Skip to main content

View Diary: Catholic bishops afraid to "undermine their alliance with the Republican Party" (185 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, he did fire that german dude (13+ / 0-)

    for his palace spending.

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 11:43:49 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Vatican's Riches (6+ / 0-)

      That German dude committed the sin of generating bad press. On that score this pope is already a saint.

      I don't see the pope liquidating any of the vast riches his church got by robbing (and genociding, and worse) to spend more on helping the poor. Like housing more homeless people in the vast (and usually opulent) real estate his church owns around the world.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 12:48:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  he will (5+ / 0-)

        just give him time, and in the meantime, gather the goods on the rest of the crooks and help send them into exile?  

        •  Wanna Bet? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roadbed Guy, samddobermann

          No, seriously. I will bet you $5000 that Pope Francis does not sell any of the Church's property to spend more on helping the poor.

          And "after you die" doesn't win the bet. Man, faith is a helluva drug. Will you believe anything?

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 05:18:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  VERY tempting! (0+ / 0-)

            $5000?

            BET: "Pope Francis does not sell ANY of the Church's property to spend more on helping the poor."

            WOW!
            Really??

            According to some, the Vatican has millions/billions/trillions of dollars/euros/yen of "property" on every continent on earth except Antarctica.
            Do you mean "property" as in real estate? Or just property as in "something they own"?

            So....if in, say, St. Cloud, Minnesota, a Catholic church (which, by law, is OWNED BY the Catholic Church in the United States, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Vatican) decides to sell it's 1897 tracker-action pipe organ and four pews in its side chapel and give the proceeds to the Milwaukee St. Vincent DePaul Clothes Closet that gives away free clothing, I win the bet?

            If the Lima, Peru city government wants to widen a boulevard in downtown and uses eminent domain to acquire a vacant lot (REAL ESTATE!) owned by the Catholic church, and pays the church compensation, and the Church uses even 10% of the proceeds to pay for a new well to be drilled in an isolated village that will provide safe drinking water for the 90% in poverty, I win the bet?

            Or does it need to be Pope Francis PERSONALLY signing off on a sale? (You know, the way Jamie Dimon PERSONALLY signs off on every foreclosure at his Monster Bank?)
                 Well then what about his apartment in Buenos Aires? Do we know if he OWNED it? Did he sell it when he got a better job and relocated? By all accounts it was located in a middle-class (at best) neighborhood. If he sold it to Argentinian Catholic Charities and the ACC is letting a poor family of 8 live there rent free, does that count? Do I win the bet?

            Really?

            Are these your terms?

            Who will arbitrate?
            Who will hold the bets and declare a winner?
            How will you define "the poor"? (After all, pick out any single person to practice charity upon and odds are overwhelming we can always find someone, somewhere, even "Poorer"...and if so, then the charity has not been given to "the poor (-est)" and so does not count.)
            Do you have a time frame?

            Just asking....

            Shalom.

            "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

            by WineRev on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 04:45:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Selling the artworks is a one shot deal (14+ / 0-)

        What are they going to do, sell  the Sistine Chapel? Then it could be the Goldman-Sachs Cathedral? Apple iChapel? At least now, if you can get to Rome, you could see the art for yourself. If it gets sold to some rich collector, it will never be seen by the public again.

        Where are all the jobs, Boehner?

        by Dirtandiron on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 02:11:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Jesus Loved Art More than Feeding the Poor (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chicagobleu

          So if I can get to Rome, I can see some art. That's very nice, and I'm not being sarcastic.

          How does that help the poor like Jesus said? Dinner tonight for 100,000 people is a one shot deal, but they'd sure like that better than knowing that anyone who goes to Rome can see a nice painting.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 05:20:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  didn't Jesus also appreciate (3+ / 0-)

            having his feet annointed with some expensive stuff? I think art is feeding the soul so to speak.

            •  Hahahaha (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Throw The Bums Out

              Yes, Jesus would have preferred the church to feed people's souls with lots and lots and lots of expensive art, to feeding hundreds of thousands of poor people. AMEN!

              Christians like you obviously don't believe in god, or else you'd never say such obviously self-serving nonsense defending the church.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 08:39:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Actually I am an athiest (0+ / 0-)

                but I would argue that life without art and pleasure is a life not worth living. Even the poor appreciate art and pleasure. I don't think that idea precludes feeding the poor. I also don't think it would make sense to sell art heritage of the western world to anyone else. I don't think anyone else would be a better steward of that Art and I certainly would be against destroying or selling it in the name of purity. I am not defending the church, I am defending the art and architecture that the various eras of the church produced from being sold to anyone as they belong to all the people.

                I think a better idea would be to create a system where there are no poor but the poor will always be with us because no matter what system of governance there has been, there is always someone at the bottom of the pecking order. There is no such thing as a perfect system. So as I said, life without art or pleasure is a life not worth living.

                •  and you ignored the fact that (0+ / 0-)

                  Jesus did enjoy pleasurable things which cost money that could have been given away. "Fact" as is says in the Bible not fact as it actually happened.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site