Zapatero publicly booed at meeting with Pope

Agencia EFE ^ | 8 July 2006 | Staff

[LibertarianInExile]

"Why does an archbishop have a palace?"

10. All the Archbishop-y bungalows were full.
9. Doesn't have to waste valuable Archbishop time giving directions.
8. Came with free membership at El Blockbustero.
7. Graceland was already taken.
6. Run on split-level palatial estates left him otherwise homeless in the midst of housing bubble.
5. Saves money with lots of roommates, passes on savings to Catholics with VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME!
4. Needs somewhere to hold annual Opus Dei paintball tourney.
3. Two (and a half) words: Carmelite hoe-downs.
2. Needed a big backyard for the kids.
1. Doubles as road trip hangout for College of Cardinals spring break.

[LibertarianInExile]

Ping to 21.

[livius]

It's just his official residence and offices. Palacio in Spanish does not mean what we think of as "palace" in English. It can be an official building (such as the Palacio de las Cortes, literally, the Palace of the Legislature) and sometimes a large urban private home. Houses of well-off upper middle class families in the 19th century were called "palacios," for example. Sometimes they were quite lavish and sometimes not, but they were always large and had space for employees of the family or individual, a library or document storage space, offices, etc. The term is not used much any more except for official buildings or historical buildings.

[arasina]

Houses of well-off upper middle class families in the 19th century were called "palacios," for example. Sometimes they were quite lavish and sometimes not, but they were always large and had space for employees of the family or individual, a library or document storage space, offices, etc.

Thanks for the info. I still wonder though. Is the Valencia archbishop's palacio lavish? Dat Catlick choich gots some mighty rich people doin' da Holy Stuff. Great quantities of jewel-encrusted chalices and fancy mitres, sceptres and other regalia. Lots of pomp to go with it. Like dey wuz kings or sumpin.

I don't remember Jesus stating that luxury was an essential part in the 'path' to heaven. In fact, I distinctly remember being taught (in one of the 8 years I spent at Catholic school when I wasn't going to confession asking for some kind of easy penance to absolve me of all those 'impure thoughts') the parable of the rich fool in Luke 12:13-21.

15 Then he said to them, "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions."

[arasina]

Here's a link detailing a bit about the event and the media's complete disregard for its existence. Looks like the Canadians in particular pretended it never happened.

Thank you. Interesting and good.

[napscoordinator]

With Spain going to gay marriage acceptance, I see the rest of the EU going for it soon. I just noticed that in Europe when one of the main European countries (France, Italy, Germany, Italy or Great Britain) goes for something than they all follow soon after.

[livius]

Luxury is most certainly not part of the path to heaven, but bishops were important people and maintained big offices and residences, as well as large staffs to deal with their guests and visitors. Many bishops did not actually even live in these places, but used them primarily for formal entertaining and meetings. Now most modern bishops who have "inherited" these places also do not live in them because they are old buildings and expensive to heat and maintain. But they are beautiful buildings of great historical significance and are good for formal events.

They have many works of art and beautiful things, and in fact much of the art that is part of the Western tradition was work that was commissioned by and paid for bishops and popes; the first hospitals and orphanages were also founded by bishops and religious orders, and the raising of money for these charitable works was done by bishops and people in the heirarchy.

Is this the same as faith? Of course not. Do they think it is? Of course not. The Church also has people like St. Francis and numerous other saints who had nothing, not to mention the many religious orders where the members live in extreme poverty, and it was their vocation to witness to the fact that nothing matters but Christ. There are different vocations for different people in the Church, but everybody knows that, regardless of what they may be called to do, there is only one thing that matters.

[CheyennePress]

Ignorance like this amuses me. So do you really think that when a patron gave money to the church to create something in honor of a holy event or person and that patron was extremely wealthy, that they should have demanded that what was created be built out of cardboard and plywood?

If something survives with meaning time imemorium, I see nothing wrong with bestowing it with jewels.

I'm not Catholic, so I don't have a dog in this fight, but I really think the argument that the Catholic Church should be building pauper churches is ridiculous and shows a complete lack of historical perspective.

When God's essence was literally seen to be contained in every ray of light, why not, then, produce a church that reflect those rays of light? Makes sense to me.