I understand that the Vatican is its own sovereign, but even so, the union of lay employees may want to have an actuary of their own to take a look at how things stand.
I see this is the Italian actuarial organization: http://www.actuary-isoa.com/index.php/about -- They may want to contact someone there to see if there is someone they can consult with.
....but it does look like the Vatican doesn't feel like sharing any of this information with interested parties. How transparent of them.
The lack of transparency and failure to share finanacial information would, I believe, violate federal law were this a US pension plan. Yes, the Vatican is a sovereign state but that makes this no less disgraceful. The Vatican can’t meet its pension obligations but had no problem wasting a lot of money on its synodaling event?!!
"The Vatican can’t meet its pension obligations but had no problem wasting a lot of money on its synodaling event?!!"
This is an excellent point. I receive request for donations in the mail from worthwhile causes every day and wish that I could help them all but I just cannot. I have to be realistic about how I can help and that my funds have a limit. (Heck, I wish that I could sponsor The Pillar for $10,000.00/mo.) but I just don't have that kind of money.
I just cannot spend money that I don't have. Still less, can I spend someone else's
I wonder what the argument is for a single Director of the fund ('pension czar' or maybe 'pensions pope')? Maybe it's the Anglo-Saxon mindset, but I've have expected a Board of Directors, chaired by the good Cardinal, made up of financial and actuarial experts, most of them lay, some with experience of other pension schemes and not all of them necessarily Catholic - plus at least one representative of ADLV.
I'm completely ignorant of financial matters, but I also wonder whether the Vatican as a mini-state has to reproduce everything done by maxi-states? Could it negotiate an arrangement whereby its employees joined another larger pension scheme based outside Vatican City, into which they would pay and into which the Church would also pay its contribution as employer? That would both make the scheme less dependent on Vatican finances, and give reassurance to the employees that the Church was paying up-front, rather than hoping to meet the pension requirements from future revenues.
Probably. But the opportunities for graft are much less if they do that. A joke, but I feel I may not be far off the mark, especially when we see what happened with +Pell and +Becciu.
I think it would be nigh impossible for them not to be wary.
Incompetent and secretive. Seems like a pattern from the parish level to the Vatican.
I understand that the Vatican is its own sovereign, but even so, the union of lay employees may want to have an actuary of their own to take a look at how things stand.
I see this is the Italian actuarial organization: http://www.actuary-isoa.com/index.php/about -- They may want to contact someone there to see if there is someone they can consult with.
....but it does look like the Vatican doesn't feel like sharing any of this information with interested parties. How transparent of them.
The lack of transparency and failure to share finanacial information would, I believe, violate federal law were this a US pension plan. Yes, the Vatican is a sovereign state but that makes this no less disgraceful. The Vatican can’t meet its pension obligations but had no problem wasting a lot of money on its synodaling event?!!
"The Vatican can’t meet its pension obligations but had no problem wasting a lot of money on its synodaling event?!!"
This is an excellent point. I receive request for donations in the mail from worthwhile causes every day and wish that I could help them all but I just cannot. I have to be realistic about how I can help and that my funds have a limit. (Heck, I wish that I could sponsor The Pillar for $10,000.00/mo.) but I just don't have that kind of money.
I just cannot spend money that I don't have. Still less, can I spend someone else's
money for a cause that I think is worthwhile.
I wonder what the argument is for a single Director of the fund ('pension czar' or maybe 'pensions pope')? Maybe it's the Anglo-Saxon mindset, but I've have expected a Board of Directors, chaired by the good Cardinal, made up of financial and actuarial experts, most of them lay, some with experience of other pension schemes and not all of them necessarily Catholic - plus at least one representative of ADLV.
I'm completely ignorant of financial matters, but I also wonder whether the Vatican as a mini-state has to reproduce everything done by maxi-states? Could it negotiate an arrangement whereby its employees joined another larger pension scheme based outside Vatican City, into which they would pay and into which the Church would also pay its contribution as employer? That would both make the scheme less dependent on Vatican finances, and give reassurance to the employees that the Church was paying up-front, rather than hoping to meet the pension requirements from future revenues.
Probably. But the opportunities for graft are much less if they do that. A joke, but I feel I may not be far off the mark, especially when we see what happened with +Pell and +Becciu.