• Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    Except they have billions in stolen art and could liquidate it at any point. If not trillions, actually.

    Nobody knows exactly what Vatican has but Porphyry Basin in the Vatican Museum is estimated to be worth 2$ billion alone (it was commissioned by Emperor Nero).

    Vatican could literally end the world hunger with their treasure hoard.

    • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 days ago

      Vatican could literally end the world hunger with their treasure hoard.

      No they couldn’t. They’d end up making a bunch of warlords into billionaires while the regular people would go on starving. The only way to end world hunger is grassroots economic development and education (especially for women). You can’t do that by dumping billions of dollars into those countries. The problem is very tricky and the work is long and arduous.

    • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 days ago

      Their art collection is so massive, containing such crazy rare items, many cannot have a price tag as they are literally priceless. It’s impossible to calculate its value due to the extreme rarity, or because anything like it to compare it’s value to is also in the Vatican collection.

      When they sell 1 priceless art item, they can sustain themselves for a year. They have hundreds of thousands of those items, if not millions.

      Saying the Vatican goes bankrupt sounds like “Elon Musk struggles to pay for his groceries”.

      Sounds to me their massive stream of money is declining and they want to scare people into giving them more money.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 days ago

        Though if the idea that high value art is actually a money laundering/moving scheme is true, this might not be the case. The idea is that no one or few people actually want to spend millions on art but pretend they do as a front to spend millions on something else.

        They could probably save some money by reducing the “cover up pedophile priests” item in their budget.

        • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          The collection of the Vatican doesn’t consist of weird modern art paintings but of historical important pieces. Private art collections of Roman emperors, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Rodin, etc. Not some fake money laundering value because some Chinese tech CEO spent way too much money on it but true historic value backed by scientific research and historic manuscripts, which hold value on their own. Any museum would sell children’s organs to be able to get their hands on a single piece. I’ve been to the Vatican myself, I’ve seen one single wing of many, completely filled with the most impressive art pieces, stacked together like they don’t have enough room to store everything properly. The British museum is innocent compared to the amount of stolen priceless art pieces the Vatican has.

          And they they are on the brink of bankruptcy, because “people aren’t giving them enough money anymore”… “Because of the current pope”. I guess for the first time we have a pope doing something right.

          A corporation which thrives on one source of income alone: gifts. And now the infinite money stream is declining. What was it, Christians say when bad shit happens… Ah yes, I remember, “God works in mysterious ways”. Or translated for people who do not believe in imaginary friends and fairytales: shut up and deal with it.