It's pretty clear that big money,
often that of individual billionaires, has totally corrupted politics in the
US. It seems that virtually every Republican member of Congress is
"owned" by the NRA, or the Kochs, or other big money groups. I
imagine many Democrats are also - just different lobbyists, different
billionaires. So, they fear doing or saying anything that will disrupt
the funding for their careers. Career before country is the mantra of the GOP
in Congress for sure - they keep their mouths shut and let Trump continue to
destroy constitutional principles, and even conservative principles (tariffs
for example).
But, it seems that religion is now very much under the influence of big money and of money lust by ordinary
people. The "prosperity gospel" has made people
like Joel Osteen very rich. Thousands of people in his "congregation", and all those other thousands who flock to hear him and others like him "preach" happily hand over the cash and checks.
They do this because they think it will come back to them tenfold, and they
will also be rich.
The Catholic church in the US seems also
to be in danger of being bought by the billionaires, mostly of the
uber-conservative variety. The people who support Vigano and Burke and others. Groups like the Napa Institute, and Legatus and even the national Knights of Columbus.
Michael Sean Winters makes this point- basically that McCarrick and others were promoted because they were
very good at bringing in the $, (with JPII and Benedict, they also had to spout "conservative" Catholic orthodoxy). He was promoted even after his sexual harassment of
seminarians and young priests was known in Rome (long before Francis arrived).
Maciel was another notable case of this - JPII loved him - he preached against
contraception, after all, and for “woman’s place” being what men decide it
should be, but more importantly he brought in a whole lot of conservative men
to the priesthood AND was a huge money raiser for the church. His reputation was also well known for many years, including by Ratzinger before he became pope. At least after he became pope one of his first actions was demoting Maciel and investigating the order. But as Ratzinger, the pope's right hand man, he either never had the courage apparently to confront JPII with the reality and insist that JPII do something about it or maybe JPII really didn't care - the $ was coming in in large amounts..
MSW thinks the money angle is an
integral part of “clericalism” in the church.
What do all of you think about how
to rid the church of the corruption of money?
Is it possible?
It hasn’t been possible in politics,
even though ordinary people (like those in the pews) actually have a vote, unlike laity in the Catholic church. But
few study the issues, too many don’t even understand the issues. So their votes are very often bought by the candidates who have the most money and who can
advertise heavily on TV and everywhere else, hiring “social media” experts to
spread the word on the internet.
The congressman from
our district is not running again. He is a very wealthy man (among the five richest in Congress), “self-made". He is running for the Democratic nomination
for President – already. Very few people
outside of this small county in Maryland have ever heard of the guy – except, it
turns out, people who live in Iowa. The WaPo ran an article about it. He has spent so much time in Iowa,
and already run so many ads and bought so many billboards, and visited so many
people, that he has name recognition there.
Who is running for his seat now? The GOP candidate is a very wealthy woman, wealthy
because she is married to a Sr VP of Qualcomm. I guess the stock options and salary have been enough to make them uber-rich. She has spent millions on her
campaign already out of her (and her husband's) own pocket, as she did two years ago, when she lost to Delaney. Her Dem opponent this time is also a multi-millionaire
and he too has spent millions of his own money on this campaign. Money, money, money.
McCarrick was a good fundraiser for
the church. As were many other not-very-pastoral bishops.
The church is hurting for money. So, what are the odds the money corruption will continue?
The church is hurting for money. So, what are the odds the money corruption will continue?
It's as old as I Timothy 6:10, "The love of money is the root of all evil." Money itself is just a tool that can be used for good or bad. But the love of money is a disordered attraction. I think a lot of the cover-up of wrongdoing was due to excessive caring about money or it's loss.
ReplyDeleteBut isn't it good if candidates are independently wealthy because then they aren't dependent on outside interests funding their campaigns? Or, if not good in every case, at least it seems to mitigate that particular risk?
ReplyDeleteI haven't had a chance yet to read Winters' column. But I suppose the root of the temptation for the church is the lack of enough money to sustain its operations. That's what I observe at the parish, school and diocesan level: there is never enough cash flowing in, so the church entities are in perpetual fund-raising mode. A wealthy donor probably looks like an angel to a harassed pastor, principal or bishop.
Jim, as I recall, Trump made that claim - he could be independent of special interests because he is rich. Didn't take long before he was happily accepting money from others right and left, happily enriching his family's businesses through both foreign and domestic policy. But you know that.
ReplyDeleteKatherine, yes certainly the "love of money is the root of all evil" has been true throughout history.
So, not only does it seem almost impossible to remove the corruption of money in politics, it's even more impossible to remove the corruption of money in organized religion. Maybe harder. One could theorize that the voters could get fed up enough to demand campaign finance reform and vote for candidates who might follow through. Highly unlikely, but at least theoretically possible.
The people in the pews (of all churches, synagogues, mosques etc) could shut off the cash flow, They could walk. Millions have walked, from across the religious spectrum. But few who stay have enough gumption to stop writing checks every Sunday. So, it's likely that the corruption at the higher levels will continue.
It's time for small house churches and intentional communities in ALL organized religion!
In regard to politics and money, I think Sanders has given us the answer. It is possible to raise sufficient money by average contributions of $27 to challenge the party and the billionaires.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to the Church, I think the future lies in voluntary (unpaid) ministry. The vast majority of our ministries including the priesthood should be done by people who earn their livings by other means. Then we could become a poor church for the poor.
With regard to money, I give almost all my money to ministries serving the needy run by volunteers. I have plenty of talents that I am willing to give for free. I don't have priests and lay ministers beating a path to my door. They know I would do things my way. I had a very successful and happy career in the mental health system because my CEOs quickly figured out that "letting Jack be Jack" was the best way to get their problems solved.
The all-volunteer parish is already a reality in some rural locations where small parishes have been reduced to "mission", or even "chapel" status due to the inability to staff them. If they have a deacon, he does Communion services. If they don't have a deacon, EMHCs do it. Usually there is a priest assigned for occasional Masses, but his main responsibility is his full time parish(s). The volunteers keep on teaching catechism, maintaining the grounds, and serving funeral luncheons (a lot more funerals in these places than weddings or baptisms). They do their best, but they know it's only a matter of time.
Delete"as I recall, Trump made that claim - he could be independent of special interests because he is rich. Didn't take long before he was happily accepting money from others right and left, happily enriching his family's businesses through both foreign and domestic policy. But you know that."
ReplyDeleteMy recollection is that he spent a good deal less on his presidential campaign than his advisers had budgeted, primarily because he and his "organization" proved so adept at generating headlines and lead stories and social media screaming matches without spending any money. He rode waves of free publicity unlike anything I can recall in American politics.
As for the charge that he is using his office to enrich himself - well, it's been my expectation since his election that that would prove to be the downfall of his presidency. His failure to properly separate himself while in office from his financial interests would seem to make it all the more likely that I was prophetic. But I'm not aware of any hard evidence that he has corrupted the office by intermingling public service and private dealings. If there were such evidence, then I'd expect that we'd already be discussing his impeachment trial, or that his conviction already would be in our rear-view mirrors.
I read Winters' column. He makes one or two fair points. It's undeniable that prelates and others with fundraising prowess have wielded untoward influence in the Holy See. I attribute that more to the layers of Vatican bureaucracy than to the popes themselves. The many travails with the Vatican bank are another instance of the same problem. Whatever blame attaches to the popes, I guess, would be in not cleaning up that dysfunction and corruption. My understanding is that this is why the cardinals originally elected Francis - to wield the broom. Here's hoping he finishes that job.
But I think Winters is wrong in claiming that big money is the root of the sex-related crises that afflict the church. Clericalism isn't primarily about money. I doubt that the all the bishops of those six Pennsylvania dioceses over the years that the grand jury investigated were uniformly adept at fundraising, and I doubt that bishops of places like Scranton and Erie are making big donations and giving lavish gifts in Rome.
What we are going to see over the coming months and years are investigations in other states that are similar to Pennsylvania's. Realistically, we should expect that other dioceses, perhaps many others, are going to have the same problems, which I'd summarize as keeping records of abuse secret from their own independent review boards and people. I write this from Ontario, where the Buffalo, NY news has been reporting this week that over 100 priests in that diocese have records of abuse - far more than the 40 or so that previously had been revealed. This is going to be the next big wave of the crisis. It will touch some very large dioceses, and some very small dioceses, and dioceses in-between. The fundraising abilities of all those bishops will be pretty incidental.
The media and the attorneys general are going to make the church transparent if it won't do it on its own. Does that have anything to do with money? Well, perhaps it does: I don't doubt that the dioceses has kept records buried in order to minimize the chances of being sued. We already know how that dynamic goes: damning evidence come to light; and then dioceses pay many millions of dollars in lawsuit awards and settlements. It seems reasonable to suppose that that dynamic will generate future rounds of fundraising, as dioceses seek to fill the financial holes caused by their abuse-related payouts. But I don't know what any of that has to do with the Koch brothers and Legatus. I don't think it has much of anything to do with them. I think Winters is just taking the opportunity to lash some favorite whipping boys.
Jim, I think you're right that clericalism isn't primarily about money. I don't know if you saw this link on an e-mail chain sent by Jim McCrea. I think this paragraph nailed it (you have to scroll through a lot of discussion about what it isn't before they get to what it is):
Delete"The cover-up has nothing to do with politics. It’s about saving face, protecting priestly friends, and saving the Church from scandal. The political leanings of the pope or the predator have nothing to do with it. As John Gehring recently noted on Religion and Politics, “a top official from the Vatican’s secretary of state office acknowledged receiving allegations about [former Archbishop] McCarrick’s behavior with seminarians as far back as 2000, during the papacy of John Paul II.”
I would put money in there with politics as to what *isn't* the problem.
"Protecting priestly friends" is a biggie. More about that later.
Part 2: I had read that Archbishop Vigano was one of the only former nuncios to the US who had not been given the rank of cardinal. The other one was Archbishop Jean Jadot. I was curious as to why Jadot had been denied the red hat, and came across this article by John A. Dick from NCR at the time of Jadot's death in 2009 at the age of 99. Turned out he was a little too progressive for Pope John Paul II. But more interesting to me was his interaction with Pope Paul VI when he tried to get Cardinal Cody fired because of both financial and sexual scandals (Jim, you probably know all about this, being from Chicago, but it was news to me). From the article:
Delete"One of my favorite tape-recorded Jadot recollections, in fact, is his account of his meeting with Paul VI about Cody. “I knew something had to be done about Cody,” Jadot said, “so I went to Pope Paul VI. I stood before his desk. The Holy Father asked what I wanted. I said, ‘Holy Father, I have come to ask for the head of John Cardinal Cody on a silver platter.’ ” Jadot thought Paul would acquiesce and was surprised at his reaction. “You don’t understand. You don’t understand,” the pope replied, “I cannot do this because he is my friend.” It seems that Cody and Paul VI had become friends, were in periodic telephone contact, and Pope Paul VI, clearly aware of the situation, still could not remove him. And so Cody stayed until his death in 1982. And under John Paul II, Jadot left in 1980, was kept out of the limelight at the Vatican for four years, and then retired."
Loyalty to friends is an admirable trait, but in some instances it is misguided.
Cardinal Dolan on Cardinal Wuerl:
Delete"I got to be personal -- he's a good friend and he's a tremendous leader. I kind of hope he doesn't resign. We need him. He's been a great source of reform in the past.
I trust him enough that if he thinks he needs to resign for the good of the church, he will. And I would respect that decision."
I should add that the sex scandal involving Cody was never verified, that his relationship with the woman he allegedly funneled funds to was said to be platonic. So apparently the main scandal was misappropriation of church funds.
DeleteBack in the dark ages, one of our favorite putdowns was: "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?" In modern times, that seems to have been turned around into: "If you are rich, you must be smart." Despite contrary evidence on Twitter every day, the Gates Foundation continues, with the best intentions, to undermine American public education with the money to back up a rich person's idea of what ought to work for schools.
ReplyDeleteThe trouble I see with withholding money at the Offertory is that if the $27 Bernie donors do it, church bureaucrats will become even more dependent on people who have a rich person's idea of what ought to work for the church.
Jack has what looks to me like a real person's idea of what could help the church -- the ability of important employees to quit. The vow of celibacy is just as much a vow of poverty for diocesan priests who don't vow poverty per se. If a man can't marry an heiress, corporate lawyer or CEO, it gets tough to save enough money to re-tool his skills after telling his most rev. boss to take the job and shove it. Corporate managements seem less attracted to piggery during good economic times (when their top producers can pick up the phone line another job in two or three calls) or when they have to deal with unions strong enough to shut them down. There is something about job security that brings out the porcine in upper management. But I don't know how the Church can get there.
Why anyone still needs to make more money after let's say $10M could only be explained by some sort of mental disorder, a compulsion. They can never have enough. Trump wants more money because he's still trying to become a billionaire which he probably isn't. Another thing. We need politicians for whom Mammon is not their god. No rich people in government.
ReplyDelete