Dear Jonathan:

St. John records a story where Judas, who was the bursar, complained about the very thing these anti-Catholics complain about and that you wonder about:

(John 12:1-8) Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. There they made him a supper; Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at table with him. Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment. But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was to betray him), said, "Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?" 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. Jesus said, "Let her alone, let her keep it for the day of my burial. The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me."

Was Jesus heartless and without compassion for the poor? Was he selfish for allowing himself to be anointed by expensive ointment?

Judas was the bursar of the Twelve (the holder other purse and a bookkeeper). His heart was oriented toward the material things, primarily interested in his own material desires.

Jesus told the truth — we will always have the poor and we have a solemn obligation as Christians to feed and clothe and shelter the poor. But Jesus is God. We owe him the best that we have to offer. That point is also made in the story of Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:1-8).

Abel gave God from the firstborn of his flock. He offered to God the best that he had and was blessed for it. Cain, on the other hand, did not give God the best from his farm. Rather he gave God his second best. Thus, Cain was not blessed and became jealous of his brother for the blessings that came upon him. We know what happened. Cain killed his brother out of jealousy. This story did not have to be this way if Cain had loved God enough to give him his best, the first fruits of his harvest.

We have the equivalent attitude of Judas or the heart of Cain in today's world. We see this in small ways when we do not offer God our best when we dress for Mass. When we go to Mass in sweatpants or jeans when we have better clothing we are not giving God our best. We are in fact following the heart of Cain who did not love God enough to give God his best.

Those who complain about the alleged riches of the Church have the attitude of Judas, the Thief and Betrayer. Such people are just like Judas whose motivation was not really to help poor but to help himself.

I will be willing to bet that these people who complain about the so-called riches of the Church are very stingy about sharing their own wealth. After all the $5000 for a state-of-the-art entertainment system would feed many hungry people. The money spent to own an expensive car or a large house, neither of which are necessities, would go a long way in the Third World to help the poor and hungry. Thus, the first question to ask such a person is how much do they deny themselves material goods in favor of donating to the poor. In most cases we will find that such people are hypocrites.

On the subject itself, are the gold chalices lined with silver and such other accoutrement's of the typical parish church or cathedral actually paid for from the Church funds? What these anti-Catholics seem not to realize that most of those items are not paid for from the church coffers, but by individual gifts from members of the parish who choose to give the gifts out of love of God. Also many of these items have been accumulated, mostly by donation, over decades or even centuries.

Nevertheless, even if all that was not true, God informs us, and the Church affirms, that since we are worshiping God, the God of the universe, the King of Kings, that we are to offer our best.

Part of the problem on these sorts of things is that the culture of the United States is an immature culture. By that I mean it is only a couple hundred years old and was born out of revolution against a king. Thus, Americans have a natural bias against a kingly and royal economy. But, the Church grew out of a culture that was nothing but a world of royalty and kingdoms. That is the context of what we read the Bible. The idea of kings was not man-made. It images the Kingly nature of God.

If we are to give earthly kings the best we have how much more should we give the King of Kings the very best we have? In fact, if we give earthly kings greater homage than we give to the King of Kings we would be sinning.

All of this and more is one of the reasons why sacred vessels must be composed of precious metals. Another reason for that is that sacred vessels made from glass or ceramics are easily broken. In respect for God we do not want to have sacred vessels easily break. These vessels are sacred, they have been blessed and set aside for holy purposes. The Chalice, for example, holds the Body and Blood of our Lord. Are we to place the Body and Blood of our Lord in a dixie cup?

Another interesting note is that chalices tend to be lined with silver. Silver is a natural antibiotic and since many people drink from the chalice it makes sense that it be lined with a natural antibiotic to help prevent the spread of germs.

While Jesus was a poor man he had a beautiful robe and he allowed a woman to anoint him with precious and expensive ointment. This is proper given that Jesus is God. This principle of giving God our best is taught in the Bible. It is fascinating to me that these anti-Catholics, who tend to call themselves Bible Christians, know so little about the Bible. If they actually knew their Bible they would understand why the Church presents God it's best.

On the issue of the so-called wealth of the Vatican, that is just a patent lie. The Vatican budget is often in the red. Even in years in which there is a surplus it is a very small. I believe in 2010 the Vatican income was around $326 million, with expenditures of around  $313 million. The Vatican's budget is less than the budget of Notre Dame University. Its overall assets of around $1 billion is less than the endowments of many universities.

The Vatican is simply not rolling in dough. Most of those assets are in trust for the public in the form of museums. Like any museum the artwork or other holdings are held in trust for the people. If the Vatican divested itself of all museum assets it would feed the poor for two or three days, maybe a week. The price of that, however, would be catastrophic. Much of the museum holdings would go into private collections never again to be seen by the public. Other holdings would go to other museums that, while available to the public, a person would have to have a lot of money to do a lot of traveling to various museums around the world instead of seeing the great works of art and science in one place.

If we are to suggest that the Vatican divest itself of its museum holdings in order to feed the poor then why do we not suggest that every museum in the world be closed and their assets sold and given to the poor? Why do not individuals live in a $50,000 house instead of a half-million dollar house and give the balance to the poor?

Museums are a great gift to society, even to the poor in society. Museums accumulate the great works and beauty of the human creative faculty. We can never lose those museums as it would be a terrible loss to society. The divestiture of all the museums of the world giving their assets to the poor would feed the poor only for a short time. Jesus said the poor will always be among us. These so-called solutions do not stop poverty.

It is God who has given the human person that creative faculty. When a person uses his gift he glorifies God. Thus, the creativity of the human person is a form of honoring God.

For the bigoted none of this matters. The bigoted do not have a motivation of helping the poor. Their criticism of this nonexistent wealth of the Church is born out of a prejudice against the Church in which, typical to the worldly mind, they seek to construct straw-men out of false issues merely to tear down the Church. Their own lack of generosity, their lack of self-sacrifice, their unwillingness to give up their material possessions that are really not necessary in favor of giving to the poor, speaks loudly of their hypocrisy and of their true motivation of hatred toward the Church that Jesus personally founded.

In this also be noted, that these bigots criticize not only do not understand the economy of God and the Bible, but also forget that the Catholic Church is the largest charity on the planet. The Church and her faithful give more to help the poor, the infirmed, the hungry, the negative, the homeless, then any other charity on the planet. Thus, the Church puts its money where its mouth is. It serves Christ mission in all ways including and especially helping the poor. I wonder if these critics can say the same.

There is nothing to be ashamed of, nor is there any reason to be embarrassed that the Church is consistent with Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture in following God's demand that we give him our best.

As for the bigots, just make a statement of the truth, and let it go. St. Paul warns us against unproductive argumentation and also wasting our time with the perverted whose only desire is to create division:

(Titus 3:9-11) But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary

P.S. See a video report on this subject from the Catholic News Service.