At no other time in history have Westerners been so out of touch with economic reality. The socialist ideal of “income equality,” for example, is not a Christian idea. Equal dignity as human persons created in the image and likeness of God, yes. Equal justice and representation in a court of law, yes. But income equality and forced wealth redistribution through taxation are extremely harmful to the Christian way of life.
From the early debates among the Founders to the insights of the Church Fathers and modern reflections on class dynamics, the tension between aspiration and humility offers valuable lessons for how we should view wealth, status, and our responsibilities in society.
The Founders of the United States were divided on the role of class in society, with Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson advocating for a more egalitarian, agrarian vision while Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and James Madison recognized class distinctions as natural and beneficial. Hamilton argued that a wealthy class is essential for stability and prosperity, while Adams emphasized the inevitability of a “natural aristocracy” based on talent and virtue. Madison acknowledged the inherent existence of factions tied to economic and social differences, proposing representative government as a way to manage these tensions. The U.S. Constitution itself reflects a mutual agreement, balancing popular representation with legal protections for private property.
Ultimately, the Founders’ debates and the structures they created suggest that social and economic classes are not only natural but necessary for a stable and functional society, as they provide balance, incentives, and a framework for governance.
The idea that class distinctions serve a beneficial purpose is echoed in Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum:
There are truly very great and very many natural differences among men. Neither the talents, nor the skill, nor the health, nor the capacities of all are the same, and unequal fortune follows of itself upon necessary inequality in respect to these endowments. And clearly this condition of things is adapted to benefit both individuals and the community; for to carry on its affairs community life requires varied aptitudes and diverse services, and to perform these diverse services men are impelled most by differences in individual property holdings. (§26; emphasis added)
Pope Leo’s perspective affirms that wealth inequality is unavoidable and fundamentally serves the common good when individuals fulfill their roles and responsibilities within society.
The concept of socioeconomic class in the United States has developed from a focus on land ownership and economic independence in the colonial era to a more complex understanding shaped by industrialization, globalization, and cultural shifts. In the nineteenth century, class distinctions became more pronounced with the rise of industrial capitalism, as wealth concentrated among a small upper class while a growing working class moved off of farms and into factories. The twentieth century brought the expansion of a prosperous middle class, fueled by wartime savings being channeled into technological innovation and business growth, which enabled higher wages and expanded homeownership. During this period, many Americans embraced the ideal of upward mobility, recognizing that hard work and determination could elevate one’s economic status, and going to college would likely secure a position in the upper middle class.
Today, socioeconomic class is defined not only by income or wealth but also by education, occupation, and social identity. However, while “wealth inequality” has reversed course, many Americans still feel entitled to “identify” with the upper middle class through their spending habits—purchasing luxury goods, embracing trends, and maintaining lifestyles beyond their means. Despite this aspirational consumption, most Americans lack the productive assets or high income necessary to sustain such lifestyles, often relying on debt to sustain their spending habits. This disconnection between actual economic status and perceived class identity highlights the cultural power of the American Dream and the societal pressure to appear upwardly mobile while, in fact, this delusional consumer debt spending is fueling a return to greater economic disparity among the classes.
Additional signs of this growing disparity between rich and poor and the decline of the middle class are illustrated by the facts that, first, wages have stagnated in the face of rampant inflation since 2020 and, secondly, we are seeing increasing numbers of middle-class people struggle with problems historically more associated with poverty—namely addiction, isolation, financial instability, spiritual poverty, and family breakdown.
Humility comes before wealth
The Fathers of the Church would see Americans’ obsession with projecting wealth and status as financially irresponsible and a failure to practice humility. St. John Chrysostom warned, “Do not adorn the body, but clothe the soul with great virtue.” That wisdom applies today: instead of trying to keep up with the Joneses, we should be striving to cultivate the virtues of charity, prudence, temperance, and modesty. True wealth isn’t found in appearances or possessions but in living a life of love, fidelity, and service. Humility demands that we focus on our duties and obligations toward God, family, and community and let go of the pride that derails us.
Humility also demands that we take our place graciously, which is to say that we need to live in reality. If we are poor, we should not spend like we are middle class and we should seek out assistance from family or our church community, if we need to, without feeling ashamed. If we are middle class, we should not adopt the spending habits of the wealthy. If we are wealthy, we need to be mindful of the needs of the Church, the poorly educated, and the innocent poor, while not spending all our wealth on luxuries and self-indulgence.
This is not to say that social mobility is wrong. Social mobility is a good thing and can go both ways. St. Basil the Great and his siblings gave up their wealth voluntarily to serve the Church and founded two monastic communities on their family estate. On the other hand, if you are the father of a family and desire to provide a better education for your children or want to be able to be more generous, it is a noble thing to want to move one’s family out of poverty into the middle class. Understand, however, that social mobility from poverty to wealth usually requires multiple generations, which is ordered, natural, and good.
Americans are obsessed with “rags to riches” stories, which are very inspiring but not a guarantee or an entitlement. There is a little more to it than just “following your dreams.” Immigrants can come to America, who already have virtue, humility, and aptitude and do very well here, but 40% of Americans are still trying to get there by winning the lottery.
Each socioeconomic class has its particular duties and responsibilities, which require their own set of virtues. These virtues are best handed down from parent to child and constitute a large part of one’s moral upbringing.
An abundance of wealth will not solve anyone’s root problems. More money will only make a man more of what he is already. If he is a scoundrel, he will become more of a scoundrel, and if he is a saint and can keep his head, he will become more of a saint.
The American Founders and the Church Fathers alike understood the importance of accepting and embracing one’s station in life with dignity while also recognizing the opportunities for growth and service that come with it. True virtue lies not in projecting affluence or striving for status but in living a life of prudence, temperance, piety, fidelity, and true charity. By cultivating humility and recognizing the natural roles and responsibilities of class, we will be happier, and our example will help move society toward more just and virtuous ends—a society that values character over consumption and charity over selfish pleasures.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
So billionaires deserve a tax cut? So Musk deserves even more money? So poor children should go hungry so billionaires can have lower or even no taxes? No thanks.
That’s what you got out of this essay? Goodness.
He did imply that the rich should try to be virtuous, but with some exceptions, they are not. Have you noticed that any time someone even mentions the enormous wealth disparity today, they are accused of “class warfare?” Well, class warfare is already here. The billionaires have declared war on the rest of us.
The essay appears to be a statement that the working class should be content, while Elon & Co. pick their pockets. Do you think it is a good thing that the top three billionaires have more wealth than the bottom 50% of the American people in aggregate?
The Democrats have failed us too. They failed to raise the minimum wage for 15 years, ignored economic issues and focused on nonsense like transgender bathrooms. That’s why they got clobbered last November. It’s time to focus on economic Justice. Knock off the foolishness of transgender and drag queen advocacy,and try to improve the lives of most of the citizens. The common good.
William, envy of the rich is unbecoming of a Christian. Unless someone rich attained their wealth in illegal or immoral ways, the amount of money a person has is their respobsibility to dispose of properly.
I might also suggest that you consider all your material assets and then compare them to the poorest person in Haiti. My guess is that, to that person in Haiti, you are one of those billionaires you so despise.
I am not aware that any of the few billionaires existing have held anyone up at gunpoint to get their money. Instead they have used exceptional intelligence and hard work to get where they are, often by making smart deals or inventing a product everyone wants (like cell phones, computers, drones, etc) and then making a profit selling it. What is wrong with that?
By comparison there are far too many people who engage in drug and alcohol use to the extent that normal daily functioning is not possible for them. Some folks become gang members, drop out of school, get pregnant at 15, engage in crime. Can you guess what happens next? They remain on the bottom of the economic barrel. Some people prefer not to earn what they have by working at a job. Often they engage in theft, like the shoplifting flash mobs we have seen. Funny, such people are usually stealing high end designer clothing, jewelry and drug products. They are not poor people stealing bread. The dirty truth is, “wealth inequality” is NOT the responsibility of those who have worked hard for what they have. I find demands that such people be fleeced legally by the government so their means can be dished out in the corrupt ways being exposed by Elon Musk, to be more than a little disgusting.NO ONE is OWED a nice home, car, etc. Except, it would seem, if you are an illegal entering the US, as has recently been exposed in the news.
I grew up in a lower middle class home. We didnt have a lot but we were not unhappy, and we always had enough to eat. I wore hand-me-down clothing at times, and the first car my parents ever owned was old and used. But they were proud of earning that car. My parents taught me that if you wanted something you had to WORK for it. They never expressed the idea that it should be handed to me. If someone did better than we did, we were happy for their success, not envious and wondering how to knock them down. The country has changed in this, and not for the better. Too many have an entitlement attitude.
My husband and I worked hard to get to where we are now, a pleasant upscale neighborhood. I have never asked for a handout and feel I dont owe anything to anyone regarding how I got here.
I dont know how William assumes that the rich are not virtuous but that is an offensive assumption. None of us know what is in the mind and soul of others. I know a number of people of means in my neighborhood and they have been generous in their support of church projects and charities. As I try to do. Both Frank Sinatra and Donald Trump have been known to do charitable works and keep it quiet (sometimes leaked out by the recipient). What gives us the right to examine the charity levels of others? What gives us the right to decide we “deserve” what belongs to others?
So billionaires should pay less taxes? So Government should not have programs for poor children that provide food and medical care? So the minimum wage should never be raised? You spout Republican propaganda.
Note: some billionaires have gotten rich via insider trading, fraud and unethical actions. They are not all saints.
How does anybody else’s taxes affect another’s ability to buy food?
Given that a huge plurality pay no tax; and many actually receive “refundable credits” i.e., a payment-how exactly do we cut taxes for people who pay nothing or who receive free gifts?
If leftists only had a scintilla of righteous anger about the abject nonsense we’ve discovered just about “USAID” spending-such as the deviance colonialism of $2 million for sex changes and “LGBT activism” in Guatemala
as the contrived moral outrage they have about people keeping their own money, it would be wonderful
I’m really tired of envy and fiscal cretinism masquerading as morality.
Not only do billionaires pay taxes, such wealthy people pay MORE by a long shot, than the middle class. Lower class folks for the most pay pay nothing or next to nothing. Instead they are on the receiving end of a lot of government benefits my “working poor” family would never have qualified for. If garbage pick up costs $500 a year, why should a wealthy person be forced to pay $10,000 for that same service? Just because he has it?
AS for billionaires not paying taxes, or poor children not having food or medical care, I rather think YOU are spouting Democrat propaganda. Never has any republican EVER said there should not be a safety net. On the other hand, squandering taxpayer funds to help ILLEGALS buy cars, homes and businesses, as has been recently reported in the news is an outrage. And NO, they are not entitled to that. Further, selling food stamps has become something of a business for many recipients, who then use the cash for whatever they wish, which leads me to believe they are in no danger of starving. As for minimum wage, I believe that for the most part, govt should butt OUT of that issue and let the free market decide wages. An unskilled job such as at fast food places are simply not worth paying $20 an hour. It raises the prices on everyone else, including the poor. Further, as that issue has hit home in California, many businesses have LEFT the state, unable to pay such wages, and taking much needed jobs with them. Sounds not very bright on the part of the state. Freebies are always popular, especially for those disinclined to actually work to get what they want. Please let me know what billionaire you believe has gotten wealthy through insider trading or fraud. Or is that simply more hot air?
Finally, in spite of what you appear to believe, it is not a crime to work hard and have money.
TDS.
Sad.
Business owners need incentives to do business in the United States rather than taking it abroad.
there isn’t really room for organic growth here because our population is basically stagnant; what else are you going to sell our baby boomers who want to hold onto their wealth, other that health care?
How ’bout everyone (everyone) put in 5%? Five percent of $100 income is $5. Five percent of $1,000,000 income is $50,000. Five percent of one billion income is $50,000,000.
Somehow, I don’t think you’d be happy with that, as the truth is,”the poor” are not paying all that much.
Considering the waste, abuse, and fraud, I’d say “the rich” should have their taxes slashed.
“Most of the government’s federal income tax revenue comes from the nation’s top income earners. In 2021, the top 5% of earners — people with incomes $252,840 and above — collectively paid over $1.4 trillion in income taxes, or about 66% of the national total. If you include the top 10% — everyone who made at least $169,800 — that figure rises to $1.7 trillion, or 76% of the total.
The top 50% of earners contributed 97.7% of federal income tax revenue.”
https://usafacts.org/articles/who-pays-the-most-income-tax/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=ND-ElectionsGov&gad_source=5&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIo42xkI_GiwMVdjYIBR3m_y64EAAYAiAAEgJ7Z_D_BwE
So the billionaires deserve a tax cut? No. Percentage wise,the ultra rich pay much less than they did in the 1950’s. The upper middle class carry the load, not the billionaires. Trump paid nothing some years. All perfectly legal, but is it fair?
Why do we need to make Elon even richer? The tax cuts pushed by the Republicans will benefit Elon much more than me. What about the deficit?
Maybe if Elon is allowed to find a root out waste (and the Congress finally does their job), everyone’s taxes can be lowered. Oh, except for the poor, who don’t pay anything–not all the poor, but a fairly large number.
There is a real changc I pay a bigger percentage than Elon, but I have no doubt he pays more taxes than I. Doesn’t bother me.
William: yours is the tired mantra of the now bankrupt leftist Democrat Party. Class envy doesn’t play in Peoria anymore.
So you think that Elon & Co. getting richer, while we lose ground is a good thing? Class envy? No, just economic justice.
Equal opportunity for all.
For those handicapped by the vicissitudes of life, each of us is called to assist as our means allows. Coerced charity is no charity at all.
” … many Americans still feel entitled to “identify” with the upper middle class through their spending habits—purchasing luxury goods, embracing trends, and maintaining lifestyles beyond their means.”
Or to quote Hannibal Lecter: “We begin by coveting what we see every day.” Better yet, see Commandment #10.
Still, the optics aren’t good.
Does Czar Musk (and his post-adolescent minions) actually understand the difference between the stock market and governance, between morals and the industrial-complex post-ethics of only “efficiency”?
The institutional promise and high-stakes gamble of the moment is whether a jiggered tax and tariff structure will actually return productive job opportunities to our borders, or not.
Yes, the domestic context is also an unsustainable budget deficit of $2 Trillion/year (nearly a third of the $6.5 Trillion annual budget). At the end of the month the Congress is to propose a surely draconian budget for the next two years (after more than a week’s vacation for campaigning!), and then in two months the country must endure another face-off over the cumulative national debt limit of $37 Trillion and counting.
Time for a change, but hopefully a less artless change than some of the instances we have seen so far.
As a Catholic, I do not embrace a secular class system or any other artificial division in the Mystical Body of Christ.
(Galatians 3:28).
Sacred Scripture does not say:
Blessed are the Catholic wealthy class, they shall buy board seats at the Acton Institute.
For instance, when teaching finances, the author should warn his son about credit and fee-harvesting. See CompuCredit, esp. “A Dynasty of Debt” on page 25:
https://www.nclc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/fee-harvesters-report.pdf
(Matthew 6:24)
“13. … It is a most sacred law of nature that a father should provide food and all necessaries for those whom he has begotten; and, similarly, it is natural that he should wish that his children, who carry on, so to speak, and continue his personality, should be by him provided with all that is needful to enable them to keep themselves decently from want and misery amid the uncertainties of this mortal life. Now, in no other way can a father effect this except by the ownership of productive property, which he can transmit to his children by inheritance.”
— Rerum Novarum
A just wage would then enable a man, at least, to eventually pay off his home mortgage while maintaining a standard of living for his family that is commensurate with human dignity.
That is not possible for many who are more than willing to do an honest day’s work.
Back in the day many families rented rather than owned their homes. Owning a house is a great blessing but it hasn’t been the norm throughout history.
We should be striving for home ownership by most people. Not some medieval model of aristocrats and serfs. Those were the “good old days?”
Everyone cannot afford to own a home, in fact, many cannot who own them.
One reason is the ones built are too large and then if you need an emergency repair like a new roof look out!
Divorce and then the lady ends up with a home and kids – now the market needs two homes or at least the husband needs a box to live in somewhere.
“[S]should provide” is not “shall provide.”
And exactly what is a “just wage” and why is it necessary for that wage (whatever it may be) to cover a food, clothing, and house for a man, his wife, and (say) four children?
Is McDonald’s really to be expected to pay a 30 year old man (cashier position) enough for all that? On maybe the 22 hours he is scheduled? I work reception at a sports club. Maybe twenty hours a week. Is my employer really obligated to pay me the $50K a year (minimum) that it would take to rent a one-bedroom apartment here in my town?
In the ole days men felt they needed to provide for their wife and children and she should not have to work on a payroll.
Now that men are emasculated, for several reasons, that appears to no longer be the case.
I, God’s Fool, promise to keep sweet. Refraining from cynicism, I will humbly remain a poor fool until my virtues enable the fools that come after me to join the Catholic Wealthy Class. Then, doing their duty, my foolish progeny will procure a Board seat at Acton. Thus, enjoying the fruits of the prosperity afforded them by the Gospel, these same fools will teach a trickle down economics as befits the Catholic kingly class. Foundations will be formed. 990s will be avoided by obtaining religious status from a compliant Ordinary as approved by Frank Hanna, and all shall prosper, even if only vicariously by me, your humble servant and God’s Fool.
Here are some thoughts about the 2025 DOGE Musk mission as contrasted with the 1972 Muskie presidential candidacy. Yes to government efficiency, but take a look at the numbers…
Musk and his apprentices gloat over finding a few tens of millions of dollars here and there, but even the discovery of $125 Billion in possible savings in four years from the military budget is chicken feed. This amounts to $31 Billion/year, or 0.6% of the annual national deficit ($2 Trillion/year).
Musk, just another silo-thinker within a cobweb of mission-oriented bureaucratic silos, and with no idea about decimal points? The Black economist Thomas Sowell (Hoover Institute) offers the needed wide-angle vision—and attention to “cause-and-effect”. For example, he noted how by its mission of helping the poor, much of President Johnson’s Great Society Program (and its entrenched mentality) simply helped to dismantle what was left of the family.
Note well that most children in poverty live in one-parent families…How many other examples abound: the old Law of Unintended Consequences, and the new Law of Ubiquitous Myopia?
Two recommendations:
FIRST: Over the long run and beyond simply scrubbing the LGBTQ/DEI/Trans orthodoxy, what is the Republican slim majority (and others across the aisle?) going to do positively restore a culture of families (rather than clients)? And, where in the new regime do we hear a more heart/cerebral agenda than only the hamfisted hammer aimed at silo bookkeeping (we do need a large scalpel—but not a random ax)?
SECOND, as for the Church, we probably should drop back and include in the Prayers of the Faithful an explicit understanding that we live in a sacral and sacramental universe. Not mechanized, digitized, electrified or even Artificial Inteligenc-ified. And, therefore, might pray for a restored notion of “vocations” and for all vocations, meaning marriage and the family as well as the dwindling vocation to the priesthood and religions life.
It’s about civilization, not election cycles.
Oops! How about 1.5% of the annual national deficit (not 0.6%). As the Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen remarked already in the 1960s: “A billion dollars here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money!”
“Understand, however, that social mobility from poverty to wealth usually requires multiple generations, which is ordered, natural, and good.”
a vibrant middle class is what’s good