Introduction
Throughout history, religious institutions have perpetuated a complex and often contradictory relationship with wealth and poverty.
While many religious leaders have preached the virtues of material deprivation, this perspective has sometimes served to consolidate institutional power rather than advance spiritual growth.
This examination challenges the historical glorification of poverty, particularly within religious contexts, and explores how certain interpretations of scripture and religious practices have been used to maintain economic disparities.
The weaponization of poverty as a means of control has deep historical roots, from ancient Greco-Roman religious traditions to medieval Christian practices.
By encouraging followers to embrace material deprivation while simultaneously amassing significant wealth within religious institutions, many religious authorities have created a paradoxical dynamic that deserves careful scrutiny.
The Catholic Church’s historical restrictions on Bible access, combined with its promotion of poverty as a virtue, illustrates how theological interpretations have been shaped to serve institutional interests.
This analysis does not suggest that poor individuals are themselves evil, but rather examines how poverty itself—and its deliberate promotion—has served as a tool of control and oppression.
By examining historical examples, religious texts, and institutional practices, we can better understand how the glorification of poverty has often worked against the very charitable principles that many religions, including Christianity, claim to uphold.
Understanding this history is crucial for addressing modern misconceptions about the relationship between spirituality and material wellbeing.
Poverty is Evil
This section explores the historical ways the church, culture, and religious leaders have weaponized having money.
They have emphasized encouraging followers of Jesus to be ignorant of the Biblical Scriptures. They have also persuaded millions of people throughout history that being poor is a good thing.
The church has used these teachings as a control tactic for many years, and as a result, the church has gotten richer while individual followers of Christ have gotten poorer.
To be clear, this section DOES NOT teach that poor people are evil. It teaches that poverty is evil.
For example, without money, the church or its followers cannot be the hands and feet of Jesus in the most basic ways, like providing a meal to someone who needs it.
Without the money to buy food or the resources to cook it, people will not live out the commands Jesus gave to help others (Matt 5:42; John 15:12; Acts 20:35).
Often, in Hebrew, words spelled backward mean the opposite. The word rich is one such example. Most people would think the opposite of rich is poor, but that is not the case.
In Hebrew, evil means the opposite of rich. The implication is that evil behaviors and things lead to poverty.
Greek and Roman Mythology
The Greco-Roman gods displayed no interest in the plight of people experiencing poverty. While Zeus Xenios protected strangers and Zeus Hiketêsios aided supplicants, no Zeus Ptôchios or other deity had an epithet denoting concern for people in need.
Instead, the rich were revered as the chosen ones in the divine realm, as their wealth served as tangible evidence of their favor. Unfortunately, the poor were at a disadvantage when seeking assistance from the gods because of their poverty.
This belief rested on the notion that the poor were morally inferior to the wealthy and often viewed as more susceptible to wrongdoing. As a result, people commonly attributed their poverty to their failings.
Certain Greek philosophers lived in voluntary poverty, but they prided themselves on being superior to the vulgar crowd.
There is no virtue in such poverty as this, and when Diogenes trampled Plato’s carpet, saying as he did so: “Thus do I trample on Plato’s pride,” “Yes,” answered Plato, “but only through your own pride.”
Buddhism also teaches the contempt of riches; in China, the tenth precept of the novices forbids them to touch gold or silver, and the second precept of female novices forbids them to possess anything of their own (cf. Wieger, “Bouddhisme chinois”, pp. 153, 155, 183, 185).
Penia, the Goddess of Poverty.
Penia, derived from the Greek word for deficiency or poverty, was the personification of destitution and need.
In Plato’s Symposium, she is part of a story by Socrates:
In the story, she finds Poros, the god of wealth, intoxicated from indulging in an excess of nectar; she finds solace in his embrace. Unbeknownst to her, this union gives birth to Eros, the god of love, embodying the perfect fusion of his parents’ essence, forever in need and forever in pursuit.
Despite being despised by many, she played a significant role in shaping cultural beliefs about poverty’s impact on society and the importance of humility and productivity.
In Aristophanes’ portrayal, Penia attempts to persuade two foolish men about the perils of widespread wealth. She argues that excessive affluence undermines motivation, leading to laziness and a decline in the production of goods.
According to her, a time will come when scarcity hampers purchasing power, forcing people to work harder for basic necessities.
While she acknowledges the resentment towards her, she also recognizes her crucial role in preserving humanity’s continuity.
Other ancient Greek writers, such as Alcaeus (Fragment 364), Theognis (Fragments 1, 267, 351, 649), Aristophanes (Plutus, 414ff), Herodotus, Plutarch (Life of Themistocles), and Philostratus (Life of Apollonius), also made mention of Penia.
24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (Matt. 6:24)
During the Middle Ages, Mammon was often depicted as the embodiment of wealth and greed. He shares similarities with Plutus, the Greek god of wealth, and Pluto, the Roman god of the underworld.
Mammon likely drew inspiration from these figures, especially since Plutus appears in The Divine Comedy as a wolf-like demon representing wealth, and wolves were associated with greed during the Middle Ages.
According to Albert Barnes in his Notes on the New Testament, Mammon was a Syriac term for an idol worshipped as the deity of riches, much like Plutus was revered among the Greeks.
In modern times, Mammon is more commonly used to describe material wealth and excessive greed. It is often portrayed as an all-consuming force that can lead individuals to forsake their moral values and relationships in pursuit of monetary gain.
People have assumed that shunning wealth will somehow make them a better person. In reality, it is yielding to Christ and not other deities that allows us to obtain self-control. Jesus never said wealth is inherently evil, and the Bible does not say poverty is virtuous.
Vow of Poverty
The vow of poverty may generally be defined as the promise made to God of a certain constant renunciation of temporal goods, to follow Christ. The object of the vow of poverty is anything visible, material, and appreciable at a monetary value.
The vow of poverty is often compared to the virtue of poverty, but this is erroneous; for the object of virtue must be something honorable or praiseworthy in itself: now poverty has no intrinsic goodness.
Jean-Pierre Gury (a Catholic moral theologian) and many religious writers of his time held that poverty is good because it removes obstacles to the pursuit of spiritual perfection.
They did not believe poverty possessed inherent virtue (St. Thomas, “Contra Gentiles”, III, cxxxiii; Francisco Suárez, “De religione”, tr. VII, l. VIII, c. ii, n. 6; Bucceroni, “Inst. theol. mor.”, II, 75, n. 31).
Among those pursuing perfection, the spirit of poverty was initially shown by renouncing temporal possessions.
In community living, private ownership of goods was strictly forbidden, in line with the common life prescribed by monastic pioneers like St. Pachomius, Schénoudi, St. Basil, and St. Benedict.
However, there was no explicit vow of poverty at that time and no legal restrictions. Monastic profession only required a strict avoidance of unnecessary things. Justinian later passed a law stating that the possessions of religious should belong to the monastery.
This law gradually took effect, making it impossible to acquire property.
In the twelfth century, and even later, some religious individuals still owned property. The French law, which regarded religious individuals as civically dead, contributed to connecting the vow of poverty with the idea of disability.
The explicit vow of renouncing private property was introduced in the profession of the Friars Minor in 1260.
Around the same time, another change occurred. Up to that point, there had been no limit on the common possessions of religious, but the mendicant orders in the thirteenth century prohibited the possession, even in common, of any immovable property separate from the convent, as well as all revenues.
The Friars Minor of the strict observance even assigned ownership of all their property, including the most essential, to the Holy See.
Many founders, inspired by St. Francis and St. Dominic, established their orders on the principle of common poverty. The Church witnessed a significant increase in the number of mendicant orders until the foundation of the Clerics Regular in the sixteenth century.
Even then, many orders combined common poverty with the regular clerical life, such as the Theatines and the Society of Jesus. However, it became evident that this profession of poverty, which greatly edified the thirteenth century, was prone to serious abuses.
A state of destitution created more concerns than it alleviated and hindered intellectual activity and strict observance. Moreover, mendicancy could become scandalous. As a result, the Council of Trent allowed all monasteries, except the Friars Minor Observantines and the Capuchins, to possess immovable property and derive income from it.
Nevertheless, the Carmelites and the professed houses of the Society of Jesus continued to practice common poverty, which prohibited the possession of assured incomes. Congregations with simple vows were not bound by the canonical law that prohibited members from possessing or acquiring private property.
The incapacity for private possession was considered an effect of the solemn vow of poverty. Still, this connection between the incapacity to possess and the solemn vow is neither essential nor indissoluble.
The vow of poverty taken by the formed coadjutors of the Society of Jesus has the same effect on private possession as the solemn vow of the professed fathers.
St. Ignatius introduced a simple profession in his order as a preparation for the final one, with an interval between them during which the religious retained the capacity to possess property. A similar rule has been extended to all orders of men by Pius IX and to orders of women by Leo XIII.
On the other hand, since the Rescript of the Penitentiary of December 1, 1820, confirmed by the declaration to the bishops of Belgium dated July 31, 1878, the solemn profession of religious individuals in Belgium (and Holland, which appears to enjoy the same privilege) does not prevent them from acquiring, keeping, administering, or disposing of property.
However, in exercising these rights, they must observe the submission they owe to their legitimate superiors.
Biblical teachings do not support the belief that God’s people should live in poverty; it is a religious notion that has persisted. Individuals taking vows of poverty and surrendering their possessions to the church have contributed to the Catholic Church’s prosperity.
Since 313 A.D., when the Catholic Church became the official religion of the Roman Empire, the church’s power and resources have steadily expanded.
Vatican City is ruled by a monarchy, with the Pope acting as the king. It is the world’s smallest country, yet the CIA estimates it is worth over 30 billion dollars.
The Holy See generates revenue through a variety of channels. Since the 8th century, one source has been Peter’s Pence, which refers to annual donations from Catholics worldwide presented to the Pope.
Additionally, the Holy See collects revenue from museum admissions and tours, as well as from the sale of highly sought-after stamps, coins, and publications.
Furthermore, the Holy See engages in investments, both in companies and artifacts, with the hope of appreciating their value over time. (Source: CIA, 2022)
Access to Scripture
Another significant factor perpetuating these unscriptural beliefs about poverty is the Church’s discouragement of independent Bible reading among the general population. This policy gained momentum during the Middle Ages and was further reinforced by a prohibition on translating the Bible into native languages.
The Council of Nicaea, convened by Emperor Constantine in 325 C.E., aimed to establish a unified Catholic Church. At the time, no universally accepted collection of Scriptures or Christian Bible existed.
Different churches and authorities adopted various texts and gospels. To address this, the Council of Hippo, in 393 C.E., sanctioned 27 books for the New Testament. Four years later, the Council of Carthage confirmed the same 27 books as the Church’s authoritative Scriptures.
Interestingly, the Church made considerable efforts to suppress competing gospels while also discouraging public access to Scripture.
Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): “We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament, but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”
Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after the promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned...”
Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor and theologian John Wycliffe was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to “...helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ’s sentence.” For this “heresy,” Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council’s decree, “Wycliffe’s bones were exhumed and publicly burned, and the ashes were thrown into the River Swift.”
Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Church forbids owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance its own power and importance.
In contrast, Judaism had a different model. Dating back to the Exodus, Moses ordained public readings of the Torah, as noted by the Jewish Roman historian Flavius Josephus. This practice later became standard in synagogue services, where the Old Testament (Torah) is read over the course of a year, covering the entire Bible.
As a practicing Jew, Jesus himself participated in this tradition, regularly reading the weekly parsha (section of the Torah) during Sabbath services: “And he went to Nazareth where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up for to read” (Luke 4:16).
Conclusion
History reveals a consistent pattern: from Greco-Roman mythology’s linking of wealth to divine favor, through the gradual codification of monastic poverty vows, to the centuries-long restriction of lay access to Scripture, the veneration of poverty has functioned less as a spiritual discipline and more as a mechanism of institutional control — one that concentrated power and resources within religious authorities while leaving individual believers dependent and disempowered.
None of this suggests that wealth itself carries spiritual merit or that material comfort should be the aim of faith.
The corrective is not to trade one extreme for another, but to recover a truer position: Scripture nowhere condemns provision, nor does it romanticize lack.
Stewardship — of resources, of character, of calling — was always the intended posture, not the false choice between prosperity as proof of favor and poverty as proof of piety.
Recovering this distinction matters not only for historical accuracy, but for how believers today understand their relationship to work, giving, and provision.
Grand Summary
This article traces how religious institutions, particularly the Catholic Church, have historically taught that poverty is spiritually virtuous while the institutions themselves accumulated substantial wealth — using that teaching as a means of control rather than spiritual growth. It clarifies that poor individuals are not the target of the critique; the promotion of poverty as a virtue is.
Poverty is Evil: The Church discouraged independent scripture reading while teaching that being poor is good, growing richer as followers grew poorer. Without resources, believers cannot practically live out commands to feed and help others, and a Hebrew wordplay is cited suggesting “evil” is linguistically the inverse of “rich,” implying evil behavior produces poverty.
Greek and Roman Mythology: Classical religion linked wealth to divine favor and poverty to moral failing — no god championed the poor the way gods protected strangers or supplicants. The myth of Penia (goddess of poverty and need, mother of Eros) and the concept of Mammon as personified greed are examined, concluding that neither wealth nor poverty is inherently virtuous; what matters is which master one serves.
Vow of Poverty: A detailed institutional history traces the Catholic monastic vow of poverty from early communal monastic orders through Justinian’s property laws, the Franciscan vow of 1260, mendicant order restrictions, and the Council of Trent’s eventual relaxation of property bans. Theologians themselves acknowledged poverty had no “intrinsic goodness” even as the practice persisted. Vatican City’s estimated $30+ billion net worth and revenue streams — Peter’s Pence donations, museum admissions, investments — are cited as evidence of the disconnect.
Access to Scripture: The Church historically suppressed vernacular Bible translations and lay Bible ownership, citing the Councils of Toulouse (1229) and Tarragona (1234), and the executions and posthumous condemnations of John Wycliffe and William Tyndale for translating scripture into English. This contrasts with Jewish tradition, where public Torah reading was normative from Moses onward—a practice Jesus himself participated in.
Overall: The history moves from mythological roots (wealth as divine favor, poverty as moral failing) through institutional codification (monastic poverty vows) to a control mechanism (restricting scripture access), arriving at a modern critique: this theology contradicts both the Church’s own accumulated wealth and the Bible’s actual teaching that poverty is not virtuous.