How exactly does the Vatican justify it's wealth?

[Avatar]

There you go pushing the blame again...

If you say so. The church is of the people, the government is of the people. Which one do you think can make a real difference? Which one is actually trying to?

 

[Morcova]

That's irrelevant, because that's not what the church is doing.

The church no longer wants people to tithes?

 

[Morcova]

Ah. Another person without personal posessions. Another person who wants to see the museums of the world sell off their holdings.

You'd have a point if the average museum belonged to an group that claims to be feeding the poor and making the world a better place....

Lol. Yep I worship paintings, how did you know?

Moved on from statues huh?

 

[Morcova]

Good grief. It's a 14th-century gothic cathedral. Yes, let's tear it down and build a boring more modest building.

The PRIDE you have in you building is nice.

And turning your nose up to MODESTY is amusing.

 

[Morcova]

Exactly what is the matter with you? Your nation alone could eliminate the poverty in Africa, overnight. You are affluent and your government is elected. Your government finances itself through taxes. Taxes could very easily be raised enough to end starvation in Africa. And none of you would starve. Ain't happening though, and you're not complaining about it.

What about the holdings of the monarchy? Why not sell the crown jewels or Buckingham palace?

The Catholic church does far more worldwide for the poor than your nation. Talk to me when you take the log out of your eye.

Most of the western nations of the world gives billions of dollars to aid to africa, billions to feed them and to help educated people in africa about aids and give them condoms..

While the rest of the world is trying to convince africans to stop having children they can't afford to feed, to use condoms to cut down on the spread of aids your chuch is busy telling them that condoms are evil and to be fruitful and multiply.

 

[Morcova]

Dead wrong. He called on all of us to give to the poor. The government is of the people. The government is us, we choose it. There the responsibility lies. With each and every one of us.

That's hilarious.

So instead of saying, "It's my responsibility to give to the poor", you say, "it's the government's responsibility to give to the poor and if the government doesn't do it.. shucks", great way to pass the buck!

 

[Avatar]

While the rest of the world is trying to convince africans to stop having children they can't afford to feed, to use condoms to cut down on the spread of aids your chuch is busy telling them that condoms are evil and to be fruitful and multiply.

Lol. So people are obeying the church about condoms but not obeying the church about monogamy and adultery? You crack me up.

 

[Morcova]

Lol. So people are obeying the church about condoms but not obeying the church about monogamy and adultery? You crack me up.

Given the divorce rate among christians it sure looks that way.

 

[stan1980]

Lol. So people are obeying the church about condoms but not obeying the church about monogamy and adultery? You crack me up.

That is a very tired argument. First of all, it is unrealistic to expect people to not have sex... it goes against nature. Also, knowing full well that people wont stick to this rule, it is negligent to tell them they must not use condoms.

 

[Avatar]

That is a very tired argument. First of all, it is unrealistic to expect people to not have sex... it goes against nature. Also, knowing full well that people wont stick to this rule, it is negligent to tell them they must not use condoms.

But why would they obey the church in one regard, yet not another? Makes no sense. If they are having sex outside of marriage they obviously aren't following the teachings of the church. So that they don't use condoms isn't the fault of the church, they aren't following church teachings. They didn't not use a condom because of the church.

 

[Avatar]

That's hilarious.

So instead of saying, "It's my responsibility to give to the poor", you say, "it's the government's responsibility to give to the poor and if the government doesn't do it.. shucks", great way to pass the buck!

Passed squarely to you. You are the government. Assuming you live in a democracy.

 

[Renton405]

I didn't say anything about whether one should admire Bill Gates. Rather, I offered him as an example of a non-Christian that has also helped the homeless -- a type of person that Renton405 implied did not exist.

Whether it is ok to accumulate wealth in the face of need is a separate issue. Do you think it is ok?

I never said that, I just said a very SMALL MINORITY donate that aren't faith based.


What the Vatican has is historical items. Whether you attribute that to weath is up to you. But historical items accumulate over time and you have to put them somewhere. The Church is over 2000 years of historical data and architecture. Things that probably don't even have a value to others. Christian Relics don't have sale value. And even if they were sold, they would just end up in another mueseum. And as I said earlier, if the poster even knew how much the church has helped the poor this OP wouldn't even exist.

I brought up the same idea about Planned Parenthood donating all its money to the poor. Funny how there was no support there.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

Just to get people to shut up about this, here are some non-Christian organizations and charities that help the world:

FreeRice.com - a secular site that gives food to third world countries while exercising the mind with vocabulary trivia. It gives twenty grains of rice for every correct answer and this can seriously add up.

One.org - a nonpartisan site dedicated to stopping poverty. It's motto: " ONE is Americans of all beliefs and every walk of life – united as ONE – to help make poverty history."

WFP.org - the World Food Programme is a highly successful organization run by the United Nations that gives food to the hungry.

productRED.org - an organization that gives fractions of proceeds from purchaces merchandise to help eliminate AIDs in Africa.

Make-A-Wish Foundation - We all know this one. This organization grants wishes for children suffering from cancer and other terminal diseases. It's probably one of my favorites.

Asha for Education - an organization that uses nearly all it's money to help make education in India more efficient.

There are hundreds more, and something I notice about them, is they're not nearly as advertised or pressed on the general public and if they have any religious underlying, they choose not to express it. So already, they have some of those top Christian charities beaten in the humility field.

 

[Morcova]

Passed squarely to you. You are the government. Assuming you live in a democracy.

Fortunately I don't.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

Fortunately I don't.

I was about to disagree, then I turned on the news and remembered. Neither do I.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

No, I don't think the Vatican can justify its wealth. Jesus said to give everything to the poor. Any Christian group or individual that doesn't at least try to live up to that is, in my opinion, not particularly worthy of respect as someone that says they follow his teachings but accumulate absurd wealth.

1: The government is not the church.
2: The church or many of them anyway demand 10% of the gross be given to the church then they ask you to give more.

The government will give you a break if you are low income, in some cases even give you money when you need it. The church wants 10% of that too. I've even saw them ask for the cash value of 10% of a families foodstamps even though the family could barely get by as it was. Then come the hell fire threats for robbing God.

As this thread is about the Catholic church I would say that as a Catholic I never experienced any forced giving. People gave as much as they could and if they wanted to. I have never seen a Catholic priest specifically ask for a certain donation for anything.

 

[beechy]

I never said that, I just said a very SMALL MINORITY donate that aren't faith based.

You said:

By the way. The Catholic Church is one of the biggest organizations that house and feed the homeless. Read on the St. Vincents fund. Nearly every Basillica and Cathedral has a food shelf and shelter for the homeless. And don't forget how many monastarys hid and sheltered the Jews in WWII..

and then you asked:

have atheists ever done these things?

So I gave you examples of atheists (at least agnostics) who have "done these things". Was your question meant to be rhetorical? Also, what makes you think that the overwhelming majority of organizations that help the homeless (or donate to help the homeless) are faith based?

What the Vatican has is historical items. Whether you attribute that to weath is up to you. But historical items accumulate over time and you have to put them somewhere. The Church is over 2000 years of historical data and architecture. Things that probably don't even have a value to others. Christian Relics don't have sale value. And even if they were sold, they would just end up in another mueseum. And as I said earlier, if the poster even knew how much the church has helped the poor this OP wouldn't even exist.

Here's a list of some property owned by the Archdiocese of Boston. I guess what is or is not an "historical treasure" is in the eye of the beholder, but I find it hard to suspend my disbelief that apartment buildings, vacant lots, and recreational land are being preserved for posterity ... Again, I don't know a ton about the Catholic church and am open to learning, but it does seem clear to me that the church maintains a lot of non-historic real estate assets.

 

[Renton405]

You said:

and then you asked:So I gave you examples of atheists (at least agnostics) who have "done these things". Was your question meant to be rhetorical? Also, what makes you think that the overwhelming majority of organizations that help the homeless (or donate to help the homeless) are faith based?

Here's a list of some property owned by the Archdiocese of Boston. I guess what is or is not an "historical treasure" is in the eye of the beholder, but I find it hard to suspend my disbelief that apartment buildings, vacant lots, and recreational land are being preserved for posterity ... Again, I don't know a ton about the Catholic church and am open to learning, but it does seem clear to me that the church maintains a lot of non-historic real estate assets.

I have the laugh at that "review" by those reporters. Obviously they are appraising it at its CURRENT value, and most Catholic Churches are older than your great grandmother. you so have a problem. Secondly churches aren't easy liquid assests like houses and other lands, where you can just immediatly sell them, because they tend to the community and go through a special process.

Secondly they don't even know if all that property is still owned by them. Like I said if that was true churches today wouldn't struggled just to pay for heat and maintinence. Did you even read the reply to that false article?

Father Christopher Coyne, spokesman for the archdiocese, said the multi-million dollar figure the Boston Herald reported was not accurate because the report counted property such as Regina Cleri and St. Ignatius, Chestnut Hill, which are, in fact, still in use.
“In the case where the building is not being used for pastoral purposes, the building is still part of the property of the parish,” Father Coyne stated. “The parish may be renting it out and the parish may be using that rent to fund its work.”
Donna Morrissey, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said the “uses of Church property are much more complex than that reported by the Boston Herald article.” She stated that rental agreements and leases benefit the many parishes of the archdiocese. Morrissey said many times the rental agreements allow parishes to use the property outside of the hours contained in the lease. “For example, in Franklin, at St. Mary Church, there is a building that is leased, but outside of the lease the property provides space for the religious education classes for over 2,500 children and provides space for parish activities and community events,” she stated.
Morrissey said leases provide parishes with tenants who maintain and repair the property. “Leased properties provide service to the local community, for example the Federal Street building in Salem is used for a public school. These properties are leased for non-profit, educational and social service uses,” she added

Land and property owned by the archdiocese does not necessarily mean fast money for the use of the archdiocese or the archbishop. “As any businessman or woman would tell you, or as any accountant would tell you, property assets do not, are not in any way, as liquid or available in the same way as cash,” Father Coyne stated. “Just because we supposedly have this property does not mean that that property is free and available for use as cash.”

Bankers' best guesses about the Vatican's wealth put it at $10 billion to $15 billion. Of this wealth, Italian stockholdings alone run to $1.6 billion, 15% of the value of listed shares on the Italian market. The Vatican has big investments in banking, insurance, chemicals, steel, construction, real estate. Dividends help pay for Vatican expenses and charities such as assisting 1,500,000 children and providing some measure of food and clothing to 7,000,000 needy Italians

 

[Renton405]

The Vatican has enough problems managing its own budget these days. In 2003 the Holy See ran a sizable deficit for the third straight year, despite cutting back costs. It blamed the falling dollar and sluggish investment markets for the shortfall.

What's often overlooked when the Vatican discloses its annual financial figures is the size of the total numbers. In popular imagination it may be fabulously wealthy, but the Vatican has a yearly operating budget of just $260 million.

That's less than half the budget of major universities like Notre Dame, and about one-third the budget of U.N. specialized agencies like the Food and Agriculture Organization.

The Vatican's net worth is difficult to gauge, but has been estimated at close to $1 billion. That would be less than the endowment funds of many major universities in the United States.

At the Vatican, property sales are not seriously considered, even in times of hardship. Most of its choice property lies inside the Vatican walls; the buildings used for institutional purposes are listed as having no commercial value.

So on the ledger card, the pope's six-story Apostolic Palace, with its gilt ceiling and frescoed walls, is simply entered as a debit, reflecting cleaning and upkeep costs.

The perennial problem at the Vatican is generating income. That's why the Vatican holds out its begging cup every year, asking dioceses to pitch in. Despite the abuse scandals, donations from Catholics, dioceses and religious orders in the United States have remained steady in recent years, Vatican officials said.


http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0403779.htm

 

[beechy]

I have the laugh at that "review" by those reporters. Obviously they are appraising it at its CURRENT value, and most Catholic Churches are older than your great grandmother. you so have a problem.

When assessing how much a piece of property is worth, it's current value is the relevant measure.

Secondly churches aren't easy liquid assests like houses and other lands, where you can just immediatly sell them, because they tend to the community and go through a special process.

You mean the special process the church sets up for itself as a barrier to sale? Because civil law doesn't place any special restrictions on the sale of parish property (that I'm aware of anyway .... which isn't saying much )

Secondly they don't even know if all that property is still owned by them. Like I said if that was true churches today wouldn't struggled just to pay for heat and maintinence. Did you even read the reply to that false article?

Nothing in the response you posted claimed that the listed property was owned by an entity other than the church. Rather it defends the holdings by claiming that some of them are still being used by the church; that real property is not "instant cash"; and that some of the space is leased for uses that benefit that community -- like public schools and nonprofit groups.

I agree that if the church is using the property as a place of worship or for a charitable purpose, it makes sense for it to continue using it. However, observing that real property is not "instant cash" because it takes time to sell that property is not a compelling argument -- the sale process only decreases the property's value by the cost of sale. The fact that some of the space is being leased for community friendly uses is also not compelling. Unless the church is charging heavily discounted rents I don't see how that's any different than a regular old landlord who rents to organizations we may all approve of.

And again, I posted the article in response to your claim that the Church only maintains "Christian relics" and "historical data and architecture". Although I guess anything built at any point in history (including an hour ago) is technically "historical", but I think that's a tortured (and probably unintended) reading of the word as you used it.

And when the church really wants to get rid of a piece of property it's able to do so at least some of the time, even if (as with all development projects), it requires a little sweat equity.

Take the case of 1280 Washington Street, for example. If you click here, you'll see an entry in the Suffolk County registry of deeds for a notice dated April 2001 relating to the above mentioned Washington Street address and the Archdiocese of Boston. You can then click on the "Quick Document Viewer" link on the bottom of the page to view the notice itself, which is a decision from the city board of of appeal granting the Archdiocese's request to convert the historic St. Vincent de Paul building (which was being used as a space to sell salvage goods for charity) into a 6 story mixed use condo / restaurant space with 7 off street parking spots. Looks like the plans went through just fine, since the penthouse at 1280 Washington is currently on sale for $4.9 million (not through the church, of course, since we're well into resale land with these condos now).

Here's another one (again, click on the "Quick Documet Viewer" button), acknowledging the Archdiocese's request to convert church owned property at 100 Rogers Street in Lowell, MA, into 8 new condos. The property was sold by the Archdiocese to "100 Rogers Street Inc" for $555k in 2005.

EDIT: Oops, looks like the links I posted above don't work because they're dependent on a timed session at the recorder's website. You can do your own search for the properties if you like and see the docs I reference, since they're a matter of public record.