The Morality of Wealth

  • Thread starter Thread starter MusicaDonumDei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MusicaDonumDei

Guest
I have been recently reading a lot about Mother Teresa and this has provoked a question that has been in the back of my mind for several years. In short, it is:

Is personal wealth justified while there are the poor dying from hunger and preventable/treatable disease?

Specifically, I use the word “wealth” to mean anything beyond the most basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter; I use the word “poor” to describe those who don’t have those basic needs through no fault of their own.

Instinctively, the answer (to me) seems to be that it is not justified. But if that were true, the Church would be encouraging us to give away all of our posessions , and not just a 10% tithe.

I appreciate your comments, as this question is providing me with a considerable amount of spiritual distress.
 
MusicaDonumDei said:
I have been recently reading a lot about Mother Teresa and this has provoked a question that has been in the back of my mind for several years. In short, it is:

Is personal wealth justified while there are the poor dying from hunger and preventable/treatable disease?

Specifically, I use the word “wealth” to mean anything beyond the most basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter; I use the word “poor” to describe those who don’t have those basic needs through no fault of their own.

Instinctively, the answer (to me) seems to be that it is not justified. But if that were true, the Church would be encouraging us to give away all of our posessions , and not just a 10% tithe.

I appreciate your comments, as this question is providing me with a considerable amount of spiritual distress.
Click to expand...
While there would be nothing wrong with giving all away and living a simple life, it is also clear that there were also biblical Christians with wealth. Joseph (who buried Jesus in a rich mans grave), and nicodemus were both wealthy. Philimon was a man of wealth with a large house and slaves, and Timothy receives instructions on how to minister to the wealthy in this age in the church (don’t put faith in your wealth, be rich in good works and realize God gives us all things for our enjoyment).

I do believe to those whom much is given, much is expected, but that doesn’t mean most are required to give everything up, as long as it doesn’t keep you from God.

Also, if every Catholic in the US gave up all non essential items, the economy would be devastated.
 
if everyone would give up everythhing then the rich who own buisnesses would have to fire alot of employees, and then the needs of the laborers would not be met. as for the church requiring a 10% tithe from everyone, thats news to me. i have always been taught to give what you can and with a happy heart.
 
ab75 said:
While there would be nothing wrong with giving all away and living a simple life, it is also clear that there were also biblical Christians with wealth. Joseph (who buried Jesus in a rich mans grave), and nicodemus were both wealthy. Philimon was a man of wealth with a large house and slaves, and Timothy receives instructions on how to minister to the wealthy in this age in the church (don’t put faith in your wealth, be rich in good works and realize God gives us all things for our enjoyment).

I do believe to those whom much is given, much is expected, but that doesn’t mean most are required to give everything up, as long as it doesn’t keep you from God.

Also, if every Catholic in the US gave up all non essential items, the economy would be devastated.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you didn’t answer my fundamental question of whether, at bottom, their wealth was justified with the existence of the extremely poor. And Timothy is also instructed (presumably to use whilst ministering to the rich) that if we have food and clothing, we should be content with that.

Am I not morally culpable if I see someone in the street who is obviously dying of hunger and I do not offer to help? Does it make any difference if I can’t see this person, but I know he exists, either a few blocks away, or in another country?

If my original question is indeed true that it is not defensible to hold on to wealth until at least these basic needs are met, then it would be applicable to everyone and not just Catholics.

Mind you, I’m not saying I necessarily believe this logic is accurate, but I can’t get out of the mental rut of considering it.
 
Is personal wealth justified while there are the poor dying from hunger and preventable/treatable disease?
Click to expand...
Specifically, I use the word “wealth” to mean anything beyond the most basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter; I use the word “poor” to describe those who don’t have those basic needs through no fault of their own.
Click to expand...
When talking about the anointing of Jesus feet with expensive oils; one disciple said: “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages” – that disciple was Judas.

Jesus replied “Leave her alone, It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You shall always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”

John 12:4-8

Evidently; there will always be poor people; if even Jesus was not expected to give all his wealth or possessions away; how can we be?

👍
 
JohnDamian said:
When talking about the anointing of Jesus feet with expensive oils; one disciple said: “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages” – that disciple was Judas.

Jesus replied “Leave her alone, It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You shall always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”

John 12:4-8

Evidently; there will always be poor people; if even Jesus was not expected to give all his wealth or possessions away; how can we be?

👍
Click to expand...
I considered that also, but it just doesn’t seem to fit. Jesus, being God, has a right to receive thanks in such a way, whereas for us it may not be appropriate. Also, this seems to only be applied during Jesus’s earthly life. I can’t imagine Jesus was intending this to be an excuse to ignore the poor after his Ascension, and I’m not convinced that this verse justifies wealth as per my original question. And finally, Judas, who was the treasurer of the apostles, has a valid reason to ask such a question, although he probably had sinful reasons of his own why he wanted access to a year’s worth of wages.

Jesus may have allowed his feet to be annointed, but he certainly didn’t lead a lavish lifestyle comparable to what we are accustomed in our day. And in the end, he was willing to give up everything for us on the Cross, and the Father was willing to give up his Only Son. If we are called to be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect, I don’t see how we cannot follow that example.
 
The reality is, if you or I lived a simple life and gave th excess to the poor, it would be better for the people I helped, and probably better for society overall. However, let’s say our whole town did the same. I live in an area of 30000 people, and I believe there are about 12000 jobs (the rest are retired, children and stay at home moms). Let’s say we decide as a community to live a simple life of only needs and give the rest to the poor. Within months, the 50 restaurants would close (and 500 people out of work). The golf courses, boat club, movie theatre, swimming pools and all entertainment would close (500 more jobs). Next the shopping mall and retail would close or be reduced (500) more jobs, many contractors, etc. Now, we don’t have the tax dollars for social security or schools. All of a sudden, there are many more to help and fewer to help with.
 
MusicaDonumDei said:
I have been recently reading a lot about Mother Teresa and this has provoked a question that has been in the back of my mind for several years. In short, it is:

Is personal wealth justified while there are the poor dying from hunger and preventable/treatable disease?

Specifically, I use the word “wealth” to mean anything beyond the most basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter; I use the word “poor” to describe those who don’t have those basic needs through no fault of their own.

Instinctively, the answer (to me) seems to be that it is not justified. But if that were true, the Church would be encouraging us to give away all of our posessions , and not just a 10% tithe.

I appreciate your comments, as this question is providing me with a considerable amount of spiritual distress.
Click to expand...
I think the answer may be that some of us are called to give more to charity, and to embrace poverty more, and we worry about this question. So perhaps you have a special calling from God to help the poor?

Some (conflicting) considerations:

We have a special duty to provide for the needs of those closest to us, that is, to ourselves, our immediate families, our wider family, our community, and our country, in that order. We have to pay more attention to the people we’ve been given direct responsibility for.

“The measure with which you give will be the measure with which you receive”

Poverty can be a benefit in the spiritual life. But maybe not so much if its imposed on you by someone else.

Most of us could live on a lot less than we make… if we think its impossible… then what exactly would we do if all of a sudden we had to live in minimum wage? So we can afford to give more.

The answer to this question can only come from prayer! Don’t answer this online, but do you have too much love for money? I think people who love money a lot can be called by God to be more generous, to help heal them of their greed.
 
MusicaDonumDei said:
I have been recently reading a lot about Mother Teresa and this has provoked a question that has been in the back of my mind for several years. In short, it is:

Is personal wealth justified while there are the poor dying from hunger and preventable/treatable disease?

Specifically, I use the word “wealth” to mean anything beyond the most basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter; I use the word “poor” to describe those who don’t have those basic needs through no fault of their own.

Instinctively, the answer (to me) seems to be that it is not justified. But if that were true, the Church would be encouraging us to give away all of our posessions , and not just a 10% tithe.

I appreciate your comments, as this question is providing me with a considerable amount of spiritual distress.
Click to expand...
Matthew chapter 6, verses 19-34:

19 "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and decay destroy, and thieves break in and steal.
20
But store up treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor decay destroys, nor thieves break in and steal.
21
For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be.
22
"The lamp of the body is the eye. If your eye is sound, your whole body will be filled with light;
23
but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be in darkness. And if the light in you is darkness, how great will the darkness be.
24
"No one 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 mammon.
25
"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat (or drink), or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing?
26
Look at the birds in the sky; they do not sow or reap, they gather nothing into barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are not you more important than they?
27
Can any of you by worrying add a single moment to your life-span? 17
28
Why are you anxious about clothes? Learn from the way the wild flowers grow. They do not work or spin.
29
But I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was clothed like one of them.
30
If God so clothes the grass of the field, which grows today and is thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not much more provide for you, O you of little faith?
31
So do not worry and say, ‘What are we to eat?’ or ‘What are we to drink?’ or ‘What are we to wear?’
32
All these things the pagans seek. Your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.
33
But seek first the kingdom (of God) and his righteousness, 19 and all these things will be given you besides.
34
Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself. Sufficient for a day is its own evil.
 
MusicaDonumDei said:
I have been recently reading a lot about Mother Teresa and this has provoked a question that has been in the back of my mind for several years. In short, it is:

Is personal wealth justified while there are the poor dying from hunger and preventable/treatable disease?

Specifically, I use the word “wealth” to mean anything beyond the most basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter; I use the word “poor” to describe those who don’t have those basic needs through no fault of their own.

Instinctively, the answer (to me) seems to be that it is not justified. But if that were true, the Church would be encouraging us to give away all of our posessions , and not just a 10% tithe.

I appreciate your comments, as this question is providing me with a considerable amount of spiritual distress.
Click to expand...
If you are a married person then you need more personal wealth, as you might need to provide for a larger family. It’s justified if you plan on having children but you should try to be generous to those in need. If you have no wealth then it’s difficult to be generous to others and pay your own way in society.

It’s also right for a Catholic family to fit in to their culture. It’s wrong to live in a tent when everybody else lives in semi-detached houses as then you’re not fitting into your culture and you would be seen as a gypsy. This isn’t fair on your family. The amount of money you need depends on average standard of living in your culture, and God would like you to have friends and for your children to have a certain amount of respect at school.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top