Having Stuff is Not Materialism (Necessarily)

Here's a sad story about the Covington diocese's settlement payment to victims of abuse. RC2 has nothing to add to the discussion of the abuse scandals, but draws your attention to the comment of one parishioner: "If we have to give up property. . . .which is materialism, then that's what we have to do."
Not meaning to disagree with his position, which is basically, "Justice must be done," RC2 simply wants to point out that too many people make the mistake of confusing posessions per se with materialism. Wrong. Materialism is believing that matter is all there is --or at least behaving as if it's all that is important. Subjecting persons to things is materialistic. Using things to serve people is not.
Let's play "Spot the Materialist." Which of the following positions is NOT materialistic?
A) Using billions of dollars to invest in "smart bombs" and other high-tech innovations so that, should war become necessary, soldiers' lives will not be put unnecessarily at risk and "collateral damage" (taking of civilian lives) is avoided as much as possible.
B) Using persons as pawns (for example, by strapping explosives on to mentally disabled people, targeting civilians and beheading non-combatants).
Did you choose A? Good for you! You understand that using material goods as a means for the good of people is not materialism. If you chose B, back to school for you! Poverty is not in itself a virtue, and wealth is not necessarily proof of materialism.
NOTE: You're not crazy. This post has been revised for greater clarity.