Who Are The Poor?

I was rebuked on Twitter last night for congratulating James MacMillan on his knighthood. An anonymous tweeter called me a celebrity priest who, it seems, has no regard for preaching the Gospel among the poor. I would have been better, it seems, to abandon the celebrities and reach out to the poor and despairing. When I challenged the Tweeter on who were the poor, he responded "I am the poor". After that messianic remark what else could I say?

Now I don't mix with celebrities at all, in fact I haven't met too many of them. But our ministry in the Fraternity of St Genesius includes praying for those who inhabit that particular category of persons. I always advise our members not to seek out those they pray for, we are not a fan club nor spiritual groupies, we simply assist the Church by our prayer in her mission to all men and women, particularly those in the arts.

In that context it is fitting to ask: who are the poor? Blessed Teresa of Calcutta offers an interesting answer to that question when she reminds us that among the poorest in the world today are those whom the world considers great, rich and famous. Their spiritual poverty can be even greater than the material poverty of others. Many celebrities inhabit a fantasy world, and for many in their spiritual poverty that fantasy world is all they have. Their wealth and fame allows them to maintain this fantasy and even influence the real world.  That is one of the reasons the world is fast becoming a wasteland - because many are abandoning faith and true values for the chimera the spiritually poor have invented to feed themselves. 

The Church must feed the poor, the materially poor and the spiritually poor. She must preach the Gospel, offer the hope of salvation and present the vision of reality - the teaching of Jesus Christ and the destiny he has for those who are faithful. If the Church has managed to feed and save the materially poor but has ignored with scorn the celebrities and left them to wallow in a fantasy that devours them, then the Church has failed in  her mission. We do not need to check into the Hotel La La Land to reach out to them, nor worship at the frayed edge of the red carpet, but we do need to see souls and minster to them. They too are children of God.

For more information on our Fraternity, see our website www.stgenesius.com.

These Are Worth Reading

Some sobering thoughts from canon lawyer Ed Peters on the gay marriage referendum. He points out something many priests and bishops here will be terrified to even think:

At the lower end of the responsibility scale are, I suppose, rank-and-file Catholics who cast a personal ballot securing, not just passage of the amendment, but its passage by a higher margin than would have occurred without their vote. At the higher end of the responsibility scale are, of course, Catholics who, from positions of political, social, or ecclesiastical prestige, lent their influence to the cause of “same-sex marriage”. But any Catholic who directly helped to bring about Ireland’s decision to treat as marriage unions of two persons of the same sex has, at a minimum, arrayed himself against the infallible doctrine of the Church and, quite possibly, has committed an act of heresy. (See my Primer of 27.III.2013). In either event, the technical term for such an action is “sin”; the consequences of sin are always spiritual and sometimes canonical; and the solution for sin is repentance and Confession.

Fr Ray Blake also has a few thoughts on the state of the Church here in Ireland in the context of the referendum. I cannot disagree with anything he says. One paragraph in particular resonates with me: 

A Church that is rootless is not 'owned' by the people. A Church that is afraid to teach because it has cut itself from it previous Magisterium, and which instead sows uncertainty, has nothing to say in the daily living of its members, nor in the intellectual forum in general. In fact it is irrelevant. It has all the outward appearance that it once used for the furtherance of its mission but has lost its interior meaning. It is not so much an Emperor with no clothes, but the clothes without an Emperor, all that is left is the institution, which itself is meaningless. In Germany, as in Ireland, the real-estate portfolio seems to be what the Church is about rather than any actual teaching or revelation of Christ.

Wise Words

I have to link to this post from Fr Dwight Longenecker on the schism that exists in the Church today: it is an excellent piece which hits the nail on the the head. 

In the Church today there are two groups - those who believe the Church is here to preach the Gospel for the salvation of souls, centred on the cross of Jesus Christ; and those who believe the Church is here to preach a Gospel of social activism in order to advance a particular political agenda. 

True. How often have I preached the actual teaching of Jesus at Mass and then, later, being accused by certain parties of being unChristian? I know plenty of priests who have the same experience on a regular basis. Sometimes one is tempted to conclude that for many people in the Church today the most unChristian person who ever lived was Christ.

The Faithful Few

 

I keep a statue of St John Fisher on my desk - he's looking at me now as I write this post.  I bought it on a visit to London, and I did so for a particular reason.  As Henry VIII was attempting to get rid of his faithful wife to marry his mistress, when he turned to the bishops of England to support him in his task to force a divorce (annulment) out of the Pope, only one stood his ground and remained true to Christ's teaching on marriage and the communion of the Church: Bishop Fisher of Rochester, all the other bishops folded.  This statue on my desk is to remind me that even a successor of the Apostles may not have the courage, virtue or even decency to stand by Christ and his Church when fear and threats assail him.  

 

It is also a timely warning to me: I may well be found wanting (as I often am, God forgive me!) at a moment when real witness is required, so I must beg God for his grace, the gift of courage and seek to be faithful to him and to his Church for the sake of the flock that he has put in my care.   I am all too aware that human weakness can at times make traitors of us all. 

 

Remaining faithful to what is right should be no problem, after all to do so will create harmony and justice in our world and confer peace in our hearts.  But when what is right is muddied and confused by subtle evils and distorted human desires, it can be difficult to discern what to do, particularly if we have not had proper education in the ways of morality and virtue.  Many Catholics today, having been raised without solid formation in the faith, exposed to radical secularism and taught by the example of public figures to give precedence to their desires and to seek pleasure as one of the highest goods, find themselves in a mire when it comes to evaluating what is right and true and then choosing the morally good and virtuous.  That many of the clergy have taught a diluted Gospel in which the individual has been put centre place and the highest virtue and means of salvation is said to be nice to others and good to oneself, has led many astray.  And so many members of the Church live and choose in a manner contrary to Christ's teaching all the time actually thinking that what they are doing is morally right.  God loves them and so he endorses all they do so long as they do not kill anyone, or so they think.

 

Why this reflection?  Because I think this may partly explain what happened in the last couple of days when Catholic TDs in our parliament voted to support Taoiseach Enda Kenny's Abortion Bill.  I do not think that all of them were acting out of a secular, anti-Christian, anti-life ideology (some were, but not all).  Many of them, I am sure, thought that what they were doing was right and good and the only way to save women's lives.  Now that is not true, there is no need or justification for the Kenny Abortion Bill as consultants, GPs, psychiatrists and legal experts have explained, yet in the moral mire than now exists, professional opinions can be dismissed in favour of the sentimental which now has greater influence in moral evaluation.  And I believe that state of affairs exists for a number of reasons, one of them being the failure of the Catholic Church in Ireland to catechise effectively.  In the catechesis that I and many after me received, the truths of the faith, faithful adherence to the Gospel, participating in the Liturgy, all of that had been reduced to sentiment.  And so when it comes to moral difficulties and vital questions of life and death, pure emotion is often the basis for decision making.  And so we see that pure emotion - blind emotion, has led to the deaths of over 2 billion children in the last forty to fifty years.  Can that be right or good?

 

I have to say I was deeply saddened that only twenty-four people voted against the Kenny Abortion Bill.  I know it is double the "twelve good men", and more than the one who stood against Henry VIII.  But to think that in our parliament the unborn child can only find twenty-four human beings to defend their right to life is shocking.  Now I know some voted for the Bill in order to get amendments through and save lives, and at this stage there is some moral justification for that, their intention is not to endorse but to get it to a stage to change it.  But now that those amendments were rejected at meetings of the Dail Committee yesterday, more TDs will stand against it, but I fear, not enough to stop its passage.  The Minister of Health will present more amendments on Wednesday next at the Report Stage, but they will not change the tenor of the legislation nor remove the offending articles.

 

That said I have to congratulate those TDs who stood for life.  Those in Fine Gael defied the party whip and for their troubles have now been expelled ("excommunicated") from their party.  I know from sources that these pro-life TDs have been subject to appalling pressure and intimidation, some of it, I am told, from the Taoiseach himself.  That they stood their ground to do what is right, true and good, is a testament to their courage and integrity.  They deserve our respect and support.  The Taoiseach has informed them, as revealed in an interview yesterday, that these TDs will not be selected as candidates for the next General Election.  I would call on pro-life voters in the constituencies of which these TDs are representatives to put aside party affiliation, and consider voting for them in the next election should they decide to contest it as independent candidates.  That they respect human life at its most vulnerable stage reveals that they can be trusted. 

 

Let us pray for these good men and women who support life.  May St John Fisher and St Thomas More stand by them in this difficult time.

 

Let us also pray for our government, that they have a change of heart.  That they may see that there is another way, a way that respects life, a way already made clear by doctors and other professionals. 

 

And let us pray for those in government and parliament who are immersed in the ideology of the culture of death, that the Lord may touch their hearts and convert them.

 

And we pray for the pro-life movement.  May the Holy Spirit guide us, support us and give us the wisdom we need.  For it is not flesh and blood we fight, but powers and principalities.

More Irish Heroes

After yesterday's post I have been reflecting a little bit more on our Irish martyrs and the times they lived in.  It seems the Church in Ireland in their day was very different to what we have had since Emancipation in 1829.   The Medieval Church was indeed a lively one with great devotions, pageants and saints - this was the case in England and Europe in general - perhaps not so much in Ireland - as far as I am aware we had a more austere Church, but yet there was great faith and we knew how to celebrate - "patterns" - local saints' feast days were known for.   While the beauty of Catholicism in Europe was preserved, thanks to the Reformation we lost our churches, shrines and universities and were forced to go underground where simple, quick ceremonies in rural spots became the norm.  I suppose this changed the Irish spirit against beauty, splendour and ceremony - associating it with our English invaders. It also conditioned the Irish to "quickie Masses".

To appreciate our rich past, though, we can look to our martyrs and their dedication to the Catholic faith, to the Mass, to Our Lady and the Pope.  If I am posting about our martyrs I have to include a member of my own Order - the Servant of God, Br Angelus of St Joseph, Discalced Carmelite, martyred in 1642 at Siddon, Co. Meath, just a few miles from my presbytery here - in the next parish.  He was born George Halley in Herefordshire, England around the year 1622.  He discerned a vocation to the priesthood and religious life and sought to enter the Discalced Carmelites.  He had to come to Ireland to do his studies, to the House of Studies in Drogheda (my former parish).  

He was known as a model student who had a deep regard for the poor.  When Irish insurgents laid siege to the town of Drogheda in 1642, many fled but Angelus stayed to help the people. However he was arrested by Royalist forces and given a prison sentence.  He may have escaped, or served the term which was to be seven months, but he is known to left Drogheda in early August 1642.  He came to the castle in Siddon seeking refuge, however after three days the castle was surrounded by Royalists who were trying to quash rebellion in County Meath.  Angelus, the owner of the castle, a Catholic, Anthony Nugent, and some nuns who were also taking refuge there, were all arrested.  All except Angelus were released - he was well known as a zealous Catholic, and it was for this that he was condemned to death.  On the 15th August he was shot and then run through with a bayonet to finish him off.   His cause is presently being considered in Rome: his beatification will be a moment of great joy for us Discalced Carmelites in Ireland and England, which interestingly is still the one province.  Br Angelus's martyrdom is important in that it reminds us here in Ireland that our martyrs died for their faith and not their being Irish.

That point is important since in Ireland we too often associate Catholicism with Nationalism here - that lethal little cocktail is a product of 19th century Nationalism and came into almost quasi-legal force with the foundation of the Irish state.  In my opinion it has been a curse to the Church in Ireland because it has made the Church almost a department of state and it has, in a sense diluted the reality of the Church's universal nature in the eyes of many here - hence the ease with which some Irish Catholics can adopt a "them and us" attitude to Rome.

One of our martyrs who certainly undermines the Catholic-Nationalist view is the Servant of God, Archbishop Richard Creagh.  Now here is a man of great stature and holiness, with an exciting life and indeed a martyr of importance.  Richard was born in Limerick in 1523.  He came from a family of merchants and so, when he finished his schooling that was the occupation he took up.  He made many voyages to Spain and gained a reputation for honesty.  However God had other plans.  After a successful business trip Richard was due to set sail from Spain on a particular day.  He thought he had time for Mass before the ship left, so he attended Mass in the port church.  However when he came out after Mass had finished he saw his ship already out at sea: he had missed it.  However at that moment a violent gale blew up, struck the ship causing it to founder and killing all on board.  Already reflecting on vocation, Richard saw this as a sign to renounce his merchant life.

He studied in Louvain and was ordained priest, returning to Limerick to minister where he taught for a number of years.  Recognising his abilities, the Papal nuncio recommended him as bishop for the diocese of Limerick: Richard, in his humility turned it down.  He was offered Cashel: again Richard turned it down.  The nuncio was determined, and so when the Archdiocese of Armagh became vacant he nominated Richard again, but this time he persuaded St Pope Pius V to make Richard take it under obedience: Richard had no choice and left Limerick for Rome to be consecrated.  When he returned in 1564 he fell foul of a local leader, Shane O'Neill who, while being Catholic, despised the England.  Richard, who wanted to keep faith and politics separated disagreed and made his loyalty to the crown known.  This infuriated O'Neill who burned down Armagh cathedral as a punishment.

Despite his loyalty, Richard was arrested a number of times - his position and ardent faith did not endear him to reformers.  It was when he was travelling down to Limerick for a visit in 1567 that he was arrested and brought to London where he was imprisoned in the Tower of London.  Put on trial, he was accused of adhering to the authority of the Pope over the Queen's and of supporting the traitor Shane O'Neill (ironic).  His trial dragged on for years, all the while he was languishing in the Tower.  An attempt to undermine his morals was made with a false accusation of sexual abuse made against him by the jailer's daughter.  The accusation was investigated and found to be false.  Left in the prison because the authorities feared the veneration the Irish had for this courageous and holy bishop, he died in the Tower as a result of his sufferings in either late 1586 or early 1587 and was buried inside the walls of the fortress.  His cause is presently being examined, excellent biography here.

In case you are wondering, most of my information comes from a book on the Irish martyrs, Our Martyrs, written by Dennis Murphy, SJ, published in 1896 and recently republished.  Well worth reading.

The Finer Points

My recent post on Akita has got me thinking, and as I was reading a few articles on the net I realise some clarification is needed with regard to reported apparitions.  The Church is very careful when it comes to reports of supernatural activity, and apparitions and visions are examined with great prudence.  Ironically it seems to be easier to discern and deal with demonic activity and preternatural events than heavenly and mystical manifestations. 

Normally when an alleged apparition is reported, the Church takes a neutral stance, she cautions her bishops and priests, and observes.  Officially these events do not have approval and so no cult can be established in the Church, although the devotion of the faithful is not curbed, but rather prudence is advised.  The Church tends not to forbid the faithful from attending alleged apparitions.

When the visions cease, the local bishop may appoint a commission to examine the events, the message and any reports of miracles.   The local bishop has the competence to deal with this investigation and the Vatican tends to leave the investigation to him.  His decision is usually accepted by the Church, so an investigation by the Vatican is not necessary.  Sometimes, in grave circumstances, the Vatican may intervene and remove a bishop's competence - this may occur if the bishop's investigation has not been conducted in accordance with the regulations or has been biased.  The Vatican may then ask the episcopal conference to conduct a new investigation or conduct one itself.

The commission reports back to the bishop with its findings, and he releases the decision.  This decision will fall into one of three categories established by the Church, and it is here that we have alot of confusion among the faithful and even controversy.  These categories are constat de supernaturalitate, constat de non supernaturalitate, and non constat de supernaturalitate.

The first, constat de supernatualitate, means it is established that these events are supernatural: with this decision the local bishop or the Vatican recognises that the apparitions or visions are authentic and worthy of belief.  The cult associated with these apparitions is permitted and considered praiseworthy.   Apparitions which fall into this category are Lourdes, Fatima and Guadalupe.   It is to be understood that while these apparitions are approved, they are still only private revelations, and so no one is bound to accept them, though if an apparition has been approved by the bishop or the Vatican prudence dictates those who do not believe not do engage in a campaign to have the decision reversed. 

The second, constat de non supernaturalitate, means that it is established that the events are not supernatural.  This is a negative judgement, and the faithful are bound to respect it: unlike the positive judgement, the faithful are not free to accept it even in a private capacity as to do so may be imprudent and damaging to the faith.  Such apparitions may manifest hostile attitudes to the Church or certain Church teachings.  Among those reported apparitions to have received this definitive negative judgement are the claims of "Mama Rosa" in San Damiano in Italy, the claims of Veronica Leuken in Bayside, USA, among others.

The third, non constat de supernaturalitate, is perhaps the most confusing the most misunderstood.  This one means that it is not established that the events are supernatural, this, however, is not a negative judgement, but rather a decision which allows the Church more time and space to continue her careful discernment.  What must be understood is that when a reported apparition has received this judgement there seems to be something in the events which cautions the Church against a negative judgement.   With this judgement the Church permits the faithful to go to the site of apparitions and allows priests to provide spiritual care for them.  Official pilgrimages are not permitted - an official pilgrimage being one organised and led by a bishop or priest, yet bishops and priest are permitted to go in a personal capacity and they must maintain officially that prudence and reserve the Church herself is exercising.   Further study is to be expected.  Normally this judgement is given if an investigation has been conducted while the alleged apparitions are ongoing and are not detrimental to the faith.  Alleged apparitions which fall into this category are Garabandal and Medjugorje.

Looking at a number of articles and websites a number of people are maintaining that this third judgement, non constat de supernaturalitate, is a negative one, and those who go to the apparition sites are being disobedient to the Church, and priests who go there are leading the faithful into scandal.  This is not true: until a constat de non supernaturalitate is given, the faithful may, with prudence, go on unofficial pilgrimage to such sites.  Such misunderstandings themselves give scandal since they erroneously disturb the consciences of the faithful.

A word on visionaries.  Not all visionaries have become saints.  In fact, if you look at the approved apparitions of the Church only a minority of visionaries have been beatified or canonised.   The fact that a visionary has not become a saint is not a good indication of whether a vision is authentic or not.  In a few cases the visionaries turned out to have problematic lives afterwards, as with the visionaries of La Salette. 

Some also believe that if a vision is authentic then the visionaries must enter priesthood or religious life.  Again this is not the case.  Few of those who received approved apparitions entered religious life or priesthood, most married and lived ordinary lives.  In fact as far as I know, among the approved visionaries who were not in religious life at the time of the apparitions, only three entered religious life: Sr Lucia of Fatima, Sr Adele Brise of Green Bay, and St Bernadette of Lourdes, and it is known that Bernadette entered at the request of others and some have speculated that she may not have had a religious vocation at all.   The Ven. Benoite Rencurel of Laus became a Third Order Dominican which, strictly, is not religious life. 

Brick By Brick Deconstructing Love

Is God the eternal optimist?  We might think so.  No sooner had he made the covenant with Noah than the shenanigans begin again.  In our last reading from Genesis in these weeks of the lectionary, we read of the attempts by some of Noah's descendants to build a great tower to reach up to heaven.  Full of pride, they seek to make a name for themselves.  We see here the temptation of the serpent in the garden again: the self-glorification of man and woman.  We are back to where we started! 

The story of the Tower of Babel is interesting on a number of levels.  First, on a etiological level, the writer is trying to explain why there are so many languages.  He equates this with division, a division God has imposed on humanity to prevent them getting in to even more trouble than they are already in.  This division will be healed in Christ who incorporates all humanity in himself, in his body.  When he is lifted up he will draw all people to himself, uniting them in his offering to the Father as he returns to the Father the kingdom he has been given. 

The desire to reach for heaven is not wrong in itself - as we know from the example of the saints it is a noble desire.  The problem for this lot in Genesis emerges when we see they want to do it themselves - they think they can storm heaven on their own initiative, which of course they can't.  Not only are they overreaching themselves but they are committing the sin of presumption.  I do not think we need to point out examples of this in modern life, they are all too clear.   In humility, like the saints, we must recognise that Christ brings us to heaven, so we must not trust in ourselves and our abilities, but trust in him.  In Christ humanity will indeed reach up to heaven, we will not need to build a tower - Christ is the tower.

Archeology tells us that the most likely model for the Tower of Babel was the ziggurat, the ancient temples of Mesopotamia.   As we read this passage, can we see humanity constructing a temple to a pagan god and in this way - the worship of this being, they hope to attain heaven?  As with the fertility rites of ancient paganism, they seek to bribe this non-existent god with a magnificent tower-temple.  If we can read this as an interpretation, an ancient Jewish commentary on the worship of false deities, we may see an allusion to the later Golden Calf incident.  Only the true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is the one who lives, the one who saves.

Finally as we read this passage the story of Pentecost always comes to mind, for the coming of the Holy Spirit on the infant Church is the healing of the division we witness here.  At Pentecost language was no longer a barrier to understanding, the power of the Spirit and the Gospel overcame the different languages, and so the apostles and disciples preached the Word and everyone heard them in their own language.  As the people building the tower gradually deconstructed love as they laid presumptive brick upon presumptive brick, the Holy Spirit knocks down these walls and begins the construction of a edifice of love - the Church founded on Christ who offered his life for the sake of love.

At this point, Genesis is ready to begin the construction of that Church, first with Abraham, then Isaac and Jacob - the family.  Then the sons of Jacob, particularly Joseph who brings them into Egypt where God forms a nation - in the desert he will make a covenant with this nation.  Then, as they face the ups and downs, fidelity and infidelities of life in the Promised Land, they are prepared for the coming of Christ who founds his Church, a Church for all the nations bound in love to him and brought by faith, hope and love, professing the truth, back into the garden of paradise, not to hear the Lord walking in the evening, but to see him in the full light of his majestic divinity.

Church Art: Sell It or Keep It?

Last night at our film club in Dublin we watched The Agony and the Ecstasy, while reflecting on the relationship between the Church and art.  It is a wonderful movie with two great actors, Charlton Heston and Rex Harrison who spent most of the time pulling the hair out of each other, metaphorically speaking.  It was an opportunity to get reacquainted with the work of the great Florentine artist, sculptor, architect and poet, Michelangelo. 

One criticism that tends to made against the Church is her patronage of the arts and her preservation of artistic works.  Critics tell us that the Church should sell all her art and treasures and give the money to the poor.  I remember a story from the life of Archbishop Fulton Sheen.  Once, in conversation with a priest, the priest complained to Sheen that the Church should sell all her riches and property and give the money to the needy. Sheen looked him straight in the eye and asked him, "How much did you steal?"  The priest was shocked, but apparently he did steal - he had been taking funds out of his parish for his own use.  Sheen maintained that those who zealously propose this argument are hiding something themselves. 

That said, we can ask the question, why doesn't the Church sell all her art and treasures?  Having lived in Rome and had the opportunity to get inside the Vatican I can assure you that the riches of the Vatican are concentrated in the basilicas and chapels - for the glory of God, the museums, for the preservation of culture and to share with the world, and in some state rooms to dignify audiences.    The rest of the Vatican is quite simple and austere.  The pope's bedroom is said to be very simple, certainly video evidence shows that his apartment is very understated.    The various Vatican offices are anything but grandiose. 

So why so many treasures?  What about the Church's mission to the poor?  Well most of the treasures and art are either in the churches or museums.  First they beautify the house of God - while many modernists will complain about that, not even Jesus objected to it - he did not condemn the woman who poured expensive perfume over his feet - when Judas (remember - it was Judas the betrayer and thief who first raised the question!) objected the Lord did not agree with him.  Our churches are meant to be beautiful places - they are to be worthy of the worship of God.  Now of course, art in a church is not the great beauty of the Church - the holiness of her members is, but art is the fruit of man's creative work and his engagement with the beautiful: that too must be offered to God and used to worship him, and so the Church commissions art and decorates her churches with it.  I notice when various movements in the Church objected and denuded the churches of art, this art ended up in private homes - they take from God to keep for themselves.  Such was the way with the Protestant Reformation.  

Secondly, the Church preserves art to make it available to the world, and this is the role the Vatican museums play.  These pieces, if sold, would for the most part end up in private collections, and so be taken away from the world.  As the fruit of God's inspiration and man's labour, these pieces belong to the world. 

But there is another reason why the Church keeps them - to raise money.  Yes, she has to be practical.  The Vatican does not run on fresh air - and the donations of the faithful may not be enough to cover the cost of a world-wide mission - the entry fee to the museums helps finance that mission.  When speaking with those who say the Church should sell the art, I always ask them if they would be prepared to make up the loss of income - they always say "Absolutely not!" - relying on such charity, then, it is no wonder the Church has to have a reliable source of income. 

And what about the poor?  The Church is THE biggest charity in the world - her charitable works are part of her world wide mission, and so the monies earned from her various incomes goes to assist the poor in numerous projects around the world.  If she sold all her art, yes, a huge amount of money would go to the poor and then, when that was gone, it's gone.  As it is, with the world coming to see these treasures and paying admission, the Church can continue to finance her many charities year after year. 

So when you're next facing interrogation about the Church and art, remind the critics of these arguments, and then ask them if they are prepared to personally finance the Church's mission.  You'll find they'll not be too keen to do so, in fact with many of them they are not really interested in the Church's mission, may even be opposed to it, perhaps not even understand it.  Remind them, then, that Judas was the first to raise this question.  That should bring the conversation to an immediate end!