|
April 24, 2002
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL Most Reverend Wilton D. Gregory, S.L.D. USCCB President and Bishop of Belleville
Dear Bishop Gregory:
This refers to my letters of November 23, 2001 and January 14, 2002 concerning the U. S. Conference’s ongoing refusal to provide an adequate level of protection for the Church’s primary source of revenue, the Sunday collection. While you have yet to respond to my January 14 letter, I assume it is because your attention has been focused on the only matter that eclipses the Sunday collection issue in terms of its overall importance: the predator-priest scandal. However, as it is possible that letter went astray, I am attaching a copy as information.
While this may seem like piling on, I believe it is both appropriate and timely to elucidate some parallels between the predator-priest scandal and the Conference’s refusal (falsely attributed to overriding local autonomy) to implement uniform procedures which will ensure that each and every dollar that is placed in the collection basket is, in fact, deposited in the parish bank account.
First, there is the decades-old tendency of the hierarchy to place image ahead of substance. Cases of reported sexual abuse were addressed with confidential financial settlements, ineffective treatments and convenient transfers by responsible bishops, archbishops and cardinals whose main objective was to avoid negative publicity. The same can be said for Sunday collection thefts, especially when the thief is a member of the clergy. One of the best and most recent examples is that of Rev. Walter Benz who is credited with stealing well over $1 million dollars over the course of his 26-year career. And what did he do with that money? He financed a lavish lifestyle for himself and his secretary with whom he had lived for a number of years. Think about the cause and effect aspect of that scandal; if he (and his secretary) had not had such easy access to Sunday collection funds, would he have gone off the proverbial deep end as he clearly did?
Benz’s case is not an anomaly. Other examples include the cases of David Dean Piroli, Philip A. Magaldi, Patrick O’Shea, Jorge Hume, Robert Allaire, Eugene F. Hotchkiss, Leonard Burckhard, William Ryan, Martin Greenlaw and Michael Larkin, all of whom once held the title “Reverend”. All of these cases (and many more secreted in diocesan files) were labeled isolated occurrences because no one in the hierarchy wanted to admit there is an inherent weakness in the way the Church handles its principal source of revenue. Why is the hierarchy so loath to openly recognize that fact? Because once they admit it, they become obligated to implement corrective measures, and that’s the last thing they want to do. They know many priests are supplementing their admittedly meager incomes from undocumented collection funds and, rather than address that issue, the Conference members merely turn a blind eye to the illegal and immoral alternative.
And that brings me to the next item: the sin of theft (not to mention the sins that follow it) and who is ultimately responsible for that sin when it is facilitated by the Conference’s conscious, knowing and willful decision to abide the tempting conditions which lead to it. If it is true that one can be guilty of a sin of omission, might it be said that deliberate refusal to eradicate a specific temptation to sin, when it is well within one’s power to do so, would constitute a sin of omission? And if that is true, does it not follow that the Conference’s refusal to secure the Sunday collection is a sin of omission and thus makes them ultimately responsible for the thefts committed weekly by those who are unable to resist the temptation presented by highly vulnerable collection funds? I firmly believe it does.
On many occasions in past correspondence with a number of your predecessors and other members of the USCCB, Bishop Gregory, I’ve cited certain audit and financial security standards promulgated by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and not once has anyone challenged either their accuracy or their applicability to the Sunday collection. This is especially telling since I have always stated that they clearly and unequivocally establish that the hierarchy is not fulfilling its responsibility to protect the Church’s primary source of revenue. All I have ever gotten in reply is the spurious claim that the Conference is not empowered to act, or that the respondent believes present procedures are adequate. The latter statement has been made even though it was clear no substantive procedures even existed.
If the Church as represented by the USCCB is truly committed to reform the way in which it addresses internal misconduct, with a view toward putting the good of the flock ahead of image and expediency, it will initiate a high-level study group to consider the issue of Sunday collection theft and its impact on the fiscal and moral health of the U. S. Catholic Church. If that isn’t done, I and anyone I share my extensive files with will know the only reason the Conference is presently addressing the predator-priest scandal is the extensive publicity that has been given it and that it is not due to any sense of honor or moral outrage. The Sunday collection scandal may not blossom in the media during your tenure, Bishop Gregory, but it will blossom one day and you, along with several of your peers and predecessors, will be remembered as the ones who turned a blind eye.
Finally, Bishop Gregory, I want to assure you that I am not one of those who are bound and determined to turn the Church upside down. My wife and I are active members of St. John the Evangelist Parish in Canton. We have lived in seven states and have been actively involved in most of the parishes we have lived in. Our involvement includes Eucharistic Minister, Pre Cana, Religious Education, Lector and, of course, Sunday collection counting. Feel free to contact our present pastor, Rev. Michael J. Doyle, to confirm our involvement and support for our parish and diocese.
I look forward to hearing from you and wish to assure you of my continuing desire to assist the Conference in any way it feels I can be most useful.
Most sincerely, [signed] M. W. Ryan Michael W. Ryan
+++++++++++
Bishop Gregory did not reply to the above letter either, thus giving rise to the letter contained on the next page. |
|
MENU BAR
|