Should The Church Sell Everything?

[Clare~Therese]

Well, really, who would buy it?
And the Church has done more to help poor people throughout the centuries than any secular organization.
For another thing, just throwing money at problems doesn't solve problems most of the time.

[Papist]

First of all, if someone is critical of the Vatican, are they also critical of the Temple of Solomon (1 Kings 6)? By all accounts, the Temple of Solomon would have made the Vatican look rather poor by comparison. Should the Israelites not have built the Temple of Solomon? Should they have used all the resources that went into it to feed the poor instead?

“What about the artwork—the Pietà, the Raphael frescoes, and so on? These treasures are literally priceless, but they appear on the Vatican books with a value of one euro. According to the [laws] of the Vatican City State, they may never be sold or borrowed against.”

The "wealth" of the Vatican has accumulated over the centuries and is basically art work, historical documents, and buildings. The Vatican views these buildings, historical documents, and works of art as belonging to all peoples - they are merely under the care of the Vatican. They are not for sell because the Vatican doesn't view them as its personal property too sell. Why not sell all the works of art in the Louvre? Or in New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art? Why not sell the Mona Lisa to feed the poor? Why don't museums sell off their Rembrandts and Van Goghs and Picassos to feed the poor?

From essay “Church in the 21st Century Initiative" by John L. Allen, Jr.

“Contrary to popular impression, the Vatican is a spartan operation. Its annual operating budget is about $277 million. The University of Notre Dame's annual operating budget, by comparison, is $700 million. The Vatican's endowment is about $770 million. By contrast, the University of Notre Dame's endowment is $3.1 billion. The Holy See is indeed in need of financial support from the Catholic world, and American Catholics usually supply about 25 percent of the annual operating budget.

Again, from John Allen’s essay: “About 20 years ago, Peter Drucker, the management consultant, concluded that the three most efficient organizations in history were General Motors, the 19th-century Prussian Army, and the Catholic Church. He put the Church on his list because it manages to hold a worldwide organization together with an exceptionally small central headquarters. For the 1.1 billion Catholics, there are about 1,700 people working in the [Vatican]. As Drucker pointed out, if the same ratio were applied to our government in Washington, D.C., there would be 500 federal employees working in the capital, as opposed to roughly 500,000.”

Just give people the facts about the Vatican’s “wealth,” and let them decide for themselves.

SOURCE: [url="http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/"]http://www.biblechristiansociety.com[/url] [John Martignoni]

Edited January 16, 2012 by Papist

[Lilllabettt]

Yeah, the one other person I can think of who thought that fine things dedicated to God should be sold and the money given to the poor was Judas Iscariot. His sentiment was not pure and frankly I think it rarely is.

[Sirklawd]

This is one of those arguments that instantly makes me mad because its so illogical. I usually can get objective enough to question why the person who buys the art from the church is more entitled to own it than the church. Normally I just seethe with anger...

Is their original argument merely a jab at supposed "hypocrisy" with church teaching? So only selfish jerks who have no intention of helping the needed are allowed to own priceless pieces of art?

What about the artist? If we're being serious, couldn't he have used all of those hours and all of that energy helping the poor instead of carving that statue? The argument is stupid and insulting. Like most arguments about the church, it "sounds good". Like a catchy headline to an article that no one reads. People remember the headline, get the joke, and because it's catchy or funny, it ends there without any critical thinking.

The poster above who mentioned public museums needing to do the same thing is a good point too.

[Basilisa Marie]

When I hear people talk about the Church selling everything and donating to the poor...I can't help but wonder, "So, who's the amazing appraiser that's going to put a price on the Sistine Chapel, the Pieta, etc?"

[LaPetiteSoeur]

As a former student of art history, I have to say that all of the artwork and treasures the church has should stay in the church.
Why?
Well, the Church is a "keeper" of sorts. They care for all of the priceless art pieces and documents with love and have the resources to do so. They also make these documents available for academics and researchers to use. Their artwork is generally in public view. If the artwork was sold, it would probably go into private houses and only a few could marvel at the beauty.

[Jesus_lol]

the same could be said of every other church, not just the catholics. obviously our local United church should sell its one acre of land and build a homeless shelter...

and all the mega churches should sell their auditoriums to become football shelters for disadvantaged youth.