The Vatican’s financial bait-and-switch
If you asked loyal Catholics to subsidize a film dramatizing the life of Elton John, you’d get a disappointing return. But ask them to contribute to the needs of the Holy Father, and you’ll see real generosity.
If you ask Catholics to invest in the London real-estate market, or in a shady Italian bank, or a bankrupt hospital, don’t expect much. But say that the Pope has charitable projects in mind, and the checkbooks will open.
So for years the Vatican has asked the faithful to support the Pope’s needs, emphasizing his charitable projects—and then invested the returns in London real estate, a shady Italian bank, a bankrupt hospital, and, yes, a film about Elton John.
That’s the fundamental scandal behind the latest financial news from the Vatican.* It’s not that these investments were often made without proper authorization (although they were). It’s not just that the people making the investments fought fiercely to prevent disclosure (although they did). It’s not that slick investors profited handsomely from the under-the-radar deal (although they did). It’s that the Vatican raised money for one set of purposes, and used that money for another. It’s a bait-and-switch.
When the Wall Street Journal revealed that only 5% of the funds from the annual Peter’s Pence collection are used for charitable projects, the Vatican’s defenders replied that there was nothing illegal about the uses to which the money was put. That’s true enough. But when the Holy See uses the “I am not a crook” defense, you know that something is seriously wrong. And something is.
Yes, it’s true that when you contribute money for the needs of the Roman Pontiff, it’s his money, to use as he sees fit. If he wants to use most of those funds to wash some of the red ink out of the Vatican’s operating budget, that’s not unreasonable. If he wants to invest the money, hoping to increase the principal, that’s a legitimate decision. (It’s not clear to me why an institution with ample long-term assets, but a seriously unbalanced operating budget, would be investing current funds for future returns. But I’ve never claimed to be a financial expert.)
But when the Peter’s Pence collection was taken up in your parish, were you told that most of your donation would be used to balance the Vatican budget? Or that some of the money would be invested for future returns? Not likely. In promotional literature for the collection, the US bishops’ conference said:
The purpose of the Peter’s Pence collection is to provide the Holy Father with the financial means to respond to those who are suffering as a result of war, oppression, natural disaster, and disease.
But in fact 95% of the collection was used for other purposes.
The facts exposed by the Wall Street Journal—and in a series of excellent investigative reports by the Catholic News Agency—may not produce indictments and convictions. But at a bare minimum they should be sufficient to demonstrate the need for greater transparency and accountability in the Vatican’s financial dealings—a need for the sort of reform that we have been promised, the sort of reform that has been consistently thwarted by the entrenched powers of the Roman Curia.
When Catholics send donations to Rome, they deserve something more than a nervous assurance that the use of their money was not technically illegal. They should have confidence that the money was raised and used honestly.
*Here I am setting aside the possibility—I would venture to say the probability—that when these investments are examined carefully, a greater scandal will be exposed.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: wenner1687 -
Jan. 02, 2020 7:17 PM ET USA
Dear charles.pullin6847 , You can trust "Aid to the Church in Need". They are excellent, and have transparency on where funds go to help suffering Catholics around the world. You can also give stipends for Masses (they have the Gregorian Masses, also, for your dear deceased) to be said by needy missionaries who will be grateful to offer Mass for your intentions. Also give to your local St Vincent de Paul society.
Posted by: EiLL -
Dec. 23, 2019 10:34 AM ET USA
We do give monthly to our inner-city poor parish. In addition, we purchase "gifts" for the church when we see the needs: cleaning supplies, hardware for the repair of pews and kneelers, paying for some of our seniors on fixed incomes when there is a parish dinner, repair of the vacuum cleaner, etc. We also freely provide our skills in the ongoing maintenance of the old church. We donated tuition to an inner-city child at the parish school. Thanks for the article above Phil. Merry Christmas.
Posted by: Foundas -
Dec. 21, 2019 6:14 PM ET USA
We love our orthodox priest and denying him money for the parish presents quite a quandary. I do understand the points raised and I can ear-mark money for specific purposes. The problem overall is that the bishop can levy a "tax" against the parish and make them pay any way.
Posted by: Retired01 -
Dec. 21, 2019 11:15 AM ET USA
drip, Drip, DRip, DRIp, DRIP, and accelerating! And what our courageous bishops comment? Silence, SIlence, SILence, SILEnce, SILENce, SILENCe, SILENCE.
Posted by: grateful1 -
Dec. 20, 2019 7:23 PM ET USA
I plan to enclose this article in the envelope I receive for the next Peter's Pence collection, along with a note saying, "You insult me even by asking."
Posted by: charles.pullin6847 -
Dec. 20, 2019 5:56 PM ET USA
A year ago, I stopped contributing to my parish and archdiocese due to the malfeasance of my ordinary. I have struggled during that time to determine how I might fulfill my obligation to provide for the material needs of the Church. With this news, I now cannot contribute to the larger global church, as the Holy Father has shown an equal disregard for donor money. Where might a faithful Catholic provide for the Church such that these callous leaders can't touch the funds? Ideas are welcome.
Posted by: dover beachcomber -
Dec. 19, 2019 1:28 PM ET USA
And notice the deflection used by the Vatican's defenders: nothing that was done was illegal. But the question was: why did you lie about how the money would be spent?
Posted by: Frodo1945 -
Dec. 18, 2019 4:17 PM ET USA
"should be sufficient to demonstrate the need for greater transparency and accountability" the only thing it demonstrates to me is that they have received their last dollar from me.