Canon Law Defense

December 12, 1999

PERSONAL ATTENTION

[name withheld], CPA

Office of the General Secretary

National Conference of Catholic Bishops

3211 Fourth Street NE

Washington, DC 20017-1194

Dear [name withheld]:

Thank you for your letter of December 7 in response to my letter of November 28 to Bishop Fiorenza. Before addressing the contents of your letter, I would like to dispel an impression you apparently gained from my prior letter. Neither I nor P.S. Services is interested in marketing “a product or a service” although there was a time when that was true. The guidelines alluded to in my letter and enclosures were furnished the Conference in 1990 and have been available, free, via a download from my Website since March of this year. I am seeking fiscal and moral accountability, not monetary gain. Had you taken the time to visit my Website, you might have recognized that.

Since you raised the Canon Law defense, I took the time to research your statement that Canon Law precludes the Conference’s involvement in the setting of standards for securing the Church’s primary source of revenue: the Sunday collection. At the same time, I felt it appropriate to also research the legitimacy of my involvement. In that regard, Book II, Part I, Title I concerns The Obligations and Rights of All Christ’s Faithful and Canon 212 §3 states as follows:

“They [Christ’s Faithful] have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.” I hope you would agree, [name withheld], that particular section affords me the right, perhaps even the obligation, to address the hierarchy regarding a condition I know has had and continues to have both an economically and morally debilitating effect upon the Church.

Concerning the Conference’s authority to act in this matter, Book II, Part II, Section II, Title II, Chapter IV covers Episcopal Conferences and Canon 455 §1 states as follows:

“The Episcopal Conference can make general decrees only in cases where the universal law has so prescribed, or by special mandate of the Apostolic See, either on its own initiative or at the request of the Conference itself.” As luck would have it, [name withheld], the “universal law” appears to so prescribe. Book V, Title I concerns The Acquisition of Goods and Canon 1265 §2 states: “The Episcopal Conference can draw up rules regarding collections, which must be observed by all, including those who from their foundation are called and are 'mendicants'.” I trust the above citations dispel all questions regarding the Conference’s authority as well as my right (duty) to cause them to act in this matter. Even absent Canon 1265 §2, the Conference would still have the option of requesting such authority from the Apostolic See per Canon 455 §1.

I do not believe any of your misstatements regarding Canon Law’s application to this matter were intentional, [name withheld], but the fact that you were misinformed about what Canon Law does and does not permit should tell you something about the people for whom you work and the lengths to which they will go to avoid addressing the very critical, Church-wide issue of Sunday collection security. You mentioned my former agency, the U. S. Postal Service, as being “plagued by breaches and embezzlements.” As information, the USPS has elaborate systems and procedures in place to both deter and detect employee embezzlements. The proof of that can be seen in the Postal Inspection Service’s criminal statistics for FY 1998 which include 285 arrests as a result of financial investigations, many if not most of which were initiated on the basis of built-in indicators. As you probably know, the Church has no such substantive systems and procedures in place to deter or detect embezzlements.

In the last paragraph of your letter, you stated a great deal of work and effort has been directed toward improving “internal control systems and accounting practices.” I don’t dispute that claim, [name withheld], but how do you explain the fact that, despite all of that work and effort, the Church’s primary source of revenue remains as vulnerable today as it was 25 or even 50 years ago? Given the abundance of financial experts (yourself included) at the Conference and diocesan levels, there’s really only one logical explanation. Despite the relative ease and economy with which a secure system could be established, the very thought of a truly secure Sunday collection system is, for reasons best known to the hierarchy, anathema.

Amazingly, there is some good news in all of this. When I wrote Bishop Fiorenza, I knew only that my cause was logically, fiscally and morally sound. Thanks to your response, however, I now know that I and my cause are in concert with Canon Law. That was not your intention, of course, but after ten years of being made to feel like somewhat of an intruder - certainly a man without portfolio - you can’t imagine how reassuring it is to know that I, one of Christ’s Faithful, am properly engaged in a mission sanctioned by Canon Law and, by inference, the Apostolic See.

Sincerely,

[signed] M. W. Ryan

RESPONSE SUMMARY

No response has been received from the addressee and none is expected. However, because the tenor of his letter (described on the preceding page) conveyed the impression that NCCB President Fiorenza had not even seen the author’s letter of November 28, 1999, a follow-up letter was directed to Bishop Fiorenza at his home diocese in Houston. That letter may be viewed by clicking on the button entitled Bishop Fiorenza 2.