Skip to main content

The Church and its riches



The above pictures has lately been doing rounds on facebook. Posted comments refer to injustice, hypocrisy, and of the Church not practising what it preaches.

It seems it has become a common trend to blame the Church for everything under the sun. Hitting at the Church is the new way of looking cool. But before joining the bandwagon of shares, likes and comments, let me try to analyze the points this photo is trying to make.

The first one: the Church is immensely rich. Well, it could be, but what do most of these riches constitute? Most of the Church's "riches" are fixed immovable assets, of which most are important human heritage. They can practically never be sold. Let's just say that the Pope sells all his adornments (provided anyone wants to buy them), maybe even Michelangelo's Pieta, and once we're at it , yes, maybe he should also sell the Sistine Chapel and have it converted to apartments. Then what? Apart from making UNESCO and the rest of humanity dead angry, and a billionaire happy at having the Pieta sitting in his yard, the poor will still be poor and the hungry would maybe be fed for one more day.

One may agree with the point of hypocrisy and leading by example. I mean, if the Church preaches poverty, Divine Providence, and charity, it should start by doing away with its material riches. If the Church is currently spending money on lavish clothing, gold ornaments and baroque sculptures, then it deserves this criticism. On the other hand though, many of these embroided robes and golden rings, like the ones shown in the photo, and other artistic artefacts, date back to somewhere between the 14th and 19th centuries, and are thus relics of different times, times when artists prided themselves in producing something for their Diocese, and times when the Church was wrongly more focused on its political influence and grandiose image than its pastoral role. But what would be the practical use of not displaying these items today and just keep them locked up somewhere? Would it help any cause? Is this really the cause of the world's injustice? Or is it corrupt Governments of Third World Countries, regimes which only the Church and its missionaries seem to have the guts to criticize?

So what actually is the ultimate purpose some people and this photo are trying to reach? Would the world be better off should the Church sell everything it owns, all its investments and all its heritage, liquidate itself off and give all its money to feed the poor? Will the world's famine problems be solved and would the world be more just, should the Church not exist anymore? Sometimes I get the nagging feeling that some of the people promoting such misleading propoganda don't really care about the poor at all, but are only after finding another reason to attack the Church. Even if that means cutting off the helping hand of many the world's poor, hungry, homeless and needy.

Yes, the Church has some soul-searching to do, but removing robes should be the least of its priorities.


Feel free to post your feedback here.

Comments

  1. one wonders why in the photo no one placed mother theresa and pope john paul 2; is this another photo placed by the capitalists feeling the pressure on them from benedict's words and actions? Can no one undertstand that that young boy is ...the result of the colonialists robbing his ancestors' lands, changing the produce of this land, paying miserable prices and backing puppet governments that buy armaments instead of food?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with your points about relics from a distant past completely. How about, however, the Church allocates the funds used to make priests who abuse children disappear and hamper the efforts of the law is used to, say, provide what the victim children need in their life ahead?

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is the best article I've read in months!!!!!!! Well done and well said!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Sometimes I get the nagging feeling that some of the people promoting such misleading propoganda don't really care about the poor at all, but are only after finding another reason to attack the Church" I have the same feeling too.... although I think the Church could maybe do more, however another thought also comes to mind.. if the Church didn't exist would all the missionaries exist?

    ReplyDelete
  5. @MarkBiwwa: Yes, I agree, but as far as I know the Church has offered to pay any psychiatric care, social workers, or professional help they might need to improve their lives, am I right?

    @MC: Yes MC, that was the point of the last paragraph. Would the hungry, in the end, be better off if the Church closed down?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Prosit Mark - good ideas! enjoyed reading your blog. After all what I can say is that the Catholic Church through its people was always there for the needy and is doing something tangible.. better than other groups/countries/people who just sit, relax and criticize.,, tc

    ReplyDelete
  7. Some of the riches come from an era when the church had lost it's focus. now that it's supposed to have regained it's focus, it should do away with said riches. it should not sell them, but give them to the proper heritage institutions such as museums and the sort.

    All in all, the church remains a totalitarian political authority, anyway you see it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @elton: And what would donating these riches to "proper heritage institutions" achieve? After all, the Church needs money to do its work. Why not use them herself?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well said Mark Sammut. May I add Jesus' own word to this discussion.

    From the Gospel according to John (Jn 12,1-8)

    Six days before Passover Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. They gave a dinner for him there, and Martha served, while Lazarus was one of those reclining at table with him. Mary took a liter of costly perfumed oil made from genuine aromatic nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair; the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil. Then Judas the Iscariot, one [of] his disciples, and the one who would betray him, said, “Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days’ wages* and given to the poor?” He said this not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief and held the money bag and used to steal the contributions. So Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Let her keep this for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.”

    This is the Word of the Lord
    Fr Ivan Scicluna O.Carm.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Elezzjoni għal Viċi Kap

Nemmen li l-Partit Nazzjonalista jeħtieġ Viċi-Kap li jkompli jsaħħaħ il-proċess ta' tiġdid li għaddej minnu l-Partit stess, biex ikun jista' jkompli jwettaq il-bidliet pożittivi f'pajjiżna. Għalhekk kien ta' pjaċir għalija li nhar is-Sibt li għadda kont wieħed minn tal-ewwel li iffirmajt in-nomina ta' Dr. Simon Busuttil għal din il-kariga tant importanti. Nawguralu minn qalbi.

Why I am dropping out of the Anti-ACTA protest

Like many avid internet users, I have followed with interest the debate about ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement). After reading numerous articles, watched sensational videos, and discussed ad nauseam with friends, I have realized that what I have come across is a campaign hi-jacked by lies, myths and misconceptions as to rival Malta's misinformed divorce referendum campaign. I have to say that the videos on Youtube   got me worried. I quickly signed the petition, joined the Anti-ACTA groups, and prepared myself for a full-blown fight against the big-governments who want to intrude on our privacy and freedom of expression. Like our MEP Edward Scicluna invited us to do in the University debate last Wednesday, I did not try to understand the details of ACTA but rather saw who the players behind it were. But as usual, my logical instincts took over, and his call to not try to understand ACTA actually pushed me to read the text. And here's what I now know: ACTA is ...

Who's the real monster?

I usually hate comparisons, but some very different reactions from the 'great unthinking' rabble do merit some analysis. In May this year, the notorious dog Star was found buried alive . A prima facie , this looked liked the most horrific case of animal cruelty, and is still considered so by some. The perpetrator was described by the sensitive and caring animal-lovers as a villain, a heartless monster, deserving of death, stoning, or even to be 'buried alive in the same manner'. But what did Mr. Vella actually do, according to the testimony heard in Court? Star was sick. It was shedding fur, and quite old already, and its owner did not afford the treatment. In trying to save some money from paying for the dog to be put to sleep and killed properly by vets, she gave it to Mr. Vella to have it killed himself. Nothing much to make people angry till now. Mercy-killing of very sick and suffering animals is widely done and usually a...