No. Why would you think so?That is H3: Prosperity is the result of sinful behavior. The virtuous live lives of poverty.
Is that your belief?
Because you said this:No. Why would you think so?
That’s a popular sentiment that I think is well captured by H3.This prosperity that you speak of seems to be the antithesis of ours Saviors direction to us.
We’ve discussed the concept of prosperity at length and after much discussion I’ve settled on a two-tier meaning: financial prosperity is monetary income (not net wealth), which is easy to measure and understand. General prosperity is worldly success and includes happiness, well being, satisfaction with life, etc. This is much harder to pin down and quantify but it is a more appropriate goal.Job was faithful and prosperous, twice. But given the rather nebulous definition of prosperous, as used by the OP it seems like the word should not be used to describe Job’s earthly condition.
One, I don’t believe prosperity is the result of a sinful life. Nor is poverty the result of a virtuous life. Both can be, and are, achieved with the opposite. The righteous have been prosperous and those embroiled in sin have been in poverty.Because you said this:
That’s a popular sentiment that I think is well captured by H3.
Why would you think that H3 does not capture your meaning? Please explain.
We’ve discussed the concept of prosperity at length and after much discussion I’ve settled on a two-tier meaning: financial prosperity is monetary income (not net wealth), which is easy to measure and understand. General prosperity is worldly success and includes happiness, well being, satisfaction with life, etc. This is much harder to pin down and quantify but it is a more appropriate goal.
Many of the patriarchs from Abraham to King Solomon were prosperous and Judaism is not as hostile to wealth as Christianity is. But then we have the various sayings of Jesus, such as you cite which help explain the difference.
I invite a discussion.
I’m trying to square that with this:One, I don’t believe prosperity is the result of a sinful life. Nor is poverty the result of a virtuous life. Both can be, and are, achieved with the opposite. The righteous have been prosperous and those embroiled in sin have been in poverty. So, popular, or not, I cannot agree with H3.
So it’s the antithesis of Christianity but not sinful?This prosperity that you speak of seems to be the antithesis of ours Saviors direction to us.
It’s not clear to me that Catholic teaching is but it does seem that Catholic culture is. Two things I’ve noticed: 1) Catholics, in general, are less prosperous than Jews and Protestants, especially in the Anglosphere, and 2) Christians a habit of from some of tossing Biblical grenades into a discussion without explaining or defending them. There is the passage you cited as well as others such as Matthew 19:24.What Catholic teaching leads you to claim that Christianity is hostile to wealth (=prosperity?)?
This apparent contradictory exists because of the ambiguity surrounding the word prosperity. It also appears that sometimes the means to achieve it are also included.I’m trying to square that with this:
So it’s the antithesis of Christianity but not sinful?
Sound like an uncharitable generality to me.It’s not clear to me that Catholic teaching is but it does seem that Catholic culture is.
How did you make this observation and what basis can it be claimed to be generally true?Two things I’ve noticed: 1) Catholics, in general, are less prosperous than Jews and Protestants, especially in the Anglosphere,
Again this sounds like a generality based on a very small sample.and 2) Christians a habit of from some of tossing Biblical grenades into a discussion without explaining or defending them. There is the passage you cited as well as others such as Matthew 19:24.
Yes, one can distinguish between the state of prosperity and the pursuit of prosperity. Perhaps what you are claiming is that accidental prosperity is good but the deliberate pursuit of it is evil?This apparent contradictory exists because of the ambiguity surrounding the word prosperity. It also appears that sometimes the means to achieve it are also included.
Now admittidely we’ve discussed a wide range of meanings of prosperity here from simple financial income to general happiness and well being. But I can assure you that at no time has anyone suggested putting worldly success ahead of love of God. So this seems extremely spurious.Pursuit of prosperity ahead of the love of God and neighbor is sinful.
Of course, doing anything immorally is sinful. So I’m not sure what this is meant to contribute to the discussion. Unless, of course, the pursuit of prosperity is, itself, immoral and sinful. That would be a claim worth discussing, if it is what you are claiming.Being prosperous is not sinful. Using immoral means to become prosperous is sinful.
Sound like an uncharitable generality to me.
There are a number of objective measures one can use. Income as well as crime rates are the most obvious.How did you make this observation and what basis can it be claimed to be generally true?
I’m simply reporting my own personal experience, mainly in these forums but also elsewhere, in discussing this subject.Again this sounds like a generality based on a very small sample.
St Francis deliberately did not pursue prosperity, because he was called to go in the opposite direction. If he would have followed in his father’s business and become wealthier, then that may well have been sinful if God was calling him to give that up.Yes, one can distinguish between the state of prosperity and the pursuit of prosperity. Perhaps what you are claiming is that accidental prosperity is good but the deliberate pursuit of it is evil?
We have a lot of people in our society who put pursuit of wealth above the love of God, so there is a danger in that.Now admittidely we’ve discussed a wide range of meanings of prosperity here from simple financial income to general happiness and well being. But I can assure you that at no time has anyone suggested putting worldly success ahead of love of God. So this seems extremely spurious.
Part of the issue I think is what our culture encourages. We get a lot of benefits from the market, but the culture of the marketplace is not always morally desirable. For example, in our society there is a bias towards the use of debt and not always for moral purposes. For example, some have argued that you should always attempt to buy a house with no money down. That way if it increases in value you get all the profits and if it falls in value you default and let the lender take the loss. Is this something our culture should be encouraging?Of course, doing anything immorally is sinful. So I’m not sure what this is meant to contribute to the discussion. Unless, of course, the pursuit of prosperity is, itself, immoral and sinful. That would be a claim worth discussing, if it is what you are claiming.
This opens up a can of worms. First, I think we’ve discussed the more general concept of worldly success within which I included those who pursue the monastic life (but, excluded the life of leisure). Second, people are called (or feel called) to particular paths away from financial sucess. But I’ve never heard anyone claim they were called by God to a life of leisure.St Francis deliberately did not pursue prosperity, because he was called to go in the opposite direction. If he would have followed in his father’s business and become wealthier, then that may well have been sinful if God was calling him to give that up.
This is a topic worth pursuing further. If you mean simply that they commit sin (e.g. fraud) then, as I noted before, that’s not very interesting. What is more relevant is the (implied) claim that the pursuit of prosperity, itself, is sinful irrespective of other discernible sin.We have a lot of people in our society who put pursuit of wealth above the love of God, so there is a danger in that.
This is debatable. While there are certainly signals toward the marketplace, they are pulling against the pedestrian vices of slot, acedia, and despair. I do hear this compensatory claim from time to time: we must emphasize X because people naturally tend to ~X.Part of the issue I think is what our culture encourages. We get a lot of benefits from the market, but the culture of the marketplace is not always morally desirable. For example, in our society there is a bias towards the use of debt and not always for moral purposes. For example, some have argued that you should always attempt to buy a house with no money down. That way if it increases in value you get all the profits and if it falls in value you default and let the lender take the loss. Is this something our culture should be encouraging?
This prosperity that you speak of seems to be the antithesis of ours Saviors direction to us.
I don’t believe I said anything about leisure, nor have we really defined what leisure is. For example, I have a friend who is an actuary, he makes over $150k per year. If he retires and tends his garden, is that leisure? If he grows tomatoes and gives them to his neighbors, it is possible that would be more successful in bringing the love of God than his actuarial work. So would it be unprosperous of him to live off his investments and grow tomatoes? Not necessarily.This opens up a can of worms. First, I think we’ve discussed the more general concept of worldly success within which I included those who pursue the monastic life (but, excluded the life of leisure). Second, people are called (or feel called) to particular paths away from financial sucess. But I’ve never heard anyone claim they were called by God to a life of leisure.
What I mean is that someone is called by God in one direction and goes in the opposite direction. For example, I used to teach at a college with wealthy students and it was next to a college that taught poor students. The wealthy college paid about six times more per course than the poor college. If God is calling me to teach the poor students and I turned it down to teach the wealthy students then that would be sinful, even though there is nothing inherently sinful about teaching wealthy students.This is a topic worth pursuing further. If you mean simply that they commit sin (e.g. fraud) then, as I noted before, that’s not very interesting. What is more relevant is the (implied) claim that the pursuit of prosperity, itself, is sinful irrespective of other discernible sin.
So, you are saying that our culture does not encourage greed? What evidence do you have of that?This is debatable. While there are certainly signals toward the marketplace, they are pulling against the pedestrian vices of slot, acedia, and despair. I do hear this compensatory claim from time to time: we must emphasize X because people naturally tend to ~X.
While quotes like the below do not suggest the pursuit of “prosperity” is a bad thing, there is enough of a concern that those of us on the higher end of income scale need to exercise some caution. It is easy to get wrapped up in all of the promises that wealth and “prosperity” offer, but it can also be a treadmill that does not really lead to anything good in the long run. The issue lies in our attitude more than anything else, and in how detached we are from our “prosperity”. I have friends who look at their incomes as indications of their value, when in reality it is an indication of nothing of the sort.So I’m still looking for the meaning of this (and like claims):
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also
We have not made any effort to define leisure. That is in and of itself an enormous task. And certainly there comes a point where people cannot conitnue the work they have. But for the purpose of our discussion I think we can call leisure any decision to work less on the basis of having enough. Was your friend unable to continue his work? Was he unable to do anything else simlarly productive? If he was called to a vocation of tomoato farmer why did he wait until reitrement?I don’t believe I said anything about leisure, nor have we really defined what leisure is. For example, I have a friend who is an actuary, he makes over $150k per year. If he retires and tends his garden, is that leisure? If he grows tomatoes and gives them to his neighbors, it is possible that would be more successful in bringing the love of God than his actuarial work. So would it be unprosperous of him to live off his investments and grow tomatoes? Not necessarily.
I certainly don’t want to become involved in guessing the calling of others so I appreicate your hypothetical formulation. But the question is: absent such a calling, would it be sinful to take the higher paying job? Would that be, as davidv said, “he antithesis of ours Saviors direction to us?”What I mean is that someone is called by God in one direction and goes in the opposite direction. For example, I used to teach at a college with wealthy students and it was next to a college that taught poor students. The wealthy college paid about six times more per course than the poor college. If God is calling me to teach the poor students and I turned it down to teach the wealthy students then that would be sinful, even though there is nothing inherently sinful about teaching wealthy students.
I’m saying that there are many vices and greed is not the worst of them. From what I’ve seen, far more people give in to sloth, acedia, and despair.So, you are saying that our culture does not encourage greed? What evidence do you have of that?
That’s a far milder statement, and more reasonable concern, than this:While quotes like the below do not suggest the pursuit of “prosperity” is a bad thing, there is enough of a concern that those of us on the higher end of income scale need to exercise some caution. It is easy to get wrapped up in all of the promises that wealth and “prosperity” offer, but it can also be a treadmill that does not really lead to anything good in the long run. The issue lies in our attitude more than anything else, and in how detached we are from our “prosperity”. I have friends who look at their incomes as indications of their value, when in reality it is an indication of nothing of the sort.
This prosperity that you speak of seems to be the antithesis of ours Saviors direction to us.
He certainly can continue his work as an actuary, but there real question is should he? And if he should, why should he? The reason he did not become a tomato farmer earlier is because land is expensive where he lives and he needed the actuarial income to pay for the land, there is no way he could make a living as a tomato farmer. But with the money he has set aside, he doesn’t need the money now. So we have two activities, one that has a high value in the marketplace and one that has a low value, but we cannot say apriori which one he should pursue. He may do a better job of living out the gospel by growing tomatoes.We have not made any effort to define leisure. That is in and of itself an enormous task. And certainly there comes a point where people cannot conitnue the work they have. But for the purpose of our discussion I think we can call leisure any decision to work less on the basis of having enough. Was your friend unable to continue his work? Was he unable to do anything else simlarly productive? If he was called to a vocation of tomoato farmer why did he wait until reitrement?
I never said that it was necessrily sinful to take the higher paying job, but if God is calling me to give up the lucrative money to teach the poor, it would be sinful not to listen.I certainly don’t want to become involved in guessing the calling of others so I appreicate your hypothetical formulation. But the question is: absent such a calling, would it be sinful to take the higher paying job? Would that be, as davidv said, “he antithesis of ours Saviors direction to us?”
That is an empirical question, what data would you use to determine the relative place of the sin of greed?I’m saying that there are many vices and greed is not the worst of them. From what I’ve seen, far more people give in to sloth, acedia, and despair.
No dispute here.That’s a far milder statement, and more reasonable concern, than this:
This, of course, is a big part of the discussion. To state the matter more generally, on what basis ought one choose one’s activities and occupation.He certainly can continue his work as an actuary, but there real question is should he? And if he should, why should he?
That’s really not much of an answer. People move to where the jobs are, he could have moved to where he could find work as a tomato farmer if that were his calling.The reason he did not become a tomato farmer earlier is because land is expensive where he lives and he needed the actuarial income to pay for the land, there is no way he could make a living as a tomato farmer.
I doubt it.But with the money he has set aside, he doesn’t need the money now. So we have two activities, one that has a high value in the marketplace and one that has a low value, but we cannot say apriori which one he should pursue. He may do a better job of living out the gospel by growing tomatoes.
See above.I never said that it was necessrily sinful to take the higher paying job, but if God is calling me to give up the lucrative money to teach the poor, it would be sinful not to listen.
Based on my readings and personal experience. Throughout most of history and even, today, in most places, people, like your tomoato gardner, work until they have enough however they may define that and often it is defined pretty narrowly. It is not uncommon in manu countries for workers to stop comming to work when they have enough to eat or even walk off the job in the middle of the day. Economic historians have done quite a bit of research on this topic. What we in developed contries consider normal (the “rat race”) is actually quite exceptional historically.That is an empirical question, what data would you use to determine the relative place of the sin of greed?
Ok, so growing tomatoes is not leisure, or at least it might not be.This, of course, is a big part of the discussion. To state the matter more generally, on what basis ought one choose one’s activities and occupation.
The simplest answer is God’s calling. But most people don’t discern a call from God in any obvious way. Similarly, we could say the pursuit of salvation. It’s an open question here how that interwines with worldly concerns such as making money or raising a family.
One possible ansser, the one I am toying with here, is the pursuit of prosperity both in the narrow sense of financial prosperity but also in the larger sense of happiness, well being, and satisfaction with life.
True, there are many ways to live a life of prosperity.One might also choose on the basis of service to others. What activity will help others most in their own pursuit of worldly success. The common example of this is raising a family. Each child is utterly depenedent on the parents for sustenance and development.
Maybe there are reasons he has for not moving, such as elderly parents in the area. Where I live, land sells for about $100k per acre, however, I know of places where you can grow tomatoes on land that costs $2000 per acre. From a profit maximization point of view, it would make sense to move, from a “prosperity maximization” point of view, it might not. God might be calling him to grow tomatoes on the expensive land because he can.That’s really not much of an answer. People move to where the jobs are, he could have moved to where he could find work as a tomato farmer if that were his calling.
Why is growing tomatoes worse than being an actuary? Are you basing this on your opinion or do you have some actual criteria you are using to judge? How would being an actuary be a better way of living out the gospel?I doubt it.
See above.
And this is a bad thing, because?Based on my readings and personal experience. Throughout most of history and even, today, in most places, people, like your tomoato gardner, work until they have enough however they may define that and often it is defined pretty narrowly. It is not uncommon in manu countries for workers to stop comming to work when they have enough to eat or even walk off the job in the middle of the day. Economic historians have done quite a bit of research on this topic. What we in developed contries consider normal (the “rat race”) is actually quite exceptional historically.
My guess is that in the case of your friend, it is. But certainly we can imagine situations where it is not, starting with tomato farmers.Ok, so growing tomatoes is not leisure, or at least it might not be.
Of course.True, there are many ways to live a life of prosperity.
One can always invent extenuating circumstances.Maybe there are reasons he has for not moving, such as elderly parents in the area. Where I live, land sells for about $100k per acre, however, I know of places where you can grow tomatoes on land that costs $2000 per acre. From a profit maximization point of view, it would make sense to move, from a “prosperity maximization” point of view, it might not. God might be calling him to grow tomatoes on the expensive land because he can.
The simplest actual criteria is the market. It pays better which suggests that it is valued higher. There is no reaon to suppose, from the facts presented, that growing tomatos in the garden is a better way of living out the gospel than being an actuary.Why is growing tomatoes worse than being an actuary? Are you basing this on your opinion or do you have some actual criteria you are using to judge? How would being an actuary be a better way of living out the gospel?
This prosperity that you speak of seems to be the antithesis of ours Saviors direction to us.
Because it results in poverty, famine, and, in the worst cases, violence.And this is a bad thing, because?
I think the problem here is that we have not really defined what leisure is. For example, if instead of growing tomatoes, he visited people in nursing homes, nobody would dispute that he is not living a life of leisure. So it is not clear where the demarcation line for leisure and non-leisure is.My guess is that in the case of your friend, it is. But certainly we can imagine situations where it is not, starting with tomato farmers.
Of course.
I think it is relevant though, because nobody has a moral obligation to maximize their income. For example, my wife could easily earn twice as much income by changing jobs. Should she change jobs, and of course the answer is not necessarily.One can always invent extenuating circumstances.
There is also no way to suppose that growing tomatoes is a worse way of living out the gospel. The market is only one source of value and there is no reason to suppose that it is, from a spiritual point of view the source of value that we should be considering. After all, market values are not the same as God’s values. The market values things like abortion and pornography highly, yet in God’s eyes these are bad things that should have negative values. So there is nothing sacred about market values, they might be useful in some circumstances, but we have to be cognizant of their limitations.The simplest actual criteria is the market. It pays better which suggests that it is valued higher. There is no reaon to suppose, from the facts presented, that growing tomatos in the garden is a better way of living out the gospel than being an actuary.
Though we have waiting for an explanation of this:
How much famine have we had in the US because of people leaving the labor force because they have made enough?Because it results in poverty, famine, and, in the worst cases, violence.
Yes, I noted before that we hadn’t defined it but I gave what I thought was a useful guide: choosing a less prospereous path. I would not call it leisure if he continued to work as an actuary but gave all his income to a charity that sent, say, students to visit nursing homes. Now he could also quit his actuary career to visit nursing homes but my guess is that would be a less prosperous choice. Maybe he gets something out of doing it himself but he could always keep his job and visit nursing homes as well.I think the problem here is that we have not really defined what leisure is. For example, if instead of growing tomatoes, he visited people in nursing homes, nobody would dispute that he is not living a life of leisure. So it is not clear where the demarcation line for leisure and non-leisure is.
If I were to hazard a moral obligation here, it would be to maximize your worldly sucess, your prosperity in the more general sense. Financial prosperity, as I have repatedly noted, is easier to measure but it’s not the complete picture.I think it is relevant though, because nobody has a moral obligation to maximize their income. For example, my wife could easily earn twice as much income by changing jobs. Should she change jobs, and of course the answer is not necessarily.
The market is a very good way to determine what other people value. Trying to guess that outside the market is notoriously difficult.There is also no way to suppose that growing tomatoes is a worse way of living out the gospel. The market is only one source of value and there is no reason to suppose that it is, from a spiritual point of view the source of value that we should be considering. After all, market values are not the same as God’s values. The market values things like abortion and pornography highly, yet in God’s eyes these are bad things that should have negative values. So there is nothing sacred about market values, they might be useful in some circumstances, but we have to be cognizant of their limitations.
Historicaly, some. But the US was founded by people in pursuit of prosperity so it’s an outlier. Even so, taking leisure because you have enough means that you are not being charitable to others in need elsewhere. Instead of growing tomatoes or visiting nursing homes you could also go to Africa to teach.How much famine have we had in the US because of people leaving the labor force because they have made enough?
The problem lies in the difference between the subjective and the objective dimensions of work, discussed by Pope John Paul II. The objective value of the actuary may be higher working as an actuary. But the subjective dimension could outweigh the objective dimension, which would make visiting the nursing homes the better choice. Also, we cannot estimate the objective value of visiting a lonely person in a nursing home, we just don’t have the data to do that.Yes, I noted before that we hadn’t defined it but I gave what I thought was a useful guide: choosing a less prospereous path. I would not call it leisure if he continued to work as an actuary but gave all his income to a charity that sent, say, students to visit nursing homes. Now he could also quit his actuary career to visit nursing homes but my guess is that would be a less prosperous choice. Maybe he gets something out of doing it himself but he could always keep his job and visit nursing homes as well.
Once again, it depends on what you mean by leisure. If it means doing things the market doesn’t value, then perhaps leisure is something we need to encourage more of.Note also that I have never said that leisure is bad and, in fact, it is both desireable and necessary part of a good life in some moderate quantity. But that’s quite different from retiring into a life of lesure or making a vocation of leisure because you have enough.
That of course, is your opinion (not that you are claiming otherwise), but it is not based on any Catholic Social Teaching.If I were to hazard a moral obligation here, it would be to maximize your worldly sucess, your prosperity in the more general sense. Financial prosperity, as I have repatedly noted, is easier to measure but it’s not the complete picture.
The point is, why should I care what other people value? I mean, if I want to feed myself or make sure I have shelter, I need to pay attention to what other people value. Beyond that, it is not much use. Other people value abortion and pornography, those have billions of dollars worth of value in our economy, even though they are intrinsically bad things. So we have to be careful when using market values.
Now the question is, why is going to Africa to teach necessarily better than visiting nursing homes?Historicaly, some. But the US was founded by people in pursuit of prosperity so it’s an outlier. Even so, taking leisure because you have enough means that you are not being charitable to others in need elsewhere. Instead of growing tomatoes or visiting nursing homes you could also go to Africa to teach.]
Catholic theology has long recogized the importance of ou concern for the needs of others. Social/economic systems in which people attend to the needs of others provide more for everyone. Specialization is just one of the many mechanisms involved as Adam Smith recognized more than two centuries ago but which was forshadowed by ancient wisdom. But even apart from the objective aspects there is a deep subjective importance to this which Catholic teaching has long recognized. This all goes well beyond providing oneself with food and shelter.The point is, why should I care what other people value? I mean, if I want to feed myself or make sure I have shelter, I need to pay attention to what other people value. Beyond that, it is not much use.
Which means that we cannot say apriori, whether my friend should spend his time working as an actuary, or visiting lonely people in nursing homes. One activity has market value, one doesn’t, but there is nothing in Catholic teaching that says we must put more weight on market value.Catholic theology has long recogized the importance of ou concern for the needs of others.
There is no doubt that specialization is efficient, nor is there doubt that a capitalist market economy can be very productive. However, market values are not the only values that are important here.Social/economic systems in which people attend to the needs of others provide more for everyone. Specialization is just one of the many mechanisms involved as Adam Smith recognized more than two centuries ago but which was forshadowed by ancient wisdom.
Which is why we cannot say whether my actuarial friend should be working as an actuary or growing tomatoes or visiting people in nursing homes. Just because market values are easier to measure does not make them more important.But even apart from the objective aspects there is a deep subjective importance to this which Catholic teaching has long recognized. This all goes well beyond providing oneself with food and shelter.
In fact, we can say far more than you are willing to entertain but not with 100% certainty. Fortunately, humans are able to cope with uncertainty in making choices.Which means that we cannot say apriori, whether my friend should spend his time working as an actuary, or visiting lonely people in nursing homes. One activity has market value, one doesn’t, but there is nothing in Catholic teaching that says we must put more weight on market value.
There is no doubt that specialization is efficient, nor is there doubt that a capitalist market economy can be very productive. However, market values are not the only values that are important here.
Which is why we cannot say whether my actuarial friend should be working as an actuary or growing tomatoes or visiting people in nursing homes. Just because market values are easier to measure does not make them more important.