Catholics For Justice

 .

(The following remarks are taken directly from a study called Internal Financial Controls in the U.S. Catholic Church by Robert West, PhD. of the Accountancy Department of Villanova University, and Charles Zech of The Center for the Study Management at Villanova.) 

Canon Law 1284

The primary document governing the Catholic Church is the revised Code of Canon Law, which became effective in 1981. Canon Law contains a number of provisions directed at good management and financial affairs. Canon 1284, for example, while it requires that church administrators (Pastors) carry out their responsibilities with the prudence of a “good householder,” it also clearly states, “As a hierarchical church the buck stops with the bishop who can delegate authority but not responsibility. Hence it is imperative that the bishop take responsibility for ensuring that an effective system of internal controls is in place.”

Canon Law 537

“In each parish there is to be a finance committee to help the parish priest in the administration of the goods of the parish. It is ruled or governed by the universal law and the norms formulated by the diocesan bishop.” The Financial Council generally has a two-fold responsibility:

1. To assist the Pastor, Parish Council and parish as primary consultants in financial matters.
2. To assist the pastor and parish council in making decisions and policies for the parish, including parish budgets, annual reports, financial planning, fund raising and development.

The authors conclude that Church law grants the diocesan bishop ultimate responsibility for managing his diocese.

In addition to Canon Law, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has recommended guidelines for diocesan financial management. Unlike canon law the bishops may abide by them or reject them entirely.

In 2002 the USCCB issued a 213 page handbook that covered a variety of materials, including those of both civil and canon law, and specifies the role of the Diocesan Finance Commission and the effective use of internal controls. Implementation of these controls again is the sole responsibility of the local bishop.

The authors of this report point out the fact that if the church had been more open in its finance, the expenses associated with sexual clergy abuse, and hence the nature and magnitude of the problem, would have been uncovered sooner than it was. This might have caused church leaders to take action sooner and prevent some of this abusive behavior, especially that by repeat offenders. I feel that is equally true in the embezzlement case at Saint Dunstan.

If Father Demmer, who was Pastor for two decades and regularly sent financial reports, didn’t follow all the rules and regulations provided by the Archdiocese, the bishop certainly should have been aware. That is the bishop’s responsibility. If he had taken action earlier perhaps the extent of the embezzlement would have been limited.

If Father Demmer violated church procedure in this matter, this is not a criminal matter. It is the responsibility of the regional bishop.

If the archdiocese wants to place blame on the pastor (rather than the real embezzler) then I think they also need to point a finger of blame at the local bishop for his lack of oversight. Ultimately the regional bishop is responsible for financial matters of parishes under his jurisdiction.

Edmund V. Starrett  Ed.D.