Buying things you don't necessarily need?

[DonQuichote1235]

Hi all,

i just came along a website that stated this:

“Even today, a cake is a symbol of a lavish embellishment that serves no purpose other than to fulfill unnecessary personal satisfaction. Although this statement might be far-fetched, a cake could be served as an epitome of decadence. I am not suggesting that those of us who blew candles on our birthday cakes or ordered a multi-layered cake for a wedding should resent ourselves with an inundating feeling of guilt. All I am suggesting is that a tiered serving tray full of untouched cake for decoration, or even an excessive amount for anyone to finish, is nothing but an utter waste and a sign of greed. It is just an uncomfortable fact to me that a brioche or simply a cake is basically a same step towards making a simple loaf of bread, but instead required a greater amount of the same ingredients to satisfy our palette. Why not use those ingredients to bake more loafs of bread and feed the hungry? Cakes aren’t even healthy anyway. Right?”

I find this a little extreme, but it started me to think: is it always better to give away everyting that we don’t need to the poor? In other words, would it be better if we (as Catholics) never buy anything that we don’t need and give it to the poor? Don’t buy expensive clothes, jewelry, going to good restaurants, buying a nice bottle of wine etc.etc. because you could better give that money to the poor? Wouldn’t it be always better to keep expenditures for our own always on a bare minimum and give the rest away? That’s probably super protestant but still I was wondering this. Thanks!

Greeting Don.

 

[Salibi]

I think it’s a bit extreme.

While it’s incredibly important to give to the poor, the poor aren’t a static class of people that require constant assistance. If we apply what you’ve described above, we’ll end up hurting the poor and reaching an essentially untenable position since it would be far better not to work and rely on a steady stream of donations from pious Catholics, instead of helping the poor get back on their feet and be able to provide a living for themselves.

Charity is a virtue that requires both wisdom and prudence, since charity can and has been misplaced. It is far more charitable to help a poor man find a job or elect a government that doesn’t drive the economy up against a wall so that he can find a job than it is to constantly give him money.

“Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you’ve fed him for a lifetime.”

 

[Beryllos]

Things that are good but not strictly necessary may serve a good purpose. For example, the sharing of good food and drink often brings people together and strengthens the bonds of family and friendship. Whatever you do, do it with love. (St. Augustine said “Love, and do what you will,” meaning roughly that all good things may be used well if we follow the Law of Love.)

 

[Annie]

Imagine if we thought this way in every area of our lives. Then no one would have developed the capacity to make beautiful things for our Lord: our buildings would be shacks, our vestments would be rags sewn together, and our Eucharistic vessels the shoddiest glass or maybe just wood.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think this is one of those areas in life where discernment is required.

Most anyone reading this thread or that website (i.e. someone who has a device, an internet connection, and an ability to read) is going to be someone who could stand to do with less. And we should spend some time reflecting on what we can do without and how we can better serve the poor.

But that doesn’t mean that nice things are never okay for any Christian to buy or own. Sometimes, the jar of ointment should be used for the purpose for which it was created rather than sold for the poor.

 

[1ke]

I find this a little extreme, but it started me to think: is it always better to give away everyting that we don’t need to the poor?

First, it isn’t extreme. I think you are misunderstanding what the author wrote—
I went to the blog and read the whole thing. It starts with a discussion on the callous disregard for the poor epitomized in the “let them eat cake” statement attributed to Marie Antoinette.

The blogger is talking about the excessive kind of materialism that would have a large display wedding cake that isn’t even cut into and eaten, but is baked just for the display table. Excessive wastefulness seems to be the theme here along with total disregard for the poor.

From there is is a huge and unnecessary leap thar you make to “ is it always better to give away everyting that we don’t need to the poor?“. Which isn’t what the blogger was driving at at all.

There are several blog posts on the theme of “what would you do if you were suddenly wealthy/won the lottery”, etc.

And poems. And other literary type entries. This is a college website, looks like students are either required or voluntarily blog here on these sorts of thought topics, or on literary assignments.

As to your question— if we take your approach the bakers who bake cakes, the wine makers who make wine, the boat makers who make boats, the hoteliers who provide jobs for many in tourist areas would all be out of business and those who depend on them for their livelihood would be in dire straits.

So no, God does not call everyone to radical voluntary poverty. He calls some, for example the discalced orders and mendicant orders— St Francis for example. Those called to marriage and family are generally not called to such radical poverty but instead to appropriate stewardship in their state in life towards family, church, and community.

If you are feeling called to explore the proper place of material goods, and the beatitude “Blessed are the poor in spirit” or “happy are you poor” I recommend this book, Happy Are You Poor by Thomas Dubay:

https://www.amazon.com/Happy-Are-Yo...dubay&qid=1577730636&sprefix=happy+are&sr=8-1

 

[Jen95]

I think this is why we are supposed to give 5% to our parish, and 5% to the charity of our choice. I think if we all did this, there’d be lots of money to help the poor, and we wouldn’t feel guilty with a few luxuries here and there.
After all, I think Catholics know we’ll that there is a time for fasting, and a time for feasting! Maybe we should just not feast too often.

 

[DonQuichote1235]

Cool thanks for all the replies! I will come back at you in the new year. Happy NYE everyone!

Greetings Don.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Whoever wrote the website is allowed to have an opinion. I am allowed to have mine. I personally couldn’t care less if Joe Schmoe on some website thinks a cake is over-extravagant. I’m quite capable of making my own moral reasoning decisions, based on my own budget, the occasion, and my conscience, as to whether a particular cake in a particular situation is okay or is much too much.

The Church does not prohibit cakes or celebrations on special days. They leave it to our prudential judgment, and I will use my own judgment, and Joe Schmoe on some website can do what he wants for himself.

The same applies to cars, fashion clothing, pets, vacations, hobbies, and everything else that isn’t an absolute necessity of life.

If the website makes you think about whether you could give more to the poor or do without something, fine, but you don’t have to reach the same conclusion the website did.

 

[SteelArchangel]

I’m not a shoe guy. My parents purchased for me a couple Christmases ago, a pair of expensive Clark brand boots. They were too small, and uncomfortable for me so I tried to return them. The return process at Clark was so incredibly difficult that a refund couldn’t be attained, and these were in the $275 range. They sat in the back of my truck for months until one day upon leaving Adoration I noticed a shoe collection bin that would go to a sister parish in the Caribbean. Without hesitation I went to my truck, grabbed the shoes still untouched in the box, and dropped them in the donation bin.

Lately I try to cut out unnecessary items and overstock of most material things I come across.