Wealth and Catholic teaching

[StephanieC]

To re-visit the original post:

“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a
needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”

I cannot cite a source for this explanation because I do not remember where I learned it:

As other posters have stated, the “Eye of the Needle” was the nickname given to the tiny doorway in the wall surrounding a city. Men would need to stoop to pass through; a camel could pass through as well, but not when it was loaded up with packages, etc. It was a laborious process to unpack, pass through, and then re-pack, but it was done. It just wasn’t easy.

Taken to mean a literal sewing needle, that would mean that since it really is impossible for a camel to pass through one, even someone who was deemed “rich” but was abundantly generous with those riches would never be allowed into heaven.

Jesus is not saying that a rich man can never enter heaven. He is saying that first the man must unburden himself of his riches. The man should be so eager to pass through the eye of the needle into heaven that he wouldn’t think twice about letting go of his riches. Or, first the man must begin the laborious process of cutting his attachment to his possessions in order to gain heaven.

I try to remember that Jesus used metaphors & analogies from everyday life: the vine & branches, the mustard seeds & the different kinds of ground, etc. I am no scholar on this matter, but I tend to think that He was doing the same here.

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

vern humphrey:

People, by and large, are in the situations they are in because of their own choices.

• It is a choice to drop out of school.
• It is a choice to take drugs.
• It is a choice to have sex out of marriage.
• It is a choice to get divorced.

Maybe it’s different where you live, but where I live, not everybody can be at the top, no matter how smart they are or how hard they work. In any business corporation, there are a handful of people at the top who make really big salaries, a smaller number the next level down who make smaller, but still pretty high salaries, and the rest of the employees, who make less. Are we supposed to assume that all those people in the bottom 9/10 of the corporate hierarchy dropped out of school and took drugs? I don’t think so. There just isn’t room for everybody at the top. A few people have those high-level jobs, and the rest of us have “regular” jobs. The custodian or the mail room assistant are doing honest work, and are no less in God’s eye (or more) than the CEO.

Did the bottom 9/10 make a bad decision? I don’t think so. All those other jobs beneath “CEO” and “President” are still perfectly valid, honest jobs. Since when does “good decision, good job” automatically mean “wealthy with seven-figure income”? I think “contemplative nun” is one of the finest jobs a woman can have, but it’s also one of the lowest paid.
vern humphrey:

People who make those choices have no right to demand the same rewards as people who make the opposite choices. People who choose a job that doesn’t pay well, but which they “love” have no right to demand that others make up the financial difference – they are taking part of their pay in “love.”

I never said anything like this; you must be confusing me with someone else here.
vern humphrey:

I see a lot of people right here who enter the lists with the assumption that the “rich” are “sinners” and have somehow gotten what they have unfairly.

This is just as unfair an assumption as the one that says the non-wealthy are all lazy, drug-taking school dropouts. Some of the wealthy have gotten what they have unfairly, through crime and sin. Others have inherited it. Others have been groomed by a CEO parent to take over the family business. And others have worked their way up from the bottom, the old-fashioned way. It is not correct to make assumptions about either the rich or the poor.

(By the way, I’m sure there are plenty of wealthy people who have dropped out of school, taken drugs, had sex outside of marriage, and gotten divorced – those behaviors are not limited to any particular economic class. )

**Crazy Internet Junkies Society
**Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag

 

[vytautas]

to StephanieC

I’ve heard people mentioning this idea, that it means gate to jerusalem, but no authoritative source on that. I doubt this is honest interpretation. It’s just speculation. The phrase does not appear with capital first letters or quotation marks. Why believe it should mean something else than the eye of a needle.

 

[vern_humphrey]

vytautas:

to vern humphrey,

the problem with your judgment about other people in this discussion is that you assume that whoever casts a slightest doubt on the “morality” and “goodness” of wealth, is envious: he wants the money the rich people have, he wants to take it away from them, he’s a lazy sinful loser etc. etc.

Let’s try a little experiment here. Someone posted:

Ok, I’m glad US businessmen are so virtuous, to resemble even the Saints.

Now let’s suppose that person had said:

Ok, I’m glad US Blacks are so virtuous, to resemble even the Saints.

Would you not consider that to be a “racist” remark, showing the person in question was prejudiced against Blacks?

 

[contemplative]

vytautas:

The numerous saints that chose poverty did not envy. They though poverty was good for them. So did Christ and his followers. Whether today’s people should follow their example, is the point of the discussion.

A different pattern of behaviour is exhibited by a small number of people who are pleasing to God. They have become the masters of their own wealth. And they have used it as if it were their faithful slave, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to free the debtors who are insolvent and in prison.** Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job, Joseph, David **acted like this. Money was not the master of these people; they were the masters of their money.
‘You cannot serve God and Mamon.’ Here then is the commandment to be observed by those who possess riches. Christ, seeing that they were not raising themselves to the height of perfection, came down to their level with his word and established a law which they can keep in the situation in which they are.
In other words, it is as if he had said; ‘Seeing that you are not willing to renounce wealth, at least don’t become its slave. Become in actual fact its master and use it for all the very best of actions.’
~Philoxenus of Mabbug~

 

[vern_humphrey]

CarolAnnSFO:

Maybe it’s different where you live, but where I live, not everybody can be at the top, no matter how smart they are or how hard they work. In any business corporation, there are a handful of people at the top who make really big salaries, a smaller number the next level down who make smaller, but still pretty high salaries, and the rest of the employees, who make less. Are we supposed to assume that all those people in the bottom 9/10 of the corporate hierarchy dropped out of school and took drugs?

If we were talking about sports, you’d be right – not everyone is seven feet tall and able to jump six feet from a standing start. But we’re not – we’re talking about people who acquired their skills and chose to apply themselves, take risks, and in the process provide jobs for others.

A lot of people choose to work below their potential. And that’s just as sinful as anything a rich person does – because if they worked to potential, they’d be creating jobs for those below them.

CarolAnnSFO:

I don’t think so. There just isn’t room for everybody at the top. A few people have those high-level jobs, and the rest of us have “regular” jobs. The custodian or the mail room assistant are doing honest work, and are no less in God’s eye (or more) than the CEO.

You have a mercantilist view of economics – the idea “if someone wins, someone else must lose.” That’s false.

If everyone who has the potential went out and started a business, we’d all be a lot better off. But most people don’t – and by not working to potential deprive their families of what they could have, deprive others of jobs they could have, and fail to create surpluses that could help the truly poor.

CarolAnnSFO:

Did the bottom 9/10 make a bad decision? I don’t think so. All those other jobs beneath “CEO” and “President” are still perfectly valid, honest jobs. Since when does “good decision, good job” automatically mean “wealthy with seven-figure income”? I think “contemplative nun” is one of the finest jobs a woman can have, but it’s also one of the lowest paid.

The question is, does your nun complain about her lot in life?

CarolAnnSFO:

I never said anything like this; you must be confusing me with someone else here.

Somebody who us using the name “CarolAnnSFO” posted this:

Many people put in plenty of effort, and have less simply because they are in jobs (which they may love) that pay less. Nor are those folks necessarily covetous of their richer (money-wise) brethren.

CarolAnnSFO:

This is just as unfair an assumption as the one that says the non-wealthy are all lazy, drug-taking school dropouts. Some of the wealthy have gotten what they have unfairly, through crime and sin.

For every millionaire who got what he has “unfairly, through crime and sin” I will show you a dozen people on welfare who got where they are through crime and sin.

CarolAnnSFO:

Others have inherited it.

Only a tiny fraction of millionaries inherted wealth. By and large, wealth doesn’t last through more than three generations. There are exceptions, buit they are exceptions, not the rule.

CarolAnnSFO:

Others have been groomed by a CEO parent to take over the family business. And others have worked their way up from the bottom, the old-fashioned way. It is not correct to make assumptions about either the rich or the poor.

The statements I have made are based on the first comprehensive study of wealth in America. There are only a tiny handful of “rich” who meet your assumptions. All the rest got where they are by hard work and sacrifice.

(By the way, I’m sure there are plenty of wealthy people who have dropped out of school, taken drugs, had sex outside of marriage, and gotten divorced – those behaviors are not limited to any particular economic class. )

There are indeed some – mostly in the entertainment and sports industries. Take them out of the equation (those people are after all, supported by others) and you are left with a vanishingly small group who meet that description.

 

[vern_humphrey]

vytautas:

to StephanieC

I’ve heard people mentioning this idea, that it means gate to jerusalem, but no authoritative source on that. I doubt this is honest interpretation. It’s just speculation. The phrase does not appear with capital first letters or quotation marks. Why believe it should mean something else than the eye of a needle.

Capital letters were not used in ancient times as we use them now (for proper nouns and opening sentences). They were primarily used for inscriptions.

Punctuation had not been invented. In fact, in the era when the Gospels were written, there weren’t even spaces between words. Peoplewroteinscriptacontinuosalikethis.

Many sayings of Christ need interpretation. For example, His exclamation on the cross “Eloi, Eloi lema sabachthani?” (translated as “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?”) gave rise to heresies – because people took it at face values, and believe Jesus accused God of forsaking him.

It took deeper understanding of Jesus’ time and the customs of the Jews to realize what that cry meant – He was quoting the opening of the 22nd Psalm. The custom was to quote like this to call to the listeners’ mind the whole psalm. What He really meant was:

2 My God, my God, why have you abandoned me? Why so far from my call for help, from my cries of anguish?
3 My God, I call by day, but you do not answer; by night, but I have no relief.
4 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the glory of Israel.
5 In you our ancestors trusted; they trusted and you rescued them.
6 To you they cried out and they escaped; in you they trusted and were not disappointed.
7 But I am a worm, hardly human, scorned by everyone, despised by the people.
8 All who see me mock me; they curl their lips and jeer; they shake their heads at me:
9 “You relied on the LORD–let him deliver you; if he loves you, let him rescue you.”
10 Yet you drew me forth from the womb, made me safe at my mother’s breast.
11 Upon you I was thrust from the womb; since birth you are my God.
12 Do not stay far from me, for trouble is near, and there is no one to help.

You see how taking His words at face value would indeed lead to heresy, but a deeper study gives us a whole new understanding of what He meant.

 

[contemplative]

vytautas:

The numerous saints that chose poverty did not envy. They though poverty was good for them. So did Christ and his followers. Whether today’s people should follow their example, is the point of the discussion.

Poverty is not always praiseworthy, but only when it represents a free choice according to the Gospel commandment.

Many are poor in terms of possessions and very miserly in spirit, and those people will not be saved through their poverty but damned by their attitude of mind.

Not every poor person therefore is worthy of praise, but only those who of their own choice put the commandment of the Lord before all the treasures of the world. ~Basil the Great~

This thing called poverty, my dear vytautas, you cannot measure. You cannot measure a man or woman’s poverty by bank account, possesions, occupation or yearly wage. You cannot measure. This isn’t up to you to measure. Just think about your own actions and words in this thread and realize that not only are you being judgemental but envious of the belongings of others.

 

[vytautas]

to vern humphrey

I think you were the one who compared them to saints. I just don’t consider them any more virtuos then the rest of the population. So I did not think that comparison was appropriate. Therefore, my ironic remark. Sorry if it offended anyone. Very few of us, if any, are saints, black or white, rich or poor.

By the way, I believe the US (or western) system gives more opportunities to people for HONEST business and honest wealth compared to other systems. But the western world is just a small part of the world’s population. Given the levels of corruption and lack of justice in other systems, these opportunites there are much smaller. Yet, I believe (but may be wrong) there are quite slim everywhere (that’s why, the eye of a needle). Besides, the bondage of desire for wealth and pressure from the capitalist-consumerist world may be even heavier than the bondage of an oppresive government. I’ve lived under both.

On the other hand, you appear to be prejudiced agains the poor. You automatically start looking for sins and failures in them. The use drugs, get divorced (whatever that has to do with wealth), do drugs, don’t work hard. But hasn;t it ever occured to you they may have different priorities in life? Let alone, all other factors that could have contributed to their poverty. Besides you automatically attach to them the guilt of envy.

And one thing really surprises me: your idealization of business people in America and around the world. It seems you’d be willing to defend even the oligarhs of Russia, who, thanks to nothing else but crooked privatization schemes, became owners of, say, of former publicly owned gas companies overnight because of their political connections and power. Well, they indeed worked hard to become powerful enough to steal a national asset from a nation and become a billioner.
You paint such an idealist picture of an American businessman, that I’m really confused. I’m not saying you are wrong or naive. It’s just so different from what other americans have told me, and what I heard from the media, literature, movies etc. Unbelievable.

 

[vytautas]

to contemplative

“envious to the belongings of others”??

You must be kidding. Where, when did you get that impression? Which words?

 

[contemplative]

vytautas:

Hi everyone,

How can we reconcile that with capitalism, which is based on accumulation of wealth? Why doesn’t the Church tell rich people and those who dovete their lives to money making that their souls are in danger?
Vytas

Poverty is not always praiseworthy, but only when it represents a free choice according to the Gospel commandment.

Many are poor in terms of possessions and very miserly in spirit, and those people will not be saved through their poverty but damned by their attitude of mind.

Not every poor person therefore is worthy of praise, but only those who of their own choice put the commandment of the Lord before all the treasures of the world. ~Basil the Great~

This thing called poverty, my dear vytautas, you cannot measure. You cannot measure a man or woman’s poverty by bank account, possesions, occupation or yearly wage. You cannot measure. This isn’t up to you to measure. Just think about your own actions and words in this thread and realize that not only are you being judgemental but envious of the belongings of others.

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

vern humphrey:

A lot of people choose to work below their potential. And that’s just as sinful as anything a rich person does – because if they worked to potential, they’d be creating jobs for those below them.

Why is that sinful? If they are doing honest work, are happy doing it, and providing for their families, then where’s the sin? In all the “examinations of conscience” I’ve looked at, I’ve never seen anything about “not creating jobs” being a sin. And I don’t remember accusing all rich people of being sinful, either. You didn’t get that from me.
vern humphrey:

You have a mercantilist view of economics – the idea “if someone wins, someone else must lose.” That’s false.

I never said anything like that – I said that in the average business corporation, not everyone can be at the top, which is absolutely true. Most companies have only a few jobs at the top, and lots of jobs at the “bottom”. Having one of the lesser jobs is in no way “losing”. What’s the point of creating jobs if everyone’s supposed to be at the “top” – there would be nobody to work at those jobs.
vern humphrey:

The question is, does your nun complain about her lot in life?

No, and I never said she does. Nor, in my experience, do most people who go to work every day (but according to you, are not living up to their potential because they’re not the boss). I know lots of people who are far from wealthy, and they’re not complaining about their “lot in life”. It’s you who are complaining about their lot in life, for some reason I can’t fathom.
vern humphrey:

Somebody who us using the name “CarolAnnSFO” posted this:

Many people put in plenty of effort, and have less simply because they are in jobs (which they may love) that pay less. Nor are those folks necessarily covetous of their richer (money-wise) brethren.

And nowhere in that statement do I see anything about people in lesser-paying jobs having the right to demand the same rewards as people in higher-paying jobs. That’s what you accused me of saying.
vern humphrey:

There are only a tiny handful of “rich” who meet your assumptions. All the rest got where they are by hard work and sacrifice.

I don’t remember quoting any statistics. All I said was that there are different ways to acquire wealth. And there are.

Nor did I say anything that could even remotely be interpreted to mean that I thought there were far more rich people who got rich from sin than poor people who got poor from sin.

Really now, what’s the point of even trying to have a discussion when everything I say will be misquoted, misinterpreted, and taken out of context?

I’m out of this thread, unless it goes back on topic. Bye-bye.
Peace.

**Crazy Internet Junkies Society
**Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag

 

[StephanieC]

vytautas:

to StephanieC

I’ve heard people mentioning this idea, that it means gate to jerusalem, but no authoritative source on that. I doubt this is honest interpretation. It’s just speculation. The phrase does not appear with capital first letters or quotation marks. Why believe it should mean something else than the eye of a needle.

No, the capitalization & quotes were absolutely mine! I thought I was just highlighting the phrase for differentiation.

The reason I think it’s an analogy for a wall & door is because it makes more sense for me when I try to understand the Bible in context with its time.

I freely admit, I haven’t done a thorough study on this passage & the phrase; it was something that I learned along the way & helped me make sense of that passage. Should I be given credible writings that teach me otherwise, well then, a sewing needle it shall be!

 

[contemplative]

vytautas:

But I think that getting rich has a lot to do with how you lead your life.Because the very desire for money and the ways you get it can be harmful to you soul, because you may have to sin in the process, plus Mammon may replace God in your heart.

Playing acting at being impoverished can be the mammon that replaces God in your heart.

*Poverty is not always praiseworthy, but only when it represents a free choice according to the Gospel commandment.

Many are poor in terms of possessions and very miserly in spirit, and those people will not be saved through their poverty but damned by their attitude of mind.

Not every poor person therefore is worthy of praise, but only those who of their own choice put the commandment of the Lord before all the treasures of the world. ~Basil the Great~
*

 

[vytautas]

to conteplative
Is that the quote proving my envy? We’ll I don’t get it. I just wanted to say that if the quote in question really means what it says, the church should really tell rich peopel about the dangers of wealth. Instead of keeping silent. In fact, on some occasions, the Church has done that.
The whole initial post was a question anyway, not judgement. Maybe not the best choice of words, I’m not a native speaker of English.
If I had writen, for instance: if pre-marital sex is sin, the Church should speak about it more to people, am I judgemental or envious???

 

[contemplative]

Quote:
Originally Posted by vytautas
But I think that getting rich has a lot to do with how you lead your life.Because the very desire for money and the ways you get it can be harmful to you soul, because you may have to sin in the process, plus Mammon may replace God in your heart.

Playing acting at being impoverished can be the mammon that replaces God in your heart.

*Poverty is not always praiseworthy, but only when it represents a free choice according to the Gospel commandment.

Many are poor in terms of possessions and very miserly in spirit, and those people will not be saved through their poverty but damned by their attitude of mind.

Not every poor person therefore is worthy of praise, but only those who of their own choice put the commandment of the Lord before all the treasures of the world. ~Basil the Great~

---

 

[vern_humphrey]

vytautas:

to vern humphrey

I think you were the one who compared them to saints.

And you were the one who said:

Ok, I’m glad US businessmen are so virtuous, to resemble even the Saints.

So I ask you again - if someone said:

Ok, I’m glad US Blacks are so virtuous, to resemble even the Saints.

Would you not consider that evidence the speaker was prejudiced against Blacks?

vytautas:

I just don’t consider them any more virtuos then the rest of the population.

Except that they are. The average millionaire is far less likely to be an alcoholic, wife beater, drug abuser or to be divorced than the general population. In addition to that, he creates the jobs the rest of us depend on for our livelihood.

vytautas:

So I did not think that comparison was appropriate. Therefore, my ironic remark. Sorry if it offended anyone. Very few of us, if any, are saints, black or white, rich or poor.

You didn’t offend me – but you did give evidence of a bias or prejudice.

vytautas:

By the way, I believe the US (or western) system gives more opportunities to people for HONEST business and honest wealth compared to other systems. But the western world is just a small part of the world’s population. Given the levels of corruption and lack of justice in other systems, these opportunites there are much smaller.

The answer, then is not to rail at the hard-working people who create the jobs for the rest of us, but to come up with a course of action to spread the western system to those other nations.

vytautas:

Yet, I believe (but may be wrong) there are quite slim everywhere (that’s why, the eye of a needle). Besides, the bondage of desire for wealth and pressure from the capitalist-consumerist world may be even heavier than the bondage of an oppresive government. I’ve lived under both.

So have I. Believe me, in a capitalist system, you choose your fate. But not under a dictatorship.

vytautas:

On the other hand, you appear to be prejudiced agains the poor. You automatically start looking for sins and failures in them. The use drugs, get divorced (whatever that has to do with wealth), do drugs, don’t work hard.

As I said, show me a millionaire who got that way through “unfair and sinful actions” and I will show you a dozen people on welfare who got that way through unfair and sinful actions.

vytautas:

But hasn;t it ever occured to you they may have different priorities in life? Let alone, all other factors that could have contributed to their poverty. Besides you automatically attach to them the guilt of envy.

Obviously they DO have different priorities in life!

To some people, not working hard has a higher priority than starting a business. To others drinking and doing drugs has a higher priority than working.

Now many people are “trapped” in that lifestyle – they are born into families that have been on welfare for generations, to single parents who use drugs, and so on.

Our job is two-fold – to educate them so they can get good jobs, and to make creating those jobs our top priority. But many of us don’t do either.

vytautas:

And one thing really surprises me: your idealization of business people in America and around the world. It seems you’d be willing to defend even the oligarhs of Russia, who, thanks to nothing else but crooked privatization schemes, became owners of, say, of former publicly owned gas companies overnight because of their political connections and power.

My, aren’t we being judgemental!

Can you quote me where I said I’d be willing to defend even the oligarhs of Russia?

vytautas:

You paint such an idealist picture of an American businessman, that I’m really confused. I’m not saying you are wrong or naive. It’s just so different from what other americans have told me, and what I heard from the media, literature, movies etc. Unbelievable.

Why not look with your own eyes? I can show you people who created businesses and in the process created jobs and prosperity for others. I can also show you people who took drugs, dropped out of school, had sex out of wedlock, got married and divorced (often several times.)

 

[vytautas]

ok, thanx to all for the discussion,
it’s 11.20 PM where I live, I have to go home.
Special thanks to vern humphrey for an interesting exchange of thoughts. Once again, I don’t judge, I don’t condemn, I was just trying to find out the meaning of a Bible quote.
It turned out to be a discussion about a general philosohpy of life and capitalist ideology, instead of discussion of relavant information in the Bible. Oh well, it was interesting anyway.

God bless,

 

[contemplative]

vytautas:

ok, thanx to all for the discussion,
it’s 11.20 PM where I live, I have to go home.
Special thanks to vern humphrey for an interesting exchange of thoughts. Once again, I don’t judge, I don’t condemn, I was just trying to find out the meaning of a Bible quote.
It turned out to be a discussion about a general philosohpy of life and capitalist ideology, instead of discussion of relavant information in the Bible. Oh well, it was interesting anyway.

God bless,

You seem to be way past due for some sleep. Goodnight to you and God Bless.

 

[vern_humphrey]

CarolAnnSFO:

Why is that sinful? If they are doing honest work, are happy doing it, and providing for their families, then where’s the sin? In all the “examinations of conscience” I’ve looked at, I’ve never seen anything about “not creating jobs” being a sin. And I don’t remember accusing all rich people of being sinful, either. You didn’t get that from me.

If it is wrong for the rich not to give to charity, is it not equally wrong for those who have the potential to be rich to fail to work up to their potential and give just as much to charity?

CarolAnnSFO:

I never said anything like that – I said that in the average business corporation, not everyone can be at the top, which is absolutely true.

In fact, what you said above is “anything like that.” It contains the implicit assumption that economics is a zero sum game. It isn’t.

CarolAnnSFO:

Most companies have only a few jobs at the top, and lots of jobs at the “bottom”. Having one of the lesser jobs is in no way “losing”. What’s the point of creating jobs if everyone’s supposed to be at the “top” – there would be nobody to work at those jobs.

Again, a mercantilistic view of economics.

The number of companies is not limited. If more people worked to potential, there would be more companies, more jobs, and more openings at the top.

Further, you imply a static world – where those who start at the bottom are condemned to stay at the bottom. That’s unrealistic. People can and do work their way up. And the more companies there are, the more dynamic the economy, the more opportunity there is to rise.

CarolAnnSFO:

No, and I never said she does.

Then why do you offer her as an example?

CarolAnnSFO:

Nor, in my experience, do most people who go to work every day (but according to you, are not living up to their potential because they’re not the boss). I know lots of people who are far from wealthy, and they’re not complaining about their “lot in life”. It’s you who are complaining about their lot in life, for some reason I can’t fathom.

When did I complain about “their lot in life?” I simply pointed out that if everyone worked to potential, we’d all be a lot better off. Do you deny that?

CarolAnnSFO:

And nowhere in that statement do I see anything about people in lesser-paying jobs having the right to demand the same rewards as people in higher-paying jobs. That’s what you accused me of saying.

I didn’t accuse you of saying that.

CarolAnnSFO:

I don’t remember quoting any statistics. All I said was that there are different ways to acquire wealth. And there are.

When you say things like:

Some of the wealthy have gotten what they have unfairly, through crime and sin. Others have inherited it. Others have been groomed by a CEO parent to take over the family business.

it’s perfectly fair for me to point out how rare those “some of the wealthy” are.

CarolAnnSFO:

Nor did I say anything that could even remotely be interpreted to mean that I thought there were far more rich people who got rich from sin than poor people who got poor from sin.

I’m glad you cleared that up. See how looking at proportions makes things look different?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

CarolAnnSFO:

IReally now, what’s the point of even trying to have a discussion when everything I say will be misquoted, misinterpreted, and taken out of context?

Please tell me what I misquoted, or took out of context.

Note that in one case, when you accused me of misquoting you, I provided you with that quote.