If to do were as easy as to know what were good to do, chapels had been churches, and poor men's cottage princes' palaces.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
In my growing-up years in Germany, I attended church in many different locations and circumstances - in humble back rooms, in impressive villas, and in very functional modern chapels.
I would rather be poor in a cottage full of books than a king without the desire to read.
The fault seems to me to have been that men have taken ancient country churches as their models and have failed to discover that between them and churches in towns there ought to be a most distinct and marked difference.
A servant church must have as its priority solidarity with the poor.
While civilization has been improving our houses, it has not equally improved the men who are to inhabit them. It has created palaces, but it was not so easy to create noblemen and kings.
Health, money. That's what people worried about in the 14th century as much as today. I find it so much more interesting than the supposed activities of kings, queens, generals.
I have walked into the palaces of kings and queens and into the houses of presidents. And much more.
Among our own people also the church sorely needs clergy in close touch with the ordinary life of the laity, living the life of ordinary men, sharing their difficulties and understanding their trials by close personal experience.
You may depend upon it that they are as good hearts to serve men in palaces as in cottages.
Oh, how I would like a poor Church, and for the poor.