MovieChat Forums > The Shoes of the Fisherman (1968) Discussion > Kiril's Solution is Temporary Fix

Kiril's Solution is Temporary Fix

posted 14 years ago by charlesblank-2
15 replies | jump to latest

This movie is a exceptional film which has inspired me every time I have seen it.But,the Pope's decision to sell off all the Church's possesions to feed the starving of China to prevent a war is a temporary fix to the problem.The first problem is the distribution of the relief supplies to the people because Chairman Peng could use this aid as a means to control any dissent from the failure of his gov't to provide for the people.Second,Peng would suppress any info. on the Church/West aid to his own people to prevent the appearance of weakness to the West.Also,Peng's dealings with his rice-bowl neighbors could lead him to make harsh terms of future aid in order to show that China is still a major power.These events could lead the West to provide greater military aid to these asian nations and put more trade restrictions on future dealings with China.Also,after the West has provided relief to China's famine.will Peng reform the Party to prevent future famine or will he use the threats of war and invasion to make the West bail him out of another problem?Also,the Western nations would see that their relief efforts has not created a more peaceful China and they will increase their military preparations around China to show resolve when Peng tries to blackmail the West by future threats.But,the greatest tragedy in these events is the undermining of Kiril I relief effort as a "Peace in our Time" illusion that stripped the Church of all its' wealth and respect in the West.The next time that Kiril I seeks aid for another relief effort,these nations will probably not respond for the simple reason that the Church's efforts for China fail and war is a certainty now.

[–] frannywentzel 14 years ago

The Chinese had argued that The Church had no real stake in the negotiations so I believe the point of his pledge was to spur the Western powers into providing the actual aid with the threat that The Church would if they didn't.

[–] charlesblank-2 14 years ago

But,The West would probably want some collateral from the Church to cover the cost of the relief effort-such as all the wealth of the church.Russia would not aid China because of the hostility between them and China would not want any Western advice on reforming their agricultural program.So,the West sends aid and Chinese famine is averted,but Peng shows more emnity toward the West to cover Chinese failures and maintain control over the country.The West then sends more aid to protect China's neighbors from future Chinese agression,tightens up sanctions against China,and the Catholic Church is now a global Western corporation owned by Western nations.

[–] frannywentzel 14 years ago

It should be noted that China's main problem was that The West was blocking its ability to buy food from its 'Rice Bowl' neighbours. It should also be noted that as a plot point, a Chinese famine seems a curious trigger for World War III. Mao had never been overly concerned about a shortage of Chinamen - the Great Leap Forward wiped out 30 to 45 million in only 4 years - why would Chairman Ping do so now?

By the way, with 800 million parishoners, I'm sure The Church would've only needed to pass the plate around a couple Sundays to collect enough dough to feed a billion people - for a growing season at least. Don't look for The Vatican to show up on Craigslist any time soon.

[–] charlesblank-2 14 years ago

I wonder if the Church could easily sustain a relief effort for China because Peng would need food,medicine,and farm equipment on a vast scale to prevent a possible famine-induced upheaval of the Party in China.This effort could required a couple of years.Also,the "Rice Bowl" nations might not be willing to sell to China because of their aid to communist insurgents in these nations and the threat of Chinese intervention in these nations.This could lead to Western military buildup in these nations to quarantine China.The idea of selling off Church's assets would be to get the relief money without any conditions and the Church could distribute the money how they saw fit.Western banks might demand supervision and record-keeping on the money and Peng might reject such conditions.

[–] hankmcn 14 years ago

Who would have been able to buy the assets of the church in 1968?

Today the answer might be China or one of the oil producing nations.

I thought the immense wealth of the church was beautifully illustrated by the gold dish that the votes were placed on before they were then put into the gold cup. Save a few bucks and just put the papers into the cup. Also sell all the jewel encrusted crosses, rings and other do-dads that do nothing but flaunt the wealth of an organization that asks for contributions to help the poor.

Everyone should dress in regular business suits instead of the medieval finery that has to be ridiculously expensive and another waste of money that could be better spent helping people in the slums of the world.

[–] vpilutis 14 years ago

All that was fine only problem is: We are left hanging as we don't know if China went for the plan.

----------------------
See some stars here
http://vbphoto.biz

[–] jaystarstar 12 years ago

Yes, if they had only sold off the Vatican's assets and used it to buy bags of rice, the "solution" would only work until the bags of rice ran out.

"Buy a man a fish," etc etc etc.

The only real solution would be if the Vatican money was used to change food production, purchasing and delivery processes in order to prevent famines in the future.

As charlesblank-2 notes above the Chinese regime might not be cooperative in allowing this to happen.

In addition there were many many other nations who would be perfectly happy in seeing the Chinese regime experience internal problems and possibly fall due to their economic and political policies. (In hindsight now it can be said this is essentially what happened to the Soviet Union.)

So it certainly would not have been nearly so neat and clean as Pope Kiril selling off all the Vatican goodies and distributing Happy Meal coupons to the Chinese.

In a real-life situation like this, a large amount of money would have to go to immediate food relief, then another large amount to dramatically improving food production and delivery.

================

4) You ever seen Superman $#$# his pants? Case closed.

[–] johngalt-1 12 years ago

The conclusion of the film is simplistic, possibly because it was what could be made to fit into a movie. Whether it was intended as fodder for analysis, only the screenwriter could say for certain.

I have often wondered if the intended message was a response to the question: "why is the Catholic Church so wealthy when it has huge congregations of starving people?" But yes, a simply giveaway would neither be practical nor sustainable. On the other hand, the assets of the church, managed in the same way as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, could do wonders in perpetuity.

With a new Pope in office who has taken the name of a saint who took his vow of poverty VERY seriously, I wonder if we might be on the verge of seeing something like this happen. Morris West's book and this film have long fascinated me due to the near-prophetic elements. Might we be about to see more of West's ideas come to pass?

The last resort of one who cannot think is to argue that another cannot feel.

[–] amorehl-93-99338 9 years ago

As a lapsed Catholic, I've lost track of the various popes. But if your reference to the "new Pope in office who has taken the name of a saint who took his vow of poverty VERY seriously" is the current pope (Aug. 2015), from what I've seen of his writings and speeches, he's an idiot. Makes me very happy I've gone away from the church (and my relatives who are still with the church think he's an imbecile as well).

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

and my relatives who are still with the church think he's an imbecile as well

Is that because they're conservatives upset with his liberalism, or because he tends to make overblown statements which he then has to walk back...? I suppose it could be a mixture of both...

[–] willjohn 9 years ago

My Catholic mother quoted somebody who said John XXIII left a window open and it could not be closed.

She probably thought that meant it was a bad thing.

[–] MAC-16 9 years ago

And your point is?

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

Well, Francis may be well-intentioned, but imo he's gone the tragic route of cultural marxism, insisting that northern European countries and peoples surrender to the egregiously unfair invasion of their lands by non-European "refugees" (also called "rape-ugees" because they've turned Sweden into the rape capital of Europe).

On the one hand there is altruism; but on the other hand, there is pathological, suicidal altruism, which of course is not altruism at all, but rather the success of a message of self-hatred that has been preached to Europeans since before WW2. How sad that Francis has betrayed Europeans (and, let's be honest, white people too).

His certifiably insane advice that, because of "underpopulation" (WTF???), Europeans should intermarry with the invaders, so as to create a burgeoning mixed-race population, represents white genocide of the lowest order. Don't believe me? Just check out northern European and British news sources. Genocide is not always a matter of work camps, wars, and guns. It can be as simple and as lethal as out-breeding native populations, and this is beginning to happen already in Europe.

[–] jimprideaux2 8 years ago

A little known fact was that a small Arkansas retailer acted on the Pope's challenge and agreed to sell everything China could produce. The rest is history.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]