Liberation Theology is in - should Yi be concerned?

[Barrister]

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.

You're probably aware of this, but Buffet has been critical of "the system" for not making the rich pay their fair share, and he has in fact given away billions and billions of dollars to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.  Hard to accuse him of hypocrisy.

[grumbler]

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.

Mere argument by assertion.

[grumbler]

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.

I think that this is pretty much in line with my thinking (except that I do believe that it is hypocritical to talk about emulating Jesus while standing there in a coupla thousand dollars worth of ceremonial garb and speaking from a palace worth tens of millions), and I don't blame the catholic Church for being a hidebound bureaucracy and the pope a mouthpiece for the established interests.  But, just as I'd argue in your Buffet hypothetical for the bogosity of any claim that Buffet was something new and different because he talked a different talk, so I argue for the bogosity of claims that Francis is different because he talks a different talk.  If it talks like a New Zowee Duck but walks like a regular ol' duck, it's just a duck that talks funny.

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

He could work out of St. John Lateran's Basilica like... well, like a bishop!  In fact, you could get rid of the two figurehead vicars general if the Bishop or Rome was a real bishop.   

The idea that every bishop has to have a setup like the Vatican to live in is kinda funny.  I suspect even you would think that that was going too far.

In fact, there are entire religions in which there is no equivalent to the Vatican, and somehow those religions manage to survive and even thrive.  I suspect that Catholicism could survive even without its own version of Disneyland.

[Razgovory]

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.

I wasn't aware we were discussing nationalism, centralizing the state, and robbery.

[Berkut]

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.

You're probably aware of this, but Buffet has been critical of "the system" for not making the rich pay their fair share, and he has in fact given away billions and billions of dollars to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.  Hard to accuse him of hypocrisy.

Good thing I wasn't then!

But to the standard demanded of the Catholic Church, Buffet is still a hypocrite since he didn't give it ALL away. He is still filthy rich.

Of course, to be fair, he isn't going around saying he wants to be the "poor among the poor".

[Berkut]

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

He could work out of St. John Lateran's Basilica like... well, like a bishop!  In fact, you could get rid of the two figurehead vicars general if the Bishop or Rome was a real bishop.   

The idea that every bishop has to have a setup like the Vatican to live in is kinda funny.  I suspect even you would think that that was going too far.

In fact, there are entire religions in which there is no equivalent to the Vatican, and somehow those religions manage to survive and even thrive.  I suspect that Catholicism could survive even without its own version of Disneyland.

Grumbler, their response to your point sucks, so stop beating them up on it!

The response to the point that if the Church wants to be the "poor among the poor" the Church should ditch a bunch of its rather overwhelming wealth is not to say that the Church needs that wealth - of course it does not "need" it.

As you point out, plenty of religious faiths manage to do fine with less wealth...in fact, I think a good argument can be made that every single other religious faith ever has succeeded without the Catholic Churches wealth.

The better argument against your point is to simply note that while the Catholic Church has an incredible amount of "book" wealth, that wealth is, in great part, in assets that hold significant relevance and meaning to the Church, and while they could certainly divest themselves of those assets, it would not actually help the cause of global poverty in any great way, since that problem is (to the view of those who hold to the Liberation Whatever viewpoint) systemic rather than incidental.

Another argument would be to point out that the demand to be the "poor among the poor" is really intended for the men and women who serve the Church, not the Church itself. They are, in fact, poor, even if the Church they serve is wealthy.

Those fancy robes the Pope wears are not his, they are the Churches. The cars, cathedrals, buildings, none of them the property of the actual people the Pope is saying should be the "poor among the poor".

There are so many better arguments in response to your attack than "But...but....the Church *needs* those billions of dollars worth of stuff!".

[Sheilbh]

The idea that every bishop has to have a setup like the Vatican to live in is kinda funny.  I suspect even you would think that that was going too far.

The Bishop of Rome is different. That's a defining feature of Catholicism.

In fact, there are entire religions in which there is no equivalent to the Vatican, and somehow those religions manage to survive and even thrive.  I suspect that Catholicism could survive even without its own version of Disneyland.

Of course, every religion's different. But I think a large part of Catholicism's success as the largest Christian faith and probably the largest single religious movement in the world is because it's got a head office that's able to define doctrine and establish teaching.

The response to the point that if the Church wants to be the "poor among the poor" the Church should ditch a bunch of its rather overwhelming wealth is not to say that the Church needs that wealth - of course it does not "need" it.

Practically the Church does need some things. Based on major festivals and events the Church would need an area of Rome that could be consecrated, with space outside for up to a million people and also enough office space to help run the faith of over 1/6th of humanity. Luckily the Church has all this on the site of the tomb of St. Peter.

Around the world the Church runs parishes that provide vital services (not to mention their religious purposes) at an enormous loss. Within local areas the well-off churches of Kensington fund the ones in Lambeth, but it's also global. The US and Germany are the richest Catholic Churches and a lot of money gets sent from them to support Churches in the developing world (incidentally arranging these money transfers without making money off them is one of the primary roles of the Vatican Bank).

Not only that but the Vatican multiplies the Church's wealth that can be used to help the poor. The Church is not cash-rich. It has a lot of assets. The regular stream of money from visitors to the Vatican Museum is far better than the proceeds of a one off sale - and from a public interest perspective it is better that that collection is still together, on display and available for loans than split up, alienated from Rome and often in the hands of private collectors.

In addition the biggest assets are probably the least plausible to be sold. There is no existing market that I know of for Baroque Basillicas, whoever designed them or painted their frescoes.

The Church isn't the institution or the building it's every believing Catholic. A poor Church for the poor is really very well explained by Francis in Evangelii Gaudium.

Another argument would be to point out that the demand to be the "poor among the poor" is really intended for the men and women who serve the Church, not the Church itself. They are, in fact, poor, even if the Church they serve is wealthy.

Those fancy robes the Pope wears are not his, they are the Churches. The cars, cathedrals, buildings, none of them the property of the actual people the Pope is saying should be the "poor among the poor".

Quite. It's like telling the President to sell the White House.

I looked up US figures. Priests earn $25-33 000 on average. Bishops earn around $35-45 000 or so.

[crazy canuck]

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

He could work out of St. John Lateran's Basilica like... well, like a bishop!  In fact, you could get rid of the two figurehead vicars general if the Bishop or Rome was a real bishop.   

The idea that every bishop has to have a setup like the Vatican to live in is kinda funny.  I suspect even you would think that that was going too far.

In fact, there are entire religions in which there is no equivalent to the Vatican, and somehow those religions manage to survive and even thrive.  I suspect that Catholicism could survive even without its own version of Disneyland.

Grumbler, their response to your point sucks, so stop beating them up on it!

The response to the point that if the Church wants to be the "poor among the poor" the Church should ditch a bunch of its rather overwhelming wealth is not to say that the Church needs that wealth - of course it does not "need" it.

As you point out, plenty of religious faiths manage to do fine with less wealth...in fact, I think a good argument can be made that every single other religious faith ever has succeeded without the Catholic Churches wealth.

The better argument against your point is to simply note that while the Catholic Church has an incredible amount of "book" wealth, that wealth is, in great part, in assets that hold significant relevance and meaning to the Church, and while they could certainly divest themselves of those assets, it would not actually help the cause of global poverty in any great way, since that problem is (to the view of those who hold to the Liberation Whatever viewpoint) systemic rather than incidental.

Another argument would be to point out that the demand to be the "poor among the poor" is really intended for the men and women who serve the Church, not the Church itself. They are, in fact, poor, even if the Church they serve is wealthy.

Those fancy robes the Pope wears are not his, they are the Churches. The cars, cathedrals, buildings, none of them the property of the actual people the Pope is saying should be the "poor among the poor".

There are so many better arguments in response to your attack than "But...but....the Church *needs* those billions of dollars worth of stuff!".

I am not sure if you are trying to be ironic or you really didnt read what people have been saying or your just an ass because the bolded part is pretty much exactly what Sheilbh and others have already said.

[alfred russel]

I suspect that much of the property the church has in Europe is almost impossible to liquidate. If the church really wanted to walk away from the property the secular governments would step in and take control.

What could possibly be liquidated is artwork and other items such as those found in the Vatican museums. I suspect the Vatican museums is already successfully monetizing those assets. Maybe they could do better with an outright sale, but is that really in anyone's interests? To really get top dollar you have to sell in the private market, and that would be really shitty imo. In general I think the Vatican museum is an abortion in terms of presentation, but it clearly is one of the great museums of the world and it would be tragic to break up the collection.

[Capetan Mihali]

It's kind of a shame there was that typo in the translation provided to Languish, and now we're all following the credo "be the boor amongst the boor." 

[garbon]

It's kind of a shame there was that typo in the translation provided to Languish, and now we're all following the credo "be the boor amongst the boor." 

I mean, who wants to be poor?

[grumbler]

The better argument against your point is to simply note that while the Catholic Church has an incredible amount of "book" wealth, that wealth is, in great part, in assets that hold significant relevance and meaning to the Church, and while they could certainly divest themselves of those assets, it would not actually help the cause of global poverty in any great way, since that problem is (to the view of those who hold to the Liberation Whatever viewpoint) systemic rather than incidental.

That's not really against my point, though.  My point acknowledges that the Catholic Church is like every other massive bureaucracy; its decisions are made for bureaucratic reasons, not based on trying to accomplish the mission of the organization which the bureaucracy serves.  My argument isn't against the Church, or the pope. It is against those who are arguing that this pope is significantly different from other popes because he uses a few different words or has a different "emphasis."

Another argument would be to point out that the demand to be the "poor among the poor" is really intended for the men and women who serve the Church, not the Church itself. They are, in fact, poor, even if the Church they serve is wealthy.

This is the argument that the POTUS can't do anything about poverty because his personal wealth is only about $7 million, and that wouldn't even give each poor person a dollar.  The leaders of the church could certainly sacrifice church assets to help the poor if they wanted to act and not just talk. 

[grumbler]

The Bishop of Rome is different. That's a defining feature of Catholicism.

Mere argument by assertion.

Practically the Church does need some things. Based on major festivals and events the Church would need an area of Rome that could be consecrated, with space outside for up to a million people and also enough office space to help run the faith of over 1/6th of humanity. Luckily the Church has all this on the site of the tomb of St. Peter.

Practically, the Church does need some things.  But what you describe are not things it needs, they are luxuries.  Office space is available all over the world.  Those offices need not be in Rome.

Around the world the Church runs parishes that provide vital services (not to mention their religious purposes) at an enormous loss.

So does the Lutheran Church, the Mormon Church, the Methodist Church.... None of them have Vaticans or their own banks, and yet they manage.

Not only that but the Vatican multiplies the Church's wealth that can be used to help the poor. The Church is not cash-rich. It has a lot of assets. The regular stream of money from visitors to the Vatican Museum is far better than the proceeds of a one off sale - and from a public interest perspective it is better that that collection is still together, on display and available for loans than split up, alienated from Rome and often in the hands of private collectors.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that Jibberjabber's link is correct, and you are wrong.  From http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/02/17/vatican-finances/:

The costs of the Vatican's growing bureaucracy far exceed its means. Operating expenses divert contributions once set aside for the poor.

In addition the biggest assets are probably the least plausible to be sold. There is no existing market that I know of for Baroque Basillicas, whoever designed them or painted their frescoes.

I am going to assume that this is a joke, since it doesn't even start to address anything in this thread.

[Tamas]

I guess a natural conclusion of this debate is that the Catholic church is now, so to say, beyond redemption: the wealth it has accumulated during a millennia of un-Christian behaviour is now too embedded with the entire organization, while also forever preventing them to be anything than mightily hypocrite in their teachings because of it.

[Valmy]

I guess a natural conclusion of this debate is that the Catholic church is now, so to say, beyond redemption: the wealth it has accumulated during a millennia of un-Christian behaviour is now too embedded with the entire organization, while also forever preventing them to be anything than mightily hypocrite in their teachings because of it.

I guess my issue is: who cares?  So long as they actually do help the poor (and they might if it were not for their stupid ideas on contraception and the like) I don't give a crap if they have a lot of stuff.  Unless you actually are a Catholic I cannot imagine why it would matter one tiny bit if they were hypocritical.  Hell I am far more disturbed by the ideas they present in earnest, I would vastly prefer they be hypocrites.

The Catholic Church has done a lot for people I know in Texas who have been working to help abused and neglected children with zero strings attached, I mean none of them were even remotely religious much less Catholic.  Which is more than I could say for the secular government which has this bizarre adversarial relationship with anybody who wants to help children.  I am grateful for that, the fact they might have a fancy cathedral in San Antonio is none of my business.  That is the Catholic Church being hypocrites.  The Catholic Church NOT being hypocrites is fighting birth control, abortion, homosexual rights and all that.  Give me the hypocrisy any day.