SHOULD THE VATICAN GIVE UP ITS' WORLDLY ASSETS?

Great Debates
41

Can you clarify where the line is crossed exactly? May a pastor, for example, own a car? Must it be a car below a certain value? Must the church be of the tar-paper-shack variety? I’m not trying to be a smartass, but this is what I meant by specifics–are you actually suggesting that owning something of value is a de facto violation of Christ’s teachings, or is it only something above a certain value? Who decides? I ask this being reasonably certain that there is not a single person who has posted to this thread who does not possess “valuables” beyond food and clothing–that is, unless their one, true non-papist/Christian grace gives them the power to will words onto the SDMB without a computer.

And what if a church accumulates large sums of money but also distributes large sums of money to the poor and unfortunate, builds and administers hospitals and schools, provides hospice care and soup kitchens and homeless shelters? What if this enormous flow of charitable $$$ is only possible in a system that has lots of $$$ in it at any given point (i.e., it’s not possible to zero out the account every day at 5:00)? Should this church liquidate the account, sell all the computers and buildings, fire all the staff–even though there will be thousands of people who will suffer as a result?

BTW, jmullaney, this is the last time I’ll address you, at least in this thread, since I will not trade insults with someone since it would displease Our Lord. I also truly believe it would be to no fruitful end to attempt to fight through the thicket of non sequiturs you’ve constructed. I’d just like to point out that your statements in this thread (e.g., “see how they always…”) show your true colors; bigotry of any stripe always does in the end.

42

I was always under the impression the church used the funds it collected from it’s followers to pay for things like building maintenance, to pay the ministers and assorted employees, and to fund missions and schools and such. Assuming this is actually what the money is used for, how would making the church as an entity poor help anyone? Who else is going to open a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter? Certainly no corporation is going to, and very few private citizens would take up such a cause without some kind of backing. By ‘the church’ I don’t mean just the Catholic church, but any denomination.

As an aside, isn’t all the gold and art and statuary supposed to be ‘for the greater glory of God’? At least, that was why all those huge cathedrals in Europe were built for, IIRC.

43

Well, again, I don’t want to get into bashing anyone’s religion. Jesus said what he said. It seems to me to take some powerful rationalizations to get around his words. Sure, practicing religion the way Jesus preached it would be difficult, but who said it was supposed to be easy?

Should a preacher or a priest own a car? Maybe not, depending on how seriously you take the Gospels. Should the church, or members of the church provide him with transportation? Don’t see a problem there. Seems to me the church (of whatever denomination) should provide its pastor with such comforts as he needs to do his job.

Should a church own art and jewelry worth millions? In my view, that is a very big and definite NO, when those items could be used to fund countless charitable works. If there is a line to be drawn, it most certainly gets drawn before you get to that stage of wealth accumulation. Bob, I don’t see what all those types of items have to do with maintaining cash flow, which seems to be the basis of your defense of church wealth.

Landsnecht wrote:

Well, you put that last phrase in quotes, but I don’t see anywhere in the teachings of Jesus a statement from him authorizing or encouraging his followers to build massive edifices or to collect gold and artwork in His name. On the contrary, the basic philosophy of Jesus in matters of worship seems to be: Keep it simple.

Again, I’m not trying to get under anyone’s skin. I do question whether wealth accumulation by a Christian organization is consistent with the teachings of Jesus.

44

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was trying to focus on two separate aspects of the same question and muddied it a bit. Let me try again, using your last post as well:

  1. If the parishioners are providing transportation, does that imply somebody here owns a car? Why is that OK? Or, to go back what I meant as my real question here: I understand you think paintings and jewelry are well past the line. What isn’t? Anything? A cheap car? A comb? Where is that line, and who decides its location? Could the ownership of paintings and jewelry provide an economic foothold/stability that permits enormous philanthropy? (Some will assert there is no line–any possessions beyond food and clothing are evil. Is that your interpretation?)

  2. Doesn’t the strict interpretation advanced here suggest that any accumulation of wealth–even a cash flow accumulation that will ultimately go to the poor–is wrong, no gray area, nothing to discuss?

BTW, from my perspective at least, you needn’t provide a disclaimer regarding “religion bashing” at the start of your posts. I think your comments have been thoughtful, on point and supported by specific references. If I didn’t welcome intelligent discussion with those holding different opinions, I wouldn’t go to GD.

45

Why have a physical church at all? Didn’t Jesus himself say the day was coming when God would not be worshipped on this or that hill? If you want to meet somewhere, you can always use someone else’s church, as long as they don’t keep it locked up all the time. (I just want to add that Perpetual Adoration thing has been a boondoggle for the Free Spirits. Protestants should take a lesson.)

You are trying to rework Judas’s argument about the perfume? These things simply require wisdom. Can our poor Saharan keep the sceptre? Perhaps he finds it useful as a walking stick were walking sticks in short supply. He did not want it – it was merely given to him. Should some one else ask him for it he should give it away – and certaintly were someone to ask him for money, noting his fancy sceptre, he would be wise to offer it to them that they might sell it or sell it himself lest he raise their jealousy. Who is to say where the Spirit will lead him?

Well, I’m just a Christian sympathizer. Just because there aren’t any Christians here, doesn’t mean there aren’t any period or that they would be forbidden from using a computer for some strange reason.

The Catholic Church claims to believe that the ends do not justify the means. This is just stealing from Peter to pay Paul. Certaintly none of these worldly things are worth the damnation of human souls?

Suffer? Maybe one of these people will stop workshipping the false god of money, come to serve God, and be saved. If the unholy suffer in this world it is only a preview of the next.

I apologize if I insulted you – I have been debating these issues here for a while and it is always everyone else against me. I was seriously overjoyed after reading spoke’s post that I put you out of my mind more than I should and my rebuttals to your points were overly terse and impersonal.

If it is such a thicket though, I would certaintly like to know where they are. If you are feigning insult because you can not debate the topic, that would be terribly underhanded of you.

Yes, I am against false teachers, or those who blindly follow them. The blind following the blind both quickly fall into the pit, no? But I think not wanting them to fall into the pit should be considered an unkind act. Simply because some mysterious third party taught you something which negates holy scripture doesn’t mean you should pass it along, or the next guy will be saying “Bob Cos taught me…” and so on in perpetuum.

Landsknect – again, the ends don’t justify the means. It doesn’t benefit anyone to teach falsely and lead people into the pit in order to benefit someone else, even if those who reap the benefit may be real Christians. I assure you there are many ways to get food and shelter – God’s mansion has many rooms as the saying goes. Believers do not wish you to go to hell for their benefit. Jesus could have remained a carpenter or become a farmer and thus housed and fed the poor – but he knew that man doesn’t live by bread alone, but by keeping the word of God.

46

If you want to practice religion as Jesus did, I’m not sure you need a physical church building at all. Jesus did not build any physical structures for worship. He met with his followers wherever he could: a home, a street, a mountain top, a field.

You want my honest opinion, I dont think Jesus would heap approval on a highly organized and highly structured church, with layers of bureacracy and overflowing coffers, even if some portion of the wealth were to be put to good use. Why are such enormous organizations needed? Jesus’s words again: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I.”

Jesus did not require all of his followers to abstain from owning any thing. He did seem to require that of his apostles (i.e., those designated to spread his word). For others, he merely cautioned them that the pursuit of wealth is not consistent with Christian faith, and that the rich are not going to wind up in Heaven. He notably didn’t say to his followers (except his apostles), “Drop your tools, sell your houses, quit your jobs.”

47

Spoke:

This is where I have trouble with the idea of taking the Bible purely literally. Yes, the Christ said what he said, but I prefer to contextualize what he said (completely apart from the issue of the accuracy of his words as presented in the Gospels). I do not accept that every word in the book can stand on its own–anything can become dangerous if placed in the wrong context.

In the Sermon, the Christ was discussing the Ten Commandments and their applicability to the people of his day as well as to the Jewish religious hierarchy. He references many portions of Old Testament scripture–unless one is familiar with the references he’s making (as his audience presumably was), I think it’s difficult at best to understand fully what he is saying.

But then, I’m not an inerrantist. YMMV.

48

And spoke, I agree very much with your idea that the Christ would not necessarily approve of modern churches. (Personally, I blame Paul, but I often get into trouble for that viewpoint.)

And you hit the nail on the head about wealth. The love of wealth is the showstopper. Many people have a tendency to place too much importance on things. A rich man is, in Christ’s view, too concerned with becoming rich and not concerned enough with helping and loving others. Hear, hear.

49

I am just monitoring tonight as I don’t have much time on my hands to post extensively. Let me just say, however, that I am totally blown away by the arguments so ably advanced on this subject up to now. Posters on the Straight Dope make me proud!

I will be posting soon.

Bye for now

50

In Luke 12, Jesus does tell his disciples to sell their possessions and give to the poor. Then, Peter specifically asks Jesus whether this teaching applied to them or to everyone. Jesus then replies that those who know this teaching and disobey it will be punished more severely than those who don’t know this teaching and disobey it – but, never-the-less, this still means everyone who does not do so will be punished in the afterlife.

But, since everyone reading this knows now, I guess I just turned up the dial on hell’s oven a few notches. Oh well, I’ll need the company.

andros, can you explain again where this “love of wealth” theory comes from? I’m still trying to figure that one out.

51

jmullaney

Except that I cannot find the verses that would support your interpretation in the chapter you cited.

This is similar to your claims about the “Free Spirit” heresy. Your interpretation that the church condemns as a heretic anyone who is poor who has not joined a religious order is not supported by the facts.
jmullaney

Perhaps from Paul’s phrase “the love of money is the root of all evil”? Or, perhaps, from Jesus, who said

Be on guard against greed, not be on guard against property.

52

Thanks Tom.

53

I stand corrected, jmullaney. It looks like Jesus did advocate poverty for his followers, and not just for his apostles, at least according to the Gospel of Luke.

My preferred Gospel is Mark, since it was written earliest, and therefore, presumably records Jesus’s words more accurately. However, I believe the “lilies of the field” language appears in Mark as well.

54

tomndebb, the fact that Jesus was speaking to a “crowd of many thousands” when he gave his injunction against wealth would seem to imply that it applies to all of his followers. His words, again:

I am reminded of the words of a Woody Guthrie song, a meditation on what would happen if Jesus came to Earth today:

55

I give you a link to Luke 12:1-59 and you can’t find Luke 12:15-57?

I apologize for not having the reference materials at hand to prove my case. The on-line Catholic encyclopedia: “Passing over… the many smaller heresies which sprang up in the Middle Ages without leaving a deep impression on the Church…” It is difficult to work with such a robust description of this this heresy. For now I can only provide you with one example of someone condemned to die for refusing to take a vow and recognize the authority of the Catholic Church which comes from those vows. But I will try to do some research over the weekend.

At least you admit your first example is a phrase, and would thus admit you have taken it out of context. Let me try to help you understand. I’ve already provided a link to 1 Timothy 6 above, but if you insist on a gloss, I would go with “If we Christians have food and clothing with these we shall be content – those who desire to be rich fall into ruin and destruction, for love of money is the root of all evil.” Now, keep in mind, he is talking to someone (Timothy) who has already sold all he had and given his money to the poor, and Paul admonishes him to keep on trucking – and what Paul is writing about is that it is wrong to work for a non-Christian for money – but you can still serve your fellow Christians if called upon to do so. It is all plainly written.

Yes, Jesus does say to guard against greed in Luke 12, right before he says, therefore, to sell all you have and give alms. If you are not greedy and do not love your possessions more than God, what therefore is your hang up about keeping this teaching if you claim to be a Christian?

56

andros wrote:

and

Fair enough. However, if you start with the idea that the Bible is not inerrant, this allows you to pick and chose what parts you wish to believe. It allows you to cast aside the bits of doctrine which you might find difficult or inconvenient (such as Jesus urging his followers to embrace poverty).

If the Bible is not inerrant, upon what may a Christian rely in determining how to follow his or her faith? If one cannot rely upon the words of Jesus, in the closest thing to a contemporaneous source we have, then what other source of religious doctrine would you substitute? It seems to me that the words of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels, are as close as we will ever come to knowing how Jesus wanted his followers to behave. Is this not so?

As to the poverty issue specifically, it would be easier to dismiss the matter if Jesus’s philosophy on poverty showed up in a single passage in only one of the Gospels. Instead, it appears in all of the Gospels in one manifestation or another. It gets sort of difficult to argue, at that point, that the message is being taken out of context or is a mis-reporting of Jesus’s original words.

57

If the RCC sells all of their stuff, I would like them to give liquidating dividend checks to all of us card-carrying members. I see something like so much money for every year of parochial school attended. This would be in lieu of the canonization with which such attendance is usually rewarded.

58

I read the passages from Luke and Timothy and see Jesus and Paul indicating that too great a love of riches interferes with a person’s ability to come to God. You read the same passages and apparently come to the conclusion that they were saying that any possession will get you damned.

Since Jesus and Paul both knew rich people of whom they did not demand that they beggar themselves, I interpret their statements as exhortations to a “spirit of poverty” while you interpret them as the sine qua non of salvation. We are just going to disagree.
As to your link to a beguine martyr, I am not sure if you are being a smart-aleck or you are simply unaware of the history involved in your example. (I am not justifying the martyrdom of any of the beguines.) However, your martyr was not executed simply because

The beguines were a specific lay order of people whose beliefs began as simply a choice to lead “simple” lives, but whose evolved theology involved numerous attacks on RCC theology. Your own link noted that Marguerite Porète had published a book in which she claimed to have reached a state where the Sacraments were no longer applicable to a person and that, even earlier

That is not a simple statement that one should choose to be poor.

I deny the RCC the right to execute a heretic or anyone else who challenges their theology. It is simply wrong, however, to claim that the church persecuted anyone who was poor who did not join an order. Poverty was not the issue. Attacks on doctrine were the issues.

Ms. Porète’s refusal to take

had nothing to do with claiming that she had to join an order. She denied that the Inquisitor had the authority to examine her for heresy. The acceptance of the requirement of obedience was a requirement for the inquisition to procede. It was not a matter of joining an order, it was a matter of submitting to the Holy Inquisition. I certainly do not support or condone the Inquisition, but if you choose this example to prove that the church claimed only people in orders could embrace poverty, you are way off the mark.

59

I have a tendency to consider something wrong with any major place of worship either Catholic or Protestant that is richly and expensively decorated with fine works of art, trimmings and extras and owns either major tracts of land or expensive tracts of land.

When the ministers and priests live in luxury, dress in ‘temple’ robes of the finest cloth, drape themselves in religious articles of the finest jewels and command far too much political power, then something is wrong.

So long as, people of these beliefs suffer in abject poverty, die of curable diseases, sleep on dangerous streets and are at the mercy of a financial system far too ready to reposes their homes, then something is wrong.

Donating a $50,000 work of art to any church is admirable, though it depends on whether it is done for tax reasons or for gratitude to one’s God. However, for the religious leaders to gain wealth by that donation is wrong, when they can convert that $50,000 into credit by selling the item, and probably buy $80,000 worth of wholesale foods to give to the starving.

I’m not advocating reducing churches to places of bare wood and dirt floors, but one can have magnificent places of worship, IMHO, without festooning them with millions in sculpture, gold leaf, paintings and jewels.

Where I live, there are these huge churches popping up all over the place. The land here is not that cheap, ranging at about $14,000 an acre. One church is in dispute with a neighborhood, the occupants of which do not want massive 2 and 3 story building popping up, more traffic on Sundays or more traffic on week days or their limited public parking taken up. In the city counsel meetings, it was obvious from the sharp church lawyer that the neighbors would loose. It was also obvious from the attitude of the city counsel members that the church would win.

However, with all of these great symbols of religion, the local homeless shelter has to struggle for donations, the public health center treats the sick poor with a minimum of care, and many local ‘pantries’ sponsored by the people of some churches run almost out of food for the hungry. (Notice, I said ‘people’ of some churches.) Yes, there are one or two panties sponsored by a church itself, but those are not all that easy to find.

The city will tear down old houses to keep ‘undesirables’ from sheltering there whereas it would seem to be more practical for churches to buy them, fix them up, them sell them to the poor at a major discount and carry the notes. (Just think, if a poor family defaults on the church rent, the church probably could write it off.) It could kind of be like that housing project Jimmy Carter sponsors.

I know of a radio station which has gotten listeners to build a home for a frequent caller who is an old lady. When she got sick with cancer, while she was under treatment, the station talk show hosts put out a call and people came to donate time and materials and now, her house is almost done. Churches could do that.

All over television I find these commercials requesting assistance for Florida schools to get school supplies – and I wonder what happened to the Florida millions that were supposed to flow from the Lottery and the millions that were supposed to be designated for the schools along with the lotto. Anyhow, churches could donate millions to the public school systems – without slapping restrictions on the money.

As I said, I’m always somewhat suspicious when a place of Worship is too rich.

60

Well, you can agree to disagree with me, but there is only one truth. I find it amusing that some of the same people who read Jesus telling his followers to sell all they have and give to the poor or Paul telling Timothy that a good Christian should be content with food and clothing don’t think Jesus or Paul is talking to them – and yet, when Paul says to some few dozen Romans or Corinthians that they are saved through faith as if by magic suddenly it is you that the author is talking to!!

Seems like very selective vanity to me – unless you want to to believe heaven consists of a dozen Greeks, 84 Jews, a dozen Romans, and the big man himself.

Cite?

The sine qua non of salvation for Christians is keeping the commandments as taught by Jesus. You can apply a “spirit of denying reality” to all of his teachings if you would like and join the “with God, all things, including ignoring God’s teachings, are possible” crowd.

Ah. But Porete was a Christian. Read the book if you do not believe me.

No, the belief that you could reach spiritual perfection without joining a holy order is the issue. The like the Catholics, the Free Spirits teach that poverty, chastity, and obedience are the required virtues for that. So if you are poor and chaste, and obedient to God, guess what you’ve gone and done, aside from making the RCC look bad?

I can’t provide you with the transcipt of her interrogation, but if you can find a copy of the 1992 edition of her book, there are fair chunks of it published there and it does not support your idea. Porete clearly felt that taking vows is a sin, just as, coincidently, Jesus taught. The Inquisitor didn’t like her answer (as an oath taker himself – a Dominican IIRC) one bit of course and said she was merely denying his authority.

Yes, well, we both know that obedience is part of what it is all about. It is an oath of obedience to a person or to the Roman Catholic Church and not to God’s will.

The RCC currently does not kill heretics, and I agree that this is a good thing. Porete’s significant other only got life in prison, and I am not sure what happened to other poor laity at the time of the French Inquisition. I know at times their homes, if they had them, were torched, etc. And that is all together lousy.

However, the RCC still maintains that the Free Spirit Church is heretical, and the Free Spirits still regard the RCC as heretical. But there is always hope for ecumenism between them. As soon as the Catholics get rid of the priesthood and the religious orders and sell all their property and give all their money away, I’m sure the true Church will welcome the RCC back into the fold with open arms.