Does your faith need strengthening? Are you confused and wondering if Jesus Christ is really "The Way, the Truth, and the Life?" "Fight for Your Faith" is a blog filled with interesting and thought provoking articles to help you find the answers you are seeking. Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find." In Jeremiah we read, "Ye shall seek Me, and find Me, when ye shall seek for Me with all your heart." These articles and videos will help you in your search for the Truth.

Friday, August 22, 2014

How Do I Share What I Believe? The Relationship Between Respect and Reach

Print PDFhttp://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/how-do-i-share-what-i-believe-the-relationship-between-respect-and-reach/

I’ve investigated a number of murders over the years motivated by nothing more than an act of disrespect. The pursuit of power is one of three motivations driving criminal behavior, and it often manifests itself as a response to a simple act of insolence. When a gang member feels disrespected, for example, he may retaliate violently. As humans, all of us are repelled when we feel dishonored, insulted or belittled in some way, even if most of us won’t react as aggressively as gangsters. If you’re trying to persuade someone, it’s important to understand the relationship between respect and reach. The more we respect and honor the dignity of others, the more likely we’ll be able to reach them with an idea, concept or worldview.

Jesus reiterated the importance of respecting others in his teaching in the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew 5:43-47
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

This simple but powerful teaching has impacted many who have hoped to change the world with a claim about truth. Gandhi was certainly familiar with the teaching of Jesus and employed this teaching in his own efforts to influence his culture:

“It is easy enough to be friendly to one’s friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. The other is mere business.” - Gandhi

If you want to share what you believe about God, Jesus and the gift of salvation, begin by recognizing the relationship between respect and reach. Ask yourself the following questions about the people with whom you want to share:

Have I Shown Them Respect by Carefully Listening?
Have you ever found yourself in a conversation where you spent more time preparing for your next response than genuinely listening to the words of those you’re trying to reach? We’ve all been there, and it’s usually obvious to the person we’re engaging. When people don’t feel heard, they don’t feel respected. Lower the bar on some of your conversations. Sometimes the best thing you can do is respect someone enough to simply collect data about what they believe. This may not be the conversation where you even get the chance to express your own beliefs, and that’s okay. Love others enough to listen to what they have to say.

Have I Shown Them Respect by Examining Their View?
There’s nothing more frustrating and disrespectful than having your view mischaracterized by someone who’s trying to create a strawman to win a point. Listen carefully to what people say and then take the time to research their view more fully on your own. When someone cites a reference, take the time to read and understand the foundation for their beliefs. Don’t mischaracterize what they believe. Take the time to study. Love others enough to join them in their journey and their research.

Have I Shown Them Respect When Re-Communicating Their Position?
I’ll never forget many years ago when we invited two prominent atheists to come speak to our group. They were very respectful in their presentations, but when standing alone at the back of the room, I overheard them speaking very disrespectfully about the Christians they had just addressed. Respect is not an act, it’s a deep attitude. Our conversations with one another can betray our underlying disrespect, and so can our blogs, books and movies. When we describe others or create fictional characters representing someone from another worldview, are we being careful not to create demeaning caricatures we can easily defeat? Have we re-communicated their views fairly and respectfully? Love others enough to represent them well.

Have I Shown Them Respect by Giving Them My Time?
If you want to discover what you love, look at your calendar and your checkbook. How we spend our time demonstrates how much we love and respect one another. I am always impressed by someone who has taken the time to read my work and then wants to engage me over lunch or coffee. I’m less impressed with people who snipe at a blog title posted on Facebook without even taking the time to read the blog. Respect is often reflected in the amount of time we are willing to invest in others. You can’t invest in everyone, but there ought to be someone with whom you are willing (and able) to devote your time. Love others enough to carve some time in your calendar.

Most of us who are interested in Christian Case Making (apologetics) are far more willing to invest time preparing for battle, than we are willing to love and respect others. We typically focus on the first part 1 Peter 3:15-17: “…but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you…” than the second part, “…yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.” It’s one thing to love the truth, another to love people. But, if you hope to share what you believe, you’ve got to understand the relationship between respect and reach.

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, a Christian Case Maker, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity and ALIVE

The Cold Case Christianity ebook is $3.99 through March 26th

- See more at: http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/how-do-i-share-what-i-believe-the-relationship-between-respect-and-reach/#sthash.IznHXO6x.dpuf

Being a Genuine Superstar at Work

Jaff Haden, LinkedIn, August 19, 2014

Remarkable employees spend significant time helping other people succeed: their company, their employees, their customers and vendors and suppliers…

But remarkable employees also spend a little time helping themselves succeed, both for “selfish” reasons and because their success creates success for others.

Want to stand out from the crowd? Want to stand out based on go, not show? Here are some great ways:

1. Be first, but with a purpose. Many people try to be the first to arrive each day. That’s great, but what do you actually do with that time? Organize your thoughts? Get a jump on your email?

Instead of taking care of your stuff, do something visibly worthwhile for the company. Take care of unresolved problems from the day before. Set things up so it’s easier for other employees to hit the ground running when they come in. Chip away at an ongoing project others ignore.

Don’t just be the one who turns on or off the lights—be the one who gets in early or stays late in order to get things done. Not only will your performance stand out, you’ll also start to…

2. Master a specific—and valuable—skill. Meeting standards, however lofty those standards may be, won’t help you stand out.

So go above the norm. Be the leader known for turning around struggling employees. Be the shipping manager who makes a few deliveries a week to personally check in with customers. Be the VP who promotes from within. Be known as the employee who responds quicker, acts faster, or always follows up.

Pick a worthwhile mission and then excel at that mission. I promise people will notice.

3. Create your own side projects. Excelling at an assigned project is expected. Excelling at a side project—especially one you created—helps you stand out.

For example, years ago I decided to create a Web-based employee handbook my then-employer could put on the company Intranet. I worked on it at home on my own time. Some managers liked it but the HR manager didn’t, so it died an inglorious death.

I was disappointed but the company wasn’t “out” anything, and soon after I was selected for a high visibility company-wide process improvement team because my little project had made me “that guy.”

Try it. For example, experiment on a new process or service with a particular customer in mind. The customer will appreciate how you tried, without being asked, to better meet their needs… and you’ll never be forgotten.

4. Put your effort where your mouth is. Lots of people take verbal stands. Few take a stand and put actual effort behind their opinions.

Say you think a project has gone off the rails; instead of just pointing out its flaws so you can show everyone how smart you are, jump in and help fix it.

Everyone talks about problems. The people who help fix problems are the few who stand out.

5. Show a little of your personal side. Personal interests help other people know and remember you. That’s a huge advantage for a new employee or a company competing in a crowded market.

Just make sure your personal interests don’t overshadow professional accomplishments. Being “the guy who does triathlons” is fine, but being “the guy who is always training and traveling to triathlons so we can never reach him when we need him” is not.

Let people know a little about you; a few personal details add color and depth to your professional image. (Plus it makes you a lot more likeable.)

6. Work harder than everyone else. Nothing—nothing—is a substitute for hard work. (Sure, you can also work smarter—but why not do both?)

Look around: How many people are working as hard as they can? Very few.

One way you can always stand out—regardless of talent, experience, or skill—is by outworking everyone else.

It’s also the easiest way to stand out, because I guarantee you’ll be the only one trying that hard.

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

NYTimes Reporter: Obama ‘Greatest Enemy To Press Freedom In A Generation’

Jamie Weinstein, The Daily Caller, Aug. 17, 2014

President Barack Obama is no friend of press freedom, says a New York Times reporter who may be sent to jail for refusing to reveal a source.

“A lot of people still think this is some kind of game or signal or spin,” reporter James Risen told his own paper in a profile about his plight published Saturday. “They don’t want to believe that Obama wants to crack down on the press and whistle-blowers. But he does. He’s the greatest enemy to press freedom in a generation.”

Risen’s troubles stem from the 2006 publication of his book “State of War,” which included classified information about a failed CIA plot against Iran’s nuclear program. In 2008, George W. Bush’s Department of Justice subpoenaed Risen to reveal the source of the classified information. Citing his role as a journalist, Risen refused to comply, fighting the subpoena until it expired in 2009.

But the Obama administration renewed the subpoena in 2010. After many more years of legal fisticuffs, the Supreme Court announced in June that it would not take Risen’s appeal, leaving Risen out of legal options. Now Risen faces the specter of jail time if the Justice Department continues to insist that he reveal his source for the classified information.

“Though the court’s decision looked like a major victory for the government, it has forced the Obama administration to confront a hard choice,” the New York Times reported in June in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling. “Should it demand Mr. Risen’s testimony and be responsible for a reporter’s being sent to jail? Or reverse course and stand down, losing credibility with an intelligence community that has pushed for the aggressive prosecution of leaks?”

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

College president takes a $90,000 pay cut to give low-wage workers a raise

Raymond Burse is forfeiting a chunk of his salary at Kentucky State University to improve pay for the lowest-paid workers.

By Hayley Fox, TakePart AUGUST 15, 2014


Jim Young/Reuters/File
View Caption


It's become a gross norm of campus income disparity: College executives regularly collect salaries and perks that top $1 million a year as their ramen-dependent students struggle with ever-increasing tuition and mounting debt—and the lowest-paid workers are perenially undercompensated for all they do to keep the whole system running.

A minor but interesting shift took place this month when two dozen of the lowest-paid Kentucky State University workers got a hefty wage increase because their college president gave up $90,000 of his own six-digit salary so others could earn a living wage.

Raymond Burse, interim president of the school, will now receive a reduced annual salary of $259,744 so low-wage workers can get a pay bump to $10.25 an hour. By comparison, food servers were paid an average of $24,213 in the 2013–2014 school year, according to a survey published by the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Recommended: 10 companies that pay higher than minimum wage

Of course, Burse is in the unusual position of being able to forfeit part of his pay because he retired in 2012 (with good benefits) from a long career as an executive at General Electric Co., he told the Lexington Herald-Leader. Burse didn't immediately respond to a TakePart request for interview.


10 companies that pay higher than minimum wage

The KSU Board of Regents has agreed to maintain the $10.25 hourly rate for employees even after a new president is brought in, and he will continue to use it as the wage base for future hires.

"This is not a publicity stunt," Burse told theHerald-Leader. "You don't give up $90,000 for publicity. I did this for the people. This is something I've been thinking about from the very beginning."

Burse said his good deed wasn’t meant as a jab at other college leaders to do the same, but maybe it should be.

The discrepancy between the highest- and the lowest-paid employees on college campuses is problematic, said William Tierney, a professor at the University of Southern California and the codirector of the Pullias Center for Higher Education.

“Those who are making the largest salaries versus those who are making the least...the average between the two has grown over the last 20 years,” said Tierney.

Forty-two presidents of private universities made more than $1 million in 2011, according to a report from the Chronicle of Higher Education. It’s not just private schools that are feeling flush. As average tuition at four-year public universities climbed by more than 8 percent in 2011–2012, four public school presidents made more than $1 million a year in compensation.

The exorbitant incomes of these executives include not only base pay but also an array of perks, from housing allowances to travel expenses (which are often first class and allotted to presidents' spouses as well) to generous retirement benefits.

While the philanthropy of KSU’s president is “admirable,” it’s not unprecedented, said Tierney. Lots of administrators give donations to the school or fund student scholarships, he said. One president, William Harvey of Hampton University in Virginia, gave more than $1 million to his college this year to increase the pay rate of full-time, low-wage employees.

However, there are systemic problems in the way university employees are paid throughout the country, said Tierney. For example, most college presidents are more concerned with keeping top faculty happy for prestige reasons. These are the employees who often see raises, said Tierney, not the low-paid service workers who empty wastebaskets or cook dorm hall dinners.

This becomes especially problematic in states such as California and in cities with high costs of living, such as Los Angeles or San Francisco. Although Gov. Jerry Brown has approved a minimum wage increase in California, it’s being implemented at a snail’s pace, said Tierney. It is scheduled to be bumped up to $9 in 2014 and $10 in 2016.

“What happens in California is everything’s legal, so the people who are working for the UC or the CSU or my own institution, they get paid a legal salary, but the minimum wage is so paltry right now that it makes it very difficult for individuals to have a living wage,” said Tierney.

Many universities have sidestepped the politics of minimum wage pay and avoided responsibility by outsourcing some of their lowest-paid positions. College executives often set up contracts with private companies to fill certain campus jobs, such as janitorial work or food service, said Tierney. By opting for outside agencies instead of in-house workers, the schools often save a significant amount of money—and protect themselves from criticism or pesky unionization threats.

In 2012, Texas A&M University outsourced more than 1,500 landscaping, maintenance, and dining service jobs, according to The Daily Texan. And in 2013, the University of Texas considered proposals to contract out campus dining, housing, and parking services, which they claimed could save the school more than $490 million over the next decade.

While outsourcing may save the universities money, it comes at a cost. These new private workers are less invested in the school and often, the well-being of its students, The Guardian reports. Universities also end up having less control over the training and development of these contracted workers, which can affect their performance on campus.

Tierney maintains that the issue is much larger than college politics. It’s about the widening gap between the rich and the poor throughout the country, in all professions.

“Universities need to be fountainheads for change,” said Tierney. “They need to not mirror the worst tendencies in societies.”

• Hayley Fox is a regular contributor to TakePart who has covered breaking news and the occasional animal story for public radio station KPCC in Los Angeles.

The original article appeared at TakePart, a leading source of socially relevant news, features, opinion, entertainment, and information – all focused on the issues that shape our lives.

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Reminder: You Have a Right to Record the Police

T.C. Sottek, The Verge, Aug 14, 2014

A suburb of St. Louis, Missouri, has been under a dramatic siege since Saturday, when a police officer shot and killed an unarmed black teenager named Michael Brown. In the wake of the killing, protests have engulfed the community—drawing a heavy-handed police crackdown with St. Louis County police officers armed with assault weapons and outfitted with military equipment. Many of the striking images have come from reporters on the front lines, but also from citizens and their smartphones.

Around 10 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday night, a St. Louis County police line demanded that a crowd of protesters turn off their cameras. Minutes earlier, the police had ordered what appeared to be a peaceful crowd to disperse, firing smoke grenades and rubber bullets. But none of them have to turn their cameras off.

Here’s the deal: As a U.S. citizen, you have the right to record the police in the course of their public duties. The police don’t have a right to stop you as long as you’re not interfering with their work. They also don’t have a right to confiscate your phone or camera, or delete its contents, just because you were recording them.

Despite some state laws that make it illegal to record others without their consent, federal courts have held consistently that citizens have a First Amendment right to record the police as they perform their official duties in public. The Supreme Court also recently affirmed that the Fourth Amendment, protecting citizens from arbitrary searches and seizures, means that police need to “get a warrant” if they want to take your cellphone. (The ACLU has a concise guide to your rights.) And the U.S. Department of Justice under President Obama has affirmed the court’s stances by reminding police departments that they’re not allowed to harass citizens for recording them.

Sadly, these rights are not always respected by the police. Even journalists are being harassed in Ferguson in the course of their reporting. Earlier in the evening, Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery and Huffington Post reporter Ryan Reilly were arrested in a McDonald’s and later released with no explanation. Washington Post executive editor Martin D. Baron said Lowery was “illegally instructed to stop taking video of officers” and “slammed against a soda machine and then handcuffed.”

It’s obviously bad when reporters are being arrested for no reason, but it’s important to remember that all citizens—anybody who’s old enough to operate a smartphone—have a right to record the official activities of police in public.

Saturday, August 16, 2014

This Pope means business

By Shawn Tully, Fortune, August 14, 2014

The new pope wanted to talk about money. That was the message that went out to a group of seven prominent financiers—major Catholics all—from around the world in the summer of 2013. Barely five months after the shocking resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis had summoned them to assemble at the seat of holy power, the Vatican. They knew their general assignment: to create a plan to restructure the Vatican’s scandal-plagued finances. And like Catholics everywhere, they knew that Francis had already signaled that he was a new kind of pontiff, a “people’s pope” who championed charity and tolerance over dogma. Still, they didn’t know what to expect when they arrived at the Vatican for a meeting with the pope on the first Saturday in August. How interested was he in finance, really? And how serious was he about changing business as usual inside the Vatican?

A major hint came from a change in tradition upon their arrival: The visitors didn’t report to the Apostolic Palace, the Renaissance showplace where for centuries past popes had received visitors in high style. Instead they entered Vatican City on the other side of the colonnade of St. Peter’s Square and took a 150-yard stroll through the hilly enclave to the new pope’s place of business—Casa Santa Marta, a five-story limestone guesthouse that could be mistaken for a newish hotel. There they were ushered into a nondescript meeting room on the first floor with no paintings or religious ornaments and took their seats around a conference table. The members—including Jean-Baptiste de Franssu, ex-chief of asset-management giant Invesco in Europe; Jochen Messemer, a top executive at ERGO, a large German insurer; and George Yeo, former foreign minister of Singapore—chatted nervously as they waited.

After 15 minutes, Pope Francis entered the room—and got right down to business. Attired in a simple white cassock and plain metal cross, he took his place standing at the head of the table. With little preamble, he began outlining his strategic vision, in an approach described by one participant as “highly managerial.” Speaking in fluent Italian and taking frequent pauses while a translator repeated his words in English, the pope explained to the group that for his spiritual message to be credible, the Vatican’s finances must be credible as well. After centuries of secrecy and intrigue, it was time to open the books to the faithful. Strict rules and protocols must be adopted to end the cycle of scandals that had plagued the Vatican in recent years.

Francis declared that sound financial management was a pillar of his greatest mission: aiding the poor and underprivileged. That mission was endangered by volatile, unpredictable budgets that careened from modest surpluses to steep deficits. The Vatican’s inept practices had inhibited giving, he explained, and had to stop. “When the administration is fat, it’s unhealthy,” he said. Francis wanted a leaner, more efficient Vatican administration that would be solidly “self-sustaining.” That, he said, would free up more money for his charities. “You are the experts,” the pope said, “and I trust you. Now I want solutions to these problems, and I want them as soon as possible.” With that, Francis left the group to figure out the details.

As the spiritual shepherd of the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics, Pope Francis, 77, has already done more in 18 months to energize the church and burnish its image than anyone has since the heyday of John Paul II in the mid-1980s. What’s far less appreciated is his intense engagement—and astounding success—in overhauling the Vatican’s finances and pushing the adoption of modern practices it had resisted for decades. “The changes are massive,” says René Brülhart, chief of the AIF, the Vatican equivalent of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The past 15 years have been a time of turmoil and decline for the church. It has suffered blow after blow to its image, from the pedophilia scandals that have plagued it for over a decade to the recent “Vatileaks” affair, in which Pope Benedict’s butler smuggled letters to the press that warned the pontiff of corruption and cronyism in the Vatican. The church has often promoted issues that tended to divide Catholics more than unite them. And the backlash made Rome look defensive, as many bishops and cardinals viewed their role as defending Catholic doctrines against a hostile culture of secularism.

Before Francis’s arrival, attendance at mass was declining and the recruitment of priests and nuns had plateaued. The difficulties extended to fundraising.

By contrast, Francis’s upbeat, quotable approach and emphasis on charity over doctrine have quickly made him perhaps the most talked-about and admired person on the planet. Francis could be called the first modern pope. His Twitter account, @Pontifex, boasts 4.3 million followers in nine languages. And his message is universally appealing: The paramount duty of the church and its faithful is to aid those in need.

Although it’s too early to make a definitive judgment, the “Francis effect” appears to be reversing the church’s fortunes. Mass attendance is surging in Italy, for instance. The Jesuits, Francis’s religious order, are seeing more inquiries about priestly vocations. And donations are on the rise at dioceses around the world.

What has been less appreciated by outsiders until now is the pope’s elite managerial skill set. Like a great CEO, he has the ability to set a strategic vision, then choose and motivate the right people to make it work. His rapid overhaul of the Vatican’s finances is both one of the most unusual case studies in the annals of business and one of the more instructive.

Francis was elected with a mandate for reform. After Pope Benedict, on Feb. 28, 2013, became the first pontiff in six centuries to resign, the 115 cardinals who assembled to pick his successor held eight days of meetings, or “general congregations,” to discuss the priorities for the next pontiff. Benedict had been considered a brilliant theologian, but he was no manager. Cardinal after cardinal expressed outrage over reports of the overpriced, no-bid contracts handed to officials’ friends in Italy and the criticism of the Vatican bank’s disclosure policies by the Italian government. The feeling was that the next pope should be someone with the leadership skills to bring professional management to a clubby bureaucracy that was expert in blocking change.

As an outsider who had expressed contempt for the Vatican’s status as an insular “royal court,” Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio, then archbishop of Buenos Aires and a native of Argentina, was the overwhelming choice. Pope Francis—the first pontiff to take the name of Saint Francis of Assisi, patron saint of the poor—came in with a plan. His central idea was revolutionary: Money matters are not a core competency of the clergy, as the record shows. So he began replacing the old guard of cardinals and bishops with lay experts who are now largely setting strategy, heading regulatory oversight, and running day-to-day operations.

Indeed, Francis has brought in some of the biggest brand names in the world of business. KPMG is implementing uniform, internationally accepted accounting standards to replace the Vatican’s previous crazy quilt of bookkeeping. EY (the former Ernst & Young) is scrutinizing management of the Vatican’s stores, utilities, and other municipal services. Deloitte & Touche now audits the accounts at the Vatican bank. And Spencer Stuart has recruited top management talent from around the globe. Heading the effort to restructure media operations, assisted by McKinsey & Co., is Lord Christopher Patten, a former head of the BBC and the last British governor of Hong Kong.

When Pope Francis puts a cardinal in charge of something, the choice is typically an outsider. His most important appointment so far, either lay or religious, is Cardinal George Pell, an Australian whom he recruited from the archdiocese of Sydney. Pell now heads the newly formed Secretariat for the Economy, and Pope Francis has granted Pell power over finances that no official has remotely held before. He’s responsible for setting and enforcing all budgets and managing all investments. The son of a heavyweight boxer, Pell, 73, is an imposing figure who is short on niceties and brutally frank about the necessity to radically pare costs.

Pope Francis has a complex but pragmatic view of money. “Money is useful to carry out many things, for works to support humanity,” he has said. “But when your heart is attached to it, it destroys you.” His humble lifestyle follows those precepts. He resides in a one-bedroom, second-floor suite in Casa Santa Marta overlooking the entrance. (Benedict, the former pope, lives nearby in a converted monastery called Mater Ecclesiae and occasionally sends Francis notes with feedback on his interviews.) Visitors say the pope’s lights go on at 4:30 a.m. He’s frequently spotted in the buffet line, tray in hand, at the Santa Marta dining room, where the cuisine isn’t fancy—it offers a choice of two main courses for lunch and dinner, and features Italian specialties such as pasta con pomodoro and pollo arrosto. He takes no holidays, explaining that if the poor can’t take vacations, why should he?

The pontiff does not talk about balance sheets and cash flow. He leaves the numbers to the experts. His forte is leadership. Like any good chief executive, he knows that the culture of an organization is established at the top. And he is always well prepared. “He has five or six sources of information on every subject,” says Austen Ivereigh, author of a forthcoming biography of Francis, The Great Reformer. “It’s impossible to hoodwink him.” By getting the views of many participants—both Vatican officials and lay advisers—in all of his reform initiatives, the pope quickly determines if his instructions are being implemented or blocked by the old guard. If he sees resistance from old-school directors, he’ll quickly make changes, as when he replaced the entire board of the AIF, the financial regulator.

One of his rules is that big donors and companies that do business with the church should get no special treatment. Before he took charge in Buenos Aires, the archdiocese was a large shareholder in Argentine banks, and the banks regularly granted their ecclesiastical investor loans on easy terms. As cardinal, Francis denounced the arrangement as a blatant conflict of interest and sold all the archdiocese’s bank holdings. He also refused to attend fundraising dinners, usually regarded as one of a cardinal’s top jobs. His aversion to catering to the wealthy didn’t stop with his ascension to the papacy. It’s a Vatican tradition that the Secretariat of State, which receives donations from the rich on the pontiff’s behalf, would reward big donors by arranging special audiences and masses with the pope. Pope Francis ended the practice.

Pope Francis is a strong believer in workers’ rights. But that view is highly nuanced. He has famously denounced the excesses of capitalism and firmly believes that the rich get too much from the market economy while regular workers often don’t receive enough. In contrast to his readiness to ax high-ranking officials who block his agenda, he doesn’t believe in firing rank-and-file employees. But he despises waste and inefficiency, and he thinks the Vatican can run better with fewer employees.

The catholic church is highly decentralized financially. In terms of money, the Vatican basically stands on its own. That’s a major reason its finances are far shakier and its wealth is much more modest than its image of sumptuous wealth. The church is divided into three branches: the Vatican, the religious orders, and the dioceses. Each maintains separate finances. In fact, the Vatican has no official claim on or access to the wealth of the two branches that it oversees. The members of the 296 religious orders and congregations are priests, nuns, and brothers who specialize in education (the Jesuits), missionary work (the Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus), and helping the poor (Franciscans). Frequently, regional units within the orders control their own finances.

The dioceses are where the Catholic Church meets Main Street. The more than 2,800 dioceses, each headed by a bishop or an archbishop, supervise the networks of parishes from Lagos to Manila to Detroit where Catholics attend mass, get married, and send their children to the 95,000 elementary schools. Each diocese is a separate corporation with its own investments and budgets, including the metropolitan archdioceses. The dioceses do send substantial amounts of money to the Vatican each year, but most of it is earmarked for either missionary work or the pope’s charitable giving. The funds sent to support the Vatican’s operations are important but account for around 4.5% of total revenues.

Since the church contributes only modestly to funding its operations, the Vatican must generate substantial income on its own and supplement that income with a steady flow of donations from the faithful. The Vatican serves two functions. First, it is a fully sovereign, independent nation with its own laws, courts, stores, security force of gendarmes, and an “army” of 110 ceremonial Swiss guards. Cloistered behind 40-foot stone walls in the heart of Rome, the Vatican is the smallest nation on the planet. It occupies just 110 acres—or one-eighth the size of Manhattan’s Central Park—and is home to just 837 citizens. The Vatican has no legislature; the pope, the world’s last absolute monarch, can unilaterally announce new laws, create or eliminate departments, and hire and fire as he pleases. Any money the Vatican generates in excess of its expenses can be used at the discretion of its ruler, the pope.

The Vatican’s second and principal function is its role as the hierarchy of the church. The pope heads a large bureaucracy called the curia, which exercises a wide range of power and provides advice and assistance to the church at large. The curia’s most powerful bodies are nine congregations, each headed by a cardinal, that resemble the U.S. government’s cabinet departments. One congregation, for instance, appoints the world’s almost 3,000 bishops. Another does the detective work needed to name new saints.

Through the pope the Vatican establishes and enforces doctrine for all parts of the Catholic Church. But the other branches—the dioceses and religious orders—are financially independent. Each contributes money to the Vatican’s budget.

For financial purposes, the Vatican operates two quasi-independent entities, one for each of its two functions: operating as a nation and serving as the sprawling staff that supports the pope. The city state, or governorate, operates the Vatican’s commercial services. It resembles a medium-size municipal government. The city state has excellent sources of revenue. It garners about $130 million a year, and rising, from the thriving Vatican museums, home of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel. And each year tourists purchase around 2.2 million euro-denominated collector coins at its gift shops.

Last year the city state spent around $332 million and collected $377 million, for a “profit” of $45 million. It posts substantial surpluses most years. But that money usually isn’t available to fund the struggling part of the Vatican. The governorate frequently uses its excess cash to bolster the underfunded pension plan and needs to accumulate reserves to expand the museum and refurbish buildings.

The problem resides in the curia, officially known as the Holy See. The Holy See consists of many sections that spend heavily but offer little or no income. Vatican Radio, which broadcasts the pope’s readings and masses, as well as the Vatican’s news, has 330 employees and spends $37 million a year yet collects less than $1 million in advertising. Its deficit is so deep that the city state now covers half the shortfall. Operating the embassies, called apostolic nunciatures, in 113 nations runs over $30 million.

Almost two-thirds of the Holy See’s budget goes to paying salaries, benefits, and pensions for its 2,886 employees. (Including the city state, the Vatican has a workforce of 4,822.) The Vatican pays relatively low wages but offers generous health and retirement benefits. Cardinals and bishops at the congregations and councils often toil for as little as $46,000 a year, though their housing is heavily subsidized. The rank and file, including nuns and priests, are also paid below market, but make it up in benefits. The average salary for lower- to mid-level workers is around $28,000 a year. That’s about 25% less than the $37,800 average for Italian workers with similar private sector jobs. But keep in mind that Vatican employees pay no income taxes. Today around three-quarters of the Vatican’s employees are lay workers, vs. less than half 25 years ago. Vatican lay employees have jobs for life, and virtually no one leaves before retirement age.

For 2013 the Holy See posted revenues of $315 million and expenses of $348 million, for a $33 million deficit. Since 2007 the total shortfalls have totaled $56 million. Those figures actually understate the size of the Holy See’s financial problems. The current spending number is due to rise sharply for a pressing need: taming big pension liabilities. It’s a problem the Vatican shares with virtually every Western economy. The Vatican inaugurated a generous defined-benefit pension plan in the early 1960s but didn’t have an actual pension fund until three decades later.

The Vatican is often assumed to possess great wealth, but if it were a company, its revenue wouldn’t come close to making Fortune 500. Its total operating budget is about $700 million. in 2013 it posted a small overall surplus of $11.5 million. The Vatican’s most valuable assets—some of the world’s great art treasures—are virtually priceless and not for sale. A breakdown of major holdings:

Investments: Portfolio of stocks, bonds, and gold worth $920 million.

Real estate: Holdings have an estimated value of $1.35 billion, including some 2,000 apartments, mostly in Rome.

Vatican Bank: Book value of $972 million.

Art collection: Worth untold billions. The Vatican’s museum brings in $130 million a year in revenue. Treasures include the Sistine Chapel frescoes by Michelangelo (above); “Saint Jerome in the Wilderness,” a painting by Leonardo da Vinci; “Deposition From the Cross,” a painting by Caravaggio; a letter from Marie Antoinette en route to the guillotine; and the papal bull excommunicating Martin Luther.

The pope’s strategy for addressing both spending and pension issues is to gradually shrink the Vatican workforce through attrition and raise more money to maintain the benefits. In February of 2014 he imposed a hiring freeze and also stopped formerly generous overtime payments. The plan is to move existing employees from overstaffed congregations to growth areas, such as financial management, without replacing those who depart.

The Vatican’s pension plan guarantees retirees 80% of their final salaries after 40 years of service, and as noted, few employees leave before retirement. That’s a big premium over the “replacement rate” in Italy of around 72%. But Pope Francis is explicit about providing better pensions than those in Italy. The challenge is filling the huge shortfall in the pension fund. The Vatican is guaranteeing some 1,750 retirees—plus current workers who have paid into the fixed-benefit plan for years—big pensions for decades to come. Right now those future payments far exceed the amount the current fund can possibly generate in income.

According to a Vatican insider, the pension fund is short by “a few hundred million dollars.” The Vatican has been making minimal contributions to the fund for years, and employees kick in just 6% of their salaries. Cardinal Pell says that retirement benefits are safe for now but that the Vatican needs to heavily restock its pension reserves in the years to come. The Vatican could be obligated to contribute another $30 million or $40 million a year for a decade or more to build a fund large enough to pay future pensions from its investment returns.

The other major problem facing the Holy See is that its revenues from investments—almost half of its total—are unpredictable, and returns are far lower than they should be. The Holy See does own one reliable source of profits, the Vatican bank, or IOR. The IOR (for, in Italian, Institute for Religious Works) regularly provides around $70 million toward operating revenues. Perhaps the most surprising feature of the Vatican’s finances is the extremely modest size of its portfolio of stocks, bonds, and real estate. The seed money for the Vatican’s investments came from a $92 million settlement the Italian government provided in 1929, in compensation for its confiscation of the Papal States, covering much of central Italy, 60 years earlier.

Today the Vatican holds some $920 million in stocks, bonds, and gold. Its gold reserves, on deposit at the U.S. Federal Reserve, now amount to just $50 million. The Vatican usually earns between $15 million and $25 million on its holdings, much of it stashed in money-market accounts and short-term government bonds. It also generates low returns on its extensive holdings of real estate, valued on the books at around $1.35 billion. Its principal holding consists of some 2,000 apartments, which are mostly in excellent locations in Rome, including the historic districts surrounding the Vatican and the bohemian-chic neighborhood of Trastevere.

Most of the units, however, are rented to bishops, priests, and lay employees who pay minimal rent. For example, a prominent cardinal and other clergy pay token rent on a building with some 20 apartments on the tony Via Carducci. It would generate over $1 million a year on the open market. Over the past several years the real estate portfolio has returned an average of about $33 million a year.

Catholic foundations around the world actually pay a larger share of the Vatican’s operating budget than do its investments in real estate and securities. This giving is a crucial, unreported bulwark of the Vatican’s finances. Last year, by Fortune’s estimate, foundations donated more than $85 million toward the Holy See. The bounty comes from dozens upon dozens of charities, most of which pledge relatively small amounts. For example, the Legatus organization, a group of prominent Catholic business executives, pledges 10% of its annual dues to the pope, amounting to $500,000 a year.

To turn the Vatican into a consistent profitmaker, the new regime is counting on two institutions with the potential for big growth in earnings: the museums and the Vatican bank. “Those are the two main income sources for the future,” says Zahra, the Maltese adviser to the Vatican.

The museums are the only branch of the Vatican run like a true business. This year the museum is on track to host 5.5 million visitors, or three times the figure 30 years ago. It now ranks as the world’s fifth-most-visited museum, behind only the likes of the Louvre and the British Museum. Traffic this year has risen by 1 million visitors from 2013, largely because of the Francis effect. The Vatican museum famously boasts one of the world’s greatest collections, from its frescoes by Raphael to da Vinci’s painting “Saint Jerome in the Wilderness” to the ultimate trophy attraction, the Sistine Chapel. Cardinal Pell and the reformers want the Vatican to exploit its hidden treasures for additional profit. The goal is to use promotional campaigns and new exhibitions to push museum revenues far above the current $130 million a year.

The Vatican bank is also a potential growth franchise. The IOR resembles a holy savings and loan. The basic purpose of the IOR is simple, and essential. The wealthy dioceses, religious orders, and Catholic charities collect huge sums each year destined for the developing world and deposit the funds in the Vatican bank. That money frequently comes in cash. The Vatican bank wires the funds to all corners of the developing world to build churches and schools, run hospitals, and pay priests and nuns. It’s also the everyday bank for Vatican employees. It has a single branch with eight teller desks, situated in a medieval Gothic prison built by Pope Nicholas V. Its ATMs, all in Vatican City, provide instructions in Latin. The bank’s basic business is highly profitable. Last year the IOR paid around 1% interest on its $3.1 billion in deposits and invested that money in government bonds at over 3.3%. That model generated “spread income” of over $70 million.

Despite its simple mission, the Vatican bank has in the past found itself ensnared in scandal. Perhaps the most decisive transformation under Pope Francis is the remaking of the IOR from a near wreck to the useful institution it should be. Today it is central to the Vatican’s plans for financial growth.

Cardinal Pell has some original ideas on how the IOR can generate more revenue. Pell meets with Pope Francis once every two weeks at Casa Santa Marta to brief him on the progress being made by their handpicked team of financial experts. He describes the pope as a good example of the “old-style Jesuit” who “knows which way is up” and asks the right questions. To serve his higher calling as a pope of the people, Francis knows, he must continue to keep one eye on the bottom line.

An Interview with Richard Falk on the Crisis in Gaza

By Ken Klippenstein, Counterpunch, August 13, 2014

Richard Falk is an American professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University. He just completed a six-year term as United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights. He was appointed to this role by the UN Human Rights Council, in 2008.

Ken Klippenstein: Could you describe Sisi’s [Egypt’s new leader] relationship with Hamas?

Richard Falk: The [Sisi] government is determined to destroy the Muslim Brotherhood and they view Hamas as an extension of the Brotherhood. So they’re in a certain way on the same side as Israel on this particular confrontation.

KK: Has the aerial bombardment campaign adopted by Israel done anything to decrease the rocket fire coming from Gaza?

RF: There’s no evidence that it has. It certainly has caused some damage and some deaths to those involved in either making and deploying and firing the rockets. But there’s no discernable effect in stopping Hamas’ and other militias’—it’s not only Hamas, there are other militias, some of which Hamas doesn’t control—that have engaged in this kind of rocket fire. The only alternative to using these rockets for defenseless people like those living in Gaza is to absolutely do nothing—to be completely passive. They have no military capability to resist Israel on the ground or in the air or from the sea. So it’s a very one-sided war; and one-sided wars are, in my view, by their very nature, unlawful and constitute crimes against humanity.

KK: Since Palestine lacks statehood, does that deny them recourse to the protections afforded by international law?

RF: The UN General Assembly on Nov. 29, 2012 passed a resolution recognizing the statehood of Palestine as a non-observer member state of the UN. That has been interpreted as giving Palestine the status of being a state in an international society for most purposes. They have joined UNESCO, for instance, as a member state, and they’ve adhered to more than 15 international treaties open only to states. They’re recognized by I think 130 governments as a state. They could at this point seek redress at the International Criminal Court, a step that Israel and the United States have declared would be very provocative from their point of view and would lead to adverse consequences.

In effect, the United States and Israel are saying it’s not acceptable to use international criminal law to uphold your legal rights.

KK: What is the US role in the aerial bombardment campaign?

RF: The US is definitely complicity and legally accountable, at least in theory, that this weaponry is not supposed to be used except in accordance with international law; and if the whole undertaking is a violation of international law, then the United States is a responsible, and should diplomatically, have been seeking to restrain and censure Israel rather than to lend its support.

Beyond that there is the sense that Congress itself, again at least theoretically, restricts military assistance to foreign countries in a way that is supposed to be compatible with international law and the UN Charter. So by the guidelines that are embedded in American law itself, this is an unlawful and unacceptable policy that the US government has been pursuing.

KK: Could you talk about the legality of the siege of Gaza?

RF: The siege of Gaza is clearly a form of collective punishment that is prohibited by Article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention that unconditionally prohibits any recourse to collective punishment. A blockade that has been maintained since the middle of 2007 is directed at the entire civilian population of Gaza. It includes many items that are needed for health, subsistence, and minimum requirements of a decent life. So in my view, Israel as the occupying power under international law of Gaza, is supposed to protect the civilian population rather than to subject it to a punitive blockade of the sort that’s been existing these past 7 years.

KK: Israel sometimes phones warnings ahead of time before bombing buildings. Do you believe that this constitutes a serious effort to minimize civilian deaths?

RF: One would have to look carefully at each context. My impression is that Gaza is a place where there’s no real opportunity to escape from impending attacks. There may have been some lives saved as a result of these warnings. My impression is they’re not given consistently and comprehensively; and furthermore, that in the wider context of Gaza there’s no opportunity for people to become refugees or to even move from points of danger to points of relative safety. It’s unusual in a wartime situation where almost always there is an option of crossing borders during a period of combat and finding some sort of sanctuary. Israel again as the occupying power has an obligation to see to it that the civilian population is protected. To deny any kind of exit right to any Palestinian living in Gaza except those holding foreign passports –there are about 800 Palestinians with dual passports—and they have been allowed to cross the border into Israel. 150 of those have American citizenship and the US consulate has been facilitating their departure if those people want to.

But in general, the 1,700,000 Gazans, they are denied the option of becoming refugees or even of becoming internally displaced persons. And therefore they cannot escape from the fire zone that Israel has created. And even if they’re not direct casualties being killed or injured, they are living under the cloud of state terrorism maintained day and night over this period in a way that psychiatrists and psychologists and mental health experts say is inducing mass trauma on the part of the Palestinian people, particularly among the children.

Even before this attack it always a highly anxious atmosphere because there are Israeli planes flying over all the time it’s never clear when they will do something that is hostile. People of Gaza as I’ve been saying are completely vulnerable. They have no way of fighting back. They are at the mercy of the Israelis. And the Israelis show very little mercy.

KK: What is Israel’s legal rationale for denying Gazans the displaced persons status that you mentioned before?

RF: As far as I know they haven’t articulated any justification for this policy. They just close the borders and the international community has by and large been scandalously silent and has remained so up to this time.

KK: What is the US role in blocking a UN resolution condemning Israeli violence in Gaza?

RF: As I understand it, the US did indicate its readiness to veto any resolution that blamed Israel, and there was support for such a resolution on the part of the majority of the members of the Security Council. What the UN ended up doing was issuing a statement that called for a ceasefire but it is a statement that has no binding legal effect and did not in any way censure Israel for its role.

KK: Would you support a call for an arms embargo on Israel?

RF: Yes I would. I think it would be an appropriate move at this point. Israel has consistently defied international law in many different ways. It shows no sign of respecting the wishes of the international community at this time for an immediate ceasefire. So I think that the only way the world can show that it’s at all serious about protecting vulnerable peoples—in this case the Palestinians—would be to impose an arms embargo.

Of course Israel has a very robust arms industry itself. It’s one of the ten leading exporters of arms. And it’s of course inconceivable that at this stage the US and several of the West European countries would respect such an embargo. Nevertheless, it would be an important symbolic step in the direction of delegitimizing the kind of behavior that Israel has been engaged in.

KK: Are allegations of Hamas using human shields credible?

RF: There hasn’t been as far as I know serious evidence that this has taken place. In fact there is evidence that the Israelis used Palestinians as human shields when they mounted the ground offensive back in 2008-2009. And even if the Palestinians did do this, it would still not vindicate Israelis shooting directly at civilians unless there was some kind of argument of absolute military necessity, which is pretty remote from this situation.

KK: Do you believe that Israel has been committing war crimes in Gaza?

RF: Yeah. I think certainly there’s the basis for alleging war crimes. It requires a formal legal judgment to reach the conclusion that there have been war crimes committed. There is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty—that’s important to maintain. But certainly the evidence that I’m aware of suggests the commission of serious crimes against humanity and war crimes in the course of this operation.

KK: Could you discuss the background of the crisis? Western media’s accounts usually begin with the kidnapping and murder of the three Israeli boys, omitting important contexts: the siege of Gaza, for instance.

RF: The timeline for these justifications that are made by Israel is very self-serving and not very convincing. Of course you have a complex pattern of interaction. On the other hand, Israel is the occupying power, has the international responsibilities to protect the civilian population. And in the case of the kidnapping on Jun 12, they had the opportunity to limit the response to an enforcement action that was done in a reasonable way. Instead they used it as a pretext for seeking to destroy Hamas as a political actor present in the west bank and then extending that anti-Hamas policy to the attack on Gaza. So it was clearly a way of using this initial criminal act as a means to pursue a much wider political agenda that focuses on Israel’s national ambition to control the West Bank—at least most of the west bank, where the settlements are—and to eliminate from that reality the only viable Palestinian opposition force because the Palestinian Authority that is nominally in control on behalf of the Palestinians of the West Bank, is in a semi-collaborationist relationship with Israel. So the incentive to get rid of Hamas as a political influence on the West Bank particularly and to punish it severely in Gaza where it’s in control of the governing process is a crime.

KK: Why did Netanyahu not take Abbas up on his offer to cooperate with the investigation into the kidnapping and killing of the three Israeli boys?

RF: I think it’s part of Netanyahu’s political escalation of the Israeli approach at this point. They repudiated the direct negotiations—which didn’t make much sense in the first place—but they repudiated them as a way of stating that they would no longer seriously engage in diplomacy but would impose their own solution on the conflict. And that solution involves consolidating control over the whole of Jerusalem and taking all or the most valuable parts of the West Bank and in effect annexing them to Israel.

KK: Under the Arms Control Act of 1976, governments that receive weapons from the US are required to use them for legitimate self-defense. Does the US’ arms aid to Israel violate that law?

RF: Yes, definitely. From everything I’ve been saying, there’s no legal, political or moral argument that would uphold the claim that Israel is acting in legitimate self-defense. There’s been no armed attack by Hamas or Gaza; in any event, Gaza from an international law point of view, is not a foreign state but an occupied territory. It’s not clear that you can exercise self-defense in relation to a territory that you are responsible for administer in accordance with international humanitarian law.

Copyright © Fight for Your Faith