Vatican and Wealth

[Brendan_64]

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

The poor may still be poor, but that money could be used to further the mission of the Church on Earth. Did Christ form our Church to be curators of extremely valuable historical objects and works of art?

Exactly what part in the mission of our Church do these priceless artifacts play? Should the Church not be using all of its resources to fulfill Christ’s mission on Earth? Do these treasures help portray a positive image of our Church and encourage evangelisation, or are they off-putting to potential converts?

What exactly does the Body of Christ on Earth gain from having these priceless objects? What part do they play in Christ’s mission?

 

[regression]

Thanks for all the replies and discussion. I am not one who goes around saying the Church should sell everything. However, I am always interested in hearing responses to that line of thought.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

The poor may still be poor, but that money could be used to further the mission of the Church on Earth. Did Christ form our Church to be curators of extremely valuable historical objects and works of art?

Exactly what part in the mission of our Church do these priceless artifacts play? Should the Church not be using all of its resources to fulfill Christ’s mission on Earth? Do these treasures help portray a positive image of our Church and encourage evangelisation, or are they off-putting to potential converts?

What exactly does the Body of Christ on Earth gain from having these priceless objects? What part do they play in Christ’s mission?

There is an aesthetic dimension to ministry, I think. We all approach God by different paths, and for some people, the contemplation of beautiful paintings, beautiful sculpture, beautiful music composed to honor God, can create a contemplative effect that can bring us closer to God.

Certainly the Pope has called upon the Church to be less ostentatious, but I sometimes think that the people who argue that we should sell off all the art and scholarly collections of the Vatican would not give the Church any credit for doing so, they would just like to see a Church which is nothing special to speak of.

I have also heard the argument that we should honor God by beauty. The Ark of the Covenant wasn’t made out of plywood and papier mache, it was made to be an adorned work of art befitting what it carried.

Mark 14:3 - 9 also seems to indicate that we should help the poor, but also honor our Lord appropriately:

The Anointing at Bethany.*
3
When he was in Bethany reclining at table in the house of Simon the leper,b a woman came with an alabaster jar of perfumed oil, costly genuine spikenard. She broke the alabaster jar and poured it on his head.
4
There were some who were indignant. “Why has there been this waste of perfumed oil?

5
It could have been sold for more than three hundred days’ wages and the money given to the poor.” They were infuriated with her.

6
Jesus said, “Let her alone. Why do you make trouble for her? She has done a good thing for me.

7
The poor you will always have with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them, but you will not always have me.

8
She has done what she could. She has anticipated anointing my body for burial.

9
Amen, I say to you, wherever the gospel is proclaimed to the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.”

 

[AmbroseSJ]

The poor may still be poor, but that money could be used to further the mission of the Church on Earth. Did Christ form our Church to be curators of extremely valuable historical objects and works of art?

Exactly what part in the mission of our Church do these priceless artifacts play? Should the Church not be using all of its resources to fulfill Christ’s mission on Earth? Do these treasures help portray a positive image of our Church and encourage evangelisation, or are they off-putting to potential converts?

What exactly does the Body of Christ on Earth gain from having these priceless objects? What part do they play in Christ’s mission?

This line of thought is eerily similar to Judas protesting the use of the expensive nard used in anointing Jesus’ feet.

The rebuke from Jesus is just as relevant to this situation.

Personally, I believe it is similar to the glories of Solomon’s temple, or even the Second Temple. Jesus cautioned against being impressed with all of the riches used, as someday (soon) not one rock would be left standing on another. So likewise, the Vatican is arrayed in earthly splendour. However, it can just as easily be taken away, so there is no need to pay too much attention to it.

I also wonder what the ante-Nicene Christian Martyrs would think seeing those Roman statues of gods and goddesses adorning the Vatican.

@ ArizonaMike: I guess we’re on the same wavelength!

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I also wonder what the ante-Nicene Christian Martyrs would think seeing those Roman statues of gods and goddesses adorning the Vatican.

@ ArizonaMike: I guess we’re on the same wavelength!

Keeping those pagan statues around may be like my old neighbor, a Jewish WWII veteran, showing off the Luger pistol he brought home as a war trophy. I once asked if he felt comfortable having a souvenir from the Nazis on the wall of his den, and he said he displayed it to remind people that his side won.

 

[KSU]

This line of thought is eerily similar to Judas protesting the use of the expensive nard used in anointing Jesus’ feet.

The rebuke from Jesus is just as relevant to this situation.

You beat me to it.

P S
Spent many happy days and nights fishing Mentor Lagoons in the sixties.

 

[_Abyssinia]

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.

John Allen has also addressed the issue of Vatican ‘‘wealth.’’

• The myth of Vatican wealth. “At the Vatican, everything is for sale, in the popular mind,” Allen said. In reality, the Vatican’s annual operating budget is about $260 million. Allen contrasted that to Harvard University, which has an annual operating budget of $1.3 billion.

“ (Harvard) could run five Vaticans every year and still have pocket change left over for an endowed chair,” Allen said, equating the Vatican’s patrimony - all the assets it could sell - to that of a medium-sized Catholic university. Its total patrimony is $770 million. The University of Notre Dame’s endowment is four and a half times greater, he said.

Allen noted that while people often assume a significant monetary value attached to the artwork the Vatican holds, it is not for sale.

“ The Holy See’s point of view is that the artwork is part of the patrimony of humanity,” Allen said. It is listed as having a cash value of one euro.

catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformview.asp?c=14358

 

[Bruised_Reed]

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.

I did consider those points to a degree with my answer. I do not want someone selling a statue or a stained glass window that my grandparents and other family members donated to furnish their parish. It continues to spiritually nourish parishioners and visitors. When I see these things I remember my connection to my ancestors am reminded to pray for them (and others in the Church Suffering) and that they (and others in the Church Triumphant) pray for me.

I’m one of those people who needs to see things to understand. Maybe I can’t see my loved one but I can see these things. And I’m not the only one who benefits.

The Sistine Chapel is far, far grander than the little church on the prairie I’m describing but somebody’s poor grandma and grandpa sacrificed to offer something beautiful for God that is supposed to be transcendent.

Again, why is okay to take away something that is meaningful to me because it isn’t important to someone you? The poor and destitute are not going without because there are beautiful Cathedrals.

 

[Brendan_64]

Again, why is okay to take away something that is meaningful to me because it isn’t important to someone you? The poor and destitute are not going without because there are beautiful Cathedrals.

And would you count all the priceless treasures including the many statues of pagan gods, as being there to glorify God? Zeus, Apollo, Osiris and many more? Do such treasures have a place within our faith? Is God glorified by these?

 

[Filioque]

And would you count all the priceless treasures including the many statues of pagan gods, as being there to glorify God? Zeus, Apollo, Osiris and many more? Do such treasures have a place within our faith? Is God glorified by these?

You betcha. To forget the past is the first step in repeating it. To see both the grandure and recognize the death of Imperial Pagan Rome, of Pagan Greece, and other long fallen cultures serves to remind us of the vainty of a life without God, and His Grace. If we look at it from a historical and religious point of view, they prevent us from forgetting that power and wealth can vanish, but that Charity and Faith can guide us to live in the world without becoming absorbed into it is possible.

From the income which the great Catholic sites around the world bring the poor are fed, the illiterate are educated, and the unbeliver is inspired. To the blind they are just sources of revenue, to those who know what happens behind the scenes, they (name removed by moderator)ire the religious works which make the largest organization in the world reaching out to those in need reagardless of religious or cultural background.

The glories of Rome, reflected in the great Bacilicas, and Churches as well as other sites, are also not simply parish Churches of the people of Rome, They are a home for all of us Catholics and non-Catholics alike because they stand as a glimpse into what awaits us in heaven, a place of refreshment and calm.

I myself was unimpressed with St. Peter’s, I thought it was going to be larger, it seemed small to me. My friend who entered it the first time I went was amazed at how vast it was. While I was not impressed by the size of the Bacilica, I was however impressed that here where St. Peter’s remains lay buried, where we just steps away had just seen the Sucessor of St. Peter speak was my spiritual home, where I a sinner could visit our our Lord. Where daily confessions are heard and sinners are reconciled to God. Something worth more than all the Pagan and Christian art I saw an hour later in the Vatican Museum.

 

[KSU]

The argument against the perceived wealth of the modern Church in the face of the starving masses has been around a long time, and is still a core tactic of Socialism, viz:

“The classical saint of Christianity mortified his body for the salvation of the souls of the masses; the modern, educated saint mortifies the bodies of the masses for the salvation of his own soul.”
Karl Marx

Let’s see; who to believe, Christ or Marx? Christ or Marx?

Golly gee wiz, that’s a tough one.

 

[JanetF]

Once you sell off all assets and distribute to the poor, you no longer have anything to contribute. IT’s a one time only thing. There will still be poor people who need help but we would be unable to help anymore. Who’s going to take up that cross? The Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world. Perhaps because the money is managed well, and we are able to give on a continual basis.

 

[Brendan_64]

The argument against the perceived wealth of the modern Church in the face of the starving masses has been around a long time, and is still a core tactic of Socialism, viz:

“The classical saint of Christianity mortified his body for the salvation of the souls of the masses; the modern, educated saint mortifies the bodies of the masses for the salvation of his own soul.”
Karl Marx

Let’s see; who to believe, Christ or Marx? Christ or Marx?

Golly gee wiz, that’s a tough one.

It’s got nothing to do with Socialism or Karl Marx.

It’s got to do with how best the Church should deploy its assets to carry out Christ’s mission on Earth. The Church has considerable assets tied up in very valuable art and antiquities. Do these assets contribute significantly to evangelising and saving souls? Because if they don’t then that is a waste of the Church’s resources.

Throwing Karl Marx into the argument is simply throwing in a bogeyman to try to support a position which has got absolutely nothing to do with Karl Marx.

You betcha. To forget the past is the first step in repeating it. To see both the grandure and recognize the death of Imperial Pagan Rome, of Pagan Greece, and other long fallen cultures serves to remind us of the vainty of a life without God, and His Grace.

I’ll admit that that is a decent argument.

 

[LilyM]

The poor may still be poor, but that money could be used to further the mission of the Church on Earth. Did Christ form our Church to be curators of extremely valuable historical objects and works of art?

Exactly what part in the mission of our Church do these priceless artifacts play? Should the Church not be using all of its resources to fulfill Christ’s mission on Earth? Do these treasures help portray a positive image of our Church and encourage evangelisation, or are they off-putting to potential converts?

What exactly does the Body of Christ on Earth gain from having these priceless objects? What part do they play in Christ’s mission?

These great works of art DO bring people closer to God. I certainly found the Sistine Chapel spiritually inspiring and edifying as well as beautiful. And God loves beauty for its own sake as well - he did not create so many types of gorgeous flowers or the glories of a sunrise or sunset for practical reasons, surely. If He can praise the lilies of the field for being beautiful even though not useful then so can we admire the beautiful and the Church preserve it.

 

[KSU]

It’s got nothing to do with Socialism or Karl Marx.

It’s got to do with how best the Church should deploy its assets to carry out Christ’s mission on Earth.

Old Karl will be extremely disappointed to hear that he is being misinterpreted. His life was devoted to spreading the belief that the ruling classes, including the Church, used religion to hang on to its power and wealth, and that distribution of all wealth would end economic inequality and material suffering.

As to how best the Church should deploy its assets to carry out its mission, Catholics defer to Peter. Matthew 16:15-19:

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

 

[Brendan_64]

Old Karl will be extremely disappointed to hear that he is being misinterpreted. His life was devoted to spreading the belief that the ruling classes, including the Church, used religion to hang on to its power and wealth, and that distribution of all wealth would end economic inequality and material suffering.

I’m not misinterpreting Karl Marx at all, I’m very aware of what he stands for and what Marxism is (I’ve been there and done that myself many years ago). However, Karl Marx’s views have got nothing whatsoever with the point of view amongst some that the we should evaluate how best the Church’s resources can be used to further the mission of the Church on Earth. Throwing in Karl Marx as a bogeyman as some sort of reason why the Church should not look at perhaps deploying its resources differently is a straw man.

Is the Church here to act as museum curators or to evangelise and save souls? Saving souls requires resources, therefore it is surely right to at least question and reevaluate how we deploy the resources we have. There have been a couple of good arguments put across on this thread for keeping treasures of the Vatican, but saying that we should keep them because Karl Marx would probably have liked us to get rid of them is a very lame point to try to argue.

As for quoting Matthew 16:15-19, this does not support keeping all the treasures we have in the Vatican museum. You seem to be just throwing in a Bible reference for the sake of it. The existence and authority of our Supreme Pontiff does not in any way depend on the Church owning huge quantities of extremely valuable arts and antiquities. The authority of the Pope does not depend on the material wealth of the Church, it certainly doesn’t depend on having a museum full of treasures.

 

[KSU]

I’m not misinterpreting Karl Marx at all, I’m very aware of what he stands for and what Marxism is (I’ve been there and done that myself many years ago). However, Karl Marx’s views have got nothing whatsoever with the point of view amongst some that the we should evaluate how best the Church’s resources can be used to further the mission of the Church on Earth. Throwing in Karl Marx as a bogeyman as some sort of reason why the Church should not look at perhaps deploying its resources differently is a straw man.

Is the Church here to act as museum curators or to evangelise and save souls? Saving souls requires resources, therefore it is surely right to at least question and reevaluate how we deploy the resources we have. There have been a couple of good arguments put across on this thread for keeping treasures of the Vatican, but saying that we should keep them because Karl Marx would probably have liked us to get rid of them is a very lame point to try to argue.

As for quoting Matthew 16:15-19, this does not support keeping all the treasures we have in the Vatican museum. You seem to be just throwing in a Bible reference for the sake of it. The existence and authority of our Supreme Pontiff does not in any way depend on the Church owning huge quantities of extremely valuable arts and antiquities. The authority of the Pope does not depend on the material wealth of the Church, it certainly doesn’t depend on having a museum full of treasures.

What I said about Marx was a hard, cold fact, viz: “The argument against the perceived wealth of the modern Church in the face of the starving masses has been around a long time, and is still a core tactic of Socialism.”

Now you say that it’s “a very lame point to try to argue.” But I did not argue anything; I stated a fact about Marx that you know to be true.

You also say that I’m making a “strawman” argument, viz: “Throwing in Karl Marx as a bogeyman as some sort of reason why the Church should not look at perhaps deploying its resources differently is a straw man.” But the only strawman argument is yours, i.e., I never said that because Marx was for it “the Church should not look at perhaps deploying its resources differently.” You put words in my mouth, and then tore down the resulting strawman.

I then said that Catholics defer to Peter regarding the issue of liquidating the Church’s treasures and distributing the proceeds to the poor. Why? Because in Matthew 16 Christ gave sole authority for that sort of thing to Peter, not the mysterious “some” you refer to. I never said the existence and authority of the Pope depends in some way on the “Church owning huge quantities of extremely valuable arts and antiquities.” Your one-time mentor, Marx, said that.

As the lawyers say, “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.” You’re very adept at the latter and would make a good trial lawyer here in the States.

But seriously, Brendan, it’s good to hear that you saw through the Marxist promises and investigated Roman Catholicism.

 

[Brendan_64]

But seriously, Brendan, it’s good to hear that you saw through the Marxist promises and investigated Roman Catholicism.

It was more a case of a cradle Catholic rebelling in his early teens and continuing that way for 20 years (dipping into the occult along the way) before eventually seeing sense. I am still pretty left-leaning and probably fall into the bracket of ‘Christian-Socialist’, but my loyalty is first and foremost with God and his Church.

 

[KSU]

It was more a case of a cradle Catholic rebelling in his early teens and continuing that way for 20 years (dipping into the occult along the way) before eventually seeing sense. I am still pretty left-leaning and probably fall into the bracket of ‘Christian-Socialist’, but my loyalty is first and foremost with God and his Church.

Sounds similar to the kaleidoscopic Catholic Worker movement which, as you probably know better than I, generally opposes the “unequal distribution of wealth” globally. While nebulous enough on paper to possibly square with U.S. law and traditions, in practice the “equal distribution of wealth” never could. Just as it has never worked in any secular economy, and never could, given both the Divinely-guarantied natural rights of mankind and (ironically) the fallen nature of mankind.

Nor, in practice, does it seem to square with Rerum Novarum’s insistence that private property (including Church-owned property) is more or less sacrosanct.

My grandparents’ relatives in Eastern Europe (all long gone now, and to whom I remember my parents still sending CARE Packages in the fifties to offset the effects of the equal distribution of wealth) would have given you a more than spirited argument, but I’m really trying not to do that in this thread.

Again, congratulations on reasoning your way through the morass.

 

[Brendan_64]

Nor, in practice, does it seem to square with Rerum Novarum’s insistence that private property (including Church-owned property) is more or less sacrosanct.

The Church dopes not hold that property rights are absolute. A starving man can take something belonging to someone else, without permission, and still not be guilty of sin. You can take something belonging to another in the case of extreme need, either your own need or the need of another, and not be guilty of sin.

Not forgetting also that the government takes property of you (i.e. taxes) and you have no right to refuse. Wealth redistribution already takes place through governments collecting taxes and redistributing that wealth according to its priorities. Wealth redistribution already takes place and individuals have no right to refuse to hand over their property to the government.

The argument therefore boils down to how much tax governments take, off whom, and how that money is redistributed. It is simply about how much is raised and how it is used. I agree that ‘equal distribution’ of wealth is an unrealistic pipe-dream, but I do agree with using more of tax revenue to even out some of the inequalities in our societies and give those less fortunate more of a ‘leg-up’ to enable them to create a better life for themselves and their children. I see nothing whatsoever in this form of Democratic Socialism, that that runs counter to the teachings of our Church, and much that is very much in line with the teachings of our Church.

Anyway, we’re now veering off topic.