Rite and ReasonIf the message of Christianity was implemented in Ireland, it would in all probability be bad for the economy, suggests Tony Flannery
'Greed is good; it keeps the economy stable.' These are the words of a wealthy Dublin woman, explaining why she was going to vote a certain way in the recent general election.
From a commonly-accepted point of view, she is, of course, correct. The more greedy people are, the more they will purchase and consume, the more will be manufactured, and the more jobs there will be. Commentators tell us it was the economy that determined the way people voted - not that there was any significant difference between the two blocs. Both advocated cutting taxes and boosting spending on services.
Any party which campaigned on the basis of raising taxes so that real opportunities could be afforded to the less-privileged would have had little chance of getting elected.
As a priest and preacher, this election highlighted for me the real task facing anyone trying to present the Christian message in Ireland.
When Jesus preached the Kingdom of God, he was presenting a radically different view of society.
He told people that love made more sense than hate; that living in peace would be a far happier state than conflict; and that there was sufficient for everyone to live a decent life, if only we learned to share what we had rather than accumulate more than we needed.
In modern terminology, it would be fair to say that Jesus advocated higher taxation, fairer taxation and redistribution. This was both simple and radical.
He stirred up such fear in the authorities that he was put to death.
His principles were clear: love and generosity are good; selfishness and greed are bad. But if he tried to spread that message in Ireland now, his fate would be at least as bad. His annihilation would be more subtle, but not any less barbaric.
The unfortunate reality for the Christian preacher is that while greed does keep the economy stable, the values of the Kingdom of God would in all probability be bad for a modern economy.
If people began to be satisfied with what they had, and controlled their desire for possessions, then manufacturing would decline and there would be fewer jobs. If they learned to live simply, the building industry would suffer a downturn.
If people began to share what they had, the big shopping centres would experience a serious reduction in turnover. If they found something better to do on a Sunday, like going to church or walking the hills, then the dead-eyed queues in department stores would shorten.
None of this, of course, will happen. We in the church have tamed the message of Jesus. We have edited it, overemphasising personal and sexual relationships, which Jesus only marginally touched on, and largely ignoring the social gospel, where he was by far the most radical.
We recognised that this was the topic that got him into the most trouble, and sensibly toned it down.
The other aspect of his teaching that ensures it will not challenge the prevailing policy of modern Ireland is his insistence that his message was best preached by practice. Which of us is up to that?
Father Tony Flannery is a Redemptorist priest and columnist with Reality magazine