An Insight regarding the Church's Wealth

[Lucretius]

Both believers and unbelievers critique the Church by arguing that we should sell our churches to buy food for the poor. We should tell them both that the purpose of brinks and gold and glass isn’t to be eaten, but rather to decorate churches, and that the purpose of bread and wine and cake isn’t to decorate churches, but to be eaten. Thus, we use brick, gold, and glass to decorate the House of the Lord, and we use bread, wine, and cake to feed ourselves and the poor.

It makes sense to tell an individual to sell his things and give the result to the poor, but not to tell an entire society to do the same. To whom shall the society sell its things?

If wealth in a church is owned and enjoyed by the community, including the poor, then it fulfills the Commandment. Do not the poor too enjoy the pomp of St. Peter’s Basilica?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[pianistclare]

Sacred vessels are not to be sold.
Same with antiquities and places which house timeless and sacred art.
The Catholic church arguably gives more money than any other organization to the poor and has founded countless schools, hospitals, and institutions of higher learning.
I think our record stands alone.
People who say such things are using a very simplistic view to problem solving.
What happens when all these things are bought up by the wealthy?
What then? Collectors are surely not going to sell them again and then give the proceeds to charity.

 

[peter26]

It seems strange to me that the same people who want the church to sell all its riches would never dream of asking the same of a museum or art gallery. Or how about a government, they have many riches? How selfish the US government must be because they don’t sell the White House and give the money to the poor.

I also seem to remember someone else making the same argument that the church should sell its assets

Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,

6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,
7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.
8 But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?
9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.
10 When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.
11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.
12 For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial.
13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.

(Matthew 26:6-13)

 

[tawny]

Sacred vessels are not to be sold.
Same with antiquities and places which house timeless and sacred art.
The Catholic church arguably gives more money than any other organization to the poor and has founded countless schools, hospitals, and institutions of higher learning.
I think our record stands alone.
People who say such things are using a very simplistic view to problem solving.
What happens when all these things are bought up by the wealthy?
What then? Collectors are surely not going to sell them again and then give the proceeds to charity.

Well stated.

 

[Lucretius]

I actually see these sort of arguments criticizing church wealth as reflecting a more general problem in our culture: we tend to think in terms of exchange/market value, and ignore the value a thing has in itself. Gold might be worth a lot of money, but is the value of gold really reducable to how much it’s worth in money? Doesn’t the beauty of a golden cross have value too, and even more value than how much we can sell it for? But, like the Pharisees in the Gospel reading today, we have gone blind to this.

I think it is insightful to step outside the mindset of the capitalistic and consumer culture, as we it makes no sense to make a society exchange it’s precious things for food, because the society already owns both! So the society then distributes the food to the people, and the craftsmen are given the gold, the silver, the glass, etc., and creates beautiful art with it. We can’t use alchemy and just transform the gold into food for the poor! We have to do something with the gold: it can’t be exchanged forever. And thus we make art with it.

My other point is that the art in churches is often free for everyone to enjoy, regardless of how much wealth a person has. In this way church art actaully transcends economic class.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[TimothyH]

This is my answer.

http://www.asianews.it/files/img/INDIA_(f)0805-_Madre_Teresa.jpg

-Tim-

 

[PolarGuy]

Generally I agree with the OP, but I have some concerns.

First, I’m troubled by the periodic use of diocese funds to build or acquire lavish homes for bishops, which include swimming pools, hot tubs, elevators, or many things the average homeowner or priest for that matter never has in their home. The archdioceses in Newark and Pittsburgh have had their issues with this.

Second, Tim’s picture of Mother Theresa may actually underscore more of a problem than anything else: she is a perfect example of what can be accomplished when someone does not focus on money but rather focuses on helping the poor.

I am not suggesting that churches need to be pillaged and the Church’s treasures sold off. The OP’s post said that, and said it well IMHO. But we can and should require the Church to make better use of what it has.

My $0.02

 

[TimothyH]

Generally I agree with the OP, but I have some concerns.

First, I’m troubled by the periodic use of diocese funds to build or acquire lavish homes for bishops, which include swimming pools, hot tubs, elevators, or many things the average homeowner or priest for that matter never has in their home. The archdioceses in Newark and Pittsburgh have had their issues with this.

Second, Tim’s picture of Mother Theresa may actually underscore more of a problem than anything else: she is a perfect example of what can be accomplished when someone does not focus on money but rather focuses on helping the poor.

I am not suggesting that churches need to be pillaged and the Church’s treasures sold off. The OP’s post said that, and said it well IMHO. But we can and should require the Church to make better use of what it has.

My $0.02

My point in posting a picture of Mother Theresa is that others say the Church should sell it’s assets, give to the poor, etc., but few Churches have concrete examples of this as does the Catholic Church.

The problems with lavish homes is a point well taken however. It has been a problem.

-Tim-

 

[Lucretius]

Generally I agree with the OP, but I have some concerns.

First, I’m troubled by the periodic use of diocese funds to build or acquire lavish homes for bishops, which include swimming pools, hot tubs, elevators, or many things the average homeowner or priest for that matter never has in their home. The archdioceses in Newark and Pittsburgh have had their issues with this.

Second, Tim’s picture of Mother Theresa may actually underscore more of a problem than anything else: she is a perfect example of what can be accomplished when someone does not focus on money but rather focuses on helping the poor.

I am not suggesting that churches need to be pillaged and the Church’s treasures sold off. The OP’s post said that, and said it well IMHO. But we can and should require the Church to make better use of what it has.

My $0.02

I was criticizing the argument that the Church possessing wealth is in itself inherently hypocritical and wrong. You agree with me that it is not, but you are worried that some Clergy might become corrupt and misuse it. I fullheartedly understand your worries. We laymen, and definitely other Clergy, should try and act as a check on this. Pope Francis, for example, seems to be stepping in the right direction.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[thistle]

Both believers and unbelievers critique the Church by arguing that we should sell our churches to buy food for the poor. We should tell them both that the purpose of brinks and gold and glass isn’t to be eaten, but rather to decorate churches, and that the purpose of bread and wine and cake isn’t to decorate churches, but to be eaten. Thus, we use brick, gold, and glass to decorate the House of the Lord, and we use bread, wine, and cake to feed ourselves and the poor.

It makes sense to tell an individual to sell his things and give the result to the poor, but not to tell an entire society to do the same. To whom shall the society sell its things?

If wealth in a church is owned and enjoyed by the community, including the poor, then it fulfills the Commandment. Do not the poor too enjoy the pomp of St. Peter’s Basilica?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

“The Roman Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of health care services in the world. It has around 18,000 clinics, 16,000 homes for the elderly and those with special needs, and 5,500 hospitals, with 65 percent of them located in developing countries. In 2010, the Church’s Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers said that the Church manages 26% of the world’s health care facilities. The Church’s involvement in health care has ancient origins.”

 

[dmar198]

Sacred vessels are not to be sold. Same with antiquities and places which house timeless and sacred art.

I’m not in favor of selling sacred items, but I do think it is Sometimes legitimate. I think the Church has sometimes been known to sell some of its stuff in times of dire need. St. Ambrose did this:

“I once brought odium on myself because I [sold] the sacred vessels to redeem captives—a fact that could displease the Arians. Not that it displeased them as an act, but [because] they could take hold of [it as] something for which to blame me. … [We] did not act thus without good reason, yet we have followed it up among the people so as to confess and to add again and again that it was far better to preserve souls than gold for the Lord. … The Church has gold, not to store up, but to lay out, and to spend on those who need. … Is it not much better that the priests should melt it down for the sustenance of the poor, if other supplies fail, than that a sacrilegious enemy should carry it off and defile it? Would not the Lord Himself say: Why did you suffer so many needy to die of hunger? Surely you had gold? Thou should have given them sustenance. Why are so many captives brought on the slave market, and why are so many unredeemed left to be slain by the enemy? It had been better to preserve living vessels than gold ones.” (On the Duties of the Clergy Book 2 Chapter 28)

St. Ambrose also classifies that Some sacred vessels should Not be sold:

“It is necessary to see that the mystic cup does not go out of the Church, lest the service of the sacred chalice should be turned over to base uses. … But if new vessels [break], or those which never seem to have been used for such a holy purpose, then, as I have already said, I think that all might be put to this use without irreverence.” (ibid.)

 

[TimothyH]

Considering that the Church serves 1.3 billion members, it really isn’t even that wealthy.

 

[Frankenfurter]

Both believers and unbelievers critique the Church by arguing that we should sell our churches to buy food for the poor.

We need to consider basic finance here. This is a cash flow problem.

If we sell our churches today and cash them in, how much would we raise for the poor today? A lot of money. But that would be the end of it. With nowhere left to congregate, no tangible place to call home, I am sure that our organization’s giving to the poor in the future would be drastically lower.

If instead, we congregate, listen to the words of God, give to the poor regularly, the cash flow is maintained.

The present value of the two cash flows can be compared. In one case we have the value of the cash flow with a big one time pay out followed by a trickle. Then in the second we have the cash flow that is sustained and even grows.

The present value of the cash flow for the second case is clearly much higher. But this requires a view longer than a few years.

Thus the poor benefit more by NOT selling our buildings.

I like to think that our church is more interested in long term solutions than quick fixes, although we need to deal with the immediately needy too.

 

[Goya]

I’ve been hit with this ‘objection’ so many times, that my answer to it has essentially become a ‘canned’ reply–goes something like this:

In every great city around the world (as well as many lesser cities)–you will find the fruit of the Church’s wealth–there for the world to share. Magnificent Cathedrals and Basilicas–open to the public–for free. Temples built to glorify the Lord. (Of course, to us Catholics, they are not only grand edifices to glorify the Lord, but actual tabernacles to house the Lord–but this is more of an aside, since the point is directed at one who must not believe in the Real Presence). Cultural masterpieces and underpinnings, open to the public, for the world to enjoy. De facto museums; architectural wonders, and contributions to their host cityscapes; places of quiet, mediation, reflection, and prayer. Places of refuge.

For free. No entrance fee; no faith based restrictions for entrance; no restrictions at all, other than respecting the mass schedule, and ordinary closure (end of business).

That is the vast majority of the Church’s wealth. Open, to be shared with the world at large.

Then, I contrast that, with privately held/owned churches model–open at the proprietor’s pleasure; often accessible by invitation only; often, not terribly ornate (so who, other than their ‘flock’, would want to bother anyway, right?). And these stripped down, privately held cash-cows that offer nothing at all to the public at large, inure to the private benefit of the proprietor, his/her family, heirs, and/or beneficiaries.

To be sold for a private profit for such, whenever it is deemed convenient.

With little other explanation, the contrast of the juxtaposition lends perspective to beneficence to society of the Church’s wealth.

…and that’s without even addressing the charitable contributions generated by the Church.

FWIW.

 

[Bookcat]

catholic.com/quickquestions/is-there-a-concise-way-to-respond-to-criticisms-of-the-churchs-wealth

 

[mattp0625]

As previously posted, the Vatican runs a budget that funds hospitals,schools, ministries, etc.

The majority of the equity is related to artwork and real estate accumulated over 2,000 years for various purposes.

It’s not quite the “mountain of gold” that is often portrayed.

Most folks are not in favor of selling the artwork in the White House.