"Wealthy Catholic Church"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eliza10
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eliza10

Guest
I just heard this criticism again, and I’d like to address it. I once wondered about that once but I remeber getting a reasonable answer on that one. I don’t know where. Can anyone direct me to a good defense of that? Like, isn’t it mostly artistic treasures, that were made for the glory of God?

Another criticism that goes hand-in-hand with that wealth thing is that our giving to the poor is supposed to be sufficient. I know it is not, but, I don’t know where to find figures for that either.
 
I don’t have any answers, but I’m subscribing because sometimes I wonder about this.
 
Most of the Church’s wealth was donated.

People are free to give whatever they want to whatever Church they want.

Many parishes hold large mortgage debt.

-Tim-
 
I don’t know if this will help, but one of the reasons the Church is considered wealthy is because of the artworks, historical artifacts, architectural landmarks, so on and so forth that it owns. Chalices and monstrances, as one example, are required to be made of gold if I’m not mistaken. Statues and stained glass windows are worth quite a bit, not to mention the cathedrals themselves. But then one must also remember, these things are more often than not, if not entirely, donated. Even the (more decorative) doors to the chapel in my college town are donated by one of the parish families, and there’s even a small plaque in the chapel with the families’ names on it.

All of these things are indeed worth a large sum of money. But it’s not as if we can just auction off or smelt down the previous popes’ papal crowns. They’re historical and artistic masterpieces donated to the Church, created by craftsmen from whatever era they lived in. Likewise, we can’t exactly sell off the statues the Vatican is in possession of. They’re historical art pieces in the Vatican museum. The Church also donates not only money but an immense amount of time to various charities, missions, schools, hospitals etc.

I’ve noticed people like to talk about how much money the Vatican and the Catholic Church have, as though it’s just sitting there twiddling its thumbs atop a mountain of gold. It’s not as if they can just sell St. Peter’s Basilica to the highest bidder, or sell the Pieta, though I would love to be able to buy either of those. It just confuses me to no end when people talk about the Vatican’s money as though they’re not using it properly, as though they should sell the papal crown and the Sistine Chapel and Notre Dame and use the money to buy rice for villages in Africa. It’s not as though the Church isn’t already doing that through it’s multitudes of ministries (which do in fact require funding). But people like feeling as though they have the moral high ground. If I personally just came into ownership of the same amount of money the Church has, it would indeed be terribly irresponsible and uncharitable of me not to spend a good deal of it to help people in need. But then, I’m also not an organization that needs to feed (insert number of priests and religious) who serve over 1 billion people, plus the remaining 6 billion, spread across 6 continents.
 
No where does Jesus comment on the Church, as an institution, having any monetary restrictions. Of course, the Apostlea took a vow of poverty but we can assume that the earliest Churches had some form of basic structure to meet within (even if it was the upper room of someone’s house).

As Christianity grew, more items were donated for various reasons - many of these now have high traditional value within the Church and thus won’t be sold. New Churches were built and filled with pews, etc. - and these are all worth some value. Some may be high due to location or inherent value. Over time the Church has accumulated considerable wealth due to owning buildings and having other important historical artifacts which are “priceless”.

It is a reality of the day today that the Church needs some revenue to operate, and this revenue is not bad as it allows for the Church to grow and maintain itself. Also, it is important to remember that the clergy receibe very limited salaries and some take a vow of poverty.
 
What wealth? The Church spends more than comes in and hasn’t stopped Her charitable works. Is the Church to sell her buildings? What would She do then? Is She to sell Her priceless art which brings in countless visitors and generates money to put back toward charitable works, only for it all to go into private collections to never be seen again? Such comments are nonsense.
 
Doesn’t each jurisdiction have its own budget? The US, for instance.

I know that the Vatican bank operates independently, with assets of, what 7 or 8 billion euros. Not all of that is art treasures, certainly. And the Pope is working on more transparency after the scandals of the past decades, which is a good thing.

The other figure I recall is that the US Catholic Church has paid over $3 billion in the past decade for abuse cases. I believe that includes legal fees as well as settlements, therapy for the victims and in some cases child support.

I’m sure that has an impact on the ministry of the church.
 
Also, it is important to remember that the clergy receibe very limited salaries and some take a vow of poverty.
Diocesan priests don’t take a vow of poverty, but religious members do. My Jesuit friends, however, live in very lovely quarters. They own it communally through the order, but still, the lifestyle is far above what I can manage. Not all orders are well off. The Missionaries of Charity sisters in San Francisco live in a very poor neighborhood. I guess it all depends on your order and where you are stationed.
 
Same ole, same ole…
Same ***very ***old… :sad_yes:
John 12
  1. Then one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, he that was about to betray him, said:
  2. Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
  3. Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the purse, carried the things that were put therein.
tee
 
Doesn’t each jurisdiction have its own budget? The US, for instance.
Each diocese has its own budget as does each parish. The US as a geographic entity doesn’t have a combined budget. The USCCB, which is administrative, is funded by the dioceses.
I know that the Vatican bank operates independently, with assets of, what 7 or 8 billion euros
.

The Vatican Bank is a slang term for the Institutes for the Works of Religion. It’s purpose it to fund charitable missions throughout the world.
Not all of that is art treasures, certainly.
None of it is. The art and “treasures” are completely separate from the Vatican Bank.
And the Pope is working on more transparency after the scandals of the past decades, which is a good thing.
Yes.
The other figure I recall is that the US Catholic Church has paid over $3 billion in the past decade for abuse cases. I believe that includes legal fees as well as settlements, therapy for the victims and in some cases child support.
Sadly, I believe that is an understated figure.
I’m sure that has an impact on the ministry of the church
Yes. And most of the money went to attorneys and interest groups. So the ministry of the Church, which includes aid and comfort to victims of abuse, has suffered from fewer funds available. But the amount the US dioceses pour into social services and other ministries is still enormous.
 
Dorothy Day, who was known for her work with the poor, responded to this criticism regarding the art that the Church owns. “Should it be left for only the wealthy to enjoy?”
 
When Dorothy Day, who was known for her work with the poor, was confronted with criticism of the Church regarding its artwork, she responded with “Why shouldn’t the poor be surrounded with beauty? Should it be only the domain of the rich?” or words to that effect. I couldn’t find the exact quote.
I had a friend who recently traveled to Mexico. While he enjoyed the beautiful cathedrals, he also didn’t understand how the Catholic Church could pour so much money into these beautiful buildings. I pointed to Dorothy Day’s statement. The building of cathedrals and churches has often been a labor of love. A family donated their own funds to build the church for a local parish. While it is true that the Church is not a building, but the people of God, the people do need a place to gather and worship.
The use of stained glass windows developed at a time when people were still illiterate as a means of conveying the Gospel message. Art and architecture, including flying buttresses all had function and meaning. They were not reserved for merely the rich to enjoy.

When the Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration moved to LaCrosse, WI the first thing they built was their chapel of Perpetual Adoration. Of course they were questioned about their use of funds when there were so many other needs. They pointed of course to the story of the sinful woman in the gospels who poured expensive oil over the feet of Jesus and wiped them with her hair.
 
Considering that most of the art work shows the Gospel and the teachings of the catholic church - they should be considered religious icon not art work and are a part of our church history - they have no value in the church other than the visitors coming to see them who pay a fee just like any other museum - its expensive to keep and restore these icons - they are not the wealth of the Catholic church and they will never be sold and would you want one in some evil rich guys den who doesn’t believe.
 
People always confuse “wealth” with “cash on hand.”

While it is true that if the Catholic Church were to liquidate all it’s assets we could pay down every nation’s debt and still have a few trillion dollars leftover, the vast majority of our wealth is not liquid (currency).

The Church is the largest landowner in the world, and that alone is enough to make it wealthy. Add to that the priceless historical treasures under her custodianship and you get a whole new level of wealth that even Donald Trump can’t imagine. Some of this artwork wasn’t made for the Church, but the Church took custody of it to protect it from destruction during wars.

On top of this wealth, the Church does also have considerable cash holdings. However, these holdings are not enough to cover all the day-to-day operations of the global Church.
 
My discomfort isn’t with the art or property the Church owns. I would never say I think those things should be sold off, because I see the Church as holding those for the Common Good.

I do have a level of discomfort with the cash assets the Church has, particularly the Vatican. On the one hand we are told to help the poor out of our pockets, as well as give to the Church within our means, and on the other the Church itself is quite wealthy in cash assets. I got 7 things in the mail from various Catholic charities asking for money yesterday alone. 4 in the mail the day before. I’m being hit up left and right for my very limited cash resources. And I recognize that various ministries are expected to support themselves, as are each Parish. But if the Vatican really has billions in cash assets, what is that money for?

I don’t think there is anything wrong asking the question. Perhaps there’s a good reason. I haven’t really seen any “good reason” answers here, but largely a bunch of defensive ones.
 
My discomfort isn’t with the art or property the Church owns. I would never say I think those things should be sold off, because I see the Church as holding those for the Common Good.
Those things shouldn’t be sold off, but they should be returned to the countries they were pillaged from.
I haven’t really seen any “good reason” answers here, but largely a bunch of defensive ones
I agree.
 
Those things shouldn’t be sold off, but they should be returned to the countries they were pillaged from.
That’s a confusing statement. Care to expand on that? How does a non-military organization pillage something?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top