Giving up everything you own

[Vouthon]

Jesus plainly stated:

Luke 14:33: So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.

“Ouch!” Pretty blunt, eh? Note how he stipulates: “none of you”, nobody. Nada. Hyperbole, perhaps, but it still gets the message across in bold lettering.

Jesus’ statement presupposes a dichotomy between what one has for usage but does not own (real estate, movable goods, money) and that which truly belongs to the disciple, “the true riches” (Luke 16:11), the everlasting wealth of the grace of God.

In light of the kingdom of God, possessions become elachistos (Luke 16:10), they belong to the passing age. Later in the same gospel account, Jesus contends that worldly assets are “the belongings of another” (Luke 16:12), clearly implying that we do not properly ‘own’ any private property in the absolute sense, because we are really ‘stewards’ of goods which, in point of fact, belonged originally to God and by his will everyone who lives on earth prior to our appropriation.

In chapter 16, Jesus explains this teaching by means of his ‘Parable of the Dishonest Steward’. This involves a steward, or manager, who misappropriates and squanders his master’s wealth for which reason he is threatened with redundancy. The meaning is rather stark: Jesus is telling his listeners that we are all, each one of us, ‘dishonest stewards’ appropriating to ourselves and squandering goods which do not properly belong to us but to God, who intends for them to be used for the benefit of all and especially the underprivileged.

And the earliest Christian community, according to the New Testament, literally did do this:

The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. (Acts 4:32-35)

And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. (Acts 2:44-45)

Can we truly call ourselves disciples of Jesus when most of us fail to come anywhere near the rigorous demands of this high ideal, especially in today’s ultra-consumerist, globalized, economically competitive society?

(continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

Apart from monks, nuns and hermits, I do not know of any lay Christians who could hold their hands up and say, “I’ve sold all of my personal possessions - my freehold property, my chattels - and distributed the money to the poor”.

The economic system and the practicalities of it do not make this a plausible outcome for the vast majority of people…and yet…

It is an enormously - scratch that, thee most rigorous - ideal possible. Jesus tells us using plain speech, in sacred scripture, that “no one” can call themselves a disciple of his unless they give up everything they own.

The more I read the statement, particularly in the interlinear Greek, the less I feel that it can be ‘spiritualized’ or ‘metaphorically explained’ away.

It’s right there and it’s glaring, placing a huge burden of responsibility upon those of us who regard ourselves to be Christians.

We are all “unjust stewards”, rather than absolute owners. This parable concerns all Christians: we are the unjust steward, the dishonest manager squandering the property of our master (God), until we undertake our grave obligation towards enabling our property to benefit the needs of others.

It is because of this that later church doctrine stipulated that in time of grave want all things are common property, such that if the indignant take what they need from the superfluous wealth of the rich, it isn’t considered theft under natural law but rather a case of the rich having stolen what belongs rightfully to the poor by the universal destination of goods. i.e.

St. John Chrysostom (Hom. in Lazaro 2,5, cited in CCC 2446)

Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs

St. Ambose (De Nabuthe, c.12, n.53, cited in Populorum Progressio of Paul VI):

You are not making a gift of your possessions to poor persons. You are handing over to them what is theirs. For what has been given in common for the use of all, you have arrogated to yourself. The world is given to all, and not only to the rich.

This purported natural law right (to subsistence from the superfluous wealth of the rich), certainly did not deny private property but it did strongly circumscribe the use of it and deny it as an “absolute right”

It’s a humbling thought.

 

[idifacs_john]

Well you sold me, im going to start stealing food from rich grocery stores and start giving it to the poor.

 

[Vouthon]

With respect but I need to ask: why are you flippantly disregarding an actual teaching of the church?

This goes back to the Fathers, St. Thomas Aquinas and the medieval canon lawyers. We should be humbly respecting and trying to discern, using our prudential judgement, precisely what this entails IMHO.

Have you not read the section of the Summa Theologica where St. Thomas speaks about this social doctrine?

No one is telling you to become Robin Hood but the hyperbolic language is obviously intended for a grave reason, to stress something morally imperative.

The Church’s sacred tradition maintains that the right to a private share/use of goods and free commerce, while natural rights given by God to all people, are ultimately subordinate to the universal destination of goods, which precedes the apportioning and division of goods arising from the positive law (because it is God’s law in nature itself).

See:

http://voluntaryist.com/articles/160.html#.Wuxu94gvzIV

This theme was elaborated during the later Middle Ages when the principle of extreme necessity became a common doctrine among medieval theologians and canon lawyers.*
The principle stated that a person in extreme necessity may rightfully take the property of other people to sustain his life. This principle is the most radical formulation of the medieval belief that God had bestowed the earth upon all mankind for its sustenance. [6] This conclusion led to two co-ordinate positions:

[T]he first held that people in extreme necessity might rightfully take what they needed to survive, and that their taking such goods had nothing of the nature of theft; and the second, held that every person has the obligation to sustain the life of other people once his own needs have been met. [7] Gratian’s DECRETUM, a famous medieval tome compiled about 1140 AD, also expounded the view that the fruits of the earth belonged to all mankind. All things are common, that is, to be shared in time of necessity with those in want. … [W]e should retain for ourselves only necessities and distribute what is left to our neighbors in need. [8]

The decretists saw no contradiction in maintaining the right to private property, on the one hand, and, on the other, the right of the poor to sustain their lives by taking from the wealthy. They recognized the right to private property, but the right of accumulation only extended as far as satisfying one’s basic needs. The man who accumulated goods beyond what he needed to live in a decent and fitting fashion according to his status had no [absolute] right to his wealth

(continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

For a more modern application of this doctrine, Pope Paul VI made the point quite clear in his 1967 encyclical “Populorum Progressio”:

Populorum Progressio - Papal Encyclicals

If the world is made to furnish each individual with the means of livelihood and the instruments for his growth and progress, each man has therefore the right to find in the world what is necessary for himself. The recent Council reminded us of this: “God intended the earth and all that it contains for the use of every human being and people. Thus, as all men follow justice and unite in charity, created goods should abound for them on a reasonable basis”[20] All other rights whatsoever, including those of property and of free commerce, are to be subordinated to this principle. They should not hinder but on the contrary favor its application. It is a grave and urgent social duty to redirect them to their primary finality.

“If someone who has the riches of this world sees his brother in need and closes his heart to him, how does the love of God abide in him?.”[21] It is well known how strong were the words used by the Fathers of the Church to describe the proper attitude of persons who possess anything towards persons in need. To quote Saint Ambrose: “You are not making a gift of your possessions to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his. For what has been given in common for the use of all, you have arrogated to yourself. The world is given to all, and not only to the rich”.[22] That is, private property does not constitute for anyone an absolute and unconditioned right. No one is justified in keeping for his exclusive use what he does not need, when others lack necessities. In a word, “according to the traditional doctrine as found in the Fathers of the Church and the great theologians, the right to property must never be exercised to the detriment of the common good”. If there should arise a conflict “between acquired private rights and primary community exigencies”, it is the responsibility of public authorities “to look for a solution, with the active participation of individuals and social groups”.[23]

If certain landed estates impede the , general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation. While giving a clear statement on this,[24] the Council recalled no less clearly that the available revenue is not to be used in accordance with mere whim, and that no place must be given to selfish speculation. Consequently it is unacceptable that citizens with abundant incomes from the resources and activity of their country should transfer a considerable part of this income abroad purely for their own advantage, with out care for the manifest wrong they inflict on their country by doing this.[25]

 

[Seagull]

The less you have - the less you’ll worry.

Saint Francis of Assisi - was key !

New beginnings - even start with tossing away bad friendships, not just items.

 

[Vouthon]

That’s a great point Seagull, it goes beyond merely physical possessions, as St. John of the Cross explained:

“To reach satisfaction in all
desire its possession in nothing
To come to possess all
desire the possession of nothing
To arrive at being all
desire to be nothing…
For to go from all to the all
you must deny yourself of all in all…
In this nakedness the spirit finds
its quietude and rest.”

Detachment is one of the most important, but oft neglected, perquisites for the spiritual life.

 

[Vouthon]

I will assume that you are trolling me but you are certainly in my prayers, because this is a serious matter and it is plain as day that you are having a laugh with it.

Unfortunate but that’s life, I suppose.

 

[Seagull]

I’m a big fan of Saint Anthony of the desert - too.
Sold parents property after they died, put his sister with the nuns…
But even Mother Teressa too - all the top saints - had that about them.

I hate to think we are “ possessed “ by our possessions.

 

[Seagull]

It must of been something beautiful -
Jesus, walking around, owning everything -
Though he did say, maybe jealously, that foxes have homes and birds have nest -
But we have no certain dwelling place -
No lasting city.

 

[upant]

“Ouch!” Pretty blunt, eh? Note how he stipulates: “none of you”, nobody. Nada. Hyperbole, perhaps, but it still gets the message across in bold lettering.

so have you given all to the poor?

 

[TheOldColonel]

[No message]

 

[TheOldColonel]

If you’ve rightly informed your conscience as to determine voluntary poverty is the only way for you to follow Christ, then I’d say you’ve created for yourself a grave obligation to act on your conscience.

 

[njlisa]

According to Sacred Scripture, Jesus had wealthy followers.
Here are some of the ones I know. There may be more.

“When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea named
Joseph, who was himself a disciple of Jesus.” (Matthew 27:57)

“Afterward he [Jesus] journeyed from one town and village to another,
preaching and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God.
Accompanying him were the Twelve and some women who had
been cured of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary, called Magdalene,
from whom seven demons had gone out, Joanna, the wife of
Herod’s steward Chuza, Susanna, and many others who provided
for them out of their resources.” Luke 8:1-3

“Mary [of Bethany] took a liter of costly perfumed oil made from
genuine aromatic nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and dried
them with her hair; the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil.”
(John 12:3)

In verse 5, Judas indicates that the oil was worth 300 days’ wages.

 

[Vouthon]

Perhaps I have but I think it should be disturbing, and thought-provoking for all of us.

How can any Christian rest idle and content in our lifestyle, when Jesus admonishes us to be willing to give up everything we own? When the Church tells us that anything we have in superabundance, beyond what we need for survival and station, is owed to the poor by duty, a debt of justice, rather than charity (which should come out of the remainder of our wealth)?

The New Testament’s demands for Christians to relinquish temporal goods and embrace poverty are incredibly numerous, emphatic and insistent.

And yet, in a different context Jesus introduced an element of choice “…if you want to be perfect…” he said to the rich young man. No one believes that Jesus actually desired his disciples to pluck their eyes out if it drove them to lust, or castrate themselves (well, poor Origen took that part a bit too literally).

There are vocations, and some Christians are called to the counsels of perfection and absolute poverty in terms of personal possessions (i.e. monks).

But…there’s still something powerful and insistent about Jesus’s continual refrain in favour of surrendering all private possessions. The early church in Jerusalem took him literally.

I think its unfair to mock my genuine wrestling with this issue with a GIF depicting a mindless robot railing against “capitalism”. Am I not relying upon the sayings of Our Lord, the patristics and the Magisterium?

Well, that should encourage everyone to reflect.

 

[Vouthon]

Indeed but by the time we get to Acts we learn that voluntary poverty of personal possessions had become the norm:

Everything they owned was held in common…There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. _(Acts 4:32-35)_

One can presume that this hadn’t yet been the case during the ministry of Our Lord, with the exception of the disciples who actually left their homes and went on foot with Jesus, and it ceased being the norm across the board later on as well.

But for a time, it appears like every Christian lived pretty much like a Benedictine monk (save for the celibacy).

 

[upant]

The New Testament’s demands for Christians to relinquish temporal goods and embrace poverty are incredibly numerous, emphatic and insistent.

have you given everything up?

why don’t you answer the question?

 

[Vouthon]

Because I think it is rather self-evident, my friend. Would I be writing this post if I’d given up everything? Have I, in any way, suggested that I’ve done this? No.

I’m obviously using a computer.

But that’s my point: with the exception of monks, nuns and hermits - no layperson lives in this way. I do not know of any lay Christians who could hold their hands up and say, “I’ve sold all of my personal possessions - my freehold property, my chattels - and distributed the money to the poor”.

The pragmatic exigencies of living in the secular world, with its market transactions and need to maintain the economic security of oneself and any dependent family members, make it seemingly impossible for anyone who doesn’t intend to go the full hog and join a monastery.

But…I’m not of the mind that this means we laypersons can get a heavy-conscience-free pass on this. The church’s social doctrine regarding the universal destination of goods and our debt of justice to the poor make this abundantly clear.

So…are you implying that because I haven’t done this, I am not at liberty to grapple with the verses in Scripture pertaining to it? Does one have to be a member of a religious order under an explicit vow of poverty to find these scriptural injunctions troubling to one’s conscience?

 

[pepipop]

Hi Vouthon, long time no ‘chat’. An interesting discussion.

It could be said that communism tried to emulate this model of living, however we all are aware how that ended up with people being shackled to their governments as ‘worker bees’ and not much else, with no freedom of choice, or free will. Also, a common argument raised by anti-Catholics, is why doesn’t the Vatican sell this that and the other and give all to the poor, which has been well argued as to why this will not occur. However, the Vatican, as an example, does indicate the ‘requirement’ in this world for a show of authority usually entails owning property/wealth/etc, however this does not infer that individual priests/bishops/popes, etc live opulently - although there have been some instances of that being the case.

I just do not see how it is possible for everyone to give up everything they own, as there will always be those that will take everything, and the person giving up 'everything THEY own, will end up like those with nothing, and then unable to help anyone else as they, themselves, will require help.

I can only guess that as the Our Father states - Give us this day our daily bread - that everyone has a different setting for giving up everything you own. EG a multimillionaire, possibly brought up with and left property and wealth, could use the interest from his money, etc… for charitable purposes, whilst not spending the money opulently on gold rolls royces’, £10,000 per night hotel rooms, etc… then leaving a lot to charity when he dies.

Although, it is interesting to note that a lot of the Saints, especially in the middle ages, were originally from wealthy backgrounds and gave up everything they owned to live in poverty.

However, there will always be those that control the world, and if everyone, or a majority, gave up everything they owned there would be less people ‘able’ to support those in extreme poverty, as they too would be part of that group and dependent on their respective governments to look after them.

 

[thistle]

With respect but I need to ask: why are you flippantly disregarding an actual teaching of the church?

The Church does not teach that all of us have to sell everything we have and give it away to the poor.