Extravagance in the Church?

[Regina_Love]

**God does support us building the most beautiful, intricate, exquisit building for his home! **Look at the building of the Temple in the old Testament! God gave very specific instructions that a very expensive and elaborate Temple be built!!! WE OWE HIM OUR BEST!

God has given a sacred calling to certain people to build each of His Churches. Those who point fingers, and pronouce accusations against this calling, SPIT ON THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT!

 

[Regina_Love]

Jesus answered a similar criticism when a woman broke an expensive vile of perfune and annointed Him. See the story in Mathew 26 6-13
“Why this waste? For this ointment might have been sold for a large sum and given to the poor.”
But Jesus aware of this said to them,“Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing for me…”

Jesus allows us to do beautiful things for Him.

exactly!

Churches belong, to God, and her people.

Do you people honestly think we should sell the Sacred Sisteen Chappel, so it could be taken from God, and turned into a restaurant? Should we steel back that which was gifted to God for Holy use, to profane it? God’s ways are far above the ways of man.

 

[cornbread_r2]

**God does support us building the most beautiful, intricate, exquisit building for his home! **Look at the building of the Temple in the old Testament! God gave very specific instructions that a very expensive and elaborate Temple be built!!! WE OWE HIM OUR BEST!

God has given a sacred calling to certain people to build each of His Churches. Those who point fingers, and pronouce accusations against this calling, SPIT ON THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT!

In your opinion, should there be any limit to the extravagance of church buildings?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Those pointing to Maher’s house and lifestyle seem to be committing the Tu quoque fallacy.

Then you are admitting that Mr. Maher’s apparent point is also based on the identical fallacy

Maher’s question – “Does that look anything like anything Jesus Christ had in mind?” – seems a fair one in view of certain teachings of Jesus in the Gospels.

It’s a loaded question because he is providing, along with the question, a biased clue intended to “guide” your answer in the direction that he wants you to take. A “fair” context would be to provide a complete picture of what the Church is up to in the world rather than the apparently most damning piece of isolated graphic he can find. This is like compelling a jury to decide the guilt or innocence of a woman accused of prostitution based solely on a picture of her dressed in a revealing outfit.

Let’s be completely candid here about the use of logic and fallacy, and call his questioning technique, shoddy, shallow and unfair, shall we, because it is.

 

[april32010]

I’m pretty sure the building of the new church is not going to be done inefficiently and I would be very surprised if it was being done on normal commercial terms - ie. the contractor building it will probably not be making much if any profit on it.

and why wouldn’t they ? i know in the washington d.c diocese
all construction is done by union contractors

 

[Peter_Plato]

In your opinion, should there be any limit to the extravagance of church buildings?

What limits do you propose we should likewise place on sports stadiums and arenas which cost upwards of a billion dollars? What of the price tag for hosting Olympic Games? What criteria do you propose we apply towards deciding on what counts as extravagance? Does a billion dollars for a place to watch a couple dozen men throw a pigskin around for an hour speak clearly concerning extravagance.

 

[gardenswithkids]

In your opinion, should there any limit to the extravagance of church buildings?

Yes. I’d like to see a limit on money spent any building or art that turns out ugly.

Spending lots of money and using fancy materials doesn’t guarantee the finished product will look nice. I am not a fan of some of the modern art and architecture found in some American churches that I have seen–where they’ve often spent a large sum of money.

I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I like traditional, beautiful churches–the type that Bill Mayer complains the Catholic Church has. I can, (along with the poor or anyone else), walk into a beautiful church and witness a little of the glory of God in the materials, the art work and the architecture. The poor people in Rome or of any city with a beautiful church can see art and architecture that otherwise might be viewed only by the rich if the Church sold off her art and buildings to give the money to the poor. (How ironic!) I suspect that Mr. Mayer didn’t give much thought that the poor can walk into the House of God much easier than they can walk into a museum or the houses of the wealthy.

 

[YoungTradCath]

If you can build a church with gilded trimmings for $2.5 million, you are very lucky. That is extremely cheap!

 

[Regina_Love]

In your opinion, should there be any limit to the extravagance of church buildings?

Yes! What ever limitations God calls us to set, and those naturally set by donated funds.

Subsidiarity brother. That means** those called**, those involved in the planning, those raising the funds,** those prayerfully seeking God’s will for that particular Church make the decisions led by God’s will. ** When God speaks we humbly obey. Those who try to stop us from following God’s will, are persecutors.

 

[Regina_Love]

Some are called to build humble Churches also. Both types are acceptable by God who calls people to do different things. Holy Spirit Mission Church is small enough that it would fit in a barn. I love it! It’s small, and intimate, in a beautiful country setting. We have to have a generosity of heart to realize that each Church has it’s own calling and purpose! It would not be right to superimpose your own preferences upon them, and hold them in judgement, when they are following God’s will.

 

[grasscutter]

and why wouldn’t they ? i know in the washington d.c diocese
all construction is done by union contractors

Hey! :blackeye: I object to dissing of unions. They negotiate a fair living wage that allows the workers to support their communities with their dollars. *(It’s not like they’re hiding that largesse in a Cayman Island account. * )

Yours truly,

former union worker - now in private sector and laid off.

By the way, I normally enjoy and look forward to your posts, so may God bless and keep you!!!

 

[cornbread_r2]

Then you are admitting that Mr. Maher’s apparent point is also based on the identical fallacy

If one of his Catholic interviewees had questioned Maher why he lived in such a sweet crib and he responded by bringing up the St. Peter’s, then I’d agree, but since that wasn’t the sequence of the events as I understand them, I can’t.

It’s a loaded question because he is providing, along with the question, a biased clue intended to “guide” your answer in the direction that he wants you to take. A “fair” context would be to provide a complete picture of what the Church is up to in the world rather than the apparently most damning piece of isolated graphic he can find. This is like compelling a jury to decide the guilt or innocence of a woman accused of prostitution based solely on a picture of her dressed in a revealing outfit.

Let’s be completely candid here about the use of logic and fallacy, and call his questioning technique, shoddy, shallow and unfair, shall we, because it is.

Maher, no doubt, has an agenda. It seems unrealistic to expect anyone with an agenda to present their side only as it answers all of the opposition’s possible objections.

 

[cornbread_r2]

What limits do you propose we should likewise place on sports stadiums and arenas which cost upwards of a billion dollars? What of the price tag for hosting Olympic Games? What criteria do you propose we apply towards deciding on what counts as extravagance? Does a billion dollars for a place to watch a couple dozen men throw a pigskin around for an hour speak clearly concerning extravagance.

I don’t know why you’d think I’d have a problem objecting to those sorts of extravagances.

Cost/benefit analysis is what’s normally applied. At one time sports franchises could get municipalities to foot the bill for their stadiums on the hope that the local economy would benefit. When that assumption began to be called into question, municipalities pulled back and franchise owners began picking up more of the tab.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Yes! What ever limitations God calls us to set, and those naturally set by donated funds.

Subsidiarity brother. That means** those called**, those involved in the planning, those raising the funds,** those prayerfully seeking God’s will for that particular Church make the decisions led by God’s will. ** When God speaks we humbly obey. Those who try to stop us from following God’s will, are persecutors.

How are differences resolved when both sides claim to be doing God’s will?

 

[Peter_Plato]

If one of his Catholic interviewees had questioned Maher why he lived in such a sweet crib and he responded by bringing up the St. Peter’s, then I’d agree, but since that wasn’t the sequence of the events as I understand them, I can’t.

Two points to make

1. There is legal precedent where a plaintiff must show “clean hands” in order to bring a charge against a defendant. So, if Mr. Maher’s charges were to be brought before a court of law, they would not even be considered because “those seeking equity must do equity” or “equity must come with clean hands”. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_hands
2. The underlying argument that Maher is making is that religion should not be taken seriously because of the apparent “hypocrisy” being shown by its practitioners. Implicit in the construction of his charge is that religion opposes “worldly” values of materialism and yet here is the Church demonstrating the materialism it purportedly opposes. Therefore, the Church and by extension, its religious and anti-materialistic beliefs, must be wrong. That hidden argument, my friend, is an example of the same *tu quoque *fallacy and an implicit attempt to defend his “sweet crib” and modern secular materialistic culture. What else was he trying to show or defend? That Catholics should be ashamed because they are enamored by elegant beauty in worship sites?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t know why you’d think I’d have a problem objecting to those sorts of extravagances.

Show, then, where, to be fair in distributing your moral outrage, you have posted comments on NFL sites decrying the billions these organizations have spent to fund the promotion of a frivolous activity involving tossing a pigskin around to match statements you are making here. Consistency, no?

Cost/benefit analysis is what’s normally applied. At one time sports franchises could get municipalities to foot the bill for their stadiums on the hope that the local economy would benefit. When that assumption began to be called into question, municipalities pulled back and franchise owners began picking up more of the tab.

My suspicion here, though I freely admit I might be wrong, is that your priorities involving the spiritual and ethical well-being of human beings may skew your answer on this, but where precisely is the lasting “benefit” to human beings from the game of football that its “economy” can be justified over the benefits and lasting good that the Church brings to the table? Careful, now, your biases might be showing. Certainly a billion dollars to build a stadium could be well-used to directly benefit the economy rather than taking a circuitous route through lining the pockets of athletes and owners, no?

 

[cornbread_r2]

Two points to make

1. There is legal precedent where a plaintiff must show “clean hands” in order to bring a charge against a defendant. So, if Mr. Maher’s charges were to be brought before a court of law, they would not even be considered because “those seeking equity must do equity” or “equity must come with clean hands”. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_hands
2. The underlying argument that Maher is making is that religion should not be taken seriously because of the apparent “hypocrisy” being shown by its practitioners. Implicit in the construction of his charge is that religion opposes “worldly” values of materialism and yet here is the Church demonstrating the materialism it purportedly opposes. Therefore, the Church and by extension, its religious and anti-materialistic beliefs, must be wrong. That hidden argument, my friend, is an example of the same *tu quoque *fallacy and an implicit attempt to defend his “sweet crib” and modern secular materialistic culture. What else was he trying to show or defend? That Catholics should be ashamed because they are enamored by elegant beauty in worship sites?

I think Maher’s point is a lot more simple than that. I interpret his question in the context of the Gospel passage in which Jesus tells his followers to give away their Earthly goods in order to properly follow him.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Show, then, where, to be fair in distributing your moral outrage, you have posted comments on NFL sites decrying the billions these organizations have spent to fund the promotion of a frivolous activity involving tossing a pigskin around to match statements you are making here. Consistency, no?

Can you show where I’ve expressed any moral outrage over this issue?

My suspicion here, though I freely admit I might be wrong, is that your priorities involving the spiritual and ethical well-being of human beings may skew your answer on this, but where precisely is the lasting “benefit” to human beings from the game of football that its “economy” can be justified over the benefits and lasting good that the Church brings to the table? Careful, now, your biases might be showing. Certainly a billion dollars to build a stadium could be well-used to directly benefit the economy rather than taking a circuitous route through lining the pockets of athletes and owners, no?

If Jesus founded the NFL and commanded his followers to give away their stuff and help the poor, then Maher could stand outside Texas Stadium and, I think, legitimately ask the same question.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If Jesus founded the NFL and commanded his followers to give away their stuff and help the poor, then Maher could stand outside Texas Stadium and, I think, legitimately ask the same question.

Can you show where he taught this as a general rule to his followers? From my understanding he did “command” this to a particular person, the rich young man. However, he also rebuked Judas for trying to apply the same rule to the woman with the expensive ointment.

A more telling statement of Jesus concerns his answer to those who attempt to portray his wisdom legalistically as applying to all people, at all times and in all places.

***“To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others:

“‘We played the flute for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge,
and you did not mourn.’
For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.”’ But wisdom is proved right by her many children.” (Matt 11:16-19)***

It seems to me that your point is more in line with the attitude of Jesus’ detractors than with his wisdom which suggests we take the best course of action rather than merely a predefined one.

 

[tominrichmond]

I think Maher’s point is a lot more simple than that. I interpret his question in the context of the Gospel passage in which Jesus tells his followers to give away their Earthly goods in order to properly follow him.

One must be careful in throwing around Scriptural quotes. Our Lord also rebuked Judas for objecting the “waste” involved in Mary’s lavishing expensive oil to annoint the Lord’s feet.

Look, the Jewish Temple, which only contained the Ark of the Covenant, was richly adorned, the most extravagant edifice in the Jewish nation. Why? To honor the presence of the living God.

Our church buildings hold not a mere parchment, but the Living Son of God Himself in the Blessed Sacrament, and are sacred places where men are reconciled to God, baptized, marriages solemnized. Most importantly, it is the place where the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the most import act in the world, is celebrated.

Our churches rightly reflect the beauty and importance and solemnity of these realities. Our churches are not adorned for our personal vanity, but to honor God and His saints. We should apologize to no one, especially a moral midget like Maher, for adorning our churches.

Coincidentally, while honoring God this way, our Church is the most charitable institution in the history of the world. We know what great saints like Mother Teresa have done. What has Bill Maher done along the same lines?