Catholic Spending

[manualman]

So essentially what is being said is church should reflect society, if that society is well off in order to not place too much of an important on what we own we should donate to the church more so it can act like a physical symbol?

A theme recurring in this thread is that you appear to view the “church” as a separate organism, a person almost from whom you expect far more than you are willing to commit yourself. This is silliness. Your local parish consists of you and several hundred more just like you. In that sense, YES, a local parish should be shaped and formed by the culture of the society that makes it up. If that society is utterly impoverished, then it is appropriate for the church to worship in a crude place with minimal adornments, still produced by the work and sacrifice of the parishioners.

When a local parish consists of wealthy westerners easily able to afford fine liturgical materials that objectively demonstrate the priority they place on the presence of God in their midst in comparison to the importance they place on their own comfort in the rest of their lives, there is nothing wrong there unless it is ALSO wrong for them to have fine things in their own lives.

That’s what this all comes down to: is it the duty of all christians to forsake all but the most utilitarian of posession until/unless the last of the poor has the same? Jesus never said anything of the kind and you might notice that taught and dined with the rich and poor alike. Take your neo-marxism elsewhere, we aren’t buying it.

 

[austenbosten]

Now now let’s wait until Chaulmers reads the versus before we start raggin on him and calling him names like a Marxist. :slapfight:

@Manualman: What the heck is a neo-Marxist…Marxism is Marxism. Chavez is just as much a scumbag as Castro.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Beauties are in the eye of the beholder. Gym, wood cupboard, decent seating and a lot more lives saved through charitable efforts.

Let me ask you this: When Jesus observed the widow putting two small coins into temple treasury, did He criticize her for not giving all her money to the poor? Did He say she should have given one coin to the treasury and the other to the poor? And do you suppose God just ignored her contribution–which Jesus calls all she had, her whole livelihood–and let her starve to death?

Why do you insist this is an either/or situation? Do you honestly think God is limited so that when we give to beautify His church that He doesn’t step in to help elsewhere? Such a God would be horribly selfish, don’t you think? He would be saying, “Thank you so much for your gift. I will keep that all to Myself and do nothing for anybody else. I won’t spread that love around at all.” Do you honestly think God acts like that?

Now, that last question is a yes/no question, and I challenge you to answer it with a simple yes or no. No fudging. No changing the subject. Just a simple yes or no.

 

[Darran]

Interesting also that the Mass reading for today is the Lesson of the Widow’s Mite.

usccb.org/bible/readings/060912.cfm

 

[redbirdNY]

I’m not Catholic but many of these opulent churches are made of stone and marble and are built to last centuries.

Just for thought, Remember when the Israelites were wandering around in the desert…when God commanded them to build a temple to hold the commandments, He ordered Moses to use gold and expensive, lavish materials…and remember He was asking a bunch of refugees who had just crossed a sea and just fled Egypt. There must be a reason there.

That money could be better used elsewhere…and remember we sometimes fashion God’s wants us copying our own.

 

[redbirdNY]

Anglicans, Lutherans to my knowledge have beautiful churches too…I don’t really have a problem with people making churches the way they want. They are paying for it so who cares? If they want to do it lavish or cheap…Live and Let Live.

 

[redbirdNY]

Very true…but the question does beg asking…why wouldn’t Jesus be for responsible stewardship of resources?

 

[redbirdNY]

Okie dokie…maybe it’s that darn Lutheran upbringing I had, but let’s go to Scripture.

[BIBLEDRB]Exodus 35:4-10[/BIBLEDRB]

Re-read Exodus Chapters 35-40 and count how many times you see gold and silver there.

Are you ready to question God’s opulence?

but let us go to what Christ. Our Lord and Savior said:

[BIBLEDRB]John 12:3-8[/BIBLEDRB]

I think Jesus has answered your question.

I was also raised Lutheran…I really don’t see any opulence in local Catholic parishes. Not even in the diocese headquarters in Orlando. Those old hard benches were not comfortable. I don’t get why anyone has to question the church’s appearance.

Not to sound a jerk, please don’t take it this way, but have you sold all your goods to give to the poor? Have you made the commitment to not buy new things, to live in a smaller apartment, so you could give more to the poor?

I hope these few of several verses from the Bible answers your questions my friend.

 

[redbirdNY]

In every catholic church thruout the world, the blessed sacrament is present, which means that Jesus himself personnally is present. Isnt’ he worth all the very best and finest that is in the world, since he is in every catholic church?

The only thing we need to apoligize for is that it isn’t better and more worthy of him for he deserves the very best we have.

His catholic churchs are quite different from all other buildings, for he is there. And in the Mass he is again bringing the tears of his cries to the Father on our behalf.

A sacramental miracle to ponder over.

I agree.

 

[He_Man]

So the answer is what I stated in the previous post…which makes no sense.

I did not realize the Catholic Church is about so vainily glorifying God instead of helping their fellow man. This is truly sad that is the answer I have received.

Seeing as how there if we used every bit of wealth on earth, including all precious metals, to build a repository worthy of the Lord, we would never come close, given His infinite value, and thus this can’t be defined as vanity. It is impossible to be vain the object being measured in infinitely immeasurable, by definition.

Why not simply take a vow of poverty and live an austere lifestyle? Many do, and there is nothing wrong with that. You can do much good that way. It is certainly better than worrying about the wealth of others, or the Church. Poverty is obviously important to you, which is great, so why not simply embrace it? We need to embrace the causes of import to us, and not make it our effort to force those causes on other Catholics. Each of us has a calling to embrace. Perhaps this is yours?

 

[austenbosten]

That money could be better used elsewhere…and remember we sometimes fashion God’s wants us copying our own.

John 12:8

We will always have the poor. Even if you confiscated all the wealth in the world, we would still have the poor. The idea that the money could be better used elsewhere…basically says God should come last.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

He commands us to spend money on him??? Must have missed that. That doesnt sound like a really nice thing to do. I never said I know the mind of God, but it is a simple analogy that defeats your argument. Although there is no counter argument for the “well that is His will!”

Austen I will read the bible verses when I get home as I am at work and it requires more attention to detail than I am capable of at the present time.

You must not have read the Old Testament. Read what God commanded in terms of the Temple and the Ark of the Covenant. Only the finest of the fine.

I would be interested to know if you know of an institution who has done more for the poor than the Catholic Church. With 2000 years of helping the poor, I can’t even imagine the money the Church has spent. Not to mention the millions upon millions of man hours— entire lives sometimes, just helping the poor. We have established charities, hospitals, and universities. We continue to help the poor in Africa and all over the world and we help whenever there is a catastrophic event. We are not ignoring the poor by any means. In fact, Jesus says it is ok to spend on Him— as has already been mentioned-- in regard to expensive jar of ointment for His anointing. He says we will always have the poor, and He was right. But He did not criticize when He was given something extravagant. Well, we believe that Jesus Christ is truly and really present in the Eucharist in every Tabernacle of the Church. I do not believe it is so wrong to apply the same principles of the Old Testament Temple (laid out by God) to the Church which makes a home for Jesus.

 

[manualman]

Now now let’s wait until Chaulmers reads the versus before we start raggin on him and calling him names like a Marxist. :slapfight:

@Manualman: What the heck is a neo-Marxist…Marxism is Marxism. Chavez is just as much a scumbag as Castro.

While labels can be handy shorthand, they can also be a distraction.

But as an aside (since I’m a sucker for a tangent), Marxism by definition is a secular materialist worldview. Someone who believes in God, but sees the allocation of physical resources for worship as ‘wasteful’ when they could be ‘better’ used in caring for God’s poor children as an expression of love for God isn’t a traditional Marxist. But the influence sure seems there to me… Nevertheless, I retract if the label is a distraction.

 

[austenbosten]

While labels can be handy shorthand, they can also be a distraction.

But as an aside (since I’m a sucker for a tangent), Marxism by definition is a secular materialist worldview. Someone who believes in God, but sees the allocation of physical resources for worship as ‘wasteful’ when they could be ‘better’ used in caring for God’s poor children as an expression of love for God isn’t a traditional Marxist. But the influence sure seems there to me… Nevertheless, I retract if the label is a distraction.

I have no problem with labels, I’m not one of those water-downed Catholics that always cry and moan “Judge not least be judge.” Yeah no, if that is concrete then I guess we are not allowed to judge a child molester. Sorry but I’m not a relativist. There is right and wrong.

Now having said that, I’m not saying “No don’t call someone a Marxist.” I’m just saying wait until the person who asked the question reads the verses I asked him and see if he accepts or at least understand what Scripture says before we start labeling.

No one should be labeled a Marxist if they are ignorant of the facts.

A man who calls for wealth redistribution without knowing the facts of the failures of such in places like Cuba and Russia is not a Marxist, just someone who embraces Marxist thought.
A man who calls for wealth redistribution knowing the facts of its failures is a Marxist, because he has the knowledge and still holds to his religion.

All I’m saying is be patient. If he comes around and say’s “I guess the Scriptures do say that.” then it would mean you would have to apologize in embarrassment for jumping to conclusions and unjustly labeling someone a no-good, scum sucking Pinko, Commie-lovin Marxist

I’m just saying be patient.

 

[tabycat]

)Two things: One. ‘Rich’ and ‘poor’ are relative terms. Most of us here would be considered ‘poor’ compared to say Paul Allen wereas, a large part of the world whould consider us ‘rich’.
Two. The ones who think that church buildings should be ‘plain’ and without gold, silver, or gems, how would you explain to the people who, make, and build the church buildings that they should get a different livelihood

 

[tabycat]

How will you explain to God how you think that the Ark and the Temple should have had no gold, no silver, and no gems? :tiphat: