Vatican hypocrisy

[J-Mann]

Amen, Soulty.

[Joe Republic]

First off, he things that the Catholic Church has were not purchased yesterday, last week, or a decade ago, they are the culmination of 20 centuries of work and donations and they come to us as part of an inheritance, so drawing a direct comparison between the Vatican and caprisious holliday sepnding on things that people don't need is not at all apt.

I am well aware of this.  I merely found this particular situation to be ironic.

Also, many (if not most) of the accumulated wealth were not friendly gifts, but taken by force.  Is that fair?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Irrelevant, but I'm also aware of this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It indulges in the former.  All you need to run a church is a bunch of people, possibly with a leader, a reference guide for their teachings, and one or two symbols to define their beliefs.  Everything else is superfluous.  It worked just fine for Jesus.

Wait, is someone here acctually suggesting auctioning of all these holy relics that represent the cultural heritage of the Christian Church?  Well, in that case, I think we should go through all the art museums in the world and just start selling things to pay for social programs.

Again, what relevance does 'cultural heritage' have to the teachings of the Church?  Also, I sincerely hope I am never asked for a donation for any cause by a Catholic priest.  It's not like they're short of cash.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is this 'meaning' of which you speak?  Why do people need relics to pray?  Surely all they need is a Bible (and an understanding of it), and some kind of leader to guide and teach them?  Frankly, all that wealth does is instill a sense of "ooh" and "ahh" to potential converts.  Put some bright, sparkly things in front of the masses and they'll believe whatever you say, right?

[J-Mann]

Again, what relevance does 'cultural heritage' have to the teachings of the Church?  Also, I sincerely hope I am never asked for a donation for any cause by a Catholic priest.  It's not like they're short of cash.

They've very short on cash.  They neither get paid much nor does the Vatican pump their parishes full of cash.  This has been explained.  The Vatican itself may be worth billions of dollars, but that's its infrastructure and art, etc., not cash.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, let me put it this way -- it'd be like selling the White House to help balance the budget.  It's not going to happen.  "Ooh" and "ahh" doesn't have much to do with it -- it's a proud history that we're interested in taking care of.

[12th Doctor]

Ummm... Catholic priests make $15,000/year.


And you didn't say it was ironic, you said it was hypocritical.


And what, exactly, was "taken"?  Can you name any one artifact that the Chruch stole?  There might be some, but I am unfamiliar with any, off hand, and I consider myself to be quite knowledgeable in this area.


As for the meaning behind the relics... God understands that people need something with which to have a connection to, because people naturally have emotional connections to various things, that are independent of their intrinsic worth.  This is seperate from materialism, where the thing is valued because of it's intrinsic worth, or immediate usability.  Is it nessesary?  No.  Does it help?  Yes.  You wouldn't sell a picture of your grandmother for any reason, would you?  I hope you wouldn't.  Well, the same applies here.


#1 Your standards are not realistic.

#2 Your interest in applying these standards directly to the Catholic Church is somewhat reveling.

#3 Your knowledge on the subject is limited, as displayed by the fact that you think preists make a lot of money.

#4 You are attempting to create an analogous situation where it doesn't exist.

#5 I never want to hear you talk about charity, because you own things that you don't need.

[12th Doctor]

And, as J-Mann said, yes the Catholic Church is worth billions, but only if you take into account all the relics, art works, charities, orphanages, batter woman houses, retirment homes and other buildings it owns.  In terms of acctual liquid money, they don't have nearly as much as you think.  Esspecially when you take into account the fact that over half of all Catholics are in the Third World, and more and more Westerns are becoming Godless, like some people that we know, who start threads attacking the Church.

Also, the Church can't sell anything that is holy or has been blessed, and it has been that way since the middle ages.  Those things can only be given away.  That was done to keep people from selling off relics to the highest bidder.

[Joe Republic]

It appears I've touched a nerve! 

Quite frankly, I'm too lazy to find the sources of every artifact the Vatican possesses.  However, unless you can do the same, I think we can agree to say that at least some artifacts were taken during the Crusades, or the conquests of the New World.

I know priests are poor.  This really is a terrible arrangement when we have a ruler of a church sitting in a palace, surrounded by vast amounts of riches, and his own foot soldiers can barely afford the necessities with which to spread the Word.  It almost reminds me of Jonestown, but on a far larger scale.

As for the meaning behind the relics... God understands that people need something with which to have a connection to, because people naturally have emotional connections to various things, that are independent of their intrinsic worth.  This is seperate from materialism, where the thing is valued because of it's intrinsic worth, or immediate usability.  Is it nessesary?  No.  Does it help?  Yes.  You wouldn't sell a picture of your grandmother for any reason, would you?  I hope you wouldn't.  Well, the same applies here.

Is a wooden cross and a copy of the Bible not enough?  Why does it all have to be so sparkly and expensive?

And the comparison with a picture of my grandmother is false.  In fact, while I settle for a photo, would you settle for nothing less than a full-blown shrine to your grandmother, with gold candlesticks, and a whole choir to stand vigil for her?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps not, but I appear to share them with the entire 16th century Protestant movement, apparently.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How so?  If you look at it logically, the same standards apply to other churches, such as Buddhism.  Or even to whack-job cults, I dare say.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You appear to have misunderstood me, as that is not what I said.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not too sure what you mean here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, I never claimed to be morally superior than anybody else.  I suppose I am selfish, but then most people are.  But since the Catholic Church does claim to be morally superior, it might be nice if they adhered to their own standards, don't you think?

[Joe Republic]

Also, the Church can't sell anything that is holy or has been blessed, and it has been that way since the middle ages.  Those things can only be given away.  That was done to keep people from selling off relics to the highest bidder.

That was a bit of a stupid precedent.  I guess if the Church ever reaches a stage of financial difficulty, all that material wealth is just useless, right?

[Vincent]

Just Curious? really?

Joe Republic,

Anyway, are suggesting that the Church seriously sell off the Sistine Chapel (or artifacts or other priceless items) to the highest bider. As Texasgurl and Emsworth have pointed out they maintain a museum for all to see.

You also act as if is the Pope's personal collection and he could retire to Bavaria and take it all with him if he choose to do so.
Do you feel he values these things more than his faith?

I think you're a good guy. However I believe you're being unfair here.

[Jake]

Joe's operating under a few incorrect assumptions. The largest of which is his belief that the Church does have vast hoards of liquid wealth to start doling out on top of what it already gives.

[12th Doctor]

Also, the Church can't sell anything that is holy or has been blessed, and it has been that way since the middle ages.  Those things can only be given away.  That was done to keep people from selling off relics to the highest bidder.

That was a bit of a stupid precedent.  I guess if the Church ever reaches a stage of financial difficulty, all that material wealth is just useless, right?

It's not about the wealth.  Why can't you get that through your head?  If it were about the wealth, then the Pope would be living far more lavishly than he does, and so would every other memebr of the Church.  Just because he wears the cross and lives in the building doesn't mean that he puts any value in them because they are gold and big respectively, and nor does anyone else.  The cross he wears was fashioned out of someones love to try to capture a small glimps of the glory that is God.  You keep harping on this "you don't need it" crap, and I agree with you.  It is not needed, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a purpose beyond the gathering of material wealth.  God doesn't need all this stuff to bring glory to him, but humans try, none-the-less, and I find no place in the Bible that frowns upon the effort.  Now, if the Pope were like Gollum, sitting in a corner, stroking the "Precious" golden cross, then I would understand your reasoning, but he doesn't, so you attempt to lable the Church as materialistic is unfounded.

As for the artifacts in the Vatican, those that were siezed in the Crusades were not stolen.  Well, they were stolen, but thet were stolen by the Muslims, we were just taking them back.  And the ones from the New World never went to the Church, they went to the Spanish, who then squandered them.

Why is that a stupid precident?  It was created to end abuses by clergy in selling relics that were of important historical or holy value.  In fact, it prevents the abuse of selling any sactified object.  If we hadn't done that, then you would be hear bitching now about how the greedy Church is making thing "holy" and then selling them for cash.

[Keystone Phil]

Joe's operating under a few incorrect assumptions.

As most people do when it comes to our faith. We're just big, bad, greedy, child molesting, close minded idiots....who happen to have power and wealth and when we don't give it all away we become hypocrites.

Let's say Joe is a rich man who gives a great amount to charity. He finds himself disgusted by the obsession with material possessions and so he speaks out against it. Now would we expect Joe to give up the stuff that he was given as a gift - Let's say that "sparkly" chair or whatever that has been handed down over the ages - so that he can "do more?" No, we'd never expect that of him but when it comes to the Church...well...anything to get on their case.

[12th Doctor]

In fact, the Pope doesn't even live in a "palace" or at least, not by normal standards.  95% of the Vatican is used for the purposes of the faithful, or to store relics (most of which are visable to the public) and the like.  The Pope only lives in one, small, 15 room section of it, one of those rooms being his office.

[??????????]

I call dibs on the Shroud of Turin.

[Virginian87]

Score one for us Protestants.  Just kidding.
But seriously, Phil (and all the other R.C.'s on this forum), do you believe that in the long run, Vatican II was a mistake?  I've run into an increasing number of Catholics in New York who believe that the Latin Mass should be restored to church services.

[Jake]

Not much of a reason to as it only makes it harder for the Church to connect with new members.

[TeePee4Prez]

Score one for us Protestants.  Just kidding.
But seriously, Phil (and all the other R.C.'s on this forum), do you believe that in the long run, Vatican II was a mistake?  I've run into an increasing number of Catholics in New York who believe that the Latin Mass should be restored to church services.

Church is out of touch and losing members as is.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Score one for us Protestants.  Just kidding.
But seriously, Phil (and all the other R.C.'s on this forum), do you believe that in the long run, Vatican II was a mistake?  I've run into an increasing number of Catholics in New York who believe that the Latin Mass should be restored to church services.

Ah, nothing better to bring someone closer to God than listen to some guy babble on for an hour in a language no one listening can understand.

[patrick1]

Score one for us Protestants.  Just kidding.
But seriously, Phil (and all the other R.C.'s on this forum), do you believe that in the long run, Vatican II was a mistake?  I've run into an increasing number of Catholics in New York who believe that the Latin Mass should be restored to church services.

Church is out of touch and losing members as is.

America is not the world.  The Roman Catholic church is a global church and its numbers are increasing quite rapidly.  Even in America the Church is growing. There may be a downturn in the attendance of middle class and wealthy white people who have left the Church, but this has been made up by new members from places like  the Phillipines and Latin America.

[Everett]

Score one for us Protestants.  Just kidding.
But seriously, Phil (and all the other R.C.'s on this forum), do you believe that in the long run, Vatican II was a mistake?  I've run into an increasing number of Catholics in New York who believe that the Latin Mass should be restored to church services.

Ah, nothing better to bring someone closer to God than listen to some guy babble on for an hour in a language no one listening can understand.

Ah, nothing better than to listen to some guy babble on for hours and hours about stuff that no-one else cares about (strip clubs, suburbs, lapdances).

I take back my previous comment; I'm not familiar with Catholicism or the Vatican. But if the Vatican's "stuff" is indeed in storage like a museum, then that is fine. There is nothing hypocritical about preserving ancient relics, whether or not they are "shiny" or whatever.

[??????????]

Yes, Virginian87, as a RC myself I can say that Vatican II needs to be gotten rid of. The church has been in a tailspin since they implemented it.

[opebo]

Score one for us Protestants.  Just kidding.
But seriously, Phil (and all the other R.C.'s on this forum), do you believe that in the long run, Vatican II was a mistake?  I've run into an increasing number of Catholics in New York who believe that the Latin Mass should be restored to church services.

Ah, nothing better to bring someone closer to God than listen to some guy babble on for an hour in a language no one listening can understand.

Considering what religion is, I should think its appeal to a reasonable man would be enhanced by unintelligability.

[12th Doctor]

Score one for us Protestants.  Just kidding.
But seriously, Phil (and all the other R.C.'s on this forum), do you believe that in the long run, Vatican II was a mistake?  I've run into an increasing number of Catholics in New York who believe that the Latin Mass should be restored to church services.

Ah, nothing better to bring someone closer to God than listen to some guy babble on for an hour in a language no one listening can understand.

The first misconception is that "Latin" mass means that it is all done in Latin.  Latin is a format.  It does not pertain to the language itself.

Generally speaking, in a Latin mass, only the parts that are not directly related to the liturgy are done in Latin.  The readings and surmon are all done in the native language of the participants.

I am not opposed to Latin format, as I think it has far more scriptual base and meaning than does Vatican II format.

I also oppose some of those other changes brought about by Vatican II, while I support some others.

[12th Doctor]

Score one for us Protestants.  Just kidding.
But seriously, Phil (and all the other R.C.'s on this forum), do you believe that in the long run, Vatican II was a mistake?  I've run into an increasing number of Catholics in New York who believe that the Latin Mass should be restored to church services.

Church is out of touch and losing members as is.

America is not the world.  The Roman Catholic church is a global church and its numbers are increasing quite rapidly.  Even in America the Church is growing. There may be a downturn in the attendance of middle class and wealthy white people who have left the Church, but this has been made up by new members from places like  the Phillipines and Latin America.

Absolutly correct.  In fact, out of all the organized Churches in the West, the Catholic Church currently has the highest number of converts into it.  However, it is losing members in the West at the same rate all the other organized Churches are, thus, a net loss of membership.

All these people are either becoming Godless, or they are going to Evangelical churches which survive off or glitter, sparkle and making parishoners feel happy.  If they want to leave for these so-called churches and pat themselves on the back for being the worst possible Christians they can be, then we can't really stop them, and I really don't want them in my Church anyway.

Just so we are clear on terms, organized churches include Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican/Episcapal, Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian.

[J. J.]

First, I am not Catholic.

Second, can there seriously be any doubt that the Vatican serves as a repository for treasures that are historic in nature and that in doing so, provides a service to historians and researchers of any (or no) faith?

Third, I will disagree that the relics, of which there are not a huge number, were stolen from Muslims.  Some were, like the horses of St. Mark's in Venice, taken in the Fourth Crusade, which was directed against Constantinople.  Others were in fact donated.

[Storebought]

Score one for us Protestants.  Just kidding.
But seriously, Phil (and all the other R.C.'s on this forum), do you believe that in the long run, Vatican II was a mistake?  I've run into an increasing number of Catholics in New York who believe that the Latin Mass should be restored to church services.

Church is out of touch and losing members as is.

America is not the world.  The Roman Catholic church is a global church and its numbers are increasing quite rapidly.  Even in America the Church is growing. There may be a downturn in the attendance of middle class and wealthy white people who have left the Church, but this has been made up by new members from places like  the Phillipines and Latin America.

Absolutly correct.  In fact, out of all the organized Churches in the West, the Catholic Church currently has the highest number of converts into it.  However, it is losing members in the West at the same rate all the other organized Churches are, thus, a net loss of membership.

All these people are either becoming Godless, or they are going to Evangelical churches which survive off or glitter, sparkle and making parishoners feel happy.  If they want to leave for these so-called churches and pat themselves on the back for being the worst possible Christians they can be, then we can't really stop them, and I really don't want them in my Church anyway.

Just so we are clear on terms, organized churches include Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican/Episcapal, Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian.

You had to go and destroy your own argument, which you were winning, with that bigotry.

Perhaps those lapsed Catholics left the church because they didn't want to be surrounded by insufferable  Church Ladies, or Church Boys, as the case may be. I know that is one reason why I profoundly dislike congregations  of any sort -- not because I could never accept the theology, but because I can find better use of my time than endure moralising jackasses.

Even more than that, not to refight the Thirty Years' War, like you seem to be doing so far, who is to say that the Christian experience offered by the evangelical churches in fact is closer in spirit to that of the primitive Church of the 1st and second century? Because, really, there is much in Catholic theology that is simply fantastic:

(1) The Adoration of Mary
(2) Intercession of the saints
(3) Prayers for the dead

... and, perhaps, if I am going to be honest with myself, the singularly hateful teaching of the Catholic Church ...

(4) The heartfelt and intellectual acceptance of Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection on the Cross is not good enough for a sinner's salvation --  in addition, you must maintain traditions of the Church as well to remain in a state of Grace.

Of course, I can also see your points that those upper class whites who leave the Church do so to indulge themselves with a sinfully clear conscience. And that Catholic teaching on, say, poverty or Eternal Damnation, is fundamentally sound, while, in comparison, those of the megachurches' teachings are usually pretty crude and materialistic (from personal experience in LA -- one sermon was entitled, "How to increase your life's blessings"). But your, dare I say it?, intolerance in calling them the worst possible Christians they can be, is simply vile. I cannot stand for it.