Wealthy people must embrace 'logic of giving,' Pope tells Sunday audience

[Prodigal_Son1]

Read Luke 6:24.

**

Luk 6:24 But woe to you that are rich: for you have your consolation.

**
**
The Great Biblical Commentary of Cornelius Lapide**

Ver. 24.—But woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your consolation. To the four beatitudes Christ, by antithesis, opposes as many states of misery and unhappiness.
The poor are blessed for all eternity, but the rich receive in this world their consolation; the hungry shall be satisfied with good things, but those that are full now shall be sent empty away. They who weep here shall hereafter rejoice, but for those who laugh now there is reserved a future of mourning; and those that are spoken well of by their fellow men, are laying up for themselves an eternity of woe.
For Ου̉̀αὶ, Latin væ, as S. Gregory points out (Hom. ix. on Ezekiel), oftentimes in Scripture denotes the wrath of God and everlasting punishment. Hence this word is here used by Christ partly as a lament over the future and eternal misery of the worldly, (S. Chrysostom, Hom. 44 ad pop.); partly as a prophecy of it (Titus); partly as threatening and decreeing such punishment against them (Tertullian, bk. iv. against Marcian).
You that are rich. As by poor we understand those poor in spirit who love poverty because thereby they are the better able to please God, so we may take the word rich to mean those who, greedy of gain, heap up riches by any means in their power, and look upon wealth as their sole happiness and the one object of their life. Hence mortal sin, robbery, extortion, unfair dealing, and other such like sins. Therefore the denunciation of Christ. But those who are rich by inheritance and honest labour, as long as they are not corrupted by their riches, but use them for the glory of God and the good of their fellow men, in reality are poor, as were the patriarchs, David, and many other of the saints of old.
For it is not the amount he possesses, but the use a man makes of his riches which is accounted sin. So “they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil.” See 1Ti_6:9.
Ye have received your consolation. Ye set your heart on your riches, use them for your own evil gratification, and put them in the place of your God. Therefore ye are allowed the enjoyment of them in this life, but in the life which is to come ye will, as Christ has here declared, come short of everlasting happiness, for those who have in this world received their consolation will lose their eternal reward.
Hence S. Hieronymus (Epist. xxxiv.), when endeavouring to persuade Julian, a rich nobleman, to give up the world and devote himself to a holy and religious life, uses this powerful argument. “It is difficult, it not impossible,” he says, “to enjoy happiness in both worlds—to give ourselves up to our evil lusts and passions here, but to become spiritually minded after death—to pass from one state of happiness to the other—to acquire glory both in this world and in the next, . . . and to be distinguished equally in heaven and on earth. Hence Abraham returned none other answer to the rich man than this, ‘Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things, but now be is comforted and thou art tormented.’” See chapter xvi. 25.
So also Christ is said to have offered S. Catherine of Siena two crowns, one set with jewels, the other begirt with thorns, bidding her choose which she would wear in this life, which in the life to come. She chose the thorny crown, and, regardless of the anguish, pressed it firmly on her head.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Most of your posts on here that I’ve read fly in the face of the Constitution.

If you were really for the Constitution, you wouldn’t be an apologist for the left or the democrats and you certainly wouldn’t be in favor using the force of the federal government to take more from your neighbor.

Christians don’t follow the constitution first, or partisanship. At least they shouldn’t, in my honest opinion.

 

[seekerz]

Nothing I have posted has denied the role of government in helping the truly needy…nothing. “Not mutually exclusive “is a strawman argument…I have not said and I do not think otherwise…are there not degrees in everything? Look this is not that hard to grasp…is it? The actual problem…not the strawman…is that what is reasonable is subjective. Tell a teenager to come home at a reasonable hour…tell a liberal that we are spending too much on entitlements. People process information differently. When I say fiscal responsibilty…this goes into the ear of a liberal…goes round and round and then comes out…” He wants poor people to starve…he is not a true Christian”. This is the way it will always be it seems. Being a responsible adult is a thankless job and I am only kidding a tiny bit.

Wow, all this to say that you agree the two are not mutually exclusive? You are right - people do process information differently.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The charity on this thread has worn extremely thin. Everyone needs to stop, take a breath, pray and reflect a bit more before posting. Those who continue with the uncharitable posts will not be responded too by me.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Some people here and many other of our citizens are doing exactly that…advocating for a welfare state. The “public welfare systems to help the poor” are already in place…have been for decades and grow and grow every year…every year with no exception that I am aware of. Yes…there is a difference between government helping and intruding. It is just that the larger this system grows the harder it seems for people to discern that difference…even if they wanted to. Is not fiscal responsibility considered to be as much of a virtue as generosity?..

It is possible to advocate for it without even realizing it, and other people do it to save face in front of someone or because they benefit from subsidies.

It’s amazing, really that if you are on here long enough, that no matter what the democrats do to the Church, they will always have excuse-makers and sympathizers they can reliably count on in our pews.

I think its getting to a point where folks on here need to examine their consciences for putting a USA political agenda before God.

It’s not judging or uncharitable, and it is possible to observe that without peering into someone’s soul.

Confessors and mental health pros do it all the time.

Human behavior has patterns, and that is not worth getting upset over.

 

[LilyM]

Remember that all employment is is an investment of time in seach of personal profit. Everyone who maintains a job is, by definition, seeking to make a profit on their expenditure of time.

Given your example, it is more charitable for a person to volunteer their time at a soup kitchen than it is to go to work.

But is that really what the Church, or the Pope is asking here, to not go to work and to volunteer at soup kitchens instead?

Or is it rather that one must be conscience of how they expend the profits gained via their investments (of any type)

I go to work to make a living among other things. Is that the same thing as making a profit? Sure, if you want me to work full time I’d better earn enough from it to keep a roof over my head and food on the table, but that’s an operational cost, as I cannot work (or work to a proper standard) if I am homeless and starving.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I wasn’t saying that.

I understand; it can be hard to express emotion and what you actually mean on the internet. But still, why would you even bring up Luke 6:24 and Judgment Day if you weren’t saying that?

 

[seekerz]

I think its getting to a point where folks on here need to examine their consciences for putting a USA political agenda before God.

I agree with you 100%. Political ideology should never come before God. That is why people should not condemn Catholics to hell simply for differing with their political views or choices. First and foremost, that person in the pew next to me is my brother or sister in Christ.

 

[pismopal]

Wow, all this to say that you agree the two are not mutually exclusive? You are right - people do process information differently.

No…all THAT was to explain my position again in a manner that even a liberal might understand…maybe.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It is possible to advocate for it without even realizing it, and other people do it to save face in front of someone or because they benefit from subsidies.

It’s amazing, really that if you are on here long enough, that no matter what the democrats do to the Church, they will always have excuse-makers and sympathizers they can reliably count on in our pews.

I think its getting to a point where folks on here need to examine their consciences for putting a USA political agenda before God.

It’s not judging or uncharitable, and it is possible to observe that without peering into someone’s soul.

Confessors and mental health pros do it all the time.

Human behavior has patterns, and that is not worth getting upset over.

Matthew 7:3

 

[pismopal]

The charity on this thread has worn extremely thin. Everyone needs to stop, take a breath, pray and reflect a bit more before posting. Those who continue with the uncharitable posts will not be responded too by me.

May I point out that what you have said about “rich people” was not very charitable…not true in my opinion. And if you are going to state that private charity is not as effective as government assistance…at least make an attempt to justify your statement. I am sure that Catholic Charities would be disappointed that you have so little confidence in them and so much in the state sponsored versions…ditto for the legions of other charities, Christian based or just plain charity. My post was polite but ignored by you. You have hinted that you think I have a less than Christian idea of how the state should be involved in taking care of the poor and I consider that below the belt so the charity concept goes both ways. I repeat …there are so many EFFECTIVE charities in this country that I would be up all night trying to list them. In my opinion the government would find it impossible to replace them.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I go to work to make a living among other things. Is that the same thing as making a profit? Sure, if you want me to work full time I’d better earn enough from it to keep a roof over my head and food on the table, but that’s an operational cost, as I cannot work (or work to a proper standard) if I am homeless and starving.

To quote libertarian-leaning Jason Lewis:

Liberals love big salaries, but hate profit.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I understand; it can be hard to express emotion and what you actually mean on the internet. But still, why would you even bring up Luke 6:24 and Judgment Day if you weren’t saying that?

To show that is was a warning, not a condemnation.

People who comforted in this life aren’t going to be in a position to play the victim before God. It might work on this forum, but it won’t work with Him.

We aren’t starving Somalis in the horn of Africa with little help. We need to be very diligent of our actions because they carry great weight, more so than our brothers and sisters around the world who don’t have prosperity and freedom.

To what end that will be, I have no idea.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I agree with you 100%. Political ideology should never come before God. That is why people should not condemn Catholics to hell simply for differing with their political views or choices. First and foremost, that person in the pew next to me is my brother or sister in Christ.

Good post.

Thanks, and just know that I’m not out to get you on here or to judge you.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Christians don’t follow the constitution first, or partisanship. At least they shouldn’t, in my honest opinion.

On some level, there needs to a rule of law.

I would certainly listen to arguments about amending the Constitution for the protection of the unborn and traditional marriage, because states have a vested interest in that and the other side uses the courts unconstitutionally to force things on people.

What happened with Roe v Wade and Prop 8 would’ve driven Jefferson into a frenzy. He’d probably be on FOX condemning it left and right.

Ideally, those should be left to the states who would ideally reject them.

But that isn’t going to happen.

 

[LilyM]

To quote libertarian-leaning Jason Lewis:

Liberals love big salaries, but hate profit.

Are you calling me a liberal? Hard to tell.

I’m not talking about a big salary, just a salary that is enough to provide for my necessities of life. Which does not include multiple houses (or even owning one house if that house is ridiculously large and expensive), overseas trips, expensive private schools for children, jumbotron-sized plasma tvs or the like.

 

[SuperLuigi]

To show that is was a warning, not a condemnation.

People who comforted in this life aren’t going to be in a good position to play the victim before God. It might work on this forum, but it won’t work with Him.

We live in a society that largely punishes success and hard work while rewarding victimization. The bail-outs are a good example.

As I say, whenever government subsidizes something, you always will get more of it.

We aren’t starving Somalis in the horn of Africa with little help. We need to be very diligent of our actions (like voting) because they carry great weight, more so than our brothers and sisters around the world who don’t have prosperity and freedom.

To what end that will be, I have no idea.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Are you calling me a liberal? Hard to tell.

I’m not talking about a big salary, just a salary that is enough to provide for my necessities of life. Which does not include multiple houses (or even owning one house if that house is ridiculously large and expensive), overseas trips, expensive private schools for children, jumbotron-sized plasma tvs or the like.

I agree with you 100%.

Most people in this country aren’t like that.

In fact, a lot of people who have those things are rich liberals. Conservatives like that aren’t penny pinchers either, but I don’t want government telling them how to spend their money because I don’t want government telling me how to spend my money.

I feel for parents who send their kids to private school, because they are getting dinged twice.

 

[LilyM]

I agree with you 100%.

Most people in this country aren’t like that.

In fact, a lot of people who have those things are rich liberals. Conservatives like that aren’t penny pinchers either, but I don’t want government telling them how to spend their money because I don’t want government telling me how to spend my money.

I feel for parents who send their kids to private school, because they are getting dinged twice.

Yes, but it does seem that the ones who complain the most about the government telling them how to spend their money are the ones who are richest and therefore least affected by a percentage of it going to government coffers, and generally the least likely to find any better alternative way to spend it than the government does.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

May I point out that what you have said about “rich people” was not very charitable…not true in my opinion. And if you are going to state that private charity is not as effective as government assistance…at least make an attempt to justify your statement. I am sure that Catholic Charities would be disappointed that you have so little confidence in them and so much in the state sponsored versions…ditto for the legions of other charities, Christian based or just plain charity. My post was polite but ignored by you. You have hinted that you think I have a less than Christian idea of how the state should be involved in taking care of the poor and I consider that below the belt so the charity concept goes both ways. I repeat …there are so many EFFECTIVE charities in this country that I would be up all night trying to list them. In my opinion the government would find it impossible to replace them.

You are twisting what I have said, or not said.

I did say that it appears that good wealthy people are a minority of the wealthy, and admittedly it was without any supporting sources other than my speculation. You argued this point, but also without any supporting sources other than your own speculation, qualified when you said, ‘in my opinion.’ Can we agree that not all wealthy people are good, or bad?

You found what I said about the wealthy offensive, or uncharitable. While you were remaining polite, you used language like

These are people “on the dole”…and taking “handouts”. This situation has been revealed over and over by the press and authorities whose job it is to prosecute fraud.

Where are the sources, and please provide sources to show percentages to justify the generalizations used toward those receiving assistance for the poor.

Before I continue, what did you say about me personally during that part of the discussion?

They only touch the tip of the iceberg and most people are aware of it…perhaps not you or perhaps you approve. It does not seem to concern you….

It was charitable insinuations like those that caused me to make sure I qualified the problem is abused. I have said that more than once. I have also said, we are not the ones to judge who are abusing or not, there is only one judge and He will judge us all. I even discussed Governor Scott requiring drug tests to receive state aid. I think that is a good program, however, there needs to be a rehabilitation period for those who fail the test, in my opinion. Drug addiction is a problem people need ‘help’ with. No one grows up wanting to be a drug addict, or I couldn’t imagine that. A quick question comes to mind on this subject, do you think that Catholic Charities are taken advantage of by abusers?

Your politeness continued:

I know by now that you would fully approve of the government being the arbiter of all justice…and succor…and food and health care and…

I have not said that Catholic Charities are ineffective. For some reason you’re spinning that, or you simply misunderstood. While you target me, you fail to address the calls from the authoritative men of the Church to include government assistance. Those charities would be greatly disappointed in my lack of confidence for them to handle the entire problem, but would have no qualms about the bishops, cardinals, or Pope saying the obligation extended to the government because of the magnitude of the problem? You have stated your opinion of my wrong towards Catholic Charities; what do you have to say about the authoritative men of the Church and their confidence?

I apologize, but if you find explanations of what I believe to be ‘hints’ of less than Christian it is true for myself only. I cannot judge other people and I am working out my salvation with fear and trembling. I will not stand in support of the wealthy over the poor. I will not stand for money over charity. I will not stand for unmitigated profits over poverty.

We are not discussing the government ‘replacing’, again you spin the discussion. We are talking about not ‘cutting’ social programs offered through the government. Just as the Bishops, Cardinals, and Pope, have said, they need work together.

And ‘voting’, or ‘paying one’s taxes’ does not cover a Christian’s obligation to ‘give’. One must share of themselves, through energy/work, spiritually, and materially.

Now, may I point out something else?

I tried to remind everyone to ‘…to stop, take a breath, pray and reflect a bit more before posting. Those who continue with the uncharitable posts will not be responded too by me.’ It appears you took it as invitation to attack me. I posted that with myself included and as food for thought for everyone. Too many on these forums take political views as opportunity to drop charity required of all believers. Not everything is a point of disagreement, or at least I thought calling for prayer and reflection before posting would not be. We don’t have to argue everything brother. Believe me, there are things we agree, or can agree on.