Vatican and Wealth

[regression]

Hello, another Vatican / wealth question. I have heard this response often as to why the Church doesn’t sell everything it owns to help the pour. The response talks about selling the priceless art the Vatican contains and if that were to happen, the poor would still be with us and not be able to admire the beauty in the art.

My first response would be wouldn’t people rather eat (even for a limited time) rather than look at art. My second response is what I am asking people’s opinion on. I assume it cost money to tour the Vatican museum. If yes, then I would assume part of that money goes towards the operating expenses for the museum and part of the money goes to the various charities that are part of the Church. If that is the case, wouldn’t NOT selling everything in the Vatican museum actually be better for the poor since that means a continual source of income to help them???

Am I completely off on my thinking? Just wondering why I haven’t heard that line of thought before. It has always been, if the art, etc is sold, people cannot admire the beauty in it.

 

[1ke]

Am I completely off on my thinking?

Yes, and no. Yes, the Vatican Museum does give money to causes, such as when they had a special day where all proceeds went to a disaster relief fund. But in general, the VM is not a big money maker. The entrance fees and the revenues from the Patronage society go to conservation, restoration, and upkeep, generally speaking.

Just wondering why I haven’t heard that line of thought before. It has always been, if the art, etc is sold, people cannot admire the beauty in it.

I am sure you have heard all sorts of arguments, but they are simply people making arguments.

The Church does not defend Her position as custodian of the great Christian treasures of the world nor, IMHO, does She need to. The type of people who make such silly arguments are really not the type who will be persuaded with any “defense”. I am sure, however, they would not suggest that the US government sell all the contents of the Smithsonian, nor ask the French to sell the contents of the Louvre.

 

[novusCatholic]

I am sure, however, they would not suggest that the US government sell all the contents of the Smithsonian, nor ask the French to sell the contents of the Louvre.

Good point!

I figure that most people who complain about the Church’s “wealth” could do with smaller homes and older vehicles. Then they could give more to the poor.

I appreciate the Vatican’s collection, which is said to belong to the people. I’ve read that it can’t be sold or borrowed against.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Hello, another Vatican / wealth question. I have heard this response often as to why the Church doesn’t sell everything it owns to help the pour. The response talks about selling the priceless art the Vatican contains and if that were to happen, the poor would still be with us and not be able to admire the beauty in the art.

My first response would be wouldn’t people rather eat (even for a limited time) rather than look at art. My second response is what I am asking people’s opinion on. I assume it cost money to tour the Vatican museum. If yes, then I would assume part of that money goes towards the operating expenses for the museum and part of the money goes to the various charities that are part of the Church. If that is the case, wouldn’t NOT selling everything in the Vatican museum actually be better for the poor since that means a continual source of income to help them???

Am I completely off on my thinking? Just wondering why I haven’t heard that line of thought before. It has always been, if the art, etc is sold, people cannot admire the beauty in it.

The only Apostle that ever complained about how much money was spent on the glory of God was Judas. Just something to think about.

 

[MisterCorduroy]

People who make this accusation ignore the BILLIONS of dollars given by the Catholic Church to charities every year. The Church has always been at the forefront of compassion and giving. No other government or organization gives more in aid to the poor. When there is a natural disaster, Catholic charities are often the first responders.

I was talking to a “prosperity gospel” type protestant yesterday and he said that it’s God’s will that Christians be rich to advance the kingdom of God. He said that when a community becomes a “mega-church” that is a sign of God’s favor. I laughed and said, well I’m glad I belong to the original “mega-church”. God must REALLY be showing His favor on the Catholic Church because we are soooo rich. He changed the subject.

He may be onto something though. It is precisely because the Church has investments and wealth that we can respond to the needs of the poor and crises.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

The art also belongs to the poor. The poor have contributed to maintaining the art or building of beautiful churches and I imagine have also contributed to charitable works. Not all of the poor are homeless or destitute. And those people who are did not necessarily start out that nor will remain that way.

I’m not rich (I don’t think I’m even middle class) but if I’ve donated to the preservation of a historical church or whatever I will not appreciate someone selling it off because it isn’t important to them.

 

[jesus4ever]

I would say all things in the Vatican have been blessed so you can not sell blessed objects. Why does this always comes up. I dont like when people say these things. Do you really want a rich person owning these things in which in the end we would not be allowed to see them for ourselves.

 

[tabycat]

Being ‘poor’ and ‘rich’ canbe relative. Most, if not all, of us here are poor compared to Bill Gates and rich when compared to a homeless person. :tiphat::slapfight:

 

[Arizona_Mike]

1. How would you be able to sell the Sistine Chapel?
2. The Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world. How much more should be given?
3. How many material luxuries does the person asking this question possess? A nice car, a home, an iPad, and iPhone, a laptop? Surely they should be willing to give all these things to the poor before questioning the Church’s system of charity?
4. Part of the cost of having works of art is maintaining works of art. The Church is also in the process of digitizing all the manuscripts in its collections so any scholar in the world can access them free of charge. Isn’t it important to feed the world’s minds and the world’s heart as well as its bodies?

 

[bzkoss236]

It seems like some people expect the Catholic Church to do all the charity work while they go about their day jobs and give nothing. Maybe this should be an encouragement for other people to give more.

The other problems with the “sell everything and give it to the poor” argument are that there are plenty of Protestant Churches that have very expensive equipment that they don’t need that could also be all sold off, and things wealthy companies don’t need and could sell for charity, or more wealthy companies could just give to charities in general (I’m looking at you Apple Inc.); and there is no guarantee that ALL the poor would get fed. With some countries in Africa refusing charity to their people, or skimming loads of money off the top before any money actually makes it to their people. There’s also the charitable organizations who would likely use most of the money for their own needs, such as advertisement, and would then lead to very little making it to where it needs to go.

I’m going to just stick with, there are numerous ways of glorifying God, and this art made for Him and feeding the poor are both ways to do that.

 

[Brendan_64]

Perhaps those who complain about perceived excessive wealth of the Vatican do have a point? We are not the US government, or the French government, we are God’s Church, so the point about comparing the contents of the Vatican Museum to the Louvre etc. falls down. Different standards, should apply to us.

Are the treasures of the Vatican crucial to our purpose on Earth, i.e. to spiritually feed the world and save souls? Do these treasures save any souls? Could the wealth contained in these treasures be better deployed in funding missionary work, education, or outreach work to build up the Body of Christ on Earth? Does the very appearance of such wealth and opulence attract converts towards our Church, or does it put them off? In the world we live in, such appearances are important.

There is a whole world that needs feeding, both spiritually and materially. Do the treasures of the Vatican contribute significantly towards this? As Catholics, I think we ought to consider this point, rather than taking the natural position of jumping in on the defence when the perceived wealth of the Vatican is challenged.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Why is the Vatican singled out for such questions?

Don’t protestants (and Orthodox, and Jews, and Muslims, etc) hold property and assets that could be liquidated to be given to the poor?

Does the Church have the ethical right to sell the Sistine Chapel? Michelangelo was commissioned to paint the famous ceiling and was paid with money collected from the Catholic Faithful for this purpose. The Catholic Faithful could have decided to donate their money to the poor instead (and I’m sure that many did both). If the Faithful entrust their money to a particular cause, this cause becomes entrusted to the Church on behalf of the Faithful. The Church cannot take it away from the Faithful without some sort of remuneration or compensation.

Let’s look at an actual real-world modern example. Sometimes, due to various factors, a Bishop decides to close a particular Parish church, and liquidate its assets. Every Parish church was paid for by its original members, and maintained by their descendants - they are the real owners of those assets. When a Parish is closed, it’s membership is distributed to nearby Parishes according to where each member lives. The funds from the liquidation are distributed to the nearby Parishes in proportion to how many original parishioners now live within their boundaries. The Bishop and the Diocese do not profit in any way. A Bishop cannot close a Parish, sell its assets, and distribute the funds to the poor, because the Bishop does not own those assets. The Parishioners own them.

 

[Brendan_64]

Why is the Vatican singled out for such questions?

Don’t protestants (and Orthodox, and Jews, and Muslims, etc) hold property and assets that could be liquidated to be given to the poor?.

What other faiths do with their wealth should not be our concern. We should be concerned with how our Church uses its wealth to fulfill Christ’s mission on Earth. If any of our wealth is not being used towards fulfilling this purpose, then we should be asking serious questions. If the treasures of the Vatican are in fact helping to build up the Body of Christ on earth and save souls (which is our mission) then fair enough, if however this wealth is not helping to fulfill our mission then we ought to look a redeploying this wealth more effectively.

If the Faithful entrust their money to a particular cause, this cause becomes entrusted to the Church on behalf of the Faithful.

Catholics donate to the Church and trust in the Church to use this money to fulfill the Church’s mission on Earth. I’m not sure that all that many donate specifically to maintain the treasures of the Vatican.

The Church cannot take it away from the Faithful without some sort of remuneration or compensation.

Yes the Church can. And it is not ‘taking the money away’, the money has been donated by Catholics to the Church to use. It’s not a bank where Catholics make deposits to build up the wealth of the Church as some sort of joint deposit account. The money is for the Church to use to fulfill Christ’s mission.

A Bishop cannot close a Parish, sell its assets, and distribute the funds to the poor, because the Bishop does not own those assets. The Parishioners own them.

Yes he can. The parishioners may well have paid for and funded the parish, but the church, the land, the accounts, all assets of the parish are owned by the Bishop. It is a commonly held misconception that parishioners, just because they have paid for and funded it, own their local parish church, they do not.

 

[lerapt78]

1. How many material luxuries does the person asking this question possess? A nice car, a home, an iPad, and iPhone, a laptop? Surely they should be willing to give all these things to the poor before questioning the Church’s system of charity?

You make a good point, Arizona Mike. The OP’s example reminds me of a trip I took to a European capital four years ago. I had taken a tour of the city on one of those open-air city tour buses, and when we passed an elaborately-built church, a couple that was sitting in front of me on the bus made a similar observation. The man remarked in American-accented English (somewhat self-righteously, it seemed), “Look at all of that. (referring to the ornate architectural details) With that kind of money, the Church could feed a small country! Tsk, tsk.” That man, who I assumed considered himself to be charity-wise, didn’t exactly look like a pauper. He was well dressed, had an expensive-looking haircut, and obviously had enough money to take a trip to Europe. He looked like the stereotypical “preppy” guy who probably wasn’t staying at a $15 dollar-a-night hostel. Even if he donated money to the poor every month, he himself obviously felt it unnecessary to disperse all of his wealth since he was enjoying the same vacation I was. For some reason however, he felt it was inappropriate for the Church to possess anything that had monetary trade value.

I suppose some people react this way because they feel that a religion which claims to be stewards of the downtrodden is acting in a hypocritical manner. I didn’t say anything to that gentleman tourist, but I remember thinking to myself: “OK – the Church could sell the building, give that money to some poor country, and relocate to a more humble location. And what then? It would feed a country for a day. And what about tomorrow, when those same people are hungry again, and there is no more money to give them? Would the burden of responsibility shift to a different organization? As other posters have noted, how much has Christianity (including the Protestants) given to help the poor? Can any other religion come even close to comparison?

I understand the point about not worrying what others do with their money so much as being concerned with fulfilling our own duties, however it’s been pointed out that the CC obviously is taking its mission seriously. The critique over whether or not it should be doing *more *seems to take a superficial notice without taking financial common sense into consideration. The Church redistributes its wealth in increments - as such, it will *always *make it look as though it can do more. But in fact it is actually being wise with the reserves entrusted to it. Being generous with money doesn’t require doling it out all at once - that is short-term irresponsibility.

You can’t continue to help the poor by becoming destitute yourself.

 

[DavidFilmer]

The parishioners may well have paid for and funded the parish, but the church, the land, the accounts, all assets of the parish are owned by the Bishop. It is a commonly held misconception that parishioners, just because they have paid for and funded it, own their local parish church, they do not.

You identify your location as the UK. I think that US laws are rather similar to yours.

Traditionally, in the US, all Church property has been titled in the name of the Bishop of that Diocese. This came to light in my own (Arch)Diocese, which (sadly) was the first US Diocese to file for bankruptcy protection in the light of hundreds of civil lawsuits brought by victims of priestly abuse. In determining the potential liability, the assets of the Diocese were hotly contested. My Parish assets were legally titled in the name of my Archbishop (now William Cardinal Levada), who was not our Archbishop for ANY of these abuse claims. NONE of the priests of my Parish were ever accused of any wrongdoing. Could we loose our Parish because of the actions of other priests, at other parishes, under other Bishops?

The Court ultimately ruled that each Parish belonged to its parishioners, even though it was (legally) titled to the Archbishop. This lead to a legal scramble (in the US) to re-title practically every Catholic parish to its parishioners, and not the Bishop. In some manner, US civil law was allowed (by the Church) to supplant Church Law, and Church law was allowed (by the Court) to supplant civil law, which raises Constitutional questions, but it was deemed more expedient to avoid such questions in the future by aligning Church understanding (that Parishioners own the Parish) with US civil law.

Other US Dioceses have followed my own in filing for bankruptcy. In every case, the question of assets has come into question. In every case, the Courts have ruled along the lines of the Portland decision.

 

[Brendan_64]

The Court ultimately ruled that each Parish belonged to its parishioners, even though it was (legally) titled to the Archbishop. This lead to a legal scramble (in the US) to re-title practically every Catholic parish to its parishioners, and not the Bishop. In some manner, US civil law was allowed (by the Church) to supplant Church Law, and Church law was allowed (by the Court) to supplant civil law, which raises Constitutional questions, but it was deemed more expedient to avoid such questions in the future by aligning Church understanding (that Parishioners own the Parish) with US civil law.

Other US Dioceses have followed my own in filing for bankruptcy. In every case, the question of assets has come into question. In every case, the Courts have ruled along the lines of the Portland decision.

That is very interesting. In the UK it is a similar situation, except that the parish legally belongs to the Bishop of the diocese (not the provincial Archbishop). there have been no legal challenges to this, as we are not in such a mess regarding pedophile priests as the US seems to be (although, sadly there have been some). So no dioceses having to file for bankruptcy etc.

The church I go to was bought and paid for by local people 50 years ago (the land, every brick, every drop of mortar etc.)and in a parish were the people did not have much money (and most still don’t). We’ve funded that church ever since and it has a thriving community. I’m relatively new to the area (I moved here 15 years ago) and I have never in my life experienced a more welcoming little church. Sadly, due to parish boundary changes and mergers, and diminishing numbers of priests, our church (which still has a thriving community) has a question mark hanging over it. To have our church in the name of the local people would be an amazing thing in terms of our future security, but sadly everything is in the name of the Bishop.

That’s great news to hear that parishes in the USA can now be transferred into the legal ownership of parishioners.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

. . . .
Yes he can. The parishioners may well have paid for and funded the parish, but the church, the land, the accounts, all assets of the parish are owned by the Bishop. It is a commonly held misconception that parishioners, just because they have paid for and funded it, own their local parish church, they do not.

Actually not . . . at least in PA law, but definitely in canon law.

The Bishop in canon law and civil law is on the deed as the administrator of the assets, however the assets do not belong to the Diocese or the Bishop, but the parish. If a Diocese gets into financial trouble, for whatever reason, the assets of the parishes cannot be sold off by the bishop or seized by secular authorities to pay that diocesan debt.

It is true that the parishioners do not own the parish, but neither does the bishop. The parish as a “juridical person” [canon law technical speak–IOW, the corporate entity] owns the assets.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Actually not . . . at least in PA law, but definitely in canon law.

The Bishop in canon law and civil law is on the deed as the administrator of the assets, however the assets do not belong to the Diocese or the Bishop, but the parish. If a Diocese gets into financial trouble, for whatever reason, the assets of the parishes cannot be sold off by the bishop or seized by secular authorities to pay that diocesan debt.

It is true that the parishioners do not own the parish, but neither does the bishop. The parish as a “juridical person” [canon law technical speak–IOW, the corporate entity] owns the assets.

Tell that to all of the parishes that were closed down and sold off by their diocesan bishops.

The “juridical person” may be the parish, but the controller is the bishop. If the bishop decides to pull the plug on a parish, it is pulled. So for all intents and purposes, the bishop does in effect own the parish.

However, as the bishop of Cleveland found out, the parishioners CAN give that “juridical person” a voice.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Tell that to all of the parishes that were closed down and sold off by their diocesan bishops.

The “juridical person” may be the parish, but the controller is the bishop. If the bishop decides to pull the plug on a parish, it is pulled. So for all intents and purposes, the bishop does in effect own the parish.

However, as the bishop of Cleveland found out, the parishioners CAN give that “juridical person” a voice.

Well, what you described was the bishop as the administrator, not the owner. It’s not his money; and it certainly doesn’t go to him and usually not the diocese. Again neither the bishop nor the state can seize and sell off parish assets to pay diocesan debts. Generally the parish(s) are reconfigured and the money goes to the new entity.

As far as closing parishes there is a process that some bishops tried to bypass and Rome heard their justifiable outcry.

Regarding that fact in general, I’m not going to bury my head in the sand and pretend demographic changes haven’t taken place. Adaptation to changing circumstances is a sign of life, not death. Because Catholics are moving south for the jobs parishes and schools are being built there. People have also been moving to the suburbs since after WW II. Immigrant communities have been assimilated into the core culture of the country they chose to enter. In our diocese there were (until 3 yrs ago) six parishes in a 10 block span from the days nearly 100 yrs ago of different nationalities. Each one was paying for utilities, insurance, staff, maintenance, and programming while the numbers dwindle, the mean age increases, and life declines. That’s an obscene waste of money and clergy. They could be combined to get a critical mass of numbers necessary to have a vibrant workable community.

 

[adawgj]

You can’t sell historical artifacts. And whether they were sold the poor would still be poor.

The Church is the largest charity organization in the world,