Sell the Vatican, Feed the world

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.

prinz

Graces7 wrote: »

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

Enough food is produced to feed the world as it is.

Graces7 wrote: »

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...

Anything to back up your claim here that babies were left starve to death?

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

Enough food is produced to feed the world as it is.

And yet so many have nothing to eat. The point is, that a multi-national food company, a farmer etc etc has no compulsion to distribute food to feed those in need. However, a body claiming to represent Jesus should have a compulsion to leave off on excess and help those in need, as do all claiming to be following Christ.

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote: »

And yet so many have nothing to eat. The point is, that a multi-national food company, a farmer etc etc has no compulsion to distribute food to feed those in need. However, a body claiming to represent Jesus should have a compulsion to leave off on excess and help those in need, as do all claiming to be following Christ.

Sex scandals and cover-ups aside, on a spiritual and worldly level helping those in need is arguably what the RCC does. They have an extensive network of charities throughout the world (the largest?) that are directly or indirectly affiliated with the Church.

PDN

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?

I am not a Catholic and have no desire to defend the RCC, but to be honest such 'billions' are often notional. It's like saying that someone who owned a modest 3 bedroomed semi in Dublin at the height of the Celtic Tiger was a 'millionaire' because their assets (house, pension fund etc) exceeded one million euro. However, if they sold their house they would still need to find somewhere to live at similar costs - and liquidating their pension fund would only create a burden for the State down the line.

Much of the Catholic Church's wealth is tied up in property that would be totally unsuitable for most other purposes. For example, it's one thing to say how much St Peter's is worth - but who do you think is really going to buy it. Probably the only potential buyer would be a Saudi backed Muslim group that could use it as a high profile centre to preach Islamic fundamentalism.

Would that make anyone here happier?

Graces7

prinz wrote: »

Enough food is produced to feed the world as it is.



Anything to back up your claim here that babies were left starve to death?

Sadly yes. When I first heard this I reacted as you have.

I cannot get to the site on this connection; but there was a book written on her by Christopher Hitchens; The Missionary Position. Not a good book; but on amazon there are reviews.

One review is by a Canadian doctor; she and others visited one of the orphanages of MC(Missionaries of Charity) and saw appalling conditions there. No nappies, little food etc. So they went home and collected a large sum of money which they sent to that orphanage. They revisited to find conditions even worse. And while they were there, a baby died of starvation.

The money all went and goes to central office you see. The orphanage nver saw a penny of it

I went on them to speak to other aid workers and that is the general picture; the same pattern of utter poverty inflicted and money not beng used for the purpose it was given for.

This is one of many articles coming from within the order

http://members.multimania.co.uk/bajuu/

There is a whole spate of these revelations now, including on youtube.

And the canonisation process has stalled.

She started so well, inspired so many, but then this almost worship of poverty and inflicting it on others.

And as some pointed out; she always had the best of medical care.

Graces7

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.

Denerick; please do not walk away from Jesus because of the Church. He is not the Church.

Graces7

PDN wrote: »

I am not a Catholic and have no desire to defend the RCC, but to be honest such 'billions' are often notional. It's like saying that someone who owned a modest 3 bedroomed semi in Dublin at the height of the Celtic Tiger was a 'millionaire' because their assets (house, pension fund etc) exceeded one million euro. However, if they sold their house they would still need to find somewhere to live at similar costs - and liquidating their pension fund would only create a burden for the State down the line.

Much of the Catholic Church's wealth is tied up in property that would be totally unsuitable for most other purposes. For example, it's one thing to say how much St Peter's is worth - but who do you think is really going to buy it. Probably the only potential buyer would be a Saudi backed Muslim group that could use it as a high profile centre to preach Islamic fundamentalism.

Would that make anyone here happier?

While seeing your point, this is not true.

NB someone posted that the Pope lives in an apartment; luxurious plus summer residences

And as a musuem it would attract millions and be a going concern as the part of history it is.

Look at the tourism there now..

So far the international banking community has failed to break the secrecy re the amounts in the Vatican banks. But they know it is many millions.

In hard cash, which the people have contributed.

Whenever a religious order, anywhere in the world, folds, all its resources go to Rome.

And if the Vatican lived Jesus, then that would be a wonder indeed.

A witness that would bring so many to Jesus.

It is how it started; in a stable, homeless.

Graces7

JimiTime wrote: »

And yet so many have nothing to eat. The point is, that a multi-national food company, a farmer etc etc has no compulsion to distribute food to feed those in need. However, a body claiming to represent Jesus should have a compulsion to leave off on excess and help those in need, as do all claiming to be following Christ.

There is a lot being done, jimitime, in small ways.

In the US, food banks are given excess by farmers; also hunters donate eg ground venison.

And supermarkets give the food near to sell by date; the amount thrown away in Ireland is shocking.

When hundreds of children arrive at school with no breakfast in them.

Always it is the "little folk" who care who do this.

And yes, you are right indeed, all the way right.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sex scandals and cover-ups aside, on a spiritual and worldly level helping those in need is arguably what the RCC does.

Don't get me wrong FC, I'm not really having a pop at the RCC, but I think Grace7's has hit the principal on the head. the reasoning above is more like letting your left hand know what your right hand is doing. 'Ok, we are indulging in exces here, but look at what we did here' type of thinking. Such thinking is not Christ like. I also wonder, if its not the 'members' of the RCC which are doing all the work and the raising of funds. Like Grace7 said, the churches etc are paid for by the parishioners.

They have an extensive network of charities throughout the world (the largest?) that are directly or indirectly affiliated with the Church.

I'm certainly not going to argue with that. Like I said above though, the principal remains. TBH, I'm not sure what it really means that a charity is 'catholic'. Does this just mean that the RCC approves them? or do they actually give resources, financially etc?

Graces7

JimiTime wrote: »

Don't get me wrong FC, I'm not really having a pop at the RCC, but I think Grace7's has hit the principal on the head. the reasoning above is more like letting your left hand know what your right hand is doing. 'Ok, we are indulging in exces here, but look at what we did here' type of thinking. Such thinking is not Christ like. I also wonder, if its not the 'members' of the RCC which are doing all the work and the raising of funds. Like Grace7 said, the churches etc are paid for by the parishioners.

I'm certainly not going to argue with that. Like I said above though, the principal remains. TBH, I'm not sure what it really means that a charity is 'catholic'. Does this just mean that the RCC approves them? or do they actually give resources, financially etc?

Jimitime, you are spot on once more here.

The so-called catholic charities do actually very little and say much about it. They are top heavy with admin costs also.

The kind of publicity they use costs a small fortune.

We stopped supporting them and found a small and dedicated group to contribue to after the Mother Teresa revelations.

They knew about that and did not stop it so that trust in them went.
So many sacrificed to much and their money never got anywhere.

We know the people and we know where our money goes. That the needy wil get it in full. And it is quietly done with no boasting.

Spiritual trust and material trust are two different things entirely; the difference between faith and religion