While some of the Church of England’s income comes from donations, 15 percent (£160 million) comes from Church assets of £4.4 billion. Yes, that’s right, the anti-capitalist supporter of the 99%, the marginalised, the homeless, the occupiers and those who use St. Paul’s as a toilet are sitting on £4.4 billion. Well, not sitting exactly: the money is invested in the stock market and property markets where much maligned mavens of finance wheel and deal to earn the church 5.7%.
Naturally, the church has a policy on ethical investing, so it avoids such things as arms, pornography, gambling, alcohol and tobacco. That didn’t stop it investing in one of the UK’s more tawdry rags, the News of the World, though, or persuade it to withdraw its funds when the hacking scandal became public.
The church did withdraw funds from Caterpillar because Israel uses the bulldozers to “demolish Palestinian homes” and the Church always enjoys finding a new way to bash Israel.
The one thing the Church is not doing with its £4.4 billion is giving it away to those for whom it has such affection: the poor, marginalised, homeless and occupiers. It hasn’t even used any of the money to build a toilet for the occupiers.
It all makes what Rowan Williams has to say about capitalism sound even more hypocritically silly than his usual divagations.
Here is his most recent effort:
Embarassed to say it, but I can’t really agree with you here.
The church was given money by benefactors back in the middle ages, which it used to buy land. The state seized the land owned by the abbeys, but the land of the dean and chapters of cathedrals remained, as did funds associated with particular parishes. This meant that some parishes were worth a lot more financially than others, and a nice trade in patronage, and buying and selling benefices sprang up and ran during the 18th and early 19th century. In some places a curate could hardly live; in others a fat clergyman who never visited the place took the money and hired a hack curate to run the services.
This money was all pooled back in the early 20th century, so that vicars got paid more or less the same, and could get pensions. The Church Commissioners were set up to manage it. They put it in the stock market, mostly.
None of that seems unreasonable or unwise. All of us will grow old, and who wants to see clergymen starve?
Roger,
I must be missing something. “The Church” invests its money and reaps profits on its investment, (which it then may use for noble purposes). Regardless of the end use of the money, this is classic capitalism.
The money that capitalism generates for the Church of England allows the slugs in robes to insulate themselves from reality -and now they climb into their pulpits and rail against the very source of their silk clad comfort.
Wow
Well you’re quite right (love the “slugs in robes” phrase — how very accurate!), but it’s not quite the same thing: inherited wealth prudently invested as opposed to ill-gotten gains from speculation.
I do agree, however, that the clergy sympathy for these upper-class protesters is rather revolting.
Yes, I have issues with sermonizing that is high-socialism and finger-wagging one minute, with reminders about making stewardship pledges the next. From whence is our income to pledge suppose to have cometh? Out of thin, pure air? Since capitalism works for me, I have been happy to share, but why bite the hand that feeds us all?
So it is assumed that everyone else always uses their stock market gains (if any) for ignoble purposes? How about, say, paying out of investment income for big-ticket services such as disability rehabilitation (not covered by the provinces), or university education for one’s children? Is this trumped by assets used for legal costs covered by the ACofC to battle former congregations out of their churches? Roger, I think the point here is that the Church of England has been saying, in effect, that “Our use of capitalism is O.K., but the use of it by anyone else is not.” Original capital from benefactors back in the middle ages would not amount to such huge assets at present had this not been invested, with good returns. And where did the initial benefactors get the wherewithal to donate ? Furthermore, could such donations have been a move to buy and consolidate power within certain circles….donations with strings? So, why can the Church of England claim to use capitalism without sin, while the rest of us using it are mired in the muck? I am certainly not anti-capitalistic; it is hypocrisy over use of capitalism I am railing against. This is sort of like Jack Layton preaching NDP-ish dictates, but living the life of an upper-income privileged type himself.
What so many people either forget or ignore is that our capitalist system has resulted in the highest standard of living for the largest percentage of people. No other economic system of any time or place comes anywhere close to the incredibly high standard of living enjoyed by so massive a majority of the population.
It is unfortunate that we have a very small percentage of people living in poverty. But what we call poverty is still pretty good living in most parts of the world. Also, not all of the blame for poverty can justly be placed upon capitalism. Those who are able but unwilling to work should take responsibility for the decisions that they have made and the results of those dicisions.