In response to the recent report that the church is broke and getting broker by the minute, lots
of people have spoken out in defence of the church, saying how it takes
care of the old, orphans etc. However when I looked at the accounts
published recently I was struck by the fact that these actually form a
very small percentage of the church's expenses. In fact, the Pope's
visit of last year cost 6.6 times as much as all children's homes
combined.
The church's income comes primarily from donations, collections etc.
I wonder whether the people making the donations are thinking that they
are donating towards orphanages and homes. Do they know that, if they
donated €50 last year, €2 from that went to finance the pope's visit,
compared to the 30 cents that went to children's homes, or the 38 cents
that went to old people's homes?
The church is not generous. Nor
is it ungenerous. The church is an organiser - it collects money and
redistributes it. The generosity comes from the Maltese people - they're
the ones who earned the money. They hear of poor people and they
donate. They donate to a church charity just as they donate to L-Istrina
and to the Inspire foundation and other worthy causes.
If I found out that one of the secular humanitarian charities I donate
to spent €1 million out of a grand total of €26 million to send their
CEO on a trip somewhere, I'd immediately stop patronising them because
I'd feel that they had betrayed their mission. If they spent 1.5 times
as much on the media as they spend on the homes I'd say they have their
priorities wrong.
I'd also say that if someone wants to help the needy, there are better entities than the church to ensure that your money is primarily used for that purpose.
7 comments:
"However when I looked at the accounts published recently"
No link?
I was referring to the figures in the same report in The Times linked at the top
"I'd also say that if someone wants to help the needy, there are better entities than the church to ensure that your money is primarily used for that purpose".
Actually, there aren't, and therein lies the problem. Caring for orphans, for instance, should be the duty of the state, but then that would mean more taxes, and people would complain.
@Kenneth: What I meant was that there are charities where the money collected will ONLY be used for a philanthropic project. Many have separate revenue streams for supporting their internal operations, and for the actual philanthropic work to ensure that the one does not whittle away at the money collected for the other.
I agree with you about orphanages. What happens right now if, say, an atheist or a Muslim child has to be placed in a home? Place the child in the church's care and hope they won't exert any influence to try to convert him/her?
"What happens right now if, say, an atheist or a Muslim child has to be placed in a home?".
There is no such thing as an "atheist child" or a "Muslim child", especially if the child is an orphan.
"Place the child in the church's care and hope they won't exert any influence to try to convert him/her?".
Of course they would exert influence, but as things stand, and in the absence of a state orphanage, that would be the lesser evil. The alternative would be no food and shelter for the child.
That is why, for instance, despite being an atheist, I sometimes donate to Dar tal-Providenza. If they won't care for the severely handicapped, no one will.
Certainly there is such a thing as an atheist child / Muslim child, especially if by "child" you mean anyone up to teens.
You may be right about the role of church facilities, or it may be the other way round. Possibly the reason why the government doesn't provide these services is that there's someone else doing the work and they're happy to leave things that way and avoid the hassle/cost themselves.
So we're basically in agreement here. Thanks for your replies.
Kenneth.
Post a Comment