R
Ridgerunner
Guest
No. It’s in Vatican City, but not in or under St. Peter’s.
- Status
B
Becca3
Guest
Oh ok. thank you for your answer!
T
tafan
Guest
One is more worried about causing scandal to the faithful, or to those who do not hate the Church. That is when scandal can cause the loss off souls.
Those who hate the church will never be satisfied. I do not sense a hatred of the church by the OP, yet he his certainly scandalized about things he has heard.
R
rfournier103
Guest
The artwork, churches, shrines, belong to no man. They belong to the Church.
It’s all to glorify God. Period.
It’s all to glorify God. Period.
T
tafan
Guest
Again, avoidance of scandal is a moral imperative of all Catholics.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Never did I say the OP hated the Church. To the extent he has perhaps been scandalized by things “he has heard”, perhaps learning from others why the Church has the possessions it has, will be salubrious to him. I received the impression that he truly wanted a serious explanation rather than a secular solution to the unproved assertions of nefarious doings at the Vatican Bank.
It did not appear to me he, himself, was scandalized by what he knows about, e.g., the artworks in Vatican City, but troubled by the hostile critiques of people who either don’t comprehend or simply want to slander the Church.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I agree with you when it comes to the scandal of sin. However…
Didn’t Jesus’ statement about eating His body and drinking His blood “scandalize” some of the disciples, causing them to leave Him? Church teachings are a “scandal” to those who reject them. As Catholics, we are very unlikely to avoid that kind of 'scandal".
T
tafan
Guest
One must differentiate between true scandal caused by immoral behavior ( or even the appearance of immoral behavior) and a false scandal. It would be wrong to say that praying in front of an abortion clinic causes any true scandal, although I certainly know pro choices who are scandalized by the behavior. On the other hand, when there are multile stories of financial corruption coming from the Vatican Bank, even if the stories are false, the allowance of the appearance of immorality is wrong.
I know of two people who cohabitant es for years and always claimed it was a platonic relationship (and I have good reason to believe them), yet the appearance of wrong to others was scandalous. It was therefore, objectively speaking, still immoral behavior.
So at this time, I believe the Varican Bank does owe the world a much larger degree of transparency.
R
R1ch4rd
Guest
One can love and even die for his country and still question and even criticize matters not involving national security. The same is true of our church, we can love Her and die for her, yet disagree with secular policies and I can’t think of anything more secular then currency. If we never question questionable entities, how will they receive needed attention. The word “hate” was suddenly given the same meaning as curiosity.At our church board meetings, if something of secular importance is brought up and nobody questions it, the board questions why.
But why make it easy to do so?
Those churches are not openly accused of funneling covert United States funds to Solidarity and the Contras or laundering mob money. No matter how much good, the ends does not justify the means…just my :twocents:
A
ajecphotos
Guest
As a whole i guess the church uses its ‘riches wisely’ for the poor etc. I suppose what irates some is the individual wealth of some in the church. Like i mentioned earlier about one bishop i know is quite well off while the diocese is struggling!
R
R1ch4rd
Guest
IMO, it’s about the way one “wears” his wealth. I’ve seen several priests come and go in my parish and one in particular stood out. He seemed like a very plain priest from an average middle class family. When not involved in parish activities, his dress was usually a pair of faded blue jeans and a “comfortable” looking t-shirt.In one talk with him, I learned he was from a very well to do family who constantly gave him gifts. He is also going to inherit a nice chunk of change upon their demise.
I agree that our church uses it’s riches wisely and I truly enjoy visiting beautiful, ornate churches. We should never ask our church to give up any building or artifact. In fact, we’re fighting to save a beautiful old church from being sold as the congregation gets smaller, even though the operating costs to keep it are 3 times that of others in the area. The Vatican has been the center of Catholicism for centuries and should remain as such. The Vatican Bank on the other hand, is a private institution established in 1942 and has since been a thorn in the side of the church. There are certainly other institutions that could house the currency needed to run the church that would be far less controversial.
T
tafan
Guest
Yes, I agree. I can understand why the bank was established in the past, as having an outside organization holding your funds opens you up to outside control, because your laws are not regulating them and it seems rather easy to see an overly aggressive external government freezing you funds. But it doesn’t work anymore. Financial systems are too intertwined, its not like the Vatican Bank keeps all funds in an internal vault. So there is really no reason to have it, at least that is how it seems to me.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
There will always be multiple stories of corruption of one kind or another against the Church, because the Church has many enemies, including our own media, by and large. There is nothing the Church can do to prevent its enemies creating the “appearance of scandal”. Opening the books to the media will change nothing. It will only give them the opportunity to invent more anti-Church stories. Opening it up to the media would, in my view, be a terrible mistake; one I doubt the Vatican will make.
Can you get a copy of FDIC’s examination of Bank of America? No you can’t. The Vatican is the government in charge of the Vatican Bank. It should rest there.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
-See Bible passages concerning the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple.
-See passages concerning the money lenders in the Temple. Notice Christ made no comment concerning the grandeur of the Temple itself.
-Freely using our wealth to create grand buildings and art to celebrate and honor God, the creator of all and sole source of the salvation of our souls, is somehow wrong, but using our wealth to create grand buildings and art to celebrate mere men (Lincoln memorial, Tomb of the Unknown, Mount Rushmore, etc) and simple ideals (Statue of Liberty) is perfectly acceptable? The Creator of everything shouldn’t get anything special, but His lesser creations should only get the best? Sounds backwards to me.
C
Celtic_Maiden
Guest
What you have conveniently forgotten to mention is that the Queen of England is head of the Anglican/Episcopalian religion and as such she is One of the richest women in her own right as a person in the world, in paintings, jewelry, money, etc and of course all her Palace and Castles now surely since she is Head of the Anglican Church, this money, also should be given to the poor, English people should be able to visit all the Palaces she has including Buckingham Palace, but no, she does not given any of her wealth to the Poor in fact when one of her Palaces burnt down she expected the State to pay for it, even though she gets paid by the State herself and all her family, but due to an outcry of the British people she had to pay for some of getting it restored herself, you cannot visit any of her Castles, and the odd time the odd one is open, there is an entrance fee, far different to the head of the Catholic Church, one does not pay into the Vatican, plus they are the biggest giver of Charity around the World, this is in sharp contrast to the Queen who is Head of the Anglican Church. Plus it would be a very good idea if she gave back the title “Defender of the Faith” which was given to the then faithful King Henry V111 by the Pope of his day before Henry decided he was head of the Church. The title should be handed back as its a Catholic Title not a Protestant one.
T
tafan
Guest
No, but I can get a copy of Bank of America’s financial statements and annual reports. So your analogy is quite misplaced. I am not saying all oversite of the Vatican Bank by the Holy See should be made public. I am saying that the Bank owes it to us to be transparent.
Can the Church do away with all false charges of corruption, of course not. That is not the point. There is no doubt, that as the Church in the US, post 2002, has become more open with respect to the abuse scandals, it has made it easier for the media to create anti-Church stories. But taking public action was not a mistake, nevertheless.
Do you propose then that diocese and parishes quit publishing financial reports?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
If you are familiar with bank financial statements, you know that they don’t tell you a lot of things you need to know if you want to know what the true condition of the bank is. And I can assure you that even I could make a very ugly story about any financial statement published today if I really want to do it. If you had the FDIC examination report, you really would know a lot more. But even then, the FDIC misses a lot and misjudges a lot.
So, what, exactly, do you want the Institute for Religious Works (colloquially referred to as the Vatican Bank) to disclose? What details do you really want to know, and why do you want to know? What is your interest beyond just the fact that others would like to pore over some financial statements? Since those others will be critical whether they get what they want or they don’t, what’s the purpose?
In answer to your question, it is not important to me whether dioceses and parishes disclose financials or do not, beyond, e.g., saying we need donations for this or that.
S
sw85
Guest
The “wealth” of the Vatican is largely bound up in instruments that cannot be readily liquidated, i.e., buildings whose value is purely historical and religious, artwork, etc. It isn’t exactly sitting on piles of cash or ill-begotten gold coins.
In fact the Vatican’s real, day-to-day budget is fairly small (in the low hundreds-of-millions per annum) and is dwarfed by its debt. Most of the overall Church’s wealth never leaves the parish from which it was drawn.
In fact the Vatican’s real, day-to-day budget is fairly small (in the low hundreds-of-millions per annum) and is dwarfed by its debt. Most of the overall Church’s wealth never leaves the parish from which it was drawn.
T
tafan
Guest
If a financial statement is accurate, ie the loans are properly classified and loss reserves are accurate, it gives a pretty good indication of the financial condition of a bank (or any company for that matter). I think the Vatican Bank should, as it intends to do, start publishing financial statements: accurate balance sheets, p/l statements, cash flows, etc. My interest in it is that there is no appearance of impropriety.
Having been involved for years with Diocesan, Parish, and Catholic school finances, I think you are wrong about it not being important for financial statements to be disclosed. There are lots of reasons for them to be so: donors want to know their money is being properly managed, having to publish financial statements helps enforce proper accounting procedures, it is way too easy for a finance committee/pastor/bishop to start making bad decisions (not necessarily dishonest) if they do not ever have to tell anyone the results, no one is going to feel comfortable long term in just treating the finances as a big, black box which only the finance committee can see into. And in the case of restricted assets, donors have a right to know that the money was spent on what they specified (and from experience, I can tell you that the mis-appropriation of restricted assets is the easiest error for financial managers of non-profits to fall into).
It is admirable that you would be willing to continue to support the Church financially just out of obligation, I feel the same, but there are limits.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I’m not even keen on Finance Committees. The Church is not a corporation in which we are all stockholders.
I was on the board of a bank and am a non-board consultant to another presently. As such, I have long taken it upon myself to review the results of other banks, and I can assure you that while one who really knows the banking world can tell a lot from the movement of financials, one can often miss the main thing. You really have to have better information. Sometimes you have to make judgments based on experience about the wisdom of even sound investments. That’s one thing the regulators quite often get wrong because they have never actually worked in banks for the most part, and do not understand the operations of many borrowers.
So, are we down to wanting some kind of financials published on the IRW solely for the benefit of those complaining that it’s not sufficiently “transparent”? If so, what complaint will we honor next?
- Status