The Vatican Solution

[Haswell]

Here's the deal. The Vatican and the Church of England (which despite its name is worldwide) have independantly of one another, made public pronouncements about world poverty and how 'we' can solve it - via charitable donations etc.

In so far as I understand these sentiments, why don't the Vatican and the church of England just sell all the artwork, goods and chattels to museums et al? The money raised would be phenominal.

I think they should look at this seriously, such a move would be respected by one and all. I would think they have a vested interest in this - seeing that a sizeable proportion of their adherents have to drink sewage water ever day to survive.

Surely an ethical movement such as that would not be above the Vatican or Canterbury Palace? Sell the family silver and gold and even secular humanists will salute them for it.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Haswell

Here's the deal. The Vatican and the Church of England (which despite its name is worldwide) have independantly of one another, made public pronouncements about world poverty and how 'we' can solve it - via charitable donations etc.

I take it that their solution did not include telling poor people to stop having families of 8, or providing them the means to prevent same.

[Vardar]

If the Churches sold all their "wealth" and then turned all the proceeds over to charities, their inherent power (wealth) would be depleted. As worldwide organizations, the churches need a stockpile of wealth to operate.

Although the one time sell off would help a lot of people now, the churches would cease to exist to help future generations.

Unless, of course, donations to the churches could keep them solvent in the meantime.

[Nemowork]

Selling of the church property was a one time deal and anyway they need it to pay off altar boys who cant sit down properly any more.

The point about everybody giving is that it teaches the unwashed masses ie us, how to be selflessly charitable and better Christians, teaches us good habits and we can al go on to a better future etcetera!

See makes more sense that way!

[tnharris33]

problem solved

[Haswell]

I for one could care less about depletion of the church's powers. It was a fundamental tenet of Jesus' teachings to look after the poor and disenfranchised.

It also begs the question - are the churches only surviving on the wealth they have accumulated and what difference would it make if we undertook a second reformation? OK sorry that's two.

At the very least, if the church cannot afford to help more of its people from drinking sewage every day - what role does it play in a modern society?

Perhaps, as one has suggested, they are fearful the money will be spent on condoms?

[Meursault]

I think it is very telling that throughout the history of the catholic church, they wiped out several currents or orders who stipulated that the church and its servants should be poor and not want any riches for itself/themselves because jesus had no material wealth either. These people were annihilated with the same fervor as those who suggested any good person might go to heaven even if they were no catholics...

[wizzo]

I'm sorry - am I missing something here?

Isn't there a hospital in your town called "Saint"? There are almost five thousand Catholic hospitals in the United States, all of which are non-profit and take care of needy poor. There are more Catholic emergency rooms and trauma centers than those run by the government:

http://www.chausa.org/NR/rdonlyres/6.../FACTSHEET.pdf

Have y'all never heard of the St. Vincent de Paul Society? Where people can get food, clothing, even money to pay the rent?

http://www.svdpusa.org/

There are vast numbers of church-run charities around the world - Catholic, Anglican, and others - which supply water, food, clothing, shelter, emergency medical treatment, education, sanctuary and comfort to people from every background and in almost every nation. There is almost no Christian organization of any size or note that does not reach out to the poor.

Besides, Henry VIII already ransacked many of the Catholic properties in England, and Mary did some of the same to the Protestants. The Crown had a short-term gain through this indirect taxation, but neither used the proceeds to help the poor. They mostly paid for wars.

[Haswell]

Yet an incredible amount of adherents have to drink sewage water and make pies out of mud, just to survive.

Henry VIII didnt do enough.

All we need is the money being held by the churches as art treasures property and land, and the majority of thir followers could live a much better life without facing peril everyday.

Catholic, non catholic and chrsitian denominations all give to charity but it it is in the form of donations. It is not enough. It needs to be decents sums and NOW!

You might also like to note that that are secular charities and humanitarian charities that have no affilation to churches but manage to get substantial amounts out to where it is needed - without the con trick of conversion, bible reading or any religious meassage. If they can do that on donation only, imagine what could be acheived if all the trappings land and properties were removed from the religious.

I sometimes think they dont have the will - which is strange since the boss reckons its easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle etc.....

[dyslexia]

Originally Posted by wizzo

I'm sorry - am I missing something here?

Isn't there a hospital in your town called "Saint"? There are almost five thousand Catholic hospitals in the United States, all of which are non-profit and take care of needy poor. There are more Catholic emergency rooms and trauma centers than those run by the government:

http://www.chausa.org/NR/rdonlyres/6.../FACTSHEET.pdf

Have y'all never heard of the St. Vincent de Paul Society? Where people can get food, clothing, even money to pay the rent?

http://www.svdpusa.org/

There are vast numbers of church-run charities around the world - Catholic, Anglican, and others - which supply water, food, clothing, shelter, emergency medical treatment, education, sanctuary and comfort to people from every background and in almost every nation. There is almost no Christian organization of any size or note that does not reach out to the poor.

Besides, Henry VIII already ransacked many of the Catholic properties in England, and Mary did some of the same to the Protestants. The Crown had a short-term gain through this indirect taxation, but neither used the proceeds to help the poor. They mostly paid for wars.

Its true that there are a lot of Church oriented charities going, and while i agree that Haswel is being a bit extreme when he says they should sell off everything and throw money at those living in poverty (which has been proven to do very little good anyway) i do think that the vatican/church of england etc etc have a responsibility to use their power and wealth more responsibly, less jehovahs witnesses meandering around handing out pamphlets (not just them, but they are an awsome example) and more charity evens would not go astray.
The churchs do do a lot of good, and they by no means should/can be expected too do anything that will deplete their wealth.. that said theres still a lot of room for improvement.

[Haswell]

Ok then lets say 50% of all their goods and chattels. They would still be rich and would have committed a very Christian act. Start programmes of fresh water supplies world wide. Training for people to become self sufficient.

All without the need to push scripture at them. Allow condom use to protect women and prevent HIV.

This is all small fry to churches and it would be the Christian thing to do.

[dyslexia]

Yeah, your right.
I completely agree, while i still wouldn't be sure if 50% was a workable amount to sell off (due to protected churches that governments won't want to lose and other similar reasons) i definiately agree they should be sharing their incredible wealth

[tollboothwilly]

start taxing the churches.

[chainsoar]

Originally Posted by tollboothwilly

start taxing the churches.

Beautiful. Doug Stanhope had a rant on the same topic once. His reasoning was that vices are either outlawed or taxed - booze, drugs, cigarettes, etc. So why not tax religion along with all the other legal vices? Because that's what it is. Religion is a vice just like any other.

OK, so religion helps you get through your day, fine. Maybe a few beers and a hooker help me get through mine. The difference is I don't turn up at your house knocking on your door and trying to make you accept a handjob from a skank in a short vinyl skirt.

I think he's on the right track. Considering how wealthy the Christian church alone, in all its various incarnations, is, there should definitely be some taxation there. But because they're supposedly a charitable organisation they get tax exempt status. That's bullshit. No other charitable organisation would get away with handing over such a tiny percentage of their wealth to genuine charitable concerns.

[Haswell]

Absolutely. That is, succinctly put, the history of organised religion.

There used to be an expression - "Poor as a church mouse" but you never hear that any more.

What is it with this ancient volcano and Goat God Yahweh? He is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient but He just doesn't know how to handle money?

Is it still such a big worry for Christians that they will go to hell? Or can you still buy your way out? The church still craves its indulgences and the sheep ( sorry, flock ) follow every great pronouncement (as long as its suits them).

They should also tax the Mosques. FFS the income would be incredible and would help the public coffers to swell up nicely.