Is it a sin to own lots of stuff?

[Monte RCMS]

There is another issue here also: innovations are supported by people with lots of money.

Originally, a four-function electronic calculator was the size of a typewriter and cost the equivalent of a month's pay. Only the very wealthy could afford them.

But the very wealthy thought they were pretty cool things to have and bought them.

As a result of the encouragement from rich people, more and more smart designers got into the business of designing calculators. And fifty years later, calculators are almost giveaway items.

But it took a lot of work in the private sector by a lot of scientists and engineers who were encouraged by rich people who bought what initially were nothing more than toys.

And computers. Used to be very very expensive. Printers. Cell phones. GPS.

Without "rich people" willing to pay the difference, we would not have Apple Computers. And look at what Apple has done with their design approach with all the iPhones and iPads.

Digital cameras. [I mean ... like people don't buy film cameras very much anymore! Except for eccentric artists. Did you know that Polaroid film is now used for art?! ]

I got blank looks when I told someone that my upstairs bathroom was originally used as a darkroom. No one does their own film development and processing anymore. But at one time, it was cutting edge. Even on a budget using equipment from a pawn shop.

All started out as very expensive ... only affordable by hobbyists who were willing to pay biggie bucks.

And that applies to television sets. And cars! And airplanes! And pretty much any kind of innovation. And microwave ovens. And cordless electric drills. When they first came out, I could never justify buying a cordless drill. Now all my tools are cordless.

Initially, only wealthy people could afford them. Then only upscale artisans and contractors could afford them. Now, everyone can afford them. And they have better and better batteries.

Rich men (and women) provided the encouragement to the designers by buying their products at high prices.

Everyone benefited.

Tell your friend that by buying upscale stuff, she is helping to advance technology and helping to make those products and services available to everyone by encouraging development.

[Joseph Kemp]

YOU WROTE: “There is another issue here also: innovations are supported by people with lots of money. Originally, a four-function electronic calculator was the size of a typewriter and cost the equivalent of a month's pay. Only the very wealthy could afford them. But the very wealthy thought they were pretty cool things to have and bought them. As a result of the encouragement from rich people, more and more smart designers got into the business of designing calculators. And fifty years later, calculators are almost giveaway items.”

- This is exactly right. Thank you very much for posting this. The other examples you mention are also perfectly correct. Innovations would not be possible without the rich to own them, as well as finance/pay for them:

“And that applies to television sets. And cars! And airplanes! And pretty much any kind of innovation. And microwave ovens. And cordless electric drills. When they first came out, I could never justify buying a cordless drill. Now all my tools are cordless. Initially, only wealthy people could afford them. Then only upscale artisans and contractors could afford them. Now, everyone can afford them. And they have better and better batteries. Rich men (and women) provided the encouragement to the designers by buying their products at high prices. Everyone benefited.”

- And there in nothing wrong with spending money on beautiful items and technology, or on the arts, the sciences, or culture. The Catholic Encyclopedia actually says this very thing:

“Notion of property”

“Private property is also indispensable for human society in general. Progress in civilization is possible only when many co-operate in large and far-reaching enterprises; but this co-operation is out of the question unless there are many who possess more than is required for their ample maintenance and at the same time have an interest in devoting the surplus to such enterprises. Private interest and public welfare here meet each other half way. Private owners, if they consult their own interest, will use their property for public enterprises because these alone are permanently paying investments. The advances and discoveries of the last century would not have been accomplished, at least the greater part of them, without private property. If we but recall the extensive net-work of railroads, steamship lines, telegraphs, and telephones, which is spread around the world, the gigantic tunnels and canals, the progress made in electricity, aerial navigation, aviation, automobiles etc., we must confess that private property is a powerful and necessary factor in civilization. Not only economic conditions, but also the higher fields of culture are bettered by the existence of wealthy proprietors. Though they themselves do not become artists and scholars, still they are indirectly the occasion for the progress of the arts and sciences. Only the rich can order works of art on a large scale, only they have the means that frequently are necessary for the education of artists and scholars. On the other hand, poverty and want are the reason why many become eminent artists and scholars. Their advance in life and their social position depend on their education. How many brilliant geniuses would have been crippled at their birth if fortune had granted them every comfort. Lastly, we must not overlook the moral importance of private property. It urges man to labour, to save, to be orderly, and affords both rich and poor frequent opportunity for the exercise of virtue.”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12462a.htm

(continued below)

[Joseph Kemp]

(continued from above)

- The Catholic Church thus sees wealth as an honorable and virtuous thing. Those who say that wealth is somehow “evil” or antithetical to the Christian message are flatly wrong. We can own whatever we want. We can spend our money however we wish. The Catholic Encyclopedia again makes this very clear:

“The doctrine of the Catholic Church”

“The Catholic Church has always regarded private property as justified, even though there may have existed personal abuses. Far from abolishing the commandments of the Old Law (Thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, nor anything that is his) Christ inculcated them anew (Matthew 19:18-19; Mark 10:19; Romans 13:9). And though the Catholic Church, following in the footsteps of her Founder, has always recommended voluntary poverty as an evangelical counsel, yet she has at the same time asserted the justice and, as a rule, the necessity of private property and rejected the contrary theories of the Circumcellions, Waldenses, Anabaptists etc. Moreover, theologians and canonists have at all times taught that private ownership is just. Leo XIII, especially in several encyclicals, strongly insisted on the necessity and justice of private ownership. Thus the encyclical "Rerum novarum" expressly condemns as unjust and pernicious the design of the socialists to abolish private property. The right of acquiring private property has been granted by nature, and consequently he who would seek a solution of the social question must start with the principle that private property is to be preserved inviolate (privatas possessiones inviolate servandas). And Pius X, in his Motu Proprio of 18 Dec., 1903, laid down the following two principles for the guidance of all Catholics:”

(1) "Unlike the beast, man has on earth not only the right of use, but a permanent right of ownership; and this is true not only of those things which are consumed in their use, but also of those which are not consumed by their use",

(2) "Private property is under all circumstances, be it the fruit of labour or acquired by conveyance or donation, a natural right, and everybody may make such reasonable disposal of it as he thinks fit.”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12462a.htm

- Puis X is absolutely clear that a person “may make such reasonable disposal of it (our property) as he thinks fit.” And this includes our money, possessions, whatever. We can do whatever we want with our wealth or property. God and the Church have placed no limits on what we may own. There is no “highest amount” of wealth or possessions that will somehow qualify us for sin. The official teachings of the Catholic Church come as a welcome antidote to the doom-saying of many people, who claim that we somehow are allowed to own only so much, and no more – or we will be guilty of sin. This is an absolutely ridiculous position. It is not supported by official Catholic teaching at all. We are not justified in holding it. Under the conditions presented here, such a position amounts to little more than a dismal personal heresy.

I must thank you most sincerely for your clear thinking and kind words. My friend (who is CERTAINLY a very real person) has drawn great comfort from it. The mental balance and clarity of posters such as yourself are starting to ease her mind. She has definitely read your advice, and is feeling less needless, pointless guilt whenever she buys something nice.

Anyone who says that such behavior is “sinful” is going beyond official Church teaching, and is wrong. The above references make that quite clear. The Catholic Church does not take this position, and neither should anybody else. Having wealth and luxurious possessions is not sinful in any way whatsoever.

[Blossoming]

Material wealth in and of itself is not a sin, however the way in which it is acquired and it's importance are important facets of wealth. At the point one worships money and not God, then we all know what Jesus said about rich men, camels, and the eyes of needles.

From your original post I would think your friend has the right to purchase whatever luxuries she may desire but I don't think it is your job to try to help her desire that which she does not. I would assume as a wealthy, successful person that your friend is perfectly capable of making adult decisions about what her soul feels is appropriate.

And contrary to your posts hinting that Catholicism does not teach about wealth, poverty and social justice, I suggest you review the CCC.

Here is some of it:

2431 The responsibility of the state. "Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. . . . Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society."217

2432 Those responsible for business enterprises are responsible to society for the economic and ecological effects of their operations.218 They have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits. Profits are necessary, however. They make possible the investments that ensure the future of a business and they guarantee employment.

2433 Access to employment and to professions must be open to all without unjust discrimination: men and women, healthy and disabled, natives and immigrants.219 For its part society should, according to circumstances, help citizens find work and employment.220

2434 A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice.221 In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. "Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good."222 Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.

2435 Recourse to a strike is morally legitimate when it cannot be avoided, or at least when it is necessary to obtain a proportionate benefit. It becomes morally unacceptable when accompanied by violence, or when objectives are included that are not directly linked to working conditions or are contrary to the common good.

2436 It is unjust not to pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority. Unemployment almost always wounds its victim's dignity and threatens the equilibrium of his life. Besides the harm done to him personally, it entails many risks for his family.223

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a7.htm

[mjshonnard]

Originally Posted by mjshonnard

Thirdly, I could never recommend support of UNICEF. This organization supports practices opposed to Catholic teaching. I would suggest Catholic Charities or World Vision instead.

Correction: It seems that World Vision may have questionable involvements, too.

[white sheep]

Being a poor steward of the resources God has given you is, at some point, sinful. So, yes, it can be.