…going back to acts ch5; they conspired to test the holy spirit. They were not acting in good conscience as they were appearing to be, and as far as those who give nothing that remains their private decision, but if someone donates a sum for the purpose of future monetary profit, or to buy influence or for any nefarious purposes, well, that has to be judged. This is what Pope Francis is trying to get all of us to think about in making this statement.Looks like the Holy Father has given a bit of reference to the issue at hand, sort of:
The third thing that takes us away from the righteousness of our intentions - Pope Francis said - is money: "Those who follow Jesus for money, trying to take economic advantage of the parish, of the diocese, of their Christian community, of the hospital, or the college… Let us think of the first Christian community that was swayed by this intention: Simon, Ananias and Sapphira… this has been a temptation right from the beginning.
ansa.it/english/news/vatican/2014/05/05/no-careerists-dirty-money-grubbers_db563051-6e47-457e-9df0-50395078016d.html
First of all, I agree with Pope Francis’ message. The reference, though, does not seem to apply.
Let’s see, here… Ananias and Sapphira sell their land to give to the Church, and they end up giving less than the amount that they received for the land.
Will someone please explain to me why this is taking economic advantage? There is some kind of disconnect going on here, and it may be on my side. What is it that we need to know about the story that we are not seeing in Acts chapter 5?
Why would Pope Francis address a story where a common reaction of a person of conscience may very well be to give absolutely nothing to the Church?
But do you see how this doesn’t add up? Let’s say one couple “conspires” to give no money to the church at all. Another couple “conspires” to give the church less than the amount they originally stated. Nothing in Acts says anything about some future benefit to the couple by donating the money. Based on this passage, any withholding of money from the church would be such a conspiracy against the Spirit.…going back to acts ch5; they conspired to test the holy spirit. They were not acting in good conscience as they were appearing to be, and as far as those who give nothing that remains their private decision, but if someone donates a sum for the purpose of future monetary profit, or to buy influence or for any nefarious purposes, well, that has to be judged. This is what Pope Francis is trying to get all of us to think about in making this statement.
I don’t think it was ever a rule that you had to give everything you owned, I don’t think there was ever a requirement per say, The other necessities were given the highest priorities; repentance, belief, conversion, charity, etc.,But do you see how this doesn’t add up? Let’s say one couple “conspires” to give no money to the church at all. Another couple “conspires” to give the church less than the amount they originally stated. Nothing in Acts says anything about some future benefit to the couple by donating the money. Based on this passage, any withholding of money from the church would be such a conspiracy against the Spirit.
I still think that the missing information is that this was a fairness issue. I am thinking that to belong to the community, you had to give up everything you had. Even if there was no written rule about this, it would be against human nature for one member of the community to get away with giving less than all he had while everyone else gave their all. This particular rule could have been conveniently omitted later when the church wanted to draw in or retain wealthy members but not require such giving up of funds. After all, having wealthy donors who stay wealthy is possibly more sustainable for an institution.
We agree on Pope Francis’ message.