"Why This Waste?"

[The following is only a very "rough draft" of a reply made to an objection I've seen before, and it is still in need of major revision. It is true that I often preface my posts with such a warning as this at first, but it is especially so in this case. My reply is all disorganized, and probably unclear in quite a few places. While the title "Why This Waste?" is meant to allude to Matthew 26:8, it's a good question about any time one would spend reading this post as well, come to think of it. It seems to be all over the place. That said, I am posting this anyway at this time, flaws and all, simply to get feedback from some friends on how to clean up the mess that it is right now.]

Objection: Why doesn't the Catholic Church sell off all her expensive church buildings and valuable art work, and give the proceeds to the poor? She should be more simple, like the early Christians were. The waste which is committed by her otherwise is appalling! 

Such words echo a criticism made once before, in the Gospels, on the occasion of a woman anointing the feet of Jesus with costly ointment, which she poured out because of her great love for Him:

"Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?" (John 12:5)

The person who made this objection? Judas Iscariot.

It is interesting to note that the Evangelist goes on to state in the next verse the real reason for Judas's complaint:

This he said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it.

In a similar way, given the circumstances of how it is presented at times, I have to admit that I can't help but wonder if some (though certainly not all) of the people who make such a complaint as that given above, including some Catholics, have ulterior motives for protesting. For instance, trying to salve their consciences, perhaps disturbed by their own selfish lack of giving to the poor, or maybe some other sin. Hence, they distract themselves from their failures by attacking the Church for her (supposed) faults in this regard. If that is the case with any particular reader, any reply will fall on deaf ears, of course, and hence be a waste of time. He need read no further. Be that as it may, though, the objection nevertheless still needs to be answered for others who are sincere in their questioning. So how does one reply?

Of course, the obvious response is to point out that the Catholic Church does contribute countless resources to helping the poor. More than any other organization in history, the Church has fed, clothed, sheltered, nursed, and provided for the material needs of the unfortunate. There is nobody else who comes even close. To pretend otherwise is to be both ungrateful for the abundant services she provides, in addition to being intellectually dishonest. Whatever else may be alleged against her, indifference to the sufferings of the destitute is not one of them. And indeed, it is generally not the poor themselves who make such objections as those given above, but rather those who are comparatively quite well off.  So let's keep that in mind as we begin our inquiry.

With that said, there are obvious factors that are too often overlooked by her critics, which go far in explaining the Church's motivations in matters like these [1].

First, it is true that the Church, following the example of her Lord, acknowledges that when it comes to the worship of God, nothing can ever be too good. Hence, why she builds magnificent church buildings. Why should they not be built so as to express the glory of God? After all, there were few buildings in antiquity that could compare to the temple in Jerusalem, particularly in its refurbishing begun under Herod the Great. During and after the ministry of Jesus it was still under construction. Yet nowhere in all his references to the temple does Christ, who loved the poor more than anybody, condemn such expense being spent upon it. Likewise, no expense was spared for the original temple built by Solomon. Its purpose demanded such, and it received a blessing from God. For the same reason, the Church has historically not been stingy in providing for the buildings she erects for God's glory. Catholics will in any case need to have buildings in which to assemble.  There is no good to be realized by the buildings being austere, as a general matter, whereas there are many disadvantages with such lack of beauty. Not that God needs it, of course, but rather because we need to be inspired as much as possible by a sense of the awe of His majesty that such beauty encourages. (It is true that in the early Church, with persecutions placing many restraints on them, the first Christians were more "simple", being forced to such by necessity. However, as soon as they were free of such restraints, we see that their practice changed accordingly.)

In addition, it should be pointed out that the Church sees herself as responsible for guarding a cultural patrimony as well. Thus, even those "treasures" she has which are not incorporated into actual church buildings for worship, but in museums at the Vatican, for instance, are nevertheless part of the common heritage of mankind. How many such cultural riches would have found their way into some private collection, never to be seen again by the masses, were she to relinquish them? (And who would have the authority to relinquish them in the first place? After all, the Popes do not see such as their own private property, to be disposed of as they will.)

But perhaps most relevant to the present discussion are the poor themselves, in whose name such objections are often made by others. That is because the Church doesn't restrict herself to providing simply for the material needs of her children, but their persons as a whole. In other words, she can "walk and chew gum at the same time", as the saying goes. And in a case like this, such applies above all for the poor.

After all, even speaking strictly on a human level, who is it that benefits the most from such expense being spent on the worship of God, such as beautiful church buildings? Obviously those for whom they can receive cultural beauty nowhere else but through the Church, that is, the poor.

While charity obliges me to think it is simply a matter of confused thinking, nevertheless it is tempting to wonder sometimes if great masses of comparatively well off people in our society simply see the poor as "beasts of burden", so to speak. At best, they may treat them as they do their own pets. The result is that while such people are anxious to provide for the material needs of the poor, and even to pity them, as they would animals, it never once crosses their minds that the poor have more human needs like other people do. All people desire beauty in their life, for one, and that includes the poor. "Man does not live by bread alone." Quite apart from the higher context in which those words were originally spoken by our Divine Master, even on a lower human level those words ring true. We need "bread", but we also need beauty. Many who see precious little beauty anywhere else are lifted into a higher world when they enter a Catholic church. Even those who are not graced with the gift of faith as of yet can still be inspired in a more natural sense. Do we wish to strip the poor of such treasure as that? Should cultural beauty be a class privilege?

If not, if we recognize the poor are not mere animals, but human beings fully deserving of respect and the dignity of equals, then let us not be stingy with the poor in providing cultural treasures as well as providing for their material needs. And certainly we should not be so anxious to deprive the poor of such beauty as the Church provides them, should we?

____________

[1] Of course, this answer in no way is meant to imply that there are not certain areas in which parts of the Church could certainly improve. Human nature being what it is, it is quite possible for certain Catholic leaders to engage in "waste"of resources, and be critiqued accordingly. And, in fact, I think there are some who deserve such critiques. But as with any situation, we need to know where the real problem actually is in order to combat it, and not make an indiscriminate attack.