Where might the axe fall next?

[BarbTherese]

After Knights of Malta, Where Might The Papal Axe Fall Next?
 

Quote

 

Excerpt: .........."..........The seemingly provocative question actually has a venerable history.

Here is what St. John Paul II had to say, back in 1987 in Sollicitudo Rei Socialis:

“Faced by cases of need, one cannot ignore them in favor of superfluous church ornaments and costly furnishings for divine worship; on the contrary it could be obligatory to sell these goods in order to provide food, drink, clothing and shelter for those who lack these things.”

John Paul cites St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose and St. Possidius in support of this idea.

St. Ambrose, a Doctor of the Church and Bishop of Milan in the late fourth century, is particularly instructive in this regard.

In his De Officiis Ministrorum, Ambrose admits to melting down gold chalices and vessels to provide money for the release of prisoners captured in the Battle of Adrianople in 378.

He defends his actions by saying, “He Who sent the apostles without gold also brought together the churches without gold. The Church has gold, not to store up, but to lay out, and to spend on those who need"...............  Read entire article on above link

 

 

[Maggyie]

On the one hand, I think Jesus would not want the Church to "own" so many jeweled crosses and so forth; yet this reporter doesn't fully understand big C Culture. It's not limited to paintings or statues. Any ornaments, furniture or clothing etc from the Renaissance period and certainly from the medieval age would be considered priceless cultural art. 

[Maggyie]

the gifts the pope receives now are one thing; nobody cares about a bike circa 2015. But the handiwork of a craftsman who conceived and made an item 800 or a thousand years ago, is entirely different! I would be very troubled if the pope got rid of such things to the highest bidder. Especially because it would not feed many poor people, while the whole public would be impoverished with it disappearing into a kajillionaire's collection. If he doesn't like such things he should donate them to various secular museums, free of charge. I suspect he is not interested so much in getting rid of them as the good pr that would result. It grieves me to say that, and I genuinely do like the pope. But he is fond of being petted in the media. 

[Guest]

Excerpt from the article:
 

Quote

 

“Part of the teaching and most ancient practice of the Church is her conviction that she is obliged by her vocation - she herself, her ministers and each of her members - to relieve the misery of the suffering, both far and near, not only out of her ‘abundance’ but also out of her ‘necessities’.”

To be clear: the old argument that the Vatican should sell off its artwork, trotted out from time to time, is not what is being suggested here. That possibility, thankfully, has been ruled out by Francis (as it was by Paul VI before him).

“If tomorrow I decide to put Michelangelo’s ‘Pieta’ up for auction,” the pope said in the interview with Straatnieuws, “I cannot do this, since it is not the property of the Church. It is kept in a church, but it belongs to humanity. This is true of all the treasures of the Church.”

 

If the Vatican sold art treasures to museums with conditions and the sale price donated to the poor, I would not be distressed.  Art treasures in museums do belong to the whole of humanity. 

The selling price perhaps/might may not do much for the poor, and it would then become "the widow's mite" which Jesus praised so highly.  And the way I see things, if even one person is saved from poverty and strife.........well done, let's do it again...and again.

Why is it necessary to be helping people in very large numbers or the cause and effort is worthless?  Certainly addressing our world poverty situation for example as a whole (or in huge numbers) is absolutely worthwhile and necessary, no argument with that.  I would argue with a concept that if we cannot save people in huge numbers, it is not to be considered.  It is worthless and to be abandoned.

[Nihil Obstat]

A very substantial portion of the artwork owned by the Vatican is already on public display. And another substantial portion is also in use, whether as altar pieces or sacred vessels or as sacred art in chapels, etc. The value of such religious uses cannot be overstated. To sell off such art would be a phenomenal tragedy, and a betrayal.

[Maggyie]

13 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Excerpt from the article:
 

If the Vatican sold art treasures to museums with conditions and the sale price donated to the poor, I would not be distressed.  Art treasures in museums do belong to the whole of humanity. 

The selling price perhaps/might may not do much for the poor, and it would then become "the widow's mite" which Jesus praised so highly.  And the way I see things, if even one person is saved from poverty and strife.........well done, let's do it again...and again.

Why is it necessary to be helping people in very large numbers or the cause and effort is worthless?  Certainly addressing our world poverty situation for example as a whole (or in huge numbers) is absolutely worthwhile and necessary, no argument with that.  I would argue with a concept that if we cannot save people in huge numbers, it is not to be considered.  It is worthless and to be abandoned.

they wouldn't be saved from strife and poverty though. Either the art would be sold to the highest bidders (which will be private art collectors) or it would need to be *donated* to a secular art museum. Selling the items for less than their worth would be financial abuse and mismanagement. Either these pieces of art are part of the heritage of the human race or it's not. 

"Mary therefore took a pound of expensive ointment made from pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said,

“Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?”

[Peace]

The art is for the poor in a sense. It's not like the stuff is in a private collection and only the Pope and his cronies get to view it. Many people in the Church are among the poor, and they can walk into a church or a museum and enjoy the art just as much as a rich person (issues like transportation costs aside). Being able to view art of religious significance is of value to poor people too.

[Guest]

 

The article is stating that Pope Francis, like Pope Paul VI do not intend to sell off artwork treasures:

1 hour ago, BarbaraTherese said:

https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2017/02/05/knights-malta-might-papal-axe-fall-next/  "To be clear: the old argument that the Vatican should sell off its artwork, trotted out from time to time, is not what is being suggested here. That possibility, thankfully, has been ruled out by Francis (as it was by Paul VI before him)."

I freely confess that I am in the "old argument" group.  Don't drop your bundle anyone, Pope Francis is NOT in the "old argument" group.  Would not mind betting, however, that the (entirely false!!!) statement flies around the internet that Pope Francis intends to sell off Vatican treasures.

As an "old argument" group member, I ask myself "What is more important, material treasures or people?"

[/quote]

https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2017/02/05/knights-malta-might-papal-axe-fall-next/

Quote:   "Here is what St. John Paul II had to say, back in 1987 in Sollicitudo Rei Socialis:

“Faced by cases of need, one cannot ignore them in favor of superfluous church ornaments and costly furnishings for divine worship; on the contrary it could be obligatory to sell these goods in order to provide food, drink, clothing and shelter for those who lack these things.”

John Paul cites St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose and St. Possidius in support of this idea.

St. Ambrose, a Doctor of the Church and Bishop of Milan in the late fourth century, is particularly instructive in this regard.

In his De Officiis Ministrorum, Ambrose admits to melting down gold chalices and vessels to provide money for the release of prisoners captured in the Battle of Adrianople in 378.

He defends his actions by saying, “He Who sent the apostles without gold also brought together the churches without gold. The Church has gold, not to store up, but to lay out, and to spend on those who need.

“Would not the Lord Himself say: Why didst thou suffer so many needy to die of hunger? Surely thou hadst gold? Thou shouldst have given them sustenance.”

(Possidius, for those who are interested, was a friend of St. Augustine, and wrote in his Vita S. Augustini Episcopi that Augustine, like Ambrose, melted holy vessels to give the money to the poor.)"   Unquote

[/quote]

Edited February 8, 2017 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Maggyie said:

 

"Mary therefore took a pound of expensive ointment made from pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said,

“Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?”

 

 The quotation from Scripture above is spot on of course and it speaks to Matthew Chapter 25:  "and The King will say to you "Truly I tell you, whatever you did for even the least of My brethren, you did it to Me".  Therefore if we spend our riches for example on the poor, we have spent our riches on Jesus.

[Maggyie]

What does he intend to sell then, if not priceless artifacts? Sure sell the late 20th century rugs off the floor. Or the merely "antique" 19th century coffee tables. For him to generate the desired PR (and believe me, it's desired) he would need to generate large sums, and this would require parting with some blockbuster artifacts. Diamond tiaras perhaps? That would certainly be a suitably ostentatious, "humble" choice. You heard it here first. Perhaps one that sat on the heads of John XXIII or Pius X, as they would be relics and extra pricey. For them to remain an accessible part of our heritage, they would need to be given to a museum - not sold, because no museum could buy at an appropriate price (priceless). This would keep the artifacts out of the safe of a private collector. Doubtless this will not be done and future generations will get to see the tiara sported by a reality TV star in a Vogue photo spread. 

[Guest]

We cannot put material treasures and riches as more important than assisting the very least in our eyes without incurring a condemnation from Jesus.  We cannot use any rationalization whatsoever.  Jesus plainly tells us that what we do - or not do - for even the most undeserving in our eyes, we do - or not do - TO Him.  Jesus very plainly tells us what the criteria at Judgement will be.

 

Quote

Matthew Chapter 25 "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"

If we need to sell art treasures at a nominal price rather than the true value, we can take that nominal price (since it seems there is no other responsible way) - and distribute that income for the poor.  The art treasures then remain as art treasure for the whole of humanity residing in museums where they will be valued and cared for with great attention.  If we hang on to our art treasures etc. with the rationalization that it is impossible to sell at their actual value, it is a very poor rationalization indeed and an excuse to hang on to these treasures rather than utilizing them for the reason God has gifted them to humanity.  Stewardship.

Our art treasures etc are a display of incredible wealth in a world where around 800 million people do not have sufficient for survival.

[Peace]

4 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

We cannot put material treasures and riches as more important than assisting the very least in our eyes without incurring a condemnation from Jesus.  We cannot use any rationalization whatsoever.  Jesus plainly tells us that what we do - or not do - for even the most undeserving in our eyes, we do - or not do - TO Him.  Jesus very plainly tells us what the criteria at Judgement will be.

 

If we need to sell art treasures at a nominal price rather than the true value, we can take that nominal price (since it seems there is no other responsible way) - and distribute that income for the poor.  The art treasures then remain as art treasure for the whole of humanity residing in museums where they will be valued and cared for with great attention.  If we hang on to our art treasures etc. with the rationalization that it is impossible to sell at their actual value, it is a very poor rationalization indeed and an excuse to hang on to these treasures rather than utilizing them for the reason God has gifted them to humanity.  Stewardship.

Our art treasures etc are a display of incredible wealth in a world where around 800 million people do not have sufficient for survival.

If you sell it to a public museum for far less than you could sell it to a private buyer, what makes you think that would be an optimal financial use of the property for the benefit of the poor? There is a reason why certain people choose to rent property instead of selling it - they can make more money in the long term by renting the property out than they could from a one time sale. For example, all the art in the Vatican Museums that you want to sell, that art is rented out to the public for a price (by way of admission fees). They money collected from those fees is used for the functioning of the Church, which does quite a bit of charitable work for the poor, as you may have noticed.  In effect how is this any different than a one time sale to a public museum, who will attempt to recoup its purchase cost by renting out the art in exactly the same manner?

You want to sell it all now below price, and there is no guarantee that method would result in more money for the poor in the long term, as compared to renting access to it as the Church does now.

This is one area where I think we can trust the prudential judgments of our clergy.

[Anomaly]

The value of art is intrinsic to the dignity and value of humanity.  It is one of the things that make us different than animals.  

Selling art for food is prostitution of human dignity.  It is selling something beautiful created by humanity for coins when there are plenty of other coins that can feed the needy.  

Selling Vatican or other art is simply one selling another's gift to others so the one doesn't have to give of themselves.  Once the art is sold, and the food is eaten, what if the next day?  People are hungry again, and humanity is diminished as welll. 

[Peace]

32 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Selling art for food is prostitution of human dignity.

That's a bit much.

[Anomaly]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

That's a bit much.

If you think that, then you kick kittens and hate Canadians.   You sad, twisted monster.