Recent Comments

Blogroll

No Church on Palm Sunday

I think I’m pretty much done with the Catholic church at this point. It took a lot of thinking and pondering, but they’ve finally rubbed me the wrong way in a way that I don’t know if I can ever forgive them for.

When Pope Benedict was put into his position as Pope, I was happy. I felt that the church would move in a more conservative direction and stop trying to twist in the wind toward every social pressure under the sun. They wouldn’t cave to outside interference and would stay true to who they were. For the most part, that has happened. Benedict has gone a long way toward making sure that people understand that the church is the church and the world is the world, and just because something is socially acceptable or fashionable, that doesn’t mean it should be accepted into the church with a sigh of resignation.

I’m totally with that, and I’m more than happy putting my disagreements with the church on hold for a consistent message that I can understand.

Last week, however, the church decided that they needed to interject themselves into the secular world by turning secular issues into a new set of seven “social” sins. In doing so, the church has now made littering, drug abuse, stem cell research (they don’t specify embryonic or not), excessive wealth, and causing poverty sins. In a way, the church has turned things that were merely failings of the human condition into codified things that make you a bad Catholic.

Forgetting all the others, the one that sealed the deal for me was the excessive wealth part. Vatican City is a city clad in gold and marble, adorned with some of the finest paintings and sculptures ever created by some of the finest artists that have ever lived on this earth. The church in general is a continuous show of flashy wealth from its gold trinkets to the ring the pope wears to the staff he carries to the insanely expensive robes he wears. St. Peter’s Basilica is the largest Christian house of worship in the world, holding over 60,000 people simultaneously during pilgrimmage seasons. As a whole, the Catholic church is the single largest private land owner in the world.

The world.

People are asked to tithe ten percent of their annual salary to the church so as to avoid the fires of hell, and are chided for not giving enough to charity, the poor, and of course the church in the form of both money and service. Most Catholic churches in the United States even have their own schools directly attached to them. For a mere $5,000 a year (and in some cases a lot more) you’re able to give your kids a quality education while, of course, lining the pockets of the church.

And amongst all that, the church has the audacity to point out that we, the people of the church, need to live like paupers as they live like kings?

Is this the 17th century all over again?

I didn’t go to mass yesterday even though it was Palm Sunday. I don’t see myself going back any time soon. Maybe I just need to collect myself and go back to sleeping in on Sundays until I feel the need to go back. Either way, when the super rich tell the plebes that their wealth is a problem, I find it hard to sit there on Sunday and take moral advice from them.

Maybe it’s just me.

Bookmark and Share
  • I can promise you that I won't be going.
  • Chad
    I hope you make it to Mass on Easter.
  • Decree is a perfectly spelled English word, and unless it's misspelled, the use of "sic" is not appropriate there.

    Secondly, the statement of that individual, according to some of the stuff I've seen, is just reaffirming the already-held position of the Church. If that is indeed the case, then the Church has a problem either way, we're only arguing about the date it began.

    Finally, I do view it as hypocritical. Giving away billions doesn't mean you have to be showy, flashy, and loaded with pageantry. It doesn't mean everything has to be solid gold and marble, and it doesn't mean that your robes be made of the finest materials. For the Catholic Church to criticize anyone in their pursuit of wealth to any degree is not only hypocritical, but it's not their place.

    I understand your need to defend the Church and I appreciate it, but I'm really not interested in talking in circles with you so unless you have something new to add, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
  • Chad
    Decree is an English word, yes, but the Cardinal talking to an Italian Reporter on the issue of currently relevant sins I would hardly consider a decree.

    I'm unsure how much the Cardinal makes, or what his family's financial situation is, so it's hard for me to judge whether he is wealthy or not. I think you're attributing the statements of an individual with that of an offical statement by the Catholic Church - which would make sense if your opinion was shaped by the skewed articles with titles like "Vatican Issues Seven New Deadly Sins."

    It's good to know there's other pundits out there calling B.S. on this nonsense.

    You may view the Catholic Church as hypocritical but it doesn't stand to reason when you consider how much money is contributed to charities worldwide by the Catholic Church. Again, proportionality is the issue.
  • Why the (sic)? Decree is perfectly good English and perfectly-spelled?

    Secondly, of course I'm not against wealth, but what I am against is rich people telling me how much of it I'm entitled to have or pursue before I'm called a sinner.

    I am noticing, however, that your defense of the church is very much inline with the defenses I've seen from some other pundits who are summarily dismissive of criticism regarding the issue, so I'll just chalk this up to a difference of opinion seeing as the Vatican hasn't seen fit to comment on the issue in any capacity.

    I will say this, though. For a church that prides itself on humility, I don't see a whole lot of humility in a building that holds 60,000 people and a gold-clad robe and staff. Beautiful and awe inspiring? I guess so. Hypocritical? Damn straight.
  • Chad
    Exactly. The reason you got that impression is because, like I mentioned, the media isn't too hip on the Catholic Church nor do they know the differnce between an official statement and a Cardinal talking off the cuff.

    As far as "ornate and showiness" goes, did not Jesus allow his feet to be perfumed? Did he not say "the poor you'll always have...?" Considering the Church is the Body of Christ is it not appropriate to have something beautiful and awe inspring? Besides, if you don't like that sort of thing there's plenty of sparten Catholic Churches around with nary a crucifix.

    How come "no matter how much the church gives...[it] is in direct conflict to their excessive weatlth decree (sic)."? Proportionality makes all the difference. Surely, with your conservative leanings you're not against wealth in and of itself are you?
  • That's nowhere near the impression I got, btw, and as far as excessive wealth, no matter how much the church gives, its ornateness and showiness is in direct conflict to their excessive wealth decree.

    At the very least, it demonstrates a great deal of pride, which is also a sin.
  • Chad
    I was unaware that the Church made an official statement regarding seven actual new sins. From what I can tell they're variations on the old tried and true sins we've always known. There's been a lot of articles on the topic but I've yet to read the original interview. It is my understanding that the official from the Vatican was asked something like, "What are some sins that have particular relevance today?" and the official spelled out a few that happen to equal the number seven.

    To me this isn't news and it merely goes to show the media will latch on to something, drum up some controversy, and get everyone all riled up over nothing new.

    As far as excessive weatlth goes, I'll admit that the Catholic Church collectively has lots of wealth...that you and I and our ancestors have contributed to. However, I think the Church is referring to individuals who have devoted their life to gaining wealth without proportional consideration to the poor. There is no other institution other than the Catholic Church who contributes even close to what the Catholic Church does to the charities around the world.
blog comments powered by Disqus