Riches of the church

[distracted]

My mother works as a parish secretary for a tiny parish. The priest is treated to several what you would call lavish vacations each year by a man in the dioscese who has been blessed with ample wealth. The parish itself bought the priest a “luxury” golf cart he can use in getting around in his small town. Father has also been granted use of a cottage on a local lake. All of these opulences are given by people in gratitude to the work this man has done in 50+ years as a priest. Their generosity has convinced him to remain an active priest instead of retiring, which, when he does, will probably mean the consolidation of his parish with others in the area. Are these gifts – honest outpourings of gratiude from his flock – a sign of indulgence? I don’t think so. Like the woman who anointed Jesus with expensive oil, these gifts are sacrifices on the part of the wealthy that give benefit to all. Perhaps some of the Benzes and buildings that so offend you are of a similar nature.

well… i think of people who don’t even have a place to live… not because they are lazy but because they were laid off or what have you… sheltering them would seem to be more improtant than a fancy golf cart… and vacations and etc…

if everyone had a home and was well fed… then i would say Fine to all that…

 

[ALLGIRLS]

well… i think of people who don’t even have a place to live… not because they are lazy but because they were laid off or what have you… sheltering them would seem to be more improtant than a fancy golf cart… and vacations and etc…

if everyone had a home and was well fed… then i would say Fine to all that…

Well, then you need to take that up with the people who are giving the priests the gifts, not the priest himself. Those same people, if they are that wealthy, are probably also giving quite a bit to charities that help the poor and homeless and unemployed. If the priest refused the gifts, that doesn’t mean anymore money is going to the poor. And if the priests takes the gifts, then sells it and gives the money to the poor, the giver is very likely going to be insulted, and perhaps be LESS charitable.

And, sad as the reality is, here on this earth until Christ returns, “everyone” will never have a home and be well fed. Jesus Himself told us this. Refusing to accept gifts or own things that society deems “opulant” or “indulgant” won’t change that. We must care for the poor, but that doesn’t mean that those who are fortunate enough not to be poor can’t enjoy nice things. Those are gifts from God, too.

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[Bobby_Jim]

Forgive me for not having read the whole thread… I will just offer comment on my own diocese…

The bishop here lives in a reasonably nice house, in what I’m sure used to be a nice neighborhood, but the area has fallen on hard times. The house is two stories, 3 bedrooms, one of which is used as a chapel, a couple of bathrooms, a modest kitchen, and a dining room and living room. I have been there a few times for open houses and Christmas parties. It was donated to the diocese about 45 years ago, and the house itself is about 100 years old. It still has the same carpeting it had 45 years ago, and quite a mold problem to go with that. The living room has a hodgepodge collection of old chairs that are so broken down that you sink into them and can barely stand up again. Most of the furniture is what was there when the house was donated to the diocese. It is modestly decorated with things like portraits of Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI, icons, small statues, etc. The bishop lives there with another priest. Between the two of them they do all of the cooking and cleaning. The bishop drives himself around. Really not what I would call a luxurious lifestyle.

 

[distracted]

Well, t

And, sad as the reality is, here on this earth until Christ returns, “everyone” will never have a home and be well fed. Jesus Himself told us this. Refusing to accept gifts or own things that society deems “opulant” or “indulgant” won’t change that. We must care for the poor, but that doesn’t mean that those who are fortunate enough not to be poor can’t enjoy nice things. Those are gifts from God, too.

In Christ,

Ellen

maybe you wouldn’t have such a cavalier attitude if you were living in Haiti right now…

 

[Mikaele]

I agree with this fellow above me. I’m a little confused as to why we can’t sell off all the properties we don’t use. I know my diocese owns a huge property that used to be a seminary. Because of the lack of vocations, all the seminarians moved into a little house. Not enough people to fill the old building.

 

[nsper7]

I agree with this fellow above me. I’m a little confused as to why we can’t sell off all the properties we don’t use. I know my diocese owns a huge property that used to be a seminary. Because of the lack of vocations, all the seminarians moved into a little house. Not enough people to fill the old building.

Maybe your diocese hopes that it will one day have more Seminarians. If they sell of the buildings and vocations increases, then they will have to pay more money to either buy the building(s) back or get another one.

Still, where in Church Law does it command that our Priests, Bishops, etc. live like poor slobs? Does it not say in Scripture that a laborer is due his wage? EDIT: Don’t our Priests and other clergy perform key tasks that others are not willing/able to perform and which are essential to the Church? After all, no Priests=no Communion, no Confirmation and no Reconciliation.

 

[tmathew]

well… i think of people who don’t even have a place to live… not because they are lazy but because they were laid off or what have you… sheltering them would seem to be more improtant than a fancy golf cart… and vacations and etc…

if everyone had a home and was well fed… then i would say Fine to all that…

In rereading my quote, I may have lacked some clarity. When I say the parish bought him a golf cart, I mean the families in the parish – not the actual chrurch funds. In gratitude to this man for his continued work (instead of moving on to retirement) which allows the church to remain open, they got him a generous gift. The man who pays for his vacations also donates from his own money. If you want to argue that the people of the parish should donate their money to the poor instead of such things as golf carts, fine. But be sure you come down on anyone who buys wedding or anniversary gifts for other people. Of what about graduation? Think about all the money “wasted” on gifts for students who’ve just finished high school! That could substantially help the poor, too. By your logic, no one should accept any kind of generous gift until poverty is eradicated. and we should all give everything we have to the poor. I’ll be the first to admit that it might be a nicer world if everyone did so, but I don’t see why priests, who already spend their lives dedicated to a profession at the lower end of monetary remuneration, should be singled out to never accept such gifts if it’s OK for the rest of us to.

 

[Rolltide]

I agree with this fellow above me. I’m a little confused as to why we can’t sell off all the properties we don’t use. I know my diocese owns a huge property that used to be a seminary. Because of the lack of vocations, all the seminarians moved into a little house. Not enough people to fill the old building.

Have you considered that the economy is so bad right now, that it either might not be physically possible or economically sound to sell their building?

 

[distracted]

I agree with this fellow above me. I’m a little confused as to why we can’t sell off all the properties we don’t use. I know my diocese owns a huge property that used to be a seminary. Because of the lack of vocations, all the seminarians moved into a little house. Not enough people to fill the old building.

you don’t agree with distracted, do you??? Not possible… no one agrees w/ me @ CAF…

but anyhow… waht do they do with the building? just let it sit there?

 

[distracted]

In r By your logic, no one should accept any kind of generous gift until poverty is eradicated. and we should all give everything we have to the poor. I’ll be the first to admit that it might be a nicer world if everyone did so, but I don’t see why priests, who already spend their lives dedicated to a profession at the lower end of monetary remuneration, should be singled out to never accept such gifts if it’s OK for the rest of us to.

Jesus told us to give everything to the poor and follow Him… in order to be perfect… Then it says in another passage be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect (St Mt 5;48)

it also says that no impure (imperfect?) thing will enter Heaven…

a lot of people let their love of material possessions drag them into Hell… Is it worth it?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Jesus told us to give everything to the poor and follow Him… in order to be perfect… Then it says in another passage be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect (St Mt 5;48)

it also says that no impure (imperfect?) thing will enter Heaven…

a lot of people let their love of material possessions drag them into Hell… Is it worth it?

Context, hon, context. Jesus did not limit us to ‘give everything to the poor and that is THE WAY to be perfect’. . .

The young man in question had been already ‘obeying the commandments’. But he was rich and he **==this one particular man=='had many possessions. **

This one young man came to Jesus asking Him what to do. This one young man however would not give up his possessions.

We are all different. Most of us are not as rich as this one young man. But we have other ‘possessions’–maybe not ‘wealth’–that we don’t want to give up. We might be going around honoring our parents, keeping the Lord’s day, not stealing, not lying, the whole 9 yards. . .BUT we might be very personally proud. We might be doing ‘good’ because **it makes us proud of ourselves. **

And so Jesus might ask us to just keep on doing what we’re doing, but to stop being proud of ourselves. To be humble. And we might not be able to do that. We might walk away sad. . .because we have ‘much pride’ and we’re only going to give God 'so much.'

It isn’t really a question of giving up ‘all we have to the poor’. . .because let’s face it, if every person (even Bill Gates) gave up everything ‘to the poor’, maybe for a few days or weeks people will have ‘enough’. But if every person in the world ‘gave up everything’. . .then pretty soon there won’t be anything left, right? How am I going to grow crops if I’ve given not just the crops, but the tools and the seeds, to the poor? How am I going to have a factory or a place which offers jobs to people if I gave it ‘to the poor?’ It’s not as though materials last forever. . .suppose I gave my shoes to the poor, well, they will wear out and meanwhile, there’s nobody left to make more shoes, no places left to make them, nobody producing the materials to make them. . .

You need to consider context.

**Scripture tells us of Joseph of Arimathea --a RICH man (who gave Jesus the tomb where Jesus lay)–and Joseph never gave ‘all his goods to the poor.’ Why not? **

Zacaeus, who climbed the sycamore tree, was a rich man. When Jesus came to stay with him, Zacaeus gave half his goods to the poor. Why not all? If we’re all supposed to give all we have to the poor, why doesn’t Scripture record this with Zacaeus?

 

[distracted]

Context, hon, context. Jesus did not limit us to ‘give everything to the poor and that is THE WAY to be perfect’. . .

The young man in question had been already ‘obeying the commandments’. But he was rich and he **==this one particular man=='had many possessions. **

This one young man came to Jesus asking Him what to do. This one young man however would not give up his possessions.

We are all different. Most of us are not as rich as this one young man. But we have other ‘possessions’–maybe not ‘wealth’–that we don’t want to give up. We might be going around honoring our parents, keeping the Lord’s day, not stealing, not lying, the whole 9 yards. . .BUT we might be very personally proud. We might be doing ‘good’ because **it makes us proud of ourselves. **

And so Jesus might ask us to just keep on doing what we’re doing, but to stop being proud of ourselves. To be humble. And we might not be able to do that. We might walk away sad. . .because we have ‘much pride’ and we’re only going to give God 'so much.'

It isn’t really a question of giving up ‘all we have to the poor’. . .because let’s face it, if every person (even Bill Gates) gave up everything ‘to the poor’, maybe for a few days or weeks people will have ‘enough’. But if every person in the world ‘gave up everything’. . .then pretty soon there won’t be anything left, right? How am I going to grow crops if I’ve given not just the crops, but the tools and the seeds, to the poor? How am I going to have a factory or a place which offers jobs to people if I gave it ‘to the poor?’ It’s not as though materials last forever. . .suppose I gave my shoes to the poor, well, they will wear out and meanwhile, there’s nobody left to make more shoes, no places left to make them, nobody producing the materials to make them. . .

You need to consider context.

**Scripture tells us of Joseph of Arimathea --a RICH man (who gave Jesus the tomb where Jesus lay)–and Joseph never gave ‘all his goods to the poor.’ Why not? **

**Zacaeus, who climbed the sycamore tree, was a rich man. When Jesus came to stay with him, Zacaeus gave half his goods **to the poor. Why not all? If we’re all supposed to give all we have to the poor, why doesn’t Scripture record this with Zacaeus?

there’s no contradiction… we are ALL supposed to give up ALL that we have…

meaning we are all to detach from what we have… stop thinking about it as being ours and ours alone…

Zacheus was undoubtedly not attached to the half he kept… Jesus could read minds and would have known this… If a person can even give up half of w hat he owns he is not attached to amateiral things… at least not in an unhealhty sinful way… He may have needed the other half to do other good things he wanted to do… and taking care of our own needs is also a good thing, as long as it is done “right”… not selfishly…

we ARE required to give up everything for Jesus…

people are always trying to water down what Jesus said and change it around so its PC or so its acceptable to all people… but Jesus also said that we would be “hated by all” because of Him…

doesn’t sound too “acceptable”…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But 'all that we have" (as I noted above and as you seemed to agree in stating that Zaccaeus was not ‘attached’ to the remaining half of his goods) does not mean that we all have to ‘give everything to the poor’ which is what you originally said, Distracted.

Because giving everything we have to the poor is not required of all of us. Giving all we have to Jesus IS required, but that again does not mean that in doing so we ‘must’ give ‘all we have to the poor.’

 

[distracted]

But 'all that we have" (as I noted above and as you seemed to agree in stating that Zaccaeus was not ‘attached’ to the remaining half of his goods) does not mean that we all have to ‘give everything to the poor’ which is what you originally said, Distracted.

Because giving everything we have to the poor is not required of all of us. Giving all we have to Jesus IS required, but that again does not mean that in doing so we ‘must’ give ‘all we have to the poor.’

giving everything to the poor is what Jesus told the man to do in order to be perfect and we must be perfect to enter Heaven… Jesus doesn’t have one standard for one person and another for someone else

Purgatoyr is where most people are perfected… because they refuse to be perfected here below… they refuse to give up much of anything for the poor… (& other things they should do)I am not saying i do this to the very best of my ability either… but…For one thing, i am not very well off myself… to say the least… but i have given up things i don’t absolutely need and etc…

in any case, Purg is excrutiating according to reliable sources… one saint once said that if we do our Purg in the ne xt life… it is like paying a million Dollars for something we could have gotten for a penny…

Well, most of us don’t HAVE a milliion dollars, figuratively or otherwise…

 

[Rolltide]

maybe you wouldn’t have such a cavalier attitude if you were living in Haiti right now…

True. It is indeed fortunate and a blessing that the Catholic Church is by far the largest relief organization providing the most services and the most charity to that nation right now.

 

[nsper7]

there’s no contradiction… we are ALL supposed to give up ALL that we have…

meaning we are all to detach from what we have… stop thinking about it as being ours and ours alone…

Zacheus was undoubtedly not attached to the half he kept… Jesus could read minds and would have known this… If a person can even give up half of w hat he owns he is not attached to amateiral things… at least not in an unhealhty sinful way… He may have needed the other half to do other good things he wanted to do… and taking care of our own needs is also a good thing, as long as it is done “right”… not selfishly…

we ARE required to give up everything for Jesus…

people are always trying to water down what Jesus said and change it around so its PC or so its acceptable to all people… but Jesus also said that we would be “hated by all” because of Him…

doesn’t sound too “acceptable”…

This isn’t how the Church interprets that passage: Evangelical Counsels

 

[distracted]

i didnt see one thing there that pertained to the passage i quoted…

and besides, it doesn’t take rocket science to figure out what Jesus wants from us…

only obstinate people act like they don’t understand…

its probably mostly an act

 

[Tantum_ergo]

i didnt see one thing there that pertained to the passage i quoted…

and besides, it doesn’t take rocket science to figure out what Jesus wants from us…

only obstinate people act like they don’t understand…

its probably mostly an act

Care to be more specific?

Believe me, I understand what you’re saying, I simply think that you are being entirely too narrow.

You harp on material goods. Yet you acknowledged that Zaccaeus did not have to give all but only half. Your ‘assumption’ was that he was not ‘attached to the remaining half’ but that isn’t what Scripture says–you are putting your own ‘spin’ on it. With respect, why should I believe it? The Church does not teach that we need to beggar ourselves as ‘the way’ to salvation by selling all our material possessions. . .Scripture doesn’t teach it. . .as far as I can see you are the only one advocating it. . .

 

[distracted]

Care to be more specific?

Believe me, I understand what you’re saying, I simply think that you are being entirely too narrow.

You harp on material goods. Yet you acknowledged that Zaccaeus did not have to give all but only half. Your ‘assumption’ was that he was not ‘attached to the remaining half’ but that isn’t what Scripture says–you are putting your own ‘spin’ on it. With respect, why should I believe it? The Church does not teach that we need to beggar ourselves as ‘the way’ to salvation by selling all our material possessions. . .Scripture doesn’t teach it. . .as far as I can see you are the only one advocating it. . .

me and Jesus…

and if you will read all my posts before judging me, i never said we had to literally give up every single possession we own…

 

[fkjuliano]

But it seems like some people are more interested in keeping the local Cathedral in order, rather than feeding the poor.

This individual keeps going back to this when others have already addressed the issue with pertinent Bible verses and explanations. I do not wish to be uncharitable, but this person is either malicious or very stupid. He is implying that we should let our cathedrals fall into ruins, an absurd proposition for multiple reasons, not least of which because Jesus Christ dwells there in body, soul and divinity. As has been stated repeatedly, the Catholic Church is already the world’s largest charitable organization. To suggest that her entire budget should go toward aiding the poor, in detriment of even the buildings the faithful use for worship, is at best a puerile proposition. Rather than being puerile, though, it seems that Samoana90 is simply someone who agrees with Judas rather than with Jesus Christ.

[BIBLEDRB]John 12:1-8[/BIBLEDRB]

As to what priests eat, I think it’s more than a little unreasonable to forbid them to enjoy palatable meals, on top of undergoing years of graduate education, doing a lot of work for little pay, and, of course, being celibate. Obviously, Samoana90 did not think they get such a great compensation package, regardless of whatever gourmet meals he had at the seminary, or else he would still be there.

Just one more point: the Catholic Church does have many valuable assets in the form of real estate and art, but they belong to the whole Church, and therefore to God, rather than to individual members of the Church. Other religious organizations often have modest buildings, but a millionaire clerics who not only live in but occupy and own a mansion, private plane, etc. as their own personal assets to be eventually inherited by the progeny they are allowed to have. I very much doubt there is another faith whose clergy, on the whole, lives as modestly as Catholics.