Originally posted by Aleister
reply to post by sleeper
What would happen if people tried to Occupy St. Peter's Square, with tents and encampments, to advocate for the poor?
Originally posted by Aleister
reply to post by vethumanbeing
I'm not so sure. The Swiss Guard might want to get rid of them, but Pope Francis would have to agree. And then if they "dispatched" the first bunch, more would come and set up an encampment. Occupy St. Peter's Square would have to have some kind of theme, but the Pope would have a hard decision to make (or maybe not, maybe he'd move in with them!)
So why is the most powerful and enormously rich god of the whole universe so stingy with his human offspring?
These are the things you are to teach and insist on. 3If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. 9Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge (drown) people into ruin and destruction (perdition). 10For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. 1 Timothy 6
(Source: Largest Landowners in the World )
Land: The 110 acres of The Holy See that constitute Vatican City. Also, roughly 177 million more acreage of various lands owned by the Catholic Church throughout the globe, including the hundreds of Vatican embassies that are legally titled to The Holy See as an independent nation.
But it does take governments into account, only #13 and #15 on that list refers to private citizens. Except for the Pope all the others are kings or queens who own entire countries. Certainly they will not take the land with them when they step down, nor can they sell the entire country, it belongs to the government which happens to be a monarchy. Nor did Benedict XVI take it with him, it's in trust to the Church.
The list would read considerably different if it took Governments into account. That list's value was primarily in finding a solid number for sheer land they did own.
True, the US government land is not in the name of the President, neither is the Church's land in the name of Pope Francis. They both exercise similar control. The President can certainly tell the BLM to sell a portion of the land, or the mineral rights to it, and it will happen.
The list criteria came from land owned with control or direct line to specific people. The President of the United States doesn't own the BLM land in Nevada, for instance. As I understand the organization of things ...That technically would be the case for those on the list in what they control.
Well. yes, that's true. But what are they to do with La Pieta for example, not keep it as a gift to the Church? Refuse it?
Since the Church began in a formal way with the Vatican as a place to collect things, they've been collecting. From local dispatches of the day to artifacts sent back by whatever means of the day, for the Vatican to hold and add to it's collections. Over the many hundreds and hundreds of years.....quietly..collecting.
I agree again. There is immense wealth there. It may be an overused cliche, but it truly is priceless. As I've said, this wealth is held in trust and can only be used in dire circumstances.
I include the logical sum of those centuries of collecting in terming the Church as possessing immense wealth. I don't say it as a negative thing..just a statement of how things are, IMO.
Originally posted by WhoKnows100
Why is it that today's society equates riches with happiness and contentment? Isn't this the problem?
Those who come to view godliness as a means of gain versus those who know that contentment and godliness are the gains
There is a huge difference that you should think upon. It is only in the past 100 years that our society has shifted from godliness and contentment being the gains of a life with the Lord to believing that "godliness" as the means to gain. The opulence of the churches should be a rather big clue as to how inverted they are to the words of scripture.
Poverty is relative. The happiest person that you could ever meet may be very poor. Money does not buy contentment, but in a world which now equates the two, people are miserable. The fact that the holy spirit ties in "drown" and "perdition" is also a huge clue as to the days of Noah.
Originally posted by jimmiec
The information age has increased the number of poor. Lets take Dolly Parton as an example. She was born and raised in a poor family. She was happy as a clam. She had no idea she was poor. She rode into town with her mother once, she saw a prostitute dressed...well, like a prostitute. She told her mother " Look how pretty that lady is mom!" Her mother replied " That is just a trashy whore!" Dolly replied " Mom, i want to be a trashy whore!" To this day that is how she dresses.
Obviously there are people truly poor and going without a meal. Nevertheless, Our idea of poor does not remotely resemble true poverty. It used to be that the fear of being poor in America was enough for people to pull up their boot straps and get their ass to work. Now it is better to be poor in America today than a king in the 16th century. Being financially challenged happens, what you do about it is up to you. America still has opportunity for success, even if it is a bad time to be looking for a job. Pride and fear are a driving force that seems to have been bred out of too many Americans. Instead of digging a ditch or cleaning a house for money. The common theme seems to be to apply for government assistance. Or the ever popular unmarried mother drawing a fat check based on how many kids she can have. I was a single parent with 2 kids. I was offered nothing to help me, nor would i have taken it.
Originally posted by Advantage
Im not a Xtian.. but I am more than familiar with Catholicism and Christianity. Poor doesnt only mean monetarily or etc.. it means poor in spirit or spiritually bankrupt. Poor doesnt always mean living in a box and eating sand... it also means having ones priorities of flesh and not the spirit.. addiction to materialism and not understanding the idea of living simply in the flesh and being rich in the spirit. Poor also means hungry and needing assistance.. for a variety of reasons.
I think youre ol pope is speaking more of a "renaissance" of the Catholic Church and not simply advocating for the less wealthy. He IS a Jesuit, you know.