Pope sell all the Vatican’s possessions? Been there, done that
There has been a bit of a stir recently because shock comedian Sarah Silverman proposed that the Pope sell all of the Vatican’s possessions in order to feed the poor of the world. Anyone who is familiar with Silverman knows that this is her shtick: say outlandish, politically-incorrect things in a vulgar way in a feeble attempt to be funny.
But what Silverman and many others may not know is that once a Pope actually did agree to sell all the possessions of the Vatican! Pope Paschal II lived in the 12th century, during the time of the great lay investiture crisis, when the Pope and the Emperor battled over who had authority to appoint bishops. During this crisis, Pope Paschal II actually offered to Emperor Henry V that he would sell all of the Vatican’s possessions acquired since the time of Charlemagne if Henry agreed to renounce lay investiture. They did sign a compact to that effect, but the Romans rose in revolt and didn’t allow it to happen.
So I guess Ms. Silverman isn’t as shocking as she thinks she is.
Anyone who bothers to actually reflect on the matter would realize that, far from the Vatican being “rich” with treasure, all the art and other various items in the Vatican collections actually end up costing the Church money. In other words, all of these “treasures” are actually a negative asset, a financial burden, not a financial benefit, because of all the cost of upkeep, preservation, and restoration. Add in the fact that most of these items are, indeed, “priceless,” that is, no actual monetary value can be assigned to them, especially since there is no real market on which to sell them. Besides, the Church does not “own” most of these items as much as She is custodian of them, holding them in trust for mankind.
Moreover, if you look at the Vatican’s annual budget, you will see that it is less than a typical mid-sized American city. It is true that, worldwide, the Church does have substantial land holdings, but these are not income-producing. Rather, upon this land is built churches, schools, and hospitals.
American cities have zoning requirements. Similarly, anyone wanting to buy Notre Dame (Paris) or Vatican City (Rome) in order to tear down existing buildings and put up other structures (housing or shopping malls) would find massive objections by local citizens and elected officials.
You might as well try to buy Soldiers’ Field (Chicago) or Westminster Abbey (London) to redevelop. The local citizenry would never let you do it.
That portion of the wealth of the Church consisting of real estate is largely NOT capable of being sold off to raise funds.
If it’s so important to Silverman, why doesn’t she sell her possessions to feed the world’s hungry? She has ample income from her vulgar and blasphemous routines, including massive big-screen plasma televisions. If the Vatican, who uses its temporal possessions for the common good as its faithful custodian, should sell its possessions to “feed the hungry,” then why shouldn’t this foul-mouthed comedian who does NOTHING for the common good lead by example, and use her possessions in even a fraction of the way the Vatican employs its assets?
It would be a change for her to think about anyone but herself, of course; but it would be a change for the better.
Hey Wilbur, you nailed it brother, I’m sick and tired with this so called foul mouthed comedians.
nice piece, same thoughts.
God Bless!
Anthony…you hit it right on the mark.
[...] The Divine Life: October 16, 2009 – Pope sell all the Vatican possessions? Been there, done that [...]
Pingback by Sunday Theology & Religion Roundup – 10/18/2009 « Philosophical Theology — October 18, 2009 @ 1:12 amWhy is anyone paying attention to Susan Silverman? Who is she?
She’s right.