Why Bishop Barron is Wrong… On Happiness
Epigraph
Again there are grumblers who blame capitalism for what they call its mean materialism. They cannot help admitting that capitalism has the tendency to improve the material conditions of mankind. But, they say, it has diverted men from the higher and nobler pursuits. It feeds the bodies, but it starves the souls and the minds. It has brought about a decay of the arts.
– Ludwig von Mises
‘Money does not make you happy’.
This is one of the great insights coming from the new (Catholic) evangelist Bishop Barron. Presented via his YouTube video on the Sacrament of Confirmation. It is wrong.
Source of Contention
The notion that money does not buy happiness has been around for awhile. Cropping up here there in debates and conversations that dominate the moral landscape of Western culture. Notably, and unsurprisingly within Christian intellectual circles. Problematically, this view is often stated in a highly simplistic manner. The idea that money does not buy you happiness, is a position that is essentially advanced as a conversation stopper.
For the notion is usually advanced from an authoritative, and unsurprisingly religious (i.e. dogmatic) standpoint. One that has, for many reasons, etched itself into the mind of many. Taken literally: What is there to disagree with the notion that money does not buy happiness?! Of course it doesn’t. After all happiness is not something that can be purchased at a department store. ‘Hey, clerk I want a box of happiness. Enough for a week. How much would it cost?’. Going further, Bishop Barron’s great insight is that money not only, does not buy you happiness. But the very idea that money buys you happiness, as the story goes, comes from the devil!
Bit of History on the Bishop
Before I get into the heart of the debate, some backstory. For those who don’t know, Bishop Robert Barron is a famous (based on his many subscribers) Catholic YouTuber. Who made a name for himself via his highly popular Word on Fire series. Which (as far as I know) began as a radio show. That came about when the then Fr. Robert Barron, talked about the importance of the Catholic Faith in culture. Having received the go-ahead from his boss and mentor Cardinal Francis George, the former Archbishop of Chicago who gave him the primary push to “evangelize the culture”.
Since then, the (now) Bishop (he became one, sometime in 2015) has become a known quantity in the Catholic cyber sphere (1). I used to follow him quite closely during the 2015-2017 period. But that started to change in time. The main problem I have is his single-minded espousal and perpetuation of the false, and spiritually misleading view that money (along with power, pleasure, and honor) is wrong. That the pursuit of these things/experiences/realities is in someway tethered to evil. And specifically are related to-according to the point he raises in a specific YouTube video, this essay is based on-“the empty promises of the devil” (2).
Now despite my serious disagreements with the American Bishop on the subject of happiness and a few other things, he is a person whose opinions I valued for some time. And in some respects, I still do. My first introduction to Bishop Barron (henceforth ‘the Bishop’) came sometime in 2015. Having been something of a fan of the famous Christopher Hitchens, notably his infamous debates with Christian apologists, where the defender of the faithful usually gets pummeled (with the memorable exceptions being the philosopher-theologian William Lane Craig, and to an equal extent Dinesh D’souza, the Conservative intellectual, author and filmmaker).
Here, I have YouTube’s algorithms to thank for introducing me to the works of, the then Fr. Barron. His videos were informative. In that, they presented key aspects of the Catholic Faith in an accessible light. As a young adult male, I found his message engaging and-uniquely from a Catholic standpoint-interesting. His videos were a marked contrast to the drab sermons that one had to endure on a routine basis on Sundays (the Faithful will know what I am talking about). The Bishop’s articulation of the Faith in relation to key facets of (Western) culture, provided a rounded presentation of Catholicism, one that I had been seeking for some time. Whilst it was not the best (i.e. accessible) presentation of the Faith, I found his educative approach worth the time.
Having followed the Bishop’s works for over two years, and liked much of it. One of his best videos (in my opinion) is “On Pope Francis and “The Religious Sense”(3). Where he engages Pope Francis’s (then newly elected pontiff) ministry. He does this by connecting the Pope’s ‘style’ of leadership with the life and works of the Italian priest and theologian, Luigi Giussani. Whose seminal book, The Religious Sense (1966), one that reflects his work, which I was introduced to, as a result of this clip, I later purchased and read. I held the views of the Bishop in high regard, and at one point even thought about buying his book: Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of the Faith (2011).
Things started to change around 2017. (Or maybe I did). For a variety of reasons, I found the Bishop’s overt preoccupation with the mantra that money is bad (to put it simplistically) a bit annoying. Now, truth be told there were always elements of this in the Bishop’s ministry. Which is not much of a surprise, speaking from a Catholic standpoint.
However, what became problematic was that this particular facet of his message, and what seemed to underlie it: an unhealthy anti-materialism. Whilst I had been content until that point, to just overlook the money-bashing talking points that are so typical in religious (especially Catholic) settings. This particular message had become, according to my assessment, the overarching focus of his ministry.
The point (or video) in contention, one that basically had me saying, ‘You know what, That’s It!’ Was his clip on the Sacrament of Confirmation. Where he makes this highly reductive, narrow, and most problematically, theologically misguided conclusion that the pursuit of money, along with the pursuit of power, the desire for pleasure, and the need for recognition (honor) as inclinations that stem from Satan himself.
'Money is the Root of all Evil…' Really!?
The original verse, from which this highly misunderstood notion seems to have come from, is found in the works of St. Paul. In the sixth chapter, in his letter to Timothy, he states that “the love of money is the root of all evil”. In the same chapter, the great expounder of the faith goes on to state that: “But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition”(4). Comforting words no doubt for the rich and famous. Or for those who happen to live comfortably!
Seriously though. The (literal) applicability of this view in modern times, and more importantly the authoritativeness of this position needs to be considered. Because St. Paul is not Jesus Christ, his views on anything, as far as I am concerned, need to be taken with a grain of salt. A principle which logically applies to the Bishop. St. Paul’s role in the development of this mistaken view about the role and importance of money (and other good things in life) will not be engaged in this essay.
For the reader, deconstructing the falsity of the Bishop’s views should suffice. Who has, like many before him, fallen into the trap of, not exactly demonizing money, but the embrace of the erroneous view of rejecting the goodness of life (one that money enables). Notably, via their espousal of the insidious belief that underlies this worldview: The antipathy towards the material world.
Returning to the Bishop’s video. He observes that the empty promises of Satan are “everywhere in the culture”. One of which, is that happiness can be found (I am paraphrasing), if you fill your life with enough money, power, pleasure and honor. And then he goes on to make the observation that whilst money will make you wealthy, “it will not make you happy” (ibid). And says the same thing about power. Though he interestingly avoids saying the same thing about pleasure and honor. Wonder why?
The Role of Money
So let’s start with the first point of contention, that money does not bring (or buy) you happiness. A couple of things to consider here. First, even before we get to the question of happiness, one has to understand the nature of human life. Before you and I, and I mean everyone, gets to the question of what makes us “happy” or not; we need to ask ourselves, and be able to answer effectively, certain other pressing questions. Namely, the question of survival.
Before money becomes a happiness-generating mechanism. Money, at the most fundamental level, serves the role of enabling us (humans living in civilized societies) meet our basic needs and wants. A reality which logically works into the happiness equation. Hence, as a starting point, one must understand the functions and characteristics of money. So a short perusal of the subject is needed.
Money, as students of economics will tell you serves several key functions. Money, first is a unit of exchange. It is something we use to gain something of value, in return. We use money to come into possession of something we subjectively value. In this regard, money is a step up from the old barter system. Where people had to exchange physical goods for others, in order to meet their personal wants. The goods exchanged may not have been for immediate use (e.g. ducks exchanged for a goat, which could produce milk in the future). To say nothing of the hassle of transportation and storage.
In this regard, money in addition to its transactional function, is also a measure of value. The value that money carries (commands), makes it a standard against which we measure the underlying value of other things. From daisies to diamonds. A factor which enables the exchange of valuable goods and services for “mere” notes and coins.
Maintaining the value (or worthiness) of money is within the purview of central banks (the Federal Reserve in the United States). Who expend a lot of time, expertise, and money (like running the printing press) in ensuring its, one: availability (supply of money), two: value (controlling inflation). Whilst the effectiveness of the Central banks in carrying out these (and many related functions) is a subject of serious debate.
However, the centrality of ensuring the adequate supply, and maintaining the value of money to a nation, and the world’s economy is indisputable. The collapse in the value of money leads to serious consequences. Hyperinflation in Germany during the 1920s brought down the Weimar Republic, whose effects would shake the world.
Money performs other useful functions. As a store of value, money can be stored in banks. Saved up for future use (If managed smartly). And importantly, invested. Which brings us to the modern uses of money. From it being a unit of account (enabling record keeping, and complex financial functions). Money is also used as a medium of deferred payment.
The credit industry is driven by our capacity (and willingness) to differ payments into the future, in order to enjoy the benefits of goods/services in the here and now. For example, the latest Xbox Series, from Microsoft, is being offered as a part of a 24-month payment plan for both versions of its next-generation console (in certain countries). Where buyers can get hold of the product on day one, whilst paying it off in instalments (5). Thank God for money.
Bringing it all together: since money can be stored (saved), be used as a measure of value (i.e. to gauge a person’s creditworthiness, net worth etc.); and is easily transferable (capabilities which are enhanced by the development of new financial instruments, which are built on the core characteristics of money). Underpinned by the role of savings and investment, which have been facilitated by the increasing sophistication of the use of money. One that has gone hand-in-hand with the rise of modern civilization.
The point is, that the underlying significance of money to the effective functioning of a society, from ancient times to the present is indisputable. The evolution of money from primitive barter systems, to the use of money substitutes like pebbles and precious stones, to the national, and later internationally recognized legally binding tender, that money has become today, is a hallmark of humanity’s progress. For all the hate that investment bankers and those who work in finance generally get, the financial crisis of 2007-08 which affected much of the world’s economy, proved one thing: We’re all connected. And what connects us is money.
Money is more important to humanity today than it ever was. The rise of money: the sophistication and expansiveness of its uses, from paying wages, earning interest, making investments, and deriving profits, to earnings, and dividends; and of course taxes, are integral to our lived experience as humans in modern polities. A point which Christ Himself recognized: “Render unto Cesar”.
Of course to understand, and importantly to be able to reap the benefits of the functions and characteristics of money, one needs to be in possession of it. Preferably a lot of it. Something our dear Bishop Barron has a problem with. This brings me to the next, and arguably the most important aspect of this debate about money and happiness: How does a person “make money”? In answering this question, the intellectual, moral and by extension the spiritual facet of this subject will become clear.
Money Matters
I recall a moment, during my second year at Greenwich. Whilst having to sit through this drab double lecture on quantitative methods for economics. Where the topic at hand was on analyzing probability via the application of certain statistical models (cannot remember which). Needless to say, this subject wasn’t my favorite part of my business degree.
And looking around the hall, I was glad to know that I wasn’t the only one. The example the lecturer was using was on predicting outcomes. Or at least, to get as close as possible in picking the right one, by applying esoteric tools. A task preceded by first, grasping the theory that underpinned it, and understanding the quantitative method in relation to it. The prediction in question was a lottery. One that came with a Jackpot of millions of pounds.
As the lecturer was droning on, trying to explain the workings of the equations that went into it, he made the side reference, presumably discerning our lack of interest in the subject at hand, If we can predict correctly how this lottery system (that operated according to certain rules of probability, among other things) functioned, we could all say goodbye to our time attending lectures on quantitative methods. And go out and do other, presumably more fun things. And guess what? He was right.
A point which is often missed by many people, usually the religious types, is that money is central to virtually everything we do. And I mean everything. From education, friends, professional relationships, family (which involves different kinds of relationships) and of course career (i.e. you need to have money to make money).
Virtually every choice that you and I make, on a given day, is in some way tied to money. Either in terms of the money you have at your disposal or the kind of economic benefits (i.e. monetary rewards or losses) your decisions in relation to a given task will produce, in the short or long term. Known as ‘opportunity costs’ in economic parlance. Which applies to all decisions that we make. From the places we choose to travel, the organizations we sign up for, and the places we choose to eat out (or at all). To the kind of friends we make. And of course, money is a key variable that underlies the decisions we make in relation to security, health, housing, logistics etc.
The idea that money changes people, fundamentally, comes down to the way money (i.e. its possession or the lack thereof) changes our perception towards others: Friends, neighbors, family and even enemies, who are in possession of it. And these changes come about, owing to the concrete effects money exerts on a person’s personal and social well-being, and his perception of, and by, the wider world. All of which works into the much broader question of ‘happiness’.
To provide a few examples to elucidate this point. I recall once sitting next to a guy at work. A talkative one, who was (weirdly) prone to sharing personal details about his life with his friends. I was not one of them. But his buddies who were around provoked enough conversation that I, who was nearby, managed to develop something a narrative about his history. I learned that he had come from a wealthy background. His father was a successful businessman. Being wealthy, as he noted a number of times, came with many benefits. I will leave out the specifics here, but what was interesting about his story is that at one point he (i.e. his family) lost all the wealth. And that changed everything.
A notable example he provided in relation to this change, was on the importance of shelling out cash when he was out with friends. In days gone by, he observed, when money was not a problem, his friends didn’t expect the same kind of financial commitment, at least not immediately, when it came to indulgences. Now, however, his wealth diminished (and presumably his standing), and he was expected to dole out the dough (whatever he had). Since it was implied, the trust that came in the company of a rich person, and the capacity to differ financial expectations into the future, on the basis that the person in question is loaded, was no longer rendered to him. Call it informal creditworthiness in practice.
Another example. A while ago, when I had just finished school, I developed a thing for a girl in this Christian community (better believe it). She looked good, but kind of aloof and a bit intimidating. After a while, I managed to find the nerve to talk to her. As I learnt (we were both the same age), she had enrolled in a business degree. And was doing good. The conversation was fine (given that it was the first time).
Eventually, the subject around came to what I was doing. And at the time, as it happened, I was not engaged in anything productive. When this became apparent, I noticed this very clearly, her expression just changed. Whatever interest that I had managed to generate in her, seemed to have gone down a few notches. Needless to say, if I had been either working or enrolled in some academic program, it would have naturally enhanced her perception of me as a person. And as a potential significant other. Naturally.
Looking at the macro environment. If one has not been living under a rock (to use the proverbial expression), he/she would know that since the 2007-08 crisis, the health of a nation’s economy has become central to the political converse that has dominated the West. Notable with the election of Obama, whose electoral success in 2008, came on the back of a declining U.S. economy (6). From the need for austerity in the UK (during the Cameroon-Osborne era) (7). The severity of the sovereign debt crisis in Europe (8). And preoccupation with arguably the most important facet of the post-financial crisis era: Job creation. Has anyone wondered, what does job creation ultimately refers to? Money.
Take the Arab Spring. Which sprung up during the early part of the 2010s. Which revolved around the rising aspirations of the people of the MENA region. Whose economic prospects and ambitions had been long suppressed and undermined by the collectivist, totalitarian regimes who had lorded over them. The dictators who had only concerned with enriching themselves, whilst paying no heed to the needs and wants of the people (9).
Especially the youthful souls, who wanted more out of life than simply living under the boot of autocrats, and to have their destinies dictated by Kafkaesque bureaucracies. The multi-state revolutions brought down governments, upended years of single-party/autocratic rule, and changed the socio-political landscape of the region. Possibly permanently. Whether these revolutions were successful or not, the question is, what is the key factor that underlies (or arises from) their search for political liberation? Freedom? Close. But heck, a ragamuffin on the streets of Manhattan has freedom. But what does freedom actually imply? Answer: the capacity to do things. And to do things, one needs money.
In the Dark Continent. A part of the world that has been ravaged by endless civil wars, internal coups, and regional and resource conflicts, for decades. Where States are characterized by corruption, kleptocracy and crony socialism (10). The common characteristic about these failed to near-failed states is their in ability cater to the needs and wants of their polities. From the provision of basic rule of law, security, and infrastructure; to facilitating the development of markets: Where the production and trade of goods and services are possible.
Thus empowering people to take control of their destiny in terms of getting their needs and wants met. And later politically. In terms of who they vote for, and the kind of policies that they want implemented. Most, if not all countries (i.e. their governments) that constitute Sub-Saharan Africa have failed in this regard. Leaving aside the causes and consequences of this failure. The question is, what is the one single factor that underlies all of these unpleasant realities? Answer: The inability to manage ethically and effectively is one key factor. ‘Paper’.
Money and Human Action
Returning to the Bishop’s clip on Confirmation. According to him, one of the empty promises of Satan, that the confirmed are supposed to turn their backs on, is the (false) promise that money, power, pleasure and honor will bring us happiness. And the manifestation of these promises “are everywhere in the culture”. Here the famed Bishop makes reference to “every” movie, pop song and culture at large. To which he throws in some pictures of Bill Gates, President Trump and Beyonce to boot (ibid). Then he goes on to posit the centrality of Christ. Specifically the crucified Christ, as the center of Christian life, and presumably the source of happiness. Let that digest for a second.
Alright. A number of things to get through here. First off. The idea that the promises of Satan correspond to the pursuit of money, power, pleasure and honor; and that these things/realities are somehow tied to a (false) notion of happiness, does not follow. The Bishop here is making a serious error in confusing the innate human desire for fulfillment, via the pursuit of the means of satisfying our wants, with the workings of a supernatural being he does not understand.
This is illogical at best. For if that’s the case, every person in the world, who has made a success of him/herself (including Bill Gates, Beyonce and the President of the United States) is directly or otherwise, fulfilling the will of Satan! This is ridiculous. But besides being intellectually misguided, more problematically, given his status as a member of the clergy, he is theologically misinformed. And leads the flock astray.
Let’s go back to this spurious notion that the pursuit of money, power, pleasure and honor are things which come from the devil. How exactly does one substantiate this claim? The need (or demand) for money, is a natural, rational, and very human inclination. Money gives us the capacity (i.e. purchasing power- yea.. Power) to do things that we otherwise will not be able to. Not legally anyway. Why does anyone go to work, study, learn a skill, develop an aptitude, put a course up online, or develop a subscription service (the Bishop has one on his website). The simple answer is to make money.
Specifically, it is about doing something with the money that you have made (or earned). The problem is not with money per se, but with what you choose to do with it. Going after things in life: like wanting to buy a new car, wishing to move to a better locality, or heck, to upgrade your gaming hardware, or to impress a girl (we’ve all been there). And for many in the world, to put food on the table. All of this requires money. And wanting it, and importantly being willing to work for it, so that one could do something good with it, is NOT about doing the works of Satan.
So let’s be clear. The problem lies not with having, wanting, and (through legal means) pursuing money. But its use. In case it needs to be mentioned, most of us don’t enter this world with a silver spoon. If we want something in life, and more realistically in the context of market economies, if we want something better than what we already have, we will have to work for it. The problem the Bishop has with money in this regard, is twofold. One, he seems (hypocritically) opposed to the very things that money can buy or enable. And two: more problematically for me, he does not understand the process (and the goodness), through which money is made or earned.
Going back to my earlier point about money as something that requires a dedicated process, the application of skill, and the use of expertise in order to have. From an Austrian economic perspective, this translates into Human Action (11). People, as thinking agents pursue certain ends which they deem to be good or desirable. And they (we) do so by embracing a certain course of action. Such as choosing a certain career, vocation etc.
Like, God forbid, becoming an actor, singer or politician. In the process of engaging in a given set of actions over a period of time (training, learning, campaigning): they could become a good actor, musician, or an effective politician. And if they work hard and smart, with a bit of luck, they will become proficient at what they do. And thus they would be able to add value to their lives and to those around them. They add value to the world, by producing or bringing something of value to society. Which the customer or the voter, in return rewards them for. All of this entails a process. A lot of hard, committed, and depending on the area of expertise, innovative work (the sort that most clerical folk tend not to be familiar with).
The value they (or anyone who is engaged in anything productive (i.e. economically viable) bring to the world, is subjectively determined by the masses. Whose individual preferences amass to validate their contributions? In the form of movie tickets, record purchases, or votes. In the specific case of Bill Gates, by upgrading to the next version of Windows, or by buying a newer system, rather than choosing a Mac. Think about it. Who exactly would pay to watch a lousy actor, listen to a hideous singer, or vote for an uninspiring politician, or buy a crappy operating system, or a machine that runs it (Windows 8 anyone).
Doing the work of the devil or not. One thing is clear, the works of successful people (i.e. their achievements) that Bishop Barron apparently demonizes, do nothing to undermine the validity of their accomplishments. Say what you like about Beyonce, there are people out there, and I mean millions of them, who will pay through the nose to get something of her.
The same cannot be said about the Bishop, or (based on the empty pews these days) the Catholic Church. As the reader can see, the profound falsity of the Bishop’s message, or at least its woefully uninformed character ought to be clear. In case it isn’t. Here’s another example: Why did tens of millions of Americans show up to vote for the Trump ticket in 2016? Is it because they think Trump is a scion of the devil? (though some Democrats are likely to think so). No. It was because they believed he was the man who was going to do something right for them. Politically speaking.
As to whether people idolize President Trump, Beyonce, and Bill Gates as people? That is a different question. For at the personal level, no one really knows who they really are. Rather, what we value about them instead (for the record, I’m not a big fan of Beyonce’s music) is what they bring to the table. For which they are rewarded financially and by extension, via social recognition. What matters is not them as people, but their creativity and productivity. The kinds of words that are difficult to associate with anything Catholic in present times.
The Importance of Status
Status is a complex word to decipher. But in simple terms, it refers to the idea of being recognized by the wider community for something you have done, achieved, or attained. Wealth, in present times, is an undeniable marker of status. Since virtually everything we do is in some way tied to the role and functions served by money.
Money, as the wealthy (and more importantly I guess, the not so wealthy) will know, besides being the tool through which basic needs and wants are met, is also a measure of your life’s worth. The more money you have, the more complex functions that pertain to money (i.e. what could be done with it) become available to the person in possession of it. In simple terms, this pertains to the disposable character of money.
In economics, disposable income is the sum of money that is left at a person’s disposal, once income taxes have been taken. This is something we all understand. The taxman is a burden we would like to do without. But.. it is a feature, arguably a necessary one, that we must contend with. Of course, in most Western countries, those with lower incomes tend to feel the presence of the bureaucratic arm of the State, less heavily or may come to avoid it all together, with respect to taxes. But higher income earners (who are not necessarily millionaires and billionaires) stand to lose a good portion of their earnings (wages, rent, profit etc.) to the gaping jaws of Leviathan. However, disposable income is only part of the story.
When a person gets a paycheck, after dealing with the taxman (this tends to happen automatically in many countries) the money that is left, is not for him to do as he pleases. To “Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry” (12). For the next step in this money equation is to see to the immediate, urgent needs of the person, or household.
The question of necessities, which comes down to food, drink, clothing, household (maintenance, rent, mortgage), and the welfare of the dependents: children and seniors. It’s only once these commitments are made, that the person (or couple), are able to see to their other, one more could say more indulgent aspects, that pertain to the use of money. From vacations, branded clothing, better hardware, jewelry for the ladies etc. The money that can be spent on non-necessities: falls under the category of wants. The money that is spent on ‘wants’ (which are unlimited and growing), is known as discretionary income. One that also includes savings and investments (13). A key factor that is often missed by the “money is the root of all evil crowd”.
Now why is this important? Well, the other thing, according to the Bishop, that is wrong with the world today, is that people (presumably following Satan’s lead) in addition to pursuing money, are also in search of honor. Now the question of status is a logical tie-in with the idea of honor. Honor, which the Oxford dictionary associates with the terms “High respect; great esteem” (14). And status, in case there is any confusion, pertains to the holding of high station and having societal recognition. Thus being respected by the wider polity pertains to being honored. Which logically pertains to having a higher status.
Next question: How exactly is one’s status in modern society determined? Answer: By what you can do with your life. Which is a question of capacity, ability and know-how. All of which corresponds to power. (Which simply means, the ability to do things, or to get things done). Money buys power. So the more money you have, the more disposable income that is available. The greater the disposable income, the greater the capacity for discretionary spending. Which enables you to have, or acquire the means of wielding greater power (i.e. to be able to do more things via careful expenditure). Which in turn reinforces your status.
To provide a ‘simple’ example. If you are from a wealthy environment (with high discretionary income). You can send yourself (or your children) to the best schools, and hence stand a greater chance to have the best higher education (Oxford, Cambridge MIT you name it!). To be among the smartest people.
Thus increasing the chances of building strong networks with the wealthy and well-connected. With a top-notch degree and experience, you again, stand a greater chance of being recognized by the best companies. Be recruited by them. Earn a great income. Learn more, travel more, network more, with the cream of humanity. And rise up (further) in society. All thanks to money. Money, with hard work and enterprise ‘buys’ status. It’s a process no doubt. But it is there for the taking. In turn, status also gets you closer to money. But that is a subject for another time.
More money logically entails greater status. Greater status means a better life in a material sense. One that humans are inherently driven to seek. Just look at what’s happening with the immigrant/migrant crisis in Europe and America. People from less developed parts of the world want to enter “greener pastures” in order to build a better life for themselves. Something which they are unable to, do in their own countries. Their aspirations are one that fundamentally corresponds to the material (and hence aspirational). This is a reality that for the student of economics and human motivation, is perfectly understandable. Money is good. More money is better. Status is a hallmark of financial success. Which naturally confers honor.
Let’s not kid ourselves. The people who are honored publicly are also wealthy: The Queen, CEOs, heads of State, sportsmen, actors etc.
Of course, for those who don’t have the luxury of getting a great education, or being raised among the brightest and richest in the world, there is always the route that entails hard work, enterprise, and hustle. A life defined by perseverance: a never-say-die attitude. That, with a bit of creativity and ingenuity, will produce the desired results. The self-made man, the founder of the killer startup (after many prior failures), the business founded in a garage or dorm room, the man who builds a life with the sweat of this brow. The American Dream.
These are the fundamentals of a business education. The idea that humans have needs, and these needs are hierarchical (i.e. they grow, expand and become more sophisticated with fulfilment). Which in turn feeds into the spiritual centers (higher consciousnesses) of the person’s being. Where the satisfaction of one need (later, want) leads to the pursuit of higher, greater desires. Which translates into ambitions. That humans, at least the aspirational ones, carry with them. This is basic Maslowian theory (15). The internet-savvy Bishop ought to have heard about such things. Or maybe he hasn’t. If he hasn’t, then the problem with his pontificating on the subject of money and happiness is borne of ignorance not wisdom.
The search for happiness through money (and what money brings: power and status) is not the work of fantasy. Nor the products of a corrupted mind. The desire to build a better life for yourself, and then to succeed, and then to enjoy the rewards for your hard work, preferably with loved ones beside you, is not immoral. Or somehow to be doing the works of the devil. It’s being human. Status is a token of one’s achievements. To be able to show to the world and prove to oneself, one’s accomplishments. We all (like it or not) aspire for it. Why? Caz it feels good to succeed. Rather, than to be beaten to a pulp, stripped naked and nailed to a cross. To be left hanging helplessly in the presence of thousands, doomed to die a painful, humiliating death.
The Unhealthy Fascination with the Cross
Jesus died for our sins to save us. He gave up His life so that we may live (i.e. have eternal life). We’ve all heard this before. And truthfully, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with this message. However, there is one giant problem. It is overly simplistic. Each of the words in the first two sentences of this paragraph has been, and still is, the subject of deep theological study. Whose full meaning and character are not yet understood. And nor can they be. To me, anyone who claims to know what these things mean fully, is either lying or delusional.
What is indisputable about the Redemptive message (and life) of Christ, is that it is true. For the Faithful, like yours truly, the centrality of Christ to humanity’s Salvation, and the restoration of the promises of the original Covenant between God and man, are beyond question. The challenge, however, lies in how these great revelations are understood. From which the theological, the spiritual, and the moral teachings, and greater wisdom can be derived. This is very much a work in progress. There are many questions that have not been answered adequately, and a lot more questions that have not been posed, or even conceived. This is basic.
God created us. And as created beings, we can only hope to grasp the fullness of God’s message. Even with the mediating role of Christ, and the guidance of the Spirit, our efforts will always fall short. However, what we can do, is to fall short well. So that every time we try, we fall short, just a bit higher. The following analysis of the death of Christ, notably the meaning that underlies the culmination of His Passion, and what we as followers of the Savior, are meant to take away from it, is meant as a theologically speculative endeavor. One that is not meant to be exhaustive or authoritative. However what I will guarantee, is that it will be far more sophisticated intellectually, than what the Bishop presents in his reductive, frankly sophomoric, and seriously misguided presentation of the meaning of the Death of the Christ.
Point 01: A Theological Problem
Returning to the Bishop’s clip. He notes how the Catholic Church, place the crucifix, specifically one that carries the body of Christ, at the center of worship. Implying that this image of the crucified Jesus is, besides forming the core of Christian (Catholic) spirituality, is also what, or is supposed to, make us happy. The image of a disempowered, tortured, humiliated man as the basis of our joy.. Really?
First of all, the death of Christ on the Cross, whilst significant (who will deny that) is not the end point of the Christian Faith. Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox), in case it needs to be pointed out, hold Good Friday in great regard. However the true celebratory moment of the Christian calendar is (or at least it ought to be) Easter. The Resurrection of Christ. The Savior’s victory over death. The breaking of Satan’s power, and hold over this world. A new dawn. The beginning of a New Creation. The death of Christ on the Cross is meaningless without the Resurrection.
Heck, crucifixions, as students of history would attest, was a banality in Roman times. Enemies of the State were routinely captured, flogged and nailed to a cross as a punishment, and as a sign to the wider polity not to threaten Roman power. In fact, crucifixions as a method of punishment, torture and intimidation predated Roman times. The various forms of this gruesome practice were even prevalent in the Achaemenid Empire (Persia) (16). Frankly speaking, the whole (Catholic) fascination with the Cross-with the one that killed the Son of Man being a Roman version of the execution device-is, upon deeper inspection, quite morbid. What is good about Cross, is what it portends for the future. Again: without the Resurrection the Cross is meaningless.
Point 02: A Catholic Problem
As the reader may have guessed, the problem I have with the Bishop’s reading of the character, significance and symbolism of the death of Christ, is that it is a uniquely Catholic one. To put this in perspective. Despite being a lifelong Catholic, I have always felt a certain unease with the Catholic version of the Faith. Having sampled other forms of Christianity, including known, and spent time with Christians from other denominations.
I have always sensed a livelier spirit, more positive energy, and most importantly, a more optimistic view towards life. One that is generally lacking among Catholics. Particularly the practicing types. This is a subject that I have written about in a previous post. In sum, there is something very death-centric, or un-life-affirming about the Catholic form of Christianity. The mistaken conception of the Cross, I would argue, is one of the contributory factors.
For example, I once attended a Protestant wedding. The reception was preceded by a prayer service. I felt a bit out of place for much of the time given its rather eccentric character. (One of the things that has kept me in the Catholic Church, is the structured, ordered character of its worship). However, the wedding overall, was good.
A notable factor was the character of the attendants: specifically those who were tied to the Protestant Church, which the bride had, a few years prior, converted to (from Catholicism). They looked lively. Energetic. More involved with the Faith and with each other. At one point, a friend of mine, whom I was surprised to meet at the event, began eyeballing one of the lasses, a belle who was busy recording the event. And she was not the only one of her types present. Basically, there was just a lot more energy (and youth) to this Protestant congregation. One that is woefully (and characteristically) lacking in Catholic ones.
One of the things that I noticed during the prayer service, was that the crucifix, which was placed at the center, was devoid of the body of Christ. The reason for this, as it was explained to me, is that Jesus has Risen from the dead. Since he is Risen, there is no need to have a dead Christ on the Cross. Let alone make it the subject of worship. Well… Before the reader (presuming he/she is a serious Catholic) jumps to any conclusions.
It is worth pointing out that I still value the Crucifix. With Christ in it. For whatever reasons that are given to justify the removal of Christ from the Cross, the true meaning and significance of the ‘Crucified Christ’ is not fully understood (theologically or otherwise). And since it is the place where the Son of Man gave His life for the Sake of humanity and Creation as a whole. We must remember it. Always. However…
The Protestants have a point. Christ is Risen. He is no longer dead. He is no longer the helpless, powerless, naked corpse hanging on an instrument of pain and humiliation. Christ today, if you believe it, is the King of this World. To whom “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given” (17). Hence it is only right that we the faithful, honor Him and worship Him as such. And further, come to manifest and share in His Resurrected glory. Christianity is a belief system based on hope. If we don’t share in the joy and promise of Christ who has overcome death, it can only mean that there is something wrong with us.
Or in the case of the Bishop, the clerical class who propounds this twisted, man-rejecting message. Since Christ, through the Resurrection has been glorified to a higher place, it is only right-it seems to me that we emulate His success. For all human glory and honor is not evil. It need not be. It can be a sign of our united joy with the living Christ. Of course, some will beg to disagree. Like those who have resigned to the idea of spiritual misery.
Point 03: A Priestly Problem
If one is to look for an explanation as to how and why the Bishop came to adopt this misguided view. That, one: the pursuit of money, pleasure, power and honor will not make people happy. And two: that the very notion or urge to pursue these things comes from Lucifer himself. Well, my experience of the Catholic Church, notably Catholic priests, whom have I known for many years (decades). From virtually all walks of life (rich, poor), from most parts of the world (Europe, Latin America, South and East Asia, and to a lesser extent Central and North America). One thing that is most noticeable about these men, is that they just don’t seem normal. And I mean that in a non-critical way.
Think about it. If a person chooses to live his/her life in total service to the Church. Such a decision is bound to have an effect on the person’s mentality and spirituality. When one speaks of Catholic priestly life (one that presumably applies to Bishops), is that it is governed by certain norms. Restrictive ones. Needless to say. For starters, these men (priests) are in principle ascetics.
These are the sort of people who don’t live the kinda lives that you and I do. Worse, they do not seek after, and aspire for the things that most ambitious, enterprising, hot-blooded men want out of life. As lifelong celibates who are committed to the principles of chastity, poverty and obedience, their lives are defined by its ordinariness. Material (and needless to say, sensual) mundanity is the defining feature of priestly life. Hence it would come as no surprise that people of this strip would become, first: enamored by the selectively favored, but misguided image, of a powerless, joyless, world-rejecting Christ. And second, come to espouse this conception of Christ, as the sole message advanced by God, to the world.
I have had many conversations with young priests, brothers, young seminarians, men who have been priests for decades, and importantly, a few men who have left the priestly life. A central strand that underlies their view of the world and, hence way of life (speaking of the latter, until they moved on from such a vocation): Is that they believed that whatever the good the world had to offer: The joys of enterprising work (namely financial reward), competitive struggle for success (recognition), the company of, and later relationships with women (i.e. pleasure), to the politics of society: on being able to affect the wider world). As somehow less important, ancillary, or not worthy of their time and attention. Something that is beneath them almost. Almost, hypocritically so.
This is not to say that Catholic priestly itself, is necessarily a problem. Rather it is to suggest that when you have persons who espouse such a way of life, and the kind of theology that necessarily comes with it, it’s unsurprising that they would end up churning out such a particularistic, self-justifying, and from the standpoint of the laity, a misinformed conception of the Good News of Jesus Christ.
What people like Bishop Barron are actually promoting from the pulpits, via their grand message that money, power, pleasure and honor are evil, and that they all come from the devil, is a twisted version of Manicheanism. A Gnosticism, which espouses a dualist view of the world. Which holds that the material world of matter, flesh, and all that is associated with it-including our physical bodies-as irredeemably fallen (18).
Hence the only hope lies in death and ultimate unity with the “spiritual”. The Manichean belief advocates a life which is defined by the ascetic principle, underpinned by the logical rejection of the material world. So akin to the Manichean rejection of the Created world as evil, Bishop Barron’s misguided theology of viewing the death of Christ as an end in itself, follows the same, world rejecting formula.
According to Barron, Jesus did not come to Redeem humanity and the world but to suffer and die for our faults, hence to burden us with perpetual guilt for His death, and to riddle our lives with sorrow. With the Cross of the crucified Christ, to act as a perpetual reminder. The latest example of his message that I encountered, where the Bishop regurgitates this nocuous self-talk, that is supposed to qualify as theologically serious argumentation, was at the Library of Congress. Where he repeats this lifeless mantra (19). The speech was uncomfortable to watch. However, it was more uncomfortable to watch the reactions of the audience. Who had to endure a message: One that was miserable, uninspiring, and essentially anti-humanistic.
Conclusion: Money Buys Freedom - Freedom Leads to Happiness
Over the years, one of the things that I have gotten used to hearing at Church, during the “announcements” segment of the mass, is the routine request for charitable donations and contributions. One that often devolves into virtual begging on the part of the parish priest. An ugly practice (there’s no other way to describe it) is a common sight (as I have come to learn) throughout the Catholic world.
Here I recall a particular instance in England, in a parish in North London, where the priest hijacked the time allotted for the sermon, to give a speech explaining the pathetic (financial) plight of the parishes, and then imploring the parishioners to contribute (more). It was uncomfortable, to the point of being aggravating. Any other examples..?
Oh, speaking of Bishop Barron, who as I mentioned at the start of this essay, runs a very popular ‘Word on Fire’ series. Which began, If I am not mistaken as some video documentary. Where the, then Fr. Barron, would go around the world documenting Catholic life. As for the story of its financial origins: whilst I cannot find the source, I remember this episode well, in one of his Catholic mass videos, in which the said Bishop outlines the history of this program.
Explaining how he went out and asked (or begged) his congregation to contribute to this cause. You know, like asking money from the very same people you preach to every week, the gospel that money is bad, evil. And that it comes from the devil. Needless to say, this kinda sh** gets old very soon. But the parishioners tolerate it. Some anyway. Given the sheer number of people, especially the young, who are fleeing the Church, this lesson has clearly not been learnt (20).
The real problem with the Bishop’s teachings on this subject is their overtly simplistic character. Simplistic to a point of being vacuous. If one is to take the subject of money alone (as I have purposefully left out those of pleasure, and have paid little attention to the topic of power). The reader would have noticed, the time I have spent explicating the character, functions, and social significance of money: at the economic levels and beyond. This negates the possibility of boiler plate one-liners entering the mix. There is no room for statements that seem to carry great wisdom, but are inherently meaningless such as: “Money does not buy you happiness”, “Money is the root of all evil”, or “The pursuit of money is to do the will of devil”. Please.
More seriously, the gulf between persons who have money (i.e. a substantial amount), vs Those who do not have much, is considerable. And this difference between the wealthy and the, not exactly the poor, but those who don’t have enough of it (which is almost everyone) is stark. Recent studies have shown that wealthy people not only on average live longer, but also lead healthier (and hence happier) lives (21). Not only that, money, in case the obvious needs to be stated, gives the person in possession of it, the power to do things. Good things. Which is especially important for men. Especially, the sort who don’t get off to the idea of celibacy. And instead desire to build a life of meaning and significance, in an existential sense.
The idea, of what society looks for in a man, is his economic worth (and in women: youth and beauty), whilst seemingly old fashioned, is not far from reality. Going back to my earlier example on the hurdles men who are not economically empowered face when it comes to women. This is a concerning reality that carries through at all levels in relationships between men and women. Something which a celibate priest is not likely to understand let alone experience.
The importance of money, but more specifically hard work and enterprise that underlies it, is one that is often gets ignored or downplayed by the world rejecting, but contributions hungry, clergy. Considering that the Catholic Church is run by an army of celibates, who don’t actually make any money (since it is a charitable institution, that runs on the charity of others), this anti-materialistic, world-rejecting, anti-humanist ideology, advanced as serious theology, coming from a narrow-minded clergyman, is sadly not uncanny.
References
1. YouTube. 2015. Bishop Barron on Appointment as Bishop. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJUTZguAPGk. [Accessed 20 September 2020].
2. YouTube. 2017. Bishop Barron on the Sacrament of Confirmation. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-UuMAU7qT0. [Accessed 20 September 2020].
3. YouTube. 2013. Bishop Barron on Pope Francis and “The Religious Sense”. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S43IP2Wdxw. [Accessed 20 September 2020].
4. Bible Gateway. 2020. 1 Timothy 6. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+6+&version=KJV. [Accessed 20 September 2020].
5. Engadget. 2020. The Xbox Series S and X will be available on monthly payment plans. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.engadget.com/microsoft-xbox-series-s-x-monthly-payment-plans-141958507.html. [Accessed 21 September 2020].
6. Reuters. 2008. Why John McCain lost the White House. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-mccain-idUSTRE4A47Z020081105[Accessed 21 September 2020].
7. Financial Times. 2010. UK unveils dramatic austerity measures. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/53fe06e2-dc98-11df-84f5-00144feabdc0. [Accessed 21 September 2020].
8. The Balance. 2019. What is the European Debt Crisis?. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-european-debt-crisis-416918. [Accessed 21 September 2020].
9. United States Institute for Peace. 2011. Youth and the “Arab Spring”. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.usip.org/publications/2011/04/youth-and-arab-spring. [Accessed 21 September 2020].
10. ZAM. 2019. THE KLEPTOCRACY PROJECT. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.zammagazine.com/engage/events/918-the-kleptocracy-project. [Accessed 21 September 2020].
11. The Library of Economics and Liberty. 2019. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/HmA/msHmA.html. [Accessed 21 September 2020].
12. Bible Gateway. 2020. Luke 12: “The Rich Fool”. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+12+&version=NIV. [Accessed 20 September 2020].
13. Investopedia. 2020. Discretionary Income. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/discretionaryincome.asp. [Accessed 20 September 2020].
14. Lexico (Oxford University Press). 2020. honor. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/honor. [Accessed 20 September 2020].
15. CFI. 2020. What is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs?. [ONLINE] Available at: https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs/. [Accessed 21 September 2020].
16. History Collection. 2020. Crime and punishment in the ancient Persian empire. [ONLINE] Available at: https://historycollection.com/18-examples-of-crime-and-punishment-in-the-ancient-persian-empire/10/ . [Accessed 20 September 2020].
17. Bible Gateway. 2020. Matthew 28:18-20. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028:18-20&version=NIV. [Accessed 21 September 2020].
18. Britannica. 2020. Manichaeism. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Manichaeism. [Accessed 21 September 2020].
19. YouTube. 2019. The Call of Justice: Bishop Barron’s Talk at the Library of Congress. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=-7KlaUIdWR4. [Accessed 21 September 2020].
20. Crux Now. 2018. New study seeks to understand why young people leave the Church. [ONLINE] Available at: https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2018/01/new-study-seeks-understand-young-people-leave-church/. [Accessed 21 September 2020].
21. Insider. 2020. Rich people live longer and have 9 more healthy years than poor people, according to new research. [ONLINE] Available at: https://bit.ly/2FE5O1d. [Accessed 21 September 2020].
Image Sources
1. a href=”http://www.freepik.com”>Designed by drobotdean / Freepik</a
2. a href=”http://www.freepik.com”>Designed by jcomp / Freepik</a