In today’s New York Times, the prolific Garry Wills, who was a Catholic last time I looked, reviews two books on religions and how they are funded: Inside Scientology, by Janet Reitman, and Render Unto Rome: The Secret Life of Money in the Catholic Church, by Jason Berry. Both seem worth a look.
Although many of us know the way Scientology bilks its adherents through expensive courses and “auditing” sessions, the Catholics have their own machinations:
The Vatican issues statements of its assets — in 2007 the amount was 1.4 billion euros —but the Vatican Bank is off the books, as is a metric ton of gold, and other things not reported. On a list of papal assets, St. Peter’s Basilica and other historic sites are listed as worth one euro each. No wonder, as Berry says, “the Holy See’s true net worth is invisible.”
Surprisingly (at least to me), Wills is very hard on his own faith, especially its secrecy about priestly pedophilia. He concludes his review with these words:
Some are surprised that religion is so corruptible. They should not be. When secrecy is used to protect a higher order of knowledge, it can make the keepers of the secrets think of themselves as a higher order of humans. Corruptio optimi pessima, goes the old saying. Blight at the top is the deepest blight. It is the sin of taking God’s name in vain.
Well, them’s strong words but betray Wills’s own Catholicism. “Taking God’s name in vain” is a sin? And in what respect is Catholicism (or Scientology for that matter) a “higher order of knowledge”? In what sense is it knowledge at all?
Of what good is a good that can’t even keep its own divinely-chosen representatives on the straight-and-narrow?
Cheers,
b&
Maybe it’s a case of lead by example.
So why IS Wills still a catholic? In fact why is anybody still a catholic. They won’t leave but they won’t clean out the Augean stables either……a pox on all of them!!!
One word: obedience.
FWIW, he did write a book called “Why I am Catholic.”
This is my response when theists claim that religion can still get “two thumbs way up!” despite the bad, and very often positively evil, behavior of the clergy. It’s just human error, they claim; “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak” and all that.
They’re not appreciating the full implication of the situation. If a priest receives a “vocation”, and goes on to become a raging pedophile, the good Catholic must admit that the abuse was not just allowed, but ordained by god.
They often say that the bible says “turn the other cheek,” or “judge not”. Too often it’s an excuse to avoid taking action. If they wanted to get serious, they would cite the part about Jesus going to the mountain. In other words, identify real evil as evil and fight it with all you got.
Wills has been pretty hard on the Church for some time. See, for example, his May 2010 TNR essay.
And his excoriating book not too long ago, ‘Papal Sin’.
On a list of papal assets, St. Peter’s Basilica and other historic sites are listed as worth one euro each.
Tax-free status, and they still lie about it.
It is pathological.
[Or is it pope-ological? I can’t remember.]
Well the value has to be predicated on what a rational buyer would pay. What rational buyer would want St Peter’s Basilica? Or the many other churches that RCC Inc owns? Maybe the palazzos are sellable to chinese and russian oligarchs, so a price could be set there. And Castel Gandolfo with its surrounding villas could probably bring in enough money to relieve the current crisis in Somalia…..but…..
It’s also hard to figure what sort of price would be rational to ask for it.
Selling St. Peter’s would be like selling the White House or Westminster, if either were additionally full of priceless Renaissance art.
I’m sure some Russian oligarch, with access to enough money, would buy St. Peter’s, just to say he had. I’m just doubtful that anyone *has* access to enough money to buy it.
As such, I’m not sure 1 euro isn’t appropriate.
Fair points, but I think one ought at least to claim some fraction of the replacement value.
I’d be surprised if the building and individual works of art weren’t insured. Stated value should be the value at which they’re insured.
Many of the items would be irreplaceable. Depending on the damage, they might be restorable at great expense. And you might be able to replace them with a newly manufactured replica. But if there’s enough damage, they might just be added to the artworks lost throughout history.
Anyway, reconstruction cost, where lots of compromises would be expected, is very different from the price that you’d see when selling the building and its artworks intact.
There’s the price of the land, irrespective of the buildings etc. on it, too.
Don’t forget that Pope Benny has brought back the medieval practice of indulgences, starting in 2007. Of course the Church doesn’t sell indulgences outright like they used to, that would be corrupt. Instead, the Church grants indulgences to pilgrims who visit religious shrines.
In a completely unrelated development, in 2007 the Vatican started up its own airline to fly pilgrims to religious shrines.
Wow – I didn’t know about the airline. They get you at the shrine and they get you coming and going!
Here’s betting they charge for spiritual baggage.
Sorry, the Pope didn’t “bring back” indulgences in 2007. He just set up some special indulgences connected with the 150th anniversary at Lourdes. The practice of giving indulgences for visiting shrines (including the Colosseum which is seen as a shrine to the Christians martyred there) never went away. Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence#Council_of_Trent.
Jerry – you probably won’t get a chance to read this but the Observer today had this story about how the RC church will fight paying compensation to abused people having won the case that says they are NOT employers of priests –
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/24/priests-abuse-catholic-legal-plea?INTCMP=SRCH
Also of interest –
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/jul/24/1?INTCMP=SRCH
Pope Leo X’s comment (even if apocryphal) summarizes it all. It goes something like, “This fable of Christ has been quite profitable to us.”
I wish someone would explain to me how you can be a catholic and disregard the pope as irrelevant. My sister in law is catholic but clearly regards the pope’s pronouncements as nothing to worry about. I really don’t get it.
It’s not hard to see how iniquity is bred and hides in the Church.
I’ve debated various Catholics, and am doing so now at Howard Feser’s blog, and you continually run up against the hierarchical mindset. Should you wish to talk of the Bible at all and point out how ludicrous it is, or how unjustified the leap from a Cosmological Argument the “The Bible” is, you get the typical Catholic sneer: “Stop with the Sola Scriptura (self interpretation)
of the Bible. You have no authority in the matter without the church doing the interpreting!”
It’s still shocking and depressing to see this kind of crap in modern day adults.
Vaal.
All valid objections in your final paragraph, Jerry, though I will say I am inclined to at least tacitly support those who are willing to criticize the Catholic church from within. Just barely. If interacting with them directly, I will often ask (once) why they bother, but I typically don’t press the issue after that.
People can be good with or without God, and thankfully many good people who also happen to be Catholics by tradition are starting to become willing to speak out against the obvious abuses and evils of the Vatican. Good on them, even if they aren’t ready to take that next step and say, “Oh, I see now, it’s ALL bullshit…”
I’ve realized that one advantage to being an atheist is that it’s cheaper. In 1961, I married a Catholic in a “high mass” ceremony (after a battery of lessons & promises, etc.). By 1974, I was divorced according to civil law but not church law. About 14 y ago, I appealed for an annulment (long story) and after several months & much documentation, I received a letter from the Archdiocese informing me that my annulment had been granted. A couple of weeks later I received another envelope by post; inside was a bill for $25,000.
Good grief, I hope you didn’t pay.
Don’t pay it