Reply to a comment

Who is lying? Bishop? or Chancellor

The Diocese tightened up financial controls, requiring all parishes to deposit their entire weekly collections automatically into approved bank accounts, monitored and managed by the diocese. The diocese takes 26% as tax/cathedraticum/faith appeal, and "permits" pastor or his business manager to write checks for parish activities from the balance. All parish expenditures must be audited annually. The Chancery has reached down into the parishes specifying the compensation for DREs, music ministers, custodians etc. No second collections are permitted and appeals for funds going outside diocese are prohibited—unless approved by the diocese—and there are very few approvals. Parishes are not permitted to raise funds for any purpose except through collections approved and monitored (and subject to the tax) by the diocese.

The Diocese reorganized its financial holdings and property ownership. All are divided into two parts: part in a Foundation (with Bishop as sole trustee and without audit) and part in General Diocesan Operations (audited, but the audit is worthless as the auditors refuse to render an opinion of fairness--because of frequent movement of funds between the two sets of books and no audit of the Foundation.) One member of the diocesan office (who requests anonymity) reported that the bishop purchased a large and lavish new property for his “palace,” miles from the Cathedral and the chancery in a remote and inaccessible location. Refurbishment costs exceeded budget by a factor of two. At the same time, funding of Catholic Charities was seriously reduced because of bad economic performance.