Posted on 04/30/2013 10:51:14 AM PDT by marshmallow
Is this the Franciscan message? On the final Monday of Lent, Mass at Thomas More College was celebrated by one of the monks from St Benedict’s Abbey in Still River. It is always a pleasure to have them here because they celebrate Mass and chant the Latin so beautifully. Beyond this, their homilies are always interesting and stimulating.
The gospel passage on this occasion was about Martha and Mary: Martha tended to the guests and Mary washed Jesus feet with expensive nard, a fragrant ointment. Unusually, (in my experience at any rate), the homily spoke not so much to the contrast between Martha and Mary, but between Mary and Judas. It was the latter who suggested that the money spent on nard would have been better given to the poor. Here was a lesson about allocation of resources. Mary made the right choice, we were told, in choosing Christ even before giving to the poor. Then an even more interesting point was made. There is an equivalent choice facing us today every time we have to decide about having beautiful churches and art, intricate vestments, ornate jewel-studded chalices and so on. Is it right to direct money to these things when there is poverty? The answer is yes when these things, through the liturgy, elevate the souls of the faithful to Christ and this is greater than giving to the poor.
However, in order to understand how this can be so, some additional points must be made. First is that there is a point beyond which spending money on ornamentation of churches would constitute extravagance. But provided that point has not been reached then spending money on that nobler end, it is not asking the poor to make a sacrifice either. The first point is that all of us.....
(Excerpt) Read more at thewayofbeauty.org ...
To whom would you sell it? Anyone who bought it should have given that same money to the poor.
Most of the art was given to the Church for the specific purpose of drawing minds to the divine reality, not to sit in a vault collecting dust. That art is literally “priceless”, in that it cannot have a price and do that for which it was made.
Also, one-time sales could never cure poverty. Only assets that continually produce income can do that... like businesses that provide jobs. (Hint to Obama, who would just be confused.)
This is why we can never have nice things...
It’s on my bucket list. :-)
Its really something to experience. Art is everywhere.
Floors, walls and ceilings.
This attitude is so prevalent from a ruling elite who “load people with burdens that are hard to carry, yet [you] don’t even lift a finger to ease those burdens.” On the contrary, they consider this as ‘charity’ but still attack Big ____ for not “giving back”...
We don't own any art in the Vatican.
If you happen to be a dues paying member of that private organization, then I would think you might be able to have a legitimate opinion on the disposition of the property.
No, but lease it for periods of time, in rotation.
Even better plan:
.
should we sell the art in the louve and feed the poor??
should we sell the art in the london historical museum and feed the poor???
should we sell art ANYWHERE and feed the poor???
all these questions are interlinked..
answer one, and you have answered them all....
That suggestion is in very poor taste.
so to speak.
LOL married.
As for the OP, the money will run out at some point. Every time I hear this as a “cure” for the poor, I think, “what a dumb idea”.
But it’s usually a suggestion made by anti-Catholics.
In other words, finding alternatives to or complaining about getting rid of all one’s wealth could be a dodge by those who really don't want to hear the scripture. On the other hand, the scripture really could be focused on those who are worshiping their wealth and not on those who would willingly and generously use wealth in a way that provides extended help rather than mere temporary help.
Where does God truly come down on this? Should Christians give away everything if there is real evidence that doing so eventually results in everyone being impoverished instead of just a few?
I see it as similar to Paul's argument about not marrying. He made that statement in light of the dangerous times for those who would attempt to have families and risk their being orphaned. For better times, or for the sake of morality, he encouraged marriage.
Is there a situation in which poverty would be so great that we'd have to drop everything and deal only with that? I'm sure there are examples of that to be found.
The general rule, though, in normal times would be: “If a man doesn't work he shouldn't eat.” Paul worked as a tent maker so he could acquire wealth so he would not be a burden on others.
And, as brother Marlowe has pointed out, we will always have the poor with us. The suggestion is that someone better be working and producing, or no one will be helped.
Don’t sell it. Lease it to a lot of museums. Ensure that it doesn’t end up in a private collection, use it as an opportunity to spread the word of Christ and generate an ongoing stream of income for charitable activities and outreach.
NO
We cannot dismiss the effectiveness and benefits of evangelization through beauty. It is a 2000 year old tradition with the Church. All that is True, all that is Good and all that is Beautiful is from God and God holds within Himself all Truth, all Goodness and all Beauty. Before we can impress anyone with the Truth or show them the Good we can touch them with Beauty.
Peace be with you
the art treasures in the vatican belong to the world....it is, in effect, a museum where treasures are stored for all time so that future generations can see and appreciate them. To dispose of them and give the money to the poor would only result in the same people being poor a little later. Take all the money you have and give it to the less furtunate in your community.....tomorrow there will be the same number of them as today.
Last time I checked the Catholic Church is not a democracy. While individual parishes have Boards that make local financial decisions, they have no say in what the Vatican does. The Vatican is a self-governing entity. The only say that a Church member has is to withhold personal contributions something that many Catholics have already chosen to do.
well said and we also need glorious art to enrich ourselves
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.