Cafeteria Catholics?

[mickeyfan2]

I think the Anglican Church and the Queen should sell those castles, crown jewels, elaborate churchs and all the artwork and eliminate poverty in the UK. Let them show us offensive Catholics how it is done.

 

[MrsKreamer]

I have, however, delivered more than one baby to a couple who were convinced they were practicing NFP correctly to prevent pregnancy....

That's funny because I have given birth to one child while using birth control pills correctly and the other child while both birth control pills and condoms correctly. No birth control is completely effective except for completly abstaining. NFP gets the bad wrap though...

 

[Disney Doll]

Please don't patronise me, it adds no value to the discussion.

The point of contention here was the OP, an artist by admission, saying that collecting art and fighting poverty can be done by the church at the same time. I don't think that is correct. If the RC church brought all its wealth to bear on poverty it could make a huge difference....but it chooses not to. The art collection, most of it hidden away, is just the tip of the iceberg. Look at http://www.answers.com/topic/vatican-bank to see my reference.

ford family

I'm not patronizing you. I am stating my observations based on the content of your posts. There's not much I can do about the fact that you don't like to have that pointed out.

Again, I would ask, who would have the financial wherewithal to purchase this art from the Catholic Church so that the Church could use the money to help the poor?

I am well aware of what the Vatican contains, having just been there recently, and, because I have a close friend who is a priest, I was actually able to see some things that the "average" visitor cannot. And I agree that there is a vast amount of value and wealth in what the Catholic Church owns.

But again, if no one can afford to buy it, it holds very little actual, or realistic, value. Who will the Church sell it to? A person, a country???

BTW, having no desire to consider another's point of view because of preconceived, deeply imbedded feelings and opinions adds no value to a discussion either.

 

[mickeyfan2]

the Catholic Church who, historically, have created more poverty than they have relieved

Please point me to the facts to back this up.

 

[sodaseller]

Please don't patronise me, it adds no value to the discussion.

The point of contention here was the OP, an artist by admission, saying that collecting art and fighting poverty can be done by the church at the same time. I don't think that is correct. If the RC church brought all its wealth to bear on poverty it could make a huge difference....but it chooses not to. The art collection, most of it hidden away, is just the tip of the iceberg. Look at http://www.answers.com/topic/vatican-bank to see my reference.

ford family

I don't suspect anything said will move you on an issue that obviously has a strong emotional contingent, but the RCC is hardly flush with cash. I only wish that it were so, as it would greatly reduce the influence of Opus Dei, who props up the Church financially. As for artwork, the RCC considers it the patrimony of the West, priceless and inapporpriate to alienate on the market outside of it's common cultural heritage. It cost far more to maintain each year than any income it generates.

I am relying in both cases on John Allen and Jim Martin. Doubtless you will find their reportiing unrelable, but years of reading them have suggested otherwise

 

[sodaseller]

Neither Jesus nor Peter claimed that women could not be priests. Simply because the disciples were male (as per ancient customs, women could not teach men. Period. ) that does not mean that it is immoral for women to be priests now. Women teach men all the time now, including women of all faiths, so this is most certainly a custom and not doctrine.

It's not at all clear that the exclusion of women is even defensible historically, esp from Apostolic times. JCEcil addresses the issue in detail here (long)

 

[sodaseller]

His apostles also took Jesus' lead and only ordained men into the priesthood.

Don't be so sure about that

 

[sodaseller]

Try going to Catholic Answers - for a wide variety of information.

www.catholic.com

"Variety" at Catholic Answers recalls the Blues Brothers "We got both kinds - Country and Western"

 

[BelleMcNally]

That's funny because I have given birth to one child while using birth control pills correctly and the other child while both birth control pills and condoms correctly. No birth control is completely effective except for completly abstaining. NFP gets the bad wrap though...

Absolutely true. The pill is only effective 99% of the time when used totally properly. As far as I know, in reality it's about 95%. NFP, if used properly, is almost 100%...but that's where the tricky part comes in, right? Because the stats I've seen is that the reality of the situation (with human error and what-not) is that it's effectiveness is about 80%-85%. And I really do think that, if practiced absolutely correctly, NFP is very effective...but many, many couples seem to have problems practicing it correctly. I'm not saying it can't be done, but the truth is a lot of us either just aren't conscientious enough to do so or something is misinterpreted by the practitioners and they end up making decisions on faulty assumptions.

I think it's great that women (couples too, of course ) now have so many options.

 

[BelleMcNally]

"Variety" at Catholic Answers recalls the Blues Brothers "We got both kinds - Country and Western"

Yes, I don't think it would hold up as an unbiased source...

ETA: Fabulous reference, BTW.

 

[ford family]

I think the Anglican Church and the Queen should sell those castles, crown jewels, elaborate churchs and all the artwork and eliminate poverty in the UK. Let them show us offensive Catholics how it is done.

The Anglican Church has little money and no castles.
The Queen has her own personal wealth and also owns the Crown Estates where the income goes to the state in exchange for the civil list from which she is paid a salary.
We do not have poverty in the UK on the scale of that which exists in Africa, for example.

ford family

 

[ford family]

Please point me to the facts to back this up.

South America, southern Europe, Ireland, large parts of Africa.
Is it a coincidence that a rise in secularism is matched by a rise in economic performance in every Catholic country?

From http://www.psychologyhelp.com/sexu150.htm

The desire to increase church membership also currently leads to condemnation of birth control. The church needs to get the message that no-birth-control just equals poverty. Instead, the church often blames the industrialized nations for not giving much of their wealth to the poorer nations. This blame helps the church remain in Stage I denial of any responsibility on the church's part for keeping poor nations poor

and that's before you add in the huge loss of life and consequent poverty that results from the AIDS epidemic that the church seems unable to adapt to.

ford family

 

[mickeyfan2]

The Anglican Church has little money and no castles.
The Queen has her own personal wealth and also owns the Crown Estates where the income goes to the state in exchange for the civil list from which she is paid a salary.
We do not have poverty in the UK on the scale of that which exists in Africa, for example.

ford family

But the Queen is the head of the Anglican Church so he jewels and castles, like the Pope and the Vatican and it collection are all assets held by the church or an official of the church.

BTW the USA, Italy, France etc. does not have poverty like that in Africa either. So the point is?

 

[ford family]

I don't suspect anything said will move you on an issue that obviously has a strong emotional contingent, but the RCC is hardly flush with cash. I only wish that it were so, as it would greatly reduce the influence of Opus Dei, who props up the Church financially. As for artwork, the RCC considers it the patrimony of the West, priceless and inapporpriate to alienate on the market outside of it's common cultural heritage. It cost far more to maintain each year than any income it generates.

I am relying in both cases on John Allen and Jim Martin. Doubtless you will find their reportiing unrelable, but years of reading them have suggested otherwise

Did you look at the source I provided?
This is from that,

The Vatican Bank was a successful and profitable bank. By the 1990s, the Bank had invested somewhere over US$10 billion in foreign companies. Part of what made the Bank so profitable was that it offered certain illegal services; for 5%, the Bank would launder industrialists' money, or money of those well-connected with the Catholic Church. The money laundering scandal leaked out in 1968 due to a change in Italian financial regulations, which would have mandated more transparency. To prevent the scandal that would occur when the public learned that the Vatican Bank (which was supposed to funnel all profits directly and immediately to charity) had in fact retained most of its profits and expanded its operations, Pope Paul VI enlisted Michele Sindona as papal finance advisor to sell off assets and move money overseas to hide the full extent of Vatican wealth. It was Sindona who was chiefly responsible for the massive influx of money when he began laundering the Gambino crime family's heroin monies (taking a 50% cut) through a shell corporation "Mabusi". This laundering was accomplished with the help of another dirty banker, Roberto Calvi, who managed the Banco Ambrosiano. Interestingly, both Calvi and Sindona were members of the P2 Lodge. [2]

When Pope John Paul I became Pope, he learned of the Bank's doing, and instructed Cardinal Jean Villot (papal secretary of state and head of the papal Curia) to investigate the matter thoroughly. Curiously, a month later, after informing Villot that he was going public with the scandal (and firing Villot among others), John Paul I died. John Paul II ignored the matter, and allowed Sindona free play for a number of years after.

The Banco Ambrosiano scandal which is still under investigation resulted in several deaths including Roberto Calvi who was found hanging from Blackfriars bridge over the Thames after a vain attempt to fake suicide.

The Vatican Bank was Banco Ambrosiano's main share-holder. Paul Marcinkus, head of the Vatican Bank from 1971 to 1989, was indicted in Italy in 1982 as an accessory in the $3.5 billion collapse of Banco Ambrosiano, one of the major post-war financial scandals. Banco Ambrosiano was accused of money laundering activities for the mafia and Propaganda Due (aka "P2"), an outlawed masonic lodge, led by neofascist Licio Gelli. P2 and its headmaster Licio Gelli worked with Gladio, the secret NATO anticommunist paramilitary organizations. Marcinkus never came to trial in Italy, where courts ruled that as a Vatican employee he was immune from prosecution. He lived in retirement in Sun City, Arizona (US) until his death on February 21, 2006.

The Vatican Bank refused to admit legal responsibility for the Ambrosiano's downfall but did acknowledge "moral involvement", and paid $241m (£169m) to creditors. As of 2006, investigations are continuing concerning the murder of Ambrosiano's chairman, Roberto Calvi, which, according to Ernest Backes, former #3 of Clearstream, may have been linked to the death of Gérard Soisson, who used to work for Clearstream, a "bank of banks" which practices financial clearing.

So, does the Catholic church still have its hidden billions? Almost certainly.

ford family

 

[ford family]

But the Queen is the head of the Anglican Church so he jewels and castles, like the Pope and the Vatican and it collection are all assets held by the church or an official of the church.

BTW the USA, Italy, France etc. does not have poverty like that in Africa either. So the point is?

No, the Queen is only the titular head of the Church of England, her role is purely symbolic. She has no involvement in the running of the church whatsoever. Equally, the Church of England has no call on any of the Queens assets.
The point of my comment about the lack of poverty in the UK relative to Africa was because you suggested that the church and the monarchy should give their wealth to eliminate poverty in the UK. OK?

ford family

 

[Fitswimmer]

I can't control what ANY church or religious organization does with their money, nor can I control the behavior of all those who profess the faith. What I can control is my own behavior and relationship with God and my own stewardship. It's easy for me to excuse my behavior by pointing to those who have done the same, but when I'm honest with myself I know all I'm doing is rationalizing my own sin. It's easy for me not to be materialistic when I use the excuse that the Church and her Priests are materialistic. However, when the time comes for me to answer to God for what I have done or haven't done, I don't think pointing at Priests and Ministers driving Mercedes is going to get me off the hook for my addiction to material goods.

 

[ford family]

Again, I would ask, who would have the financial wherewithal to purchase this art from the Catholic Church so that the Church could use the money to help the poor?

I am well aware of what the Vatican contains, having just been there recently, and, because I have a close friend who is a priest, I was actually able to see some things that the "average" visitor cannot. And I agree that there is a vast amount of value and wealth in what the Catholic Church owns.

But again, if no one can afford to buy it, it holds very little actual, or realistic, value. Who will the Church sell it to? A person, a country???

There are many people who could afford large chunks of the Vatican art collection, Russians like Roman Abramovich for example, but you are missing a trick. You don't have to sell it to create wealth from it. Putting much of it on show would attract huge audiences who would pay to see it in all the capital cities of the world. A travelling exhibition with different content every year would raise hundreds of millions. Selling some, and not all of the collection is religious, would raise millions more. These monies could be ringfenced so that they could only be used for poverty relief and only by non denominational organisations. Knowing where the money was going would cause people to pay more to see or bid more to own the artwork. Both actions would show the church in a positive light and go some way to reverse the well deserved criticism it currently gets.

ford family

 

[mickeyfan2]

I can't control what ANY church or religious organization does with their money, nor can I control the behavior of all those who profess the faith. What I can control is my own behavior and relationship with God and my own stewardship. It's easy for me to excuse my behavior by pointing to those who have done the same, but when I'm honest with myself I know all I'm doing is rationalizing my own sin. It's easy for me not to be materialistic when I use the excuse that the Church and her Priests are materialistic. However, when the time comes for me to answer to God for what I have done or haven't done, I don't think pointing at Priests and Ministers driving Mercedes is going to get me off the hook for my addiction to material goods.

I agree.

Time to now ignore the Catholic haters on this thread.

 

[Marie17]

"Variety" at Catholic Answers recalls the Blues Brothers "We got both kinds - Country and Western"

Obviously you haven't spent much time at Catholic Answers - unless you've only looked at the "home" section which helps to give information on the most asked questions of faith.

However, if you go to the forums section - you will see SO MUCH of everything. You have all faiths that post on it - Jewish, Muslin, Baptist, Jehovah's Witness, Latter Day Saints, Presbyterian, Anglican, Atheist, Unitarian, Orthodox, Non-denominational, and so on and so on. But from the looks of it, it doesn't seem you made it that far or were scared to really read on.

Believe it or not, Catholic Answers allows people of all faiths to posts. You do not get banned because you try to prove your faith - lots of other boards that are religious based will ban you if you defend your faith if it happens to be different. They do not do that - you actually have to do something that is against the rules. Defending one's faith isn't.

 

[Marie17]

Putting much of it on show would attract huge audiences who would pay to see it in all the capital cities of the world. A travelling exhibition with different content every year would raise hundreds of millions. Selling some, and not all of the collection is religious, would raise millions more.

This would go over good with all the people - another reason for people to portray the Catholic Church as evil. I can hear it now - the Catholic Church is now going to make money off of gifts that were given by parishioners. That will go over well.