Does anyone have a "Right" to my money?

[anniemart]

Okay, I get food stamps. So I know a little bit about this. And yes, there are some people who “work the system”, & they get more than they should. And some of us barely get enough to live on. (Have you ever tried to live for a month on $81 worth of groceries?)

That said, I would have no problem, if they reworked the system a little. The main thing they need to do, IMO, is to make them “necessary items stamps” instead of “food stamps”. By which I mean, they would cover things like soap & toilet paper, but they would not cover candy bars, coka-cola, and the ever popular Hostess Twinkies.
The other thing we need to do, & this is a big thing with me, is to go back to giving out actual “stamps”. They were great. You could use them like coupons, to keep your bills down. But they could be saved, also, so that when they had a sale on peanut butter, or tuna fish, you could pull out your little store of stamps, & buy LOTS of the things on sale, to have over a period of times.
As it is,the lady you saw, was most likely doing what we all have to do, who get them: We get a notice that we have 7 to 10 days to spend the whole amount in their computer , or they will just vanish from the account. So, she went in, & bought frozen dinners, because she had space in her freezer. (I once filled my freezer with pork chops. I love 'em, & they are mostly beyond my budget).
Don’t blame the victims. Blame the loons in government who decided to make it impossible for us to be thrifty shoppers. We’re just trying to keep going around here.

Zooey, one shouldn’t have to ever explain why one buys what one does with their allotment of food stamps. Passing judgment is not a virtue. It’s enough that some people think they have a right to review your grocery list…but shame on someone who might not think that you deserve to eat what he’s eating simply because he isn’t on FS.

God sees everything that is in everyone’s soul and **we will **have to account for every statement that spews forth from the same mouth and tongue that proclaims the love we have for Our Lord and our brothers and sisters.

sadly, many of us forget that Jesus did not practice “selective” mercy…

 

[Brendan]

You seem to be referring to a capitalist system here and I agree that it’s the best system around. However, I am not talking about “systems” or economic principles or politcial parties. I am talking about what we, on an individual level, and as the Church are directed to do by Our Savior. The Lord told us the poor would always be with us. He didn’t say that if we created enough jobs they would eventually rise from poverty. What He did say to the man who asked how to achieve eternal life was to sell EVERYTHING he owned, give it to the poor, and follow Him…

Yes, but the poor who can work are required to do so in order to recieve assistance.

2 Thessalonians 3:7-10

For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”

 

[JLM316]

I think we are missing the point of last weeks gospel - I don’t believe the moral our Lord was teaching us - was to give away all your money - I believe He is more concerned with our hearts- whom do we worship? Do we worship money and things or do we worship Him? The answer is not one that comes in the form of words which come out of our mouths- truly it comes from our wallets where it hurts most- not that we give it all away or even a significant portion, but rather that we give without counting - that we are not attached to our things- Our priest on sunday, said something in His homily which has stuck with me - do you possess things, or do things possess you? I think our motivations, what we cling to? our trust - whom do we trust - money or God is the real message for us to ponder.

 

[puzzleannie]

responding to title of the the thread, I don’t have any money that is “my” money. Everything I have in the way of material wealth and possessions is a direct gift from God either directly or through his gifts that enabled me to earn or acquire it. As created things, they do not belong to me, but to the Creator. For what he has given to me he has also given me stewardship responsibilities. I am required in justice to use these gifts for his purposes, and to pray, discern and conform my will to his in discovering his purpose.

From the scripture I know I am first to give a portion back to him for the Church and for his poor, as a token of my acknowledgement of his mercy and justice in regard to created things. I am also to use a reasonable portion to support myself and my family, since he says he will provide for our needs. I am to prudently save for future needs. I am also to pare from myself wants and desires for money and the created things money can by, especially those which conflict with God’s will as stated in the commandments and beatitudes.

All my gifts, including material possessions, I am to use for furthering the Kingdom and for the greater honor and glory of God. So in that light, I have no absolute right whatever of anything I have, including my money.

 

[OneAugustKnight]

All my gifts, including material possessions, I am to use for furthering the Kingdom and for the greater honor and glory of God. So in that light, I have no absolute right whatever of anything I have, including my money.

I agree with that, but I wanted to know whether anyone else on Earth has right to the money and possessions under your stewardship.

 

[blessedtoo]

Yes, but the poor who can work are required to do so in order to recieve assistance.

2 Thessalonians 3:7-10

Completely agree.

 

[blessedtoo]

I agree with that, but I wanted to know whether anyone else on Earth has right to the money and possessions under your stewardship.

If by this you mean the government, then I would reply that “rights” is not an accurate term. If we live in the world, use the things of this world (highways, national parks), expect cooperation from others (police, firemen), require assistance at times (social security, medicare), then we contribute to these things through taxes. I suppose if you lived alone on an island, you could avoid having anyone touch your money (though it wouldn’t do you any good on the island!).

The government, through taxes, can continue to reach into your pockets for things you don’t wish to participate in such as welfare programs, public school education, health care, etc., only if you allow it through your vote. Getting “stuck” with representatives you didn’t vote for is part of the democratic system. It is up to us to galvanize others who share our views to vote out those who feel they have “rights” to your money.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If by this you mean the government, then I would reply that “rights” is not an accurate term. If we live in the world, use the things of this world (highways, national parks), expect cooperation from others (police, firemen), require assistance at times (social security, medicare), then we contribute to these things through taxes. I suppose if you lived alone on an island, you could avoid having anyone touch your money (though it wouldn’t do you any good on the island!).

The government, through taxes, can continue to reach into your pockets for things you don’t wish to participate in such as welfare programs, public school education, health care, etc., only if you allow it through your vote. Getting “stuck” with representatives you didn’t vote for is part of the democratic system. It is up to us to galvanize others who share our views to vote out those who feel they have “rights” to your money.

True. But the system leads to a dangerous condition, where many people feel they are being charitable by supporting programs paid for by someone else’s money.

And that slowly leads us away from Saint Paul’s admonition that we must care for the poor, not the government.

 

[Brendan]

Completely agree.

Good, Because the is the Holy Spirt talking there.

Too many people forget that.

 

[Brendan]

And that slowly leads us away from Saint Paul’s admonition that we must care for the poor, not the government.

Quite true, Christ assigned the authority to “Feed my Sheep” to Peter, not to Cesear.

There is a reason for that.

Christ also said to render to God what is God’s and render to Cesear what is Cesar’s. Is Charitas God’s or Cesears?

If God’s, why would we render it to Cesear?

 

[blessedtoo]

True. But the system leads to a dangerous condition, where many people feel they are being charitable by supporting programs paid for by someone else’s money.

And that slowly leads us away from Saint Paul’s admonition that we must care for the poor, not the government.

Agreed! In addition, I don’t trust the government to be effective in dealing with poverty because they approach it from a secular platform. The Church takes a holistic approach and ministers to the needs of the soul as well as the needs of the body.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Agreed! In addition, I don’t trust the government to be effective in dealing with poverty because they approach it from a secular platform. The Church takes a holistic approach and ministers to the needs of the soul as well as the needs of the body.

Government isn’t effective in dealing with proverty – in a table I posted on another thread, I showed how poverty was dropping until around 1970 – when the Great Society programs got rolling – and has remained fairly steady ever since.

What government programs do – aside from dehumanizing people, giving them incentives to make bad decisions, and destroying poor neighborhoods and families – is suck up the surplus money that we could otherwise devote to helping the poor.

 

[cynic]

Charity won’t pay the rent for people who are sick and can’t work. Charity won’t pay a pention to the elderly who have little or no savings. Charity won’t pay for schooling low income families children, or pay for health insurance. There are no guarantees under a system where the sick and helpless are cared for with voluntary donations in some sort of ad hoc manner.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Charity won’t pay the rent for people who are sick and can’t work.

Paying the rent for people who are sick and can’t work is charity, by definition.

Charity is best defined by the Corporal Works of Mercy – and sheltering the homeless is definitely one of the Corporal Works of Mercy.

Charity won’t pay a pention to the elderly who have little or no savings.

Pensions, by definition, are property (see court decision on the Railway Pension Cases from the Depression era.)

Charity won’t pay for schooling low income families children, or pay for health insurance.

Why not?

Could it be that taxes are so high that most people are left with little money available to give to charity?

There are no guarantees under a system where the sick and helpless are cared for with voluntary donations in some sort of ad hoc manner.

Look across the border and you will see there are no guarantees under a system where the sick and helpless are cared for by the government, either.

Or if that’s too far to go, visit a Veteran’s Hospital here in the US sometime.

 

[cynic]

Paying the rent for people who are sick and can’t work is charity, by definition.

What I meant by charity here - voluntary donations distrubuted through private organisations. This will not guarantee a stable income for such people. How could it. Oh but lets not get caught up on the details right…

Charity is best defined by the Corporal Works of Mercy – and sheltering the homeless is definitely one of the Corporal Works of Mercy.

.

by ‘shelterin the homeless’ you do not mean waiting until they are in fact homeless, then helping them? Surely not.

 

[vern_humphrey]

​

What I meant by charity here - voluntary donations distrubuted through private organisations. This will not guarantee a stable income for such people. How could it. Oh but lets not get caught up on the details right…

Getting a bit testy, are we?

In fact, organizations like Habitat for Humanity do a great job – they involve the people who will own the homes, and they not only provide shelter, they provide pride.

by ‘shelterin the homeless’ you do not mean waiting until they are in fact homeless, then helping them? Surely not.

You have a problem with the Corporal Works of Mercy? Simply quoting one of them implies something nefarious to you?

 

[Linda_Marie]

Our priest’s homily on our personal wealth was a bit different. He emphasized that it is what is in your heart in regards to your goods that is important. If you are consumed by them, can’t wait to buy the latest new clothes, new video games, etc, then your priorities are seriously misaligned. It doesn’t matter if you have the money to obtain them or not. You can be poor and unable to afford these goods, and still be greedy for them. It is the inordinate greed to have more, to possess more and to seek fulfillment in our goods rather than in God that is being warned against.

If we have material goods – a nice house in a good neighbourhood, a car, and are able to provide well for our families, we should not feel guilty about having these things. It is not wrong to have them. They are a gift from God and we should thank Him for them and always acknowledge that we have everything through Him. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away. Any number of things could strip these things from us overnight - floods, tornadoes, fires, earthquakes, wars. We cannot trust in them in this life, we cannot rely on them for our salvation. Therefore, to someone with their sights set on heaven, they are mere dross, with worth only in this life. We should be mindful that we amass our true treasure in heaven, that this is where we should seek to ‘build our bigger barn’ and not be unduly attached to our goods on earth.

 

[matt1985]

I think that to some extent, materialism helps the economy. When people go to American eagle or Ralph Lauren and spend a lot of money, they are paying the salaries of people who work at the store and helping shareholders of the company.

Now there does come a point where a person becomes too greedy. I this is when acquiring material goods become the focal point of the person’s life. But I don’t think spending a lot of money on a gaget like a plasma tv or an iphone is a sin. And I don’t even have either items.

 

[anthony022071]

We had a priest who had a thing about “big houses.” One day, I said to him, “Father, I have a big house. Do you think I should have given the money to the poor?”

He hemmed and hawed around and finally allowed it would have been better for me to give most of the money to the poor.

“But Father, that’s what I did. In fact, I gave all the money to some poor men – and in return they built a house for me. And I gave them the dignity of earning their money and not relying on charity or welfare.”

While he was digesting that, I went on, “One of the men who worked on the house thanked me – for giving him the opportunity to work with the two master builders I hired. He said he learned a lot on that job.”

That was just a common business transaction. That had nothing to do with Christian charity. Why would you even bring that up in front of a priest,as if paying people to build your house was an act of charity?

 

[Proletarian]

That was just a common business transaction. That had nothing to do with Christian charity. Why would you even bring that up in front of a priest,as if paying people to build your house was an act of charity?

I’d have to agree.

The primary (if not, the only) motivation for building a large house is to have somewhere extravagant to live, not to perform an act of charity. Its like me saying that I should waste more food so that the homeless people that live at the dump will have more to eat.