Mickey 191 -

I don't know about the church not being on the tax rolls - maybe they are, maybe they ain't. I guess they'd have to have their tax affairs in order at least as much as the next person, or risk the wrath of the IRS. Yes, there have been massive payouts I gather over the activities of paedophile priests, though I don't know all the ins and outs of the Boston case you mention. Their activites were disgusting and shameful, I don't think any sincere Christian would defend it. Jesus said "and if anyone hurt any of my little ones (children) it were better that a millstone were put around his neck and he was cast into the sea" The church, as an institution, shot it itself in the foot there, by moving these guys around instead of rooting them out. It let itself down and it let the flock down. I think the situation underscores a flaw of institutional religion - when the practice becomes almost entirely social rather than spiritual. There are many dedicated and good priests, but many have also joined in the past as it was a respectable 'career' at a time when few other options were open. Ireland in the 19th & 20th centuries saw many men join the priesthood because the first son got the farm (an unjust system in the first place) and the options were joining the British army, emigrating to the States or joining the preiesthood. Hardly the best basis for what is essentially a vocation.

"Are you presupposing the reason the V. is holding on to their art is so they can share the beauty with the public? I think not-they are not an eelymosynary institution by any means"

I am not saying they open the museum out of charity - afterall, you have to pay an entry fee, though quite an affordable one. The Vatican could simply close the museum to the public if it wished. It is not under any obligation to display it, if the Popes wished to wander among the treasures for themselves like Smaug the dragon out of The Hobbit. But it available for the public to see and enjoy, as millions (literally) do every year, and for researchers to make use of. The Vatican is even slowly trying to put some of its big collection of illuminated manuscripts online (a major task) so they can be shared by even more people. I don't believe the MOMA or the Louvre are charities either? Museums also cost a lot of money to run - security, humidity control, salaries of attendants, brochures you-name-it. the ticket cost goes towards all this. The Vatican as far as I know, unlke the MOMA (for example) is not an acquisitive museum - in that it doesn't set out to acquire new pieces, unless they turn up on Church property and are sent ot the Vatican museum for conservation, or come as donations.

But once again - if the MOMA (or any other museum) is such a charitable institution as to be willing to buy pieces of the Vatican's collections so that the Vatican can fund charity work, then why doesn't the MOMA (etc.,) simply fund the charity work itself?

"Buckley was simply stating his opinion"

Sure, of course he was. But my question was essentially 'on what basis did he come to that opinion'? Presumably he had some reason to think that and didn't simply decide it at random. You also state his opinion is 'good enough for me'. I'd be interested to know why you agree with Buckley's opinion.