So, since the Vatican is "rich," it should sell all its churches, schools, hospitals, orphanages, Vatican City, etc., and give that money to the poor, right? And what exactly would that achieve, besides assuring subsequent generations never receive any of the help and benefits from those same churches, schools, hospitals, orphanages, Vatican City, etc.?
That's just one country, and its been a complete and utter failure at that.
All those who cry about the "Vatican's riches" are fools or tools, IMHO.
Why change the subject?
Personally I’m just interested in what appears to be some fake claims about the lack of assets in the Catholic church.
I think that just about any billionaire or investment group would jump at the chance to pay “1 billion dollars”! for just the total Vatican assets, of the total wealth of the Catholic denomination.
Did I get that right? After all, isn't that the underlying point of Longnecker's article? That Joel Osteen is part of the eeeeevillllll 1%, and the [current] Pope is really one of the 99%?
March participants say Occupy movements concerns aligned with Catholic social teaching
US bishops call for continued unemployment benefits
Catholics 'more likely to back state economic intervention' [European Central Bank study]
CARA suggests polls on creation of a third party: Christian Democrats
Time for True Democrats to Start Their Own Party [or, why Catholics can't vote Democrat any more]
Pope Francis's Economics: Yes, He Has A Leftist View Of Free Markets
Did I say anything about selling? Nope, bzzzzt try again.
I was replying to someone who said the value in monetary terms of the vatican was $1B. Now that you have the context you didn’t bother to read before you can apply your vast learning and take another shot.