"Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." (Matthew, 19:21)
WWJD? (What would a Jewess do?)
Sarah Silverman has some good points here. In my travels two sights have made me feel physically ill: 1) an exhibition of Spanish Inquisition torture instruments in Cordoba, Spain; 2) the ostentatiously decadent collection of treasures in the Vatican. (Couldn't help but think of Max von Sydow in "Hannah and Her Sisters": "If Jesus could come back and see what is being done in his name he would never stop throwing up.") It may be a coincidence, but it's disturbing to me that both these revolting sights were connected to the historical institution of the Catholic Church. The first made me ill at the thought of human beings even imagining, much less actually building, such horrendous contraptions to exploit the human body for torture and death (I felt similar despair at Dachau); the second made me sick because of the gaudy wastefulness of it all. Too rich in more ways than one. Why hasn't this gold-encrusted stuff been sold off to do some good? How does a church, of all earthly institutions, get away with hoarding booty like this? Of course, that's a question that's been debated by Christians within and without the Catholic church for centuries:
"Why does the pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build the basilica of St. Peter with the money of poor believers rather than with his own money?"
-- Martin Luther, Thesis 86, "The Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences," 1517
(tip: Tony Dayoub)
Totally agree! Recently the Knights of Columbus were in my town asking for money for the poor. These volunteers were, I'm sure, goodhearted people who wanted only to serve their fellow men. But what bothered me was the implication that the catholic church somehow doesn't have the money. They take in more money then any of us could imagine, and they never have to account it with anyone. And for what? Who are they building those palaces for? God? I would find it odd if the supposedly omnipotent creator of the universe really needs golden palaces. Watch them some time. Do they want power in the next life, or in this life? Love Sarah Silverman.
The fact that the Vatican hasn't been burned to the ground or been covered in flood water is proof that the Christian god does not exist. Also, the bullet proof pope mobile shows that the pope has no faith in his own god or that he is it's chosen mouth piece.
I remember Robin Williams at the Royal Gala in Royal Albert Hall in the early 80s. The Royal Gala was a performance of the biggest names in entertainment of the day, hosted by John Ritter and David Frost if memory serves.
Robin Williams was contrasting America and Britain ("You have football, we have football. Same name, different game."). And he got on the subject of religion.
He said something like, "In England, you have Church of England, which is kind of like Catholic Lite. Same rituals, half the guilt. No, really, you have sermons like, 'Basically we believe that Heaven is a time-share, and Purgatory is spiritual escrow.'
"In America you have Jimmy Swagger, Jim Bakker and Orel Roberts...Orel Roberts is a man who said God would take him away if he didn't get 4 million dollars. Makes you think God is a large man named Vinny who talks like, 'Where's my money, man? I want my damn money.'
"But rich as they are, there's the Pope in the Vatican going, 'Shh. Don't tell them.' (Holds up his hand as if displaying a credit card) 'Vatican Express - don't leave Rome without it.'"
I remember reading something where someone had asked how the Catholic church (or any church - think for example Crystal Palace) justifies having millions if not billions of dollars tied up in property and real estate and art, instead of liquidating it and using it to help the poor. And the answer was some lame (to me) comment about instilling respect for the church and its represetatives (priests).
This kind of objection has happened before, resulting in reformative movements such as Franciscan and other orders of monks sworn to poverty. The problem is that when the property is held by an organization, instead of an invididual, it just keeps accumulating and over hundreds of years becomes ridiculous.
In my usual "that makes me think of something" way, it makes me wonder if we would have had the concept of a corporation if we hadn't had this example of the church to act as the template of how to accumulate wealth...it makes me wonder if capitalism isn't essentially a religious attitude to commerce, and economics is to religion and commerce what the "First Church of Christ, Scientist" is to religion and science.
Once again proving that the point that intolerance can never be defeated, just funneled into culturally accepted channels of hate.
From Catholic Answers:
Most objections about the Church’s alleged wealth is in regard to the art in the Vatican. Most of the art represents the work of Christians who wanted to place their talents at the service of God through the Church. The artwork is an example of their religiosity and is not for sale. Had the Church not preserved the art, much of it would have been destroyed through the ages. Such art is part of our heritage as Christians and indeed as human beings, and few people of any persuasion who appreciate such world culture would truly prefer that these treasures have been put into the control of secular commerce.
In Matthew 26:6ff we read,
A woman came up to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head as he sat at table. But when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, "Why this waste? For the ointment might have been sold for a large sum and given to the poor." But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, "Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me."
Likewise, many of the great cathedrals of Europe were built with donations and labor from the poor, who wanted to build such monuments to God’s goodness and sovereignty. The Vatican does not control enormous liquid wealth, and its annual operating budget has been compared to that of a large archdiocese such as that of Chicago.
In spite of this, the Catholic Church is still one of the most giving institutions on earth, running and supporting countless charities, relief organizations, hospitals, and similar enterprises at great cost to the Church.
JE: Exactly. Art is not "liquid wealth." Are there no museums that might be interested in purchasing this art and rescuing it from the hands of "secular commerce" -- and displaying it properly for the public, too? Poor Church. It gives and it gives -- and at great cost to the Church! What a shame that charity should be such a financial burden on the Church. Kind of makes the Church sound like a for-profit corporation that wants to be known for its tax-deductible charitable activities -- in other words, like any other organ of secular commerce that doesn't pay taxes...
What's the lyric from Jesus Christ Superstar? "There will poor always/pathetically struggling/look at the good things you've got"?
I don't have a problem with religion, although I don't seem to be able to do blind faith, personally. *Organized* religion, though, is as fallible as anything else people organize. And the Catholic Church, old as it is, has had a lot of time to get nice and organized and fallible.
Good video, but Sarah Silverman forgets she's talking about the Catholic Church. Would she have them be Protestants?
JE: I don't know what you mean by that.
At least the Catholic Church came out strong against capitalism in Michael Moore's latest movie! Crazy world we're living in.
I've always gotten the impression Jesus would have hated the church. Jesus taught that God was everywhere, not just within the walls of a church.
Matthew 6:5-6
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father in secret shall reward thee openly.
All you need is love.
John 4:7
Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
The Catholic Church has helped me and many of my family members numerous times. I have met thousands of people through shelters and soup kitchens that the Catholic Church has helped. They appreciate every bed and meal they receive. But it isn't just about feeding the body. The Church feeds the soul. People who think that the Church should sell everything are only thinking in secular terms. I personally know many people who are inspired and feel closer to God viewing some of the great historic artwork owned by the Vatican, which is available for the public to view. The Church has a duty to protect this art for future generations to come. I don't think people realize the millions of people from around the world that visit the Vatican every year to be inspired and feel closer to God. I'm surprised anyone would find the great historic artwork and architecture a waste in the Vatican's hands, but it isn't a waste in a museum. Stop putting the Church in a box. It isn't just supposed to be one big soup kitchen that feeds people, which it does do. The Church also feeds the soul, which is much more important. If you don't find that it feeds your soul, than stay away, sell your house and all your possessions, and give everything to the poor. It won't be long before you will find yourself in line at a Catholic soup kitchen. God bless the Catholic Church. It has saved my life in so many ways.
You're making the same mistake the early Protestant Reformers made, of assuming that the Catholic Church is simply a religious institution. Maybe it was in the first couple of centuries, but once Constantine made it the state church of Rome, it ceased to be simply a place where people went to seek salvation or to look for comfort, it became a great international edifice, like an empire of souls. Like any empire, it conquered, and like any empire, it accrued great wealth in the process.
In one respect, I see your point and can probably agree with you (don't be mistaken, I'm an atheist). The Vatican is extraordinarily wealthy, and holds some of the great treasures of the world. Selling it off and giving it all to the poor would certainly help.
At the same time, the Vatican has proven over about 1500 years to be a rather good caretaker of these treasures. Everything from surviving Roman records to looted Byzantine icons have been carefully preserved. The Vatican has managed to keep these safe against several rounds of invaders.
Selling them of would mean a priceless and almost unparalleled collection of not just treasures, but treasures of antiquity, would disappear into private collections. In the absence of any better place to put them, I say leave them in the Vatican.
JE: Depends on who they sold them to (how about museums that would properly preserve, study and display them?)... but I think you have to appreciate this in the spirit in which it is offered, as a thought experiment. How the Vatican wound up in the art preservation business isn't really the point -- I just made the personal side-observation that the gaudy display of wealth and treasure I saw there made me feel ill, like I'd been stuffed with too many rich desserts. It was my set-up for Sarah Silverman's joke...
I think this point has been missed: that from the view point of the Catholic Church, the Church does not own the treasures and buildings of the Vatican per se. God does. Many of the great works of art housed in the Vatican were created solely for the glory of God. That means that to put a price tag on these artifacts would be an abomination to the original intent of the geniuses who produced them, even if the funds for said artifacts were to be given to the poor.
Of course, to an atheist this sounds absurd, for there is no God for whom glory can be given. So there would be no point to not selling off such treasures, and what better reason do so than for feeding the poor? However, at this point the atheist is begging the question. The question is not should or should we not give to the poor. The Christian church (Protestant and Catholic alike) has been one of the most altruistic and giving institutions in the history of Western civilization. And that does not say much for our civilization, for the church is by no means even close to perfection (far, far from it). Rather the question is: would it be morally permissible to sell-off an artifact made for the glory of God if God existed?
If Silverman wants to provide a good argument, she must accurately represent her opposition and then object to that which is held by said opposition, which she has failed to do. What she must object to is the following: If God exists and X is made for the glory of God, then it would be wrong to sell X as a means of procuring funds. Notice that this is a conditional statement, and so to show that this conditional is false, Silverman must show that it be possible that (i) God exists, (ii) there is something made for his glory, and (iii) that it not be the case that it would be wrong to sell-off that which has been made for God's glory. Where or to whom this thing is sold is completely beside the point. If Silverman wants to argue logically and effectively, she must object to what she has been given, not to that which she has conjured.
JE: This is fun. Notice that Silverman appeals directly to the Pope who, being God's infallible representative on Earth, can make any decision on God's behalf, according to Church doctrine, and it will be the right one -- no matter what his reasons. She does not make the argument that I do, which is that the Jesus of the bible repeatedly advocates the only path to salvation is to give up your worldly possessions and give the money to the poor. Indeed, the Jesus of the gospels sets that very example himself, and invites others who would join him in heaven to follow... (Read Matthew, chapter 19)
Jim, great reply. I think for now I will forgo a critique of Silverman's argument, and consider you own. But first, I will say that I have no answer to Silverman with regard to the infallibility of the pope. I believe that the pope is fallible and can most definitely err.
As far Matthew 19, I think you were wanting me to especially read to part concerning the Rich Young Ruler. To give an epitome of the story, Jesus is asked by a wealthy young man how to obtain eternal life (in heaven presumably). Jesus replies to keep all the commandments. The young man naively replies that he has never erred in this respect. So Jesus tells him, as if he were to continue being the perfect man that he is (which Jesus knows he is not) to give all his possessions to the poor and follow him. The young man refuses and Jesus laments that it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.
Now, does this story corroborate your claim that the Vatican should sell of its artifacts and give to the poor? I will grant to you that there is a prima facie corroboration. The Vatican seems rich, and there are very poor and hungry people in the world. And so if the Vatican is really to follow the instruction of Jesus Christ, it must do as Jesus has commanded to the rich young ruler. But I think careful exegesis of the passage might say otherwise. In the story, I think Jesus is telling the man to sell of his possessions for the sake of the poor and to follow him as a pedagogical tool. Jesus knows this man is not perfect and that he has not kept all the commandments since childhood (who has?). Jesus though does not demonstrate this thought outright. He rather wishes to show the most pervasive sin in the young man's life: namely, his mammon and greed.
For the rich young ruler then, his possessions and riches were his god. He could not part with what is most dear to him. That was his destruction, but can the same be said of the Vatican? I am not so sure if the parallel can be justifiably drawn. The Vatican, as I said earlier, does not really claim to own the artifacts it houses, for they would say they belonged to God. In one sense, it has no possessions to sell, for they are God's and God's alone.
On the other had though, I see your point. People are more important than buildings and treasures, and we all can do better to feed the poor. How much money do I waste a year watching films rather than giving to the poor? (I am ashamed to admit). The fact is this: people have spent thousands upon thousands of hours and incalculable amount of resources making beautiful objects in the history of man. Much of these artifacts were made for the glory of God and were never meant to be owned by anyone. But how many lives could have been saved had that time and resources been spent on medicine and food for the poor? The is the tension we have. There are aesthetic goods and moral goods. Both can be produced for God's glory (if there is a God) and both can be validly good things. I have seen cathedrals in Europe that will make you cry they are so beautiful. The world would be a worse place without them. But it would be a better place without any poor and starving persons. This is the tension, and I have no easy answer to resolve it.
JE: Yes, it's important to remember that there are many, many thousands of Christian sects that interpret their missions in different ways -- from how/when/why children should or should not be baptized to what it means to lead a good Christian life. If I may assume the role of angel's advocate for a moment (in a debate that's gone on for eons), some devout Catholics (and other Christians) would say God cannot "own" works of art. He has no use for material possessions. He wants only to comfort the afflicted and gather souls to Him in the afterlife. The great cathedrals were supposedly designed and built by people who wanted to see their work as pleasing to God -- and to make those who entered them feel that they were closer to God. Others interpret this as a sin of pride and vanity, citing the humbleness of Jesus and the waste of resources that could have gone to help the needy. Silverman's video is just another illustration of this ongoing theological dispute over Christian values. (There are more than 30,000 Christian denominations in the world today, with different beliefs and interpretations of what it means to be a good Christian.) After all, even some of history's worst tyrants were responsible for philanthropic enterprises, too, but that didn't make them any less sinful.
I appreciate your interpretation of Matthew 19:16-30. The way I read it is that Jesus says it's not enough just to keep the commandments, and that hanging on to material wealth is still sufficient to prevent an otherwise good Christian from being saved. Even when you think you have lived a good life and done everything according to God's will (or as much as humanly possible), that's not enough. You must always strive to do more, and you will always fall short. Only God's mercy can save you ("With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible"):
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.
Hello Mr Emerson,
Yet another tiresome attack on Catholicism, the one religion that everyone from left-wing liberals to Protestant fanatics like Jack Chick feels comfortable to mock and disrespect without fear of consequence (try insulting Islam and see what happens!).
I note the enthusiasm with which other commenters above have joined in on this attack. Anti-Catholicism is fun for all the family, unless you're a Catholic, I suppose.
Our dear Sarah often confuses "banal cynical insults" for "satire". She is one the least funny comediennes out there. Her "humour" is crude and boring, there are much funnier acts out there who don't feel the need to bring religion (and/or their hatred of it) into every discussion.
There is some truth in the accusations of greed against the Church, but these are more applicable to the Middle Ages when the hierarchy was indeed financially and politically corrupt. If you want to talk about the negative side of religion, what about the new age cults like Scientology and the Moonies? Televangelists? The fact that most Muslim countries are dictatorships? Look beyond the Catholic Church.
JE: What is the "attack" you perceive on the Catholic Church here? This is an illustration of an argument that's been going on WITHIN the Church (and other Christian churches) for centuries, and you will find many good Catholics and Protestants who believe their churches ought to do more to alleviate poverty and suffering. I don't see Silverman's idea as being anti-religious, anti-Catholic or anti-Christian. One great thing about the many brands of Catholic thought: there's room for a lot of dissent and various interpretations within the ranks, even points of view that don't fully align with the Pope's.
Fair Enough. Sell the vatican. Then sell every luxurious jewish holy temple, every opulent mosque, every televangelist church erected to the virtues of avarice and religious exploitation. Heck if the right wings can be believed, and america is a christian nation built on christian ideals, then sell every American monument build in worship of the idol of self-aggrandizement, imperialism, and war. I'm sure we could feed the whole world ten times over.
JE: Sounds good to me.
The problem with selling every mosque and Jewish holy temple is that most of those in the US are made of gold and adorned with priceless art.
So I say we go to folks running those facilities and ask them tp give up the money to buy the Vatican and feed the world.
"Fair Enough. Sell the vatican. Then sell every luxurious jewish holy temple, every opulent mosque, every televangelist church erected to the virtues of avarice and religious exploitation. Heck if the right wings can be believed, and america is a christian nation built on christian ideals, then sell every American monument build in worship of the idol of self-aggrandizement, imperialism, and war. I'm sure we could feed the whole world ten times over."
For a few weeks maybe...perhaps a year.
It's the economic and political system that's to blame. People in Africa aren't poor because all the money in the world is somehow tied up in 500-year-old baubles stored in the Vatican, or in constructing Mount Rushmore. Without changes to the system 90% of the money made from selling works of immeasurable cultural value stored in the Vatican would be lost to bureaucracy and corruption.
Okay fine you say, this is all just a thought experiment. Great. If you ask me too many people spend their time with their heads up their asses with their thought experiments while people starve. Do something, or don't do something, but if you're contribution is silliness like "we should sell the Sistine Chapel!” don't even bother. You're contributing nothing but noise.
Craig, if you don't want people to criticise or 'attack' Catholisicm, then perhaps you shouldn't attack Islam. You write "try insulting Islam and see what happens!" which seems to be brought up by numerous people who are anti-Islamophobic. It's a comment that is aburdly false, and is rather ironic considering that another thread on this website features Bill Maher who has said some dreadful things about Islam.
You also say that 'the fact that most Muslim countries are dictatorships?' except that most of these countries are not religious. Merely being Muslim majority does not mean that the country is religious,and the fact that these countries are Muslim majority is not why they are non-democracies. Similarly, the fact that almost all Western European countries are democracies has nothing to do with their Christian roots.
Craig, I don't agree that Sarah (whom I love BTW) is being anti-Catholic in the slightest, but if you feel that she is, then at least show some consistency by not attacking other religions.
Gotta go with Craig on this; Catholics, apparently being such easy targets.
There's a line from Manhattan when Woody Allen's character agonizes over quitting his well-paying job earlier in the day. He tells his friend he won't be able to send as much money to his parents anymore. His Dad won't get the good seat at temple, he'll be "away from God, far from the action". We've had to buy God's love for centuries. The Vatican collects, as do the Jews, as do the Mid-World Jesus freaks and flat earth societies, as do Muslims and the nation of Islam, as do Hindi, as do the myriad of religious cults the world over.
I think Silverman derides her Catholic brethren because 1.) she's Jewish and 2.) she's not Catholic. Oh, and 2a.) Catholics are open season, like conservatives. Pretty terrible for a line of reasoning that could have brought the mobs together (for ending world hunger, or whatever) instead of strengthening the wedge of our differences. Lazy, and I fear the vacuous idiot character she plays is not far from reality. I like her, but she smells, so I keep my distance.
The fact that we have such a thing as "world hunger" points to homegrown apathy, displays sins of emotional omission - in short, nobody cares, and will continue to not care. It isn't religion excluding the masses who would not accept a set of beliefs and values. It is our own people - man, woman, child making these decisions every day. Every single cotton-pickin' day!
The liberal/libertarian humor machine has lost a lot of oil in the "transition" (President-King-Messiah Obama's coronation - perhaps he'll start asking for money!) and these so-called cutting edge comics are scrambling for new material, and we, in the meantime, have to force a laugh and pretend it is funny, when in fact, it is downright intolerable and pathetic.
As for me, I muddle through. I have a child and wife to consider, but I try to give where it counts, where it goes to a good place, but again to paraphrase Woody Allen: If only one person in the world is starving, it ruins my day.
William Donohue put it best: Would Sarah's backers denigrate the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem?
Or suggest the Jews sell Israel for world peace?
That would be antisemitic; but it's ok to be anti-Catholic!
JE: "Exactly. Art is not "liquid wealth." Are there no museums that might be interested in purchasing this art and rescuing it from the hands of "secular commerce" -- and displaying it properly for the public, too?"
What is the difference between it being publicly displayed by the Church or by a public museum?Isn't that how Sarah Silverman and countless others saw it-because it is being puiblicly displayed by the church? Do you really expect that these very valuable religious and historical treasures will all end up in the hands of some goodly public museums and not in the hands of private collectors. What of religious treasures held by other religions should they sell all of theirs and give to the poor?Would that really solve world poverty?
JE:"Poor Church. It gives and it gives -- and at great cost to the Church! What a shame that charity should be such a financial burden on the Church. Kind of makes the Church sound like a for-profit corporation that wants to be known for its tax-deductible charitable activities -- in other words, like any other organ of secular commerce that doesn't pay taxes..."
Yes it gives and gives like many or all of the worlds other religions.This was one member of the church trying to make a point about the church's generosity-I don't see the Pope holding a daily press conference saying "We Catholics deserve a pat on our backs, we just built another school or opened another orphanage.Come back tomorrow for more news on our great deeds."
Christ has a special love for the poor, it does not mean that everything about the Church needs to be poor.Ms Silverman's line of reasoning is what led to the sacking of the Holy city in the past and everytime it was rebuilt with great splendour.
To say that the church should not have these treasures is to fly in the face of all the great artists who gave their talent to glorify the Kingdom of Heaven. Michaelangelo's Sistine painting-should that be sold too? I read that he "resented the commission, and believed his work only served the Pope's need for grandeur" However anyone who has seen it cannot doubt that it glorifies God and his church. Little did Michaelangelo know that this work he resented would lead to his name being known throughout the ages.
KWJ - all religion is organized.
Regarding Craig's comment: I can see how this feel's like an attack on the Catholic Church because, as t pointed out, she did not also include the riches of any other religion.
And you are right, Jim: there are many Catholics who agree with Silverman.
Great blog entry and reader comments. Just had one comment on papal infallibility. The pope is infallible when teaching in matters of faith or morals, not across the board as you and some others believe. Even Wikipedia gets it right (look up "Papal Infallibility"). Can the pope sin? Yes. Can he act immorally? Yes. Can he get certain things wrong? Sure. But when he is teaching on faith or morals - and using specific language in his teaching - he is infallible. Please don't assume that the pope is infallible in matters other than in faith or morals. Heck, even the current pope said, "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know." So keeping church treasures can go either way; in this case, it doesn't rest upon papal infallibility. Maybe the thinking is, "We've always done it that way."
JE: Yes, you are absolutely right. I knew that and I should have made it clearer. The pope is only infallible when speaking in a particular capacity, under certain circumstances. However, if the pope were to issue an official statement that it was to be the Church's policy to sell off assets to help feed the poor, that could fall within the realm of papal infallibility if he were speaking as a messenger of God's will. Meanwhile, isn't it great that we're having this discussion about a comedy bit?
I don't see the Metropolitan Museum of Art putting its indoor Egyptian pyramid up on eBay. Classic art belongs to all of us, and that goes for the paintings and relics (not to mention Eucharistic and incorruptible miracles) within the Vatican archives.
Even if this act was done, and all the museums of the world followed suit, and we fed the world, how long would that last? Jesus said we will always have the poor, but the actions of that woman who presumably "wasted" an expensive bottle of perfumed oil to anoint him with were honorable and welcome.
Here's the bigger fish to fry: stop bashing Catholics. If Silverman had any stamina, she'd say the same thing in Mecca, with a megaphone, sans burka. But because Catholics don't issue fatwas, snarky Silverman sulks scott-free.
JE: Well, it's a joke partially based on a longstanding debate within the Church founded in the name of Jesus. The Vatican is known worldwide as a repository of riches. That's why the joke works. Another symbol for great wealth in one place might be Fort Knox. What I don't understand is how Silverman's joke amounts to "bashing Catholics." She doesn't even criticize the Church, as so many Catholics have for centuries, for hoarding wealth. Most of the joke is at her own expense, trying to get those starving people off her television screen by single-handedly finding a solution to the problem of "world hunger." What's more, she frames the issue entirely in (comically) positive terms: Think of what a hero the pope would be! (And, of course, she would be for coming up with the not-so-original idea!) Some of her stuff about Jews and Muslims (see "The Great Schlep" video) is riskier and more overtly provocative, but it's hardly anti-Semitic or anti-Islamic.
as a non-catholic degrading the vatican is not shocking, just disgusting. Do u remember Mel's comments about ur religion..what an outrage. Why is there none for ur comment. Is the whole entertainment world jewish. Is that what is happening.....
your religion...Do the temples give out money??????
Do I dare say I don't really (embarrassed smile) need Christ in my life to behave, to be kept in check? As I don't need Christ, I don't require the image of authority (Fatherland, Motherland, da cops, the politicali) to monitor my habits. I try to be a good husband, a decent father, and an adequate citizen all on my own. Though I may tread clumsily near the slippery slope, I never seem to fall, shocking as that may be. I don't consider myself a humanist, and I show cautious respect for others and their beliefs, but I cringe whenever the subject of entities comes up. I believe people have a choice in the matter (whether they choose to believe it or not). They can help. They can feed the hungry, and they don't need the Christcross or fear of smoldering Hell fire to make them do it.
Uhhh, sell it to whom? Disney?
And that would accomplish what, exactly? Mouse ears on the Sistine Chapel?
Beyond her comments about the Church's alleged wealth and selfishness, Silverman's anti-Catholicism can reasonably be imputed from her comments associating Pope Benedict in complicity with the Holocaust and in deviant sexual practices. Ugly, cheap shots revealing of her motivations which have nothing to do with concerns for the poor.
Wow, that bit was SUPER funny. A joke about the catholic church having lots of money. FUN-NY stuff. And then making it like super extra funny is the part about sex when talking about the catholic clery because they like aren't supposed to have sex. Wow, that is funny. I mean who did that before. That is some crazy original stuff.
I don´t know, I think it´s easy to blame it on the catholic church. What about all that money used to "save economy"? There was a "crisis", and suddenly 700 billion dollars appeared out of nowhere to save the guys that caused that crisis. Why not use that money to really save the world and feed the poor? What about the billions of dollars wasted every year on wars around the globe?
Maybe it´s true that "selling the Vatican" (as if that was an easy thing to do...sell it to whom?) would feed the world, but a lot of other things would too. Why not sell the Pentagon?
I understand your point of view, but I think it was a cheap shot on the church.
"Heaven Less Opulent Than Vatican, Reports Disappointed Pope"
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30972
-------
I'm a Collapsed Catholic (thanks for coining that, Chris Buckley) and I've been to the Vatican, and it's awesome. I don't think the church having a liquidation sale would help anything. It just means someone else would have the art, and it would be much less accessible to the world. Also, it would flood the art market. Good luck to current artisans trying to compete.
Besides, if Catholics wanted to be austere, we'd switch to Calvinism.
That said, it would be nice for the Pope to institute a no-new-acquisitions policy. Or quietly clean out stuff that's been sitting in warehouses for a couple hundred years. Who knows, the Lost Ark may be in a crate somewhere...
JE: I'm sure I saw a familiar sled in there somewhere. Today it's worth a fortune. (The moral/religious question is whether churches should care about fortunes -- or art.) Anyway, you're no doubt right about this: You can take the Catholic out of the Vatican but...
(second time leaving this comment)
Shouldn't you embed the original video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bObItmxAGc
If bloggers link carelessly, at least journalists should go directly to the (official, original, proprietary) source. Don't you think?
JE: Sure. There are several identical postings of the video by different YouTube users. Didn't know there was one labeled "official" (and I'm not sure what "official" is supposed to mean in the context of viral video, or how to confirm it) but there it is. It's obviously not "proprietary" (since it's on YouTube), but I can't guarantee it's the "original" or "official" posting of this particular clip, either.
As long as you don't have a problem with the whole sacreligious aspect of the bit, it is hilarious. The girl is very funny.
Okay, obviously no one is really suggesting that they sell the Vatican. It is just the point about all the material wealth the church accumulates while claiming to value poverty and humility. Yes, we all could be giving up our possessions to help the poor, but that would be insane. I could go into the economic reasons why, but that isn't important right now. The problem is the church claims that it is not interested in money (as all con men do), yet asks for it from people and hordes it in abundance. The art they keep is fine, but the church does have loads of money it saves and hordes to preserve its personal religious interests around the world. If you look into it you see much of it does not in anyway go to the poor. I hate to say this, but the priests seem to me little more then hypocritical con men. They may think it is a good con, they may even believe it themselves. But they are still pushing a highly incorrect and subjective worldview on people that clearly serves their positions of power more then the poor who come to believe it. Many (though to be fair, obviously not all) of the church's poverty relief efforts are used to take the most miserable among us and then use their desperation to turn their allegiance to the church. They take money from people every Sunday to fund such disgusting things as condum prevention in aids infected africa. Look into Christopher Hitchens work on mother Teresa for a good example of the shame charity the church often engages in. All the while claiming the money goes to the glory of God. Excuse me, but God (if he existed) would not require glory. He would not need mansions built to him. That implies a distinctly human sense of need and insecurity.
But one more thing I feel I must stress. I can attack the Catholics, the Muslims (look I did it), the Jewish Church, and any other sect, cult, or religion I want and it does not, I repeat, does NOT constitute intolerance and prejudice in the sense that many church defenders claim. If you are part of a religion, you are part of a set of philosophical, morel, and spiritual ideals. I have every right to disagree, and disagree with some indignation to those positions. Religion is a point of view, an opinion. If they are going to say the earth is one way, I am in my rights to say "no it isn't, and you are wrong." Just because a religion is a group, does not make it the same as an ethnicity or racial group. You might be born black, jewish, arab, or irish, but that does not make you obliged to believe whatever religion you find yourself born to. A religion is an opinion, and I disagree with it. That isn't racist or prejudiced any more then it would be for me to say I think republicans or democrats are wrong, stupid, or hypocritical con men. But at least a political party don't claim to be communicating with the creator of the universe (most of the time anyway). According to most religions (Catholics particularly) I, all my friends, my family, and most of the people I have admired most are going to be sent to burn in Hell for eternity after they die. If they wish to say something that horrific, then they deserve to be criticized and mocked. The Pope is not infallible, and I don't believe he talks to God. If he knows this, he is a liar. If he actually thinks he talks to God, he is delusional. Probably a bit of both. I'm sorry if I offend Catholics by saying this and some may not think my friends going to hell, but the Pope and most all of the Vatican thinks so. So I will disagree, with passion.
I'd like to see someone do a bit about entertainers' hypocrisy on the whole charity thing. When has George Clooney or Julia Roberts given their unneeded 20mill. they got for their latest steaming pile to charity? Taking a few hours to sing a song or stand on a stage when you wouldn't be doing anything productive anyway is not charity. Pining on tv for others to donate their money while you take advantage of the photo op is not charity. The guys at South Park absolutely skewered Bono on this. Those guys get it. The Shoes of the Fisherman already considered this issue. The Vatican could probably due with a little downsizing these days but coming from some overrated soon to be has been, it's pretty weak.
A few thoughts, mainly about how we tailor history to turn it into the stories that guide our lives (i.e., myths):
"An exhibition of Spanish Inquisition torture instruments" - Everyone was doing it. Torture by medieval civic authorities was equal to, or in some cases, worse than ecclesiastical. Any entity or institution that lived through the Middle Ages has dirty hands, yet we don't often say "I don't trust Tony Blair because medieval English governors tortured people." Thinkers in the Enlightenment and the Protestant Reformation shifted the blame to The Church so they could ennoble the State or their new churches more effectively. It makes a good mythology.
Much of the modern conception of the Middle Ages was invented by the Enlightenment and the Reformation. The Middle Ages replaced slavery with serfdom (the Enlightenment re-introduced slavery); Dante and Thomas Aquinas knew the earth was round centuries before Columbus; by the end of the Middle Ages witch-burning was out-of-fashion (Protestants re-introduced it); and, of course, Vikings beat Columbus to the New World by centuries.
I don't mention this to say "the Middle Ages were great!" (which they weren't) but to emphasize that what we call "history" from day-to-day is more appropriately called "myth" in a Jungian sense: we like the "story" of everything sucking in the Middle Ages until "Reason" came along and fixed everything, as if Medieval writers weren't obsessed with Reason.
As for David Lawler's claim "I try to be a good husband, a decent father, and an adequate citizen all on my own" - you make me laugh. And you'd make Jung and Freud laugh, too. What is God if not the embodiment of all those super-large entities - nature, culture, history, society, economy, our upbringing - that control such much of our destinies?
Yet you would persist in believing that you popped parentless into existence, in a vacuum, and are somehow solely responsible for everything in your entire life? I exaggerate, but whether or not there's a magic man in the sky controlling everything, the Jungian myth of God sounds useful, while my exaggerated version of you sounds like a self-deluding child.
How idiotic of religious people to assume they can humanize God.
How can you believe that God "thinks" like a human?
Love, Hate, Pride, Glory, Happy, Sad, Angry..... Blah... blah... blah...
These are human emotions. [ Chemical reactions in the human body. ]
Emotions absolutely don't apply to an omnipotent being.
The Bible says God created Adam in His image. Yeah, right.
The people who actually wrote the Bible gave God "feelings".
God was "mad"..... God was "sad"....... total BS.
Sure, Jesus was cool. But, HE WAS A MAN.
How can you say you "know" God? He told you? Really?
You don't know sh*t about God and what He wants.
Oh, look at the 10 Commandments, you say? Really? Only 10? HA!!!
You know what? Just sell the Vatican and feed the world.
It's not the "official" in the title that convince me... it's the dedicate domain attached to it :
check www.sellthevatican.com then. The site looks cheap, but there is a thread between an official domain and a YT channel of the same name... You could always call Sarah to confirm. ;)
Kay, why not assume Omnipotence can be humanized?
If we're going to toy with the idea of an Omnipotent Deity, then we must make him/her/it completely omnipotent, which is to say, all possibilities all at once.
Something I hear often is "If the universe is infinite and 15 billion years old and there are a billion billion planets with life on them, why would God care what I do?"
This implies that, despite being the Creator, Preserver, and Destroyer of Everything, God has a finite attention span, that he can only follow a cast of characters about as large as a couple Dickens's novels put together. That he can only be in so many places at once. That he can only be looking at so many things at the same time. That he only knows what it's like to BE God, and has no idea what it's like to be a human, a fish, a plankton, a Tralfamadorian, a DVD-ROM, a 1964 1/2 Chevy Camaro, or a rock.
That doesn't sound omnipotent to me. That sounds like the same lack of imagination that can ONLY humanize God. Just reversed.
Are YOU going to tell the Creator-Preserver-Destroyer of Everything "Oh, you don't understand Anger, Love, Hate, Pride, Glory, Happiness, Sadness, you're just God!"
Christianity has Jesus (God in man-mode) and Hinduism has...well, Hinduism is complicated, but gets a similar point across.
The best vision of the Omnipotent, Removed, Incomprehensible, Detached God (God in non-human mode) is Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey," in which the "alien" intelligence behind the monolith is not extraterrestrial, but a symbol for the hidden workings of Omnipotence. The maker of the monolith is never seen, presumably devoid of human emotion, probably formless, and of incalculable age and intelligence. Yes, Arthur C. Clarke probably would not approve that interpretation, but it was Kubrick's movie.
Now let me try to remember, what entity recently named "2001" one of the 45 greatest movies ever made? Who was it? Oh right, that backward, medieval, narrow-minded Vatican, which can only humanize.
A few problems here:
One: the Pope doesn't own the Vatican, so he can't sell it.
Two: the Catholic Church (institutionally and its individual members) is already the leading charitable organization in the world. One example of this: The chief editor of the Economist recently commented that the one constant in all the worst places and disaster zones in the world is that Catholic missionaries and services are present.
Three: Your understanding of the infallibility of the Pope on Ned's comment is grossly mistaken. If you would like a longer explanation as to why I would gladly offer one (note: I don't mean that in an arrogant way - I understand it might read as such - I just mean that I would be willing to explain for future clarification).
JE: We're talking this joke way too literally here, but, for the record, here's the Vatican II statement on papal infallibility from Catholic Answers:
http://bit.ly/1JKmyq
PEOPLE!...She's just a comedienne trying to be funny. Everyone getting mad at this seems to be thinking people will take her seriously and actually "sell" the Vatican. RELAX!
Martin Luthor also said the only proper way to baptize is a jew is by throwing them into the ocean with a millstone around their neck.
JE: The reason people are taking the joke so seriously here is because you take it seriously in your post.
JE: You're probably right. It's a thin line between "seriously" and "literally." There are serious implications behind it, but it's not meant to be taken literally. The proposition is figurative, hypothetical -- as jokes tend to be.
Hey Jimmy,
You feel sick to your stomach because of the opulent wealth you see in the Vatican. Well I felt the same when I visited the USA. Thinking of the huge quantities of food that your people eat, made me sick.
I am an African you see and I've seen real poverty. The joke as it goes may be funny to some, meh. But what you and some don't get is that the beauty of the Vatican and the art works in the Vatican are supposed to inspire the Faithful to give glory to God and lift our hearts up to God. And in that response we are drawn into a deeply spiritual experience. Hopefully inspiring us to do more for God in terms of the Corporal Works of Mercy.
So while it may amuse some anti-Catholics/anti-Christians to imagine that selling the Vatican could indeed feed the world, think rather of this... the Catholic Church feeds the Faithful who at this moment do feed the world, literally.
Good day to you.
JE: You're not alone in feeling this way about the West (or the USA in particular). Sayyid Qutb, a founder of modern Islamist thought, was disgusted by the materialism and individualism of the US when he visited in the 1940s. So, reportedly, were some of the 9/11 hijackers. And I think a lot of us feel that way sometimes, entering a mall or a supermarket. It's overwhelming. We're getting far away from Silverman's joke (which is mostly about her egomaniacal delusion that she's found a solution to world hunger -- just so she can get those ugly starving people off her nice big-screen HDTV), but those supermarkets and malls also participate in food drives and charity programs that feed the hungry. And they're not even churches.