Wealth and the Catholic teachings

[Divine21]

This article is very thought provoking. 

 

https://wherepeteris.com/is-wealth-contrary-to-the-gospel-catholic-teaching-on-private-property/

 

I always knew that it’s a Christian obligation to help the poor. However, this article seems to imply that being wealthy is in and of itself wrong. The author states that wealth per se is contrary to the gospel. I am not sure how to make sense of this. It has made me revisit the Church’s teachings regarding social justice. I have considered the following questions:

 

As Christians, is it true that we have to give all our surplus money/goods to the poor? 

if someone is wealthy, is it sinful to live an extravagant lifestyle IF they donate a good amount of their money to charity (or would owning expensive cars, homes and boats itself be sinful considering that money could have been used on helping the poor 

Would collecting expensive goods such as cars, artwork or investing in multiple real estate be sinful? 

 

As a side note, I have also seen the quotes from some Saints who condemn wealth and owning any extra possessions. I always believed that denouncing non essential goods is meritorious but not obligatory.  Also, by no means am I saying that we have no duty to offer alms. I do believe that the more we own the more we are obligated to give. 

[Didacus]

I've read most of the encyclicals which are referenced.

See a millionaire not so much as a person who has private hold on a disproportionate amount of good, but as a custodian responsible for proper administration of the goods held 

We do not inherit the earth from our fathers, we borrrow it from fromchildren.  The Catholic Church in principal agrees with the ststement of American First Nations.

What is it that we touch in this world that we bring to the next after all?  Norhing - not even our bodies.

It comes down to the rich have in their hands a responsibility - NOT A LICENSE!

Hence a rich man spending his riches to enjoy life with toys and such is quite irresponsible and this is wrong, a great evil at that.  However, being rich in itself is NOT wrong, it is in a sense a call to responsibility and care towards the common good.

 

In the spirit of the season one can go so far as to quote Jacob Marley... I'll leave you to find this reference for yourself.

[chrysostom]

I see it as every person has the same kind of responsibility. Everyone, poor and rich, has to be a responsible steward of their goods and resources.

I don't see having money past a certain dollar amount as immoral, but the responsibility presses on you most acutely. You are a steward of these things and ought to do good with what you have. Live soberly.

I have no answers for specifics though.

Edited December 10, 2021 by chrysostom

[Didacus]

1 hour ago, chrysostom said:

I see it as every person has the same kind of responsibility. Everyone, poor and rich, has to be a responsible steward of their goods and resources.

I don't see having money past a certain dollar amount as immoral, but the responsibility presses on you most acutely. You are a steward of these things and ought to do good with what you have. Live soberly.

I have no answers for specifics though.

Chrys,

You cannot be very far from the kingdom indeed.

[Ash Wednesday]

Yeah along the lines of what chrysostom said, I don't think you will find anything prescriptive or specific on the matter, because while there is no question that we will have to answer for our generosity (or lack of) even the article in itself does concede that some areas as far as tiers of private property can get subjective.

If someone collects classic cars and likes to restore them as a hobby and doesn't really think too much about how much those cars are worth and gives them all away to a museum for the entire public to enjoy in their will, I'm not really going hold something like that against them at all.

I think the key or starting point is that we are called to have detachment from things and matters of this world. When we have this, then a generous and responsible way of living naturally follows. And that applies to everyone regardless of income. Jesus spoke of the man who refused to give up his wealth and singled him out not because of his possessions in themselves, but because he was too attached to them. A person of more modest means can still have the same attachment to worldly goods as a spiritual sickness. 

St. Thomas More was close friends with King Henry VIII, so clearly he was a man of great status and wealth. But he was also a man of personal piety and clearly had enough detachment from this world where he not only gave up his friendships and wealth, he gave up his very life when called by the Lord to make a choice. 
 

[dominicansoul]

I have a few millionaire Catholic friends.  They are very good hearted, kind and generous folks.  But I can't help but feel as Christians, shouldn't be spending all that money on such things as huge homes, boats, luxury cars and lots of expensive property.  I wouldn't know how I would be if I had loads of cash, but I like to think I would live as I've always lived, in modest means while using my money to help others.  

Edited December 10, 2021 by dominicansoul

[Peace]

17 hours ago, Divine21 said:

This article is very thought provoking. 

https://wherepeteris.com/is-wealth-contrary-to-the-gospel-catholic-teaching-on-private-property/

I always knew that it’s a Christian obligation to help the poor. However, this article seems to imply that being wealthy is in and of itself wrong. The author states that wealth per se is contrary to the gospel. I am not sure how to make sense of this. It has made me revisit the Church’s teachings regarding social justice. I have considered the following questions:

As Christians, is it true that we have to give all our surplus money/goods to the poor? 

if someone is wealthy, is it sinful to live an extravagant lifestyle IF they donate a good amount of their money to charity (or would owning expensive cars, homes and boats itself be sinful considering that money could have been used on helping the poor 

Would collecting expensive goods such as cars, artwork or investing in multiple real estate be sinful? 

As a side note, I have also seen the quotes from some Saints who condemn wealth and owning any extra possessions. I always believed that denouncing non essential goods is meritorious but not obligatory.  Also, by no means am I saying that we have no duty to offer alms. I do believe that the more we own the more we are obligated to give. 

Well I've understood that the refusal to give to the needy, out of one's excess, is a form of theft.

Let's take the extreme example. You have a billionaire walking down the street with a hundred thousand cash in his pocket. A starving child approaches him and asks him for a few dollars for a meal. The billionare says "Nah. I'd rather buy another Lambo."

To me that is immoral. During Mass we say forgive me for what I have done, and what I have failed to do. I think in the example above we are talking about the "failed to do" part of it for sure.

I don't even know how "I don't want to pay a dime in tax and nobody can take a penny from me against my will" folks like @Winchester can reconcile that sort of libertarian view with the Catholic faith, but perhaps he can explain it to us.

In fact, if the starving child took five dollars out of the billionaires pocket and bought himself something to eat with it, I am pretty sure this would not be considered theft, because the billionaire has been unjust in withholding it from him.

But when we go away from the extreme example the picture gets a bit murky. Quite honestly it is an issue that I struggle with myself. Sometimes I think like OK, I know that there are people living in certain parts of the world living on a few dollars a day. People who struggle for food, clean water, etc. Then I look at the $400 or whatever I spent on the Playstation 4 and say to myself "Really Peace?" I do feel guilty about that quite often and its always been difficult for me to figure out where I draw the line. My heart does feel hard sometimes when I don't give to someone who has asked me.

But at the same time I'm not exactly a billionaire. I mean, leisure is a basic need of man. I think its proper for man to spend some of his money on things that he enjoys. Things that are good for his mental health, and so forth. For some people that is playing a video game. For others its taking a vacation, etc. For some it is reading a book from the library.

I think its also OK for a person to set aside future money for things like his retirement, his children's future education, etc. . .

The most extravagant thing I own is a Mustang but I never owned any car until I was about 35 and I felt like after years of toiling away I should splurge and buy something I like. Was that wrong? Maybe.

[Lilllabettt]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Well I've understood that the refusal to give to the needy, out of one's excess, is a form of theft.

Let's take the extreme example. You have a billionaire walking down the street with a hundred thousand cash in his pocket. A starving child approaches him and asks him for a few dollars for a meal. The billionare says "Nah. I'd rather buy another Lambo."

To me that is immoral. During Mass we say forgive me for what I have done, and what I have failed to do. I think in the example above we are talking about the "failed to do" part of it for sure.

I don't even know how "I don't want to pay a dime in tax and nobody can take a penny from me against my will" folks like @Winchester can reconcile that sort of libertarian view with the Catholic faith, but perhaps he can explain it to us.

In fact, if the starving child took five dollars out of the billionaires pocket and bought himself something to eat with it, I am pretty sure this would not be considered theft, because the billionaire has been unjust in withholding it from him.

But when we go away from the extreme example the picture gets a bit murky. Quite honestly it is an issue that I struggle with myself. Sometimes I think like OK, I know that there are people living in certain parts of the world living on a few dollars a day. People who struggle for food, clean water, etc. Then I look at the $400 or whatever I spent on the Playstation 4 and say to myself "Really Peace?" I do feel guilty about that quite often and its always been difficult for me to figure out where I draw the line. My heart does feel hard sometimes when I don't give to someone who has asked me.

But at the same time I'm not exactly a billionaire. I mean, leisure is a basic need of man. I think its proper for man to spend some of his money on things that he enjoys. Things that are good for his mental health, and so forth. For some people that is playing a video game. For others its taking a vacation, etc. For some it is reading a book from the library.

I think its also OK for a person to set aside future money for things like his retirement, his children's future education, etc. . .

The most extravagant thing I own is a Mustang but I never owned any car until I was about 35 and I felt like after years of toiling away I should splurge and buy something I like. Was that wrong? Maybe.

I struggle with the line as well.

I have always felt plastic surgery, for example, is a horrible vain waste, and I felt pretty comfortable thinking less of people who spent the money on it. I have a cosmetic deformity of my ears and would love to have them fixed. But I always feared what I would say to the Lord upon my death, how the fully functional ears he gave me weren't good enough, so I spent thousands changing them instead of giving the money to the little sisters of the poor. 

But as I've entered my mid 30s I see how much money I spend on things like moisturizer, salon hair color, make up, nail polish; the nice clothes and shoes I have, the shape wear i have that no one even sees! The other day  I spent $100 on jeans that claimed to hold my mom tum in (hardly), didn't blink an eye. I'm sure it adds up to thousands of dollars every year. Am I really any better than those that get a boob job once. Not really. In which case, HOW am I going to explain to Jesus???

Edited December 11, 2021 by Lilllabettt

[chrysostom]

Another thought: assuming you are doing such things as providing for the less fortunate, etc., I think it may be helpful to consider when you do spend on things for "leisure" beyond necessity (and perhaps this applies to all income tiers) that not only is moderation helpful but also helpful is the telos, the higher purpose. If there is something of truth, goodness, or beauty, or longevity, or generosity, or joy, in whatever that spending buys, it can help.

Not saying to overthink it.

But I dunno, go ahead and splash on food and wine to invite a bunch of people over and make them feel welcome for an evening. Or commission an artist to paint you something beautiful which will make people marvel for years beyond your lifetime. Buy up some books over the years to make a library...and figure out how to bless people with it too. Or...I don't know. Different strokes for different folks.

I guess what I'm saying is, spending for your own enjoyment is fine, but be moderate. But if you can figure out a way to share it, that's when you can essentially be "profligate".

[Norseman82]

Considering how "woke" the corporate world is becoming, I'd like to be wealthy enough  (but not too rich to the point where I would become a target of kidnappers, extortionists, etc.) so that I could retire early, or invest in such a way that affects corporate policy to be less anti-religious, or invest in Catholic-friendly efforts.  

Additionally, looking at the website, it definitely has a leftist bias, with articles that have titles including the term "traditionalist trolls" and an article that starts out with the sentence "Today’s lineup of outspoken reactionary US Catholics priests with extremist, conspiratorial, and inflammatory messages (examples include Frs. Altman, Nix, Heilman, Pavone, Zuhlsdorf, Murray, Ripperger, Msgr. George Rutler, and Bishop Joseph Strickland), as well as their even more bombastic lay counterparts (Voris, Marshall, Parrott, Ruse, Arroyo, and many others) ", so please keep that in mind...

Edited December 19, 2021 by Norseman82

[Credo in Deum]

On 12/10/2021 at 8:03 AM, Didacus said:

 

In the spirit of the season one can go so far as to quote Jacob Marley... I'll leave you to find this reference for yourself.

 

Fast forward to the 2 minute marker. 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Credo in Deum

[Credo in Deum]

Being wealthy isn’t sinful in itself.  We have saints who were wealthy; however, the majority of saints either gave up their wealth or weren’t wealthy, so that should tell you something.   All of the saints though had a great spiritual poverty, which was a detachment from earthy things for the love of Jesus.  Remember the root of all evil is the LOVE of money, not money itself.  

Those of us out in the world are constantly surrounded by temptations.  You could say we are surrounded by an ocean of sharks which can represent temptations; wanting to be wealthy is like desiring to be swimming in that same shark filled ocean covered in chum.   Sure, you might get through it but it will be a miracle if you do, and last time I checked we’re not suppose to tempt God. 

[little2add]

6 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

Being wealthy isn’t sinful in itself

 it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

[Didacus]

“Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were all my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”

Jacob Marley

[Peace]

2 hours ago, little2add said:

 it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

But the "eye of the needle" was actually a gate in Jerusalem that was roughly six feet wide, you see.  What our Lord was saying here is that it is actually quite easy for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, as long as he doesn't love the money.