The pope has laid it out on the line - environmental irresponsibility is inevitable when people stop believing in god:
Experiencing the shared responsibility for creation (Cf. 51), the Church is not only committed to the promotion of the defense of the earth, of water and of air, given by the Creator to everyone, but above all is committed to protect man from the destruction of himself. In fact, "when 'human ecology' is respected in society, environmental ecology also benefits" (ibid). Is it not true that inconsiderate use of creation begins where God is marginalized or also where is existence is denied? If the human creature's relationship with the Creator weakens, matter is reduced to egoistic possession, man becomes the "final authority," and the objective of existence is reduced to a feverish race to possess the most possible.The funny thing is, anti-environmentalism as far as I've known has largely been a religiously motivated pursuit. Not to mention - the pope is complaining about 'egoistic possession'?
When looking up information about the wealth of the Vatican, there is a very popular quote which pops up over and over which seems to have originated from this article:
The myth of Vatican wealth. “At the Vatican, everything is for sale, in the popular mind,” Allen said. In reality, the Vatican’s annual operating budget is about $260 million. Allen contrasted that to Harvard University, which has an annual operating budget of $1.3 billion.Which is to say that the Vatican doesn't have a lot of money because the annual operating budget for Harvard is greater than the annual operating budget for the Vatican. OK, that's interesting, but that doesn't seem to address the actual question which is in regard to the wealth of the Vatican. The last sentence in the quote seems to be the most telling - A large percentage of the Vatican's wealth is found in non-liquid assets. And those don't count, according to Catholic apologists. Well of course you guys don't think that should count, if it did there is no way you could argue that the Catholic church is not worth a staggering amount of money!“ (Harvard) could run five Vaticans every year and still have pocket change left over for an endowed chair,” Allen said, equating the Vatican’s patrimony - all the assets it could sell - to that of a medium-sized Catholic university. Its total patrimony is $770 million. The University of Notre Dame’s endowment is four and a half times greater, he said.
Allen noted that while people often assume a significant monetary value attached to the artwork the Vatican holds, it is not for sale.
Catholics like to say that the wealth of their church is a myth, but it's hard to swallow that story when it's so obviously not the case. A financial statement of the Holy See for fiscal year 2000 states:
For the eighth consecutive year, the operating statement for fiscal year 2000 for the Holy See closes with a net gain of 17.720 billion, equal to $8,516,000 US at the exchange rate at the end of the year of 2,080.89 lire per dollar. The total expenses were 404.378 billion and the total income was 422.098 billion. Compared with the previous fiscal year, the income was more substantial, having increased by 64 billion. As is easily imaginable, the increase in expenses is strictly related to the celebration of the Jubilee Year, which brought with it greater activity, and therefore a greater need for personnel, within the various offices of the Roman Curia and also of the media organs connected with the Holy See.As the article states, this is less of a gain than what is normally seen because in 2000 the church had a lot more expenditures with their celebrations of the new millennium. That's the church itself - greedy, for-profit, catholic church. The pope as an individual is no better. Th
e pope is allowed the best medical coverage, the poshest of transportation choices, a spectacular living quarters (see right) and everything he may want free of charge. The pope's only argument in defense of his irresponsible comments regarding greed and atheists is that he himself has no concept of greed since he gets everything he wants without having to even consider a paycheck - all the pope has to do is ask and it is there.I know it's easy to blame us baby eating atheists for all that's wrong with the world and I know it's tempting - we don't have many righteously indignant platforms to hide behind and so we are easy targets when it comes to flinging ridicule. However, Mr. Pope, it would be nice if next time your attack of us was a little less simplistically easy to refute and reject on the basis of bias and projection. Thanks Nazi buddy!
Logging you in...
Posts
Alphonsus · 806 weeks ago
He's the leader of a country and 80+ years old, so why shouldn't he get a healthcare plan like US politicians do? Likewise on the transportation "services" (he's not exactly going on pleasure cruises). Why not call for kicking President Obama out of the White House, taking away Air Force One, and making him pay for his own healthcare (he's made lots off his two books)? Don't use sympathy for the poor as a fig leaf for a "I hate the pope" rant.
"OK, that's interesting, but that doesn't seem to address the actual question which is in regard to the wealth of the Vatican. The last sentence in the quote seems to be the most telling - A large percentage of the Vatican's wealth is found in non-liquid assets. And those don't count, according to Catholic apologists. Well of course you guys don't think that should count, if it did there is no way you could argue that the Catholic church is not worth a staggering amount of money!"
Didn't you read what Allen said? They CAN'T sell the artwork. They are custodians of such treasures and would be unable to sell them without breaking agreements with the Italian government. The maintain such works and make them available to the public.
Also, didn't you notice that the billions mentioned in your second quote were not in US dollars? Exchange rates are very important. In 2000. the Vatican had a surplus of "$8,516,000 US," not a lot for an international organization or even a moderately sized business.
"However, Mr. Pope, it would be nice if next time your attack of us was a little less simplistically easy to refute and reject on the basis of bias and projection. Thanks Nazi buddy!"
That article you link to actually concludes that Benedict couldn't be described as a Nazi (on he second page) but faults Benedict for allegedly being not honest enough about his wartime experiences.
Anyway, peace. You may want to check out this link:
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2009/10/bilbos-immea...
This one is also good:
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blo...
pinko_commie 65p · 806 weeks ago
You can make all the spurious correlations you need to in order to make yourself feel however you need to feel about your own beliefs, but the fact is that the pope is one old, rich, cowardly man who does not deserve any amount of reverence. Considering you people still support child molesters in your priesthoods, I'm not surprised at all that you would waste my time with your ranting. I hope you made yourself feel better, otherwise this really was a total waste of apologetic time.
Alphonsus · 806 weeks ago
http://www.zenit.org/article-25379?l=english
pinko_commie 65p · 806 weeks ago
Alphonsus commented on Pope: Atheists Are Greedy! (Pay No Attention To That Fortune Behind The Curtain) - Allied Atheist Alliance:
"How shocking - a person that named themselves after a Catholic Saint is defending the Pope."
Um, huge swaths of the American and European population are named after saints, so I don't see how that's relevant. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are both named after Catholic saints. Anyway, it's an internet moniker.
"Agenda, agenda."
Do you expect me to believe this website doesn't have an agenda?
"You can make all the spurious correlations you need to in order to make yourself feel however you need to feel about your own beliefs, but the fact is that the pope is one old, rich, cowardly man who does not deserve any amount of reverence."
What "spurious correlations" did I make? Also, it's nice to know that you're a mind-reader. You know everything about the mental and physical status of a man you've never met or spoken with and whose books you probably haven't read? I still haven't received a coherent expression of what it means to say that the Pope is "rich." If you're talking about disposable income, he's probably pretty low on the list. If you mean living and working in the midst of great artistic treasures, then museum employees and professors at really old colleges count. As James Martin notes in the America magazine link above, the pope does not personally own the artwork. It is owned by the Church and cannot be sold because the Church maintains it for the Italian government (which has strict laws regarding moving antiquities and art outside the country).
"Considering you people still support child molesters in your priesthoods, I'm not surprised at all that you would waste my time with your ranting."
No dude, I don't support child molester in the priesthood. Individuals use language like "you people..." when they are content to rely on stereotype and prejudice. The Catechism is pretty clear about child molestation being a very serious evil:
"2356 Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them."
"2389 Connected to incest is any sexual abuse perpetrated by adults on children or adolescents entrusted to their care. The offense is compounded by the scandalous harm done to the physical and moral integrity of the young, who will remain scarred by it all their lives; and the violation of responsibility for their upbringing. "
No Catholic who knows anything about Catholic theology thinks that every bishop is going to be a saint or even a paricularly good person, just as no sensible atheist would claim that every atheist leader is a paragon of virtue.
If I'm wasting your time, it's your choice to respond to my comment. I showed how the blog post above relied on misunderstanding exchange rates and holding the pope to a double-standard as regards the healthcare and travel services of political figures. You chose to respond, not by defending these points, but by setting up strawmen and tearing them down.
"I hope you made yourself feel better, otherwise this really was a total waste of apologetic time. "
I thought atheists were interested in avoiding fallacies and investigating evidence and alternative views. Besides critiquing the blog post, I also provided links to people who know more about the Church and come at the problem from a different direction. It's funny how the people who claim free-thinking as one of their strongest traits become such obscurantists when they are presented with arguments that go against their beliefs.
Peace and love.
pinko_commie 65p · 806 weeks ago
As for your insistence that the church doesn't support child molesters - of course on paper it doesn't. The fact that there are clear and evidently numerated rules about such activities makes the Catholic church even more evil in my mind because they know it's wrong yet they continue to protect the priests who are using their positions of influence to hurt children. Maybe you can shrug that off with your weak 'a few bad apples' analogy, but hundreds of reported cases of abuse and cover ups does not equate to 'a few' in my book. Probably because I'm not Catholic and so I have no vested interest in trying to explain away or make excuses for such horrible behaviors.
You'll excuse me if I laugh to myself about your indignation regarding all of my assumptions followed by a long rant filled with assumptions about myself made by you. The hypocrisy might be a comfortable feeling for you given your obvious affiliations but I don't really see any reason to go tit for tat on that front. The only difference I see between you and I regarding assumptions is that I make them and am honest about it while you act self-righteous and indignant about whatever assumptions I have made and then immediately exhibit the same behavior you just got done tisk tisking me about.
As for the Pope, you can cry and bitch till you're blue about his lack of affluence, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a man who has a home provided to him, who has his every need provided for without worry or struggle, and he's telling the world that an entire group of people are greedy. Perhaps that's the Catholic loophole for the Pope - you can't be accused of specifically being greedy when you have everything given to you for free. If that kind of logic is what is accepted in the Catholic religion, no wonder kids are getting bad touched by their priests left and right. It must be technically considered something other than molestation and therefore not specifically horrific.
Alphonsus · 806 weeks ago
The pope's statements do not attack atheists. They applies to anyone who views nature in a simply technological or utilitarian way (a category which includes a large number of Catholics, by the way).
"Another example of yout love of spurious correlations is your opinion that because some people's parents name their children names which are also the names of saints, your choosing your own name after a saint shouldn't mean anything."
You pointed my moniker out as if it meant something about my arguments. I didn't mean it said nothing about me, only that it should not be used as an excuse for ignoring the arguments I made.
"Maybe you can shrug that off with your weak 'a few bad apples' analogy, but hundreds of reported cases of abuse and cover ups does not equate to 'a few' in my book. Probably because I'm not Catholic and so I have no vested interest in trying to explain away or make excuses for such horrible behaviors."
I didn't say there were "a few." I meant that the small minority of priests who committed such abominable crimes was actually going against Catholic teachings. I am not interested in "explaining away" or making excuses for such behavior, just as, I imagine, you would not want to make excuses for the atrocities committed by secular forces in the French Revolution, under Stalin, etc. What I do object to is people distorting the facts to make child abuse a uniquely Catholic problem while ignoring that such abuse also takes place in other religions and in our public school system. Selective use of the facts indicates, to me at least, that the person using such facts is generally more interested in attacking the Catholic Church than in helping kids. If they were really interested in the latter, why wouldn't they rail against the school system, in which far more kids are abused? If you want to discuss episcopal stupidity, I'm game. Just don't turn it into a point-scoring exercise.
"You'll excuse me if I laugh to myself about your indignation regarding all of my assumptions followed by a long rant filled with assumptions about myself made by you. The hypocrisy might be a comfortable feeling for you given your obvious affiliations but I don't really see any reason to go tit for tat on that front. The only difference I see between you and I regarding assumptions is that I make them and am honest about it while you act self-righteous and indignant about whatever assumptions I have made and then immediately exhibit the same behavior you just got done tisk tisking me about."
What assumptions did I make about you personally? I critiqued your writing style and noted that you relied on tricks usually used by sophists who are not interested in substantive discussion. I didn't say anything like, "you are a spineless loser and ugly to boot" (and note, I'm not saying that now). If I assumed anything incorrectly, please clarify so I will not make that mistake again.
"Perhaps that's the Catholic loophole for the Pope - you can't be accused of specifically being greedy when you have everything given to you for free. If that kind of logic is what is accepted in the Catholic religion, no wonder kids are getting bad touched by their priests left and right. It must be technically considered something other than molestation and therefore not specifically horrific."
To be greedy is to desire more than you need for your person or your role in society. As a religious leader who must travel around the world, the Pope needs travel accommodations. Likewise, he needs sufficient medical care if he gets sick or gets hurt. (Ironically, many people wondered whether John Paul II was getting substandard care later in life)
And no, child molestation is considered horrific, as the Catechism quotes above showed. You're erecting more strawmen and cheering as you knock them down. Why don't you invest some time in learning what Catholic teaching is really like? The Catechism is available free online. At the very least, your attack on the Catholic religion will be more poignant because more accurate.
pinko_commie 65p · 806 weeks ago
I was up front with you from the get go that I had no interest in debating with you. Now you're crying like a bitch that I won't debate with you? Apply your reading comprehension skills a bit sooner and move on. Or I can continue making fun of you because, as I previously stating in different terms, I don't give a fuck about your opinions, your point of view, or your need for attention or recognition. So please, continue to respond and I will continue to giggle at your apparent internet loneliness/desire to feel superior. It's all the same to me, you're still entirely unimpressive regardless.
Alphonsus · 806 weeks ago
Nice to know you can debunk something and proudly declare it garbage without even looking at what it is. Great scientific spirit.
Alphonsus · 806 weeks ago
Intense debate must have been buggy. Thank you for displaying my comment, though. I am curious as to what you find contradictory in my post. When I make a mistake, I like to be informed about what I did wrong. So far, all you've done is made ad hominem attacks without dealing with the substance of my critiques of your blog post. If you can get past chest-thumping and rhetorical annihilations, we have some chance of actually learning something about each other. If you are confident that your position is the only rational one, you shouldn't need all the ad hominem filler.
Sam Schmitt · 806 weeks ago
Usually when a blogger comes across a commenter who is completely ignorant, irrational, and has nothing but a big stupid agenda to push (like Alphonsus evidently does), they are ignored. But for some reason our good host just can't help himself - he has to "respond" to Alphonsus again and again - actually not really answering a single one of his points but just bringing up other irrelevant points, and making strange assumptions about Alphonsus' character. And this while claiming "I was up front with you from the get go that I had no interest in debating with you." (True enough, there never was any actual debate.)
As, I said, weird.
And atheism is all about LOGIC and REASON and OBJECTIVITY.
Gimme a break.
none · 806 weeks ago
but unfortunately you hit the nail on the head in saying weird.....
that quickly went downhill and spiraled into a vortex of stupid accusations,
much like anything on fox news
and as to the actual article who in the hell(i get the irony of using this phrase here) cares how much money the vatican makes, whether or not they are rich or corrupt makes no difference to atheists, and if your trying to make points against religion lets try and use actual points not just the old accuse an organization of something we cant prove but bluff so we sound correct
peace
bob · 784 weeks ago
I betcha your mamma is proud of you for tossing stones and hiding your hand.