« From the comments | Main | Interesting Choice »
January 05, 2007
Embezzlement
For years, folks have been saying that the next big RC scandal would be financial. Today, the NYTimes reported on a study from some Villanova University researchers hinting at the wide scope of the problem:
A survey by researchers at Villanova University has found that 85 percent of Roman Catholic dioceses that responded had discovered embezzlement of church money in the last five years, with 11 percent reporting that more than $500,000 had been stolen.
The Catholic Church has some of the most rigorous financial guidelines of any denomination, specialists in church ethics said, but the survey found that the guidelines were often ignored in parishes. And when no one is looking, the cash that goes into the collection plate does not always get deposited into the church’s bank account.
I would actually question the first sentence of the second paragraph. There are no "Catholic Church" financial guidelines, since it handled on a diocese-by-diocese basis, and honestly, the rest of the article lends no support to that sentence. I really don't know what it means. Yes, on paper, every parish is to have a finance council (it is required by Canon Law, as opposed to say, a Parish Pastoral Council, which is not), but diocesean regs vary widely, and external auditing of parishes is a rarity. The oversight is even worse. We've seen over and over again that while dioceses might have regulations about how collections are to be counted and reported, they have been regularly flouted by determined clerical and lay thieves, with too often concerned people - again, sometimes lay, sometimes other priests - being brushed off by diocesan officials. Not always, obviously, but too often.
Canon law requires each parish to have a finance council to provide oversight. But Bishop Schnurr, who heads the diocese in Duluth, Minn., said there were no standards for how finance council members were chosen or whether they should have any expertise in accounting or finance.
Only 3 percent of the dioceses said they annually conducted an internal audit of their parishes, and 21 percent said they seldom or never audited parishes, the survey found.
This lack of scrutiny is at the core of the problem, said Francis J. Butler, president of Foundations and Donors Interested in Catholic Activities, a nonprofit organization independent of the church.
“You’re taking a lot of risk,” Mr. Butler said, “and these days the church cannot afford to take these kinds of risks.”
Bishop Schnurr said the study’s findings on lack of parish oversight contradicted his experience. But both he and Kenneth W. Korotky, chief financial officer for the bishops’ conference, said a committee could soon consider writing guidelines for the composition of parish finance councils and how often dioceses should audit parishes.
But they cautioned that the bishops’ conference could not make guidelines mandatory, because each bishop was in charge of administering his own diocese.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
I do hope that this does not become another "look how terrible the Catholic Church is" story, but it has that potential. What the NYT story fails to emphasize is that this problem is likely pervasive in all denominations/churches in the U.S. and elsewhere. Unless I'm mistaken, there's nothing intrinsic in Catholicism that makes us more prone to embezzlement.
Posted by: Edmund C. at Jan 5, 2007 10:26:55 AM
"But Bishop Schnurr, who heads the diocese in Duluth, Minn., said there were no standards for how finance council members were chosen or whether they should have any expertise in accounting or finance."
If only every priest had a team of accountant-parishioners at his disposal, the problem would be solved.
It's the fault of the laity. Again.
My mother used to count the weekly collection for a priest who never deposited the loose collection. He later ended up at a large, suburban parish. I happened to see the bulletin from that parish and noticed the loose collection (approx. $1000 weekly) was not being included in the weekly total income. Do the math...that's $52,000 non-taxable income per year.
How about another homily on stewardship and tithing, Padre!
Posted by: midwestmom at Jan 5, 2007 11:03:18 AM
Let's get some perspective. 85% of dioceses reported this -- but they reported difficulties at the parish level. There are 178 dioceses. There are 18,584 parishes. So if each diocese had only one report, less than 1% of parishes had a problem. Some of these were big ticket operations, some were nickel and dime. So, what are we really talking about here? Does this NYT story accurately depict the scope of the problem?
Posted by: Bill Cork at Jan 5, 2007 11:03:46 AM
So if each diocese had only one report, less than 1% of parishes had a problem.
Exactly, let's not blow these things out of proportion. Yes, theft is always bad, but these numbers, when properly viewed, are not bad at all.
"when no one is looking, the cash that goes into the collection plate does not always get deposited into the church’s bank account"
Ah, the old trick of stating something that is most certainly true in order to imply something that is very dubious or outright false. It is no doubt true that collections do not "always" get deposited, that is 100 percent of the time, but the (false) implication from such a statement is that the money often does not get deposited. I'm not going to bother to read the NYT, so maybe they say, maybe they don't, but do they make a more specific claim? Is it 50 percent of the time all the collections do not get deposited? 30 percent? 10 percent? or 0.01 percent?
And without eyewitnesses, how can one prove that it was actual theft and not simply sloppy bookkeeping?
Posted by: Bender at Jan 5, 2007 11:16:57 AM
OK, so I went and read it despite saying I would not . . .
Let's take a closer look at that opening sentence: "A survey by researchers at Villanova University has found that 85 percent of Roman Catholic dioceses that responded had discovered embezzlement . . " Not 85 percent of all diocese, only 85 percent of those that responded to the survey.
And how many responded? Researchers "sent a battery of questions to chief financial officers in the nation’s 174 Catholic dioceses; 78 responded. . . . In 93 percent of those cases, police reports were filed." Only 44.8 percent of dioceses responded, and of that percentage, 85 percent discovered embezzlement, amounting to 38 percent of all dioceses. That is, less than half of the number which is implied from a hasty reading of the opening sentence.
Posted by: Bender at Jan 5, 2007 11:28:30 AM
This article is very interesting and timely for me. Just 2 days ago, the local news and newspaper ran a story about an 75 year old usher in my parish who was arrested during the New Year's Eve mass for palming loose cash during the collection and pocketing the money. The man's name and mug shot were included.
It was first reported to the pastor last February but nothing was done about it until this Christmas when the local police set up a sting to catch him. They used 6 police officers working undercover, pretending to be parishoners at Christmas Eve mass, and 10 hidden cameras in the church. Nothing happened on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day so they decided to come back on New Year's Eve and that's when they caught him. They discreetly arrested him during mass.
Needless to say that everyone was shocked, including the usher. This was a man who had been at the parish for 25 years and was well known by many people. He is in very poor health and on medication. Many people are wondering why the police were called in for this and it was handled in this way when the pastor could have at least confronted him with it, removed him from his duty as an usher and warned him the police would be contacted if it happened again. Instead, he was given no warning, was arrested during mass and has his name and photo splashed across the newspaper.
In today's local paper, there's a big article on how my diocese is paying out 1.2 million dollars to settle sex abuse cases from the 60s and 70s.
So, for years the local Church authorities looked the other way while homosexual priests molested teenage boys and never bothered to call the police to report the abuse but when a 75 year old usher with cancer steals money from the collection basket they do a police sting.
Didn't Jesus say something about the Pharisees straining the gnats but swallowing the camel?
Posted by: lisa at Jan 5, 2007 11:32:29 AM
Priests who abused minors sexually often financed the abuse by stealing from parishes. If annual audits were done (and they are still not being done), most of the abuse could have been detected immediately.
Catholics give to their churches at about half the rate that Protestants do. If parishes were audited and the audits published parishioners might be more willing to open their pocketbooks.
Posted by: Lee Podles at Jan 5, 2007 11:39:00 AM
Bender,
I have to disagree with you here. I am no fan of the NY Times but I do not see anything particulary dishonest or tricky about the wording of this article. The phrase "85% of the dioceses that responded" means exactly what it says it means. Your conclusion, that only 38% of dioceses have discovered embezzlement is actually misleading because you can't assume that the non-responding dioceses had no problems at all.
Posted by: John Sheridan at Jan 5, 2007 11:44:24 AM
Greed/avarice is one of the seven deadly sins so we cannot be surprised that it is wide spread, even in the Church. In the parish that I had to leave, the priest took over the finanes personally. He is presently on his third vacation to Hawaii in the past year. He has also been to California, Arizona, Alaska and the Philippines--and these are just the trips I know of and I am not in the parish!
A new rectory is being built for about $270,000 and a new car is coming as well. Father wrote in the diocesan paper that a priest need to have a good place to come home to at night after 'giving of himself' all day.
(I can feel my blood pressure rising). He takes about 4 months of vacation a year and no one is to call him for confession because he is too busy and morning workout at the gym takes precedence over daily Mass. We do not know where he rests his head most nights but we know it is not at the rectory.
Many have gone to the bishop. NOTHING happens,the priest continues on with impunity.
I had to get out of the parish because I was upset all the time.
I hope there will not be a financial or sexual scandal but I do not discount the possiblity.
Posted by: Ave Maria! at Jan 5, 2007 12:48:55 PM
The phrase "85 percent of the dioceses that responded" means exactly what it says it means.
Sure it does, but is that the impression that most readers will get? Does not the NYT extrapolate from 85 percent of responders to apply to all dioceses? How many have actually had embezzlement? How many of the 96 non-reporting dioceses experienced embezzlement? All of them? None of them? We don't know from this story. All we know is that 38 percent of all dioceses have reported it, that is, 66 of 174 dioceses.
And, as Bill Cork points out, each diocese averages more than 100 parishes, so if the NYT is interested in accuracy, since presumably the embezzlement takes place on a parish-level basis, the story would have focused on the 18,584 parishes.
Posted by: Bender at Jan 5, 2007 12:49:02 PM
Somewhat related to this: the parishes in my area only give a giving report (for tax purposes) to members who use envelopes. In contrast, various evangelical churches have sent me a tax report for the one check that I gsve while visiting. No wonder non-Catholic offering rates are higher!
Furthermore, various protestant congregations i've been a part of in the past generally were very public about their annual financial report. Granted that's no substitute for a real audit; however, it seems to all fit together.
Posted by: Thomas Dunbar at Jan 5, 2007 1:16:00 PM
A poor, inner city parish in my diocese was robbed for years by the hippy trippy pastor who had been beloved for his innovative, inclusive Masses. After the embezzelment became known, folks started saying that he was seen very frequently at the local gambling boat/casino. Why didn't this raise red flags?
He was not punished by the bishop or turned over to the cops. Today he is at a regular parish with no connection to church funds and has no authority in the parish.
But the harm he did is incredible. This was my childhood parish. My parents both left the parish money in their wills. Lots of the old crew showed up for annual fundraising dinners and Mass from time to time. No telling how many of them gave to the church out of nostalgia and a wish to support the parish which anchors the neighborhood in a poverty-striken town. The rectory is the center for the well-run diocesan urban program and the school serves troubled inner-city youth. These two entities were tarred by proximity to the parish malfeasance. And what about the inner-city parishioners whose donations were often very hard-won. What a betrayal.
I know that the diocese' handling of the matter has soured me on giving to the church. And now that the subject is out and about I hear from people who work at the chancery about the unprofessional way money is handled for the diocese. There is no solid financial plan the diocese follows.
In working with United Way on the committee that decides what organizations are included and how much they get, I know that books are gone over minutely, questions are asked about the use of money, and getting the most bang for the buck is the lodestar. Parish priests don't have accounting or management courses in school. This has got to change.
In Illinois when a lawyer becomes a judge there are seminars in Chicago they are expected to attend. This goes on for their entire careers. There is even a national judicial center which specializes in on-going education for judges.
Why can't something like this be done for bishops? Or is there something like that sponsored by the USCCB? The wasting of funds is turning as many people off giving to the church as the sex abuse scandal. I know a number of people who no longer respond to the annual bishop's appeal and give to individual Catholic agencies they think are well-run and doing needed work.
The temptation to dip into the collection basket must be even bigger when the pastor has a family.
Posted by: Julia at Jan 5, 2007 1:16:18 PM
I think both Bender and John are right. The phrase is clear and accurate to a reasonably careful reader. Yet I agree that it is deceptive to the casual "skimmer" -- which are most readers. Whether this "deception" is entirely accidental or deliberately designed to "sex up" the article is impossible for us to know. Given that, I think the fair thing to do is to give the NYT the benefit of the doubt, even though I might synpathize with those who suggest that such a benefit has not been earned.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Jan 5, 2007 1:33:12 PM
Julia makes some great points, once again. My only quibble would be that I doubt courses in stewardship would make much difference. I served for many years on our parish finance council, and I also served for many years on the Atlanta United Way board of directors. As Julia correctly notes, UWay volunteers and staff do indeed scour budgets and organizational effectiveness in order to ensure against malfeasance and to invest assets wisely. This requires a certain amount of forensic accounting skills as well as some training in logic models to evaluate outcomes and effectiveness. But parishes really involve much simpler budgets and simpler issues. Not simpler in the sense that the financial challenges are less acute or important, just in the sense that they are far more understandable -- more like a family budget than a business budget. The horrible theft problems described in the article would diminish greatly if (i) dioceses established and enforced sound accounting and control practices (which is done in Atlanta) and (ii) pastors would appoint competant folks to the finance council. By competent, an accountant, an attorney, a small businessman, and a couple frugal housewives who manage family budgets would do marvelously.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Jan 5, 2007 1:46:23 PM
Our diocese makes a big deal out of its "audits" which are really only procedural reviews and which accept as gospel the word of the pastors and bookkeepers as to procedural compliance. It much more sinister than negligent.
Posted by: Jim at Jan 5, 2007 1:55:14 PM
This does not surprise me one bit. It's the same thing we saw with the sex abuse scandal; the priests are not accountable to their parishioners, and the bishops don't care what the priests do, or who gets hurt.
Posted by: Anne at Jan 5, 2007 2:19:59 PM
What about professional, outside audits with direct reports to parishioners?
Posted by: marie at Jan 5, 2007 2:27:25 PM
The USCCB Stewardship Committee will address this as soon as it solves the problems of glabal warming and so-called "Catholics" driving SUVs. Priorities, people!
Posted by: Boko at Jan 5, 2007 3:48:56 PM
This is why my parents always made purchases for the parish instead of donations.
My father was a CPA who worked for the IRS. He didn't trust anyone with that much loose cash laying around. To quote my father "The pastor drives a nicer car than me - I don't trust him."
Turns out my father was right - after that pastor retired our collections went up 10%.
Of course no audits of previous years under the old pastor were done. We wouldn't want to do that... after all he is moved to N. Carolina to his house on a golf course. Let sleeping dogs lie.
Posted by: mary martha at Jan 5, 2007 4:49:31 PM
As in the sexual abuse scandal so also in the financial abuse scandal I am hearing the complaint that we are not being judged fairly because surely other churches and entities are doing it too and they are not attracting as much condemnation as we are. Yet we are the ones who claim to have the "fullness of truth"; I know we are all sinners (too often used as an excuse), but to be credible a Church which proclaims to have the fullness of truth has to exhibit on a day to day basis in an all around manner the superior behavior of its members. If having the fullness of truth does not make better people, what good is it?
It would be interesting to know who the people are who actually do the stealing. A sick elderly man was mentioned above. Is it possible that some, many, most of the thieves are a poor and a marginalized element which does not fit the standard poor and marginalized model we always hear about?
Posted by: Caroline at Jan 5, 2007 5:19:00 PM
I think praying for the thieves would do wonders, literally. When I was still a Catholic grade-schooler, there was a great fuss in our church because our parish had received a very large (and anonymous) money order in the mail. With it was a letter which confessed that the sender was a former usher who had pocketed money from time to time years before. The repayment was "with interest" and evidentally it was quite large. Father made sure that us schoolchildren knew about it and asked us to pray for the man. I consider him very blessed that he heeded his conscience at last instead of waiting for judgment.
Posted by: MissJean at Jan 5, 2007 6:01:53 PM
When a respectable member of my parish tried to get a look at the parish accounts, the books were literally slammed shut on him, and he was told by our Deacon/business manager that the Parish finances were not the laity's business!
Posted by: SouthCoast at Jan 5, 2007 9:14:30 PM
Follow the Money! Don't ever give to anything unless you know how the money is spent. The collection plates should be filled with checks or automatic payment slips not cash. Cash is old school and too easy to steal. I don't know how bad the problem of embezzlement is in our Diocese but I know there have been a few cases of long time employees of parishes or the Diocese that were caught after a "routine audit". Just like with the priest sex scandals, laity need to "trust but verify". Hopefully, the scandals have made all Catholics more aware of the need to know what is going on within the Church.
Posted by: Gen X Revert at Jan 5, 2007 11:12:10 PM
