Jennifer,

Very good analysis and explanation.  One of your best!

In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,

Tito

As G.K. Chesterton said “To be clever enough to get all that money, one must be stupid enought to want it.”  I don’t want it!  It comes with too much responsibility.  Plus I’d be scared to live in such a beautiful home! I just know I’d break something. I would not be comfortable living like that. Doesn’t mean I do not enjoying tiny bits of it now and then. I do really appreciate beauty even though, like you, I’ve got unidentifiable stains on my couches and carpets. Contrast that with the prints of Renaissance art hanging on my walls and you would think you’ve been dropped off in a very elderly persons’ home who cannot see too well anymore.

Jen, I think another example of which you speak would be Philadelphia’s Drexel family.  They were very well-to-do, and they opened their mansion to the poor every Sunday.  I think one can have luxuries, but do so mindfully, as you pointed out.  I think there’s a real difference between having money in a way that manifests itself as the pursuit of excess as opposed to the pursuit of beauty.  Real beauty never “tries too hard.”  So one can have money and wealth, but still live in modest ways, and in the spirit of poverty.

LAJ, I don’t think that we always need big gobs of money to have beautiful homes.  I like having a nice bit of this and that every now and again, too, and I don’t think that commercial enterprise and money are necessarily bad things in and of themselves, either.  It’s just that one needn’t worship them.  But going back to my original point in my first sentence, I’ve noticed that in some circles, there’s a whole lot of shabby-chic thrifting, repurposing and recycling going on that’s all the rage.  So access to beauty isn’t always contingent upon money, because the rules of good style really aren’t, especially not with the Internet where tons of DIY geeks gleefully share their decorating and repurposing tips with everyone else, and of course, there’s Etsy.  If you check out blogs like Apartment Therapy, for example, you’ll find that even the smallest spaces can be made beautiful and very special.  It’s a matter of learning how to develop an eye for working with what you’ve got and not fighting the space that you have. :)

This makes me think of that great line from Brideshead Revisited. “it is possible for the rich to sin by coveting the privileges of the poor.”

And also John Lennon’s Playboy Interview in 1980 (the quote is from wikipedia):

“Where do people get off saying the Beatles should give $200,000,000 to South America? You know, America has poured billions into places like that. It doesn’t mean a damn thing. After they’ve eaten that meal, then what? It lasts for only a day. After the $200,000,000 is gone, then what? It goes round and round in circles. You can pour money in forever. After Peru, then Harlem, then Britain. There is no one concert. We would have to dedicate the rest of our lives to one world concert tour, and I’m not ready for it. Not in this lifetime, anyway.”

Indeed, elizabethe.  John Lennon has actually pointed out why simply throwing money at a problem isn’t going to fix it in the long run.

If all the rich people in the world took a vow of poverty and lived like St. Francis, think of how many middle class and poor people would be thrown out of work who would normally make things and provide services not only to the rich, but by working in companies owned by the rich. It seems like the 10th is the forgotten Commandment: “you shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.” This recognizes that the rich are a necessity for a healthy economy. Take a look at countries where there are few or no rich people at all. Those poor people who are not already dead or dying along the roadside are living in revolting filth and squalor. There is hardly a poor person in America who cannot afford a TV set—maybe even a cell phone.

A few thoughts from my own perspective

In my own experience its not envying others wealth but more their blessings.

During my first year I shared a flat with 4 other people, one of them had EVERYTHING e.g. Tuition fees and accomodation paid for her by Father,  in addition she got £500 a month allowance, I can also imagine that she found no problem getting summer internships and a job after graduating (we were on the same course). In contrast I had get loans for EVERYTHING (my family has been poor ever since my dad ran away 11 years ago - total paid sinc then = £1800 for Bus fairs in High School) and I haven’t been able to find a job since graduating 15 months ago.

Also an acquaintence who graduated the year before me put on facebook last night that she’d paid off her student loans.

I’m trying to get a job,  I used to go Mass and Holy Hour everyday and BEG for a job but God doesn’t seem to give a damm about me. WHAT DO I HAVE TO do to get my prayers answered?

I’m not a socialist, either, but I disagree.

As Americans, the Gospel of Prosperity is deeply ingrained in our psyche. We need to make excuses for, and justify, wealth—especially as the gap between rich and poor grows. The comments in this section are a great example of this deeply rooted psychological need to dust the divide between our lifestyles and the Gospel under the rug.

The Gospel of Prosperity or the Prosperity Gospel is at odds with everything I know (and love) about Christianity. I’m not saying we should all be puritanical crazies running around in sack cloth and ashes, but we should keep ourselves in check. This means, in my mind, devoting resources where they are needed. Not “dumping money” but using the money as a force for charitable works that can change the world. There’s a difference between “dumping money on a problem” and using all the tools available to you to get the word out.

I don’t know of any saints who led or advocated for a “cushy” life of prosperity and ease…nor do I see that attitude represented anywhere in the REAL Gospel (ie NOT the Gospel of Prosperity spin).

“Well, I’m not a saint!”

To that, I say, “You’re right. Not with that attitude.”

Not with you on this one, a first! :)

So far everyone has just chimed in their opinion. What has the church said, referring to individual wealth(as opposed to preservation of artwork, etc by the church itself)?
I thought there was something in the catechism about it.
I am kind of with LAJ, I think God has not made me rich because I couldn’t handle it.

Intriguing article.  It’s a compelling point, although as someone who is terrified whenever the account of the Rich Young Ruler comes around, I’d have to think about it. 

I wonder which country has the smallest gap between rich and poor, and how that affects their society. 

I do know that Scripture seems to more fixated on the injustice of the rich than the fact that they are rich.  It seems that being rich in biblical times usually involved committing all sorts of injustice and oppression.  Today, it is more possible to be wealthy without at least directly committing injustices.  Being rich is still a hazard of course, but maybe not eye-of-the-needle hard.

I hate to say anything knowing that in comparison to many people in the world, I AM RICH and living a luxurious lifestyle.  We should be grateful for whatever we have but every now and then take the time to step back and reassess what we are doing with it and how we could cut back in order to give more.  I’ve read quite a few articles about how to save money and I have no idea who they are talking to when they say things like, “Instead of a Hawaain vacation this year, consider a driving vacation to some place in your own state.”  WE haven’t had an out of CITY vacation in 8 years!  How can we as a society just spend spend spend?? What if that poor person who is dying of malnutrition was standing right next to you.  What did Jesus say when someone asked “Who is my neighbor?”.  Out of sight out of mind? Seeing Hawaii once I could understand - there’s a curiousity.  But every year??  C’mon!  It shows a deep apathy towards the poor and justification for our own greed!  Also keep in mind God also wants us to use our TALENTS to solve problems, not just throw money at situations - in many cases that just makes things worse.  And in the case you mentioned, yes having a dinner and inviting the poor to enjoy fancy food is a nice gesture, but eating fancy food every night as a family - which I’m not saying they do but they probably do - now who does that really benefit??  I’m just saying we need to assess ourselves as to our motives and figure out where to cut back.  There is only so much to go around and God will hold us accountable for being gluttons with resources.

Eric,
Income disparity is shown with a figure called the Gini Coefficient.  Based on the CIA’s World Factbook data, Sweden and Norway have the lowest income disparity.  The United States ranks 94th, just behind Nigeria, Iran and Cameroon.

Some of these comments sound a lot like Judas’ objections to the woman who anointed Jesus. Perhaps selling the oil and giving the proceeds to the poor is better than using it to anoint the head of the one you love. But the poor you will always have with you, and it is not forbidden to “waste” a few shekels on those you love in the short time you have them. The question is where it all ends. It is certainly better that I should give $30 to someone who is starving, and to make myself a PBJ for lunch, than to take my colleague out for burgers. But is it for that reason forbidden us to enjoy a pricey lunch out together? It is better to feed the hungry than to give private education to children. Should we therefore eliminate financial aid programs in Catholic schools to reroute those funds to those in more desperate need? God gives us the opportunity to give in charity and enjoyment of good things both so that we may grow in love. Perhaps the one is better, but that does not make the other evil.

“Do not store up for yourself treasures here on earth…”

I don’t know what to do with that in accord with your blog post.

Jennifer I get your point, but I can’t get over some things.  Charlene, I agree.  I’ve been to many mega churches in low income neighborhoods where the pastor drives up in a chauffeur driven Maybach, while his congregates have to walk to church because they can’t afford $1.25 bus fare.  At the same time these same pastors require 10% tithe.  This same pastor said he deserves it because he does a great “job”.

It is not wrong to own a mansion. Being wealthy is not a sin. If everything comes from God then wealth gained honestly comes from God too. Some people receive the gift of perfect health, others the gift of talent, others are born in a royal household, etc. Wealth is just another gift.

I do not envy the problem of a wealthy person (in keeping God in focus) because the temptation of money is very powerful, hence the teaching of Jesus about the rich man and the eye of the needle.

Remember, our purpose is to love God and not this life. Who do we want to spend eternity with?

You need Christians to Christianize all levels and areas of society.  If all faithful Christians were compelled to live a middle or underclass lifestyle, the upper eschelon would never be converted or ministered to.  That and we can’t forget how many of our early Saints were noble or upper class themselves, and then subsequently we find holiness even in Kings and Queens.

I don’t think being rich is evil, nor do I feel compelled to tell anyone else how they should spend their money. The reality is, I don’t know how much or little anyone has. In our country you can have everything and be drowning in debt, or you can have the millionaire-next-door type who drives a dented used car. What drives me to distraction is hearing people comment on how someone “should have” spent their money. My husband and I choose our charities based on what we feel called to support, not what someone else is passionate about. Their were rich saints and poor saints and they are all saints. That is enough for me.

If you saw me going down the street, you would think I am a spoiled rich woman…I live in a 6 bedroom house and drive a Mercedes, Im skinny and have fancy clothes…how did you just react to reading that? You wouldnt know that in my house I shelter my sons who suffer terribly from mental illness they may never recover from. I use my car to drive to a hospital where I care for the dying…I have a charism for this work and those in my care are served well….in the midst of blood and pain and death, do you think my car cushions the pain in my heart? I am skinny because my husband broke my heart to the point I couldn’t eat adequately for a very long time. The fancy clothes came from a time when my husband worked for a high end company…to do so he abandoned us and moved away for 18 months and we almost divorced. My mother is an emotionally violent alcoholic and I have been hurt by her since childhood.

A woman I know well reflected this all to me recently…it is as if I have a chance to live a holy life in a very secret way. We all suffer…dont think for a second that other person avoided suffering.

And I know a woman much more wealthy than me…and she is so amazingly kind and generous…generous in a way that I have not been able to achieve. He example flat out humbled me…what a huge gift she is. At a weekend-long event she hosted, the rich woman slept on a cot and gave her own comfortable room to a woman who had been struggling…when the poorer woman was brought to her room, she said “I dont LIVE like this.” with resentment and poison dripping off every word.

You may see a “rich” person, but you really don’t know their heart or situation.

Interesting take on a complicated subject.  The danger of wealth is that the comfort and status it brings will make us self-satisfied and complacent.  But “to whom much has been given, much will be expected.”

I agree with Charlene on this one.  It’s obviously not a sin to be rich or have a mansion, but I’m pretty sure that if Jesus were a billionaire and living in the world today he wouldn’t live in a mansion.  And as Charlene pointed out, I don’t think there were many (if any) Saints that lived luxuriousness lives.  Personally, I could never justify living in a mansion no matter how rich I was.

An interesting discussion.  I know a lot of wealthy people who are excellent, generous stewards of their resources, and I , too, have often been blessed by their generosity.  Here’s an article from the USCCB that has some interesting thoughts on the question.  As with so many things Catholic, there’s no simple answer, but it is important to remember that Jesus often reminds us that wealth can be an obstacle to sanctity.

From the article:  “With market forces now unleashed across the world, he cautioned about consumer attitudes and lifestyles that could be improper and also damaging physically and spiritually. “It is not wrong to want to live better,’’ he writes; “what is wrong is a style of life which is presumed to be better when it is directed towards ‘having’ rather than ‘being’, and which wants to have more, not in order to be more but in order to spend life in enjoyment as an end in itself’ (No. 36). “Equally worrying,” he goes on, “is the ECOLOGICAL QUESTION which accompanies the problem of consumerism and which is closely connected to it. In his desire to have and to enjoy rather than to be and to grow, man consumes the resources of the earth and his own life in an excessive and disordered way” (No. 37).”

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/global-issues/the-good-life-from-a-catholic-perspective-challenge-of-consumption.cfm

Whoops—the “he” above is John Paul II!

I will add my support to Charlene. Jesus said plainly, “If you have two cloaks, give one to the man who has none.” How much plainer can it be? If you have more than you need, give it to the one who doesn’t have enough. No one is entitled to more than they need, more than what Leo XIII called “frugal comfort” in Rerum Novarum. If God has blessed someone with wealth, it’s so they can give it away.

I am far from perfect in applying this, but there can be little room for doubt that this is the standard. So, unless for some reason owning a mansion is required for someone’s state in life, then it is most likely wrong for a Christian to own one, or any other ostentatious displays of wealth.

This is interesting to me! Ther are good varrying POVs as well!

I was thinking about this recently: who says what is “reasonable” in luxury or disposable income? I think it is really easy to judge people who have money and spend their disposable income on ridiculous stuff (see, I’m judging!) but I look and see that even my $6 starbuck purchase really wasn’t necessary either (I still feel guilty about that!). Honestly, looking at our incomes, I am curious about how close the *percentage* of disposable income on frivolous purchases are with some of the more well to do people I know. If I have $6 and spend if casually, is that less bad than someone who has 100s in their billfold spending $40 casually? Could they both not have been used for other good? And didn’t Jesus’s story of the woman giving her last coin a story reflect it wasn’t the amount that mattered but our giving?

Just some food for thought.  Also, my husband and I have been living in a small 2 bedroom house for 5 years. We’re about to have baby #2 and though we could technically live here find and have a roof over our head, we’re working our butts off to save for adown payment on a nice house. And you know what, I’d love to go from our $75,000 midwest home to a nice $200,000 home.  It probably won’t happen, but is that bad? I’d love to fill up a nice home (this one has had so many problems!) with lots more kids o we plan on using the space! However, this is a post WWII home that plent of people raised 4,5, or 6 kids in.  I am sure most people wouldn’t think that our plan is selfish.  However, where do you draw the line on deciding some one else’s desires or goods are oppulent or excessive?  I think it will always come down some how to what you are jealous of.  I can attest that I find it very easy to gossip to my husband about the casaual shopping sprees my friend goes on and the $50, $60 toys she purchases for her kids.  Meanwhile, I’m going on saving up for the $12 toy from Amazon or figuring out how I can make it myself. Honestly, even though I wouldnt’ purchase those creazy $60 plastic monstrous toys, I would love to be able to have the freedom to purchase a toy for my kid when the need arised.  It’s my jealousy that taints my opinion, probably.

By the way, if you want a bracing slap in the face in regard to this issue, read Blessed Are You Poor by Thomas DuBay. I acknowledge he lays down a standard stricter than the Church, but it’s a welcome counterbalance to the materialistic messages most of us have fully internalized.

This column is on a topic about which I’m still forming my conscience.  But one thought stood out:

It is important to distinguish between the obvious kindness and generosity of the wealthy hosts, versus whether therefore that accumulation of wealth should be a Christian norm. 

Even if in fact the hosts should not be amassing such wealth for themselves (I have no firm opinion on that question), it is still a very beautiful and thoughtful act, to have shared so graciously, and to have obviously provided a work a mercy for someone who needed that generosity.

But they are two separate questions. 

(And a lot like the woman with the perfume:  Jesus didn’t say, “all of you go out and buy expensive perfume”.  The oil was poured.  It had been done in good faith.  Why be a jerk about it?  And of course, you know, Catholic etiquette and all, maybe that *is* the thing to do just prior to a crucifixion . . . please God I’ll never have to know.)

I guess it’s all in how you handle your wealth.  I’ve been to rich homes where I feel, as Jen describes, relaxed and refreshed by the luxury and generosity—and rich homes where I come away feeling like my face has been pushed in things I can’t own.  I’ve also been to poor homes where I feel resented and envied for my relative wealth, and where privation and distress are always the topic of conversation—and poor homes where I feel welcome and at ease.  A good host won’t make his relationship with others be about wealth, whether there is lots of it or none at all.

Saints that were rich:
St. Louis IX
St. Thomas More
St. Katherine Drexel
St. Margaret of Scotland
St. Edward the Confessor
St. Henry
Bl. Karl of Austria
St. Elizabeth of Hungary
St. Ceclilia
St. Frances of Rome

Remember that a lot of people employed to build and maintain that grand home.
Other people were employed to produce the food that was served.
I love rich people, they provide gainful employment for others and raise my standard of living.

Jennifer, I disagree with your post. “People who pamper themselves with luxuries can readily convince themselves
that they are detached from all that they so abundantly use, that they are indeed available to others…Poverty of spirit is not enough. Availability to others is not enough. All these are good of course. They are also convenient and prey to rationalization. It is idle for me to proclaim concern for the poor, the homeless and at the same time indulge in elegant dining and drinking, pleasure traveling, and an extensive wardrobe. My life belies my rhetoric.”
These thoughts are from a book that has changed my life and helped to extricate me from the cultural bubble we live in…Father Thomas Dubay’s book HAPPY ARE YOU POOR:THE SIMPLE LIFE AND SPIRITUAL FREEDOM .  Radical! Shocking! And so very true!

Sorry Jen, I wholeheartedly disagree. Christians should NOT have mansions. What motivates a person to buy a mansion, or install that new pool, or buy that new flatscreen TV? Surely not the love of God. Cathedrals and the like are different from private homes, because don’t “belong” to anyone, they are ours, the Catholics! We are all welcome in the Church and we all work together to raise the money to make it beautiful. Spending so much money on ones own personal living environment for ones own personal comfort is gluttony, pure and simple.

Its their money, they can spend it however they wish due to free will, and I am sure if they are generous they have nothing to fear.

Couldn’t it be both? Sometimes wrong and sometime okay to own a mansion?  Doesn’t it depend upon the disposition of the person?  I have friends who are broke (by my affluent suburb’s standard) and are constantly comparing, and coveting other’s nicer, larger homes.  I have another friend, who I believed for years, was attached to her detachment - she took great pride in her unnecessarily small home and her severe limit of clothing/toys for her children.  She made a point of letting people know that even though they could afford more they were living with less.  How is that holy?  Isn’t materialism something most of us struggle with?  I have a dear friend who is crazy wealthy.  She has seven children, a great marriage and a picture perfect home.  When I first met her I was intimidated by her home.  After 12 years of friendship I no longer even “see” her home.  She is generous, kind, loving, and holy.  She has personally started almost 100 bible studies and yes she has used her home to facilitate those initial meetings.  I agree that wealth can negatively effect one’s spiritual life.  I found the book “Death by Suburbs” an interesting book on the topic (although he didn’t go quite far enough imho). In the end only God knows someone’s disposition. 

And, just for a laugh, have you heard that phrase, “All I want is a chance to prove that money can’t make me happy?”  ;-)

I think rich people can do a lot of good in the world, even with a fraction of they wealth they have. If love is God’s message, the more we give, the more we can share our blessings. Let’s consider what God says,

“Good will come to those who are generous and lend freely,
  who conduct their affairs with justice.”
Psalm 112:5, NIV

If the wealthy nations gave just 1.5 percent of their total national income, and spend it far more effectively than current foreign aid programs, we could end much of the extreme poverty in the world.

that’s why I volunteer with the End Poverty Campaign, www.change.net

@ Jack Hughes:  I’m praying for you.  I understand completely.  My siblings ( they’re not Catholic, I’m the only one in the family ) all have their own homes; in fact my sister built hers, and they don’t lift a finger to help me.  I can’t work, am unmarried ( no kids ), on a fixed income, and have to depend on outside agencies for help.  My cross may not be as heavy as yours, but it’s still a cross.  Pray for me as well.  Maybe God will answer both of us.

My question is, why would anybody in love with Christ, who had nowhere to lay His head, WANT to be have a mansion? Shouldn’t we be uncomfortable to have such things when we follow the one who became poor for us?

He warned us that it is EXCEEDINGLY difficult for the wealthy to enter the kingdom of heaven. Remember that little bit about the camel going through the eye of a needle? It’s not that money itself is evil, but the love of money is…it is EXTRAORDINARILY DIFFICULT to really follow the Gospel when wealthy, because it is natural to be attached to one’s wealth. It is for our good that wealth is strongly discouraged, not because things are inherently bad.

Also, if one follows His words to the letter, one will definitely not be rich… (give to all who beg of you…do not store up treasures…sell all you have, give to the poor, and come follow me etc). We love to minimize and excuse ourselves from His radical teachings, but imagine how the world would be transformed if we didn’t do that…if we even began to live a BIT like St Francis… I say this to myself too, not just to “other people.”

Not to say that the wealthy cannot do tremendous good. Of course they can. And they can be less grasping than those who have less but wish they had more. Many saints have come from wealth families…but we notice that they all practiced mortification (hidden if necessary) and didn’t make it their business in life to get more things or keep all they had.

Notice about St Katherine Drexel that she couldn’t wait to relinquish her comfort…she loved evangelical poverty to the point that she would use pencils down to the most impossible little nub!! She would have given all her money totally away if she hadn’t been prevented, if I understand right (it was in trust - I think when she died, it didn’t go to her religious community but mostly to charities decided by her father beforehand).

This is my thought at the moment. I reserve the right to revise it!

Someone had to earn all the money St. Elizabeth Ann Seaton used to build schools etc and then gave away the rest. I guess she just let the “lesser christians” make all the money then the Saintly one gave it all away???

If Christians can’t own mansions than how do you expect all those tv pastors to live?

Is it ok for non-christians to own mansions too?  Provided they have people over at times and provide them with good food and a welcoming atmosphere?

My home is 2800 sq feet and I don’t think I can justify having the space.  Although I appreciate every sqaure inch of it.  When our family of 5 was living in 1200 square feet with 3 kids under 5 the winter sure was stressful.  I used to think of all the women living in Africa who live in a hut for crying out loud.  Why am I troubled by this?  Granted I had a severe mental illness which did not help matters.  Yet some families have 6 or more kids in the same amount of space.  They do seem a bit troubled by it though and have no room to breath.

I definitely could not justify a 10,000 square foot home.  A multi-million dollar estate seems obviously unnecessary. Still I work on accepting people for who they are and try to see the ways they use their wealth for good. When I take the time to think about how we live compared to the rest of the world I am embarassed for us.  We talk on and on about how God has blessed us with this and that while other countries are starving to death.  Something is definitely wrong with this picture and I’m searching for how I am going to respond to it.

I think you have the right train of thought to consider the issue of “Should a Christian own a mansion?” In fact, when I first came into the Church (or before).. I read a lot of saint stories and I remember reading about some noble women (wives) who were very religious. One of the points mentioned in their stories was them giving away their riches. One would take the food in the home (castle if you will) and sneak it to the poor! For them, the material possessions were nothing in comparison to the message of Christ to GIVE and help those in need.

I think if someone has riches, it is their spiritual obligation (yes, obligation) to GIVE as much as they can to those in need. Granted, they can take care of their family well, if they have the means, but the excess stuff ($1000 handbags, 900 pairs of shoes, over-indulgent vacations to the islands…) really needs to be out if one is truly following Jesus. The mindset should be more akin to Mother Teresa, in my opinion. Mother Teresa gave up everything, walked among the streets in the early days of her ministry to the poorest of the poor. God doesn’t call everyone to such a difficult life, but He does call us to GIVE and share.  The early Christians in the Bible DO relate sharing as part of a community. That is the proper example.

Excellent article and I’m glad someone wrote about this for once!

In regard to Amy’s post on the saints that were rich.  We must remember that of those I recognize in the list (the majority of them).. they gave up their wealth (or had it taken away from them at some point). So they may have been rich to begin with, but because of their “poor in spirit” mindset, they did not really live RICH lives.  :)

I think it boils down to the purpose of owning the mansion that determines whether it is a detriment to your holiness or not. Buying a mansion so that you can have enough room to adopt children, or give shelter to homeless individuals, or run retreats, or even house your own larger than normal family is acceptable.  However, if you have bought the mansion in order to show off to others, or bought a house larger than you actually require for you and your family to live, then you have stepped outside of the good stewardship required of a Christian.  After all, no matter how much money you have none of it is really yours - it all belongs to God. He’ll be asking you how you spent it and why when you reach Heaven.

Consider two of Jesus’s stories: 1) Matt. 25;31-46.  We are responsible for making an effort to care for those hungry, thirsty and in want in one way or another;
and 2) Luke 16: 19-31.  To the rich man in this story, the beggar (Lazarus) was part of the scenery!  The rich man actually may not have had an awareness of the beggar except the first couple of times he saw him.  So we are responsible for noticing brothers or sisters in need, and caring for them to the extent of our abilities and resources.
Each Christian needs to search his/her own conscience in this regard.  Balance is needed.  My children should not go barefoot while I buy shoes for the poor.
Also, the closer a poverty situation is to me, the larger duty I have.  International poverty situations are the business of Catholic Relief Services; but my local St. Vincent de Paul Society has needs also.
TeaPot562

I believe in his discussion on The Virtues, St. Thomas states that all people need to be generous with what they have, but only the WEALTHY can practice the extraordinary generosity of MAGNANIMITY.

Also, religious life/contemplative life flourishes only in WEALTHY places.

Jennifer
    You are correct and Deal Hudson is correct to an extent but a weakness of Catholicism is the inability to criticize anything papal…..at all.  Castel Gandolfo must go…that’s why God had them rhyme.  God by His providence removed over 90% of the lands of the papacy during modern history because Popes didn’t have the sense to do it themselves.  But yes you are correct but Popes are the vicar of Christ who allowed Himself only the luxury of the nard and that was for His burial and He noted that to those present.  Let’s not use the nard as a get into luxury card ....for Popes.  Now the Pope this week has warned the world about worldliness while he has a summer palace he uses for two weeks.  But….but it’s been used for astronomy etc??  Then when you warn the world against mega yatchs….give them the out that they can have them if they allow astronomers to use them part time.  Particularly the rich see through contradictions….and they smile.

“Someone had to earn all the money St. Elizabeth Ann Seaton used to build schools etc and then gave away the rest. I guess she just let the “lesser christians” make all the money then the Saintly one gave it all away??? “

Ann-Marie—no one is arguing that people can not make alot of money.  The argument is how they use it and whether a mansion is good stewardship of their money.

Any state of life we are in, particularly of wealth, is only that way because God allowed it.  I think about the Scripture verse where Pontius Pilate was given power, but only because it was from above.  I believe all states of life, if open completely to God’s will, have a perfect and individual purpose directly deigned for each of us:  the sanctification of our souls. If you a blessed with earthly wealth, then this is YOUR opportunity for sanctification.  If you are blessed with poverty, then this is YOUR opportunity for sanctification.  Any state in life needs to be carefully examined as wew pray for God’s will within that state.  There is plenty of room for wealthy saints, although Jesus states it may be more difficult to achieve heaven with this as a potential obstacle.

I keep reading that ‘they’ shouldn’t own x,y, or z. How do you know? I know what God wants me to do, and that’s about it. If a couple owns a mansion so that the husband can host work functions and also be at home every night, why is that wrong? What if it’s exactly what his well formed conscience tells him to do?

There is no specific list of what Christians must do with their money, only general guidelines. No one can judge a man’s heart by what he owns.

Thank you for this article! I for one am sick to death of the class warfare that many left leaning Cahtolics engage in and so I am happy to see a fair and truly just commentary on the subject.

@Rebecca

Just out of interest what do you classify as Class Warfare? Does making sure that Employees are paid a living wage class warfare? safe working conditions?, health insurance etc etc. Sometimes I wonder if Orthodox Catholics and conservative evangelicals did the right thing by getting in bed with the republican party back in the 80’s, I would also remind you that supply side economics isn’t a recipie for paradiese, Please remember that lest you worship the Market instead of God.

I knew you would find an answer to justify the greed of the wealthy who pay less taxes than everyone else.

Babs on Friday, Sep 30, 2011 12:23 PM (EDT) - You put into words exactly what I was thinking on all this.  And I’ll go a little further and suggest that to say the wealthy should not own mansions (or fancy cars or designer handbags, etc…) is a little - judgmental.

And Ed - please site your sources for your statement. Because what I’ve read at The New Republic indicates that the top 5% of earners in this country pay on average 33% of their income in taxes. The wealthy don’t pay less taxes than everyone else; they may have the options to shelter their income thru capital gains or other tax-neutral investments. But to say that a millionaire pays less taxes than someone making $75,000 per year is just flat wrong.

Kris, both you and the New Republic need for current information:
==
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2011/07/25/the-400-richest-americans-pay-an-18-tax-rate/
==
or is Forbes to “liberal’ for you?

A friend of mine, who’s now divorced, is on a fixed income. She has beautiful clothes from when her former husband - whose job required her to dress well and have servants - and she were married. Yet she is extremely generous with what she does have (I’ve been stunned by how eagerly she’ll give me money for gas or take me to lunch, which no one else ever offers to do). Many people in a certain line of work are *required* to entertain others, which they couldn’t do in meager homes. I’ve also known people who weren’t rich but spent beyond their means. I’m just guessing, but I’ll bet your hosts give generously of their time, talent, and treasure routinely.

Yes it is wrong.

I suppose Jesus was engaged in “class warfare” when He said “Woe to you rich”? Yes, He said that! Or when He said that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a wealthy man to enter the kingdom? Or when he told the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, who went to hell for dining sumptuously while Lazarus was dying at his doorstep? I think the claim of “class warfare” is used to avoid uncomfortable truths sometimes.

We wealthy nations seem to me very much like the rich man in that parable…

St Paul says, If you have food and clothing, be content with that. So for my part I think our culture has gotten way too big for its britches…and we Christians for too long have thought we could have our cake and eat it too!!

We think we have to have nice things and entertainments and so on, and I think we are so brainwashed that we don’t stop to notice how much contrast there is between this and the radical way Christ lays out before us in the Gospel.

Did anyone stop to think that owning a mansion and other expensive things can be a means to deduct from taxes? Aside from capital gains, owners need to hire cleaning personnel, servants, and other people to make things run smoothly and keep the place up.Owning a mansion is a kind of a business. It may be the expenses of a mansion are outweighed by financial benefits.

Ed - if you are going to isolate 400 people from a population of 300 million then you’ll get the stats you want to back up your own position.

I still think it is horribly judgmental to dictate who owns what; in fact I’d say that it’s getting close to socialism to say that the wealthy can’t spend their money the way they want.  Not one of us knows what goes on inside those mansions - we don’t know how much money those people give to charities (or don’t).  It is not up to us to say who gets what.

@Jack Hughes! Excellent points about class warfare, the latest thin tree trunk for the fat cats to believe they can hide behind and nobody will notice their girth or how it got there.
  Now and then we need some class warfare to equalize things. Ask any student of Shay’s Rebellion, FDR’s New Deal, and the recent demonstrations on Wall Street. There’s only so much in-your-face wealth and contempt of the vast majority of the American public that the same majority will take any longer; or for that matter, should.
  I loved your reminder to Rebecca about the “... Orthodox Catholics and conservative evangelicals” jumping under the sheets with the Republicans back in Reagan’s Reign. And look at what’s to show for it, the Acton Institute getting child support to the tune of $115K from the brothers Koch. (Talking Points Memo website.)
  Class warfare sounds like music to my ears, just like “Solidarity Forever,” “The Internationale,” “The Union Maid,” and “Joe Hill,” among other great marching songs. Bring it on!

Where is the line?  How many square feet constitutes a mansion?  What if that mansion holds 7 children?  2?  does it matter?  If a household income is $200k nd they live in a 3000 sq ft house with six kids is that okay?  What is there are only 2 kids due to infertility?  what if a couple makes $125k combined but had a vasectomy after one child so they could have more freedom? Is 2000 sq feet too much?  is over 4000 too much?  According to the National Association of Home Builders the average home size in the US was 2700 sq ft up from 1400 s feet in 1970. And I probably don’t have to tell this audience that people have fewer children than they did in 1970. . . . so are most people wrong to have a 2700 sq ft house?  tell me exactly how many sq footage of house is a sin. . . . and whil you’re at it figure out your own attachments in life and work on those.

Class warfare is a doctrine of dialectical materialism, which Communists used to justify the shedding of incredible amounts of blood, not just rich blood but much lower-class blood…not to mention the blood of so many Christians. The Church does not approve of “class warfare” (you can see Pope Pius XI’s encyclical on Atheistic Communism.

So it is not funny to say that we need some class warfare once in a while. What we need is justice and Christian love. Nitpicking? Not when you know what class warfare really did and can still do…

That being said, it is not class warfare to point out the massive injustices that the wealthy still inflict on the poor, that wealthy nations inflict on poor ones. It is simply the truth. It’s not a matter of hating the rich, it’s a matter of fraternal correction. If you read the encyclicals of the Popes from Leo XIII to today, you will see exactly that kind of correction.

Anyway, I don’t believe in dictating to people what they can own. But I do believe in pointing out that Jesus would have us own little, if you take His words seriously. He said to the rich young man, “If you would be perfect, sell what you have, give to the poor, and come follow me…” At the very least, no one can deny that it is superior to live simply.

How we could use another one like St Francis nowadays, to remind us of this!!!

Politicians are calling it class warfare because they do not want to participate in human welfare. It is not just a materialist concept—it has been twisted into a propaganda by Libertarians who have no sense of compassion for people who can’t earn a living for various reasons out of their control. Wall street protesters are not shedding blood, but conservative politicians are acting as if they are. It’s hard to display Christian love when you and your kids are starving.

I didn’t have time to read all of the comments, but I appreciated this post. My thought is that most of us, whether living below the poverty line, in the middle-class or being wealthy all live with what we think we “need” which almost always involves having more than what we truly need to survive(when experiencing severe poverty of course this changes). Right now my husband and I don’t have children, but we have college loans, he’s still a full-time student and I’m struggling to find a job after completing my master’s degree. So we aren’t living in a mansion at all. But we live in a 2 bedroom apartment. Is that okay or it is too much? We don’t really “need” the two bedrooms to survive. My point is that it seems wrong to “judge” someone for living in a mansion, when most of us make choices to buy things we don’t really need but we still buy them because we have the means to do it and we have worked in order to be able to provide this level of comfort for our family. God looks at each person’s individual situation and he knows what’s on their heart when they make financial choices. I can agree with Jen that in the past, when I’d had the opportunity to experience the kindness of someone who had the financial means to provide a meal for a celebration that was far better than anything I could buy myself, I felt this blessing was from God.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to get a look at the digs of all the major leading critics of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement; plaster the pics of those digs on the web for the world to see and put the most scathing attacks they dished out at the occupiers at the bottom of each picture of their digs.
  Then, take some pictures of people who lost their homes due to the Wall Street Crash of 08 through no fault of their own and place some of their statement underneath photos of their lost homes, or homes that were suddenly depreciated in value overnight. (That’s stealing, but you’ll never hear the banksters own up to that; no more than Bank of America has yet to fully own up to its massive heist via robo foreclosures.)
  Tell you what, I can suggest one publication that should give all readers a very good idea: Vermont Senator Bernard Sanders’ official Senatorial website. Click on the red button’d “Struggling Through The Recession,” which is a pdf., for starters. Then you might want to take in Marisol Bello’s “The New Faces of Poverty” (a recent USA TOday article) included on Sen. Sanders’ suggested reading list.
  It’s not a sin to own a large house or even a mansion. The sin lies in the smug desire to defend the ownership and acquistion of ostentatious displays of wealth, all the same time denying any need of what the President rightly called “shared sacrifice” ... especially during hard times.
  For all the protests uttered by the wealthiest one percent of our population against “class warfare,” they sure do a wonderful job of giving the rest of us, the 99 Percenters, all the reason and more to say, “Bring It On.” Abstract soft rhetoric won’t do anything to bring about change, Anonymous, only hard-boiled, hard-ball politics supported by massive and well-deserved tax hikes on the wealthy will EVER get them to wake up.
  And now their party of choice, the Grand Old Pharisees, are coming up with yet even more draconian budget cuts, but as usual, accompanied by their favorite poison pill supplement: legislation designed to defund Planned Parenthood in their all in one accept it or leave it deal.
  So what if your kids have to drop out of college, so what if you can’t hold on to your house because they repealed Obamacare and you lost your health insurance at a time when your spouse is suffering from cancer; so what if your local police and fire departments have to close and you need to rely on the next town over’s Bravest or Finest; so what if the local “Meals On Wheels” program is cut off or worse, fuel assistance for the needy poor and young needy families with little children .. is cut off? Aren’t you glad the Good Old Pharisees put their favorite blackmail poison pill of defunding PP into the mix?
  And as for jobs…who cares…they’ll only cut into the outrageous sums our billionaires already feel they’re entitled to keep without nary a penny expected from them to fulfill what Jesus said, “To much is given, much is expected in return.”
  Anonymous, it’s NOT going to be enough to simply pray for the souls of our hypocritical wealthy powers that be; No, it’s going to take the political version of Jesus thrashing the living hell out of today’s money changers from our civic temples.

May I note that Jesus didn’t thrash the actual money changers. He overturned their tables and ran them out, but He did not touch them personally. He did not attack their persons. So from this we learn that it can be right to make the corrupt stop their corruption, but we do not thereby receive a mandate to do violence to persons. Not that the above commenter is suggesting that, but I think it’s worth thinking about…

@Mouse: How do you know for sure that Jesus didn’t? Doesn’t the Bible also indicate that he used his whipcord? Why quibble and parse the story by saying Jesus didn’t personally assualt the money changers when thrashing their tables and smashing them on the grounds, causing considerable disruption, some panic, and the usual kinds of accidental violence that usually follows in similar situations?
  Or is this yet another example of the politically correct Jesus we’re supposed to buy into nowadays? Oh that’s right, we’ll look at Jesus with Gandhian eyes. Really? If so, perhaps it’s also high time for more of us reflect on (the much less politically correct) Gandhi’s turning the other eye when it came to how the Hindus dealt with the Muslims moreso than the much over-revered Indian’s supposed turning of the other cheek.
  You’re partially right in saying “it can be right to make the corrupt stop their corruption.” Why stop at saying “it can be right” when you should’ve said, “It’s our moral and (even patriotic) duty to bring an end (especially to the long march of corrupt acts) that led to the collapse of 08.”? Stop and think of the colossal magnitude of the damage caused by so few people on Wall Street and think of how so many of the same corrupt and greedy bums are still able to pull this daily heist and being able to get away with it because not enough people are willing to say “No longer are we going to keep playing sucker to such a miniscule number of people who are able to sock their wealth overseas, build uber-exhorbitant mansions, demand that they do not have to pay a dime more in taxes and keep buying fearful politicians…No more!”
  And not just say “No more!” but to back that up by occupying parks in front of banks in cities and towns across the land. If that means the vast number of us, the so-called “99 Percenters” whom House Maj. Leader Eric Cantor had the gall to call a “Mob” at a conservative “values” conference, so be it. Come to think of it, he’s behaving just like the ever so snooty, greedy, callous and avaricious coastal bankers, lawyers and legislators in Boston were to the rock-scrabble farmers of western Massachusetts who followed Daniel Shays in 1786 to protest the forcible foreclosures of their farms. Many of them were Revolutionary War veterans and suffered far more than the merchantilists of their times.
  Yet had it not been for Shays, our wisest among our wealthiest, met in Philadelphia to come up with a national constitution. There was no talk of forming a “Christian nation” or any of that claptrap. These men were there, in large part to save their financial necks, too, but they also saw that in doing so in a way that was as close to an egalitarian solution (by the standards of their times) ... they gave the nation its Constitution.
  Small wonder Jefferson, not by any means, a genuine egalitarian, (but much moreso than his Federalist opponents, said “A little rebellion now and then ... ” is good for the country.
  We don’t have to be “violent,” but the vast majority of the country, or hell, even half of it, 150 million, which doesn’t own even the amount of wealth locked in the vaults of our 400 richest households, should join this mob, who are far from the half-cocked, half-educated, half-clued-in, half whatever their establishment critics in the (more) reactionary and elitist ranks of the conservative wings and their mouthpieces in the media that’s largely owned by Corporate America, Inc.
  I hope to hell, an economic hell Eric Cantor richly deserves, that he does have a “mob” to be wary of.

@Steven

OK, I was not entirely precise in my “armchair exegesis.” 

Sacred Scripture doesn’t say Jesus didn’t hit them, but it doesn’t say that he did hit them either. So either way, the passage cannot be used to justify physically attacking people. I don’t think it’s just “parsing words.”  The distinction between damaging stuff, and damaging people, is a big deal.

I base my opinion on the entirety of the teaching and example of Jesus, who in no instance lays a violent hand upon anyone, counsels us not to retaliate but rather to offer the other cheek to one who strikes us, to give our coat to those who have already taken our cloak. I especially base my opinion on Scriptures like Luke 22:49-51…in the garden, as Jesus was betrayed—a massive injustice—one the disciples took a sword and cut off the ear of one of the group that was taking him, the slave of the high priest.  Jesus not only strongly rebuked the apostle who did this, saying “No more of this!” but also healed the man’s ear. Then on the cross Jesus said “Father, forgive them” of those who were killing Him—THE greatest offense and injustice in the world.

So I think it is extremely unlikely that Jesus used the whip to physically assault anyone when He cleansed the temple. Has to do with who our Lord seems to be, according to all the Scriptures. Was He using force? Yes. But whipping the people? I don’t think so.

I don’t think He had to hit them. I think His power, His denunciation, and the sight of Him slinging the whip was enough to scare them all off and drive them away!

But if you have arguments to the effect that He did hit the people, we can hear those. 

Anyway, you seem to mistake me for some kind of promoter of a namby-pamby Jesus. If you knew me, you would laugh at that idea! Also, most blog posts are not written with the intense concentration of a doctoral dissertation.

Maybe you didn’t see my post above where I say that I think the greedy rich and wealthy nations seem to me to be like the rich man in the parable, who went to hell because he ignored starving Lazarus at his door. I think there is nothing wrong with righteous anger at injustice. I was not implying anything half-hearted when I used the words “can be right.”  I meant, sometimes it is right to be forceful, and sometimes it can be wrong (like when it’s not necessary to get the job done). Of course I do think we are obliged to do something about financial corruption. And abortion. And immoral economic systems that crush the poor. And any injustice. 

Am I upset and disgusted over the financial crisis? You bet. And I’m disgusted by the way that greed has just about ruined the whole world, morally, environmentally, lots of ways. But I hope we are all as angry, or moreso, about Planned Parenthood’s profiting from the killing of millions of innocent human beings as you are about our economic woes. As bad as it is to lose a house or a job or to go hungry, there is nothing worse than being murdered. If I have to chose between fixing economic woes and reducing abortion, I choose reducing abortion. Those are my brothers and sisters being unjustly killed. But we shouldn’t have to choose. We should fight for the rights of our preborn brothers and sisters, AND fight for the rights of the poor outside of the womb too!!

@Mouse: Upon reading your reply, I’ll grant you there’s more that unites us than divides us, save for how intense one wants to apply some badly needed reminders to the more calloused souls amongst the wealthiest and most parasitic caste of predatory neo-“economic royalists” this nation has ever witnessed.
  The more I read from Senator Bernie Sanders “Survivors of the Recession” (a collection of very poignant letters from his Vermont constituency, and non-Vermonters), plus other testimonials about the reality of trying to simply keep on playing by the “rules” for becoming economically self-sufficient, the deeper my anger and frustration becomes when I come across the snide put-downs of Occupy Wall Street by very, and I mean very, scandalously wealthy people “working” within the conservative media, or even some middle of the road media networks and publications.  At this stage, I frankly don’t care if Jesus used a two-by-four 2,000 years ago in the Temple and certainly wouldn’t feel the least bit upset to read he used one today in some of the Wall Street offices whose employees put up taunting signs bragging about their wealth, and certainly not in the least the studios and offices of both Fox News and whomever syndicates Ann Coulter’s columns. “Wingless, Bloodsucking and Parasitic: Meet the Flea Party.” Oct. 12, 2011.
  Ann and I share one thing in common besides the fact both of us were at one time both conservative writers.  (I am no longer. It’s far too embarrassing, and largely because of people like her.) We both interned at the National Journalism Center in Washington, DC.  Granted, she became a star and I did not but what price stardom?  At what price do you start justifying the selling of one’s soul to get look at yourself in the mirror and take pride in the kind of scurrilous and decidedly classicist screeds she puts out regularly and quite shamelessly?
  Take a look at her most recent column published this week about the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators. It’s a real gem. For sure, the movement needs some polishing and a much sharper focus so as to deny very people responsible for inspiring the necessity to stage this demonstration in the first place to have even the slightest leg up to pee all over them, much less have any valid grounds to yip. Coulter’s not a Wall Street hedge fund operator or one of the predators who caused the 08 Crash; but she’s a superb cheerleader for that ilk; or so she thinks.
  Surprisingly for an Ivy Leaguer, when it came to using Shay’s Rebellion to bolster her point that this nation being a republic, doesn’t need any mobs to shake the powers that be to get results. Nonsense; which Thomas Jefferson, who understood why Shay and his men, hardscrabble veterans trying to scratch a living off of farms in western Massachusetts, whilst being squeezed by the merchants, bankers and Massachusetts legislators and eastern lawyers, took their muskets to stop a foreclosure hearing in Northampton in 1786. “A little rebellion now and then is a good thing …” said Jefferson from Paris, no less. Even he was far more clear-sighted than the genuinely (former) rabble rousing-turned-reactionary Lt. Gov. Sam Adams who wanted Shays and all his men hung.
  Here’s Coulter’s take:  “The very reason we have a constitutional republic is because of a mob uprising. Soon after the American Revolution, Shays’ Rebellion so terrified and angered Americans that they demanded a federal government capable of crushing such mobs.”  Had Ann done her homework, she would’ve learned that we already had 13 republics, with Massachusetts then, and still now, the oldest such bicameral republic operating off the same constitution, which happened to be primarily authored by John Adams,  (with considerable editing help from Abigail.) The Massachusetts Constitution didn’t prevent Shays and his men from taking up arms. It couldn’t because it was betrayed by one of the oldest of all sins; greed. No constitution in the world is immune to buffeting from the foibles and sins of mankind.  But, if put to good use, (which it was in the aftermath thanks to the succeeding administration under the new governor, John Hancock), any constitution can perform wonders.
Sigh, I guess it’s also safe to presume Ms. Coulter never glanced at Charles Beard’s Economic Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, either. The Founding Fathers were indeed terrified of losing their shirts—so-to-speak—but not to the point of justifying means to crush the people. Yes, they wanted order, but at least they seemed to have learned more of the reasons why the new and very disorganized Confederation comprised of 13 different states in a land mass far larger than any of Europe’s existing land empires at the time. Thank God we’ve only suffered one Hamilton (insofar as power play politics is concerned) and one Coulter (insofar as wishing we had more men back then willing to construct the very opposite of what most conservatives seek, a limited government not given to “crushing”  the people every time something came up.)
Get a hold of the column. It’s late and I don’t want to give that woman more ink than she deserves.  Bad enough that she tried to second guess “embarrassed” liberals into surmising what the “…OWS protestors really are: wingless, bloodsucking and parasitic. This is the flea party, not the tea party.”
The leggy blonde darling of the truly bloodsucking crowd (growing in ranks within today’s conservative crowd) must be chortling with this final wrap-up (not to mention slandering of Daniel Shay): 
“ . . .  They are not in the tradition of the tea partiers, much less our founding fathers. They are not in the tradition of the civil rights movement or Operation Rescue. They are in the tradition of Shays’ Rebellion, the Weathermen and Charles Manson.”
The “Weathermen and Charles Manson” …? I’ll at least admit it if my anger gets the best of me, and take no shame if it’s done on behalf of those who are simply, albeit presently somewhat disorganized, trying to stand up for the vast majority of American citizens who are being squeezed out and left to dry by the real “bloodsucking” crowd of genuinely “parasitic” bunch seemingly hell-bent on establishing an oligarchy of the likes we’ve never seen in this nation before, and all because they can no thanks to the erosion of New Deal regulatory restrictions that kept the free market system far freer to enter into and earn a decent living from contributing to it. Nowadays it’s a rigged casino for high rollers in the hedge-fund rackets.  In this light, I hope you’ll forgive my interpretation of Jesus’ display in His Father’s House.  (In fact, who could blame Jesus for even using “My Father’s House” as a mocking term given the knowledge of who built the monstrosity: Herod.)
  BTW, Daniel Shays had to hide out for a while, and when he was allowed to return to his farm in Pelham, there were no book offers, no signing tours, no operatives offering to make him a national figure, etc.  He just went back to farming more rocks than produce. But thanks to him, thousands of Americans were spared the disgrace of being thrown into debtors’ jails to rot and die.
  Look how far we’ve come in 225 years: Debtors’ prisons and courts are making a comeback and they are being run by the same ilk who gave us for profit health insurance. Pay your bills folks. The real “bloodsuckers” are back at it with a vengeance.
PS: Sorry for my “dissertation” here.  LOL! But I had some “venting” to take care of—some tables in the temples of what used to be responsible conservative writing needed some turning over plus some snaps by a young-at-heart 60 year-old former political reporter’s BULLWHIP.

Yeah, that was a bit of a dissertation! LOL.

Well, I follow current events with an eye towards issues that I care about a great deal, but I find that paying too much attention to the “chatter” did nothing but destroy my peace of heart and make me angry in a way that was really unproductive.  I try to get the info I need while staying “detached” from all the opinionating. 

To me, what matters is what Jesus thinks. I really don’t care what the pundits think!! I think listening to them wastes a lot of time with little or no return. We can be using that time to pray or write or speak to others or feed the poor or help an unwed mother, you know?

I do thank God for good politicians who are out there defending human life and dignity and trying to help regular Americans get their needs met in a moral way, and who are stepping up to defend our religious and other freedoms as they begin to increasingly come under attack.  Those souls mostly do their work quietly, did you ever notice?

I think one real rebellion, if you will, is to refuse to be part of the movement to keep us all in an uproar all the time. That makes us fodder for powers that do not have anyone’s interests at heart but their own. And I think it’s the part of the devil’s work in our age to get us all biting and tearing at each other 24/7. People are making billions off of that uproar, while others starve. Why give them our time or money?

I suspect you and I would probably agree that a certain class of international wealthy elites have basically become the robber barons of our day. These are the same people, by the way, who are bankrolling International Planned Parenthood and the like in the attempt to impose a corrupt, abortion-minded sexual ethos on every nation and culture in the world. It’s all a broad assault on the human person based in greed and selfishness. The challenge is to love our enemies…pray for those who persecute you… even if we have to oppose their policies vehemently. Impossible without God’s grace.

My fear is for violent revolution to break out, because typically that kind of cure is worse than the disease.

Nice chattin’ with you.

Great Reply Mouse! I’m with you about the need to avoid a violent revolution because as you alluded to ... they can and sometimes have gotten completely out of control. Very few rebellions have ever achieved their ends without excess bloodshed. We have had only one successful post-Revolutionary War rebellion and that was Daniel Shays’, notwithstanding the eventual clobbering he and his men received from the Massachusetts State Militia. Yet, out of his militarily unsuccessful rebellion, came the “Miracle of Philadelphia” in 1787.
  I would love for nothing more than for this “Occupy Wall Street” movement to take the grave income and other social disparity issues straight to Capitol Hill, and more or less get…and stay… right in faces the GOP “leadership” now controlling the House of Representatives till they stop their ideological foot-dragging and pass a real job creating bill. No more diversionary anti-abortion amendments or further cuts to badly needed nutrition and fuel assistance programs, funds for schools, college education, professional training, etc.
  Of course abortion is a paramount issue. But it’s far too paramount to be sneakily used as a mere legislative equal to fish bait. Any law passed concerning abortion must be a ‘stand-alone” or “clean piece of legislation,” just as abortion must be settled on a federal basis only, just as slavery should’ve been before the first shots were fired in Charleston Harbor.
  You’re right: Let’s ALL pray we don’t witness any 21st Century Ft. Sumters.

Hi…well, I don’t necessarily agree that the anti-abortion amendments are merely diversionary. But even if they were, I thank God for any reduction in the use of our tax dollars for abortion, or for any increased restrictions, etc. (Only once in my life have I seen an anti-abortion amendment that I actually thought could do more harm than good, and that was at the state level.)

In any case, because the Dems so often make abortion part of things that should have nothing to do with it, no one should be surprised when we want to make sure to explicitly exclude abortion. And the Republicanas are right to say that it is even more wrong to use our tax dollars for this evil when we need the dollars for real helps to the people, and if they are using the crisis as an opportunity to get rid of abortion funding, or even to force the hands of those who with great wickedness continue to use our tax dollars for these things, is that wrong? I think many of them are more sincere than you may imagine. People are comlicated. Just because they don’t love the poor enough doesn’t mean they don’s sincerely care about the unborn. I’m not saying all, but surely some.

Meanwhile, the Dems: They pass a healthcare bill that they claim will not fund abortion, Obama signs a near-useless exec order to prevent the funding of abortion which supposedly will not happen under the bill anyway, and then when someone passes an amendment to explicitly say in a legally binding way that no abortion will be funded under Obamacare, Pelosi and gang have a cow. SO…the healthcare bill doesn’t fund abortion, but we shouldn’t pass a bill that says the healthcare bill won’t fund abortion? From this we understand that they were lying when they said it wouldn’t fund abortion. People like this will never get my support, I don’t care what else they do.
OK, so I’m ranting…

Anyway, this is far afield from the mansions question, isn’t it? Why should anyone who loves Jesus want a mansion? This remains my question. Wouldn’t we natually want a simpler house and give more to the Church or to charity or whatever? Just askin!!

You seem very into Shay’s rebellion. I will have to read more about that.

Compassion comes from the individual heart.  So does envy.  We can all tell rich people to give their stuff away, but it shouldn’t come from us, it should come from their heart.  And vice versa, Envy is when you begrudge someone else something that they have, it is one of the 7 deadly sins.  Rich people are to be LOVED & so are poor people.  Why is that so hard to accept?  LOVE ONE ANOTHER.  Rich or poor, that is THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT.

the colors are beautiful

check this link,  to your friends for less

If you had to bet your life on whether God agrees with you, would you feel comfortable doing it? Or do you think he would feel that your argument simply espouses the omnipresent desire to justify the innate selfishness and indifference towards the less fortunate that plagues us humans? I can personally identify with a love for nice things myself; however, I simply cannot fool myself about what is TRULY right and wrong in God’s eyes.

All I’m saying is, if I had to bet my life regarding God’s stance on this issue, I would CERTAINLY NOT feel comfortable choosing your viewpoint. I don’t mean to sound harsh, but I would probably feel safer jumping out of a plane. I really hope you will give more thought to this one.