prudent risk-taking, thrift, promise-keeping, and assuming responsibility for our debts — private or public.

Instead, one finds broad admonitions such as “put the interests of the poor first” in an age of budget-cutting. The desire to watch out for the poor’s well being in an environment of fiscal restraint is laudable. But that’s not a reason to remain silent about the often morally-questionable choices and policies that helped create our personal and public debt dilemmas in the first place.

One Catholic who has proved willing to engage these issues is none other than Pope Benedict XVI. In his 2010 interview book Light of the World, Benedict pointed to a deeper moral disorder associated with the running-up of high levels of private and public debt. The willingness on the part of many people and governments to do so means, Benedict wrote, “we are living at the expense of future generations.”

In other words, someone has to pay for all this debt. Clearly, many Western Europeans and Americans seem quite happy for their children to pick up the bill. That’s a rather flagrant violation of intergenerational solidarity.

But Benedict then sharpened the argument. This willingness on the part of governments, communities, and individuals to live off debt means that people are “living in untruth.” “We live,” Benedict stated, “on the basis of appearances, and the huge debts are meanwhile treated as something that we are simply entitled to.”

*** end quote ***

I found the Acton Institute many moons ago. The finding was a pair of articles, that I’ve long since lost, that hammered home the moral obligation to EFFECTIVE charity. The one author demonstrated that the post Chicago charity was due to the personal interest of the committee that discerned the worthiness of the supplicant. The other asserted that it was a mortal sin to give charity that was ineffective because it misdirected time, attention, resources, and behaviors. As a result of that, I stopped contributing to United Way and directed an increased contribution to HomeFrontNJ. I could go into great detail why (e.g., CEO salary of UW hundreds of millions versus CEO of HomeFrontNJ 50k). Again Acton Institute gave me a real think piece, calling my attention to what the Pope called “living in untruth”. Seems like I have a lot to learn about morality. I’m sure my fellow Jaspers need no such lessons since they probably paid attention during Theology.]

# # # # #