For the Love of GOD........

The BBQ Pit
1

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20020829/4402385s.htm

$30 MILLION DOLLARS in artwork for a fucking church?! Whoops, pardon me…a cathedral. Good God Almighty, can’t they think of anything better to do with all that money?!?! I can think of quite a few:

  1. Food banks
  2. Women’s shelters
  3. Utility subsistence payments
  4. Rent assistance payments
  5. Building low-income housing
  6. Medical assistance

Food, clothing, shelter…the basics of having a decent life. THESE are what a church should be spending its parishioners hard-earned money on…HELPING someone, f’crissakes!!! NOT SPENDING THAT MONEY ON FUCKING ARTWORK!!!

…and people wonder why I don’t go to church anymore…

2

Feh. I’m getting pretty ogsmote sick of people bitching about how other people choose to spend their own money. Anyone who spends some money on something they want for themselves rather than giving it to charity is a bad person. Feh again.

3

It used to be that the only place common folk were exposed to art was in church. Anything that inspires the eye and uplifts the spirit can’t be all bad.

I’ve seen food banks and women’s shelters. They aint pretty, but they have their place.

Art also has its place.

When the Church can provide social services and nice artwork, everyone wins.

4

Yes I agree, however 30 million for art is a bit overboard, to say the least.

5

Especially considering the injunction against laying up threasures on earth (Matthew 6:19-21) and the command to provide for widows and the poor (Luke 14:13-14).

6

I wish I could find an old article (years old) that basically stated that the Catholic Church was richer than many countries. Maybe I’m getting old and senile and what I remember is incorrect…

…but the principle remains the same, for me at least: I got sick and tired of seeing preachers/rabbis/ministers/whatever standing in front of their congregations in their multi-million dollar churches and begging for money to “help the poor”.

You want to help the poor? Fine; but I’ll believe you’re sincere when you crack open your treasuries, and not one second before. The mainstream faiths of all denominations have tons of money in their bank accounts.

USE IT ON THE NEEDY, DAMMIT!!! Don’t come begging for more until you run out first.

7

I was going to say that as well, but I accidently hit ‘submit’

:stuck_out_tongue:

8

Um, small devil’s advocate here, but does anyone have numbers on how many goods and social services the Church does provide around the world each year? My guess is it’s quite a lot. And I think asking the Church, or any other institution, to subsist on a dangerously low amount of fluid capital (as you suggest Toaster52… “USE IT ON THE NEEDY, DAMMIT!!! Don’t come begging for more until you run out first.”) is just rediculous and could very easily spell the end of that organisation.

9

Yeah, instead of purchasing art they should clearly be out killing faggots.

What?

Leviticus 20:13 - “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

You argue that the Church should not purchase art, but instead should focus their Earthly means on some vague snippet of the Bible. So did I. What’s the problem? It’s all in the Bible, right? It’s all the Word of God’s, right? Right from the horse’s, er… God’s, mouth, right? It’s all true, right? Not just bits and pieces, but the entire Bible is God’s honest, immutable truth, right?

Leviticus 20:15 - “And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.”

Damn, looks like the Church needs to kill a lot of … … … sheep.

Leviticus 20:27 - “A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.”

After the faggots and the sheep they’ll need to be whacking the witches.

DISCLAIMER - I am being sarcastic (yes, intentionally). I neither approve of nor advocate violence against any people or animal - homosexual, magical, or otherwise. Likewise, I don’t think the Bible has much to say on what the Church should be doing with it’s money.

10

And there are certainly artists out there who can create beauty and feed the soul for a whole lot less that $30 mill. And some of them are starving. Wouldn’t it be better for the artist to feed the souls of the masses and the church to feed the artist’s stomach? Da Vinci doesn’t need the money anymore.

11

Not if it’s good art. (Judgement to be reserved for the eye of the beholder.)

And I wish I could find the quote that roughly 1 billion people on this planet, about 1 in every 6, is Catholic. The Catholic Church is richer than many countries? So? They’re also drastically larger, in population and geographic influence, than almost every other country.

Hmmmmm… Do I detect the wafting odor of Catholic bashing? I think so.

12

Here’s a thought experiment. Suppose you knew that a group of people had each contributed lots of money to various charities – food, housing, medicine, etc. Then, supposed you’d found out that these people had also contributed lots of money for the creation of some work of art. My question is, would you be just as offended at those theoretical lay people as you are at the Church? And if not, why not?

13

Normally I’d agree with you, but nowhere in that article do I find a statement that says that $30 million had been spent on art, commissioned for new artwork, or used to restore previously existing artwork. All the article said was that the new cathedral contains $30 million in artwork. That figure probably came from an insurance estimate.

Most new churches/cathedrals receive their artwork/relics/etc. from previously existing churches and as gifts from large donors. And if they decided to liquidate their artwork to fufill the above-referenced Bible passages calling for injunctions, does anyone know of a good marketplace for gold chalices and pieces of saints’ bones?

14

Isn’t there a verse about the poor always being with us, but that we only have a short time on earth? Where the woman is anointing Jesus with perfume or something?

Sheesh!

15

God forbid anyone spend any of their money on anything but helping the poor.

Now; let’s see the Dopers who are bashing the Catholic Church provide some numbers as to how much of THEIR money they spent on helping the poor, and how much they spent on their apartments/homes.

16

“Now; let’s see the Dopers who are bashing the Catholic Church provide some numbers as to how much of THEIR money they spent on helping the poor, and how much they spent on their apartments/homes.”

The doper-bashers aren’t the ones asking for donations to help the poor though. The church does ask for money to help the poor AFAIK.

17

Um… the article says that the Cathedral is “outfitted with $30 million in art and furnishings.” (Bold mine.)

It has a “3,000-seat main church, 11 chapels, bell tower, conference center and public plaza…” I would wager that a LOT of that $30 mil went toward chairs, tables, pews, pulpits, desks, altars, etc. This is not nearly as insane as you make it sound.

18

PS, the article also says that this 5 acre church was built to serve a “a tri-county region of 4 million Catholics” and last for the next three hundred years.

19

wasn’t $30 million the amount the RCC (Boston) reneged on re. sexual abuse of children?

IIRC, the argument/explanation was “if we gave that group $30 million, we wouldn’t have any money left for our other victims” (great logic, no?)

yeah, yeah, I know “they are entirely separate entities”. right.

20

If those people had gotten the money by asking for donations, saying that it was to help the less fortunate, then yes, I would. If it’s their own money, which they earned through their own work or investments, or from donations collected with the donors knowledge that it would go to artwork, then I’d have no problem with it, lay or church.