In the movie, the new Pope, IIRC, actually acted out in a Christian way, and gave away the wealth of the church to the needy.
You know, this stuff always sounds great when you talk about it, but if it really happened would it be so wonderful? I don't think so. If the Church gave away all the buildings and art, would the poor go away? No. But, now they would have no beautiful churches to pray in and no beautiful art to inspire them. Why do we, in our places of comfort, condescend to believe that the poor don't appreciate beauty? Why do people suggest that the poor don't want to pray in a beautiful church, or listen to beautiful music, or see beautiful art? I have been poor, quite poor, and I can tell you that a beautiful church was one thing I looked to as my own. It was there for me. I could go and pray and experience the reverence and awe as my own, and nobody could take it away. The truth is that those churches were built largely by the donations of poor people because they believed in them and wanted to worship God in a way which felt heavenly, and now we talk as if we should just give them away to feed some people today. Generation after generation of Catholics have found solace and comfort in worshiping in such churches, and we would sell all that out for a gesture that could only help a few people right now. I just don't see how selling Saint Peters and turning it into a museum charging entrance fees would in any way measure up to what it is for everybody now.
What makes you think he’s planning on selling St. Peter’s? The thing that is making traditionalists look silly at best is that they are freaking out over nothing and projecting dire consequences from changes to “traditions” that are less than 100 years old in some cases or unimportant in others. Popes didn’t always live at the Vatican, for example, so this is hardly something to
lose sleep over. The Mozzetta that had so many people shrieking with horror is also something that had been abandoned by other popes, too.
I don’t see that he has done anything that threatens either Tradition or the liturgy in any way. His own masses are perfectly correct Novus Ordo masses. He doesn’t sing because he can’t - he has only one lung - and kneeling is obviously a problem because I saw at the mass that he’s not good on stairs and needs people to steady him, so I assume he has knee problems. But his mass was reverent and solemn.
I don’t like the Novus Ordo mass very much, but it is what it is, and Francis didn’t dream it up. In my opinion, the Pope who really diminished theiturhy and spent a lot of time calling attention to himself was JPII, but for some reason traditionalists love him. Go figure.
I’ve always this “wealth of the Church” bit overblown.
As you say, most of the wealth of the Church consists of real estate. While the land under Notre Dame probably is worth a great deal of money, actually monetizing it would require tearing down the cathedral so the land could be put to other use.
After all, it’s not like a cathedral building has a whole lot of other uses.
I’m not Catholic, and the Church in past centuries did indeed own massive amounts of secular property, with many upper clergy living like princes on the income, but AFAIK this is mostly not the case today.
The church down the street from my parent's house in a run-down working-class neighborhood, was a magnificent sanctuary with stained-glass wndows, priceless stonework and woodwork, saturated in incense and in the prayers of generations.
It was built by the $5 bills of cops and nurses, soldiers, construction workers, cleaning ladies and iron foundry coremakers, upholsterers, butchers, housewives and widows and shop girls and car mechanics. Who loved it, and loved God, and wanted to give Him a house, wanted it as ardently as did David and Solomon.
A truly glorious church is one place where the wealth of beautiful is freely distributed to all, and here the poor have a place of honor--- to the glory of God!
No, no, I actually AGREE with you, the beauty and art of the church inspires the best in us, a sense of awe conducive to worshipfulness.
I'm not advocating that the Church bankrupt itself by liquidating its assets. Doing so would merely wound the Church and inhibits its own influence as a force for good in the wider world. I certainly don't want that.
I'm merely noting the interesting situation posited by the movie, Shoes of the Fisherman. It's thought-provoking.
I'm in agreement with you and your logic. I just like to consider that "what if?" other side of it all. It sometimes causes me some trouble. ;)