Who are the Rich?

[christcnection1]

If you won the lottery and 10 million dollars landed on your lap suddenly, could you in good conscience keep that kind of money?

For me, I would consider that a mortal sin.

Unless it was specifically invested to ultimately contribute more to the Church’s needs in the long-run, I could not do it, and I would fear for my soul.

However, I cannot judge anyone else concerning these matters.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If you won the lottery and 10 million dollars landed on your lap suddenly, could you in good conscience keep that kind of money?

For me, I would consider that a mortal sin.

Unless it was specifically invested to ultimately contribute more to the Church’s needs in the long-run, I could not do it, and I would fear for my soul.

However, I cannot judge anyone else concerning these matters.

It depends.

It will probably sound far out for me to say $10 million isn’t all that much money. (Even though I don’t have it.) Suppose a person is sixty years old, has five children, ten grandchildren and likely more in the future. Education for them would run around 1.5 million, depending on where they went and what degrees they pursued. I have known plenty who graduated from graduate school owing over $100,000.00. So, then let’s say you contribute a modest down payment for your children to each have a home. Around here, that would be another quarter million. Of course, taxes would take about 40% of that ten million. So, now you’re down to $4.25 million. Let’s say you pay off your mortgage and you’re down to maybe $4 million. Let’s say you feel pretty generous and give $1 million to the Church and whoever you want. Now, if you invest in government bonds, you have an income of maybe $150,000/year, which is about $90,000 after taxes. If you live ten years, and spend the income as you go, your $3 million is now $1.5 million and you’re making the equivalent of $45,000/year income, after inflation. Of course, at my age and my wife’s, health insurance will eat up about $12,000 of that. In ten years, at present medical inflation rates, that would be considerably more than double that $12,000 in ten years. (Granted, the health insurance will go down at age 65…or so we hope) If my wife and I die then, each of my children would inherit the equivalent of $300,000.00, which would, around here, pay off any mortgage they would be likely to have. But that’s about it.In twenty years, we would be wondering where all that money went, and why we are having trouble paying for things.

Now, if I didn’t give that million to the Church, I would be 1/4 better off in all of those scenarios. Of course, if I gave it before I paid the taxes, I would be $600,000 better off to begin with, reduced to $300,000 in ten years; to $150,000 in twenty.

On the other hand, if I invest the money in something really smart, particularly if it gives me a tax advantage immediately, or that also requires my work (name removed by moderator)ut, I’ll do better than that. If I can manage to keep working for 20 years, I’m in tall cotton. Now, let’s further say I live very modestly and am generous with my children and grandchildren, and others, and do give that million to the Church. Am I still going to hell?

So, it all depends on one’s situation. Lots of folks out there have pensions that pay them pretty well. Let’s take somebody who gets a pension of $60,000 and health coverage worth $10,000 per year. That’s not bad, but it’s not huge. A person who has no pension is going to have to have 1.4 million in earning assets to get the eqivalent income and coverage. If I have that, am I supposed to let my wife live on her very modest social security entitlement when I die, and give that 1.4 million away?

Seems to me a person needs to live modestly, be generous, but not put himself or his spouse in peril or let his children try to grind out $100,000 in debt from Day One of their working lives. Seems to me a person has to just figure it out as he goes.

 

[BobP123]

On the other hand, if I invest the money in something really smart, particularly if it gives me a tax advantage immediately, or that also requires my work (name removed by moderator)ut, I’ll do better than that. If I can manage to keep working for 20 years, I’m in tall cotton. Now, let’s further say I live very modestly and am generous with my children and grandchildren, and others, and do give that million to the Church. Am I still going to hell?

Wasn’t there a parable about squandering money? The wise investor was “good” however.

Isn’t it interesting that 10 million dollars isn’t all that much when you’re holding it but a heck of a lot after you’ve squandered it?

If you won the lottery and 10 million dollars landed on your lap suddenly, could you in good conscience keep that kind of money?

For me, I would consider that a mortal sin.

Along the same camp of reasoning, wouldn’t it then have been a mortal sin by even playing? Not to mention giving the scandal of playing?

 

[christcnection1]

I do not believe gambling itself is wrong. As long as it’s done in moderation (and I have only gambled a handful of times in my life), it would not even be a venial sin.

www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm

2413 Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. The passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement. Unfair wagers and cheating at games constitute grave matter, unless the damage inflicted is so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant.

I think it’s ridiculous to say that 10 million, or even 1 million dollars is not a lot of money. Tell that to the poor family who’s wondering where they will get their next meal. This is closer to the norm in this world.

If most of them woke up with 1,000 dollars in their bank (if they had a bank), they would cry tears of joy. To countless people in this world, just a little money means life or death. Don’t look at this kind of money so casually. I firmly believe this would be a mockery to the poor and to our God.

I would not personally judge anyone for how they use their money. This is not for me to determine.

 

[BobP123]

If most of them woke up with 1,000 dollars in their bank (if they had a bank), they would cry tears of joy.

No denying that. Even those with modest means enjoy getting a free tank of gas. Many would even drive long distances for even a chance to get it, which makes you really wonder about them but that’s another topic.

 

[christcnection1]

No denying that. Even those with modest means enjoy getting a free tank of gas. Many would even drive long distances for even a chance to get it, which makes you really wonder about them but that’s another topic.

Haha… yes, that does make you wonder.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If most of them woke up with 1,000 dollars in their bank (if they had a bank), they would cry tears of joy. To countless people in this world, just a little money means life or death. Don’t look at this kind of money so casually. I firmly believe this would be a mockery to the poor and to our God.

I would not personally judge anyone for how they use their money. This is not for me to determine.

Among those people who break ships in Bangladesh, I am sure $1,000 is an absolute fortune. More than that, it would probably represent the opportunity to buy a piece of land or set up a shop so they wouldn’t have to break ships anymore at the risk of life and health.

In the U.S., certainly, $1,000 extra dollars would be welcomed by anyone, particularly a poor person. But again, that’s relative. If I owe $25,000 on credit cards (and that’s not at all unusual anymore, even among low wage earners) that $1,000 isn’t going to give me much relief, though it would be welcome. Around here, that would be two or three months’ rent. If the recipient is behind on his/her rent and can pay it up, that’s a major godsend. But that $1,000 isn’t likely to make a major, ongoing difference in the person’s life, particularly if he/she sees it as an opportunity to buy that big screen tv.

All of this would be easier to think through if life were simpler. I have often thought the key to much of it is, indeed, simplification. So much of that card debt abovementioned goes to consumer goods; things that aren’t really neccessary a good part of the time, but are thought of as necessary in the moment. The saddest of all, I think, is the propensity to buy a lot of childrens’ consumer goods. So many parents think they need to buy that stuff because peer pressure on kids is intense. You often see parents who don’t have a car that runs reliably, pony up embarrassingly large sums to buy the “latest” stuff for their kids. I have often thought the Church in the U.S. really ought to “declare war” on consumerism from the pulpits and in the Catholic schools. I think if that was done successfully, it would not only relieve a lot of anguish, but would free up money with which people could be more generous. I don’t think it does a lot of good for pastors or bishops to talk a lot about “greed” and “riches”. That’s all just theoretical to most ordinary people. It’s just theoretical because it’s relative. Most people in the U.S. are caught in the cycle of consumerism and don’t even know it. There are very good reasons why, e.g., Walmart hires psychologists to study shopping patterns; the relationship of the time of day to overbuying; the placement of goods and the color combinations used. They even study brain-wave patterns and their relation to those factors. They separate goods that are usually bought in combination, so a person has to walk by other, less closely related goods, but are often attractive to the typical buyers of the combination and perhaps buy them on impulse. And Walmart isn’t the only one that does it. That’s also the major function of “computer spyware”. They can see what your buying patterns are and tempt you with related things. Those people are very sophisticated, very smart.

But you don’t see pastors and bishops make a big deal of all this. I suppose they are afraid of offending. But they need to, even if it offends.

 

[opticks]

This is a good question and I’ve tried to figure it out by reading the Bible, CCC, and other Church documents. I still don’t have a good answer and we may never really understand! “The last will be first and the first, last” always comes to mind!

Perhaps we can look at “rich” through the lens of what it means to be “poor” and apply the inverse? Mother Teresa had some good ideas about what it meant to be poor. The two things that immediately come to mind are being materially poor and spiritually poor, and she has stated that being spiritually poor is worse than being materially poor.

Applying the inverse to the condition of material richness, how sinful one is would have a lot to do with how wasteful you are rather than how much you have. What you do with your money is more important than how much you have. Mother Teresa claimed the poor gave even when they had nothing and the poor (including her!) were obviously efficient given the scarcity of material necessities.

Being spiritually rich is clearly not sinful so can we logically claim that “richness” only deals with money?

 

[chewchoo]

This is a good question and I’ve tried to figure it out by reading the Bible, CCC, and other Church documents. I still don’t have a good answer and we may never really understand! “The last will be first and the first, last” always comes to mind!

Perhaps we can look at “rich” through the lens of what it means to be “poor” and apply the inverse? Mother Teresa had some good ideas about what it meant to be poor. The two things that immediately come to mind are being materially poor and spiritually poor, and she has stated that being spiritually poor is worse than being materially poor.

Applying the inverse to the condition of material richness, how sinful one is would have a lot to do with how wasteful you are rather than how much you have. What you do with your money is more important than how much you have. Mother Teresa claimed the poor gave even when they had nothing and the poor (including her!) were obviously efficient given the scarcity of material necessities.

Being spiritually rich is clearly not sinful so can we logically claim that “richness” only deals with money?

didn’t the pharises consider themselves to be spiritually rich? and that wasn’t such a good thing.

 

[opticks]

I guess if spiritually rich means pride or lack of humility, then certainly, yes. But I was thinking more along the lines that being spiritually poor (as defined by Mother Teresa) is bad (e.g., hedonism), so inverting that makes spiritually rich a good thing, a positive spirituality that could be defined as full of the Holy Spirit.

 

[chewchoo]

I guess if spiritually rich means pride or lack of humility, then certainly, yes. But I was thinking more along the lines that being spiritually poor (as defined by Mother Teresa) is bad (e.g., hedonism), so inverting that makes spiritually rich a good thing, a positive spirituality that could be defined as full of the Holy Spirit.

but in matthew 5:3
blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven
??