Yep. Much anticlericalism in my own family traces back to those events and before. The Spanish Civil War, IMO, is the most underappreciated impactful event of the last century. One part of old family letter. Had to crop heavily to make it fit
Unclear if this is financially related. Hope not as in past years Caritas had a sterling reputation for ensuring that almost all donated funds reach the needy
It always come back to Opus Dei when you find far right power grabs and strategic dishonesty. John Durham too. In a piece detailing how dishonest that investigation was in an attempt to discredit the investigation into Trump, Barr and Durham meet multiple times weekly (Highly improper): But the two shared a worldview: They are both Catholic conservatives and Republicans, born two months apart in 1950. As a career federal prosecutor, Mr. Durham already revered the office of the attorney general, people who know him say. And as he was drawn into Mr. Barr’s personal orbit, Mr. Durham came to embrace that particular attorney general’s intense feelings about the Russia investigation.
I'm not Catholic so probably a bit biased, but visited the Vatican several years ago and was stunned by the wealth on display. That, in combination with the long lines paying big $ entrance fees just exacerbated my feelings of misplaced wealth for a "religious" organization and how much good all that money could do. Still, as noted above, nothing is going to change with the Vatican.
The wealth you saw on display, which is substantial, actually costs the Vatican more than it generates. It used to be only a loser. The Holy See views itself as the preserver of the patrimony of the West. It costs money to preserve all of that priceless art, etc. It doesn't generate revenue, at least until recently, when the Vatican began selling bookmarks, etc. with the images of some of the great art. So I understand how opulent it looks. It is opulent. And one can always make the argument that it should be sold and the proceeds dedicated to worthier causes. No doubt that's an argument. But it's not a source of revenue for the Vatican, it's actually a loser.
so the worlds largest collection of art is a money loser. To come to that conclusion they must be using trumps accountants. I say this as one who was raised catholic but abondoned faith when I was about 12.
I'm sure you know more than me on the subject, but hard to believe it's a money loser, especially when u consider the revenue stream it generates from tourist visits to the Vatican alone.
I'm not going to convince you, but just think about it logically. They don't sell the art nor do they charge to look at it. But they do need to maintain it. Like I mentioned, they have been generating some revenue in recent years through things like the Vatican library and their collection of memorabilia - see Vatican Library We have quite a few pieces. But it doesn't come close to covering the expenses of maintaining the collection, nor do the entry fees, most of which do not go to the Vatican Here's an old John Allen piece if interested. It was from when Pope Francis was elected. Francis has done away with the personal trappings of wealth for Church officials, and has reformed finances Of course, these figures don't include the value of masterpieces of Western art housed in the Vatican, such as Michelangelo's "Pietà." The Vatican considers itself custodians of these items, not their owners, and it's a matter of Vatican law that they can never be sold or borrowed against. As a result, they have no practical value and are listed on the Vatican books at a value of 1 euro each Challenges to vision of a 'Poor Church for the Poor'
