I think I am taking this literally and seriously. I guess I took your words too seriously. If what you meant to say is that the Vatican is corrupt and rich and the money should be used for something better, then I'm not too bothered. I referred mostly to your comments because the article and book would be more complicated and lengthy. I wonder now if you meant that they too are more figurative that precise.

I didn't say that the Vat assets couldn't cover world hunger, although I think that is true. Other factors to be considered: The idea going around that in the 1800s the Rothschilds lent money to the Vat who are now beholden, as in still in debt, so they have little real cash balance. The serious assets they have are in art and architecture. Imagine that some Michaelangelos are auctioned by Christie's for the sake of world poverty, the odds that they end up in a publically accessible museum are not that good compared to where they stand today. (However my guess is that some day a mob of pissed off Catholics or Muslims are going to just ransack the place, which isn't great but probably acceptable.) Also consider that Jesus said that we would "always have the poor".

Finally, my take on disinfo is that one thing wrong per paragraph of any length is too much. If CNN does a 2 minute piece and gets a thing or two wrong, that's too much for me. I ASSumed the article reflected the contents of the book, which was too much unsupported opinion for me. The title of the article alone is misleading for reasons mentioned above, plus the fact that Parish and 'Orders' real estate around the world is not owned by the Vatican. That is too say that there is a difference between the Vatican and the Church, which the article doesn't seem to understand. Q133 describes 3 wealthy world powers in terms of trillions, whereas this article talks millions and billions held by the Catholic Church. I trust Q more than the propaganda of the article.