I haven’t looked up any details, but from what you tell me I too would side with the catholic church and Katy Perry, and saying those words wasn’t a pleasant experience.
Opening up a religious property for the public is better then letting it be demo’ed by some rich ass and her fascist church friends. I don’t trust that the real estate company WOULD have, but they might if their logic is “Big church nearby “enhances” our other properties.”
The actual argument you could make here is that as the “workers” in the convent, they were entitled to the means of production (Production of… holiness I guess) i.e. the convent.
The landlord/tenant relationship does not at all map on to a nun and the catholic church
The landlord/tenant relationship does not at all map on to a nun and the catholic church
I disagree. If they live on church property, and their ability to do so is contingent on their doing certain kinds of work, then how is that work not comparable to a form of rent? I would concede that it has elements of both.
(unless i misunderstood and they didn’t actually live there)
That form of work they are obligated to do is to not be excommunicated. They are not charged rent.
And in either case, selling a convent off to a real estate developer isn’t some liberatory action, these women weren’t seizing property to put it into the commons or to redistribute it for the good of all, they were essentially claiming squatters rights to sell off a building to a real estate developer who was probably going to flip it. Which now that I’m saying it out loud isn’t really any worse than what the church was going to do with it.
I haven’t looked up any details, but from what you tell me I too would side with the catholic church and Katy Perry, and saying those words wasn’t a pleasant experience.
Opening up a religious property for the public is better then letting it be demo’ed by some rich ass and her fascist church friends. I don’t trust that the real estate company WOULD have, but they might if their logic is “Big church nearby “enhances” our other properties.”
you think the catholic church had more right to that property than the women who’d lived there for decades?
The actual argument you could make here is that as the “workers” in the convent, they were entitled to the means of production (Production of… holiness I guess) i.e. the convent. The landlord/tenant relationship does not at all map on to a nun and the catholic church
I disagree. If they live on church property, and their ability to do so is contingent on their doing certain kinds of work, then how is that work not comparable to a form of rent? I would concede that it has elements of both.
(unless i misunderstood and they didn’t actually live there)
That form of work they are obligated to do is to not be excommunicated. They are not charged rent.
And in either case, selling a convent off to a real estate developer isn’t some liberatory action, these women weren’t seizing property to put it into the commons or to redistribute it for the good of all, they were essentially claiming squatters rights to sell off a building to a real estate developer who was probably going to flip it. Which now that I’m saying it out loud isn’t really any worse than what the church was going to do with it.