Should the bishops be allowed to bring in the police when they feel like it?

[hedgehog]

The on-going pedophilia scandal results in part from an attitude that since these crimes concern clergy, they should be handled "in-house". Consider these circumstances though:

1. There is serious concern that our pastor is cooking the books and withdrawing from the capital fund to conceal a drop in on-going contributions. there are also serious questions about the amount of money being spent renovating the interior of the church and where that money is coming from. The State Attorney General's office was contacted, but we were informed that the state doesn't get involved with the internal finances of the Catholic Church.

2. Recently, several priests have been turned over to secular authorities to be prosecuted for dipping into Church funds for their personal use.

http://www.wpbf.com/news/9963635/detail.html?subid=22100411&qs=1;bp=t


In one of these cases, the defense attorneys admitted that the priest had taken the money, but pointed out that there was no law against it, just internal Church policy.

In the cases hitting the news, the money was spent gambling or visiting resorts. But what if the pastor decides that the rectory needs a giant screen color tv?

So, if pastors are allowed to spend Church funds at will without any review by the laity, does the Church have the right to call the cops when the Bishop decides the pastor has mis-spent the funds?


On edit: the Bishops have set up a system by which they and the pastors are essentially unsupervised and unaccountable when it comes to collecting, investing and spending money. Yet the bishops want the option of sending priests to prison when they feel like it. So Father A gets sent to a less desirable parish while Father B goes to Joliet!

[shrike]

1. Do you have proof, or just suspicions?

Have you contacted the bishop in your diocese? If your State's Attorney General has declined to get involved, you do have one other option: contact the local media. They will probably be eager to work with you because it fits so well into their storyline: the Church is a corrupt institution. (I've been in the media myself for 24 years. There IS a storyline.)

Only you can decide if this step is worth it. It's an extreme step: you will have to have your ducks in a row and be prepared to face the consequences, whatever they may be. The other option is to vote with your feet. Find another parish and let the chips at your old parish fall wherever they may.

FWIW, my agnostic husband can't understand all the recent publicity re: Catholic Church and financial improprieties. He grew up in southern Indiana, a solid protestant area, and it seemed like every week some minister was running off with the church coffers and/or running off with a woman. Yet "this stuff," his words, about a handful of priests dipping into the till, in different streets, is national news.

"I'll never understand you religious people," he says.

On edit: At first blush, the situation sounds like embezzlement, which is a criminal matter. There are other criminal authorities besides the Attorney General.

I also realize I didn't answer your question: no, I don't think the Bishops should bring in the police just when they feel like it. However, my first instinct is to have a look at the situation your church is in: if your pastor is indeed skimming from the till the whole thing could blow up in your faces.

[47of74]

2. Reminded me of the story of Francis Beckman

This just reminded me of an episode in the Dubuque Archdiocese's history. Back in the 30s and 40s Dubuque's Archbishop was Francis Beckman. He had quite the art collection at Columbia (now Loras) College and wanted to expand his collection. In the mid 1930s he got introduced to the idea of using borrowed money to invest in gold mines. So Beckman not only issues promissory notes, but he used the Archdiocese's name on these notes. The whole thing turned out to be a scam, and the guy who came up with it was eventually convicted of five of the seven counts against him. The Archdiocese was left holding the bag when the people holding the notes wanted their money. Beckman's collection was sold, and the estimated cost to the Dubuque Archdiocese was about $600,000.

[shrike]

6. My husband's stories are much more mundane

Usually it involves Minister Sam disappearing in the middle of the night, with or without someone's wife, after cleaning out the church's bank account.

But Beckman just sounds greedy and gullible.

[47of74]

7. I don't know about greedy

But gullible and naive, oh yes.

[shrike]

9. Well, I guess it'd be your definition of greed

Wanting to expand your art collection THAT bad might be considered greedy. But I suppose it's a matter of perspective.

The good father's in good company: lots and LOTS of people have been gulled, not only these days, but in years and centuries past. Some very bright people who never thought they'd be taken have been. Guess it's only human to want to trust.

[Critters2]

13. Most Protestant churches don't allow the pastor access to church funds.

A lay financial secretary handles deposits, a lay treasurer makes disbursements, and the pastor's name is not even on account signature cards. Finances are audited by a third party once a year. I don't of any Protestant church where the pastor has access to church-owned money.

[shrike]

14. re: finances

I wasn't trying to bash protestant pastors, just noting that public scandals have erupted in the distant past. And in fairness, there were, and still are, a lot of very small, start-up non-denominational congregations where my husband grew up. Any small group, religious or otherwise, tends to do things by the seat of the pants. Meaning that the pastor probably had easy access to church funds, at least in days of yore when things were done more informally.

Unfortunately, there are bad apples in every profession. A local Baptist minister, married, eloped a few years ago with a 15-year-old girl. They were located, he was charged with atatutory rape, but eventually made a deal. I felt sorry for the congregation; it obviously wasn't their fault.

I realize that you yourself are a minister; I did not mean to impugn your ministry, however. If it came across as such, I apologize.

[shrike]

10. Just read up on Archbishop Beckman

I take back what I said about him being greedy; the whole thing sounds like a very human mistake. Men of God are men first.

[hedgehog]

3. Here's the background-

Parish A is an old ethnic parish with a shrinking congregation. It is merged with Parish B which is a lively Vatican II parish. Pastor B offers Masses at both churches. Parish A has a large endowment since many of its parishioners donated money in their wills. Parish C is the original parish in town with an old set of buildings with many problems. It has a shrinking congregation. So, in the course of a few years:

The pastor of Parish A-B was working to turn Parish A into a center for Spanish speaking Catholics. He left due to unexplained problems with the Chancery and the pastor of Parish C took over and promptly closed Parish A.

Pastor C then proceeded to fire the staff from PArish A-B and alienate practically everyone who had ever volunteered for the parish. Although Parish A-B was the larger, younger, more active parish with a larger, newer campus and modern buildings, it was closed and merged with Parish C.

A group from Parish A-B has a petition in to the Vatican to protest the closing. In theory this freezes the situation and means that the assets from Parish A-B (including proceeds from the sale of the buildings belonging to Parish A) must be kept separate from Parish C and can not be spent on the buildings of Parish C.

Now, the people of Parish A-B have refused to attend Parish C and have scattered to four neighboring parishes. Church C is at best half full on Sunday mornings. Pastor C renovated the interiors and didn't stint on the cost. No one knows where the money to do this came from. According to the bulletin, donations every Sunday have actually increased, yet the parish is in arrears on diocesan taxes.

So, what would you think?

[shrike]

4. I would think that the money for renovations has to come from somewhere

And that "somewhere" would have to be Parish A-B's assets. Where else could it come from, unless there's a magic piggy bank somewhere. I mean, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck . . .

What you've got here is a duck, IMO. Unfortunately, it's not a duck the civil authorities are going to care about: it sounds like a church matter. I wish I were a lawyer; I could give you a real opinion.


But here's my advice: if you don't want publicity (and I gather you don't), here's what I would do if I were you.

1. See if you can find proof of what this guy's doing. Look for a paper trail. There's got to be one; greedy people always make mistakes, and this guy has to have made a few. Is there anyone working directly for the parish who might help you?

2. Any sympathetic priests you can talk to? Any who might have the ear of the bishop? Dioceses are like any other organizations; there are factions within. Any lay people working for the Bishop who might help you? Any diocesan lawyers? You've got to get people on your side.

3. You could go to the media, but I don't really recommend it. This kind of thing tends to take on a life of its own. And the media will give it the kind of spin you would never imagine: sooner or later, you lose control of the story. It becomes "their," the media's, story, not yours.

4. Even though it looks like a church matter, I'd talk to a lawyer, anyway. I'd talk to more than one. Preferably someone who has experience dealing with the church.

You guys really are between a rock and a hard place. I don't envy you. My only problem is that my formerly liberal, anti-war pastor has fallen under the spell of his new assistant pastor, one of these new, young priests who are the Church's version of Jerry Falwell. Pastor T. has become radicalized by Asst. Pastor M. re the issues of abortion and gay marriage. My wonderful Pastor T., who spoke out against Bush's war long before it became fashionable to do so, now talks of nothing but pro-life issues. And the "marriage is between a man and a woman" thing.

But gee, your situation -- I thought I was the one with church problems. Let us know what happens.

[hedgehog]

5. We're in a wonderful situation. In theory, we have a bishop, but he's

been out of sight for about a year now. The story is that he's recovering from a stroke but the stories are that he has full blown dementia. In effect, the diocese is being run by the guys he appointed about 5 years back. Rome won't touch it - there aren't enough priest left to replace bishops so more and more are being left in place after reaching retirement age. I figure that when this year's bishop's Appeal comes around and the parish hasn't paid off last year's assessment things should get interesting.

BTW - I think there might be one or two other mergers that aren't going so well. A process that was set in place five years ago is coming up against a series of brick walls. For me, the worst part is a that a number of people spent a lot of time going to meetings regarding the merger of Parishes A, B + C, and the word is that the selection of Parish C was set years ago!

[hedgehog]

8. The Catholic paper has a recent picture of the bishop at a public luncheon,

so it's anyone's guess what's going on.

[47of74]

11. Connecticut had a bill presented about parish finances

Needless to say, a lot Catholics were not happy about that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031102464.html?hpid=sec-religion

[AngryOldDem]

12. And the bill has been pulled, last I heard.

The background for it was the case of a pastor who diverted millions to pay for limos, a vacation home for him and his boyfriend, and other perks.

Until the Church proves that it can clean its own house, then it should expect to see more proposed legislation like this. Fraud and theft are still fraud and theft, no matter who or what commits it. Oversight is especially crucial when it comes to money. If the Church isn't willing to allow its laypeople to look at its books at the parish level and higher, then again, it shouldn't expect that refusal to pass without comment.