Money and the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dave_H
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
'The total number of employees of the Vatican city-state in 2003 was 1,511, which includes 4 top directors, 75 men and women religious, and 1,432 laity. Also on the books are 566 retired employees drawing a pension. Salaries for Vatican employees are shockingly low by American standards; a mid-level official working int he Vatican travel agency, for example, might earn the equivalent of $18,000 a year.

Among Italians, however, Vatican jobs are highly coveted, because they bring access to the Vatican supermarket, clothing store, electronics store, the gas station, the products are all untaxed and therefore significantly cheaper than anywhere else in Rome. The Vatican also offers access to quality health care and a well stocked pharmacy. In addition, the salaries are not taxed, and the Vatican has a generous pension system and severance plan. . .

[Regarding the Roman Curia] Today; 2,659 people work for the Roman Curia, of whom 744 are diocesan priests, bishops, archbishops, or cardinals, while there are 351 men and women religious and 1,564 laity. Also on the books are 892 retired employees drawing a pension. . . the majority of the lay employees are engaged in work that is essentially secretarial.

[Myths about the Vatican] The first bit of news, which will be surprising to many readers, is that there is no such thing as “the Vatican.” At least, there is no “the Vatican” in the sense that most English-speaking journalists, commentators, and activists use the phrase. One finds such phrases as, “The Vatican wants,” or “The Vatican announced today,” or “The Vatican is afraid that. . .” In reality, such formulae are built on an image of the Vatican that is more mythic than real. . .

The Vatican is not an organism, it is a bureaucracy. It is staffed by human beings, each of his whom has his or her own wants, fears, intentions, visions, hopes, and dreams. . . Spend some time around the Holy See, and it will become clear that in some ways, though certainly not all it reflects the diversity of the wider Catholic world. . .

[Vatican Wealth] To put it bluntly, the Vatican is not rich. It has an annual operating budget of $260 million, which would not place it on any top list of major social institutions. To draw a comparison in the nonprofit sector, Harvard University has an annual operating budget of a little over $1.3 billion, which means it could run the equivalent of five Vaticans every year. That is to say nothing of the corporate world. The Microsoft Corporation in 2002 spent $4.7 billion on research and development alone, meaning that its R&D budget could fund the Vatican eighteen times over and still take clients out to lunch. That number, by the way, represents a mere 16 percent of Microsoft’s annual sales of $293 billion. The point should be clear: on the scale of the world’s mammoth enterprises, the Vatican doesn’t rate. Its budget would qualify it as a mid-sized American Catholic college. It’s bigger than Loyola-Marymount in Los Angeles (annual budget of $150 million) . . . but substantially less than the University of Notre Dame ($500 million). . .

But is the Vatican sitting on a large pile of wealth that doesn’t show up in its annual budget? The total patrimony of the Holy See, meaning its property holdings (including some thirty buildings and seventeen hundred apartments in Rome), its investments, its stock portfolios and capital funds, and whatever it has stored up in a piggy bank for a rainy day, comes to roughly $770 million. This is substantial, but once again one has to apply a sense of scale. What the Holy See calls patrimony is roughly what American universities mean by an endowment – in other words, funds and other assets designated to support the institution if operating funds fall short. The University of Notre dame has an endowment of $3.5 billion, a total 4.5 times as great as the Vatican’s. Once again, when it comes to Vatican wealth, there is less “there” than most people believe.

. . . But what of some eighteen thousand artistic treasures in the Holy See? No one’s ever done an accounting of their potential cash value, but certainly it would run into the billions. Yet the artworks are nowhere included in official Vatican figures. From the Holy See’s point of view they are part of the artistic heritage of the world, and may never be sold or borrowed against. In 1986, facing a $56 million budget deficit, the Vatican put out a statement saying the artifacts owned by the Roman Catholic Church constitute a treasure “for all humanity” and cannot be sold.

. . . Any number of times I have sat down with intrepid journalists and researchers mesmerized by tales of Vatican wealth, who are extremely disappointed when I lay out the reality. Sometimes a form of denial sets in. “But,” they insist, “you haven’t actually seen the Vatican’s books, have you?” You can’t say for sure the Vatican doesn’t have a horde of gold stashed away somewhere, or a secret stock portfolio worth billions?" No, I can’t. I also can’t prove there’s no invisible monster under your bed. What I can say is that if the Vatican is sitting on a secret stash of riches, there’s little evidence of it in the way the institution functions. While there are a few black Mercedes limousines to ferry VIPs to and fro, and some cardinals do have fairly nice apartments, for the most part Vatican personnel do not live especially large. Most offices are sparsely furnished and rather low-tech, living quarters are plain, and the salaries for most officials are striking low by First World standards.’
  • Excerpts from John Allen’s book, ‘All the Pope’s Men’
 
When examining the Church’s financial position, it is important to keep the context in mind. The Catholic Church is responsible for shepherding some 1.25 billion people. To put this in perspective, the lower end of spending per pupil in the US was ~$6000. If the Catholic Church was spending $6000 per person for religious education, services, and maintenance of facilities, then the Church’s annual operating expenses would be $7,500,000,000,000. That’s 7.5 TRILLION dollars. Even at a much more modest $100 per person, the operating expenses of the Catholic Church would be $125,000,000,000 ($125 BILLION).

Given the size and responsibility of the Catholic Church, I would expect them to have an “endowment” in the 100s of billions to several trillion range to insure the continued solvency of their day to day operations in all economic climates.

As an outsider looking in, one could argue that maybe the robes that the priests and bishops wear should be less fancy in light of the role of the priesthood as servants to Christ and their flock of faithful. However, those expenses are going to be rather small in the grand scheme of the Church.
 
I think they should buy better vestments. It’s only a few dollars.

The finances of the Vatican have been public since the early '80’s, if memory serves. They don’t hoard any money. They give it all to the poor.
 
As an outsider looking in, one could argue that maybe the robes that the priests and bishops wear should be less fancy in light of the role of the priesthood as servants to Christ and their flock of faithful. However, those expenses are going to be rather small in the grand scheme of the Church.
I’m not picking on you, but you have brought up a myth that many people keep bringing up, even some Catholics. This idea that Jesus and the Apostles were servants does not mean that they dressed as servants. There are a number of historical facts that support the contrary.

There aer numerous times when it is mentioned that Jesus is invited to eat at the homes of people from the upper classes as well as the poor. The fact that they were sinners, does not mean they were paupers. Jesus ate with both. People would not invite a pauper to dinner. Jesus obviously did not dress like one.

The Gospel clearly tell us that they cast lots for Jesus’ tunic because it was woven as one piece. This kind of work was a very fancy form of tayloring. That’s why they wanted it.

Jesus spent a lot of time in the temple on Jerusalem. They wore special garments to enter the temple, very similar to what is worn by Easter Catholic and Eastern Orthodox clergy. To this day, Jews dress very well to go to temple. Paupers were not allowed in the temple. We know that Jesus preached in the temple. We also know that some of the Apostles were members of the Pharisees. That’s right, not all of the Pharisees were bad people. But they were middle class or the working class, not the beggers.

After the Ascensiono of Jesus, the Apostles disperse all over the known world. They did not travel for free. People paid a great deal of money to travel in caravans or to be taken across the sea. It is obvious that they had income, probably from the faithful and even from their families. All of them, except Paul and John were married.

We also know that Luke, Mark and John were scholars. Luke was a physician on board a ship, before he became an Evangelist. John Mark, the author of the Gospel of Mark, was a scribe. Jewish scribes were free men and they were educated men, not beggers. John the Evangelist was a scholar who lived and traveled through the Eastern Mediterranean. Apparently, he had connections with the Greeks, because he wrote very well in Greek. His Greek is much better than Paul’s. Paul was a solider. Soldiers were not paupers either.

From the earliest days of Christianity we see that the Church, beginning with Jesus himself, was open to people of all social and economic classes. However, we see that the leaders were always part of the what today may be considered the middle class or higher. Some of the successors of Peter came from the Roman elite. Unless they were monks with vows of poverty, they kept their family treasures and used their resources. Additionally, in Judaism the priests presented themselves very well. It was later, when the destruction of the temple and Judaism moves into the rabbinic age that we see a simpler form of dress by rabbis, because a rabbi is not a priest.

If we notice, the vestments worn by deacons, priests and bishops are worn for liturgical purposes. They are not for daily wear. My local bishop wears a leather jacket, helmet and drives to work on a motorcycle. The man does not own a car. That’s pretty simple living. You would never know it when he dresses up for liturgy. The vestments are one thing, his work clothes are another. He does wear a Roman collar under his leather jacket. He’s a great guy.

My dear friend, Cardinal Sean of Boston, always wears the same habit that I wear. It’s the brother’s habit. Because he’s a brother. When he vests for liturgy, then you see the nice vestments. Actually, he wears brown and I wear grey, but the rest is the same.

Fr. Mitch, on EWTN wears the same tired black suit and Roman Collar. Fr. Benedict wears the grey habit of the Franciscan friars. Fr. Corapi wears a suit or a habit. The friars at EWTN wear habits. Even the diocesan priests, who do not make vows of poverty, wear the same simple suit and shirt.

This whole idea of the deacon’s, priest’s, and bishop’s vestments is a myth. They are expensive, because they are not something that you buy everyday. The people who make them have to make some money on them. My grey habit costs $265.00. I only have two. I purchased one two-years ago and another six-months ago. That’s not very expensive for something that you’re going to wear every day for the next four or five years. But in fairness to the company that makes them, they have to make money when they see me coming, because I only come along every few years.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Dave H
Timothy H
Edward H

You guys related? 😃
Could be…

ConstantineTG, there is a road called the “East-West Connector” here in suburban Atlanta. I thought maybe you and I were neighbors but gathered from another post that you are maybe a Leaf’s fan from the frozen recesses of the north?
40.png
Shin:
The total number of employees of the Vatican city-state in 2003 was 1,511, which includes 4 top directors, 75 men and women religious, and 1,432 laity.
Pople John XXIII was asked by a reporter how many people worked at the Vatican. He responded, “Oh, about half.”

To the point of the OP’s querry, I have been confronted with the same argument, especially here in the deep south. Every time the assumption is made that priests are eating filet and lobster every night and the same old tired cliche that “The vatican is also a bank”. It’s easy claim that the Church is too rich as you listens to Third Day MP3’s on an iPod dock in a $60,000 truck. It’s also easy to miss the homeless guys living under the freeway overpass as you whiz by at 75MHP. 🤷

You all make good points about most everything being private donations.

Brother JR, I was shocked to find out how much a monks scapular cost when I want to the Cistercian monastary here in Georgia. Your posts are always so informative and your spirit of humility is an inspiriation to me.

-Tim-
 
To add to Brother JR’s comments. The vestments we see today are what the Church has conserved from her early days. Just as we do (or should) wear our finest clothes to assist at Mass, after all we are going to see Christ, our King; The Clergy and people in the Early Church wore their finest clothes. Chasubles, Dalmatics and other liturgical Vestments changed very little, while secular styles changed.

Some of the other reasons that Vestments are what we would consider ornate, include they are used only for the rites that involve the worship of God. Read about the worship of God in the Apocolypse, (Revelation to Protestants) it is quite lavish. Historically people donated Vestments and other items for use in the Liturgy, among those things donated were the finest silks and trims they could afford to show their gratitude to God for all He has given us, and to enrich the surroundings of the Liturgy, which again has as it’s end the worship of God.
 
I assume that the percent would vary by place, down perhaps to zero. You’re right, some places don’t have the money to pay the priest, much less send money away somewhere.

Do people in the Philippines put cash only in the collection basket, or do they use checks? Lots of people here use checks or maybe electronic transfers. But cash is still common.
Cash only. But I imagine larger donations would course through directly through the parish office rather than through the collection basket. Some would donate something specific, new statue, renovations, etc.
 
Cash only. But I imagine larger donations would course through directly through the parish office rather than through the collection basket. Some would donate something specific, new statue, renovations, etc.
Not unexpected. Thanks Constantine. 🙂
 
To add to Brother JR’s comments. The vestments we see today are what the Church has conserved from her early days. Just as we do (or should) wear our finest clothes to assist at Mass, after all we are going to see Christ, our King; The Clergy and people in the Early Church wore their finest clothes. Chasubles, Dalmatics and other liturgical Vestments changed very little, while secular styles changed.
Not quite. Vestments have evolved significantly. First you have the evolution of vestments between East and West. Then you have evolution within the Churches. What never changes was what vestments were worn. It’s always been an albe, chasuble and stole.

It’s interesting, the priest’s stole was originally exactly like the prayer shaul of the Jewish High Priests. The deacon’s stole was a long towel that was draped over one shoulder. If it was very long it was either held in place by a cincture or wrapped as the Eastern deacons do.

Some of the other reasons that Vestments are what we would consider ornate, include they are used only for the rites that involve the worship of God. Read about the worship of God in the Apocolypse, (Revelation to Protestants) it is quite lavish. .

It is called the Book of Revelations by Catholics too. The Latin Catholics were the only Catholics who called it the Book of the Apocalypse and that has not been used in more than 20 years. All of the missals and breviaries say “Revelation”. Traditionalist Latin Catholics are the only Catholics who refer to it as the Apocalypse. Both uses are acceptable to the Catholic Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
@JReducation

Thanks for the information and clarification. 🙂
 
I was asked recently why Rome has a great amount of wealth and do the clergy “live high off the hog”. Do a portion of our tithes go to Rome and why doesn’t the Church distribute this money to the poor and live a life of “poverty”.
Thanks
They are very misinformed. The Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the World. In addition she operates many many schools, hospitals and adoption agencies and sends help to the poorest of the poor much more than any other organization.
youtube.com/watch?v=Vs6qZd_xP1w
Detailes are available at catholicscomehome.org/
 
I wonder if what may also confuse people is that they forget that Vatican City is a sovereign nation. Like all nations, it has to have economic security in order to function properly. The Vatican’s assets are not private property any more than the assets of the Federal Government are the private property of the President.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top