AN ESSAY BASED ON THE GOSPELS OF
THE 21st and 26th SUNDAYS AFTER PENTECOST
AND
SEVEN SERMONS OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

COMMENTARY ABOUT SOCIAL JUSTICE, THE CULTURE OF LIFE
AND THE SOCIAL TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH

In the above words from the Magnificat, she whom we venerate as the THEOTOKOS and who bore in her body the WORD set the tone for much of His ministry and inspired the theme of this page. Decades before Our Lord began his public ministry, a message of social concern went out from the Holy Virgin which would appear later time and again in the Gospels. That the Gospels show Christ's bias clearly against the rich and the powerful and in favor of the poor and the vulnerable can be seen throughout His teachings in the accounts from His life and in the parables which He used to instruct His listeners. The Church too, down through the ages, has reiterated Christ's teachings on the subject of wealth and poverty. Even as it calls upon us in the liturgy to "lay aside all earthly cares" as we accompany the Cherubim in attending the Mysteries, we are reminded frequently of this theme. In few other places in Scripture does this appear clearer than in the Gospels of the 21st and 26th Sundays after Pentecost which we paraphrase below.

LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN  On the 21st Sunday after Pentecost the priest or deacon reads to us a parable about a certain unnamed rich man who lived in a palace and dined sumptuously while at his gate sat a poor man named Lazarus, the surrogate for all of the poor, covered with sores, for whom the rich man did nothing to relieve his misery. Time passed and both men shuffled off their mortal coils. Lazarus went on to Paradise while the rich man was condemned. The parable concludes by telling us that the rich man was assigned to hell because he did nothing to help Lazarus in his plight and that between the reward of Lazarus and the punishment of the rich man there exists an unbridgeable chasm, suggesting that the two states of life represented by the rich man and Lazarus - wealth and poverty - are irredeemably in contradiction for all purposes, moral and otherwise. (Lk. 18, 18-27)

CHRIST AND THE RICH OFFICIAL  Just five weeks after the lesson of Lazarus and the rich man, the Church again reminds us of Christ's message in the story of the encounter between Our Lord and an unnamed rich official who inquired of Him what he must do to inherit eternal life. Christ advised him to adhere to the law of Moses which the official admitted doing, followed by the instruction to sell his property and to apportion the proceeds among the poor. The official was very rich and did not welcome Christ's message and so went away sad. Whereupon Our Lord told His listeners:

As if the lesson of the 21st Sunday after Pentecost were not clear enough, the same must be reinforced by the above message of the 26th Sunday. This is hard doctrine to accept and has caused homilists no end of problems in seeking to explain it to the faithful. In fact, there is much effort on the part of apologists and sophists to escape the implications of the message. Lest some of our readers too share this difficulty in understanding what the words say, we provide some assistance in resolving the problem through the graphics below.

The Epistle of St. James sums up the matter in the words below:

In the Gospel of Meatfare Sunday, Our Lord states unequivocally the following:

And finally in the Gospel of Cheesefare Sunday at the very outset of the Great Fast, Jesus tells us what he thinks of the "ownership society" [1]

SEVEN SERMONS OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM ON WEALTH AND POVERTY  St. John Chrysostom (350 - 407 AD), called the Golden Mouthed, is one of the Early Church Fathers whose authority and reputation were well appreciated in his time as they are now in the Eastern Church. He was born in Antioch shortly after the Church had emerged from hiding and persecution. His contributions to the evolution of the theology of the Church on so many subjects are peerless. Educated in the classical Greek manner, St. John was gifted with erudition as he was also prolix by our standards. As Archbishop of Constantinople he had occasion to preach widely and one of his many subjects was wealth and poverty within the context of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. His seven sermons on this subject covered many issues omitted in Scripture and the homilies of today. St. John's "hard line" left little room for doubt and he had no patience for exculpating the rich from the consequences of their greed and ostentatious lifestyle. What St. John dealt with in seven sermons, we shall limit to a few quotes lest our page evolve into a book. In the seventh sermon he concludes by stating that wealth is not in and of itself evil subject to the following limitations:

St. John acknowledged that wealth may be culpable not only because of the manner of its accumulation but also for its misuse.

Thus St. John sees no moral distinction between wealth which the rich man obtained by theft, deceit and fraud or by inheritance, and wealth, howsoever acquired, which the rich man fails to share with the unfortunate.

THE SOCIAL TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH  In the 19th century the Industrial Revolution was in progress in Europe, Great Britain and North America. Through manufacturing and trade great wealth was created and accumulated by those in possession and control of capital and the power of decision-making, whereas the bulk of the population was becoming increasingly impoverished by a system which treated working people as no more than objects in the processes of production subject to the same market forces as raw materials. The English political economist, David Ricardo (1772 - 1823) taught that a fair wage for a working man was just enough to survive plus enough extra to reproduce. The novels of Charles Dickens show us in graphic detail the misery of the English proletariat whose only escape was death or emigration.

The 19th century also produced thinkers who challenged the apologists of capitalism. Foremost among those was the German, Karl Marx (1818 - 1883). In his COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, published in 1848, Marx discussed the marvels of capitalism and industry in producing great wealth for a small elite of capitalists along side of the growing impoverishment and powerlessness of the proletariat. Employing the dialectic of Georg Hegel (1770 - 1831) which posited progress in the form of "thesis", "anti-thesis" and "synthesis" Marx conceived of human society as a series of steps wherein mankind moved from a more primitive socio-economic condition (thesis) to challenge and overthrow the established order (anti-thesis) and replace it with a better resolution (synthesis). Thus the capitalist society would be challenged and overcome by the revolution of the proletariat which would established the dictatorship of the proletariat which in turn would evolve into the stateless, classless society - the end stage of human development. Marx' concept of class warfare envisioned the total destruction of capital and capitalism and all their supporting institutions including the bourgeoisie, royalty and the Church.

Both the apologists of capitalism and their Marxist protagonists proceed from the same basic premise that human society and its structure are the products of economic forces controlled by the ruling elite, that the aggrandizement of wealth and power is the sole determinant of social structure, and that Christian moral principles of social justice are irrelevant. In 1848 Marx published THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, the opening words of which are quoted below:

This manifesto or call to arms summoned the teeming masses in Europe and Great Britain to consider that there were alternatives to their misery which could be achieved in the radical restructuring of society through revolution and the destruction of the status quo.

The threats to the status quo by the restive proletariat and the rumblings of social upheaval plus the relentless attacks of the Marxists finally prompted the Church to search for a Christian response. Of all the alleged enemies of the proletariat listed above, only the Pope survives, but the Vatican bureaucracy moves glacially slow, then as now. Finally, forty-three years after Marx's Manifesto, the Church issued its first response in the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, RERUM NOVARUM (Of New Matters) published in 1891.

Rerum Novarum was the first major document of the Church which confronted the situation in liberal capitalist industry in Europe and North America. Some thought the judgment on the system too severe, but no responsible commentator denied that a grave injustice had been done.

a) THE WELFARE OF HUMANITY IS THE OBJECTIVE OF ALL SOCIETY

From the orthodox Christian perspective, the human being and the general welfare are the purposes of all social orders. Even in the purely civil society we note that one of the fundamental purposes of the creation of the United States set forth in the Preamble of the Constitution is "to promote the general welfare". This perspective rests on the fundamental premise that all of creation and its resources are for the benefit of man under his stewardship to use them wisely for his good and the good of future generations. In the cosmology of the Church (q. v. at http://www.byzantines.net/epiphany/cosmology.htm) man is viewed as a creation in the image and likeness of God, i. e. possessing that divine nature, the soul, which distinguishes him from other animate creation.

God created man in His own image and likeness, endowed him with free will and intelligence and made him Lord of creation. "Thou hast made him little less than the angels, set him over the work of thy hands". [Pacem in Terris 3]

The Church's social teaching rests on one basic principle: individual human beings are the foundation, the cause and the end of every social institution. [Mater et Magister 218 - 219]

b) THE PURPOSE OF SOCIETY IS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF ALL PEOPLE

The purpose of the economic and social organism is to provide its members and their families with all the goods which the resources of nature and of industry, with the social organization of economic life, can procure for them. And, as is made clear in Quadragesimo Anno, these goods ought to be plentiful enough to satisfy all reasonable needs and to raise them to that level of comfort which, if used wisely, is far from being an obstacle to virtue but rather a valuable help to it. [Pius XII, July 7, 1952]

We recall a principle that has always been taught by the Church. The priority of labor over capital. This principle directly concerns the process of production. In this process labor is always the primary, efficient cause, while capital, the whole collection of the means of production, remains a mere instrument or instrumental cause. [Laborem Exercens 12]

We recall a principle that has always been taught by the Church. The priority of labor over capital. This principle directly concerns the process of production. In this process labor is always the primary, efficient cause, while capital, the whole collection of the means of production, remains a mere instrument or instrumental cause. [Laborem Exercens 12]

Continuing on earth the service of Christ Who identifies Himself with the destitute, the Church always comes out in defense of the voiceless and powerless. Therefore, she calls upon society to insure the equitable distribution of the fruits of labor, in which the rich support the poor, the healthy the sick, the able-bodied the elderly. The spiritual welfare and survival of society are possible only if the effort to insure life, health and minimal welfare for all citizens becomes the indisputable priority in distributing material resources. [The Orthodox Church and Society VI] [3]

A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice. In determining fair pay both the needs and the contribution of each person must be taken into account. Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural, and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good. Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received for wages. [Catechism of the Catholic Church 2434]

The Church's social teaching proposes principles for reflection; it provides criteria for judgment; it gives guidelines for action:
Any system in which social relations are determined entirely by economic factors is contrary to the nature of the human person and his acts.
A theory which makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.
A system that subordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of production is contrary to human dignity. Every practice that reduced persons to nothing more than a means of profit enslaves man, leads to idolizing money, and contributes to the spread of atheism. You cannot serve God and mammon.
The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modern times with communism or socialism. She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of capitalism, individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market. Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended. [Catechism of the Catholic Church 2423 - 2425; see also Economic Activity and Social Justice 2426 - 2436]

SUMMARY AND COMMENTARY

Of late we hear much conversation about "social issues", "moral values", "family values", and "culture of life" which appear to us to involve little beyond sex and reproduction and beginning- and-end-of-life decisions. For us the moral principles of the Gospels, i. e. those moral standards governing the behavior of humans, one to another, and with the society at large - the real culture of life - emanate from the teachings of Jesus Christ as illustrated in the Gospels and enunciated by the Church. These go far beyond the visceral issues of sex and reproduction, abortion and dying. They involve a wide array of matters including those in the socio-economic realm known generically under the term "social justice". We believe that the agenda of the so-called "religious right" (fundamentalist Protestants, many Catholics, some Orthodox and perhaps some Orthodox Jews) is wrong, or at least woefully inadequate, while the irreligious left is utterly clueless. Those on the right hold that their moral certainties are primary to the exclusion of all others whereas those on the left are unable to conceive that there are any substantial number of sincere people willing to assert their beliefs with conviction and to carry the same to the hustings. Consequently our society is seriously fractured and increasingly ideologically polarized. This has enabled rich and the powerful people in our society to forge an expedient alliance between themselves and the religious right which has enabled the former to secure control of the state, i. e. the executive, legislative and increasingly the judicial branches of government in order to carry out their own program while the latter are led to believe that they will be better able to implement their program to limit or abolish abortion, embryonic stem cell research and so-called "gay marriage". The tragedy in this unholy alliance is that the rich and powerful are far more likely to achieve their objectives whereas the religious right is not. Socio-economically the interests of the religious right, or of most of them, do not lie with the plutocracy.

The plutocracy is interested first and foremost in aggrandizing its wealth and power regardless of adverse consequences for other classes of society. Its goals include undoing all the socially useful and progressive achievements of our society since the New Deal and turning back American society to the status quo of the 1920ies. Few things are more disheartening that the insistence of the rich and the powerful that they are entitled to what they have solely because they have the power to take and hold on to it. Even in businesses in bankruptcy we encounter repeatedly top executives who shamelessly continue to allocate to themselves ever more of the company's assets through higher salaries and "golden parachutes". For them entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, the relief of the socially and economically weak and vulnerable, the handicapped, and the young and the aged are anathema. These they seek to "reform" eventually out of existence through the political process that they now control on the alleged grounds that there is less and less money to support them, which dearth is the direct consequence of tax cuts which they have secured for themselves. The plutocrats' notion of an ideal society is one wherein everyone stands on his own, obligated to no one and dependent on no one. This is militant individualism run amuck accompanied by a total absence of social conscience. [4]

The reduction of the moral obligation of the rich to support the society which sustains them and the resulting budget deficits, free trade policies and the outsourcing of industrial production and employment opportunities, inadequate enforcement of immigration laws resulting in a invasion of illegal aliens who depress wage scales at the lower end, the refusal to make the minimum wage a living wage, i. e. a family supportive wage, the deregulation of business and industry, the pursuit of anti-union strategies to weaken the ability of labor to defend itself against predatory management, the weakening of fair labor standards and the continuing assault on environmentally protective regulation leads to our collective ruin. Tragically our society is evolving into one of entrenched reaction and exploitation, wherein the sacrifices will be made by the working people and the poor, while the greatest part of the benefits will inure to the rich and powerful. The culture of life which Pope John Paul II and his predecessors addressed so eloquently means not just beginning and end decisions, as stated above, but a large panoply of social issues included in the theology of social justice serving the quality of life of all citizens - the young and aged, the lower classes, the sick and handicapped, the un- and underemployed and all others who are powerless and vulnerable to exploitation and economic oppression.

For two millennia the Church has preached the theology of social justice illustrated repeatedly in the Gospels above cited, the teachings of the Church Fathers above mentioned, and the papal and other social encyclicals above referenced, yet our society has elected lately to proceed in the opposite direction. The rich man in the Lazarus parable has become a metaphor for leaders of corporate America and malefactors of great wealth while Lazarus at the gate represents those in our society who are still waiting in vain for the crumbs to fall from the table. [5a & 5b]

Many are disturbed by the hard line taken by the Gospels and the Church Fathers against the rich and powerful and inquire whether there is any mitigation. St. John Chrysostom suggests that there is - for those who share their wealth with the less fortunate. We note also in mitigation that many share their wealth by creating charitable foundations and trusts, by founding and endowing schools, universities, hospitals, libraries, scholarships, churches, parks and other efforts to promote the common weal. Most of us are beneficiaries of the philanthropic acts of many rich and powerful who heed the admonition of St. John Chrysostom, wittingly or not, to give of their treasure for the welfare of others. Frequently those gifts are identified by the names of the donors. We even encounter stained glass windows and icons in our churches with the names of the donors attached and wonder whose honor and glory is being promoted - God's or the donor's? In any case, would not the charitable gifts of the rich perhaps be more efficacious and meritorious if made anonymously?

However beneficial philanthropy may be in promoting the common weal, it is not social justice. Social justice may be defined as the requirement of all that which is necessary for the common good of all.

It is also demanded by the common good that civil authorities should make earnest efforts to bring about a situation in which individual citizens can easily exercise their rights and fulfill their duties as well. For experience has taught us that, unless these authorities take suitable action with regard to economic, political and cultural matters, inequalities between the citizens tend to become more and more widespread, especially in the modern world, and as a result human rights are rendered totally ineffective and the fulfillment of duties is compromised. [Pacem in Terris 63]

We close this part of the page by offering to our readers an unique icon which portrays an image neither evident in Scripture nor in Holy Tradition. It pictures Lazarus confronting the rich man at his slops. We can only infer what they might have said to one another, but suggest that meeting might have been brief and ended with the summary expulsion of Lazarus from the rich man's house. See footnote [6] below.

SOURCES

In addition to various sources herein named, we direct our readers' attention to the following:

a) ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM ON WEALTH AND POVERTY, ISBN 088141038x published by St. Vladimir's Seminary Press
b) AN INTRODUCTION TO CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING, by Fr. Rodger Charles, ISBN: 0898707897 as well as his two-volume work: Christian Social Witness and Teaching: The Catholic Tradition from Genesis to Centesimus Annus. Fr. Charles is a lecturer at Oxford University in England.
c) ECONOMIC SCIENCE AND CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING by Thomas Storck at: http://www.croniclesmagazine.org/News/Storck/NewsTS0617104.html and his commentary on the war in Iraq and other subjects at: http://www.tcrnews2.com/storck2.html  Mr. Storck is an orthodox Catholic writer who contributes, inter alia, to New Oxford Review.
d) THE PAPAL SOCIAL ENCYCLICALS: see texts at http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Law111/PapalSocialEncyclicals.htm e) For additional materials about social justice, enter in the key words, "Catholic social justice" in your favorite search engine.

Appendix

In addition to social issues in the socio-economic realm discussed above there are others which have been addressed by the Church down through the centuries. Foremost among these are the criteria of war. America is presently engaged in a savage war in a remote country, a war initiated by the United States on grounds which have proven to be false or falsified and which have placed at risk the lives and limbs of our working class youth and wasted our national treasure, aside from the costs to the Iraqis, in an vain effort to democratize and civilize a Muslim country as a model for the Middle East. That has prompted debate about the morality of decision-making not only in the war's initiation but also in its conduct.

a) THE CRITERIA OF WAR

The conditions of initiating or defending a war and waging the same have been debated by theologians for centuries. (see Storck above) In defending a "just war", the Western Christian tradition, which goes back to St. Augustine, usually puts forward a number of conditions on which war in one's or another's territory is admissible. They are as follows:

1) war is declared for the restoration of justice;
2) war is declared only by legitimate authority;
3) force is not used by individuals or groups, but by representatives of the civil authorities established from above;
4) war is declared only after all peaceful means have been used to negotiate with the opposite party and to restore the prior situation;
5) war is declared only if there are well-grounded expectations that the established goals will be achieved;
6) the planned military losses and destruction will correspond to the situation and the purposes of war (the principle of proportionate means);
7) during war, civilians will be protected against direct hostilities;
8) war may be justified only by the desire to restore law and order.

[The Orthodox Church and Society VIII]; [7]

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain;
• other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects for success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
  
  [Catechism of the Catholic Church 2309] [8]

b) MARRIAGE - MAN AND WOMAN

The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterate a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect one another in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives. [Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons I. 2 issued Aug. 23, 2003 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]

See also Marriage - Man and Woman http://www.byzantines.net/byzcathculture/marriage.html

The Roman jurist Modestinus gave this definition of marriage: Marriage is the union of man and woman, communion of life, participation together in the divine and human law. [The Orthodox Church and Society X]

c) THE INTRA-GENDER CARNAL LIAISONS OF HOMOSEXUALS AND LESBIANS, EVEN ON A LONG TERM BASIS, ARE NOT MARRIAGE

There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. [Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons I. 4]

Holy Scriptures and the teaching of the Church unequivocally deplore homosexual relations, seeing them a vicious distortion of God-created human nature.

The Orthodox Church proceeds from the invariable conviction that the divinely established marital union of man and woman cannot be compared to the perverted manifestation of sexuality. [The Orthodox Church And Society XII. 9]

d) ABORTION IS THE KILLING OF A HUMAN BEING

Abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes. In questions of birth regulation, sons of the Church are forbidden to use those disapproved by the teachings of the Church in the interpretation of the divine law. [Gaudium et Spes 50,51; Humanae Vitae 8 - 16]

Since ancient times the Church has viewed deliberate abortion as a grave sin. The canons equate abortion with murder. This assessment is based on the conviction that the conception of a human being is a gift of God. Therefore, from the moment of conception any encroachment on the life of a human being is criminal. [The Orthodox Church and Society XII. 2]

Morally inadmissible from the Orthodox point of view are also all kinds of extra-corporeal fertilization involving the production, conservation and purposeful destruction of "spare" embryos. The recognition of human dignity even in an embryo is the principle upon which the Church's moral assessment of abortion is based. [The Orthodox Church and Society XII. 4]

e)     1) EUTHANASIA (MERCY KILLING) IS IMPERMISSIBLE

Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable. [Catechism of the Catholic Church 2277]

Since ancient times the Church has viewed deliberate abortion as a grave sin. The canons equate abortion with murder. This assessment is based on the conviction that the conception of a human being is a gift of God. Therefore, from the moment of conception any encroachment on the life of a human being is criminal. [The Orthodox Church and Society XII. 2]

Therefore, euthanasia is a form of homicide or suicide, depending on whether a patient participates in it or not. If he does, euthanasia comes under the canons whereby both the purposeful suicide and assistance in it are viewed as a grave sin. [The Orthodox Church and Society XII. 8]

2) MAINTAINING A MORIBUND PERSON ON ARTIFICIAL LIFE SUPPORT AFTER REASONABLE HOPE OF RECOVERY HAS EXPIRED IS NOT REQUIRED

Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected. [Catechism of the Catholic Church 2278] [9]

The prolongation of death by artificial means - in which in fact only some organs continue to function - cannot be viewed as either an obligatory or even a desirable task of medicine. Attempts to delay death will sometimes prolong a patient's agony, thus depriving him of the right to honorable and peaceful death, for which the Orthodox Christian beseeches the Lord during the Liturgy. [10] [The Orthodox Church and Society XII. 8]

f) THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

The cosmology of the Church holds that all of creation is God's work, that it is therefore good and given to man for his use and benefit. See Cosmology of the Eastern Church at: http://www.byzantines.net/epiphany/cosmology.htm

Man is suddenly becoming aware that by an ill considered exploitation of nature he risks destroying it and becoming in his turn the victim of this degradation. Not only is the material environment becoming a permanent menace - pollution and refuse, new illnesses and and absolute destructive capacity - but the human framework is no longer under man's control, thus creating an environment for tomorrow which may well be intolerable. The Christian must take on responsibility, together with the rest of men, for a destiny shared by all. [Octogesima Adveniens 21]

The Orthodox Church appreciates the efforts for overcoming the ecological crisis and calls people to intensive cooperation in actions aimed at protecting God's creation. At the same time, she notes that these efforts will be more fruitful if the basis on which man's relations with nature are built will be not purely humanistic, but also Christian. One of the main principals of the Church's stand on ecological issues is the unity and integrity of the world created by God. Orthodoxy does not view nature around us as an isolated and self-enclosed structure. The plant, animal and human worlds are interconnected. From the Christian point of view, nature is not a repository of resources intended for egoistic and irresponsible consumption, but a house in which man is not the master, but the housekeeper, and a temple in which he is the priest serving not nature, but the One Creator. The conception of nature as a temple is based on the idea of theocentrism: God, Who gives to everything "life, and breath, and all things" (Acts 17:25) is the Source of being. Therefore, life itself in its various manifestations is sacred, being a gift from God. Any encroachment on it is a challenge not only to God's creation, but also to the Lord, Himself. [The Orthodox Church and Society XIII. 4] [11]

FOOTNOTES

1) The term "ownership society" is of recent coinage. It is used to justify the privatization of Social Security, at first in part but eventually entirely, by allowing working people to contribute a portion to private accounts which would be invested in securities markets instruments in expectation that the same would increase in value over the long term thereby rewarding the account holders more richly than could be expected from traditional Social Security. Such accounts would be private property and endowed with the feature of inheritability. Were we living in a perfect society wherein the markets always went up and were we gifted with the investment sagacity of Warren Buffett and the prescience of the ant in Aesop's fable, then there might be some merit to the scheme. However, in the real world in which the markets are manipulated by those who know and control them and where most of us are ill prepared to assume the risks of gambling, the plan fails utterly. Moreover, the plan is not social, but individual, not secure, but hazardous. It is the camel's nose in the tent, the ultimate objective of which is to bring an end to a very successful social entitlement in effect since 1936.

2) See also The Social Doctrine of the Church and Economic Activity and Social Justice, Catechism of the Catholic Church 2419 - 2436 and An Introduction to Catholic Social Teaching pp 26 - 35

3) THE ORTHODOX CHURCH AND SOCIETY, ISBN: 1881211584 was issued in 2000 by the Jubilee Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church. It is the basis of the social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church intended as a guide for Synodal institutions, dioceses, monasteries, parishes and other canonical institutions in their relations with various secular bodies and the media. This statement which is in the form of an encyclical represents the first time that an Orthodox Church, in this case, the largest Orthodox Church, has addressed the broad array of social concerns comprehensively in a single statement. It is all the more remarkable because from the time of Tsar Peter the Great until the early 90ies the Russian Church had not the slightest opportunity to speak about these issues. The encyclical may be purchased for $8 from St. Innocent/Firebird Books through its Web site at: http://www.firebirdvideos.com

4) The German political economist, Max Weber, in his book, THE PROTESTANT ETHIC AND THE SPIRIT OF CAPITALISM, ISBN: 0415084342, make a case for the proposition that Calvinism, in its primitive form, provided the ideological basis for capitalism through the doctrine of pre-destination: that only some humans are chosen by God to be saved from damnation and the surest sign of the elect was wealth, whereas for those pre-destined to be damned, poverty was their lot. Few political economists today devote much time to Weber's thesis, noting that capitalism's drive is now secular, i. e. independent of any religious or ethical considerations. Perhaps the junk bond and merger promoters said it best back in the 80ies on their lecture tours when they addressed enthusiastic crowds of MBAs and businessmen with the ringing affirmation that "greed is good!"

5a) In the decade of the 1980ies a new theory of social distribution was proffered which held that if the tax rates on the income of the rich were lowered, then there would be more money for them to invest thereby creating new wealth and jobs, the taxes from which would more than offset the revenue lost in granting the tax breaks. This is called the "trickle down theory". Like Karl Marx's theory of a stateless, classless society following the dictatorship of the proletariat, it is hopelessly utopian. In fact, nothing ever trickled down to the masses below while the national debt quadrupled. This myth is alive and well today and serves only to shift the burden of maintaining society to those less able to sustain it.
One may view with disfavor the efforts of the those in the Church who deny its teaching authority in the socioeconomic realm as ultra vires on the ground that it runs counter to the "laws of economics", the proponents of which assert with the certitude of the laws of nature and raise to the divine order of the cosmos.

5b) There is no dearth of support in the Christian tradition for viewing the parable of Lazarus and the rich man as support for the notion that the lower classes of society should suffer their miserable lot patiently in joyful anticipation of the Big Barbecue in the Bye & Bye. This is what Karl Marx meant when he mocked religion as the opiate of the people. The Church's teaching on social justice rejects this approach. Social justice is for now, not later.

6) This icon portrays an unlikely event. Then as now the rich and the poor rarely have contact with one another except in a strictly master/servant relationship.

7) It appears that the war teaching of the Russian Orthodox Church closely approximates that of the Roman Catholic Church.

8) While any statement about the morality of initiating and waging war must be conditional, it seems to us that much of this theology is drawn from the experiences of the past when uniformed armed forces sponsored by states moved against the armed forces and territory of another state. Today war is changing. Increasingly well armed bands of ideological zealots wage war largely free of control or direction of states. Moreover, these jihadists, freedom fighters, insurgents etc, howsoever designated, are wholly without the moral restraints applicable to war in the past. The Church does not yet dealt with this phenomenon.

9) See also DECLARATION ON EUTHANASIA by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 5, 1980 at: http://catholicinsight.com/online/political/euthanasia/article_321.shtml

10) "A Christian ending to our life, painless, blameless, and peaceful, and a good defense before the dread Judgment Seat of Christ, let us beseech the Lord." "Grant this, O Lord." A petition & response in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom!

11) The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I has spoken repeatedly about the issue of the plundering of creation and environmental abuse in the context of the cosmology of the Eastern Church. See his encyclicals at: http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/environment