Help me justify going to The Vatican again.

[The Jay]

Long story short, I visited The Vatican in 2009 and will be returning to Europe in a few months time. I also have very big problems with lots of what the Catholic Church has done throughout history.

I'm having trouble getting over the fact that I would be directly giving the Catholic Church money by entering The Vatican. I know it seems petty and wanky, but I kind of can't get past being on a high horse regarding this.

The thing is though, I thoroughly loved visiting The Vatican in 09 and would LOVE to see it all again.

My main objection to Church is all the sex abuse stuff, the cover-ups, the actions of Ratzinger etc.
I guess what I'm looking for is maybe an analogy or reference to something which shows that my "boycott" of the Catholic Church is ridiculous, silly, hypocritical or just not really relevant considering what things are like today in everyday life.

Does that make sense?
Can anyone offer any words of wisdom?

[Alessan]

You're not going to let the church prevent you from visiting Michaelangelo, are you?

[Al Bundy]

Sounds more like you are on a very low horse.
Nobody is holding a gun at your head to go there.
If you enjoy going and it costs something, that's all that counts.
When you buy a tie at the store you don't question what the clerk does with his pay do you?

[Heyoka13]

Many, many, many things to do and see in Rome. Would a repeat of something you have already done be prudent with 99.5% of the city yet unexplored by you ?

[Illuminatiprimus]

I'm no great fan of what Protestant's affectionately refer to as Satan's Whore either, but to offer the counter-argument will going and visiting the Vatican undo any of the horrible things that the Church has done, enabled or not stopped from happening? If you want to go, go.

The only thing that stopped me, a gay Satanist, from doing the tour was that I didn't have time when I was in Rome visiting. I did go and see the Pope talk through, he blessed me and I didn't burst into flames or anything.

[Cat Fight]

Well, there is the fact that you could take a holiday there every day for the rest of your life and spend less than the cost of, oh, a single work of art or gilded chalice tucked away in one of their dusty basements.

[ZipperJJ]

You probably don't agree with how your shoes were made or how the last chicken you ate was raised, but we all choose our battles. I say go.

[matt_mcl]

Incidentally, St. Peter's Basilica can be entered free of charge.

[bump]

I'd recommend St. John in Lateran if you want to see Papal opulence, and for Michelangelo, Carravagio, etc... there are many other places that don't charge- San Pietro in Vincoli, San Luigi del Francesi, etc...

I thought the Vatican was pretty neat, with the Museum being cooler than St. Peters, IMO.

I'd go back, but then again, I'm not surprised that ANY big, old organization would have issues like this eventually, or over and over even. It's human nature and how large organizations made of people work.

[eclectic wench]

It would be a hideous waste if the only people to see all that beauty were the people who support everything terrible the Church has done.

Seeing and absorbing and loving beauty adds to the sum of good stuff in the world. The Catholic Church has done plenty to add to the sum of bad stuff; don't let them get you too.

[The Second Stone]

St. Peter's is free as others have mentioned. And it is a magnificent space. I'd definitely pay to see the Sistine Chapel tour again. The Chapel itself is available on the web for free. http://www.vatican.va/various/cappelle/sistina_vr/index.html

[Estilicon]

(checks if this is the pit)

Please, don't go the Vatican. You went once already and learned nothing.

[Claverhouse]

If you can ask the question, you already know the answer.

To show them, and perhaps change their future beliefs and actions, you should utterly reject everything they possess to tempt you.



I feel the same way about Disneyland.

[wheresmymind]

I assume by "The Vatican" you mean the Vatican Museum. It's free to enter St. Peter's Basilica, which has a lot of cool stuff on it's own. It looks like they charge 8-15 euro for entrance to the museum - about the same as the admission to the Uffizi Gallery in Florence. I suspect that very little of your admission enters the coffers of the Church, most of it probably goes towards the operating costs of the museum, etc.

Keep in mind that in addition to all the bad stuff they've done that you have a problem with, they also managed to commission, pay for, and preserve thousands of pieces of art that would otherwise not exist, in addition to acquiring and consolidating thousands more that would be in private collections scattered across the world. They devoted a significant amount of their real estate into a museum to display these works to the world, and they're willing to let you see it all for the cost of a couple beers.

That said, if it's going to weigh heavily on your conscience, there IS plenty of other stuff to see in Rome, and the Vatican Museum is a pretty big time investment. Since you've already been there, I doubt you'll regret not going there a second time if you explore some cool new places instead.

[Nava]

It would be a hideous waste if the only people to see all that beauty were the people who support everything terrible the Church has done.

Heck, it'd be empty... even Ratzi... excuse me, Benedictus XVI, would be outside.

[constanze]

I (Protestant who once was in Rome, too) think that you should go and visit the museums. On the scale of "Supporting the Catholic Church despite the bad things it does" paying entrance fee for a museum to see the Pieta and the Sistine Chapel and other works of art that are part of Humanity's treasure is somewhere around -5, I'd think. If you are a member of the Catholic Church that pays dues that go partly toward paying silence sums to molestation victims; if you publically in media or on the net defend the actions of the Catholic Church: that's what I count as support.

As a Protestant, whenever I feel the desire to point the finger for it's evil deeds at the RCC, I remember that until Martin Luther, their history is our history, too. And the fact that the theocracy shaped a big part of the history of Europe (and from there, America, too) is simply existant. Likewise, while it's not a model a humane person would prefer, the Popes (like rich dukes) did commission and pay for a lot of spectacular art over the centuries. That the money to pay for this was extorted from poor peasants is regrettable and should not be forgotten - but boycotting this art today, now that both popes and peasant's bones are rotting in the earth, doesn't serve any useful purpose. (I live in Bavaria; a large part of our tourism is driven by the castles of King Ludwig II, and lots of the nice buildings in Munich were paid by Ludwig I. I'm glad I didn't live back then and have to pay the taxes for it, I can simply profit from the beauty and the tax revenue (despite the costs for upkeep, which aren't cheap, it's a net benefit)).

So go and visit the Vatican museums for the Art, and criticze the actions of the Institituions of the RCC as seperate things.

[The Great Sun Jester]

I guess what I'm looking for is maybe an analogy or reference to something which shows that my "boycott" of the Catholic Church is ridiculous, silly, hypocritical or just not really relevant considering what things are like today in everyday life.

Does that make sense?
Can anyone offer any words of wisdom?

A bit out of context but: "Blue on black; Tears on a river; Push on a shove (It don't mean much); Joker on jack; Match on a fire; Cold on ice; A dead man's touch; Whisper on a scream..."

Only slightly out of context, however: "You can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

Morality is flexible, the Vatican is the embodiment of that. Justify it to yourself if you want to see it.

[flodnak]

paying entrance fee for a museum to see the Pieta and the Sistine Chapel Just for the record: the Pieta is in St Peter's Basilica, which is does not charge admission - so even if you really don't want to "give the Catholic Church your money", you can still see it. The Sistine Chapel is of course in the Vatican Museums, which is the part that costs money. And it's worth seeing IMO, even with the guy clapping his hands and yelling NO TALKING! and NO PICTURES! at random intervals :p (And for the record within the record: these rules only apply to the Sistine Chapel. You are free to take non-flash photos and to chatter away anywhere else in the Museums.)

As far as I know, the admission fees for the Vatican Museum go to the salaries of those working there, the upkeep of the museum, restoration of its artwork, and so on. It's not a fundraiser for the RCC. It would be a pity to go all the way to Rome and miss out on the best collection of artwork in the city!

[matt_mcl]

Just for the record: the Pieta is in St Peter's Basilica, which is does not charge admission - so even if you really don't want to "give the Catholic Church your money", you can still see it.

And his Moses is in San Pietro in Vincoli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Pietro_in_Vincoli) (near Cavour metro station, a short walk from the Colosseum).

[Bridget Burke]

When in Rome, don't visit the Colusseam, either. Lots of cruelty to humans & animal happened there.

[kaylasdad99]

You left your sweater there the last time, and you need to see if it's in the lost and found.

[Bridget Burke]

Why bother with Rome all? Perhaps you'd enjoy another institution (http://www.ianpaisley.org/about.asp) entirely!

[ITR champion]

I also have very big problems with lots of what the Catholic Church has done throughout history.

I'm having trouble getting over the fact that I would be directly giving the Catholic Church money by entering The Vatican. I know it seems petty and wanky, but I kind of can't get past being on a high horse regarding this.

The thing is though, I thoroughly loved visiting The Vatican in 09 and would LOVE to see it all again.

My main objection to Church is all the sex abuse stuff, the cover-ups, the actions of Ratzinger etc.
I guess what I'm looking for is maybe an analogy or reference to something which shows that my "boycott" of the Catholic Church is ridiculous, silly, hypocritical or just not really relevant considering what things are like today in everyday life.
I would recommend studying the history of the Catholic Church and its current stances from the pro side as well as anti. Rodney Stark's book The Victory of Reason (http://www.amazon.com/Victory-Reason-Christianity-Freedom-Capitalism/dp/0812972333/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298319050&sr=1-1) is a good resource for historical issues from the pro side. In current issues you could look at how the Catholic Church has stood up for human rights, workers rights, and democracy in the third world, particularly Latin America. After doing so I'd imagine you'd feel quite all right about giving the Church money.

[The Great Sun Jester]

In current issues you could look at how the Catholic Church has stood up for human rights, workers rights, and democracy in the third world, particularly Latin America...Well, after a notable period of standing up for the ruthless exploitation & cultural demolition of the same area. ;)

ok...I'll leave now.

[Illuminatiprimus]

I would recommend studying the history of the Catholic Church and its current stances from the pro side as well as anti. Rodney Stark's book The Victory of Reason (http://www.amazon.com/Victory-Reason-Christianity-Freedom-Capitalism/dp/0812972333/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298319050&sr=1-1) is a good resource for historical issues from the pro side. In current issues you could look at how the Catholic Church has stood up for human rights, workers rights, and democracy in the third world, particularly Latin America. After doing so I'd imagine you'd feel quite all right about giving the Church money.Which human rights precisely? The rights of women, homosexuals, people who want to have safe access to contraceptives and abortions, people who are abused by members of the priesthood? Those human rights?

Don't make me laugh.

[Zebra]

Of course one of the things the Church has done is preserving these great works of art.


Art is eternal. The policies and practices of the Church are not.