Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Ricochet Essay Question of the Weekend, or, Michelangelo for Sale?
Let us suppose that a rich man — a very, very rich man, such as, for example, Jack Ma, who possesses a net worth of some $20 billion — makes a straightforward proposition to the Vatican.
Aware that Pope Francis speaks constantly about the plight of the poor, an inspired by the Morris West novel, Shoes of the Fisherman, which culminates in a decision by the pope of the day to sell all the Vatican’s treasures to avert a famine, Mr. Ma has decided to make an offer for one Vatican treasure in particular: the Pieta.
If Pope Francis will sell him the Pieta, Mr. Ma says, he will pay, let us say, $5 billion. That would be by far the highest amount ever paid for a work of art, Mr. Ma acknowledges, but the Pieta is perhaps one of the half dozen most magnificent pieces of art ever created — and, since he knows the money will go to the poor, Mr. Ma explains, he has no intention of quibbling.
In return for Michelangelo’s masterpiece, $5 billion that Pope Francis could use to relieve the sufferings of the poor.
Should the Pontiff accept the offer?
Published in Culture, Religion & Philosophy
Agreed. Though “of course” is putting it too strongly.
I like to cite Mother Theresa in conversations like this. She labored among poverty unlike most Americans will ever witness. Yet she said what the people she helped needed most was to feel loved.
It’s a great question, Peter. The dilemma is clarified by adjusting the amount of money. If he should sell the Pieta for a billion dollars, why not a mere fifty? That too would buy food. And even the greatest work of art is not worth one man’s life.
Sadly, here we see conservatives falling for zero-sum thinking. Is the problem really that wealth is not being properly distributed? Why not increase the wealth? How can Americans ethically pay for TV subscriptions, sports and concert tickets, lottery tickets, or even fancy bicycles while people are starving? How can one withhold even his last cent from the poor?
Is this not the same Ricochet community that months ago cited Christ’s parable of the master who gave his servants talents (money) and expected a return on investment?
As mentioned above, the Catholic Church operates hospitals and missions throughout most of the world, especially in poor countries. These are works of both charity and evangelism. I am not a Catholic, I am a Pentecostal Evangelical, but have an appreciation for the work that they do, much of it financed by their wealth.
On the other hand, the church also owns many banks and other business enterprises. To what extent do they direct their operations to the benefit of poor economies. I believe the real argument isn’t about the generosity of the church, but rather to what extent their efforts enter the economy as productive assets, rather than consumable charity.
Take the question and make it bigger. By moving out of Rome and selling all its buildings and works of art, the Vatican could probably raise tens of billions of dollars. It could them move to a low rent area in Southern Italy. This could never happen because people of faith need symbols, not just words. That is why they build expensive churches. If it was just spiritual, a simple barn would do.
People visit the Vatican to see these accumulated symbols over the years, Michelangelo’s dome at St Peter’s and Sistine Chapel, Raphael’s School of Athens, Bernini’s baldacchino. Not saying it is right or wrong.
By the way, speaking of the Sistine Chapel, here is a great way to visit it from your computer. Zoom in, zoom out, rotate etc.
http://www.vatican.va/various/cappelle/sistina_vr/
Also $5 billion would only help briefly since there are 1 billion malnourished people in the world. Better to use the symbols and leverage the church’s moral authority to effect more lasting and impactful change.
Handing money to someone doesn’t actually solve poverty; empowering people to change their own circumstances does. Selling the Pieta wouldn’t make much of a dent.
If we want to preserve Christian cultural treasures (and we should), why isn’t anyone doing more to stop what ISIS is doing in Iraq & Syria? In addition to the systematic genocide ISIS is committing, they are destroying the remnants of some of the oldest Christian communities on the planet.
Oh yeah. This President doesn’t pay attention to Christians being systematically massacred; he just wants to set up straw men to knock down to score political points. Real action is beyond him.
This question puts me in mind of an excellent documentary I saw some years ago on the subject of the Vatican’s wealth and business dealings. I forget the name of the film, but mainly it was an exposé of American businessman Michael Corleone’s stock purchase in International Immobiliare, an international real estate holding company known as “the world’s biggest landlord”, and his tender offer to buy the Vatican’s 25% share in the company. The documentary provides clear evidence that the Immobiliare deal was an elaborate swindle, concocted by Archbishop Gilday and Vatican accountant Frederick Keinszig. Even Pope John Paul I may have been affected by the scheme, which may also have led to his death at the hands of the schemers.
This was a powerful documentary, and I recommend it highly.
I say sell the piece. I doubt the billionaire will find it successful to “own” the Pieta. Good luck in keeping it from serving its ultimate function to inspire. Five billion is either too much or not enough, I don’t care which, really.
What the poor need most is productive work, so they can earn their living. The best thing the Pope or anyone else can do to help the poor is give them jobs. How about the Vatican hire homeless Romans to sweep the Vatican streets and courtyards. Pay them a wage, and they will be able to feed their families and themselves.
Frankly I’m with Katievs on this. The Vatican shouldn’t sell its art for a one time donation, at most they might consider leasing the piece out, though considering the piece in question I am hesitant to even consider that, since part of the pieces impact is its location (at least in my opinion).
Further more as I once wrote about on this very site I’m not sure that anyone can actually own such a work of art as the Pieta. Its sheer impact, uniqueness, and historical/cultural relevance make it transcend simple material property rights. Implicit in the idea of selling this work is that its new owner would have full control over it. Not only could Mr. Ma deny access to the piece by locking it away from human eyes, but also have the right to pulverize the piece and sell the resulting marble dust. I challenge the very notion that anyone actually has the right to do that, not even the Vatican. No one in my opinion “owns” the Pieta. By virtue of its significance it belongs to all of humanity. The Vatican is currently entrusted with its preservation, a task which they can be relieved of should they prove inadequate. I guess if Mr. Ma could demonstrate that he too would prove an equally sound guardian of this piece of our culture he could be allowed to pay the Vatican for the privilege of maintaining it in a similar manner.
I think this is a good point regarding the nature of Museums (and in this case that is what the Vatican is) for hoarding cultural artifacts. Most museums sit on a lot of their collections of art and artifacts. When these objects could be more equitably distributed to other institutions of similar competency for adequate compensation that could be used to increase museum access, study and preservation.
I suspect that reticence of museums generally is in part due to a long history of disputes over ownership, art thefts, and the headache of negotiating, tracking, and enforcing many loans simultaneously.
This question is a veiled attempt at accusing the church of hypocrisy. It’s just not true.
The church asks nothing more than tithing, and tithing is applied to profit, not capital.
I suggested increasing wealth as an alternative to better (voluntary) distribution, but that too is the wrong way of considering problems of poverty. Or rather it’s a little misleading.
Why does modern America continue to have homeless persons? Because problems like mental illness, crime, and short-sighted financial mismanagement will always be with humanity. We live in a fallen world. No matter how much we grow the pot of wealth, not all will partake in that wealth.
George Savage wrote a great piece on Ricochet months ago about his time in Africa (Nigeria?). He witnessed the consequences of citizens being unable to own property. People could not even repair their own homes… because the homes were not theirs, according to law.
Likewise, affluent nations send endless shipments of grains and medicine to the world’s poorest peoples in Africa and Asia, but that aid is confiscated by warlords and used as leverage to consolidate political power. These evils too will always be with humanity. Increasing worldwide wealth will not eliminate them.
Human beings have many needs. One is justice. If we want to help the poor, we must endure in care for those who hurt themselves and conquer those who deliberately hurt others. Money is not the answer to all material poverty.
Perhaps with a 25 billion dollar share of Alibaba, The Vatican could create the wealth to distribute.
No. I’ve heard this silly argument before and it fails to take into account that it’s a one time revenue, and even $5 Billion doesn’t put a dent on world poverty. If it did $5B out of our $3 trillion dollar budget would be nothing, Once you’ve sold the Pieta it’s lost to the Catholic Church, and you still haven’t made a dent in poverty.
And by the way, if no one has mentioned this yet, the reason the Catholic Church does not sell its art and beauty is because of Matthew, chapter 26:
The beauty is there for the glorification of Jesus Christ. That’s why we try to make our churches as beautiful as we can.
It would be the most expensive “fish for a day” you ever did see, Peter. And that is precisely what is wrong with this pope. Giving to the poor could be done until all the wealth in the world was gone, and the poor would still be with us. Helping the poor is another thing entirely.
Ryan, the Pope is all about helping the poor, being with the poor, caring about them, standing in solidarity with them, respecting their dignity, being open to what they have to give, paying attention to their true needs…
If you think what he’s calling for more “charitable giving,” you haven’t been paying attention.
If anyone hasn’t yet seen this documentary by the great Roger Scruton—Why Beauty Matters—drop everything and watch it tonight.
You won’t be sorry.
Warning: It’s got some pretty graphic crudity in the beginning. Not gratuitous, but maybe not something to watch with the kids.
Can’t sell any of those and buy food. Well, I guess they sell them in D.C…
They don’t.
No.
That is preposterous.
He tells us why in Evangelii Gaudium:
What does the Pieta depict?
The King Prawn
What does the Pieta depict?
—
Well, it’s a historical drama/thriller about a man who defies the authorities to save mankind, and must make a decision or pay the ultimate price. But there’s a twist…
I think yer missing my point. The gospels give no account of anyone handling the body of Christ other than Joseph and Nicodemus.
Oh, I am quite sure that I am missing the point.
How many people would you allow to go blind to keep the Pieta?
Here’s another way of formulating the question. Look at the Gates Foundation and see how they’re targeting neglected infectious diseases. Bill Gates says he’s confident they’ll be able to totally eliminate onchocerciasis (river blindness) which affects about 18 million people, mostly in Africa.
So far, they’ve put about a billion dollars into targeting 18 different diseases.
Selling off the Pieta as stipulated would easily cover the full cost of one of these, probably more.
So, would you allow a million people to go blind to keep that statue? 100 thousand? one?
My own opinion: I’d be content to make a dozen or hundred copies of the thing and spread them around for anybody who wants to look at it and receive spiritual succor. I understand and support the role of creativity and the arts in the spiritual realm.
But I’d sell the original in a heartbeat if doing so would save millions of the least of God’s children from blindness!
You do realize there is a strategic value to the church having the world treasure in archive. 1) it can protect them. 2) by having them these treasures it is more likely that interested parties might be moved to protect the Church to keep others from damaging and destroying the art and itself. The Church has no army, it has to rely on others for its protection.
Assuming the $5 billion that would be used to buy the Pieta is then used for a cure for river blindness, which is a great idea, the next question must be what won’t be done with it that would have been done if the Pieta had not been purchased?
Let’s suppose that it would have been used to build thousands of buildings, ships, and who knows what else, and would have put tens of thousands of people to work so that they could support their families, instead of dying of hunger, or the cold, or from lack of medical care.
That foregone benefit has to be netted against the benefit of the blindness cure.
My recommendation would be to take the $trillions that are planned to be spent on global warming abatement and use it to cure river blindness and every other curable illness known to man.
And now we get into actual attempts at valuation of the statue, and quantization of a life. Both are possible. In fact, we probably already know the answers.
We just don’t like them.
No, I think that this pope’s view of economics is wrong, and that he mistakenly believes that governments and redistribution can help. That is not to call his motives into question, but his understanding of politics and economics. I agree with the Church’s overall message when it comes to individual generosity.