How much money does the Vatican have?

Dan133269

Simple question really. I can't seem to find any objective source for this answer. The nearest is Time's magazine estimate but that was in 1965. Any directions?

Wolfe Tone

I believe the Vatican publishes its accounts every year to dispel the myth that they are loaded.

NewApproach

Lots

Fanny Cradock

I believe a suitable saying would be, "house rich, cash poor".

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Plebs

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I believe a suitable saying would be, "house rich, cash poor".

On the contrary. The vatican bank manages huge trust funds. Some orders are richer than others. They can tap into their funds every couple of years without diminishing their value.

Anyway, it's nobody's business how much money the church has.

Dan133269

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I believe the Vatican publishes its accounts every year to dispel the myth that they are loaded.

Love the name Benito, you've had your cosy relations with them too

Plebs wrote: »

Anyway, it's nobody's business how much money the church has.

Apart from when they're saying they're broke and the Irish taxpayer must pay for the redress of the rape of countless little children committed primarily by priests and Christian brothers from the Roman Catholic Church. All the while the Vatican houses enormous wealth in its art collection alone.

So can anyone point to an objective (i.e. not their own accounts) estimate of their wealth? and not just in cash but also property etc.

The Smurf

His Excellency Archbishop Velasio De Paolis explained the 2009 financial statement of the Holy See, that records income of 250,182,364 euro [US$ 316,317,777] and expenditures of 254,284,520 euro [US$ 321,504,333], with a deficit of 4,102,156 euro [US$ 5,186,556].

VATICAN'S 2009 FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
http://www.zenit.org/article-29859?l=english

Background reading: http://www.zenit.org/article-28132?l=english

strobe

Dan133269 wrote: »

So can anyone point to an objective (i.e. not their own accounts) estimate of their wealth? and not just in cash but also property etc.

I wouldn't imagine so Dan. But I'll give it a vague shot.

I remember reading that they value thier Vatican property at E700,000,000 somewhere. Very conservative estimate by anyones standards. That's real estate, not including gold, jewels and art etc.

There was an old Raphael painting found sitting in some guys storage this year and it was being estimated to be worth between $30-$50M. The vatican have a lot of tapestries, paintings etc by the same artist that would go easily for 5 - 10 times this each. That's just Raphael, the cheapo of the four teenage mutant turtles . If the Vatican were to declare a firesale of all thier art work you would be talking about many many billions very easily. But the fact that they refuse to sell any of thier artwork because they are "Gods custodians of these Christ inspired masterpieces" means they may aswell be valued at 5 euro.

So basically, certainly billions but more likely closer to trillions. Of course I'm happy to be corrected by someone that knows more than me.

EDIT: This might be a long shot....but just on the off chance. BennyXVI? If your reading this post, read it a couple more times, then click this link http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055990470. Sleep well.

lmaopml

This comes up every now and then on this forum..

Anyway, yes the Vatican are the custodians of priceless art, hence it's not put on the 'books' because hardly anybody could afford it, it's valued at something like 1c....it's on display for you, me, and everybody who has an interest in heritage or art or history etc. to look at whenever the urge and the cash allows us to fly to Vatican city.

I think it's a bit ridiculous myself to point to the vatican museum, where paintings were donated, and given as gifts etc. by Catholics for Catholics world over, and not look at every other museum in every other country and all the 'priceless' art therein - hell maybe we should just force everybody to sell the lot? The States could sell their Declaration of Independance to feed the poor, I'm sure that will fetch a pretty penny on the private collectors market and maybe we'll go to Palace in England next, then the Louvre and clear them out too...

Actually, perhaps a shipment of all Egyptian artifacts world over should be returned to the mother land?..and after that we can turn the Sistine Chapel into a swanky new Starbucks...

The 'art' doesn't 'belong' to any 'person' - It belongs to Catholics and indeed all art lovers world over...

strobe

lmaopml wrote: »

hell maybe we should just force everybody to sell the lot? The States could sell their Declaration of Independance to feed the poor, I'm sure that will fetch a pretty penny on the private collectors market and maybe we'll go to Palace in England next, then the Louvre and clear them out too...

Actually, perhaps a shipment of all Egyptian artifacts world over should be returned to the mother land

What a good idea. You have my support lmaopml.

Do the NMOI claim to be doing Christ's work on Earth btw?

oldyouth

It has to be a mega fortune, given that it's assets are certainly unique and, as we know, there is a buyer out there willing to pay a fortune for such things.

Unforunately, the Vatican does not think that it's children are worthy of disposing of a few trinkets to assist them in dealing with the trauma it's officers have caused.

The Smurf

oldyouth wrote: »

It has to be a mega fortune, given that it's assets are certainly unique and, as we know, there is a buyer out there willing to pay a fortune for such things.

Unforunately, the Vatican does not think that it's children are worthy of disposing of a few trinkets to assist them in dealing with the trauma it's officers have caused.

And we all know that money solves every problem...

Fanny Cradock

Plebs wrote: »

On the contrary. The vatican bank manages huge trust funds. Some orders are richer than others. They can tap into their funds every couple of years without diminishing their value.

Anyway, it's nobody's business how much money the church has.

Really? Do you have links?

Fanny Cradock

strobe wrote: »

I wouldn't imagine so Dan. But I'll give it a vague shot.

I remember reading that they value thier Vatican property at E700,000,000 somewhere. Very conservative estimate by anyones standards. That's real estate, not including gold, jewels and art etc.

There was an old Raphael painting found sitting in some guys storage this year and it was being estimated to be worth between $30-$50M. The vatican have a lot of tapestries, paintings etc by the same artist that would go easily for 5 - 10 times this each. That's just Raphael, the cheapo of the four teenage mutant turtles . If the Vatican were to declare a firesale of all thier art work you would be talking about many many billions very easily. But the fact that they refuse to sell any of thier artwork because they are "Gods custodians of these Christ inspired masterpieces" means they may aswell be valued at 5 euro.

So basically, certainly billions but more likely closer to trillions. Of course I'm happy to be corrected by someone that knows more than me.

What are you basing the "trillions" on? Just art alone?

As for your valuation of art, the most expensive painting is $140 million for a Jackson Pollock. Using your figure of $50 million fetched for a Raphael drawing (Head of a Muse) and applying your 5 to 10 times valuation, are you seriously suggesting that each of the Vatican's Raphael pieces will fetch between $250 million and $500 million each?

The potential wealth of any one painting is only in light of market demand. Flooding the market would devalue all art as a commodity.

lmaopml

strobe wrote: »

What a good idea. You have my support lmaopml.

Do the NMOI claim to be doing Christ's work on Earth btw?

LOL, no, but it's the same idea no? Irish people treasure their heritage...Americans theirs, Catholics theirs, Protestants theirs...Egyptians theirs, etc. etc. etc. Anything there doesn't 'belong' to the NMOI but the people who appreciate it.

The Catholic Church has a 'central' focal point, so hey ho it's like a bullseye..for most, and rightly so in some ways no doubt...

The same is true of the heritage and art at vatican city. If it were all gone to some private collectors place tomorrow perhaps some wouldn't care...., it's 'history' who gives a **** about a few paintings, especially us young modernists - others 'do' care though strobe, others who see it as a heritage, a connection to their common faithful, who painstakingly applied themselves and their talents for the glory of God.... and they don't belong to any one country, but many. They aren't all Catholic either, but historians, scientists, atheists etc. who visit the vatican, either to admire, examine, and understand in the spirit, or to pass judgement..

..some, even some of the Catholics churches worst critics, can see the difference between, as Fanny put it, house rich and cash poor...and they don't want to see a modern bulldozer of some idealistic opinion..destroy the heritage and history of many..or for future generations to have it taken apart piece by piece.

The Smurf

If strobe is so concerned about the starving children, why doesn't he sell his computer, and give the proceeds to the poor, instead of tapping fruitlessly on a keyboard?

evolutionqy7

Plebs wrote: »

On the contrary. The vatican bank manages huge trust funds. Some orders are richer than others. They can tap into their funds every couple of years without diminishing their value.

Anyway, it's nobody's business how much money the church has.

its our money DONATE or you go to HELL!!!

as they used to say in middle ages

strobe

The Smurf wrote: »

If strobe is so concerned about the starving children, why doesn't he sell his computer, and give the proceeds to the poor, instead of tapping fruitlessly on a keyboard?

My computer is worth about the same as a wooden paper weight. I've done my part for people I felt were in need of it. But beside from that I don't claim to be a follower of the way of Yeshua, let alone his directly appointed fukking army. You people are supposed to live better than I am, however fukking laughable that sounds when I look around at your ilk. Honestly now. If Jesus of Nazareth heard all this talk of "Catholic art for Catholics to enjoy" along side, "36million people die a year of starvation" what do you think he would say?

You know what, don't bother answering, I've heard the vain justifications too many times, I can visualize your response before you even post it and it sickens me. I won't be back to this thread because I would only get myself banned and despite myself I sometimes do like posting here.

---

Fanny the trillions was in relation to total assets, liquid and capital. The highest painting sold pulling in 140M is just because the most valueable paintings don't get sold. The Mona Lisa is valued at somewhere around 700M for example. I'm a big Raphael fan so I may have been a bit biased with my valuations there, but not by that much I'd imagine. There is very little outside of the vatican to rival what is within. I think you underestimate the market in terms of flooding it with art and crashing prices. Art isn't i-phones. Each piece finds it's own price irrelevant of other similar products. But even if you were right. Ten pieces a year until the walls of vatican city are bare would avoid any such saturation and do a hell of a lot more good for the people the CC and god suposedly loves than they are doing now.

ISAW

Plebs wrote: »

On the contrary. The vatican bank manages huge trust funds.

Really? Can you name say five of these funds ? And can you cite the rules under which they were set up and how much money can be drawn from them and under what circumstances?

Or did you just believe the vatican has huge cash funds without actually checking it out?

Some orders are richer than others.

Orders are NOT the Vatican. Make up your mind. are you referring to the Vatican or the entire Roman Catholic Church? Do you really believe the Pope or anyone else in the Vatican can demand a parish in another country to sell their local church to developers and send the money to him in cash?

By the way this all began by talking about cash and now it has gone off into assets. Some else posted about artwork etc. Take Paris a TINY part of the country called France. Imagine you could sell everything in Paris tommorrow that is not privately owned. It is a silly idea butr imagine you could do it. This would include the Versaille Palace, Louvre Mona Lisa etc. Paris alone would dwarf the Vatican in terms of what it is worth.

The Vatican = 700 billion was a figure pulled out of the Air Id like to see wher it came from but in any case the debt and this is just the debt and not the capital worth of the country.

The Us for example was taking more than that in tax in 1984 and has an annual overrun of over 400 billion since 2009. thats just the annual overrun and not the actual worth of the country!
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
page 22

They can tap into their funds every couple of years without diminishing their value.

I don't understand. You are saying orders have huge cash funds which they hold in reserve for investment purposes? Which orders ? What funds ? How much? and if you "tap in" to anything you diminish it! If the capital value stays the same over time by spending all the interest then the fund is effectively worth less anyway as 100 euro in ten years time is worth nothing like 100 Euro today.

Anyway, it's nobody's business how much money the church has.

Apparently while you claim nobody has any business you also claim it is the bankers and fund managers business. Which is it?

ISAW

oldyouth wrote: »

It has to be a mega fortune, given that it's assets are certainly unique and, as we know, there is a buyer out there willing to pay a fortune for such things.

Minor in terms of the problem. i.e. the Vatican assets even if they could get thousands of billions for them would not be in any way a major amount of money compared to others.

Secondly the problem of distribution of resources and not of wealth. For example how could a 1000 billion fund make the world hoarders controllers and producers of food oil and weapons stop selling weapons to poor countries and allow overproduction of food to be given to starving people or allow no subsidy on food and a free market where the poor countries can compete with the EU Japan or the US? Or wher the peoples that have oil actually get the money for it?

Unforunately, the Vatican does not think that it's children are worthy of disposing of a few trinkets to assist them in dealing with the trauma it's officers have caused.

Conflating another issue with wealth is a logical fallacy.
The Vatican has little or no children. the population of the vatican is almost entirely male adults. You are conflating two issues. The level of clerical child abusers (which are a tiny percentage of child abusers about one per cent or less). No cleric EVER abused a child in the line of duty. It was not done in carrying out any office at all! It was never a Vatican policy to abuse children. IN fact sex with Children was outlawed in the Early church even though today some atheists and relativists claim that under some circumstances it might be acceptable.

ISAW

strobe wrote: »

If Jesus of Nazareth heard all this talk of "Catholic art for Catholics to enjoy" along side, "36million people die a year of starvation" what do you think he would say?

You know what, don't bother answering, I've heard the vain justifications too many times, I can visualize your response before you even post it and it sickens me.

Which is basically saying you have a closed mind and are not prepared to discuss and have a bigoted opinion which you hold in advance of any discussion and wont ever change it.

In spite of that you have been supplied a valid response.

Fanny the trillions was in relation to total assets, liquid and capital. The highest painting sold pulling in 140M is just because the most valueable paintings don't get sold. The Mona Lisa is valued at somewhere around 700M for example.

I don't believe you. Care to prove it?

I'm a big Raphael fan so I may have been a bit biased with my valuations there, but not by that much I'd imagine.

Who claimed to be a big fan of his art and also refer to the lesser of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?

There is very little outside of the vatican to rival what is within. I think you underestimate the market in terms of flooding it with art and crashing prices. Art isn't i-phones. Each piece finds it's own price irrelevant of other similar products. But even if you were right. Ten pieces a year until the walls of vatican city are bare would avoid any such saturation and do a hell of a lot more good for the people the CC and god suposedly loves than they are doing now.

This has already been answered. What would 1000 million a year do for world hunger for example? Bact in the Early 1980 when Live Aid raised about 200 million they though it was great until they found out it is about a few weeks debt repayments for a small country. dont kid yourself.

1. Vatican Art value is MINOR compared to a country like Spain Italy or France.
2. Even if they sold it all ( a silly idea) it would make little or no difference.
3. The church has a history of rejecting material wealth. The Pope any most of the office holders in the Church have little or no personal wealth.

The Smurf

We have a new law:

Benedict's Law:

As an online discussion about the Catholic Church grows longer, the probability of a mention of Catholic priests and sexual abuse approaches 1.

:rolleyes:

barochoc

Based on the rumors I remember hearing years ago I believe the vatican has so much wealth in the vaults that they could wipe out 3rd world debt if they wanted :eek:

I honestly believe it too

ISAW

barochoc wrote: »

Based on the rumors I remember hearing years ago I believe the vatican has so much wealth in the vaults that they could wipe out 3rd world debt if they wanted :eek:

I honestly believe it too

Based on rumour? Do you also believe that the true Pope is imprisoned under the Vatican? How about the Da vinci code you believe in that as well?
Which vaults are you talking about by the way?
Do you know the current value of the debt of developing countries? No? So you believe something based on rumour can be compared to something else you don't even know about?

barochoc

ISAW wrote: »

Based on rumour? Do you also believe that the true Pope is imprisoned under the Vatican? How about the Da vinci code you believe in that as well?
Which vaults are you talking about by the way?
Do you know the current value of the debt of developing countries? No? So you believe something based on rumour can be compared to something else you don't even know about?

Yes! A rumour! Some are true, some are..... well, rumours.

I choose to believe it. Don't get so upset about it. It is believable to me after the centuries of Christianity raping the planet of all it's riches. Where did all the wealth go????

Have you been to see the vaults in the vatican? Can you disprove my belief?

Da Vinci code etc..... no interest by the way.

Catholic church! Don't get me started :mad:

oldyouth

ISAW wrote: »

The Vatican has little or no children. the population of the vatican is almost entirely male adults. You are conflating two issues. The level of clerical child abusers (which are a tiny percentage of child abusers about one per cent or less). No cleric EVER abused a child in the line of duty. It was not done in carrying out any office at all! It was never a Vatican policy to abuse children. IN fact sex with Children was outlawed in the Early church even though today some atheists and relativists claim that under some circumstances it might be acceptable.

Gobsmacked at that post. It's drifting off topic but I will make the following points and leave it at that
1) My reference to children is that, in the eyes of God, we are all his children.
2) The % of abusers within the clergy is higher than amongst lay people.
3) I accept that abuse was not in the line of duty but by perverts exploiting the position and power given to clerics from the Vatican
4) The Vatican policy was to ignore or cover up the abuse. By doing so, it assumed a policy stance that it was accepable

ISAW

barochoc wrote: »

Yes! A rumour! Some are true, some are..... well, rumours.

so your position is based on conspiracy theory and Da vinci code type reasoning and not actual reason and fact?

I choose to believe it. Don't get so upset about it.

I'm not upset . Im just attacking the complete marshy ground on which your argument is built. You can believe the Moon is made of cheese if you wish but when you come to a public group saying it is then you had better be prepared to support your unfounded position.

It is believable to me after the centuries of Christianity raping the planet of all it's riches. Where did all the wealth go????

Which Centuries did Christianity "rape the planet of all it's riches". i detect a note of anti christian in your "rape" allegations. Are oil Barons and weapons dealers directed by the Catholic Church? Do you refer to the Holy Roman Empire? To popes who controlled a tiny part of the world or to when when atheistic or non Christian regimes were controlling more of the wealth maybe?

When was the Church "raping the planet"?
What actual wealth did the Church take from whom and what other powers existed in the world then?

This argument is I suspect also founded on belief and not actual fact.

Have you been to see the vaults in the vatican? Can you disprove my belief?

Yes I can It is a fallacy based on specious reasoning. "Affirmin the consequent" i think it is called. Oh and "burden of proof" and "proving a negative" look them up when you look up the following.

Look up the Simpsons episode "Much Apu about nothing"
Because of a Bear seen in the town they introduced a big anti Bear police force with helicopters etc. A "fear society "A bit like the "threat of WMD" and Islamists and all the spending on invading Iraq which had nothing to do with WMD and everything to do with creating a securocrat state.

Bear Tax was introduced and Homer tells Lisa it must be working because ther are no Bears around. Lisa picks up a rock and points out that she could just as easily say the rock keeps away Tigers because there are no Tigers around. Homer offers to buy the rock.


I don't buy your argument. You calim it so it is for you to prove it and it is not for me to prove the Moon is not made of Cheese or the Da vinci code is not true.

Da Vinci code etc..... no interest by the way.

It is called "argument by analogy". Throwaway phrases like "The Church Raped society" or "They have huge accounts" or "secret vaults filled with riches" are tantamount to the same sort of thinking.

Catholic church! Don't get me started :mad:

You got yourself started and now you can't back up your unfounded claims.

ISAW

oldyouth wrote: »

Gobsmacked at that post. It's drifting off topic but I will make the following points and leave it at that

I already pointed out dragging in the child abuse issue is conflating two issues.

The original comment I replied to above was

Unforunately, the Vatican does not think that it's children are worthy of disposing of a few trinkets to assist them in dealing with the trauma it's officers have caused.

1) My reference to children is that, in the eyes of God, we are all his children.

So what is your claim? That the Catholic church sexually abused all the people in the world? Or that the non members of the catholic church are the only people starving?
Need I remind you of the Great Famine in Ireland where the vast majority of people who died were Catholic? That was the Pope that caused that was it?

2) The % of abusers within the clergy is higher than amongst lay people.

And you evidence is? In fact of the tens of millions of clerics and others in orders maybe 100 to 1000 can be cited as abusers. I suspect you haven't looked at the figures but just happen to believe it is true. Just like the Da vinci code and other conspiracy theories.

3) I accept that abuse was not in the line of duty but by perverts exploiting the position and power given to clerics from the Vatican

In fact of the millions of clerics I am not aware of Vatican office holders being among any. I am not aware of a bishop abusing a child except in the case of one having a child by his housekeeper and arranging for her to emigrate. That isn't direct sexual abuse. Of the clerics who did abuse they were almost entirely priests and brothers and not in senior positions of authority in any part of the church. It was society and not the Vatican that vested authority in priests lawyers bankers policemen swimming coaches etc.

4) The Vatican policy was to ignore or cover up the abuse. By doing so, it assumed a policy stance that it was accepable

Off topic but suppose you produce this policy doccument that says "ignore all abuse"?
When did the Vatican deny abuse happened? You must remember The Vatican is about 700 clerics administering about two billion Catholics. The ususal reply would be to let the local Bishop deal with the issue. they didn't believe Priests would do such things no pmore then Russians believed the communist Party would or Americans believed their President would not abuse his office.

You are also WRONG about the Vatican ever having a policy stance that Child abuse was acceptable. By child abuse I mean sex between adults and children which was outlawed by the church since the earliest times.

oldyouth

I said I would leave this topic with my previous post but it's not always that easy.

I never said ALL of God's children were abused but rather that his children have been abused.
In my opinion all of the clergy are officers of the Vatican.
A deliberate policy to do nothing or cover up abuse, is a policy that it is acceptable.

ISAW

oldyouth wrote: »

I said I would leave this topic with my previous post but it's not always that easy.

I never said ALL of God's children were abused but rather that his children have been abused.
In my opinion all of the clergy are officers of the Vatican.
A deliberate policy to do nothing or cover up abuse, is a policy that it is acceptable.

well then you are only arguing about terminology.

Let me clarify.
Clergy are those with Holy orders.
This has nothing to do with the Vatican. If the Vatican was dissolved Holy orders would still exist. Basically we are talking about priests and bishops and maybe deacons. You might include monks but some monks might have holy Orders and some not.The basis of Holy Orders are spiritual.

Offices are temporal things such as titles and temporal powers.

All clergy are NOT officers of the Vatican. for example the Orthodox church deals with about 500 million people. Their Clergy are not under the instruction of the Vatican but the Roman Church recognises their Holy Orders have Apostolic succession. In other words the spiritual things like the ability to concecrate a eucharist or hear confessions is recognised by the Vatican and Roman church. The "important" spiritual things are recognised but the temporal things aren't.

The Vatican NEVER HAD a deliberate policy to cover up abuse and you have not produced any evidence of that. The Orthodox Church in fact have early laws outlawing sex with children before anyone else had them.

Addendum: Are we discussing "The Vatican" here or the Holy See? I thought the OP was asking how much The Vatican i.e. the Square mile in the Heart of Rome plus all goods and chattels within. The Vatican by the way was not always the head of the administration. Provence had it for some centuries and I think Maybe Bologna but that might have been an anti pope.

ISAW

Let us explore this idea of "selling your wealth for good reasons"

Say Ireland believes in human right so much It decides to sell all public property land and seas and give the money to the poor. a silly idea I know but how is it solving world hunger? And now it has no schools barracks and public buildings how can the public service operate?
apparently the idea is that the Vatican should do this. Why and how would it improve anything? the Irish state can tax people Although under the "sell everything" scheme i dont know from where the tax would come. The Vatican depends on donations.

Fanny Cradock

Please stay on topic. This thread isn't about child sex abuse.

ISAW

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Please stay on topic. This thread isn't about child sex abuse.

fair enough
to post on clerical abuse go here;
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055855692

But I still needed to explain "ordinary power" "holy See" "Vatican" "clergy" and what people mean by "wealth" to discuss how much is the Vatican worth and who can decide what to do with their worldly wealth.

mehfesto

Can I ask if anyone here thinks the Vatican *needs* to be so, well, luxurious?
I know it's a tourist spot and needs a certain amount of appeal to take in revenue, but can it be justified?

I know the Church does it's bit for the poor and needy, but does anyone think that this doesn't really warrant their own excessive comforts, there? Personally I don't think it does.

The Smurf

mehfesto wrote: »

Can I ask if anyone here thinks the Vatican *needs* to be so, well, luxurious?
I know it's a tourist spot and needs a certain amount of appeal to take in revenue, but can it be justified?

I know the Church does it's bit for the poor and needy, but does anyone think that this doesn't really warrant their own excessive comforts, there? Personally I don't think it does.

The large Churches give glory to God and are used for divine worship. They speak of the awesome wonder of God and the talents He has given man. The Pope lives in a fairly modest apartment. The trappings that you might object to are really just those trappings of the office. I'm sure if the Pope was run out of Rome in the morning, he wouldn't be so fussed on the loss of trappings - I'd say his priority would be leading the Church no matter what.

I don't object to Pope Benedict eating his dinner with cutlery, glasses, and plates featuring the Papal coat of arms nor in his travelling around in a converted Mercedes Benz jeep.

Those who do object are like Judas who objected to the waste of ointment that was poured on the Lord's feet. We all know what he did next.

Whether it be the Lord or His Vicar, they deserve the best treatment we can give to them.

mehfesto

I take your point on the Pope's Apartment, but:

The Smurf wrote: »

Whether it be the Lord or His Vicar, they deserve the best treatment we can give to them.

I can understand, to a point, how The Pope is 'more important' than others - at least in the eyes of Church structure, but by treating him better than others surely isn't in keeping with Christianity? Or is it?

The Smurf wrote: »

Those who do object are like Judas who objected to the waste of ointment that was poured on the Lord's feet. We all know what he did next.

I don't understand the comparison here. Are you saying that all people who object to giving, in any circumstances, are betrayers, evil?

Surely there is a difference between questioning whether a person who believes in charity should not live surrounded by large amounts of wealth and objecting to wasting oil.

One more thing, the Vatican is full of engraven images - isn't there a commandment that this shouldn't be the case?

The Smurf

mehfesto wrote: »

I can understand, to a point, how The Pope is 'more important' than others - at least in the eyes of Church structure, but by treating him better than others surely isn't in keeping with Christianity? Or is it?

I don't understand the comparison here. Are you saying that all people who object to giving, in any circumstances, are betrayers, evil?

Surely there is a difference between questioning whether a person who believes in charity should not live surrounded by large amounts of wealth and objecting to wasting oil.

One more thing, the Vatican is full of engraven images - isn't there a commandment that this shouldn't be the case?

Treating the Pope nicely is not contrary to Christian faith. If he came to visit me in the morning, I would ensure that I would have the best food and drink, and the best room in the house to stay in. The Benedictines have an attitude whereby they welcome every guest to their monastery as Christ Himself. You have to discern the spirit that is at work in those who would criticise the Church concerning splendid churches, ornaments, paintings etc...

Concerning statues and images, you may wish to read this: http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/statues_in_church.htm and this is a good response to those who say 'sell the Vatican, feed the world': http://www.americanpapist.com/2009/10/sarah-silvermans-modest-proposal-for.html

Catholics believe that we have seen the Father in His Son, therefore the ban has been lifted on creating images of God in his Son and in the saints etc...

ISAW

mehfesto wrote: »

Can I ask if anyone here thinks the Vatican *needs* to be so, well, luxurious?

Sure you can. What do you mean by "luxurious". i don't know about any swimming pools, jacuzzis, sports cars, etc.

I know it's a tourist spot and needs a certain amount of appeal to take in revenue, but can it be justified?

Can WHAT be justified? That the Pope takes no income and amasses no personal fortune for being CEO of an orginisation which comprises about a quater of the population of the entire globe? That the Vatican runs their administration with less than a thousand staff who also draw no salary? I don't know ? how do you justify it?

I know the Church does it's bit for the poor and needy, but does anyone think that this doesn't really warrant their own excessive comforts, there?

WHAT excessive comforts? what does a papal nuncio get that an ambassador in a foreign country does not get for example?- other then no salary or pension that is?

Personally I don't think it does.

Don't think it does WHAT? I suppose you think the President of the US and Monarchy of the UK should also be abolished. By the way she is also the head of the Church of England. Or would you just abolish the Monarchy and keep her as Head of the Church?

ISAW

mehfesto wrote: »

I take your point on the Pope's Apartment, but:



I can understand, to a point, how The Pope is 'more important' than others - at least in the eyes of Church structure, but by treating him better than others surely isn't in keeping with Christianity? Or is it?

It isnt "in the eyes of the church structure" He is a Head of State of the Holy See under international law. Both inside and outside the church the positions or offices he holds are respected. And you seem to be making the same error that many people make. all people are NOT the same. some have more ability and some less. But they have the SAME RIGHTS. That does not mean you treat them all equally but that you give them all a fair chance based on their striving to do their best.

decrevit

As a Catholic I don't want to see our history sold. Would you sell your father or Mothers grave stone? I think not.

But the argument on the Vatican and its wealth is always thrown at the church. The reality is that it dosen't need any of it, our faith is not tied to it. But then again it can't sell it. The eastern churchs lost Hagia Sofia.

The Smurf

decrevit wrote: »

As a Catholic I don't want to see our history sold. Would you sell your father or Mothers grave stone? I think not.

But the argument on the Vatican and its wealth is always thrown at the church. The reality is that it dosen't need any of it, our faith is not tied to it. But then again it can't sell it. The eastern churchs lost Hagia Sofia.

Yeah. The whole argument is completely ridiculous. Like you're gonna sell St Peter's Basilica. And the owner is gonna do... what exactly? Knock it down and build an apartment block? Turn it into a shopping mall? Actually... that might work...

But anyway, the Church built the thing for divine worship. That's what it's for.

I don't expect we shall always have the nice churches. We could lose our flagship - St Peter's. It could be destroyed or it could be seized by Muslims.

But as you say, our faith is not tied to buildings and art but these things help us in our worship and give glory to God in so much as they speak of the wonder of God and the talents He has given men to share in His own creative beauty.

I remember that when I went to World Youth Day in Cologne in 2005, I was looking at all the baroque churches and the whole 'excesses' as you might call them. I was actually fuming. I wasn't sure why the richly ornate churches made me so angry.

It is only years later, after being given spiritual and psychological insights, that I realised I was angry at God, and therefore resented these churches being built in His name and to His glory. How similar I was then, to Judas who resented the expensive ointment being 'wasted' on the Lord.

Plebs

ISAW wrote: »

Really? Can you name say five of these funds ? And can you cite the rules under which they were set up and how much money can be drawn from them and under what circumstances?

Or did you just believe the vatican has huge cash funds without actually checking it out?



Orders are NOT the Vatican. Make up your mind. are you referring to the Vatican or the entire Roman Catholic Church? Do you really believe the Pope or anyone else in the Vatican can demand a parish in another country to sell their local church to developers and send the money to him in cash?

By the way this all began by talking about cash and now it has gone off into assets. Some else posted about artwork etc. Take Paris a TINY part of the country called France. Imagine you could sell everything in Paris tommorrow that is not privately owned. It is a silly idea butr imagine you could do it. This would include the Versaille Palace, Louvre Mona Lisa etc. Paris alone would dwarf the Vatican in terms of what it is worth.

The Vatican = 700 billion was a figure pulled out of the Air Id like to see wher it came from but in any case the debt and this is just the debt and not the capital worth of the country.

The Us for example was taking more than that in tax in 1984 and has an annual overrun of over 400 billion since 2009. thats just the annual overrun and not the actual worth of the country!
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
page 22



I don't understand. You are saying orders have huge cash funds which they hold in reserve for investment purposes? Which orders ? What funds ? How much? and if you "tap in" to anything you diminish it! If the capital value stays the same over time by spending all the interest then the fund is effectively worth less anyway as 100 euro in ten years time is worth nothing like 100 Euro today.



Apparently while you claim nobody has any business you also claim it is the bankers and fund managers business. Which is it?

Lol. I wonder how much money the Irish Humanists' Association has? Probably not enough to set up even one small school.

You should really figure out over on the A&A section how to put your own ideology on a sound financial footing before trying to interfere in other peoples private affairs.

Plebs

The Smurf wrote: »

Yeah. The whole argument is completely ridiculous. Like you're gonna sell St Peter's Basilica. And the owner is gonna do... what exactly? Knock it down and build an apartment block? Turn it into a shopping mall? Actually... that might work...

But anyway, the Church built the thing for divine worship. That's what it's for.

I don't expect we shall always have the nice churches. We could lose our flagship - St Peter's. It could be destroyed or it could be seized by Muslims.

But as you say, our faith is not tied to buildings and art but these things help us in our worship and give glory to God in so much as they speak of the wonder of God and the talents He has given men to share in His own creative beauty.

I remember that when I went to World Youth Day in Cologne in 2005, I was looking at all the baroque churches and the whole 'excesses' as you might call them. I was actually fuming. I wasn't sure why the richly ornate churches made me so angry.

It is only years later, after being given spiritual and psychological insights, that I realised I was angry at God, and therefore resented these churches being built in His name and to His glory. How similar I was then, to Judas who resented the expensive ointment being 'wasted' on the Lord.

Indeed. And the Church almost went bankrupt over St Peter's. But the faithful dug deep and we are most fortunate to be in the position we are today. That said, I don't think we Irish, for such a rich country, do enough to support the church. Without the trusts to support the elderly, the sick and the dying, we'd be up ****'s creek (excuse my language).