Posted on 10/17/2014 1:11:56 PM PDT by NYer
Paying rent is a transaction. Paying for a prostitute is a transaction. Somebody is giving a product or service for money.
They may be rented out in Las Vegas; but when was the last time the Sistine Chapel was rented out?
If the Pope really wants to help out the poor, he should rent out St. Peter's Basillica for a Lady Gaga/Madonna concert. Beautiful acoustics in there.
“Except a corporate event complete with food service. Nothing sacrilegious about that./S”
Exactly - nothing sacrilegious at all. People meeting and eating and nothing immoral.
“Paying rent is a transaction.”
A moral one.
“Paying for a prostitute is a transaction.”
An immoral one.
“Somebody is giving a product or service for money.”
And there’s nothing immoral about that in itself.
“They may be rented out in Las Vegas; but when was the last time the Sistine Chapel was rented out?”
Essentially every day - it’s part of a museum and people pay to enter it and look around at the frescoes. I’ve done it twice. Film rights were exclusively sold to a Japanese TV station to film the restored frescoes. That’s one of the reasons why you’re not allowed - legally - to take photos inside the chapel: http://portfoliography.com/2013/03/why-arent-we-allowed-to-take-photographs-at-the-sistine-chapel/
I bet you didn’t even know that.
“If the Pope really wants to help out the poor, he should rent out St. Peter’s Basillica for a Lady Gaga/Madonna concert. Beautiful acoustics in there.”
People viewing that art and eating a meal is not immoral. Lady Gaga/Madonna are.
Well at least you now admit the Pope is renting out the Sistine Chapel.
It may be moral in your eyes, but not mine.
“Well at least you now admit the Pope is renting out the Sistine Chapel.”
When did I EVER deny it?
“It may be moral in your eyes, but not mine.”
Your opinion doesn’t matter.
Jesus turned over the money-changers’ tables in the temple.
Francis does the opposite.
“Jesus turned over the money-changers’ tables in the temple.”
He had every right to. And Francis has every right to rent the chapel to those who want to view the art - just like every tourist does every day - and have a meal.
“Francis does the opposite.”
No, he doesn’t. The two situations are not even comparable, but no one should expect a logical analogy from you.
By the way, are you even going to admit that you did not know about the exclusive rights deal with the Japanese TV network?
The Pope and Porsche are money changers. And they’re setting up tables in the temple.
By the way, are you even going to admit that you did not know about the exclusive rights deal with the Japanese TV network?
Come to think of it, do you disagree with any sort of business being conducted in a Church?
Has the Sistine Chapel been relegated to profane use? If not, the Porsche event is sacrilegious.
-----------------------------
Canon 1222:
§1. If a church cannot be used in any way for divine worship and there is no possibility of repairing it, the diocesan bishop can relegate it to profane but not sordid use.
"§2. Where other grave causes suggest that a church no longer be used for divine worship, the diocesan bishop, after having heard the presbyteral council, can relegate it to profane but not sordid use, with the consent of those who legitimately claim rights for themselves in the church and provided that the good of souls suffers no detriment thereby."
This relegation to profane use takes place only after the bishop issues a formal decree removing the church's dedication or consecration.
The subsequent removal of relics, altar and other items of sacred art is a consequence of this decree, but not necessarily the cause of the building losing its consecration.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur201.htm
LOL! I hope he's not reading this. Wouldn't want to give him any more ideas.
“Has the Sistine Chapel been relegated to profane use? If not, the Porsche event is sacrilegious.”
Let me educate you - since you incorrectly use canon law.
1) The canon you listed clearly says “if a church cannot be used in any way for divine worship” and “Where other grave causes suggest that a church no longer be used for divine worship” - but clearly the Sistine Chapel can be used for worship and is used for worship quite often. Thus, you’re wrong.
2) No pope is bound by canon law. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P16.HTM
The most pathetic part of the discussion of this whole episode on FR is how clearly it shows that the so-called “traditionalists” here at FR have little or no idea about what they are talking about.
---------------------------
sacrilege: the violation or injurious treatment of a sacred object or person. It can come in the form of irreverence to sacred persons, places, and things. When the sacrilegious offence is verbal, it is called blasphemy, and when physical, it is often called desecration.
Socializing and dining in a sacred place is irreverent. Pimping sacred environs for profit is sacrilegious.
-------------------------
Can. 1214 The term church means a sacred building intended for divine worship to which the faithful have right of access for the exercise, especially the public exercise, of divine worship.
Note, "intended for divine worship" -- not entertainment and food.
(canon 1222 §2). This means a secular use, but one that is not unbecoming, immoral, or offensive to Catholics.
The use of the Sistine Chapel for a corporate event is obviously "offensive to Catholics" based on the negative response.
A pope is free to ignore canon law, but if his purpose in doing so is to turn a fast buck, he will scandalize and disgust the faithful.
The most pathetic part of the discussion of this whole episode on FR is how clearly it shows that the so-called “traditionalists” here at FR have little or no idea about what they are talking about.
Actually, the most pathetic part of this whole episode is the willingness of papal sycophants to defend the indefensible.
The pope is not bound by canon law - as outline in canon law itself. Thus, you are wrong in any case. Deal with it.
Obviously. But a pope who openly treats canon law with contempt scandalizes and disgusts the faithful. A pope who exploits consecrated Church property -- renting it out for profane use to turn a fast buck -- commits sacrilege. Defending sacrilege is defending the indefensible. "Deal with it".
“But a pope who openly treats canon law with contempt scandalizes and disgusts the faithful.”
He didn’t treat canon law with contempt. As I already demonstrated he did nothing to violate canon law.
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.