Does anyone have a "Right" to my money?

[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.

 

[melensdad]

I’m still curious what the definition of ‘excess’ is? Who determines it and how? Is it absolute or relative to the society in which you live?

 

[jman507]

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?

If you want to bring back the depression, it might be easier to understand.

It’s not so much of an outright act of charity, but even better than giving an act of charity is to avoid the need for the act of charity in the first place, because the needs are met. Not everyone will be able to do function in a society due to disablity, but it is better to have those able to avoid taking the aid from those who are unable.

 

[jman507]

I’m still curious what the definition of ‘excess’ is? Who determines it and how? Is it absolute or relative to the society in which you live?

Like a lot of things that you have to discern on your own. There are reasons there are no tables written out for things like that.

 

[melensdad]

Like a lot of things that you have to discern on your own. There are reasons there are no tables written out for things like that.

Well what I find is that many people live in excess of their means and forget to live a charitable life.

For example a typical home built in my area is probably 3000 to 5000 square feet. It is also fairly common (according to 2 real estate agents at the parish who told me this) that many people buy these homes with 0% down payment. So people are moving into $400,000 to $600,000 homes without a down payment. In doing so they have relatively large monthly bills. I live in a similar sized home, but I put up a 66% down payment, then paid off the rest of the home in about 7 or 8 years so I am mortgage free. My wife and I have always tried to live on one income and save the other. This has allowed for a charitable life and, over the long run, has allowed us to save more, give more, and have more.

So while others may look at my house and see what I do at our church and with other charities, and they may think I make more than I do, it is actually the fact that we have not lived the last 20 years in “excess” that has provided us with the rewards we have today.

I understand that there are no “tables” to define “excess” but I also know that from outward appearance some people are jealous of what my family has but they have no idea of how we managed to achieve it. They don’t realize the frugal life we actually lead & have lived (in a relative sense) so that we can freely give and freely share. But the reality is that others will be the judges of “excess” if some system is imposed and that system may not take into account the smart and frugal fiscal lifestyle that my family has led, nor may it take into account the fiscal idiots who follow a ‘live for today’ lifestyle. That would be my gripe in the whole concept, and is my gripe with any imposed system of redistribution of “so-called wealth.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

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?

Why are you asking such a question?

I was explaining economics to the priest, who was basically a mercantilist at heart - he didn’t understand that economics is not a zero sum game.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If you want to bring back the depression, it might be easier to understand.

It’s not so much of an outright act of charity, but even better than giving an act of charity is to avoid the need for the act of charity in the first place, because the needs are met. Not everyone will be able to do function in a society due to disablity, but it is better to have those able to avoid taking the aid from those who are unable.

Eliminating or reducing the need for charity is called “Social Justice” and is a legitimate Catholic activity.

 

[anthony022071]

I was explaining economics to the priest, who was basically a mercantilist at heart - he didn’t understand that economics is not a zero sum game.

I would have to assume that the priest was concerned about charity rather than economics. Charity is what happens when you willingly give to others in need,and at your own expense.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Eliminating or reducing the need for charity is called “Social Justice” and is a legitimate Catholic activity.

I would certainly say that spending money on whatever (assume the purchase is moral) is a legitimate activity, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is praiseworthy. When we participate in the marketplace, we are loving those who love us. In other words, both parties are benefiting from the transaction. Charity according to the gospel is more praiseworthy.

Now, the question is, if spending money on a bigger house or a new lexus is social justice, then if I make do with my old smaller house and keep my old car (I kept my last one for 214,000 miles) does that mean that I am not practicing social justice?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I would have to assume that the priest was concerned about charity rather than economics. Charity is what happens when you willingly give to others in need,and at your own expense.

Charity is a subset of Catholic Social Action. A higher level of Catholic Social Action is Social Justice – eliminating the need for charity. To understand Social Action requires an understanding of economics.

Giving people jobs and giving them a chance to learn a trade is much better than charity.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I would certainly say that spending money on whatever (assume the purchase is moral) is a legitimate activity, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is praiseworthy. When we participate in the marketplace, we are loving those who love us. In other words, both parties are benefiting from the transaction. Charity according to the gospel is more praiseworthy.

Now, the question is, if spending money on a bigger house or a new lexus is social justice, then if I make do with my old smaller house and keep my old car (I kept my last one for 214,000 miles) does that mean that I am not practicing social justice?

Ah, does your money consist of smoke? Does it somehow vanish if you don’t spend it on a house or car?

If you have the money, and if you invest it in a way that grows the economy, that is an act of social justice. If you simply stick it under the mattress, that would be miserly hoarding and not social justice.

 

[melensdad]

Giving people jobs and giving them a chance to learn a trade is much better than charity.

That is the crux of the issue. If you can provide jobs or build an economy where jobs are available then, by default, the need for charity will be minimal.

• (there will always be a need for some charity for mentally/physically handicapped, etc)

 

[vern_humphrey]

That is the crux of the issue. If you can provide jobs or build an economy where jobs are available then, by default, the need for charity will be minimal.

• (there will always be a need for some charity for mentally/physically handicapped, etc)

Absolutely. But if we provide jobs for everyone who can work, and provide everyone an education so they can do those jobs, caring for those who cannot work will be easy – because we will have far fewer people consuming charity and far more people contributing to charity.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Ah, does your money consist of smoke? Does it somehow vanish if you don’t spend it on a house or car?

If you have the money, and if you invest it in a way that grows the economy, that is an act of social justice. If you simply stick it under the mattress, that would be miserly hoarding and not social justice.

I am not sure that saving and investing is necessarily social justice and here is why: If I start a business where I live, very few poor people are likely to be affected. The poverty rate in my area is about 3%. And of course, depending upon the business, it may not affect poor people at all. Is this really social justice?

Now there are other areas of the country where the poverty rate is much higher. Investing in these areas may be more praiseworthy, because you may have a better chance of actually providing jobs for those who actually need them. Of course, the market ignores these areas for a very good reason. It’s hard to make money there. So following our own self interest will certainly work in some cases to promote social justice, but it won’t always work.

 

[hilde_the_dog]

My one thought on this…aren’t we supposed to tithe (our parish on our contibution envelopes has a little guide) and if we do so I see nothing wrong with building a large house with what I have left over. But I don’t have to worry about that any time soon. I love my tiny 1000 square foot house, its more than I need and for it I am truly thankful.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am not sure that saving and investing is necessarily social justice and here is why: If I start a business where I live, very few poor people are likely to be affected. The poverty rate in my area is about 3%. And of course, depending upon the business, it may not affect poor people at all. Is this really social justice?

Yes. If you create jobs and give people a chance for employment. Remember there will be a ripple effect – those who you employ have more money to save and invest, and that will create more jobs, and so on.

Now, a particular investment may not be the most efficient use of the money, depending on your goal, but if it grows the economy and creates jobs it will have some impact.

Now there are other areas of the country where the poverty rate is much higher. Investing in these areas may be more praiseworthy, because you may have a better chance of actually providing jobs for those who actually need them. Of course, the market ignores these areas for a very good reason. It’s hard to make money there. So following our own self interest will certainly work in some cases to promote social justice, but it won’t always work.

Investing in those areas might or might not be more efficient, depending on the viability of the business you choose and the quality of management you give it.

 

[stinkcat_14]

My one thought on this…aren’t we supposed to tithe (our parish on our contibution envelopes has a little guide) and if we do so I see nothing wrong with building a large house with what I have left over. But I don’t have to worry about that any time soon. I love my tiny 1000 square foot house, its more than I need and for it I am truly thankful.

Actually, the church doesn’t teach tithing. It says that we should contribute according to our ability. For some people this may be much more than 10% or some other arbitrary number. For some, such as Saint Francis, it meant giving up everything. Others may have much less ability to give.

 

[anthony022071]

If you want to bring back the depression, it might be easier to understand.

I don’t understand that comment.

It’s not so much of an outright act of charity, but even better than giving an act of charity is to avoid the need for the act of charity in the first place, because the needs are met. Not everyone will be able to do function in a society due to disablity, but it is better to have those able to avoid taking the aid from those who are unable.

Economic theory is not better than charity
There is no excuse for a Christian to think of the need for the act of charity as something that ought to be avoided,as if it were such a heavy burden,or undignified,or disgraceful,or a nuisance.

That’s the wrong attitude. It shows that we want to get out of our Christian duty,and to deal with poverty with worldly wisdom rather than the wisdom of God’s commands.
We will be judged by our willingness to give to the poor and needy.

The person that we worship was poor,and associated himself with the poor,the homeless,the sinners,the wretched,the losers of society. The poor should be looked upon as if they were put in our vicinity as a test from God (Matthew 26,34-46).

Giving freely to those in need is what we are commanded by God to do.

 

[vern_humphrey]

There is no excuse for a Christian to think of the need for the act of charity as something that ought to be avoided,as if it were such a heavy burden,or undignified,or disgraceful,or a nuisance.

I think you’re taking a very uncharitable position.

No one here is “avoiding charity.” We want to go beyond charity, to Social Justice.

 

[StMarkEofE]

Every human being has the right to a minimum standard of life, otherwise known as human rights. Yet 90% of the world’s population lives in poverty.

Money can provide the desperately poor with safe drinking water, food, medical care, and education. Therefore by living in excess and choosing to retain our wealth instead of donate to aid programmes we are denying many people of funds, and are thus contributing to the deprivation of their human rights.

Where does this right come from? Who will enforce this right? And will this right vary from state to state? And how does one determine what minimun is? Here in the U.S. there is a fortune in taxes that are spent on all kinds of social programs designed to do what you speak of. These programs never go away they only take on a life of their own. The idea is not to keep one on welfare and hope to get his vote thereby ensuring a live on the dole, but to give that person a way of making a decent living. We have 3 or 4 generations on welfare and know of no other way of life. We keep voting the “welfare” politicians into office and this failure is self perpetuating. Its a vicious circle and to break this circle would put millions of social workers, politicians out of work. Hmm, the new poor.