Archbishop Murphy

November 30, 1992

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

Archbishop Thomas J. Murphy

Chairman, Committee on Stewardship

National Conference of Catholic Bishops

3211 Fourth Street, NE

Washington, DC 20017-1194

Dear Archbishop Murphy:

Congratulations on your selection to serve as Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Stewardship. Based upon recent news accounts, the Church's fiscal condition is clearly a major area of concern. The existence of a pastoral letter notwithstanding, I would like to suggest that you give particular attention to a facet of fiscal soundness which, to my knowledge, has yet to be seriously addressed by the hierarchy of today's Church.

The area I am referring to is Security. More specifically, I mean security over the Church's single most important source of revenue: the Sunday collection. Believe it or not, this nearly 2000 year old mode of Church support is no safer today than it was when JOHN (12.6) named Judas as the Church's first embezzler. Indeed, it's even more vulnerable today, in that several persons have lone, unobserved and undetectable access to the collection funds or a portion thereof in virtually every parish.

In a relevant aside, Archbishop Murphy, I'd like to explore the term "Stewardship". My 1959 Webster's Unabridged defines a steward as: "1. a man intrusted with the management of the house-hold or estate of another; one employed to manage the domestic affairs, superintend the servants, collect the rents or income, keep the accounts, etc. 2. one who acts as a supervisor or administrator, as of finances or property, for another or others." Assuming those definitions have not been totally eclipsed by a later, more authoritative edition, it seems to me the Committee on Stewardship should, at least, give equal attention to the hierarchy's performance vis a vis its obligation to "collect the ... income" and be a responsible "administrator ... of finances." I respectfully postulate that the hierarchy has not acted in a responsible manner in the past and is not presently so acting.

I'm sure you're personally aware of past incidents of theft from collection funds in your own Archdiocese. As an outsider, I am nevertheless aware of several such cases covered in east coast newspapers; imagine how many more there must be that were never made public! You may find it distasteful, but I'm enclosing a news transcript regarding the pastor of an east coast parish; it clearly illustrates not only what can and does happen in the absence of a secure Sunday Collection system but also just how ill-equipped the hierarchy is to even recognize a blatant theft situation, let alone confront and resolve such a problem.

It's really quite simple, Archbishop Murphy. If the Church hasn't implemented any systems or procedures for providing even a minimally acceptable level of security for the Sunday collection (It hasn't!), the only thefts that will ever surface are those that are discovered by accident or chance. And of that number, only a fraction make the newspapers. Let's face it, how many parishioners would feel good about continuing their support, if they learned their $50 to $100 monthly offering was only going to make up for the $100 to $500 some trusted employee or volunteer was stealing every week! Pastors are well aware of this and are extremely sensitive to its ramifications.

I'm not a statistician, but I believe the so-called Law of Averages and the theory of statistical probability would support a figure of 5% to 10% as an estimate of the number of parishes being affected by ongoing embezzlements at any given time. Just think what that might convert to on an annual basis. To say we're talking millions of dollars would not be an exaggeration! It seems to me, Archbishop Murphy, the hierarchy ought to focus its collective attention on the elimination of that "shrinkage" problem before it dares to ask the Faithful to give even more.

In a recent letter to Cardinal Law - this is not my maiden voyage into Church affairs - I advised him a Sunday collection system can only be deemed secure if pertinent security procedures and equipment are applied so that no one - not even the pastor - has lone, unobserved and undetectable access to those funds. Further, that mantle of protection must begin immediately after the collection is taken up (when it's consolidated at the rear of the church) and must remain absolutely unbroken until all funds have been properly deposited in the parish bank account.

At the risk of being irreverent, I also told Cardinal Law I believe the hierarchy doesn't want to terminate pastors' access to undeposited collection funds. But in keeping those funds accessible to pastors, they are also exposing them to others, some of whom have zero qualms about making covert deductions. It's a distasteful subject, to be sure, but then so is abortion and pedophilia; none of these evils will disappear by themselves. Significant positive action is clearly required!

If you and your committee decide to acknowledge and confront this formidable and ongoing drain on Church revenue, Archbishop Murphy, I would be pleased to furnish you a copy of my handbook, "Protecting the Purse". It contains the rationale and detailed guidelines for moving the Sunday collection out of the "at risk" category and protecting it all the way to the bank. No matter what, you have my best wishes for success in this critical task!

Most Sincerely,

[signed] M. W. Ryan

RESPONSE SUMMARY

Archbishop Murphy acknowledged receipt of the letter and stated he would bring the author's concern to the attention of his committee "to seek their wisdom and insight regarding this matter."

A follow-up letter to Archbishop Murphy in December, 1992 yielded a reply in which he concluded "the security of the Sunday collection is an issue which goes beyond the responsibility of our Ad Hoc Committee." He added that he felt it "would be of interest to Diocesan Fiscal Officers" and, finally, concluded that "any decision made in this regard is made at the diocesan level."

In spite of the nationwide makeup of the NCCB membership and the nationwide application of Sunday collections, that incongruous declaration (that it's a local problem) was to be repeated by all subsequent NCCB officers contacted.