“How do people get rich?”
It was an innocent enough
question coming from a young boy overhearing the conversation I was having with
his grandfather. We’d talked about the
Fed, banks, quantitative easing, cronyism and more.
The boy was naturally curious.
His grandfather challenged in
a surprisingly emphatic, nearly accusatory tone of voice: “What does Jesus say
about the rich?”
I nervously polled my own
memory and recalled His teaching about the camel passing through the eye of the
needle. Then there was the parable of
Dives and Lazarus.
The uneasiness welled up
inside of me. Whatever the answer my
friend was looking for, his intention was to preempt his grandson’s curiosity before
it led him astray. A teachable moment
was about to be extinguished in the name of the Lord.
“Jesus said that it’s easier
for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter
heaven” came the answer. The boy hung
his head and nodded in assent. It hadn’t
been a question worth asking.
But, it had been. It also deserved a better answer than the
question he received in reply.
A camel cannot pass through
the eye of a needle. Jesus couldn’t have
meant that no wealthy person can enter the gates of heaven, however, or wealthy
kings and queens would not be canonized saints.
Yet, many are. I’ve heard that the “eye of a needle” was a forbidding
rock passage or gateway on the road to Jerusalem.
It might have been challenging, but camels must have gotten through,
perhaps by resetting their packs.
There are a million ways to
answer the original question. Why pick
the one that kills a boy’s intellectual curiosity? Why saddle him with prejudices against making,
using, having, accumulating, enjoying and profitably deploying money? Especially, why do it in Jesus’ name, the
author of all creation including wealth?
It was even more unfortunate
in this specific instance because the boy is one of several children in a big, loving,
Catholic family. They’re going to need
lots of money to survive, and he’ll see his parents spend themselves toiling to earn
it. Moreover, if the Catholic lesson takes root about
big families corresponding to generous hearts and personal happiness, he’s
going to need lots of it to protect his family and raise his own children.
What is there to do if it’s
wrong to have wealth? Must he always be dependent
upon others who know the answer to his question, whose girths are supposedly too
broad to enter heaven but not too broad to provide him with work and sustenance? Are the laborers standing idle in the
marketplace never to aspire to being householders with vineyards of their own
to tend with hired help?
We might have answered this
boy with a brief primer on the marvels of compound interest. There is, after all, a technical answer to his
question. We might have sung the glories
of entrepreneurship, and regaled him with tales of Steve Jobs. That might have inspired him to a particular
type of greatness. We might have
preached the efficacy of deferred consumption and prudent investment. That might have caused him to open a
mutual-fund account for his retirement. We
might have preached the virtue of industry and value of hard work. That would have edified him and inoculated
him against fatalism. We might have
taught about the grace of God, lady luck’s attraction to effort and the
benefits of perseverance. That might have placed his enquiry in context.
We could have followed that up
with an exhortation to fulfill the duties incumbent upon those who prosper. “To whom much is given, much will be required;
to whom much has been committed, more will be asked.”
Instead, my friend preempted
all that with an imagination-dowsing splash from Jesus the wet blanket.
This boy learned that Jesus
doesn’t want him to be rich and doesn’t want him to know these things,
or even ask about them. And he learned
it from someone he loves very much, and who loves him even more, grandpa.
It’s not the particulars of
this incident that compels me to write about it. My friend is a wonderful man who’s been able
to keep his big family together and in the faith long after the children have grown, married and
spawned big families of their own. He
might simply have been underscoring a primordial truth to a grandson, that love
is more powerful than money.
Alternatively, he might have known that this boy needed this
lesson. I don’t know his grandson’s
predilections, inclinations, dispositions and history; he does.
Rather, I fear something
general was at work: that this vignette plays itself out all too frequently in the Catholic
world. It’s indicative of Catholic attitudes regarding money, business, markets and the economy. It speaks to Catholic feelings of guilt over having
something that others don’t, or even over not feeling guilty that they don’t.
So many ills, so much
suffering could be ameliorated with more widely produced and broadly disseminated wealth. How do people get rich?
What if the boy had asked why
men marry women? Would it have been
appropriate or beneficial to challenge, “What does Jesus say about women,” and
answer “If you look at them with lust, you’ve already committed adultery”? Then he’d learn that it’s better to pluck
his eyes out than to ask that question again.
Lust is a sin. It would be a travesty to learn it at the
expense of marriage and family, however.
Greed is also a sin, though one need not learn it at the expense of
prosperity.
Not every desire for a woman
is lustful. Similarly, not every desire
to excel or serve the real needs of people—both very helpful inclinations for
producing wealth and growing in excellence, even holiness—is greedy. In fact, if they’re honest motives for
economic activity, they’re not indicative of greed at all.
Wealth can serve human
dignity and the common good. Why raise
children to think there is something intrinsically wrong with it? More broadly, why foment prejudices against
it in a Church of a billion people who all need to eat, bathe, clothe, weather
the elements and fruitfully occupy themselves? Why
fill people with guilt over it?
Is it because too many people suffer from a lack of material wealth? Surely, the solution to that problem is not to increase their numbers.
Is it because riches can work
against human dignity and the common good as well as in favor of them? Is it because we can dam ourselves through
excessive devotion to them? Then, better
to instruct our children in how to avoid those pitfalls, e.g., service, almsgiving,
mortification and broader senses of purpose and responsibility.
The difference between a beneficial
or harmful possession of wealth is the quality of a human heart (not the size
of one’s bank account), which will never improve as long as it is attached to
mammon rather than God. To renounce
allegiance to mammon, however, is not to obviate the need for it. We all have to pay our bills and keep the
wolves from our doors. Mammon is useful
for that. It is one device through which
God answers our prayers.
Sanctity and wealth are
simultaneously available to those who pursue them in that order, and seek the
latter for the sake of the former. You
don’t have to be poor to love the Lord with your entire heart, soul, mind and
being or to love your neighbor as yourself.
Neither is poverty a guarantor of holiness.
Rather, all believers are called to live a spirit of poverty and detachment from things whether they have money or not. Professional excellence, generosity and a spirit of service are all in accord with Catholic faith; sneering at the rich is not.
Rather, all believers are called to live a spirit of poverty and detachment from things whether they have money or not. Professional excellence, generosity and a spirit of service are all in accord with Catholic faith; sneering at the rich is not.
Christian believers know
that it’s foolish to place one's faith in burgeoning silos. There is nothing permanent in
this life. That doesn’t mean that we
shouldn’t fill our silos, however. They
come in handy for God’s purposes--when there are seven years of famine, for
instance.
One of your best posts. When you think about it, what are the alternatives to striving for excellence? If we don't use our talents and gifts, isn't that just as bad as using them for the wrong ends?
ReplyDeleteI see your point. But, letting ground lie fallow is not the same as poisoning it; leaving a house abandoned is not the same as demolishing it. Similarly, being lazy and being actively pernicious are not the same thing.
ReplyDeleteNot using your talents and gifts is a waste that Christ admonishes against. It's thus best not to let them languish. Excellence is a word from our Hellenic inheritance. I often imply that the ideas are interchangeable. Both signify that fruition is not possible without it. But, Christ's warnings carry a supernatural import that hellenic philosophy doesn't.