Sell the Vatican, Feed the world

iMax

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a recently admitted atheist & not a huge Sarah Silverman fan either, but this makes so much sense: They take a vow of poverty & then live in (as she puts it) a house that's a city. The most ostentatious place, filled with precious metals & priceless art.

Put it up for sale & start saving lives: Sell The Vatican

Zombrex

Well I'm not quite sure this is the topic you were going for, but it is largely a myth that the worlds food problems can be solved by throwing money at them, as Live Aid some what demonstrated

iMax

Seems like a good place to start trying though eh ?

philologos

Its kind of a similar principle to saying that if countries stopped spending money on arms, they could feed the starving.

You hit two birds with one stone there. Tools for aggression, and poverty.

Zombrex

iMax wrote: »

Seems like a good place to start trying though eh ?

Not really, large sums of money flowing into poor countries attracts the attention of corrupt governments and warlords, so the aid agencies and governments often have to deal with to actual get resources into the areas. The governments and warlords end up taking a lot of the money.

Longer term stability and slow but continuous economic investment is needed, but because that conflicts with foreign interests it is a lot harder to achieve.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Well I'm not quite sure this is the topic you were going for, but it is largely a myth that the worlds food problems can be solved by throwing money at them, as Live Aid some what demonstrated

Very true. Is more money really the solution? There was certainly a dramatic shift in focus between the request for cash donations that underpinned Live Aid and the demand for top down policy change that the organisers of Live8 desired.

While I'm generally not one to defend the RCC, I wonder if asset stripping is really the best way for the RCC to achieve it's aims? (I'm not sure of the truth of it, but I've heard that the RCC is "house rich, cash poor".) By way of answering my own question, I don't believe that money will help to achieve meaningful change on either a social or a spiritual level. Indeed, I think their most powerful and important resource is to be found at the grass-root level - encouraging its members to go out and help the poor and the needy. Money is not the solution, people are.

I hope Silverman is leading by example.

Fanny Cradock

Interestingly, I was looking at the Live8 website and it looks as if it hasn't been updated in years (2006 by my reckoning).

Denerick

Personally I think if Jesus Christ were alive today and walked through the Vatican City he'd be thoroughly appalled. That passage where he tosses over the tables of the cheap sellers of tat in the vicinity of the Temple of Solomon comes to mind!

Manach

In defence of the mother Church.
1 - The artifacts are held in trust for all the faithful, to sell them short changes our heritage.
2 - The Church has a footprint in Africa which provides effective humanitarian relief, without a central HQ the effectiveness is diminished.

Denerick

Manach wrote: »

In defence of the mother Church.
1 - The artifacts are held in trust for all the faithful, to sell them short changes our heritage.
2 - The Church has a footprint in Africa which provides effective humanitarian relief, without a central HQ the effectiveness is diminished.

The artifacts are mere material possessions, pieces of Gold and fine art (As a humanist I'm enthralled by their very existance and want them in display in public gallaries and museums, not in dark Vatican crypts) There is something un-nerving about it all, something of a 'worshiping false Gods' in their idolatory. I'd be interested if there was some kind of figure for what all those priceless works of art would be worth if sold? I'm sure the Sistine Chapel would fetch a fair price on the open market! (Might be enough capital to modernise one small African economy)

To be fair, the great works of art and the thoroughly mind boggingly beautiful possessions of the Vatican were conceived and created by mere mortals, and are material possessions. I've always been convinced that hanging on to such material wealth in the face of global inequality is fundamentally unchristian.

Teferi

Manach wrote: »

2 - The Church has a footprint in Africa which provides effective humanitarian relief, without a central HQ the effectiveness is diminished.

Conditional aid isn't effective.

Soul Winner

iMax wrote: »

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a recently admitted atheist & not a huge Sarah Silverman fan either, but this makes so much sense: They take a vow of poverty & then live in (as she puts it) a house that's a city. The most ostentatious place, filled with precious metals & priceless art.

Put it up for sale & start saving lives: Sell The Vatican

Do all Catholics take a vow of poverty?

If the Vatican should be sold and given to the poor should we then move on from that to selling all houses of riches and give the the profits thereof to the poor also? If so, then at what point do we stop? Should anyone who has any kind of wealth sell that wealth and give to the poor?

Jesus responded to the disciple (Judas) who in reaction to the woman pouring the ointment from the very expensive alabaster box on the body of her Lord: "Why this waste? This oinment could have been sold for much and given to the poor." And Jesus said: "Why trouble ye the woman? She had wrought a good work unto me. Ye have the poor with you always, but me ye don't have always." He then said that along with wherever the gospel is preached to see to it that we also preach what this woman did. How often to we hear this story? Not very often.

The poor don't want our money. They want us to genuinely care for them, there is a difference.

Graces7

Soul Winner wrote: »

Do all Catholics take a vow of poverty?

If the Vatican should be sold and given to the poor should we then move on from that to selling all houses of riches and give the the profits thereof to the poor also? If so, then at what point do we stop? Should anyone who has any kind of wealth sell that wealth and give to the poor?

Jesus responded to the disciple (Judas) who in reaction to the woman pouring the ointment from the very expensive alabaster box on the body of her Lord: "Why this waste? This oinment could have been sold for much and given to the poor." And Jesus said: "Why trouble ye the woman? She had wrought a good work unto me. Ye have the poor with you always, but me ye don't have always." He then said that along with wherever the gospel is preached to see to it that we also preach what this woman did. How often to we hear this story? Not very often.

The poor don't want our money. They want us to genuinely care for them, there is a difference.

But caring means providing food every day if they cannot do that.

Jesus does speak a great amount about how we should handle money. Verses that are largely ignored.

And the ointment epsiode meant during His earthly life; we do have Him always with us

When Christianity became "respectable"all the true teachings lived in Acts and spoken of in eg the Didache went out of the window.

Many of us honestly know that yes, we cannot keep wealth or anything we do not absolutely need when others are starving. And we live that.

NB have a look at "Shoes of the Fishermen" ; youtube has it. A pity it is fictional.

Many fall into the trap of "for posterity" .... Mother Teresa's order has great cellars full of artifacts given, but then she lost the plot too

See"Mother Teresa's Millions"

And see Isaiah on true fasting

Denerick

Soul Winner wrote: »

Do all Catholics take a vow of poverty?

If the Vatican should be sold and given to the poor should we then move on from that to selling all houses of riches and give the the profits thereof to the poor also? If so, then at what point do we stop? Should anyone who has any kind of wealth sell that wealth and give to the poor?

Jesus responded to the disciple (Judas) who in reaction to the woman pouring the ointment from the very expensive alabaster box on the body of her Lord: "Why this waste? This oinment could have been sold for much and given to the poor." And Jesus said: "Why trouble ye the woman? She had wrought a good work unto me. Ye have the poor with you always, but me ye don't have always." He then said that along with wherever the gospel is preached to see to it that we also preach what this woman did. How often to we hear this story? Not very often.

The poor don't want our money. They want us to genuinely care for them, there is a difference.

That is an evasive answer. The Church can still exist as an entity without its vast possessions in the Vatican. you know this so don't try and escape the question.

philiporeilly

Denerick wrote: »

That is an evasive answer. The Church can still exist as an entity without its vast possessions in the Vatican. you know this so don't try and escape the question.

While I did not find her sketch funny it is a valid argument, especially having been to the Vatican.

Why does the church need and continue to compile vast quantities of wealth?

Soul Winner

Denerick wrote: »

That is an evasive answer. The Church can still exist as an entity without its vast possessions in the Vatican. you know this so don't try and escape the question.

Jesus escaped many a question by simply asking other questions. Now if the RCC as whole has taken a vow of poverty then yes they should stick to that vow, but have they done that? That's my question. If they haven't then I don't see why they should sell all and give to the poor and for those who think they should have you done it with your riches? If not, then ST*U. Lead by example not by edict.

Graces7

philiporeilly wrote: »

While I did not find her sketch funny it is a valid argument, especially having been to the Vatican.

Why does the church need and continue to compile vast quantities of wealth?

Because at this point in time, the Catholic Church has.... lost the plot. It has no need of these possessions.. "The love of money is the root of all evil."

Compare today's Church to what is described in Acts; ie the real early Churcht.

Graces7

Soul Winner wrote: »

Jesus escaped many a question by simply asking other questions. Now if the RCC as whole has taken a vow of poverty then yes they should stick to that vow, but have they done that? That's my question. If they haven't then I don't see why they should sell all and give to the poor and for those who think they should have you done it with your riches? If not, then ST*U. Lead by example not by edict.

Read the catechism on this, Soul Winner. It`is online ( sorry; poor internet here and I cannot get that page up)

There is certainly no general vow of of poverty. There are sections on eg works of art and responsible use of wealth, but those who want to go further are denigrated.

The only ones to take a Vow of Poverty are the religious..

And to read this latest set of revelations, you will see that that has become meaningless in real terms

http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-each-of-congregations-has-on-its.html

I and many others find the huge riches of Holy Mother Church... obscene.

However many Catholics choose to give all to the poor in a meaningful and real way. Not just little bits but all .

Why?

Because that is what Jesus teaches over and over and over again.

Denerick

Soul Winner wrote: »

Jesus escaped many a question by simply asking other questions. Now if the RCC as whole has taken a vow of poverty then yes they should stick to that vow, but have they done that? That's my question. If they haven't then I don't see why they should sell all and give to the poor and for those who think they should have you done it with your riches? If not, then ST*U. Lead by example not by edict.

Yes, and jesus I'm sure would be apalled by that answer. The Church should have a vow of poverty even if it doesn't have one now, it was at the heart of the Franciscan squabbles in the 14th century. Most of your catechism is dictated and influenced by in effect, greedy medieval landlords intent on maintaining their possessions and in denial about Christs true purpose on earth. Its about time the church got over the dogma and actively worked to fulfill Gods word. It gets more and more like the whore of Babylon with ever passing year.

Soul Winner

Listen lads, you make it sound like God is against His people having riches or something. He is only against it if it drives a wedge in your relationship to Him. That's why we are to hold very loosely to what He blesses us with. When Jesus spoke to the rich young ruler and said that there was one thing that He lacked, He was responding to the rich young ruler's comments that He had kept all the commandments from a very young age. When Jesus said that in order to be His disciple (a learner) that he must sell all that he had and give it to the poor and then follow Him, Jesus exposed the hold that his riches had on him. That's why the rich young ruler went away very downcast. You see you don't approach God with any confidence in your own ability, He will smoke out whatever your besetting sins are and what it is that has real control of you. In the rich young ruler's case it was his riches, but we are all bound in some way to something that conflicts with a right relationship with God in our lives. So no, Jesus is not against people having riches per se. He gives the promise to those who actually do forsake all that they have and follow Him that they will receive a hundred fold the things that they have forsaken both down here in this life and in the life to come, but our forsaking of the things which hold contrary claims on own lives must be truly forsaken. The forsaking should not be done with the intent to gain the hundredfold, if it is then that is not truly forsaking. When life's claims have absolutely no hold over us whatsoever then God blesses us with all manner of blessing, material blessing as well as spiritual blessings. But even if He doesn't bestown any blessings, a true forsaker won't care, they have found their fulfillment in God already, and don't need anything else, but God just happens to be the kind of God who loves blessing these kind with more blessings and that is the God that is revealed in the scripture, like it or lump it all you begrudgers of wealth for Christians.

But back to the OP, if the RCC has taken a vow of poverty then they should keep it.

Denerick

That is such an evasive answer? The question is not whether Christians should own property, or have wealth, but whether the 'church' should be rich. I think its a disgrace that the Vatican has such material wealth, such Imperial splendour, when people are literally dying of starvation in several parts of the world.

Graces7

Soul Winner wrote: »

Listen lads, you make it sound like God is against His people having riches or something. He is only against it if it drives a wedge in your relationship to Him. That's why we are to hold very loosely to what He blesses us with. When Jesus spoke to the rich young ruler and said that there was one thing that He lacked, He was responding to the rich young ruler's comments that He had kept all the commandments from a very young age. When Jesus said that in order to be His disciple (a learner) that he must sell all that he had and give it to the poor and then follow Him, Jesus exposed the hold that his riches had on him. That's why the rich young ruler went away very downcast. You see you don't approach God with any confidence in your own ability, He will smoke out whatever your besetting sins are and what it is that has real control of you. In the rich young ruler's case it was his riches, but we are all bound in some way to something that conflicts with a right relationship with God in our lives. So no, Jesus is not against people having riches per se. He gives the promise to those who actually do forsake all that they have and follow Him that they will receive a hundred fold the things that they have forsaken both down here in this life and in the life to come, but our forsaking of the things which hold contrary claims on own lives must be truly forsaken. The forsaking should not be done with the intent to gain the hundredfold, if it is then that is not truly forsaking. When life's claims have absolutely no hold over us whatsoever then God blesses us with all manner of blessing, material blessing as well as spiritual blessings. But even if He doesn't bestown any blessings, a true forsaker won't care, they have found their fulfillment in God already, and don't need anything else, but God just happens to be the kind of God who loves blessing these kind with more blessings and that is the God that is revealed in the scripture, like it or lump it all you begrudgers of wealth for Christians.

But back to the OP, if the RCC has taken a vow of poverty then they should keep it.

...
Gee.. this is a very ... revealing reply indeed. A very popular and dreadful misinterpretation.

The fact that you regard such things as blessings alone reveals so much.

Which has no connection at all, at all with the life and teachings of Jesus.

You need to read His words on possessions and riches. All of them,

Wealth and Christian do not belong in the same sentence. Jesus lived in poverty and read Acts, please.

Holding all things in common and giving all they do not need to the poor.

Do you really think it is right for eg religious sisters now to live likelanded gentry with paid staff, eating richly while even in Dublin the homeless manage on soup and a bun? And are thankful for even that?

Jesus is with the poor.

The only true use for riches is as Jesus told the young man, to care for others.

That is how He lived here and how He taught to live.

Graces7

Denerick wrote: »

That is such an evasive answer? The question is not whether Christians should own property, or have wealth, but whether the 'church' should be rich. I think its a disgrace that the Vatican has such material wealth, such Imperial splendour, when people are literally dying of starvation in several parts of the world.

Exactly so.

The robes alone! Oh my word!

Thank you.

But yes, this should apply to each of us also.Each is part of the Body of Christ...

alex73

Actually if we sold Britains trident missile project we could feed africa 10 times longer than selling the vatican. America will spend close to 1 trillion on their defense budget. We spend more money killing each other than feeding the poor and the vatican has nothing to do with it.

Soul Winner

Denerick wrote: »

That is such an evasive answer? The question is not whether Christians should own property, or have wealth, but whether the 'church' should be rich. I think its a disgrace that the Vatican has such material wealth, such Imperial splendour, when people are literally dying of starvation in several parts of the world.

Same can be said for all organizations which happen to have power and wealth wouldn't you say? Why single out the RCC? Why is it more of a disgrace when it's a Church or religious organization? Every church I know of is involved in large part with charity organizations and actually are responsible for setting a lot of them up. If the RCC give up their power and wealth then they will be effectively rendering themselves powerless to lead their flock and eventually become consigned to the dustbin of history. now please explain why they should do that? Because you don't like them having the wealth?

Morbert

I don't think I am being overly cynical or extremist if I suggest that the Catholic Church does not always uphold Christian ideals. I would say a lot of the decadence and wealth in the church is for not-so-noble reasons.

Denerick

alex73 wrote: »

Actually if we sold Britains trident missile project we could feed africa 10 times longer than selling the vatican. America will spend close to 1 trillion on their defense budget. We spend more money killing each other than feeding the poor and the vatican has nothing to do with it.

Where are you getting that trident figure from? If the Vatican went for sale tomorrow it would achieve collossal bids, the architecture, the art, the very presence is simply amazing. The cultural legacy is immeasurable in those few hundred metres.

Besides, that point is basically absurd. The argument that 'well sure it makes little difference either way, pass the cavier please Cardinal!' is whacko, sorry.

alex73

Morbert wrote: »

I don't think I am being overly cynical or extremist if I suggest that the Catholic Church does not always uphold Christian ideals. I would say a lot of the decadence and wealth in the church is for not-so-noble reasons.

Is that your media formed opinion, or a fact based statement?

Denerick

Soul Winner wrote: »

Same can be said for all organizations which happen to have power and wealth wouldn't you say? Why single out the RCC? Why is it more of a disgrace when it's a Church or religious organization? Every church I know of is involved in large part with charity organizations and actually are responsible for setting a lot of them up. If the RCC give up their power and wealth then they will be effectively rendering themselves powerless to lead their flock and eventually become consigned to the dustbin of history. now please explain why they should do that? Because you don't like them having the wealth?

Because it is a heresy for the Church to have such material wealth? Do you not understand that? Other groups, states, etc. are completely irrelevant, stop evading the basic point. You are effectively defending the right of a tiny oligarchy to have immense wealth, the same group that claims dynastic succession from St. Peter. It makes me physically ill that this horrible organisation has bastardised the word of God in this matter.

Denerick

alex73 wrote: »

Is that your media formed opinion, or a fact based statement?

Its a statement of historical fact. Or are you really going to argue otherwise?

Graces7

alex73 wrote: »

Actually if we sold Britains trident missile project we could feed africa 10 times longer than selling the vatican. America will spend close to 1 trillion on their defense budget. We spend more money killing each other than feeding the poor and the vatican has nothing to do with it.

Totally irrelevant and misleading.

The US is not a body which professes to follow and obey and preach the Lord Jesus Christ, Who owned nothing and gave all to feed others and bade His followers do the same.

Utter irony sadly that the Chuch by its abandonment to material things has lost the chance it had to teach others.

Also the US govt gets its money from taxes compulsorily extracted. And sets uo to "defend: militarily

Where do you think the Vatican gets its money from?

alex73

Denerick wrote: »

Where are you getting that trident figure from? If the Vatican went for sale tomorrow it would achieve collossal bids, the architecture, the art, the very presence is simply amazing. The cultural legacy is immeasurable in those few hundred metres.

Besides, that point is basically absurd. The argument that 'well sure it makes little difference either way, pass the cavier please Cardinal!' is whacko, sorry.

The Vatican and its Churchs and Art are not property of the Pope or any bishop, The are the heritage of all Catholics. So the Dicision to "sell" the vatican is one that the Billion or so Catholics need to take. The Pope who lives in the Vatican has an apartment.

And who are you going to sell the Vatican to???.... Berlusconi, what would it be used for, Catholics would never agree to it.

... So get real

Soul Winner

Graces7 wrote: »

...
Gee.. this is a very ... revealing reply indeed. A very popular and dreadful misinterpretation.

Why?

Graces7 wrote: »

The fact that you regard such things as blessings alone reveals so much.

Like what?

Graces7 wrote: »

Which has no connection at all, at all with the life and teachings of Jesus.

Jesus promised that true forsakers will receive a hundred fold the things they have forsaken for His name's sake. Do you still think Jesus is against people having wealth and riches?

Graces7 wrote: »

You need to read His words on possessions and riches. All of them,

Please show me where Jesus commands that every follower of His has to be poor or else they cannot be His disciples? Chapter and verse please.

Graces7 wrote: »

Wealth and Christian do not belong in the same sentence. Jesus lived in poverty and read Acts, please.

Jesus came to minister, not to be ministered to. His meat was to do the will of the Father who sent Him. He was poor because He chose to be poor. He left the thrown of glory for crying out loud, do you think He was always poor while He was in glory with the Father from eternity?

Graces7 wrote: »

Holding all things in common and giving all they do not need to the poor.

The early Christians expected Jesus t return in their lifetime of course they would live like this. Did Jesus command it though? No He didn't.

Graces7 wrote: »

Do you really think it is right for eg religious sisters now to live likelanded gentry with paid staff, eating richly while even in Dublin the homeless manage on soup and a bun? And are thankful for even that?

Not place to judge them. If their riches are keeping them from following God as He calls them then that's is a problem that they have and they they need to deal with. None of anyone else's business.

Graces7 wrote: »

Jesus is with the poor.

Never said He wasn't.

Graces7 wrote: »

The only true use for riches is as Jesus told the young man, to care for others.

But pray tell how can you care for the poor with your riches if you have no riches?

Graces7 wrote: »

That is how He lived here and how He taught to live.

Chapter and verse please. I want to know where Jesus commands that we be poor for the sake of being poor.

Graces7

Soul Winner wrote: »

Same can be said for all organizations which happen to have power and wealth wouldn't you say? Why single out the RCC? Why is it more of a disgrace when it's a Church or religious organization? Every church I know of is involved in large part with charity organizations and actually are responsible for setting a lot of them up. If the RCC give up their power and wealth then they will be effectively rendering themselves powerless to lead their flock and eventually become consigned to the dustbin of history. now please explain why they should do that? Because you don't like them having the wealth?

Please, read what Jesus says re all this; He is our authority. And He is scathing re the kind of giving that you are describing. read re the widow's mite.. that she gave of her substance and not of her excess.

All during the abuse scandals in ireland, the Church here has been making a show of its wealth... refurbishing churches,, and OH! African stone river floors in two churches at huge expense.

It shames the Church; in towns where the homeless freeze inthe doorways of warm, dry empty buidlings.

Graces7

No; YOU do the work here, please.

I am not going to spoon feed you!

You need to search the Scriptures as many have done before you.

You are confusing true wealth with material wealth. Which again Jesus speaks of.

In practical terms; giving all you earn is a very good way to feed people day by day and year by year.

Locking riches away by holding onto them: Seek what Jesus says about that too.

Poverty so that we can feed others; holding nothing back that we do not need. Not for the sake of being poor; Isaiah on true fasting.

Please, search the scriptures. It is all there. Drink from Source

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why?



Like what?



Jesus promised that true forsakers will receive a hundred fold the things they have forsaken for His name's sake. Do you still think Jesus is against people having wealth and riches?



Please show me where Jesus commands that every follower of His has to be poor or else they cannot be His disciples? Chapter and verse please.



Jesus came to minister, not to be ministered to. His meat was to do the will of the Father who sent Him. He was poor because He chose to be poor. He left the thrown of glory for crying out loud, do you think He was always poor while He was in glory with the Father from eternity?



The early Christians expected Jesus t return in their lifetime of course they would live like this. Did Jesus command it though? No He didn't.



Not place to judge them. If their riches are keeping them from following God as He calls them then that's is a problem that they have and they they need to deal with. None of anyone else's business.



Never said He wasn't.



But pray tell how can you care for the poor with your riches if you have no riches?



Chapter and verse please. I want to know where Jesus commands that we be poor for the sake of being poor.

dvpower

alex73 wrote: »

The Vatican and its Churchs and Art are not property of the Pope or any bishop, The are the heritage of all Catholics. So the Dicision to "sell" the vatican is one that the Billion or so Catholics need to take.

Has democracy broken out in the RCC?

Graces7

alex73 wrote: »

The Vatican and its Churchs and Art are not property of the Pope or any bishop, The are the heritage of all Catholics. So the Dicision to "sell" the vatican is one that the Billion or so Catholics need to take. The Pope who lives in the Vatican has an apartment.

And who are you going to sell the Vatican to???.... Berlusconi, what would it be used for, Catholics would never agree to it.

... So get real

As a Catholic... I say SELL THE VATICAN to the highest bidder!

Let it be a museum ...Charge entry fees..

Morbert

There's a good bit of dialogue between Jesus and Christ in Philip Pullman's new book that might be relevant to a discussion on the wealth of the church.

Christ says:

I can see the whole world united in this Kingdom of the faithful – think of that! Groups of families worshipping together with a priest in every village and town, an association of local groups under the direction and guidance of a wise elder in the region, the regional leaders all answering to the authority of one supreme director… I can see the majesty and splendour of the great temples, the courts, the palaces devoted to the glory of God…

To which Jesus replies:

You shadow of a man. What you describe sounds like the work of Satan. Do you think your mighty organisation would even recognise the Kingdom if it arrived? Fool! The Kingdom of God would come into these magnificent courts and palaces like a poor traveller with dust on his feet. The guards would spot him at once, ask for his papers, beat him throw him out into the street. “Be on your way,” they’d say. “You have no business here.“

i.e. It's not simply that "wealth is bad". But rather the worry that the Church will forget what it is if it is so interested in wealth and authority.

alex73

Graces7 wrote: »

As a Catholic... I say SELL THE VATICAN to the highest bidder!

Let it be a museum ...Charge entry fees..

Great, lets ask the other 999,999,999 Catholics if they also want to sell. I for one don't want it sold.

Pittens

It makes me physically ill that this horrible organisation has bastardised the word of God in this matter.

The best thing about the Catholic Church, and religion in general, is the art which it has produced over the centuries. Far prefer a High Church, or a painting, or a musical Mass to a protestant barn.

There is a fair amount of neo-calvinist whackery in this thread. If Jesus wants the church to be poor, he also wants all Christians to be poor. and to leave their families etc.

So off ya go then.

Denerick

Pittens wrote: »

The best thing about the Catholic Church, and religion in general, is the art which it has produced over the centuries. Far prefer a High Church, or a painting, or a musical Mass to a protestant barn.

There is a fair amount of neo-calvinist whackery in this thread. If Jesus wants the church to be poor, he also wants all Christians to be poor. and to leave their families etc.

So off ya go then.

No he doesn't. That is a blatant lie and distortion. You seem to revel in the idolatory, the pretty pictures, rather than the spirit of Christ. You sir, are a heretic.

And I am an agnostic Its these attitudes which drove me away from Christianity, by the way. These unchristian addiction to inherited wealth, the un-necessary splendour which surely must be a stain on the conscience of mankind.

alex73

Denerick wrote: »

No he doesn't. That is a blatant lie and distortion. You seem to revel in the idolatory, the pretty pictures, rather than the spirit of Christ. You sir, are a heretic.

And I am an agnostic Its these attitudes which drove me away from Christianity, by the way. These unchristian addiction to inherited wealth, the un-necessary splendour which surely must be a stain on the conscience of mankind.

This discusion is pointless. What is the Vatican?? its a state that is centered on the Tomb of St. Peter. The Pictures, buildings, are from another period in the church. But the center, the real meaning is the Tomb of St. Peter. Is it all essential to catholic faith (the Basilica, ) not really, but its part of the Churchs history. There is not addiction to wealth. The Paintings were not commisioned becuase they thought that one day they would be worth millions. You have to judge the Spendour of the Vatican is its period, in the context of history. Should we also sell Mecca or St. Pauls in London?

Fanny Cradock

Denerick wrote: »

No he doesn't. That is a blatant lie and distortion. You seem to revel in the idolatory, the pretty pictures, rather than the spirit of Christ. You sir, are a heretic.

And I am an agnostic Its these attitudes which drove me away from Christianity, by the way. These unchristian addiction to inherited wealth, the un-necessary splendour which surely must be a stain on the conscience of mankind.

I tend to agree that Jesus didn't explicitly teach that wealth was bad, rather it can be an obstacle to a relationship with God.

Still, let's all calm down.

Pittens

You seem to revel in the idolatory, the pretty pictures, rather than the spirit of Christ. You sir, are a heretic.

For someone who "moved away" from Christianity you didnt move very far. I was never a believer but I like a fine church, or a bit of Baroque. I am secular but not anti-religious.

Anyway, Jesus clearly was anti-wealth. Protestants attack the Catholic church for it's wealth but support the personal wealth of the Christian, which is also, hypocritical.

Fanny Cradock

Pittens wrote: »

Anyway, Jesus clearly was anti-wealth. Protestants attack the Catholic church for it's wealth but support the personal wealth of the Christian, which is also, hypocritical.

It depends what you mean by anti-wealth. As for Protestants attacking the RCC about their wealth, are you talking on a corporate or an individual level?

philiporeilly

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I tend to agree that Jesus didn't explicitly teach that wealth was bad, rather it can be an obstacle to a relationship with God.

Still, let's all calm down.

Let's put the wealth into context - we are talking about many hundreds of billions. Can having an unimaginable wealth and living like kings be an obstacle to a relationship with god?

And holding on to that wealth is a priority for the church. Why else do they hire lawyers to fight victims in court, or preform dodgy asset transfers to keep them out of reach of any legitimate claims?

Fanny Cradock

philiporeilly wrote: »

Let's put the wealth into context - we are talking about many hundreds of billions. Can having an unimaginable wealth and living like kings be an obstacle to a relationship with god?

And holding on to that wealth is a priority for the church. Why else do they hire lawyers to fight victims in court, or preform dodgy asset transfers to keep them out of reach of any legitimate claims?

Thanks, for that. But you aren't Pittens, so I don't see how this is going to help me understand why (s)he thinks that "Jesus was clearly anti-wealth" or if (s)he is talking abut Protestants at a corporate or an individual level.

This is not a personal criticism of you philiporeilly, but I wonder if how many of those on that repeat the Silverman argument actually give a **** about poverty.

Graces7

Pittens wrote: »

The best thing about the Catholic Church, and religion in general, is the art which it has produced over the centuries. Far prefer a High Church, or a painting, or a musical Mass to a protestant barn.

There is a fair amount of neo-calvinist whackery in this thread. If Jesus wants the church to be poor, he also wants all Christians to be poor. and to leave their families etc.

So off ya go then.

Gee; what a revealing statement.

Not the love of Jesus, but the pretty images?

And we are not talking re stark poverty, but ensuring that all are fed before we spend on art and other frills.

The "best: example is Mother Teresa; she got completley hooked on "poverty" for its own sake. That is was a virtue and "holy" to be poor. So she inflicted that poverty on those she took in; and babies died of starvation three to a cot in her orphanages while the money piled up inthe Vatican banks.

She could have fed all in Calcutta with the amount donated to her.

We are not talking of that kind of madness.

Simply that like Jesus we ensure that all are fed. Befor we spend millions on ornate buildings that we say are "to the glory of God"

All the buildings here by the way were built by subscription; the Vatican and the Church don't pay.

We have just had an appeal letter from the Parish Church here. The new church, 25 years old, is falling apart so they are demanding an extra envelope to be filled each week by all of us.

We have said no; every spare cent we have goes to feed the homeless.
(We don't use the parish church anyway as we go to mass etc at a nearby Friary.)

But the Church has more than enough money to repair churches.

It is a question of priorities and of common sense and good housekeeping. And of not usung what amounted in the past to slave labour to build fine churches.

Art is a secular affair.
And this isn't a case of Jesus being "anti wealth" is is a case of priorities.

Children dying needlessly of hunger and old men dying in our streets is nto something I want to face Jesus with ....

And we will..

If you read His words and His teachings to us, that is clear.

Money is food and life; only worth what it can buy for others.

JimiTime

Graces7 wrote: »

And we are not talking re stark poverty, but ensuring that all are fed before we spend on art and other frills.

Couldn't agree more.

The "best: example is Mother Teresa; she got completley hooked on "poverty" for its own sake. That is was a virtue and "holy" to be poor. So she inflicted that poverty on those she took in; and babies died of starvation three to a cot in her orphanages while the money piled up inthe Vatican banks.

She could have fed all in Calcutta with the amount donated to her.

We are not talking of that kind of madness.

Again, couldn't agree more. I think some may be misunderstanding you to mean the kind of 'being poor is holy' dogma you condemn above. I think your outlook is quite definitively Christian.

Simply that like Jesus we ensure that all are fed. Befor we spend millions on ornate buildings that we say are "to the glory of God"

Again, totally agree. The glory of God would be better served by following Christs advice and living his ways. He himself said, when asked how to worship said, 'look after widows and orphans'. Buildings will crumble, art etc will decay. Loving our neighbour does more to testify the truth of Christ and the glory of God, than any building or piece of art would ever do.

Art is a secular affair.
And this isn't a case of Jesus being "anti wealth" is is a case of priorities.

Precisely. As much as I agree with you, there is no doubt that materialism has a hold on me in many respects, as it does for many.

Money is food and life; only worth what it can buy for others.

I have to say, as much as I try to make excuses, or look for reasons why this may be wrong, I really do think that this is the true Christian way, and I am thankful that there are people like yourself. I think if professing Christians actually acted as Christ desired, his glory would be manifest the world over. Christendom, IMO, is guilty of stumbling many away from Christ.

krudler

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

doesnt that sum up jesus's supposed views on riches?

JimiTime

krudler wrote: »

doesnt that sum up jesus's supposed views on riches?

No, it sums up his view on the struggle a man will face when he enjoys material wealth. He says the line you quoted after a man comes to him zealously seeking to follow him. He says 'sell all you own and give it to the poor'. The man, loving money over God, walks away feeling dejected.

In short, wealth is not in and of itself a bad thing. Its the barrier it creates. We become slaves of it. Notice that Jesus does not say, 'A rich man wil not enter the kingdom of God', but rather uses language to describe how difficult it will be for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.