Community service: when money becomes a means of charity
Aside from the purely fatherly and familial duties, which already require “a lot of money” by modern standards, there can be other reasons why one would act in the spirit of perfection in working at increasing his revenues: reasons relative to charity and community service. A good reason to want more money would be, indeed, a desire to be generous, more generous than average towards your family, friends and community.
Some people are called either through their birth, or through their talents, or both, to play a role in the common good by means of their wealth and financial/economical achievements.
There is a “brutally honest truth” some Catholics don’t want to hear: the Church cannot survive without rich people. Throughout history, churches and monastic orders were mostly funded by rich people. The nobles would give lands and fiefs, the bourgeois would give real estate or gold. Nowadays, managing parishes and missions still comes with huge expenditures. If everyone gives a little, it helps, but great things usually happen with great donations. In the Christian understanding of social conditions, it is the providential role of rich people to give to the poor (and priests and religious are poor in a certain sense, because they do not work for a living and rely almost exclusively on donations).
Many times I’ve heard the priest of my mission say, half-jokingly, “we need to convert millionaires.” Only half-jokingly, because the truth behind such statements is that these kind of missions dramatically need more money. If we can’t convert millionaires, why not make some new ones inside our communities? Wouldn’t it be excellent to build back a Catholic elite? Of course, “becoming rich” in a spectacular way is not a thing attainable by most people, especially if you were born lower class. You need both specific talents and favorable circumstances. But if you are gifted and able to seize good opportunities, you could offer a great service to your community by “becoming rich,” or at least by elevating your social condition.
Historically speaking, the social order heavily relied on intertwined networks of rich and poor people, the rich people helping and protecting poor people, the poor people offering services and support to their rich protectors: such was the patronage in ancient Rome, the relationship between lords and tenants or vassals in feudal Europe, the relationship between masters and apprentices/journeymen in the guilds. Contrary to what the Marxist vision of history teaches, these relationship were in principle friendly and inspired by family spirit (the rich-poor relationship emulating the father-son relationship), in practice it was not always the case (as bad people could abuse of their power against the weak, or neglect their duties) but many times there was this friendly and even affectionate relationship, if the patron and the client were living close to one another. Many times the nobles in the parishes were the godfathers and godmothers of the peasant children; many times the patron could become the godfather of his employee’s son. We should remember that and not antagonize in principle “the rich” and “the normal people,” since the two are destined to live together and serve one another.
Also we should be aware that there are countless degrees of “rich,” and it makes little to no sense to designate “the rich people” as a clearly defined category which would be responsible for such and such thing, when you consider that we may call “rich” both self-made millionaire entrepreneurs, aristocrats who inherited an immense wealth, your family doctor who has a summer house and plays golf, or the butcher next door who has run a successful shop for many years, and bought himself a fancy car. We just described four types of people who, in a certain sense, each belong to a different “social class,” and probably have a very different kind of education and worldview; let’s not oversimplify our understanding of society by a mere rich/poor divide.
I don’t think it would be disordered to have the desire to become more involved in community life through a greater wealth. It is a great joy to “be able to be generous.” Imagine if you had such a huge house that you could easily accommodate a friend in need, or welcome a priest who is passing by and needs some place to eat and rest. Imagine if you had the means to regularly host friendly gatherings or parties at your home, instead of having to meet your friends in some crowded public place. Imagine if you could easily pay the medical bills of someone who is suffering in your family. Imagine if you owned a business which could employ some of your friends and relatives desperately in need of a job. I don’t think it’s sinful to want to be able to do that. We just have to avoid becoming obsessed with that (it could be a kind of hidden avarice and pride), but certainly if at some point in your life you see that becoming possible, you should be grateful. If God allows you to grow in wealth, it is essentially for the service of your neighbor, first your family and then your community.
Understand the warnings of Our Lord about the love for riches
Our Lord Jesus Christ famously issued warnings against the passion for riches, or more generally against the passion for worldly things and worldly achievements. It especially apparent in this passage:
“Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt. 19: 23-24)
This passage should not be interpreted so literally as to say: anyone who possesses riches cannot save his soul. I used to know someone who had this totally literal approach of the verse, saying that given it is impossible for a camel to “pass through the eye of a needle,” that means it is impossible to go to heaven when you are rich. I hope this person did not take too literally this other verse from the same chapter: “For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.” (Mt. 19: 12). Origen infamously castrated himself because of his literal interpretation of the verse!
So this passage obviously requires further interpretation to be understood correctly.
Some scholars suggested that the “eye of a needle” actually refers to the name of a gate of Jerusalem, renowned for being short and requiring pack animals such as camels to bend painfully in order to pass through it. It gives way to a different explanation than what the purely literal sense suggests: it should be understood as an image illustrating the previous verse, which is saying “a rich man shall hardly enter the kingdom of heaven.” Not as a way to say it is impossible, but to say it is difficult.
It is indeed difficult to save your soul when you are “rich,” in several different ways:
- Anyone who is attached to his riches (even if these are not so great: a poor person can indeed be a “rich in spirit,” clinging to the few things he possesses), will have a poor spiritual life and is likely to commit sins because of this earthly attachment.
- He who possesses many things is at a greater risk to become attached to them, compared to he who possesses nothing or very few things. That is why “real poverty,” as opposed to mere “spiritual poverty,” can be a spiritual blessing, and is pursued by consecrated religious as a means of salvation.
- He who is rich has an easier access to the pleasures of life and the admiration of men, and therefore has more occasions of sin.
All this makes it very easy to understand why God is unlikely to answer a prayer to “become rich” or obtain a lot more riches, because this is dangerous to most people. God only gives us what is good for our salvation, and most people won’t become better as they obtain more success and more pleasure out of life.
But notice that God often answers prayers for having a better situation (such as when you pray for success at an exam or a job interview): you are technically asking for more riches, but not in an inordinate way (like a person who asks to become a millionaire out of nowhere), and if God sees that you will do more good in this situation, and that you have done your part of the work (let us not forget this part!), He answers your prayer.
Some people were born in a wealthy family, or perhaps with a greater-than-average ability to make money. Are they destined to damnation because of this? It would be crazy to think that. If they are “poor in spirit,” that is to say if they are detached from their riches (being indifferent between poverty and wealth, seeing wealth only as means to be used for the good, and not as an end in itself or as a means to vain and sinful pleasures), these would not be an obstacle to their spiritual life and salvation. Think about the good done by a rich person who gives generously to missionary priests or to religious orders. Or simply think of the good that a father does who uses his hard-earned money to provide for his family’s need and offer them a good education. This is a path of merit, rather than one of path of damnation.
Tristan Berthelot
