Tip from Jesus: Watch the Money

the funny part about all of this is , the little poor woman who Jesus saw and was so touched by her tiny offering is mentioned in the bible for our benefit, and the ungodly Pharissees are given as the opposite example, funny thing being , this still happens in our day. Thank goodness our loving God reads our hearts and not our pocket books.

Rebel Girl -- I don't think the Vatican ´silenced´Jon Sobrino. They just asked him to clarify certain texts in one of his works, while praising his concern for the poor. I had always felt great respect and admiration for Jon Sobrino and identified fully with his reflections. Yet I had not even noticed said texts until the Vatican pointed them out, and they indeed surprised me. So I believe it is good that they requested a clarification. Initially, given the asasination of his 6 jesuit friends in the hosuehold he shared with them, and also of Archbishop Romero; and the previous acrimony between liberation theologians and then Cardenal Ratzinger, the warning hit utterly hard. Yet I believe Jon Sobrino is a Catholic and we all participate in the one and only, most holy and venerable body of Christ.

Thank you, Anonymous. I actually had an earlier version of "Bajar de la cruz a los pobres: Cristología de la liberación" and it did not include Fr. Sobrino's Epilogue. So that is a relatively recent addition. I will need to look at it. For others who are reading these exchanges and are interested in liberation theology and read Spanish (most of the current book is in Spanish although an all-English edition is being planned)you can download this collection of essays by some of the top theologians free from Servicios Koinonia -- Libros Digitales (http://www.servicioskoinonia.org). This collection was put together in record time in response to the notification of Fr. Sobrino as a sign of solidarity and using a medium that the Vatican cannot "silence."

Ariel asks: "...what is the goal of Jesus, then, for everyone to be poor, or everyone to be middle class, or everyone to cast off all belongings? Social justice is great, but to what extent?"

That's indeed a fundamental question you are asking. For example, if everyone had all their basic material needs met, would that be enough? Would everyone then be happy? I don't think so.

So while insuring that everyone's, and I mean everyone's, basic material needs are met (starting with life sustaining needs such as food, water, shelter...) Jesus offers much more and much deeper satisfaction. For look at all the people who actually have those needs met and yet so many of them seem to live deeply painful, senseless and selfish lives.

Knowing Jesus Christ changes all of that. He is the source of life itself. Knowing Jesus one foretastes heaven.

I haven't noticed this argument on the board yet, so I thought I'd throw my two cents in.

I remember reading somewhere or watching some History Channel documentary that described how Jesus' early followers literally believed he was returning within their lifetimes: that the "second coming" that was espoused would happen soon. I'm not sure if this was something put forth by the man himself - not being Christian, I haven't read as much of the NT as I should (being a literature scholar). However, in this case, wouldn't the idea of the lack of wealth - as well as proclamations against sex, etc. - be much in the vein that none of these earthly things mattered, because everyone would be ascending to heaven soon anyway?

I'm all for democratic socialism, and I think that Liberation Theory is an interesting and much more honorable facet of the Church instead of hoarding wealth. Reminds me a bit too much of old-school missionary work, though: bringing food, shelter, etc. to the masses while sneaking in the religion and destroying local culture. It's different if the local people are already Christian, of course.

Oh, and one more thing - what is the goal of Jesus, then, for everyone to be poor, or everyone to be middle class, or everyone to cast off all belongings? Social justice is great, but to what extent?

Rebel Girl --That was December 2006. In May 2007, Jon Sobrino wrote the epilogue to am anthology entitled «Getting the Poor Down From the Cross: Christology of Liberation».http://www.servicioskoinonia.org/LibrosDigitales/index.php

In said epilogue he remains firm on his denunciation on behalf of the poor and criticizes the Vatican's position, citing Matthew 25 or 26.

Yet he also expresses readiness to correct errors in his theology. In addition, he notes that while they share a common concern for the poor, there are also inevitable differences between Liberation Theologians.

Today Benedict XVI denounced both marxism and capitalism (in extreme forms). Sobrino, I believe rightfully, denounces capitalism in all of its forms.

I do not know that Jon Sobrino defends the position of a 'relatively' divine Jesus Christ, and neither does Benedict XVI. The warning from Benedict arose because it appears to the Vatican that in Jon Sobrino's texts Christ's humanity is emphasized over his divinity, so they requested clarification. I believe that with this epilogue Jon Sobrino has expressed an interest in further clarifying his position, and he should. So there's a dialogue going on and that is good. We are united in Christ.

To Anonymous: "Jon Sobrino and the Vatican have begun an important dialogue."??? Que gracioso! In December 2006, Fr. Sobrino, knowing that the notification from the Vatican was coming down, wrote a letter to the Jesuit superior Fr. Peter-Hans Kolvenbach so that Fr. Kolvenbach would be clear about why Fr. Sobrino had no intention of signing off on this "notification." The full text of this letter in Spanish can be found here: http://alainet.org/active/16346 among many other places on the Web.

In this letter, Fr. Sobrino defends his theology, including his writings about the relative divinity/humanity of Jesus which are perfectly within the framework of the Church's doctrine but with a different emphasis than the Vatican would prefer. Pope Benedict articulated his theological preference for a more transcendental Jesus in his remarks to the Brazilian bishops this week.

In the letter -- which is his last published statement on the subject to the best of my knowledge -- Fr. Sobrino also details the 30-year Vatican persecution campaign against himself and other liberation theologians and even concludes that these attempts to ruin his reputation are not necessarily personal but part of a campaign against liberation theology in general.

For dialogue to happen, there has to be respect and the Catholic hierarchy has not historically treated Fr. Sobrino or many of the other great liberation theologians with respect. They do not want to "dialogue" with them; they want them to shut up and go away. Unfortunately, the world looks a little different when you have worked in a poor barrio in Lima or San Salvador than when you have enjoyed all the trappings of ecclesial wealth and power for years and years. Your theological outlook changes a whole lot.

Manuel -- Who missed what point?

You missed the whole point:

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

E-Favorite --I'm sure Mary Cunningham can speak for herself but I believe her reference to the 'enlightenment´ experiment is an objection to the presumably 'enlightened advance' of reducing all possible 'knowing' to rational knowing. There is knowledge that may be revealed, not discovered through human rationality, but that does not contradict reason.

Mary Cunningham --I assume you are a Catholic like me. In essence I agree with your criticism of Marxism but not with that of liberation theology. I don't think one can so easily dismiss liberation theology and yet remain quiet on capitalism, and on the participation of catholics in a capitalist system.

Mary Cunningham - does the "Enlightenment experiment" that you think is reaching its finish include the development of science and technology?

If so, I hope you're ready to turn in your computer.

In this article Rev. Thistlewaithe espouses the Liberal view that the Church—arguably the greatest charitable institution of the last two thousand years—does not care for the poor.

But John Paul’s argument was with the Marxism and its interpretation of history. Marxism--one of the 19th and 20th century’s political faiths—after reducing all human affairs to a struggle between capital and labour, had borrowed from Hegel the idea of ‘progress’ (towards a worker state, of course). It went on to develop the idea of the selective application of force to the historical process. The actions of the Communists, at least from a 1970’s perspective, seemed to validate this approach. (It certainly appealed to liberals like the Rev. Thisthewaithe decades later.)

It was a bankrupt code and John Paul would have none of it. His philosophy was both Catholic and consistent. He opposed removing an unacceptable government by force and installing another more ‘appropriate’ one—also by force. He thus immediately called a halt to liberation theology in Latin America. Twenty years later he would just as instinctively oppose another “worthy” enterprise of removing an unacceptable government and installing a ‘better’ one—again by force. This time in Iraq.

The greatest challenge to the Church in Brazil does not come from its abandonment of “liberation theology” which anyway appealed more to liberals of the rich developed world (like Rev. Thisthewaithe et al) than the LatAm poor. It comes from the Pentacostalist movement, which emphasizes the individual’s relationship with Jesus.

All I can say is thank God JP put a stop to the Marxist-tinged liberation movement. Of course he would earn the animosity of rich women like Rev. Thisthewaithe but their religion is waning in any event as impetus behind the Enlightenment experiment finally reaches its finish.

Some here express a very limited understanding of Liberation Theology. Indeed there are several, not one, liberation theologies. Some, not all, liberation theologians have adopted positions that exist in other theological and philosophical currents, and this has complicated matters for these with the church, and injured their laudable condemnation of the systematic killing of the poor through starvation, etc.

Rebel Girl --The Vatican did not send a warning to Jon Sobrino because of his defense of the poor. Indeed, they praised him for this, and wrote that the warning should not encourage any who dismniss the Catholic Church's commitment to the poor.

The Vatican did ask for clarification on jesuit father Sobrino's teachings about the divinity and humanity of Jesus. They quoted certain texts where they believed Father Sobrino had over emphasized the humanity and under emphasized Jesus' divinity.

Thus, Jon Sobrino and the Vatican have begun an important dialogue.

Wonderful discourse on money and Christianity. I'm reminded of the old joke, "If you want to know how God feels about money, just look at who he gave it to."

I believe Rev. Thistlewaithe is a member of the Unitarian Church, which used to be--prior to the atheist revival--the ideal Christian church for those who didn't believe in Christ.

Today such liberal Protestants substitute politics for theology, but--guess what?--politicians do better politics than priests. Which is why--thank God!--John Paul II got Latin American Catholics *out* of the political arena. Marxism and Communism had probably killed more Catholics in the 20th century than in the previous 19 combined--Mexico and Poland are the prime example. If the Rev. Thistlewaithe's precious Gutierrez had continued unchecked the Church in LatAm would have dwindled to the level of, well, Unitarians today!

The funny thing--OK,maybe I should write posh and say ironic--is that there is no one so anti-materialist and anti-consumerist as a Catholic prelate. After Pope John Paul II visited Cuba in 1998, Castro gave an interview. He was asked why he allowed the Pope to visit "after all the things he has said about Communism." "You should read what he's said about capitalism," replied Castro. "It's a lot worse."

A Hebrew New Testament explaination of Eye of a Needle

http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm

Norrie,

Thanks for the tip!

Go to www.choosejesusrightnow.com & click on BUMPER STICKERS.

Att: John Kolar, et al;

".... eloquent testimony for "Liberation Theology" than his was an indictment of it.." WOW!

Reverend Thistlethwaite, I now see that Weigel's article occurred after yours, so yours was not a "response"; perhaps his was a response to yours. In any event, your article is a far more eloquent testimony for Liberation Theology than his was an indictment of it.

The drunken Moses Story's is as sobering as the Drunken Noah story's!?

I used have a "Palamino" Horse named "B E C K"!

After Becks Beer that is.

When Jesus was around, besides the three wise Zoroastrians who went to Philistine to see Jesus in his crib, that it was the "PAGAN ARABS" [Abrahamic Islam never existed even though the "KABA" in Mecca was the center of Paganism] WAS mostly PAGAN WORSHIPERS at that TIME.

Note: MOSES Father-in-Law "JETHRO" was a high priest of the Pagan Temples 3,500 Years ago!

WAKE-UP!

Please, Broithers & Sisters, IT was the "PAGAN ARABS" (via their "Arabian Nights" & Lawrence of Arabia days of Lore mentality's & sleeping with nine year olds) that were the MERCHANTS (of death) in JERUSALEM at the time of "Yawah" JESUS [Arabs if combined will be richest people on Earth, not Muslum] who paid and got Jesus killed because of his fliping their wears [they rolled dice on his fate] Business Mans Tables at the Market place!

Only Eclatari-on's know who those Arabs were that had Jesus systematically Poof-TIMED! Ya Ya

Thank you, Reverend Thistlethwaite. I wrote a blog response to Weigel's piece, but it was very uneloquent and not focused. Your response is the way Jesus would do it -- with a "counter" parable, or parables. Your essay is beautiful!!

Norrie - Priceless: "Beliefs are another matter. The Vatican offers only table d'hote prix fixe, no choices or substitutions, not available in the cafeteria."

Thanks for the good laugh

"This widow was not donating her last coin to the poor. She was paying the temple tax. Anyone who came to worship at the temple was required to pay this tax, which is what paid for the lavish lifestyle of the high priests, who incidentally were appointed by the Romans."

This is not accurate.

The temple tax was payable only by men and, by the terms of the Talmud, was one half-shekel for each adult male payable only in the silver coins of the Phoenician city of Tyre. The "moneychangers" were essentially foreign exchange brokers who could convert other currencies into Tyrian shekels for a fee of 8%. The "widow's mites" of Mark 12 were lepta (singular: lepton), an extremely tiny copper coin worth almost nothing at the time. They would not have been acceptable in payment of the Temple Tax. However, at the digs at Qumran, a small lamp full of lepta was found secreted in a wall -- the number inside was precisely equal to a half-shekel of Tyre plus 8%! Thus, it was meant to equate the payment of the Temple Tax, probably as a good luck offering in the walls of the home.

Another interesting note: the money boxes at the temple are said to have resembled trumpets and have been made of brass, thus, a large heavy coin (like a shekel or something of similar size) would make quite a racket as it fell in, while a mite would be almost silent. Jesus would not have had to have watched closely. Anyone listening would have known the relative size of the donation.

Mark 12, for a numismatist, is one of the most interesting chapters in the Gospels.

of course jihadist thinks its a good idea - for an islamic murder is the way to go and he gets to pretend its the christian way.
liberation theology is neither.

why do we need the bible to tell us what we already know?

Viva Liberation Theologists! For the people, people and people's well-being above all - from poverty alleviation to family planning to social equity and justice. I'm with you on this.

I don't meant to romaticize the relationship poor people have to Christ, but I have experienced something transcendent when talking with some of the members of my church who are homeless. I believe that God does not intend homelessness for them, and we should work hard until we have overcome this. But they are quite literally in constant contact with God, and with each other. When you have a lot of money and stuff (as I do), it's not particularly easy to swing this level of faith.

My understanding is that liberation theology is not only about wealth redistribution but also about learning from the unique grace-filled relationship poor people have with God, and surrendering the trappings and ego-driven activities of this life until we can really honestly say that we are in that constant community with each other and with him.

I think we in the northern hemisphere still have some tough questions to answer about whether the unique situation that we've enjoyed here can really apply in the same way to South America, where the wealth distribution, opportunity and education system is so disproportionately slanted toward a very small upper class. I don't think nationalizing the oil repositories is the answer, but too often the solutions offered by financial institutions (including the World Bank) have focused on building wealth in the economies in a way that only serves to increase wealth disparities. As Christians I think we're called to see the abundance of God's grace and to imagine new, different solutions to the way things have always been done.

To Whom It May Concern: Dear World God is real and a lot of people know His Name but not many people seem to know very much about Him at all. First off God is a Trinity like a lot of people seem to believe, Second the second Person of the Trinity did empty Himself and become a human being like a lot of people say. Third the Holy Spirit was sent to us to guide us into all Truth like some people seem to believe. God is Pure Love not the hate-filled, egotistical, revengeful piece of garbage that a lot of people that call themselves Christians think that He is. Jesus is the Saviour of the entire human race not the second rate prophet of the prince of this world. The True Living Triune Triumphant God is a searcher of people's hearts and minds and I would recommend that if you say that you are a Christian then be one. Truth is Truth whether you believe it or not and God does look at what you do but He is not the big authoritative cop in the sky like so many people want to scare you into believing. God has a Plan and it is unfolding before our very eyes and He has had this Plan before He created anything whether on the spiritual or material plane. I write He even though God is not male or female but you have to use some kind of pronoun to speak about Him, God incarnate though became a man but as you might have heard He asked permission from a Lady to become a human being. Judaism is not a religion but a covenential relationship between God and a people and Christianity is not a religion either but a covenential relationship between God and a person.

My Kingdom is not of this world isn't this also what Jesus taught us or at least tried to teach us. If all we look at is this life then we miss what Jesus was all about, yes it is about our like on earth but it is about so much more than that and it is also for all of God's children.Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum

Being a third of the trinity, Jesus didn't have to sit there and watch the money to know where it was going and who it was coming from. I believe he already knew all of that. I think the point he is making is not that the widow gave more, but that she gave more with the faith that God would take care of her needs in the absence of money. People who are afraid to part with their money are thinking, but what if xyz happens tomorrow? The point is to trust in God. Therefore, if you are a millionaire and your give, it's not because you can afford to do so, but because you know if you lose every penny, you will still be looked after by God.

this was one of the problem i had, finding balance in christianity- while the apostles were commanded to take only their sandalals and bowls, and spread the good news- in a societal sense this is irresponsible behavior, what if everybody took up their bowls? who would be left to grow the food to feed them with?
and while the widow , who gave all that she had, was compared to the rich man who gave only of his excess- who fed the widow that evening when she went home/ or the next day?
i know, do not be anxious saying what shall we eat or wear (always one of my favorites) but this can easily be taken to an extreme-
getting to the point of hunger where you are really hungry, its true- all you think about is food-for awhile- but after a certain point, like 3 days- the thought of food actually becomes repellant- it physically repulses you! and then what? after a while you start the hallucinations- and if its all a spiritual trip to begin with, youre thinking god is talking to you- is this a GOOD thing? what happens when this is repeated over time? yur health and mind falter, your gums wear out- you need doctors and dentists to put you back together again- good thing they were busy chasing the things of the world-or youd be in serious trouble.
is it noble to be a bum? or a drain on working society? its nioe to spend your life in contemplation of god, but you need a patron to be able to do that- like the church for instance- and who benefits from your contemplation? mostly you. is that the selfess service message that jesus(ata) gave?
and if youre separated with the luxury of cntemplation, how can you be tested if all temptations and trials are removedform your path?
if for some reason you get tossed out into the cold hard world, youd be completely without the wisdom and discernment to function.
and what about those souls who are laboring to fill the coffers with their tithing? are their labors any less spiritual worthy?
if everyone everywhere agreed to such a life- well, no one would work and thered be alotof hungry people out there - also no new babies would be made so its all moot anyway.

thre was no true communism because people have a wide variety of behaviors, and not everyon agreed that all men truly were equal, some were more equal than others according to the state.

and the same holds true with mother church.
if one wants to live truly in the imitation of christ, well, as long as theres an infrastructure of drones to support you, it will work.
but if everyone decided to do that (as they actually are compelled by jesus(ata) it being the best path and all) there would be no way to build a sustainable society.
also, while people SAY there is nobility in poverty, in reality it brings out somtimes the best in people, but ususally the worst, the worst being placated in the rich by the comfort of full tummies. i doubt the message of jesus(ata) was to judge and regard the rich with suspicion and some degree of envy, but that is how it plays out in real life.
our bodies have rights over us even, we cant love any other person, let alone an abstract like god- if we dont even love ourselves in the most basic of ways (like providing our own sustenance through work).

there are good rich, there are good poor- and bad in both like anything.

well, just a few thoughts- (btw, im pretty hungry right now, and that always makes me fiercer- just a fact.)

OH JESUS MOTHER MARIA YOU ARE SO RIGHT RELIGIONS ARE ALL ABOUT$$$$.
THEY ARE RUN BY HOMOPHOBIC MONEYGRABBING PREACHERS ! HOW CAN ANYONE FALL FOR THESE HOKUS POKUS SCAMS?
BE SMART GIVE YOUR MONEY TO THE HOMELESS, HERE IN LOS ANGELES WE HAVE 50000 PEOPLE LIVING ON THE STREETS, AMONG THEM MANY OF OUR VETERANS. OH WHAT A GREAT COUNTRY WE (COULD) HAVE!

Brandi wrote:

"If I am correct my bible says that we are to be the LENDER NOT THE BORROWER."

Brandi--

Are you sure you're not confusing the Bible with Shakespeare? Polonius, a character in Hamlet, gives the advice "neither a borrower nor a lender be." However, since Polonius is a somewhat suspect character, his advice is probably suspect as well.

The only references to borrowers and lenders I could find in the NRSV translation of the Bible (using Oremus' bible browser, at bible.oremus.org), were Proverbs 22:7 and Isaiah 24:2 (see below). Proverbs -- which tends toward practical advice based on the world as it actually is -- does seem to suggest that there are certain advantages to being rich over being poor and to being the lender rather than the borrower. Isaiah -- in one of his predictions of doom -- suggests that wealth, status, and the like ultimately will be no protection. Neither seems to be an instruction to be a lender rather than a borrower.

Proverbs 22.7:

The rich rules over the poor,
and the borrower is the slave of the lender.

Isaiah 24.1-3:

24Now the Lord is about to lay waste the earth and make it desolate,
and he will twist its surface and scatter its inhabitants.
2And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest;
as with the slave, so with his master;
as with the maid, so with her mistress;
as with the buyer, so with the seller;
as with the lender, so with the borrower;
as with the creditor, so with the debtor.
3The earth shall be utterly laid waste and utterly despoiled;
for the Lord has spoken this word.

Thank you so much for this article, Rev. Susan! And, yes, Gustavo Gutierrez is still talking about Jesus watching the money. I provided a little anonymous assistance in transcribing a talk he gave at Loyola on the "widow's mite" passage. For those who do not believe that Pope Benedict XVI/Cardinal Ratzinger was, and is, persecuting liberation theologians, I have two words for you: Jon Sobrino. He's leaving the dirty work of actually silencing Fr. Sobrino for the Archbishop of San Salvador to do but the CDF's "notification" could pave the way. In other words, Jesus' message about poverty and justice still does not sit well with the religious establishment.

Danny B.,

"Definition: ex cathedra
Search dictionary for:

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Cathedra \Cath"e*dra\, n. [L., fr. Gr. ? seat. See Chair.]
The official chair or throne of a bishop, or of any person in
high authority.

Ex cathedra [L., from the chair], in the exercise of one's
office; with authority.

The Vatican Council declares that the Pope, is
infallible ``when he speaks ex cathedra.'' --Addis &
Arnold's Cath.
Dict."

My recollection is that the 1870 proclamation of infallibility was a fascinating episode tied in with the impending loss of all or most of the Pope's temporal power.

It's a great story and fun to read about.

Professor Thistlethwaite?

From what theological seminary/college? University of Phoenix Online, maybe?

Jesus didn't "watched" the old lady and the rich person give money. He was telling the story as a parable.

Big, wealthy corporations have done the research and development necessary to create antibiotics, AIDS drugs, heart defibrillators, and many other life-saving inventions. If every person gave all of their resources directly to the poor, then none of these corporations would ever have been created. We would still be farming with horses and mules, and dying of diseases that are easily treatable today.

Read the parable of the talents.

It is a human limitation to reduce everything either to the temporal or to the eternal. Jesus Christ addressed both.

Not few first world christians, including catholics, with full stomachs, would rather not confront how the system they support guarantees the misery unto death of others. Yet, not few first, second, or third world socialists
suppress the fundamental questions of our existence because they cannot answer them, anymore than capitalists can.

Benedict XVI's views are actually not as distant from those of liberation theologians as the media caricatures, and indeed, they more often than not converge.

The problem is that liberation theology and socialism have similarities. Those socialists who are also atheists have sought to appropriate liberation theology as their own, and reduced liberation to merely temporal liberation, just as some Catholics have self-servingly reduced it to the hereafter.

Injustice will not end without radically changing the system's infrastructure. Changing it however, while ignoring that love is the fundamental purpose of life, and that in its pure form is only available through Jesus Christ, will only deliver the most vulnerable unto the hands of another monster.

Speed1234 - Basing theology on the stomach (ie material conditions) - give me a break. Christianity is about rising above the material not adjusting the policy to the material or co-opting Christ for socialist revolution.

That may be, but when you are really hungry, all you can think about is food.

I do not believe that this is not that hard people. The issue is greed and what you do with your money. If all you can do is covet more and dismiss those around you who are not blessed with your "entrepreneurial spirit", then, perhaps, Jesus would not agree with your perspective. If you are blessed with an "entrepreneurial spirit" or otherwise blessed with inherited wealth and genuinely try to help others and live by the golden rule, then I doubt Jesus would hold your wealth against you. The singer, Bono, seems to be a relativelv mainstream example of someone who is genuinely trying to do good.

The problem arises because we truly should not judge people who believe that they are generous souls because they, as millionaires can afford to give more while the widow in the story simply gave all she could. We have to leave the judgemental stuff to Jesus though we can think the deluded millionaire is a jerk.

The reasons for the relative failure of communism and it's relative, socialism have more to do with concentrated power and greed than the merits of these ideologies themselves.

Mr. Mulgrew,
It's unfair of you to expect Dr. Thistlethwaite to footnote each statement of fact in such a short article, but if you care to look her facts are not difficult to check. Spend around 10-15 minutes googling each fact that you doubt to convince yourself. I do not sense hate in her words as you seem to project. As for careers in the U.S. military, the words of marine Major General Smedley Butler come to mind in his book "War is a Racket" regarding the aims of many US wars, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler).
With love for humanity,

It is interesting that Professor Thistlethwaite uses Mark 12: 42-44 in her commentary about Jesus and money. As per Professor JD Crossan, another On Faith panelist, Mark 12: 42-44 was not of the historical Jesus but a later addition probably made to embellish Jesus' image. http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/264_Widows_Mite

Another view of Jesus and money:

Early Christian economics 101:

The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the "dunking". The historical Jesus saw a good thing and continued dunking and preaching the good word but added "healing" as an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and they nailed him to a tree.

Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus. He added some letters for a fee and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big
buck" world. i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!!

Along comes Constantine. He saw the growing rich Christian community and recognized a new tax base so he set them "free".

The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's
richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches (including the Mormon Church) and related aristocracies.

An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, ( Professors Crossan and Wright are On Faith panelists).

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."
In conclusion, money is a major foundation of Christianity to include Mormonism. Ditto for Islam.

The martyred apostles ran afoul of Roman political and religious authorities because they preached, healed, and baptized for the conversion (and profit) to a non-Roman way of life. This support of an anti-Roman cult resulted in the typical murder/crucifixion of the cult leaders. The apostles' conversions also caused a dramatic drop in Roman/Jewish temple appearances and contributions and just like Jesus' Jewish temple outburst, it resulted in added punishment to include crucifixion.

If the "current Pope benedict XVI" was a true continuation of the very "first" Pope of the Church his trip to Brazil would not be necessary.

Gustavo Gutierrez wants to take the catholic church back to a time when the church was temporal, and the pope was a king and the bishops were of high rank in governments all over the world.

i prefer a catholic church that keeps out of control of politics and limits itself.
the church can cajole but it should not have any direct power except in its own internal affairs.

Ken:

"Neither wealth nor poverty, in and of themselves, speak of blessing or curse. Attitudes toward them speak volumes about our hearts and minds."

You hit the nail on the head. I'm with you!

Dear Susan,
I feel saddened that someone who has taught theology for so many years has such devious thoughts of other respected theologians.
Gutierrez a prime target of persecution by Cardinal Ratzinger? How? When?
Powerful and rich people just hate that( the teaching of Jesus and his commitment to the poor)
and will do their best to get you crucified or suppressed or even labeled as a communist.
Who is puting labels on innocent people and formenting hatred of those who have succeeded in this life if it isn't you.
My parents were both immigrants from Ireland, one Catholic , one Protestant.They had twelve children.We were taught that money was not everything but to work hard and study and God would be guiding you.
Of the twelve children they had- Three Catholic nuns, two managers of shops, one Justice Department agent, two teachers, one self employed,
a Union President of a Phila. Local and all of us happily married (except the nun's).
We men all served when our country called, one Marine. two in the Navy and two in the Army.
None of us hated the rich or successful as you seemingly do.
Why?

Liberation theology is more dependent on Marxist economics than sound hermeneutics. Ask those who suffered under Communist regimes just how "liberated" they were.

Can someone point out to me where Jesus said, "Sell all you have and give it to Caesar?"
Wealth redistribution schemes that rely on force violate the commandment against stealing.

I have never known an evangelical church, from a store front missionary planting to a suburban megachurch, that wasn't actively, even sacrificially, invovled in benevolence giving. They're too busy performing concrete acts of mercy to be swept up in utopian and economically illiterate socialist panaceas or trendy intellectual "isms and ologies" that don't match the contours of the real world.

The eye of the needle saying is simple hyperbole. There was never any such gate or practice of slipping through on kneeling camels.

Neither wealth nor poverty, in and of themselves, speak of blessing or curse. Attitudes toward them speak volumes about our hearts and minds.

Jesus made a distinction between "God and Mammon". "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's."

Jesus focused on psychology, on what it takes to be happy, to be "alive".

Money is just a tool.

Don't get me wrong. I think great wealth is an abomination. It's hoarding. It's inherently unfair.

"With great wealth comes great responsibility."

I agree with Susan that "watching the money" is the key to finding out where a person's heart lies.

danny - im going to have to watch it then.

It makes no real difference anyhow. Jesus was stating that is very dificult, yet not impossible for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. It is a warning that is clearly ignored in my own small community. To me it has always seemed that it was more akin to pointing out danger than it was a prohibition against acquiring wealth. A rich man looks through different eyes and it is easy to delude himself into thinking that he is a better man than he really is. Wealthy people are, in totally general terms, simply not confronted with their weaknesses and shortcomings to the same degree that the poor are. Without that confrontation and reminder, it is dificult to realize that you need to change for the better. It is the same thing the Buddhists say in that it is a terrible burden to be born rich, since the temptations and comforts of wealth make it extremely dificult to obtain true wisdom.

I wanted to point out that the Bible is very clear on the superiority of acquiring wealth through ones own labor as opposed to inheriting it or coming by it through nefarious means. I don't think it is judging the wealth itself, but the effect that acquiring wealth in those manners have on ones character and willingness to strive to live as God intended.

Frank,

YOU finally said something that I can agree with!

"WHAT YOU THINK DOES NOT COUNT!"

JP,

It's been a long time since Catholic school, but I have never (at least as a thinking adult individual)thought of it as assuming a God-like quality. I always think of it as a final authority on the subject, or the Earthly "end of the line". And again, only on matters of Catholic faith.

Anonymous,

That's the funniest thing you EVER said! So you can authenticate Wikipedia, as well as determine what one needs to do to be credible?

You don't even have a NAME!

I'd just love to have your lack of awareness!

HA!!

Anonymous:

"gaby - if you want to be taken seriously you cant site Wikipedia for anything of substance. at least they got that one right, but there are other more credible sources."

Well, Anon, it was convenient and I knew it was correct.

"From that day to this, the rich and the powerful who have full stomachs do theology differently from those who have empty stomachs. No wonder the Catholic Church (and many Protestants too!) feel threatened by Gutierrez and all the Latin American liberation theologians who follow the teaching of Jesus and his simple commitment to the poor. Powerful and rich people just hate that and will do their best to get you crucified or suppressed or even labeled a “communist.”"

Many powerful and rich people are philanthropists who donate freely and plenty to humanitarian causes. You make it seem as if every rich person is a hog who should give all their wealth to the poor. Why don't you make a start!

I am far from rich, but I am neither poor. I give as much as I can without taking away from my own family. And that is all that anyone can ask for, including Jesus!

What if Jesus had not been born in a stable but rather a mansion, would he still have been the man he was? Somewhat I doubt it. But then again, I also doubt he was the son of God.

It is true that earning wealth by one's own hard work or the stewardship of wealth over generations should be rewarded and that private wealth should be respected by the state. However, the wealthy seem to have largely forgotten that without the prerequisite benefits that society has given them (i.e., a stable political system, law and order, public infrastructure, supply of labor, etc.) no accumulation of wealth would be possible. For example, you wouldn't be able to use the phone for private dealmaking, if no one had invested in the public phone system.

Therefore, the caretaking of the less fortunate should be high on the agenda of the wealthy person. This is largely forgotten in our minds, but also is not adequately compensated in our system of economics, along with environmental resources, and the intangible assets of know-how, skills, and the production potential of employees.

what all of you need to understand is that the pope runs the catholic church, as a dictator. he can do or not do what ever he wants.
now this is the big part: WHAT YOU THINK DOES NOT COUNT!

James 2:5
Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

Proverbs 30:
8Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me:

9Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain.

10Accuse not a servant unto his master, lest he curse thee, and thou be found guilty.

Danny B.

Well, I think the ex cathedra doctrine is dubious, but not because it is new. I think it is dubious because it involves a man assuming a God-like quality. It's worth noting that many theologians within the church rejected the doctrine when it put forth, and that popes almost never invoke this supposed infallibility.

Jesus came from a tradition of great skepticism about wealth and material possessions; at least the teachings expressed skepticism, even if the people didn't follow the teachings. I tell my Sunday school class of Lutheran high school kids you can even view the 10 Commandments as being fully 50% about materialism. Commandment 1: "Don't make anything more important than God (such as the pursuit of wealth)" Honor the Sabbath (take at least one day off every seven to do something besides get and spend). Don't steal. And, finally, two (9 & 10)prohibiting covetousness (avoid even mentally wanting stuff belonging to others).
Rich does not equal bad, but the souls of the rich are in far more danger than those of the poor; it is just extremely tough to give up "stuff," even though nearly everyone thinks they could.

gaby - if you want to be taken seriously you cant site Wikipedia for anything of substance. at least they got that one right, but there are other more credible sources.

morgan
the eye of the needle was a common term. im not sure where it was in the city but i did once see a program where they showed where it would be.
the needle was the arm that prevented a camel from getting to the fenced in area of where water was kept. the eye of the needle was the space between the arm and the ground. if a camel was really thursty it would go on its knees and would sometime be able to crawl under the needle to get to the water as his master was negotiating a price for a fill up. you think arabs are tough to deal with for gas, just try it when you are out of water in the desert and they have the only water around.
so when they say it they dont mean a sewing needle.
and i mention islam because liberation theology is more in tune with the war like qualities of islam than the peaceful qualities of jesus.

LAD:

"So the former Nazi who does Jesus's work from his palace in Rome may not be such a great guy after all.

What a shocker."

Don't be such an ass! He was a whole 18 years old when the war ended.

From Wikipedia:

Following his fourteenth birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was enrolled in the Hitler Youth — membership being legally required after December 1939 — but was an unenthusiastic member and refused to attend meetings. His father was a bitter enemy of Nazism, believing it conflicted with the Catholic faith. In 1941, one of Ratzinger's cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome, was killed by the Nazi regime in its campaign of eugenics. In 1943 while still in seminary, he was drafted at age 16 into the German anti-aircraft corps. Ratzinger then trained in the German infantry, but a subsequent illness precluded him from the usual rigours of military duty. As the Allied front drew closer to his post in 1945, he deserted back to his family's home in Traunstein after his unit had ceased to exist, just as American troops established their headquarters in the Ratzinger household. As a German soldier, he was put in a POW camp but was released a few months later at the end of the War in summer 1945. He reentered the seminary, along with his brother Georg, in November of that year.

Wayne,

I did not even say that the Pope actually was infallible EVER! I just said it was a Catholic belief.

Pope Benedict is no longer Joe Ratzinger, hence the change of name with the title. Ergo, things said as Joe Ratzinger should not be considered (even by the most faithful of Catholics)to be infallible anyway.

JP

You posted: Papal infallability. The Doctrine of Ex Cathedra is a rather recent invention was instituted by Pope Pius IX in 1870. When he announced this doctrine, more than half the assembled college of cardinals walked out in protest. Since then, only one pope, on one occassion, has ever claimed to have spoken "ex cathedra."

Thanks for expanding on that information. Are you saying that because it is a relatively new idea that it is somehow dubious? Or am I reading too much into that?

Speed123,

Some more "trite drivel"?

I think it's time I introduce you to my friend Kettle. Pot, meet Kettle. Look! You're both the same color!

@ Brandt

You don't get it, do you? The point being made is how people use the money they have. If the rich gave in the same proportion as the widow and her mite, the world would be a whole lot better. And I do object to rich evangelists who implore their faithful to give, give, give in the hope that they too will receive. But guess what: the only one really receiving is the greedy bastard on the pulpit. The people having to listen to his drivel can only console themselves with their holy poverty and empty hope -- their alleged reward in heaven. If the belief really let people prosper as promised, then we wouldn't have to worry about people being poor.

More ignorant Cathoic bashing from this ignorant woman!

Basing theology on the stomach (ie material conditions) - give me a break. Christianity is about rising above the material not adjusting the policy to the material or co-opting Christ for socialist revolution.

Political/social revolution is the most frivolous of revolutions and Christ transformed the world in ways that no mere political fad could do.

Face it Susan, you just hate the Catholic Church because protestantism can't hold a candle to it.

the liberation theology sounds similar to what st francis lived. pusuing the riches of the earth certainly can supercede any other concerns, like storing ones treasures up in heaven.
in islam we say, to one whom much is given, much is expected.
i couldnt agree more with ms thistlewaite, the theology of the full stomach differs radically from the theology of the empty stomach.

Super, fantastic, wow! Rock on completely! Thank you Mrs. Thistlewaite.

Where was this 'Eye of the Needle' Gate suppose to be? I spent a month in the Old City of Jerusalem, and while I understand the current walls were built by Saladin, I have a hard time understanding where this gate could have been or what the historical justification for its existence could have been.
Instead I am reminded that Jesus often spoke using jarring and extreme contrasts. I have a much easier time understanding the message when the eye of the needle refers to a needle, as I do when considering the wooden beam in my own eye.

There I go again, bringing up Islam out of the blue.

Bear with me! I'm unable to control myself.

Thank you Prof. Thistlethwaite.

I struggle to give time talent and treasure to the pain level. I like most can rationalize that I need to prepare for my earth-bound future, not some heavenly end. But you remind us that Jesus preached more on money than on any other subject other than caring for those who are not blessed with fortunes or status. His preaching was not about giving to the temple/church but to those in need.

Interestingly, many conservative Christian churches (Catholic, Episcopal and other Protestant) only preach about giving of your gifts and particularly your money at canvass time, not as part of their daily theology.
However, the Bible only addresses homosexuality in fewer than 10 places, and that seems to occupy an outsize place in their theology.

Dr. Thistlethwaite:

I'm more of an historian than a theologian. I do find it interesting to contrast the attitude of religion towards the concept of wealth before the Industrial Revolution and after. Before, religon railed against the rich. Seeking after wealth was worse than illicit sex. Of course all this took place in a time where it was hard to become rich anyway.

After the Industrial Revolution those who made use of emerging technology suddenly found out they COULD be rich and that changed everything. Today it would seem being rich is OK even commendable as long as you keep it in "perspective". I don't think that's what Jesus had in mind though.

actually im not biased against islamics, its just that i have read their koran and know that their god wants his people to hate, kidnapp, hold for ransom, torture, murder, have sex with 9 year olds, and force conversions, but jesus is not that kind of god and if his people act that way they are not his people, they belong to the devil, and they need to repent, be forgiven and then allowed back into the good graces of the lord.

A couple of notes:

1. Papal infallability. The Doctrine of Ex Cathedra is a rather recent invention was instituted by Pope Pius IX in 1870. When he announced this doctrine, more than half the assembled college of cardinals walked out in protest. Since then, only one pope, on one occassion, has ever claimed to have spoken "ex cathedra."

2. The passage of the widow. The widow passage follows Jesus' indictment of the high priests, who lived a very rich and lavish lifestyle. It might be helpful to consider the historical context. This widow was not donating her last coin to the poor. She was paying the temple tax. Anyone who came to worship at the temple was required to pay this tax, which is what paid for the lavish lifestyle of the high priests, who incidentally were appointed by the Romans. Their role was basically to give a religious justification for the Roman occupation and thereby help keep the people under control. This story is very much about economic injustice.

3. Jesus' message of social justice, which does come through loud and clear, is a continuation of a theme that runs throughout the entire Bible. The poor, the widow, the alien, the orphan, God always made these a priority. However, I agree that it is more complicated than rich = bad and poor = good.

A couple of notes:

1. Papal infallability. The Doctrine of Ex Cathedra is a rather recent invention was instituted by Pope Pius IX in 1870. When he announced this doctrine, more than half the assembled college of cardinals walked out in protest. Since then, only one pope, on one occassion, has ever claimed to have spoken "ex cathedra."

2. The passage of the widow. The widow passage follows Jesus' indictment of the high priests, who lived a very rich and lavish lifestyle. It might be helpful to consider the historical context. This widow was not donating her last coin to the poor. She was paying the temple tax. Anyone who came to worship at the temple was required to pay this tax, which is what paid for the lavish lifestyle of the high priests, who incidentally were appointed by the Romans. Their role was basically to give a religious justification for the Roman occupation and thereby help keep the people under control. This story is very much about economic injustice.

3. Jesus' message of social justice, which does come through loud and clear, is a continuation of a theme that runs throughout the entire Bible. The poor, the widow, the alien, the orphan, God always made these a priority. However, I agree that it is more complicated than rich = bad and poor = good.

@ Danny B.

You said: "The Pope is not infallible, he is a man. Catholics believe that the Pope is infallible when (and only when) speaking ex cathedra, which is latin for "from the cathedral. On matters of Catholic faith, the Pope is infallible...not always, because he is a man."

I was being extremely sarcastic. Liberation theology IS a matter of faith, and Joe Ratzinger is wrong. Ergo, the Pope is NOT infallible...as you say because he is a man, and ONLY a man.

Correction on the Love of Money: I meant to say the bible doesn't say I couldn't HAVE money (not love)

The Camel between the eye of the needle:
This is referring to in those days camels would go through the eye or Entryway into the city. They could not fit into the eye or entrance to the city because they had too much Baggage/luggage on their backs. So when before they would enter the city the people on the camels would take their baggage off, go through the eye or entryway and then come back for their luggage. That bible verse was saying that so many people worship their money and their belongings that they can't enter into another place (Place of Spiritual Wealth/Heaven) until they leave their belongings behind them. Meaning you can't take your riches with you to heaven. He never said you couldn't have riches.

-Jesus became poor so that I could become rich.
-The "LOVE" of money is the root of all evil. It didn't say I couldn't love it.
-Jesus himself wore the finest linens and he even had a house. So Jesus wasn't the poor little carpenter boy that you all so want to believe.
-In 1 Peter the bible says the He wishes above all things that you PROSPER and BE IN HEALTH EVEN AS YOUR SOUL PROSPERS. What does prosper mean to you?
-All of the disciples that Jesus picked were all well-off individuals. They had businesses, worked as treasurers, tax collectors, doctors, etc. Why didn't he pick some poor person or begger off of the street?

Why can't Christians live in Wealth and Prosperity. Why is it ok for the world to live in the life of luxury and we just sit back and beg and borrow from every lender that will give us a hand. If I am correct my bible says that we are to be the LENDER NOT THE BORROWER. I don't ever recall a rich many borrowing from a poor man.

Sorry, the Pope as an authority on sexual sin? Yea, ok..........it's like saying Anna Nicole only slept with one man. I call SHENANIGANS!

Jesus wasn't "watching the money" in the respect this author indirectly indicates.

He was "watching the intent of the heart".

Thou can not worship God and money. Those who trust in money have a hard time trusting in the living God.

For they will either hate the one and love the other, or despise the one,....

Discern.

What sometimes gets missed is that under the old covenant it was largely taught that wealth was an indication of God's blessing and that you were spiriutal and not a "sinner" while being poor was a sign of God's curse and the sign of being a "sinner".
If you look them all up there are a multitude of scriptures were jesus was rebuked for hanging out with people of lower standing and even of the man born blind the disciples asked Jesus "who sinned he or his parents".

Jesus mission was "To Seek and To save what was Lost".
The phrase reference above is to "Bring GOOD NEWS to the poor" That is to bring the Gospel to the poor, NOT meet physical needs although that is VERY important.

The Pharisees were esentially blocking the way for the poor, thinking they were "unworthy" Jesus changed that and turned it around.

I agree with many other posters here in that Rich or Poor is not so much the issue as what you do with your money and how you handle it.

Finally, whatever you say about the current Pope he does have it straight when it comes to SIN, specifically sexual sin. A concept most social-activsit (liberal) "Christians" seem to forget about or seem to think doesn't matter.

Wayne,

You asked (rhetorically, I know): And the Pope is infallible?

The Pope is not infallible, he is a man. Catholics believe that the Pope is infallible when (and only when) speaking ex cathedra, which is latin for "from the cathedral. On matters of Catholic faith, the Pope is infallible...not always, because he is a man.

With all due respect, I point this out only as clarification, not to bait you.

Wow,

So the former Nazi who does Jesus's work from his palace in Rome may not be such a great guy after all.

What a shocker.

Thanks for the interesting column, Susan.

"Ye cannot serve God and Mammon." Matt. 6:24 Wikipedia defines mammon as materialsim, gathering of wealth, the polar opposite of sprituality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_ostentation
from the Sermon on the Mount

Joe Ratzinger is just wrong. Period. What? He's the Pope? And the Pope is infallible? Uh-huh. Look at the 15th Century popes and even some of the 20th Century ones. When pigs fly....

Much debate has occurred over the years regarding wealth, poverty, and Christianity. Is it better to be rich or is it better to be poor? Which one is more pleasing in the eyes of God? This article is just one more point added to the dialogue. It must be noted that Mrs. Thistlewaithe is making a case for liberation theology moreso than she's making a case for wealth vs. poverty--meaning that oppressed people all over the world must be allowed their God-given right to be treated humanely. Throughout the Bible, we find that God has always been on the side of the oppressed, while placing His judgement and wrath on those who have imposed the subjugation. His chosen people, the Hebrew Isrealites, were slaves in Egypt, remember? Therefore, Jesus' teachings are rooted in social revolution for poor people by granting them access to the Kingdom of God where the only Big 'I' is the Father, not man. It was not that Jesus had an issue with money itself as his friend Lazarus was a rich man. His disciples were well to do--Luke was a doctor and Matthew was a tax collector. The problem that Jesus had with the wealthy was their condescending, arrogant, and corrupt ways and how they, through a process of group hoarding, disallowed anyone else from attaining what they had attained. For that, Jesus spoke the Beautitude about the poor being inheritors of the earth and woe unto the rich....

As for the saying regarding the camel passing through the eye of the needle, Jesus made this point after the rich young ruler asked about how to acquire eternal life. When Jesus said go, sell all you have and give it to the poor so that you may have treasure in heaven, the man refused. In other words, he chose which possession was more important to him--his riches, therefore a man who prides his riches more than God would not be able to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

This is not so much about being rich---God has no problem with that. It is about how you are using your wealth. That's why Jesus sat in the temple and watched what the people did with their money. You're on point, Mrs. Thistlewaithe. Good stuff!

Mera,

From Wikipedia:

"Alternative Interpretation
Another common explanation of the figure, first recorded by Theophylact of Bulgaria in the eleventh century,[citation needed] was that Jesus was referring to a certain gate in Jerusalem called Needle's Eye, that doorway was built like the eye of a needle and so low that a camel could only pass if it entered kneeling and unencumbered with baggage. The lesson would then be that an eternal inheritance awaits those who unburden themselves of sin, and in particular, the things of this world. Although there is no historical evidence that such a gate ever existed, through frequent repetition the idea has attained the status of virtual dogma in some circles."

The Calvinists who equated material prosperity with predestinaton for salvation have always managed to look the other way in these matters. Of course nobody wants to admit that Jesus was a huge commie, except for he Liberation Theology people and those of us (I count myself among them) who reject Christian morality. Those who compromise and make up excuses and rationalizations are serving two masters, plain and simple.

Upon reflection of my words, I apologize for injecting my biased islamic hate into a conversation where it does not belong.

I am an ignorant bigot with a lack of self control who refuses to take the medication prescribed to me.

Please understand, it's the bad chemicals that make me sound so stupid.

Wayne, Jesus' teaching is about priorities in life, I think. If one makes work and making money a priority that says something about his or her values. Jesus taught, however, that priority should instead be given to helping others and to bringing about peace and social justice. That's a tough lesson for Americans in a materialist age to handle. It begins with empathy to connect in your mind with those whose exploitation makes our economy run as it does.

if jesus came into this world to start a temporal revolution he would have done so.
not act like an islamic - jesus was not a war god, he was the prince of peace.
and i prefer priests stay out of politics and out of military actions.

Wayne: it's not just about how much money someone has, but how they use it. The point is that the widow gave a large portion of her income to help those less fortunate, and the rich gave nothing, although they had more to spare.

Re: the eye of the needle - that was the name of a gate into Jerusalem, a very narrow one. It was possible for a camel to pass through the Eye of the Needle, but not comfortably...

Actually wealth, or the lack thereof is also not an indication of how hard (or not) someone works. It is also not an indication of whether or not they have invested wisely. Sometimes it is a matter of accidental birth or fortunate (or unfortunate, such as a chronic illness)circumstances.
My dad has worked very hard all of his life and is still working at age 80 because there was never enough for savings. Instead he chose to see that his kids were fed, clothed and had a roof over their heads. My legacy from my parents is their unconditional love and support. They also taught me to care for others and to not judge them by how wealthy they are.

Wayne, it's worse than you think. Jesus flat said that it was impossible for a rich person to get into the kingdom. When the disciples protested, he allowed that "with God all things are possible."

Wayne, you are missing the point for this much. Please re-read Susan's article again. Thanks

Russell D. & Andrea,

I'm sure the Vatican cafeteria will provide whatever you want foodwise, in large helpings so you won't have any revolutionary thoughts.

Beliefs are another matter. The Vatican offers only table d'hote prix fixe, no choices or substitutions, not available in the cafeteria.

Wayne, not that it's any of my business, but how do you interpret the phrase "it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven?"

I'm not a Christian, but that seems pretty hard-core to me.

Fair enough statement Wayne. Fair enough.

Andrea:

You've been eating at Mazzio's again, haven't you.

The difficulty with this interpretation is that it demonizes the wealthy simply because of what they have, and turns the poor into saints simply because of what they do not have. If life were so simple, and theology so simple, then we could solve all problems by simply socialism. But that is not the case, and wealth, or the lack of it, is not a good indicator of the character of individuals. God knows this, but we frequently do not, and we end up punishing those who work hard and wisely, only to reward those who do not work hard and are unwise in their stewardship of their resources.

Only if the pudding's on the salad bar...with little dots of ranch dressing and pieces of carrot spilled in it.

Hey Norrie:

think they have pudding? I love pudding............yum

I'll bet the Vatican cafeteria gives double helpings.

This is so interesting, and I don't even know what the question is yet. There are so many things in the Bible that people take as completely contradictory to what may be their true meanings.

I'm not a religious person, but I'm extremely interested in religion. And I have seen how differently people view the Bible depending on how full of it they already are.