Sunday, July 26, 2009

Can a Good Catholic Be Wealthy? Part II of IV - Wealthy Saints

There is sometimes a misconception of why the Catholic Church canonizes her saints. Some believe that the Church canonizes saints to honour them for their works of charity, etc. However, that is not at all the real reason. Saints are now enjoying the beatific vision (i.e. seeing God face to face) and do not need nor want our praise. The real reason for the canonization of saints is because the Church wishes to present them as models and intercessors to the faithful.1 Therefore, it is for OUR welfare that the Church canonizes saints. If we wanted a quick answer to our question of whether a good Catholic can be wealthy, all we need to do is to find out if there were any wealthy people in the Church's history who were canonized as saints.

Let's remove the suspense! There indeed are saints who were wealthy! We will now take a look at a few examples.

St. Louis IX2
St. Louis IX was the king of France from 1226-1270. From one perspective, he was much like other kings. He fought in a couple of the Crusades and led a war against England. However, the reasons for his canonization were of another nature. He was a promoter of peace and preferred resolving conflicts rather than fighting wars. He protected the clergy against oppression from the barons. He spent many hours in prayer, penance and fasting. He also loved the poor and performed many works of charity, including feeding the needy, washing their feet, attending to lepers, and founding hospitals.

Although he remained king and presumably lived in a comfortable palace until his death, his life was dedicated to God and His people. For this reason, he was made a saint by the Church.

St. Katharine Drexel3
St. Katharine Drexel is the second American-born person to be canonized as saint (after St. Elizabeth Seton). She was born into a very rich and prominent family. However, after attending to her stepmother's terminal illness for three years, she experienced a deep conversion and began living a life of voluntary poverty. She became a nun and devoted her life to the betterment of American natives and visible minorities. She founded many schools and mission centres. By the end of her life, she had used $20 million in her work.

St. Thomas More4
St. Thomas More was the Lord Chancellor of England during Henry VIII's reign. He lived a life typical for a wealthy chancellor and served the king until Henry's infamous divorce of Catherine of Aragon. St. Thomas was not able to acknowledge the king's divorce nor his claim of supremacy over the Church of England, and resigned from his chancellorship. Three years later, he was tried and was found guilty of treason and was beheaded. Before his death, he told the crowd before him that he was "the King's good servant, but God's first." His wealth meant nothing to him if he were forced to turn his back on God.

Conclusion
The three saints that we've looked at were very rich, probably richer than most of us ever will be. However, there is one common theme amongst the three of them. Their wealth was not the most important thing in their lives; God was. They did not despise their wealth, and even used it for their causes, but when time came for a decision between their wealth and God, they would always choose God first.

So, we should model after these wealthy saints. It is alright to gain wealth, and even quite acceptable to live a comfortable life. However, God always comes first. When our wealth becomes an obstacle between God and ourselves or when it leads us to sin, we must forfeit our wealth and change our way of life. Therefore, we must remain vigilant as our wealth grows with the passage of time. We must remain faithful to the Lord and carry out His will, whether that be helping the poor, attending to the sick, or other works of charity.

Sources
1. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 828: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p3.shtml


2 comments:

  1. A very interesting article. And one I think more Catholics should read.

    There is a general attitude in "Catholic Culture" that it is a sin to be rich, to own several houses, a yacht, etc. This is absolutely false. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says:

    "Jesus Christ did not condemn the possession of worldly goods, or even of great wealth; for He himself had rich friends. Patristic tradition condemns the opponents of private property; the texts on which such persons rely, when taken in connexion with their context and the historical circumstances, are capable of a natural explanation which does not at all support their contention (cf. Vermeersch, "Quæst. de justitia", n. 210).

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12324a.htm

    It is perfectly possible to be wealthy, and yet be detached from worldly goods. There is no limit in either the Bible or in any Church encyclical as to how much a person may earn or own. There is nothing stating "If I earn more than a million dollars, or buy a big boat, I will be in sin."

    Doing business or generating capital would be impossible without the freedom to buy whatever you want. Nobody HAS to become a business person. It is simply another talent given to people by God. Many Catholics seem to feel that if you buy something because you WANT it rather than because you need it, this is sin. It is an absurd position.

    I myself, for example, have always wanted to buy an aircraft carrier. Not out of greed, or anything avaricious. I have simply always loved aircraft carriers. Ever since I was a child, it has been my dream to own one. I will probably never get the opportunity, of course, but one can always dream. It is no sin to wish for such a thing.

    As it says in the papal encyclical "Rerum Novarum," people often have different levels of drive, intelligence and ability. Thus some people will always own more property than others. This is understood as lawful and just. If someone works hard and earns more than others, it is right that that person should enjoy the fruits of their labor. It is unlawful and sinful to deny a person an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. No matter how much that pay may be. This is part of the Church's Social Teaching.

    Here is a link to an interview with Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, the Head of the Vatican Bank. It covers these issues quite well:

    http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/896/the_church_and_capitalism.aspx

    I would be interested in seeing more of your (Catholic Investor's) sources on the acceptability of wealth by the Catholic Church. Do you draw these sources from encyclicals, the Catechism, the Church's Social Teaching, etc.? It is an area that the Church teaches clearly on. Yet so many people are not aware of it.

    I personally think that many Catholics are scrupulous about wealth. They worry about "earning or owning too much." As if this could somehow send them to Hell. This is an evil belief, and it is wrong.

    Catholics should not worry that a large amount of property or riches will send them to Hell. The Church does not teach this. But I cannot get over how many people are terrified about owning "too much" wealth and possessions, whatever THAT is.

    Religion should not cause needless terror of going to Hell. This is an enormous problem in the Catholic Church, one I think the Church has been extremely slow to recognize. And it is getting worse.

    The Internet has allowed people to communicate many hurtful and false beliefs to far more of society than ever before. I know many wealthy property owners who avoid Catholicism, because of its reputation for being prejudiced against owning wealth and property.

    This false belief terrifies many people, both in and out of the Church. And the very last thing people need is to be more afraid right now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Anonymous, thanks for your comment! It's often a struggle that I see people having...many devout Catholics will feel guilty driving a nice car or owning a nice home (me included), thinking that someone that would make us the young, rich man in one of the Gospel stories. It's a struggle many people have and I certainly can identify with them. But as you pointed out, that's a misconception...let's hope we can help change that!

      Delete