Jesus and refugees

Safehands

I regularly try to imagine what Jesus would say about any given situation in the world today. I wonder what he would say about bringing refugees who reject this Christian message in favour of the message of Islam, into Christian countries. I suspect he would want to support them and try to change their views, but for those who criticise his teachings and refuse to change, would he still support them?

uck51js9zml2yt

Safehands wrote: »

I regularly try to imagine what Jesus would say about any given situation in the world today. I wonder what he would say about bringing refugees who reject this Christian message in favour of the message of Islam, into Christian countries. I suspect he would want to support them and try to change their views, but for those who criticise his teachings and refuse to change, would he still support them?

scripture says that "He died for ALL." I think that sums Him up.

Benny_Cake

Safehands wrote: »

I regularly try to imagine what Jesus would say about any given situation in the world today. I wonder what he would say about bringing refugees who reject this Christian message in favour of the message of Islam, into Christian countries. I suspect he would want to support them and try to change their views, but for those who criticise his teachings and refuse to change, would he still support them?

It's a dangerous thing to make assumptions about what Jesus would do, but the Gospel does say that He was a refugee shortly after his birth. Also, we are called upon to see Him in all people, regardless of race or creed, and love them unconditionally, as Christ loves us.

The Randy Riverbeast

The Good Samaritan comes to mind. One person helping another despite being part of two groups which get along.

I don't see how being a part of another religion would make them unworthy of being helped.

Peregrinus

Safehands wrote: »

I regularly try to imagine what Jesus would say about any given situation in the world today. I wonder what he would say about bringing refugees who reject this Christian message in favour of the message of Islam, into Christian countries. I suspect he would want to support them and try to change their views, but for those who criticise his teachings and refuse to change, would he still support them?

Of course. He calls us to heal the sick, visit the imprisoned, comfort those who mourn. He never calls us to heal the Christian sick, visit the Christian imprisoned or comfort the Christians who mourn.

The notion of refusing refuge to the persecuted because they are not Christian makes about as much sense as the notion of turning the sick away from hospital because they're not Christian. It would be an obscenity.

Turtwig

Peregrinus wrote: »

the notion of turning the sick away from hospital because they're not Christian.

Yep only non Christians get sick.

I'm sorry I couldn't pass up the opportunity to illustrate the power of quote mining and context.

Absoluvely

Peregrinus wrote: »

turning the sick away from hospital

/turning the schoolless children away from school

Safehands

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

The Good Samaritan comes to mind. One person helping another despite being part of two groups which get along.

I don't see how being a part of another religion would make them unworthy of being helped.

I have read that some of the refugees have actually killed those of a different faith. Obviously such people feel very strongly about their religion and will not be persuaded that they are wrong. It is somewhat ironic that they should turn to Christian countries to save them, but I suspect they will be trying to spread their beliefs when they get here. How would Christ feel about that? I'm really not sure.

Peregrinus

Are you not? Perhaps this will help to clarify things for you.

The gospels really couldn't be clearer on this. We are callled to help the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, the bereaved, the homeless because they are in need. Not because they're in need and we like them. Or because they're in need and they're virtuous. Or because they're in need and we have something in common with them. Just because they are in need. Is that so difficult to grasp?

And, lest we are tempted to read in an exemption that says that we don't have to help them if we disapprove of them or are afraid of them, the gospels helpfully address that very point. Love your enemies. Do good to those who persecute you. If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return.

Could it be any clearer?

The Randy Riverbeast

Safehands wrote: »

I have read that some of the refugees have actually killed those of a different faith. Obviously such people feel very strongly about their religion and will not be persuaded that they are wrong. It is somewhat ironic that they should turn to Christian countries to save them, but I suspect they will be trying to spread their beliefs when they get here. How would Christ feel about that? I'm really not sure.

Some, would Jesus have refused to help someone just because another one of their people committed a crime? You also have to remember that there are many groupings of Islam which get along as much as Catholics and Protestants did in the past.

When they get here they will have religious freedom, everyone is free to spread the word of their god.

If you really want to find some sort of biblical justification for turning away Muslims when they need help then I would recommend looking to the old testament. Jesus was a bit of a bleeding heart liberal at times.

hinault

Peregrinus wrote: »

Are you not? Perhaps this will help to clarify things for you.

The gospels really couldn't be clearer on this. We are callled to help the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, the bereaved, the homeless because they are in need. Not because they're in need and we like them. Or because they're in need and they're virtuous. Or because they're in need and we have something in common with them. Just because they are in need. Is that so difficult to grasp?

And, lest we are tempted to read in an exemption that says that we don't have to help them if we disapprove of them or are afraid of them, the gospels helpfully address that very point. Love your enemies. Do good to those who persecute you. If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return.

Could it be any clearer?

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

I'd like to add one observation.

In doing all these things that you have outlined above, we're required to do all of those thing in the name of Jesus too.
This suggests that we're required to make the recipient of these works aware of the basis as to why we do such things.

Put simply if we offer help we do so in Christian charity and we're obliged to inform the recipient that this Christian charity is at the behest of the teaching of Jesus Christ.

frostyjacks

We have a duty to help, even if it was atheists on those boats. I'm just wary about the demographics. We are a small nation, relatively homogeneous. Now we're going to take in a massive influx of people from a totally different culture and religion to ours. In Britain they've a history of taking in large numbers of Jews, Irish, West Indians, Ugandan Asians etc. over the years. We're a bit new to it.

katydid

Safehands wrote: »

I regularly try to imagine what Jesus would say about any given situation in the world today. I wonder what he would say about bringing refugees who reject this Christian message in favour of the message of Islam, into Christian countries. I suspect he would want to support them and try to change their views, but for those who criticise his teachings and refuse to change, would he still support them?

Jesus was a refugee, when he fled with his parents to Egypt.

Just sayin..

He spoke to outsiders, even when his society disapproved. He talked to the Samaritan woman - the Samaritans were once Jews who had split off from Judaism. (It would be like a Roman Catholic from Belfast talking to a Protestant at certain times in our history). He cured the daughter of the Syrophonecian woman, again, a woman of a different race and religion.

The question is actually quite silly, if you know anything about the life and actions of Jesus.

katydid

frostyjacks wrote: »

We have a duty to help, even if it was atheists on those boats. I'm just wary about the demographics. We are a small nation, relatively homogeneous. Now we're going to take in a massive influx of people from a totally different culture and religion to ours. In Britain they've a history of taking in large numbers of Jews, Irish, West Indians, Ugandan Asians etc. over the years. We're a bit new to it.

Massive influx? Five thousand? I know our population is small, but come on, that's a small village.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

I agree wholeheartedly with this.


In doing all these things that you have outlined above, we're required to do all of those thing in the name of Jesus too.
This suggests that we're required to make the recipient of these works aware of the basis as to why we do such things.

Put simply if we offer help we do so in Christian charity and we're obliged to inform the recipient that this Christian charity is at the behest of the teaching of Jesus Christ.

That's not what "doing something in the name of Jesus" means. You don't have to advertise the fact. That you are doing it, and you are known to be a Christian, means you are showing good example.

Peregrinus

hinault wrote: »

I'd like to add one observation.

In doing all these things that you have outlined above, we're required to do all of those thing in the name of Jesus too.
This suggests that we're required to make the recipient of these works aware of the basis as to why we do such things.

Put simply if we offer help we do so in Christian charity and we're obliged to inform the recipient that this Christian charity is at the behest of the teaching of Jesus Christ.

I disagree. In Jesus' account of salvation those on the right hand wh fed the sick, comforted the bereaved, etc are treated as having served God even though they had absolutely no idea that that is what they were doing, and obviously couldn't have communicated that insight to those they helped. Healing the sick, etc, is something that we are called to do for its own sake. If done for its own sake it is itself a witness of the gospel. It is not some we do as a handy ancillary to explicit catechesis.

credoie

Safehands wrote: »

I regularly try to imagine what Jesus would say about any given situation in the world today. I wonder what he would say about bringing refugees who reject this Christian message in favour of the message of Islam, into Christian countries. I suspect he would want to support them and try to change their views, but for those who criticise his teachings and refuse to change, would he still support them?

I think we would all know the answer if we read the Gospels start to end.

credoie

Well as far as the Catholic church goes, there are 2 refugee families now living in the Vatican.

katydid

credoie wrote: »

Well as far as the Catholic church goes, there are 2 refugee families now living in the Vatican.

Wow. TWO. In the entire "state" of the Vatican

credoie

katydid wrote: »

Wow. TWO. In the entire "state" of the Vatican

Yes 2, Just to put that in context, 1% of the vatican population is refugee. This highest % among all states in europe.

Leading by example.

uck51js9zml2yt

credoie wrote: »

Yes 2, Just to put that in context, 1% of the vatican population is refugee. This highest % among all states in europe.

Leading by example.

I'm sure Frances has a lot more rooms spare.

credoie

Marilyn Chubby Hitch wrote: »

I'm sure Frances has a lot more rooms spare.

289,451 vacant dwellings around Ireland at the time of Census 2011.

katydid

credoie wrote: »

289,451 vacant dwellings around Ireland at the time of Census 2011.

We're not talking about Ireland. We're talking about the Vatican, where, with all their riches and space, they have TWO families.

katydid

credoie wrote: »

Yes 2, Just to put that in context, 1% of the vatican population is refugee. This highest % among all states in europe.

Leading by example.

Good one. And what is the demographic of the Vatican? How many families live there? How many women (that aren't nuns)? How many children?

You can say that 100% of the children in the Vatican are refugees, if you want to start playing with figures and words.

hinault

credoie wrote: »

Yes 2, Just to put that in context, 1% of the vatican population is refugee. This highest % among all states in europe.

Leading by example.

Using 1% per capita measurement, Ireland would be required to grant refuge to 45,000 refugees.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

Using 1% per capita measurement, Ireland would be required to grant refuge to 45,000 refugees.

When Ireland is a small city worth billions, occupied by celibates, we can make a comparison.

Safehands

katydid wrote: »

Jesus was a refugee, when he fled with his parents to Egypt.
Just sayin..
He spoke to outsiders, even when his society disapproved. He talked to the Samaritan woman - the Samaritans were once Jews who had split off from Judaism. (It would be like a Roman Catholic from Belfast talking to a Protestant at certain times in our history). He cured the daughter of the Syrophonecian woman, again, a woman of a different race and religion.

All very valid points Katy. We have a modern, quite civilised, liberal society in Europe. We treat, or try to treat, diversity with respect. We welcome marraige between same sex couples, we embrace a culture where alcohol is freely available and sex between consenting adults, whether married or single, is not frowned upon. In other words, our countries are only nominally Christian.
A large proportion of the Refugees and Migrants are of a very different culture. I suppose, when you think about it, their religious views would be far closer to what Christ believed in than the religious views of the liberal folk who are going to welcome them into their countries. These people take their religion very seriously. I believe that sooner or later, there is going to be a major clash of cultures which will be passed off as Christian v Islam, which it will not really be. I don't think Christ would be particularly comfortable living in downtown Amsterdam today, do you? He would certainly be a very busy man if he lived there.

katydid

Safehands wrote: »

All very valid points Katy. We have a modern, quite civilised, liberal society in Europe. We treat, or try to treat, diversity with respect. We welcome marraige between same sex couples, we embrace a culture where alcohol is freely available and sex between consenting adults, whether married or single, is not frowned upon. In other words, our countries are only nominally Christian.
A large proportion of the Refugees and Migrants are of a very different culture. I suppose, when you think about it, their religious views would be far closer to what Christ believed in than the religious views of the liberal folk who are going to welcome them into their countries. These people take their religion very seriously. I believe that sooner or later, there is going to be a major clash of cultures which will be passed off as Christian v Islam, which it will not really be. I don't think Christ would be particularly comfortable living in downtown Amsterdam today, do you? He would certainly be a very busy man if he lived there.

I'm not sure I follow you. There's no clash between Christianity and being tolerant towards those you don't agree with.

Somehow I doubt if Christ, who reached out to the poor and marginalised, would hold the beliefs that many Muslims hold. He respected women, and he didn't condemn sinners.

I think he would garner a lot of respect in downtown Amsterdam. He was quite comfortable amongst those who didn't conform

Safehands

katydid wrote: »

I'm not sure I follow you. There's no clash between Christianity and being tolerant towards those you don't agree with.

Of course not, the clash will be between the ones with the very liberal views and the very strict Islamic folk who don't agree with their ways. Just my opinion Katy.

Peregrinus

Safehands wrote: »

All very valid points Katy. We have a modern, quite civilised, liberal society in Europe. We treat, or try to treat, diversity with respect. We welcome marraige between same sex couples, we embrace a culture where alcohol is freely available and sex between consenting adults, whether married or single, is not frowned upon. In other words, our countries are only nominally Christian.
A large proportion of the Refugees and Migrants are of a very different culture . . .

I dunno that they are, actually. Syria is not exactly a hotbed of fundamentalism. It's quite religiously diverse, you have always been able to buy alcohol there and, while sex between unmarried people is generally socially frowned upon, it's not illegal, and it does go on. Syria isn't exactly noted for its honour killings. True, they don't welcome marriage between same sex couples but, then, neither did we, up to a few months ago.

In other words, Syria isn't quite as foreign as you seem to suggest. In terms of social mores, it would be very familiar to anyone who lived in Ireland in the 1970s, say.

Safehands wrote: »

I suppose, when you think about it, their religious views would be far closer to what Christ believed in than the religious views of the liberal folk who are going to welcome them into their countries.

Only if you reduce "religious views" to "views about sex". Two of the three issues you mention have to do with sex and, on the third, alcohol, Islamic views are quite different from the views of Jesus.

Safehands wrote: »

These people take their religion very seriously. I believe that sooner or later, there is going to be a major clash of cultures which will be passed off as Christian v Islam, which it will not really be.

Who's going to pass it off in those terms? Most discussions of a "culture war" express it in terms of Islam -v- modernity, or Islam -v- Enlightenment.

Safehands wrote: »

I don't think Christ would be particularly comfortable living in downtown Amsterdam today, do you? He would certainly be a very busy man if he lived there.

He was noted for hanging out with drunkards, prostitutes and sinners, for welcoming them, and for partying with them. So, yes, I think Christ would be very present in downtown Amsterdam.

But,in the present context, isn't all of this a complete red herring? It really comes down to this; if you take in large numbers of traumatised refugees from a foreign culture, then there is inevitably going to be cultural dislocation and culture clashes. If you want to make a case that, as a result, we should strictly limit the number of refugees we will afford protection to, go ahead. That would apply to refugees from all wars, not just Muslim refugees from this war.

But this wouldn't be a gospel-based case; "avoiding cultural dislocation" is not a gospel value. And if that's the answer you want to arrive at is "we should not support refugees who reject Christianity" you're really starting off on the wrong foot if your opening gambit is to ask what Jesus would say, because everything we know about Jesus suggests that that is absolutely, definitely not what he would say.

Maybe this is a challenge for all of us, Safehands. Are we looking for security and safety, or are we looking to follow the Gospel?

(I refrain from making cheap comments about your username! )

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

When Ireland is a small city worth billions, occupied by celibates, we can make a comparison.

I'm not sure we can, actually.

The Vatican City State isn't a terribly good place to resettle refugee families. It doesn't contain a single school, for one thing, or a hospital. There's one shop selling groceries; none at all selling clothing (unless you count the souvenir baseball caps they sell in the post office). Employment opportunities are negligible for people who don't want to be either clerics or soldiers. And Vatican residents, unless they also hold an EU citizenship or an Italian residence permit, have no access to the health services, social services, etc of the Italian Republic. I think the significance of actually housing refugees in the Vatican is symbolic. It will be a short-term arrangement only, and the refugees concerned will be keen to move on to more permanent settlement in a place where they might actually want to build a life for themselves.

It's fair to ask what the Catholic church (or any church) is doing in response to the refugee crisis, but counting the number of refugees housed in the Vatican doesn't offer a meaningful answer. How many refugees are living in Lambeth Palace? Or in the entire property estate of the Church of England (which is much greater than the property estate of the Vatican)? How many refugees are living at the Palace of Nations in Geneva, the headquarters of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (the second-largest palace complex in Europe and, therefore, much larger than the Vatican)?

These agencies may have extensive property, or diplomatic/extraterritorial status, or both. But the contribution we look to them to make doesn't really consist in moving refugees into their own offices and apartments. This is not a useful measure of anything.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not sure we can, actually.

The Vatican City State isn't a terribly good place to resettle refugee families. It doesn't contain a single school, for one thing, or a hospital. There's one shop selling groceries; none at all selling clothing (unless you count the souvenir baseball caps they sell in the post office). Employment opportunities are negligible for people who don't want to be either clerics or soldiers. And Vatican residents, unless they also hold an EU citizenship or an Italian residence permit, have no access to the health services, social services, etc of the Italian Republic. I think the significance of actually housing refugees in the Vatican is symbolic. It will be a short-term arrangement only, and the refugees concerned will be keen to move on to more permanent settlement in a place where they might actually want to build a life for themselves.

It's fair to ask what the Catholic church (or any church) is doing in response to the refugee crisis, but counting the number of refugees housed in the Vatican doesn't offer a meaningful answer. How many refugees are living in Lambeth Palace? Or in the entire property estate of the Church of England (which is much greater than the property estate of the Vatican)? How many refugees are living at the Palace of Nations in Geneva, the headquarters of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (the second-largest palace complex in Europe and, therefore, much larger than the Vatican)?

These agencies may have extensive property, or diplomatic/extraterritorial status, or both. But the contribution we look to them to make doesn't really consist in moving refugees into their own offices and apartments. This is not a useful measure of anything.

That was my point; we can't compare the Vatican to an ordinary parish. The gesture of housing two families is tokenism. We are not talking about ordinary people with ordinary lives, taking time out of their busy schedules to help out a family in need. We are talking about lodging two families in accommodation in a place not designed for families.

You're right that the Vatican is totally unsuitable for families; the gesture by the RCC is based on the call by the pope that each RC parish take a family. I suppose it's kind of supposed to be leading by example, but since the Vatican is not a parish in the normal understanding of the word, a community of individuals and family units in society, it's an empty gesture.

The answer is not to house people in the Vatican, or Lambeth Palace, or the Aras, nor is it for people to have a family living in their spare room. These are unrealistic and unsustainable propositions. The one about every parish housing refugees is a good one - there are many priests rattling around in huge parish houses built for three or four priests, or there are lots of vacant houses which could be acquired by the church with help from the Vatican's purse.

Token gestures advance little and can backfire; focusing on real and possible options would be the better way to go.

Peregrinus

Well, one person's symbolic gesture is another person's tokenism, I guess.

In so far as the gesture of taking two families into the Vatican has got us discussing the call to Catholic parishes to help, then I would argue that it has worked; the discussion we should be having is not confined to demanding that governments do something; it should cover what we, as christian communities can and should be doing.

It seems to me that the challenge here - or that aspect of it which local churches may be well-placed to help with - is not really finding space for people to sleep. There are other agencies that can do that, and that are much better resourced than the Vatican, or even than the Church of England. Churches may have some role to play in providing short-term places, but the end-game is that refugees (who do not return to Syria when the conflict is over) should not be living in crumbling redundant presbyteries, rectories or manses; they should be living in the house or apartment next door to you or me. Parish communities may be better placed to help with other aspects of the challenge - befriending refugees, acting as their advocates as they attempt to get to grips with an unfamiliar bureaucracy and administrative system, mentoring them, supporting them in the difficult task of parenting traumatised and dislocated children, organising things like English language teaching or practice sessions, helping them develop and present skills that will improve their employability - providing a welcome, providing friendship.

Safehands

katydid wrote: »

That was my point; we can't compare the Vatican to an ordinary parish. The gesture of housing two families is tokenism. We are not talking about ordinary people with ordinary lives, taking time out of their busy schedules to help out a family in need. We are talking about lodging two families in accommodation in a place not designed for families.

You're right that the Vatican is totally unsuitable for families; the gesture by the RCC is based on the call by the pope that each RC parish take a family. I suppose it's kind of supposed to be leading by example, but since the Vatican is not a parish in the normal understanding of the word, a community of individuals and family units in society, it's an empty gesture.

The answer is not to house people in the Vatican, or Lambeth Palace, or the Aras, nor is it for people to have a family living in their spare room. These are unrealistic and unsustainable propositions. The one about every parish housing refugees is a good one - there are many priests rattling around in huge parish houses built for three or four priests, or there are lots of vacant houses which could be acquired by the church with help from the Vatican's purse.

Token gestures advance little and can backfire; focusing on real and possible options would be the better way to go.

Once again, I think to myself, what would Jesus do if he lived in the Vatican as head of the church?

Peregrinus

Safehands wrote: »

Once again, I think to myself, what would Jesus do if he lived in the Vatican as head of the church?

Move out?

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

Move out?

Love it Peregrinus.:):):):D

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

Move out?

...after looking around and wondering 'How did it all come to this...?' :P

Mark Tapley

Safehands wrote: »

Once again, I think to myself, what would Jesus do if he lived in the Vatican as head of the church?

He might say "It is written, 'MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER'; but you are making it a ROBBERS' DEN."…
and something about not selling doves.

Peregrinus

No, I don't think he'd necessarily do either of those things.

I'm not really taken with the view that the Vatican should sell its art and its architecture and spend the money on the relief of poverty. I don't want to live - and I don't think we do live - in a world where we are forced to choice between art, culture and beauty on the one hand, and caring for others on the other. We are called to both. And we live at a time when humanity has never been more materially prosperous; we were never better positioned to do both, if we care to.

As for the Gospels, Jesus plainly enjoyed the good things in life (and was criticised for it). He liked a drink, he liked a party. And he had no problem with somebody buying an alabaster jar of oil for him, with money that could have been given to the poor. Yes, he criticised the religious establishment for turning the Temple forecourt into a house of thieves, but his response wasn't to leave; it was to throw out the moneylenders. So I don't think this would cause Pope Jesus to leave the Vatican; it would cause him to throw out the corrupt and the venal.

Yes, I still think he would leave, but not because he has any initrinsic objection to museums of art and antiquities, learned academies or some of the architectural highlights of the European Renaissance. I think he'd leave because living like that would put too much of a barrier between him and other people. The Jesus we see in the gospels ministered and witnessed by getting close to people, by sharing their experiences, by entering into their lives. That didn't stop him enjoying material pleasures or the occasional extravagance - in fact, that was part of it - but it would entirely preclude him living the lifestyle of the 1%.

Which is not to say that the pope ought to leave the Vatican. The pope isn't Jesus, or an actor playing Jesus. The presence of Jesus in the world today isn't embodied in the pope, but in the church. The church needs to stay close to people, to love them and to relieve their needs; it also needs to patronise the arts, to foster and value culture, to celebrate beauty, etc. The church should have basilicas and hospices, not one or the other.

Mark Tapley

A choice between art culture and beauty? Also wealth. I think if you are a follower of Jesus and your appreciation of art beauty and culture includes you being rich as Croesus then that is exactly the choice you must make. Art beauty and culture can be enjoyed without the need to aquire it.
A few glasses of wine and a jar of oil are hardly comparable.
I imagine Jesus enjoyed a good sunrise.

Peregrinus

Mark Tapley wrote: »

A choice between art culture and beauty? Also wealth. I think if you are a follower of Jesus and your appreciation of art beauty and culture includes you being rich as Croesus then that is exactly the choice you must make. Art beauty and culture can be enjoyed without the need to aquire it.
A few glasses of wine and a jar of oil are hardly comparable.
I imagine Jesus enjoyed a good sunrise.

Oh, sure. But we are where we are. The fact is that the Vatican is a site of considerable architectural and artistic heritage, and it accommodates a number of signficant collections of arts and antiquities which are available for enjoyment, appreciation and education. I don't think that Christian faith requires those collections to be broken up, or the buildings to be demolished. Some would say that doing that would be an act of cultural vandalism.

If this aspect of the papal heritage becomes an impediment to the ministry of the pope, let him distance himself from it. (Which is why Pope Jesus would move out.) But I can't see any great case for saying that this is not something a church should be doing.

Mark Tapley

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, sure. But we are where we are. The fact is that the Vatican is a site of considerable architectural and artistic heritage, and it accommodates a number of signficant collections of arts and antiquities which are available for enjoyment, appreciation and education. I don't think that Christian faith requires those collections to be broken up, or the buildings to be demolished. Some would say that doing that would be an act of cultural vandalism.

If this aspect of the papal heritage becomes an impediment to the ministry of the pope, let him distance himself from it. (Which is why Pope Jesus would move out.) But I can't see any great case for saying that this is not something a church should be doing.

Yes we are what we are but I think people who are serious about following the teachings of Jesus need to be better. The Vatican is discordant with those teachings. Why would you demolish buildings? A better idea would be for the Catholic hierarchy to find more suitable accommodation and to have it run by a non profit organisation.
Maybe the Pope is uncomfortable with the situation . I noticed an article where he was blessing some sculpture made of recycled materials in the Vatican gardens.
Really though the wealth pomp and ceremony even the role of pope has nothing to do with Jesus. He is just used as Vatican City Inc's USP.

Peregrinus

Mark Tapley wrote: »

Yes we are what we are but I think people who are serious about following the teachings of Jesus need to be better. The Vatican is discordant with those teachings. Why would you demolish buildings? A better idea would be for the Catholic hierarchy to find more suitable accommodation and to have it run by a non profit organisation.

It is run by a non-profit organisation. The question is whether running it is an inappropriate activity for that particular non-profit organisation. The answer, in my view, is no.

Mark Tapley wrote: »

Maybe the Pope is uncomfortable with the situation . I noticed an article where he was blessing some sculpture made of recycled materials in the Vatican gardens.

I don't see why you would think that means he is uncomfortable with sculptures not made of recycled materials.

Mark Tapley wrote: »

Really though the wealth pomp and ceremony even the role of pope has nothing to do with Jesus. He is just used as Vatican City Inc's USP.

USP? I don't know this particular TLA. Can you lighten my darkness?

Mark Tapley

Peregrinus wrote: »

It is run by a non-profit organisation. The question is whether running it is an inappropriate activity for that particular non-profit organisation. The answer, in my view, is no.


I don't see why you would think that means he is uncomfortable with sculptures not made of recycled materials.


USP? I don't know this particular TLA. Can you lighten my darkness?

Sorry I've been watching Dragons Den. Unique selling point.

I just got the impression with the recycled art that there was implication about the value of art . I could be just imagining it though.

Say an alien went to the Vatican and said so whats all this about then? They tell it all about Jesus. I think it would look around and wonder what the connection was.

Peregrinus

Mark Tapley wrote: »

Sorry I've been watching Dragons Den. Unique selling point.

I just got the impression with the recycled art that there was implication about the value of art . I could be just imagining it though.

There is an implication about the value of art, namely the implication that art doesn't have to be made out of inherently precious or valuable materials. But I don't think there's an implication that art shouldn't be made out inherently precious or valuable materials.

Mark Tapley wrote: »

Say an alien went to the Vatican and said so whats all this about then? They tell it all about Jesus. I think it would look around and wonder what the connection was.

"A sermon in stone!"

One of the features of Catholicism, as opposed to some other traditions of Christianity (and of course some non-Christian religions) is that it affirms the goodness of the material world, as opposed to a sort of dualism which holds that spiritual = good, material = bad. (Catholic) Christianity affirms not only the goodness of material things but their sanctification and divinisation through the Incarnation - God has entered into the created, material world and become a part of it.

So making beautiful objects, images, buildings, etc, isn;t a wordly distraction from spiritual (and therefore greater) values; it's an inherently good and valuable thing in itself. Hence, there's nothing inherently wrong in building beautiful churches, commissioning great music, patronising the arts, etc. These things are in fact inherently good.

Mark Tapley

Peregrinus wrote: »

There is an implication about the value of art, namely the implication that art doesn't have to be made out of inherently precious or valuable materials. But I don't think there's an implication that art shouldn't be made out inherently precious or valuable materials.


"A sermon in stone!"

One of the features of Catholicism, as opposed to some other traditions of Christianity (and of course some non-Christian religions) is that it affirms the goodness of the material world, as opposed to a sort of dualism which holds that spiritual = good, material = bad. (Catholic) Christianity affirms not only the goodness of material things but their sanctification and divinisation through the Incarnation - God has entered into the created, material world and become a part of it.

So making beautiful objects, images, buildings, etc, isn;t a wordly distraction from spiritual (and therefore greater) values; it's an inherently good and valuable thing in itself. Hence, there's nothing inherently wrong in building beautiful churches, commissioning great music, patronising the arts, etc. These things are in fact inherently good.

Pope Francis speaking of St Francis " He brought to Christianity an idea of poverty against the luxury, pride, vanity of the civil and ecclesiastical powers of the time. "

Mark Tapley

I meant that art does not have to have monetary value to be of worth.

Saipanne

Safehands wrote: »

I regularly try to imagine what Jesus would say about any given situation in the world today. I wonder what he would say about bringing refugees who reject this Christian message in favour of the message of Islam, into Christian countries. I suspect he would want to support them and try to change their views, but for those who criticise his teachings and refuse to change, would he still support them?

I don't believe in any god or Jesus or anything like that. But I was born in this "Christian" country. Should I leave?

Peregrinus

Mark Tapley wrote: »

Pope Francis speaking of St Francis " He brought to Christianity an idea of poverty against the luxury, pride, vanity of the civil and ecclesiastical powers of the time. "

Yes. And, for the record, I do think Francis is embarrassed at the splendour of the Vatican. Conserving and using that heritage may be a good thing now, but we can't forget the fashion in which it was built up. Which is why I say that the starting point is "we are where we are".

I don't think you have to point to his blessing of the recycled sculpture. He chooses to live in, basically, a three-star hotel, and eat in a canteen, rather than move into the papal apartments. He couldn't say more plainly, could he, that sees himself as a visitor to the Vatican? He's there to do a job; he doesn't see it as "home". So he's putting an emotional distance between himself and his mission/vocation on the one hand, and the Vatican on the other.

But I don't think we can leap from that to "the whole place should be wound up and the proceeds applied to other purposes". He hasn't said anything like that, or done anything which suggests that he thinks like that.

And, to come back to refugees, I don't think he'd accept that our duty with respect to refugee is to send them money (or even to sell our pictures and send them money). He's looking for a much greater commitment, which is that we should enter into a relationship with them which is more than financial; is actually personal. We should actually treat them as human being deserving of our love and our friendship and even just our attention and acknowledgment, rather than as a problem or an embarrassment. That may or may not involve money. Our having money is only a problem if it becomes a barrier to our entering into those kinds of relationships. If we're afraid, either individually or as a community, of losing our wealth, our power, our material security if we get to close to needy people - yeah, now wealth is a problem. Or, rather, our idolisation of it.

Mark Tapley

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. And, for the record, I do think Francis is embarrassed at the splendour of the Vatican. Conserving and using that heritage may be a good thing now, but we can't forget the fashion in which it was built up. Which is why I say that the starting point is "we are where we are".

I don't think you have to point to his blessing of the recycled sculpture. He chooses to live in, basically, a three-star hotel, and eat in a canteen, rather than move into the papal apartments. He couldn't say more plainly, could he, that sees himself as a visitor to the Vatican? He's there to do a job; he doesn't see it as "home". So he's putting an emotional distance between himself and his mission/vocation on the one hand, and the Vatican on the other.

But I don't think we can leap from that to "the whole place should be wound up and the proceeds applied to other purposes". He hasn't said anything like that, or done anything which suggests that he thinks like that.

And, to come back to refugees, I don't think he'd accept that our duty with respect to refugee is to send them money (or even to sell our pictures and send them money). He's looking for a much greater commitment, which is that we should enter into a relationship with them which is more than financial; is actually personal. We should actually treat them as human being deserving of our love and our friendship and even just our attention and acknowledgment, rather than as a problem or an embarrassment. That may or may not involve money. Our having money is only a problem if it becomes a barrier to our entering into those kinds of relationships. If we're afraid, either individually or as a community, of losing our wealth, our power, our material security if we get to close to needy people - yeah, now wealth is a problem. Or, rather, our idolisation of it.

If that is his meaning it sounds good to me. I think we should do all we can to help. Although I must admit I am too selfish to actually offer someone a room in my house.Writing that is even worse than thinking it.

hinault

Peregrinus wrote: »

One of the features of Catholicism, as opposed to some other traditions of Christianity (and of course some non-Christian religions) is that it affirms the goodness of the material world, as opposed to a sort of dualism which holds that spiritual = good, material = bad. (Catholic) Christianity affirms not only the goodness of material things but their sanctification and divinisation through the Incarnation - God has entered into the created, material world and become a part of it.

So making beautiful objects, images, buildings, etc, isn;t a wordly distraction from spiritual (and therefore greater) values; it's an inherently good and valuable thing in itself. Hence, there's nothing inherently wrong in building beautiful churches, commissioning great music, patronising the arts, etc. These things are in fact inherently good.

Of course they are inherently good.

The Catholic Church in it's physical construct is the Bride of Christ. Who doesn't want their bride to appear physically beautiful and attractive?

Beside most of the treasures that one sees when walking through the Vatican museum, those treasures have been donated to the Vatican.
The Vatican must like the National Gallery here in Dublin are merely custodians of the artefacts.