Sell the Vatican. Feed the world?

This is beyond embarrassing. Do we really need to trot out this weeks old story?

As better commentators have pointed out, it assumes that there would be someone to actually buy the Vatican. Who would do such a thing? Who could afford it? And who would want to see the treasures of the Vatican put into private hands when they are currently available for all to enjoy?

Next, she gives short shrift to the work the Church already does on behalf of the poor. If anyone can point to an organization that does more for peace and justice than the Church, I'd love to know about it.

Finally we have the old canard about the pope's shoes. I thought this one had been laid to rest years ago. They come from the papal cobbler, not a fashion house.

NCR should be ashamed for publishing such a shoddy piece or "journalism."

A fair, for the most part, article. But your snide remark tacked on at the end was not surprising. $800 prada shoes? Where?! The popes shoes are made by a VATICAN TAYLOR, they are not brought from prada. Seriously why in the world would you have to tack on an offensive remark like that at the end? Also the garments and shoes worn is very similiar to your awe of the buildings is it not? Shouldn't the priest dress magnificently for the mass to do glory to God? Remember that Jesus did not criticize the temple or the way the pharisees and saducees dressed. He criticized their hearts! I think that liturgy with all the smells and bells, so to speak, whose purpose is to glorify God to the utmost, should be done with great pomp and magnificence.
Don't get me wrong now. I actually do agree with much of your article. What would happen if the Vatican was sold anyway? Rich cultural elites would get it. The Vatican is the worlds greatest museum and the fact that it has so much cultural items (sisten chapel, etc...)is that it symbolizes, for me at least, a bastion of civilization and hope. Yes, the clergy of the Vatican, like us, have their faults and do sin. But in the end God is working through them, flawed that they are, to guide humanity to salvation. I may at times become a bit annoyed at various clergymen, and lay leaders too, of the Church. But I know at the end of the day that God is always present and will never abandon his Church.

This Sunday we have the Gospel of the widow's mite. She gave all she had to the Temple Treasury...for the good of God. This was praised by Christ. How many parishes and institutions, including the National Shrine as you mentioned, were built with the donations of faithful Catholics. And yet how many parishes in the name of so-called reform too all of their donations and hard work and threw it away to turn churches from places of worship to multi-purpose auditoriums with white washed walls and nothing sacred inside.

If your womens "ordination" loong group and the call to apostasy folks just gave up already and stopped leading people astray and wasting their money, then they could sell all they have and feed the poor.

It is unfortunate that Love, Hope and Faith are disparaged by folks, particularly those with an audience. With the opportunity to do something about hunger, what did Sarah do? Did she sell her shirt? Did she sell her home? Did she sell her autograph for hunger relief? Did she buy a rabbit, a calf, or grain? Sarah could have shown Hope by "doing something"; she could have shown Love by embracing those who do, "do something"; she could have shown Faith in God by thanking people for "doing something". I'm sure she has done these things, she doesn't see all that the Church has done as well.

Sarah is trying to generate Hope for the hungry, Love for the hungry and Faith that those who "have", will help those who do not "have". She felt a Holy Spirit move her to do something, she missed what the inspiration asked of her. I know I have blown that blessed opportunity more than once. So, let's give her a break and pray that a small vision of St. Theresa taps into her soul and all of our souls.

Anyone else notice that all these celebrities that say "The Church should sell everything and give it to the poor" always live in properties far more expensive than any of us could ever afford, drive new Lexus, Infinities, BMWs, wear Gucci and are always on fantastics trips to exotic beaches?

I think Jesus once said something about 'a plank in the eye' or some such.

Sure - 100 acres in the middle of Rome. Couldn't be worth much. Or Castel Gandolpho or the 1000 acres @ nearby Santa Maria de Galeria. Do people really need to see this kind of opulence to know the God is Great (or Allah Akbar if you prefer)?

It all kind of reminds me of the gospel where the guy asks Jesus what more he can do - and Jesus tells him to sell everything, give the $$ to the poor and follow Him. I can just picture a lot of cardinals walking away with that sad face.

No, cshing out the Vatican wouldn't, in itself, be sufficient to solve world hunger/poverty. But it'd be one heck of an example to a world full of catholic - or to the world for that matter. Kinda like 5 loaves of bread and a few fish.

I just never know what to make of statements like that of Archbishop John Onaiyeken: "the few poor people who come here have never said, 'Oh, why don't they sell this and give us money for food?' They always say, 'What a beautiful place.' ... It helps them to see how great our God is, and they're not expecting the Vatican to sell it off."

It seems to me the operative words are 'the few poor people' who come to the Vatican. I'm sure that's true, and then he implies that all the pomp and wealth are gifts of the Church to the poor. All this time I thought it was the other way around. It was the poor who bequeathed what little wealth they had to build these monuments to glory of God.

I think the Archbishop needs a major reversal in attitude.

I cannot speak for the people of Africa, or anyone but myself, but when I have the need for "church", that participation in liturgy or a quiet visit for refelction and especially for that atmosphere that helps me focus on the presence of Christ, what I am seeking is "sacred space".

Since childhood I love churches,grew up with a very large wooden replica of medieval cathedrals. I have visited great churches at home and around a lot of Europe, some of which are "owned" and maintained by the state as virtual museums. The richness and splendor, the soaring architecture, the art of statuary and stained-glass magnificance do draw the mind and soul but are no longer sacred for me.

Last Sunday I attended the showing of a documentary film at a semi-rural United Church. It seems to have grown like "Topsy", it has chain-store chandeliers, indoor-outdoor carpet, a sound-system box at the rear, windows covered with white cardboard, electrical outlets with plugs and wires dotted the riser to the sanctuary which had plain nice chairs for the choir and a cross on a rather nice but unspectacular table.

The documentary was called "Norm". It depicts several years of love and caring for a down's syndrome man by his sister and her female partner. Norm is sixty and not well. He was there and thoroughly enjoyed the presentation taking the mike and presenting a sincere homily that, I think most of us understood even though his actual words made sense only to himself. Now, that was sacred space.

Ok person who wasted time writing this just to get a buzz:

When Jesus came, did he eradicate poverty, eradicate sickness, eradicate wars, eradicate hunger, eradicate abuse, etc?

When you judge such a silly thing as this, you are setting yourself up to be judged accordingly; and you know when.

Stop this nonsense, go live in the country, and stop thinking about all the negative stuff. I am serious. You are not!

Go and watch the sunrises and sunsets. You need it.

You missed the proverbial boat on this one, Kate -- and I'm among your strongest supporters. Let's look at ways to arouse the compassion of our hierarchy and ultra conservative laity, not the hair on their backs. Such antagonism almost always raises one's defenses higher and stronger; and makes the writer appear more self righteous and sanctimonious than those being challenged. It sounds like you might have let your ego get in the way this time. I've been there, too. Keep writing.

Aldus

The author of this article is guilty of the same crime as Silverman is: spreading dangerous disinformation about a world-wide social and political problem, namely hunger and poverty. By unjustly and maliciously focusing on a non-issue (on how much the Vatican is worth) both of them contribute to the trivialization of the scandal of poverty and hunger in the world today, by appealing to an “emotional no-starter,” when it comes to actually solving the problem. The real issue at hand is that 20% of the world’s population consumes 80% of its income is the real problem, and not how much this or that real-estate is worth.

Here are some statistics provided by the WorldWatch Institute:

Amount of money spent annually on perfumes in Europe and US: $12 billion
Amount of money spent annually on cosmetics in the US: $8 billion
Amount of money spent on pet food in Europe and the US: &17 billion
Annual world-wide military spending: $780 billion

Silverman and Kate Childs Graham should look into the mirror first!

If we are really serious about selling some real-estate to help the poor, why not start with Washington, including all the government buildings? For good measure we could throw in the Smithsonian and some other museums. I can assure you, we would get much for it than for the Vatican. Furthermore, that would be only one city from the thousands of other cities in the US, while the Vatican is only a small territory with a few buildings. Or, perhaps, we could sell Jerusalem, including the Western Wall. I bet the Saudi billionaires would scoop it up for many times more than Graham claims (falsely) the Vatican’s worth to be.

It is hard to believe that NCR actually published this article. No, not because it makes fun of the Vatican (which is a common sport in the US), but because it does not make any sense.

This is a perfect example why children should be seen and not heard. They don't have enough life experience to understand the world around them.

Michael Moore makes a living off people who can't think their way out of a wet paper bag.

Yes, to all above , but let's not be so defensive. The article makes a good point for thought and reflection. How much of the Church's resources have been directed to work for the benefit of the world's poor? We cannot be complacent when so many die of hunger and lack of medical resources. The article poses a question that must be asked and contemplated. Not to do so, would be a betrayal of the Gospel.

One wonders exactly how much money Ms. Silverman contributes to the poor and hungry? Perhaps all the money she makes from her shows she uses to feed the hungy, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, etc?

Or, perhaps she, like so many others, demonstrates her compassion and concern for the less fortunate by simply recommending things for other people to do?

I liked this piece when it came out. Sure, some of it is disrespectful but the point she is making is legitimate. If we are a Church whose sole purpose is to live as Christ then why are we so flashy? Many argue that the the wealth is an intrinsic part of properly and respectfully worshipping our God, but Jesus never sets this precedent. So go ahead and sell it all, it's nothing more than worldly possessions where as the true wealth of our church should be the promise of everlasting life in Christ. Strong faith and knowledge of God's unconditional love should be all the "wealth" that anyone should need. I think even Viking Jesus (at the Basilica) would have to agree.

The Bishop of Rome, his cardinals and his fellow bishops around the world, should not be parading around in watered silk and the most expensive materials found on the planet. They should model the poverty and simplicity of Jesus. The Prada shoes are a metaphor and a good one at that. It is impossible to see these men as anything but elitist and materialistic based on the way they live and the extreme poverty of the rest of the planet. They represent everything Christ preached against. Talk about no credibility with Catholics: add the rest of the world and the way most people see the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and I would say you have a disconnect with Jesus. All of this must change if the Church is going to be disciples of the gentle and poor Jesus.

I want to beging by saying that before one points the finger at others, one should begin by looking at one's self. If you want to end hunger, begin by selling your own stuff and give the money to charity organizations. The vatican does not belong to the pope or cardinals, but to all people. It is a symbol of our Catholic faith and of who we are. This does not mean that we don't care about others, we do. As Jesus said, "you will always have poor people". I am not justifying the wealth stored in the Vatican, but even by selling the Vatican, people will continue to be hungry.
I want to conclude by asking the following question, should the U.S. sell the White House to pay all our debt to China?

Okay, and after you feed the world's hungry for 3 days with the money you get from selling the Vatican, what do you sell next, the Kremlin?

Sarah being a good Jew, perhaps she could urge the state of Israel to sell off the concrete wall that keeps the Palestinians in their place; or sell East Jerusalem to the Palestinians directly and use the proceeds to feed the poor Palestinians who cannot get to jobs in Jerusalem because of the aforementioned wall.

Didn't you ever see (or read) SHOES OF THE FISHERMAN? Don't you recall when Pope John Paul II said that if push came to shove he would sell the treasures of the Vatican to feed the world (I paraphrase and no, I don't have the reference but he did say this.)

And Benedict's boutique summer and winter shoes are handmade but, after-all, donated.

Negotiation is the only way to create peace so that food can be grown and aid delivered. You can liquidate assets but how do you get the food into the hands/mouths of the people?

What about spending that money to work for peace? And provide circumstances so that people can grow their own food as they wish. To provide for development so that people can self-determine their lives.

Famine is man-made for the most part; this is the crime.

And finally, what exactly is Sarah Silverman doing to feed the hungry? Any comedian can poke fun and mock (and she is a shock-jock; she is so not funny).

Reminds me of when Christopher Hitchins made the dastardly HELL'S ANGEL in 1995 (UK) and ridiculed Mother Teresa for caring for the homeless and dying instead of working to change the system that creates the homeless in India. He was so unfair and mean-spirited. I called the TV station after to ask when hitchins was leaving for India to change the social system; the girl didn't know what to say but I made her promise to write down my message and make sure he got it. (yeah, right).

It's both/and - feeding the poor, caring for our neighbor while working to be the change we want to see in the world.

Silverman and Hitchins and their ilk ... it's all they know how to do, to mock, to make a living. I wonder how they sleep at night. But they are warm and well-fed.

Back in 1968 the movie version of Morris West's "Shoes of the Fisherman" gave us Anthony Quinn making the same suggestion. Although West's story addresses famine in one country only (China), the same arguments came up then as come up now: who would buy, and would it even work? Since then the idea emerges every few years, always with the same reaction.

I find it disappointing that Ms Silverman credits herself with such a stale bit for laughs, and even more so that Ms Childs Graham chose to drag it out again. Surely you can find fresher ideas.

Well, I'm up for selling the new Cathedral in Los Angeles. But I doubt anyone would be interested in buying it.

I presume Sarah Silverman is Jewess as the name suggests.
One of Jesus' best friends who was the bursar of the group complained about the woman who anointed Jesus' feet with very expensive oil and dried with her hair. "Why waste it? Why not sell it, the money to be given to the poor? Jesus rebuked him: "Let her be... the poor you will always have, etc" "... you did not even much offer to wash my feet with water."
Lesson: God allows extravagance. Look how Solomon built the first Temple in Jerusalem. How lavish Solomon dressed. How the temple was adorned, how the high priest and altar ministers clothed themselves, and the vessels used in the sanctuary. Even now, look at all the synagogues all over the world. Yet, I have not heard any large number of organized Jews or group of Jews who help the poor all over the world (besides their own Jew brothers) as Catholics offer in the name of Jesus! Mind you, Catholics don't ask for religion when they give help. And by the way, the Vatican is NOT the Pope's personal property and he does not own anything, he represents them! The Pope lives what he preaches... lives humbly by not owing anything and dependent on the Church. He can't sell the Vatican as much as a Rabbi can sell a synagogue. Who is Sarah Silverman to Judge the Pope/Catholics? One thing more Sarah Silverman, if there is another ( the Lord forbids!) Holocaust, one sure thing: The Catholics/ Pope will be there for you. That is how Christian Catholics are.

It is interesting to read people's comments on this article. It is shocking to think that these people have never juxtaposed the images of the gold-filled Vatican and the images of starving children and wondered, "hmmmmm, something seems strangely ironic here". The surplus of the few (who preach on humility and a deep concern for the poor) is unconscionable in the face of such a great need.
I am not suggesting that it is as easy as Silverman suggests, but please tell me that you all have experienced some sort of dissonance when thinking about the wealth of the Vatican and starving children.
I don't think Jesus would be so quick to dismiss Silverman.

WWhile the exposure of sexual abuse among the ranks of the clergy is, in itself, a sad commentary on the spiritual health of the church in our era, the money paid to restitution and court settlements by the church is an even sadder note, for we have not yet come to understand charity and the blessings of a material poverty that is freely embraced. The Vatican, with its treasures, reveals the gross materialism that pervades the hierarchy. How many folks the world over have sacrificed food, medical care, and housing to enrich the coffers of the church, all in the name of our Lord. We have allowed the church to become a cult.

Sell National Catholic Reporter. Feed a couple of poor families for a week or two.

End hunger for $30 billion per year? Sorry, but we need that money to help support the necessary wars in Af-Pak. It's almost doubled to $80 billion this year, and is going up again with the new round of escalation.

The Pope does NOT wear prada! How did this myth get started? It is a lie. Isn't it a sin to perpetuate a lie about someone?

Thanks for another great column, Kate. I'm very glad that you highlighted the tension between often disconcerting shows of wealth on the part of the Vatican and the very human need for beauty as a conduit to the Divine.

I think a lot of people are forgetting that Sarah Silverman, first and foremost, is a comedian - a comedian with a reputation of being very irreverent and provocative. Her initial instinct, I'm sure, was to make people who enjoy her humor laugh. But, as with all good comedy and satire, she's also started an important conversation and made many people (including a lot of us Catholics) think about ways we could be better meeting the needs of the world community.

Jesus reprimanded Judas when he said that the costly perfume the sinful woman used to anoint the feet of the Lord could have been sold and the money given to the poor. The Gospel comments that Judas said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief. It seems that many here say this not because they care about the poor, but because they hate the Church.

As one reader has pointed out, "sacred space" has a lot more to do with simplicity than with pomp. Compare a monastery chapel with any cathedral, and where would you choose to pray?

Also please consider the cartoon that came out about 10 years ago as a commentary on some "church"man's statement that women do not "image"Christ, therefore they could never be ordained. The cartoon shows a bishop in all his finery along with Jesus in his homespun robe and sandals. Cartoonists and comediennes do have their ways of getting at the obvious, don't they?

Last, I'd just like to say that the phrasing of the "church"man quoted by Kate Childs to the effect that the Church has done many wonderful things for the poor) rang totally hollow for me. We can, I think, imagine what HE means by "the Church," and it is hardly the People of God.

Dear funny Sarah: selling the Vatican is maybe not a good idea; or the Pentagon,let's leave it.
In earnest: how about NOT selling something, to begin with weaponry : poor countries could maybe affort to buy food for their hungry people. Of course, not only the many warlords, Christians must contribute towards more social justice on earth as well.

Jesus didn't go around finding fault with the giving of due honor. The woman who anointed Jesus's feet and the parable of the wedding garment both attest to that.

I think we're forgetting one of the most salient facts about any discussion about the Vatican. The Vatican is itself an independent country, not just the seat of faith for Catholics. There is a whole set of historical reasons for this, and this isn't necesarily the place to describe them. But the fact that the Vatican is a country means several things. 1.) You can't sell a country.
2.) The fact that the Vatican is a country means that the Vatican (and by extension, the Church) has a place at the table in the community of nations and therefore has a voice in world affairs, which is much greater than it would be if it were only a faith body, like, say, the Anglican communion or the Baptists.

The fact that the Vatican exists as part of the Catholic Church and part of the community of nations means, very simply, that the Vatican has a much greater chance of being able to influence other countries to enact more just policies and bring about and end to world hunger and other problems too.

I'm glad to see that one or two people have referenced "The Shoes of the Fisherman" here. It is a lovely movie, but of course totally unrealistic. The problem with "ending world hunger," as Miss Graham suggests the Vatican consider doing, is that there is no end to world hunger. As Christ himself said, "The poor will always be with you." The moment we feed one hungry person, another pops up. By the time you feed all hungry people everywhere, if that were possible, you'd have to start over again. Eventually, no matter how much money was spent from "selling the Vatican," the resources would run out, and there would be just as much, if not more, hunger than there was before, because the Vatican would then lack a base from which to administer the many millions of dollars spent each year through the various Catholic orders and organizations that work with the poor.

There has always been, and I dare say, always will be, a tension in the Church between the Church as an institution with money and the "preferential option for the poor," a tension which has been heightened by liberation theologians and their supporters. There is, in some ways, a utilitarian calculus involved; the Church wants to do the most it can for the poor, but in order to keep a presence on the world stage, the Pope, internationally, and the various cardinals and bishops, locally, must maintain themselves in such a way that they remain visible so that they may best complete their missions. We must remember that the Church is engaged in working not only with the poor, but in working in hospitals, schools, nursing homes, lay formation, seminaries, supporting a "culture of life," etc. Moreover, the Church is engaged in the very real mission of salvation of souls, through the sacraments, which are central to everything the Church does. Each of these endeavors requires money, and fundraising, and, frankly, some sort of media and political attention.

For example, perhaps Miss Graham would suggest cutting budgets for some Catholic schools in wealthier areas, so as to feed, or even educate, the poor, a transference of wealth, so to speak, which would certainly benefit the poor. It would be wonderful to do so, in the sense that we would be giving options to the poor which they have not hitherto had. However, doing so endangers the Catholic school from which the money is being taken. Should the Church turn its back on those who, either through accident of birth or increased industry, have the most to contribute to the poor. The old Jesuit Ratio Studiorum suggested something akin to educational "trickle down economics": if the rich are well-formed, at least some of them will do wonderfully good works to help the poor with their increased resources. That is not to say that we do not educate the poor, but that the Church has a mission to educate everyone, rich and poor alike. To neglect one group because, for whatever reason, they appear to have more financial advantages, neglects the fact that, in our rather secular culture, many of those people need the Church the most so as to break away from patterns of lavish, and selfish, spending. There may be short-term gains for the poor, but there would also be long-term losses for them, in terms of not having as much support from the wealthy, and certainly a rather large spiritual drain from the rich.

I know that one of the large expenses in my own diocese is communication; the diocese maintains a radio station and broadcasts the Mass everywhere in the state each day, for the homebound. The money spent on these endeavors could, no doubt, be used to feed the poor, but in so doing, the homebound would lose their Mass, and the radio station, a pulpit from which the Word of God is preached, so to speak, would be lost. Moreover, one of the major ways in which the diocese fundraises, via the media, would be lost. As I said above, there is always a certain utilitarian calculus involved in this; how do we do the most good for the most people with the limited resources we have available? Selling everything to feed the poor would be a grand gesture, but where would the Pope meet with world leaders, trying to influence them to help the poor of their own nations? How would Christ's message be spread, in this age of modern media, without a base from which to preach? Is there not a value to the millions of people who go on pilgrimage to Rome?

Ultimately, however, there is more than a utilitarian calculus in many of the things Miss Graham would likely support selling in her admirable support for the poor. One of the primary mistakes of those who focus solely on the "preferential option for the poor," is that they often forget the ultimate goal of the Church and her members: heaven. Poverty is a terrible thing, and we must always work to alleviate the sufferings of the poor. That having been said, the Church's role is primarily a spiritual one; we should all be far happier if poverty increased but more people went to heaven than if poverty were eliminated but no one did. Great works of art, great music, beautiful vestments - they are all part and parcel with uplifting souls towards the eternal beauty of heaven. Indeed, many of those very things have been very dear to the poor over the centuries, as a reminder that, although they may suffer on earth, they will, hopefully, attain that heavenly feast where their poverty will be no more. Miss Graham would do well to read a book like Eamon Duffy's "Stripping of the Altars," to see how much importance the late medieval poor put on the beauty of their churches, their choirs, their vestments. When Miss Graham points to the lavishness of this all, she no doubt forgets that that very lavishness is there to give honor and glory not to the priests and bishops wearing the vestments, or saying Mass in churches with priceless works of art, but to God. Even the humblest of orders, like the Franciscans, still wear vestments when saying Mass, which, while simple, are still beautiful. That money could, of course, be spent on the poor, just as the time the Missionaries of Charity spend, each day, praying and attending Mass could, I suppose, be spent with another dying soul, or with another abandoned child. Ultimately, though, our spiritual lives are as important, and I dare say, more important, in bringing about the salvation of the world, than any of the good works we do. The Church, in its true catholicity, involves both rich and poor, prayer and good works, and when we forget that we, as baptized Christians, have a mission to be all things to all people, for their salvation, by focusing on only one aspect of the Church, one aspect of the mission, to the exclusion of others, we do ourselves, and the Church, a great spiritual disservice.

I say, "Give the Vatican away, and put the pope and his minions in FEMA trailers. They'd still be living in better conditions than the Jesus who had no place called 'home'."

The Vatican is pure unadulterated rot and decay!

Plus crap!!!

Within the next 100 years Europe will be predominantly Muslim because of immigration and the near zero birthrate
of Europeans. A few years ago an Al Qaeda leader stated that the St. Peter's will become a great mosque and the Catholic Church will be facing decimation. A frightening thought, but there is the historical precedent of Constantinople, once the capital of eastern Christianity, and is now the Muslim city of Istanbul. Selling the Vatican
would feed the poor for a year or two; a short term gain for a long term loss.

Its a tired line. That the author entertains the concept just shows how exhauted Western culture has become. It has no sense of its cultural nor spiritual heritage. When the same question was posed to Mother Teresa some 20 years ago she responded that such ideas as selling off the Vatican, art, things of beauty is just "trading one form of poverty for another." I'll take the word of a women who chose to actually live in destitution rather than someone's hypothesis created in a chique coffee shop.

An Artist.

I have had the same thoughts as our current mayor of NY spent over 100 million dollars to buy a third term as mayor, surpassing the 80+million he spent on each of his two previous terms. Still I see people sleeping in the subway as I go to my job helping people with disabilities to find work.
Maybe the pope could start a vocational school at the Vatican, perhaps for cobblers, since, obviously Prada is a little dear. Actually 80 bucks is a bargain for Prada. And his summer home could be residential training for those with severe disabilities, like blindness?
I enjoy your column and read it often.

PS I guess I shouldn't be as surprised to see as much anti semitism in these letters as I am seeing, but I am. May God make your eyes opened.

A couple that are friends of mine visited the Vatican two years ago. They were so turned off by the obnoxious display of wealth that they left the church.

I think the old "sell the art and feed the poor" argument is a great way of diverting from the real issue. There is no excuse for hunger in the world today--the reason famines happen is because people allow them to. Enough food to make everyone fat is produced.

When the US economy collapsed last fall, how much money did the Federal Reserve print up to bail out AIG, Citigroup, GM, and Chrysler? Icons of capitalism such as McDonalds and Coca-Cola, among others, had billions in ca$h reserves and announced expansion plans (thankfully I bought shares in the comapnies right before the march-april rally). I would think every priceless work of art "owned" by the Vatican is in hock to banks and insurance companies and have been used numerous times as loan collateral.

Looks to me that the US government, with the aide of a few corporations, can easily pick up the tab to end world hunger. Problem is, people, deep down inside, do not want to.

Perhaps the world can become a better place if people stop studying theology and start studying economics and corporations. Maybe us theology types are looking in the wrong place for the answers to the world's problems.