Los Angeles has essentially been without a cathedral for a long time. For the Catholic Church to let this situation stand permanently, it would indicate they don’t care any more about providing and maintaining buildings for its members to worship in. The city’s lack of a useful cathedral was clearly seen as a problem, and the church finally got around to rectifying the problem. Would you have them say “We don’t care if L.A. has a cathedral or not”?
Cathedrals cost lots of money, they always have. They also employ lots of people. The history of art and architecture would be entirely different, and probably impoverished, if it were not for the patronage of the RCC over the centuries. This new cathedral will serve (and possibly inspire) millions of people and last hundreds of years (if the world wags that long). The building of it boosted the local economy (as cathedral-building has always done). I don’t see a problem here.
Why do you [spend your money, energy, etc] on [percieved pointless objects or practices] when you could be [spending it on stopping world hunger, stopping kiddie porn]?
Would poverty in the United States be nonexistent if there was no moon landing, mass transit subsidies, or GPO? Probably not.
While it may appear fruitless, and it doesn’t forgive their other transgressions, consider the contributions that the Catholic Church has made to the visual arts, expecially from the 1000s to the present. A well-designed cathedral is supposed to inspire awe, and art is a contributing factor.
I just wanted to say that this is an interesting thread, as before and during the 16th c iconoclasms in Germany-Netherlands-Switzerland the exact same arguments were made for both sides on the religious art debate. Is art a big waste of money that could be allocated better, or is the enlightenment/education/spiritual inspiration from art, especially for the illiterate, really the whole point? Stomachs or souls? It’s really interesting to look at, say, polemical stage plays at the time that argue about this question.
Protestants, who tend to be more attached to the written word, and The Word, might consider whether the printing of bibles for the poor is an analogous problem (this is from someone who thinks that the function/ efficacy of visual art is underestimated).
End nerdy hijack.
If it makes you feel any better, priests and nuns take vows of poverty, and boy do they live up to them. Sister Mary Elizabeth, rattling her donation can on the corner, is going to go home to mac-and-cheese and an iron bed with a worn-out mattress. Father Joseph at the soup kitchen has been wearing the same shoes for ten years. No need to feel sorry for them; they made their choice, for their own reasons. But I assure you, no one is living large on the CC’s money.
Good points. The key thing about Christianity a lot of people ignore, miss, or just fail to realize is that it was originally intended to be a personal choice. Accepting moral authority, from God, a preacher, or a prophet, was a personal choice. A huge organization like the Catholic Church provides a focal point for Christian detractors to attack, but the Church didn’t always exist as such a monolithic entity.
In the beginning (going back to the events related in the Biblical book of Acts) the term “church” simply meant all professing Christians who lived in a particular city. There were so few of them in many cases, they simply met in each others’ homes. This made it pretty simple to tell who was and who was not a Christian - there was no reason to be with other Christians if you didn’t share their beliefs.
As Christianity developed, it became “institutionalized” in Europe, the way Islam did in the Middle East and Hinduism in India. Instead of being a belief system people chose to follow or reject, if became part of the culture everyone lived in. This has blurred the lines in the way that you mention. Is someone a “Catholic” because they go to church and say they’re Catholic, but do nothing else?
The Bible contains a passage (I can’t remember where) on how to deal with such people. As I recall, it clearly states that the church should intervene if someone is openly sinning, and ask them to reject their sinful life. If they refuse, they are to be summarily ejected from the church.
The key thing here is that Churches decide who can be a member. Someone does not just ‘show up.’ A lot of modern churches aren’t this strict, but this is how it was intended to be in the beginning. Either you live up to the standards the Bible sets, or you get thrown out of the church, end of story.
Obviously, there was some room for variation between what was and was not acceptable between cities. But I think Christians today still have the right to determine whom they share their fellowship with. If someone claims to be a Christian but makes no clear attempt to live like one, than a church or individuals within it are within their rights to make clear to the offender he is not welcome.
I would heartily disagree with this. First, priests and nuns do not take vows of poverty. Some of them do, not all. Your average Fr. Joseph down at the soup kitchen most likely has not, if he’s a diocesan priest. If he’s in an order, than he most likely has.
And even if he has taken a vow of poverty, that doesn’t mean he lives in squalor. I’m fairly acquainted with the Holy Cross priests (or CSC, Congregation de Sacre Crux), who take a vow of poverty. However, it’s not unlikely to see them flying to Rome for a conference on the order’s dime, or taking a vacation in Chile. When on campus, they drive around in their CSC-issued new cars, living in fully furnished apartments, and going out to dinner at the top restaurants in town. In the words of one of my priests, “If this is poverty, bring on chastity!”
Now, they don’t own anything they use, and if their order told them to live in Bangladesh for 3 years, they would do so not only willingly, but enthusiastically (which does frequently happen). But don’t think that a vow of poverty means a complete rejection and denial of worldly goods. A vow of poverty is simply an indication that the person in question is not attached to anything, and can pick up and leave at a moment’s notice.
<~~~is back from the long weekend… Munch
“It’s like asking the military to liquidate itself of all of their stealth bombers and atomic weapons in order to fund public schools. A B-10 is worth millions of dollars, but selling it would be foolhardy.”
Actually, no. It would be more like asking the military to sell off their stealth bombers, etc so they can assist other countries that don’t have weapons to buy their own.
I think.
Also, while I agree that the church (generally; the Catholic Church specifically) saved enormous amounts of priceless treasures over the centuries, and that some people even credit them with saving enormous amounts of also priceless knowledge during the Dark Ages, etc, my basic principle still remains the same:
That churches in general should be spending their time, effort and money on helping people, both spiritually and practically, instead of building enormous, incredibly expensive, buildings. And please don’t tell me that people can be helped spiritually because the building is awe-inspiring. If someone wants to be in awe, they can look at a sunrise, check out a redwood tree, witness a birth…I’m in awe of the Golden Gate Bridge, but that doesn’t make it a church.
Toaster, my point with the military analogy is that you can ask the military to liquidate itself for whatever reason you want, but you just aren’t going to find a capable, or even viable, buyer for atomic weapons and stealth bombers.
I guess this takes place technically with the Catholic Church in the sense that people are explicitly or implicitly excommunicated based on their actions. Also, certain acts result in it not being right to receive the Eucharist. This becomes difficult because people are left up to their own judgment of what they should be up to, regardless of the teachings of the church, and have often rationalized their actions.
I guess your original point was that if comeone quoting Scripture or interpretation is in real life and unbeknownst to the board a sinner, what they say is called into question. But the Scripture has a truth in itself which is not reduced by a sinner using it, as long as they are using it in good faith, so to speak. For example, if I am an adulteress and the issue of adultery comes up, and I say, 'Here’s where Jesus says adultery is wrong", does it matter that I am not morally upstanding? Yes, someone can always say (if they know), “well, look at you”, but that doesn’t mitigate their moral culpability.[/hijack]
And Toaster52, people can be helped spiritually by an awe-inspiring building.
Munch
Ah, I see…thank you for the clarification. And I agree that it would be hard, if not impossible, to actually sell some of the actual treasures/artworks that some churches have in their possession. But since we’re going to get literal here, you must also admit that their entire asset structure doesn’t consist of priceless treasures/artworks/historical artifacts; there is also a tremendous amount of sheer cash that they have access to, which can (and my point is, SHOULD) be liquidated before they go to their congragations to ask for more money.
If they want to preach about how noble it is to help the poor, the least they can do is set a good example.