The Church's Wealth

[93 Phillies]

I posted a question about the Church's overwhelming wealth of assets on the Q&A board. I was not satisfied with the answer I got, so I want to debate this. Here is my original post:

[quote]Hello, this is my first post on this forum, and as I am someone who is frequently battling with issues of faith, I am sure it won't be my last. I was born and raised Catholic, and I've had some bumps along the way, but I am still a practicing Catholic at the age of 21. There is something that has bothered me for about a year.

I studied in Dublin, Ireland in the Spring of this year, and it was one of the better times of my life. During the semester, I took a ten day course in art history and architecture in Rome, Florence, Venice, and Milan. The art I saw was just stunningly beautiful, but it also got me thinking about the Church and it's wealth of assets. I believe in the message of Catholicism, that Jesus is the Son of God, and died to save our sins. I believe in the teachings of Jesus. And I don't think Jesus would be very happy to see an enormous solid gold crucifix in a church. Isn't that very hypcritical? The Church does so much work to help the poor, the sick and the needy, why would it keep these extravagant material possessions? Don't you think it could sell these things to help finance their real cause?

I don't agree with the fact that during the counter-reformation, the Church paid artists a lot of money to create works that would help attract believers. This should not be the reason a person should be attracted to a religion and a way of life. But while I don't agree with this, I understand that the Church is made up of people, and people make mistakes. Does it bother anyone else that the Church is so rich while there are people starving on the street? I don't know, but it really urks me.[/quote]

Any other opinions?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=60598"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=60598[/url]

[quote]I studied in Dublin, Ireland in the Spring of this year, and it was one of the better times of my life. During the semester, I took a ten day course in art history and architecture in Rome, Florence, Venice, and Milan.[/quote]

Cool. I've been to all those cities except Milan.

[quote]And I don't think Jesus would be very happy to see an enormous solid gold crucifix in a church. Isn't that very hypcritical? The Church does so much work to help the poor, the sick and the needy, why would it keep these extravagant material possessions? Don't you think it could sell these things to help finance their real cause?[/quote]

What is the purpose of the Church? The Church's main function is to save souls by bringing people, through catechesis, communion, and liturgy, to Christ. While taking care of physical needs is most certainly a priority for the Church, it is not higher than taking care of spiritual needs. We human beings are a composite of matter and spirit. Material communicates spiritual realities to us (God became man, in part, because He knew that taking on tangible flesh was the best way to reach us). Therefore, sacred art most certainly has it's place.

We must also remember that Christ said we would always have the poor with us and added that it was good to spend extravagantly on Him. It was Judas who rejected this in favor of serving the poor. Now, I'm not saying that those who want to be social workers are a bunch of Judases, but if we make the faith out to be all about social welfare, then we completely miss the point, which is that God has become man so that man might share in the divine nature.

When a person enters a great church, his heart is lifted into the high ceilings, his mind is enlightened by the stained-glass, and his body is strengthened by the marble statues. To be reminded of God in a way so relevant to man is to soaked in an awareness of the divine presence. This will help save souls, which is, ultimately, a far more important task.

Now, certainly there can be excesses...my pastor back home put in a $280,000 statue (that's enough to buy a very nice home where I live). It's a waste of money...it's not that nice and certainly not worth that much money. Granted, this particular parish needed some aesthetic improvement (it's ugly and certainly doesn't raise one's heart, mind, and body to God), but the statue doesn't accomplish it. However, I would argue that there weren't really any excesses in these cities. Medieval churches were often built by local craftsmen sacrificing stones, wood, and labor...it was a community project and everyone gave what they could, because they realized that this was a spiritual necessity. Later on, there are many more elaborate works of art, particularly in the Vatican, but keep in mind that many of these things were gifts. A few hundred dollars worth of material from this country or that isn't going to put to big a crimp in their welfare budgets...in fact, had it not been given to the spiritually-directed art of the Vatican, it probably would only have been added to some lord's surplus wealth.

[quote]I don't agree with the fact that during the counter-reformation, the Church paid artists a lot of money to create works that would help attract believers. This should not be the reason a person should be attracted to a religion and a way of life. But while I don't agree with this, I understand that the Church is made up of people, and people make mistakes. Does it bother anyone else that the Church is so rich while there are people starving on the street? I don't know, but it really urks me.[/quote]

No, art should not be the reason anyone is attracted to a religion and the way of life...Jesus should be. The problem comes with this: people need to see and feel and hear...and the Bible emphasizes this (see 1 John)...and art helps them to do that so that through their material senses, their spirits may be lifted to God.

[N/A Gone]

Good to see you Philly

[cmotherofpirl]

I have never heard anything about the Church spending money to create art to attract people. Art is to lift your heart and mind to God.
Walking into Church should be like walking into heaven.

People willingly gave their time and money to raise a beautiful house for the Lord, because He is God Almighty, and we should offer Him our best. Have you read the OT?

Churches are owned by each diocese, not by the Church as a whole. Each one costs an enormous amount of money to maintain but are the heritage of every catholic, not just our generation. Selling all our assets would help some people now, but leave all future generations impoverished spiritually.
The Catholic Church is also the largest private provider of relief services in the world.

[123]

[quote]And I don't think Jesus would be very happy to see an enormous solid gold crucifix in a church. Isn't that very hypcritical?[/quote]

Does not the house of the LORD have the right to be royal? Secoundly, Most catholics dont really pay attension to the Gold of the Cross. But, the cross itself.

Praise the Lord, these are wonderful questions. Continue to ask.

Edited November 16, 2006 by GloriaIesusChristi

[shortnun]

[quote]I studied in Dublin, Ireland in the Spring of this year, and it was one of the better times of my life. During the semester, I took a ten day course in art history and architecture in Rome, Florence, Venice, and Milan.[/quote]
Did you go to UCD? Trinity? I lived in Maynooth for a year and went to St. Patrick's.


I don't have so much to say in terms of a direct response to your original post... except that the church (not to mention the world) needs prophets at all times. And sometimes those prophets witness to our teaching of radical social justice and solidarity with the poor. Thankfully the Church says that we are large enough for the rich, the poor, and everyone in between. But we are called in a special way to be in the touch with the "poor" for "theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

I am reminded by your crucifix comment of a conversation I recently had with a student brother in one of my classes. He expressed his confusion over why new priests (some in his own community) were spending thousands of dollars on new vestements, yet among the 20 men (who have taken a vow of poverty) in his priory, they were unable to raise money to build a house for a family in Central America.

This feel that urks you may be a sign as to where/and how God is calling you to use your gifts in the world and for the church. You've given me a lot to reflect on. Thank you.

[thessalonian]

I don't know of anyone who goes to Church regularly just for the artwork. Some may go once or twice to see it but hopefully they will be drawn in by Jesus Christ and who he was after listening to a sermon or two. God draws people to his church in many ways. Are you objectionable to a young man who goes to Church to meet cute girls and then finds Christ in the process? I think you need to think this through a bit. Art lifts my spirits toward God and increases my faith that I already had without it. The Cathedral of St. Paul in St. Paul Minnesota is breathtaking and it is to set your mind toward the reality that we are in the prescence of Saints, Angels, and God almighty when we are participating in the Mass. Read Scott Hahn's Lamb's Supper. Now I don't believe that heaven's court is drab in the slightest.

Blessings

[Norseman82]

But how easily can these works of art be converted into cash? How easily can St. Peter's and the Sistene chapel be liquidated?

[93 Phillies]

Don't you think that it can be difficult to concentrate on faith when you are struggling to eat and keep warm. These people may not even be properly educated about Christianity and Catholicism. It's not like most homeless people are using their free time to look into religion. They don't have that luxury that all of us have, sitting inside of our warm homes chatting about faith on our expensive computers.

By helping provide these people with basic human needs (food, shelter, etc.) in the name of God, I believe we are enabling them to find themselves spiritually.

Again, this is just my opinion, and maybe you disagree.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

Dear Phillies,

As Cmotherofpirl has pointed out, this is already being done. The Catholic Church is the biggest private provider of relief aid in the world. Last week I had the privilege of talking to Father Benedict Groeschel, the founder of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal. The brothers of his order live a very simple, austere lifestyle and devote themselves to serving the homeless. You can find them [url="http://www.franciscanfriars.com"]here[/url]. They are just one example of a Church that is always striving to look after people who need help.

It is our duty and our privilege to help the less fortunate. But that doesn't mean we have to sell off the Church's priceless artefacts - many of which were gifts, and not bought by the Church. As someone else has already mentioned, it would be difficult to convert art treasures like the paintings in the Sistene Chapel into hard cash - and even if we were able to do that, it would be a great loss to the world in terms of culture and heritage.

A lot of people I know have accused the Church of hypocrisy because of its priceless paintings and ornaments. These people, who consider themselves good Christians, wouldn't think twice about buying a nice carpet for their own homes or a picture for the wall. Yet they object strenuously to the sumptuous altar cloths and devotional pictures that are to be found in the houses of God. Why? Whose house has the higher purpose?

Edited November 16, 2006 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[93 Phillies]

Thanks for these thoughful responses. I know that I am a hypocrite because I own nice things like a computer and a leather jacket and all the while I talk about giving money to the poor. Perhaps I am wrong, I believe I do my part for helping the poor though. I befriended a homeless man and used guest pass to bring him to our school cafeteria. He was very grateful, and my roommate and I have taken him out to lunch several times and given him as well as other homeless people significant sums of money.

I offered a man on the streets to sleep in my apartment, but my roommate woudn't have it, because he was afraid for our safety. Maybe he was right that it was dumb, but I also liked to think that Jesus would have done welcomed a cold person into his home. And aren't we supposed to follow the message of Jesus? I talked to my parish priest about this situation and he said that this particular man has seen jail time for assault and battery, and if I want to help the world, I shouldn't put myself in danger.

Sorry to get off track there. Thank you all for your thoughtful responses. Raphael especially, thank you for helping me understand why we need these magnificent pieces of art. It makes sense, although Judas was not a bad person at all before betraying Jesus, so I think that was slightly manipulative to compare people concerned with social work to Judas who is commonly identified with the betrayal of Jesus.

[93 Phillies]

Or maybe Judas wan't such a great person after all. Some of you would know better than I would. I have heard varying things. The story you are telling I think is where Mary Magdelene is oiling Jesus with expensive perfume. Judas claims that its wasteful and that the perfume money could have been given to the poor. Jesus responds with "the poor ye shall have always with you, but me ye shall not have always". Right?

But I have heard people say that Judas had alterior motives for this. Anyone know?

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='93 Phillies' post='1121726' date='Nov 16 2006, 09:14 PM']
Thanks for these thoughful responses. I know that I am a hypocrite because I own nice things like a computer and a leather jacket and all the while I talk about giving money to the poor. Perhaps I am wrong, I believe I do my part for helping the poor though. I befriended a homeless man and used guest pass to bring him to our school cafeteria. He was very grateful, and my roommate and I have taken him out to lunch several times and given him as well as other homeless people significant sums of money.

I offered a man on the streets to sleep in my apartment, but my roommate woudn't have it, because he was afraid for our safety. Maybe he was right that it was dumb, but I also liked to think that Jesus would have done welcomed a cold person into his home. And aren't we supposed to follow the message of Jesus? I talked to my parish priest about this situation and he said that this particular man has seen jail time for assault and battery, and if I want to help the world, I shouldn't put myself in danger.

Sorry to get off track there. Thank you all for your thoughtful responses. Raphael especially, thank you for helping me understand why we need these magnificent pieces of art. It makes sense, although Judas was not a bad person at all before betraying Jesus, so I think that was slightly manipulative to compare people concerned with social work to Judas who is commonly identified with the betrayal of Jesus.
[/quote]

I think perhaps you're misinterpreting Raphael because of the form of certain parts of his response. On the whole you seem to have picked up on the essence of what Raph has had to say but his citation of the case of Judas seems to have attracted you to what is a mere accident of what he's attempting to say.

There is nothing wrong in engaging with social work, the Church for her part does much charity. However, there is something wrong with being 'indignant' to quote Sacred Scripture at the beautiful things that are offered to Christ via the Church. The beautiful gift of the woman, identified by John as Mary (Jn 12:3), who washed the feet of Christ with costly ointment that Raphael cited was a valid one, pertinent to your query. 'There were some' (cf. Mk 14:3)--Judas is the only one clearly identified by the New Testament (Jn 12:4) but the other gospels indicate he was not alone in grumbling about it--who objected to her actions because she could've used the money on the poor but Our Lord reprimanded them as Raphel has already highlighted.

Our Lord may be characterised as a champion of the poor, and for certain he was. However, he is also the man whose cloak was of fine enough quality to be gambled over at the foot of the cross (Jn 20:23-24). Are we to suppose him a hypocrite on that account? Of course not. There is no intrinsic evil in poverty that Jesus was trying to save people from and on the other hand no instrinsic evil in wealth that He was trying to deliver men from. Its the attachment to these things that weighs down the soul. Had someone asked Jesus for his cloak he probably would've given it to him and more besides (cf. Lk 6:29-30, for instance)Hence it is not money but love of money which is said to be the root of all evil (1 Tim 6:10).

The Church has been enriched and endowed with many priceless works of art consecrated to God over the centuries who shared that same detachment from the world that the woman who washed the feet of Christ did. When they, when we, make material offerings to God they did not do it thinking of worldly concerns but only of how best they could take their wealth and use it in the service of the Lord. That is the spirit Jesus seeks in both the rich and the poor: For people to take what is within their means and to use it first and foremost for the sake of the Kingdom of God without consideration for worldly concerns.

Whether it be in making offerings to construct lovely churches or in feeding the hungry what the gospels what is important to God is that the motivating factor behind those actions is the need to donate the whole of oneself to Him. To the Lord, I feel, it is far more beautiful to offer a coin to the collection basket in good faith than to throw it carelessly at a homeless person out of guilt or worse, self-righteousness.

I miss this place...ah well back to the essays...

[thessalonian]

[quote name='93 Phillies' post='1121681' date='Nov 16 2006, 02:18 PM']
Don't you think that it can be difficult to concentrate on faith when you are struggling to eat and keep warm. These people may not even be properly educated about Christianity and Catholicism. It's not like most homeless people are using their free time to look into religion. They don't have that luxury that all of us have, sitting inside of our warm homes chatting about faith on our expensive computers.

By helping provide these people with basic human needs (food, shelter, etc.) in the name of God, I believe we are enabling them to find themselves spiritually.

Again, this is just my opinion, and maybe you disagree.
[/quote]

It's all important. Increasing the faith (via artwork and beautiful liturgy) of those already in the pews brings about more charity toward the poor as well. Which brings about the conversion of the poor.

[93 Phillies]

"throw it carelessly at a homeless person out of guilt or worse, self-rightesousness"

You come off as quite condescending here, but maybe I'm wrong and that wasn't a shot at me.

When I help homeless people, it is because I feel empathy for them. Is that so wrong? I was born on the right side of the tracks, and it is therefore my moral obligation to lend a hand to people who weren't.

I just have a problem giving money to something and then never seeing what exactly happened with it. I like to see results instead of just believing they are taking place. I'm skeptical only because I know quite a few priests who at this point in their life just look at priesthood as something to do to make a living, but their heart isn't in it anymore. It is sad, but it is a reality. And because of that, I like to see where my money is going. It would be very dumb, in my opinion, to just put money in the collection basket thinking "this is for God" and not give any real consideration as to what happens with it. Good intentions are not good enough, in my opinion.

So in just a few posts, I have already shown traits of both Judas and doubting Thomas...