Speaking of the rich large corps., I was reading an editorial in today's paper (a local paper) which mentioned a meeting of 2000 of the world's elite and wondered what their purpose for meeting is. I also wondered why I read about it in an editorial on the nth page rather than a report about it on the front page. The editorial was just describing how these people really do not like Bush's policies on the war. Anyways, I just thought somebody might be able to shed light on what these 2000 of world's richest and powerful people are meeting to discuss or decide.
Jairid | 01.30.03 - 2:21 pm | #

Your fate.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.30.03 - 2:25 pm | #

The rich tend to be very clubby - who else can most of them relate to?

I am reminded of Gladreal's(sp?) blessing in Gimmle:

"Your hands will flow with gold, but over you gold will have no dominion."

Not that's the way to be rich!
John Hearn | 01.30.03 - 2:25 pm | #

Not=Now
John Hearn | 01.30.03 - 2:26 pm | #

Large corporations are all run by rich conservatives who affirm the religious status quo.

Chesterton makes a good point, but things have gotten worse since his day. Corporate leaders used to be at least nominally Christian. Currently they gare raduates of the University's of the 60's and imbibed deeply while they were there.
AB | 01.30.03 - 2:33 pm | #

"But it is quite certainly un-Christian to trust the rich, to regard the rich as more morally safe than the poor."

I dunno about that, Mark. It kinda seems to me that rich&poor are variables that are independent of good&bad. You can find both good and bad rich men. You can also find good and bad poor men. And being poor is no assurance that you don't serve mammon -- it might just mean that you're not very good at it.


Francois | 01.30.03 - 2:34 pm | #

Interesting that this is posted on a rich man's blog and commented upon by rich people.
Joseph R. Mc Faul | 01.30.03 - 2:40 pm | #

I am rich in that I am American. Compared to most people in the history of the world, I'm stinking rich. Compared to most Americans, I am lower middle class.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.30.03 - 2:45 pm | #

By the way, Joseph, your remark does not (in light of our Lord's words) fill me with confidence the ultimate righteousness of the US. We are in a parlous position if his words mean anything.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.30.03 - 2:47 pm | #

I'm with Francois on this one. Remember what you posted just less than 24 hours ago, Mark? Wick Allison and a bunch of rich people from Dallas telling the molester-protecting bishop to take a hike?

Unfortunately, these remarks from Chesterton will be used to further the class-warfare rhetoric of the Democrats and stop the tax cuts, especially the death tax. For me personally, this means 50%+ of my family's trust will go to the government, rather than towards the charitable works we had planned for it.
Fr. Paul | 01.30.03 - 2:51 pm | #

Francois:

To say the rich are not necessarily more morally safe than the poor is not to say the poor are necessarily more morally safe than the rich. You are quite right that the poor can love Mammon too. But clearly our Lord's words to mean something about the danger of wealth.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.30.03 - 2:52 pm | #

To return to the original story, I found it interesting that the rules for a contest to design a "Christmas" card "did not allow any depiction of religious imagery".
Marty Helgesen | 01.30.03 - 2:55 pm | #

Fr. Paul:

I don't believe the rich are necessarily wicked. Abraham was rich. So was Joseph of Arimathea. But I do believe the rich are in peculiar danger. And I particularly believe the idea that wealthy somehow makes you a religious conservative is folly. Ted Turner, the Rockefellers, and George Soros make it clear that wealth frequently makes you an enemy of the Faith.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.30.03 - 2:56 pm | #

I agre with you 100%, Mark, regarding the ultimate righteousness of the U.S. I am very disturbed by the thought. Most of the time, I delude myself into believing that I am not rich...it's those "other" people who will have difficulty passing through the needle's eye, not me. That's why I posted what I did. It was momentarily easier to notice this deception in other people than in myself.

"Lower middle class" = Computers, DVD's, Color Televisions, automobiles, plenty of healthy foods, access to entertainment, health care, education, relatively free from crime, political freedom, opportunity for advancement = "unimaginable wealth"

We have a lot to answer for.
Joseph R. Mc Faul | 01.30.03 - 3:02 pm | #

rich and poor are the most relative terms when used in any context. The truly poor and desperate really don't live anywhere in America (maybe some very few rural and urban areas).

The question of taxation really isn't important about rich and poor. The question there has to do with what the role of the gov't should be. The rich have a moral obligation to be charitable to the poor. If the rich did that, then maybe we'd have a smaller gov't.

Pax Christi

Dale Cebula | 01.30.03 - 3:19 pm | #

Mark, for every Ted Turner I'll cite a Tom Monaghan. Moreover, Ted lost his faith not because of riches but because his sister died of cancer, he had prayed for her healing, received no apparent answer, and concluded there was no God. IOW, the problem of suffering is often the greatest obstacle to faith, as St. Thomas Aquinas said. Imagine if she had been healed or someone had explained to Ted the Cross.

I lived in the poorest part of the poorest city in Mexico in 2001. One of our neighboring parishes often had up to a dozen funerals a week, the majority "asesinatos" - drug murders. I made a lot of friends among the poor, many of them wonderfully faithful people, but as above, for every faithful poor I met, there was one who was a scoundrel. The problem is not mammon, but *worshipping* mammon, something rich and poor can do alike.
Fr. Paul | 01.30.03 - 6:15 pm | #

Fr. Paul:

Again, I don't deny this. But I think having lots of Mammon around does make it rather easy to become dependent on Mammon rather than God. Chesterton's point is well taken: that the rich stand in peculiar danger of corruption and the odd myth afoot that to be rich necessarily means to be a religious conservative is one of the most baseless myths in the world.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.30.03 - 6:29 pm | #

Our priest actually had a homily on a similar topic recently. The LOVE of money is the root of evil, not MONEY itself. But money is a subtle drug, you become addicted, and becuase you are not as wealthy as some "other" you are not wealthy. Because you are just "payin' the bills" you aren't elevating money above God.

But our priest had just had some interactions with what he calls "the professional poor", who work the churches and food kitchens in our area. One even admitted that he makes "about $50k per year" doing it.

I agree with the above post that some of the "rich men" who will not enter are actually materially poor. They still love MONEY above all else, they are just not very good at hoarding their dollars.
melvis | 01.30.03 - 6:38 pm | #

Hope I can add to this great discussion:

There's many components to the rich as to the poor as to anyone. It can be said that some that are successful do so because of a wish to provide, and honest act of charity and employment toward their families and communities, 'the more I gain the more I can give'. Chesterton's point works here, the capacity to give based on your wealth does not make them morally superior or inferior, just in greater danger of selfishness and greed since they have little need.
chuck | 01.30.03 - 6:51 pm | #

I really don't like the idea of killing the rich as violators of definable justice.
Joe Marier | 01.30.03 - 8:07 pm | #

I remember that one of the early saints (I'm forgetting, John Chrysostom?) likened wealth to a viper. Not necessarily evil in and of itself, but deadly unless handled with the greatest of care ...

peace,

Zach Frey | Homepage | 01.30.03 - 8:26 pm | #

Just curious: What did Chesterton do with his book royalties (or did his books not sell very well)?
I also agree with Joe Marier: "It is not demonstrably un-Christian to kill the rich as violators of definable justice?" That sounds more like a French or Russian Revolutionary than a great Christian writer.
James Kabala | Homepage | 01.30.03 - 8:50 pm | #

"The odd myth afoot that to be rich necessarily means to be a religious conservative is one of the most baseless myths in the world."

I don't think anybody's arguing with you over this, Mark. I'm certainly not. It's the apparent assertion that goodness equals one over wealth that causes me grief -- and you seem to agree with me on that.

Francois | 01.30.03 - 8:55 pm | #

In another naked attempt to draw traffic to my blog, I have a cool photo and the list of several CEO's celebrating with a Cardinal. It also ties into a point made in Mark's blog about the rich and their access to the hierarchy.


Patrick Sweeney | Homepage | 01.31.03 - 12:55 am | #

On GKC's quote: I would say he's using hyperbole to prove a point.

On GKC's money: From what I remember, he was not attached to money at all; neither did he know how to manage it. His wife and secretary took care of that matter for him.

On GKC's affluence: Well off, but not rich. He made his living in a way similar to Our Magnificent Bloghost, writing and lecturing.
Dave Pawlak | Homepage | 01.31.03 - 9:06 am | #

Forgotten Point

Class Warfare has been a defining point of politics for the last centruy. I think some assumptions and ideas carried over from this debate are confounding the debate here on the blog
AB | 01.31.03 - 10:07 am | #

Severl things,

First, Fr. Paul, although I agree with you about the estate tax, the current estate tax structure should not affect charitible contributions, because as with income taxes, such contributions are deducted from the total taxable amount.

Second, although I agree that poor people can also be slaves to Mammon, I expect it is far more difficult for the rich to avoid this temptation, otherwise the remark of Jesus about the rich man doesn't make a lot of sense.

Third, it is the nature of our economic system to be competitive, not cooperative like feudalism. I think class warfare is driven as much by the wealthy classes as the poorer classes (the avarice of the wealthy works in concert with the envy of the poor too breed conflict, too often conservatives only want to see the envy of the poor as contributing to this conflict). According to Rerum Novarum, an employer should pay enough for a man to be able to support his wife and family; and dare I say it is difficult to support a wife and 5 kids on $33k. We shouldn't say "Peace Peace" when there is no peace.
ben | 01.31.03 - 12:02 pm | #

I've always been struck by the apostles' response when Jesus talked about the rich man and the eye of the needle. What They said was "Then no-one can be saved!" And Jesus said " well, with God all things are possible." Clearly, the apostles thought that the rich were more likely to be virtuous, and Jesus doesn't say well, no, it is the poor. He says that with God all people can be saved.
Jane M | 01.31.03 - 10:03 pm | #

To Jane M. I always thought that the apostles response meant that they saw themselves as "the rich" too. After all they came from families reasonably successful at what they did, and don't seem to have been poor beggars like Lazarus. I think that's what worried them. But I like your idea too and it is new to me. Thanks.

caroline | 02.02.03 - 11:51 pm | #