Pope and Change

Not many people had the runner-up of the 2005 conclave, Cardinal Jose Mario Bggoglio, archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina, on their short list of papabile, the candidates most likely to be selected pope. Yet, when the 76-year-old stepped onto the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica to greet the 200,000 people who had gathered in the square below, it was clear that change was in the air.

Gone was the sartorial splendor of previous popes, with Bergoglio wearing just a white cassock, though still composed of watered silk. His pectoral cross was a simple design of wood, not the traditional gold. He only donned the heavily embroidered stole when it was time to offer his first blessing, then removed it shortly thereafter. But before he blessed the people, he asked for their blessing first, bowing his head in prayerful humility. He spoke in excellent Italian, off-the-cuff, colloquially, closing with a  wish for “a good evening and a good sleep.”

I've already written about the importance of the selection of the name Francis, in honor of the man called to “rebuild the Church, which is in ruins.” Bergoglio is a Jesuit from the New World,, a Spanish-speaking priest of Italian descent fluent in six languages. While most of the changes we have seen reflect a difference in style, notably from his immediate predecessor, Benedict XVI, they may portend upcoming changes in substance, to a point.

One thing I noticed on that balcony on Wednesday evening, Rome time, was a change in attitude toward the papal master of ceremonies, Msgr. Guido Marini, who favored lace and ancient vestments and liturgies in Latin, and in whom he found a kindred spirit in Benedict. Expect him to be replaced soon. That will send a message to those trying to get the Church to return to the days of priest with his back to the people, a maniple on their left arm, and the people sitting quietly in the pews fingering rosaries and having minimal participation in the liturgy.

Expect changes in Church governance, in the Roman Curia, the Cabinet-like departments that impact the day-to-day and long-term operations of the Church. Francis made a strong statement against Curial careerism shortly before the conclave began. It had the effect of being his pre-election speech, as most commentators have said the cardinals were looking for someone to come in to clean house.

If Francis wants to make a bold statement about women in the Church, he would do well to replace to place women in visible leadership positions in the Curia. Look for a change in the Secretary of State, the Vatican's prime minister, since there is no love lost for the current office holder, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, a Salesian and former archbishop of Bologna. He exposed Benedict to many missteps, especially early in his papacy, and protected the careerists in the Curia. The post will probably stay with an Italian, but perhaps go to someone from the south.

Look for Francis to lay down the law on the priesthood, which has been scandalized by sexual and financial scandals. Seminaries need to produce priests who have a greater calling to assist with social issues, have a preferential option for the poor, and see themselves as servants, not just enforcers of doctrine and who enjoy the power that comes from telling people how to live their lives. I've seen and heard of too many examples of priests ordained in the past two decades and seminarians currently in training who do not exhibit Christ-like qualities and can often be heavy-handed, intolerant and condescending to the laity; who enjoy being too close to money and power; who yearn for a return to the 1940s liturgies at the expense of all other celebrations; who force out good, devout, practicing Catholics who are gay, divorced, or poor and in need of social services or government assistance.

Clericalism, at its worst, empowered priests and the hierarchy to handle the scandals of recent years as they did, protecting the institution while hurting the people who truly make up the Church. If Francis wants to at least attempt to stanch the flow of people from emptying churches, he will redirect the priesthood from fraternity to collegiality that welcomes dialogue, participation, and even veto power over administrative matters by the laity.

Transparency does not exist in many Church operations, but from the local parish to the Vatican, the Church would do well to pay heed to the admonition of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis that “sunlight is the best disinfectant.” If changes are not made, expect even further reductions in donations from the faithful. Also expect condemnation from international banking regulators who have already put the Holy See on notice that it is close to being blacklisted for failure to ensure it is not involved in money laundering and funding terrorists. One way the Vatican was hit financially because of its lack of transparency: the Vatican Museums, a major source of income for the city-state, could not accept credit card transactions for six weeks.

While I would hope for changes in acceptance of LGBT individuals and families, I do not expect any change in that direction, especially judging by Bergoglio's strongly anti-gay comments in the battle for marriage equality in Argentina, a battle he lost. A strong president, Christina Fernandez de Kirchner, stood up to Bergoglio in this human rights debate, and the overwhelmingly Catholic country became the tenth nation to approve marriage and rights to adoption by same-sex couples. Yet, some media reports hint that Francis may, based on past statements, soften his tone on some form of relationship recognition for same-sex couples.  After all, he has now seen that going on three-years after marriage equality became the law of the land in Argentina, the country has not fallen apart, nor has equality threatened the stability of opposite-sex marriages. While any step in this direction would be appreciated, I do not hold out much hope. I would enjoy being proven wrong.

Pope John XXIII had a brief pontificate but changed the direction of the Catholic Church by calling the Second Vatican Council. Pope John Paul I sent signals of dramatic reform until he died just 33 days after being elected pope. However long Francis sits on the Chair of Peter, he has the opportunity to steer the Church in a new direction. He needs the strength of character and the force of personality and example.  He needs to put reform-minded people, not just men and not just clerics, in true positions of power to enforce change. And I hope he looks at the world of 2013 and realizes that changes in families lead to a softening of tone and greater acceptance of all God's children in any situation or stage of life.

One last thing...Giving credit where credit is due, I must thank Bryan Terry for giving me the title to this post. It's from a tweet he wrote on March 13, the date Francis was elected.

Handicapping the Papal Election

On Tuesday, 115 cardinals out of 117 eligible to vote for his successor will meet in the Sistine Chapel conclave to select a successor to Pope Benedict XVI. From among their number, one will be named the 266^th pontiff, whom Catholics believe to be the successor of Saint Peter.

One cannot enter the mind of Benedict to determine whether he wanted to be pope. Only the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger knows the answer to such speculation. What is known is that he did not refuse his election. Benedict said he wanted to “re-Christianize Europe.”  If anything, his papacy, just shy of eight years, accomplished the opposite, driving people from the pews through mismanagement of sexual and financial scandals, showing more concern for the Church as Institution rather than the Church as People.

For more than a week, cardinals have been sizing each other up to consider whom they view as “papabile,” or “popeable.” Since Benedict and his successor, Pope John Paul II, appointed all of the cardinal electors, it’s likely that the next pope will be from the same theological vein as the man who appointed him. Do not expect any dramatic change on the hot button topics of women or married priests, a welcoming of gay and lesbian lay participation in the Church, more financial transparency (though individual parishes have been exemplary in this regard), birth control, or changes in the Vatican bureaucracy that protects careerist clerics and stifles reform.

One thing about the Vatican, public opinion holds little sway over the Church – its theology, its archaic system of governance, its image. The belief is the Church has weathered many storms over the years and in time, the public will forget about the latest scandals.  Few Church leaders are prosecuted for crimes. With the exception of Ireland, which took the Vatican to task for the way it handled decades of various scandals, most politicians fear speaking against the Church because of what a potential backlash from the Catholic electorate.

However, Catholic parishioners are voting with their feet and their wallets and pocketbooks. They are leaving the Church in droves or cutting off their financial support. The areas where the Church is growing most around the world are also areas where large populations do not have access to higher levels of education. Those nations are the Church’s future, while Europe, the United States and Canada are its past.

Some on the theological far right are calling for a smaller and purer Church. They may get their wish on the smaller aspect, but if the actions of its highest rankling prelates are any indication, the Church as institution will be far from purer.

Whoever the cardinals choose, the new pope’s background will be scrutinized for any participation, in word and deed or through commission or omission, in any of the scandals that have impacted the Church over the past two decades. He will also face a more skeptical media, more so in Italy than in the United States, where many reporters still remain deferential, if not reverential to Catholic hierarchy. Watch this week’s conclave coverage for examples.

Will it be an American? Doubtful, though New York’s Timothy Dolan and Boston’s Sean O’Malley have been hyped by the media. Will it be a Canadian, like Marc Ouellete, who heads the Vatican Congregation that selects bishops and who has ties to Latin America? Will it be an African like Nigeria’s Francis Arize or Ghana’s Peter Turkson? Some of their political statements, especially on homosexuality, are troubling and will turn off Western Catholics, particularly younger parishioners who have no issue with LGBT rights, including the right to marry. Will it be the Argentine Leonardo Sandri? He combines being an insider and diplomat with being from Latin America, where the Church, while growing, is facing stiff competition from Mormonism and Evangelical sects. Will an Italian, such as Milan’s Angelo Scola, reclaim the chair of Peter? Scola, formerly patriarch of Venice, is not considered a dynamic speaker, and the thought is the cardinals are looking for a showman like John Paul rather than a theologian-professor like Benedict.

There could be a post-election surprise. One of Scola’s predecessors in Venice, Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, was elected pope in 1958 at age 77.  He was considered to be a caretaker after the 19-year reign of the imperious Pius XII.  Yet, as Pope John XXIII, he changed the direction of the Church through the Second Vatican Council, redefining the role of the Church in the modern world, giving greater voice to the laity, absolving Jews for the death of Jesus, and opening dialogue among various faiths. Serving only 4 1/2 years, the Council’s work continued until Pope Paul VI. John Paul and Benedict, particularly the latter, tried to roll back the work of that Council, euphemistically calling the revisions “reforms.”

We may know who is chosen pope in the coming week, but as more Catholics choose their own direction in their faith journey, whoever succeeds Benedict will have less impact on the lives of 1.2 billion followers. Papal elections still make for good theater and news coverage.

One last thing…thank you to various members of the media who have allowed me to “pontificate” on my own, offering me a forum to discuss my view of Benedict’s decision to abdicate, the process leading to the election of his successor, and the state of the Church today: Mike Moss ofWTOP, the all-news CBS affiliate in Washington, DC; Michelangelo Signorile, ofSirius-XM OutQ; David Badash of The New Civil Rights Movement; and all at the Poughkeepsie Journal, notably Local Editor John Nelson.

It Is in Giving that We Receive

I haven’t been the most faithful blogger lately, but recent interactions with two well-known people have caused me to reflect on a topic near and dear to me: volunteerism. As we look back on one year and prepare to start another, such reflection is natural, a form of examination of conscience. In this post, I’d like to discuss how doing good for others can also be good for you; how altruistic service can benefit your career, though I hope the former is your true motivator.

On December 2, I had a great conversation with C.J.Wilson, a pitcher for the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. We met at the Winter Wish Gala fundraiser for The Partnership at Drugfree.org, a nonprofit organization with which my employer, Watson Pharmaceuticals, partners.  C.J. presented the Major League Baseball Commissioner’s Play Healthy Award to a student athlete and a youth coach who are committed to fair, clean competition and a healthy lifestyle. C.J. is also a supporter of The Partnership, which is apropos because he lives a “straight edge” life – eschewing alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drugs – and is a proponent of healthy, sportsmanlike play.

In the course of our conversation, C.J. asked me about the role of a corporate board of directors, and while the technical answer involves a fiduciary duty to shareholders, it is more than that.  A board helps discern a company’s vision, sets compensation for executive management and policy for the organization, and lends its expertise to the proper operation of the corporation.  I told him it’s the same as serving on the board of a volunteer organization. I told C.J., who is also a business owner and race car driver, that whether it’s a local youth group or a college’s board of trustees, serving as a director on a nonprofit board is a good way to lend his expertise in ways mentioned above.  It’s also an opportunity to network with other corporate professionals who, once they learn of his ability as a strategic thinker skilled in more than pitching, may very well invite him to join their boards.  C.J. is no stranger to philanthropy, starting his own nonprofit foundation to help children and teens who have medical, financial or social challenges. He is a role model – not just for youth, but for all of us, especially to those to whom much is given (and much is expected).

Over the past few days, I learned of the work of meteorologist and reporter David Brown, who is leaving his dual positions at WCVB, the ABC affiliate in Boston, to become Chief Advancement Officer for the Forsyth Institute in Cambridge, MA.  They are a leading independent oral health research institution, which started as a provider of free dental care for children in Boston. David’s résumé shows a true commitment to helping others through significant involvement in a variety of volunteer positions. I’m sure that in those roles he contributed his own talents and learned about nonprofit operations, especially the all-important role of fundraising.  As Chief Advancement Officer, David will be responsible for generating donations needed to keep the Forsyth Institute in operation.  David is an example of good things happening to good people.  His dedicated service helped prepare him for this new stage of his career.

I could say the same thing about myself.  Over the years, I’ve served on the boards of more than 50 nonprofit organizations.  I did so because I believed in their causes and have a sense of duty to give back to the community in which I live and work.  Jobs that I’ve had over the years, particularly my current position as director of corporate giving at Watson, resulted from contacts or experiences resulting from my community service work.

Whether just starting a career, in the twilight of it, or retired, we all have perspectives, expertise and life experiences that can and should be put to work on behalf of others. All it takes is as little as an hour or two a month to make a difference.  Over the course of nearly two decades, I’ve known hundreds of college students who have talents in communication, construction, finance and fundraising, health and wellness, human resources, law, real estate, teaching, technology, and many other fields.  So many organizations need their – and your – time, talent, and yes, your treasure.  You may not be able to donate all three, particularly if you’re saddled with college debt, but perhaps you will consider the first two to start.  

What’s your passion?  Is there a disease that impacted your family or friends?  Is there a cause in which you are interested, anything from animal welfare to literacy to human rights?  There are organizations out there begging for your involvement.  Contact one and offer your services.  You will be welcomed with open arms.  You may even get more out of it than you put into it, developing your people skills, learning about operations in areas outside your field of expertise, and meeting people who could become mentors, advocates, references, employers or friends.  

One last thing…In my previous post I said I would write about employment benefits, but work and life got in the way.  My thoughts on those will eventually make their way here.  However, as we enter the New Year, and harking back to that examination of conscience I mentioned earlier, I want to provide links to two columns that appeared last week in the New York Times.  The first reflects on philanthropy by the top one percent, or more accurately, the top one-tenth of one percent, and is written by Nicholas Kristof.  The second is by Frank Bruni and causes us to think about what is really important in life.  It’s a valuable lesson on which to reflect each day of our lives. Have a happy, healthy, peaceful and prosperous New Year!

Yay! You're Hired. Now Let's Talk About Retirement.

Congratulations! You’ve got a job offer. Before you accept, start thinking about retirement.

If you’re a 22-year-old with more than 40 years of your career ahead of you, retirement may be the last thing on your mind.  However, by taking advantage of the benefits your new employer may offer, a small investment today will pay big dividends when you’re 60+.

In the past month or so, I’ve had the money discussion with my kids and with other former students who have been out of school and in the workforce for anywhere from one month to five years.  The most important point I stress is to think long-term.  Delayed gratification is a foreign term to many 20-somethings.  They want to go out several nights a week, have a new car, go on vacations to the Caribbean or Europe, have an incredible apartment, and start paying off those college loans – all on a first job starting salary of $27,000.  While some may have the family means to be subsidized by parents to do all of the above, many more find out that living at home for awhile or rooming with friends in a less-than-desirable neighborhood is more realistic.

A first-time, post-college employee is usually interested in two things in a job offer:  salary and vacation days.  There is much more to consider before you accept an offer.  What health benefits (medical, dental, vision) are offered, how much do you contribute toward them, and how long do you have to wait before they start?  Is there a flex-spending account? (More on that in a future post.)  What about insurance coverage, tuition reimbursement, stock offerings, and affinity programs offering reduced prices on company products or other pricing discounts?  Then, there is the long-term item: is there a 401(k) or 403(b) and if so, is there a company match?

For too many people, Social Security is their only retirement plan.  Who knows what that program will look like five years from now, much less 50 years from now?  The days of private companies offering pensions are pretty much over.  It’s an expensive proposition for them, and of course, for the private sector, it’s all about the bottom line.  I only worked one job that offered both a pension and a 401(k), and I left that position almost 20 years ago.  Still, it’s nice to know that my five years and eight months there still qualified me to receive just over $300 a month for however many years I have in retirement.  Public employees on the municipal, county, state and federal levels still have pension plans, at least for the time being, though nearly all are now contributory, meaning you put in a little to help fund your own retirement.

That’s really what 401(k) and 403(b) plans are.  You contribute a portion of your salary either pre-tax or after-tax, and often the company matches a portion of that amount.  It’s more important for a 22-year-old to contribute even a small amount than it is for someone my age putting away the maximum allowed each year.  Why?  It’s all about compounding.

One of my former students, Andrew, remains a close friend.  We chatted the other day about finances and, as I knew he would, he has made some very wise decisions. Andrew is 23 and works for a major employer in Connecticut.  He participates in his company’s 401(k) and plans his expenses accordingly.  Because the deduction is taken out even before he gets his direct deposit, he doesn’t miss it.  His company offers a 401(k), match up to 6 percent of his contribution to the plan.  That’s “free money.”  Hopefully your employer also has some form of match.  It means your employer is giving you money toward your retirement.  The longer you are employed and do not participate in the 401(k) plan, the more “free money” you lose.  Some companies have a “vesting period,” meaning you need to work a certain amount of time (normally one to two years, but sometimes longer) before you actually own the company match.  Leave after six months and you don’t get the match.  Andrew is setting himself up now for a more comfortable and secure retirement.  That’s smart and pretty forward-thinking for a 23-year-old.

To illustrate the power of compounding, I will use an example provided by my employer.  Jennifer and Brian are the same age.  Suppose Jennifer started saving $2,000 a year (that’s just $38.46 per biweekly paycheck) from age 25 to 35, and then stopped saving. Her friend Brian started saving $2,000 a year at age 35, and continued until he was 65.  If both accounts earn 8 percent annually, at age 65, Jennifer will have $335,000 in her account, but she will have contributed only $22,000.  Brian, who started saving at age 35 and contributed $62,000, will only have $247,000.  Both cases do not include a corporate match but do include the reinvestment of dividends and capital gains and no current taxes paid on earnings in a retirement account.  The lesson is simple.  The longer you invest, the more you can earn trough compounding.

A 401k or 403(b) – in general, they are pretty much the same – is not the same thing as having a pension.  First, you, not your company, make your own investment decisions.  There is no guarantee of gains and, in fact, you may lose some of your principal (the amount you invest, plus your corporate match, not just any dividends you earned) sometime during the course of your career.  During the Great Recession that began in 2008, at worst I lost about 30 percent of my portfolio and for a brief time, those losses ate away at my principal – the amount I contributed.  With the gains in the stock market recently, my accounts have bounced back.  Fortunately, I have no plans to retire anytime soon and kept contributing to my 401(k), picking up some bargains thanks to lower stock prices.  Your tolerance of risk and the amount of time you have to invest will determine the type of investment you make.

I’m not a financial advisor and I won’t get into all the various possible investment scenarios to consider.  But, with a traditional 401(k) or 403(b), you invest with pre-tax income, which reduces your gross pay, meaning you pay less income now, with the thought that you may be in a lower tax bracket after you retire.  You will pay tax on the amount you withdraw and there are penalties for early withdrawals (before age 59½) except for some specific circumstances.  In a Roth 401(k), your salary deferrals are made on an after-tax basis and your earnings grow tax-free.  You will not have to pay taxes on the money when it’s withdrawn, provided you’ve held the account for at least five years and you have reached age 59½ or have become permanently disabled.

The average 401(k) balance in the United States is less than $75,000.  That’s not enough on which to retire.  Most financial advisors tell you to spend no more than 5 percent of your retirement fund balance each year.  Five percent of $75,000 is just $3,750 a year, or a little over $300 a month (like the pension I mentioned above). The average monthly Social Security payment is just under $15,000 a year, or about $1,200 a month.  Today, would you be able to get by on just $18,500 a year?  If you plan to live with your children and stay healthy – perhaps.  Don’t plan on it.

One less night out a week, invested over the course of at least 40 years, can help ensure you don’t have to work until the day you die.  What I cited in this post is for illustrative purposes only.  Talk to your HR reps, your parents, a financial advisor, and become a student of finance and the markets.  The payback will make it worth your while.  There are many retirement calculators online.  Try this one from CNN, and don't be shocked by the amount of money you need to put away to retire in a manner in which you will be comfortable.

One last thing…I will try my best to write more frequently and will follow up with a piece on other job benefits soon.