Let’s try this. Try to think like Francis of Assisi, Vincent de Paul, John Bosco or Mother Teresa and you will understand what this statement means. I have read all of the posts and the part that is missing is the theological understanding of the sentence, the papal writings that you’re quoting and the scripture. In essence, everyone is dancing around the subject and no one is hitting the nail on the head. Unless you think like the great saints of charity, you’ll never get it.
It’s so easy. The operative word here is “amass.” From the earliest days of the Church the word amass has had a very specific meaning. It’s English equivalent would be to horde. It does not mean that one is not allowed to be wealthy. If that were the case, the first to be condemned would be the Church. It is the wealthiest nation on earth, wealthier than the USA. It’s not mortgaged to China.
Monks do not and never have made vows of poverty. They are encouraged to own property and to produce. Diocesan and other secular priests do not make vows of poverty. They are paid a salary and benefits for their work and are allowed to inherit from their parents and have other sources of income. They are paid according to their position, education and years of experience, like any other professional.
Would St. Francis, St. Vincent, St. John Bosco or Mother Teresa point their finger at monks, the Vatican, or a diocesan priest? No, absolutely not. Why not? Because, these people contribute to the welfare of society, especially the poor. They don’t amass wealth, even if they are very wealthy.
We have the example of some saints who were worth millions and used their wealth, power and influence for the good of the poor: St. Louis King of France, St. Elizabeth of Hungary, St. Thomas More, St. Katherine Drexel, St. John Baptist de La Salle and St. Francis of Assisi. Each, in his or her own way, used the material gifts that God gave him or her for the service of God’s people.
To amass wealth is to hold on to it as if it were one’s only source of security, when true security is in God. Many low income people suffer from the same lack of trust in God and place their trust in material wealth. What do they do? They lie, cheat and steal. To amass wealth is to hold on to the material, out of fear, rather than out of need. To amass wealth is to acquire wealth without a sense of responsibility. “To him who much is given, much will be asked in return.”
People like Mother Teresa, Francis of Assisi, John Bosco and Vincent de Paul, who gave their lives to live among the poor and for the good of the poor depended on the generosity of those who had wealth in order to take care of those whom they served. They did not hold having wealth against them. However, they did teach several things that we must remember.
Francis taught that one has to be careful that wealth can extinguish the spirit of prayer and increase our sense of hopelessness. Because all too often, a man of wealth will fear that he will be unable to live, if he loses it. He stops trusting in God’s Providence.
John Bosco reminded the people of his time that there were children in the streets of Italy who did not have a home, food, an education, while there were people who could help, but did not do so.
Vincent de Paul, would always remind people that those who say that they love God but ignore the needs of their brothers and sisters are liars. He never said that the wealthy could not be wealthy. He was indignant with those who turned their back on their brother who is poor. Vincent went even further. He knew that there were people who were scammers. He confronted those who were, when he caught them. However, he did not let the fear of being conned stop him from being charitable. At the end of the day, he did not have to answer for the sins of the other person. He only had to answer for his lack of charity.
Mother Teresa reminds us that we must learn to live simply, so that others may simply live. When she visited the USA for the first time, she was horrified. When Cardinal Cooke asked her what she thought of the USA, she said that there was more poverty here than in Calcutta. While the Indians lacked food, shelter, medicine and education, these were only material needs. Americans lacked compassion. She pointed out that people in the United States were lonely and many are ignored. It was very interesting, because when she was challenged with the fact that India has a cast system and that people with leprosy, AIDS and other diseases are considered untouchable and thrown into the streets, her answer was very simple. She said that this was true and it was sinful. However, the United States and Americans claimed to be more civilized and more knowledgeable than Indians; how was it possible that those who claimed to know better and be more civilized could be just as uncaring and unfeeling, when they have been given so much?
From a theological perspective, the issue is not about being wealthy, but about hording, indifference to those in need, not trusting in God’s providential care, not appreciating our material resources as gifts to be used for the common good, and wanting more than what we need, while others don’t have enough. At the end of the day, the issue is about being like Christ who fed the hungry and put aside his divinity to share in the poverty of our humanity.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
