Since the Church’s sexual abuse scandal emerged in 2002, observers and commentators have made it a cliche to say that the next Catholic scandal in the Church will be financial, and that the scope of financial misconduct in the Church will be found eventually widespread and mostly unaddressed.
Readers of The Pillar, who read regularly about financial crime in parishes and dioceses across the U.S. might find themselves arguing that the cliche is wrong: that a financial scandal in the Church is not some future problem, but a present reality — not a potential problem of tomorrow, but a real problem, right now.
But even as attention grows on the incidence of theft in parishes and other Catholic institutions, the issue has received little national discussion among bishops, and little public conversation about whether developing particular law or policy could curtail the issue.
As public awareness grows of financial misconduct in the Church, some might ask eventually whether the bishops should address the matter with the unified resolve of the Dallas Charter, but focused this time on the balance sheet, and the collection plate.
—
The Pillar has reported for several years on the incidence of theft and embezzlement in parishes and other religious institutions. It is worth noting, and often, that researchers have found priests appear no more likely to engage in theft or embezzlement than other professionals in leadership positions, and that only a very tiny minority of priests have engaged in long term, high value thefts of any kind.
But while only a very, very small percentage of clerics and parish employees engage in financial misconduct, there is reason to think that percentage could grow in the years to come.
In some parts of the country, clerical isolation is becoming increasingly acute, as the number of retirements outpaces ordinations, leaving active priests staffing numerous parishes, living alone, often facing exhaustion or mental health challenges.
The same reality has led some researchers to find increased disaffection with ministry among a share of clerics.
And research from the Catholic University of America has shown that distrust among priests for their bishops is a pressing issue in many parts of the United States.
Those factors suggest that clerical theft could be poised to spike.
On the other side of the ledger, diocesan audits have gotten better at detecting illicit financial activity at parishes and other institutions, and the lessons of the clerical sexual abuse crisis have made it more likely that dioceses will report suspicions of crime to police.
But after a priest or parish employee is arrested, it is often the case in recent years that a diocese will endorse a relatively light plea agreement, or even argue for a significantly reduced sentence — often without incarceration — when a cleric or parish employee is convicted of theft or embezzlement.
And dioceses have a mixed record on pursuing canonical penal processes against clerics or other ecclesiastical office holders accused of financial misconduct. Indeed, The Pillar has identified several cases in recent years in which a priest convicted of significant financial misconduct is returned to ministry with no clear canonical sanction at all, often to a position of diocesan or parochial responsibility.
The fact is that while many dioceses have made strides toward auditing and identifying financial misconduct, bishops rarely use the criminal and canonical tools available to them to see perpetrators punished. And that reality diminishes the possibility of deterring clerics or employees tempted toward theft to think again.
Indeed, if a priest is tempted toward financial misconduct under adverse personal or ministry circumstances, there is little reason to think he will consider the possibility of consequences — save perhaps social or moral consequences — as reason to choose otherwise.
On the whole, the situation is that financial misconduct in the Church is likely to increase, while bishops have given mixed messages on how it should be addressed — or whether it will be.
To some degree, the issue of clerical or employee financial misconduct can be addressed by particular law — especially that which aims to ensure prudent financial practices and avoid giving any one person unobserved and unchecked authority and access to ecclesiastical funds, and that which ensures regular reporting and compliance auditing by chancery officials. But good front end policies can only go so far.
When the U.S. bishops gathered in Dallas in 2002, as the sexual abuse scandal emerged, they aimed to change the Church’s culture, and to demonstrate that sexual abuse of minors would not be tolerated. The details of their plan deserved — and still deserve — close scrutiny, as does the execution. But the intention was to create a moral agreement for consistent action and oversight, in order to suitably screen for red flags, squelch environments where abuse could flourish, and agree on a consistent relationship between their own oversight and the work of civic authorities and law enforcement.
Again, the execution of the Dallas Charter deserves close scrutiny, especially with regard to ensuring due process and the protection of rights, and ensuring the oversight of bishops.
But with those lessons learned, it’s worth considering whether the problem of financial misconduct — poised as it is to increase in years to come — would benefit from a moral agreement to consistent practices, and especially an agreement to allow law enforcement investigators and courts to do the kind of work which creates deterrence, and thereby strengthens cultures of accountability.
Most clerics know that parish theft harms the common good of the Church — and that diocesan practices which seem to downplay it diminishes confidence in the Church’s leadership. Most bishops are keen to protect the generosity of Catholics, and the temporal goods of the Church. Dealing with that as a body might strengthen their ability to handle incidences of financial misconduct.
The question is whether they will choose to take up the issue, the debates which might go along with it, and the perceived risk of pointing more directly to the problem, in order to address it.
That remains to be seen.
