Is superabundance wrong (example the Vatican)?

[IwishIknew]

Everything you have purchased provided jobs for the people who worked to design, build, ship and sell it to you.

Thanks for helping to feed, clothe and house so many people around the world.

You are making me feel better - I have to change the way I think and feel on this topic - thanks!

 

[TK421]

Jesus wasn’t really a minimalist per se. As a carpenter’s son he would have been the equivalent of middle class or maybe lower-middle at worst, but it’s doubtful he lived in any sort of extreme poverty (relative to the time period). Although as a traveling Rabbi he would have relied upon the good graces of others to sustain him, in much the same way that later lovers of Jesus, such as St Francis or St Teresa of Avila would throughout the centuries.

Everything that God does in our lives, and everything that God commands, is motivated by one divine and ultimate goal: the salvation and sanctification of those that he loves. “To save” means “to liberate from evil”. “To sanctify” means “To become the best version of yourself”. Perhaps one of the best book on prayer in the Church is written by St and Doctor of the Church, Alphonsus Liguori. St Liguori explains that it is entirely fine to ask God for material blessings in prayer (job, travel, security, education, sports, etc.) provided that the one praying to God lovingly consent to the fact that if - unknowingly - their request would in fact not be beneficial toward their salvation and sanctification, that God will thus deny it, since he knows what is good for us better than what we do.

When Jesus says, “Anything that you ask will be given to you”, he was being completely literal. God would quite literally make a yacht full of hot bachelorette CAF women that are stricken with a strange and irresistible desire to compliment your finely chiseled abs fall from the sky into the crystal blue ocean that magically appears in your backyard if he felt that it was conducive to the salvation and sanctification of both yourself and to all those that you encounter. But, just like Jesus, we say, “Father, Your will, not my will, be done”, even if that should mean having to suffer horrible and unjust acts and receiving the crown of martyrdom.

 

[IwishIknew]

Jesus wasn’t really a minimalist per se. As a carpenter’s son he would have been the equivalent of middle class or maybe lower-middle at worst, but it’s doubtful he lived in any sort of extreme poverty (relative to the time period). Although as a traveling Rabbi he would have relied upon the good graces of others to sustain him, in much the same way that later lovers of Jesus, such as St Francis or St Teresa of Avila would throughout the centuries.

Everything that God does in our lives, and everything that God commands, is motivated by one divine and ultimate goal: the salvation and sanctification of those that he loves. “To save” means “to liberate from evil”. “To sanctify” means “To become the best version of yourself”. Perhaps one of the best book on prayer in the Church is written by St and Doctor of the Church, Alphonsus Liguori. St Liguori explains that it is entirely fine to ask God for material blessings in prayer (job, travel, security, education, sports, etc.) provided that the one praying to God lovingly consent to the fact that if - unknowingly - their request would in fact not be beneficial toward their salvation and sanctification, that God will thus deny it, since he knows what is good for us better than what we do.

When Jesus says, “Anything that you ask will be given to you”, he was being completely literal. God would quite literally make a yacht full of hot bachelorette CAF women that are stricken with a strange and irresistible desire to compliment your finely chiseled abs fall from the sky into the crystal blue ocean that magically appears in your backyard if he felt that it was conducive to the salvation and sanctification of both yourself and to all those that you encounter. But, just like Jesus, we say, “Father, Your will, not my will, be done”, even if that should mean having to suffer horrible and unjust acts and receiving the crown of martyrdom.

Nicely put and thanks for the great additional information. Also your last paragraph summed it up very, er, vividly - made me laugh.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

The apostles asked the same thing…

"And when he was in Bethania, in the house of Simon the leper, and was at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of precious spikenard: and breaking the alabaster box, she poured it out upon his head. Now there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said: Why was this waste of the ointment made? For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and given to the poor. And they murmured against her. But Jesus said: Let her alone, why do you molest her? She hath wrought a good work upon me. "
Mk14:3-6

As Abp Sheen said, Judas knew price of everything and the value of nothing.

That it is lawful to possess riches. (by St Anthony of Padua)
credobiblestudy.com/concordance/en/moral/that-it-is-lawful-to-possess-riches/b59cfb4c-6b6c-47aa-ad81-35d3f1a747b3/1

 

[PaulinVA]

A pertinent question is this: Are your possessions getting in your way of living the life Christ wants you to live?

Is your situation blinding you to the plight of others? Do you reply on yourself instead of God? Is your attitude one of generosity or one of greed?

 

[IwishIknew]

A pertinent question is this: Are your possessions getting in your way of living the life Christ wants you to live?

Is your situation blinding you to the plight of others? Do you reply on yourself instead of God? Is your attitude one of generosity or one of greed?

These sorts of questions always confuse me. I could say, YES, I am blinded to the plights of others because I did not choose, like Mother Theresa, to live in the midst of those in greatest suffering in my own city. And because I surround my family with a nice house, nice neighborhood, nice school, nice (a lavish) Parish - though I am aware of beggars on street corners and food banks in my community, I am truly blind to the deep financial sufferings others have much of the time.

So based on that logic, I could say I am greedy and very ungenerous and so to maximize my generosity, I should reduce our lifestyle to only the essentials - cave family style in order to no longer be blind and help the plight of others.

Yet, the Church does not set this example. It does withhold it’s lavish lands, architecture, art and all those maintenance fees from helping the financially needy. In most cases in the US, the Church does not follow St. Francis’ or Mother Theresa’s example - though it applauds these examples.

So with those questions, I could be found mainly guilty as charged, and I think most of the Church along with our saintly popes (who fly in helicopters, wear beautiful clothing, live and/or use the palace gardens and castles for recreation, surrounded by servants and guards dressed in stunning uniforms) could be as well. Even Pope Francis who is especially emphasizing the plight of the poor still lives far more lavishly than I could possibly hope to live (even if he sleeps in an apartment, he still lives in a palace that he is not dissembling).

So these questions above may not be phrased correctly for final judgment purposes. While the financial plights of others must not be forgotten, lavishness must have it’s place and it must be good.

And this is a strange thought for me who grew up thinking the minimalism of St. John the Baptist, the Holy Family (Who were not lavish by today’s standards), St. Francis and Mother Theresa were the bar we all should aspire to by detachment and letting go to help the financial plights of others. But for the most part, the Church does not follow this extreme minimalist example, deciding instead to keep much of its temporal superabundance it has been given.

 

[PaulinVA]

These sorts of questions always confuse me. I could say, YES, I am blinded to the plights of others because I did not choose, like Mother Theresa, to live in the midst of those in greatest suffering in my own city. And because I surround my family with a nice house, nice neighborhood, nice school, nice (a lavish) Parish - though I am aware of beggars on street corners and food banks in my community, I am truly blind to the deep financial sufferings others have much of the time.

You can live the way you live and still not be blind to the plight of others. Are you aware of others? Do you help them? Do you contribute to their care?

So based on that logic, I could say I am greedy and very ungenerous and so to maximize my generosity, I should reduce our lifestyle to only the essentials - cave family style in order to no longer be blind and help the plight of others.

N, this is going overboard. Actually, if you give your possessions away once, and then live a bare bones life, you won’t be able to contribute after that, and might, actually, end up needing assistance yourself.

So these questions above may not be phrased correctly for final judgment purposes. While the financial plights of others must not be forgotten, lavishness must have it’s place and it must be good.

I think that spending in moderation is okay. I think of lavish as being wasteful.

 

[IwishIknew]

I think that spending in moderation is okay. I think of lavish as being wasteful.

The point being is that the Vatican, Cathedrals, Monestaries and many Catholic Universities are not moderate but extremely lavish - and yet we all (I believe) would agree that they are good.

So then, if the Pope can become a saint living in the midst of extreme lavishness and benefiting from that lavishness, then I would guess one could present the argument that we too could become saints living in the midst of lavishness.

Is my logic flawed?

 

[PaulinVA]

The point being is that the Vatican, Cathedrals, Monestaries and many Catholic Universities are not moderate but extremely lavish - and yet we all (I believe) would agree that they are good.

So then, if the Pope can become a saint living in the midst of extreme lavishness and benefiting from that lavishness, then I would guess one could present the argument that we too could become saints living in the midst of lavishness.

Is my logic flawed?

I think your idea of lavish is different from mine. A church building can look great, but it’s not lavish. You have to maintain it - you can’t really sell it. It’s an asset of the Church.

Lavish is building a two million dollar residence for the Bishop, or having a pastry chef on staff. It’s driving a Lincoln town car when something less would be appropriate.

 

[IwishIknew]

Lavish is building a two million dollar residence for the Bishop, or having a pastry chef on staff. It’s driving a Lincoln town car when something less would be appropriate.

The question I am really grappling with is whether lavishness is wrong. For example the late Bishop of Rome, Saint Pope John Paul II had all of these things plus so much, much more (custom built vehicles, helicopters, train station, a small army, many servants, the finest artwork) at his ready disposal. He also had the authority to stop paying for all of this. (Though I’m equally aware that Jesus did not have so much as a horse drawn carriage to get around Israel - he mainly walked or at best rode a simple donkey)

And Pope John Paul II is a saint - and many would argue a “great saint” of the Church.

So after reading the posts above, I’m beginning to think lavishness - even the extreme lavishness of the Pope is not bad or wrong at all. And I’m hard pressed to say any Bishop that imitates Saint Pope John Paul II’s lavishness is wrong.

Maybe God doesn’t look at this lavishness as wrong at all. He did in fact, bless Job with temporal lavishness before and even more so after Job’s tests by Satan.

Am I missing anything?

 

[PaulinVA]

The question I am really grappling with is whether lavishness is wrong. For example the late Bishop of Rome, Saint Pope John Paul II had all of these things plus so much, much more (custom built vehicles, helicopters, train station, a small army, many servants, the finest artwork) at his ready disposal. He also had the authority to stop paying for all of this. (Though I’m equally aware that Jesus did not have so much as a horse drawn carriage to get around Israel - he mainly walked or at best rode a simple donkey)

And Pope John Paul II is a saint - and many would argue a “great saint” of the Church.

So after reading the posts above, I’m beginning to think lavishness - even the extreme lavishness of the Pope is not bad or wrong at all. And I’m hard pressed to say any Bishop that imitates Saint Pope John Paul II’s lavishness is wrong.

Maybe God doesn’t look at this lavishness as wrong at all. He did in fact, bless Job with temporal lavishness before and even more so after Job’s tests by Satan.

Am I missing anything?

Why are you using the word “Lavishness” to describe this? Is this what you mean?

:giving or using a large amount of something

: given in large amounts

: having a very rich and expensive quality

 

[PaulfromIowa]

You mean like a cave family? I think anything outside of basic food, water, skins for clothing and minimalist shelter is super-abundance.

No, that would be pretence, the opposite of modesty.

Should churches (esp. the Vatican) also become reduced to the simple alt[a]rs of Abraham ages ago - giving up all but the most essential items?

There is no need to judge others.

 

[Irishmom2]

Yet - we need not look any further than Pope John Paul II who lived more lavishly than most kings do these days.

What on earth are you talking about??

 

[IwishIknew]

What on earth are you talking about??

For example the late Bishop of Rome, Saint Pope John Paul II had many of the attributes of kings:custom built vehicles, helicopters, train station, a small army, many servants and cooks, the finest artwork, vacations in castles - at his ready disposal. He also had the authority to stop paying for all of this.

Though I’m equally aware that Jesus did not choose to have so much as a horse drawn carriage to get around Israel - he mainly walked or at best rode a simple donkey.

In other words, Saint Pope John Paul the II lived lavishly - in comparison to most middle-class Americans and arguably many kings - who did not have palaces adorned as superabundantly as what is in the Vatican. That said, I don’t mean he lived licentiously as proven by his sainthood.

The question I am grappling with is whether living lavishly as the Popes do, or as Job did is wrong? After reading the kind and thoughtful responses above, I believe the excessive lavishness is actually not wrong by itself, but rather good - for our Heavenly Father is lavish. What is wrong is to behave licentiously - which I don’t believe any saint has done (after say a conversion(s)).

Any further thoughts, questions, ideas, insights on whether lavishness (which, I is a relative term, but is a valid term) is wrong?

 

[BornInMarch]

Having nice things is not a sin in and of itself. Neither is being wealthy.

Being selfish, greedy, or only caring about money is sinful, but possessing money in and of itself is not sinful. Many wealthy people in history practiced philanthropy, and in fact The Vatican is the biggest charitable organization in the world.

While it is tempting to believe that Bill Gates and people with similar wealth will burn in hell simply for not donating everything they own and living a bare minimum lifestyle, the fact is that if you life in a developed nation there are millions of people who are much poorer than you. That would make everyone in the 1st world as well as every single poster on this website “superabundant” when compared to starving masses in Africa or sweatshop laborers in rural China.

Wealth is relative, but it’s ok to have if you remember to donate 10% to feed the poor.

 

[IwishIknew]

Having nice things is not a sin in and of itself. Neither is being wealthy.

Being selfish, greedy, or only caring about money is sinful, but possessing money in and of itself is not sinful. Many wealthy people in history practiced philanthropy, and in fact The Vatican is the biggest charitable organization in the world.

While it is tempting to believe that Bill Gates and people with similar wealth will burn in hell simply for not donating everything they own and living a bare minimum lifestyle, the fact is that if you life in a developed nation there are millions of people who are much poorer than you. That would make everyone in the 1st world as well as every single poster on this website “superabundant” when compared to starving masses in Africa or sweatshop laborers in rural China.

Wealth is relative, but it’s ok to have if you remember to donate 10% to feed the poor.

This rings directionally correct to me. When I started this thread, I was under the impression that wanna-be saints had to follow the minimalist examples of certain saints, prophets and Jesus (even if He was middle-class at His time, our humble walking/donkey-riding Savior seems very minimalist to the way I live as a middle class American).

But now I think I am seeing the truth more correctly - that following the Commandments, following a spirit of giving (say 10%ish which can be expressed through many forms: giving life to many children, adopting, giving to a church, giving time to a foodbank, etc.), following a spirit of humble loving and sharing and avoiding obsessions/additions (the seven deadly sins) and all licentiousness and patiently enduring sufferings God allows in one’s life is enough (and that’s a long, difficult list).

He can and often does lavish spiritual favors upon those He loves, thus, He can and does lavish temporal favors upon those He loves as well and that may be good, or maybe even very good. The Church, over the centuries has been lavished in a good way both spiritually and temporally as reflected by the Vatican (it is awesome to behold, in fact).

So the next time I hear someone protest that the Church is extravagant, instead of trying to explain to them how the Vatican is not extravagant (and I had no convincing way to do this), now I believe I have a much more informed answer.

Thank you.

 

[phil19034]

This rings directionally correct to me. When I started this thread, I was under the impression that wanna-be saints had to follow the minimalist examples of certain saints, prophets and Jesus (even if He was middle-class at His time, our humble walking/donkey-riding Savior seems very minimalist to the way I live as a middle class American).

But now I think I am seeing the truth more correctly - that following the Commandments, following a spirit of giving (say 10%ish which can be expressed through many forms: giving life to many children, adopting, giving to a church, giving time to a foodbank, etc.), following a spirit of humble loving and sharing and avoiding obsessions/additions (the seven deadly sins) and all licentiousness and patiently enduring sufferings God allows in one’s life is enough (and that’s a long, difficult list).

He can and often does lavish spiritual favors upon those He loves, thus, He can and does lavish temporal favors upon those He loves as well and that may be good, or maybe even very good. The Church, over the centuries has been lavished in a good way both spiritually and temporally as reflected by the Vatican (it is awesome to behold, in fact).

So the next time I hear someone protest that the Church is extravagant, instead of trying to explain to them how the Vatican is not extravagant (and I had no convincing way to do this), now I believe I have a much more informed answer.

Thank you.

I was just attending a parish mission and listening to a priest discuss this very topic.

According to him, the key is in the Beaitiudes, especially:

– Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

The key is what did Christ mean by “poor in spirit”? This priest says that the key is to not be attached to items of the flesh. That deep down, the only thing we need to be happy is God and to Love (which is of God). If you are “poor in spirit,” if your material wealth was taken away, you would still find happiness because you know that true happiness lies with Christ.

God Bless