• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

After a Century, the Largest $ Catholic $ Church in North America is Complete

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
What are you basing this on? I can't even find statistics on this, since the Catholic Church tends to compartmentalize itself: every diocese and Catholic-affiliated organization is set up as a legally distinct entity (mainly to limit liability if one of them gets sued, AFAICT).
I'm not avoiding this but I have to leave very shortly and I won't be back on until Monday. However, since I've run across it before from non-Catholic sources, you should be able to google it (maybe check Wikipedia, for example). If you can't find it, get back with me and I'll see if I can find it Monday.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Are you implying that supporting the artists who designed of the church justifies the the huge amount of money spent on the whole project?

.

In relation to the major Cathedrals of the past it is not that expensive in relative terms.
However when it was started, the price was within bounds, and the Church could have easily paid for it out of donations and income.
Today both their, and the national situation, is very different.

What no one is probably considering, is the upkeep and running costs of such a major construction.

Should churches build such Cathedral today? History will decide.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I'm not avoiding this but I have to leave very shortly and I won't be back on until Monday. However, since I've run across it before from non-Catholic sources, you should be able to google it (maybe check Wikipedia, for example). If you can't find it, get back with me and I'll see if I can find it Monday.
I seriously can't find it. Apparently, the Vatican doesn't release its own budget publicly, so any estimates are just that: estimates. And any estimates I've been able to find of Catholic and Catholic-affiliated spending:

- are usually US-specific, and/or

- don't differentiate between actual charity and services provided on a fee-for-service basis (e.g. "health care" seems to include cases where a Catholic-affiliated hospital gets paid standard rates by a government or private insurer to provide health care services, much like a for-profit hospital).
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Sure it is. Either more money will be designated for charitable work Or it won't.

.
That isn't what you implied with your post.

Charitable works are a huge part of what the Church does, but don't forget, the primary purpose of the Church is worshipping God. Now, whether you personally agree with it or not, there is a very long theological tradition of glorifying God through art and architecture. If you think THIS example is extreme, I invite you to compare any of the great mediaeval cathedrals with the dwellings of the average contemporary person.

If you don't believe the Church should spend money on architectural sacrifices like this, you're entitled to your opinion. However;

a. It is wrong to suggest that the Church doesn't spend a great deal on charitable causes,

b. unless you, personally, are a member of this particular congregation, I don't see why you feel you have any place to criticise how they spend their money, as it is, after all, their money,

c. excessive as you may feel the expense in this case may be, we can find any number of expensive projects where the money could instead have been put towards charitable donations. To single out this church for criticism but not, say, any of the sports stadiums on this list The 10 Most Expensive Stadiums In Sports , rather suggests a double standard
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
b. unless you, personally, are a member of this particular congregation, I don't see why you feel you have any place to criticise how they spend their money, as it is, after all, their money,
This might be true... if the church wasn't untaxed. The fact that the Catholic Church is effectively subsidized by a government that provides it - and some of its employees - with valuable services that if doesn't pay for means that its business is the business of everyone.

c. excessive as you may feel the expense in this case may be, we can find any number of expensive projects where the money could instead have been put towards charitable donations. To single out this church for criticism but not, say, any of the sports stadiums on this list The 10 Most Expensive Stadiums In Sports , rather suggests a double standard
A big expense by a for-profit company isn't wasteful if it's done with the expectation that it will generate a return that outweighs the expense.

How many of those stadiums were built by charities?
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
This might be true... if the church wasn't untaxed. The fact that the Catholic Church is effectively subsidized by a government that provides it - and some of its employees - with valuable services that if doesn't pay for means that its business is the business of everyone.


A big expense by a for-profit company isn't wasteful if it's done with the expectation that it will generate a return that outweighs the expense.

How many of those stadiums were built by charities?
How many of those sports stadiums were subsidised with tax dollars?
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
That isn't what you implied with your post.
Of course it is. I said:

"People can do whatever they want to support whatever religion they wish, but to spend millions upon millions and millions of dollars for a place of worship instead of being a bit more frugal and helping those in need strikes me as having their priorities screwed up."

They can either give their money for building the immense cathedrals or they can build less expensive structures and give more of it to charitable works.

Charitable works are a huge part of what the Church does, but don't forget, the primary purpose of the Church is worshipping God. Now, whether you personally agree with it or not, there is a very long theological tradition of glorifying God through art and architecture. If you think THIS example is extreme, I invite you to compare any of the great mediaeval cathedrals with the dwellings of the average contemporary person.
Yes, there is a long tradition of pouring money into great medieval cathedrals rather than using part of it to help the needy; a tradition that has obviously continued to this day.

If you don't believe the Church should spend money on architectural sacrifices like this, you're entitled to your opinion.
As is everybody.

However;
a. It is wrong to suggest that the Church doesn't spend a great deal on charitable causes,
Which is why I never said so. I simply feel that it could give more of its vast amounts of money to charity rather than erect buildings to satiate its collective ego.

b. unless you, personally, are a member of this particular congregation, I don't see why you feel you have any place to criticise how they spend their money, as it is, after all, their money,
Most importantly, I live in the USA where I'm guaranteed the right to free speech, and as such can freely criticize anything I choose.

c. excessive as you may feel the expense in this case may be, we can find any number of expensive projects where the money could instead have been put towards charitable donations. To single out this church for criticism but not, say, any of the sports stadiums on this list The 10 Most Expensive Stadiums In Sports , rather suggests a double standard
I choose my battles as I see fit. And in contrast to secular uses of money such as on sports venues, whose supporters have never pretended to be particularly charitable, supporters of religion do, and often delight in pointing out their deep concern for the poor and disadvantaged, and how they help them.

.

.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
...
People can do whatever they want to support whatever religion they wish, but to spend millions upon millions and millions of dollars for a place of worship instead of being a bit more frugal and helping those in need strikes me as having their priorities screwed up.

I agree with you. And it is butt ugly. The only pretty thing on it is the blue dome.

The Grotto that David T mentioned is quite lovely.


*

QUOTE]
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
After 100 years of construction, thousands of worshippers Friday (Dec. 8) witnessed the blessing of 24 tons of Venetian glass that embellish the dome of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Called the “Trinity Dome,” the glass mosaic is the final architectural element of the church, a shrine to Mary which sits next to the Catholic University of America and is visited by nearly 1 million people a year.
source

386px-Basilica_of_the_National_Shrine_of_the_Immaculate_Conception%2C_Washington.jpg
national-shrine-immaculate-conception.jpg


24064336507_e290ff2d81_b.jpg


People can do whatever they want to support whatever religion they wish, but to spend millions upon millions and millions of dollars for a place of worship instead of being a bit more frugal and helping those in need strikes me as having their priorities screwed up.


.



People can't build beautiful things because most people are poor? Then nothing of art, painting, sculpture that we appreciate would have ever been built. And it's going to be open to all won't it. Not like all the extravagant money spent to beautify private properties including hotels, private beaches, luxurious resorts etc.

And I greatly appreciated the cathedrals and architecture of Rome, Venice, Florence etc. America looks severely drab by comparison. They can be appreciated by all people. Even the destitute can come and enjoy something that is increasingly becoming the private domain of multimillionaires in their closed off villas.
 
Last edited:

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Of course it is. I said:

"People can do whatever they want to support whatever religion they wish, but to spend millions upon millions and millions of dollars for a place of worship instead of being a bit more frugal and helping those in need strikes me as having their priorities screwed up."

They can either give their money for building the immense cathedrals or they can build less expensive structures and give more of it to charitable works.


Yes, there is a long tradition of pouring money into great medieval cathedrals rather than using part of it to help the needy; a tradition that has obviously continued to this day.


As is everybody.


Which is why I never said so. I simply feel that it could give more of its vast amounts of money to charity rather than erect buildings to satiate its collective ego.


Most importantly, I live in the USA where I'm guaranteed the right to free speech, and as such can freely criticize anything I choose.


I choose my battles as I see fit. And in contrast to secular uses of money such as on sports venues, whose supporters have never pretended to be particularly charitable, supporters of religion do, and often delight in pointing out their deep concern for the poor and disadvantaged, and how they help them.

.

.
Again, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the primary objective of the Church is worship, not charity.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
Matthew 26:7-12

It's not my favorite cathedral nevertheless it's beautiful, and if there's one thing we need in the modern world its beauty. (Especially in architecture). The outrage strikes me as mostly contrived. How dare the Catholic Church build beautiful things (open to all) for the glory of God. Such things offend atheists after all, but we'll dress our offense as a concern for the poor. (Yeah, I don't buy it).

The worship of God and the salvation of souls are the principal objects of the Church's mission. Material charity, as important as it may be (and they do far more of it than you and any organization you may be a part of) is ultimately secondary.
 
Last edited:

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Matthew 26:7-12

It's not my favorite cathedral nevertheless it's beautiful, and if there's one thing we need in the modern world its beauty. (Especially in architecture). The outrage strikes me as mostly contrived. How dare the Catholic Church build beautiful things (open to all) for the glory of God. Such things offend atheists after all, but we'll dress our offense as a concern for the poor. (Yeah, I don't buy it).

The worship of God and the salvation of souls are the principal objects of the Church's mission. Material charity, as important as it may be (and they do far more of it than you and any organization you may be a part of) is ultimately secondary.

What is contrived about the reality that they could have built a beautiful church for half the cost, - and given the rest to those whom need it?

Also! This Heathen helps out at the Salvation Army, - which as the chart posted earlier shows, - gives more in the USA than the Catholic Church.

*
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
What is contrived about the reality that they could have built a beautiful church for half the cost, - and given the rest to those whom need it?
I don't believe for a second that anyone sincerely objects to the cathedral on the basis that the money used could have been used for charitable purposes. So could have the millions upon millions sunk into sport competitions, corporate pay-packets, smartphones and rock concerts. Here something genuinely valuable to the world has been built that will hopefully last for centuries, but because of that something's religious function it's something to be objected to.

Also! This Heathen helps out at the Salvation Army, - which as the chart posted earlier shows, - gives more in the USA than the Catholic Church.
Even if that claim were to be accepted, there's more to the world than the USA. Also, while I don't doubt the good the Salvation Army does, how many schools and hospitals do they run? What cultural heritage have they left on the world that even comes close to what the Catholic Church has given it?

The fact is, that without the Catholic Church the world would be all the worse for it.

Finally, as has been pointed out, the Catholic Church is not in and of itself a charity; it is a Church first and foremost. That it happens to engage in charity is an extension of its mission. Material charity to the poor has never been the Church's raison d'être, rather it's the salvation of their souls.
 
Last edited:

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
IMO, it should be left up to the denomination to determine what kind of church they might want.

Also, what can be easily lost in the debate is that the Catholic Church is the world's largest charitable organization in terms of money spent per year, and it's not just spent on Catholics.
Catholics are extremely complex that is all I can say it is spectrum it's much larger than the Catholic church there is the whole Protestant branch of it.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The Protestant branch of Catholicism? o_O
The I don't like you pew section!!! Same building though. I mean we are talking about Christianity and oh let's see the GREAT SCHISM 1054. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. now that is funny.

I also specify wrote the above exactly like it reads out intentionally. I already know the response to how it was written out. Same response Ha ha ha ha!!! Same ha ha ha ha either way!!!
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
Again, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the primary objective of the Church is worship, not charity.
Not ignoring it at all. My only question is just how expensive of a church does a congregation need in order to worship?

.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
I don't believe for a second that anyone sincerely objects to the cathedral on the basis that the money used could have been used for charitable purposes. So could have the millions upon millions sunk into sport competitions, corporate pay-packets, smartphones and rock concerts. Here something genuinely valuable to the world has been built that will hopefully last for centuries, but because of that something's religious function it's something to be objected to. ...

Sport competitions, corporate pay-packets, smartphones and rock concerts have nothing to do with religion. Especially Christianity, which claims they are to lead people to Jesus - (you know, that long haired broke hippy, that said to give away your possessions and follow him)? The church seems to have missed the point.

Luk 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

Luk 16:20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

Luk 16:21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

Luk 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

In case you don't get it; - these modern churches are now the RICH man.

*

*
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I seriously can't find it. Apparently, the Vatican doesn't release its own budget publicly, so any estimates are just that: estimates.
Either way, their charitable work s quite extensive Just a few sources, although I cannot verify the accuracy of these:
The Roman Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of health care services in the world. -- Catholic Church and health care - Wikipedia

(AP) -- Once again today, the Roman Catholic Church, by far the world's largest charitable organization, fed more of the hungry, housed more of the homeless, tended to the more of the sick, and educated more of the poor throughout the world than all other organizations combined. -- BREAKING -- World's Largest Charity Feeds the Hungry - Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Number 2 ) how many people make up the Catholic Church?

There are an estimated 1.2 billion Roman Catholics in the world, according to Vatican figures. More than 40% of the world's Catholics live in Latin America - but Africa has seen the biggest growth in Catholic congregations in recent years.

That means the charitable organization known as the Catholic Church is 1.2 billion people strong.

Number 3). Is there any other charitable organization that can claim more than 1.2 billion people as members?

No there is not.

Therefore the Catholic Church is in fact the largest charitable organization on earth.
-- What is the basis for saying that the Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world?

They estimate that the church spends about $171,600,000,000 a year. Not a typo... The Economist estimates that annual spending by the church and entities owned by the church was around $170 billion in 2010 (the church does not release such figures). We think 57% of this goes on health-care networks, followed by 28% on colleges, with parish and diocesan day-to-day operations accounting for just 6% and national charitable activities just 2.7% (see chart). In total, Catholic institutions employ over 1m people, reckons Fred Gluck, a former McKinsey managing partner and co-founder of the National Leadership Roundtable on Church Management, a lay organisation seeking to improve the way the church is run. -- The Economist Estimates the Catholic Church Spent $171,600,000,000 in 2010
 
Top