Liberation Theology is in - should Yi be concerned?

[garbon]

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.

There's a former church here that used to be a club, then a fashion outlet (maybe other things in between) - now it'll be gay dance club is what I think I recently saw.

At any rate, I only mentioned as it seems like certainly it could be leased out for a tidy profit for visitors. I recoken they probably make up more traffic there than any congregants. Though could totally be wrong on that.

[grumbler]

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.

So?  There are many sites (like the burial site of Jesus himself) that are not the HQ for the Catholic Church.  That doesn't seem to harm the church.

Assuming you are being serious and not obtuse, "vacant office space" would not meet church needs, since the church needs more than offices.

Assuming that you are being serious and not obtuse, the church needs just office space for its HQ.

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.   

The church HQ doesn't need museums, worship spaces, and co-located housing.  Microsoft has a huge HQ with 55,000 workers, and doesn't have the need for museums, yada yada.  Total Vatican population:  798.  I think the church can find alternative accommodations for 798 people.

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/

So, you are saying that the Vatican runs a deficit, and so takes money away from the mission to the poor to support a mission to the rich?  Thatnks for making my point; getting rid of the Vatican will help the church be "the poor among the poor."  Even were that not true, keeping art treasures doesn't help the poor in any case, either in the present or the future.

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.

So the church should not do everything it can to help the poor?  It should not be, as the pope suggested, "the poor among the poor?"  That's ridiculous, unless the pope is just being another same old business-as-usual pope as we have seen for some hundreds of popes now.  If the pope is serious about his call to arms, he will act seriously and not talk seriously.  If he is just mouthing platitudes, he will be just like all the other popes, in which case people can stop pretending he is anything different.

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

.

It may look like I am "criticizing the temporal allocation of church assets," but I really am not.  I expect nothing else from the church.  It is a big bureaucracy, just like any other.  I am not even, really, criticising the pope for mouthing platitudes about the poor while doing nothing special for them.  What I am really criticising is those who claim that this pope is anything special, just because he is more willing to be hypocritical than most.

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.

Agreed.  The church should only liquidate assets to help the poor if it is serious about its doctrine.  There is no evidence that it is.

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.

When someone makes that argument, I will try to remember to point them to your response.  We could even add to that the codical that  "the fact that the church has failed to end mortality has no relevancy. Under that criterion nearly every charitable organization in the world should liquidate itself."  Oh, and "the fact that the church has failed to invade Mars has no relevancy. Under that criterion nearly every charitable organization in the world should liquidate itself." 

[Jacob]

I like Francis. He's a good lad.

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.
Everyone can TALK about things.

That's true, everyone can TALK about things.

However, when you have hundreds of millions of people who look to you for guidance WHAT you talk about, and HOW you talk about it has a material impact.

Given your job, I expect that at some point you'll learn that what you talk about and how you talk about it does have a significant impact on the result your team delivers.

[alfred russel]

So?  There are many sites (like the burial site of Jesus himself) that are not the HQ for the Catholic Church.  That doesn't seem to harm the church.

The pope is the Bishop of Rome. Whether any of us agree with it or not, there is more than a millennea of claiming primacy based on the location in Rome and Peter's supposed death there. Moving the headquarters to Rwanda to save on rent...probably not such a good idea.

[Sheilbh]

And you'd still need to find some central Roman real estate for the new Bishop of Rome

[Tamas]

I like Francis. He's a good lad.

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.
Everyone can TALK about things.

That's true, everyone can TALK about things.

However, when you have hundreds of millions of people who look to you for guidance WHAT you talk about, and HOW you talk about it has a material impact.

Given your job, I expect that at some point you'll learn that what you talk about and how you talk about it does have a significant impact on the result your team delivers.

The comparison does not stand.  What I mean, of course, is that the Pope basically ask people to do something (support the poor), he is among the most able to do himself. Is he doing it? Not as with a big tantrum as talking about it, that's for sure.

I wonder how many of you are actually Catholics. We are debating stuff Protestantism happened about. Jeebus.

[crazy canuck]

We are debating stuff Protestantism happened about.

I wonder if you realize the irony.

[Berkut]

I like Francis. He's a good lad.

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.
Everyone can TALK about things.

That's true, everyone can TALK about things.

However, when you have hundreds of millions of people who look to you for guidance WHAT you talk about, and HOW you talk about it has a material impact.

Given your job, I expect that at some point you'll learn that what you talk about and how you talk about it does have a significant impact on the result your team delivers.

The comparison does not stand.  What I mean, of course, is that the Pope basically ask people to do something (support the poor), he is among the most able to do himself. Is he doing it? Not as with a big tantrum as talking about it, that's for sure.

I wonder how many of you are actually Catholics. We are debating stuff Protestantism happened about. Jeebus.

As a atheist who is generally pretty strongly opposed to organized religion, especially opposed to organized religion like Catholicism that stands for ignorance and enforced adherence to revealed truth that in many cases result sin tangible and serious harm to humans and societies, I am very sympathetic towards the view you and grumbler are putting forth.

However, if I look at this from the perspective of Catholics who actually believe in their superstition, I don't find the demand that in order to NOT be hypocrites they need to sell of the accumulated wealth of the Catholic Church in order to give it to the poor.

I think they can speak about poverty in an attempt to influence public and political opinion towards a certain viewpoint they feel is informed by their faith, while at the same time not feeling that divesting the Church of its material wealth, such as it is, is a reasonable means towards reaching the goal of reducing poverty or changing the system that results in what they think of as greater amounts of poverty than is reasonable.

I mean, Warren Buffet could stand up and say "Our system results in the rich becoming too rich while the middle class languishes - we should change the system" without that being hypocritical if he doesn't immediately go out and divest himself of his billions.

The Chursh sees itself as having a roll to influence public policy on matters that the Church thinks are important and relevant to their faith. In many, MANY cases I strongly disagree with those positions, but I don't think they are hypocritical for holding them because they don't feel that the solution necessarily has to do with the Church directly.

Or to put it another way, the Church is saying that poverty is a problem across the human condition, but the solution is not that the Catholic Church should sell everything they own. It would not work, nor would it actually address the core problem anyway.

[Jacob]

The comparison does not stand.  What I mean, of course, is that the Pope basically ask people to do something (support the poor), he is among the most able to do himself. Is he doing it? Not as with a big tantrum as talking about it, that's for sure.

It totally stands. We are talking about leadership.

Also, as has been mentioned several times in this thread and elsewhere, the Pope does in fact support the poor. In fact, by speaking as he does he is increasing the Church's focus on supporting the poor.

The Pope's job is to talk, and to set the direction of the body of the faithful. By talking about supporting the poor, he is in fact causing the poor to be supported better than they were previously.

I wonder how many of you are actually Catholics. We are debating stuff Protestantism happened about. Jeebus.

It does seem to me that you are criticizing the Pope for being insufficiently Protestant, which seems sort of silly. Personally, I approve of the fact that he seems to be a better sort of Catholic.

[Beenherebefore]

Being <anything> has never stopped us from debating the shit out of nothing and scratching people's face out on a regular basis over the Internet.

And that is the goddamn truth.

[Berkut]

Being <anything> has never stopped us from debating the shit out of nothing and scratching people's face out on a regular basis over the Internet.

And that is the goddamn truth.

No it isn't. Stop being a contrarian.

[Beenherebefore]

 

[Capetan Mihali]

Berkut makes the point rather nicely from my perspective.

The Lord is speaking through his keyboard mittens, mysterious as it may seem.  

[Beenherebefore]

But can we sell those Holy Mittens over the Internet and help the poor?

[Siege]

Why is communism so popular around the world, when all their social experiments have failed?

I don't understand. Why follow a failed ideology?
I mean, wasn't the failure of the Soviet Union enough?
Wasn't the Chinese conversion to State Capitalism under communist leadership the ultimate proof that communism and Marxism don't work?

Weren't you a big supporter of at least local socialism years ago?

At the tribal level and below, where people feel they belong to a blood related group.
However I don't think even at that level it really works.

Or am I not allowed to change my position?

I change my political position as the situation on the ground changes.
This is not flip flopping.
This is adapting to the ever changing reality on the battlefield.
Or whatever it might be.

I was not a republican supporter when we met in Paradox Off Topic.
I liked Obama before he started lying and violating the Constitution.
I didn't even like the Tea Party when it first appeared.

People change, and rightly so.