Liberation Theology is in - should Yi be concerned?

[Caliga]

Let's just say the Pope decided to put the Vatican up for sale.  Who would want to buy it, and who could afford to buy it?

[Camerus]

Of course the role of the Church is to be a Church, not in Pope Francis's phrase a 'pitiful NGO'.

Its primary duty to the poor is evangelisation and the sacraments.

He is a celebrity with air time to spout the most basic moralities. "being poor is bad, mkay?" "we should care for the poor" Blah blah blah. I haven't heard the news about the Bank of Vatican launching aid or low interest loan programs for the poor people of the developing world.

The Vatican Bank isn't a bank in that sense. It's being reformed (largely because of Benedict's appointees) which is good, but I don't see how the Church getting involved in financial gamesmanship would help.

That is so convenient for them. They get to preach about people being poor, but they don't have to care about mundane material stuff (obviously being poor have nothing to do with the material world, right). But not having to care apparently also means that they can hoard wealth for the church and themselves.

Seriously dude. Financial gamesmanship? Giving aid for development in the 3rd world using Vatican resources, by forgoing profit, is really that out of line with the loudly proclaimed aims of the Pope?

Except it's not like the Church and Catholic organizations don't already do a tremendous amount to help the poor every single day.

I also don't agree that selling priceless cultural treasures to a bunch of wealthy Chinese billionaires or whatever is a win for the faithful, but I suspect that even if they did that, they still wouldn't win Tamas' approval.

[grumbler]

The Church needs lots of large buildings to accommodate its needs. The buildings it owns have both historic and religious significance. And the physical location of the buildings have religious significance.

Wherever the church has its HQ, those buildings will have religious significance.  I'd hope, anyway, because if the Catholic Church HQ has no religious significance, then it should fold up its tent.  As for historical significance, that will persist even if the Church sells the property.    The Palais des Papes in Avignon isn't the HQ of the Catholic Church any more, but is still a historic site with religious significance.

If it sold off the buildings, it would have to re-build somewhere else at an enormous cost, in a location without historical or religious significance to the Church or its members. That makes no sense. I am pretty sure you are trolling, but that is fairly obvious.

Why would they have to re-build anything?  There is a lot of vacant office space in the world, and the Church HQ just needs a reasonable degree of accessibility, so their choices are pretty wide-open.  I am pretty sure that you are just playing dumb here, but that it fairly obvious.

My point is that the leaders of the church need to be responsible stewards to protect the future of the church, and the anecdote is an example of poor stewardship leading to disastrous consequences.

So the purpose of your anecdote is to argue that poor stewardship leads to poor results?  I hate to tell you this, but that is pretty redundant.  It also has nothing to do with the catholic church fulfilling its mission, as defined by its pope, to be "the poor among the poor."

What you call "ostentatious wealth" in part are assets with historic and religious significance. Other assets exist to help fund the ongoing operations of the church. Is there corruption and unnecessary luxuries within the church? Definitely. Any human institution will be like that. But just because there is some bad doesn't mean the Church shouldn't preserve the good.

The items with historic and religious significance retain those traits when not owned by the church; the option isn't to leave The School of Athens in the Vatican Art Museum or destroy it, it is to have the Vatican Art Museum conserve it, or to have some other equivalent museum pay for the privileged of preserving and showing it, and using the money for the Church's mission of being "the poor among the poor."  It may be true that other assets exist to help the ongoing operations of the church, but those operations don't appear to be working; there still are poor people.  I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pope calling for others to make sacrifices to help the poor, while there exists such a vast reservoir of wealth under the Pope's control that he is unwilling to sacrifice.

And I don't think Jesus really spoke one way or the other as to the overall principles behind  stewardship. That being said, the Church believes that church tradition has theological value. The church has historically maintained assets for the benefit of future generations while also making efforts at helping the poor and others. It seems to have been an effective strategy thus far.

I disagree that the Church is poor, and that it is among the poor.  The fact that the Church has historically viewed itself as a secular power deserving of the magnificence and splendor of such worldly powers is not relevant to the pope's call to be poor among the poor.  And the church has failed to end poverty or even make meaningful sacrifices towards that end.  I don't blame the church for this; bureaucracies are like that.  I just point out the hollowness of the claims that this pope is meaningfully different from the others.

[grumbler]

Of course the role of the Church is to be a Church, not in Pope Francis's phrase a 'pitiful NGO'.

Its primary duty to the poor is evangelisation and the sacraments.

Tell the pope that. Personally, I think that you are right, and that this will be a'business as usual" pope in actions, even if his preaching isn't the usual fare.

[grumbler]

The Church is human institution and carries with it human needs and flaws, and while they reach for the divine they can never approach the perfection and sublime wisdom that is Grumbler.

True. But, they should at least try getting close to living up to the expectations they have for everyone else in the world.

Please do not feed the troll. 

[grumbler]

Let's just say the Pope decided to put the Vatican up for sale.  Who would want to buy it, and who could afford to buy it?

Can you imagine the hotels they could make out of some of those buildings?  And the other Papal Palace, in Avignon, seems to be doing well even though it isn't owned by the Church.

[Iormlund]

Let's just say the Pope decided to put the Vatican up for sale.  Who would want to buy it, and who could afford to buy it?

I'm guessing the Vatican makes a lot of money from tourism. Selling it probably doesn't make sense from a financial point of view in any case.

[Razgovory]

The Church is human institution and carries with it human needs and flaws, and while they reach for the divine they can never approach the perfection and sublime wisdom that is Grumbler.

True. But, they should at least try getting close to living up to the expectations they have for everyone else in the world.

And what expectation is that?

[alfred russel]

The catholic church has a more limited ability to cash in on its holdings than many realize. On the one hand, you have many old churches on prime real estate that are some of the most famous and significant structures ever built. It is very easy to assign them a huge value.

On the other hand, they are very expensive to maintain (being huge old buildings) and practically speaking can't be torn down (many are significant heritage sites - if the church decided to bulldoze Saint Peter's to put in hotels--the revenue of which would pay for food for poor people, I doubt Italy would allow it, nominal sovereignty nonwithstanding).

So if we are going to keep the buildings, the question is how to maximize their value. Grumbler points out that the former Papal Estates in Avignon are doing quite well. And they are! However, the tourism to the site is dwarfed by the number to the Vatican, and for major events it is common for Rome to have large numbers of pilgrims visit.

[grumbler]

I'm guessing the Vatican makes a lot of money from tourism. Selling it probably doesn't make sense from a financial point of view in any case.

I don't know of anyone who is publicly arguing that the Catholic Church's mission is to maximize financial efficiency.  If one were to argue for that, however, I dare say that selling a lot of the church's property would make a great deal of sense, rather than little sense.  I'm guessing that you are guessing wrong about the Catholic Church's income from tourism.  I'd bet that it is fairly small (though non-church businesses and whatnot in Rome certainly DO make a lot of money off of tourism), and I'd be surprised if such income even pays for building maintenance. My guess would be that maintaining the Church's properties in, say, Rome, probably in fact takes away money that could be spent on the poor.  That may, indeed, be the proper course for the church to take, but it that course does demonstrate the shallowness of Francis's exhortations to be "poor among the poor."

[grumbler]

The catholic church has a more limited ability to cash in on its holdings than many realize. On the one hand, you have many old churches on prime real estate that are some of the most famous and significant structures ever built. It is very easy to assign them a huge value.

Selling churches would be a far different proposition than selling palaces and museums and art work and the like.  The churches have to be where they are because they are serving a population.  Maybe some churches could be sold as no longer consistent with needs, but that is a separate issue from the pope calling for the church to be "poor among the poor" while maintaining its status as one of the richest and most ostentatious organizations in the world.

[garbon]

The Vatican Museum might be profitable but Saint Peter's isn't. That's free to visit.

[grumbler]

The Vatican Museum might be profitable but Saint Peter's isn't. That's free to visit.

Saint Peter's is a church, though, right?  I don't know of anyone who thinks that the Catholic Church should be getting rid of churches to make money.  But, then again, churches are supposed to be funded by their congregations and so wouldn't be taking money that could otherwise go to the poor.

[stjaba]

Wherever the church has its HQ, those buildings will have religious significance.  I'd hope, anyway, because if the Catholic Church HQ has no religious significance, then it should fold up its tent.  As for historical significance, that will persist even if the Church sells the property.    The Palais des Papes in Avignon isn't the HQ of the Catholic Church any more, but is still a historic site with religious significance.

The significance of the location of the Vatican is more than the fact it is the HQ of the church. It is believed that St. Peter was crucified at or near Vatican Hill and that he and other early church fathers are buried at the Vatican.

Why would they have to re-build anything?  There is a lot of vacant office space in the world, and the Church HQ just needs a reasonable degree of accessibility, so their choices are pretty wide-open.  I am pretty sure that you are just playing dumb here, but that it fairly obvious.

Assuming you are being serious and not obtuse, "vacant office space" would not meet church needs, since the church needs more than offices. As currently situated, the Vatican has worship space that can accommodate thousands, museums, offices, and housing all located in one central location. It would be near impossible to recreate that anywhere, setting aside the historic and religious significance of the existing buildings and location.   

So the purpose of your anecdote is to argue that poor stewardship leads to poor results?  I hate to tell you this, but that is pretty redundant.  It also has nothing to do with the catholic church fulfilling its mission, as defined by its pope, to be "the poor among the poor."

Good stewardship ensures that the church will be able to assist the poor in future generations. Having a church asset fire sale will help the poor in the short run, but not the long run. And interestingly, I found an article that suggested that the Vatican was running a deficit. That article is from 1987, so it is certainly dated, but it contradicts the claim the church simply hordes wealth. http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/02/17/vatican-finances/

It may be true that other assets exist to help the ongoing operations of the church, but those operations don't appear to be working; there still are poor people.

So the church's mission would only be a success if it somehow wiped out global poverty? That's ridiculous. Poverty will probably never be eliminated, but that doesn't mean the church's operations aren't effective.

I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pope calling for others to make sacrifices to help the poor, while there exists such a vast reservoir of wealth under the Pope's control that he is unwilling to sacrifice.

The Church holds its wealth for the benefit of the members of the church akin to how a trustee holds assets for a beneficiary. The question is to spend the wealth now or conserve it for future generations. Conserving it the safer approach. Ultimately you are criticizing the temporal allocation of church assets.

I disagree that the Church is poor, and that it is among the poor.  The fact that the Church has historically viewed itself as a secular power deserving of the magnificence and splendor of such worldly powers is not relevant to the pope's call to be poor among the poor.  And the church has failed to end poverty or even make meaningful sacrifices towards that end.  I don't blame the church for this; bureaucracies are like that.  I just point out the hollowness of the claims that this pope is meaningfully different from the others.

Again, the church is imperfect and has certainly taken things too far, in the past and certainly in the present. Does that mean the church should liquidate most or all of its assets? No.

And the fact that the church has failed to end poverty has no relevancy. Under that criterion nearly every charitable organization in the world should liquidate itself.

[Eddie Teach]

Poverty will probably never be eliminated,

The Singularity will fix it.