Archbishop Paglia’s Fancy Apartment

Christianity

Archbishop Paglia’s Fancy Apartment

Vatican big immortalized in homoerotic cathedral mural allegedly blew money meant for the poor on his own flat

Rod Dreher

Dec 14, 2022 4:28 PM

I've been in Rome this week, and am hearing that in what are likely the waning days of the Francis papacy, a lot of Church people, both on the Catholic left and Catholic right, are fed up with the chaos of this pope's administration. Just now, The Pillar has a really important story about how Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, one of Pope Francis's top appointments, allegedly spent a pile of money meant for missionaries and for the poor to renovate his Rome apartment. Excerpt:

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia diverted hundreds of thousands of euros allocated to support missionary and charitable works while he served as president of the Pontifical Council for the Family. Paglia used much of the money to finance building projects in Rome, including the renovation of his personal apartment, The Pillar has learned.

According to multiple independent sources with knowledge of the events, Archbishop Paglia confirmed in a 2015 memo to Holy See financial officials that hundreds of thousands of euros had been paid to an Italian construction contractor instead of going to missionary and charitable projects to support poor families and orphans.

While Paglia claimed to have repaid some of the money diverted from charitable funds, sources say that he did so with other donations to the pontifical council, and not with money specifically provided for restitution.

The archbishop, currently president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, led the Pontifical Council for the Family from 2012 until 2016, when Pope Francis merged the council into the Dicastery for Laity, Family, and Life.

You might know Paglia's name from the 2017 scandal over a homoerotic fresco he commissioned for his former cathedral. I wrote about it here. Paglia reportedly chose the gay artist personally, and oversaw all aspects of his work. The artist included Paglia in the painting (he's wearing the red skullcap):

Comments

Want to join the conversation?

Subscribe for as little as $5/mo to start commenting on Rod’s blog.

Join Now

Douglas Stupart

While I do not disagree with you that many people are fed up with Pope Francis’s leadership, I think it’s a bit unfair to blame this on him. Paglia was appointed as president of that council and authorised to disburse its money when Benedict was still pope. The council of which he was president was essentially dissolved, and his spending ability curtailed when this corruption came to light (after Francis became pope).

1 year ago

Fran Macadam

Yeah, who is he to judge?

Rod Dreher, the thinking Christian's Jack Chick? But Jack was right and what people critiqued as his sensationalism is pedestrian compared to the pedophiliac perversion that still manages to scandalize a few Christians.

Theodore Iacobuzio

What was Chick right about? That people who believe in transubstantiation are headed straight to Hell? That little bonne bouche?

The prevalent sexual degradation by nuns and priests, vehemently denied and covered up, and in fact far worse than Chick depicted, has been exposed and verified, in full detail, by none other than our host, to such effect that he rejected Roman Catholicism. Think how many innocent victims would have been spared, had folks listened and done the same. Chick was a Christian who believed Roman Catholicism was harming the cause of Christ. How much more true that has become now, precisely when Christian moral authority is badly needed.

I once got a Chick pamphlet in the mail that was about the final judgement of a man who had died in a car accident. It was drawn with Chick's usual vigor. The man asks for an interview with the Almighty ("I'm listening, John"), who is depicted as seated on a throne. He lacks a face (is this a graven image kind of thing?), extremely creepy. Since he worshipped "The Wafer God" (i.e., received Communion and believed in Transubstantiation, in short was a Roman Catholic) John goes straight to Hell, armed with the scriptural references that will put him there.

That betokens an attitude a little more severe than a belief that "Roman Catholicism was harming the cause of Christ", wouldn't you say? It implies a frightening hatred, at the very least.

Don't get me wrong. A Creation that includes Hell is a real world, and the one we live in. But people who talk it about it a lot, and in that way, are to be shunned (even Newman had difficulties--not doubts--about the doctrine). There are plenty of people in the Catholic Church who slaver over the thought of Hell.

Nobody's going to argue with you about clerical abuse. What stumps me is the effrontery of the Father Martin constituency in doubling down on LGBTQ+ ass-creeping when the vast majority of the abuse was same-sex. A puzzler.

Wafer add-ons to doctrine and supposed infant baptisms are no substitute for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Without that essential transformation, unreformed consciences will tolerate and even promote grievous sin.

JON FRAZIER

Sexual abuse and debauchery-- not to mention financial legerdemain-- among the clergy are present in all churches (and non-Christian religions too).

I used to think that way too, Frazier, but what I was forced to look at post-McCarrick was far worse that ordinary corruption.

Frans

People tend to be rather more surprised and upset when individuals in positions of leadership in churches prove themselves to be corrupt, immoral and self-centered than when individuals in positions of leadership in government do so, but is that really justified? Yes, a church is explicitly conceived to be an organization that is dedicated to morality, selflessnes and service, but really, isn’t the government explicitly conceived to be so as well?
I think the fact that people find the former so much more shocking than the latter is that nowadays churches are seen as a kind of on-the-side thing that should only really attract people uniquely interested in (a particular) religion, while government is seen as a universal thing that everybody can naturally-enough be drawn to. For most of history, however, this distinction did not really exist, and certainly not in medieval through renaissance Europe. When you pick up an impression from reading about this period that people in those days found corrupt, immoral and selfish priests about as normal as they found corrupt, immoral and selfish politicians, this should probably not come across as all that surprising.

How much has democracy helped to improve the quality of political leadership as compared to monarchy or other forms of government? What would it really take to bring us to a situation where the majority of political leaders were worthy of their positions? The answer to the latter question would probably shed a lot of light on how to deal with what’s wrong in many churches as well.