Which has nothing to do with anything. Nice try.And yet
It just seemed incongruous to be concerned with fact checking and then stating that it doesn't matter what a person believes as long as they believe it. Kind of an irony moment. Thank you.Which has nothing to do with anything. Nice try.
Only if you misunderstand the meaning of the signature. But it’s really off topic and I don’t care if you get it or not.It just seemed incongruous to be concerned with fact checking and then stating that it doesn't matter what a person believes as long as they believe it. Kind of an irony moment. Thank you.
Okey dokey.Only if you misunderstand the meaning of the signature. But it’s really off topic and I don’t care if you get it or not.
Is there documentation to this....?The money used, according to the book "Dictator Pope", was from the Peter's Pence fund, which is contributed to by every parish in the world.
If this is true, is it a misuse of this fund? Does it constitute an attempt to influence the politics of the United States, as Russia is being accused of?
Over a couple of years, I've been made aware of several second collection recipients who do things that are manifestly against the Church's doctrine, like providing money to organizations which promote abortion and birth control. When I become aware of these, I tend to no longer donate to those second collections.
On another note, though, why would the Vatican be favoring one Presidential campaign over another, especially when that candidate is known to be anti-life?
It is not just Catholics who fall short of helping the poor, but many/most Protestants and Orthodox as well.Many, maybe most, Catholics choose to squander God’s portion of their income on themselves, rather than using God's tithe to save the poor from dying. In order to avoid being unpopular, Catholic leaders redirect the blame for this Catholic evildoing, and place the blame secular leaders.
How about we collect the tens of trillions of God’s money, presently being squandered by many of the 1.3 billion Catholics on earth today, and use this massive storehouse of God’s wealth to buy food and healthcare for the poor of the world.
Jesus tells us that He is going to Burn in Hell, those of His supposed followers, who do not feed the poor and help them to get well. I do not see Jesus telling St. Peter to go to Caesar and see to it that all the wealth of the world Caesar is waging war to take, is distributed to care for the poor. Jesus commands His Church, not Caesar, to care for the poor. Jesus tells us that those of His followers who, (those above the poverty level) who do not care for the poor, He will burn in hell. Those who love Jesus will feed and care for the poor. Jesus tells us it is those Catholics who obey Jesus, by tithing to feed and care for the poor, who will inherit the Kingdom of God.
Matthew 25:31
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.' Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?' And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.' Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.' Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?' He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.' And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (ISA 58)
Luke 20:20 Paying Taxes to the Emperor.
They watched him closely and sent agents pretending to be righteous who were to trap him in speech, in order to hand him over to the authority and power of the governor. They posed this question to him, “Teacher, we know that what you say and teach is correct, and you show no partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it lawful for us to pay tribute to Caesar or not?” Recognizing their craftiness he said to them, “Show me a denarius; whose image and name does it bear?” They replied, “Caesar’s.” So he said to them, “Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.”
Luke 11:41
"But if you give what you have as alms, all will be wiped clean for you"
The documentation is spotty, only in a book called "Dictator Pope". It's said to be rumor, even in the book, but if you read the rest of the book, much of which is corroborated by sources other than the author (who is anonymous), it sure fits a pattern.Is there documentation to this....?
Or is it false news?
I can verify that it's in a book. The book is full of attribution, but this statement was unattributed. (Much like the book about Donald Trump, full of misstatements and unattributed comments) I stated that it's a rumor. My question was, IF THIS IS TRUE, does it constitute a concern? I also stated that, for me, it would be a concern if either side was donated to from this fund, especially. Peter's Pence is a second collection once a year which the pope traditionally uses to distribute to the poor around the world. If that fund was, in part, donated to a political campaign in any particular country, I'd be concerned what the government of our church is up to.Crap like this should be verified before posted.
The statement is shocking, but the question following it was "If true, would this be a concern?"So, I'd have to see solid proof of this before I'd believe it. I'm pretty dubious.
In one way, I wouldn't see this as Hillary doing anything. Money can be donated in such a way as to be untraceable.Let's not forget that this would amount to the Papacy directly interfering in the governmental succession and the democratic elections of a sovereign state. From Hillary's side it would amount to taking money from a foreign government.
There's a lot of corruption in the Vatican Bank-money laundering, and other things.If this actually happened it would be a massive international incident and embarrassment on both sides, not to mention I'm pretty sure it would be illegal.
Yeah, which is why I don't give to most second collections. You never know where that money is going, really. I donate directly to a variety of Catholic charities, but will not give to Catholic Charities (the organization), or, now, Peter's Pence.I don't think Hillary is above doing illegal things and I don't think the Pope is above stupid political moves... but this just doesn't seem plausible at all.
If you said independent Catholic organizations within the US gave money to Hillary, that I would not doubt at all.
IF TRUE, yes it would be a big concern. But since there is nothing to corroborate it, I think we can leave it in the hypothetical. Political donations in the USA above a small amount are trackable. Particularly anything from a foreign concern. There would be a smoking gun if it happened. Unless of course it was delivered in a brown paper bag as an illegal contribution. So, while I do think sometimes money spent by Catholic Charities goes to some very wrong places, I don't think Peter's Pence money is likely to have been diverted wrongly.I can verify that it's in a book. The book is full of attribution, but this statement was unattributed. (Much like the book about Donald Trump, full of misstatements and unattributed comments) I stated that it's a rumor. My question was, IF THIS IS TRUE, does it constitute a concern? I also stated that, for me, it would be a concern if either side was donated to from this fund, especially. Peter's Pence is a second collection once a year which the pope traditionally uses to distribute to the poor around the world. If that fund was, in part, donated to a political campaign in any particular country, I'd be concerned what the government of our church is up to.
I agree with you, but I want to bring up another aspect of this:IF TRUE, yes it would be a big concern. But since there is nothing to corroborate it, I think we can leave it in the hypothetical. Political donations in the USA above a small amount are trackable. Particularly anything from a foreign concern. There would be a smoking gun if it happened. Unless of course it was delivered in a brown paper bag as an illegal contribution. So, while I do think sometimes money spent by Catholic Charities goes to some very wrong places, I don't think Peter's Pence money is likely to have been diverted wrongly.
If there was evidence if this I would scream and holler. It would be a betrayal by the Vatican and a subversion of American politics. Wouldn't matter if it were the Dems or the Republicans. I don't even think I could approve if it went to the American Solidarity Party.
I remember it well. At one point a European financial consortium basically cut the Vatican off and the ATMs in the Vatican stopped working. Some of this might be that the Vatican Bank is seriously stuck in the 1400's, but some of it is also that shady folks like the lack of modern accountability. And you will always have shady folks, no matter where on earth, even the Vatican, especially the Vatican, without real accountability. Cardinal Pell gave it a good try, but I wonder if his legal troubles in Australia were not 'helped along' by dark characters in the Vatican Bank. Pope John Paul II gave it a try but failed. Pope Benedict gave it a try but wasn't really up to it. I think those failures were a big part of why Benedict resigned. Pope Francis was supposed to inject new energy into reforming the Vatican financial infrastructure, but he seems to be putting his foot in his mouth on other things with regularity instead. He isn't effective in reforming the Vatican Bank. I think he was elected mostly to reform the curia, but he's done precious little that looks like curial reform. What is needed is an outsider who knows how to yield power like an insider. Or an insider who still has clean hands. I don't know who that would be. Cardinal Pell has been convicted in the court of public opinion, and now that his accuser has died, there is no way for him to ever clear his name. He will never be effective again, sad to say.I agree with you, but I want to bring up another aspect of this:
Remember that there was found to be widespread corruption in the Vatican Bank? I believe there was lots of talk in 2013 of Pope Francis trying to clean up the bank. According to the book, Cardinal Pell was put in charge of cleaning up the problem, he instituted a Price Waterhouse Cooper audit, which was cancelled by the Secretariat of State with no explanation. It looks like nothing has been happening to clean up that institution.
I used to be of the mind that the Vatican was just where the Pope lived. I've come to a different conclusion-the Vatican, as a political organization, is as corrupt as any government.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?