|
Alright, enough religious debate. If you want to talk about Pope Benedict and what he specifically did or didn't do, go ahead. But no more general discussion on the merits or ills of the Catholic church or their history.
-page 12 |
On February 12 2013 09:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 09:48 Shiori wrote:On February 12 2013 09:32 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote:
L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize.  He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. You realise that he is sitting upon a massive amount of money taken from the poorest people from around the world when he says that, right? And that the money flows in only one direction. Yes, at a time at which the poorest people in the world, a lot of whom were Catholic, were suffering leaped on the "greed is evil" bandwagon but he did it while being more morally bankrupt than the bankers were and without even paying taxes on the Vatican's vast investments. Presenting anyone at the Vatican as socialist is a joke, they accumulate colossal amounts of wealth. Uh..Catholic charities are utterly massive (largest in the world, taken together). If you seriously believe that the Pope is sitting there counting bills and sitting on coins, I'm not sure what to tell you. A very large amount of money flows directly back into charitable works. (Not that I would even dream of calling the Vatican socialist) Paid for predominantly by the Catholics themselves, not the Vatican. I'm not denying that Christian communities have the capability to show compassion, nor that they do charitable work. I'm pointing out that the institution of the Vatican itself has a vast investment portfolio which it fights tooth and nail to keep tax exempt and the value of which dwarfs the amount they spend on charity.
Please tell me you're not referring to the whole "Mussolini's Millions" thing? A substantial portion of the Vatican's economy is donations.
I'm not exactly sure where you're getting morally bankrupt from. I won't disagree that the Church is too stingy with its funds, but by this logic every country should have sold all their marketable stocks to funnel money into charity, which is only realistic if you're the most extreme sort of communist.
|
I didn't even know the pope could quit! You learn something new everyday.
|
I'm a fucking donkey
User was banned for this post which was then edited by KwarK for the purpose of comedy.
|
United States41470 Posts
On February 12 2013 09:56 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 09:50 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 09:48 Shiori wrote:On February 12 2013 09:32 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote:
L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize. He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. You realise that he is sitting upon a massive amount of money taken from the poorest people from around the world when he says that, right? And that the money flows in only one direction. Yes, at a time at which the poorest people in the world, a lot of whom were Catholic, were suffering leaped on the "greed is evil" bandwagon but he did it while being more morally bankrupt than the bankers were and without even paying taxes on the Vatican's vast investments. Presenting anyone at the Vatican as socialist is a joke, they accumulate colossal amounts of wealth. Uh..Catholic charities are utterly massive (largest in the world, taken together). If you seriously believe that the Pope is sitting there counting bills and sitting on coins, I'm not sure what to tell you. A very large amount of money flows directly back into charitable works. (Not that I would even dream of calling the Vatican socialist) Paid for predominantly by the Catholics themselves, not the Vatican. I'm not denying that Christian communities have the capability to show compassion, nor that they do charitable work. I'm pointing out that the institution of the Vatican itself has a vast investment portfolio which it fights tooth and nail to keep tax exempt and the value of which dwarfs the amount they spend on charity. Please tell me you're not referring to the whole "Mussolini's Millions" thing? A substantial portion of the Vatican's economy is donations. I'm not exactly sure where you're getting morally bankrupt from. I won't disagree that the Church is too stingy with its funds, but by this logic every country should have sold all their marketable stocks to funnel money into charity, which is only realistic if you're the most extreme sort of communist.
I don't believe so. The Vatican has always owned a lot of stuff all over Europe. In Italy alone (not talking about the Vatican, in Italy) it has $12b of commercial and residential property, all of which they claim tax exempt status on.
Most countries don't tax their people to increase the big pot of money they're sitting on. They tax the people to buy stuff to do the things the people elected them to do. The government of a normal country giving all its tax revenue to charity would be breaking the social contract and failing to do what it was elected to do. The Vatican is accountable only to their own consciences so they can do however they please and what they choose to do is dodge taxes and hoard. Again, not Christians in general who are charitable people, I'm talking about the institution of the Vatican.
|
On February 12 2013 09:57 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
I didn't even know the pope could quit! You learn something new everyday.
Pretty sure he's being pressured to step down in return for them not making public his involvement with covering up sexual abuse.
On February 12 2013 10:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 09:56 Shiori wrote:On February 12 2013 09:50 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 09:48 Shiori wrote:On February 12 2013 09:32 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote:
L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize. He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. You realise that he is sitting upon a massive amount of money taken from the poorest people from around the world when he says that, right? And that the money flows in only one direction. Yes, at a time at which the poorest people in the world, a lot of whom were Catholic, were suffering leaped on the "greed is evil" bandwagon but he did it while being more morally bankrupt than the bankers were and without even paying taxes on the Vatican's vast investments. Presenting anyone at the Vatican as socialist is a joke, they accumulate colossal amounts of wealth. Uh..Catholic charities are utterly massive (largest in the world, taken together). If you seriously believe that the Pope is sitting there counting bills and sitting on coins, I'm not sure what to tell you. A very large amount of money flows directly back into charitable works. (Not that I would even dream of calling the Vatican socialist) Paid for predominantly by the Catholics themselves, not the Vatican. I'm not denying that Christian communities have the capability to show compassion, nor that they do charitable work. I'm pointing out that the institution of the Vatican itself has a vast investment portfolio which it fights tooth and nail to keep tax exempt and the value of which dwarfs the amount they spend on charity. Please tell me you're not referring to the whole "Mussolini's Millions" thing? I don't believe so. The Vatican has always owned a lot of stuff all over Europe. In Italy alone it has $12b of commercial and residential property, all of which they claim tax exempt status on.
That's absolutely insane. Seriously? I can't believe people let that fly. That is an insane amount of money.
|
On February 12 2013 10:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 09:56 Shiori wrote:On February 12 2013 09:50 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 09:48 Shiori wrote:On February 12 2013 09:32 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote:
L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize. He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. You realise that he is sitting upon a massive amount of money taken from the poorest people from around the world when he says that, right? And that the money flows in only one direction. Yes, at a time at which the poorest people in the world, a lot of whom were Catholic, were suffering leaped on the "greed is evil" bandwagon but he did it while being more morally bankrupt than the bankers were and without even paying taxes on the Vatican's vast investments. Presenting anyone at the Vatican as socialist is a joke, they accumulate colossal amounts of wealth. Uh..Catholic charities are utterly massive (largest in the world, taken together). If you seriously believe that the Pope is sitting there counting bills and sitting on coins, I'm not sure what to tell you. A very large amount of money flows directly back into charitable works. (Not that I would even dream of calling the Vatican socialist) Paid for predominantly by the Catholics themselves, not the Vatican. I'm not denying that Christian communities have the capability to show compassion, nor that they do charitable work. I'm pointing out that the institution of the Vatican itself has a vast investment portfolio which it fights tooth and nail to keep tax exempt and the value of which dwarfs the amount they spend on charity. Please tell me you're not referring to the whole "Mussolini's Millions" thing? A substantial portion of the Vatican's economy is donations. I'm not exactly sure where you're getting morally bankrupt from. I won't disagree that the Church is too stingy with its funds, but by this logic every country should have sold all their marketable stocks to funnel money into charity, which is only realistic if you're the most extreme sort of communist. I don't believe so. The Vatican has always owned a lot of stuff all over Europe. In Italy alone it has $12b of commercial and residential property, all of which they claim tax exempt status on. Most countries don't tax their people to increase the big pot of money they're sitting on. They tax the people to buy stuff to do the things the people elected them to do. The government of a normal country giving all its tax revenue to charity would be breaking the social contract and failing to do what it was elected to do. The Vatican is accountable only to their own consciences so they can do however they please and what they choose to do is dodge taxes and hoard.
The Vatican doesn't tax its citizens. They also no longer have tax exempt status on their commercial properties, to my knowledge.
|
United States41470 Posts
On February 12 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 10:00 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 09:56 Shiori wrote:On February 12 2013 09:50 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 09:48 Shiori wrote:On February 12 2013 09:32 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote:
L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize. He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. You realise that he is sitting upon a massive amount of money taken from the poorest people from around the world when he says that, right? And that the money flows in only one direction. Yes, at a time at which the poorest people in the world, a lot of whom were Catholic, were suffering leaped on the "greed is evil" bandwagon but he did it while being more morally bankrupt than the bankers were and without even paying taxes on the Vatican's vast investments. Presenting anyone at the Vatican as socialist is a joke, they accumulate colossal amounts of wealth. Uh..Catholic charities are utterly massive (largest in the world, taken together). If you seriously believe that the Pope is sitting there counting bills and sitting on coins, I'm not sure what to tell you. A very large amount of money flows directly back into charitable works. (Not that I would even dream of calling the Vatican socialist) Paid for predominantly by the Catholics themselves, not the Vatican. I'm not denying that Christian communities have the capability to show compassion, nor that they do charitable work. I'm pointing out that the institution of the Vatican itself has a vast investment portfolio which it fights tooth and nail to keep tax exempt and the value of which dwarfs the amount they spend on charity. Please tell me you're not referring to the whole "Mussolini's Millions" thing? A substantial portion of the Vatican's economy is donations. I'm not exactly sure where you're getting morally bankrupt from. I won't disagree that the Church is too stingy with its funds, but by this logic every country should have sold all their marketable stocks to funnel money into charity, which is only realistic if you're the most extreme sort of communist. I don't believe so. The Vatican has always owned a lot of stuff all over Europe. In Italy alone it has $12b of commercial and residential property, all of which they claim tax exempt status on. Most countries don't tax their people to increase the big pot of money they're sitting on. They tax the people to buy stuff to do the things the people elected them to do. The government of a normal country giving all its tax revenue to charity would be breaking the social contract and failing to do what it was elected to do. The Vatican is accountable only to their own consciences so they can do however they please and what they choose to do is dodge taxes and hoard. The Vatican doesn't tax its citizens.
I don't see your point. You suggested that the Vatican was no different from any other country because all governments attempt to raise money and none spend it all on feeding the hungry. I pointed out that most governments (basically any except states being ransacked by a warlord before he goes into exile) raise money to spend on the business of running the country and don't generally operate at much of a profit whereas the Vatican works much more like an investment portfolio and do make profits. Furthermore in a democratic state using funds levied from the people in a way they would not want breaks the social contract but the Vatican, which does not tax people, has no such restraints. Therefore your suggestion that the Vatican is not uniquely morally bankrupt because other countries don't spend their entire revenue on feeding Africa is nonsensical.
There have been attempts in the last 12 months to change the tax exempt status of the Vatican's investment portfolios in Italy but it's not done yet and, like any other big business, it is being fought by their influential lobbyists while their accountants hide as much money.
|
On February 12 2013 09:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 09:48 Shiori wrote:On February 12 2013 09:32 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote:
L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize. He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. You realise that he is sitting upon a massive amount of money taken from the poorest people from around the world when he says that, right? And that the money flows in only one direction. Yes, at a time at which the poorest people in the world, a lot of whom were Catholic, were suffering leaped on the "greed is evil" bandwagon but he did it while being more morally bankrupt than the bankers were and without even paying taxes on the Vatican's vast investments. Presenting anyone at the Vatican as socialist is a joke, they accumulate colossal amounts of wealth. Uh..Catholic charities are utterly massive (largest in the world, taken together). If you seriously believe that the Pope is sitting there counting bills and sitting on coins, I'm not sure what to tell you. A very large amount of money flows directly back into charitable works. (Not that I would even dream of calling the Vatican socialist) Paid for predominantly by the Catholics themselves, not the Vatican. I'm not denying that Christian communities have the capability to show compassion, nor that they do charitable work. I'm pointing out that the institution of the Vatican itself has a vast investment portfolio which it fights tooth and nail to keep tax exempt and the value of which dwarfs the amount they spend on charity.
Even if that were the case (and you have to provide sources and deal with issues where money is spent/to be spent on constructing more monuments and places of worship which worshipers generally VERY MUCH are in favor of), all this would amount to an ad hominem argument. One can easily offer up liberal arguments regardless of their finances.
|
On February 12 2013 10:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote:On February 12 2013 10:00 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 09:56 Shiori wrote:On February 12 2013 09:50 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 09:48 Shiori wrote:On February 12 2013 09:32 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote:
L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize. He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. You realise that he is sitting upon a massive amount of money taken from the poorest people from around the world when he says that, right? And that the money flows in only one direction. Yes, at a time at which the poorest people in the world, a lot of whom were Catholic, were suffering leaped on the "greed is evil" bandwagon but he did it while being more morally bankrupt than the bankers were and without even paying taxes on the Vatican's vast investments. Presenting anyone at the Vatican as socialist is a joke, they accumulate colossal amounts of wealth. Uh..Catholic charities are utterly massive (largest in the world, taken together). If you seriously believe that the Pope is sitting there counting bills and sitting on coins, I'm not sure what to tell you. A very large amount of money flows directly back into charitable works. (Not that I would even dream of calling the Vatican socialist) Paid for predominantly by the Catholics themselves, not the Vatican. I'm not denying that Christian communities have the capability to show compassion, nor that they do charitable work. I'm pointing out that the institution of the Vatican itself has a vast investment portfolio which it fights tooth and nail to keep tax exempt and the value of which dwarfs the amount they spend on charity. Please tell me you're not referring to the whole "Mussolini's Millions" thing? A substantial portion of the Vatican's economy is donations. I'm not exactly sure where you're getting morally bankrupt from. I won't disagree that the Church is too stingy with its funds, but by this logic every country should have sold all their marketable stocks to funnel money into charity, which is only realistic if you're the most extreme sort of communist. I don't believe so. The Vatican has always owned a lot of stuff all over Europe. In Italy alone it has $12b of commercial and residential property, all of which they claim tax exempt status on. Most countries don't tax their people to increase the big pot of money they're sitting on. They tax the people to buy stuff to do the things the people elected them to do. The government of a normal country giving all its tax revenue to charity would be breaking the social contract and failing to do what it was elected to do. The Vatican is accountable only to their own consciences so they can do however they please and what they choose to do is dodge taxes and hoard. The Vatican doesn't tax its citizens. I don't see your point. You suggested that the Vatican was no different from any other country because all governments attempt to raise money and none spend it all on feeding the hungry. I pointed out that most governments (basically any except states being ransacked by a warlord before he goes into exile) raise money to spend on the business of running the country and don't generally operate at much of a profit whereas the Vatican works much more like an investment portfolio and do make profits. Furthermore in a democratic state using funds levied from the people in a way they would not want breaks the social contract but the Vatican, which does not tax people, has no such restraints. Therefore your suggestion that the Vatican is not uniquely morally bankrupt because other countries don't spend their entire revenue on feeding Africa is nonsensical. There have been attempts in the last 12 months to change the tax exempt status of the Vatican's investment portfolios in Italy but it's not done yet and, like any other big business, it is being fought by their influential lobbyists while their accountants hide as much money.
EDIT: Actually, this is way off topic.
|
United States41470 Posts
On February 12 2013 10:25 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 10:15 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote:On February 12 2013 10:00 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 09:56 Shiori wrote:On February 12 2013 09:50 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 09:48 Shiori wrote:On February 12 2013 09:32 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote:
L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize. He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. You realise that he is sitting upon a massive amount of money taken from the poorest people from around the world when he says that, right? And that the money flows in only one direction. Yes, at a time at which the poorest people in the world, a lot of whom were Catholic, were suffering leaped on the "greed is evil" bandwagon but he did it while being more morally bankrupt than the bankers were and without even paying taxes on the Vatican's vast investments. Presenting anyone at the Vatican as socialist is a joke, they accumulate colossal amounts of wealth. Uh..Catholic charities are utterly massive (largest in the world, taken together). If you seriously believe that the Pope is sitting there counting bills and sitting on coins, I'm not sure what to tell you. A very large amount of money flows directly back into charitable works. (Not that I would even dream of calling the Vatican socialist) Paid for predominantly by the Catholics themselves, not the Vatican. I'm not denying that Christian communities have the capability to show compassion, nor that they do charitable work. I'm pointing out that the institution of the Vatican itself has a vast investment portfolio which it fights tooth and nail to keep tax exempt and the value of which dwarfs the amount they spend on charity. Please tell me you're not referring to the whole "Mussolini's Millions" thing? A substantial portion of the Vatican's economy is donations. I'm not exactly sure where you're getting morally bankrupt from. I won't disagree that the Church is too stingy with its funds, but by this logic every country should have sold all their marketable stocks to funnel money into charity, which is only realistic if you're the most extreme sort of communist. I don't believe so. The Vatican has always owned a lot of stuff all over Europe. In Italy alone it has $12b of commercial and residential property, all of which they claim tax exempt status on. Most countries don't tax their people to increase the big pot of money they're sitting on. They tax the people to buy stuff to do the things the people elected them to do. The government of a normal country giving all its tax revenue to charity would be breaking the social contract and failing to do what it was elected to do. The Vatican is accountable only to their own consciences so they can do however they please and what they choose to do is dodge taxes and hoard. The Vatican doesn't tax its citizens. I don't see your point. You suggested that the Vatican was no different from any other country because all governments attempt to raise money and none spend it all on feeding the hungry. I pointed out that most governments (basically any except states being ransacked by a warlord before he goes into exile) raise money to spend on the business of running the country and don't generally operate at much of a profit whereas the Vatican works much more like an investment portfolio and do make profits. Furthermore in a democratic state using funds levied from the people in a way they would not want breaks the social contract but the Vatican, which does not tax people, has no such restraints. Therefore your suggestion that the Vatican is not uniquely morally bankrupt because other countries don't spend their entire revenue on feeding Africa is nonsensical. There have been attempts in the last 12 months to change the tax exempt status of the Vatican's investment portfolios in Italy but it's not done yet and, like any other big business, it is being fought by their influential lobbyists while their accountants hide as much money.
Editing my post out following the editing out of the one I was replying to in order to respect his wish to discontinue this line of discussion.
|
On February 12 2013 10:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote:On February 12 2013 10:00 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 09:56 Shiori wrote:On February 12 2013 09:50 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 09:48 Shiori wrote:On February 12 2013 09:32 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote:
L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize. He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. You realise that he is sitting upon a massive amount of money taken from the poorest people from around the world when he says that, right? And that the money flows in only one direction. Yes, at a time at which the poorest people in the world, a lot of whom were Catholic, were suffering leaped on the "greed is evil" bandwagon but he did it while being more morally bankrupt than the bankers were and without even paying taxes on the Vatican's vast investments. Presenting anyone at the Vatican as socialist is a joke, they accumulate colossal amounts of wealth. Uh..Catholic charities are utterly massive (largest in the world, taken together). If you seriously believe that the Pope is sitting there counting bills and sitting on coins, I'm not sure what to tell you. A very large amount of money flows directly back into charitable works. (Not that I would even dream of calling the Vatican socialist) Paid for predominantly by the Catholics themselves, not the Vatican. I'm not denying that Christian communities have the capability to show compassion, nor that they do charitable work. I'm pointing out that the institution of the Vatican itself has a vast investment portfolio which it fights tooth and nail to keep tax exempt and the value of which dwarfs the amount they spend on charity. Please tell me you're not referring to the whole "Mussolini's Millions" thing? A substantial portion of the Vatican's economy is donations. I'm not exactly sure where you're getting morally bankrupt from. I won't disagree that the Church is too stingy with its funds, but by this logic every country should have sold all their marketable stocks to funnel money into charity, which is only realistic if you're the most extreme sort of communist. I don't believe so. The Vatican has always owned a lot of stuff all over Europe. In Italy alone it has $12b of commercial and residential property, all of which they claim tax exempt status on. Most countries don't tax their people to increase the big pot of money they're sitting on. They tax the people to buy stuff to do the things the people elected them to do. The government of a normal country giving all its tax revenue to charity would be breaking the social contract and failing to do what it was elected to do. The Vatican is accountable only to their own consciences so they can do however they please and what they choose to do is dodge taxes and hoard. The Vatican doesn't tax its citizens. I don't see your point. You suggested that the Vatican was no different from any other country because all governments attempt to raise money and none spend it all on feeding the hungry. I pointed out that most governments (basically any except states being ransacked by a warlord before he goes into exile) raise money to spend on the business of running the country and don't generally operate at much of a profit whereas the Vatican works much more like an investment portfolio and do make profits. Furthermore in a democratic state using funds levied from the people in a way they would not want breaks the social contract but the Vatican, which does not tax people, has no such restraints. Therefore your suggestion that the Vatican is not uniquely morally bankrupt because other countries don't spend their entire revenue on feeding Africa is nonsensical. There have been attempts in the last 12 months to change the tax exempt status of the Vatican's investment portfolios in Italy but it's not done yet and, like any other big business, it is being fought by their influential lobbyists while their accountants hide as much money.
Well;The vatican is an independant state and has been so for a long time. So it can set its own taxes and to tax it for the whole of italy is maybe desirable but would just be theft from another country.
There are more countrys wich have a big investment portfolio, like the gulf states,norway, probably swiss and luxembourg,or one of the tax heaven islands.That alone does not make them anny less of a state.
|
United States41470 Posts
On February 12 2013 10:37 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 10:15 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote:On February 12 2013 10:00 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 09:56 Shiori wrote:On February 12 2013 09:50 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 09:48 Shiori wrote:On February 12 2013 09:32 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote:
L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize. He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. You realise that he is sitting upon a massive amount of money taken from the poorest people from around the world when he says that, right? And that the money flows in only one direction. Yes, at a time at which the poorest people in the world, a lot of whom were Catholic, were suffering leaped on the "greed is evil" bandwagon but he did it while being more morally bankrupt than the bankers were and without even paying taxes on the Vatican's vast investments. Presenting anyone at the Vatican as socialist is a joke, they accumulate colossal amounts of wealth. Uh..Catholic charities are utterly massive (largest in the world, taken together). If you seriously believe that the Pope is sitting there counting bills and sitting on coins, I'm not sure what to tell you. A very large amount of money flows directly back into charitable works. (Not that I would even dream of calling the Vatican socialist) Paid for predominantly by the Catholics themselves, not the Vatican. I'm not denying that Christian communities have the capability to show compassion, nor that they do charitable work. I'm pointing out that the institution of the Vatican itself has a vast investment portfolio which it fights tooth and nail to keep tax exempt and the value of which dwarfs the amount they spend on charity. Please tell me you're not referring to the whole "Mussolini's Millions" thing? A substantial portion of the Vatican's economy is donations. I'm not exactly sure where you're getting morally bankrupt from. I won't disagree that the Church is too stingy with its funds, but by this logic every country should have sold all their marketable stocks to funnel money into charity, which is only realistic if you're the most extreme sort of communist. I don't believe so. The Vatican has always owned a lot of stuff all over Europe. In Italy alone it has $12b of commercial and residential property, all of which they claim tax exempt status on. Most countries don't tax their people to increase the big pot of money they're sitting on. They tax the people to buy stuff to do the things the people elected them to do. The government of a normal country giving all its tax revenue to charity would be breaking the social contract and failing to do what it was elected to do. The Vatican is accountable only to their own consciences so they can do however they please and what they choose to do is dodge taxes and hoard. The Vatican doesn't tax its citizens. I don't see your point. You suggested that the Vatican was no different from any other country because all governments attempt to raise money and none spend it all on feeding the hungry. I pointed out that most governments (basically any except states being ransacked by a warlord before he goes into exile) raise money to spend on the business of running the country and don't generally operate at much of a profit whereas the Vatican works much more like an investment portfolio and do make profits. Furthermore in a democratic state using funds levied from the people in a way they would not want breaks the social contract but the Vatican, which does not tax people, has no such restraints. Therefore your suggestion that the Vatican is not uniquely morally bankrupt because other countries don't spend their entire revenue on feeding Africa is nonsensical. There have been attempts in the last 12 months to change the tax exempt status of the Vatican's investment portfolios in Italy but it's not done yet and, like any other big business, it is being fought by their influential lobbyists while their accountants hide as much money. Well;The vatican is an independant state,and has be so for a long time.So it can set its own taxes and to tax it for the whole of italy is maybe desirable but would just be theft from another country. There are more countrys wich have a big investment portfolio, like the gulf states and probably swiss and luxembourg, That alone does not make them anny less of a state.
You're confused about what I meant. I'm not talking about properties within the Vatican which is obviously a separate nation and should not be taxed by Italy. I'm talking about how the Vatican owns about 20% of property in Italy and yet refuses to pay tax on the profits of their operations to the Italian government.
To bring this back to the initial topic of the discussion though, I think the suggestion that Benedict's criticism of investment bankers at the height of the economic crisis does not earn him any socialist credentials as he is the governor of one of the largest investment banks in the world. This topic isn't really the place to condemn him for that, rather just to show that his echoing of a global sentiment was not backed up by any action and does not amount to a change in the Vatican policy.
|
United States41117 Posts
The Catholic Church owns hotels, restaurants, it even has had it's own banking scandals, several in fact. Whether a Pope is chosen from Ghana or Mexico makes no nevermind to the monetary discussion but rather the social arguments. Billions to Africa for education, safe sex practices, to drug violence. Or Condoms are sin etc.
|
I'ma go read up on the Vatican's properties and such before I get into that argument, but first:
I really do want to see a Pope Peter now. Just to see what happens with that prophecy. I could see the Cardinals playing along and choosing popes based on the description in each line of it, but some are too uncanny to be plotted in advance, like Pope JP2 dying on a solar eclipse (also being born on one), and the WW1 pope who was powerless to stop Christians from killing each other and Communism spreading in multiple Christian (and non-Christian, it never specified which religion was being destroyed) nations. Your mileage may vary I guess. But I still want to see a Pope Peter.
|
Pope Benedict=Galactic Emperor?!?!
|
On February 12 2013 11:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The Catholic Church owns hotels, restaurants, it even has had it's own banking scandals, several in fact. Whether a Pope is chosen from Ghana or Mexico makes no nevermind to the monetary discussion but rather the social arguments. Billions to Africa for education, safe sex practices, to drug violence. Or Condoms are sin etc.
As I hear african priests tend to be more conservative. And currently a large part of the charity in africa is done by the caholic church.
The protestants state churches here in Europ do everything people often mention they want see from a new pope. Their priests can marry, they ordinate women, allow condoms. The result is that they are shrinking rapidly. A new pope gains nothing from pleasing people who will never actually support the catholic church.
If the catholic church wants to remain relevant it has to be separate from political power and separate from Zeitgeist influences.
|
They should make a movie out of this.
This Spring... POPE 15. Rated R
|
The protestants state churches here in Europ do everything people often mention they want see from a new pope. Their priests can marry, they ordinate women, allow condoms. The result is that they are shrinking rapidly. A new pope gains nothing from pleasing people who will never actually support the catholic church.
I would say that's a general trend in Europe that includes Catholicism as well. In fact, last time I checked, the only religion in Europe that wasn't just losing ground but gaining ground was Islam.
|
On February 12 2013 13:52 Sandermatt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 11:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The Catholic Church owns hotels, restaurants, it even has had it's own banking scandals, several in fact. Whether a Pope is chosen from Ghana or Mexico makes no nevermind to the monetary discussion but rather the social arguments. Billions to Africa for education, safe sex practices, to drug violence. Or Condoms are sin etc. As I hear african priests tend to be more conservative. And currently a large part of the charity in africa is done by the caholic church. The protestants state churches here in Europ do everything people often mention they want see from a new pope. Their priests can marry, they ordinate women, allow condoms. The result is that they are shrinking rapidly. A new pope gains nothing from pleasing people who will never actually support the catholic church. If the catholic church wants to remain relevant it has to be separate from political power and separate from Zeitgeist influences.
State churches as a whole have lost a great deal of standing among Protestants for a long while now. Kierkegaard's acute criticisms of the Danish Church was taken up with great fervor by Protestants post-WWI, most particularly with Barth and the Confessing Church in Germany against the German State Church that had become a wing of the Nazi machine. And the European trend has been towards a greater number of atheists and irreligious persons. It isn't confined to Protestantism or Catholicism but just a general decline of Christianity. To say that the Protestants are shrinking in Europe because of their progressive tendencies is really just hilariously wrong.
And good luck with the whole separation from political power idea when the Vatican is the single most political Christian organization in the world, and that hasn't changed for over a millennium. Even the Protestant Reformation didn't change that.
|
On February 12 2013 14:45 Warlock40 wrote:Show nested quote +The protestants state churches here in Europ do everything people often mention they want see from a new pope. Their priests can marry, they ordinate women, allow condoms. The result is that they are shrinking rapidly. A new pope gains nothing from pleasing people who will never actually support the catholic church. I would say that's a general trend in Europe that includes Catholicism as well. In fact, last time I checked, the only religion in Europe that wasn't just losing ground but gaining ground was Islam.
Ok, I looked the numbers up in wikipedia. In Germany both sides are loosing members equally fast. Here in Switzerland (where I live) the protestant shrink twice as fast.
I cannot remember seeing a church grow that just does everything the way public opinion is.
Here in switzerland most free churches that grow will cause some kind of public "panic" with "Sektenexperte" giving warnings, newspapers beeing shocked, etc...
So long story short: People here mentioned hat to stay relevant the new pope will have to take liberal stances, but in practice I have rarely seen a church getting more relevant by taking a more liberal stance.
P.S: I am not a catholic. The church I go to is the "salvation army" and the most influencial pastor for me would be Gregory Boyd. Both could be seen as somewhere in between liberal and conservative positions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
