Pope Francis wants Church to be poor, and for the poor

[mburn16]

So lets assume for a minute that we sell off everything the Vatican has, and accumulate a few billion dollars to give to the poor. We could give each poor person, what, five or six dollars? And what then? You’ve given away everything, have nothing left, and now have no further way to help.

Helping the poor need not, and should not, mean putting the church itself into abject poverty, if for no other reason than this would make it much harder to help.

 

[jwinch2]

So lets assume for a minute that we sell off everything the Vatican has, and accumulate a few billion dollars to give to the poor. We could give each poor person, what, five or six dollars? And what then? You’ve given away everything, have nothing left, and now have no further way to help.

Helping the poor need not, and should not, mean putting the church itself into abject poverty, if for no other reason than this would make it much harder to help.

Bingo. Not to mention that having a gold chalice, etc. has zero to do with anyone in the Church living a life of luxury. Its about giving our best to God.

 

[jwinch2]

I don’t see any ordinary clergy living in luxury. Bishops and high church bureaucracy might be another matter. The art treasures of the Vatican do generate a lot of income from the museums. I have no idea how that money is used. For all I know, it is used to meet basic expenses, and with any surplus to help the poor.

I’m not sure what Francis is referring to. There really isn’t that much fat, when one considers the entire Church and clergy. I suppose anything can be run more efficiently, if it has not been examined closely in a while.

Agreed. I’m sure there are some things here and there which can be done more efficiently or clergy who can set a better example, etc. There is always waste in a large organization, and the Church is the largest in the world. So, if we can cut out that waste and use the savings for good works, let’s get to it. I have zero problem with that. But the implication that we have somehow been ignoring the poor in recent years in such a way that we now need to get back to it is entirely false.

 

[mburn16]

Agreed. I’m sure there are some things here and there which can be done more efficiently or clergy who can set a better example, etc. There is always waste in a large organization, and the Church is the largest in the world. So, if we can cut out that waste and use the savings for good works, let’s get to it. I have zero problem with that. But the implication that we have somehow been ignoring the poor in recent years in such a way that we now need to get back to it is entirely false.

And even if we do need to “get back to it”, the “it” almost certainly includes a time when the Pope (and for that matter, almost every parish) was cloaked in far more splendor than today…

 

[TimothyH]

Totally agree. I have no idea where Pope Francis is going with his personal perception of what “Church poverty” entails.

Christ is at the top of the Church of the Church. Directly below Christ are the poor whom Christ had a special affinity to. Below the poor is the Holy Father, then the priests, then the laity, then at the bottom is the diaconate who serve. That is the structure of Christ’s Church.

St. Francis understood this. St. Francis sold the missal so that he could buy food for the poor who were starving in the street in front of his friary. In so doing, St. Francis was imitating Christ who told the disciples to sell all they had. The poverty to which Christ calls us is real. It is not a willingness to be poor, but actual poverty. Some such as St. Francis are called to this in a radical way.

The Church did not always have wealth, grand buildings and priceless art. Much of the art was donated in the late middle ages. Any grandeur and wealth was localized and much of it was donated by ordinary individuals a few dollars at a time.

My parish has five sets of bells to ring at Mass. We only need one. I wish they would sell four sets and give the money away.

-Tim-

 

[BillyT926]

Christ is at the top of the Church of the Church. Directly below Christ are the poor whom Christ had a special affinity to. Below the poor is the Holy Father, then the priests, then the laity, then at the bottom is the diaconate who serve. That is the structure of Christ’s Church.

St. Francis understood this. St. Francis sold the missal so that he could buy food for the poor who were starving in the street in front of his friary. In so doing, St. Francis was imitating Christ who told the disciples to sell all they had. The poverty to which Christ calls us is real. It is not a willingness to be poor, but actual poverty. Some such as St. Francis are called to this in a radical way.

The Church did not always have wealth, grand buildings and priceless art. Much of the art was donated in the late middle ages. Any grandeur and wealth was localized and much of it was donated by ordinary individuals a few dollars at a time.

My parish has five sets of bells to ring at Mass. We only need one. I wish they would sell four sets and give the money away.

-Tim-

I don’t get the dichotomy. I’m not a traditionalist, but to me, selling all of this seems like selling the precious spikenard. I have an aversion to “either-or” Catholicism. We do both/and

 

[Tampa_Dave]

My parish has five sets of bells to ring at Mass. We only need one. I wish they would sell four sets and give the money away.

I do not want to see individual Church parishes stripping away their bells, shrines, statues, or pews for one-time sales to benefit the poor. Once the money is distributed, it cannot be used to benefit future poor. The same holds true for Vatican treasures. I do welcome the Church renewing it’s focus on serving the poor, perhaps by diverting current expenditures in non-poverty areas to programs designed to alleviate or eradicate poverty. Or, on a worldwide scale, the Church may require parishes to increase community service to the poor through current Church organizations or newly created ones. But I am not in favor of selling off Church assets.

 

[mburn16]

I’d like some basis for this view that it goes Christ —> poor —> Pope → etc. Christ told us to serve the poor, but he told Peter “on this rock I will build my Church.” The foundation of the Earth church, then, are the institutions. In service to the poor, yes…but beneath them?

There are pitfalls in this view of “a poor church for the poor”. Because what happens then when the people are no longer poor? This, after all, has a lot to do with the decline of the faith in the developed world. People grew and progressed and left their poverty behind, and left their faith behind with it. Even “the poor” in the developed world are often seeking luxuries, rather than necessities.

We need a church that serves ALL people, in whatever condition we find them. A church that serves the poor, but that also recognizes the wealthy also have spiritual needs. One that seeks to provide the necessities of life to those who lack them, but that is also accepting of the wealth that accompanies merit in the modern age. Should the church say that men like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs should not have their wealth? But most of all, I think we need a church that reminds us that wealth and poverty are fleeting, and that maintains a central focus on the message of salvation.

This last point, at least, Francis clearly seems to understand.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

I’d like some basis for this view that it goes Christ —> poor —> Pope → etc. Christ told us to serve the poor, but he told Peter “on this rock I will build my Church.” The foundation of the Earth church, then, are the institutions. In service to the poor, yes…but beneath them?

There are pitfalls in this view of “a poor church for the poor”. Because what happens then when the people are no longer poor? This, after all, has a lot to do with the decline of the faith in the developed world. People grew and progressed and left their poverty behind, and left their faith behind with it. Even “the poor” in the developed world are often seeking luxuries, rather than necessities.

We need a church that serves ALL people, in whatever condition we find them. A church that serves the poor, but that also recognizes the wealthy also have spiritual needs. One that seeks to provide the necessities of life to those who lack them, but that is also accepting of the wealth that accompanies merit in the modern age. Should the church say that men like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs should not have their wealth? But most of all, I think we need a church that reminds us that wealth and poverty are fleeting, and that maintains a central focus on the message of salvation.

This last point, at least, Francis clearly seems to understand.

Well said, my friend.

 

[jwinch2]

I’d like some basis for this view that it goes Christ —> poor —> Pope → etc. Christ told us to serve the poor, but he told Peter “on this rock I will build my Church.” The foundation of the Earth church, then, are the institutions. In service to the poor, yes…but beneath them?

There are pitfalls in this view of “a poor church for the poor”. Because what happens then when the people are no longer poor? This, after all, has a lot to do with the decline of the faith in the developed world. People grew and progressed and left their poverty behind, and left their faith behind with it. Even “the poor” in the developed world are often seeking luxuries, rather than necessities.

We need a church that serves ALL people, in whatever condition we find them. A church that serves the poor, but that also recognizes the wealthy also have spiritual needs. One that seeks to provide the necessities of life to those who lack them, but that is also accepting of the wealth that accompanies merit in the modern age. Should the church say that men like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs should not have their wealth? But most of all, I think we need a church that reminds us that wealth and poverty are fleeting, and that maintains a central focus on the message of salvation.

This last point, at least, Francis clearly seems to understand.

Agreed. Material poverty is one thing, but the poor in spirit is another. In fact, working with the monetarily well to do who are spiritually poor is a Franciscan thing (see the work of the Third Order Regular Franciscans for an example). The Church exists for the salvation of souls via making them into saints. Serving the material poor is one aspect that, albeit an important one. Many talk about working for peace also, this is a bit different. There will be peace on Earth only when all souls are aligning their will to Christ. Thus, peace is actually a secondary affect and will only happen when the world is converted to the Church. Working with both the poor in spirit and the poor in wealth is one way to pursue the goal of making saints which will lead to the achievement of peace.

My one concern in all of this is the seeming desire to infiltrate the entire Church with the charism of St. Francis. Its not that I have a problem with Saint Francis, far from it. However, there are many other spiritual traditions in the Church and charisms which go along with them. They are every bit as valid, austere, and august, and the Church needs them just as badly. St. Francis is wonderful, but he isn’t the whole Church. Trying to make the Church into Franciscans is the wrong way to go in my view. Some may be called to that way of life, while others might be called to teaching ala the charism of St. Dominic. Others might be called to contemplative prayer ala St. Benedict. That is just as important and every bit as needed.

Peace of Christ,

 

[ProVobis]

So lets assume for a minute that we sell off everything the Vatican has, and accumulate a few billion dollars to give to the poor. We could give each poor person, what, five or six dollars? And what then? You’ve given away everything, have nothing left, and now have no further way to help.

Helping the poor need not, and should not, mean putting the church itself into abject poverty, if for no other reason than this would make it much harder to help.

Good points. The Church has already sold off tons of land and buildings, though most of this has been done by the bishops. If we keep at this rate, Masses will be said in private homes and (maybe) public lands.

 

[Corki]

You couldn’t be more wrong, and are calumniating the Church (and Bl. Theresa too)

+1

Walk the streets of any city and say this then… the Church does and gives a little and keeps a huge part and lives luxury.

The true glory of God surely is a world where no baby dies of hunger; what use supporting pro-life if like Mother Teresa you let babies die while haveing millions of dollars… and this example is one that applies throughout the Church

Utter hyporisy and smug too.

Here., rather feed a baby than eat richly. So eat simply and give the money. Please God our new Holy Father does this

You have a good intention but are looking at it through a very narrow lens. World-wide, the Church does more to help the poor than any other organization. While your experience seems to be only Ireland, my own is North and South America. I have not known any clergy person here to live in luxury. Parish and diocesan budgets are tight and the social service activities have high priority in the US. In South America, it is even more evident with most clergy and religious living off the kindness and donations of others while serving the poorest of the poor.

Just think a minute, how would the Church go about feeding those babies in your example, if she had no money? The main function of the Church in the modern world, with respect to caring for the poor, is the movement of resources from those who give to those who **need. ** I can eat simply and give the difference to the poor but, frankly, there are not many living in my immediate area who are that desperately in need (some, but not many). How would I get that money I saved to those who really need it? Give it to an organization such as Catholic Charities, that’s how!! Not only can they get the resources where they need to go but have buying power so that my $5 a day (or whatever I save) buys 3 or 4 times as much food and medicine compared to buying it myself and giving it directly to the poor.

If the Church was doing what you accuse her of, she wouldn’t have Catholic Charities locally or internationally. To continue the CC example, in the US, CC has revenue of nearly $5 BILLION a year, with approximately 90% going directly back into programs. How could any individual possible have that power to help the poor without the backing of the Church?

 

[HollyDolly]

He’s not talking about selling any treasures in the Vatican.some of these are very historical and priceless.But I think he means the Church needs to be responsive to the poor and for the bishops and others to live more simply without all the fancy perks and trappings they enjoy.To follow more in the footsteps of the apostles.
This was the complaint back in the Middle Ages among the ordinary people and the heretics. That these bishops and abbots and other clergy lived in luxury etc. yet Jesus and the apostles were poor and went about preaching. Peter Waldo gave away his money and set about preaching .He really didn’t intend to form a new church but be a part of
the existing one.His group,the Waldesians are the only medieval hersey still around.
You had the Cathars whose leaders the Perfects went about in pairs preaching.They also observed poverty and were celibate,this was for both men and women though ordinary believers the Credente were married with families.
St.Francis founded his order at a time when the Cathars were found throughout Southern France and Northern Italy.
One of the reasons the church has sold so much is because of the stupidity of the bishops in covering up the sex abuse scandal and law suits resulting from that.
In Southern France the Cathar perfects were highly thought of becuase they didn’t have fancy trappings and weren’t licentious in their behaviour .Just read Boccacio’s Decameron and Marguerite de Valois’s The Heptamaron to see what I mean,especially Boccacio.
I think his holiness is just saying the church leaders don’t need all these fancy dodads and personal perks.That money could be used to provide job training in home and forgein missions,better housing,etc. for the poor and others.

 

[7armyrugrats]

If we redistributed the wealth so that each person had the exact some amount, it would only last one day. The next day we would still see that some have more, some have less. It is like the Parable where the master gave each of his servants a bag of coins. Some make a huge profit. Others bury the coins to save them. If we added in the others who spend freely…you get the picture. It’s NEVER going to be even. That’s why communism fails.

As far as helping the starving, oppressed, ill of the world, we do what we can. The governments block many humanitarian efforts and allow their citizens to suffer. The UN spends billions on “family planning” while people are turned away as they seek food and medicines. Rooms full of birth control while babies starve or die from preventable diseases because they have no vaccines or formula. Mothers can’t produce breast milk due to malnutrition watch their babies starve and the only thing they are offered is birth control.

This is why I don’t believe the pope or anyone else in the hierarchy would advocate for the type of poor that is material. I honestly believe it must mean the poor that means humble or modest, not proud or self-righteous. We cannot help the impoverished if we too are impoverished, but we also cannot connect with them if we are conceited.

 

[Corki]

I think his holiness is just saying the church leaders don’t need all these fancy dodads and personal perks.That money could be used to provide job training in home and forgein missions,better housing,etc. for the poor and others.

That sounds nice “on paper”. But what “fancy doodads” would you suggest eliminating and how do you think that would help the Church? Most of the personal “perks” (sic) that bishops get don’t come from their own budgets so refusing them wouldn’t free up any money.

 

[ProVobis]

If we redistributed the wealth so that each person had the exact some amount, it would only last one day. The next day we would still see that some have more, some have less. It is like the Parable where the master gave each of his servants a bag of coins. Some make a huge profit. Others bury the coins to save them. If we added in the others who spend freely…you get the picture. It’s NEVER going to be even. That’s why communism fails.

I’m familiar with that parable. Praises those who make wise investments and looks poorly (no pun intended) on those who squander money.

 

[Prieldedi]

Well, St Francis DID sell off goods from his father’s shop and distribute the proceeds of said sale to the poor, much against his father’s will - hence the confrontation between father and son in front of the Bishop - who, from memory, ended up taking Francis’ part rather than his father’s.

How does what he did stand against the Fourth Commandment? He confronted his father. He sold goods that were not his to help the poor, and as I understand, the Catholic Church does not endorse “the end justifies the means”.

 

[Elizabeth502]

what use supporting pro-life if like Mother Teresa you let babies die while haveing millions of dollars… and this example is one that applies throughout the Church

Please elaborate on how Mother Teresa “let babies die.”

Also, are you aware that the elegance of the Vatican is partly “store-front?” That is, on a personal basis, each Pope’s personal apartment, while he has been in office, has been spare. Perhaps not like extreme monasticism, but ascetic nevertheless. This is not the Ritz-Carlton we’re talking about.

 

[JPCheryl]

I find it absolutely fascinating that the idea of poverty and ministry to the poor should solicit such a strong and in some postings, cruel response. These are all 'fighting words." How very far they are from Christ. No wonder this new Pope has taken up this mantel. Clearly a whole bunch of Catholics have forgotten what the Christian message is.

If Christ walked up to you tomorrow morning and told you to give away everything you owned and follow him, would you do it? Could you do it? If not, what does that say?

As to Mother Teresa, I have a personal devotion to her. When you have sat down in the gutter in India or someplace like that and held the head of a filthy, diseased, dying person, then you can criticize her. She went where none of us has gone and most never will go.

I hold out great hope that this new Pope Francis will change our church forever. It is becoming clear to me that it needs to be changed. God sends what is needed.

 

[scipio337]

I find it absolutely fascinating that the idea of poverty and ministry to the poor should solicit such a strong and in some postings, cruel response. These are all 'fighting words." How very far they are from Christ. No wonder this new Pope has taken up this mantel. Clearly a whole bunch of Catholics have forgotten what the Christian message is.

If Christ walked up to you tomorrow morning and told you to give away everything you owned and follow him, would you do it? Could you do it? If not, what does that say?

As to Mother Teresa, I have a personal devotion to her. When you have sat down in the gutter in India or someplace like that and held the head of a filthy, diseased, dying person, then you can criticize her. She went where none of us has gone and most never will go.

I hold out great hope that this new Pope Francis will change our church forever. It is becoming clear to me that it needs to be changed. God sends what is needed.

What would you say needs to be “changed”? There are many who talk of “change” which would result in the Church no longer being Catholic.