Christianity, Homosexuality and Greed

Originally posted by Proper Knob
It will always be worth mentioning this heinous crime to be used as a yardstick in any discussion in which you defend the so called 'merits' of the Catholic Church.

So basically, if I say anything Catholic-related, your response will be 'sex abuse'. Ok, what exactly do you think you will achieve?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You don't care which? You seem to care before? But okay, then "the Pope" it is.

So you say that they are the care taker? Like any other caretaker? They can easily sell the artworks to another to get money to help the poor in Africa or other places where the church has done so much bad? The new caretakers may be as good takecarers as the Pope?

Did an ...[text shortened]... they are not hypocrites. They don't say one thing and do the other. The Pope does, right?

So you say that they are the care taker? Like any other caretaker? They can easily sell the artworks to another to get money to help the poor in Africa or other places where the church has done so much bad? The new caretakers may be as good takecarers as the Pope?

I think that this is short-sighted. Firstly, all it involves is shifting money from rich collectors to the Vatican and then ultimately to aid. It is simply funneling money around. Secondly, the artwork is part of the religious life of the Vatican. Much artwork is not simply kept in a museum but is there on the altars, in the churches, for pilgrims to use. Thirdly, the Vatican already contributes to aid.

Did any of "the archdiocese of New York" say that they were against greed as the Pope said? I didn't hear anything. So they are not hypocrites. They don't say one thing and do the other. The Pope does, right?

Yes, the archdiocese of New York has very outspokenly condemned greed, in conformity with Catholic social and moral teaching. Are you really so stupid that you cannot grasp the simple point that the archdiocese of New York is Catholic?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]So you say that they are the care taker? Like any other caretaker? They can easily sell the artworks to another to get money to help the poor in Africa or other places where the church has done so much bad? The new caretakers may be as good takecarers as the Pope?

I think that this is short-sighted. Firstly, all it involves is shifting money from ...[text shortened]... stupid that you cannot grasp the simple point that the archdiocese of New York is Catholic?[/b]

I don't respond to this posting. I think I've made my point, and so have you.
I don't agree with you, and you don't agree with me. It's fine with me.
Thank you for now.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I think that this is short-sighted. Firstly, all it involves is shifting money from rich collectors to the Vatican and then ultimately to aid. It is simply funneling money around.

I really don't see how that is 'short sighted'. Surely aid is a good thing, and if the Vatican has the money - even in the form of art investments, it would be a good thing if they used that money for aid.
I realize that they value maintaining the art collection higher than giving additional aid (yes they do give a lot already), but I still don't see how giving aid is 'short sighted' or simply 'simply funneling money around'. Aid when used effectively saves lives, and changes lives, and the Catholics where I come from are some of the best at actually helping people with aid. They support hospitals, schools, orphanages etc.

Originally posted by Conrau K
So basically, if I say anything Catholic-related, your response will be 'sex abuse'. Ok, what exactly do you think you will achieve?

No, that would be silly. I won't be turning into Galvo.

Upon reflection i think this would be a better statement.

When you, or anyone of the Catholic faith for that matter, is championing the morals of the Catholic Church, we should always have on the forefront of our minds the evils of the sex abuse scandal, to put the Catholic Church's morals into perspective.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I really don't see how that is 'short sighted'. Surely aid is a good thing, and if the Vatican has the money - even in the form of art investments, it would be a good thing if they used that money for aid.
I realize that they value maintaining the art collection higher than giving additional aid (yes they do give a lot already), but I still don't see how ...[text shortened]... t at actually helping people with aid. They support hospitals, schools, orphanages etc.

I realize that they value maintaining the art collection higher than giving additional aid (yes they do give a lot already), but I still don't see how giving aid is 'short sighted' or simply 'simply funneling money around'. Aid when used effectively saves lives, and changes lives, and the Catholics where I come from are some of the best at actually helping people with aid. They support hospitals, schools, orphanages etc.

I did not say that giving aid is short-sighted; I said that selling priceless artwork for the sake of aid is short-sighted. Anyway, the argument is getting off track -- the issue is not whether the Vatican could help people by selling its assets but whether it is necessarily greedy in not doing so. I know that the Vatican library houses many rare and important documents and would very likely make a very substantial sale from them. However, I would never want them to sell these because I know that at least at the Vatican they will remain accessible to interested scholars. I don't believe it is right to call the Vatican greedy if it retain these documents (or, similarly, other artifacts), even if it could bring aid.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
No, that would be silly. I won't be turning into Galvo.

Upon reflection i think this would be a better statement.

When you, or anyone of the Catholic faith for that matter, is championing the morals of the Catholic Church, we should always have on the forefront of our minds the evils of the sex abuse scandal, to put the Catholic Church's morals into perspective.

I am not championing Catholic morals; I am simply arguing that the Catholic Church condemns greed, specifically responding to a flippant comment by ThinkOfOne. So I don't see how your interjection here is helpful or relevant. And, anyway, I hardly think that simply because members of the Catholic Church have acted wrongly that the moral teachings themselves are invalidated. I think that on social teaching most people would be in agreement with the Catholic Church irrespective of the faults of its members.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I don't respond to this posting. I think I've made my point, and so have you.
I don't agree with you, and you don't agree with me. It's fine with me.
Thank you for now.

Yes, but your point is based on ignorance.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I gave you the link, but I guess that wasn't good enough. Okay, here you go. This is what I asked you in that other thread:

Those who hold to an orthodox view of the Scriptures consider drunkenness, fornication and general debauchery as sins and follow the commands to cut off fellowship with ones practicing the same. [b]Do you have a problem with that concept, as well?[/b]

I gave you the link, but I guess that wasn't good enough. Okay, here you go.

What you gave me was a link to a 17-page thread with little else to go on. So of course it wasn't "good enough".

Those who hold to an orthodox view of the Scriptures consider drunkenness, fornication and general debauchery as sins and follow the commands to cut off fellowship with ones practicing the same. Do you have a problem with that concept, as well?

How is this the "same thing" as, "How come so many Christians lash out at homosexuals while ignoring greed? Some of the greediest people I've met were members of the Religious Right." Are you also trying to point out hypocrisy?

Originally posted by Conrau K
I believe there are good grounds to distinguish grades of severity in cases of sin. I would argue that it is a foundational ground of any penal law. Genocide is obviously a worse moral crime than, say, a small fib about one's age and clearly deserves a far more substantial punitive response. The point is demonstrably obvious. So it is not in theory wrong to orders too which engage in social activism more than any moral preaching about homosexuality.

I believe there are good grounds to distinguish grades of severity in cases of sin. I would argue that it is a foundational ground of any penal law. Genocide is obviously a worse moral crime than, say, a small fib about one's age and clearly deserves a far more substantial punitive response. The point is demonstrably obvious. So it is not in theory wrong to chastise Christians, or in fact anyone, when they decry one sin and not another.

Penal law? You seem to have gone off on a tangent. Reread your post and my response. Once again, just because an organization has chosen to formalize their hypocrisy doesn't make it any less so. The Pharisees also formalized their hypocrisy. Jesus still called them hypocrites. Also, I have to believe that you didn't really mean what you wrote in the last sentence.

As for the Catholic Church, your criticism is not warranted. The Catholic Church has strongly decried greed. It was in fact a major point of the Pope's latest encyclical. I know of many religious orders too which engage in social activism more than any moral preaching about homosexuality.

Aren't you the one who said, "Homosexuality, as the Church perceives it, is an intrinsic evil of mortal kind, whereas the possession of wealth is morally neutral."

How do you reconcile this with "The Catholic Church has strongly decried greed"?

Also, how do you reconcile the untold wealth of the RCC? How is that not also hypocrisy?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I believe there are good grounds to distinguish grades of severity in cases of sin. I would argue that it is a foundational ground of any penal law. Genocide is obviously a worse moral crime than, say, a small fib about one's age and clearly deserves a far more substantial punitive response. The point is demonstrably obvious. So it is not in theory wro lso, how do you reconcile the untold wealth of the RCC? How is that not also hypocrisy?[/b]

Penal law? You seem to have gone off on a tangent. Reread your post and my response. Once again, just because an organization has chosen to formalize their hypocrisy doesn't make it any less so. The Pharisees also formalized their hypocrisy. Jesus still called them hypocrites. Also, I have to believe that you didn't really mean what you wrote in the last sentence.

I haven't gone off track at all. It seems plainly evident, and I suspect there will be universal agreement on this point, that moral wrongs are not all equal. Lying is wrong but not of the same value the same as genocide. So when a church preaches against one moral evil, but neglects another, it may simply be because it regards one as a worse evil. Of course, there are other explanations -- that their stance on one evil is already known or that it is not perceived as a prevalent issue. Hypocrisy should not be your immediate judgment.

Aren't you the one who said, "Homosexuality, as the Church perceives it, is an intrinsic evil of mortal kind, whereas the possession of wealth is morally neutral."

Yes, absolutely.

How do you reconcile this with "The Catholic Church has strongly decried greed"?[/b]

Well, possession of wealth is not the same as greed. Greed is a habit, that is, a repeated behaviour of a person. Simply possessing wealth does not mean greed; greed would mean a persistent striving to possess more wealth, at least as I understand the terms.

Also, how do you reconcile the untold wealth of the RCC? How is that not also hypocrisy?[/b]

I have addressed this point. As I have said, no wealth is owned by any singular person but is rather the heritage of Catholics. These possessions are for specific religious use, not for personal enjoyment. The RCC also is not a person and it seems to me a category mistake to make judgments of character about an organisation. You could talk about the RCC but there really is no clear referent here. Do you mean specifically the Vatican, or bishops, or Catholics themselves (who, mind you, are the Church.)

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Penal law? You seem to have gone off on a tangent. Reread your post and my response. Once again, just because an organization has chosen to formalize their hypocrisy doesn't make it any less so. The Pharisees also formalized their hypocrisy. Jesus still called them hypocrites. Also, I have to believe that you didn't really mean what you wrote in the last ...[text shortened]... ically the Vatican, or bishops, or Catholics themselves (who, mind you, are the Church.)

What type of salaries do the different ones make in the church?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Penal law? You seem to have gone off on a tangent. Reread your post and my response. Once again, just because an organization has chosen to formalize their hypocrisy doesn't make it any less so. The Pharisees also formalized their hypocrisy. Jesus still called them hypocrites. Also, I have to believe that you didn't really mean what you wrote in the last ically the Vatican, or bishops, or Catholics themselves (who, mind you, are the Church.)

[/b]Don't know if you can wrap your mind around this, but if all an organization need do is formalize their hypocrisy to not be hypocritical, then Jesus was wrong in calling the Pharisees "hypocrites". Perhaps you don't understand what He meant.

Well, possession of wealth is not the same as greed. Greed is a habit, that is, a repeated behaviour of a person. Simply possessing wealth does not mean greed; greed would mean a persistent striving to possess more wealth, at least as I understand the terms.

From American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
"An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth"

I have addressed this point. As I have said, no wealth is owned by any singular person but is rather the heritage of Catholics. These possessions are for specific religious use, not for personal enjoyment. The RCC also is not a person and it seems to me a category mistake to make judgments of character about an organisation.

How naive. Organizations have a "character". Ever hear of a "greedy corporation"? What would you say is the "character" of the KKK?

Originally posted by galveston75
What type of salaries do the different ones make in the church?

This article is very informative:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1987/12/21/70001/index.htm

The Holy See's labor costs, excluding pensions, have soared from $40 million in 1984 to a projected $56 million this year. Under a 1985 agreement, clergy now get the same pay as their lay counterparts, though some must turn it over to religious orders in exchange for free housing and food. Vatican employees earn at least as much as many other workers in Italy. The minimum annual salary has risen to $9,700, vs. $8,770 for Italian civil servants. An engineer at Radio Vatican who earned $5,580 a year in 1979 now pulls down $17,900. The Vatican's top brass, however, still work for peanuts. Some cardinals make as little as $20,000 a year, and 30 Jesuits in top posts at Radio Vatican voluntarily accept the same salaries as janitors, about $11,000.

Your question is specifically about the 'church'. This will vary across diocese. Some make nothing, living vows of poverty. I do not know what the average stipend for a parish priest is but I would imagine in Australia it would be around a few hundred dollars a week.

Originally posted by Conrau K
This article is very informative:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1987/12/21/70001/index.htm
[quote]The Holy See's labor costs, excluding pensions, have soared from $40 million in 1984 to a projected $56 million this year. Under a 1985 agreement, clergy now get the same pay as their lay counterparts, though some must turn it over ...[text shortened]... priest is but I would imagine in Australia it would be around a few hundred dollars a week.

Ok..Thanks.