Shows of Wealth
I’ve been off-line a bit and for that I apologize! I have a few posts in the works (I just need to get the pics off of Candice’s camera - and no, it’s nothing dirty. Don’t get all excited). They’re coming! Maybe tomorrow. But for now, there’s this note of things to come and a copy-and-pasted message board post - apologies in advance, because it’s a rant regarding a (religion-based) pet peeve of mine (which I probably have mentioned on this site before). So until next time, here’s the post:
Originally Posted by zoonyFirst of all, I’m not defending everything the church does or has done, but a couple things for you to consider.
1. The works contained within the Vatican were created to glorify God. Which is ironically enough, what gives them their value. Also, consider Jesus’s actual words from the Gospels when your exact point is made in his presence.
I promise none of this post is marked directly at you. Right at the front of your post you admit that there is good and bad with the church, and that your post was simply intended as an offering of ideas to consider. I can agree with that (that there is good and bad) about the church. And I’m totally cool with considering different ideas in contrast to currently-held beliefs.
But I disagree with some of your defenses. And it makes me want to rant. But that’s more about my issues with the church (and even then this rant is more about specific practices (hoarding wealth) regarding a specific faith (Roman Catholicism)) and not you. Or the faith (that’s another story). OK? Haha.
That said…
This (shows of wealth) is something that’s always bothered me about the church. In fact, when I visited Vatican City some years ago I remember feeling the ol’ rage build as the others around me ooh’d and ahh’d at the displays of wealth therein. I remember thinking that this is how far the church has fallen, but obviously that is not the case; somehow, as your reference points out, this practice of allowing wealth was even supported to some extent by Jesus thousands of years ago.
And to be honest I should have known that. (I’m no longer religious and I’d consider myself agnostic at best, but I was raised Catholic, attended 12 years of catholic school, and have most definitely read the Bible cover-to-cover.) But I guess the way I reconciled religion, when I had faith, was to separate the failings I saw in the human side of church from the beauty I saw in the spiritual stories of Jesus’ adventures. So yeah, I was wrong. :p According to your quote, even Jesus, it would appear, didn’t mind a little bling. :p
“Oh yeah, wash up my feet with the good stuff. And hey, Judas, don’t be a hater.”
Quote:
2. What do you propose that the Church does? Have an auction at the Vatican, sell everything, give it to the poor?Yeah. That actually sounds like a pretty good start! Pretty good, indeed.
Quote:
Then what? For all its past transgressions, the Catholic Church has and continues to be one of the largest and most impactful charitable organizations in the world. Go to any 3rd world country today, come back, and look me in the eye and tell me this isn’t so.No, I won’t disagree with you. They are, from what I understand, a very charitable foundation - even if that charity is somewhat self-serving (i.e. missionary work). (And I don’t mean that to sound like a butt because I do think the church does overwhelmingly good work, so far as religions go.) I’m saying the church should eliminate its signs of excess, its shows of wealth. It’s not necessary and it seems to be in contradiction with the teachings of the faith.
Look, if all the followers of the church properly tithe their 10 per cent then the church can and should use that money to support itself, humbly, and its charities, generously. You give to the church what you can spare, and the church uses that money toward good purpose. If it needs more, then maybe it should explain that to the supporters. Heaven knows (literally :p) people - many people - can afford it. And those who can’t? Well, then they get in line for help from the church. Right?
Quote:
Would you also ask that every scolarship fund that is set up to provide generation after generation of children an education be closed out, and that money given to education? Well that would be great in the short run, but in the long run it would be a disaster.No. I’m not saying that the church needs to wastefully and foolishly give away all its money toward no good end. I’m not saying it should eliminate its own ability to be helpful.
If a guy works and happens to make $5,000,000 a year because that’s our world and that’s what he can do and that’s how we value things, I wouldn’t tell him to stop working because he makes too much. I’d tell him to give a *ton* of that money back to help others. Give it to the government. Give it to the church. Set up his own foundations and use those foundations to help. Whatever it is, do it.
But then again I’m something of a socialist and I’d be more than happy to earn $5,000,000 per year and only receive $15,000 if that was the kind of world we lived in - one where we supported one another. Apparently socialists are more into the idea of charity than many religious types - even if it seems like the religious types should be much more socialistic in nature.
It isn’t the point, to me, that people can’t have little niceties or frivolous little luxuries. I’m all for it. But let’s get everyone up out of poverty before we start worrying about giving up a year’s salary to buy some perfume to wash Jesus’ feet one time. That just sounds obnoxious to me.
Let me go back a second to close out this rant. You said at the start that “The works contained within the Vatican were created to glorify God. Which is ironically enough, what gives them their value.”
OK, I’m pretty sure I know what you’re saying. You’re saying that some famous painter is caught up in the spirit of Jesus. He decides to create a painting. Or maybe some rich guy or some guy with pull is able to contract a famous artist (or beg him, whatever) to make some brilliant painting. The painting is donated. Hey, nice! Some guy spent some time to make a little something for the church. Neat!
But the problem to me is that it doesn’t end there. Pretty soon we have marble columns being donated. And golden statues. And ivory fountains. And whatever the hell else the church is sitting on.
Did you see There Will Be Blood? Remember the church in that movie? If you don’t, or if you didn’t see it, I’ll describe it: it was not much more than a cardboard box in appearance, but sized to hold the people of the community. I think there was even some argument during the movie as to whether the church should even have a window. Period. End of description.
And that’s the way it should be. Isn’t it? Donate some labor to the church. Donate some wood. And then spend a few days building a *humble* (it doesn’t have to be miserable, but it doesn’t need gilded frescoes and stained-glass windows and on and on) place of worship. If one day the price of wood rises beyond the scope of our imaginations, then yeah! Tear the churches down, sell the wood, and build new, once-again-humble places of worship. And use that excess money to do more for those in need.
Possibly related posts:
- Redistribution of Wealth (today’s post: 250 words) I only understand the basics of...
- The Passion of the Christ A while back I saw that movie “The Passion of...
- One Redskin, Under God I just got back from Ashburn, Virginia. Woo! For those...
- I’m a bum and I love it (today’s post: 250 words) BioWare may not have ever given...
- Movie Review - Johnny 316 The Redskins played tonight – but I PVR’d the game...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
I find it ironic that the passage from John is used in defense of the Catholic church. Verse 6 clearly points out that Judas was motivated by greed; he was the keeper of the money box and took from it for his own purpose. I remember from my art history classes that the patronage of art by the Catholic church was not always altruistic. The position of Pope was more often than not one of politics and power rather than religion during the Renaissance era.
I’d hardly characterize Jesus as being interested in “bling” either. He lived a life of poverty, with “nowhere to lay His head” (Matthew 8:20), living off donations and the good will of those who believed in Him. He knew of Judas’s weakness, and was using Mary’s actions to remind his disciples that He would soon be killed.
From the parable of the farmer who built bigger barns and silos only to learn his soul was forfeit that very night, to Peter’s warning that the love of money is the root of all evil, the Bible is pretty clear about the dangers of seeking/hording material wealth.
The church, which is a transliterated word that means “the called out”, is really the people, not the building they meet in. God isn’t interested in bas-relief lintels and rosary windows, but the condition of your soul. Ostentatious houses of worship are unnecessary and counterproductive. They even border on idolatrous, in some cases.
It sounds like you should have been at the forums manning the walls. You’d have done a better job. There have actually been a few responses to my post generally suggesting at some level of agreement that they feel the Roman Catholic church has gone too far but also defending it in other ways.
The best defense I read there suggested that the church has many enemies, both in regard to other religions and also governments, and it takes money and influence to defend against them. If the church is running a tight budget one good lawsuit could wipe it out. The fact that the church still stands in a position of power shows that those efforts have paid off.
I can partially agree with that. As I said in my original post, if the loss of money prevents the future charitable work of the church then that loss of money is something that should be fought/resisted. If it takes some savings to protect the overall structure, then maintain some savings. But I generally disagree because I don’t think showy signs of wealth are going to affect one way or the other the church’s ability to be productive as a charitable organization (and that’s excluding the argument regarding its non-altruistic past). I also think its longevity has nothing to do with its riches (or, at least, shouldn’t). As you so perfectly said: the faith is the people and not the building.
Regardless, I was (obviously, I hope) being silly when I referred to Jesus as into the luxurious life. As you said, there are many references to his life of poverty and simplicity. My question was how does one reconcile the notion of Jesus as a flawless ideal against a specific situation where Jesus is letting someone use an extremely expensive perfume on his feet? The idea that he was using the situation to make a point to his followers seems… flawed.
I can understand the harm of looking too intently upon this example. It’s like tearing down a politician for some act that looks worse than it is and when in reality the opponents are behaving similarly. Still, were I Jesus, I think I’d have preferred to have called out Judas for his true intent, and then followed up with a “But he’s right.” Instead, Jesus said she was meant to waste a year’s salary because Jesus is… well, Jesus.
If we’re talking Scorsese’s Last Temptation, then I’m all for it because Jesus is human and God at the same time, and the movie went to great effort to show that duality. But I didn’t think the Bible was interested in showing his failings. :\
If you note the latter part of verse 7 in John 12, Mary was keeping the perfume for Jesus’ burial. It was a common practice for the society to anoint the dead with oils to override the odor. Where there less expensive perfumes? Perhaps, but would you fault someone for dressing up their dead loved one in an Armani suit you’d saved just for that purpose, rather than sell it to feed the poor?
My ire was raised by the comment specifying the year’s salary, and it overrides any justifications (in my mind). That much money spent on something so trivial and cosmetic is exorbitant, to say the least. If there’s no such thing as cheaper oils and perfumes (i.e. even a month’s salary is *something*), then I would suggest any alternative. :\
And yeah I do think similarly of modern-day traditions, i.e. dressing someone up in suits, expensive coffins, and so forth. It seems excessive. I can understand that different people hold different ideals. I can understand that in a capitalist society people are free to charge and pay what they will. But I thought that especially someone like Jesus would buck that kind of trend.
I guess I’m just different. (Then again, so’s my girlfriend Candice - ask her about her opinion of wedding rings as one example). Assuming I one day die :p I think I’d prefer a modest urn and cremation ceremony. Spare me the expensive suit and $5,000 or $10,000 dollar coffin. It’s a waste. There are a billion better things that money could go toward.
Not that I expect this to change your mind, especially given your worldview
, but I think verse 8 alludes to the biblical philosophy concerning the poor:
“For the poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always.”
The eternal condition of your soul is more important to God than how wealthy or poor you are. In fact, the bible teaches that the work of the church does not include soup kitchens and homeless shelters. That is left to individuals. Church-funded benevolence is limited to brethren (those of the faith) in need. Not to mention God’s promise that if you seek him first, your worldy needs will be taken care of.
Futhermore, it’s vanity to place more emphasis on feeding/clothing/sheltering the poor than evangelism. To quote Ecclesiastes, “What is crooked cannot be made straight.” When man sinned in the garden of Eden, and the world was cursed as a consequence, certain things were put in place that will not be “fixed” until Christ returns and this world is destroyed.
I meant, a few times in the past, to specify the poor members *of the church* and not just the poor *in general*. I understand that the church’s top priority would be its own members. And that the poor to be converted come next, as part of missionary service. And that world needs are secondary. Even in my worldview (hee hee), that works.
But moving on to your most recent comment, it (the perfume, the wealth of Vatican City, the acceptance of poverty, etc.) makes more sense to me now but it is still odd (disappointing) that the church and the faith accepts this as a natural (thanks to the fall) state of order (i.e. the “What is crooked…” quote you offered) - when the church has money, persuasion, etc.
It may not be their duty, but why wouldn’t they want to make it their duty? I guess that’s where I can’t wrap my mind around things. The Bible implies the world cannot be fixed, whereas I optimistically (and foolishly?) think that we don’t need Christ’s return to fix something like poverty. That’s just cleaning up our own messes.
Once again I’m left with the realization that I have a vision of the world that the great organizations are uninterested in. :\ My worldview is becoming my noose, haha. :p
Respect for deity is what stops the church from making it their duty. If your creator set a boundary, and supplied not only a consequence for stepping outside that boundary, but a reward, wouldn’t you be loathe to go beyond. The church was designed for a specific, spiritual purpose. That does not prevent an individual from going out and creating a charitable organization separate and apart from the church to see to social welfare needs. Unfortunately, Man, in his infinite wisdom (hope you hear the sarcasm behind that), has combined the two, and made a mess of things–as usual.