[Stone Mountain]

Jim Caveziel was concerned about the ramifications of such trivializing of the "Passion", no matter what could have been done with the money.

I certainly agree with that. I'm just saying that there is a moral case to be made for taking the money... As I mentioned before, just because the poor will always be with us doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to help them...

[Drawsing]

a moral case for taking the money...

Yes, there is a case to be made. But it is the wrong one. The end does not justify the means in this case. Helping the poor is a good thing. But compromising other Godly principles to accomplish it is not a good thing. The tone of your argument also seems to indicate you are attaching importance to the sheer amount of money as if I could compromise for 70 million but it would be wrong if I did it for just 20 dollars. The only principle you would be following there would be, "Money Talks." or "Anybody can be bought."