G
Gusty
Guest
why does the vatican not give all its riches to the poor?
- Status
S
SuscipeMeDomine
Guest
I’m not sure what “riches” you have in mind. Should they sell artworks like the Pieta or the Sistine Chapel to private collectors rather than keeping them available for common people to see?
In any case, this is a question that’s come up before. Perhaps you will find information of interest in these threads:
Vatican Art Collection
Vatican Budget
Catholic Charities and Vatican “Riches”
Is the Pope/Vatican Rich?
In any case, this is a question that’s come up before. Perhaps you will find information of interest in these threads:
Vatican Art Collection
Vatican Budget
Catholic Charities and Vatican “Riches”
Is the Pope/Vatican Rich?
L
lil_flower_luv
Guest
Jesus deserves the best!
R
royal_archer
Guest
Can you elaborate on what “riches” you are talking about? Other wise, I presume you are talking about some of the artistic items which were donated to the church because it is not like the church is hording money and jewels the way protestants accuse us of.
There is room for an honnest discussion of what to do with challices, candlesticks, and other ornate items used in the mass. I believe that some of these things have a level of workmanship material and beauty that far exceeds the pragmatic need. However, it would be an insult to the donators to pawn the items that they contributed.
M
mapleoak
Guest
Because it would be rather foolish to do so.
R
Roman_Army
Guest
Why does not Gusty sell his/her computer, car, furniture, jewelry, tv’s, radio, appliances, art work, etc. and give the proceeds to the local homeless shelter or food bank? I know that’s what St. Francis, a Catholic Saint, would probably do.
God desires the best of our fruits as a sacrifice to him in our worship of him, as was the case in the Old Testament, and the case in the New.
"3 Mary therefore took a pound of ointment of right spikenard, of great price, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. 4 Then one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, he that was about to betray him, said: 5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence and given to the poor? 6 Now he said this not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief and, having the purse, carried the things that were put therein. 7 Jesus therefore said: Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of my burial. 8 For the poor you have always with you: but me you have not always." (John 12:3-8 D-RB)
T
totallylost
Guest
This leads me to another question. If rich businessman sells everything, he will have nothing left to generate more income. Say, he has $100 in his hand. His business income is $50 every year. If he give all to the poor all at once, he got nothing to generate his income, and will not be able to give more than $100. What do you think?
R
royal_archer
Guest
The same goes for Bill Gates and owners of hospitals. Their wealth is better used as an investment that produces products and services that make our lives better than it would be used if just given to enable the nonworking. But when talking about these people we only hear about their net worth as if they have all of the money stashed under their mattresses. In reality most of their wealth is tied up in institutions that make our lives better.
S
Sagefrakrobatik
Guest
Srry but i think you are giving the rich more credit for being benevolent than is really there. Yes the Melinda Gates foundation is truelly impressive…but I would not doubt that a majority of millionaires and billinonaires get caught up in creed. The only reason why they may give is for PR purposes.
R
royal_archer
Guest
I was not referring to charity. I was referring to the good done by having that money invested in businesses that offer jobs, goods, and services that make life better for all.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
There is an old addage that goes something like this:
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach the man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime.
Helping the poor is a good thing, but simply throwing money at the issue doesn’t solve anything.
We need to give of ourselves. Help people out of poverty by teaching them, and giving them the proper tools to survive and excel.
Anyone can give money to a cause, but can everyone give of themselves?
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach the man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime.
Helping the poor is a good thing, but simply throwing money at the issue doesn’t solve anything.
We need to give of ourselves. Help people out of poverty by teaching them, and giving them the proper tools to survive and excel.
Anyone can give money to a cause, but can everyone give of themselves?
S
Sagefrakrobatik
Guest
That is true but also going with that people have to be given a living wage. Under a purely capitalist society there would be not real motive, outside of pure altruism, to give people higher wages. Besides, limiting the concentration of wealth to a few not only harms the poor but it harms the economy in general because it means less people are able to participate in the market place.
I know this from personal experience working at dead end jobs like Target and Burger King. At Target we are asked to become more “efficient” In other words to completly unload and stock a 2000 piece truck around the same time we have to unload and stock a 1500 piece truck. We are suppose to motivate but by what? A “generous” 15-25 cent raise yearly, or the recongnition that we did a “good Job” by simply working fast enough to cut open boxes and put merchandise on the shelf?
Basically the moto is “work faster so we dont get in trouble for having too many hours on the truck.” What would be the positive incentive for me to work faster? One negative incentive is that I would be fired. But lets face it the faster I work the less money I will get.
Srry for the long diatribe but i thought i would put my 3 and half cents in.
R
royal_archer
Guest
Altruism and charity are integral parts of the capitalist society. However the real reason people get higher wages is because of competition. Companies are always competing for the best workers. Unfortunately you are competing against workers in China who are satisfied with a very low wage.
First no one is artificially concentrating the wealth to a few. Those who gain control of that wealth usually do so through providing goods and services more efficiently than others. When the control of that wealth is artificially moved from those who earned it to those who did not, it normally gets squandered away in short order. This can be seen in cases of people inheriting millions or winning it through the lottery only to become broke again a few years later. People like Bill Gates and Sam Walton have shown themselves to be good stewards of the wealth they controlled.
One of the basic laws of management is that pay does not motivate and raises only motivate for a very short period of time. Besides I know people who make nearly six digit salaries who also complain about being in dead end jobs. By the way if you do not do your job efficiently enough at target your prices will go up and you will loose business to Walmart. Keep doing that long enough and Target won’t be able to give you a job. I worked at Kmart along time ago and know how hard it can be. It was a great job to get some early experience and extra money but working on the floor is not a way to earn a living long term. The important thing is to work your way out of that job into a better one. Any one can do it if they are willing to but so many people are not willing to make the effort.
That is the union mentality that is ruining the industrial base in this country. Worse it is ruining otherwise good workers. Its been a few years since I was in management but when I was hiring people I would not hire or promote anyone with such an attitude. I would bring in people with a more aggressive approach to their work, those who took on workplace challenges like sports enthusiast take on the challenges of their endeavors; even if they were less qualified. If someone has a good attitude and the basic aptitude you can train them. If they don’t have the attitude, it doesn’t matter what skills they have.
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
As a Catholic I feel the Pope should be centred in humble accommodation in Jerusalem, and the Vatican should be sold off totally for the benefit of the poor.
From everything I have read about Jesus, I could not imagine Jesus living in the Vatican, if he was here on Earth today. Just my thoughts.
Peace,
Eric
From everything I have read about Jesus, I could not imagine Jesus living in the Vatican, if he was here on Earth today. Just my thoughts.
Peace,
Eric
R
royal_archer
Guest
Do you realize that the vatican is actually a separate country? There are a lot more people living their than just the pope. Do you also feel we should sell DC and force Obama to work out of his privately owned home?
R
rtconstant
Guest
Competition between companies really doesn’t raise salaries for workers. As jobs are increasingly sent to sweat shops. Salaries are basically arbitrary, and in the currently climate, the worker really has to settle for what is available, and be glad he was lucky enough to get that.
It may be a basic law of management but it isn’t a law recognized by people who work for a living. Basically all your saying here is “shut up and work, because whatever you’re making is better than zero.” Which, does seem to be the basic law of management now that I think about it. Obviously one wants to move out of dead end jobs, but even as businesses make more and more profit that becomes less and less of an option. Because simply put, there is a slave shop somewhere that will do it for less.
Well, yeah that is basic management verses worker mentality. As a manager it is your job to get the most out of your worker for the least pay. So it would make sense that you wouldn’t want to hire someone who isn’t going to struggle for compensation. This is the mentality that is ruining the industrial base. Workers eventually realize that when you work hard and efficiently you have only raised the minimal expectation for yourself. You’re pay will not be increased in recognition of your effort, but expectations will increase. Therefore every worker eventually realizes that they only hurt themselves with effort. So then it becomes standard to try and swing to a bare minimum. Those of us who can’t do that, only become more bitter and disenfranchised from our companies.
R
royal_archer
Guest
Hmmm, then why did my current employer pay me more to leave my former employer? If companies did not have to compete for the better workers, everyone would be making minimum wage. If your attitude on the job is I am going to settle for what is available, you will not move up the ladder very fast. That is because there are others around you with the attitude of “I’m worth more than I’m making and I am going to prove it.” These are the people that companies will fight for.
Obviously it is. That is why people settle for low paying jobs, they are not motivated to work their way up to higher paying jobs.
What I am saying is you must be satisfied with your wages if you show up in the morning. On top of that, from experience I know techniques to get people to work harder during the day that are much more effective than raises.
Do you buy imported items? If so, you are choosing the workers at those sweat shops over American workers. So unless everything you buy is American made, you are doing the exact same thing as the employers are doing.
I tell all my new employees that if they are still working for me in this same job after three years there is something wrong. They should be able to work their way up to a promotion in that amount of time. I worked hard to get them opportunities and in return they worked hard to prove themselves and support me. Within two years they all had promotions, our project was finished and I worked myself out of a job which led to a promotion for me.
That is true in a union or other environment where salaries are based on some union contract, not performance. In the salary and other competitive pay realms your pay is very closely tied with performance.
If you don’t feel your manager is a good manager who will take care of you, find a new job. There are plenty great jobs out there for those who are willing to work.
Well, yeah that is basic management verses worker mentality. As a manager it is your job to get the most out of your worker for the least pay. So it would make sense that you wouldn’t want to hire someone who isn’t going to struggle for compensation. This is the mentality that is ruining the industrial base. Workers eventually realize that when you work hard and efficiently you have only raised the minimal expectation for yourself. You’re pay will not be increased in recognition of your effort, but expectations will increase. Therefore every worker eventually realizes that they only hurt themselves with effort. So then it becomes standard to try and swing to a bare minimum. Those of us who can’t do that, only become more bitter and disenfranchised from our companies.
R
rtconstant
Guest
Companies don’t have to compete because, there are plenty of workers out there for the jobs. Companies can pretty much take there pick and have left overs. Its been that way for awhile. Now, there may be instances where individual managers are looking for really good team members. But as a whole, the competition is for the position, not the other way around.
I’m sure that outlook makes some feel pretty good about themselves. It kind of reminds me of the old “Luck and Pluck” stories. It also might be the basis of the modern Health, Wealth and Prosperity Gospel that is so popular.
Most managers feel that way. Now don’t get me wrong there are other types of motivation. But when the rubber hits the road, there is one very good way to show recognition of effort. Effort though is a four letter word in the modern corporate structure. The modern manager is about outcome not effort. If the desired outcome is not achieved then it doesn’t matter who put in what effort. In fact the one who usually gives the most effort is usually the one that blame will fall on. After all his/her effort displays “professional competency” which means that he/she should have known to motivate all of those who weren’t putting forth effort. It certainly isn’t the responsibility of the management to manage their resources. It’s the responsibility of their experts to do it.
Two wrongs make a right gotcha. Also there is a difference, the companies in question don’t actually need to be saving the amount of money that they are. While the average worker’s salary has been steadily decreasing over the years, many companies are booming. Truth is they could take significant hits to profit and still come out pretty well, while increasing quality, research, and the quality of life of their employees.
Sense you asked I do try to avoid products made in certain countries. It is hard though, they are quickly absorbing more of the share of the market. I’m sure though that companies are completely blameless for this, and are in fact victims.
Now I realize you think that is good. To me though that is a sad statement. There was a time when loyalty was appreciated. But this is all just a sign of the current mercenary approach to business. Everyman for himself.
That’s great.
No, its usually based on MJO’s or some other arbitrary construct, which is is more or less used to create reasons, to discount effort, or to make it appear as less. Effort is the concern of the worker, budgets and investors are the concern of management. In the end most people make a pre-determined, “cost of living” increase if they have performed above expectations, and the truly exceptional may make an additional percent possibly two more.
Well, if it were really all that different at any other place, then that might be a really good idea. And certainly some companies are better than others. But in the corporate world there usually isn’t that much of a difference in the culture. You are right though, its well known that the only way to gain better compensation is to get another job. As workers who are within a company seldom see any movement in their benefits or salary.
P
perfectpeach
Guest
Putting more money into the system will not solve the world hunger crisis. There is a lot more to it than that…
B
Brendan
Guest
First of all, the “Vatican”, namely the Holy See, does not actually own most of the artwork. It has longsince been donated to the Vatican Museum, which is a seperate legal entity. The relationship is very similar to that of the Federal Government and the Smithsonian institute. Which is why Obama isn’t selling the Hope diamond to finance Health Care reform.
Of course, the Church still does on buildings like St. Peters, but who should it really sell it to, may sell it to the Ritz Carlton chain so they can make a hotel out of it?
But it does have a responsibility to pass on such historical architectural wonders to future generations.
Which is also probably why Obama isn’t selling the Washington Mall to, well Mall devlopers, or selling naming rights to the Washington monument ("Welcome the “FedEx Washington Monument”, please watch your step) , or selling the Yellowstone hotsprings to spa developers, all in the name of aid to the poor.
Of course, the Church still does on buildings like St. Peters, but who should it really sell it to, may sell it to the Ritz Carlton chain so they can make a hotel out of it?
But it does have a responsibility to pass on such historical architectural wonders to future generations.
Which is also probably why Obama isn’t selling the Washington Mall to, well Mall devlopers, or selling naming rights to the Washington monument ("Welcome the “FedEx Washington Monument”, please watch your step) , or selling the Yellowstone hotsprings to spa developers, all in the name of aid to the poor.
- Status