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?