Riches of the church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Samoana90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Samoana90

Guest
I’ve grown up in the Church, and have met many bishops, priests and religious. One thing I’ve noticed is the ammount of money these people have (especially the ones who claim to take a vow of poverty.)

Now make whatever excuse you may want, but doesn’t Jesus say to sell all you have and give it to the poor?

All the bishops I know live in practically what you would call a small mansion with their own servants. They all eat in expensive restaurants and spend far too much money on their vestments. And why do we spend so much money on earthly things? Didn’t John Chrysostom say something about having golden souls, not golden chalices? It makes me sad to see our bishops living like this. And our holy father lives in his own country? why don’t we sell all these things and give them to the poor? love is far more important than human traditions, or human art…
 
Samoana90 said:
I’ve grown up in the Church, and have met many bishops, priests and religious. One thing I’ve noticed is the ammount of money these people have (especially the ones who claim to take a vow of poverty.)
Click to expand...
amazing that you have access to their private bank accounts, and know these facts about each and every clergyman of your acquaintance, which is how large a sample? covering how extensive an area?
Now make whatever excuse you may want, but doesn’t Jesus say to sell all you have and give it to the poor?
Click to expand...
he says it only to specific persons, such as the rich young man. You yourself of course, since you adhere to this as a general preaching, have already done so.

All
the bishops I know live in practically what you would call a small mansion with their own servants. They all eat in expensive restaurants and spend far too much money on their vestments. And why do we spend so much money on earthly things? Didn’t John Chrysostom say something about having golden souls, not golden chalices? It makes me sad to see our bishops living like this. And our holy father lives in his own country? why don’t we sell all these things and give them to the poor? love is far more important than human traditions, or human art…
Click to expand...
and how many bishops is that?
all the bishops I know live in aparments in a seminary or college, or in modest tract homes similar to their surrounding area, or if they live in a large home or mansion, confine themselves to a small suite with a bedroom and office, and the rest of the building is residence for other priests or seminarians, or houses diocesan office, a wise use of buildings often donated in another era. They all either cook their own simple meals, or have the same household help that corresponds to the area in which they reside. Naturally a large building needs a maintenance and housekeeping staff, especially if there are several residents, and the bishops I know who live that way give preference to giving those jobs to those who really need them. Any priest or bishop I know who dines out does so as the guest of someone else, or as part of a legitimate function such as fund-raising for a hospital, seminary, or pregnancy center.

The vestments and chalices, btw, are to honor Christ because the priest in exercising these functions is in personal Christi, in the person of Christ. You think those things are too good for our Lord and Savior, who also said, the poor you have always with you, but I am only with you for a little while.

The Pope does not “have” a country any more than Obama or Queen Elizabeth “have” their own country. He is a head of state. He resides in simple apartments in old buildings that also provide homes for hundreds of others who do the work of administration of the Church–a charism praised by Saint Paul as necessary and blessed.
 
Sounds to me like a little resentment is inserted here. What purpose is achieved by begrudging a priest or his dwelling? The 10 Commandments also come readily to mind, #10 specifically: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods. Another quote that comes to mind is: “What good does it a profit a person to gain the whole world, and lose his soul?”

The Catholic Church is one of the largest groups in the world. It has several facets. As an organization, there is hierarchy and order; rightly so. As a business running many smaller businesses (dioceses and parishes), things will vary from place to place and church to church. Mismanagement does and will occur, just like in any other group, organization or business. It really depends on the people immediately in charge.

The one thing we must be very careful about is judging and misjudging our brothers and sisters. Discernment must be part of the process, to be distinguished from personal interpretation. Riches in and of themselves aren’t bad. However, when they are used for destructive purposes or as an instrument to sin against God and man, then there might be a problem.

For the most part, I find the Catholic Church stands by the true faith given to us by Jesus. There are a few rogue priests and leaders in the world, true. However, there are many more good and honest priests who shrink at the thought of what rogue priests do, as much and more so than you or I, for these are among their own ranks.

Great way to enjoy my morning coffee:) So glad I found these forums:thumbsup:

Teresa
M. J. Joachim on Catholic Catechism and More
 
Yes, I guess that explains why so many young men are flocking to the priesthood, the money, the fancy clothes, the fine dining…

Priests in general are payed a paltry sum. Bishops are well paid comparable to the average salary but not comparable to their position.

You should also consider that the life of a Bishop is not his own. He has no free time to enjoy his so called wealth. Do you think a Bishop can go on vacation for a couple of weeks and just relax? Read the paper, casual breakfast, perhaps go fishing in a rowboat? Take a nap in a backyard hammock?
 
My understanding is that diocesan priests do not take vows of poverty. Only religious priests (ordered priests) take vows of poverty.

Having said that, many of the diocesan priests I know live very frugally and give very generously to the poor.

Our pastor, who is a diocesan priest, drives an expensive car, has a full time cook and travels extensively and far away on several big vacation trips a year. I don’t begrudge him that but I can see how it might raise the eyebrows (or envy level) of some.

In our diocese and the neighboring one, the bishops do indeed live in mansions, but as posted before, how much of the mansion they actually occupy, I do not know.

The bottom line is, just like the unordained, the ordained all have strengths and weaknesses and their own charisms. No one is perfect or does all things well.

Many of the riches of the church came out of the period of Constantine who made Christianity legal for the first time-because of the blur between church and state in his time, many of the church buildings were imperial in nature.

Also, after the time of Constantine, there was a lot written to parallel the art and architecture with a renewal of spirit or souls through baptism.

We are human and our senses play an important role in how we live out our life. This applies to religion as well. Our sacraments are a VISIBLE sign of an invisible grace instituted by Christ. Our sacramentals help us engage the senses as well. So it follows that this would apply to the art and architecture seen in the church.

I would think as a Christian coming out of a period of persecution, to see that my faith was not only endorsed by the emporer, but now worship space was given a sense of honor, grandeur and respect, would be very reassuring.

Do I wish we would simplify in modern times? Yes, absolutely. But I choose to concentrate on the religious and clergy who give so much of themselves and to the poor.
 
Samoana90 said:
I’ve grown up in the Church, and have met many bishops, priests and religious. One thing I’ve noticed is the ammount of money these people have (especially the ones who claim to take a vow of poverty.)

Now make whatever excuse you may want, but doesn’t Jesus say to sell all you have and give it to the poor?

All the bishops I know live in practically what you would call a small mansion with their own servants. They all eat in expensive restaurants and spend far too much money on their vestments. And why do we spend so much money on earthly things? Didn’t John Chrysostom say something about having golden souls, not golden chalices? It makes me sad to see our bishops living like this. And our holy father lives in his own country? why don’t we sell all these things and give them to the poor? love is far more important than human traditions, or human art…
Click to expand...
Matthew 26: 11 For you will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.
**Mark 14: 7 ** For you will always have the poor with you, and you can do good for them whenever you want. But you will not always have me.
John 12: 8 For you always have the poor with you, but you don’t always have me.

Let’s pretend for a moment, we sell all the priceless treasures in the Vatican and give the money to the poor.

All the countless millions of people who can now enjoy these treasures will be denied that experience because they will end up in the hands of private collectors.

After the money has been spent on food, clothes and healthcare, then what?

As it stands now, the Catholic Church is and has been the largest charitable organization in the world. We are feeding, clothing and nursing the poor.
 
I was in seminary at one point in my life. And whilst it is true that there are many religious and priests that live frugally, there are a lot who are living too lavishly. It’s scandalous. We spend far too much money on the up keeping of large properties. And why are the cardinals driven around by chauffeurs in their BMW’s or Mercedes Benz? I am simply comparing their lifestyles to those of the early Christians.

As John Chrysostom said, ‘golden souls, not golden chalices.’
 
“He resides in simple apartments in old buildings that also provide homes for hundreds of others who do the work of administration of the Church–a charism praised by Saint Paul as necessary and blessed.”

I would hardly call the Apostolic Palace a simple apartment or old building. They all have their own cooks, servants and secretaries. And then most cardinals have a chauffeur. I don’t think there were any early popes or bishops with these things.
 
Money is morally neutral. I agree. But whilst Jesus was directing his command to ‘give money to the poor…’ at one person, when he gave his whole, ‘take nothing for the journey,’ speech, he was talking to all the apostles.
 
Samoana90 said:
I’ve grown up in the Church, and have met many bishops, priests and religious. One thing I’ve noticed is the ammount of money these people have (especially the ones who claim to take a vow of poverty.)

Now make whatever excuse you may want, but doesn’t Jesus say to sell all you have and give it to the poor?

All the bishops I know live in practically what you would call a small mansion with their own servants. They all eat in expensive restaurants and spend far too much money on their vestments. And why do we spend so much money on earthly things? Didn’t John Chrysostom say something about having golden souls, not golden chalices? It makes me sad to see our bishops living like this. And our holy father lives in his own country? why don’t we sell all these things and give them to the poor? love is far more important than human traditions, or human art…
Click to expand...
Your charges are preposterous.
**You CAN’T compare the Church of today with the Early Church. The early Christians were either on the run or had to worship in secret. **
YOU** have the freedom to worship as you wish. The Pope’s office today MUST deal with the world on a much different level than the early Popes. The same goes for the Bishops, many of who live in large metropolitan areas.**
The fact is that the Vatican, which runs a Church of over a billion people, operates on an annual budget about the size of the City of Chicago.
As for the Vatican being it’s own country – that was for reasons of liberty – of not being subject to another country so that the Gospel message could be spread.
Do your homework before you lash out against these servants of God.
 
You ignorant ****. I have done my homework. I am saying that bishops being chauffeured around in BMW’s and Mercedes Benz is absolutely scandalous. Cardinals paying for a large number of people to dine in the finest Italian restaurant is preposterous. Bishops having their own servants is absurd. How do I know this? I was in seminary not so long ago, and I became very sick with the way these people were living. In fact I was a member of a religious order that is supposedly living the Gospel in simplicity and poverty, when in fact every day, I lived far better than my relatives back home. So before you act like you know anything about the finances of the Catholic Church, why don’t you do your own homework.

Now, I am not saying every bishop and priest does this. There are many living frugally, especially in missionary countries. But if the church wants to start bringing people back to the Gospel, her members need to act like they believe in the bloody thing. Not just by their lip service, or lengthy articles that the simple can’t understand, but by the way her members live. Not a select few, but all of them.
 
Would you please reply to what I actually posted, instead of concentrating on your presentation (font, emoticons etc.)
 
Samoana90 said:
I’ve grown up in the Church, and have met many bishops, priests and religious. One thing I’ve noticed is the ammount of money these people have (especially the ones who claim to take a vow of poverty.)

Now make whatever excuse you may want, but doesn’t Jesus say to sell all you have and give it to the poor?

All the bishops I know live in practically what you would call a small mansion with their own servants. They all eat in expensive restaurants and spend far too much money on their vestments. And why do we spend so much money on earthly things? Didn’t John Chrysostom say something about having golden souls, not golden chalices? It makes me sad to see our bishops living like this. And our holy father lives in his own country? why don’t we sell all these things and give them to the poor? love is far more important than human traditions, or human art…
Click to expand...
You are probably not aware that part of the reason that the Vatican is it’s own country is separation of Church and state. During the 1300s, the papacy was forced to move to French city of Avignon, where it was dominated from 1309-1377. This period saw some of the worst papal corruption, because the hierarchy was unduly influenced by the French government. Then, when the pope moved back to Rome, this sparked the “Great Schism”, where first two, and then three popes claimed to be in office at the same time. This huge amount of corruption directly led to the crisis of the Protestant Reformation. Vatican City is the smallest country in the world, but it is JUST large enough to be independent from the control of a foreign government and prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again.

As to your point about the Vatican being rich, the Jewish Temple WAS fabulously adorned inside, and despite admonishing the moneychangers and many hypocritical pharisees, Jesus DID worship there, according to the Law, as any other Jew. His problem was NOT with the style of worship or the extravagance of the Temple. In fact, we know what Jesus would have thought about the extravagance of the Church, since he actually gave an answer:

Matthew 26:6-13
Now when Jesus was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper,
a woman came up to him with an alabaster jar of costly perfumed oil, and poured it on his head while he was reclining at table.
When the disciples saw this, they were indignant and said, “Why this waste?
It could have been sold for much, and the money given to the poor.”
Since Jesus knew this, he said to them, “Why do you make trouble for the woman? She has done a good thing for me.
The poor you will always have with you; but you will not always have me.
In pouring this perfumed oil upon my body, she did it to prepare me for burial.
Amen, I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be spoken of, in memory of her.”

Jesus is clearly saying that we will ALWAYS have the poor. Donating some money to have nice buildings to worship in for the glory of the Lord is NOT a sin! You must also consider that since Catholics (and the Orthodox) believe in the Real Presence, we believe that Holy Communion is, in fact, the ACTUAL Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ Himself, in the flesh (and not in just some spiritual sense). Therefore, Catholics and the Orthodox believe that Jesus is PHYSICALLY present in our churches, in person.

continued…
 
  1. The Catholic Church always has been, and remains, the largest charitable organization on the planet, by a wide amount. Much of the Vatican’s wealth has been donated to it by the great artists of the world for the glorification of God. Even that art which has been commissioned by the Vatican was still done for the glorification of God, because as Christians, we realize that the things of this Earth are fleeting. We give our best to God, but in the end, money doesn’t really mean anything. It’s our relationship with God. Jesus is saying in the passage from Matthew above that one can honor God with fine things AND help the poor at the same time.
  2. The people actually living at the Vatican are not living a magnificent lifestyle. In fact, the pope’s apartment is quite modest. It consists of just ten rooms. The layout includes a vestibule, the library, a small studio for the papal secretary, and the pope’s private studio, from which he blesses the crowd every Sunday. The other rooms include the pope’s bedroom, the medical studio (which has surgical equipment, in case he’s attacked, just like Air Force One has), his private chapel, a small living room, a dining room and kitchen. Further, the pope does not actually own any of this. It’s no different than asking the question of whether the President of the United States lives in too much opulence because he gets to use the White House, Air Force One, Marine One, Camp David, and so on. All of these things serve a purpose, and NONE belong to him. They belong to the people, which let him use it.
  3. The Vatican also serves as a museum for many of the world’s great treasures. As such, it protects them in museums. In reality, these objects have no objective value, because they cannot be sold. For example, let’s say the Vatican was to give up all of it’s wealth. How, precisely, would you sell off the Sistine Chapel? Is there really anything else you can do with it? You can’t give it to a private collector, or build a Starbucks, or something. That said, let’s do an experiment. Let’s say that the art that it WOULD be possible to sell at the Vatican is worth, say, a trillion dollars. That would indeed be a large sum of money. Now, let’s sell it all and donate the money to the poorest one-third of the world. The Catholic Church would then be able to give those two billion people exactly… $500. That’s it! Now, while the average income of those 2 billion impoverished people is around $300 per year, and while this would help them for a very short time, in about a half a decade, they would all likely go right back to being poor, and the world would have lost access to many of the world’s greatest treasures, as they’d be in private hands. Is the United States of America fabulously wealthy because it has the treasures of the Smithsonian Institution? I mean, wouldn’t it be better if they sold off all of those artifacts and donated the money to the poor? Of course not.
continued…
 
  1. You must also remember that while Vatican City is an independent nation, most tiny countries like Monaco, Luxembourg, and Lichtenstein are far wealthier due to their tremendous banking industries, and they are comparable in size… Granted, the Vatican is probably slightly more wealthy than Andorra, and I’ll grant that it is definitely more wealthy than San Marino. That said, even many tiny Caribbean nations are wealthier than the Vatican. In fact, it operates on a budget smaller than Harvard University. It simply happens to have an abnormally large amount of museums.
You also must remember that the Vatican has only been a tiny principality since around 1860. Before then, the Vatican was part of the “Papal States”, which was a fairly substantial nation, consisting of much of the middle of Italy. It was probably larger and wealthier than Belgium, The Netherlands, and Luxembourg put together. Much of what remains was inherited from this much larger, more substantial state. It could never afford to build such buildings today.

This is typical of all European nations. For example, the French government did an investigation into insuring the palace of Versailles a few years back, as it is such an important national heritage site. After various insurance agents looked at it, they determined that Versailles is uninsurable, and it’s value is $0. Why? Simply put, if anything were to happen to the palace, it would be irreplaceable. The building is so expensive, that if even a fraction of it were to be destroyed, it would be impossible to replicate without bankrupting the whole of France. Now, does this mean that France is irresponsibly wealthy? Not at all. It’s simply a part of it’s cultural heritage. ALL relatively old countries have this problem. It has nothing to do with the Vatican per se.
  1. The Vatican, like many great churches, dates to the late Middle Ages / early Renaissance. A cathedral was actually one of the BEST investments a medieval town could make. Despite their great expense, a large cathedral could take hundreds of years to complete. It could become an industry unto itself. Large cathedrals employed thousands, and generated huge amounts of highly skilled jobs… jobs that were sorely lacking in the period. When the cathedral was complete, they would still need to be maintained, so many workmen would still remain. The pilgrims that would come to visit the cathedral needed to be fed, clothed, and housed, and this provided a virtual tourism industry, bringing in much needed revenue to both the church and the community. Churches were also the only medieval centers of learning, and every major university in Europe split off from a cathedral. If you had a cathedral school in your town, opportunities for trade would skyrocket, since learning about math, geography, cartography, astronomy, business, and law was all required by merchants. Further, most towns only even needed to have one large church, since there were no denominations. Everyone was Catholic, so all the effort could go into one splendid building rather than many smaller ones. Almost all medieval cities with a cathedral were FAR better off than their counterparts without them, and almost all cathedrals paid for themselves, with much revenue going to the poor and to education. This is why the cathedral is often called the greatest innovation of the Middle Ages.
  2. There is an old legend (which is probably true) that in the late 10th century Grand Prince Vladimir, seeking a national religion to help unify his lands and peoples, sent out envoys to inspect the various faiths of the surrounding nations. Accordingly, they attended the Muslim rites of the Bulgars, the Catholic mass of the Germans, and the Orthodox liturgy of the Greeks. When they returned and were questioned by their Prince as to which of the religions they thought the best, they answered boldly that whereas they found neither joy nor glory in the ceremonies of the Bulgars and the Germans, when they entered the sanctuary of the Greeks, they did not know whether they were in heaven or on earth. “For on earth,” they explained, “there is no such splendor or such beauty, and we are at a loss how to describe it. We only know that God dwells there among men, and their service is fairer than the ceremonies of other nations. For we cannot forget that beauty” (the Primary Chronicle). Vladimir accepted their testimony, and the Russian Orthodox Church (which in 1988 celebrated its Millennium) was born.
clarionreview.org/templat…p?article_id=1

That idea of splendor, awe, and the sacred (more successfully accomplished by the Orthodox in the story above since Germany was a backwater at the time) is what is trying to be captured at the Vatican. If you come away with “it’s almost as if God is dwelling among men” at the Vatican, then you got the point.
By the way, have you ever noticed how the Orthodox Church NEVER receives this same question, and yet has churches equal in opulence to the Catholic Church (and in many cases, more opulent)?

The Biblical basis for this idea comes in part, from Revelation, as discussed above. It also is the successor to the Levitical priesthood, which also had splendid things, such as the Temple of Solomon.

continued…
 
  1. This issue (the wealth of the Church) has been addressed in one way or another at least four times in church history already. First was the Iconoclastic controversy. People asked, “Why do we have all these expensive graven images in our churches? We should do away with them!” Well, this was in the Dark Ages, and statues, stained glass, and paintings were necessary because people couldn’t read. Priests had to teach the Gospel orally, using the images as aids. This heresy (and it WAS declared a heresy) was shot down pretty fast. A painting of Jesus is NOT the same as bowing down before a golden calf. Granted, the expense was not the ONLY issue, it was primarily about graven images, but this WAS a factor. The second time this was addressed was around the year 1000. Many Catholic priests were married, and they were living opulent lifestyles with their families, using nepotism to promote the ecclesiastical careers of their children, and building large houses by taking from the collection plate. A small abbey in the French city of Cluny began a highly successful reform movement that cleaned up most of the corruption in the Church. They used the twin principles of vows of poverty for religious orders, and mandatory celibacy for priests, which became SO popular, that the pope eventually mandated it for the Western branch of the church. (Eastern Catholics can still be ordained priests even if they are married. They are not bound to celibacy.) The third time was during the Council of Trent. During this famed council that dealt with the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church was attacked for its wealth. Many churches in Europe were gutted and stripped by Protestants, although the money didn’t go to the poor, but to line the coffers of kings like Henry VIII. As a result, the Catholic Church came up with the Baroque style, the over-the-top, almost gaudy style of decorating you see from that period, which used paintings, statues, gold, marble, stained glass, and almost anything else they could find, crammed it all together, and covered every single conceivable inch of free space in a church in an intentional political statement to show that there was nothing wrong with it. Since the Vatican dates from this era, that’s why you see most of this type of thing there. Some of the world’s greatest Christian art dates from this period as well. Finally, there was Vatican II. This council changed some things, partly with the intent of encouraging ecumenism with Protestants. They reduced the number of statues within churches (generally no more than one per saint, except where already present) for example. Some changes that occurred later cause things like altar rails which separated the congregation from the sanctuary to be ripped out. Some things were simplified. The results of this ecumenism have been mixed at best, since it hasn’t really brought any of those groups much closer to reunion with the Catholic Church. In fact, I would argue that we’re nearing a new interpretation of Vatican II, the “reform of the reform” so to speak. Like any church council, it takes about 100 years or so to implement. Most change comes like a pendulum. You want it in the middle, but it tends to swing to the extremes from time to time. Many believe that we’ve reformed TOO much already, and given up too much. The pendulum seems to be swinging back now, first with John Paul II, and now with Benedict. The ecumenical talks that have been having the most success have actually been with Orthodox groups, so I think that’s one reason why you’re seeing a return to tradition (like the Extraordinary Form of the Mass). I would predict that you’ll actually see MORE opulence, not less, in the coming years, as Catholics are becoming less concerned with what outside groups think of them, and are becoming more confident in their own tradition. This return to tradition and splendor would go a long way at repairing the damages between Catholics and Orthodox, and if those groups united, it would send a HUGE signal to the Christian world, as 2/3 of Christendom would be together. Already this has borne fruit, as an entire diocese of the Assyrian Church of the East, including the bishop and all the parishoners, recently reunited with the Catholic Church. The rest of this Orthodox group is also very close to reunification. A couple of other groups are also in talks. It is indeed a hopeful time!
continued…
 
I guess what it boils down to for me is this:

I have no problem with the church receiving by donation, or even buying, beautiful things that are going toward worship. In other words, ceremonial garments, church buildings, things used in the liturgy, and church decoration. The church should inspire us, make us realize that we are experiencing something otherworldly, and demonstrate that we are willing to offer our best to God. If we read the Old Testament (and study history), we learn that the Temple of Solomon was fabulously and sumptuously decorated. In fact, according to historical evidence, it may have almost bankrupted ancient Israel! The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old, and we read in Revelation that the Holy Mass (and the Divine Liturgy) are direct reflections of heavenly worship. We are actually present with Christ on Calvary, eternally, out of time, witnessing the same sacrifice re-presented! The Mass really is heaven on earth!

Long ago, the Church instituted policies to prevent abuses regarding the personal wealthy of the clergy. This is what most people have a problem with. Before the Reformation (and during the time of the Cluny Reform Movement), many priests were corrupt, spending lavishly on themselves and their families, and out for power. Most of this has been corrected by the Church, although there will always be the occasional exception. This is the kind of wealth that is dangerous to the faith.

The amount of money spent on ceremonial items, even with their high cost, is only the tiniest, tiniest fraction of the Church’s budget. These items have a high up front cost, but usually last for hundreds of years. For example, in 2007, the Vatican had a budget of just 236 million Euros. (A little less than the US public university I went to school at). The city-state, which has a separate budget, had just a 6.7 million Euro surplus. Vatican financial investments brought in another 1.7 million Euros (they were hit hard by the economy). It had 36.3 million Euros in real estate investments. Their media operations LOST 14.3 million Euros. The Peter’s Pence collection (the worldwide donation from parishoners that goes to the Vatican’s budget) was 50.8 million Euros, including a single donation of $14.3 million dollars. Most of this money doesn’t go to charity; this is the money that directly goes to the operation of the Vatican, with the exception of Peter’s Pence, which is used to respond to natural disasters. Of this budget, much goes to restoration, the pope’s travels, day to day operations of the Vatican, operation of the museums, and so on. Only a few million dollars every year goes to new wardrobe and new liturgical items. Frankly, the Vatican doesn’t need many new things, when it has so many wonderful old ones.

Now, compare this to the Vatican’s charitable operations. In the US alone in 2007, Catholic Charities brought in over $3.6 BILLION dollars. Worldwide donations were far higher yet. Catholic Charities in the US is so large, that only the federal government provides more services. In some areas, Catholic Charities actually surpasses the government itself (and keep in mind, the country is only 22% Catholic, but Catholic Charities is open to all). It spends billions a year to help people in developing countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. It spends millions per year spreading the Catholic faith in the media and with missionaries (and much of that does come from the Vatican budget mentioned above). And… none of this takes into account donations that are given by local parishoners to their local parish, which are indeed used for the maintenance of the Church, but also go to stock food pantries, help immigrants, and fund Catholic schools, which have their own separate budget. Given what a TINY amount of money goes to the splendor of the Church… no, it doesn’t bother me at all. It’s literally a drop in the bucket. I think its wonderful, and I think the Vatican has it just right, though I respect everyone’s opinion to disagree.

continued…
 
By the way, you’d be surprised how much money it takes to run even a moderately sized university. Let’s look at a few for comparison:

Penn State 2008-2009
Total University Budget - $3,607,444,000

Harvard University 2007
Total University Budget - $3,210,506,000
Total University Endowment - $36.9 billion

Notre Dame University 2008
$7.41 billion in assets
(Just this single Catholic university has a larger budget than the whole of the Vatican!)

University of Alabama 2008
Total University Budget - $682.9 million

Just to remind everyone again, the Vatican’s TOTAL budget, converted into American dollars (as of today, and rounding up), is only about $327 million. And that’s million, NOT billion like some of the universities listed above. In fact, a lot of the larger individual Catholic DIOCESES in the US have bigger budgets than the Vatican!
 
Samoana90 said:
You ignorant ****. I have done my homework. I am saying that bishops being chauffeured around in BMW’s and Mercedes Benz is absolutely scandalous. Cardinals paying for a large number of people to dine in the finest Italian restaurant is preposterous. Bishops having their own servants is absurd. How do I know this? I was in seminary not so long ago, and I became very sick with the way these people were living. In fact I was a member of a religious order that is supposedly living the Gospel in simplicity and poverty, when in fact every day, I lived far better than my relatives back home. So before you act like you know anything about the finances of the Catholic Church, why don’t you do your own homework.

Now, I am not saying every bishop and priest does this. There are many living frugally, especially in missionary countries. But if the church wants to start bringing people back to the Gospel, her members need to act like they believe in the bloody thing. Not just by their lip service, or lengthy articles that the simple can’t understand, but by the way her members live. Not a select few, but all of them.
Click to expand...
Your** personal experience with what you were exposed to in your seminary does not give you the license to make the sweeping generalizations about the Church that you have. You made some charges that are based in an abject ignorance of history, geography, societal customs, finance and Scripture.**
Your charges are ignorant and NO – you haven’t done your homework.
PS - You wanna discuss the matter at hand – let’s discuss it.
BUT** – if you wanna gripe about fonts and colors – get another hobby.**
 
May I remind everyone that rather than accusing anyone of anything and creating ill will, let’s stick to answering the questions at hand as politely and factually as possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top