Why do people go crazy over celebrities or the royal family etc?


Then plunge yourself into poverty. Today. There’s nothing “better” about having any wealth, right? So go sell your home, car, and other worldly possessions. Give away all of your savings. We’ll wait for you to find a computer at your local library to update us on your progress.


I’m not rich so I’m safe. I’m just middle class.


Material wealth does shield you to a certain degree.

At least those English princes are not in high risk of starvation or being sold off to the sex trade or slavers. Not in as high a risk as poor third world orphans.


No, you’re not “safe.” Give away whatever makes you middle class. Live in poverty. Clear your schedule for the next day or two: it shouldn’t take long to give away everything you own.


They do however have to live their lives with security do to legitimate fears for their safety.

I would but then I’d have to accept the charitable help of the Church (it would be rude not to besides not allowing the Church to do its job) and I’d be right back to where I was well fed and middle class.


It might be well that the Queen puts Christ back in Christmas but she also came out in favor of gay marriage.


Agreed. However these princes have bodyguards paid for by the state.

How many Syrian orphans have access to that same protection?


Sure, but they don’t really need that kind of protection. The Syrian kids can leave Syria an be out of more immediate harm. The royal kids can’t really go anywhere on the planet and not be known.

Either way neither the royals nor the Syrian kids asked to be born into the family they were.


You don’t want to enter into poverty because then you’d be faced with a choice of taking help from the Church or denying the Church its ability to do its job? That’s rich (no pun intended).

So then there is something better about having wealth: you don’t have to force the Church to provide for you. Huh. Who would’ve thought.

Do you have any excess wealth that you spend on luxuries like coffee out, movie theaters, restaurants, new clothes, TV, vacations, alcohol, electric blankets, etc.? If so, get rid of it. Why would you want to hang on to it? Hanging on to these things only shows your materialism, right?


I never said material things are bad. I said it was not the most important thing. If something material is harming my soul then I should get rid of it. Unfortunately I don’t always. This is how I understand Church teaching. So I can have material things. But I should not let them be more important and I should reasonably share with others.


Do stable schools, food, and homes harm a child’s soul once he’s lost a parent?


Have you ever seen the movie ‘The King’s Speech’? The Queen’s father, King George VI, actually was as a child starved and/or otherwise physically abused by a nanny as well as ferociously bullied by his own father for his stutter. So what exactly did his riches shield him from?

Of course had he been relatively poor and obscure he would not have had to do public speaking and so his stuttering might not have been the source of trauma that it was.


I would rather focus on the positive. In Canada, our elected politicians wouldn’t utter a reference to God if a terrorist put a gun to their head. She’s a breath of fresh air by comparison.


A poor child alone in the world is vulnerable even when not in Syria. This is the reason why we are told to take care of poor widows and orphans.

I do sympathize with those princes but their circumstances are still better off than that of poor third world orphans.


Of course I think most schooling harms most kids. But yes having food and a home is good for a child and probably good for their soul. It is really an individual question though. Privation can help the soul, which is why we have penance. In the US we have schools, food, and homes for everyone. But I don’t see our people being in any way better than people of the past who didn’t have these things. In fact we seem worse.


Wealth does not shield people from abuse that much is true. But that is not the point being contested here.

The prince was starved because of abuse not because of lack of food due to poverty.

Poverty can and certainly will prevent you from being fed.

Wealth not necessarily does unless some other factors like abuse come in.

The poor face difficulties that the wealthy do not and the well off face difficulties the poor do not.

However basic necessities such as food, clothing and shelter require resources which the poor do not have as much of compared to the rich.


I would find it extremely challenging to live in the U.K… You see, as a Catholic, my heart belongs to one Queen…and it isn’t Elizabeth!!! :wink:


I like and respect the queen. As for the rest of them I will remain silent. It might be time to abolish this antiquated institution once the queen dies.

For the life of me I can’t understand why so many people in the US have so much interest in these royals. Every other magazine in the check out line has them on the covers.


Kissing the photos its a classic counter-argument, but some bishops in Orthodoxy and Catholicism invest their image far more than Protestant ones.
Of course, this is a unique investment if future generations mention you in prayer, while many holy monks and martyrs will remain unknown to the masses.


Sometimes, the owners of football clubs, or politicians, are disgusting villains, and mafia, but the masses idolize and glorify them.
Sometimes people come to big money or to power in a very dirty way, and instead of remorse or the conscience screaming about moral deformity (like we are witnessing in Hamlet or Macbeth) they vice versa -become fathers and heroes of the nation.
But despite of that, what is esteemed as high among humans is often an abomination and baseness before God.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.