Sell the Vatican, Feed the world

Graces7

JimiTime wrote: »

Is this not a faithless position to hold? Jesus tells us that God will provide. Jesus also tells the zealous man to have 'perfect' righteousness, he must sell all his wealth and give it to the poor. It 'seems' to me, that the Gospels are on Graces7 side. I am completely open to correction, but is there anything in the Gospels that backs up your view?

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that one is not Christian if one does not have this perfect righteousness, but 'ideally', is what Graces7 endorses not exactly what Jesus asked?

Jimitime thankyou; reading this brought something to mind that has been niggling but could not find expression.

Still trying to express it.

The reason the Church has so much wealth is that it has so much power.

It is the expression in one from of the elitism that is to me so unilke what Jesus teaches.

Are we truly meant to be the elite, the leaders, the rich and famous? To have that physical power?

It was not so in Acts, or in the Didache . Or in Jesus' teachings.

Time was when "charity" was how we treated our neighbours, and now we have to be ordered and advised to watch for the old ones in bad weather. I have seen this in rural areas more and more.

Now it is organised and less.. personal somehow.

is it ever meant to be "them and us"?

Power and riches corrupt, because they are not of Jesus?

Because we are bidden preach the good news, are we to assume leadership in any way?


What is bringing the Church down is that it is not living what it teaches.

Graces7

JimiTime wrote: »

Is this not a faithless position to hold? Jesus tells us that God will provide. Jesus also tells the zealous man to have 'perfect' righteousness, he must sell all his wealth and give it to the poor and then FOLLOW HIM, a very important part. Basically, get rid of the shackles of this world, and follow me. It 'seems' to me, that the Gospels are on Graces7 side. I am completely open to correction, but is there anything in the Gospels that backs up your view?

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that one is not Christian if one does not have this perfect righteousness, but 'ideally', is what Graces7 endorses not exactly what Jesus asked?

I am by the way expressing a view here, saying nothing of how I live or what I do...Because how I live what I beleive is between me and Jesus. period. Not judging; reading Jesus and asking and speaking His words only.

Because unless we test everything thus what do we avail?

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

Is this not a faithless position to hold? Jesus tells us that God will provide.

Did the Galileans go out on boats fishing or did they sit on the shore and wait for the fish to come to them?

Pride in wealth and trust in wealth are the pitfalls. Avoid these and you should be fine. In Deuteronomy we are told to remember God for God gives us the ability and the power to accumulate wealth, but we are warned not to use it for selfish reasons.

As for institutional wealth, the anger here is misplaced. As others have said the Vatican and contents do not belong to any man with entitlement to sell them.

When we get to liquidating assets of untold historical significance and value where does it end? Why not sell Notre Dame, or Christchurch so someone can knock them and build apartments/carparks? Perhaps the Dalai Lama should 'sell' Tibet to the Chinese.

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

Did the Galileans go out on boats fishing or did they sit on the shore and wait for the fish to come to them?

That is different. We physically need our daily bread, and God 'providing' does not mean 'zap', heres a plate of chips. When Jesus explains about how God 'provides' for the birds etc, we know that the birds don't just sit down and have food 'zapped' to them. The point Jesus makes is, 'Seek first the kingdom' and don't be anxious about the future and if you'll be able to eat. If you follow him, things will work out.

Pride in wealth and trust in wealth are the pitfalls. Avoid these and you should be fine. In Deuteronomy we are told to remember God for God gives us the ability and the power to accumulate wealth, but we are warned not to use it for selfish reasons.

Indeed, but how do you interpret what Jesus says on the matter. As an ideal like?

As for institutional wealth, the anger here is misplaced. As others have said the Vatican and contents do not belong to any man with entitlement to sell them.

First of all, I am personally not angry or anything of the sort, and this conversation is 'pie in the sky' stuff. The Vatican wont give away or sell its assets, but I think exploring what the 'following Christ' ideal is, is both interesting and valuable.

When we get to liquidating assets of untold historical significance and value where does it end? Why not sell Notre Dame, or Christchurch so someone can knock them and build apartments/carparks? Perhaps the Dalai Lama should 'sell' Tibet to the Chinese.

Again, I'm more interested in expoloring the principals than the practicalities. i mean lets face it, such a sale etc is not going to happen.

StealthRolex

Graces7 wrote: »

What is bringing the Church down is that it is not living what it teaches.

The Church or the Vatican?

Corruption can start at the top but it can also start at the bottom and rise.

We are all part of the Church, indeed we are the Church so if anything is going to bring down the Church it starts with us.

Are we living what it teaches?

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

Indeed, but how do you interpret what Jesus says on the matter. As an ideal like?

Not to be too attached on materials things, not to trust that money can buy me love, health, happiness. To keep in mind that it could all be taken away tomorrow by a strong wind etc. That I should share what I can when I can and that I should be prudent with finances.

I don't see the thing that to be ideal Christians we give everything away. IMO Jesus' instructions to rich folk to give all they had away was a way of reminding them that God gave and God can take away, and not to get too attached.

Graces7

prinz wrote: »

Not to be too attached on materials things, not to trust that money can buy me love, health, happiness. To keep in mind that it could all be taken away tomorrow by a strong wind etc. That I should share what I can when I can and that I should be prudent with finances.

I don't see the thing that to be ideal Christians we give everything away. IMO Jesus' instructions to rich folk to give all they had away was a way of reminding them that God gave and God can take away, and not to get too attached.

Hmmm... So the Son of God doesn't mean what He says?

And His words are pretty clear cut; the young man was seeking perfection, as we all surely must?

There is no way your interpretation can work.

And Jesus says so much else re money in the same vein.

A lady remarked to me how different the Church, meaning RC, was from the Church Jesus founded. Which is what set much of this off.

Reading Acts.. Have you read Acts recently? Few seem to quote it.. also the Didache. The way of life immediateley on from Jesus.

Following His teachings to the letter. Each and every one giving all they owned...

The Church of Jesus.

So to get back to the topic; how about the Vatican and all that?

What justification for the wealth ?

Graces7

JimiTime wrote: »

That is different. We physically need our daily bread, and God 'providing' does not mean 'zap', heres a plate of chips. When Jesus explains about how God 'provides' for the birds etc, we know that the birds don't just sit down and have food 'zapped' to them. The point Jesus makes is, 'Seek first the kingdom' and don't be anxious about the future and if you'll be able to eat. If you follow him, things will work out.



Indeed, but how do you interpret what Jesus says on the matter. As an ideal like?



First of all, I am personally not angry or anything of the sort, and this conversation is 'pie in the sky' stuff. The Vatican wont give away or sell its assets, but I think exploring what the 'following Christ' ideal is, is both interesting and valuable.



Again, I'm more interested in expoloring the principals than the practicalities. i mean lets face it, such a sale etc is not going to happen.

Well, you really never know with the way things are going now... Many aver that this is the last real Pope.

I mean who would have thought even ten years ago that Ireland would be running out or priests and that the irish orders would be all but gone?

We live in interesting times.

Graces7

prinz wrote: »

Did the Galileans go out on boats fishing or did they sit on the shore and wait for the fish to come to them?

Pride in wealth and trust in wealth are the pitfalls. Avoid these and you should be fine. In Deuteronomy we are told to remember God for God gives us the ability and the power to accumulate wealth, but we are warned not to use it for selfish reasons.

As for institutional wealth, the anger here is misplaced. As others have said the Vatican and contents do not belong to any man with entitlement to sell them.

When we get to liquidating assets of untold historical significance and value where does it end? Why not sell Notre Dame, or Christchurch so someone can knock them and build apartments/carparks? Perhaps the Dalai Lama should 'sell' Tibet to the Chinese.

Deuteronomy is Old Testament; Jesus is the New Covenant and teaches very differently.

It is not just the art treasures but the words "untold value".

prinz

Graces7 wrote: »

Hmmm... So the Son of God doesn't mean what He says? And His words are pretty clear cut; the young man was seeking perfection, as we all surely must?

The young man was obviously overly dependant on his wealth.

Compare this...

But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, "Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount." 9Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost."

With this..

22When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." 23When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. 24Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Now Zacchaeus only gave half away and was saved? Does Zacchaeus not 'seek perfection'? Why is it ok for him to give half away, when the next young man must give everything away? Surely the reactions of both involved show us why Jesus said what he said. Zacchaeus was pleased to give away, eager and volunteering to do it. The next young man's reaction shows us that he was overly attached to his wealth, unlike Zacchaeus.

Graces7 wrote: »

There is no way your interpretation can work.

Oh really and why not? There are many instances of wealthy people not requiring to give away all in order to be blessed. See the centurion who owned slaves and was wealthy enough to build a synagogue... did Jesus refuse to heal his ill slave until he heard that the centurion had given everything away - or did he heal the man's slave because of his faith?

Graces7 wrote: »

And Jesus says so much else re money in the same vein. Following His teachings to the letter. Each and every one giving all they owned...

But they didn't give all they owned. Jesus didn't instruct everyone to give everything away. The disciples had purses, cloaks, swords etc.

Graces7 wrote: »

So to get back to the topic; how about the Vatican and all that?
What justification for the wealth ?

The 'wealth' is relative. You are talking about priceless art work and buildings of untold historical value. It is held on trust for the people of the world. You have consistently side stepped many questions put to you, about other galleries and national treasures being sold etc.

Yes it is extravagant and the church was corrupted and needs to change IMO titles like excellency, bishop's palace etc should be made redudant, but as for selling priceless structures artefacts etc to the highest bidder..nope. I would much rather it remain on trust for future generations.

lmaopml

Graces7 wrote: »

Personal attack in this.

Fire and brimstone?

Apologies if I upset you with the way I expressed that post....I guess indignation at the implied 'materialism' sparked the tone.....lol.....if only being materialistic were an option However, it's the way you read to me if I'm honest on this topic. Also, you've avoided quite a number of questions and various different facts that have been pointed out very clearly too...Namely that it isn't 'cash'! It's not 'personal' wealth!....and it's for future generations that we preserve these things...

What do people make of - is it Matthew 25? Must look it up and read it again...

To me, it reads as if we're held responsible for how we use that which we have been given for the Glory of God, and in doing so, to administer to the poor etc. etc.

...to be wise in other words, and not foolish with what we're given so as to flourish and help others flourish, and mostly to bring them to God.

Any biblical scholars? Is there a broad general consensus on this or is it one of those verses that could be seen as being ambiguous?

lmaopml

I found this Meditation on Matthew 25, which I thought was fairly pertinent to the way the discussion swayed towards reconciling Jesus wish for us to be fruitful, but yet to give everything away that we own except the clothes on our back in order to follow him...

Matthew 25:14 - 30

14 "For it will be as when a man going on a journey called his servants and entrusted to them his property; 15 to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16 He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them; and he made five talents more. 17 So also, he who had the two talents made two talents more. 18 But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. 19 Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20 And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, `Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.' 21 His master said to him, `Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.' 22 And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, `Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.' 23 His master said to him, `Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.' 24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, `Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not winnow; 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' 26 But his master answered him, `You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed, and gather where I have not winnowed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.'

Meditation: What can economics and productivity teach us about the kingdom of heaven? Jesus' story about a businessman who leaves town and entrusts his money with his workers made perfect sense to his audience. Wealthy merchants and businessmen often had to travel abroad and leave the business to others to handle while they were gone. Why did Jesus tell this story? Most importantly it tells us something about how God deals with us, his servants. The parable speaks first of the Master's trust in his servants. While he goes away he leaves them with his money to use as they think best. While there were no strings attached, this was obviously a test to see if the Master's workers would be industrious and reliable in their use of the money entrusted to them. Third, the master rewards those who are industrious and faithful and he punishes those who sit by idly and who do nothing with his money. The essence of the parable seems to lie in the servants' conception of responsibility. Each servant entrusted with the master's money was faithful up to a certain point. The servant who buried the master's money was irresponsible. One can bury seeds in the ground and expect them to become productive because they obey natural laws. Coins, however, do not obey natural laws. They obey economic laws and become productive in circulation. The master expected his servants to be productive in the use of his money.
What do coins and the law of economics have to do with the kingdom of God? The Lord entrusts the subjects of his kingdom with gifts and graces and he gives his subjects the freedom to use them as they think best. With each gift and talent, God gives sufficient the means (grace and wisdom) for using them in a fitting way. As the parable of the talents shows, God abhors indifference and an attitude that says it's not worth trying. God honors those who use their talents and gifts for doing good. Those who are faithful with even a little are entrusted with more! But those who neglect or squander what God has entrusted to them will lose what they have. There is an important lesson here for us. No one can stand still for long in the Christian life. We either get more or we lose what we have. We either advance towards God or we slip back. Do you earnestly seek to serve God with the gifts, talents, and graces he has given to you?
"Lord, be the ruler of my heart and thoughts, be the king of my home and relationships, and be the master of my work and service. Help me to make good use of the gifts, talents, time, and resources you give me for your glory and your kingdom."

ISAW

Graces7 wrote: »

H

So to get back to the topic; how about the Vatican and all that?

What justification for the wealth ?

It is an interestiong question.

the wealth isn't personal! The Pope or any Bishop does not pass on any church wealth to his family or personal friends other than the few personal possessions he has. He may in fact be personally wealthy but recent Popes haven't been.

Unlike a bank or Insurance company or other large financial concern the Pope or a Bishop may be in charge of wealth but does not draw a substantial salary or a huge pension and when they retire they usually continue to work on subsistance levels and they fdont have millions amassed in any fund like wealthy people do.

Flamed Diving

I find it rather... puzzling that some posters on here would rather do anything but say that the rulers of the Vatican should not be living in palaces. Rather, they just point the finger at other groups, saying that since they are doing it, and perhaps doing more of it, that the Vatican is somehow absolved?

Correct me if I am wrong, for I am not well versed in the Bible, but wasn't Jesus in favour of his followers living simple existences? I presume, from what little I know, that he would be against the fairy-tale castles, walls of art and mountains of jewels in Rome, right?

Please, without pointing the finger at someone else, without making excuses, could someone point out whether I am right or wrong on Jesus' stance here?

Thanks.

Acts 4:32-35
"Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. 33With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was --- distributed ---- to each as any had need."

Luke 3:11
"And he would answer and say to them, “The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise.”

James 2:15-16
"If a man or woman is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?"

Mark 10:17-25
17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. 20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. 21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! 25 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.

Just some interesting passages I stumbled on.

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I find it rather... puzzling that some posters on here would rather do anything but say that the rulers of the Vatican should not be living in palaces. Rather, they just point the finger at other groups, saying that since they are doing it, and perhaps doing more of it, that the Vatican is somehow absolved?

Correct me if I am wrong, for I am not well versed in the Bible, but wasn't Jesus in favour of his followers living simple existences? I presume, from what little I know, that he would be against the fairy-tale castles, walls of art and mountains of jewels in Rome, right?

Please, without pointing the finger at someone else, without making excuses, could someone point out whether I am right or wrong on Jesus' stance here?

Thanks.



Just some interesting passages I stumbled on.

I think you're confusing two different things. Personal wealth and lifestyle of individual Christians, and the property portfolio of the RCC denomination.

Personally I think that many of the ornate buildings were a waste of time and money at a time when societies had much more pressing needs. My view of history also leads me to conclude that the Church's wealth was often acquired by very dubious means indeed.

Nevertheless, at this point in time the Church finds itself in possession of a lot of buildings, a lot of artwork, and possibly the finest library of rare books in the world. Also, I have to acknowledge that if these treasures had been in other hands they may have been destroyed and lost to the world long ago.

I don't think that they should sell this stuff, but I think they should be as responsible as possible in making sure that such museum pieces are accessible to as many people as possible.

As for whether the RCC's position is consistent with the teaching of Jesus - I've never expected the two to coincide much anyway.

lmaopml

Flamed Diving I believe you are correct in your estimations, and 'quotes'. However, you are wrong as far as basic facts are concerned about Catholicism and the teachings of Jesus on being reckless with what we've been blessed with. Like it or no, we as true Catholics, use every talent given to us, our voices, our skills, our abilities to be sharp and focused in order to be 'responsible' and to glorify God. God should never be secondary to our own ego - he comes first, always first...

There is no doubt in my mind that out of the billions of Catholics across time, either lay people or clergy or even Popes that you will come across a fair few stinkers, I'm sure your're probably familiar with them :pac:

The 'fact' remains, that as far as 'Palaces' ( yeah it's beautiful huh? ) and 'Art' and 'Music' and using every fibre we possess in the glorifying of God is concerned we go the whole hog....and we admire others who gave their talents to do so too, and preserve their work for others to behold...

The 'works' belong to everybody and 'nobody' in particular, they don't do anybody any particular good in so far as personal wealth is concerned.....They are humanities 'heritage'.....they belong to the 'future generations'.......and this is a tangible link to 'their' past which is a reminder to them to curb nothing, and give everything, every talent, every voice, every ounce of yourself firstly to God, and in his name. Who dares sell a personal gift to God?..or the labours of others who 'gave' them to God?

As for Churches.....Well, the only reason why we have them is because some of our Catholic brothers and sisters wanted to have somewhere to praise God, they worked, sweated, toiled and laboured within their own communities in order to have their 'diocese'....each one run interdependantly from the other, by the people, for the people and 'owned' and run by the people...

To be perfectly honest I don't think Jesus was as much a spoil sport as some...! He laughed, he joked, he was human and God.....He knows us better than we know ourselves, and he alone will judge us, not collectively, but individually!

As far as the Vatican is concerned they have declared 'cash' losses at times, breaking even others ( Conspiracy theorists delight - and there's no shortage ) and the wealth is tied up in 'paperwork' and perception of wealth..

In truth, we own our own diocese, and 'we' as Catholics in each one are responsible for it!

Sell the Sistine Chapel.......Not on yer nelly!

StealthRolex

If we really want to get into this we're going to have to get forensic.

How much wealth does the Vatican actually have? It is a very small state but a state none the less and it does not have a branch of Anglo Irish Bank or a property market so it should have some money somewhere.

There is no point in guessing this and then engaging in a discussion based on fantasy information. Of course you can look at the structures and artworks, collections etc amassed over time but how do you value it. A "priceless" piece is only "priceless" while it is not for sale. Once it is up for sale it has a "price", an offer price and a sale price and the important one is the sale price.
After the sale the price will more than likely increase but as the Vatican will no longer be in possession of it so this is a moot point.

Take as an example the Pieta. Should it be sold?
Should we strip the basilicas bare and leave them as our Churches in Ireland and England were once left?
When we go to a church do we want to gain a sense of what heaven might be life or do we want to be surrounded by bare stone walls and take altar wine from a cheap goblet?

But back to forensics. The Vatican has an operating budget - administration salaries, security, day to day maintenance all has to be paid for. In addition it has the poor of Rome, the missions and overseas Churches that need financial assistance. I'm sure there are those who know more about this than I do but I know this much. It either turns a profit or runs a deficit.

Here's my guess. I would suggest that the annual operating budget of the Vatican is proabably just about enough to run Ireland for about eleven minutes.
The information I can find indicates the operating budget is of the order of a couple of hundred million dollars (2005 - $260m, 2009 - $385m) and is probably running a deficit.
As for stocks, shares, deposit accounts there is maybe $700m - $800m.

Is that fabulously wealthy when compared to the wealth of any one individual in the top 10 of wealthy Irish, UK or US?

If we could put a price on the Vatican and its collections when compared with the numbers of the poor in the world (3,000m approx) then selling the Vatican would probably raise just enough to get them all a cup of tea and a sandwich to share.

And it is something we could do only once .

Rented Mule

Soul Winner wrote: »

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

LMFAO

I'm pretty sure that they would take the money in a heartbeat.

lmaopml

PDN wrote: »

I think you're confusing two different things. Personal wealth and lifestyle of individual Christians, and the property portfolio of the RCC denomination.

Personally I think that many of the ornate buildings were a waste of time and money at a time when societies had much more pressing needs. My view of history also leads me to conclude that the Church's wealth was often acquired by very dubious means indeed.

Nevertheless, at this point in time the Church finds itself in possession of a lot of buildings, a lot of artwork, and possibly the finest library of rare books in the world. Also, I have to acknowledge that if these treasures had been in other hands they may have been destroyed and lost to the world long ago.

I don't think that they should sell this stuff, but I think they should be as responsible as possible in making sure that such museum pieces are accessible to as many people as possible.

As for whether the RCC's position is consistent with the teaching of Jesus - I've never expected the two to coincide much anyway.

I love half of this and can understand wholeheartedly.

and have great respect for, by my estimation a 'good' and fair man..

Graces7

PDN wrote: »

I think you're confusing two different things. Personal wealth and lifestyle of individual Christians, and the property portfolio of the RCC denomination.

Personally I think that many of the ornate buildings were a waste of time and money at a time when societies had much more pressing needs. My view of history also leads me to conclude that the Church's wealth was often acquired by very dubious means indeed.

Nevertheless, at this point in time the Church finds itself in possession of a lot of buildings, a lot of artwork, and possibly the finest library of rare books in the world. Also, I have to acknowledge that if these treasures had been in other hands they may have been destroyed and lost to the world long ago.

I don't think that they should sell this stuff, but I think they should be as responsible as possible in making sure that such museum pieces are accessible to as many people as possible.

As for whether the RCC's position is consistent with the teaching of Jesus - I've never expected the two to coincide much anyway.

There is no support scripturally for any on this.

"Lost to the world"? What value spiritually are these?

I find your last sentence highly offensive and revealing by the way. Not unexpected.

Graces7

StealthRolex wrote: »

If we really want to get into this we're going to have to get forensic.

How much wealth does the Vatican actually have? It is a very small state but a state none the less and it does not have a branch of Anglo Irish Bank or a property market so it should have some money somewhere.

There is no point in guessing this and then engaging in a discussion based on fantasy information. Of course you can look at the structures and artworks, collections etc amassed over time but how do you value it. A "priceless" piece is only "priceless" while it is not for sale. Once it is up for sale it has a "price", an offer price and a sale price and the important one is the sale price.
After the sale the price will more than likely increase but as the Vatican will no longer be in possession of it so this is a moot point.

Take as an example the Pieta. Should it be sold?
Should we strip the basilicas bare and leave them as our Churches in Ireland and England were once left?
When we go to a church do we want to gain a sense of what heaven might be life or do we want to be surrounded by bare stone walls and take altar wine from a cheap goblet?

But back to forensics. The Vatican has an operating budget - administration salaries, security, day to day maintenance all has to be paid for. In addition it has the poor of Rome, the missions and overseas Churches that need financial assistance. I'm sure there are those who know more about this than I do but I know this much. It either turns a profit or runs a deficit.

Here's my guess. I would suggest that the annual operating budget of the Vatican is proabably just about enough to run Ireland for about eleven minutes.
The information I can find indicates the operating budget is of the order of a couple of hundred million dollars (2005 - $260m, 2009 - $385m) and is probably running a deficit.
As for stocks, shares, deposit accounts there is maybe $700m - $800m.

Is that fabulously wealthy when compared to the wealth of any one individual in the top 10 of wealthy Irish, UK or US?

If we could put a price on the Vatican and its collections when compared with the numbers of the poor in the world (3,000m approx) then selling the Vatican would probably raise just enough to get them all a cup of tea and a sandwich to share.

And it is something we could do only once .

These figures are wildy inaccurate and take no account of the millions stashed away in the banks.

Also the life style is rich; all those ornate robes alone cost a small fortune.

And you are missing the point ; is this consonant with the spiritual leader of a Church founded by Jesus?

Why is the Vatican there at all in that way? Art treasures? Artefacts?

And this is not a thing from the past; still here in ireland new churches are going up; millions beng spent on elaborate refurbishments that are cosmetic.. all paid for by the people.

New 'art treasures" being stored.

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

I don't think that they should sell this stuff, but I think they should be as responsible as possible in making sure that such museum pieces are accessible to as many people as possible.

Should the GAA sell the 500 million euro stadium Croke Park? why do the GAA need all that wealth? so what if they actually use the building for sports activities? And all those top elected officials who don't draw any salary from the GAA are getting free entry to Croke Park and meeting the President when other people have to pay for tickets! And they have a whole museum on the history of the GAA there! Why should they have all that memorabilia? If they sold off everything they had and gave all the money to sports wouldn't sports in Ireland be better for it?

Graces7

Most of the older Churches were built literally by slave labour, not willing work as you suggest here; a loaf of bread the pay.

What glory to God in exploitation? Which it has always been.

I hear you, but this is sadly not the reality. Fine IF there were not need that is being ignored.

But there is need.

The old Franciscans put it.. "God first. others next self last," which is what Jesus teaches.

What glory to God in fine music etc when there is such need?

As the thread topic says.

lmaopml wrote: »

Flamed Diving I believe you are correct in your estimations, and 'quotes'. However, you are wrong as far as basic facts are concerned about Catholicism and the teachings of Jesus on being reckless with what we've been blessed with. Like it or no, we as true Catholics, use every talent given to us, our voices, our skills, our abilities to be sharp and focused in order to be 'responsible' and to glorify God. God should never be secondary to our own ego - he comes first, always first...

There is no doubt in my mind that out of the billions of Catholics across time, either lay people or clergy or even Popes that you will come across a fair few stinkers, I'm sure your're probably familiar with them :pac:

The 'fact' remains, that as far as 'Palaces' ( yeah it's beautiful huh? ) and 'Art' and 'Music' and using every fibre we possess in the glorifying of God is concerned we go the whole hog....and we admire others who gave their talents to do so too, and preserve their work for others to behold...

The 'works' belong to everybody and 'nobody' in particular, they don't do anybody any particular good in so far as personal wealth is concerned.....They are humanities 'heritage'.....they belong to the 'future generations'.......and this is a tangible link to 'their' past which is a reminder to them to curb nothing, and give everything, every talent, every voice, every ounce of yourself firstly to God, and in his name. Who dares sell a personal gift to God?..or the labours of others who 'gave' them to God?

As for Churches.....Well, the only reason why we have them is because some of our Catholic brothers and sisters wanted to have somewhere to praise God, they worked, sweated, toiled and laboured within their own communities in order to have their 'diocese'....each one run interdependantly from the other, by the people, for the people and 'owned' and run by the people...

To be perfectly honest I don't think Jesus was as much a spoil sport as some...! He laughed, he joked, he was human and God.....He knows us better than we know ourselves, and he alone will judge us, not collectively, but individually!

As far as the Vatican is concerned they have declared 'cash' losses at times, breaking even others ( Conspiracy theorists delight - and there's no shortage ) and the wealth is tied up in 'paperwork' and perception of wealth..

In truth, we own our own diocese, and 'we' as Catholics in each one are responsible for it!

Sell the Sistine Chapel.......Not on yer nelly!

Graces7

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I find it rather... puzzling that some posters on here would rather do anything but say that the rulers of the Vatican should not be living in palaces. Rather, they just point the finger at other groups, saying that since they are doing it, and perhaps doing more of it, that the Vatican is somehow absolved?

Correct me if I am wrong, for I am not well versed in the Bible, but wasn't Jesus in favour of his followers living simple existences? I presume, from what little I know, that he would be against the fairy-tale castles, walls of art and mountains of jewels in Rome, right?

Please, without pointing the finger at someone else, without making excuses, could someone point out whether I am right or wrong on Jesus' stance here?

Thanks.



Just some interesting passages I stumbled on.

You are of course perfecty and totally right. Well done. Alleluia... Amen. You have put it in a nutshell. Thank you!

philiporeilly

ISAW wrote: »

Should the GAA sell the 500 million euro stadium Croke Park? why do the GAA need all that wealth? so what if they actually use the building for sports activities? And all those top elected officials who don't draw any salary from the GAA are getting free entry to Croke Park and meeting the President when other people have to pay for tickets! And they have a whole museum on the history of the GAA there! Why should they have all that memorabilia? If they sold off everything they had and gave all the money to sports wouldn't sports in Ireland be better for it?

Not to be smart but the GAA had to take out a massive loan and seek corporate sponsorship to build Croke Park. They didn't have 500 million sitting in the Credit Union and decided to splash out. The sale of tickets / memorabilia offsets the costs of paying for the stadium.

If they could find a buyer for the stadium, they would probably still owe money given that the property market has crashed.

Graces7

lmaopml wrote: »

I think you have some cheek to be honest, we as Catholics give more to charity than the United States of America does in monetary terms! and, children need more than 'money'. There are very many types of charity that are worth far more than money could ever buy.....namely ones time, effort, understanding and having a rough idea of actually making a difference to their lives...without going all out gunho and making a complete tit of it...That doesn't do anybody any good! I'm quite sure Jesus would frown on reckless stupidity too...

Soapboxing and preaching without understanding is not worth a whole lot either...

Do you have a roof over your head yourself? Food on the table? Clothes to wear? Afterall, Jesus also taught that the birds don't worry about these things and neither should we....
Well, if you do, when you decide to rid yourself of all that perhaps you can judge your fellow Catholics with a little less hysterical fire and brimstone..

The Vatican is not a 'secular museum'. The art is not 'owned' by anybody to sell.....It belongs to 'the people' and is open for viewing by the people. Very many of the pieces were gifts, very many of the pieces were painstakingly done for the 'glory of God'....to inspire and share with the viewer....If you don't understand the obligation to preserve these things than there is no point in discussing it..

Maybe the United States should sell their Proclaimation of Independance to the highest bidder also? Perhaps we should clear out the Louvre, maybe head across the water and take the Crown Jewels..?

Why the Vatican Graces7? Should we hand back our community churches too?

Re the last sentence.. Because the Pope is the successor of Peter; a spiritual leader, preaching Jesus. Not a secular head of State etc or a musuem curator.

The Church is not in Jesus a big business.

As for community churches; the first things I heard when I came to ireland were outraged protests from, many good Catholics re demands being made for money for new churches etc when there was no need for them. That rural parish has five churches. All within easy driving distance of each other. And they were building a sixth. At unwilling public subscription.

It is very, very difficult for folk to refuse, the way the money is collected with people calling at each house every week

Of course community churches are needed but some restraint is needed also surely. More and more and more proprety amassing and.

Because the Pope lives in such a setting it must be OK, you see.

See the "Shoes of the Fisherman"

ISAW

StealthRolex wrote: »

If we really want to get into this we're going to have to get forensic.

How much wealth does the Vatican actually have? It is a very small state but a state none the less and it does not have a branch of Anglo Irish Bank or a property market so it should have some money somewhere.
...

But back to forensics. The Vatican has an operating budget - administration salaries, security, day to day maintenance all has to be paid for. In addition it has the poor of Rome, the missions and overseas Churches that need financial assistance. I'm sure there are those who know more about this than I do but I know this much. It either turns a profit or runs a deficit.

Holy See not Vatican and it ran a small national debt last time I looked - about 50 million.
They cleared that since Their operating budget is about break even.

Cia factbook 2009 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/vt.html
The Holy See is supported financially by a variety of sources, including investments, real estate income, and donations from Catholic individuals, dioceses, and institutions; these help fund the Roman Curia (Vatican bureaucracy), diplomatic missions, and media outlets. The separate Vatican City State budget includes the Vatican museums and post office and is supported financially by the sale of stamps, coins, medals, and tourist mementos; by fees for admission to museums; and by publications sales. Moreover, an annual collection taken up in dioceses and direct donations go to a non-budgetary fund known as Peter's Pence, which is used directly by the Pope for charity, disaster relief, and aid to churches in developing nations. The incomes and living standards of lay workers are comparable to those of counterparts who work in the city of Rome.

revenues: $355.5 million
expenditures: $356.8 million (2008)

printing; production of coins, medals, postage stamps; mosaics and staff uniforms; worldwide banking and financial activities

Here's my guess. I would suggest that the annual operating budget of the Vatican is proabably just about enough to run Ireland for about eleven minutes.
The information I can find indicates the operating budget is of the order of a couple of hundred million dollars (2005 - $260m, 2009 - $385m) and is probably running a deficit.
As for stocks, shares, deposit accounts there is maybe $700m - $800m.

Your figures are in the right ballpark. also consider the beaurocracy. As an anministration there are four levels lay- priest-bishop and perhaps Pope but the Pope wouldn't do much of the operational matters. Also while ambassadors are Bishops many senior administrators like bankers might not be. Anyway the admin had about 500-700 people administerine about 1,500 Million Catholics. that is the flattest admin model and most efficient management model in the world! Imagine a country the size of china or india or five USA's
being run by a central civil service of less than 1000 people!

Is that fabulously wealthy when compared to the wealth of any one individual in the top 10 of wealthy Irish, UK or US?

If we could put a price on the Vatican and its collections when compared with the numbers of the poor in the world (3,000m approx) then selling the Vatican would probably raise just enough to get them all a cup of tea and a sandwich to share.

And it is something we could do only once .

But the idea that throwing money at the problem solves anything is daft! Silverman is a comedian!

Graces7

ISAW wrote: »

Should the GAA sell the 500 million euro stadium Croke Park? why do the GAA need all that wealth? so what if they actually use the building for sports activities? And all those top elected officials who don't draw any salary from the GAA are getting free entry to Croke Park and meeting the President when other people have to pay for tickets! And they have a whole museum on the history of the GAA there! Why should they have all that memorabilia? If they sold off everything they had and gave all the money to sports wouldn't sports in Ireland be better for it?

What has this to do with the topic please?

Unless it is to illustrate very effectively how far the Church has strayed, in all denominations and traditions, in its spiritual life?

See Jesus on God and Mammon.

Graces7

ISAW wrote: »

Holy See not Vatican and it ran a small national debt last time I looked - about 50 million.
They cleared that since Their operating budget is about break even.

Cia factbook 2009 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/vt.html
The Holy See is supported financially by a variety of sources, including investments, real estate income, and donations from Catholic individuals, dioceses, and institutions; these help fund the Roman Curia (Vatican bureaucracy), diplomatic missions, and media outlets. The separate Vatican City State budget includes the Vatican museums and post office and is supported financially by the sale of stamps, coins, medals, and tourist mementos; by fees for admission to museums; and by publications sales. Moreover, an annual collection taken up in dioceses and direct donations go to a non-budgetary fund known as Peter's Pence, which is used directly by the Pope for charity, disaster relief, and aid to churches in developing nations. The incomes and living standards of lay workers are comparable to those of counterparts who work in the city of Rome.

revenues: $355.5 million
expenditures: $356.8 million (2008)

printing; production of coins, medals, postage stamps; mosaics and staff uniforms; worldwide banking and financial activities




Your figures are in the right ballpark. also consider the beaurocracy. As an anministration there are four levels lay- priest-bishop and perhaps Pope but the Pope wouldn't do much of the operational matters. Also while ambassadors are Bishops many senior administrators like bankers might not be. Anyway the admin had about 500-700 people administerine about 1,500 Million Catholics. that is the flattest admin model and most efficient management model in the world! Imagine a country the size of china or india or five USA's
being run by a central civil service of less than 1000 people!

Is that fabulously wealthy when compared to the wealth of any one individual in the top 10 of wealthy Irish, UK or US?



But the idea that throwing money at the problem solves anything is daft! Silverman is a comedian!

You believe this spin?

That is all it is; spin.

And again, this is supposed to be the Church founded by Jesus.

Graces7

Rented Mule wrote: »

LMFAO

I'm pretty sure that they would take the money in a heartbeat.

Exactly so; when you are starving, you need food. period.. and it is only the next meal that matters.

and what an inspiration the leaving of worldly values and riches would be to others.