According to the provided infographic put out by the Secretariat for the Economy, the "all others" category includes 9 Pontifical Academies, as well as 9 Pontifical Academies, which includes, "for example, the Pontifical Academy."
Maybe the Holy See's issue with numbers is more fundamental than people think...
While the Vatican needs full financial reform oh so badly, it isn’t clear to me why the solution to the revenue issue, at least in the short term, couldn’t be a tax on at least comparatively wealthy dioceses, especially if we only need to close $50 million gap each year.
Yes, indeed, that is the logic of the latest speeches from Pope Francis. And we obviously don't need all these globetrotting trips where he tells us that all religions are different paths to God.
Of course "profit" in the sense of today's perverse and usurious finance culture is the wrong model. The question is whether anyone has been hard at work devising another. The evidence is that queasy rationalization that invites corruption and half-measures has been the usual thing since the 16th C or so.
Yes, it is rather late in the day for the Vatican to develop a conscience about maximising profits.... When you look at Mr Nogara's dodgy dealings back in the 1930s. Pope Pius XI's new encyclical on the economy was treated like St Francis' call for silence - strictly for the birds.
I dimly recall our wonderful Belgian nuns telling us little children circa 1963 about how Peter's Pence supported the Holy Father's charitable works. But there were no detailed accounts and hardly anyone in my parish back then would have thought of disputing anything a nun said.
"While the Vatican is most definitely not a business, the bulk of its income (about 65%) is derived commercially, from returns on assets and investments, including its sizable real estate portfolio, both in the city of Rome and worldwide."
I find this a tad discomforting. I'm aware of the complexity of the issues of usury and absentee landholding in the Church's moral tradition, but I would love it if Catholic institutions did not have to rely on financial machinations for the majority of their sustenance. I have a gnawing feeling at times that this too easy capitulation to resting on the wheeling and dealing of the market has not only made us soft but might even be contrary to the gospel, perhaps to the extent that the Lord is withholding many graces of renewal that we would otherwise enjoy. That the Vatican itself is in the boat is doubly disturbing.
I can't point the finger too harshly, of course. Religious orders manage their finances by investment and such, on the excuse that it's what has to be done in order to responsibly manage finances. That's true insofar as we're forced to live in an economy that has constant but low level inflation built into it by principle, but the line is not clear where "responsible financial management" turns into coasting. (One solution has been to restrict returns on investments to things other than operations, forcing us to finance our daily lives by donations and such.)
I think that this might be more sensible and feasible for the mendicant orders, and in fact is harmonious with their history and praxis, but I wonder how that translates to the more "fixed" Church institutions such as the Holy See. If we accept the Radical Orthodoxy critique of the Franciscan insistence on "using without owning", does that imply that the Vatican (or any other Catholic institution) is bound, morally or otherwise, to commit to transferring/gifting ownership of their real estate properties to the respective tenants?
Descending from the dizzying and eye-watering (at least to me) heights of economic and political theory, on a very mean, human level I'm not entirely opposed to the Holy See being largely funded by its returns on investment of its own properties. I find a perverse whiff of justice in the idea of Vatican dicasteries being subject to the forces of natural selection, where competence in financial responsibility - or to put it biblically, shrewdness with dishonest wealth - determines whether your department gets to keep the lights on, and incompetent or corrupt managers are thereby much more easily identified and (self-)corrected. And at the same time, I am reminded that the entire point of these Dicasteries is to promote the salvific works of the Church, and so perhaps it is better for all persons that I have absolutely no input into the financial workings of the Holy See.
Sounds like the Holy Father needs to visit the Napa Institute and ask for help. His Cardinals who are frequent visitors there can make him a AAA trip package. Problem solved.
Please leave out the “[morbidly] wealthy American donors” bent on destroying separation of church and state. If they get their way things won’t be much different here than in Communist China - Christian Nationalist grifters will be nominating and approving bishops just like in the “People’s Republic of China”.
I don’t know how 50 million euro annual deficit leads to a bankruptcy future. It should be easy to get donations to cover for this deficit, although I also agree with cutting expenses (and luxury, in some cases)
There are no true “donations” or philanthropy today. Everything is a quid pro quo. The US church has already sold enough of its soul to these quid pro quos. Do some research or talk to a few disenfranchised bishops. The reality is painful.
It's difficult to see how anything other than the total collapse of the existing bureaucratic structures resulting naturally from decades of corruption, incompetence and lack of accountability can lead to real and lasting change.
The definition of "rock bottom" is "the point at which a person or society decides it would be better to work out the painful change than to carry on as they are". We could do this without committing another venial sin. Total collapse, while it is probably deserved, is not required. A firm purpose of amendment is.
The Soviet Union was insolvent for decades without even knowing it. They just kept doing things, corruptly, incompetently, without accountability, and with terrible suffering, and nearly everyone went along with it. Whitaker Chambers mentioned that people would go for half their entire lives with the screams of families taken in the middle of the night impacting their eardrums, and then suddenly start opposing the Soviet Union when they *heard* the screams.
If only there was a staunch Australian Cardinal +Francis could have openly supported and bolstered, I feel like having one of those over the past several years could have proven helpful. Meh, wishful thinking on my part; where would we have found one of those anyways?
"Well team, enough talk about cutting costs, let's move on to the next agenda item, shall we? Ah yes, the Synod on Synodality!"
Perhaps the cardinals should pay attention to finding a capable orthodox Catholic for the next pope. Many more Catholics might contribute in that situation. Might even solve the financial deficit.
It seems the aversion to maintaining a break-even budget, let alone allowing for the potential of a surplus (to cover unexpected capital expenditures perhaps? Nah. Why be prudent?), is not just an issue my parish faces.
Thanks! This is the sort of stuff I enjoy!
(says the actuary)
Now, let us see a few balance sheets and income statements....
Amen.
I have an idea that can save them some bucks- cancel the synod next month and its special committee plans can be put in a drawer.
Boom!
According to the provided infographic put out by the Secretariat for the Economy, the "all others" category includes 9 Pontifical Academies, as well as 9 Pontifical Academies, which includes, "for example, the Pontifical Academy."
Maybe the Holy See's issue with numbers is more fundamental than people think...
An issue with proofreading at the very least!
Nice reporting.
While the Vatican needs full financial reform oh so badly, it isn’t clear to me why the solution to the revenue issue, at least in the short term, couldn’t be a tax on at least comparatively wealthy dioceses, especially if we only need to close $50 million gap each year.
Don’t worry, all religions lead to God, so we don’t really need a Vatican.
Yes, indeed, that is the logic of the latest speeches from Pope Francis. And we obviously don't need all these globetrotting trips where he tells us that all religions are different paths to God.
Of course "profit" in the sense of today's perverse and usurious finance culture is the wrong model. The question is whether anyone has been hard at work devising another. The evidence is that queasy rationalization that invites corruption and half-measures has been the usual thing since the 16th C or so.
Yes, it is rather late in the day for the Vatican to develop a conscience about maximising profits.... When you look at Mr Nogara's dodgy dealings back in the 1930s. Pope Pius XI's new encyclical on the economy was treated like St Francis' call for silence - strictly for the birds.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardino_Nogara#:~:text=Nogara%2C%20through%20shrewd%20investing%20in,kept%20the%20exact%20amount%20confidential).
I dimly recall our wonderful Belgian nuns telling us little children circa 1963 about how Peter's Pence supported the Holy Father's charitable works. But there were no detailed accounts and hardly anyone in my parish back then would have thought of disputing anything a nun said.
Back then Peter’s Pence was used for the charitable works for of the pope.
How things have changed!
Yes, I behöbe the Pope was Catholic back then
"While the Vatican is most definitely not a business, the bulk of its income (about 65%) is derived commercially, from returns on assets and investments, including its sizable real estate portfolio, both in the city of Rome and worldwide."
I find this a tad discomforting. I'm aware of the complexity of the issues of usury and absentee landholding in the Church's moral tradition, but I would love it if Catholic institutions did not have to rely on financial machinations for the majority of their sustenance. I have a gnawing feeling at times that this too easy capitulation to resting on the wheeling and dealing of the market has not only made us soft but might even be contrary to the gospel, perhaps to the extent that the Lord is withholding many graces of renewal that we would otherwise enjoy. That the Vatican itself is in the boat is doubly disturbing.
I can't point the finger too harshly, of course. Religious orders manage their finances by investment and such, on the excuse that it's what has to be done in order to responsibly manage finances. That's true insofar as we're forced to live in an economy that has constant but low level inflation built into it by principle, but the line is not clear where "responsible financial management" turns into coasting. (One solution has been to restrict returns on investments to things other than operations, forcing us to finance our daily lives by donations and such.)
I think that this might be more sensible and feasible for the mendicant orders, and in fact is harmonious with their history and praxis, but I wonder how that translates to the more "fixed" Church institutions such as the Holy See. If we accept the Radical Orthodoxy critique of the Franciscan insistence on "using without owning", does that imply that the Vatican (or any other Catholic institution) is bound, morally or otherwise, to commit to transferring/gifting ownership of their real estate properties to the respective tenants?
Descending from the dizzying and eye-watering (at least to me) heights of economic and political theory, on a very mean, human level I'm not entirely opposed to the Holy See being largely funded by its returns on investment of its own properties. I find a perverse whiff of justice in the idea of Vatican dicasteries being subject to the forces of natural selection, where competence in financial responsibility - or to put it biblically, shrewdness with dishonest wealth - determines whether your department gets to keep the lights on, and incompetent or corrupt managers are thereby much more easily identified and (self-)corrected. And at the same time, I am reminded that the entire point of these Dicasteries is to promote the salvific works of the Church, and so perhaps it is better for all persons that I have absolutely no input into the financial workings of the Holy See.
I am once again offering a simple solution that will free up €38,000,000 per year: defund the Dicastery for Communications.
Sounds like the Holy Father needs to visit the Napa Institute and ask for help. His Cardinals who are frequent visitors there can make him a AAA trip package. Problem solved.
If only the Pope could give the deference to wealthy American donors that he gives to the Chinese Communist Party.
Please leave out the “[morbidly] wealthy American donors” bent on destroying separation of church and state. If they get their way things won’t be much different here than in Communist China - Christian Nationalist grifters will be nominating and approving bishops just like in the “People’s Republic of China”.
I don’t know how 50 million euro annual deficit leads to a bankruptcy future. It should be easy to get donations to cover for this deficit, although I also agree with cutting expenses (and luxury, in some cases)
There are no true “donations” or philanthropy today. Everything is a quid pro quo. The US church has already sold enough of its soul to these quid pro quos. Do some research or talk to a few disenfranchised bishops. The reality is painful.
It's difficult to see how anything other than the total collapse of the existing bureaucratic structures resulting naturally from decades of corruption, incompetence and lack of accountability can lead to real and lasting change.
Maybe that is precisely what the Church needs.
The definition of "rock bottom" is "the point at which a person or society decides it would be better to work out the painful change than to carry on as they are". We could do this without committing another venial sin. Total collapse, while it is probably deserved, is not required. A firm purpose of amendment is.
The Soviet Union was insolvent for decades without even knowing it. They just kept doing things, corruptly, incompetently, without accountability, and with terrible suffering, and nearly everyone went along with it. Whitaker Chambers mentioned that people would go for half their entire lives with the screams of families taken in the middle of the night impacting their eardrums, and then suddenly start opposing the Soviet Union when they *heard* the screams.
If only there was a staunch Australian Cardinal +Francis could have openly supported and bolstered, I feel like having one of those over the past several years could have proven helpful. Meh, wishful thinking on my part; where would we have found one of those anyways?
"Well team, enough talk about cutting costs, let's move on to the next agenda item, shall we? Ah yes, the Synod on Synodality!"
Funny how insulting people and figuratively kicking them in the teeth makes them less likely to give you money.
Perhaps the cardinals should pay attention to finding a capable orthodox Catholic for the next pope. Many more Catholics might contribute in that situation. Might even solve the financial deficit.
It seems the aversion to maintaining a break-even budget, let alone allowing for the potential of a surplus (to cover unexpected capital expenditures perhaps? Nah. Why be prudent?), is not just an issue my parish faces.