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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seeksadvice
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Having money is by no means a sin on it’s own - Job was a wealthy landowner who was also very pious, and the apostle Paul was an aristocrat and a roman citizen - but it can make one more susceptible to sins and temptations. If you’re successful then people will praise you - this can erode your humility and even lead you to be envious of those who receive more praise. If you’re wealthy then you’ll have access to luxuries - this can erode temperance and cause you to descend into hedonism or frivolity. If you’re wealthy then you can afford better legal counsel to minimize or even entirely avoid punishments - this can lead you to consider yourself above consequences. If you worked hard for your sucess this might make you less charitable - you might think people without money are “lazy” or “dispassionate” even if they just never got the same opportunities you got. Finally if you don’t have uncertainty then you might think you don’t need God; you might think you can buy your way out of any trouble or that your skills can get you out of them.
You can see these things in the Old Testament. God gave his Chosen People a land of milk and honey and lucrative trade routes. They started ignoring his rules (they didn’t do the Jubilee, they loaned money at interest, they didn’t donate to charity or leave crops for the poor, they forced widows off lands, etc), valuing wealth over God. So to punish them and teach them better he took the land back and sent them into exile as poor beggars.

Now I’m not saying these WILL happen; there are many wealthy people who earn their fortunes honestly and who their resources to help others. All I’m saying is that there are some more pitfalls. In the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus, the former went to Hell not for being rich but for ignoring a starving diseased man at his doorstep. If you say “That’s not my problem”, then you aren’t being Christ for others as he is for you.
 
Last edited:
What is your commitment to God? What is you social economic standing? Would your commitment to God necessarily change if your social economic situation changed? There is a type of answer. I think it is sometimes not helpful to judge other people in abstract categories. People generally are like you and me.
 
Seeksadvice said:
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.
Click to expand...
There’s no “need” for me to own a kayak either. Or to have nice things in my home. Not everything is functional. The Church doesn’t teach that we can only have the bare necissities and nothing more.
 
I’d suggest a good reading of the Social Doctrine, paying attention to the doctrine of the “Preferential Option for the Poor”

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...peace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

182. The principle of the universal destination of goods requires that the poor, the marginalized and in all cases those whose living conditions interfere with their proper growth should be the focus of particular concern. To this end, the preferential option for the poor should be reaffirmed in all its force[384]. “This is an option, or a special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity, to which the whole tradition of the Church bears witness. It affects the life of each Christian inasmuch as he or she seeks to imitate the life of Christ, but it applies equally to our social responsibilities and hence to our manner of living, and to the logical decisions to be made concerning the ownership and use of goods. Today, furthermore, given the worldwide dimension which the social question has assumed, this love of preference for the poor, and the decisions which it inspires in us, cannot but embrace the immense multitudes of the hungry, the needy, the homeless, those without health care and, above all, those without hope of a better future”[385].
 
Last edited:
There is an argument to be made that, outside of some Reservations, true poverty does not exist in the US. Our poorest person lives in luxury compared to other countries.
 
I completely agree. I believe we had true poverty prior to the LBJ era. These days, the only people I see living in true poverty are those who through mental illness or addiction have become homeless and are literally not able to care for themselves.
 
Abucs: Social economic standing is a fluid thing, it depends a lot on where you are. $250,000US income in one year would be different in the US than it would be in say Haiti (though both places will likely require carrying some protection). Also, what is a more valuable gift? Time that cannot be replaced, or money that can be?

BorninMarch: If somebody does not even apply for a job in three (3) years and then claims to be too poor to pay for the spawn of his loins… that’s laziness. That’s not “lacking opportunities,” that’s not the man putting him down, that’s simply not getting off one’s rear end. Looks a lot like sloth doesn’t it. There are quite a few people who are “poor” simply because they choose to be that way. See it in court all the time. Unfortunately, whether due to having lots of free time, or being blessed with extreme fertility and inexplicable powers of attraction, they tend to manage to procreate with a fecundity that would make rabbits green with envy.

Littlelady: How does one determine whether or not a person has a hope for a better future? There are rich, poor, and middle-class people who don’t have hope for a better future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top