Had the same thought. The diocese pay what amounts to "franchise fees" to the Vatican, it's a business just like any other. If Chick-fil-A had few thousand managers abusing children and shuffled...
Had the same thought. The diocese pay what amounts to "franchise fees" to the Vatican, it's a business just like any other. If Chick-fil-A had few thousand managers abusing children and shuffled them around to hide it, it wouldn't be the individual stores taking the brunt of the lawsuits.
Only one collection per year gets sent to the Vatican — easily more than 90%, 95% (conservatively) stays in the local parish where it is collected. The most recent info I could find had a...
Only one collection per year gets sent to the Vatican — easily more than 90%, 95% (conservatively) stays in the local parish where it is collected. The most recent info I could find had a breakdown of how those are spent as roughly: 40% on salaries and benefits, 30% on building and operations, 15% on education and youth programs, and 15% on charities. The average operating cost of a parish in the US was around $800k per year. Keep in mind that most Catholic charity work does not come from local parishes but rather from organizations such as Catholic Charities USA, which has a similar expense ratio to charities such as the Red Cross, spending around 90% of its revenue on program costs. It is the second largest social safety net provider in the US after the government.
You could compare this to a for profit business but that feels disingenuous to me both in terms of total revenue and operating costs and how that revenue is spent. I know that “the Catholic Church is a business” is usually shorthand for more general criticisms of their finances, of which there are plenty, but it is general not accurate. It is genuinely much more akin to other large charitable organizations.
And that one collection accounts for 65.3% of the $1B+ in revenue the Vatican gets a year. And that's just the part they've been pressured to reveal while trying to convince you they're little...
And that one collection accounts for 65.3% of the $1B+ in revenue the Vatican gets a year. And that's just the part they've been pressured to reveal while trying to convince you they're little more than charitable paupers.
The same charity work could be done without religious restriction and without 5%+ of the clergy being institutionally protected pedophiles. If the Red Cross had a 1:20 ratio of sex abusers at the helm that they shuffled around to protect, I'd be calling for the liquidation of their assets too. Doing good things does not outweigh the monumentally bad, it's not a scale to balance, especially when the bad is shown to be a multi-decade (if not multi-century) systemic issue with the organization itself.
I’m not arguing that there shouldn’t be serious consequences, especially when it is a systemic issue as you point out. I just think the notion that the church is a “business” is a useless talking...
I’m not arguing that there shouldn’t be serious consequences, especially when it is a systemic issue as you point out. I just think the notion that the church is a “business” is a useless talking point that actually doesn’t strengthen the argument at all.
The church is a business. It provides a service just like many other businesses, it buys and sells property and assets like many other businesses, it has charitable works to improve it's image and...
The church is a business. It provides a service just like many other businesses, it buys and sells property and assets like many other businesses, it has charitable works to improve it's image and to use as marketing, every charitable act is done under the guise of bringing more people into it's place of business thereby increasing business, the church has never acted out of pure altruism.
It is and has always operated as a business. Not sure why you seem to think or are pushing for the interpretation that it isn't.
To each their own I guess. I don't think we're going to find common ground on this point if that is your starting conception of how the church does and has historically operated.
To each their own I guess. I don't think we're going to find common ground on this point if that is your starting conception of how the church does and has historically operated.
This will be my last reply on this. There are many organizations that fall under the umbrella of the church. Are monasteries and their associated orders, communalism and all, properly described as...
This will be my last reply on this. There are many organizations that fall under the umbrella of the church. Are monasteries and their associated orders, communalism and all, properly described as a business, as understood in the usual capitalistic sense? Are charitable organizations such as Catholic Charities, St Vincent DePaul society, Caritas, or any of these other major charitable orgs really best considered in the same category as companies such as McDonalds or Walmart or what have you? What other business provides as much health care for so many as does the Church? It seems clear to me that the church operates in a fundamentally different category than “business”, and is perhaps better described as a “religious institution”, because that is what it is.
I want to be unequivocal here: the church and some of the people in it have many flaws and have perpetuated a number of travesties that cannot be left unanswered. I hope no one thinks I’m minimizing those and their victims by pushing back against this. But “the church is a business” is simply a category error that I don’t think serves a useful purpose, and which I think is quite clearly meant to minimize the good that the church has done and continues to do for countless people. If the church is a business, then I sure wish more businesses were like it.
First link is so poorly cited it might as well be a tweet, the second almost exclusively deals with history dated so long ago as to not matter, even in the "modern medicine" section. Nonetheless a...
First link is so poorly cited it might as well be a tweet, the second almost exclusively deals with history dated so long ago as to not matter, even in the "modern medicine" section. Nonetheless a business with a charitable arm, no matter how large it may be, is still a business.
The final nail in the coffin is evidenced in the basis for the article itself. Who else this large, but a business files for bankruptcy to protect its existence and assets when the sins of it's past come knocking?
The first link is just to a list of all the charitable/non-profit organizations under the Church. Lists usually don't have or require citations since they're just intended to help point to other...
First link is so poorly cited it might as well be a tweet
The first link is just to a list of all the charitable/non-profit organizations under the Church. Lists usually don't have or require citations since they're just intended to help point to other related Wikipedia pages. Click those links if you want to see citations.
Maybe you find this argument more persuasive: if the Catholic Church is a business, it is probably a business that operates in a way that is distinct enough from the majority of regular businesses...
Maybe you find this argument more persuasive: if the Catholic Church is a business, it is probably a business that operates in a way that is distinct enough from the majority of regular businesses that a comparison between the two requires significant adjustments.
The Vatican still owns plenty of assets that could be used to pay restitution to victims. Hard to see why the consequences shouldn't fall higher up the chain when they have both the means and the...
The Vatican still owns plenty of assets that could be used to pay restitution to victims. Hard to see why the consequences shouldn't fall higher up the chain when they have both the means and the responsibility for what happened.
I’m not arguing that the consequences shouldn’t fall higher up. I am contesting the notion that the church is a business which I find to be a pithy talking point which doesn’t really add to the...
I’m not arguing that the consequences shouldn’t fall higher up. I am contesting the notion that the church is a business which I find to be a pithy talking point which doesn’t really add to the discussion at all.
You might say that thinking of the Catholic Church as a business is unhelpful because it puts them in a category were they're under less scrutiny. Businesses are legally and socially allowed to do...
You might say that thinking of the Catholic Church as a business is unhelpful because it puts them in a category were they're under less scrutiny. Businesses are legally and socially allowed to do many things that not-for-profit are not.
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland filed for bankruptcy Monday as it confronts more than 330 lawsuits over alleged sexual abuse of children by the clergy dating back decades.
“After careful consideration of the various alternatives for providing just compensation to innocent people who were harmed, we believe this process is the best way to ensure a fair and equitable outcome for survivors,” said Bishop Michael Barber in a statement. “Given our current financial resources, (the Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland) could not shoulder the burden of litigating 330 cases.”
Bankruptcy “can provide a way to support all survivors in their journey toward healing in an equitable and comprehensive way,” he wrote in a public letter in March.
“We have limited cash reserves, and insurance may cover some of the claims,” the diocese said on its website. “We are also exploring the potential sale of assets that are underutilized or may not be critical in carrying out the mission of the Diocese.”
The diocese will continue to operate, and employees and vendors will continue to be paid during the bankruptcy filing in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. The diocese’s dozens of Catholic school affiliates are separate legal entities and will continue to open normally, the diocese said.
There has to be a way to go after the bigger Catholic church, which is hardly devoid of resources.
Had the same thought. The diocese pay what amounts to "franchise fees" to the Vatican, it's a business just like any other. If Chick-fil-A had few thousand managers abusing children and shuffled them around to hide it, it wouldn't be the individual stores taking the brunt of the lawsuits.
Only one collection per year gets sent to the Vatican — easily more than 90%, 95% (conservatively) stays in the local parish where it is collected. The most recent info I could find had a breakdown of how those are spent as roughly: 40% on salaries and benefits, 30% on building and operations, 15% on education and youth programs, and 15% on charities. The average operating cost of a parish in the US was around $800k per year. Keep in mind that most Catholic charity work does not come from local parishes but rather from organizations such as Catholic Charities USA, which has a similar expense ratio to charities such as the Red Cross, spending around 90% of its revenue on program costs. It is the second largest social safety net provider in the US after the government.
You could compare this to a for profit business but that feels disingenuous to me both in terms of total revenue and operating costs and how that revenue is spent. I know that “the Catholic Church is a business” is usually shorthand for more general criticisms of their finances, of which there are plenty, but it is general not accurate. It is genuinely much more akin to other large charitable organizations.
And that one collection accounts for 65.3% of the $1B+ in revenue the Vatican gets a year. And that's just the part they've been pressured to reveal while trying to convince you they're little more than charitable paupers.
The same charity work could be done without religious restriction and without 5%+ of the clergy being institutionally protected pedophiles. If the Red Cross had a 1:20 ratio of sex abusers at the helm that they shuffled around to protect, I'd be calling for the liquidation of their assets too. Doing good things does not outweigh the monumentally bad, it's not a scale to balance, especially when the bad is shown to be a multi-decade (if not multi-century) systemic issue with the organization itself.
I’m not arguing that there shouldn’t be serious consequences, especially when it is a systemic issue as you point out. I just think the notion that the church is a “business” is a useless talking point that actually doesn’t strengthen the argument at all.
The church is a business. It provides a service just like many other businesses, it buys and sells property and assets like many other businesses, it has charitable works to improve it's image and to use as marketing, every charitable act is done under the guise of bringing more people into it's place of business thereby increasing business, the church has never acted out of pure altruism.
It is and has always operated as a business. Not sure why you seem to think or are pushing for the interpretation that it isn't.
Don't many other charities do these things too? This is just saying it's an organization that does things.
To each their own I guess. I don't think we're going to find common ground on this point if that is your starting conception of how the church does and has historically operated.
Feel free to educate me then. What is the church if not a business?
This will be my last reply on this. There are many organizations that fall under the umbrella of the church. Are monasteries and their associated orders, communalism and all, properly described as a business, as understood in the usual capitalistic sense? Are charitable organizations such as Catholic Charities, St Vincent DePaul society, Caritas, or any of these other major charitable orgs really best considered in the same category as companies such as McDonalds or Walmart or what have you? What other business provides as much health care for so many as does the Church? It seems clear to me that the church operates in a fundamentally different category than “business”, and is perhaps better described as a “religious institution”, because that is what it is.
I want to be unequivocal here: the church and some of the people in it have many flaws and have perpetuated a number of travesties that cannot be left unanswered. I hope no one thinks I’m minimizing those and their victims by pushing back against this. But “the church is a business” is simply a category error that I don’t think serves a useful purpose, and which I think is quite clearly meant to minimize the good that the church has done and continues to do for countless people. If the church is a business, then I sure wish more businesses were like it.
First link is so poorly cited it might as well be a tweet, the second almost exclusively deals with history dated so long ago as to not matter, even in the "modern medicine" section. Nonetheless a business with a charitable arm, no matter how large it may be, is still a business.
The final nail in the coffin is evidenced in the basis for the article itself. Who else this large, but a business files for bankruptcy to protect its existence and assets when the sins of it's past come knocking?
The first link is just to a list of all the charitable/non-profit organizations under the Church. Lists usually don't have or require citations since they're just intended to help point to other related Wikipedia pages. Click those links if you want to see citations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aid_to_the_Church_in_Need
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_(healthcare_system)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAFOD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charities_USA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Home_Missions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Near_East_Welfare_Association
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Relief_Services
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caritas_Internationalis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIDSE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_Sant%27Egidio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidesco_International
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit_Refugee_Service
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malteser_International
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryknoll_Society
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionaries_of_the_Poor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Mission_Societies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renovabis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Saint_Vincent_de_Paul
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talitha_Kum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tr%C3%B3caire
Maybe you find this argument more persuasive: if the Catholic Church is a business, it is probably a business that operates in a way that is distinct enough from the majority of regular businesses that a comparison between the two requires significant adjustments.
The Vatican still owns plenty of assets that could be used to pay restitution to victims. Hard to see why the consequences shouldn't fall higher up the chain when they have both the means and the responsibility for what happened.
I’m not arguing that the consequences shouldn’t fall higher up. I am contesting the notion that the church is a business which I find to be a pithy talking point which doesn’t really add to the discussion at all.
You might say that thinking of the Catholic Church as a business is unhelpful because it puts them in a category were they're under less scrutiny. Businesses are legally and socially allowed to do many things that not-for-profit are not.