How do I respond to this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fredmack2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
fredmack2 said:
View attachment 18041
Click to expand...
  1. The Holy Father’s throne is actually wood with a thin layer of gold over it (I’m pretty sure the Queen’s is too). Not worth much.
  2. Odd that someone who has sold everything and given it away is able to create a meme and post it online.
  3. The passage they quote is being taken out of context.
 
I agree 100% with the above poster, but I also want to add that it’s incredibly ironic how many people overlook the fact that the Catholic Church is one of the most charitable organizations in the world.
 
This is a valid question and I struggle with it myself. It’s tricky to understand/help someone else understand.
 
Someone helped me a lot with this matter! Why rich people don’t sell everything they have and give it to the poor?

First of all, while on earth, Jesus himself didn’t abolish poverty, and He is the Son of God, He can do everything. He said that poor people will always be with us. That doesn’t mean of course that we don’t have to help them when we have the possibility, but, in my opinion, those who have honestly gained their fortune should not feel obliged to renounce to EVERYTHING they have for the sake of those who don’t have a lot.

Second, regarding the Church. His richness is justified because she is the Bride of Christ, she has to be beautiful and show to the world it’s divine origin. When a poor enters a somptuous Cathedral, he feels what a great gift is to be the son of God, because the richness of the church, of the vestments, the beauty and the solemnity of the Mass, everything is a symbol of the infinite beauty of the Lord.
 
AlTheCollegeGal said:
I agree 100% with the above poster, but I also want to add that it’s incredibly ironic how many people overlook the fact that the Catholic Church is one of the most charitable organizations in the world.
Click to expand...
👍

If the Church sold everything it had and gave it all to charity, they could sustain their current efforts for maybe a year at most. On the other hand, if they maintain it in its current condition, and continue to donate the majority of profits from the tourism it generates to charity, then it can continue at it’s current rate indefinitely.

People who post stuff like that have an exceptionally limited understanding of economics and don’t realize the amount of money tourists in the Vatican City generate for the poor.

My advice, ignore it. If facebook is any indication you can no longer cure ignorance with facts and information.
 
Think about it: if everyone followed that literally, one wouldn’t be able to sell their things because everyone ELSE would be selling their things, too, and no one would be buying anything. It’s exaggeration to make a point.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
👍

If the Church sold everything it had and gave it all to charity, they could sustain their current efforts for maybe a year at most. On the other hand, if they maintain it in its current condition, and continue to donate the majority of profits from the tourism it generates to charity, then it can continue at it’s current rate indefinitely.

People who post stuff like that have an exceptionally limited understanding of economics and don’t realize the amount of money tourists in the Vatican City generate for the poor.

My advice, ignore it. If facebook is any indication you can no longer cure ignorance with facts and information.
Click to expand...
Exactly, the catholic church is one of the biggest organizations that help to feed the poor in the world. The church is growing fast in Africa and between many things is because of many priests working hard to feed the poor. Also the church works on donations. If there are poor people.still is because lay people.are not donating enough. I would answer: If.you want to help the poor.instead of.post useless things on FB, go and donate to your local st Vincent de Paul society so they can have more resources to fight poverty.
 
SurlyMermaid said:
This is a valid question and I struggle with it myself. It’s tricky to understand/help someone else understand.
Click to expand...
All the art and beautiful vessels of the Catholic Church are the world’s heritage which the Church holds and cares for. Everything at the Vatican needs to be maintained and it costs a lot. The Church is not rich in money but it does have some valuable things. And what would happen to all the things people can enjoy for a small fee if it were all sold to private collectors? Would they in turn sell it all to help the poor? And why should beauty be a bad thing? Isn’t the world filled with enough ugliness without robbing ordinary people of the joy of being able to enter a beautiful church and see wonderful works of art?

We humans need beauty as much as we need bread. It’s usually the poorest countries that have the most beautiful churches because the people wanted them so. As Oscar Wilde once observed, “Americans know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.” When I see posts that make it seem like those who live in the midst of beauty ought give it up when it’s the governments of poor countries that keep their people poor, not the Queen of England or the Pope, I really have to wonder how well their brains are screwed in.
 
3 Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment. 4* But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was to betray him), said, 5 “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii * and given to the poor?” 6* This he said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it.
Click to expand...
John 12:3-6
 
Though I frequently use John 12:3-6 as a defense for giving glory to God in such a ways, the only thing I am confused about is this:
…you will not always have me.

So… do we not have Jesus anymore and is it therefore not right to lavish things upon Him? Or do we still have him and the quote is incorrect… or… what?

I just know one day someone will bust that out on me (Jesus said it was okay because you wouldn’t always have him, so what are you doing today with these things you donate for the glory of God?) and I won’t really know how to answer them.
 
SighGuy said:
Though I frequently use John 12:3-6 as a defense for giving glory to God in such a ways, the only thing I am confused about is this:
…you will not always have me.

So… do we not have Jesus anymore and is it therefore not right to lavish things upon Him? Or do we still have him and the quote is incorrect… or… what?

I just know one day someone will bust that out on me (Jesus said it was okay because you wouldn’t always have him, so what are you doing today with these things you donate for the glory of God?) and I won’t really know how to answer them.
Click to expand...
He only meant that he wouldn’t be physically visible in human form once he’d returned to heaven. But, of course, he is with us in the Eucharist, which is why our churches are made to glorify him–present in the Sacrament of the Altar. The whole focus of any church is the altar because that is where Christ is made present among us. So, there is nothing wrong with decorating our churches with beautiful artworks. They give glory to God as the work of our hands and hearts, time, talent, and treasure.
 
Some thoughts. The first thing that came to mind is the “tent of meeting” in Exodus. It was a traveling temple that was incredibly ornate. At today’s metal prices, it would be worth several millions of dollars and it was a tent. God wants his people to sacrifice when making a place of worship. There is nothing to defend, that’s what he wants. He made it so the Israelites not only survived but actually lived well while living in the desert. All this while turning their money into ornaments that glorified him and killing their animals in sacrifice.

It’s just a dig at the COE and CC. You’re not talking about anyone that is trying to raise money for the poor. Whomever made this did it to make two different churches look bad. The great commission was not, “Go ye therefore, criticizing churches you do not like.”

To those that struggle with this issue, there are some great answers here. While I’m business minded, I’ve never been to the Vatican and didn’t think about how much the church takes in from tourists. That is a huge point. Thanks to ProdglArchitect for making that point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top