The church's deep pockets, the butler did it, and myths about atheism

[rug]

by John L Allen Jr on Aug. 17, 2012

Most people believe the real power in Catholicism resides with the hierarchy, and in terms of both theology and church law, that's basically right. For instance, canon law says the pope wields "supreme, full, immediate and universal" authority, and it's tough to get more sweeping than that.

One wonders, however, if an accountant would reach the same conclusion.

When it comes to the financial dimension of Catholic life, there are certainly some deep pockets out there. Just to offer a few examples:
•The University of Notre Dame, America's flagship Catholic university, has an annual budget of $1.2 billion and an endowment estimated at $7.5 billion.
•The Archdiocese of Chicago last year reported cash, investments and buildings valued at $2.472 billion.
•The Knights of Columbus has more than $85 billion of life insurance in force, with $8 billion in annual sales.
•In Rome, the Institute for the Works of Religion, known popularly (if, some say, inaccurately) as the "Vatican Bank," administers assets in excess of $6 billion.
•American Catholics drop more than $8 billion every year into the Sunday collection plate, which works out to more than $150 million a week.
•In Germany, the Catholic church netted $8.8 billion in 2010 from the national "church tax," allowing it to remain the country's largest private employer after Volkswagen.

Simply ticking off those dollar amounts, however, two points are easy to miss.

http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/churchs-deep-pockets-butler-did-it-and-myths-about-atheism

[cbayer]

1. Good article with lots of data.

The two points that he said are often missed are these:

More than 90% of revenues collected from parishioners stay local.

Much of the big money (like from hospitals) does not go to the hierarchy but are distributed by a lay board.

[rug]

2. Thanks. I didn't want to violate the four paragraph rule.

But that's the significant fact.

[skepticscott]

4. And what percentage would be too much

to send to an organization that denies women's rights, considers homosexuality an abomination and homosexuals undeserving of equality, and protects and enables child rapists?

[cleanhippie]

6. Great question.

I wonder if we will get an answer.

[skepticscott]

11. Of course not

Do we ever? And that's for easy questions. Just think what this group would be like if atheists starting asking hard, Augustinian-level questions...

[rug]

7. About the same percentage of accuracy there is in your post.

[skepticscott]

8. My post was a question

not a statement of fact. But you're welcome to try to point out the specific inaccuracies if you need to make the case that there are any, for any of the four people here still taking you seriously.

Now observe, class...how our subject will craft a snarky answer that fails utterly to point out any real inaccuracy at all. He will pretend otherwise, but do everything possible to avoid a simple, direct, and substantial response. All the better for us to learn to recognize this behavior pattern when we see it again in the future, which is certain.

[rug]

9. Do you mean to tell me there are people foolish enough to attend a class of yours?

How's that?

[skepticscott]

10. Our subject has behaved

exactly as predicted, class...making false accusations and avoiding at all costs any semblance of backing them up with facts. Lesson learned, so let's move on to the next specimen. This one will no doubt fling poo as we walk away, so shield yourself.

[rug]

12. I'd love to see your MMPI results.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. The question of 'power' would depend a lot on how the boards of the big orgs are appointed

Do bishops have a lot of say, or do boards (or others - eg the faculty of universities) get to appoint new members? Can bishops replace people who don't toe the line, or do they get long tenure, in which case they can oppose the hierarchy if they want to?

On the later subject of the WIN-Gallup International poll he mentions in the title, while his point about most of the world's atheists being in Asia is a good one, the second is not supported:

(in reply to the ''persistent myth": "Christianity is in decline relative to other world religions, especially Islam.&quot

"Instead, nine of the world's 10 most religious nations are majority Christian, and people who self-identify as Christian are more likely to describe themselves as "religious" than Muslims (81 percent to 74 percent)."

But the survey was only in 57 countries, and misses out some large ones (Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Mexico, from those over 100 million - 2 out of 3 being majority Muslim). And some of those 'most religious nations' are tiny (eg Fiji), and the 2nd most religious has a significant Muslim population - Nigeria. And the 'most religious' list doesn't tell you about decline, anyway.

They do give figures of change for religiosity from 2005, for 39 countries. Of the major countries in that list, we have:
India: -6%
USA: -13%
Pakistan: +6%
Nigeria: -1%
Russia: -2%
Japan: -1%
Vietnam: -23%
...
but there are very few Muslim countries listed in it. Really, the poll didn't cover enough Muslim countries to make any meaningful comparisons between Christianity and Islam at all (and, finally, you'd need to know the overall population growth/decline for each country).

One interesting point, given the talk about Turkey's entry to the EU, and the religious leanings of its current government, is:

"Both Turkey and Hong Kong show notable change since 2005. These changes are not from a faith to atheism but a shift from self-description of being ‘Religious’ to ‘Not Religious’. We have requested researchers in both countries to investigate reasons which might explain this extra-ordinary shift."

Turkey, in 2012, is shown as 23% 'religious', 73% 'not religious', and 2% 'atheist'. Which gives it a smaller religious sector than, say, France or Sweden.

[dimbear]

5. It is the fulfillment of Luke 3:11 "If you have two coats, give one away."

Maybe keep one summer coat and one winter coat.