YouTube - Catholic Church reports mass murder in Cote d'Ivoire via kwout
Posted on 04/05/2011 9:45:13 AM PDT by Maelstorm
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
People here love to bash Al-Jazeera, sure as with any news organization there is bias, but I find their quality of journalism blows away any of our networks, especially Faux News.
Time for the Catholic Church to put those trillions to use and create an army of ‘Christian Soldiers’.
Turning the other cheek at this point will get innocents slaughtered.
Some of their news coverage is phenomenal.
On other hand, ninety percent of their commentary/"talk" format consists of homicidal, octogenarian pederasts from the Muslim Brotherhood discussing the best ways of killing Jews.
I like Fox Business Network more than anything on FNC, although Red Eye is still one of my favorite shows.
Not sure how effective it would have been, but something needs to be done to save them from the Islamic jihad Outtara is leading.
I’ll be the 1st to say it:
Prayers for these all these souls.
knights of the templar or Christian army to protect Christians seeing as the UN , NATO and this clown obama ignores Christians getting killed all the time around this world.
Al jazeera Satellite Channel was launched on 1 November 1996 following the closure of the BBC's Arabic language television station. They took over from the BBC.
The MSM in this country cares not about the plight of Christians. They do not even bother to keep a tally of the number of Christians killed, the number of churches destroyed in this world wide quest to eliminate Christians in Muslim countries.
But we get extended coverage whenever a Koran is the subject of a riot and killings of Christians. Then we want to pass a law to protect the Koran and prohibit associated negative comments. Of course it is all right to burn bibles, churches, and Christians in today's world.
Trillions?
I understand your sentiment --- really, I do --- but you're seriously misinformed if you think they have "trillions", in dollars, euros, or anything else. The Vatican’s annual operating budget is about $400 million. Compare that to Harvard University, which has an annual operating budget of about $3 billion.
Harvard could run five Vaticans every year and still have pocket change left over to run a great University. The Vatican’s assets - all it could sell - come to about $770 million. (The University of Notre Dame’s endowment is four and a half times greater.)
And who would you want them to sell St. Peter's Basilica to? The Saudis? And would that be in the best interests of the advancement of the Gospel or the liberty of thre West?
Crusade may be called for, but --- as in the 11th century --- they'll have to be financed by the princes, not the popes.
Trillions. 2000 years in the making. There is easily a billion in art in St. Peter’s alone.
Trillions.
Both of these notions recede or disappear under scrutiny. First, most of these objects are not available for sale. They are a common cultural patrimony, and to sell them off would remove them from the faithful over the centuries and for centuries to come, the "public" to whom they belong, and put them in the hands of private investors. It would be a culture-crime, a species of embezzlement, a violation of fiduciary trust.
Besides, to whom would one sell, say, Michelangelo’s Pieta? To George Soros? So he could put it in his private collection? To whom could one sell the Sistine Chapel? to the Saudis? So they could carve it to pieces and put the fragments on the world market? Or blow it up like the Bamiyan Buddhas? (Link)
Second, the great art functions not as a financial resource, but as a net drain on the Vatican's budget, as they can hardly afford even now to maintain and preserve them. You might have noticed that thirty years ago, the Sistine repair/restoration work was put in the hands of the Nippon Television Network Corporation (here's the story on the NTNC deal (Link) because the Vatican itself could not afford the sophisticated and painstaking technical process. Nippon TV undertook the restoration in exchange for exclusive photography and videotaping rights.
Here’s the more recent story covered here on a Free Republic thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2694740/posts
about how a huge library of rare manuscripts and books from ancient Eastern/Oriental Christianity is in imminent danger of falling into ruin because the Vatican can't afford to store them in the kind of temperature-and-humidity controlled, environmentally exacting conditions necessary for their preservation.
The whole thing is very briefly put in perspective here: Would Selling the Vatican End World Hunger?"
It's kind of like saying the U.S. could end world hunger by selling the Lincoln Memorial, Mount Rushmore, and the Smokey Mountains National Park to the Chinese. OK, other than the interesting prospect of having Mao Tse-Tung's visage added to Rushmore, do you think this would do any temporary (let alone lasting) good for the poor and hungry, or the future security and well-being of the world?
Or if it's a Crusade you're after, do you really think the Vatican could sell (though they don't own) the Basilica of Guadalupe in Mexico City to, say, Carlos Slim, and as a result, millions of Catholic men would form ranks shouting, "Stop Shari'a! Kill the Moors!" ??
This would show little conception of how cultures persist, how men are motivated to fight, or how a "Clash of Civilizations" is likely to play out, after the altars are stripped once and for all, and the sanctuaries of the Christian West reduced to “bare, ruined choirs.”
You are absolutely right. The Vatican should not spend its wealth on protecting the poor souls of the faith persecuted by Muslims, rather, retain its wealth for the glory of God.
I’m Catholic. The Church has a responsibility to protect the faithful. Do you really want this argument. It is not about me, or the CHurch, per se, It is a rcognition of the fact the we are in a war, and the faithful are in danger.
And yes, you sell what is on Earth for the glory of God.
Remember?
Pope Paul VI sole some objects (his ring, I think I remember) in response to some world crisis, and bless him. But what Joseph Ratzinger himself owns, as catalogued in the press when he assumed office, consists of this: a grand piano (gift from his brother George); many boxes of books (he is a scholar); personal clothing (fits one suitcase and a travel bag); breviary, rosary, sacramentary kit (also fits into that same travel bag) and a cat.
Most other "temporalites" are already dedicated to the service of the faithful and the needs of the human family: hospitals, schools, and yes, offices and apartment blocks. Shall we say, "Let them sell off those multi-million-dollar hospitals and do something with the money to help the sick, for Godsake"?
Are you seriously suggesting that the Pope sell off the cultural patrimony of the West to organize a paramilitary force against the Muslim jihadis in Ivory Coast? Isn't the exercise of political power and military force the sphere of the laity, not the clergy? (That's US, you and me, buddy, and that's basic) ... and specifically, the responsibility of the various secular States? Or are you saying the Church should take over the State? (A bit of sarcasm on my part, there, which I hope you will forgive.)
And even so: a person is free to sell what he has, but an institution cannot sell off what has been given to them as a legacy for generations to come. Selling what you were appointed to conserve is a violation of fiduciary trust, and a from of theft. There is a difference between being a sole owner, and a steward or conservator of a trust belonging to others. Keep that firmly in mind.
And have a nice Lent, for the rest of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.