No, I’d just like you to show me where the Roman Catholic Church, as you put it, “at least pretends to recognize Christ’s teachings on the importance of worldly poverty for believers.”
As far as I can see, that is not the case. For some clerics, yes. For all believers, no.
Nah. Let’s not assume anything so preposterous.
If everything the RCC owned was auctioned off to the highest bidder tomorrow and the money was used to buy food and housing for the poor throughout the world, the only result that could be fairly predicted would be a complete disruption of the food and housing markets as they currently exist, seriously damaging the economies of every country involved, followed by the same famine and homeless situations that occur today within two or three years.
If there is a legitimate plan that will not cause more damage than it heals, put it forth (with the controls noted) rather than simply playing “What rich group can we mock and punish?”
A separate issue in terms of the hoarded wealth of the RCC is that much of it is fixed in architecture that is already serving its original intent and in artwork and manuscripts that are being studied constantly in the museums and libraries of the RCC (which are open to scholars of all beliefs and lack thereof).
Can the argument be made the the RCC could do better? Absolutely. Simply declaring “They should be poor.” while ignoring where their money is currently being used, however, does nothing to actually help the poor–despite that being the ostensible purpose of the OP.
Err… there is a difference between religious orders and being a believer. In case you didn’t catch it.
I’m speechless. I try not to be overly sensitive, but I continue to find that one of the last politically correct arenas of intolerance is that of Catholic bashing. I will point out, without mentioning anyone in particular, that no one has yet provided a cite substantiating the colossal Church hypocrisy mentioned again and again in this thread.
The OP and several of the later posts offer as a given the fact that the Church hypocritically supports some vaguely defined vow of poverty while basking in its own wealth. This is not a debate, folks. This is called begging the question. It is not valid argument–it is logical fallacy (as the “argument” currently stands).
Try a little harder, guys, or just move it to the Pit and retitle this “F*** the Catholic Church” or something else equally as clever.
Well, considering that the Church has over a billion members, I think that it’s rather safe to assume that it has several billion in assets. Even if it has only $10 per member, that’s still over $10 billion dollars. Of course, if $10 billion were distributed among the world’s poor, that would be about $2 each. Not exactly enough to make much of a difference.
ROFLMAO!!
But seriously (sort of): Let’s say that aliens from outer space conquer Planet Earth, and for some reason the first item on their agenda is to redistribute the Vatican’s wealth to the starving poor of the world. So they zap Vatican City with their Intergalactic Liquidater Rays, all the wealth is converted into Galactic Money Cards, which are then handed out to the starving poor.
Picture a man starving on the outskirts of the Sahara. A spaceship lands next to him, two aliens hop out and hand him a $500 Galactic Money Card. Then they hop back in the spaceship and fly off, leaving him to die “rich”.
Okay, okay, now I really will be serious. Anybody who has ever done any work with poor people KNOWS that it doesn’t do a bit of good to just hand them money. I’m not talking about the borderline “just need a bit of cash to get over a rough spot” folks, I mean the deeply poverty-stricken, the people who are living a “poverty lifestyle”. Take a slum in Calcutta or Rio de Janeiro, a trailer park in Texas, a housing project in L.A. The money goes to pay bills, to buy food and clothes, to buy school supplies. The money does NOT go to start up a little business, which is what the folks who advocate giving money to poor people always seem to think they ought to do with the money.
So you arrange to give all these people, what, $2, $500? $1,000? Whatever amount it is, it won’t change a thing. Like Tom~ said, all it would do would be to disrupt the economy while the money lasted, and when it ran out, things would go right back the way they were.
I think your OP is overly simplistic. I don’t think you CAN “assume that the spread of the Vatican’s wealth, coupled [with] other religions’ wealth, might cause much, much more than a dent in the world situation”, nor can you assume that “that the very gesture itself would inspire others to do the same”.
In terms of world budgets, $10 billion isn’t really that much. Also, human nature being what it is, I really doubt that anybody else would be inspired to do the same. And besides, like who? Bill Gates? Some other unnamed billionaire? France? China? Oh, right, like they’re just all going to earmark $10 billion dollars to hand over to poor people in the slums of Calcutta. I can hear them now: “what’s in it for me?”
And what other religions’ wealth? The Methodists? The Baptists? The Buddhists? The Unitarians? Who else do you see as stepping forward to give away all their worldly assets?
Yeah, okay, so if we all worked together, the world would be a better place. And if pigs had wings, they’d be a lot harder to keep in the pigpen.
Andros – OK, you are right. I overstated that. Although all “religious” are required to take vows of poverty, the RCC does not recommend it otherwise at the present time. Actually, last I checked, they maintained that anyone who was poor and not a member of a religious order was a heretic.
Well, you might consider that Jesus said all vows come from the devil to be a hint, since the RCC does claim to be Christian last I checked. I don’t see what is begging the question about that.
HUH?? Jesus said that we should swear by nothing but God, and religious vows are sworn to God alone. How would someone who is poor and not a religious be a heretic?
While the Roman Catholic Church hasn’t had official “tithing”, members are appealed to to give what they can to support their local church and missions and causes throughout the world.
I agree with Bob Cos; while I can take the persecution for His name’s sake, what’s up with Catholic bashing?
Gee, gigi – people worked long and hard to translate the Bible into English. 
“Do not swear at all… Simply let your Yes' be Yes,’ and your No,' No’; anything beyond this comes from the Evil One.”
My bold. If anyone thinks I’m leaving out something important with that ellipse (like the part where Jesus says “just kidding”) you can read it all here
Beats the heck out of me. Perhaps a Catholic will show up to explain? This heresy (the “Free Spirit” heresy) was declared in a Papal Encyclical, but I don’t think the church has ever changed her mind on it. If someone can get me a link to online encyclicals, I’ll gladly provide a cite.
Well, it is still recognized as the Christian church by most people, with more members than all the others combined. I think it is open to fair and reasonable criticism just as any organization is. Don’t just label it “bashing” if you can’t handle it.
Open to what criticism? What the hell are you talking about?
All right, let me take a deep breath and try again…
You seem top be unclear as to what “begging the question” means. It describes the situation where someone offers as a given that which they need to be prove logically in their argument. In this instance, unless I’m missing something, several people (you included) offer as a given that the Catholic Church demands of its followers some sort of vow of poverty while enjoying the benefits of the vast Vatican luxury–and that this is a most base hypocrisy. Please substantiate this with some facts, a cite, ANYTHING.
Otherwise, I will assume by your tone and lack of substance that you are indeed simply enjoying a smug round of Catholic bashing, and doing so in a manner that prevents me from even responding since you have provided nothing of substance for me to respond to. I can “handle” and, in fact, enjoy spirited debate. I resent your statement that this type of reaction is being thin-skinned when you have not yet answered my objections or explained coherently why they are specious.
From what I can find in a cursory search of the Free Spirit heresy, it claimed that all creation is a part of God, and therefore equal to God. I’m not sure how this relates to poverty, etc., but it is certainly heretical. Perhaps a “Free Spirit” will show up to explain?
The reason I consider this bashing is that it seems to still be acceptable to attack the Catholic Church while other religions are considered in style and above attack.
Like I got nothing better to do all day than find a cite which explains the evangelical coucils. Well, at least this was an opportunity to brush up on my Latin! I finally went to the encyclopedia on Roman Catholic religious and found a link for you.
OK, so you’ve established that some religious orders take a vow of poverty. It seems that was a given in the discussion; where does it say all Catholics must be poor while the “hierarchy” at the Vatican enjoys its wealth?
Ah, I see. You have time to spout knee-jerk falsehoods, but not enough time to support your assertions. Niiiice.
And I’m still a little unclear on your interpretation of Matthew 5:34-37. I assume you’re reading literally? And therefore all oaths and vows, under all circumstances, are sinful?
On second thought, no. I don’t want to know what your interpretation of the Sermon is. It’s only a sidetrack, and I apologize for being snippy with you.
I still would like Interpreter to return and explain his OP a little more, though.
I give up, where does it say that? Is this a trick question, or are you trying to put words in my mouth?
But as an aside, I may have been under the mistaken impression that all religious orders took vows of poverty, and not merely vows of chastity and, usually, obediance. Which of the major orders lack this vow other vow?
Andros – I don’t know what you mean by asking whether I am taking this literally or not. I don’t see how this could possibly be understood in a non-literal fashion. Jesus specifically said that not only are they sinful, but from the devil himself. Who am I to doubt the teachings of God?
Former protestant here. (Now atheist.)
So as not to engage in Catholic-bashing, I will say that I have a problem with any supposedly Christian church which accumulates large sums of money. My own view is that it is inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus, who repeatedly decried the evils of accumulated wealth and urged his followers to embrace poverty. Examples:
Told followers that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven.
Told rich young man who wanted to follow him to sell all that he had and give it to the poor.
Said that “You cannot worship God and Mammon.” (“Mammon” = wealth)
Said “Blessed are the poor.”
Seems to me that the accumulation of wealth by ANY Christian church is in tension, at least, with the teachings of Jesus. Am I mistaken?
spoke-, in the same vein, I’ll ask if you’re just offering a hypothetical, in which case it’s more difficult to consider, or if you have a particular circumstance in mind that you think is problematical with regard to the teachings you cite.
I have been taught that the covetous pursuit of wealth–i.e., a desire that places “things” higher than our love of God–is what displeases God. Jesus preached to people who owned things. He did not demand that the temple be disassembled and its parts be auctioned off. He did not expect his disciples to ignore all wordly desires and drop on the side of the road to rapturously starve themselves to death. Remember, too, that the rich young man was first told he needed only to follow the commandments when he asked Our Lord what was expected of him. That answer did not satisy him and he pushed back. Was Jesus testing him?
Your points are good ones, though. There certainly is a worrisome line somewhere that can be crossed, though I’d argue that the accumulation of things that are valuable–without regard to why they are accumulated (e.g., as historical artifacts, to glorify God in worship), without considering the total “economic” picture of the entity (what portion of its wealth is redistributed regularly, say to the poor and unfortunate?)–is not a de facto violation of Christ’s teachings. Is there a specific circumstance that you think is troublesome?
Thank you Spoke! I was starting to feel like the only person around here that knew how to read. But I mean, just look at this:
That doesn’t make any sense to me what so ever. It is like talking to people from another planet.
Bob Cos continues:
See how they always fall back on something they have been taught, yet has no justification through scripture! Who taught it to him? Some teacher, who learned it from his teacher, etc. So what? He continues:
This is a popular “interpretation” of the 10th commandment, and the one accepted by Talmudic Jews. However, this isn’t what Christ taught.
See the immediate attempt toward logical reductio ad adsurdum? You’d think he’d never heard of the Lord’s Prayer. John the Baptist came niether eating nor drinking and people said he was possessed by a demon. Jesus came eating and drinking and people said he was a glutton and a drunk. But Wisdom is the mother of all her children.
Right. The tenth commandment, though the last one, is still on the list.
Even Paul taught that Christians should be content with food and clothing, but I’d love to see you try to justify your position, Bob.
I actually left out a couple of examples of Jesus’s philosophy on wealth:
“Consider the lilies of the field,” Jesus told his followers, “They toil not, neither do they sew.” (Not sure I have the quote exactly right.) The gist is that we should not worry about accumulating worldly possessions, as God will provide for his followers. (Hey, that’s Jesus talking, not me.)
Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers and cast them out of the temple. Seems to me like Jesus had a problem with a house of worship engaging in commerce and accumulation of wealth.
I don’t see why a church should keep a precious painting, for example. Why not auction it and use the money to build a hospital? Same goes for jewels and precious metals. I just believe the Jesus we read about in the gospels would advocate a simpler mode of worship without all the ostentatious trappings of wealth.
I’m not trying to bash anyone’s religion. I am just saying that Jesus’s view of earthly possessions comes through pretty loud and clear in his teachings, and maybe Christian churches (some of them, anyway) ought to consider whether they are truly following in Jesus’s footsteps.