Is there a war on income being advocated by the Church?

[Seeksadvice]

I remember comments during an RCIA class this week involving the differences between rich and poor people, and that poor people are somehow inherently more religion focused than wealthier people. Basically that the poor build churches (i.e. large cathedrals, etc. even in poor countries) and the rich build entertainment centers, and eventually have to build jails (presumably to deal with all of their rich people debauchery). Some would argue that churches are nothing more than entertainment centers in and of themselves.

Then, I see people claiming the opposite, that poverty “creates” violence and everyone would be better off if we made everybody “not poor.” I.e. “Bob” isn’t responsible for being a drug pushing gang-banger, his family was/is poor and therefore that’s why he’s doing these things. Heck, we’ve even had lower income people think that the key to wealth lies in robbing a rural Catholic church during Saturday Mass.

Next, I see the renovation of the inside of the local church paid for entirely by a single anonymous individual/couple. Obviously the money → bad, poor → virtuous argument falls flat. There are virtuous wealthy persons and virtuous poor people, but to claim that simply by economic position one is going to be more likely to build churches and one more likely to build other things seems to be a stretch.

Seriously, what gives with the concept that there has to be something inherently immoral, bad, or similar with a person who has financial assets?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Seriously, what gives with the concept that there has to be something inherently immoral, bad, or similar with a person who has financial assets?

This isn’t a Catholic or even particularly Christian teaching (prosperity gospel churches would totally reject it). It’s a political position taken by a lot of people who associate wealth with exploitation and bad acts, similar to how some people think all corporations are inherently evil. It’s a popular view because the majority of people are not economically well off and don’t know enough wealthy people to see that they are just people and that there are good ones, bad ones and mediocre ones and that they aren’t all greedy, didn’t all get their money in an inherently evil way, etc. There’s also a tendency in society to simplistically blame rich people for not sharing more of their wealth with those less well off, which fails to take into account a lot of factors including charitable giving and the individual choices in life that often contribute to making one person rich and another person poor.

The Bible recognizes correctly that it’s hard for a rich man to go to Heaven, presumably because money buys a lot of temptations, sins and distractions that keep you from spending your time loving God and your neighbor. This is a fact that I don’t think anybody would dispute. But it doesn’t mean it’s impossible for rich people to gain salvation. When Jesus meets the rich young man who asks how to attain salvation, Jesus’ first advice to him is to keep the commandments. It’s only when the rich young man says he already does that and asks what more he can do that Jesus advises him that as a next step he could go sell his possessions and give the money to the poor and then spend all his time following Jesus. While the rich guy goes away sad because this is too difficult for him, he can still follow the original advice of keeping the commandments, although this will not make him as “perfect” as if he gave all his money away and became the equivalent of a professed religious person with a vow of poverty. Also when Jesus is put to death and needs burial and a tomb, a wealthy follower provides these items.

So, while it’s more “perfect” to give away all your money (and we see a number of saints from wealthy families who did just that), it’s not inherently evil to be well off if you do not use the money for sinful purposes but instead try to use it for the good of others and for meeting others’ needs, which could include donating to charity, renovating churches, etc. The Catechism section on social justice starting at CCC article 3 section 1936 also gets at this.

Edited to add, a lot of poor people are “religion focused” because 1) people in difficulty, including financial difficulty, reach to/ rely on God for help and support, 2) they often get some support, either spiritual or economic, from their church. Somebody who is doing well economically and doesn’t need as much outside support is more likely to turn to religion when something happens that can’t be fixed through personal money and effort, such as a terminal illness or a death of a loved one.

 

[Benadam]

Yeah, it’s when people feel self sufficient they they think they don’t need God. Like right before the flood

 

[CoffeeAndDonuts]

There is a great difference between being prosperous and wealthy, I think, although those may not be the best words as the are open to interpretation, so let me explain what I mean for the purpose of this discussion.

Prosperous would indicate that the person in question has enough income/resources that all their needs and the needs of their immediate family are comfortably met and they do not worry about their financial situation.

Wealthy would mean that the person has a great deal of income/resources that go above and beyond what a person and/or family would need to be secure in lifestyle and future.

Again, however, even in this definition, there are still situations that muddy the distinction. A ‘wealthy’ person could have a lot of assets that are not liquid; ie they could be a millionaire on paper as they hold a lot of valuable land or stock or machinery or whatever, but to turn that into cash they could possibly endanger their future incomes. (This sort of modern ‘wealth’ is one of the differences that makes it hard to translate these lessons into modern times.)

However, should an individual have a cash income that is above and beyond the line of prosperity and they either hoard it or spend it on ridiculous things like Ferrarris and diamonds and designer goods, then I think that that is the problem alluded to by church, especially when there is so much suffering from poverty in every corner of the world. Look at a person who has an annual income of several million dollars. Their needs and the needs of their family are being met, so what to do with the left over money after that? Is it more moral to spend it on decadent luxuries, or is it more moral to help those in poverty?

Our culture (and not just Western culture, but pretty much all cultures) have a tendency to promote the lifestyle of the wealthy as desirable; to make the worldly goals of yachts and champagne a ‘win’ situation of life as opposed to bettering the lives of those less fortunate. This is the attitude then that I believe the Church has a problem with; not necessarily the creation of wealth, nor providing a comfortable lifestyle for your family, but the squandering of resources on luxury consumerism.

 

[AdamP88]

Sounds like your RCIA teacher was a fan of Marxism.

There’s nothing wrong with being rich. There are bad and good people both rich and poor.
Obviously the more you have the more you should give if you’re truly Christian.
In fairness, I’ve always thought that we need rich Catholics to help fund various apostolates and incentives. If I had lots of money, I’d be happy to send a substiantial amount to my local Church.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Look at a person who has an annual income of several million dollars. Their needs and the needs of their family are being met, so what to do with the left over money after that? Is it more moral to spend it on decadent luxuries, or is it more moral to help those in poverty?

People with annual incomes like what you describe are often not throwing it around profligately, at least not in the US culture (may be different in other countries). Those who conspicuously spend money often are not rich for long, or never were really rich and were just trying to put on a show with possessions that they may have gone heavily into debt to show off. Your average rich businessperson did not get where he or she is by spending money recklessly, and luxury goods they buy may be something they perceive as necessary for their business (for example, the “right” clothes that their clients expect to see them in).

Rich people with a stable income are more likely to be investing it somewhere (to make more money), making large charitable and political contributions, spending it on living expenses in parts of the country where housing has become very expensive compared with other areas. The moral questions would center more around whether their business interests and investments are exploiting or harming people than whether they happened to buy their wife a diamond ring for her birthday. For example, are the workers in their factories being treated fairly? Are their real estate development projects pushing poor people out of their homes and is that an overall good thing or an overall bad thing? What is the agenda of the political candidates they support? What nonprofit causes do they support with large donations? Etc.

 

[CoffeeAndDonuts]

It’s really more consumerist attitudes towards conspicuous consumption then that’s the problem.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

That’s not a problem that just affects the wealthy, though. Plenty of middle-class and poor people have consumerist attitudes and blow their money on material things that they do not need, when it could be better spent on things people, maybe even their own families, actually need.

 

[CoffeeAndDonuts]

True. I think then maybe the problem is people wanting to be wealthy for the sake of being able to blow money, and then that’s the attitude that we should be “at war with”, regardless of whether or not it is affordable.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I agree with you there.
Many people are wealthy either because they inherited a certain amount of wealth along with a work ethic/ means for increasing it, like a family business, or business skills, or else they worked their way up. The motivation in many cases is to be able to afford a pleasant lifestyle for themselves and their family, like living in a safe pleasant area with a house that is well kept and other amenities close by, and pay for emergencies and medical care when you need to. Plus a certain amount of “cultural capital” such as the ability to pay for good schools for yourself/ your children, travel to see other countries, attend concerts and events, etc. Not to flash money around like drunken sailors.

Just having a basic nice lifestyle where you’re not counting every dime costs quite a bit of money these days. Plus, everyone is “rich” in relation to others who have less. My parents counted dimes out to buy hamburger for dinner many a time, but my friend who grew up in a single-parent home in a housing project thought we were rich. Somebody else in a third world country would think he was rich because he had a house and regular meals and got to attend school every day instead of having to go to work as a child.

 

[De_Maria]

I remember comments during an RCIA class this week involving the differences between rich and poor people, and that poor people are somehow inherently more religion focused than wealthier people. Basically that the poor build churches (i.e. large cathedrals, etc. even in poor countries) and the rich build entertainment centers, and eventually have to build jails (presumably to deal with all of their rich people debauchery). Some would argue that churches are nothing more than entertainment centers in and of themselves

The key question is, “who’s comments”? The Catechist’s?

Seriously, what gives with the concept that there has to be something inherently immoral, bad, or similar with a person who has financial assets?

This is an important topic in understanding the Faith. Jesus Christ said:

Matthew 13:12 To anyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; from anyone who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

How do you understand that Teaching?

He also said:

Matthew 19:22 When the young man heard this statement, he went away sad, for he had many possessions. 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Amen, I say to you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel (i.e. rope) to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

How do you understand that one?

And can you relate these Teachings to the discussion in class?

 

[Jerusha]

Matthew 13:12 refers to spiritual wealth.

Disabled people are more often religious because of hope of being healed in the afterlife. Isaiah 40:31 And disabled people are more often found among the poor.

 

[PetraG]

First of all, the conversation on the whole seems odd on its face. What civilization in history, rich or poor, that got bigger than a familial tribal system didn’t need a system of justice? Why presume jails are built for “rich people debauchery” when we all know it has always been the poorest who wind up in jails and prisons? What civilization, for that matter, has ever been all rich people and no poor people? Where there has been a truly wealthy class, has there not always been the Lazarus at their gates? (If you don’t know that story, see Luke 16:19-31)

Here is another example of what Our Lord had to say. I would not call it a “war on income,” but he did say this, "No servant can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.” (Luke 16:13)

An official asked him this question, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus answered him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother.’” And he replied, “All of these I have observed from my youth.” When Jesus heard this he said to him, “There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” But when he heard this he became quite sad, for he was very rich.

Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” Those who heard this said, “Then who can be saved?”And he said, “What is impossible for human beings is possible for God.” Then Peter said, “We have given up our possessions and followed you.” He said to them, “Amen, I say to you, there is no one who has given up house or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God who will not receive [back] an overabundant return in this present age and eternal life in the age to come.” Luke 18:18-30

The obvious point is this: You may have wealth, but you must be careful. To have wealth is to be in danger of being the servant of your wealth instead of a servant of God. It is difficult to avoid that danger–more difficult than for a camel (sometimes translated to mean the heaviest of heavy ropes) to pass through the eye of a needle!–but anything is possible with God. That is why there is no room for sitting in judgement of the wealthy (for we are to give so that our left hand does not know what our right hand is doing, so that the wealthy may be far more generous than anyone else knows).

[On the point of whether the passage about the eye of a needle refers to rope or a camel, it hardly matters. It was obviously meant to be a hyperbole.]

 

[RandomAlias]

@Seeksadvice, I am also following your thread about your RCIA session on sin. Obviously you are listening and thinking seriously about what you hear. That’s great. Don’t be discouraged if your catechist sometimes gets it wrong. The Church teachings actually make a lot more sense. If it gets so bad you can’t stand it, maybe look for a better RCIA program at another parish.

 

[Seeksadvice]

The priest made the comments in reference to a trip that he had made to Vietnam, where he saw churches and temples that were extremely beautiful in a land where people experienced grinding poverty. Somalia, Ethiopia, and Eritrea are some of the poorest countries in the world, pretty sure they have need for dealing with criminals too. Betting that if you looked closely enough in Vietnam, you’d find plenty of prisons too… for political prisoners.

Is it inherently evil to buy quality when you can afford it? For a long time, I never really thought about things, and came to the conclusion that “good enough” was “good enough.” Then, I had the opportunity to buy better quality stuff, and discovered that within reason, you get what you pay for.

While gross excesses are rather evident, what defines the less “out-there” luxury item? A Kia Rio may work just fine for in-town commuting in mild climates, probably not so much in driving around in the middle of winter in the middle of nowhere. Conversely, there’s no real reason to have a Porsche Cayenne Turbo S, Cadillac Escalade, etc., no matter how bad the weather gets.

I haven’t thought that much about monetary donations. I tend to think in terms of time, which is more precious than money. Properly invested, money will make more money with or without your effort. Money can always be replaced. Time cannot.

 

[CoffeeAndDonuts]

There’s a difference between buying quality items at a reasonable price, when taking into consideration the materials, time of the crafts-person, and maybe the markup if buying it at a retail location, and buying something that is objectively quality as well, but it priced at that ‘luxury consumer’ level mentioned previously. The car example was a good one I think, and is the same reason why we’ve had used car for so long, even though we could have conceivably purchased a more luxury model; it does what it’s supposed to do and we don’t need a new one.

One may argue that if you can afford it it’s better to purchase quality products, because they will last longer and create less waste in the long run.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The priest made the comments in reference to a trip that he had made to Vietnam, where he saw churches and temples that were extremely beautiful in a land where people experienced grinding poverty.

This is typical 60s thinking. Often times, the poor people are the ones who want the lovely church or temple. They want some kind of inspiration or beauty in their very hard life. They don’t want to be worshipping in some cheap hut. It’s the wealthy people who see the fancy church as unnecessary trappings because of their own mindset and the fact that they don’t lack for nice surroundings in their daily life.

In any event, one can certainly help the poor while also having a nice place of worship to honor God. The two things are not mutually exclusive and they both honor God in different ways.

 

[AdamP88]

Conversely, there’s no real reason to have a Porsche Cayenne Turbo S, Cadillac Escalade, etc., no matter how bad the weather gets.

You could be a car enthusiast.

People don’t really think through this thing of income. I have a Catholic friend with slightly socialist leanings who tries to convince me that everyone shoguld get a basic social welfare payment to ensure their basic needs. He goes on to say that anyone who earns over 100,000 euro per year ought to donate anything beyond that sum. If they don’t it’s morally wrong. But the fact is that most entrepreneurs are constantly investing excess wealth, and donate to a charity anyway.

There’s also things like hobbies. Someone might like to keep horses and may employ people on a stud farm. Or they may collect cars or whatever. Rich people definitely have a greater responsibility to help the needy, but there’s no rule that says they can’t enjoy their wealth.

 

[1ke]

Seriously, what gives with the concept that there has to be something inherently immoral, bad, or similar with a person who has financial assets?

Based on this and your other post, it seems that you are not having a good RCIA experience. I am not sure in what context such comments were being made.

Of course wealthy and poor alike have good and bad people among their ranks.

Wealth and power do tend to corrupt, and so we who have must be vigilant that it is not at the expense of the have-not. We must be vigilant that wealth and power do not become an end unto themselves. We are called to be generous, in our circumstances. Jesus has many parables about the wealthy and the poor.

You are correct, wealth is not inherently good or bad. Being poor is not inherently good or bad. The church does not teach that wealthy people are bad, or that wealth is bad.

I’m really puzzled at your RCIA classes. Who is teaching them? Someone qualified in theology? A priest or deacon? Or is it a lay person who lacks real training? They aren’t very good at explaining, from what I’ve seen so far!

 

[Seeksadvice]

Adam: One could be a car enthusiast, yes. However, there is still no real “need” for those vehicles. Used to see quiet a few Escalades out here due to oil money. However, now seeing more Audi Q7’s and mid-sized Land Rovers/Range Rovers, guessing as people realize they are cheaper and have better bad condition performance. Seeing a movement from gross flashiness to at least some semblance of functionality.

1ke: It’s being taught by a priest. I guess I am a bit jaded about the “have-nots.” In my area, for a long time, there was simply no reason short of a total and complete debilitating handicap that would be a bar to employment. There were more jobs available than people to fill them. You would see people camped out in front of businesses with signs talking about needing food, etc., and there were help wanted signs behind them. When Wal-Mart is paying ~$15-17/hour, you know it’s a buyer’s market, even for the least skilled of the workforce. Yet, I’d see people come into court and claim that they couldn’t find work, one even hadn’t applied in over three years yet claimed that he should not be found in contempt for failing to pay his child support obligations because he wasn’t working (yes, the court actually bought it…). I see a lot of “poor” people manipulating the system for personal gain, to the detriment of those who actually work for a living.