[Magdalen] whose theology is this?

[Jim Guthrie]

From: Jay Weigel

>If your directing that at me, Jim, first of all, I *never* expected ANYONE
>to share a meal with me when I was doing home health.....ever. In fact, I
>studiously tried to avoid people's mealtimes when visiting. But it happened.

Where did I suggest such a thing? I asked whether you (or anyone else) tends to 
bring a lunch or dinner to share, rather than simply observe what others are 
offering.

>and they've all reported the same thing, that it's the people who have the
>least to give who are the most willing to give it. My son-in-law, who grew
>up, not dirt-poor, but far from wealthy for his first 12 years in Brooklyn,
>will attest to that also.

I remain convinced because that's the feel good  narrative that many people use 
to persuade themselves of the nobility of being poor. Of course middle class 
Americans need that "feel good" so they don’t have to feel guilty about their 
relative wealthy a vis their neighbors. If one made such visits to wealthy 
people, I don’t think they'd find any less hospitality. And I object to any idea 
that it's cynical to suggest that simple hospitality knows no economic bounds.

One could argue that offering hospitality is a greater proportion of resources 
of the poor, but so is every other expense. There are things like sales taxes of 
course that are particularly pernicious, but the middle class hates income and 
property taxes, but they rarely notice an extra half percent at the checkout at 
the Mall. And, of course, if people were really concerned about the plight of 
the poor, they'd lobby hard against sales taxes and in factor of income and 
property taxes -- but, heck, their neighbors would talk to them anymore, but we 
digress . . .

>To turn hat another way, look at the typical paradigm of the wealthy
>families in this country. It's often said, and been shown, that the first
>generation makes the money and the second hoards and flaunts it. The third
>may be somewhat charitable, but it usually isn't until the fourth that they
really begin to become altruistic in terms of both charity and public
service. Roosevelts, Rockefellers, now Kennedys......and on the other
>xtreme, look at the horrible Walton clan and their second generation. Talk
>about afraid to let go of their money! Sure, they've founded some
>museums....with their NAME all over them.....but what have they done for
>REAL people?

Different subject altogether. As I suggested above, I think hospitality knows no 
bounds, but the haves find it remarkable amongst the have-nots.

But since you brought this up, what do you make of the Morgans and the Carnegies 
and all the others that gave away everything in the first or second 
generations? Or the projects of today's Buffets and Gates and others involved in 
giving their riches away.  I don’t think one can successfully generalize on that 
score.

Cheers,
Jim Guthrie