A couple of comments and e-mails about my four articles on the clergy sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church asked about the supposed 'wealth' of the Church. Apparently there are all sorts of rumors out there that the Church is mega-wealthy and has billions stashed away.
Er . . . no.
The Vatican is a sovereign state, as well as the headquarters of the Catholic Church. Its accounts are published annually, and aren't kept secret. It barely raises enough to cover its annual budget most years, and often runs at a loss. There are no massive reserve funds squirreled away in secret accounts. If there were, things would be a lot easier for the Pope!
The Church's 'wealth' is in non-liquid form; buildings, works of art, historical artefacts. These have a value, although many are literally priceless - no-one knows how to value them. Take Michelangelo's Pietà, for example.
Just how do you put a value on a piece like that? A million dollars? A hundred million? A billion? Nobody knows. There's only one, there will never be another, and once it's sold, it's gone. The money realized from its sale would be used, and then it'd be gone too. Nobody knows what the collected artifacts in Church collections and museums are worth, but it's a finite sum. If they were sold, some of the greatest scholarly and historical collections in the world would be destroyed, and the financial gain to the Church would be only short-term. That's why no-one's thought it worthwhile to do so.
Also, many of the historical 'riches' of the Church have been taken over by others. The wars of religion in Europe were all too often sparked by greedy nobles and/or governments intent on seizing for themselves the lands and properties of the Church. More was lost due to looting during the First and Second World Wars. Outside Europe, the Church doesn't have much in the way of land or other holdings; where she did, they were usually nationalized by governments of newly-independent former colonies.
Some point to land holdings of monasteries and other independent bodies within the Church. Trouble is, those independent bodies are truly independent. The Vatican doesn't own the land held by a monastery or a religious order. Each diocese owns the land on which its buildings stand, including parish churches; but that's not the Vatican's property either. It belongs to the local Church, under the stewardship of the bishop. The diocese must raise its own operating funds (unless it's a mission diocese, in which case financial assistance may come from other Catholic bodies). Catholic universities may have their own endowment funds, but those are, again, their own property, not the Church's.
So, if you hear rumors or tall tales about 'the wealth of the Catholic Church' - forget it. It may make a good story, but it doesn't exist.
Peter
4 comments:
I would repectfully disagree.
If the collection is insured, a market value has been set. It may not reflect current worth but there is a proffesionally set price. Accountants set prices for assets all the time for taxes.
If the collection is sold, it is not destroyed, it just changed hands.
Many thousands of people, companies and governments have had to sell holdings that they have owned for generations to pay debts or judgements. Why would the should the church be any different?
This from a group who traces it's very roots to the Christ, who only owned the clothes on his back.
Gerry
Gerry, I don't think there's any insurance cover on the artistic treasures of the Church. How could one calculate a premium? (And who could afford to pay it?)
Nevertheless, I take your point about the poverty of Christ. It's a subject that comes up for debate within the Church quite often. There are those who want to sell the art treasures and use the money for apostolic and pastoral purposes. Others point out that this would provide only a short-term boost to funds, and when they were gone, the Church would have neither funds nor works of art. I don't know the answer, I'm afraid.
Sorry, don't believe you.
The Catholics have been shipping money to the Vatican for well over 1000 years, and the flow has been 1 way, as far as I can tell.
The church "guilts" its members into donations ALL the time.
The people running the catholic church are primarily focused on continuing and increasing the power of the church, then tending to the flock and the non-believers comes in second.
Witness the 30 year child abuse scandal that has been covered up at all levels.
Actually, the child abuse scandal - with all its horror - has nothing to do whatsoever with donations or wealth of the church, can we please not confuse the two? Let's not transform that into the usual "they're guilty by definition" crusade, OK?
I'm a catholic and I can clearly and without any confusion state that service donations hardly cover the local costs of the clergy, let alone "send" any to the coffers of the Vatican.
The Vatican state has public accounts like any other and they are verifiable. There is no such thing as "unmeasurable wealth" over there. Other than of course the patrimnoy of the church, which is hard to put a price on.
This is not to say that there wasn't wealth, in times past. The middle ages and renaissance, for example. Back then it was customary for catholic states to pay heavy tributes to Rome. Which were in turn used in the "evangelization" of colonies.
That hasn't been the case for a while now: original colonialism has been dead for over 50 years now.
Post a Comment