[Sherman Logan]

Kind of an idiotic idea. The church’s buildings and works of art are not sources of ongoing income. At present they are generally accessible to anybody who shows up and wants to view them. How would that change or give anybody in the world a better life if they were in a secular museum rather than a church?

Who is going to buy Saint Peters? Or should we sell the churches, tear them down and redevelop the land under them?

[Salvey]

How would that change or give anybody in the world a better life if they were in a secular museum rather than a church?

In fact, how would confiscation and redistribution of, say, all Americans' wealth change or give anybody in the world a better life?

[zerosix]

If the Pope and all other religious leaders in the most wealthy religion in the world, are unwilling to give away all to help the poor, then they are only spouting "social justice" ala Karl Marxs, Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao and N. Korea's Dear Leader!

I always noticed in some of the smallest, most impoverished villages in Mexico, had the most gilded lavish Catholic churches!!

Talk about completely missing the point of Christ to the rich young ruler, to "sell everything he had and give to the poor." The rich young ruler proved that his "god" was not God but his wealth and comfort.

Maybe the same could be said for the Vatican.

[onedoug]

Certainly the Vatican archives have something they can kick in.

And how about giving the Temple stuff depicted on the Arch Of Titus back to the Jews.

[what's up]

The church’s buildings and works of art are not sources of ongoing income.

The middle class' income is not ongoing either. It is limited.

Yet the Pope is in favor of decreasing it in order to distribute it to others.