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.

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.

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.

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?

At the very least, it demonstrates a great deal of pride, which is also a sin.

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.