Expensive Crosses

Great Debates
1

http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53612,00.html
Quote: “Is it consistent with the Gospel to spend millions on a copy of the sacred symbol of the Christian faith,” the agency asked, “and perhaps forget there are people all over the world who suffer and die of hunger?”

Of course the answer is no. I think this money should be spend to cover up sex abuse scandals.

2

(not that this makes it right not to spend the money on the poor today)

3

I love this quote:

HA!!!

Seriously, the Pope is NOT hurting for money. That’s a bit hypocritical.

(Before I read the article, I thought you meant that the Vatican was electing to build a huge, ornate cross monument somewhere, and people were telling them it was a waste.)

4

The language in the article is pretty funny tho’

5

So, is this an official news agency for the Roman Catholic Church whose members all worship in plain, unostentatious white clapboard churches, led in their straightforward, simple services by sober-garbed preachers, or is this an official news agency for the Roman Catholic Church from the Planet Earth?

The assumption of Fides’ condemnation seems to be that all these celebrities are not wearing their expensive crosses out of true Christian faith (of one sort or another), but are just showing off. A few points:

Would the Catholic Church be condemning them for wearing bejeweled ankhs or bejeweled Magen Davids or bejeweled little tiny statues of Cecil or just great big wads of jewels of no particular shape? Is it that they’re wearing jewels, or that they’re wearing jewelled crosses?

If the celebrities are in fact Christians of some sort, are they just flaunting their wealth, or are they in fact sincerely trying to glorify God (the same way all those fancy Catholic cathedrals and impressive religious ceremonies glorify God)? And how does the Vatican know one way or the other?

If the celebrities aren’t Christians of one sort or another, again, would the Vatican be condemning them for wearing non-cruciform jewelry? Do Christians have a monopoly on the form of the cross, or can non-Christians use it for decorative purposes if they just think it looks cool?

6

Well, I guess non-Christians could, but I don’t see why you would want to use a torture instrument as a decorative symbol unless you saw some other meaning behind it.

7

It could also simply be seen as an abstract geometric shape.

8

It’s a geometric shape that has been used decoratively (and otherwise perhaps) since before it became a symbol of torture.

9

It is not to Christians a “symbol of torture,” either. It’s a symbol of the Resurrection. Some Catholics hang up crucifices – as opposed to crosses – but the Protestants by and large don’t do that.

10

Go ahead, complain all you want - but when the vampires show up and you don’t have one of those crosses on you, boy will you be sorry.

11

WillGolfForFood has a point there…

12

Personally, I think some of the women are wearing the crosses to draw attention to their breasts. Not that I object to this, mind you.

13

This statement coming from the Vatican is yet another sign that all is not well within the church hierarchy. The more I see, the more I grow concerned for the frail ailing pope and wonder if he has become a puppet for the real power behind the scene.

And for once I agree with tracer. :smiley:

14

BZ00000 wrote:

If they die of hunger while they’re Christian, aren’t they supposed to go to Heaven, thereby fulfilling the main mission of evangelical Christianity in the first place?

15

Well, the on-line Fides seems to run a week or so behind the print Fides, so I have not seen the actual article, yet, but I doubt that this has anything to do with the pope or the hierarchy.

It sounds to have rather more in common with the Catholic League and similar hysterical “defenders” of “church values.”

The editor of Fides for the last several years has just gotten a new assignment. This could be the new editor trying to look “bold” and “timely” in his first editorial. (Or it could be the rantings of someone with too much time on his hands.) In either event, I have seen no link between the quoted lines in the article and an actual declaration from the Curia or one of the myriad Congregations. (I am sure that most of the hierarchy would personally agree with the sentiments, but I have not seen any indication that they have felt the need to make this a public issue.)

16

quote:

Matthew 26:
6While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper,
7a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.
8When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked.
9"This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor."
10 Aware of this, Jesus said to them, "Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me.
11The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.

IOW ‘I’m having a nice time, don’t bother me with my own teachings.’

17

Since the cross is a pre-Christian symbol, how can the RCC be sure that the crosses they’re upset about are supposed to be Christian crosses? Maybe these female stars all belong to pagan mystery cults! <g>