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

  • Thread starter Thread starter april32010
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LilyM said:
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.
Click to expand...
Extravagance is ridiculous yes but who’s to say one is being extravagant by the mere presence of such things you cited?

If you buy stuff but can’t find time to use them sure but it’s not like your inability is set in stone. I mean, sure multiple houses is pushing it but one large one? I certainly can see why it is desirable. Overseas trips? Rather unfair given that even missionaries should try and enjoy other cultures. Expensive private schools? I can’t say I’ve had good experience with public school punks. Jumbotron plasma TV? Unless, it’s gathering dust, I don’t see anything wrong watching on one.

Realistically speaking, you can’t get all these at once but nobody should be faulted for desiring them in moderation.
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
Extravagance is ridiculous yes but who’s to say one is being extravagant by the mere presence of such things you cited?

If you buy stuff but can’t find time to use them sure but it’s not like your inability is set in stone. I mean, sure multiple houses is pushing it but one large one? I certainly can see why it is desirable. Overseas trips? Rather unfair given that even missionaries should try and enjoy other cultures. Expensive private schools? I can’t say I’ve had good experience with public school punks. Jumbotron plasma TV? Unless, it’s gathering dust, I don’t see anything wrong watching on one.

Realistically speaking, you can’t get all these at once but nobody should be faulted for desiring them in moderation.
Click to expand...
You really see nothing wrong with, say, some rich, young, single and cashed up Hollywood celeb buying a massive estate for an artificially overpriced sum of tens of millions of dollars (I say overpriced because the only reason they pay that sort of price is because they’re in a bidding war with their fellow cashed-up vacuous Hollywood celebs none of whom has any idea that they are being totally ripped off)?

With 10 bedrooms and 15 bathrooms as if there will EVER be 15 people in the house who all need to use the bathroom so badly at the exact same moment or 10 people staying overnight for more than one day a year. And which the owner themselves, if they are lucky, spends only a week or two per year and gathers dust most of the rest of the time?

When there are people out there crying for affordable housing (which the obscenely overinflated prices paid by my hypothetical celebs makes all the more unaffordable) and the necessities of life which, including housing and all, could be provided for if my idiot celebs paid even a few millions less for something only slightly less grandiose and useless?

I think that’s my point - the utter waste of money and resources.
 
LilyM said:
You really see nothing wrong with, say, some rich, young, single and cashed up Hollywood celeb buying a massive estate for an artificially overpriced sum of tens of millions of dollars (I say overpriced because the only reason they pay that sort of price is because they’re in a bidding war with their fellow cashed-up vacuous Hollywood celebs none of whom has any idea that they are being totally ripped off)?

With 10 bedrooms and 15 bathrooms as if there will EVER be 15 people in the house who all need to use the bathroom so badly at the exact same moment or 10 people staying overnight for more than one day a year. And which the owner themselves, if they are lucky, spends only a week or two per year and gathers dust most of the rest of the time?

When there are people out there crying for affordable housing (which the obscenely overinflated prices paid by my hypothetical celebs makes all the more unaffordable) and the necessities of life which, including housing and all, could be provided for if my idiot celebs paid even a few millions less for something only slightly less grandiose and useless?

I think that’s my point - the utter waste of money and resources.
Click to expand...
I’m not a fan of very may celebs, but this sounds a lot like, “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.”

If you think about it for a minute, you might agree.

“Work is for man; man is not for work.” [Pope J.P. II] Consider that it took many workers to built those mansions. Now if you limited the size and price of those houses, you would deny a lot of workers their dignity. And by taxing those celbs of their “excess” and giving it to those who are idle, you have also robbed the latter of their dignity by removing their incentive to find work.
 
LilyM said:
You really see nothing wrong with, say, some rich, young, single and cashed up Hollywood celeb buying a massive estate for an artificially overpriced sum of tens of millions of dollars (I say overpriced because the only reason they pay that sort of price is because they’re in a bidding war with their fellow cashed-up vacuous Hollywood celebs none of whom has any idea that they are being totally ripped off)?
Click to expand...
Okay perhaps that is too extravagant. However, I think sedonaman might have a point too. Things we would normally call luxury goods still have value in the work put to them. Let’s find a middle ground here.

Ask yourself, do you realize how much work went into, say the classical art pieces you now see in museums? Those were luxury goods as well. And as much as the Renaissance popes were not the best of the bunch, you gotta admit that they had good taste.

On the other hand, when it comes pricing and payment, I think this is where the real challenge lies. I don’t think it’s an easy challenge either since it can blow up into a complex issue. So, let’s start with this question: How much is too much?

P.S.

I must say that despite your example Lily, I would think that there are other mansions out there have more value than just the number of rooms… especially old ones.

I mean think about it… You have history. You have antiques. You have the possibility of secret passages and chambers in which to hide bodi-I mean books! Yes books! Books are good, eheheheh…hehehehehe… :whacky:
 
Try telling that to anti-Catholics and you’ll get all sorts of at best, weird responses.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
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

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?

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 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.
Click to expand...
I think we already have agreed…part of the problem is that I tire of having to rephrase everything I write. I never said that everyone is on the dole but some are. There is a difference between a hammock and a safety net. Because some government involvement is helpful…a lot of it is not and trying to inject the Church into the issue just doesn’t fly. There has never been a Church authority that I am aware of who advocated big government replacing Christian charity. Discussing religion or politics cannot be done without stepping on someone’s toes…mixing both cannot help but do this. The only remedy for someone who mistakes the defense of values as a lack of politeness or charity…by nit picking this word and that, is probably not going to be happy with the dialogue. I do not feel insulted or put upon because someone disagrees with something I write. The fact that many…too many people abuse the welfare system…in all it’s varieties should not be news to anyone nor should it require that I document the problem for someone who is unaware of it. The word is" empirical.".I think that is how it is spelled.🙂
 
pismopal said:
There has never been a Church authority that I am aware of who advocated big government replacing Christian charity.

The fact that many…too many people abuse the welfare system…in all it’s varieties should not be news to anyone nor should it require that I document the problem for someone who is unaware of it.
Click to expand...
Who has advocated big government ‘replacing’ Christian charity? Church leaders have obligated government to be included with private charities. I don’t know why it keeps being turned into ‘replacing’? I have not excluded either form of assistance.

We could argue too many, or a few, if we had reliable resources; something neither of us has to support definitive statements of ‘too many’, or ‘not too many’ as ‘fact’.
 
How about this logic?

What if those that have wealth to give consider more carefully how their money is distributed? What I mean…rather than give to ‘blanket’ charities, give more thoughtfully to specific and immediate needs as you see in the personal encounters in your life.

I think part of the presidential election upset is due in part to the many who all too readily receive handouts from multiple sources. If the 47% of the voters had to strictly rely on the government for sustenance then perhaps the election results would have been different.

Just a thought….
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
But what if you use the money to buy a farm, employing 50 people (or whatever). Isn’t that an even better way to use your wealth?
Click to expand...
But will your farm survive higher federal income taxes and ObamaCare taxes under the next Obama administration? Might as well donate the money and get the tax deduction before that’s taken away too!
 
Tampa_Dave said:
But will your farm survive higher federal income taxes and ObamaCare taxes under the next Obama administration? Might as well donate the money and get the tax deduction before that’s taken away too!
Click to expand...
Not to mention anything else that he will make up in these next 4 years. 😦
 
We have been told many times that the government’s helping the poor is the moral thing to do, but “the rich” get no credit for paying the taxes [IOW, “giving”] that makes this moral imperative possible. 🤷
 
sedonaman said:
We have been told many times that the government’s helping the poor is the moral thing to do, but “the rich” get no credit for paying the taxes [IOW, “giving”] that makes this moral imperative possible. 🤷
Click to expand...
Mat 6:2 Therefore when thou dost an alms-deed, sound not a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be honoured by men. Amen I say to you, they have received their reward.
Mat 6:3 But when thou dost alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doth.
Mat 6:4 That thy alms may be in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee.
Click to expand...
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Mat 6:2 Therefore when thou dost an alms-deed, sound not a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be honoured by men. Amen I say to you, they have received their reward.
Mat 6:3 But when thou dost alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doth.
Mat 6:4 That thy alms may be in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee.
Click to expand...
Not the kind of credit I was referring to.
 
SuperLuigi said:
Liberals used to ask about the high tax rates in the 1950s. Those were largely offset by deductions.
Click to expand...
Right. So do you want lower taxes with less “loopholes”/deductions or higher taxes with more deductions. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top