Article

2004-08-19 Europe

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-19 5:14:18 AM|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Zenster,$1.6mil sounds pretty cheap to me.Food and lodgings for Papal entourage(security and medical)for 2 days and a nite aren't cheap.French security was probably reimbursed for visit and I kind of doubt all the chairs,sound systems,standby ambulances,etc. were donated by the French.

As to great wealth of Catholic Church,well,most of the artwork they commissioned(payed for)in the first place.If the Church sold the artworks off,how much do you think would be available in museums,and how much would be bought by the rich and hidden away in private vaults?There is a reason people who own a house continue to work.The house may be worth so much,but you can only sell it once.

The Church has an awful lot to answer for,but I've always thought the charge of hording great wealth based on artwork the Church paid for centuries ago to be pretty bogus.And I am not now,nor have I ever been a Catholic,and last time I attended any religious service was almost 30 years ago.

Posted by Stephen 2004-08-19 8:43:18 AM|| 2004-08-19 8:43:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 1.6 MILLION IS CHEAP? Just how big is this entourage anyway? The church has always been been big on sqeezing money from the faithfull. It must kill them they can't sell endulgences (?sp) like they used to, although they still charge for just about everything else. As for selling their paintings, a good number of them were in fact done back in the 15 and 16 hundreds, and are worth a lot, having been done by artists such as Rembrandt. The problem is that quite a few of them are pornographic.

Posted by dls 2004-08-19 10:46:34 AM|| 2004-08-19 10:46:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 The expense here, for what is effectively a visit to a foreign country by a head of state, is not all that absurd as such things go.

Posted by Mike 2004-08-19 10:48:48 AM|| 2004-08-19 10:48:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Do visiting heads of state commonly ask the citizens of the country they're visiting to foot the tab for their expenses?

Posted by dls 2004-08-19 11:05:38 AM|| 2004-08-19 11:05:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Just to clear the air: I'm not anti-catholic. I object to any authoritarian religious organization that uses it's power to exploit it's flock (read: Islam as a classic example). To describe the pope as a visiting head of state is to describe him as a secular figure. Several hundred years ago the pope had vast secular power, but today I would hope the Vatican sees itself as the seat of a religious organization. Apparently I'm wrong.

Posted by dls 2004-08-19 11:37:27 AM|| 2004-08-19 11:37:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Yes, the locals often pay for state visits.

And if you look, you'll find several recent articles complaining about the costs of hosting a campaign visit by Kerry or Bush.

You might ask General Secretary Gorbachev what kind of secular power the Pope has. Or Polish President General Jarulzelski.

Posted by Chuck Simmins 2004-08-19 1:22:15 PM|| [http://blog.simmins.org] 2004-08-19 1:22:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Strictly speaking, the pope no longer has secular power. Certainly used to, back in the days when the Vatican encompassed the middle third of what is now Italy. What the pope now has, or should have at any rate,is moral authority, which can translate into the ability to apply immense pressure on secular leaders. In parts of Europe the pope still has a great deal of secular power. For instance in Ireland, where the Irish constitution declares a state religion. This causes lots of problems here where the church seems to feel it can wield the same kind of power. I don't object to the church using it's moral force. Much of the time I even agree with it's stands. That's not the point. I have issues with ANY religion attempting to run the political process in ANY country. I've gotten off subject here. Sorry. The main point is that if the faithfull wish to cover the cost of the pope's vist they can, but they shouldn't be forced to through use of guilt.

Posted by dls 2004-08-19 1:31:22 PM|| 2004-08-19 1:31:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 How many frog legs can you buy with $1.6 million?

Posted by Chris W. 2004-08-19 1:36:33 PM|| 2004-08-19 1:36:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Oops. Contradicted myself very nicely there. The pope no longer has direct secular power over a country, but certainly still has indirect power over a number of the countries in europe and south america. In my personal view, a source of immense problems in many of these countries.

Posted by dls 2004-08-19 1:51:45 PM|| 2004-08-19 1:51:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Dis, the Papal States is a country. The smallest state in the world, but the Pope holds secular power of it. Still I get your point.

Stephen most claims over Catholic wealth are not regarding art but land. The Church is the largest land owner in the world and they do not have churches on all of it. It was common to convince dieing folk to will their land to the church in the old days. They could easily sell off some of it if they wanted.

The real story here is the Pope is working his way through history. Apologizing for this and that thing that happened centuries ago. I think he's sopping Southern France for that whole Black Pope thing.

Posted by yank 2004-08-19 2:53:33 PM|| [http://politicaljunky.blogspot.com] 2004-08-19 2:53:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Monaco may be smaller. Not as wealthy, however.

Posted by DLS 2004-08-19 3:05:52 PM|| 2004-08-19 3:05:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Vatican City is the smallest nation in the world. It's size is usually measured in acres, not square miles. It also has only 878 citizens. I understand that population growth is not considered a problem.

While it's difficult to measure the wealth of small nations, I would propose that Monaco, Liechtenstein and the Vatican City State are all very wealthy. Nauru used to be until the bird poop ran out.

Posted by Chuck Simmins 2004-08-19 4:00:06 PM|| [http://blog.simmins.org] 2004-08-19 4:00:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Guano seems to sum it up nicely

Posted by DLS 2004-08-19 4:41:34 PM|| 2004-08-19 4:41:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 #1 As to great wealth of Catholic Church,well,most of the artwork they commissioned(payed for)in the first place.

Quite obviously, you did not attend the touring exibit I mentioned. If you had, you would have seen the enormous number of artifacts that were most definitely not "commissioned." Superb Byzantine spiral fluted columns and other sculptural works present at that show were the product of LOOTING, not artistic patronage.

#4 Do visiting heads of state commonly ask the citizens of the country they're visiting to foot the tab for their expenses?

Bingo, dls, you have presented many cogent arguments here. The Pope may visit wherever he wishes, but such travel should be on his own existing budget. Using deficit spending for a sojourn in the hopes of recouping it from one's intended audience assumes an unbecoming degree of self-importance from one who is supposed to humbly wash the feet of the poor.

#10 ... most claims over Catholic wealth are not regarding art but land. The Church is the largest land owner in the world and they do not have churches on all of it. It was common to convince dieing folk to will their land to the church in the old days. They could easily sell off some of it if they wanted.

Which applies most thoroughly to the sex abuse scandal, but that is grist for another thread. That the Church expects fundraising to support such lavish spending on their own self-promotion is pure hypocrisy. Any putative good being done seems to have taken a back seat over monetary concerns. I doubt we shall ever see a ledger sheet showing just how big an entourage accompanied John Paul II. Better that the Church dip into their own bottomless coffers and shut their mouths about whatever degree of donation (or lack thereof) they encountered in the revival tent.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-19 5:49:56 PM|| 2004-08-19 5:49:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 So melt down some of those gold statues you've got tucked away in the Vatican basement, why don't ya?

Posted by mojo 2004-08-19 5:59:20 PM|| 2004-08-19 5:59:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 As the driver of my ride to Romes airport said
"We romans have a saying... If the barbarians didn't steal it, the Vatican took it!"
Actually, another source of the artwork was in the form of "gifts to the Pontiff". Now this may be viewed as attempts to purchase "indulgences" ,but I think a close look at the claims of ownership would reveal a lower number of potentially "looted" items. Heck, Chicago's own Natural History museum just recently returned sacred totem poles they "borrowed" to indians in Alaska.
Whiteman: Sorry ,we didn't think you were using them...

Posted by Capsu78 2004-08-19 6:21:15 PM|| 2004-08-19 6:21:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 You really have to be curious about what they have down in the catacombs. Even Goering left them alone. However, I believe that had something to do with a quid pro quo: you don't steal the stuff we stole, we won't make nasty comments about your treatment of the Jews. Finally we come to the logical end: as usual it's about the Jews.

Posted by DLS 2004-08-19 6:55:36 PM|| 2004-08-19 6:55:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 You really have to be curious about what they have down in the catacombs.

Legends abound concerning ancient codas and art objects squirreled away in the Vatican's collections. Many have compared it to the Library at Alexandria. Their secretive attitude towards what most antiquarians consider to be the single greatest archive of historical documents has only served to destroy this treasure trove. Due to irreversible damage from improper storage, the Vatican was forced to finally permit experts access in order that they might begin restoration and preservation of this stupendous assemblage.

John Paul II was inordinately candid to call this monumental array "an embarrassment of riches." It is appalling to see such wealth squandered, both in France and amongst the rotting manuscripts they hoard. Who knows what self-incriminating evidence concerning possible collusion with the Nazis or even contradictions to the Scriptures themselves might exist in their repository. There is little reason not to imagine that the Vatican has suppressed contrary testimony in a fashion similar to the Mormon Church.

Any challenge to what was once a nearly ultimate and still significant continuing power could be bought off with ease by their fabulous wealth. While this is sheer speculation, the Catholic Church has historically demonstrated a vigorous protection of their own interests, even at the cost of other people's lives. One need only consider their perpetuation of the patently false "blood libel" to comprehend how the Vatican's closets contain their own morgue of well-concealed skeletons. This far reaching connection is not without substance in that it firmly demonstrates a willingness to promote their own agenda regardless of cost. This is what happened in France and it constitutes a despicable pattern of conduct.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-19 8:25:59 PM|| 2004-08-19 8:25:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 And if you look, you'll find several recent articles complaining about the costs of hosting a campaign visit by Kerry or Bush.

How is it either moral or ethical for them to make voters shoulder the burden of their own self-promotion? Do the various campaigns specifically budget allocations for the drain on local law enforcement, or is any uptick in crime associated with the diversion of such resources merely swept under the rug?

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-19 8:37:15 PM|| 2004-08-19 8:37:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 I don't object to the church using it's moral force. Much of the time I even agree with it's stands. That's not the point. I have issues with ANY religion attempting to run the political process in ANY country. I've gotten off subject here.

No you haven't, DLS. Upon rereading this thread, your words gained additional strength. What you are addressing is theocracy and that is the enemy of progress. It represents the primary refutation of Islamism and rightly so.

How is it either moral or ethical for them to make voters shoulder the burden of their own self-promotion?

That should have read; " ... to make tax payers," not 'voters'.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-19 11:59:00 PM|| 2004-08-19 11:59:00 PM|| Front Page Top

07:21 Shipman
02:31 FlameBait93268
02:17 Kentucky Beef
01:10 Zhang Fei
01:10 Phil Fraering
00:57 Super Hose
00:55 Super Hose
00:47 Old Patriot
00:47 Super Hose
00:42 spiffo
00:39 Super Hose
00:35 Lucky
00:31 Lucky
00:13 lex
00:07 Anonymous6124
00:03 Lucky
00:01 Alaska Paul
23:59 Zenster
23:57 Chris W.
23:56 Chris W.
23:33 True German Ally
23:30 tu3031
23:28 Zenster
23:24 tu3031