Yes! And didn't they take a pic of that dumbass dopey old pope with red Prada shoes? Yeahhhh, I think they did..humble and poor like Jesus, eh? Hypocrites.

It would be a nice thing to do...leading by example. I don't see it happening tho.

Yes, all churches should do this, I bet if Jesus was around today, he'd make 'em

The art works (and related secular items); yes. Religious relics and related antiquities; no. Selling the art and investing the money, helping the poor or setting up more missions would be great. But the religious and historically significant items would better be preserved in one repository. (P.S. I'm Catholic).

You're aware, of course, that the Vatican Museum is open to the public and has been a responsible conservator of art objects that might have been lost without this conservancy? And that the manuscripts in the Vatican Library are open to study by scholars? These collections have the same value as collections housed in the Louvre or the Hermitage. What do you think the Catholic Church DOES with these treasures? Put them out at interest? These are MUSEUMS, and they're for you, and for me, and for everybody. Also -- sell it ALL -- sell off the Louvre, the Vatican, all of 'em -- and you'd still have huge numbers of poor. Poverty is not merely the absence of bail-out money. There are numerous complex causes that can't be remedied simply by an infusion of money. And the art would be gone.....

The Catholic church as well as almost every other church are the ones who are helping the poor. Faith based organizations do more to help the poor than any government can do or is willing to do. Just because these people are on the street doesn't necessarily mean that nothing is being done about them. Can churches do more? Absolutely, but I don't think a one time sell off of the Vatican's treasures is the answer.

And then what would it be able to do in the future to help the poor, or anybody else?

I tried to post a shorter version of this as a comment to Razz’s response but it wouldn’t upload – so I’m posting a second answer. Razz says God would want the art sold. Hard to say what God would want. Recall that much of this art – as well as the art in the Louvre and the other world-class museums, was created to His honor and glory. If He liked it then, why would He want it sold now? There were an even greater percentage of poor in the days when Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo created their masterpieces. Razz referred to beggars in the side streets. MANY of these (not all, but many) are professional beggars. Many do pretty well. The dire poverty is elsewhere, and not very visible. The power structure in areas of great social imbalance has a lot to gain by keeping it out of sight. Also: Why would you single out just one conservator’s collection for sell-off? By the same logic, you’d need to sell off the Rijksmuseum, the Hermitage, the Prada, the Chicago Institute of Art, and all the others, and give the proceeds to the poor. Logically – sell it all – and then, sorry, the art WOULD be gone; it would go to private collectors who could close it off from thee and me. And the bulk of the world’s poverty would still be there because of tyranny, deep-rooted beliefs, caste systems, ignorance, lack of educational infrastructure, and many other incredibly complex causes. Most working churches don’t have much in them that is opulent. The rich stuff is in museums, and I believe it belongs there because its sale would not markedly relieve poverty and would diminish art and beauty in the world.

If they want, but they ARE actually seeling oof some of their assets in L.A. to pay off the settlements for the child abuse claims against priests. The archdiocese in LA is thinking of selling their main residence and more.

Tried to answer Razz's SECOND response. Couldn't upload. So here is Razz's comment, and then mine. Razz said (see above), The point is not the art work, the point is doing the christian thing...the private museums are not telling me how to be a good christian. However, my church is...I find it very hard to think that God would say keep a painting worth millions instead of taking it and selling it and benefitting the needy. If you are a christian person and truly believe in God's teachings do you really think God would say keep the opulance...I find it hard to believe. ======================= I must respond as follows: The art is absolutely the point. Ars longa, vita brevis. We have the art to edify us because of past conservators. I’m sorry. God is Love, but God is also Beauty and Inspiration. The Louvre is not a private museum. COLLECTORS are private. They can buy the art, take it into their own buildings, and close the door. Or, maybe, NOT take care of it. The Parthenon lost its roof because it could not be protected in a time of war. By your logic – if a church tells you how to be a good Christian, then it cannot be a conservator of art. So, by extension, we’d need to sell off the libraries and valuable holdings of all church-supported universities and give that money to the poor. Also, I’m not sure what you believe is being done with the “opulence.” It’s museum art. No one is rolling around in vaults of gold coins. And finally, do you really believe that the amount of money realized would make even a dent in the world’s deep-rooted poverty?

Yes. The items of historic significance can be maintained by an independent private organization contracted to protect and display as needed. I think all their facilities including Vatican City should be used to house and feed and treat the homeless and needy and especially since they feel so strongly about protecting illegal aliens, they should foot the bill for all of their needs internationally. Oh and lets not forget all the unwanted and disabled children born as a result of their doctrine, they should be responsible for their care, health, education and future. You reap what you sow.

In the Old Testament Solomon built a richly adorned temple in order to honor God. In fact God commanded that Solomon do this. There were lots of things in the Temple made out of pure gold. In the New Testament Mary Magdalene poured expensive perfume on Jesus feet. Judas complained that the money would have been better spent on the poor than poured on Jesus. Jesus told Judas what Mary did was the best because she honored him (John 12:1-8) So in the case of the Catholic Church - by having expensive historical items they are in a way honoring God, just like Solomon and Mary Magdalene. And since the Catholic Church already spends a large portion of resources helping the poor, I don't see a problem with this. Helping the poor is a good thing to do, but it is not always the best thing to do - according to scripture. The best thing to do is honor God with everything we have - both as individuals and the Church. Sometimes honoring God means setting aside resources for him and not for other good uses.

Ok, I'm not catholic, but I am a Christian. People have asked the same questions of our churches. Why do we have nice buildings and things when there are so many poor people who could benefit from the money? Sure, we should always be helping the poor. I believe the Catholic church does this quite a bit, as well as many churches. I am on staff at a large church and we help at least 15 families a week on average if not more. But if you are going to condemn the churches for not "selling all to give to the poor" why are you not doing this yourself? How many times do you eat out a week? How many pairs of expensive running shoes do you own? Could you not put that money to better use? I think it's easy to point the finger, not so easy to do it yourself. This is not in response to the question so much as it is to all the comments.

1) The Catholic Church should not do what you wish or want it to do. The Catholic Church is a kind of absolute monarchy and it does exactly what the pope says that have to be done. Of course, the pope will inform himself to make his choices. 2) The main aim of the Catholic Church is not and has never been to help the poor. These tasks could eventually been followed by some Catholic organizations, which rely on the help of the members of the Church but also everybody else: any help is welcome. The Catholic Church is and has been since more than 1500 years an important center of power in the world, and to have this function, you need either influence or money, but it is the best if you have both. 3) The best way to help the poor is not in giving them your money, it is also not in giving them a religion. It is in fighting the mechanisms which engender poverty, for instance corruption, drugs, criminality and exploitation, in helping them to education, in showing them how to use their potential to make themselves a living.

Without any doubt, yes.

Why just the Catholic Church?, Most churches are very wealthy . Church organisations do a lot to help the poor particularly the Catholic Church, which is the one of which I have most knowledge. Predjudicial comments about the Pope do not give an answer to the question. The Anglican Church in the UK is probably the wealthiest business and biggest landowner. TV Evangelists bring in millions. If they are all helping why not cut out their TV advertising to give to the poor. Discrimination against one church is not helpful when most churches are doing what they can to help all over the world.

Not all of it. I'm not really sure how much "treasure" the Roman Catholic Church has but if they have a ridiculous amount I'm sure some of it could be spared. However, personally - The Roman Catholic Church is an institution that is how many centuries old and in today's world, money is power so to maintain their place in this world, they might need it. Arguably, poor people need to eat, some place to live, clean water, etc. Rome is like it's own little country so if we are going to pick on a country to sell off it's riches in order to help the poor people of the world, why not pick on the USA since we are the biggest users of natural resources but don't have the biggest population, throw out more food and medicine than all the other countries in the world combined, and also waste more money on "things" ranging from dollar store junk to sports cars to prostitutes to drugs to the swivel sweeper for $38.95+$14.95 shipping and handling. I just feel that would serve a better purpose than picking on a bunch of priests whose lives undoubtably must suck even if they do have 100000000000000000000 gold bars in their basement.

YES

If they truly want to live as Jesus instructed they would. But since the Church has always been about amassing political power and wealth that's not going to happen. Hell, if they just sold the diamonds, gold, and land in their possesion they could lift a third world country out of poverty with one check. And it's not just the Chatolic Church it's all of them.

Yes, they need a woman pope too. Its a woman who rides the beast.

It would seem to be the Christian thing to do....

Yes but who knows best is GOD.

You speak of Church “Treasures” as if they are simply a commodity. You fail to realize that these artifacts are representative of the society/culture the Roman Catholic Church has help to build; namely western culture. Most of these pieces were commissioned to tell the story of Christ and his Church; remember that most of society was illiterate when these works were created. People could relate to pictures, statues, stained glass and marble work as it tells a story in whatever median is being utilized. The contemporary artiest of the day who produced these works were no different (in their time) than artists today; that is they were hired to produce these works for a given amount of money just as you would do for yourself today. It is only through the passage of time that these works have appreciated to the level they are today; thus becoming “treasures.” The so called “opulent” styles happen to be the style of the day just as art deco was during the 1920’s and 30’s. These pieces are part of the history of Christianity and prove the Church’s contribution to the betterment of mankind. Prospective in the visual arts (3 dimensions on a 2 dimensional median) was born in the Church; the Bible, polyphonic music, international law; contributions to mechanized farming, the breeding of domestic farm animals, modern astronomy (resulting in the Gregorian Calendar), varies sciences (such as genetics), the University System, and the modern hospital are just a very small microcosm of inventions/contributions the Church has brought to mankind. You also totally disregard the fact that the Church is one of the most charitable organizations (may be the most) in the history of mankind (the Church has been in existence for over 2000 years). While most people criticize the Church for its downfalls (and admittantly there are some) they most always either forget or are ignorant of its contributions to the sick, infirmed, homeless and all less fortunate regardless of race, religion or social status (Mother Theresa’s ministry was in India were most all of the people she served were of either the Hindu or Muslim faith). To the best of my knowledge, the Catholic Church is the oldest continuous running organization in the history of mankind. As such, it is no wonder that Her Church’s and Library’s are filled with incredible artifacts of both secular and religious history which help to preserve and convey its message of Love, Faith, Hope and Charity, for it is the Church which has provided the rich ground upon which western culture has sprung through Jesus Christ. The Church should no more sell its “treasures” as the United States should sell off items in Washington D.C. or The Smithsonian Institute (to help the poor); we must never forget were we came from.

This is what Jesus recommended to someone who wanted to follow him.

I am reluctant to tell other people what they should do, but I think all of us as Christians, Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox, should develop simpler lifestyles and make more of our resources available for the poor. I don't know if flooding the marketing with treasures and taking cash from one pocket to another is the most effective way, but the church (made up of all Christians - so that it includes me as a Protestant) needs to be more fully engaged with our cities and with those who have been marginalized by society here and around the world.

In answer to this, I will repeat what I have learned from dear religious friends, elderly and dedicated totally to their faith. There will always be the poor of this earth. Selling the vast treasures of the Church and feeding them for a few months will not stop this. We must not depend on the Church to divest itself of every beautiful thing to try to stop this. There were poor before Christianity, the poor are not a result of the treasures of the Catolic Church. "Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day.........teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime."

hmmm it appears this site is infested with iconoclasts, philistines and ignoramists - was it not charles darwin who said ignorance breeds arrogance whereas knowledge nurtures humility - as for the 'common good' applied art is an intrinsic neccessity of our humanity - if u waste all your breath talking of art in terms of commerce then it goes to show your lack of aesthetic understanding, as regards social justice, the Catholic Church annually provides the planet with more welfare (in terms of financial and practical help) then even the UN - do your homework you neeks! x

aha Razz, you have finally revealed your line of argument - 'cathophobia' - the Mother Church is infallible and without errancy please do'nt confuse Her with the visible (cultural) Church filled with individuals just like you!. Regarding the a hungry person visiting the Vatican, JP II set up the first cashpoints in the world at St Peters' where local homeless could withdraw cash for food - for nothing - no strings attached! - on a grassroots level why do'nt you checkout your homegrown Catholic Anarchists - 'The Catholic Worker' and see and 'experience' where art and social justice complement and overlap one another mwah! x

Well - if they want to be emulators of their founder, yes. If they wan't to be some kind of museum curators, no. But they won't so its a moot point - but can you just imagine how exciting it would be if they DID? : )

YES!!!!!!!!!!! and stop begging for money

Are you doing anything for the poor?

Sure. It sounds like a charitable thing to do.

No! 1. These are not their treasures, these are our treasures, treasures of the whole world ( BTW the Catholic Church is not reduced to the Vatican- I assume you reffer to the Vatican in your question) thus they are entrusted to them, but not their to deal with as they please (this also goes for the money). 2. As a person studying the social causes of poverty I can tell you even a huge give-away would not solve the problem- in some cases it makes it worse. 3. If they sell, the treasures would most likely (should) go to the highest figure, mostly private collections. So a lot of people (check out figures of people visiting the Vatican) people would not be able to admire and study the treasures. 4. I guess this complicates the answer but: people don't live by bread alone. I live in a poor country where people are willing to give up some of their necessities ( even food) to enjoy painting, theatre and art in general. Your question I think implies a rather materialistic view of deprivation or social exclusion ( I prefer these terms to poverty exactly because poverty is a limited concept usually refering to a social state measured by money and material resources alone) 5. Check out the Vatican finances. A few years ago I know they couldn't even afford pensions or decent salaries for their own people. If they would sell maybe they should start paying their own empliyees more. They belive poverty should be reduced (largest charities in the world are Catholic: Caritas for example) but they have a holistic approach and wouldn't commit to such simplistic tactics. Sorry for the long answer. And it still doesn't cover half of the things I had to say:)

Wouldn't it be easier to just tax their real estate? I'm sure you could make more money off something like that....

Ha ha ha...Thanks for the hearty laugh - I needed that today! Never mind selling the stuff, returning what they stole, pilfered and pillaged to their rightful owners would do wonders for the wealth of humanity at large

(With gratitude to my friend Yada, whose work I am paraphrasing here.) The Church does own some 'priceless' pieces of art [like Michangelo's Pieta] but what good would come from selling that art? Who could buy it? George Soros or Bill Gates? Where would they place it - in a private collection or donate it [to eliminate paying taxes] to some high priced museum? Now it is located in St. Peter's Basilica where millions of people can view it without cost and be inspired by it. Pretend that the Vatican DID sell all their artwork: the money obtained, if then spent on food for those afflicted with starvation, would perhaps feed the stomach of a small group of them for a day, if it is not stolen by gangs/dictators/militants or on the black market. recent estimates are that every poor person would receive $0.016 cents in aid. How is that going to be helpful? And then, no more public free access to beautiful art which even the poor can appreciate and should have access to, and no additional funds for the poor. The Catholic church - a people dedicated to Christ and spreading the good news through the ages, sacrificed and built local parish buildings, rectories, churches, parish offices and schools, cathedrals and universities, monestaries and nunnaries, abbies and basilicas. These were all built to honor God, and for the service of mankind. It is a fact that the church holds in trust many material assets, but She is not "rich" in the sense that most people think of "rich". %99 of her funds go right back out the door to serve the community and the world. Consider that the Catholic Church also provides more direct assistance to the poor than any other organization worldwide, and has for hundreds of years. She feeds the hungry, provides assistance to those who suffer natural disasters like earthquakes, hurricanes and drought, sponsors hospitals, orphanages, schools and nursing facilities, on public works projects like clean water and community farms. I wish that solving poverty was as simple as throwing more money at it. But poverty is caused by complex layers of systems of unfairness, which must be addressed and eliminated. It's kind of like the terrible public school problems in America: they won't be solved just by throwing more money at the schools.

To provide a little perspective, in 2005, the Archdiocese of Chicago had assets of roughly $2 billion. The Archdiocese depends on the income from those investments, plus donations, to cover its operating expenses. On the other hand the Yale University Endowment was worth $18 billion as of 2006. Which institution do you think people expect more of? And criticise more?

They should sell them all to help the poor. Will that ever occur? Hell no! My 2 cents.