More to the point, when a church or a museum holds a piece of artwork, the poor might actually get to be exposed to it, too. This is particularly true of sacred art and architecture and real estate held for use by the faithful.Regarding the Vatican’s ownership of artwork, should the Smithsonian, the Louvre, and other museums sell their collections to eliminate poverty? It seems a rational question to ask the person responding to you on Facebook, OP, why the Vatican is being singled out in this way. There is a human value to art and exposure to it that exceeds monetary value.
We have to strike a balance between realizing the poor will always be with us and examining whether we are doing what we ought to be doing.What does that have to do with the Catholic Church, which is hardly rich, selling everything it owns, to feed poor people, which it is already doing. Jesus said there will always be poor.
How I wish we lived in a world where facts don’t need an escort.I believe the facts speak for themselves.
Excellent reply. I wish I could “like” it three or four times.The catholic church is the #1 charitable organization in the world.
The museums run by the Vatican are a source of income which can be used on a continual basis to help others. If we sell all the art, that source of income dries up and so does our ability to help. Not to mention if the art goes into the hands of a private person, the rest of the world can no longer be exposed to it and enjoy it. Some people are actually evangelized when they visit museums and see some of the wonderful religious art available to the public.
This is, was, and probably always will be a stupid argument.Someone responded and is as follows: Yes I object, the Vatican has enough stored wealth to end poverty and hunger and they do nothing.
Not all topics are this lively, no, you just picked one that’s easy to refute.This was my first post to this forum. Are all topics this lively? I’m enjoying reading all your comments!
If you are saying that someone who asks the question honestly will have a relatively easy time getting an answer that exonerates the Vatican’s choice to keep its art collection, I think you are 100% correct. (That is not to say the Popes who originally amassed it never had luxurious motives, but that the collection is not being held that way now, so that the original motive is neither here nor there.) There are reasonable people who unfortunately accept what they are told when it is said as if the speaker has actually investigated the question. That leaves people like the OP with the mess to clean up.The truth takes us where the truth takes us.
To be accurate – not enough for the poor and middle class. Way too much for the super-rich.That’s funny… the democrats were complaining about the Trump tax cuts not being “enough.”