Msgr. Theroux

March 24, 1996

PERSONAL ATTENTION

Rev. Msgr. Paul D. Theroux

Associate General Secretary

NCCB/USCC

3211 Fourth Street NE

Washington, DC 20017–1194

Dear Monsignor Theroux:

This refers to your letter of January 23 acknowledging my January 1 letter to the Most Reverend Anthony M. Pilla, President of the NCCB/USCC. As you will recall, my letter to Bishop Pilla concerned the Sunday collection and its historical and ongoing Church–wide vulnerability. In your reply on behalf of Bishop Pilla, you made reference to a recently issued manual entitled Diocesan Internal Controls – A Framework, implying that this manual addresses the Sunday collection's long–standing and extreme vulnerability. I apologize for the delay in acknowledging your letter, but I wanted to purchase and study a copy of that manual before responding.

I have reviewed the contents of the referenced manual and regret to inform you that the subject of Sunday collection embezzlements appears to have been deliberately excluded from the otherwise complete list of financial irregularities that were deemed worthy of being addressed comprehensively. This is not to say that the topic was entirely excluded. Rather, the coverage afforded it was so skimpy as to offer diocesan officials and others only meager, ineffectual guidance on how to deter and detect thefts from the Sunday collection. Indeed, some of what little was said could well help to mask and perpetuate presently ongoing thefts! In marked contrast, other elements (Disbursements, Receivables, Payroll, etc.) were covered in considerable (and appropriate) detail.

As the Sunday collection is the Church's greatest source of revenue (let me know, if that is incorrect) and, by its very nature, the most vulnerable to repetitive surreptitious theft, its omission from the list of topics given in–depth treatment in this manual would signal the presence of colossal negligence if its exclusion was not deliberate. Inasmuch as the APC and its CPA advisors are clearly intelligent individuals with superior knowledge in the field of Finance, however, it seems readily apparent the minimal treatment allocated to the topic of Sunday collection embezzlement was based not upon their neglect but rather upon a decision passed down to and/or well known by the Committee. In other words, Monsignor Theroux, for reasons best known to the Catholic Bishops of America, they have once again elected to forego an opportunity (the best ever, to my knowledge) to curtail the ease and incidence of embezzlement from the Sunday collection. Consequently, as useful as it might be in some areas, this manual conclusively confirms the hierarchy's ongoing and thoroughly mystifying default on the most basic and critical fiscal danger of all: Sunday collection embezzlement.

While I cannot conceive of any valid basis for excluding comprehensive treatment of the subject topic, Monsignor Theroux, I would certainly appreciate hearing any explanation Bishop Pilla or the Committee would care to offer. Of course, I'm merely a member of the flock, and am without portfolio insofar as the hierarchy is concerned. It won't surprise me, therefore, if you (or your superiors) decide that a non–response is the safer course. Certainly that was Archbishop Murphy's approach, and I see by the Foreword that he was instrumental in the manual's development. It is, after all, extremely difficult for two parties to carry on an open dialogue, when one party insists on pretending a self–evident major issue does not exist, is of little or no importance or – despite its obvious Church–wide application – is inexplicably beyond that party's Church–wide realm of authority.

In any event, I thank you for the time and effort you have already expended on my behalf, Monsignor Theroux, as well as for whatever additional time and effort you might yet expend toward resolving the mystery underlying the intentional preservation of our Church's greatest fiscal Achilles' heel.

Very truly yours,

[signed] M. W. Ryan

cc: Most Rev. Anthony M. Pilla, President, NCCB/USCC

RESPONSE SUMMARY

As predicted, the Msgr. apparently decided a non-response was the best course of action. A follow-up letter dated August 28, 1996 likewise yielded no response.