Not to the same extent. Many officially recognized saints were extremely poor, and virtually all of the ones who had been rich were only canonized after (at least purportedly) giving all of their wealth away later in life. Nuns and monks, the holiest and most pious worshippers, must take vows of poverty. Clearly, the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox and other old institutionalized churches) preach that poverty is at least accepted, if not necessarily required. Of course, the church higher ups have always been rich and powerful, but that is not the official doctrine.

The explicit belief that you can't be poor and beloved by God is a pretty modern, and pretty extreme, twisting of the meaning of the Bible.

> Of course, the church higher ups have always been rich and powerful, but that is not the official doctrine. The explicit belief that you can't be poor and beloved by God is a pretty modern, and pretty extreme, twisting of the meaning of the Bible.

There's doctrine, and then there is practice. The doctrine of the sanctity of poverty is about the idea of justice (if not in this world, then the next) and a counterpoint to the "divine right" of monarchs and aristocrats. However, in practice it is about maintaining the temporal support of the poor (who are the majority throughout history) as a counterbalance to the nobility/aristocracy. This is true across many religions.

I'd argue that depending on the times, this doctrine/practice waxes or wanes, and I suspect that it correlates with both the spread of genuine aspiration to prosperity among the masses coupled with magical thinking about how to achieve prosperity. And when it fails to deliver on prosperity (as it must), you get angry populist reactions.