How many people could the Catholic Church feed...

with the money it spends on luxuries?

If God exists, does it care that the cardinals are wearing the finest silks and linens? Does it care how big a building we construct and how much art it contains and how many things are gold-plated?

This whole pageant disgusts me. That money could not only feed people, it could clothe them, provide them with shelter, educate them, and immunize them from most diseases. And you'd STILL probably have a shitload left over. How do they justify such excessive displays when Jesus supposedly said that thing about "whatever you do to the least of your brethren, you do unto me"???

You make a most important point.

cellar, they could easily feed everyone in the world for 100 years, with proper investing.

How many people could be fed with the billions unaccounted for in Iraq?

How many people could be fed by Falwell and Robertson?

Or what, exactly?

Dante reserved the lowest rungs of hell in Inferno for the Popes and priests of his day.

Only now they'd be joined by the leading evangical Protestants of our day (just to be fair).

was totally disgusted by the luxury that these "men of god" surround themselves in while their "flock" suffers throughout the world.

It amazes me that Catholics know this and put up with it. I find it revolting. Doesn't anybody see the hypocrisy?

:puke:

The vatican is a huge museum in a way, the art there is to collect history. Yes, they could sell it but that would destroy centuries of history.

However much you dislike religion these people don't have an easy life, no matter how 'nice' the Vatican is. They work their entire life devoted to the church, nothing else. If this life is so luxurious in your opinon go work to become a cardinal, anyone can do it.

But if it helps you justify the lavish displays while real people starve, so be it.

libraries, museums, etc as they could feed people for hundreds of years. The vatican is a museum of not only the catholic religion but of history. Millions of people gather there each year. For you to say that it shouldn't exist so we could spend the money on feeding people is absolutely absurd and can apply to every thing in this country that is a symbol for what we are. It is also extremely hypocritical, I don't see you trading in your car for a crappier one and giving the rest to charity.

but then, you have absolutely no clue how I live my life or what I do for charity.

If you feel that the Catholic Church has somehow "earned" the right to put on ostentatious displays of wealth and grandeur, just say so. You're entitled to your opinion - no need to slam me for thinking otherwise. I never said the church "shouldn't exist" nor did I say they should sell everything. So if you're going to criticize me, do it for things I actually said. Thanks.

and I apologize if my post came off as insulting. I am just upset at all the negative things that have been said about the Pope these past few days on this board which have been unfair in many ways. No matter how much you disagree with religion you have to admit the Pope was a very good kind person that lived by what he belived, sometimes you agreed with him, sometimes you didn't. But he never changed his position to appeal to the masses.

My point is most of us can give a lot more to charity than we do, we simply chose not to. If you give to chairty I respect you greatly for it. However, to say that church needs to take place in beat up places with no hint of luxury because there are poor is absurd. The silk they wear is all due to tradition. These people give their life to charity, wearing that silk is hardly for their own personal comfort, it is all symbolic. You don't have the president drive around in a beat up pinto, he drives in a stretched limo or a Cadillac and this goes for any country on this earth and shows not only tradition but also power. The church is dedicated to charity and they have done a great job at it; however, they need to keep their diginity and tradition alive even if it is a little costly at times.

The thing I hate most is when people claim the Vatican should sell off their art which would be worth millions (if not billions) to feed people. That art is a part of history and it is being protected by the church, it is not there for the pope's personal gain as the original poster seems to think.

I don't think I have to admit anything about the pope. Whatever good kind deeds he was responsible for, are more than overshadowed by his demonization of homosexuals as well as people without religion (such as myself).

You'll notice that nowhere did I say that the church should have "no hint of luxury" - you are trying to twist my words into something you can more readily address.

I just think that the gaudy displays of wealth could EASILY be trimmed back - even if only a little - and I don't think your god would care one bit. In fact, he may even appreciate it, since that money could be used to take care of more of his children.

The church sits on billions - perhaps trillions - in assets. When you throw in the tax-free property their buildings sit on, you're easily up in that range. Are you going to tell me that all of it is essential for maintaining the "dignity and tradition" of your religion?

we sit on in the white house, in the capitol buildings, etc...

And please, show me some examples of this demonization of homosexuals and people without religion. As far as I know he was the only pope to reach out to other religions including the Jews, Muslims, etc... and he was the first pope to apologize for the huge past mistakes (many times racist) the church made.

We're a country, they're a church. We exist to secure individual rights; they exist to (supposedly) serve god. You are truly comparing apples to oranges.

But even so, there is much in the way of government assets and especially spending that I *would* rather channel towards the poor. So your point would be?

As far as your dear pope goes:

"Only faith in Christ gives rise to a culture contrary to egotism and death." -- Pope John Paul II, mass rally in Mexico City, 1/25/1999 (So much for respect for other religions.)

"An effective proclamation of the Gospel in contemporary Western society will need to confront directly the widespread spirit of agnosticism and relativism which has cast doubt on reason's ability to know the truth, which alone satisfies the human heart's restless quest for meaning." (Directly calling for an attack on non-belief.)

"... in these months, I have come to understand that only solution to all problems of the world, the deliverance from war, the deliverance from atheism, and from the defection from God is the conversion of Russia. The conversion of Russia is the content and meaning of the message of Fatima. Not until then will the triumph of Mary comes." (Again, attacking non-believers simply for not believing. Why isn't it enough to defeat communism?)

Pope John Paul II said on Thursday the Roman Catholic Church had to be much more careful not to let men with "deviations in their affections" enter the priesthood to preserve the Church. (ABC News) - Deviations meaning homosexuality, of course.

Here is a clear position on homosexuality from the pope with context:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/mar/02030402.html

Dr. Navarro-Valls continued, "That does not imply a final judgment on people with homosexuality," and added, "But you cannot be in this field."

You are wrong on his stances on religion, yes, he belives that christ is the only right relgion (as any religion belives their god is the right one, DUH!) but he was very open to reach out to other religions. I am going home right now so I will post more on this later today or tomorrow.

That's your opinion, but it isn't really your money being wasted. Unlike government assets, today's pomp is coming from voluntary contributions. Me, I would publically fund campaigns with the proceeds of the SuperBowl, but it isn't my money. In absolute terms, I can see that all the papal hoopla costs less than a ribbon of American highway thirty miles long. I am pretty sure a line of people doesnn't cost that much, and that they were going to embalm him anyway, and the choirs aren't paid hugely.

So all these good thoughts about better things to do with cash can be found in the marketplace of ideas, where the pope was engaged in "a direct attack on non-belief". Good luck.

Yeah, all the church assets have come by voluntary contributions. :eyes:

Go rent "The Magdalene Sisters" and tell me how voluntary that was.

If you're OK with the church spending extra money on themselves rather than helping people, then so be it. Just say so.

I know your point is that religion is bad, but why pretend that you can make a symphony out of one note?

For two seconds, I thought you would say something at least as sensible as the concept that St Peters was built from undemocratic forces. Or that the monuments of freedom and liberty you admire in your country were built by the fruits of chattel slavery. But connecting an order of nuns in Ireland with a papal funeral---

Spending all that extra money on themselves; I don't know how they can do it, until I remember that I spent money on myself all day. Rather than helping people. And when I say, "myself", I dont' mean a funeral for some third party, or some religious function attended by other people. I mean myself. Criticism, anyone.

I started this thread asking some basic questions:

How many more people could the Catholic Church feed & provide for if not for the enormous wealth they sit on?

Does God like to see the church officials decked out as fancy as possible?

When Jesus says that you do unto him whatever you do unto the least of your brethren, how does that jibe with ostentatious displays and ornate golden decorations?

If just ONE more child could be saved from starvation by ONE cardinal giving up a fancy robe, wouldn't it be worth it?

Now stories like The Magdalene Sisters become appropriate, simply because they demonstrate that a very large chunk of the church's wealth came from highly unscrupulous means - making displays like the current one even more despicable. Real pain and real suffering went into enriching the church.

I just want people to think about that. People's reactions towards me for asking those questions have taught me a lot.

of the difficulties that wealth posed, in relationship to entering the kingdom of heaven. His harshest teachings were directed at the self-righteous leaders of the temple in his day. They are as true today as they were when he taught 2000 years ago.

Isn't it funny how you only want people to ask about someone else, in an institution whose basic function you don't sympathize with?

I think your reaction to the question should tell you a lot--that you don't think it a question for anyone but churchman. You don't ask yourself whether you could give up just one thing--much less one thing MORE--and actually get pretty upset when someone tries to ask you.

Because the point isn't more charity, but less church. It isn't to spur giving but to spurn clergy. Who provides the charity? You? Me?

But you are largely speaking from ignorance, of both the men who are wearing the robes and what they have in life. You don't care what they do, or have, because it is what they are that gripes you. They are religious. . Welcome to the marketplace of ideas.

What would I gain asking my questions of anyone who's NOT involved in the Catholic Church? I wanted to hear the OTHER side of things - I wanted to hear some justification for what I've seen on TV the past couple of days.

Once I filter out all the personal attacks, profanities, and doubts about my character or my charitable giving, I am left with only this:

"The church can do whatever it wants to, and you can shut the hell up."

I guess that showed me.

The justification for devotion and religious ceremony--of course, you'll never get one that satisfies you. And that's fine by me.

But you picked a reason for it NOT to happen, and for the building it is in to NOT exist, namely, the church's failure to do more for charitable works.

While I am sure that there are people in sackcloth and ashes who would cry out against the old Whore of B'lon, you aren't one of them. Rather, it seems that you are simply applying a standard of charitable giving that you wouldn't apply to any other institution or to yourself. That not only pretty much dilutes your argument, but opens you to the argument of hypocrisy you were making against the church--better, actually, because you set the bar so high.

As I've said elsewhere on this thread, *I* don't claim to represent God on earth, but the Catholic Church does. If you don't think they deserve to be held to a higher standard - a BIBLICAL standard - so be it.

Which IS a higher standard than the one you are held to.

But that only begs the question, one that I would have trouble finding the gall to answer for anyone else, including you--what is the right amount of charitable giving in any circumstances?

Isn't it funny that the quickest to judge whether a person has met biblical standards is the non-believer? The quickest to judge, the most absolute in condemnation?

Really, its all too ironic.

Look, here's a biblical standard. "Judge not lest ye be judged."

Only a person removed from the religion itself can take a step back and analyze how well actions meld with words. The people within the religion will seek to make excuses and distort scripture so as to avoid the cognitive dissonance arising by admitting their church is not following a biblical standard.

So if you have nothing further to say, I will assume that like everyone else so far, your opinion on the matter is basically summed up with:

"The church can do whatever it wants, and you can shut up."

Is that pretty much it?

After all, you aren't suggesting that you, or anyone else, actually have a stated standard with regard to charity, or that they follow any particular standard. In fact, you happily declare you don't have any, and that what you do is nobody's business.

Instead, it's to find clergy who have standards, and take them to task for not meeting them.

The person who believes nothing and has no standards is uniquely qualified for the job--but only if the job is smacking around others. For there are one way that a person could gain your approval: give up any standards.

For a person who pretends to say that the problem is that the church does anything it wants, you seem pretty happy to do anything you want. It's another reading on the irony meter, along with your quick condemnation and judgment of others.

would lead to selling off important parts of the church's history that have been with it for up to thousands of years. These things would not be available to future generations because you think they should be given away now. The pope a few hundred years ago tried to do this, I know I, and the millions of people that visit the Vatican, are thankful he didn't.

all those pretty pictures in Rome.

while they don't have anything to eat.

Come on people, I always liked the reasoning that came with Democrats, it seems to be missing here.

fed a starving child for a few years. That doesn't include the $120-$300 a year you pay for the internet which in itself would probably feed another child. Damn, how immoral of you. Now there is a child that died of hunger you could have stopped, I guess his blood is on your hands (again, using your reasoning).

But of course, you can criticize my charitable giving all you want (despite the fact that you have NO CLUE how much I give) - it is not my stated mission in life to take care of everyone. Your attacks on me do nothing to negate the black splotches on your church's history.

I am applying your irrational reasoning to this case since you are quick to ignore the billions they give in aid to people.

I'm asking why the church needs to go to such great lengths to advertise its wealth. My charitable giving has NOTHING to do with it, and you trying to bring it into the discussion is a red herring.

Your reasoning seems to be, "well they help people ENOUGH, so they are entitled to do whatever they want."

I think that if you really look at the teachings of Jesus, you'll find it's impossible to do ENOUGH to help others. He and the disciples had nothing but the clothes on their backs - was their ministry less successful because of it?

Because it is the only tactic available for one who tries to twist the teachings of the prophet Jesus.

The church gives billions to chairty, you say it should do more by getting rid of everything it has earned over the curse of its life.

You give to charity, I say you should do more by getting rid of everything you have earned over the curse of your life.

Is it unfair and unreasonable for me to say that to you? Of course it is. However, the same applies to what you said.

The church gives billions to the world, what is at the Vatican is a symbol of the traditions of the history over many centuries. You might not give a shit as you are not catholic; however, the 1.1 billion catholics around the world and the millions of tourists that visit the vatican certainly respect what is there. For you to say we should not have it is as absurd as me saying you shouldn't have the internet or your computer.

I don't have the political power to bully and influence policy decisions in virtually every country on the planet.

I don't have trillions of dollars in assets and property around the globe.

As much as you desperately want to compare us, the Catholic Church and I have about as little in common as the planet Jupiter and a bottlecap.

Your answer, as far as I can intepret it, is simply, "The Catholic Church does enough, so they are entitled to whatever extravagant displays they choose to put on."

If you're OK with that, I really have nothing else to add.

P.S. I've actually been to the Vatican. I've seen the Sistine Chapel, looked at the art, been there, done that. I still think it's a horrible waste of resources that could be better put to use helping people.

or a form of delusion to say that all catholics support the practice of hording material goods while ignoring the work that Jesus urges us to do. The catholic church is huge, and there are many people who recognize the obscene nature of the wealth in question.

There are certainly many Catholics who really are helping. I wish those Catholics had more control of their church, though.

including the millions that showed up within the last few days, seem to dispute your reasoning.

they merely expose the shallowness of yours. They are coming to pay their respects to the late pope, not to admire a painting.

As you say, YOU THINK THAT. The Vatican means a lot to about 1.1 billion Catholics and to many historians and tourists around the globe. All popes have been burried there and the place is holy to catholics. Like I said, you might not give a shit, but Catholics certainly do. If you think it is a waste it is because you do not give a shit, that's fine. But that doesn't mean you have the right to tell those catholics it is a waste, especially when they give so much back to the world.

The Vatican takes care of affairs for about 1.1 billion Catholics around the world. Of all the jobs it does it's total economy is around $200 million a year, hardly this huge wealth for the amount of business they need to take care of and the amount of people the need to attend to.

"The Catholic Church does enough, so they are entitled to whatever extravagant displays they choose to put on."

Mighty Christ-like of ya.

for believing everyone. Believe only those whom you see modeling their lives on the life of Christ."
- St. Theresa of Avila

It seems pretty convenient, after all, to argue that the Church, having actually decided to participate in charity, can always do more, whereas you, not having a stated mission, are absolved from the judgment of prying eyes.

The argument that "you have no idea how much I give" could be applied to any one of the churchmen, or for that matter, to the church together--which, after all, is funded by donations. But having put them on the standard of "doing more", they pretty much can't win.

Not because the Vatican can't sell the Sistine Chapel--because of course, it could--but because you include schools, hospitals, and churchs in the very trillions of Church property you would have sold.

So when the hospitals are condos, and the schools are selfstorage facilities, and the churchs are mini-marts, and the institutions disband, what result? Not more charity, but less religion. Which, of course, is a result you would be happy with. Why not just say so? Why not just say that you would rather have no institution with a stated purpose of charity, and charity can go hang?

by cutting something minor, or selling something insignificant, or doing without a special robe for a special occasion?

What's funny is that I never said the church should sell everything it owns, yet several people have now attacked me for doing so. Go figure.

After all, why should there be one garment for the big occassion, when the bride could wear a housecoat?

But it isn't about charity, who does what and who could do more, because I think you know where you and I would rank with even the princes of the church. It's about smacking around churchmen, fair means or foul.

You obviously know much better than I do what I *really* think. No, my concern isn't for innocent suffering people at all. I just like to pick on the church.

Tell me, can all Christians read minds, or just you?

I was left with your obvious distaste for the believers.]

And that mind reading thing--you must be trying it, thinking that I am a christian. If I am, I'm a shit poor one, but you seem to be an expert in that too.

Let's say I can appreciate a body that does SOME charitable work, and give credit where credit is due.

Don't make me laugh... Giving it to the church is much more like it.

I agree that their life is not luxurious, but they have it easy, at least compared to the communities they usually live in.

The worse the community they live in the worse they will have it, you are dilusional if you think being a priest is a way to escape poverty. When I lived on a small farm in Poland I can still recall the fact we had to take food to our single preist in that town since the church couldn't provide (at the time) enough for him to eat. I am hopeful that things have changed now since it has been a long time that I've been there but your conclusion that they have it easy is absolutely wrong.

Priests in Latin America usually live better lives than the people they are surrounded by. That is one of the reasons why liberation theology made such a big impact in latin america.

Cheers..

They couldn't even provide one of their own priests - who is TRYING to do "the Lord's work" - with the support needed to feed himself.

Yet at that time, the pope most surely had fancy robes, treasure and art was locked up in vaults, and enormous sums were spent on "other priorities."

Egads.

too bad the money she raised didn't get used for what the donors, no doubt, thought it would be used for.

Mother Teresa's House of Illusions
How She Harmed Her Helpers As Well As Those They 'Helped'
by Susan Shields

<snip>
Some years after I became a Catholic, I joined Mother Teresa's congregation, the Missionaries of Charity. I was one of her sisters for nine and a half years, living in the Bronx, Rome, and San Francisco, until I became disillusioned and left in May 1989. As I reentered the world, I slowly began to unravel the tangle of lies in which I had lived. I wondered how I could have believed them for so long.

Three of Mother Teresa's teachings that are fundamental to her religious congregation are all the more dangerous because they are believed so sincerely by her sisters. Most basic is the belief that as long as a sister obeys she is doing God's will. Another is the belief that the sisters have leverage over God by choosing to suffer. Their suffering makes God very happy. He then dispenses more graces to humanity. The third is the belief that any attachment to human beings, even the poor being served, supposedly interferes with love of God and must be vigilantly avoided or immediately uprooted. The efforts to prevent any attachments cause continual chaos and confusion, movement and change in the congregation. Mother Teresa did not invent these beliefs - they were prevalent in religious congregations before Vatican II - but she did everything in her power (which was great) to enforce them

<snip>
It is in the hope that others may see the fallacy of this purported way to holiness that I tell a little of what I know. Although there are relatively few tempted to join Mother Teresa's congregation of sisters, there are many who generously have supported her work because they do not realize how her twisted premises strangle efforts to alleviate misery. Unaware that most of the donations sit unused in her bank accounts, they too are deceived into thinking they are helping the poor.
<snip>

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/shields_18_1.html

on what they probably spent on the Pope's death shoes . . . a point made (to an extent) by Howard Stern yesterday . . .

anyone know world wealth?

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/accessible/l5.htm

see bottom line there for US

helps a lot of people. Since my husband lost his job, St. James Cathedral has paid my rent, bought gas for my car so I can get to work, and paid for our groceries.

resistance to disease leading to disease and death.

PS hunger in the usa is ... 12 million folks.

12 billion would end all that in the usa

bush plans this year, budget, to up te hungry by a million folks.

Some background on him from Chiesa:

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Profession: Servant of the Servants of God


John Paul II made him a cardinal together with the last group of bishops named to the honor, in February of 2001. On that occasion, Bergoglio distinguished himself by his reserve among his many more festive colleagues. Hundreds of Argentinians had begun fundraising efforts to fly to Rome to pay homage to the new man with the red hat. But Bergoglio stopped them. He ordered them to remain in Argentina and distribute the money they had raised to the poor. In Rome, he celebrated his new honor nearly alone - and with Lenten austerity.

<snip>

Yet he´s not the type to compromise himself for the public. Every time he speaks, instead, he tries to shake people up and surprise them. In the middle of November, he did not give a learned homily on social justice to the people of Argentina reduced by hunger - he told them to return to the humble teachings of the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes. "This," he explained, "is the way of Jesus." And as soon as one follows this way seriously, he understands that "to trample upon the dignity of a woman, a man, a child, an elderly person, is a grave sin that cries out to heaven," and he decides not to do it any more.

The other bishops follow in his footsteps. During the Holy Year of 2000 he asked the entire Church in Argentina to put on garments of public penance for the sins committed during the years of the dictatorship. As a result of this act of purification, the Church had the credibility to be able to ask the nation to acknowledge how its own sins had contributed to its current disaster. At the celebration of the Te Deum at the most recent national feast, last May 25th, there was a record audience for Cardinal Bergoglio´s homily. The cardinal asked the people of Argentina to do as Zacchaeus had done in the Gospel. Here was a sinister loan shark. But, taking account of his moral lowliness, he climbed up into a sycamore tree, to see Jesus and let himself be seen and converted by him.

There isn´t a politician, from the right to the extreme left, who isn´t dying for the blessing of Bergoglio. Even the women of Plaza de Mayo, ultraradicals and unbridled anti-catholics, treat him with respect. He has even made inroads with one of them in private meetings. On another occasion, he visited the deathbed of an ex-bishop, Jeronimo Podestá, who had married in defiance of the Church and was dying poor and forgotten by all. From that moment, Mrs. Podestá became one of his devoted fans.

http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=6893&eng=y

I wager that your opinion might change a bit, eh wot?

As to history,
people are more important.

besides, history is recorded in books well enough. We do not really need the original buildings.. nor even the original paintings and statues.

Not one painting is worth the life of a starving kid.

I rest my case.
=========================
PS. Our Smithsnian is fine for rich tourists, but we do not really need it. Books can convey history well enough. Smith. has gotten absurd in the things lately, that it stores.
When all are fed, housed, educated and doctored.. we can again open museums.

PS, yes, sell the Lincoln memorial, and yes, have congresscritters meet in tents. Later, when the world has enough dough to feed all, we can return to normal buildings. Some claim we have enough dough already. Interesting point.

I do not live luxoriously BTW.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Live simply, so others can simply live.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
K, i agree with you about some dems who live in luxury. They should indeed live simply. Bob Dylan is one case.. last i heard, he had a huge mansion. I mean huge.

... but you've responded to my post (#15)... so I'll respond by saying that I agree with your thoughts, and that I think Cardinal Bergoglio is a wonderful example of living simply and truly caring for the poor... just as Jesus did during his time on earth.

by your reasoning.

The white house, the statue of liberty, the lincoln memorial, are all great symbols of what the US stands for, are you saying we should get rid of them to feed starving kids?

Also, I think a lot of people will disagree greatly with what you think of art. Art has told history and is important to many people. I think it is crazy to suggest the Vatican, which has owned these works for ages, should just get rid of them to feed a few kids.

****EDIT***
Just saw that you said we should sell those and that congress should be held in tents. This might be your opinion but I think most people will disagree with that.

I have am all for feeding the poor (not only around the world but also here) but you seem to think we should do that by getting rid of everything we have. This is not the best way to go and most people won't be willing to do that nor agree with you on it.

These precious babies... these starving kids...



May God / Allah / YHWH / the Creator / Waheguru / the One have mercy on us and awaken our souls.

again, do you think if we talked about selling off washington DC you would be making the same argument?

Yes, I know world hunger is sad and I hope it gets solved (I will do everything I can within reason to play my part in it) but I am talking about rational solutions to this, not destroying thousands of years of tradition and history that is important to so many people simply because you don't agre with that tradition or history.

Why build a memorial for the 9/11 victims? Instead lets put that money in homeland security to stop future attacks. Do you see how unreasonable that sounds? It is exactly what you are saying.

because your argument is lacking in merit. The church is supposed to be doing the work that Jesus spoke of. You will find that Jesus spoke about feeding the poor and clothing the naked. Yet you will not find a quote attributed to Jesus in the bible where he urges his followers to collect art or invest in preserving history. The teachings of Jesus are all anyone need consider to see how empty and weak your position is.

if millions of people didn't visit it for what it is?

and his followers get their financing?

Do you have any idea how much money the Vatican makes from the tourists that visit it? Do you have any idea how many people they help with that money?

Or do they do it because the place is holy to them?

Because the church already helps many people, the pope and all the church leaders are entitled to whatever displays of luxury and wealth they want.

I'm sure it pleases your materialistic god.

with the teachings of the prophet Jesus, too, eh?

do you have any idea what pain goes in to being a cardinal? For you to say they enjoy too much comfort by wearing the TRADITIONAL silk is insane.

and attempting to attribute them to me is cheap. Is it really the best you can do?

You amaze me. Fine, forget it, these men that never get married, live most of their life to a hard religion with virtually no personal belongings is extremely easy. When they finally devoted their life and became cardinals they should sleep out in the dirt and abandon all tradition.

Where have I heard something like this before? Oh yeah, when the repuks say that poor people should work 18 hours a day and then not have anything so they could avoid paying for welfare.

to either purposely lie, or perhaps it is an inability to recognize the truth. The amusement value is spent.

is dogshit on a sidewalk.

Again, where in the bible do you find Jesus advocating having a palace where money-changers charge admission, with a bit of that silver going to "help the poor"?

How much money do they make from visitors? You make the Vatican sound like some kind of Euro-Disney operation. How does tourism money compare to the money they get from passing the plate once a week in all the world's Catholic churches?

... is a grave sin that cries out to heaven,"

- Cardinal Bergoglio's words.



May God / Allah / YHWH / the Creator / Waheguru / the One have mercy on us and awaken our souls.

An excerpt from Newindpress...

JORGE MARIO BERGOGLIO (ARGENTINE), BORN DEC. 17, 1936

Bergoglio has shied away from high offices in the past, such as head of the Argentine bishops' conference or a possible senior Vatican post, but his simple lifestyle and leadership skills have kept his name among potential successors.

<snip>

Stories of his humility abound. When he was appointed a cardinal in 2001, Bergoglio persuaded hundreds of Argentines not to fly to Rome to celebrate with him but donate to the poor the money they had raised for their airline tickets.

He declined to move into the luxurious archbishop's residence, preferring a simple apartment nearby where he lives with an old bishop and usually cooks dinner.

He gets around town mostly by bus, often wearing the cassock of a simple priest rather than any episcopal finery.

<snip>

In contrast to many activist Latin American priests, Bergoglio prefers to stress the spiritual side of his calling and urge the faithful to follow Christ's example more fully rather than preach about the need for social justice.

http://www.newindpress.com/popejohnpaulii/News.asp?Topic=361&Title=Reports&ID=IEH20050403120831&nDate=&Sub=&Cat=

in my re above.. pls go there for working link. too tired to retype here. sorry

It's a double-edged sword.

I'm not a fan of the pageantry, having logged time in the plain protestant tradition: rather plain-looking buildings, an ordered, not overly theatrical, service.

It's more about showing the earthly powers of the church as a political institution, that's what displays of wealth are always about, than about showing how spiritual it all is.

So, I agree with you, it's over the top. We will never know how comfortable or not JP, growing up a poor Polish kid, was with that aspect of it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Thanks for keeping the discussion so polite, anyway. :eyes:

convert them. They were there for the tsunami, for every major natural disaster, they are in the refugee camps in Darfur, and they are in our own inner cities. Every skid row in America has one or two Catholic missions that help people without requiring them to attend services. They have residences for poor elderly people with no families and countless other types of charities.

The typical atheists' snipe of "Why don't they sell the wealth of the Vatican and feed the poor?" sounds all too much like the Republicans' snipe of "Why don't Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon live in the slums if they're such liberals?" "Why is John Kerry a millionaire i he's such a liberal? Shouldn't he be giving all his money away?"

Countless Catholics do live in poverty alongside the poor. Ever hear of the Jesuit Volunteer Corps? They are lay people who work with the homeless, with newly released mental patients and whoever else needs help while living in an austere communal household and having some ridiculously small sum per month as personal spending money.

I only asked why such incredible wealth and excess was appropriate for an organization claiming to represent Jesus, who, IIRC, never owned much of anything himself.

You don't have to distort my question and then compare it to Republicans to try and make a point. Besides, the comparison is invalid anyway, since none of those people you mention claim to hold themselves up as the beacon of ultimate moral truth in the world.

Obviously it makes people quite uncomfortable to consider my question.

THey feed tailors and cobblers, weavers, artisans, skilled craftsmen and women... and their families. Many of the vestments are old and seldom used, so they employ workers to keep them clean and in good repair. Are they to be put out of work and on the dole, the pagentry of centuries resigned to the dustbin?

Jesus also understood the "wasting" of valuable ointment, poured over His feet and hair and didn't condemn the act of love and respect behind it.

Or is most of the labor done by unpaid nuns and monks?

I honestly don't know, that's why I'm asking.

They tend to be small family businesses, often handed down through the family for generations. Much of it is specialized skill and craftsmanship that has to be hired.
If I get the chance, I will try to find a link or two, but I suspect the media will pick up on some of the stories again soon.

Catholic and Protestant churches of Europe. For centuries, the churches were the major employers of both painters and musicians.

Even today, New York's (Episcopal) Cathedral of St. John the Divine is being built by neighborhood residents (African-American and Latino) who have been trained as stone masons by master masons from Europe.

I kind posted 1/2 of my message yesterday.

Yes the RC church has amassed great material wealth. But what institution that's been around for close to 2 millenia wouldn't amass great wealth? The same could be said for a bank or an insurance firm that would have been around that long.

At the same time, there are so many terrific masterpieces of art that we wouldn't have if the church didn't sponsor them: The Sistine Chapel, The Last Supper, a good 3/4 of the classical, baroque, and romantic music cannon. Progress in architechture showed up in the building of churches before anywhere.

At the same time, there are so many terrific masterpieces of art that we wouldn't have if the church didn't sponsor them

Who is to say that similarly beautiful works of art would not have arisen if, say, pagan religions had been dominant? And if secularism had been the norm, how do we know that we wouldn't be visiting the stars by now?

Sorry, I can't buy into the "since the church sponsored all this beautiful art and music, it MUST be good" line of thinking.

that we need to convince you of anything?

If you can.

While it is true, that if other philosophies had become dominant they might have sponsored other artworks or other endeavors just as rewarding, I did not say that the church "MUST be good"because of those endeavors.

I am saying the Church is like any other human endeavor, it has its good points and its bad points. It is simply a reflection of us, writ large. While that's not really so surprising a revelation, it does amaze me how many people forget it.

but the fact that it does get used, and the more it gets brought up, the more some folks might feel justified in thinking it. I agree with you completely that the church is ultimately flawed just like the humans that make it up - like every religion that's been created.

That same analysis could be made for any part of anybody's life.

Yet, you dont' make it for yours, or mine. Because your point isn't saving children, it's smacking around churchmen.

It seems hypocritical to take the church that has alread saved one child through charitable works to task for not saving another--while you fail to take any stand whatsoever on anyone's duties except the clergy's. You complain of the mote in their eye while ignoring the log in your own, as Jesus said.

I am sure the pageant disgusts you, but not because you want the money spent on charity. You want it spent on anything else but religion--chewing gum, the super bowl, a new highway, and all the things that you could be giving up and aren't. There are bigger deals all the time in terms of money. But those deals don't have devotion, so you let them slide without condemning the participants. Or did you have a thread on the Super Bowl that you can link me too?

You think you know what I'd rather have that money spent on, eh? And so you go on to slam me for what you THINK I think.

Nice. How very Christian of you.

Trust me, when it comes to sin in the world, between the Catholic Church and its horrible brutal history (which continues to this day with pedophile priests) and me, well, it ain't me with the log.

if they stopped spending money on war and corporate bailouts. And how many people could American citizens freed if we weren't so obsessed with empty consumerism?

The Church gives a great deal of money to the poor. Far more than the US government or any government on earth. Many orders take vows of poverty. Clergy do not live lives of luxury.

The Catholic church is, at least, much better than some of its evangelical Protestant counterparts. The Southern Baptist Church takes in billions and wouldn't spend a dime on helping people, unless of course that help came with the condition of converting to their religion. They also spend their money on ridiculous archeology projects in order to "prove" the bible, such as an expedition to find "Noah's Ark." That's such a ridiculous waste of money. The Catholic church at least does spend billions on feeding and housing the poor. I must say that.

Your point holds, however. They can spend even more without those useless luxuries.