Financial corruption of the RCC

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steelfaithu2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m not changing the argument, as there’s not argument going on that I’m aware of. I was told a link I posted was not valid or not credible, so I posted some new stories related to my original question involving financial corruption within the Vatican - those aren’t credible either. So if you don’t mind, can you please provide me with any good reads about the financial matters within the RCC and a defense against the corruption charges and scandals? I’d honestly be happy to read anything you can provide me.

As for the other question I had about helping the poor communities, I do understand what you’re saying, I know there’s only so much some Catholic communities can do, so I wasn’t suggesting all Catholic communities are at fault, or even the RCC as a whole was, but I’m only drawing from my own experiences. For instance, in my state Rhode Island, the majority of the RCC’s are quite wealthy and most of the parishioners are middle-class or quite wealthy. Most of the activity I see going on in my state involved upgrading and renovating the Churches, but I’m not seeing much more than that or an active mission to reach the poor, help the poverished Catholics overseas, or spread the gospel and the Church with their money to the non-Christians (in America especially). Maybe there is, but that is something I would probably need to ask a Priest or Bishop here about directly.
 
I’m not changing the argument, as there’s not argument going on that I’m aware of. I was told a link I posted was not valid or not credible, so I posted some new stories related to my original question involving financial corruption within the Vatican - those aren’t credible either. So if you don’t mind, can you please provide me with any good reads about the financial matters within the RCC and a defense against the corruption charges and scandals?.
I did not mean that anyone was arguing, but rather that the argument (as in application of a position) in the last set of articles is a whole different issue. I know of no resources that defend specific charges because I have not seen any credible charges. I really did not know until I became Catholic that there were some people who actually accused the Catholic Church of not helping the poor. Heck, when I was a Baptist, the impression was that helping the poor was more important that spreading the Gospel to Catholics.

Here is the website for Catholic Relief Services annual report. They are kind of the emergency fund of Catholic aid.

crs.org/2011-annual-report/

This one organization sends about 800 million in aid and operates on a 6% administrative margin. In addition, a lot of the manpower is done performed by religious making the bucks go farther. Here is something specific to the Philipines.

crs.org/countries/philippines
 
related to my original question involving financial corruption within the Vatican - those aren’t credible either.
The main point is that it is not* applicable*. It only involved** one person**, who was suspended and one million euros. Thus, the article says nothing about vast wealth that is being held and needs to go to the poor. Even in the Telegraph, one can look at the facts the offer and see this has nothing to do with the initial issue.
 
For instance, in my state Rhode Island, the majority of the RCC’s are quite wealthy and most of the parishioners are middle-class or quite wealthy. Most of the activity I see going on in my state involved upgrading and renovating the Churches, but I’m not seeing much more than that or an active mission to reach the poor, help the poverished Catholics overseas, or spread the gospel and the Church with their money to the non-Christians (in America especially).
You may be in a parish that has a real issue with wealth. It is harder for rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. This truism has changed in 2000 years. A wealthy man must not be attached to that wealth, and this is a hard thing.
 
As for my original question; from experience I’ve not seen poor Catholics - such as the Filipinos - really receive any kind of substantial aid or support from the Church. Every time I go to Church with my wife’s family in the Philippines, the RCC’s are always asking for donations, even from the very poor, yet I’m not seeing any kind of help being given to their communities. surely the very wealthy western Catholics could spare some aid to their Catholic brethren in the Philippines and other 3rd world countries? I know from experience, even a few hundred dollars can feed people there for many months, yet it really pains me to see so many devout Catholics in that country just largely forgotten about.

What are the likely reasons for this?
Friend…

I understand your question. I grew up protestant and among perhaps the most anticatholic bunch around. I know that when you ask this you believe what you are asking is valid, I did too.

The Catholic Church runs the largest charitable work in the world bar none and has done so for virtually forever. One umbrella organization, CRS is approaching a billion dollars a year in the work and that is just the tangible valuation. There is a lot more work beyond this one example.

In my county alone they run and setup feed the hungry campaigns where on a typical weekend we push out 500 meals to the street people. We run immigration services of all kinds, adoption and foster care. We run homeless care for families, we run healthcare facilities that cater specifically to the homeless that are discharged from hospitals but still need time to recuperate and heal. We have setup charter schools. The last three are just the efforts of our single parish. We distribute school supplies to children of poor families. My wife makes bandages for the leper colonies, blankets for those in need, paints the fingernails of the old ladies in the nursing homes so they feel pretty and less hopeless. We run hospices to care for the dying. We helped settle Hatians here in the US after the last earthquake, meeting them at the airports, giving them shelter, helping with the legal aspects etc. I won’t tell you what I do as that would make me loose my reward.

I’ll stop the list now because it should make the point.

I’ll now ask you a question, to which I’d appreciate an answer in return. What group of people are you aware of that does more charitable work than the Catholic church ?

There are many charitable organizations among the protestant groups, and they are to be commended. This isn’t to pit once group against another. Its a direct question though.

The answer is no one does more charitable work than the Church.

The reason this isn’t more well known is the press is not exactly pro Christian in any stretch of the imagination, even less pro catholic. So if there is a way to spin something they will.

Instead of repeating what you have heard, which is what I used to do, stop by your local Parish, ask a priest what you can do to help. Don’t do so to argue and steal their sheep. Do it for a learning experience. In time you will see.
 
Here is something fun:

ehow.com/about_7461871_average-salary-catholic-priest.html
compensation from area to area varies widely, however, swaying as wide as $29,211 in Phoenix to $44,566 in Miami during 2010, according to Salary Expert. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Outlook Handbook notes that a priest’s take-home cash earnings may be significantly less–less than $20,000.
ehow.com/about_6196579_national-average-minister_s-salary.html
Ministers with 20 or more years of experience have an annual salary range of $34,900 to $62,400 as of April 2010. Those with 10 to 19 years of experience have a salary range of $34,900 to $59,300 and whose with five to nine years of experience have a salary range of $32,700 to $49,700 according to PayScale.com. Lastly, ministers with one to four years of experience have a salary range of $25,900 to $46,500.
Priests seem to get a little less than other clergy. Also, education can increase the ministers salary. Catholic priest have eight years of education, the equivalent of a doctorate. I know from being in both a Baptist and a Catholic Church here, Baptist have more cash and do less social work. Catholics do not give as well, but place a greater emphasis on social work. I am not saying one is better than the other. Social work is only one aspect of Christianity and both engage in helping the poor and evangelism.
 
I found this, I do not know how reliable it is:
In most cases a Cardinal is also a Bishop, being a member in the Episcopal Order. Only the Cardinal, the head of a diocese is required to be a Bishop. The main duties of a Bishop are to teach the Catholic faith and to administrate the Church. The Bishop is the only one who has the power to confer the sacrament of the Holly Order. Due to his duty of teaching faith, in some English speaking countries, at the name of the bishops it is added the post nominal title D.D, meaning Doctor of Divinity. On average, a Catholic Bishop makes $16,000-$19,000 per year.
kaycircle.com/How-much-does-a-Catholic-Bishop-make-per-year-Average-Catholic-Bishop-Salary

Of course the Pope has no salary, but then he needs none.
The average salary for a lead pastor in a megachurch is $147,000, according to a recent survey
christianpost.com/news/report-reveals-salaries-of-megachurch-pastors-46779/
 
Gee, that seems to buy a lot of house and cars, these days. 😃

Not so much so in this neck of the woods (the Northeast) …
Oh, I do not mean to judge anyone on this. I do not know what it costs in different parts and salary. But boy, I really do not understand why it is the Catholic Church that it is accused of being rich and not helping the poor. Of all the complaints I have seen leveled this one just doesn’t make sense to me. Like I said, I would never have given this one any credence back when I was a Baptist. Maybe it is a fruit of the Dan Brown novels.
 
Oh, I do not mean to judge anyone on this. I do not know what it costs in different parts and salary. But boy, I really do not understand why it is the Catholic Church that it is accused of being rich and not helping the poor. Of all the complaints I have seen leveled this one just doesn’t make sense to me. Like I said, I would never have given this one any credence back when I was a Baptist. Maybe it is a fruit of the Dan Brown novels.
Nor did I intend to be at all uncharitable. Yet the perception of wealth, especially as it relates to the clergy itself, is inexplicable in many cases. That said, while Catholic clergy vow to live chastely, they do not take vows of poverty. Some have assets that come from their families, who in those cases support them well beyond any material subsistence they receive from the Church.

As for the Church itself, indeed the Dan Brown perspective is at play to an extent. The reality is very different. In fact, I stumbled this recent news article (6 July 2012) earlier today, reporting that the Vatican ran a considerable deficit last year.
 
Nor did I intend to be at all uncharitable. Yet the perception of wealth, especially as it relates to the clergy itself, is inexplicable in many cases. That said, while Catholic clergy vow to live chastely, they do not take vows of poverty. Some have assets that come from their families, who in those cases support them well beyond any material subsistence they receive from the Church.

As for the Church itself, indeed the Dan Brown perspective is at play to an extent. The reality is very different. In fact, I stumbled this recent news article (6 July 2012) earlier today, reporting that the Vatican ran a considerable deficit last year.
How then, may I explain this to the Occupy crowd? Sadly, they are still around.
 
Instead of repeating what you have heard, which is what I used to do, stop by your local Parish, ask a priest what you can do to help. Don’t do so to argue and steal their sheep. Do it for a learning experience. In time you will see.
I think I’ll go and do that then. I was trying to set up a meeting with one of my local priests who are part of Una Voce, and I was hoping I could ask him all my questions and also consider getting involved with any charity work they have going on and observing what the RCC does here in the New England region.

Thanks to all of you who were able to help give me some good information and perspectives on the questions I asked you; I’d say the wall is definitely crumbled a bit at this point. I never knew the RC clergy made so little money from the Church, I always thought they made as much as protestant pastors and faculty. At this point though, I need to see Catholic charity and fulfillment of the Great Commission being done with me own eyes and experience it first hand to settle my doubts.

Hopefully you all can help me with some other important questions until I can speak with a Catholic priest. This issue I have with the RCC is more serious than the last issue I brought up, because I really can’t see how it can be justified. Question is: how can the RCC not only allow only a bread (body) Eucharist with no wine (blood), but punish people for wanting to have the bread (Body) AND the wine (Blood) each any every mass? Read here…

“If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema (Council of Trent, Session 21, Canon 1).”

Now this sounds so outrageous because it sounds as if Christ himself is “anathema” by RCC’s own decree.

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:26-28).

“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” (John 6:53)

Now I realize that the logic here is that when you receive the body, you also receive the blood, but this obviously is a man made rational, and not following the example and instructions of our Lord himself. If we were getting both the Blood and Body in one, then Jesus would not have established two separate and equally important sacraments.

The RCC could do everything else right, but if they fall short on this one issue alone, it’s all for nothing I feel. So is it really true that the RCC allows only bread to be given during a mass for the parishioners, and to hold the view that both the bread and wine are needed is heretical?
 
Now I realize that the logic here is that when you receive the body, you also receive the blood, but this obviously is a man made rational, and not following the example and instructions of our Lord himself. If we were getting both the Blood and Body in one, then Jesus would not have established two separate and equally important sacraments.
He wouldn’t? This is the very core of the question. The Catholic Church has stated that either species contains both the body and the blood. The real questionis whether the Catholic Church has the authority to teach.
 
On average, a Catholic Bishop makes $16,000-$19,000 per year.
This statement is extremely misleading, because it omits the fact that (at least in my part of the world) the majority of priest’s/bishop’s living costs (i.e. accommodation and food) are charged to the parish budget. So that $16K per year is, in effect, disposable income.

Contrary to the popular misconception the Church does not hoard wealth – it just uses it to support extravagant lifestyles of some priests and bishops.

For example, I see absolutely no reason why [.pdf"]stuff like this]("http://www.richardsipe.com/Burke_Gallery/The Cost of Looking Good 2007[2) is supposedly necessary.
 
This statement is extremely misleading, because it omits the fact that (at least in my part of the world) the majority of priest’s/bishop’s living costs (i.e. accommodation and food) are charged to the parish budget. So that $16K per year is, in effect, disposable income.

Contrary to the popular misconception the Church does not hoard wealth – it just uses it to support extravagant lifestyles of some priests and bishops.

For example, I see absolutely no reason why (link removed for content) is supposedly necessary.
It was a quote, not a statement. Also, it is from a non-catholic source, not anticatholic propaganda blog, which by the way, has no documentation to support their statements. Interesting how none of these anticatholic blogs provide sources even in their rather biased rantings.
 
Hmm, I saw the title of this thread and thought it would refer to financial mismanagement within the Church, which has led (in combination with sex abuse lawsuits and settlements) to multiple diocese declaring bankruptcy, not to mention shrinking endowments, sales of land and assets that have been held for the future needs of ministering to the faithful, and shrinking budgets for everything from ministry, to education, to service to the poor.

But no, it’s just the standard “the Church is the richest organization in the world” thing… well on the face of it, it isn’t true. Again just look at the diocese that are declaring bankruptcy to see that’s not true.
 
I believe the catholic church runs an even budget every year, but is worth a tremendous amount because of 2,000 years of accumulated possessions that are priceless.

It is not rich in the since a man or a Non- denominational pastor
Would be rich we’re he could spend it on himself.
 
As for my original question; from experience I’ve not seen poor Catholics - such as the Filipinos - really receive any kind of substantial aid or support from the Church. Every time I go to Church with my wife’s family in the Philippines, the RCC’s are always asking for donations, even from the very poor, yet I’m not seeing any kind of help being given to their communities. surely the very wealthy western Catholics could spare some aid to their Catholic brethren in the Philippines and other 3rd world countries? I know from experience, even a few hundred dollars can feed people there for many months, yet it really pains me to see so many devout Catholics in that country just largely forgotten about.

What are the likely reasons for this?

I think I know where the disconnect is:

Look up organizations like Cross Catholic International, Catholic Relief Services, Franciscan Missionaries, Missionaries of Charity, Maryknoll, etc. etc. etc, and you can see how Catholics in Western countries get money to our brothers and sisters in impoverished areas. Pretty much every Catholic I know gives money to such organizations. Our pastors, when addressing tithing, tell us only part of our tithing is for the parish - the rest is for charities of our choosing.

In the summer, missionaries from around the world come and preach at our parishes, share their work, and we give them money to take back to their people. At one parish I worked at, it was the Daughters of Mary and Joseph: the Irish nun who worked at our parish hosted two of her sisters from Uganda (survivors of horrors, these beautiful women) and the parish would raise funds for their work back home. At another parish, largely Philippino, it was a nun from an order that worked with sex workers in the Phlippines, giving them job training, counseling, healing, shelter, etc to get out of that life (can’t remember the name of the order, Mary of the Immaculate Heart or something along that line).

The Catholic Church doesn’t just consist of parishes, but hospitals, universities, religious orders, charitable organizations, etc. Parish to parish donations do happen (here in CA, there are a lot of San Diego parishes with sister parishes in Mexico or near the border). But the staff at parishes are focused on spiritual needs, while charitable arms of the Church are focused on material. Even here in the states, like at the parish I used to work at: you’d go to Mass and put your kids in religious ed classes and go for spiritual counseling at the parish. If you needed material help, we could give you some bags of food from our food pantry, but you’d be better off going to Catholic Charities or Father Joe’s Villages because our parishioners give money to those places to organize, through their trained staff: material help, job training, education, housing, legal aid, medical care, etc. There’s overlap of course (chaplains at Fr. Joe’s, food pantries at parishes), but overall, it’s sort of division of labor.

Furthermore, our charitable organizations are not just for Catholics, but anyone needing help. Since we want to help everyone, it makes sense for such programs to exist separately from parishes, since generally only Catholics will come to parishes. It’s okay for parishes to do whatever charitable work they want of course.

Furthermore, we tend not to reinvent the wheel when we find organizations on the ground already doing great work. It’s more effective to put our donations to use through those organizations (which are vetted). Look up Cross Catholic International Outreach online and you’ll see how it works: you pick which projects, through various organizations already on the ground, you want Cross to send your donation.

Maybe we don’t get credit (as your posts would indicate). Getting credit is not our goal - helping people is. It doesn’t have to be made known to the people getting the new water filtration system in Bolivia that the money came from Such and Such Church in CA, with people from the Church making a “mission trip” of it. This is sort of embarrassing for the recipients, plus the money to send people down there could’ve been given for the work instead. We just give the money we raise to the organizations already doing the work. What’s that about not letting your right hand know that your left is giving money away? 🙂

There’s also Peter’s Pence: the Pope’s annual collection for charitable causes around the world. This might be part of the money we “have” that causes people to think the Church (and the pope) are rolling in it. But it’s not being kept - it’s being distributed.

On the topic of our big, beautiful churches and works of art - how many wealthy people do you know who let anyone in the world just walk through their homes gawking and behaving as not-always-sympathetic tourists, often complaining about their wealth as they take pics to post on Facebook to show they visited? Well, the Church does: our churches, even our jewels like the Sistine Chapel, are open to the public, apparently to enter and criticize as they please. Why? Because the Church is universal, not private.

Hope this makes some sense. Good questions. I recommend www.catholicscomehome.org for your research as well.

May the Father bless you, Jesus walk beside you, and the Holy Spirit fill you.
 
“If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema (Council of Trent, Session 21, Canon 1).”
You might start a new thread…

This is in response to a heresy- most council decrees are. In this case, a group thought that you MUST receive both body and blood to receive “all” of Christ. This is untrue. Christ cannot be separated- he is wholly present, body blood soul and divinity in both the blood and host, to the smallest identifiable particle. You need wine and bread for the consecration, but both species do not have to be offered to the faithful. Traveling priests, battlefield situations, etc- often the priest may have a small amount of wine for the consecration, but the congregation only receives the host, for example.

Try here:
“The Nestorians were condemned in the patristic period, and the heretics in the Council of Trent, because they denied that the Real Presence was whole and entire under each form (Denzinger-Bannwart, 930 sqq.; Mansi, XXX). The Nestorians had denied that the Real Presence was wholly and entirely under each form. The bread, they said, contained only the Body of Christ and the wine only His Blood. This is heretical. Because, as the Church quotes (and the text is the authentic Greek), “whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27). For, “Christ rising again from the dead, dieth now no more” (Romans 6:9). Separation of flesh and blood is death, and hence Christ’s presence whole and entire under each species is a dogma of Catholic belief. Catholic theology offers this explanation: By the words of consecration, Christ’s Body is under the appearance of bread, and His Blood under the appearance of wine. The Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ form one indivisible Person, and must be found together. That virtue or force which unites the body to the blood, and vice versa, in the Eucharist, is known in Catholic theology under the term concomitance. Utraquism tended to undo this dogma, because it declared communion under both forms essential to salvation. This was virtually to deny that Christ was whole and entire under each form. It went further, in declaring that Communion-the reception of the Eucharist-was absolutely necessary to salvation.”

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Communion_under_Both_Kinds
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Communion_under_Both_Kinds
 
Hello everyone, I’ve been a browser of these forums and website for a few years now, and it’s been extremely helpful to me in many ways to get closer to finding and understanding Christ’s Church. Currently I’m leaning very close to Orthodox Catholicism, but there’s some issues that I’m still not sure about and I need to hear the Roman Catholic’s official view on them. I hope you all can be patient and understanding with me, and realize I’m not trying to attack anyone here, I just want to have some tough questions answered for me.

One of the biggest walls I’ve faced in accepting the claims of the RCC, is their history with their finances and wealth. I’m aware Satan would want to smear the Church’s reputation to drive away millions of people to understand the Church better, but I’m not sure if this issue can be easily dismissed as lies against the Church or not.

From my understanding, the RCC is an incredibly rich and powerful organization, and it’s wealth surpasses even that of the Oil companies. Despite what the exact amount of money and power the RCC holds, we all know it’s the wealthiest Christian church in the entire world. So the question I have is this: if Christ’s own Church has the sacred mission to aid in the Salvation of all mankind, and is created to be a mercy to those in need, then how can it be justified and accepted that the RCC possesses so much wealth just sitting in bank accounts, yet there’s countries like the Philippines (composed of millions of starving Catholics) who are in destitute poverty and the people there have literally NO opportunity to better their lives - not even if they work hard, have degrees, and live an honest life - so why is the RCC not helping these people and doing something significant to care for their spiritual and physical needs?

"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? (Matthew 7:16)

Ever since I left Islam and came to know Christ’s Word, I’ve always been mindful of this to protect me.
By Roman Catholic Church I’m assuming you mean Vatican City and the Holy See in Rome?

Vatican City runs an economy of about $300 million dollars annually. For comparison that’s about the size of economy of a medium sized U.S. college. My own university - UW-Milwaukee - operates an economy about twice that size.

Notice I did not mention my city let alone the country of the United States.

Bear in mind you have clergy with Ph.D.'s working inside Vatican City earning salaries of roughly $16,000 annually. You can make more money in the City of Milwaukee dropping out of high school and working as a house painter.

Anyways… there is nothing remarkable about the financial wealth of Vatican City. Yes, it has nice old buildings - but so does much of Europe. The White House is relatively old - and big - compared to my personal age. One fundamental of economic growth are the need for large numbers of people, resources in the form of land and other natural materials, and machinery, equipment, factories etc.

This is why the City of Chicago, for example, is so much more rich and powerful than some rural village of a few thousand people in Guatemala.

Or take the enormous City of Sao Paulo in Brazil. The city operates an economy twice the size of the whole nation of Chile and roughly the size of the economy of Mexico I believe.

So, basically, the Philippines, as well as oil companies, operate economies of scale that dwarf Vatican City. About the only thing coming out of Vatican City is postage stamps. It’s not like they produce Ford trucks or earth moving machines or export agricultural products around the world. And that tiny Swiss Guard is a threat to no nation state - or any of the large gangs throughout the Americas for that matter.

The bank of Vatican City is used for practical purposes (I believe even Jesus walked around with his own treasure for himself and the apostles - I think it was Judas). A lot of the men and women in the religious orders (e.g., nuns for example) rely upon that bank for their order’s providing for their retirements.

Brazil is a rich nation by the way - in terms of GDP - but you see an enormous number of people living in abject poverty. Even in the United States you have homeless people in New York City living underneath the city in the sewers with the rats.

The lay people that work inside Vatican City don’t make a lot of money but they have excellent benefits and are part of an organized labor in which it is extremely difficult to get fired. They can shop at the grocery store inside Vatican City too which reportedly is very inexpensive. They also have access to the pharmacy in Vatican City which supposedly is one of the best in the world stocked with drugs from all over the world, some of which are not even allowed in the United States.

Some of the Bishops and Cardinals in the Vatican City do live in the equivalent of luxury apartments. But so what. There is nothing written in the sky that says spacious luxury apartments/condos in New York City and London have to cost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. They just do because that’s the market prices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top