Pope Demands 'Legitimate Redistribution' Of Wealth

a reply to: jazz10

Well, your question throws me a bit if we're talking about standard of living to be met by Government definitions and assistance. I don't believe Government has any place, whatsoever, in insuring we have any particular standard of living. Local, State/Provincial, National or Global.

I have no problem with society taking care of it's very young, its very old and those with true disabilities which prevent them from achieving a standard on their own.

Outside of those segments, I firmly believe in sink or swim and we all have the power and ability within ourselves to determine which way that goes.

a reply to: FlyersFan

This from an organization who is defrocking clergy left and right for kiddy diddling and spending millions on homes. Money laundering investigations into church finances..

While the Vatican is a nation state they really should take care of their mess first.

a reply to: markosity1973

As in when Pope Francis came along. For every sin the catholic church has committed,

No. The Catholic Church and the Vatican don't get a clean slate every time they change Popes. Francis didn't descend from heaven. He rose from a lot of controversy and accusation in the light of rebel coups, kidnapping and murder in Argentina.

As a sampler, everyone goes the catholics for the sex abuse scandal (and so they should) but buddhist monks have been caught at in Sri Lanka too. There are rotten people in every aspect of life and tbe actions of a few do not represent the belief or constitute support of the many.

Right. When cornered, bait and switch. Change the subject. Make thread on Buddhist monk sex scandals if you want, this one is about the Pope.

How about we start by selling all Catholic Church's possessions and giving it to the poor?

a reply to: windword

I never claimed they had a clean slate, I meant things have changed for the better with the new Popes arrival.

You are being blinded by your hatred for the institution. I'm not defending their past, but I am hoping for the future. It's amazing how many folk are screaming hypocrisy when the man just said let's redistribute wealth. Did he say anywhere that he plans for the catholic church to be exempt from this idea?

No, he did not.

a reply to: FlyersFan

well it looks like the salvation of souls is taking a back seat to the worldly affairs of mortal men. Because THAT is what the founder and his patriarch wanted....a religion focused on the redistribution of wealth.....its not being hijacked...no.

Welp, thats it for the RCC.

say hello to the universal church of humanism.

Im never going back.....

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
How about we start by selling all Catholic Church's possessions and giving it to the poor?

Because those areas belong to a nation state.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

How about we start by selling all Catholic Church's possessions and giving it to the poor?

Because those areas belong to a nation state.

Well the Pope will surely give his blessing right? Or is he only interested in redistributing the wealth of others?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

How's about we sell your possessions too then?

Perhaps you should read your history books. After Rome was sacked and they abandoned it for Constantinople in the east, it was the church who started to rebuild. They have had the land from a time when everyone else was abandoning it. All the old Roman treasures in the vatican (I've seen some of them) were rescued from ruined buildings and preserved for humanity. So in a way we ought to thank them for saving a large amount of ancient Roman artifacts for us.

Why don't we sell Mecca too? How about the Dalai Lama's palace in Tibet? The forbidden city in China? These things are from antiquity and the value in them is being used for what they were built for and / or being accessible to everyone. Who would buy the Vatican? A hotel chain that would only allow the mega rich egotists who want a kick out f staying where the pope used to? Anything is possibe with private ownership. At least today anyone an visit......

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



How's about we sell your possessions too then?

If I ever come out in favor of wealth redistribution I will be the first in line to do it. It would be hypocritical of me not to do so .. much like the hypocrisy of the Pope and Catholicism I pointed out.

Perhaps you should read your history books. After Rome was sacked and they abandoned it for Constantinople in the east, it was the church who started to rebuild. They have had the land from a time when everyone else was abandoning it. All the old Roman treasures in the vatican (I've seen some of them) were rescued from ruined buildings and preserved for humanity. So in a way we ought to thank them for saving a large amount of ancient Roman artifacts for us.

Nothing in this has anything to do with wealth redistribution, and unless you have some hidden spy cams and are stalking me (creepy) you really have no idea what I know about history. So maybe you should keep your suggestions to yourself lest you come off as being arrogant.

Why don't we sell Mecca too? How about the Dalai Lama's palace in Tibet? The forbidden city in China? These things are from antiquity and the value in them is being used for what they were built for and / or being accessible to everyone. Who would buy the Vatican? A hotel chain that would only allow the mega rich egotists who want a kick out f staying where the pope used to? Anything is possibe with private ownership. At least today anyone an visit......

As soon as their "owners" come out in favor of wealth redistribution it will be hypiocritical of them to not do so. As I said before. if he favors wealth redistribution let him take the lead in doing it, or is he only in favor of distributing the wealth of OTHERS?

a reply to: FlyersFan If the Pope wants any of my wealth (what little I have) he can personally come over to my house and try to take it. Ill beat him with that funny little 1 million dollar hat he wears. My wife was catholic when we met. All they did was ask for money for everything. Now we just believe, and leave religion out of it.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I think it's a great idea.

Let's start with the riches held by the Catholoic church and its subsideries.

Ok, wealth redistribution. Let's do it. Who's wealth should we start redistributing first? I guess it might make sense to start with the wealthiest organization on earth. Now who would that be? The Vatican with its untold priceless treasures might be a good start. How much can we get for one (1) slightly used St Peters throne? It's not being used anymore anyway right?

Okay, hi guys (and congrats to FF for being a topic on tonight's show!....
hope they get to it. My topic was supposed to air last week, but wasn't....time constraints I guess.
thread was The Terrible Fear of Paying the Poor Too Much).....

but I digress.....

How about this:

CANCEL ALL DEBT. They used to do this every seven years, back in the sensible times before the RCC existed.

Origins[edit]
Debt relief existed in a number of ancient societies:


Debt forgiveness is mentioned in the Book of Leviticus, in which God councils Moses to forgive debts in certain cases every Jubilee year – at the end of Shmita, the last year of the seven year agricultural cycle or a 49-year cycle, depending on interpretation.


This same theme was found in an ancient bilingual Hittite-Hurrian text entitled "The Song of Debt Release".[5]


Debt forgiveness was also found in Ancient Athens, where in the 6th century BCE, the lawmaker Solon instituted a set of laws called seisachtheia, and which canceled all debts and retroactively canceled previous debts that had caused slavery and serfdom, freeing debt slaves and debt serfs.

Just a lame-o wiki link, but it will provide a starting point.


No money would have to change hands - we would all simply get to have our belongings owned free and clear - and start over. Clean start.

Occupy History: The American Revolution Was About Debt Relief

The American Revolution, some historians have argued, was itself a form of debt relief. In 1787, just before the Constitution was drafted, New Yorkers formed the Society for the Relief of Distressed Debtors. They launched an investigation and found that, of 1,162 debtors committed to debtors’ prison in New York City in 1787 and 1788, 716 of them owed under twenty shillings. In 1758, New York’s debtors were moved to New Gaol, near what’s now City Hall Park. Describes the horrible conditions in New York’s debtors’ prison. In 1791, John Pintard, a state legislator and stockbroker, fell for William Duer’s financial scheme, which helped trigger the Panic of 1792, the nation’s first stock-market crash. Pintard eventually landed in debtors’ prison in Newark.
The idea that debt is necessary for trade, and has to be forgiven, is consequent to the rise of a market economy. Americans fought to provide the same debt relief to everyone because we believe in equality and because bankruptcy protection makes taking risks less risky. Our willingness to forgive debt lies behind a good part of our prosperity. Pintard got out of jail in 1798, and he filed for bankruptcy in 1800. He went on to found the New-York Historical Society in 1804, and to help open the New York Bank for Savings in 1819. Mentions Joseph Dewey Fay. In 1841, Congress passed a sweeping federal bankruptcy law that offered bankruptcy to everyone. Meanwhile, in 1831, the New York State Legislature abolished imprisonment for debt. Other states soon followed. Debtors’ prison was abolished, and bankruptcy law was liberalized, because Americans came to see that most people who fall into debt are victims of the business cycle, and not of fate or divine retribution.

Debt relief and suspension of foreclosure/repossession would go A LONG WAY toward creating an actual level playing field.

This will probably be flamed - but it is my opinion, and I have a story to back it up - and I'm sticking to it.

a reply to: MysterX

Let's start with the riches of CEO's and politicians and the hyper-rich .01%.

Then, when there is no more need for Church based charities like food shelfs and whatnot, we can make the anti-religion crowd with the chip on their shoulder happy by distributing the wealth of the Vatican.

A friend and I were talking about income equality just earlier today...I am a conservative "non-partisan" but swing libertarian and republican....he is a homosexual liberal democrat. We are almost exact opposites but after a long chat we were able to conclude that the best way to achieve solid long term income equality is through an overhaul of the education system. A better education means higher skills and a better job, and of course, more money in ones wallet

a reply to: AnonymousMoose

A better education system is not what tptb want. It leads to large groups of people thinking that they have the power to make their lives better; seeing through the bull#; protesting war; taking psychedelics and seeking enlightenment and free love.

originally posted by: AnonymousMoose
A friend and I were talking about income equality just earlier today...I am a conservative "non-partisan" but swing libertarian and republican....he is a homosexual liberal democrat. We are almost exact opposites but after a long chat we were able to conclude that the best way to achieve solid long term income equality is through an overhaul of the education system. A better education means higher skills and a better job, and of course, more money in ones wallet

You are basing your education argument on the assumption that there are unfilled high paying jobs just laying around, desperate for qualified employees to fall out of the sky.

Sadly the reality is quite different. We can't all be lawyers, surgeons and stock market brokers. A balanced and functional society still needs it's street cleaners and factory workers.

Well, he just sealed his fate...

I think people who complain about the wealth of the Catholic Church are over simplifying things to some extent. During early periods in the history of this church it was controlled by political players who were much like other political leaders of the time. Think John Gotti or Al Capone.

There is always an element of "careerism" in churches. Some people are involved because that is what they do to survive. Getting people like that out of churches is almost impossible. Usually only the most extreme cases of careerism are removed, the larcenous careerists, and even they can be hard to get rid of without huge amounts of scandal and damage to the faith of the congregation.

In reality, all organizations are like this. Inertia is a major player in these situations.

Market forces and monetary policy are responsible for a lot of the "wealth" of churches. A church that you could buy for a few hundred dollars in 1500 might be worth hundreds of millions today, to someone. There are good arguments for putting that church up for sale in order to enable the Indian government, for example, to provide fresh water for its people, or to enable the Kenyan government, for example to put sewers into the suburbs of Nairobi.

Of course, the Catholic Church might not actually be able to find a buyer for the Vatican. The price on it would be very large. The cost of upkeep on it is also very large. Would the Italian government buy it? I really doubt it. Wouldn't it be shrewder for the Italian government to leave it in the hands of the Catholic Church to maintain and operate, for a number of very good reasons? It is a huge tourist attraction in the middle of Italy and tourists have to travel through Italy to get to it. The city of Rome benefits hugely from its presence. Catholics worldwide pay for its upkeep. If I was in charge of Italy, I wouldn't buy it and furthermore I would make sure that no other country bought it or got the rights to operate it.

One could say that Catholics worldwide own it. Maybe a vote should be taken among Catholics as to whether it should be abandoned and allowed to go to seed, so that revenue directed toward its upkeep should be diverted to the poor around the world. I wonder how that vote would turn out.

What about selling the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem or the whole Temple Mount? Do you think that would sell? Who would buy it?

What about the Kaaba in Mecca? Who would buy it? Gordon Gecko, so he could flip it to another Gordon Gecko? The answer is that nobody would buy it, or could buy it.

The problem is more complicated than people believe. Most of the fabulously valuable church properties around the world are not affordable or desirable, for good and complicated reasons.

Could churches sell some art? Probably, but there might be hidden costs involved in doing that.

Suppose the Pope only wanted a one percent sales tax on Wall St. trading and wanted that money to go only to rebuilding American infrastructure? Would that be a good suggestion? Would he be overstepping the bounds or dodging his responsibilities to the world's poor by suggesting that? Are the poor only the responsibility of churches?

Is "moral suasion" a valid activity of the Pope? Where is the "loose money" in the world anyway? Is it easier to redirect a mountain of money or to redirect a mountain of art objects?

Getting rid of the churches has been tried by regimes in Russia and China. That measure didn't improve the overall picture. The Church of Militarism took up the slack then as it does now.