Holiness of the rich?

[mgoforth]

I’ve read here and elsewhere that it’s not immoral for people to have earthly wealth, as long as they’re not attached to it. But if a rich person wasn’t attached to their wealth, why would they keep it? Why not give it all away? Are there any reasons not to give away personal wealth if there’s no attachment to it? I can’t really think of any…

And I’m not talking about situations like the Pope or heads of state. I do understand that they don’t actually own the places they live or the limos they ride it, etc. The question is specifically regarding private wealth.

Thanks!

 

[mymamamary]

The key here is to be Deatched. As long as you are ready to give it up at the LORDS WORD, such as the young rich man wasn’t then you are fine. Riches are fine, as long as you are ready to sacrifice those goods for the LORD in a heartbeat or two.

 

[J_Peterson]

St. Thomas More was well off. He gave plenty to the poor but he also had a family to take care of. It would be sinfull to give it all away and let his family starve.

 

[mgoforth]

The key here is to be Deatched. As long as you are ready to give it up at the LORDS WORD, such as the young rich man wasn’t then you are fine. Riches are fine, as long as you are ready to sacrifice those goods for the LORD in a heartbeat or two.

Don’t we already have that word? From the same passage you referenced (Matthew 19:21)

Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

So if someone has true detachment, why hold on to riches? We already have the commandment in the Gospels. How can any rich person who keeps their wealth say they are detached from money when we all know there are millions starving around the world? They could save lives at any time, but don’t do it. That just seems like they’re detached from the suffering of the poor, doesn’t it?

I’m afraid your answer doesn’t make sense to me. We’re already called to give to the poor…what other call are we waiting for?

 

[mgoforth]

St. Thomas More was well off. He gave plenty to the poor but he also had a family to take care of. It would be sinfull to give it all away and let his family starve.

Ok, then why couldn’t he have given away the vast majority and kept only enough to give his family food, clothing, shelter…the basics in other words?

 

[George_Stegmeir]

I can’t tell you because in all of my 76 years I never have and any significant money. and, I do believe that most of the people who frequent this site are in the same position. Therefore you have over a 90% chance that any replies you get are going to be pure speculation. The one thing I can say is that, during my lifetime, the few wealthy people I have gotten to know, never discuss their wealth- especially when it comes to sharing information about acquisition and disposition of their money.

 

[1ke]

But if a rich person wasn’t attached to their wealth, why would they keep it? Why not give it all away?

The question is specifically regarding private wealth.

Why don’t you give all yours away? Are you sinning by not doing so?

 

[mgoforth]

I can’t tell you because in all of my 76 years I never have and any significant money. and, I do believe that most of the people who frequent this site are in the same position. Therefore you have over a 90% chance that any replies you get are going to be pure speculation. The one thing I can say is that, during my lifetime, the few wealthy people I have gotten to know, never discuss their wealth- especially when it comes to sharing information about acquisition and disposition of their money.

I’m fine with speculation…what I’m trying to understand is why someone like St. Thomas More didn’t give up his wealth? I’m not trying to accuse anyone who’s rich, just to understand why anyone would hold onto luxuries that they claim to be detached from?

 

[mgoforth]

Why don’t you give all yours away? Are you sinning by not doing so?

I need to give more than I do. I’m trying to become detached…never said it was easy.

Don’t dodge the question though…why are we told it’s ok to be rich if we’re not attached to the wealth? How can this be true?

 

[mymamamary]

Ok, then why couldn’t he have given away the vast majority and kept only enough to give his family food, clothing, shelter…the basics in other words?

Well, Logically parents and providers cannot, they are called to feed their own children first, then the others, as for me, I’m looking to renounce all I have. I want to take my vows of Poverty, Chastity and Obedience. I want to sell all that I have, give it to the poor and follow my LORD.

I personally would love the idea, that in a spirit of CATHOLIC charity, we all would be equal. The Early Church was from what I think. Plus it would cure the problem of materialistic ideology, envy, hatred, avarice etc.

 

[1ke]

I need to give more than I do. I’m trying to become detached…never said it was easy.

Don’t dodge the question though…

I’m not dodging the question.

You are rich, you do know that right? In comparison to the rest of the world. The fallacy is that everyone can get rid of their riches and no one would be rich. That is just not true. “Rich” is always relative. If the whole world made $1 a day, and you made $2, you would be “rich”.

why are we told it’s ok to be rich if we’re not attached to the wealth? How can this be true?

I think this is an oversimplification.

What we are actually told is that the love of money, a.k.a. **avarice **is a capital vice-- a serious vice and offense against charity. That is **not **the same thing as having money, spending money, or enjoying wealth (i.e. being “attached” to our things)-- none of which are sins.

That a person has material things, a.k.a. “wealth”, does not mean that they commit the sin of avarice.

A person who has accumulated wealth could be said to be prudent in ensuring something is put away for bad times-- the Bible also talks about being good stewards, etc-- and leaving an inheritance for your heirs. The Proverbs 31 wife is a good example of a prosperous person. A business person who is prosperous also employs many others and helps them to be prosperous too. Charity is not the only thing that someone can do with their money-- they can also employ others, purchase goods and services from which others derive their own income, etc. The wealthy have a duty to the poor, but it does not include giving away everything they have.

Unfortunately, the Scriptures are much misused and misuderstood when it comes to material wealth.

 

[mgoforth]

Well, Logically parents and providers cannot, they are called to feed their own children first, then the others…

Yes, I hear what you’re saying, but I really don’t mean complete poverty for parents with dependent children. I just mean “not wealthy”. I’m not rich in our American sense of the word, but many in the world would say that I’m indeed well-off. I also have children, and I don’t intend to put them at risk of starvation.

This is really a hypothetical exercise to help me discover how much I need to give away to be able to truly say to God that I’ve tried to become detached from the world. Sometimes I do feel detached…but I also have many luxuries so I doubt those feelings are accurate.

…as for me, I’m looking to renounce all I have. I want to take my vows of Poverty, Chastity and Obedience. I want to sell all that I have, give it to the poor and follow my LORD.

I personally would love the idea, that in a spirit of CATHOLIC charity, we all would be equal. The Early Church was from what I think. Plus it would cure the problem of materialistic ideology, envy, hatred, avarice etc.

Yes, that’s certainly what we find in the book of Acts, isn’t it?

*And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. * Acts 2: 44-47

I agree with you, that does sound like the way God would want us all to live.

 

[mymamamary]

Well I mean I intend to go the whole 9 yards… as a hopeful Religious order Priest!!

 

[mgoforth]

You are rich, you do know that right? In comparison to the rest of the world.

Yes, that’s the point of this thread really. I’m trying to understand the teaching so I can apply it to myself.

The fallacy is that everyone can get rid of their riches and no one would be rich. That is just not true. “Rich” is always relative. If the whole world made $1 a day, and you made $2, you would be “rich”.

That type of disparity is nothing at all compared to our lifestyles vs those of third-world countries, or many here in our own countries.

I think this is an oversimplification.

What we are actually told is that the love of money, a.k.a. **avarice **is a capital vice-- a serious vice and offense against charity. That is **not **the same thing as having money, spending money, or enjoying wealth (i.e. being “attached” to our things)-- none of which are sins.

Ok…I’m trying to understand. How is having lots of money and keeping it for ourselves not the same as avarice? We all know there are other people who desperately need money…so I’m not able to see the distinction that you’re talking about.

That a person has material things, a.k.a. “wealth”, does not mean that they commit the sin of avarice.

I agree, the sin comes from attachment to wealth…not the wealth itself. But if that person is detached and has much more than they need, why not give the wealth to others who do need it? Why not keep giving until they only have enough left to buy most of the basics that they need, but are no longer wealthy?

A person who has accumulated wealth could be said to be prudent in ensuring something is put away for bad times

Yes, that’s true. I was thinking of the story where Joseph stores up enough grain to get the Egyptians through the 7 years of famine. I believe prudence can be good. But what is the dividing line between prudence and greed? Because there’s also this classic passage from Matthew 6:

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

– the Bible also talks about being good stewards, etc-- and leaving an inheritance for your heirs.

What if the inheritance we’re supposed to leave is the good example of giving away our unnecessary wealth? Or what if our “heirs” are really everyone around us who’s in need? Our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters in the human family.

A business person who is prosperous also employs many others and helps them to be prosperous too.

I think this is a very common theme in our society. The much-heralded small business owner. Now I don’t mean to bash anyone with this thread, but just because you own a business and employ others, does that mean you need to be wealthy? You could still own the business and even have less personal wealth than your employees. Businesses can’t go to Hell, so if it’s money that’s tied up in business accounts and not used for personal pleasures I think that’s truly a different story.

Charity is not the only thing that someone can do with their money-- they can also employ others, purchase goods and services from which others derive their own income, etc. The wealthy have a duty to the poor, but it does not include giving away everything they have.

So back to the original question: How much is enough personal wealth for someone who is detached from personal wealth?

Unfortunately, the Scriptures are much misused and misuderstood when it comes to material wealth.

I don’t doubt it.

 

[mgoforth]

Well I mean I intend to go the whole 9 yards… as a hopeful Religious order Priest!!

That’s great! I’ll say a prayer for you tonight.

 

[buc_fan33]

As a principle of moral theology, we are not required to do all of the good we CAN do.

People’s first responsibility is to their own family. In most cases, I think it would be incredibly imprudent if one were to go empty out his bank account and give every cent he owned to the poor. Such a person would soon find himself and his family among the ranks of the poor. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, but we do have a responsibility to care for ourselves and our families.

The one caveat is, as MMM said, is, “What is The Lord calling YOU to do?” We must constantly discern our personal vocation, not only what state of life one is called to, but specifically how to live in that state of life. God called the Rich Young Man to give all HE had away to the poor, as well as many others, for instance, Anthony of the Desert. But, that does not mean he is calling EVERYONE, or even one person individually, to sell all they have and give it to the poor.

Don’t misunderstand…he might be calling “you” personally to do this, but that is a point for prayer, reflection, and personal discernment.

 

[JRKH]

I’ve read here and elsewhere that it’s not immoral for people to have earthly wealth, as long as they’re not attached to it. But if a rich person wasn’t attached to their wealth, why would they keep it? Why not give it all away? Are there any reasons not to give away personal wealth if there’s no attachment to it? I can’t really think of any…

And I’m not talking about situations like the Pope or heads of state. I do understand that they don’t actually own the places they live or the limos they ride it, etc. The question is specifically regarding private wealth.

Thanks!

You ask a very good question that comes up here periodically.

There is no reason not to give away personal wealth, but giving it away may not be the best use of the gift given to you by God.

Money - when properly considered is a commodity and also a tool. As a tool it can be used to provide employment for others. So if the person who has the money invests it in a business, or in several businesses that employ multiple people, is he not also aiding the poor by providing jobs to those who need them? If being a good businessman happens to be his gift from God, should he not use the resources God provides along with the talent God gave him to aid his fellow man?
But note here that the person who does this will still show a substantial net worth. He will still have, as you but it, earthly wealth.

Jesus did say that it is highly difficult for a rich man to get into heaven which speaks strongly to the dangers of too much earthly wealth - of becoming attached to it and serving it instead of God. It is a very dangerous thing…But as mentioned above, it is possible to show “wealth” on a spreadsheet and still be poor of spirit, because you view the money, not for what it can get you, but for what good you can do with it…

Peace
James

 

[mgoforth]

As a principle of moral theology, we are not required to do all of the good we CAN do.

People’s first responsibility is to their own family. In most cases, I think it would be incredibly imprudent if one were to go empty out his bank account and give every cent he owned to the poor. Such a person would soon find himself and his family among the ranks of the poor. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, but we do have a responsibility to care for ourselves and our families.

The one caveat is, as MMM said, is, “What is The Lord calling YOU to do?” We must constantly discern our personal vocation, not only what state of life one is called to, but specifically how to live in that state of life. God called the Rich Young Man to give all HE had away to the poor, as well as many others, for instance, Anthony of the Desert. But, that does not mean he is calling EVERYONE, or even one person individually, to sell all they have and give it to the poor.

Don’t misunderstand…he might be calling “you” personally to do this, but that is a point for prayer, reflection, and personal discernment.

Yes, I do see what you’re saying. Can you suggest a general rule of thumb for how much one should give away? I have a family and I agree that it would be sinful for me to force them to be poor and to neglect their needs. But we have more than we really need. What is prudent to keep?

 

[newprestonpete]

I need to give more than I do. I’m trying to become detached…never said it was easy.

Don’t dodge the question though…why are we told it’s ok to be rich if we’re not attached to the wealth? How can this be true?

It sounds like you answered your original question to me. A rich person could respond with the answer you just gave.

 

[JRKH]

Yes, I do see what you’re saying. Can you suggest a general rule of thumb for how much one should give away? I have a family and I agree that it would be sinful for me to force them to be poor and to neglect their needs. But we have more than we really need. What is prudent to keep?

Perhaps the better rule of thumb would be how much to keep and for what purpose…
In other words, you make a budget that includes a bit of “saving for a rainy day” and also retirement…Doing this allows you to have a very good look at what you are really spending
and on what? It allows you to look for opportunities to reduce wasteful spending as well…And…in the case of a married couple both parties have (name removed by moderator)ut.

Then you have a very good idea how much you need and how much can be earmarked for charity.

Peace
James